Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

YENİLİKÇİ KÜLTÜR VE KURUMSAL ÖĞRENMENİN TEKNOLOJİK YENİLİK VE FİRMA PERFORMANSI ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ

Year 2022, Issue: 62, 1 - 24, 30.08.2022

Salih Zeki İmamoğlu , Serhat Erat , Eda Dilara Ayber

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.996566

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı yenilikçi kültür ve kurumsal öğrenmenin firma performansı üzerine etkisini ve bu etkide teknolojik yeniliğin aracılık rolünü araştırmaktır. Veri toplama aracı olarak anket yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Yenilikçi kültür ölçeği için Ogbonna ve Harris (2000)’in çalışmasından yararlanılmıştır ve ölçek 4 ifadeden oluşmaktadır. Kurumsal öğrenme ölçeği Jiménez-Jiménez ve Sanz-Valle (2011)’in çalışmasından uyarlanmıştır ve 13 ifadeden oluşmaktadır. Teknolojik yenilik ölçeği Lee ve diğerlerinin (2014) çalışmasından uyarlanmıştır ve 9 ifadeden oluşmaktadır. Firma performansı ölçeği ise Wang ve diğerlerinin (2014) çalışmasından uyarlanmıştır ve 11 ifadeden oluşmaktadır. Araştırma verileri, Gebze’de bulunan Organize Sanayi Bölgelerindeki imalat sanayinde faaliyet gösteren 119 firmadan toplanmıştır. Toplanan veriler AMOS paket programıyla analize tabi tutulmuştur. Analizler sonucunda yenilikçi kültür ve kurumsal öğrenmenin firma performansı üzerinde pozitif yönde anlamlı bir etkisinin olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca teknolojik yeniliğin, kurumsal öğrenme ve firma performansı arasındaki ilişkide tam ara değişken etkisi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmış, fakat teknolojik yeniliğin, yenilikçi kültür ve firma performansı arasındaki ilişkide ara değişken etkisi bulunamamıştır. Bu bulgular firma performansını artırmada firma yöneticilerinin teknolojik yeniliklere önem vermelerini, kurumlarında yenilikçi bir kültür oluşturmalarını ve kurumsal öğrenmenin geliştirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

Yenilikçi Kültür Kurumsal Öğrenme Teknolojik Yenilik Firma Performansı

References

  • Ahmed, M., & Shafiq, S. (2014). The impact of organizational culture on organizational performance: A case study on telecom sector. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 14(3), 21-30.
  • Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123-1137.
  • Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., & Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, 28(10), 644-657.
  • Azar, G., & Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness. International Business Review, 26(2), 324-336.
  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
  • Belinski, R., Peixe, A. M., Frederico, G. F., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2020). Organizational learning and industry 4.0: Findings from a systematic literature review and research agenda. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(8), 2435–2457.
  • Bilan, Y., Hussain, H. I., Haseeb, M., & Kot, S. (2020). Sustainability and economic performance: Role of organizational learning and innovation. Engineering Economics, 31(1), 93-103.
  • Brandi, U., & Elkjaer, B. (2011). Organizational learning viewed from a social learning perspective. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 2, 23-41.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with AMOS Basic concepts, applications, and programming (Multivariate Applications Series), Routledge, New York.
  • Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R. M. (2003). The role of existing knowledge in new product innovativeness and performance. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 385-419.
  • Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational culture and innovation: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(4), 763-781.
  • Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524.
  • Chandy, R. K., Prabhu, J. C., & Antia, K. D. (2003). What will the future bring? Dominance, technology expectations, and radical innovation. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 1-18.
  • Chen, Q., Wang, C. H., & Huang, S. Z. (2020). Effects of organizational innovation and technological innovation capabilities on firm performance: evidence from firms in China’s Pearl River Delta. Asia Pacific Business Review, 26(1), 72-96.
  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
  • Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G. (1963) A behavioural theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423-454.
  • Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag". Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 392-409.
  • Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. A., & Evan, W. M. (1989). The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6), 587-602.
  • Day, G. S. (2014). An outside-in approach to resource-based theories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 27-28.
  • De Brentani, U., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: impact on performance of international new product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), 309-333.
  • Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster Jr, F. E. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23-37.
  • Deshpande, R., & Webster Jr, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 3-15.
  • Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 95-102.
  • Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2011). The evolving field of organizational learning and knowledge management. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 2, 1-20.
  • Ebadi, Y. M., & Utterback, J. M. (1984). The effects of communication on technological innovation. Management Science, 30(5), 572-585.
  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
  • Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  • García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040-1050.
  • Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An international publication of the product development & management association, 19(2), 110-132.
  • Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations: The notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3), 273-297.
  • Gochhayat, J., Giri, V. N., & Suar, D. (2017). Influence of organizational culture on organizational effectiveness: The mediating role of organizational communication. Global Business Review, 18(3), 691-702.
  • Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). Unraveling the links between dimensions of innovation and organizational performance. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11(1), 137-153.
  • Guan, J. (2002). Comparison study of industrial innovation between China and some European countries. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 43(3/4), 30-46.
  • Hailekiros, G. S., & Renyong, H. (2015). The mediating effect of technological innovation capability on the relationship between organization learning capability and firm performance. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Innovation. Wuhan, Wuhan Univ Technology Press (pp. 79-83).
  • Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (1994). A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance. Journal of Management, 20(2), 297-326.
  • Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
  • Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2006). A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels: Part I. Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (1), 10–17.
  • Irwin, J. G., Hoffman, J. J., & Lamont, B. T. (1998). The effect of the acquisition of technological innovations on organizational performance: A resource-based view. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1), 25-54.
  • Jamrog, J., Vickers, M., & Bear, D. (2006). Building and sustaining a culture that supports innovation. People and Strategy, 29(3), 9.
  • Jaskyte, K., & Dressler, W. W. (2005). Organizational culture and innovation in nonprofit human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 29(2), 23-41.
  • Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408-417.
  • Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 689-713.
  • Koellinger, P. (2008). The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance—Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe. Research Policy, 37(8), 1317-1328.
  • Kocoglu, I., Imamoglu, S. Z., & İnce, H. (2011). The relationship between organizational learning and firm performance: The mediating roles of innovation and TQM. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 9(3), 72-88.
  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.
  • Leeuw, F. L., & Sonnichsen, R. C. (2020). Introduction evaluation and organizational learning: International perspectives. In F.L. Leeuw, R.C. Rist, and R.C. Sonnichsen (Eds. ), Can governments learn? Comparative perspectives on evaluation and organizational learning (pp. 1-13). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers Routledge.
  • Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.
  • Lee, V. H., Ooi, K. B., Chong, A. Y. L., & Seow, C. (2014). Creating technological innovation via green supply chain management: An empirical analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 6983-6994.
  • Lin, W. L., Yip, N., Ho, J. A., & Sambasivan, M. (2020). The adoption of technological innovations in a B2B context and its impact on firm performance: An ethical leadership perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 61-71.
  • Mansfield, E. (1985). How rapidly does new industrial technology leak out? The Journal of Industrial Economics, 34, 217-223.
  • Mansfield, E., & Wagner, S. (1975). Organizational and strategic factors associated with probabilities of success in industrial R & D. The Journal of Business, 48(2), 179-198.
  • McDermott, C. M., & O'connor, G. C. (2002). Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of The Product Development & Management Association, 19(6), 424-438.
  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603-609.
  • Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1269-1280.
  • Morris, M. H., and D. L. Sexton. 1996. The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: Implications for company performance. Journal of Business Research 36 (1): 5–13.
  • Newbold, P. (2013). Statistics for business and economics. Pearson.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. In B. B. Wolman (ed.) Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders (pp. 97-146). New York: Plenum.
  • O'Connor, G. C., & Veryzer, R. W. (2001). The nature of market visioning for technology‐based radical innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management Association, 18(4), 231-246.
  • Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766-788.
  • Park, J., Lee, K. H., & Kim, P. S. (2016). Participative management and perceived organizational performance: The moderating effects of innovative organizational culture. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 316-336.
  • Patky, J. (2020). The influence of organizational learning on performance and innovation: A literature review, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.229–242.
  • Pennings, J. M., & Buitendam, A. (1987). New technology and organizational innovation: The development and diffusion of micro-electronics, Cambrige, MA.: Bellinger.
  • Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570-581.
  • Quinn, J. B. (1979). Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy. Sloan Management Review (pre-1986), 20(3), 19.
  • Raz, A. E., & Fadlon, J. (2006). Managerial culture, workplace culture and situated curricula in organizational learning. Organization Studies, 27(2), 165-182.
  • Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press.
  • Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
  • Škerlavaj, M., Song, J. H., & Lee, Y. (2010). Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6390-6403.
  • Soomro, B. A., Mangi, S., & Shah, N. (2021). Strategic factors and significance of organizational innovation and organizational learning in organizational performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2): 481-506.
  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.
  • Thornhill, S. (2006). Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high-and low-technology regimes. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 687-703.
  • Tseng, C. Y., Kuo, H. Y., & Chou, S. S. (2008). Configuration of innovation and performance in the service industry: Evidence from the Taiwanese hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal, 28(7), 1015-1028.
  • Tomasova, D. (2020). Analysis and assessment of innovative culture development. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 12(6), 665-677.
  • Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74-92.
  • Wang, Z., Wang, N., & Liang, H. (2014). Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance. Management Decision, 52(2), 230-258.
  • Weerawardena, J., Mort, G. S., Salunke, S., Knight, G., & Liesch, P. W. (2015). The role of the market sub-system and the socio-technical sub-system in innovation and firm performance: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 221-239.
  • Wei, Y., O'Neill, H., Lee, R. P., & Zhou, N. (2013). The impact of innovative culture on individual employees: The moderating role of market information sharing. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 1027-1041.
  • Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., Yang, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Developing strategic orientation in China: Antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations. Journal of Business Research, 58(8), 1049-1058.
  • Zuo, L., Fisher, G. J., & Yang, Z. (2019). Organizational learning and technological innovation: The distinct dimensions of novelty and meaningfulness that impact firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(6), 1166-1183.

THE EFFECT OF INNOVATIVE CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING ON TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE

Year 2022, Issue: 62, 1 - 24, 30.08.2022

Salih Zeki İmamoğlu , Serhat Erat , Eda Dilara Ayber

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.996566

Abstract

The aim of this research is to investigate the effect of innovative culture and organizational learning on firm performance and the mediating role of technological innovation in these relationships. The questionnaire method was used as a data collection tool. For the innovative culture scale, the study of Ogbonna and Harris (2000) was used and the scale consists of 4 items. The organizational learning scale was adapted from the study of Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle (2011) and consists of 13 items. Technological innovation scale was adapted from the study of Lee et al. (2014) and consists of 9 items. Firm performance scale was adapted from the study of Wang et al. (2014) and consists of 11 items. The research data were collected from 119 firms operating in the manufacturing industry in the Organized Industrial Zones in Gebze. The collected data were analyzed using AMOS. As a result of the analysis, it was found that innovative culture and organizational learning have a positive and significant effect on firm performance. In addition, it was found that technological innovation has a mediator effect on the relationship between organizational learning and firm performance, but no mediating effect of technological innovation was found on the relationship between innovative culture and firm performance. These findings reveal that firm managers should attach importance to technological innovations, create an innovative culture in their firms and improve organizational learning to increase firm performance.

Keywords

Innovative Culture Organizational Learning Technological Innovation Firm Performance

References

  • Ahmed, M., & Shafiq, S. (2014). The impact of organizational culture on organizational performance: A case study on telecom sector. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 14(3), 21-30.
  • Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123-1137.
  • Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., & Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, 28(10), 644-657.
  • Azar, G., & Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness. International Business Review, 26(2), 324-336.
  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
  • Belinski, R., Peixe, A. M., Frederico, G. F., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2020). Organizational learning and industry 4.0: Findings from a systematic literature review and research agenda. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(8), 2435–2457.
  • Bilan, Y., Hussain, H. I., Haseeb, M., & Kot, S. (2020). Sustainability and economic performance: Role of organizational learning and innovation. Engineering Economics, 31(1), 93-103.
  • Brandi, U., & Elkjaer, B. (2011). Organizational learning viewed from a social learning perspective. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 2, 23-41.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with AMOS Basic concepts, applications, and programming (Multivariate Applications Series), Routledge, New York.
  • Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R. M. (2003). The role of existing knowledge in new product innovativeness and performance. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 385-419.
  • Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational culture and innovation: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(4), 763-781.
  • Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524.
  • Chandy, R. K., Prabhu, J. C., & Antia, K. D. (2003). What will the future bring? Dominance, technology expectations, and radical innovation. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 1-18.
  • Chen, Q., Wang, C. H., & Huang, S. Z. (2020). Effects of organizational innovation and technological innovation capabilities on firm performance: evidence from firms in China’s Pearl River Delta. Asia Pacific Business Review, 26(1), 72-96.
  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
  • Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G. (1963) A behavioural theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423-454.
  • Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag". Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 392-409.
  • Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. A., & Evan, W. M. (1989). The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6), 587-602.
  • Day, G. S. (2014). An outside-in approach to resource-based theories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 27-28.
  • De Brentani, U., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: impact on performance of international new product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), 309-333.
  • Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster Jr, F. E. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23-37.
  • Deshpande, R., & Webster Jr, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 3-15.
  • Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 95-102.
  • Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2011). The evolving field of organizational learning and knowledge management. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 2, 1-20.
  • Ebadi, Y. M., & Utterback, J. M. (1984). The effects of communication on technological innovation. Management Science, 30(5), 572-585.
  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
  • Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  • García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040-1050.
  • Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An international publication of the product development & management association, 19(2), 110-132.
  • Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations: The notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3), 273-297.
  • Gochhayat, J., Giri, V. N., & Suar, D. (2017). Influence of organizational culture on organizational effectiveness: The mediating role of organizational communication. Global Business Review, 18(3), 691-702.
  • Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). Unraveling the links between dimensions of innovation and organizational performance. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11(1), 137-153.
  • Guan, J. (2002). Comparison study of industrial innovation between China and some European countries. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 43(3/4), 30-46.
  • Hailekiros, G. S., & Renyong, H. (2015). The mediating effect of technological innovation capability on the relationship between organization learning capability and firm performance. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Innovation. Wuhan, Wuhan Univ Technology Press (pp. 79-83).
  • Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (1994). A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance. Journal of Management, 20(2), 297-326.
  • Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
  • Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2006). A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels: Part I. Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (1), 10–17.
  • Irwin, J. G., Hoffman, J. J., & Lamont, B. T. (1998). The effect of the acquisition of technological innovations on organizational performance: A resource-based view. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1), 25-54.
  • Jamrog, J., Vickers, M., & Bear, D. (2006). Building and sustaining a culture that supports innovation. People and Strategy, 29(3), 9.
  • Jaskyte, K., & Dressler, W. W. (2005). Organizational culture and innovation in nonprofit human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 29(2), 23-41.
  • Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408-417.
  • Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 689-713.
  • Koellinger, P. (2008). The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance—Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe. Research Policy, 37(8), 1317-1328.
  • Kocoglu, I., Imamoglu, S. Z., & İnce, H. (2011). The relationship between organizational learning and firm performance: The mediating roles of innovation and TQM. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 9(3), 72-88.
  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.
  • Leeuw, F. L., & Sonnichsen, R. C. (2020). Introduction evaluation and organizational learning: International perspectives. In F.L. Leeuw, R.C. Rist, and R.C. Sonnichsen (Eds. ), Can governments learn? Comparative perspectives on evaluation and organizational learning (pp. 1-13). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers Routledge.
  • Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.
  • Lee, V. H., Ooi, K. B., Chong, A. Y. L., & Seow, C. (2014). Creating technological innovation via green supply chain management: An empirical analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 6983-6994.
  • Lin, W. L., Yip, N., Ho, J. A., & Sambasivan, M. (2020). The adoption of technological innovations in a B2B context and its impact on firm performance: An ethical leadership perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 61-71.
  • Mansfield, E. (1985). How rapidly does new industrial technology leak out? The Journal of Industrial Economics, 34, 217-223.
  • Mansfield, E., & Wagner, S. (1975). Organizational and strategic factors associated with probabilities of success in industrial R & D. The Journal of Business, 48(2), 179-198.
  • McDermott, C. M., & O'connor, G. C. (2002). Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of The Product Development & Management Association, 19(6), 424-438.
  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603-609.
  • Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1269-1280.
  • Morris, M. H., and D. L. Sexton. 1996. The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: Implications for company performance. Journal of Business Research 36 (1): 5–13.
  • Newbold, P. (2013). Statistics for business and economics. Pearson.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. In B. B. Wolman (ed.) Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders (pp. 97-146). New York: Plenum.
  • O'Connor, G. C., & Veryzer, R. W. (2001). The nature of market visioning for technology‐based radical innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management Association, 18(4), 231-246.
  • Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766-788.
  • Park, J., Lee, K. H., & Kim, P. S. (2016). Participative management and perceived organizational performance: The moderating effects of innovative organizational culture. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 316-336.
  • Patky, J. (2020). The influence of organizational learning on performance and innovation: A literature review, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.229–242.
  • Pennings, J. M., & Buitendam, A. (1987). New technology and organizational innovation: The development and diffusion of micro-electronics, Cambrige, MA.: Bellinger.
  • Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570-581.
  • Quinn, J. B. (1979). Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy. Sloan Management Review (pre-1986), 20(3), 19.
  • Raz, A. E., & Fadlon, J. (2006). Managerial culture, workplace culture and situated curricula in organizational learning. Organization Studies, 27(2), 165-182.
  • Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press.
  • Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
  • Škerlavaj, M., Song, J. H., & Lee, Y. (2010). Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6390-6403.
  • Soomro, B. A., Mangi, S., & Shah, N. (2021). Strategic factors and significance of organizational innovation and organizational learning in organizational performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2): 481-506.
  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.
  • Thornhill, S. (2006). Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high-and low-technology regimes. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 687-703.
  • Tseng, C. Y., Kuo, H. Y., & Chou, S. S. (2008). Configuration of innovation and performance in the service industry: Evidence from the Taiwanese hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal, 28(7), 1015-1028.
  • Tomasova, D. (2020). Analysis and assessment of innovative culture development. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 12(6), 665-677.
  • Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74-92.
  • Wang, Z., Wang, N., & Liang, H. (2014). Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance. Management Decision, 52(2), 230-258.
  • Weerawardena, J., Mort, G. S., Salunke, S., Knight, G., & Liesch, P. W. (2015). The role of the market sub-system and the socio-technical sub-system in innovation and firm performance: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 221-239.
  • Wei, Y., O'Neill, H., Lee, R. P., & Zhou, N. (2013). The impact of innovative culture on individual employees: The moderating role of market information sharing. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 1027-1041.
  • Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., Yang, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Developing strategic orientation in China: Antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations. Journal of Business Research, 58(8), 1049-1058.
  • Zuo, L., Fisher, G. J., & Yang, Z. (2019). Organizational learning and technological innovation: The distinct dimensions of novelty and meaningfulness that impact firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(6), 1166-1183.
There are 82 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Salih Zeki İmamoğlu 0000-0002-7160-2370

Serhat Erat 0000-0003-0227-8914

Eda Dilara Ayber

Early Pub Date August 28, 2022
Publication Date August 30, 2022
Acceptance Date March 16, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Issue: 62

Cite

APA İmamoğlu, S. Z., Erat, S., & Ayber, E. D. (2022). YENİLİKÇİ KÜLTÜR VE KURUMSAL ÖĞRENMENİN TEKNOLOJİK YENİLİK VE FİRMA PERFORMANSI ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(62), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.996566
 Download Cover Image

Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines

The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.

No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.

Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.

Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.

Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.