Exploring the firm’s influential determinants pertinent to workplace innovation
- Author(s)
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.23
-
Article InfoVolume 19 2021, Issue #1, pp. 272-280
- Cited by
- 949 Views
-
396 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Significant changes in organizations with good human resources (HR) practices can transform the workplace to a great extent. Although there is a fair amount of research on workplace innovation, most firms even now act as barriers to personnel growth and workplace innovation. This study proposed to explore various influential factors of firms from a holistic perspective that affect workplace innovation by adopting the principal component analysis (PCA) method to reduce the dimensionalities and better emphasize firms’ development. The useful data were collected using a survey questionnaire from one hundred and ninety-five (195) respondents from different Indian organizations. Totally forty-six sub-factors were identified and developed into nine significant organizational factors influencing workplace improvement viz., organization culture and environment, innovation process, resources, organization structure, corporate strategy, employee, knowledge management, technology and management, and leadership. The study suggested that any firm must emphasize these core determinants at the workplace to motivate the employees towards innovation and organizations to be competitive in the industry. The study invites firm policymakers, HR managers, and top management to formulate the best organizational strategies to encourage an innovative culture in firms.
Acknowledgment
The author(s) of this study acknowledges all the respondents who contributed their quality opinion and made this study possible and helpful in contributing to the industry.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)O15, M50, M53, M54
-
References36
-
Tables3
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Factors and sub-factors identified from the literature review
- Table 2. Demographic data of respondents
- Table 3. Rotated factor matrix
-
- Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organizational creativity: a literature review. Management Decision, 39(10), 834-841.
- Anthony Read (2000). Determinants of successful organizational innovation: A review of current research. Journal of Management Practices, 3(1), 95-119.
- Aranda, D. A., & Molina, L. M. (2002). Determinants of innovation through a knowledge-based theory lens. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102, 289-298.
- Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Differential Potency of Factors Affecting Innovation Performance in Manufacturing and Services Firms in Australia. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(1), 35-52.
- Balbontin, A., Yazdani, B., Cooper, R. & Souder, W. E. (1999). New Product Success Factors in American and British firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 17(3), 259-80.
- Cottam, A., Ensor, J., & Band, C. (2001). A benchmark study of strategic commitment to innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(2), 88-94.
- De Clercq D., Dimov D., & Belausteguigoitia I. (2016). Perceptions of Adverse Work Conditions and Innovative Behavior: The Buffering Roles of Relational Resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
- De Jong J.P.J., Den Hartog D.N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.
- Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2011). Work environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics, 54(1), 12-20.
- Fariborz D. (1996). Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models. Management Science, 42(5), 693-716.
- Fiol, C. M. (1996). Squeezing Harder Doesn’t Always Work: Continuing the Search for Consistency in Innovation Research. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1012-21.
- Giambatista, Robert C., & Bhappu, Anita D. (2010). Diversity’s harvest: Interactions of diversity sources and communication technology on creative group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 116-126.
- Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A Review of Innovation Research in Economics. Sociology and Technology Management. Omega. International Journal of Management Science, 25(1), 15-28.
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 6. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
- Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. (1998). Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54.
- Jager, B., Minnie, C., Jager, J., & Welgemoed, M. (2004). Enabling continuous improvement: A case study of implementation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(4), 315-331.
- Jiang, J., Wang, S., & Zhao, S. (2012). Does HRM facilitate employee creativity and organisational innovation? A study of Chinese firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(19), 4025-4047.
- Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, Springer, 35(4), 401-415.
- Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The Varimax Criterion for Analytic Rotation in Factor Analysis. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187-200.
- Keogh, W. (1999). Understanding Processes and Adding Value Within Innovative Small Firms. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 114-25.
- Khan, S., & Mohiya, M. (2020). Determinants of SMEs employees’ creativity and their impact on innovation at workplace. Management Science Letters, 10(16), 3865-3872.
- Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1992). Innovation and competitive advantage: What we know and what. Journal of Management, 18(2), 399-429.
- Lewis, M., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73-86.
- Loewe, P., & Dominiquini, J. (2006). Overcoming the barriers to effective innovation. Strategy and Leadership, 34(1), 24-31.
- Marisa Smith, Marco Busi, Peter Ball, & Robert Vander M. (2008). Factors Influencing an Organizations ability to Manage Innovation: A Structured Literature Review and Conceptual Model. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(4), 655-676.
- Pissarra, J., & Jesuino, J. C. (2005). Idea generation through computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 275-291.
- Pohlmann, M., Gebhardt, C., & Etzkowitz, H. (2005). The development of innovation systems and the art of innovation management – strategy, 21 control and the culture of innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(1), 1-12.
- Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantages of nation. London, UK: Macmillian Press.
- Roberts, R. (1998). Managing innovation: The pursuit of competitive advantage and the design of innovation intense environments. Research Policy, 27, 159-175.
- Rohman, A., Anis Eliyana, A., Purwana, D., Hamidah. (2020). Individual and organizational factors’ effect on knowledge sharing behavior. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 38-48.
- Rosing K., Frese M., & Bausch A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
- Shipton, H., West, M. A., Dawson, J., Birdi, K., & Patterson, M. (2006). HRM as a predictor of innovation. Human Resource. Management Journal, 16, 3-14.
- Sirilli, G., & Evangelista, R. (1998). Technological Innovation in Services and Manufacturing: Results from Italian Surveys. Research Policy, 27(8), 881-99.
- Spivey, W. A., Munson, J. M., & Wolcott, J. H. (1997). Improving the New Product Development Process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 203-18.
- Tang, H. K. (1999). An Inventory of Organisational Innovativeness. Technovation, 19(1), 41-51.
- Zhuang, L., Williamson, D. & Carter, M. (1999). Innovate or Liquidate – Are All Organizations Convinced’: A Two-phased Study into the Innovation Process. Management Decision, 37(1), 57-71.
-
The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the Indian stock market – A sectoral analysis
Rahul Kumar
,
Prince Bhatia ,
Deeksha Gupta
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.18(3).2021.28
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 18, 2021 Issue #3 pp. 334-346 Views: 7363 Downloads: 3487 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis paper aims to examine the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on Indian firms listed on the NSE and analyze its impact on various sectors. In addition, a sub-sample analysis based on market capitalization was performed to understand the effect of size during extreme events. The sample consisted of 1,335 firms listed on the NSE India. A standard event study outlined by Brown and Warner (1985) was employed to analyze the price impact on the COVID-19 outbreak. The event windows from -10 days to +10 days were selected. The estimation window is 250 days. The Nifty 50 has been chosen as a proxy for market return. The sample firms witnessed a negative impact of the COVID-19 outbreak with a negative CAAR in different event windows. In addition, various sectors are classified according their responsiveness towards the COVID-19 outbreak into three groups: highly negatively affected, moderately negatively affected, and slightly negatively affected. The paper also points out that the pandemic substantially affects the above-median market capitalized firms than the below-median market capitalized firms, which contradicts the size effect phenomenon. The results assist shareholders in managing their portfolios and mitigate the systematic risk of their investments during extreme events such as a pandemic, wars, and others. This study is the first comprehensive analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on different sectors in India. It is also the first study to investigate the size effect anomalies during extreme events.
-
The influence of servant leadership on job satisfaction with individual character as a moderating variable
Bakri Hasanuddin ,
Mustainah M ,
Pricylia Chintya Dewi Buntuang
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.37
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 19, 2021 Issue #1 pp. 445-455 Views: 3656 Downloads: 1645 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis study aims to investigate the influence of servant leadership on job satisfaction with individual character as a moderating variable. It used a quantitative approach with multiple linear regression analysis. The population of this study were employees of the Central Sulawesi province industry and trade office. It involved 72 samples selected using a purposive sampling technique. The results showed that servant leadership significantly influence job satisfaction with a value of 82.5%. The most significant factor affecting job satisfaction is wisdom (correlation coefficient = 0.863) in which the higher the wisdom, the higher the job satisfaction. The next factor is persuasive mapping in which the higher the persuasive mapping, the higher the job satisfaction (correlation coefficient = 0.697). Then, it was followed by altruistic calling with the correlation coefficient value of 0.524 in which the higher the altruistic calling, the higher the job satisfaction. The last is emotional healing with a correlation coefficient value of 0.291 in which the higher the emotional healing, the higher the job satisfaction. On the other hand, organizational stewardship is the only factor does not influence the job satisfaction (correlation coefficient = 0.009).
-
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on retailer performance: empirical evidence from India
Amgad S.D. Khaled ,
Nabil Mohamed Alabsy ,
Eissa A. Al-Homaidi 
,
Abdulmalek M.M. Saeed
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.16(4).2020.11
Innovative Marketing Volume 16, 2020 Issue #4 pp. 129-138 Views: 3462 Downloads: 5876 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe study aims to synthesize the challenges that retailers are facing during the COVID-19 emergency. The research is definitive, informative, and based on a single design of cross-sectional research. Quantitative data based on the research instrument were produced (a questionnaire). Five hundred responses were collected from employees of major retail stores in India. Retailer performance is considered a dependent variable, whereas employee well-being, customer and brand protection, use of technology, government policies, and supply chain are used as independent variables. The current study results indicated that employee well-being and government policies have a significant positive impact on retailer performance, while customer and brand protection, use of technology, and supply chain have a significant positive impact on retailers’ performance. This study will help retailers develop strategies for their employees to protect them and understand that technology is needed in the new normal times. This study highlights the need to be flexible in executing strategic strategies, but retailers need to develop comprehensive action plans, including selecting managers of initiative and defining goals and deadlines. Provided that retailers’ current reality is different from the old normal, no time is lost in taking audacious action.
