Stratejik Yenilik Niyeti-İcra Uyumu: Yenilikçi Firmaları Anlamaya Yönelik Konfigürasyonel Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Öz Yenilikçilik, günümüz işletmelerinin sürdürülebilir rekabet avantajı elde etmesinde temel stratejik araçlardan biri olarak kabul edilmektedir. Buna rağmen yenilikçi firmaların nasıl tanımlanacağı ve değerlendirileceği konusunda literatürde tam bir görüş birliği bulunmamaktadır. Mevcut çalışmaların önemli bir bölümü yenilikçiliği çok boyutlu ölçekler ve toplamsal modeller aracılığıyla açıklamakta ve yenilikle ilişkili boyutların düzeyi arttıkça yenilik performansının da artacağını varsaymaktadır. Bu çalışma, söz konusu varsayımın her zaman geçerli olmadığını ileri sürmektedir. Yakın dönemdeki ampirik bulgular, yüksek Ar-Ge harcaması ile yüksek yenilikçilik arasında beklenen pozitif ilişkinin bulunmadığını ve patent sahibi firmaların kısa vadede finansal performanslarının düşük ancak istihdam ve ihracat performanslarının yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, yenilik performansının yalnızca yenilikle ilişkili unsurların miktarıyla değil, bu unsurlar arasındaki uyumla açıklanabileceğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada yenilikçi firmaları açıklamak amacıyla Stratejik Yenilik Niyeti-İcra Uyumu Modeli adı verilen konfigürasyonel bir yaklaşım önerilmektedir. Model iki temel kavram üzerine kurulmaktadır: Stratejik Yenilik Niyeti ve Yenilik İcrası. Çalışmanın temel iddiası, yenilik performansının bu iki boyutun bağımsız etkilerinden çok aralarındaki uyum tarafından belirlendiğidir. Bu doğrultuda dört firma tipolojisi önerilmektedir: Atıl Firmalar, Uyumlayıcı Uygulayıcılar, Sembolik Yenilikçiler ve Çevik Yenilik Liderleri. Çalışma, yenilikçilik literatüründe doğrusal yaklaşımlardan konfigürasyonel yaklaşımlara geçişe katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Yenilikçilik, Stratejik Yenilik Niyeti, Yenilik İcrası, Konfigürasyon Teorisi, Firma Tipolojileri

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yenilikçilik
• Stratejik Yenilik Niyeti
• Yenilik İcrası
• Konfigürasyon Teorisi
• Firma Tipolojileri

Strategic Innovation Intent-Execution Alignment: A Configurational Approach to Understanding Innovative Firms

Öz

Abstract Innovativeness is considered one of the fundamental strategic tools for firms to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. However, there is no consensus in the literature on how to define and evaluate innovative firms. Most existing studies explain innovativeness through multidimensional scales and additive models, assuming that higher levels of innovation-related dimensions lead to higher innovation performance. This study argues that this assumption is not always valid. Recent empirical findings show that there is no expected positive relationship between high R&D spending and high innovativeness, and that patent-holding firms exhibit lower financial performance but higher employment and export performance in the short term. These findings suggest that innovation performance can be explained not only by the quantity of innovation-related factors but also by the alignment between these factors. This study proposes a configurational approach called the Strategic Innovation Intent-Execution Alignment Model to explain innovative firms. The model is built on two core concepts: Strategic Innovation Intent and Innovation Execution. The main argument is that innovation performance is determined by the alignment between these two dimensions rather than their independent effects. Accordingly, four firm typologies are proposed: Inert Firms, Adaptive Implementers, Symbolic Innovators, and Agile Innovation Leaders. The study aims to contribute to the transition from linear to configurational approaches in the innovativeness literature. Keywords: Innovativeness, Strategic Innovation Intent, Innovation Execution, Configuration Theory, Firm Typologies

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Innovation
• Strategic Innovation Intent
• Innovation Execution
• Configuration Theory
• Firm Typologies

Kaynakça

1. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254-285. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161572
2. Adner, R. & Kapoor, R. (2016). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 625-648. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2363
3. Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Novelli, E. (2013). The second face of appropriability: Generative appropriability and its determinants. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 248-269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0290
4. Albertsen, R. R. (2025). The legitimacy–commitment paradox in corporate sustainability strategy formulation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(3), 2863–2881. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4131
5. Al-Qudah, A. S. & Al-Hawajreh, K. M. (2025). The role of strategic consensus in achieving innovation performance: The mediating role of organizational capabilities in the Social Security Corporation of Jordan. EDPACS. https://doi.org/10.1080/07366981.2025.2602719
6. Al-Shami, S. A. H., Alsuwaidi, A. K. M. & Akmal, S. (2022). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on innovation performance in the airport industry through learning orientation and strategic alignment. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2095887
7. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825-845. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34421969
8. Boston Consulting Group. (2024). Innovation systems need a reboot: From ambition to impact. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/innovation-systems-need-reboot

9. Chen, J. X., Zhang, B., Zhan, W., Sharma, P., Budhwar, P., & Tan, H. (2022). Demystifying the non-linear effect of high commitment work systems (HCWS) on firms' strategic intention of exploratory innovation: An extended resource-based view. Technovation, 116, 102499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102499
10. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
11. Chesbrough, H. (2011). The case for open services innovation: The commodity trap. California Management Review, 53(3), 5-20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.3.5
12. Cooper, R. G. (2019). The drivers of success in new-product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 36-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.005
13. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154-1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x
14. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590. https://doi.org/10.5465/256406
15. Demir, A. Z., & Alpaslan, F. (2016). Ar-Ge ve yeniliğin finansal performans ve istihdam üzerine etkileri. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(47), 775-785. https://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/articles/the-effects-of-rd-and-innovation-on-the-financial-performance-andemployment.pdf.
16. Demir, A. Z., & Soydoğan, D. (2017). Patent yenilik ilişkisi ve patent'in firma performansı üzerine etkileri. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(49), 589-596. https://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/articles/patent-innovation-relationship-and-patents-effects-on-company-performance.pdf.
17. Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 370-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006
18. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
19. Ennen, E., & Richter, A. (2010). The whole is more than the sum of its parts—or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 207-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350083
20. Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press.
21. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
22. Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2016). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1), 200-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316675927
23. Furnari, S., Crilly, D., Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2021). Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 778-799. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0298
24. Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1920110
25. Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365-1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00137-3
26. Haldma, T., Näsi, S., Grossi, G., Saunila, M., & Ukko, J. (2012). A conceptual framework for the measurement of innovation capability and its effects. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(4), 355-375. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465261211272139
27. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628
28. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2014). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831-850. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2247
29. Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.382.0472
30. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
31. Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015
32. Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200303
33. Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729-752. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0340
34. Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., Russell, C. J., Shook, C., Dean, M. A., Runge, J., ... & Thomas, J. B. (1997). Organizational configurations and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 223-240. https://doi.org/10.2307/257028
35. Klingebiel, R., & Rammer, C. (2013). Resource allocation strategy for innovation portfolio management. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 246-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2107
36. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard University Press.
37. Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377-400. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919601000427
38. Luftman, J. (2000). Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00414
39. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
40. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
41. Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175-1195. (online yayın tarihi: 2017). https://doi.org/10.5465/256809
42. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. McGraw-Hill.
43. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2-3), 179-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(94)00382-F
44. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
45. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250060306
46. Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. V. (2017). Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1), 255-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316679252
47. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(80)90039-X
48. Noble, C. H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00231-2
49. Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245-1264. https://doi.org/10.5465/256998
50. O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74-81.
51. Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salancik, Gerald R., The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (1978). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496213
52. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press.
53. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001
54. Rizan, M., Balfas, F., & Purwohedi, U. (2019). The influence of strategic orientation, organizational innovation capabilities and strategic planning on the performance of technology-based firms. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 1-8.
55. Saebi, T., & Foss, N. J. (2015). Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. European Management Journal, 33(3), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.11.002
56. Saunila, M. (2014). Innovation capability for SME success: Perspectives of financial and operational performance. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 11(2), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-11-2013-0063
57. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press.
58. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
59. Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0116
60. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
61. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
62. Torres, P., & Augusto, M. (2020). Understanding complementarities among different forms of innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(5), 813-834. DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-01-2019-0012
63. Tortoriello, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2015). Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 438-458. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037420
64. Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1147-1161. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1147::AID-SMJ128>3.0.CO;2-R
65. West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814-831. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125
66. Yin, C., Wang, A., & Ma, J. (2025). Substance over symbol: The disciplinary influence of Industry–University–Research Cooperation in digital transformation. Finance Research Letters, 85, 108040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.108040