PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 219
Organization Climate, Internal Knowledge Transfer, Innovation and its impact on The Financial
Performance
Miswaty
Balikpapan University
Penggalang Street 56/28 Balikpapan East Kalimantan +6281217174264
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Nowadays economic, political and social development is influenced by the process of globalization.
In the knowledge‐oriented society the most important factor of competitive advantage is not the newness of the applied technologies, the uniqueness of the product/service, the disposed tangible assets, but the gained knowledge and the ability to manage it, since this resource is hard to repeat or copy. Creation of innovations depends on the gained knowledge and its commercialization, transformation into the productive knowledge. The article limits itself to the approach that innovations are the result of the use of the productive knowledge. Efficient management of productive knowledge results in innovation development in organizations. In order to analyze the interaction of internal knowledge transfer and innovation, a systematic approach is required.
This paper theoretically explores the nature of organization climate and how it can be linked to financial performance? Based on the literature, researches have proposed model linking innovation and knowledge management and to create an integral knowledge management model that could ensure continuous innovation creation and development in the organization.
The created model includes three main areas: strategic, climate and knowledge management processes, innovation.
Keywords : Organization Climate, Internal Knowledge Transfer, Innovation, Financial Performance
1. Introduction and Problem Statement
The focus of this paper is on innovation through internal knowledge transfer and its influence on corporate performance. Innovation can produce revolutionary changes in technology, products, processes, innovations through knowledge represent clearly the rise or emergence of existing knowledge in the company and the practices that exist within the company (Dewar and Dutton, 1986).
However, the creation of new knowledge or new knowledge creation within the company can evolve from the transfer of existing knowledge within the enterprise (Grant, 1996). While innovation is often regarded as something spontaneous, which arises in the process at the
company, the transfer of knowledge within the firm often depends on organizational control and processes.
A primary aim of knowledge management and knowledge-based social development is to enable and encourage knowledge transfer among and between organizational entities such as individuals, communities and units (Newell et al., 2002). Building on earlier ground- breaking work on knowledge transfer and sharing (Kogut and Zander, 1995; Szulanski, 1996), Argote and Ingram (2000, p. 151) argue that „„the creation and transfer of knowledge in organizations provide a basis for competitive advantage in firms‟‟. In a wider social perspective, this knowledge-driven competitiveness is crucial for ensuring sustained performance and growth in regions and industries alike (e.g. Feldman and Martin, 2005). So far, the majority of empirical research has been concentrated on the types of knowledge that enable or hinder knowledge transfer (Szulanski, 1996; Argote and Ingram, 2000; Reagans and McEvily, 2003;
Haas and Hansen, 2005), on the kind of organizational components that support knowledge sharing – such as dyads (Szulanski, 1996;
Levin and Cross, 2004), ego-networks and inter-unit relationships (Hansen, 1999; Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000; Tsai, 2001; Hansen et al., 2005) and knowledge based value systems (Carrillo, 1997) – as well as on the factors determining knowledge inflows and outflows in multi national corporations (MNCs) and strategic business units (SBUs) (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000).
The context where knowledge transfer takes places is an important factor that needs further empirical development, as to what exactly is meant by context and what variables can be conceived as proxies for context when it comes to knowledge sharing. Actually, contextual parameters are important both at the organizational level, which is the focus of this paper, and at the level of the wider social context where organizations operate. In addition, few researchers have attempted to analyze, in depth, knowledge transfer effectiveness (Reagans and McEvily, 2003), that is, the extent to which knowledge transfer actually leads to positive innovation outcomes and other performance effects (Tsai, 2001; Smith et al., 2005).
An important aspect of understanding the attitudes of individuals for internal knowledge transfer is the climate in which individuals have high confidence with each other in the organization (Hinds and Pfeffer, 2003). A climate will open up with a free flow of information (Dixon, 2000;
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 220
Gibbert and Krause, 2002 in Bock at al, 2005; Hinds and Pfeffer, 2003) Dennison (1996) argues that differences in organizational culture and organizational climate, more toward its perspective, and not its substance. Both the climate and organizational culture still raise a common phenomenon, which involves the formation and influence of social context within the organization. In this study, to assess individual perceptions of the organizational context, we underlie the argument of Dennison (1996), which maps the organizational / institutional structure as an organization climate. Knowledge however is the most important intangible source. As Grant (1996) argues that competitive firms exist because they better integrate and apply specific knowledge than their competitors. Thus, Innovation through the transfer of knowledge is one of the decisive aspects of the company's performance, especially in today's increasingly fierce competition environment. A company capable of innovating will enable it to stay competitive and gain significant returns. Innovation is a driver of corporate growth, driving future success and driving the company to survive in today's global economy.
The innovation capability of a company will ensure the company's competitiveness, therefore innovation has a great impact on the company's success. The relationship between innovation and organizational performance is the higher level of corporate innovation, the higher the performance of the organization or business. The remaining of this paper is organized as follows: First, the knowledge transfer and related innovation literature is reviewed and the research hypotheses are formulated. Second, the methodology with variables, measures and validation procedures is presented. In section three the results are presented, and last implications, limitations and proposals for future research directions are discussed.
1. Concept of Organizational Climate
Motivational drivers are classified into three broad categories: (1) economic, which is explained by extrinsic reward, ie where every individual implements monetary incentives, numbers or promotions or both as extrinsic motivators in sharing knowledge. (2) social-psychologcal described by reciprocal relationship and sense of self worth. Reciprocal relationship describes the desire of the worker to maintain an ongoing relationship, between one and the other, especially by sharing knowledge. Next in the social-psychological is the sense of self worth, which describes how large individuals see themselves as value worshipers for the organization through their knowledge sharing. (3) Sociological, which is described by organizational climate.
The organizational structure, typically refers to organizational culture or organizational climate (Bock et al, 2005). There are differences of academic opinion about the differences between organizational culture and organizational climate. Dennison (1996) argues that differences in organizational culture and organizational climate, more toward its perspective, and not its substance.
Both the climate and organizational culture still raise a common phenomenon, which involves the formation and influence of social context within the organization. In this study, to assess individual perceptions of the organizational
context, we underlie the argument of Dennison (1996), which maps the organizational / institutional structure as an organization climate. There are three organizational climate factors, which are motivational impetus for individuals in performing knowledge sharing behavior that is fairness (trust climate), innovativeness (the climate of mutual tolerance of error and where information will flow freely), and the third is affiliation (characteristic climate of the norm pro-social). Several previous studies that used motivational drivers to explain knowledge sharing intentions found that economic factors that are extrinsic rewards do not have a positive impact on individual intentions in conducting knowledge sharing behavior.
Extrinsic motivation can be understood as a variable in the individual that arises because of the company's factor, which the company uses to encourage or prevent the occurrence of a certain behavior even though the actual motivation exists does not lead to that behavior. According to Deci (1999), in his research he argued that extrinsic motivation provides an adverse effect than expected.
2. Relationship between Organizational Climate and Financial Performance
The era of globalization, innovation plays a major role in penetrating new markets, maintaining existing market share and increasing the company's competitive advantage. Innovation is an important element of the company's business strategy, as innovation has become an important contributor to winning competition. Innovation has been a major focus of intensive academic and industrial research in order to address the various business problems facing companies to achieve sustainable competitive advantage in global competition (Hitt et al., 2001). The goal of innovation is not only to reduce costs, but also to improve product and service quality, design better products, longer product life cycles, and respond to customer needs and demands. In addition, innovations are made to develop new products and services, new organizational models and new marketing techniques.
Some research suggests that companies today need to be more innovative in order to compete better in their markets.
Global competition forces companies to innovate by reducing production costs and improving technological capabilities and innovating products. Given these goals, companies need to engineer their organizational and work structures, improve core competencies, develop new structures to respond to new market conditions and customer demands, and set different markets, improve collaboration with other companies, and invest in innovation. The success of business in the millennium century is determined by innovation. Innovation is defined as a process within the organization to utilize the skills and resources to develop new products and or services or to build new production and operating systems so as to respond to customer needs.
Initial research on innovation differentiates between two types of companies that pursue innovation:
companies that pursue innovation as a result of external stimuli and companies that proactively pursue innovation from their own will. One factor that affects whether
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 221
companies voluntarily pursue innovation or whether they are driven into innovation is communication between the company and its environment. Utterback (1971) states that the higher the level of communication between the company and its environment, the more likely the company will identify changes in its competitive environment and recognize the changing needs and desires of customers;
awareness of these changes can stimulate innovative behavior in the company (Miller and Friesen, 1982).
According to Miller and Friesen (1982), these companies are pursuing conservative innovation models. This model implies that innovation is not a natural process that occurs in avoiding corporate risk; problems, challenges, and threats lead to the search for solutions that lead to innovation ( Interactions with multiple external environments can also increase the likelihood of innovation in companies that follow conservative innovation models.
For example, firms that operate more than one market are more likely to be innovative than companies operating in solitary markets (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Utterback, 1971). Finally, the company's ability to scan the environment and recognize challenges, threats, and changes in customer needs contribute to the company's desire to innovate (Miller and Friesen, 1982; Utterback, 1971). The innovation literature often addresses the company's absorptive capacity as an important capability in the innovation process. Absorption capacity refers to a firm's ability to recognize the value of external knowledge, assimilation and apply it to commercial purposes (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Capacity absorption also refers to a company's ability to transfer and assimilate new knowledge gained within the company. As the company's knowledge base grows, knowledge acquisition activities, communication channels and internal distribution of knowledge throughout the company become important determinants of the company's ability to not only use knowledge, but to create new knowledge (Cohen &
Levinthal, 1990).
Knowledge, is actually located and settled within the individuals in the organization. On the contrary there will be conditioned by the other side, so it becomes hidden, until the moment where the owner of knowledge and bring up that knowledge. According to Gibbert and Krause, (2002) in Chi pai (2005), knowledge sharing can not be imposed, can only be reunited and facilitated. Knowledge- sharing behavior can not be accomplished with a surprise, but it requires a process and depends on factors that can motivate individuals to perform.Szulansky (1995) suggests motivational forces that can encourage an individual to share knowledge, divided into two parts first are individual trust structures, such as personal interests, personal gain, mutual behavior, relationships within the organization, there is an interest in the organization and organizational commitment. Motivation drivers arise because in doing knowledge sharing, individuals require cost, time and effort sacrifices (Gibbert and Krause, 2002 in Chi pai, 2005). Not only that, there is just that, there is just that, the inequality of performance appraisal between the organization and the leader and the unacceptable of unreasonable or strange ideas (Dawes, 1980; Thon and Connolly, 1987; Leonard
and Sensiper 1998, in Bock et al, 2005). Expect problem in sharing knowledge. With more attention to these personal factors, it is expected to encourage knowledge sharing. The second motivational force is the institutional structure. The institutional structure is particularly prominent in the organizational climate (Denison, 1994; Bock et al, 2005). A prominent aspect of the organizational climate that is the tendency for knowledge-sharing behavior is the climate in which individuals have high confidence in one another and also for the organization, as well as having an open climate where information can flow freely, tolerate the failure understandable and climate with pro-social norms. This research adapts to a collection of motivational racers that have been developed by Bock et al (2005) based on reasoned action theory. Bock et al developed a set of motivational drivers by interviewing the leaders of five Korean organizations, in charge of information on knowledge and information. Wake up describes the motivational drivers that affect the willingness of workers to share knowledge.
Firms with higher initial knowledge stocks may be better positioned for further breakthroughs that add to their existing inventory of knowledge than firms with lower initial knowledge inventory. (Dierickx and Cool, 1989). In addition, firms with higher existing knowledge in higher firms enjoy greater dynamic efficiency and greater flexibility to adapt to environmental changes. Barney, 1991, sees from the company's existing resources that investing in human resources is a capital to generate increased knowledge that then leads to product and process innovation and helps the company to increase its profitability continuously and increase its return (Carmeli and Tishler, 2004).
The transfer of knowledge plays an important role in the innovation process. The company's ability to innovate depends not only on the knowledge it has, but also its ability to transfer that knowledge across the company.
The transfer and interaction of existing knowledge fosters the creation of new knowledge within the company (Garud
& Nayyar, 1994). Ownership of knowledge for firms is like a useful currency for transactions, the ability to transfer knowledge captures a company's ability to extract the value of these important resources to create and sustain competitive advantage (Spender and Grant, 1996).
Knowledge transfer is defined as "the process by which a unit (eg, Individual, Group, or division) is influenced by the experience of others. The definition of knowledge transfer emphasizes the important multi-level nature of the processes that occur within a company. Knowledge transfer takes place between individuals, units within companies, companies, and industries (Zhao & Anand, 2009). Research the transfer of knowledge at the individual level within a company. The loss of individual employees to competitor companies reflects the loss of the company's human resources. Using samples from 154 companies in the semi conductor industry, the company has lost employees to a competitor company, this indicates a loss of corporate knowledge. Knowledge that connects individual and organizational levels. This author observes that the formalization of work procedures can sometimes be very
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 222
different and even contrary to actual work practices. New knowledge and learning are built on
Research on knowledge transfer and innovation primarily examines how the transfer of knowledge from one group to another within a company can provide creative new solutions to problem solving (Hargadon &
Sutton, 1997). In IDEO's research, a product designer company (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997) found that IDEO's ability to transfer knowledge among project teams within the company is an important component in their ability to innovate and create solutions unique to their clients. This solution, in the form of a new product, reflects the transfer of knowledge from an established place to a new industry, resulting in a unique combination and new knowledge (Hargaddon and Sutton, 1997). In addition, the transfer of knowledge diversity from different departments or groups within the company has accelerated the creation of knowledge and innovation (Lapre and Van Wassenhove, 2001). Knowledge transfer also occurs between groups of organizations at the industry level. A study conducted by Ingram and Simon, 2002, found that organizations belonging to an organizational group were able to outperform non-organization organizations with higher levels of profitability and experience. Knowledge shared and transferred into organizational groups, participating organizational competitiveness is strengthened while competitors outside the group weaken (Ingram and Simon, 2002). Another study of knowledge transfer at the group level demonstrates the same thing, group-level transfer is more effective than the level of absorption of individual- level transfers within the firm. Zhao and Anand, 2009, examine 161 multinational engineering units in the Chinese automotive industry, collective teaching and collective absorption capacity are more effective than individuals.
Brown and Duguid (1991) analyzed the knowledge relationships between individuals and groups. The author observes that formal working procedures can sometimes be different from actual work practices. New knowledge and learning are built socially in the informal community.
Knowledge is created and transferred through collaborative mechanisms such as cooperation and narrative. Brown and Duguid (1991) argue that the informal nature of society will be more likely to lead to innovation because of the flexibility in responding to the demands and challenges in constant daily work. This conclusion is supported by Leonard-Barton (1995) who found that the company's formal practices and abilities can lead to rigidity, hampering innovation. Knowledge that exists in social networking also has an impact on the transfer of knowledge and innovation. Social networks are often used to access new knowledge to transfer them into the company. A study of two large multinational companies where units are interconnected and have access to a central network. The centrality of the network is found to be associated with an increase in innovation in interfirm units or modifiers (Tsai, 2001). Interfirm units that occupy locations in the central network gain access to know more knowledge of the various units in the company thereby increasing their
ability to acquire useful knowledge, transfer them and apply them (Tsai, 2001). The ability to transfer knowledge on and at several levels in the company affects the company's ability to innovate (Garud and Nayyar, 1994;
Kogut and Zander, 1992).
1. Proposed model
In this part, the researchers have proposed a model linking or organization Climate, internal knowledge transfer, innovation , and financial performance (see Figure 1).
Conclusion
Organization can survive and improve themselves with their previous organization climate and need to knowledge transfer in order to strive hard to overcome the chaotic and changing conditions. There is a lack of researches dealing with interrelation of internal knowledge transfer and innovation in organizations. There has been made a preliminary overview of the aspects, which could be related to knowledge management activities and the process of innovation creation. The most important aspects of internal knowledge transfer and innovation interrelation mentioned in the scientific researches are: the process of creating ideas, fundamental methods of learning, knowledge and knowledge management processes in creation of innovations. Internal knowledge transfer and innovations are influences by organizational climate. There has been made a preliminary overview of the main internal factors that have the greatest influence on knowledge transfer and innovation in the organization: organizational climate; Fairness, Affiliation and Innovativeness. In addition, our model also points to the need for empirical study to investigate how antecedents and moderators of internal knowledge transfer and innovation as it relates to organizational climate and eventually financial performance.
REFERENCES
[1] Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations, Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 10: 123-167.
[2] Baker, N. R. & Freeland, J. R. 1972. Structuring information flow to enhance innovation. Management Science, 19(1): 105 - 116.
[3] Bantel, K. A. dan Jackson, S. E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking - does the Organizati
on Climate :
Fairness Affiliation
Knowledge Transfer Effectiveness Inttention to knowledge
Inn ova tion
Fina ncial Perf orm
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 223
composition of the top team make a difference.
Strategic Management Journal, 10: 107- 124.
[4] Barney, J. 1986. Strategic factor markets:
Expectations, luck, and business strategy.
Management Science, 21: 1231-1241.
[5] Barney,J.B.1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1): 99–120.
[6] Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., dan Nobel, R. 1999.
Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions.
Journal of International Business Studies, 29: 439- 456.
[7] Brewer, G. D. 1980. On the theory and practice of innovation. Technology in Society, 3(3): 68-84.
[8] Brown, J. S. dan Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2: 40-57.
[9] Brown, S. dan Eisenhardt, K. M. 1998. Competing on the edge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
[10] Cardinal, L. B. 2001. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development.
Organization Science, 12(1): 19-36. 113
[11] Carmeli, A., and A. Tishler. 2004. The relationships between intangible organizational elements and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal 25 (13): 1257–1278.
[12] Cording, M., Christmann, P., dan King, D. R. 2008.
Reducing causal ambiguity in acquisition integration:
Intermediate goals as mediators of integration decisions and acquisition performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 744-767.
[13] D'Aveni, R. A. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York:
Free Press.
[14] D'Aveni, R. A., Dagnino, G. B., dan Smith, K. G.
2010. The age of temporary advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 1371-1385.
[15] David, P., J. P. O‟Brien, and T. Yoshikawa. 2008.
The implications of debt heterogeneity for RdanD investment and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal 51 (1): 165–181.
[16] Damanpour, F. dan Evan, W. M. 1984.
Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of ''organizational lag''. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3): 392.
[17] Damanpour, F dan Deepa Aravind, 2011 Managerial Innovation: Conceptions, Processes, and Antecedents The International Association for Chinese Management Research
[18] Dewar, R. D. dan Dutton, J. E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11): 1422.
[19] Dickson, J. W. 1976. The adoption of innovative proposals as risky choice: A model and some results.
Academy of Management Journal, 19(2): 291-303.
[20] Dierickx, I. dan Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12): 1504-1511.
[21] Frink, D. D., Hall, A. T., Perryman, A. A., Ranft, A.
L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., dan Royle, M.
T. 2008. A meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management, Vol. 27:
177-245. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
[22] Garud, R. dan Nayyar, P. R. 1994. Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5): 365. 116
[23] Govindarajan, V. dan Gupta, A. K. 1985. Linking control-systems to business unit strategy -impact on performance. Accounting Organizations and Society, 10(1): 51-66.
[24] Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 109-122.
[25] Gupta, A. 1987. SBU strategies, corporate-SBU relations and SBU effectiveness in strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 30: 477-500.
[26] Hargadon, A. dan Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4): 716- 749.
[27] Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., dan Florey, A. T. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep- level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5): 1029.
[28] Henderson, R. M. dan Clark, K. B. 1990.
Architectural innovation - the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 9-30.
[29] Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., dan Moesel, D. D. 1996. The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1084.
[30] Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., dan Kochhar, R. 2001. Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resourcebased perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 13-28.
[31] Hoskisson, R. E, Johnson, R. A., dan Moesel, D. D., 1994, Corporate Divestiture intensity in restructuring firms : effects of governance strategy and performance,Academy of Management foumal, Vol.
37, No. 5, 1207-1251.
[32] Hoskisson, R. E. dan Hitt, M. A. 1988. Strategic control systems and relative RdanD investment in large multiproduct firms. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6): 605-621.
[33] Hull, C. E., and S. Rothenberg. 2008. Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 224
differentiation. Strategic Management Journal 29:
781–789.
[34] Ingram, P. dan Simons, T. 2002. The transfer of experience in groups of organizations: Implications for performance and competition. Management Science, 48(12): 1517-
[35] Kogut, B. dan Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Studies, 3: 383-397.
[36] Kogut, B. dan Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Studies, 3: 383-397.
[37] Miller, D. dan Friesen, P. H. 1982. Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal (pre-1986), 3(1): 1.
[38] Mintzberg, H. 1983 . Why America needs, but cannot have, corporate democracy. Organizational Dynamics, 11(4): 5-20.
[39] Mizik, N., and R. Jacobson. 2003. Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis.
Journal of Marketing 67: 63–76.
[40] Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,5(1): 14- 37.
[41] Nonaka, I. dan Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge- creating company. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
[42] O‟Dell, C. and C. L. Grayson. “If Only We Know What We Know: The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice”, New York: Free, 1998.
[43] Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129-141.
[44] Quinn, D. P. dan Rivoli, P. 1991. The effects of American- and Japanese-style employment and compensation practices on innovation. Organization Science, 2(4): 323-341.
[45] Russo, M. V., and P. A. Fouts. 1997. A resource- based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal 40: 534–559.
[46] Shalley, Christina E., 1995, Effect of coation expected evaluation and goal setting on creativity and productivity,Academy 0f Management Journal. Vol.
38, No. 2, 483-503.
[47] Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2009. Can RdanD expenditure avoid corporate bankruptcy? Comparison between Japanese machinery and electric equipment industries using DEA discriminant analysis.
EuropeanJournal of Operational Research 196 (1):
289–311.
[48] Snell, S. A. 1992. Control-theory in strategic human- resource management - the mediating effect of administrative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2): 292-327.
[49] Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness:
Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm): 27-43.
[50] Terziovski, M. 2002. Achieving performance excellence through an integrated strategy of radical innovation and continuous improvement. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(2), 5-14.
[51] Tsai, W. P. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 996-1004.
[52] Tushman, M. L., Newman, W. H., dan Romanelli, E.
1986. Convergence and upheaval: Managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review, 29(1).
[53] Tushman, M. L. dan O'Reilly III, C. 1996. The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4).
[54] Van de Ven, A. H. dan Ferry, D. L. 1980. Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
[55] Walker, Richard M , Fariborz Damanpour_, Carlos A. Devece, 2010, Management Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
[56] Winter, S. G. dan Szulanski, G. 2001. Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6): 730-743.
[57] Zhang, J, Charles Baden-Fuller, Vincent Mangematin, 2007,. Technological Knowledge Base, R&D Organization Structure and Alliance Formation:
Evidence from the Biopharmaceutical Industry.
Research Policy, 36 (4), pp.515-528.
