Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Project 5 L and M and adoption

776 views

Published on

ERC3 - Project 5 Leadership and management practices and the adoption of innovations

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Project 5 L and M and adoption

  1. 1. Leadership and management practices and the adoption of innovations Jane Bourke, Jim Love, Stephen Roper, Halima Jibril
  2. 2. Starting points • Recent evidence suggests the role of operational management practices in raising productivity • In the innovation literature ‘absorptive capacity’ (ACAP) has been seen a key aspect of firms’ ability to access and absorb external knowledge or engage in collaborative innovation • ACAP is typically measured by naive measures of skills (e.g. % graduates) and R&D • Here aim to integrate these two literatures: ‘What role do management practices play in enabling SMEs to adopt new innovations’?
  3. 3. Closed and open innovation ’Closed innovation’ ‘Open innovation’ Source: Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: Harvard University Press.
  4. 4. Conceptual approach Innovation Decision Yes No Open innovation Closed innovation Explore Exploit Growth, Productivity Explore Exploit
  5. 5. Conceptual approach Innovation Decision Yes No Open innovation Closed innovation Explore Exploit Growth, Productivity Explore Exploit Innovation process
  6. 6. M&L requirements of open and closed innovation • Closed innovation may require an open culture, leadership, teams, diversity in workforce, open communication • Open innovation requires all of this and ACAP needing boundary spanning competencies, collaboration, social networking etc. • Adoption (NTF innovation) is by definition ‘open’ so falls into this second category • This suggests our research questions…
  7. 7. Research questions Aim: To identify those managerial practices which are most strongly linked to effective adoption. This leads to: • RQ1: What are the most important adoption enabling management and leadership practices? • RQ2: How do these adoption enabling practices differ by size and sector? • RQ3: Are the management and leadership practices which enable exploration the same as those which help with exploitation?
  8. 8. Building blocks Key insights Bourke, J., & Roper, S. (2017) Management routines matter for innovation, effects can be both disruptive and enabling Delre, S. A., Jager, W., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Janssen, M. A. (2010). Social networks matter for diffusion and network position can be influential Roper, S., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2017) Collaboration is an important driver of innovation success in micro-firms. Boundary spanning capabilities matter. Chowhan, J., Pries, F., & Mann, S. (2017). Management routines matter for persistent innovation (theory) Valentim, L., Lisboa, J. V., & Franco, M. (2016). Knowledge management practices influence ACAP in smaller firms (small Portuguese sample) Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011) Transformational leadership enables exploration; transactional leadership enables exploitation
  9. 9. Data sources • Three (perhaps 4) existing datasets with new BSD match to provide longitudinal performance data. Each data set covers innovation and management practices as well as innovation, exploitation and exploration • Professions data with BSD match – collected in 2016 as part of an ERC project for UK CES covers c. 900 companies in 5 services sectors • Legal services data with BSD match – collected in 2015 (and repeated in 2018) covers c. 1500 companies • Innovation index data with BSD match – collected in 2009 covers 9 sectors (manuf and services) c. 1500 firms • Micro-business data also has timing of adoption and so may be useful supporting analysis
  10. 10. Project timeline Research question Timing Data coding and matching, model development August – internal note RQ1: What are the most important adoption enabling management and leadership practices? RQ3: Are the management and leadership practices which enable exploration the same as those which help with exploitation? September to December – Research paper 1 RQ2: How do these adoption enabling practices differ by size and sector? Jan/Feb – Research paper 2
  11. 11. References Bourke, J., & Roper, S. (2017). Innovation, quality management and learning: Short-term and longer-term effects. Research Policy, 46(8), 1505-1518. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.07.005 Roper, S., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2017). Investigating a neglected part of Schumpeter’s creative army: what drives new-to-the-market innovation in micro-enterprises? Small Business Economics, 49(3), 559-577. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9844-z Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership- innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014 Delre, S. A., Jager, W., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Janssen, M. A. (2010). Will It Spread or Not? The Effects of Social Influences and Network Topology on Innovation Diffusion. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(2), 267-282. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00714.x Chowhan, J., Pries, F., & Mann, S. (2017). Persistent innovation and the role of human resource management practices, work organization, and strategy. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(3), 456-471. doi:10.1017/jmo.2016.8 Valentim, L., Lisboa, J. V., & Franco, M. (2016). Knowledge management practices and absorptive capacity in small and medium-sized enterprises: is there really a linkage? R & D Management, 46(4), 711-725. doi:10.1111/radm.12108

×