Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations

Öz

As a critical resource of human capital, employees might be the leading supporters of innovation management considering the integrated intellectual capital. In addition to the formal organizational structure, employees in an organization usually group informally within the institution. They conflict by taking an opposing role to other informal groups. When a manager/leader comes from outside or "someone from within the organization" takes a new position, conflicting groups quickly take a stand against the newcomer and even come together spontaneously with other groups. Hence, opposition groups’ unity against this newcomer within the organization has been defined as an "Antagonist Coalition in Organizations". The antagonist action structure that is the subject of this article plays a role in innovation management and negatively affects the process. This research examines the chaotic effect of antagonist coalitions on innovation. The semi-structured observation questionnaire was used as a data collection tool in the research. The tables containing the frequency values were used to analyze the survey data. The answers to the open-ended question were analyzed by qualitative data analysis. As a result of the research, most of the participants expressed a positive opinion on an antagonist coalition in organizations and that this would drive innovation into chaos. Study findings indicate a significant relationship between the antagonist coalition in organizations and the chaos of innovation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Antagonist
• Antagonist Coalition
• Chaos
• Innovation
• Intellectual Capital

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, N. Potocnik, K. & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A state-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333. https://doi.org.10.1177/0149206314527128 google scholar
2. Antunes, H. D. J. G. & Pinheiro, P. G. (2020). Linking Knowledge Management, Organizational Learning and Memory. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.04.002 google scholar
3. Aragon-Sânchez, A., & Sânchez-Marin, G. (2005). Strategic Orientation, Management Characteristics, and Performance: A Study of Spanish SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(3), 287-308. google scholar
4. Baxter, P. (2003). The Development of Nurse Decision Making: A Case Study of a Four Year Baccalaureate Nursing Programme. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON. http://hdl.handle.net/11375/6027 google scholar
5. Bonacich, E. (1972). A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market. American Sociological Review 37(October), 547-59 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2093450 google scholar
6. Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. (2008). Interactive and Cumulative Effects of Multiple Human Stressors in Marine Systems. Ecology Letters, 11(12), 1304-1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01253.x google scholar
7. Cormican, K., & O’Sullivan, D. (2003). A Collaborative Knowledge Management tool for Product Innovation Management. International Journal of Technology Management, 26(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003144 google scholar
8. Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1985), The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource. google scholar

9. Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. (2008). Interactive and Cumulative Effects of Multiple Human Stressors in Marine Systems. Ecology Letters, 11(12), 1304-1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01253.x google scholar
10. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34 . https://doi.org/10.5465/256406. google scholar
11. Damanpour, F. (2017). Organizational Innovation. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. google scholar
12. Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of Semi-Structured Interviews. Nurse researcher, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.19.c5997 google scholar
13. Dickel, D. G., & de Moura, G. L. (2016). Organizational Performance Evaluation in Intangible Criteria: A Model Based on Knowledge Man-agement and Innovation Management. RAIRevista De Administraçao EInovaçao, 13(3), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.rai.2016.06.005 google scholar
14. Dolan S. & Garcia S. (2003). An Auerbach, Understanding and Managing Chaos in Organisations. International Journal of Management. 20(1), 2. google scholar
15. Edvinsson, L. & Sullivan, P. (1996). Developing a Model for Managing Intellectual Capital. European Management Journal, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(96)00022-9. google scholar
16. Gorry, G. A. & Westbrook, R. A. (2013). Customers, Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(1), 92-97. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.14. google scholar
17. Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of Personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 795-824). Academic Press: San Diego, CA. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50031-7 google scholar
18. Hamel G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston: MA google scholar
19. Jardon, C. M. (2015). The Use of Intellectual Capital to Obtain Competitive Advantages in Regional Small and Medium Enterprises. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(4), 486-496. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.4 google scholar
20. John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and research, 2,102-138. google scholar
21. Katila, R. & Shane S.(2005). When Does Lack of Resources Make New Firms Innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5), 814-29. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803924. google scholar
22. Labovitz, S. & Hagedorn, R. (1975). A Structural-Behavioral Theory of Intergroup Antagonism. Social Forces, 53(3), 444-448. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/53.3.444. google scholar
23. Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J. & Huang, J. C. (2017). Human Resource Systems, Employee Creativity, and Firm Innovation: The Moderating Role of Firm Ownership. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3),1164-1188. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0230. google scholar
24. Levitis, D. A., Lidicker Jr, W. Z., & Freund, G. (2009). Behavioural Biologists do not Agree on What Constitutes Behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 78(1), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.03.018 google scholar
25. Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2019). The Basic Trait of Antagonism: An Unfortunately Underappreciated Construct. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 118-126. google scholar
26. McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and Constructing Diversity in Semi-structured Interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393615597674. google scholar
27. Markham, S. K. (2000). Corporate Championing and Antagonism as Forms of Political Behavior: An R&D Perspective. Organization Science, 11(4), 429-447. https://doi.Org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.429.14599. google scholar
28. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. google scholar
29. Morse, J. M. (2012). The Implications of Interview Type and Structure in Mixed-method Designs. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft, 193-204. google scholar
30. Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed-method Design: Principles and Procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Left Coast Press. google scholar
31. Montag, T., Maertz, J. C. P. & Baer, M. (2012). Critical Analysis of the Workplace Creativity Criterion Space. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1362-1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441835 google scholar
32. Parks, C. D., Joireman, J. & Van Lange, P. A. (2013), “Cooperation, Trust and Antagonism How Public goods are Promoted”. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(3), 119-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612474436 google scholar
33. Pervaiz, K. A (1998). Benchmarking for Quality. Management & Technology, 5(1), 45-58. google scholar
34. Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N. C. & Edvinsson, L. (1997). Intellectual Capital, Navigating the New Business Landscape, Macmillan Business, London : Springer. google scholar
35. Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research. 3rdedn, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. google scholar
36. Silverman, D. (2000). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text, and Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs010363 google scholar
37. Smith, S. & Paquette, S. (2010). Creativity, Chaos, and Knowledge Management. Business Information Review, 27(2), 118-123. http://doi.org.10.1177/0266382110366956 google scholar
38. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
39. Styhre, A. (2007). Against the Antagonist View of Professional - Manager Relationships: The Case of the Culture Industry. Human Resource Development. 10(4), 401-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860701718794. google scholar
40. Subramaniam, M. & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.1740791. google scholar
41. Thietart, R. A. & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos Theory and Organization. Organization Science, 6(1), 19-3. https://doi.Org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.19. google scholar
42. Turan, A. (2015). Examining the Impact of Machiavellianism on Psychological Withdrawal, Physical Withdrawal and Antagonistic Behavior. Global Business and Management Research, 7(3), 87. google scholar
43. Turner D.W. (2010) Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Researcher. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760. google scholar
44. Wilson, J. (1966). Innovation İn Organizations: Notes Toward A Theory. In James D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to Organizational Design. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press. google scholar
45. Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique, and Suggested Research Directions. Journal of Management Studies. 31(3), 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00624.x google scholar
46. Wu, W.Y., Chang, M. & Chen, C. (2008). Promoting Innovation Through the Accumulation of Intellectual Capital, Social Capital and En-trepreneurial Orientation. R&D Management 38(3), 265-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9914.00120-i1 google scholar
47. Wu, W., Liu, Y., Kim, Y. & Gao, P. (2018). How Does Emotional Conflict Affect Innovation Behavior? International Journal Of Conflict Management, 29(3), 327-346. https://doi.org/10.1108/UCMA-09-2017-0094 google scholar
48. Yoo, H.-J., Sim, T., Choi, A., Park, H.-J., Yang, H., Heo, H. M., . . . Mun, J. H. (2016). Quantifying Coordination Between Agonist and Antagonist Muscles During A Gait. Journal Of Mechanical Science And Technology, 30(11), 5321-5328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12206-016-1156-8. google scholar