What impacts more on innovation : Organizational context or individual competences ?

Brion, Sébastien and Mothe, Caroline and Sabatier, Mareva (2007): What impacts more on innovation : Organizational context or individual competences ?

Abstract

The present article examines the link between a firm’s organizational context and its capacity to be ambidextrous in terms of innovation. Although the management practices underlying context have a profound effect on innovation, their impact has not previously been investigated. Nor has research looked empirically at the individual competences that should be developed in order to favour specific types of innovation. Using a dataset of 174 firms, the present study shows that firms pursuing exploration and exploitation strategies in terms of innovation should adopt long-term oriented practices that favor risk taking and creativity, thus creating an appropriate organizational context. Competence management was found to have a strong moderating effect on the link between organizational context and innovation ambidexterity. Implications include the need to look at how management may increase innovation ambidexterity, and to chose appropriate combinations of competences and organizational context.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

References

Adler, P.S., B. Goldoftas, D.I. Levine. 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ. Sci. 10(1) 43-68.

Adner, R., C.E. Helfat. 2003. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities, Strategic Management J. 24(10) 1011-1025.

Atuahene-Gima, K. 2005. Resolving the capacity-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. J. of Marketing 69(Oct) 61-83.

Barnard, C. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press, Harvard.

Benner, M.J., M.L. Tushman. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Rev. 28(2) 238-256.

Bierly, P., P. S. Daly. 2001. Exploration and exploitation in small manufacturing firms. 61th Annual Meeting Acad. Management, Washington, D.C. (August 3–8).

Burgelman, R.A. 1983. A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Acad. of Management Rev. 8(1) 61-71.

Chin, W.W. 1998. Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Quarterly 22(1) 7-17.

Danneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management J. 23(12) 1095-1121.

Gatignon, H., M.L. Tushman, W. Smith, P. Anderson. 2002. A structural approach to assessing innovation: Construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Management Sci. 48(9) 1103-1122.

Gibson, C.B., J. Birkinshaw. 2004. The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. 47(2) 209-226.

Gilsing, V., B. Nooteboom. 2006. Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Res. Policy. 35(1) 1-23.

Ghoshal, S., C.A. Bartlett. 1994. Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management J. 15(5) 91-112.

Gupta, A.K., K.G. Smith, C.E. Shalley. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad. of Management J. 49(4) 693-706.

Grant, R.M. 1996. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organ. Sci. 7(4) 375-388.

Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

He, Z.-L., P.-K. Wong. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ. Sci. 15(4) 481–494.

Jansen, J.J.P., F.A.J Van den Bosch, H.W Volberda. 2005. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 57(4) 351-363.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management J. 13(5) 111-125.

Levinthal, D.A., J.G. March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14(8) 95-112.

March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1) 71-87.

O’Reilly C.A., M.L. Tushman. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harward Bus. Rev. 82(4) 74-81.

Porter, M.E. 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management J. 12(8) 95-117.

Rumelt, R.P., D. Schendel, D.J. Teece. 1991. Strategic management and economics. Strategic Management J. 12(8) 5-29.

Smith, W.K., M.L. Tushman. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovations streams. Organ. Sci. 16(5) 522-536.

Teece, D.J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15 285-305.

Teece, D.J. 2003. Explicating dynamic capabilities: Asset selection, coordination, and entrepreneurship in strategic management theory. Working Paper, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley.

Teece, D.J., G. Pisano. 1994. The dynamic capability of firms: an introduction. Indust. and Corporate Change 3(3) 1089-1103.

Teece, D.J., G. Pisano, A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management J. 18(7) 509-533.

Tushman, M.L., P. Anderson. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(4) 439–465.

Tushman, M.L., C. O’Reilly. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Rev. 38(4) 8-30.

Tushman, M.L., C.A. O’Reilly. 1997. Winning Through Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Van de Ven, A.H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Sci. 32(5) 590-607.

Van den Bosch, F., H. Volberda, M. De Boer. 1999. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organ. Sci. 10(5) 551-568.

Verona, G., D. Ravasi. 2003. Unbundling dynamic capabilities: an exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Indus. and Corporate Change 12 (3) 577-606.

Volberda, H.W. 1996. Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organ. Sci. 7(4) 359-374.