f912481136710125

8/2/2019 f912481136710125

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/f912481136710125 1/18

182 Int. J. Innovation and Learning, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Copyright © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Organisational factors that promote entrepreneurshipand innovation: an exploratory model

C. Brooke Dobni

Edwards School of Business,

University of Saskatchewan,

25 Campus Drive, Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan, S7N 5A7, Canada

Fax: 306-966-2516 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: In recent years, academic and practitioner interest has focused on

developing entrepreneurial and innovative cultures as a method of competitivedifferentiation. However, much less attention has been devoted tounderstanding the factors that support an entrepreneurial and innovationorientation (EIO) in organisations. This article describes a model whichexplicates the EIO construct, and proposes a valid multi-item measure of EIO.The findings suggest that an EIO may best be represented through a model thatconsists of five factors identified as empowerment, market orientation, strategicinfrastructure, context-focused learning, and creativity.

Keywords: innovation; entrepreneurship; entrepreneurial orientation; learning;innovation orientation; organisation culture.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Dobni, C.B. (2012)‘Organisational factors that promote entrepreneurship and innovation:an exploratory model’, Int. J. Innovation and Learning , Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.182–199.

Biographical notes: Brooke Dobni is the Associate Dean of the EdwardsSchool of Business and a Professor of Strategy at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. He is a Wilson Centre for Entrepreneurial Excellence Scholar. He is also a Management Consultant and hasworked extensively with organisations, helping them to develop innovationorientations, and align strategy to innovation objectives.

1 Introduction

Business success of organisations, and in particular, the degree to which they are

entrepreneurial and innovative is related to the context created by an organisation. As a

result, there has been renewed academic and practitioner interest in defining factors

supporting an entrepreneurial and innovation orientation (EIO).

Entrepreneurial orientation refers to the firm’s environment and employee behaviours

that supports the predispositions of being innovative, proactive, and risk taking in

strategy development and implementation (Covin and Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin and

Dess, 1996, 2001; Lyon et al., 2000). There is also a distinct relationship between

8/2/2019 f912481136710125


Organisational factors that promote entrepreneurship and innovation 183

entrepreneurship and innovation as authors have identified innovation as a key element

that is resident in an entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, 2001; Covinand Slevin, 1991). Researchers also suggest that entrepreneurial firms are more likely to

create value through pioneering innovation. Likewise, an innovation orientation has also

proved to have a positive impact on strategy and organisational performance (Christensen

and Raynor, 2003; Govindarajan and Trimble, 2005; Hamel, 2002; Hammer, 2004; Senge

and Carstedt, 2001).

What is noteworthy however is that relatively little systematic effort has been devoted

to considering factors which support an EIO, and whether or not an EIO is reflective of

the behaviour or characteristics of an organisation.

The purpose of this article is to identify factors that contribute to entrepreneurship

and innovation, and then define a model to support an organisation’s orientation in

this domain (i.e., an EIO model). In efforts to assess the psychometric properties

of these factors, careful attention is paid to the domain of the construct, itemgeneration, and item purification in consideration of a systematical procedure for

scale development (e.g., Churchill, 1979; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). The article

concludes with a discussion of managerial applications and considerations for further

research.

2 Theoretical background – issues of definition

2.1 Entrepreneurial orientation

Being entrepreneurial often refers to the act of new entry – such as starting a new

company, entering into a new marketplace, or developing a new product. Being anentrepreneur is a term generally ascribed to an individual or group of people who are risk

takers and employ their own (or leveraged) capital to develop new ventures. However,

the same principles underlying individual entrepreneurship can also be applied to an

organisation’s employees. Specifically, although employees are not entrepreneurs in the

pure sense of the definition, they are entrepreneurially oriented (Fu-Lai, 2009). That is,

they possess similar characteristics of entrepreneurs, however, given that they are not the

owners of the capital, they are not entrepreneurs. Rather, they are entrepreneurially

oriented.

Entrepreneurial behaviours, and hence an entrepreneurial orientation is an outcome of

the processes, practices, and decision-making activities that lead to entrepreneurial

characteristics. It is supported by a strategic infrastructure that is preoccupied with being

proactive, risk-taking, and autonomous. Organisations with this orientation are marketdriving – they aggressively pursue market opportunities, and they are able to better

define, engage and pursue emergent opportunities (Dobni, 2008). Put simply,

entrepreneurial orientation is a culture amongst employees that is premised in how they

think – about customers, opportunity development, and value creation – and act, in

respect to the implementation of differentiation tactics. Covin and Slevin (1991) and

Lumpkin and Dess (1996) uncovered similar findings, identifying risk taking,

proactiveness, innovativeness, competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy as key

elements supporting an entrepreneurial orientation.

8/2/2019 f912481136710125


184 C.B. Dobni

2.2 Innovation

Definitions of innovation found in the literature vary depending on the context and scope

of the analysis. Some definitions are quite general – for example, to have creative

employees, and others quite specific – referring to the types of behaviours and specific

roles engaged by employees. In an organisation environment, examples of innovation,

like entrepreneurship, are often expressed through a tangible action or an outcome that is

linked to a behaviour or activity. Examples of this include the implementation of ideas

surrounding new product/services or modifications to existing ones, autonomy,

restructuring or cost savings initiatives, risk taking, unique employee behaviours or

responses to unscripted situations, and learning (Martins and Terblanche, 2003; Robbins,

1996; West and Farr, 1990; Phusavat et al., 2009).

West and Farr (1990) define innovation as “the intentional introduction and

application within a role, group or organisation of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the

individual, the group, organisation or wider society.” Hamel (2006) described innovation

more broadly as “a marked departure from traditional management principles, processes

and practices or a departure from customary organisational forms that significantly alters

the way the work of management is performed.” Christensen (1997) defines it as “a state

of being, one that ranges from being disruptive to environments that are mildly benign.”

These definitions suggest that innovation is very much contextual, and the determination

of whether or not activities or behaviours in an organisation can be regarded as

innovative will be circumscribed by this context. However, innovation is also

process-oriented and culture-based as it is also universally accepted that innovation is

associated with creativity and change (Drucker, 1991; Hellriegel et al., 1998; Robbins,

1996), or is regarded as something new which leads to change (West and Farr, 1990).

Arguably, based on the definitions, there is interdependency between entrepreneurial

orientation and innovation.

How we affect an entrepreneurial and innovative state, and ultimately how we

measure it is as important as the definition itself. Invariably, many of the authors,

including Schein (1984), point to culture as the linchpin to implementation success in

organisations. This is widely evident in the literature on organisational culture which has

evolved significantly over the past ten years. The prevailing conclusion is that a focused

and aligned culture seems to be critical to the success of any organisation. This is

discussed further below.

2.3 Issues of scope

The key to an EIO in organisations resides in the ability to create an environmentthat defines, instils and reinforces behaviours that promote entrepreneurship (or an

entrepreneurial culture) and innovation amongst employees. And it appears that

such a culture will only flourish under the right circumstances, determinants of

which include vision and mission, customer focus, management processes, leadership,

support mechanisms, employee constituency, and others (Martins and Treblanche,

2003). Specifically, management – as suggested by Hamel – has to markedly change the

context and send the necessary signals to facilitate a change in the way employees think

and act. In turn, employees have to respond to these changes and take up the challenges

8/2/2019 f912481136710125


8/2/2019 f912481136710125


186 C.B. Dobni

2.4 EIO model

The factor analysis and final factor solution supports the EIO model outlined in Figure 1

below. This model identifies dimensions, factors, and outcomes related to an EIO, and

are consistent with both the analysis and the literature on innovation management and

entrepreneurial dynamics perspectives.

Figure 1 EIO model

Implicit in the model are performance implication outcomes, however, this study does not

examine the impact of an EIO on performance. Nonetheless, there is no doubt about its

impact on performance in organisations. Variants of orientations as an explanation of

organisational performance have already been established. For example, a

market-oriented culture has been widely linked to positive business performance (Dobni

and Luffman, 2003; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Marinova, 2004; Narver and Slater,

1990). Conversely, a process-oriented culture is one that focuses on optimising process as

an internal driver of strategy, often at the expense of profitability. There are numerous

descriptors of culture that have been published by academics over the years with one

common conclusion – that culture has a role in organisations, and how culture affects

organisational performance is specific to the alignment with environment in which anorganisation must compete. There is a suggestion for further research in this area under

the conclusions section.

8/2/2019 f912481136710125



3 Developing a measure of EIO

3.1 The procedure

Psychologists were among the first social scientists to develop and refine methods to

measure behavioural variables (Ghiselli, 1964; Likert, 1967; Nunnally, 1978). The

procedures used in this study to develop a measure of EIO follow the now generally

accepted principles of instrument design set out in these seminal articles, and are reported

sequentially in this article. This procedure is based on Churchill’s (1979) general design

involving pretesting, revision, development of a preliminary instrument, ascertaining

internal consistency, detailed item analysis, and determination of validity, but specifically

adapted for the current study.

3.2 Generation of scale items

This stage involved the generation of an inventory of items that could be used to capture

the essence of an EIO. On the basis of previous research, large pools of items for each of

the dimensions – proactiveness, autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, and competitive

aggressiveness – were independently generated by the author. Care was taken to tap the

domain of each dimension as closely as possible. This resulted in multiple items for each

of the determinants. From this pool, with the help of two managers responsible for

entrepreneurial and innovation initiatives from two separate organisations, a subset of

items was initially selected for their appropriateness, uniqueness, and ability to convey to

informants ‘different shades of meaning’ (see Churchill, 1979). In all, 69 items were

generated.

3.3 Purification of scale items

In efforts to purify the scale, the initial 69 items were tested for clarity and

appropriateness. These items were presented to a cross section of 21 employees of a large

financial institution. They were asked to critically analyse each of the items in respect to

the dimension it was intending to measure. Several sessions were held with this group,

who were probed for comments on the appropriateness of each item, ambiguity, ease of

comprehension, and possible improvements in wording. This process resulted in several

items being eliminated, and others restated to better reflect meaning. At the end of this

phase, 12 items were eliminated, and others reworded. In the end, 57 scale items

remained.

For each of the items that remained, a seven point interval rating scale was applied.

This would enable respondents to indicate the degree or extent to which they had adoptedthe practice described in the item. For each factor, the actual level of adoption across the

sample can be represented by scale scores.

8/2/2019 f912481136710125


188 C.B. Dobni

3.4 Field testing and data collection

Given that one of the goals was to develop a measure of EIO at the operational level, the

sample was designed to target operational level employees. This is consistent with the

approach suggested by Selltiz et al. (1976) and Nunnally (1978) that the subjects used

should be those whom the instrument was intended. These respondents are the ones that

are most likely the architects of the environment for such an orientation, and also the ones

whose actions will be most influenced by an EIO. The sample included employees

(including managers and directors) from three different business units from a large

financial services organisation in Canada. The goal was to develop a homogeneous

sample so as to avoid the risk of inherent differences and to minimise the effects of

variations in test scores associated with cross-industry samples. This incorporates the

insight of Kohli and Jaworski (1990) that cultural orientation measures (such as an EIO)

should include all employees in an organisation, as all employees are involved in the

composition of such an orientation. Matsuno and Mentzer (2000) also suggested that

additional insights might be gained through an expanded employee sample base.

The survey was electronically administered to 509 employees via the organisation’s

intranet survey administration software. Data was collected in October and November of

2006. In all, 301 employees from across the organisation responded to the survey, of

which 19 surveys had to be discarded because of significant missing values. In total, 282

usable surveys were entered into the analysis, producing an effective response rate of

55%. Data was analysed using SPSS v15.

3.5 Factor analysis

To impart a meaningful analysis of the remaining 57 scale items, it was necessary to

reduce the data to more manageable levels. Considerations for the data reduction strategyalso included the size of the sample in respect to the model being tested. In the end,

exploratory factor analysis was used to estimate principal components to assess whether

the constructs could be represented in terms of a smaller number of underlying factors.

Factor analysis takes a large number of items and groups them together with respects to

the constructs they measure. Items that are grouped together are presumed to be

measuring the same underlying construct (Kerlinger, 1986). This analysis was conducted

using numerous extraction methods and the solution was considered to be most

interpretable using unweighted least squares factoring as the extraction method and

varimax rotation as the rotation procedure.

The 57 scale items initially loaded on to 11 factors with eigenvalues greater than one

and accounted for 71.9% of the explained variance. Kim and Mueller (1978) observe that

an ‘eigenvalue 1’ criterion is one of several rules-of-thumb available for addressing thenumber of factors in question, and that combining it or supplanting it by other rules such

as criterion of interpretability is a legitimate approach.

However, a number of the factors were one item solutions. In efforts to produce a

more interpretable solution, a scree test (Cattell, 1965) was conducted. A scree test

essentially invokes a maximum number of factors that would facilitate interpretation. The

test identified that a total of five factors would be more logically consonant for further

analysis, therefore the factor analysis was re-run with this criterion. The final factor

solution, factor descriptions, percentage of variance explained and coefficient alphas are

presented in Table 1 below in order of percentage of variance explained or accounted for

8/2/2019 f912481136710125



by a factor. The extremely high measure of sampling adequacy and the significance of

the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity for the final factor solution indicate that the correlationmatrices are representative identity matrices suitable for multivariate analysis.

Table 1 EIO factors – final factor solution

Descriptive factors

Eigenvalue % Variance Alpha Description

Empowerment(17 items)*(12 items)**

8.12 16.75

(16.75)

.89 The degree of empowerment held byemployees, and the ability of employees to improvise and enact toexecute value-added ideas. Itconsiders the ability of employees to proactively co-align systems and processes with changes in the

competitive environment.

Marketorientation(15 items)(ten items)

5.78 14.89

(31.64)

.91 This involves the market sensing andcontextual awareness of employees.It considers the extent to whichemployees generate and disseminateknowledge on customers,competitors, the industry, as well astheir understanding of the valuechain or cluster in which theyoperate.

Strategicinfrastructure(13 items)(nine items)

5.22 11.43

(43.08)

.78 The degree to which the organisationhas established – within their business model - architecture tonurture entrepreneurial and

innovation behaviours. This would be communicated through vision,goals, objectives, andoperationalised through the businessmodel and business processes.Inherent in this factor are resourcesto support the business model and processes.

Context-specificlearning(seven items)(five items)

2.81 10.31

(53.4)

.83 The degree to which the training andeducational opportunities of employees are focused and alignedto support context-specificobjectives.

Creativity(five items)(four items)

1.85 6.5

(59.95)

.72 Determination of the creativecapacity of employees and thedegree of creativity that employeesfeel they are allowed to express intheir work.

Notes: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: .930;Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity approx. Chi-square: 11589.343; df: 2346; sig.: .000.*Represents the initial number of descriptors that loaded on to the factor.**Represents final number of factor descriptors after items dropped to improvereliability. Factor coefficient alpha is based on this factor solution of reduceditems. (Cumulative variance indicated in brackets)

8/2/2019 f912481136710125


190 C.B. Dobni

The factors were examined and given a descriptive title that represented the

characteristics of the constructs. Fortunately, there were few logical inconsistencies in theway the statements loaded on to the components. Where inconsistencies did occur (factor

loadings with a coefficient alpha below .70) those factors were dropped – as

recommended by Nunnally (1978) – from the analysis, and a new solution was derived in

efforts to improve the reliability of the study. This threshold resulted in an additional 17

items being dropped from the factor solution. As indicated in the table, the maximised

reliability coefficients were fairly uniform, ranging from .72 to .91. Appendix outlines the

constructs that comprises the final factor solution as well as the factor items that were

dropped.

4 Reliability assessment

4.1 Measurement reliability

Reliability testing and detailed item analysis was undertaken to refine the factor measures

associated with the context supporting an EIO. The general approach taken was to

evaluate each construct in respect to its reliability contribution to the scale. If through the

analysis any item reduced the reliability of a factor, it was subsequently discarded.

As indicated, the primary method chosen to assess reliability was the internal

consistency method (Nunnally, 1978; Peter, 1979). In practice, this method dominates

in part because it requires only one instrument and one administration. This, combined

with the problems associated with other methods (test re-test method and the

alternative form method) made it a logical choice. In the end, Cronbach’s alpha

(Cronbach, 1970) coefficient was considered as the ultimate measure of reliability as ithas become the most universally adopted approach for single instrument, single

administration methods.

5 Validation analysis

The validity of a measure refers to the extent to which it measures what is intended to be

measured. Given that this model employed an exploratory factor analysis, two different

types of validity were considered, content validity, and construct validity. Each of these

as it relates to this index is further discussed below. A third measure of validity,

criterion-related validity, was not tested as the model did not employ an independentmeasure of a relative criterion, for example, business performance or customer

satisfaction. This is a consideration for future studies once a valid measure of EIO is

correlated to performance.

Single-industry and multi-SBU single firm studies are characteristic of a large body

of research in the strategy and innovation literature as they provide for some degree of

control over environmental peculiarities that confront individual organisations (Snow and

Hrebiniak, 1980; Harrigan, 1983). It is important to note that these constraints enhance

the internal validity of this index; however, it may reduce the extent to which these

findings can be generalised to other industries and environments.

8/2/2019 f912481136710125



5.1 Content validity

A measure can be said to possess content validity if there is general agreement among the

subjects and researchers that constituent items cover all aspects of the variable being

measured; therefore, content validity depends on how well the researchers create items

that cover the content domain of the variable being measured (Nunnally, 1978). Although

the judgment validity is somewhat subjective, the procedures used are consistent with

ensuring high content validity. The constructs developed for the five dimensions of EIO

were derived from an exhaustive review of the literature and detailed evaluations by both

academics and practitioners alike. This process lead to a refinement of the constructs

used, and in the final analysis, pretest subjects indicated that the content of each factor

was well represented by the constructs employed.

5.2 Construct Validity

Construct validity is concerned with the extent to which the theoretical essence of the

measure is captured. In this case, construct validity was evaluated by examining

convergent validity. This analysis revealed a strong correlation among the five factors

representing EIO which indicated that they were converging on a common underlying

construct. All of the correlations exceeded .70 and all were significant at P < .001.

Convergent validity was also indicated by the high alpha (.79) attained when the score on

a one factor solution in an exploratory factor analysis (eigenvalue = 3.5, and 55.2%

variance explained).

6 Discussion

The role of an EIO is becoming increasingly more important in organisations today.

Management is beginning to realise that innovation creates long-lasting advantages and

produces dramatic shifts in competitive positioning. An entrepreneurial context supports

innovation and will provide a competitive advantage, and may eventually result in

industry leading performance.

The model and the associated index resulting from this research assess the degree to

which an organisation possesses an entrepreneurial and innovation oriented culture.

Though the index represents a significant step forward, several methodological and

application issues warrant further consideration.

6.1 Methodological issues

Two methodological issues raise interesting areas for future research. The first revolves

around the discussion of the potential for casual ordering among the various index

factors. This would involve making a determination as to the extent that one factor is

more important than another. Consistent with work done by Barrabba and Zaltman

(1991), one could argue that there is an ordering of factors, or even an ordering within a

factor itself as it relates to the level of importance underlying the model or factor. If this

conceptualisation is accurate, then a Guttman scaling procedure or other similar

discriminating procedures may be an appropriate analysis. Second, it would also be

useful to consider research into the revision, expansion, and revalidation of the scale

8/2/2019 f912481136710125


192 C.B. Dobni

items. This could include a cross industry study as opposed to a single industry or single

firm study.Concerning scale items, revision of deleted scale items may be a useful direction to

consider, or further modification (i.e., in terms of more accurately reflecting the

population being considered) of accepted scale items may be appropriate. Finally, further

work on scale validation using unobtrusive measures such as annual reports and company

internet websites, and possibly interviews with customers in efforts to assess the

applicability of the measures. It may be also useful to consider a broader breadth of

stakeholders’ assessments of what they think entrepreneurial and innovative behaviour is.

This could include consumers, other parties within the industry chain (retailers,

wholesalers), consultants, trade associates and governmental agencies. This emphasis

would further delineate the properties of such an index.

6.2 Application issues

The proposed five factor model presents a practical way to assess an organisation’s EIO.

A key managerial property of this model is its focus on identifying and measuring factors

that need to take place (or be present) for the firm to be considered entrepreneurial and

innovative. The close connection between factor areas and subsequent interventions

reinforces the managerial significance of the index as a measure of an organisation’s

culture in this domain.

This model could be used both descriptively and diagnostically, initially to establish a

baseline level of EIO within an organisation or a division of an organisation, and then

quantitatively, to chart the organisation’s efforts as it moves to further engender

entrepreneurship and innovation. Within an organisation, the model can be used to

discriminate efforts across business units by establishing goals and charting progresstoward goals by business unit. Comparative measures of this sort will allow the

organisation to isolate areas of strength and weakness as it relates to one or more of the

dimensions of culture (or individual scale properties), and address these areas in future

intervention efforts. Diagnostically for example, if an organisation scores poorly in the

area of empowerment or context-specific learning, then further investigation may

uncover areas for improvement. Conversely, if an organisation (or business unit) scores

well in a defined area, then efforts could be mapped and prescriptively replicated and

introduced to other divisions. The same might be said for industry relations and practices

in those industries that could collectively benefit from an EIO (i.e., the healthcare

industry, education, high technology). Finally, as a general measure of EIO, it is not out

of the realm of possibilities to use this model to consider industry or geographic

comparisons, initially as benchmark levels, and then as comparative metrics.Also, as entrepreneurship and innovation assumes the forefront of management

practice, it is important to consider whether the model properties are relevant to other

languages and ‘cultures of business.’ In this study for example, it became evident that the

interpretation of select constructs varied depending on hierarchical and departmental

arrangements. Accordingly, adjustments were made to construct wording to address these

issues. Finally, in pursuing the limits of the model, measurement extensions could be

made to non-profit and non-traditional organisational forms such as chambers of

commerce and economic development organisations in efforts to determine if such an

measure is relevant in these applications.

8/2/2019 f912481136710125



In summary, the objective of this research was to identify factors that promote

entrepreneurship and innovation. This objective is reflected through the development of ameasure of EIO. Though additional work remains in both the methodological and

substantive arenas, the results reported here are encouraging. The findings combined with

the suggestions for further investigation provide useful direction for future research.

7 Conclusions, limitations and future studies

This research explicates a model for EIO based upon a factor analysis of 57 constructs

defining such an orientation. Although many researchers have discussed measurement

issues, to the author’s knowledge, this is the first attempt to present a comprehensive set

of operationally-valid measures that span the literature. The resulting instrument is

relatively concise, and inherently valid and reliable as it is premised on sound methodsdesigned to assess its predictive and psychometric properties. At a minimum, it would

appear to have sufficient and adequate psychometric properties to serve as a starting point

for more directed research needs of academic and business practitioners.

This empirically-derived model can essentially be used as a metric to measure an

organisation’s orientation toward being entrepreneurial and innovative. This opens the

door to further analysis including the benchmarking of EIO to performance, and the

consideration of related behaviours that lend themselves to the development of a

sustainable competitive advantage. The literature suggests that there are performance

implications related to an EIO, and this study represents a first step to examining this

relationship. Therefore, it is recommended that an EIO’s effect on organisational

performance be the focus of future studies in this area – in consideration of a valid

measure of EIO. Finally, model portability is an issue. It would be useful to replicate this

study across numerous industries, instead of limiting it to the financial services industry.

Future research directed toward industry differences would be of great value and could

serve as the basis for development of more refined and sophisticated measures of an EIO.

References

Barrabba, V. and Zaltman, G. (1991) Hearing the Voice of the Market , Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston.

Blumentritt, T., Kickul, J. and Gundry, L. (2005) ‘Building an inclusive entrepreneurial culture: theeffects of employee involvement on venture performance and innovation’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.77–84.

Cattell, R.B. (1965) ‘Factor analysis: an introduction to essentials, (I) the purpose and underlyingmodels, (II) the role of factor analysis in research’, Biometrics, Vol. 21, pp.190–215, pp.405–435.

Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994) ‘Assessing the relationship between industry characteristicsand organizational culture: how different can you be?’, Academy of Management Journal ,Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.522–553.

Chen-Kuo, L., Bertram, T. and Jun-Zhi, C. (2008) ‘The impact of organisational culture andlearning on innovation performance’, International Journal of Innovation and Learning ,Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.413–428.

Christensen, C.M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Ma.

Christensen, C.M. and Raynor, M. (2003) The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Ma.

8/2/2019 f912481136710125


194 C.B. Dobni

Churchill, G.A. (1979) ‘A paradigm for developing better measures for marketing constructs’,

Journal of Marketing Research, February, Vol. 16, pp.64–73.Coffey, R.E., Cook, C.W. and Hunsaker, P.L. (1994) Management and Organization Behavior ,

Irwin, Burr Ridge, Il.

Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991) ‘A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.7–28.

Cronbach, L. (1970) Essentials of Psychological Testing , 3rd ed., Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., New York.

Dobni, C.B. (2006) ‘The innovation blueprint’, Business Horizons, Vol. 49, pp.329–339.

Dobni, C.B. (2008) ‘The dna of innovation’, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.43–50.

Dobni, C.B. and Luffman, G. (2003) ‘Determining the scope and impact of market orientation profiles on strategy implementation and performance’, Strategic Management Journal ,Vol. 24, pp.577–585.

Drucker, P. (1991) ‘The new productivity challenge’, Harvard Business Review, November–December, pp.69–79.

Fu-Lai, T.Y. (2009) ‘A dynamic model of the entrepreneurial process: a human agency perspective’, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.285–305.

Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988) ‘An updated paradigm for scale developmentincorporating un-dimensionality and its assessment’, Journal of Marketing Research, May,Vol. 25, pp.186–192.

Ghiselli, E.E. (1964) Theory of Psychological Measurement , McGraw-Hill Book Company, NewYork.

Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2005) ‘Organizational DNA for strategic innovation’, California Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.47–76.

Hamel, G. (2002) Leading the Revolution, Plume, New York.

Hamel, G. (2006) ‘The why, what and how of innovation management’, Harvard Business Review,February, pp.72–84.

Hammer, M. (2004) ‘Deep change: how operational innovation can transform your company’, Harvard Business Review, April, pp.84–96.

Harrigan, K.R. (1983) ‘Research methodologies for contingency approaches to business strategy’, Academy of Management Review, July, Vol. 8, pp.398–405.

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W. and Woodman, R.W. (1998) Organizational Behavior , 8th ed.,South-Western College, Cincinnati, OH.

Huang, S.Y., Chi-Chen, L., Ing-Jung, T. (2009) ‘The effects of innovative capacity and capitalexpenditures on financial performance’, International Journal of Innovation and Learning ,Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.323–341.

Jassawalla, A.R. and Sashittal, H.C. (2003) ‘The DNA of cultures that promote productinnovation’, Ivey Business Journal , Winter, University of Western Ontario.

Kekale, T., De Weerd-Nederhof, P., Visscher, K. and Bos, G. (2010) ‘Achieving sustainedinnovation performance through strategic flexibility of new product development’, International Journal of Innovation and Learning , Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.377–393.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1986) Foundations of Behavioral Research, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NewYork.

Kim, J. and Mueller, C.W. (1978) Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues, SagePublications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990) ‘Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, andmanagerial implications’, Journal of Marketing , April, Vol. 54, pp.1-8.

Likert, R. (1967) The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Lock, E.A. and Kirkpatrick, S.A. (1995) ‘Promoting creativity in organizations’, in Ford, C.M. andGioia, D.A. (Eds.): Creative Action in Organizations: Ivory Tower Visions and Real World Voices, pp.115–120, Sage, London.

8/2/2019 f912481136710125



Louis, M.R. (1980) ‘A cultural perspective on organizations: the need for and consequences of

viewing organizations as culture-bearing milieu’, Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, August, Detroit, MI.

Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996) ‘Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct andlinking it to performance’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.135–172,Academy of Management.

Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (2001) ‘Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation tofirm performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life cycle’, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol. 16, pp.429–451.

Lyon, D.W., Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (2000) ‘Enhancing entrepreneurial orientationresearch: operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision making process’, Journal of Management , Vol. 26, No. 5, pp.1055–1085.

Marinova, D. (2004) ‘Actualizing innovation effort: The impact of market knowledge diffusion in adynamic system of competition’, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 68, No. 3, pp.1–21.

Martins, E.C. and Terblanche, F. (2003) ‘Building organizational culture that stimulates creativityand innovation’, European Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.64–74.

Matsuno, K. and Mentzer, J.T. (2000) ‘The effects of strategy type on the market orientation- performance relationship’, Journal of Marketing , October, Vol. 64, pp.1–16.

Mian, M.A. and Petri, H. (2010) ‘Organisational culture and knowledge management: an empiricalstudy in Finnish project-based companies’, International Journal of Innovation and Learning ,Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.331–344.

Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990) ‘The effect of a market orientation on business profitability’, Journal of Marketing , October, Vol. 20, pp.20–35.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Peter, J.P. (1979) ‘Reliability: a review of psychometric basic and recent marketing practice’, Journal of Marketing Research, February, Vol. 16, pp.6–17.

Phusavat, K., Sanpanich, S., Kess, P. and Muhos, M. (2009) ‘The roles of external knowledge inorganizational learning and development’, International Journal of Innovation and Learning ,Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.537–549.

Rich Harris, J. (1998) The Nurture Assumption, Free Press, New York.

Robbins, S.P. (1996) Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Applications, 7th ed.,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Schein, E.H. (1984) ‘Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture’, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp.3–16.

Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L.S. and Cook, S.W. (1976) Research Methods in Social Relations, 3rded., Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.

Senge, P.M. and Carstedt, G. (2001) ‘Innovating out way to the next industrial revolution’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp.24–38.

Snow, C.C. and Hrebiniak, L.G. (1980) ‘Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance’, Academy of Management Review, June, Vol. 25, pp.317–336.

Steiner, G. (2008) ‘Supporting sustainable innovation through stakeholder management: a systemsview’, International Journal of Innovation and Learning , Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.595–616.

Syrett, M. and Lammiman, J. (1997) ‘The art of conjuring ideas’, Director , Vol. 50 No. 9, pp.48–54.

Tesluk, P.E., Faar, J.L. and Klien, S.R. (1997) ‘Influences of organizational culture and climate onindividual creativity’, The Journal of Creative Behavior , Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.21–41.

Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. III. (1997) Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal , Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA..

West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1990) ‘Innovation at work’, in West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (Eds.): Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies, pp3–13,Wiley, Chichester.

8/2/2019 f912481136710125


196 C.B. Dobni

Appendix

EIO constructs – final factor solution

Factor Factor items Factor coefficient alpha

1 I am empowered to generate ideas.

2 I have the freedom to make decisions anddevelop responses in efforts to createvalue.

3 I feel trusted to act independently – in theorganisation’s best interests.

4 I have ideas and suggestions that have been implemented.

*5 Communications are open and honest.

6 I feel that I can personally influenceoutcomes as it concernscreating/delivering value to clients.

7 I understand how I contribute to successin this organisation.

*8 I believe that my contributions are valued by my fellow employees.

9 I am in a position to make suggestions for enhancements to any product/service or process.

10 Management empowers us to beinnovative.

11 I feel obligated to help create the futurefor this organisation.

12 I am connected to the entrepreneurial andinnovation movement in thisorganisation.

13 I am sufficiently engaged in the planning process.

14 Management possesses the necessaryleadership qualities.

*15 We get the information we need to makevalue-added decisions.

*16 We have an effective environment for collaboration.

Empowerment

*17 I am in a position to broaden our client base

.89

1 We are in a position to take advantage of the next big development in our industry.

Marketorientation

2 We can quickly facilitate changes to our products and services based on client or competitive reaction.

.91

Note: *Items dropped to improve reliability.

8/2/2019 f912481136710125



EIO constructs – final factor solution (continued)


3 We actively search for new ideas at allstages of the product/service cycle.

4 We can sense when customers are either underserved or over served, and makeadjustments accordingly.

5 On occasion, opportunities will nottranspire as expected. This is view positively as opposed to negatively.

*6 We are prepared to take advantage of new market opportunities.

7 We are ‘quick on the uptake’ as it

concerns new product/service ideas.8 There is a consensus amongst colleagues

as to what creates value for our customers.

*9 We have a good record of rolling out new products/services.

10 We take time to understand our competitive environment.

*11 We are prepared to launch new products/services even when it is notclear how successful they may be.

12 We are encouraged to flush outinformation on what we consider to be

the ‘not so obvious.’

*13 I have a good idea of what I can andcannot influence in our competitiveenvironment.

*14 When I find out something importantabout a customer or competitor that mayaffect others in the organisation, I knowwhat to do with that information.

Marketorientation

15 We co-define value with our customers.

.91

*1 Our organisation’s business model is built on the basis of strategic intent.

.78

2 Entrepreneurship is an underlying culturein our organisation.

3 Senior managers effectivelycommunicate the entrepreneurshipmessage throughout the organisation.

4 We have an entrepreneurial vision that isaligned with innovation objectives.

Strategicinfrastructure

5 Our organisation has strategic initiativesaimed at gaining a competitiveadvantage.


8/2/2019 f912481136710125


198 C.B. Dobni



6 A clear set of goals and objectives arecommunicated to us.

7 Our strategic planning process isopportunity-oriented as opposed to process-oriented.

8 Our management helps break down barriers that stand in the way of implementation.

9 We are prepared to commit newresources or redirect current resources tosupport ventures that result from

entrepreneurial initiatives.10 We have a wide resources base in our

organisation as it relates to funding newopportunities.

*11 We are prepared to discontinue productsand services that only marginally serveour purposes in efforts to build capacityfor new products and services.

*12 Project managers have the autonomy tospeed up, slow, down, change course or cancel projects altogether.

Strategicinfrastructure

13 Performance management informationis used for improvement rather than for control.

.78

1 There is an expectation to develop newskills, capabilities and knowledge that isdirected toward supportingentrepreneurship and innovation in thisorganisation.

.83

2 I know what training/learning I need toengage myself in to support innovation.

3 Continued organisational learning isencouraged and there istime/opportunity to improve skills andcapabilities.

4 The management team acts as coachesand facilitators in support of training.

*5 Everyone in our organisation isinvolved in learning (training).

*6 The training I receive is directed athelping me deliver customer value.

Context-specificlearning

7 I am given the opportunity to applywhat I have learned.


8/2/2019 f912481136710125





1 I consider myself to be a creative person.

2 I view uncertainty as opportunity, andnot as a risk.

3 This organisation uses my creativity toits benefit, that is, it uses it in a goodway.

*4 I am prepared to do things differently if given the chance to do so.

Creativity

5 I am given the time/opportunity todevelop my creative potential.

.72


Documents

f912481136710125