Advertisement

Organizational learning and technological innovation: the distinct dimensions of novelty and meaningfulness that impact firm performance

  • Li Zuo
  • Gregory J. Fisher
  • Zhi YangEmail author
Original Empirical Research

Abstract

This manuscript delineates technological innovation into the separate dimensions of novelty and meaningfulness to examine how a firm’s organizational learning modes of adaptive learning and experimental learning, together with unabsorbed slack resources, influence the effects of novelty and meaningfulness on firm financial performance. The multi-method empirical approach leverages secondary data from firm patent information and COMPUSTAT, and primary data from senior executives at 167 firms in various high-tech industries. The results indicate that adaptive learning heightens meaningfulness but diminishes novelty, whereas experimental learning harms meaningfulness. Additionally, firms’ unabsorbed slack resources moderate the relationships of experimental and adaptive learning with novelty. In particular, experimental learning enhances novelty only when a firm has sufficient unabsorbed slack to adjust resource levels in accordance with experimentation. Further, the results suggest that meaningfulness increases firm financial performance as represented by Tobin’s q, both independently and jointly when considered with novelty. These insights underscore the necessity of treating novelty and meaningfulness as separate dimensions of technological innovation that impact firm performance.

Keywords

Experimental learning Adaptive learning Slack resources Innovation novelty Innovation meaningfulness Shareholder value Organizational learning Firm performance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The third author acknowledes the financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China(71573079).

References

  1. Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  6. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong, S. J., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnold, T. J., Fang, E. E., & Palmatier, R. W. (2011). The effects of customer acquisition and retention orientations on a firm’s radical and incremental innovation performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 234–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bell, S. J., Whitwell, G. J., & Lukas, B. A. (2002). Schools of thought in organizational learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonaccorsi, A., & Thoma, G. (2007). Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Research Policy, 36(6), 813–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2004). Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1601–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cankurtaran, P., Langerak, F., & Griffin, A. (2013). Consequences of new product development speed: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(3), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chakravarthy, B. S. (1982). Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chandrasekaran, D., & Tellis, G. J. (2011). Getting a grip on the saddle: Chasms or cycles? Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chandy, R., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chandy, R., Narasimhan, O., Hopstaken, B., & Prabhu, J. (2006). From invention to innovation: conversion ability in product development. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), 494–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cheng, J., & Kesner, I. (1997). Organizational slack and response to environmental shifts: The impact of resource allocation patterns. Journal of Management, 23(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chung, K. H., & Pruitt, S. W. (1994). A simple approximation of Tobin’s Q. Financial Management, 23(3), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crossan, M. M., & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1087–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Daniel, F., Lohrke, F. T., Fornaciari, C. J., & Turner, R. A. (2004). Slack resources and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Day, G. S. (2014). An outside-in approach to resource-based theories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 27–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Luca, L. M. D., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Denrell, J., & March, J. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., & Li, N. (2008a). Trust at different organizational levels. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2008b). Effect of service transition strategies on firm value. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J.-M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gerbing, D., & Anderson, J. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. (No. 8498). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  39. Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hauser, J. R., Tellis, G., & Griffin, A. (2006). Research on innovation: A review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science, 25(6), 687–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hill, C. W., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huang, J. W., & Li, Y. H. (2012). Slack resources in team learning and project performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Im, S., & Workman, J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 114–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Josephson, B. W., Johnson, J. L., & Mariadoss, B. J. (2016). Strategic marketing ambidexterity: Antecedents and financial consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(4), 539–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Katsikeas, C. S., Leonidou, C. N., & Zeriti, A. (2016). Eco-friendly product development strategy: Antecedents, outcomes, and contingent effects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(6), 660–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kitchell, S. (1995). Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and innovation adoption: a qualitative/quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lee, R., & Grewal, R. (2004). Strategic responses to new technologies and their impact on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Levinthal, D., & March, J. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Levitt, B., & March, J. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Matzler, K., Veider, V., Hautz, J., & Stadler, C. (2015). The impact of family ownership, management, and governance on innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131.Google Scholar
  57. Mohr, J. J., & Sarin, S. (2009). Drucker’s insights on market orientation and innovation: Implications for emerging areas in high-technology marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(1), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory in new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998a). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998b). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 698–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Morgan, N. A. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2006). The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting business performance. Marketing Science, 25(5), 426–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nakata, C., Rubera, G., Im, S., Pae, J. H., Lee, H. J., Onzo, N., & Park, H. (2018). New product creativity antecedents and consequences: Evidence from South Korea, Japan, and China. Journal of Product Innovation Management., 35, 939–959.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. O’Brien, J. P., & David, P. (2014). Reciprocity and R&D search: Applying the behavioral theory of the firm to a communitarian context. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 550–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Posen, H. E., & Levinthal, D. A. (2012). Chasing a moving target: Exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments. Management Science, 58(3), 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Prabhu, J., Chandy, R. K., & Ellis, M. E. (2005). The impact of acquisitions on innovation: Poison pill, placebo, or tonic? Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 114–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Reitzig, M. (2003). What determines patent value?: Insights from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy, 32(1), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sethi, R., Smith, D., & Park, C. (2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Singh, J. V. (1986). Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 562–585.Google Scholar
  74. Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Marketing orientation and the learning orientation. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). Intelligence generation and superior customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Slater, S. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Olson, E. M. (2007). On the importance of matching strategic behavior and target market selection to business strategy in high-tech markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2005). Technological evolution and radical innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Srinivasan, R. (2006). Dual distribution and intangible firm value: Franchising in restaurant chains. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stanko, M. A., Bohlmann, J. D., & Molina-Castillo, F. J. (2013). Demand-side inertia factors and their benefits for innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(6), 649–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stock, R. M., & Reiferscheid, I. (2014). Who should be in power to encourage product program innovativeness, R&D or marketing? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(3), 264–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stock, R. M., & Zacharias, N. A. (2011). Patterns and performance outcomes of innovation orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 870–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stock, R. M., Six, B., & Zacharias, N. A. (2013). Linking multiple layers of innovation-oriented corporate culture, product program innovativeness, and business performance: A contingency approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Szymanski, D. M., Kroff, M. W., & Troy, L. C. (2007). Innovativeness and new product success: Insights from the cumulative evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. (2003). Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transition: Two studies from a emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1249–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tyre, M., & von Hippel, E. (1997). The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science, 8(1), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vorhies, D. W., Orr, L. M., & Bush, V. D. (2011). Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities and firm financial performance via marketing exploration and exploitation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(5), 736–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wu, J., & Tu, R. (2007). CEO stock option pay and R&D spending: A behavioral agency explanation. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 482–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wuyts, S., Dutta, S., & Stremersch, S. (2004). Portfolios of interfirm agreements in technology-intensive markets: Consequences for innovation and profitability. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yang, H., Phelps, C., & Steensma, H. K. (2010). Learning from what others have learned from you: The effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zhao, M. (2006). Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 52(8), 1185–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zhou, K., Yim, B., & Tse, D. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Farmer School of BusinessMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  3. 3.School of Business AdministrationHunan UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations