Organizational Innovativeness: Objective and Subjective Approach and their Implications
Abstract
The article is of conceptual character andproposes a change in the paradigm of thinking about organizational innovativeness. It is founded on an assumption that the currently dominant technocratic (objective) approach to innovativeness stems from individual creativity. It helps to acquire competitive advantages mainly in the countries of Technology Frontier Area (TFA) and by big corporations. The imitation of patterns based on the technocratic (objective) approach oriented towards innovation management is burdened with a high risk of ineffectiveness in catching-up countries, which include Poland and other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It causes the lack of proper utilization of innovative potential of enterprises, network economy and information-telecommunication revolution. In order to overcome these threats, the author proposes to appreciate the subjective role of an individual (a human being) in the innovation process and popularization of the subjective approach to innovativeness. Perceiving organizational innovativeness not only as the intensity of introducing innovations, but also from the perspective of innovative capabilities of a person, opens up a possibility to build theories about primary sources of innovations. Its use in practice should help to ensure a common activation of creative potential of human resources and to eliminate obstacles encountered by enterprises when accessing innovative talents with reference to the improvement of well-being and not only to business goals.
Keywords: Innovation management, Integrated model of innovativeness, Objective approach, Organizational innovativeness, Subjective approach.
References
Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2012) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. Crown Business, New York.
Leidecker JK, Bruno AV (1984) Identifying and using critical success factors, Long Range Planning, 17(1), 23-32.
Drucker PF (1999), Management Challenges for the 21st Century. HarperCollins, New York.
IUS (2015) Innovation Union Scoreboard. Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology, Brussels.
GII (2014) Dutta S Lanvin B Wunsch-Vincent S. Edytots. The Global Innovation Index 2014. The Human Factor in Innovation. Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO, Fontainebleau, Ithaca, Geneva:
Castells M (1996) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. 1: The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Gomułka S (1990) The Theory of Technological Change and Economic Growth. Routledge, New York.
Mills MP, Ottino JM (2012) The coming tech-led boom. The Wall Street Journal, January 30
Roco MC, Bainbridge W, Tonn B, Whitesides G (2014) Convergence of Knowledge, Technology and Society: Beyond Convergence of Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Technologies. Springer Science & Business Media.
Yua Y, Dongb X-Y, Shenc KN, Khalifad M, Haoe J-X (2013) Strategies, technologies, and organizational learning for developing organizational innovativeness in emerging economies, Journal of Business Research, 66(12): 2507-2514.
Bauman Z (2010) Living on Borrowed Time: Conversations with Citlali Rovirosa-Madrazo, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Postman N (1992) Technopoly. The surrender of culture to technology. Knopf, New York.
Foster JB, Robert W, McChesney RW (2012), The Endless Crisis. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Naisbitt J, Naisbitt N, Philips D (1999) HIGH TECH – HIGH TOUCH. Technology and Our Search for Meaning. Broadway Books, New York.
Barber BR (2007) Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole. W.W. Norton, New York.
Beck U (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, SAGE, London.
Akerlof GA, Schiller RJ (2009) Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why it Matters for Global Capitalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Wilson N (2010) Social creativity: re-qualifying the creative economy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(3): 367-381.
Rogall H (2009)NachhaltigeÖkonomie, ÖkonomischeTheorie und Praxis einerNachhaltigenEntwicklung. Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg.
Wielecki K (2007)Podmiotowość w dobiekryzysupostindustrializmu. Centrum EuropejskieUniwersytetuWarszawskiego, Warszawa.
Wierzbicki AP, Nakamori Y. Edytors. (2007) Creative Environments: Issues of Creativity Support for the Knowledge Civilization Age. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Wierzbicki AP (2010) Operations and systems research in the era of knowledge civilization, Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 7(2): 239-260.
Murgas F (2015) Creativity: Goal or path?On Meaning of Creativity. International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics, 4(3): 162-167.
Vrontis D, Thrassou A, Chebbi H, Yahiaoui D (2012) Transcending innovativeness towards strategic reflexivity. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 15(4): 420-437.
Amabile T M, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity’. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154–84.
Amabile T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76 (5): 76-87.
Senge P., (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday/Currency, New York.
Crites S L, Fabringar L R, Petty RE (1994) Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20: 619-634.
Nowak S. Edytor. (1973) Teoriepostaw. PWN, Warszawa.
Breckler SJ, Wiggins EC (1989) Affect versus evaluation in the structure of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 253-271.
Trafimow D, Sheeran P (1998) Some tests of the distinction between cognitive and affective beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34: 378-397.
Mądrzycki S, (1964) Postawy jako składnik osobowości. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 8: 105-122.
Marphy J (1962)The power of your subconscious mind. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Rafferty AE, Jimmieson NL, Armenakis AA (2013) Change Readiness A Multilevel Review. Journal of Management, 39(1): 110-135.
Kang JH, Solomon GT, Choi DY (2015) CEOs' Leadership Styles and Managers' Innovative Behaviour: Investigation of Intervening Effects in an Entrepreneurial Context. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4): 531-554.
Porter ME (1998) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Palgrave, New York.
DAE SCOREBOARD 2013 - 2-BROADBAND MARKETS, Digital Agenda for Europe, Communications Committee, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/DAE%20SCOREBOARD%202013%20-%202-BROADBAND%20MARKETS%20.pdf .
Ruvio A, Shoham A, Vigoda-Gadot E, Schwabsky N (2014) Organizational Innovativeness: Construct Development and Cross-Cultural Validation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5): 1004-1022.
Li-Min Chuang, Chun-Chu Liu, Wen-Chia Tsai (2014) The Organizational Innovativeness Inventory for information and electronic enterprises: Development and Validation, Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 6(4): 302-309.
Flávio de São Pedro Filho, Ravâni PR, de Melo JV, Watanabe CYV, Sakuno IYT (2015) Innovation Management with Focus on Production and Operation Team. International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics, 4(4):11-20.
Bal-Woźniak T (2006) Reasons for insufficient innovation in the polish economy, Journal of European Economy, 5(4):367-398.
Barney JB (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17:99-120.
Dubois DD, Rothwell WJ (2004), Competency-Based Human Resource Management, Davies-Black Publishing, Palo Alto CA.
Bonder A, Bouchard C-D, Bellemare G (2011) Competency-Based Management-An Integrated Approach to Human Resource Management in the Canadian Public Sector, Public Personnel Management, 40(1):1-10.
Bal-Woźniak T (2012) Innowacyjność w ujęciu podmiotowym. Uwarunkowania instytucjonalne /Innovativeness in the Subjective Approach. Institutional Determinants/.Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warszawa.
