The Impact of Innovative Culture on Individual Employees: The Moderating Role of Market Information Sharing

Current innovation literature provides a very limited understanding of the potential impacts of innovative culture on employees. Building on resource‐based view theory, the authors investigate theoretically and empirically how a perceived innovative culture can be a building block for a firm's competitive resource and advantage by creating superior employee‐level outcomes and how a market information‐sharing process may moderate these effects. The authors identify three distinct types of individual‐level outcomes stemming from an innovative culture. The three outcome variables—job satisfaction, organizational dynamism perception, and firm performance perception—reflect employees’ psychological and cognitive reactions to the process of creating organizational innovation and innovative culture. The authors collect survey data from 3960 individual employees in China. Their findings first show that a perceived innovative culture significantly and positively affects employees’ job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational dynamism and firm performance. Moreover, organizational dynamism perception plays an important mediating role among three employee‐level outcomes by converting job satisfaction into firm performance perception. The authors also find support for the direct, positive effect of a perceived market information‐sharing process on job satisfaction but not on perceptions of organizational dynamism and firm performance. Most importantly, their findings on the significant moderating role of a market information‐sharing system contribute to innovation theory by emphasizing the importance of the innovation/marketing interface: bundling market information sharing and innovative culture together enhances employees’ positive attitudes and perceptions. This result also suggests that examining only the direct effects of innovative culture and market information sharing may lead to incorrect conclusions as to how to manage the cultural infusion process: the market information‐sharing process shows only a weak effect on job satisfaction and no effect on perceptions of organizational dynamism or firm performance. Organizational designs should ensure simultaneous consideration of both variables in the cultural transformation process to enhance employees’ derived benefits in the process of creating an innovative culture. We offer a new insight: a perceived market information‐sharing process may strengthen the effect of an innovative culture on employees’ job satisfaction and organizational dynamism perception, while it may weaken the effect of an innovative culture on firm performance perception. This more nuanced view of market information sharing in the cultural infusion process presents new wisdom and calls for further studies in entrepreneurial innovation.     

Global Innovation in MNCs: The Effects of Subsidiary Self‐Determination and Teamwork*

The ability of multinational corporations (MNCs) to leverage their innovation competencies across globally dispersed subsidiaries is an increasingly valuable source of competitive advantage. As multinational enterprises turn to foreign subsidiaries for research and development (R&D) and product development, questions arise regarding the most effective organizational structures for global innovation. Although organizational conditions that satisfy the needs for self‐determination and teamwork have long been considered intrinsic motivators, past research has not analyzed the consequences of intrinsic motivators on global innovation. The basic research question is this: In globally dispersed subsidiary R&D units, what organizational conditions and motivators are associated with the highest knowledge output? A sample of 275 globally dispersed R&D subsidiaries were studied from 1995 to 2002. Data were collected from a postal survey, field and telephone interviews, and secondary sources. Subsidiary self‐determination and teamwork were found to have a significant effect on knowledge output, as objectively measured by patent citations. Subsidiary self‐determination on inputs such as sourcing and hiring, and self‐determination on outputs such as marketing and product development, emerged as positive determinants of knowledge generation in R&D subsidiaries. In addition, interteam cooperation and intrateam cooperation were significant determinants of knowledge generation by subsidiaries. These findings highlight the importance of self‐determination, teamwork, and cooperation to knowledge creation and innovations. Managers face the tough challenge of how to motivate globally dispersed knowledge workers to conduct research that will generate knowledge and will strengthen firm performance. The results provide theoretical and practical insights on how MNCs can leverage their innovation competencies across foreign R&D subsidiaries.     

Intrafirm Knowledge Transfer and Employee Innovative Behavior: The Role of Total and Balanced Knowledge Flows

Research on intrafirm knowledge transfer has generally found a positive impact of knowledge inflows on the innovation of an organizational unit. However, the role of knowledge outflows during knowledge transfer is less clear. This paper argues that knowledge outflows influence innovation through a self‐learning mechanism and a fairness assessment mechanism, and play a unique and important role on team innovation. Based on this new understanding on knowledge outflows, it is necessary to examine the impacts of inflows and outflows simultaneously in innovation research. This paper expresses the sum and difference of knowledge inflows and outflows as total and balanced knowledge flows. A theoretical model is proposed to examine the distinct and synergistic effects of total and balanced knowledge flows on employees' innovative behavior of an organizational unit. The model was tested on 148 retail units of an apparel firm based on survey responses from both shop managers and staff. Results showed that total and balanced flows have independent direct effects and a synergistic effect on employee innovative behavior: employees of a unit had the highest levels of innovative behavior when knowledge flows were high and balanced at the same time. This paper contributes to the literature by taking into account both the direction and magnitude of knowledge transfer to examine team innovation.     

Do New Product Development Managers in Large or High-Market-Share Firms Perceive Marketing-R&D Interface Principles Differently?

In the quest for successful innovation, the importance of the R&Dlmarketing interface is virtually unquestioned. For many organizations, however, effective integration of technical and marketing functions is difficult, if not impossible. Despite seemingly widespread understanding of fundamental new product principles, some companies still manage to gain a larger share of the market than their competitors. This raises the question of whether managers in more successful companies have special insights into R&D'/'marketing interface principles that give them an edge over their competitors. To gain a better understanding of managers' perceptions of new product principles defined in the academic literature, Ted Haggblom, Roger J. Calantone, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto conducted a survey of 687 nonacademic members of the Product Development and Management Association. The basis for the survey was a set of 78 product management principles compiled from a search of more than 500 books and articles from various disciplines. From this survey, 14 of the 78 principles were selected as relevant to the study reported in this article. The principles discussed in this article involve such issues as resistance to change, short-term orientation, communication and trust between marketing and technical people, the effect of centralized decision-making on innovation, the importance of open communication flows, senior management's role in the R&D I marketing interface, and the necessity of a product champion. The primary quesstion addressed in this study is whether managers from successful companies perceive these principles differently from managers of less successful firms. The study provides partial support for the proposition that managers' perceptions of these new product principles depend on their company's success. In other words, the survey results suggest that managers in companies with higher market shares tend to agree more strongly with these principles than their counterparts in less successful firms. The study also explores the relationship between firm size and agreement with these principles of new product success. Specifically, the study assesses whether the perceptions of managers from smaller, more entrepreneurial companies differ from those of managers in larger companies. Although managers from small and large firms may view these principles from different perspectives, there were no statistically significant differences in the perceptions of managers from small and large firms.     

基于CEO变动调节效应的高管团队特征对企业研发投资及技术创新绩效的影响研究

本文以信息技术业上市公司2011～2014年的数据为样本,运用逐步多元回归分析的方法,通过逐步引入高管团队特征变量、CEO变动变量、CEO变动变量与高管团队特征变量交互项对因变量研发投资及技术创新绩效影响进行了回归分析。结果表明：CEO变动对研发投资和技术创新绩效具有显著的正向相关关系;CEO变动可以部分调节高管团队特征对研发投资和技术创新绩效的影响;高管团队持股与年龄异质性与技术创新绩效显著正相关;两职合一与研发投资显著负相关;任期异质性和教育程度异质性与研发投资显著正相关。     

Teamwork Barriers in Japanese High-Technology Firms: The Sociocultural Differences Between R&D and Marketing Managers

Building and maintaining internal harmony is a fundamental concern for managers in many Japanese firms. Discussions of Japanese management practices often point to the intense socialization of new recruits, the rotation of employees through different functions, and the significant role of seniority in determining salary levels and promotions. Considering this emphasis on harmony, can we reasonably assume that the orientations of Japanese R&D and marketing managers do not differ in any ways that may pose significant barriers to teamwork between their departments? X. Michael Song and Mark E. Parry test this assumption by examining the sociocultural differences between R&D and marketing managers in Japanese high-technology firms. Using responses from both R&D and marketing managers in 223 firms, their study groups the respondents’ employers as either low- or high-integration firms. They examine the sociocultural differences between the R&D and marketing managers in the study along five dimensions: time orientation, bureaucratic orientation, professional orientation, tolerance for ambiguity, and preferences for high-risk, high-return projects. Contrary to expectations, the responses reveal several significant differences between the R&D and marketing managers in this study. Compared to their colleagues in marketing, the Japanese R&D managers in this study generally have a stronger preference for high-risk, high-return investments. The R&D managers in the study also have a longer time orientation than the Japanese marketing managers. However, marketing managers from the high-integration firms in the study have a longer time orientation than their counterparts in low-integration firms. Compared to the R&D managers, Japanese marketing managers in the high-integration firms studied have a greater tolerance for ambiguity. And relative to managers in low-integration firms, marketing and R&D managers in the high-integration firms in this study typically have a more bureaucratic organization. Perhaps most important, a significant number of R&D managers in this study perceive the marketing managers in their firms to have higher organizational status. Specifically, responses from R&D managers indicate that they perceive their marketing colleagues to have higher salaries, more power, and brighter career prospects. Such perceptions may foster morale problems among R&D professionals in these Japanese firms, and thus require management intervention to ensure that R&D performance does not suffer.     

The Value of Customer Cocreated Knowledge during the Innovation Process

Customer cocreation during the innovation process has recently been suggested to be a major source for firms' competitive advantage. Hereby, customers actively engage in a firm's innovation process and take over innovation activities traditionally performed by a firm's employees. Despite its suggested importance, previous research has revealed contradictory findings regarding its impact, the nature of involved customers, and the channels of communication that enable cocreation. To provide a more fine‐grained picture, customer cocreated knowledge is first delineated into its key value dimensions of relevance, novelty, and costs, and then their impact on various innovation outcomes is investigated. Next, the study examines the antecedent role of customer determinants; that is, lead user characteristics and customer–firm closeness, on these knowledge value dimensions. Finally, we explore how these effects are moderated by the type of communication channel used. An empirical validation of the conceptual model is performed by means of survey data from 126 customer cocreation projects. The data analysis indicates that customer cocreation is most successful for the creation of highly relevant but moderately novel knowledge. Cocreation with customers who are closely related to the innovating firm results in more highly relevant knowledge at a low cost. Yet, cocreation with lead users produces novel and relevant knowledge. These effects are contingent on the richness and reach of the communication channels enabling cocreation. Overall, the findings shed light on opportunities and limitations of customer cocreation for innovation and reconcile determinants originating in relationship marketing and innovation management. At the same time, managers obtain recommendations for selecting customers and communication channels to enhance the success of their customer cocreation initiatives.     

How R&D is coordinated in Japanese and European multinationals

What are the suitable forms and mechanisms for the coordination of international R&D and innovation processes in multinational corporations? This paper sets out to answer this question by exploratory research and interviews in 18 European and Japanese companies. As a conceptual background, four different categories of coordination mechanisms are generated (‘structural’, ‘hybrid’, ‘informal’ and ‘internal markets’). The empirical results show that Japanese companies make intensive use of personal contacts, informal communication and socialisation whereas European enterprises rely more on internal markets in R&D.     

R&D,Firm Size and Innovation Outputs: Are Japanese Firms Efficient in Product Development?

Although Japanese firms in various industries enjoyed outstanding success during the 1980s, the recent economic news has been less favorable. Like their American counterparts, Japanese managers have faced difficult decisions regarding plant closures, layoffs, and moving production facilities overseas. Many Japanese business leaders attribute the innovation successes of the 1980s, at least in part, to economies of scale resulting from increases infirm size. If this assertion holds true, the current economic climate in Japan seems certain to result in diminished economies of scale for innovative activities. Ryuhei Wakasugi and Fumihiko Koyata test this assertion in a statistical study of the innovation efficiency of Japanese electrical machinery firms. In other words, their study explores whether the hypothesized economies of scale apply to the innovation inputs and outputs of these firms. They examine the manner in which R&D expenditures, patent applications, and product developments relate to the size of Japanese electrical machinery firms during the late 1980s and early 1990s—a period marked by high levels of innovative activity among these firms. For the Japanese electrical firms in this study, innovation inputs that is, R&D expenditures—increase in greater proportion than firm size. In other words, the larger firms in this study pursued their innovation efforts more aggressively than did the smaller firms in the study. In terms of R&D expenditures, however, the study does not reveal any resulting economies of scale for either patent applications or product developments. Similarly, analysis of the data in this study does not identify any economics of scale for product developments as a result of increases in firm size. In fact, the only economies of scale identified in the study involve firm size and the number of patent applications. In general terms, the statistical evidence in this study does not support the hypothesis that an increase in firm size improves the efficiency of innovation activity. To put this another way, the study does not provide evidence to support the hypothesis of economies of scale in product development.     

How mutuality reinforces partnership development: Japanese and Korean marketing perspectives

Relationship building is about ‘mutuality’ and how an organizational cultural value system enhances the development of long-term relationships that influence the marketing strategy process. This paper explains how senior managers embrace the concept of mutuality in order to establish a partnership arrangement in the context of a vertical marketing system. From the literature, four propositions relating to customer service policy, the process of innovation, relationship marketing and comparative national culture were developed and placed in the context of a Japanese and a South Korean electronics company based in the UK. The propositions were validated using in-depth, personal interviews with a limited number of senior managers in the two global companies. Evidence suggests that managers in Japanese companies formulate industry and country specific customer service policies, dictate R&D programmes, and spend a long time getting to know an individual in a potential partner organization(s) before they engage in any form of business integration. Whereas managers in South Korean companies are keen to communicate extensively and seek to acquire additional skills and knowledge so that they can innovate and implement cost effective strategies.     

An Empirical Study of the Relationships among Co-location, Integration, Performance, and Satisfaction

Co-locate or perish. In this era of cross-functional integration, are these the only choices for the departments that participate in the new product development (NPD) process? Bringing together different departments certainly seems like a good idea. After all, breaking down the walls between functions improves the quality of the inputs to NPD and thus increases the likelihood of success. On the other hand, a firm would be ill-advised to implement co-location simply because it seems like a good idea. Such a complex undertaking requires careful consideration of the costs, the benefits, and the effects of co-location. Noting the need for more in-depth knowledge in this area, Kenneth Kahn and Edward McDonough present the results of a study that explores several issues regarding co-location and its relationship to interdepartmental integration, performance, and satisfaction. For example, does co-location relate directly to improved performance and satisfaction in working with personnel from other departments? Or does co-location play a moderating role, fostering improved interdepartmental collaboration and interaction, which in turn increase performance and satisfaction? And finally, do the effects of co-location depend on which departments are involved? For example, do the benefits of co-locating marketing and R&D exceed those of co-locating manufacturing and R&D? The 514 survey respondents work as department managers in member companies of the Electronic Industries Association. The study includes an even distribution of responses from managers of marketing, manufacturing, and R&D departments. Most respondents have firsthand knowledge of the effects of colocation; 68% of the marketing managers report that they are co-located with manufacturing, and 80% of the marketing managers are co-located with R&D. R&D and manufacturing managers fall between those levels, with roughly 75% indicating that they are co-located with the other departments. While generally supporting the premise that co-location is helpful for integrating departments, the survey results indicate that co-location has department-specific effects. For example, the findings indicate that co-location facilities collaboration between R&D and marketing, but not between manufacturing and the other departments. The findings do not point to a direct relationship between co-location and performance. On the other hand, the results suggest direct links between collaboration and both performance and satisfaction.     

Market growth through mergers and acquisitions: The role of the relationship marketing manager in sustaining performance

This research suggests that firms considering a merger and acquisition strategy need to pay attention to the relationship marketing managers of the target firm and the implicit agreements that have kept them with the target firm. The results of this study convey that the joint activity of maintaining the implicit contracts and retaining the relationship marketing managers have a stabilizing and positive impact on the productivity of subordinate marketing employees. These employees are a key success factor that enables the target firm to function effectively after the acquisition.     

Creating corporate entrepreneurship

This paper demonstrates how the various types of corporate entrepreneurship–individual managers, business renewal and Schumpeterian, or industry, leadership–share five ‘bundles’ of attributes. Each type can exist in one firm, though at different times as the common attributes change their role and relative importance. External and internal triggers for change are examined for a sample of 10 firms in 4 European industries. The data suggest a provocative conclusion: troubled firms in hostile environments can shed past behaviors, adopt policies fostering entrepreneurship and accumulate innovative resource bundles that provide a platform on which industry leadership can be built.     

The impact of leadership influence tactics and employee openness toward others on innovation performance

Despite the vital importance of leadership, employees, and their social interactions in the open‐innovation process, there is scarce evidence on the influence and connectedness of different sub‐firm levels related to open innovation. The aim of this study is to explore the influence of leadership influence tactics and employee openness toward others on innovation performance at the individual and team levels. We applied a multilevel analysis on a sample of 85 employees and their 15 direct supervisors/team leaders. We find that leaders’ building open‐innovation coalitions exhibits a positive cross‐level relationship with employee openness toward others and individual‐level innovative behavior, and also moderates the link between the latter two constructs. Additionally, the leaders’ building open‐innovation coalitions variable is positively related to the team‐level scope of innovations and the team‐level innovation implementation phase.     

Patterns of cooperation during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project performance

Successful new product development is fundamentally a multidisciplinary process. While this view has helped lead management to the wide‐spread adoption of cross‐functional new product development teams, in this study we question whether simply increasing the level of functional integration is truly a guarantee for enhancing the performance of new products. To assess this we examined patterns of cooperation between marketing, R&D, and operations at both early and late stages of the new product development process for 34 recently developed products whose level of innovativeness ranged from high to low. A unique feature of this study is that data were collected from four sources for each project. This included personal interviews with a project leader and written surveys from marketing, operations, and R&D personnel on each project. Findings from this study reveal that: (1) functional cooperation typically increases as the process moves from early to late stages; (2) cooperation between marketing and R&D is highest during early stages of the process, but for marketing and operations, and for R&D and operations, cooperation typically increases as the process moves from early to late stages; (3) higher project performance — irrespective of the level of project innovation — is demonstrated when cooperation between marketing and R&D, and cooperation between operations and R&D is high during early stages; (4) late stage cooperation between marketing and operations, and R&D and operations is a key determinant in project performance for innovative products but not for noninnovative products, and; (5) that early stage cooperation between marketing and operations is associated with superior performance for low innovation projects but is also associated with poor performance for innovative projects. Findings from this study demonstrate that the importance of cooperation between specific functional dyads (i.e., marketing — R&D; R&D — operations; operations ‐ marketing) indeed varies by time (i.e., early vs. late stages), and by the level of innovativeness (i.e., new‐to‐the‐world vs. modifications) associated with the new product being developed.     

Conceptualizing Innovation Orientation: A Framework for Study and Integration of Innovation Research*

The term innovation orientation has been frequently used in the innovation literature, but with a mix of conceptualizations and meanings. Drawing from work found in the innovation, management, and marketing literatures over the past 35 years, the concept of innovation orientation as a system is conceptualized and defined in this article. The domain of innovation orientation is delineated as a multidimensional knowledge structure and a framework for understanding innovation orientation and its consequences in an organizational context are developed. The framework defines the innovation orientation knowledge structure as composed of a learning philosophy, strategic direction, and transfunctional beliefs within an organization that define and direct the organizational strategies and actions toward specific innovation‐enabling competencies and processes. These innovation‐oriented firm competencies are in the areas of resource allocation, technology, employees, operations, and markets. The framework then explains that these appropriately developed innovation‐enabling competencies lead to innovation outcomes, specifically ideal innovation form, type, and rate that, in turn, affect firm performance. An inventory of propositions for future research that correspond to the innovation orientation concept is also presented in this comprehensive framework. This study provides two important contributions to the existing innovation literature. First, the article examines the vast innovation literature to arrive at a clear definition of the innovation orientation construct to provide a consistent conceptualization for future research. Second, the article develops a comprehensive, organized framework for understanding innovation orientation and its effects. In doing this, the framework extends the dynamic capabilities research stream by offering an explanation of how innovation orientation fosters the development of organizational competencies and makes it possible for a firm to recognize and respond to shifts in market dynamism.     

R&D Project Termination Decisions: Processes, Communication, and Personnel Changes

The decision to terminate a project can demoralize project managers and team members, and increase concerns about job security. For these reasons, managers tend to delay project termination decisions. However, delaying project termination diverts scarce R&D resources from higher potential projects. Ramaiya Balachandra, Klaus K. Brockhoff, and Alan W. Pearson describe the results of a study that explores the manner in which managers inform staff of the decision to terminate or continue a project. Survey respondents are the highest ranking R&D managers in 78 large German, British, and U.S. companies. Respondents were asked to describe the procedures they use for monitoring R&D projects and deciding whether to continue a project. Underlying this research is the belief that more effective management of these processes can improve project team effectiveness, employee relations, and morale. All survey respondents use project monitoring procedures. Most use formal procedures, often supplemented with informal procedures. More than one person usually monitors projects. Project managers, their immediate superiors, and project staff typically have these responsibilities, but respondents also indicate that marketing managers often monitor projects. Compared to U.S. companies, European firms typically involve fewer people in project monitoring. U.S. firms involve more non-R&D personnel in these tasks. Most firms focus on monitoring such variables as time, technical success, and probability of technical success. Staff motivation is the least used monitoring variable. Cost control was mentioned more frequently by German respondents than by respondents from other countries. Decisions regarding the fate of a project usually come from individuals not directly involved with the project. Termination decisions are typically communicated in writing; no respondents use staff meetings to relate such decisions. Following the decision to terminate a project, management faces the difficult task of finding suitable jobs for project team members. Rather than assign an entire team to a new project, management typically disbands a team and assigns its members to other teams. The inherently uneven progress of R&D projects complicates these scheduling problems, and thus compounds the career uncertainty caused by project termination decisions.     

Technological and non-technological innovations,performance and propensity to innovate across industries: The case of an emerging economy

Innovation in a firm may be non-technological, such as organizational and marketing innovation, and technological, such as product and process innovation. The aim of this article is to explore how different types of innovation affect the innovation development of the firm across industries. We chose Chile as an emerging market context. Our results show that only product innovations affect significantly innovation performance across industries. However, different types of propensities to innovate are affected differently by technological and non-technological innovations. We discuss implications for managers and policy makers in emerging economies, in which data tends to be scarce to develop new policy models and increase the effect of non-technological innovation on innovative performance.     

How Canon and Sony Drive Product Innovation Through Networking and Application-Focused R&D

To ensure the ongoing vitality of a company's product offerings, R&D professionals must play a daunting array of roles. The already rapid, yet still accelerating, pace of technological change may lead some companies to devote more resources to intensive internal research efforts. However, the shift toward global competition demands a more market-oriented focus from R&D; clear understanding of current and potential markets must drive R&D efforts. And efficient, cost-effective manufacturing of new products requires an R&D organization that understands and interacts effectively with the production department. How does a company create an environment in which its R&D organization comprises market-savvy, production-friendly experts in diverse technologies? With case studies of R&D efforts at Canon and Sony, Sigvald Harryson identifies and illustrates the key mechanisms that these companies use to foster product innovation. His examples show how Canon and Sony use a combination of external and internal networking mechanisms to identify and acquire key technologies and related skills, gain market knowledge, improve the results of internal R&D efforts, and ensure the successful transfer of these results to efficient production processes. He identifies four key mechanisms underlying successful product innovation at Canon and Sony: strategic training and job rotation for engineers, application-driven R&D, direct transfer of development teams from R&D to production, and extensive networking with external centers of excellence and key suppliers. At Canon, the initial training program for all researchers and engineers begins with three months of work on a production line. Sony's new researchers and development engineers spend one month in production. Both companies also give their new R&D professionals three months of training in sales and marketing. The emphasis on market-driven research at both companies means that researchers have identified some commercial application for almost every initial research proposal that gains approval. Neither company treats research as a long-term assignment; almost all engineers at both companies eventually move from the labs to production. And rather than viewing this job rotation strategy as a drain on the technological expertise in their labs, both companies rely on strong external networks with key suppliers and university-based researchers as important sources for acquiring new technologies and the competencies needed to support them.     

The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: a longitudinal study

In this paper we present a study of the structure of three lead firm‐network relationships at two points in time. Using data on companies in the packaging machine industry, we study the process of vertical disintegration and focus on the ability to coordinate competencies and combine knowledge across corporate boundaries. We argue that the capability to interact with other companies—which we call relational capability—accelerates the lead firm’s knowledge access and transfer with relevant effects on company growth and innovativeness. This study provides evidence that interfirm networks can be shaped and deliberately designed: over time managers develop a specialized supplier network and build a narrower and more competitive set of core competencies. The ability to integrate knowledge residing both inside and outside the firm’s boundaries emerges as a distinctive organizational capability. Our main goal is to contribute to the current discussion of cooperative ties and dynamic aspects of interfirm networks, adding new dimensions to resource‐based and knowledge‐based interpretations of company performance. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.