How objective are subjective measures of organizational innovativeness, really?

• Authors: Patrycja Klimas
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: This paper aims to match subjective and objective measures of organizational innovativeness and test correlative relationship between the two. Methodology: The research adopts a quantitative approach, and applies correlation analysis to identify interdependencies. The study has been done in the aviation industry, as organizational innovativeness has so far been described especially in high-tech industries – however it has not been investigated within aviation industry yet. Findings: The results show that the discussions over reliability of research based on subjective measurements techniques are not unfounded. The evidence suggests that subjective measures are not correlated with objective measures, and the outcomes of third-party investigations differ considerably. Therefore decisions about measurements techniques should be deliberate, thought out, theoretically grounded and justified. In general, methodological recommendations provided by this paper could be boiled down to the ascertainment that accurate and reliable assessment of organizational innovativeness should use a set of objective measures addressing all stages of the innovation process. Originality: It should be noted that this study was restricted to only one industry and prone to some common bias. The aviation industry sample was relatively small and purposefully selected, disallowing conclusive statements made outside of this empirical setting. However despite the limitations this paper provides some significant contribution to evaluation and research on innovativeness. It compares two approaches to measurement and empirically proves which approach is more suitable in case of such a highly innovation-intensive sector like aviation. Moreover, it introduces a new in Polish research tool for subjective assessment of organizational innovativeness namely the questionnaire developed by Wang and Ahmed (2004).

Keywords

EN

measures of innovativeness; subjective measures; objective measures; organizational innovativeness; aviation

• Publisher: Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
• Journal: Management and Business Administration. Central Europe
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 22
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 30-45

Dates

published

2014-06-15

Contributors

author

Patrycja Klimas

• University of Economics in Katowice

References

• Alegrea, J., Chivab, R. and Lapiedrab, R. (2009). Measuring innovation in long product development cycle industries: an insight in biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(4): 535–546, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537320902819247.
• Baczko, T. (2012a). Raport o innowacyjności sektora lotniczego w Polsce w 2010 roku. Warszawa: Instytut Nauk Ekonomicznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Wydawnictwo Key Text.
• Baczko, T. (2012b). Raport o innowacyjności gospodarki Polski w 2011 roku. Warszawa: Instytut Nauk Ekonomicznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Wydawnictwo Key Text.
• Baer, M. and Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1): 45–68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.179.
• Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
• Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge Spillovers and local Innovation system. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4): 975–1005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.4.975.
• Broekel, T. and Hartog, M. (2013). Explaining the structure of inter-organizational networks using exponential random graph models. Industry and Innovation, 20(3): 277–295, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2013.791126.
• Capaldo, A. (2007). Network Structure and Innovation: the Leveraging of a Dual Network as a Distinctive Relational Capability. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 585-608, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.621.
• Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M.C. and Valentini, G. (2009). Organising R&D Projects to Profit From Innovation: Insights From Co-opetition. Long Range Planning, 42: 216–233.
• Chen, G. and Muller, A. (2010). Measuring Innovation from Different Perspectives. Employment Relations Today, 37: 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ert.20279.
• Chuang, L.M. (2005). An Empirical Study of the Construction of Measuring Model for Organizational Innovation in Taiwanese High-tech Enterprises. Journal of American Academy of Business, 9(2): 299–304.
• Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory &Practice, 16(1): 7–25.
• Crossan, M.M. and Apaydin, M. (2010). A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6): 1154-1191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x.
• Czakon, W. (2012). Sieci w zarządzaniu strategicznym. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Business.
• Damanpour, F. and Evan, W.M. (1984). Organizational Innovation and Performance: The Problem of "Organizational Lag". Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3): 392–409, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393031.
• Dyduch, W. (2008). Pomiar przedsiębiorczości organizacyjnej. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach.
• Dyer, J. and Singh, H. (1998). The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 24: 660–679, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259056.
• Ellonen, R., Blomqvist, K. and Puumalainen, K. (2008). The role of trust in organizational innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(2): 160–181, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060810869848.
• Evan, W.M. (1966). Organizational Lag. Human Organization, 25(1): 51–53.
• Forth, J. and McNabb, R. (2008). Workplace performance: a comparison of subjective and objective measures in the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Industrial Relations Journal, 39(2): 104–123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2338.2007.00480.x.
• Frederiksen, L. and Semita, S.R. (2012). Embodied Knowledge Transfer for Innovation. In: F. Belussi, U. Staber (eds.), Managing Networks of Creativity. Oxon: Routlege Taylor & Francis Group.
• Geringer, M. and Hebert, L. (1991). Measuring performance in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 249–263, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490302.
• Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998). Market Orientation and Organizational Performance: Is Innovation a Missing Link? Journal of Marketing, 62: 30–45, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252285.
• Jaakson, K., Tamm, D. and Hämmal, G. (2011). Organizational innovativeness in Estonian biotechnology organizations. Baltic Journal of Management, 6(2): 205–226, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465261111131811.
• Jennings, D.F. and Young, D.M. (1990). An Empirical Comparison Between Objective and Subjective Measures of the Product Innovation Domain of Corporate Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(1): 6–20.
• Johnston, D.W., Propper, C. and Shields, M.A. (2009). Comparing Subjective and Objective Measures of Health: Evidence from Hypertension for the Income/Health. Journal of Health Economics, 28(3): 540–552, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.02.010.
• Kale, P., Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (2002). Alliance Capability, Stock Market Response and Long-term Alliance Success: The Role of the Alliance Function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 762–764, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.248.
• Kamaruddeen, A.M., Yusof, N.A. and Said, I. (2009). A Proposed Framework for Measuring Firm Innvativeness in the Housing Industry. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 2(2): 101–132.
• Kotowicz-Jawor J. (2010). Adaptacja sfery rozwojowej polskich przedsiębiorstw do rynku UE. In: L. Jasiński and S. Sudoł (eds.), Polskie przedsiębiorstwa na rynku europejskim. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Menedżerskiej w Warszawie.
• Lieberson, S. (1964). Limitations in the Application of Non-Parametric Coefficients of Correlation. American Sociological Review, 29(5): 744–746, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2091428.
• Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996). Claryfying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 135–172, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258632.
• Mairesse, J. and Mohnen, P. (2002). Accounting for Innovation and Measuring Innovativeness: An illustrative Framework and an Application. The Economics of Technology and Innovation, 92(2): 226–230, http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/000282802320189302.
• Mankin, E. (2007). Measuring Innovation Performance. Research Technology Management, 50(6): 5–7.
• Manoochehri, G. (2010). Measuring Innovation: Challenges and Best Practices. California Journal of Operations Management, 8(1): 67–73.
• Maravelakis, E., Bilalis, N., Antoniadis, A., Jones, K.A. and Moustakis, V. (2006). Measuring and benchmarking the Innovativeness of SMEs: a Three-dimensional Fuzzy Logic Approach. Production Plannning & Control, 17(3): 283–292, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537280500285532.
• Marrocu, E., Paci, R. and Usai, S. (2011). Proximity, Networks and Knowledge Production in Europe. Working Paper Series, November. Obtained from: Social Science Research Network http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1968472.
• McMullan, E., Chrisman, J.J. and Vesper K. (2001). Some Problems in Using Subjective Measures of Effectiveness to Evaluate Entrepreneurial Assistance Programs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(1): 37–54.
• Miller, R., Olleros, X. and Molinié, L. (2008). Innovation Games: A New Approach to the Competitive Challenge. Long Range Planning, 41: 378–394, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2008.02.006.
• Morris, M.H. and Kuratko, D.F. (2001). Corporate Entrepreneurship. London: Harcourt College Publishers.
• Romijn, H. and Albu, M. (2002). Innovation, Networking and Proximity: Lessons from Small High Technology Firms in the UK. Policy Review Section, 36(1): 81–86, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343400120099889.
• Shahin, A. and Zeinali, Z. (2010). Developing a Relationship Matrix for Organizational Learning and Innovativeness: With A Case Study in a Manufacturing Company. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(7): 178–203.
• Shapiro, A.R. (2006). Measuring Innovation: Beyond Revenue from New Products. Research Technology Management, 49(6): 42–51.
• Taylor, J. (2011). The Assessment of Research Quality in UK Universities: Peer Review or Metrics? British Journal of Management, 22: 202–217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00722.x.
• Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shunen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.
• Wall, T.D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S.J., Sheehan, M., Clegg, Ch.W. and West, M. (2004). On the Validity of Subjective Measures of Company Performance. Personnel Psychology, 57(1): 95–118, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02485.x.
• Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2004). The Development and Validation of the Organizational Innovativeness Construct Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4): 303–313.
• Website of Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency (PAIiIZ) : http://www.paiz.gov.pl/sektory/lotniczy (14.08.2013).
• Website of Eurostat provided by European Commission:http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ (14.08.2013)
• Weerawardena, J. and Mavondo, F.T. (2011). Capabilities, innovation and competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40: 1220–1223, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.10.012.
• Zhou, K.Z. and Wu, F. (2010). Technological Capability, Strategic Flexibility, and Product Innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 547–561, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.830.