تاثیر نوآوری سازمانی بر عملکرد صادراتی با نقش میانجی نوآوری فناورانه تحول‌گرا و گسترده

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت بازرگانی دانشگاه شاهد

2 دانشیار گروه مدیریت بازرگانی دانشکده علوم انسانی دانشگاه شاهد

3 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شاهد

چکیده

هدف از انجام این پژوهش، بررسی تاثیر نوآوری سازمانی بر عملکرد صادراتی با در نظر گرفتن  نقش میانجی نوآوری فناورانه تحول‌گرا و گسترده است. این پژوهش از نظر هدف، کاربردی و از نظر روش گردآوری داده‌ها، پیمایشی (میدانی) به شمار می رود. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها پرسشنامة بوده و جامعه آماری تحقیق شامل تمامی کارکنان و مدیران شرکت مواد غذایی صنایع شیر ایران واقع در شهر تهران بوده و حجم نمونه این تحقیق 213 نفر می‌باشد. به منظور تجزیه و تحلیل و آزمون فرضیه های تحقیق از مدل معادلات ساختاری به کمک نرم افزار LISREL و نرم افزار SPSS  استفاده شده است. براساس یافته های این پژوهش نتایج نشان می دهد که نوآوری سازمانی بر عملکرد صادراتی تاثیر دارد، همچنین نوآوری سازمانی بر نوآوری فناورانه تحول‌گرا و نوآوری فناورانه گسترده تاثیر دارد در نهایت هر دو متغیر نوآوری فناورانه  تحول‌گرا  و نوآوری فناورانه گسترده بر عملکرد صادراتی تاثیر دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impact of Organizational Innovation on Export Performance with the Mediating Role of Radical and Extensive Technological Innovation

نویسندگان [English]

  • Akbar Molaei 1
  • Naser Yazdani 2
  • Fatemeh Kazemi 3
1 M.A. Student in Shahed University
2 Assistant professor, Business Administration Department, Shahed University
3 M.A. Student In Shahed University
چکیده [English]

Aim and Introduction: In this study, to properly understand the relationship between organizational innovation and technological innovation, specifically we intend to examine the impact of organizational innovation on radical and extensive technological innovations. We also measure the impact of radical and extensive technological innovations on export performance. This study contributes to the international trade and innovation literature by showing the different effects of technological innovation and organizational innovation on export performance. This understanding and knowledge is very important, because past research has provided very little empirical evidence of the relationship between organizational innovation and firm performance. Therefore, to close the existing theoretical gap, the main issue of the research is to examine the impact of organizational innovation and radical and extensive technological innovation on export performance.
Methodology: The present research in terms of purpose is applied and in terms of nature or method of data collection, is a descriptive (non-experimental) research and considered a correlation analysis in terms of the relationship between research variables. In studies that aim to test a specific model of the relationship between variables, the structural equation model is used; therefore, this method requires modeling in the form of causal diagrams. However, the statistical population of this study includes all employees and managers (production) of Iran Dairy Food Company in Tehran. The population volume are 380 people. To determine the sample size, the Cochran's formula used for a limited population. According to this formula, the sample size was 191 people. The 219 questionnaires distributed, 215 returned. After reviewing the questionnaires, 213 questionnaires analyzed. The content validity of the questionnaire obtained using the opinion of experts. Cronbach's alpha coefficient test used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire. The results of this test showed that Cronbach's alpha coefficient for all questions was 0/863. This indicates the high reliability of the questionnaire and confirmatory factor analysis used to ensure the validity of the construct.
Finding: Findings of this study show that organizational innovation affects export performance; also, organizational innovation affects technological (radical) innovation and technological (extensive) innovation. Finally, both technological innovation (radical) and technological innovation (extensive) variables affect export performance. Based on findings, it can said that in many industries, innovation has become the most important driver of competitive success and most companies in a wide range of industries owe more than a third of their sales and profits to products that have been created in the last five years. The emphasis on innovation in organizations is partly due to the globalization of markets. Global competition has pushed companies to produce distinctive products and services and constantly innovate.
Discussion and Conclusion: The findings of this study have many implications for international managers. The challenges of expanding into foreign markets can offset by a company's greater ability to differentiate itself through a series of incremental innovation efforts. It is important for managers to pay more attention to the progress of innovations not only in terms of processes and products but also in terms of organizational strategy, structure and administrative procedures. Acceptance of innovation is crucial for ensuring consistent behavior by exporting companies. The fit between innovation strategies and foreign market characteristics and demands increases the company's export performance. However, managers should also be aware that embracing more smaller technological innovations will enable exporting companies to better adapt to new external environments and improve their performance, rather than focusing solely on fundamental innovations. Based on the research findings, future researchers advised to consider other effective variables that affect export performance. Focus on identifying other effective mediating variables between organizational innovation, organizational performance and conduct research in other organizations and compare results. This research had a time limit and data collection was time consuming. Also, due to the limited statistical population of employees and managers of Iran Dairy Food Industries Company located in Tehran (production), the inability to generalize the results to other organizations. There are companies that suggest that this model tested in other industries and companies. In addition, conducting comparative research in several different industries with small, medium and large companies can provide significant and important results for managers, researchers, and students

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Keywords: “Organizational Innovation”
  • “Export Performance”
  • “Radical and Extensive Technical Innovation”

مراجع

  1. Alvarez, R., & Robertson, R. (2004). Exposure to foreign markets and plant-level innovation: Evidence from Chile and Mexico. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 13, 57–87.
  2. Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33–46
  3. Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., & Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, 28, 644–657
  4. Azar, G., & Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness. International Business Review, 26(2), 324-336.
  5. Bao, Y., Chen, X., & Zhou, K. Z. (2012). External learning, market dynamics, andradical innovation: Evidence from china's high-tech fiJournal of BusinessResearch, 65, 1226–1233
  6. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resource and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120
  7. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33, 825–845
  8. Brouthers, L. E., Nakos, G., Hadjimarcou, J., & Brouthers, K. D. (2009). Key factors forsuccessful export performance for small fiJournal of InternationalMarketing, 17, 21–38
  9. Camisón, C. (2005). On how to measure managerial and organizational capabilities: Multi-item models for measuring distinctive competences. Management Research, 3, 27–48. Cavusgil, S. T., & Zou, S.
  10. Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler oftechnological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of BusinessResearch, 67, 2891–2902
  11. Cavusgil, S. T., & Zou, S. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1–21
  12. Cavusgil, S. T., Zou, S., & Naidu, G. M. (1993). Product and promotion adaptation in export ventures: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 479–506
  13. Chandy, R. K., Prabhu, J. C., & Antia, K. D. (2003). What will the future bring? Dominance, technology expectations, and radical innovation. Journal of Marketing, 67, 1–18
  14. Chang, Y. C., Chang, H. T., Chi, H. R., Chen, M. H., & Deng, L. L. (2012). How doestablished firms improve radical innovation performance? The organizationalcapabilities view. Technovation, 32, 441–451
  15. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
  16. Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2011). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8, 423–454.
  17. Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance the problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 392– 409
  18. Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998). Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: The role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15, 1–24
  19. Damanpour, F., & Wischnevsky, J. D. (2006). Research on innovation in organizations: Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23, 269–291
  20. Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 650–675
  21. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.
  22. Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42, 693–716.
  23. Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58, 37–52
  24. D'Angelo, A. (2012). Innovation and export performance: A study of Italian hightech SMEs. Journal of Management and Governance, 16, 393–423.
  25. Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. W. (2003). A resource‐based approach to the study of export performance. Journal of small business management, 41(3), 242-261.
  26. Golgeci, I., & Ponomarov, S. Y. (2013). Does firm innovativeness enable effectiveresponses to supply chain disruptions? An empirical study. Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal, 18, 604–617
  27. Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). Unraveling the links between dimensions of innovation and organizational performance. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11, 137–153
  28. Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33, 114– 135
  29. Guan, J., & Ma, N. (2003). Innovative capability and export performance of ChinesefiTechnovation, 23, 737–747
  30. Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133, 662–676.
  31. Hall, B., & Mairesse, J. (1995). Exploring the relationship between R&D andproductivity in french manufacturing fiJournal of Econometrics, 65, 263–293
  32. Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84, [72–84 + 163]
  33. Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62, 30–45.
  34. Hortinha, P., Lages, C., & Lages, L. F. (2011). The trade-off between customer and technology orientations: Impact on innovation capabilities and export performance. Journal of International Marketing, 19, 36–58
  35. Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42–54
  36. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm – A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 23–32
  37. Kafouros, M. I., Buckley, P. J., Sharp, J. A., & Wang, C. Q. (2008). The role of internationalization in explaining innovation performance. Technovation, 28, 63–74
  38. Kalantari, Kh, (2003), Data Processing and Analysis in Socio-Economic Research, Agah Publications, Tehran.
  39. Katsikeas, C. S., Leonidou, L. C., & Morgan, N. A. (2000). Firm-level export performance assessment: Review, evaluation, and development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 493–511.
  40. Katsikeas, C. S., Piercy, N. F., & Ioannidis, C. (1996). Determinants of export performance in a European context. European Journal of Marketing, 30, 6–35
  41. Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence ofindividual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption oftechnological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal,24, 689–713
  42. Lages, L. F., Silva, G., & Styles, C. (2009). Relationship capabilities, quality, and innovation as determinants of export performance. Journal of International Marketing, 17, 47–70
  43. Lam, A. (2005). Organizational innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 115–147).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  44. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Illinois: Irwin Homewood
  45. Lee, H., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (2003). The effect of new product radicality and scope on the extent and speed of innovation diffusion. Journal of Management, 29, 753–768
  46. Leonidou, L. C., Katsikeas, C. S., & Samiee, S. (2002). Marketing strategy determinants of export performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 55, 51–67
  47. Love, J. H., & Ashcroft, B. (1999). Market versus corporate structure in plant-level innovation performance. Small Business Economics, 13, 97–109
  48. Macmillan, I., McCaffery, M. L., & Wijk, G. (1985). Competitors' responses to easily imitated new products-exploring commercial banking product introductions. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 75–86
  49. Matanda, M. J., & Freeman, S. (2009). Effect of perceived environmental uncertainty on exporter-importer inter-organisational relationships and export performance improvement. International Business Review, 18, 89–107
  50. McDermott, C. M., & O'Connor, G. C. (2002). Managing radical innovation: An overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 424–438
  51. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurialfirms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1–25
  52. Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: Whenfirms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62,1269–
  53. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 91–106
  54. Nijssen, E. J., Hillebrand, B., & Vermeulen, P. A. M. (2005). Unraveling willingness to cannibalize: A closer look at the barrier to radical innovation. Technovation, 25, 1400–1409
  55. Noorullahzadeh, Z & Khaksar, M (2016). Investigating the Relationship between Innovation and Strategic Export Performance. Second International Conference on Management. Accounting and Economics, Tehran, Salehan Higher Education Institute, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran.
  56. O'Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2013). A comprehensive model of uncertainty associated with radical innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 2–18
  57. O'Connor, G. C., & Veryzer, R. W. (2001). The nature of market visioning for technology-based radical innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 231–246
  58. Pla-Barber, J., & Alegre, J. (2007). Analysing the link between export intensity,innovation and firm size in a science-based industry. International BusinessReview, 16, 275–293
  59. Rahimnia, F, Khorakian A & Ghaderi, F. (2019). Investigating the effects of innovation strategies on export business performance with the moderating role of competition intensity. Administration, Journa1 of International Business, 1(3), 1-22.
  60. Reinders, M. J., Frambach, R. T., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2010). Using product bundling to facilitate the adoption process of radical innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 1127–1140
  61. Robertson, C., & Chetty, S. K. (2000). A contingency-based approach to understanding export performance. International Business Review, 9, 211–235
  62. Roper, S., & Love, J. H. (2002). Innovation and export performance: Evidence from the UK and German manufacturing plants. Research Policy, 31, 1087–1102
  63. Safarzadeh, H & Qayyumzadeh, S. (2016), Study of the effect of Innovation on Export Performance in Food Manufacturing Companies in Tehran, First International Conference on Management, Accounting, Educational Sciences and Resistance Economics; Action and Practice, Sari, Baran Andisheh Scientific Research Company.
  64. Sainio, L. M., Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2012). Constituents of radical innovation – Exploring the role of strategic orientations and market uncertainty. Technovation, 32, 591–599.
  65. Sarmad, Z, Bazargan, A & Hejazi, E. (2006). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences, Agah Publications. Tehran.
  66. Shahin, M, Ghasemi, B & Sarmad Saeedi, S. (2018). Investigating the effect of Innovation Performance on Export Severity, Case Study of Top Ceramic Tile Exporting Companies in Tehran, second International Conference on Futurology, Management and Economic Development, Mashhad, Torbat Heydariyeh University.
  67. Singh, D. A. (2009). Export performance of emerging market fiInternationalBusiness Review, 18, 321–330
  68. Sousa, C. M. P. (2004). Export performance measurement: An evaluation of the empirical research in the literature. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2004
  69. Sousa, C. M. P., Lengler, J. F. B., & Martínez-López, F. J. (2014). Testing for linear and quadratic effects between price adaptation and export performance: The impact of values and perceptions. Journal of Small Business Management, 52, 501–520
  70. Sousa, C. M. P., Martínez-López, F. J., & Coelho, F. (2008). The determinants of export performance: A review of the research in the literature between 1998 and 2005.International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 343–374.
  71. Subramanian, A. (1996). Innovativeness: Redefining the concept. Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management, 13, 223–243
  72. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models: Business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172–194.
  73. Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2009). Radical innovation across nations: The preeminence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, 73, 3–23
  74. Wakasugi, R. (1992). Why are Japanese firms so innovative in engineeringtechnology? Research Policy, 21, 1–12
  75. Walker, R. M. (2004). Innovation and Organisational Performance: Evidence and a Research Agenda. Retreived 01.07.15, [from] http://www.aimresearch.org.
  76. Wang, C. H., Lu, I. Y., & Chen, C. B. (2008). Evaluating firm technological innovationcapability under uncertainty. Technovation, 28, 349–363
  77. Wang, Y., Cao, W., Zhou, Z., & Ning, L. (2013). Does external technology acquisitiondetermine export performance? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing fiInternational Business Review, 22, 1079–1091
  78. Weerawardena, J. (2003a). Exploring the role of market learning capability in competitive strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 407–429.
  79. Weerawardena, J. (2003b). The role of marketing capability in innovation-based competitive strategy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 15–35.
  80. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporateentrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 10, 43–
  81. Zeithaml, V. A., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1988). The contingency approach: Its foundations and relevance to theory building and research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 22, 37–64
  82. Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How Knowledge Affects Radical Innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1090–1102.
فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی
دوره 13، شماره 49
فروردین 1401
صفحه 145-163

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 22 خرداد 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 29 شهریور 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 28 آذر 1399

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار