Knowledge Management Research & Practice

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 325–335 | Cite as

Management innovation and firm performance: the mediating effects of tacit and explicit knowledge

Original Article

Abstract

This paper examines the role of tacit and explicit knowledge in translating management innovation into firm performance in Japanese companies. While past research has been inconsistent on the role of management innovation on firm performance, this research considers how management innovation in organizations can promote tacit and/or explicit knowledge creation, and whether this leads to higher firm performance. This research uses a questionnaire survey of employees of Japanese firms and applies conditional process analysis. There was no direct effect of management innovation onto firm performance, and that instead, both tacit and explicit knowledge fully mediated the relationship between management innovation and firm performance. While management innovation programs by themselves did not directly increase firm performance, the alignment of these programs with knowledge management initiatives enhanced performance. This highlights the need for management innovation that first considers the type of knowledge needed for enhanced performance. Previous research did not consider the role of knowledge as a means to translate management innovation into firm performance. This paper uncovers the mediating role of knowledge, potentially elucidating past inconclusive results.

Keywords

Management innovation Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledge Firm performance Japan 

References

  1. Ajith Kumar, J., and L. Ganesh. 2011. Balancing knowledge strategy: Codification and personalization during product development. Journal of Knowledge Management 15 (1): 118–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atalay, M., N. Anafarta, and F. Sarvan. 2013. The relationship between innovation and firm performance: An empirical evidence from turkish automotive supplier industry. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 75: 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becerra, M., R. Lunnan, and L. Huemer. 2008. Trustworthiness, risk, and the transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge between alliance partners. Journal of Management 45 (4): 691–713.Google Scholar
  4. Botha, A., D. Kourie, and R. Snyman. 2014. Coping with continuous change in the business environment. Burlington: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  5. Brenes, E., D. Montoya, and L. Ciravegna. 2014. Differentiation strategies in emerging markets: The case of Latin American agribusinesses. Journal of Business Research 67 (5): 847–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J.S., and P. Duguid. 2001. Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science 12 (2): 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandler, G., and E. Jansen. 1992. The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing 7 (3): 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, E.T., J. Monahan, and D. Feng. 2009. A longitudinal cross-section examination of the implementation of knowledge management systems and firm performance. Journal of International Technology and Information Management 18 (2): 223–238.Google Scholar
  9. Costello, A.B., and J.W. Osborne. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 10: 1–9.Google Scholar
  10. Daily, C. 2002. Governance and strategic leadership in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Management 28 (3): 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Damanpour, F., and D. Aravind. 2012. Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes and antecedents. Management and Organization Review 8 (2): 423–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damanpour, F., and J.D. Wischnevsky. 2006. Research on innovation in organizations: Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 23: 269–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damanpour, F. 1991. organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal 34 (3): 555–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davenport, T.H., and L. Prusak. 1998. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eldring, J. 2009. Porter’s 1980 generic strategies, performance and risk: An empirical investigation with german data. Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Evangelista, R., and A. Vezzani. 2010. The economic impact of technological and management innovations: A firm level analysis. Research Policy 39: 1253–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foster, R., and S. Kaplan. 2001. Creative destruction. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  18. Geringer, J., and L. Hebert. 1991. Measuring performance of international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies 22 (2): 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenley, G., and G. Foxall. 1997. Multiple stakeholder orientation in UK companies and the implications for company performance. Journal of Management Studies 34 (2): 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, M.T., N. Nohria, and T. Tierney. 1999. What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review 77 (2): 106–116.Google Scholar
  21. Harlow, H. 2008. The effect of tacit knowledge on firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management 12 (1): 148–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayes, A.F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
  23. Hislop, D. 2013. Knowledge management in organizations, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kim, E., D. Nam, and J. Stimpert. 2004. The applicability of porter’s generic strategies in the digital age: Assumptions, conjectures, and suggestions. Journal of Management 30 (5): 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kurzweil, R. (2001). The law of accelerating returns. http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns.
  26. Lam, A. 2005. Organizational innovation. In Oxford handbook of innovation, ed. J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, and R.R. Nelson, 115–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. López-Nicolás, C., and A. Meroño-Cerdán. 2011. Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance. International Journal of Information Management 31: 502–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin, A. (2015). ‘Englishnization’ Advances at Rakuten. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/05/08/englishnization-advances-at-rakuten/.
  29. Mol, M., and J. Birkinshaw. 2009. The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research 62 (12): 1269–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morschett, D., B. Swoboda, and H. Schramm-Klein. 2006. Competitive strategies in retailing—an investigation of the applicability of Porter’s framework for food retailers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (4): 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mukherji, S. 2005. Knowledge management strategy in software services organizations: Straddling codification and personalization. IIMB Management Review 17 (3): 33–39.Google Scholar
  32. Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nowacki, R., and K. Bachnik. 2016. Innovations within knowledge management. Journal of Business Research 69 (5): 1577–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palacios Marqués, D., and F.J. Garrigós Simón. 2006. The effect of knowledge management practices on firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management 10 (3): 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Park, C., I. Vertinsky, and M. Becerra. 2015. Transfers of tacit versus explicit knowledge and performance in international joint ventures: The role of age. International Business Review 24 (1): 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polanyi, M. 1966. The tacit dimension. Gloucester, MA.: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  37. Schumpeter, J. 1961. The theory of economic development; an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Translated from German by Redvers Opie.Google Scholar
  38. Seidler-de Alwis, R., and E. Hartmann. 2008. The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: Knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management 12 (1): 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simpson, M., N. Tuck, and S. Bellamy. 2004. Small business success factors: the role of education and training. Education + Training 46 (8/9): 481–491.Google Scholar
  40. von Krogh, G. 1998. Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review 40 (3): 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walker, R., J. Chen, and D. Aravind. 2015. Management innovation and firm performance: An integration of research findings. European Management Journal 33 (5): 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wellman, J.L. 2009. Organizational learning: How companies and institutions manage and apply knowledge, 1st ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zahra, S.A., D.O. Neubaum, and M. Huse. 2000. Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies: Exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of Management 26 (5): 947–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The OR Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Business SciencesUniversity of TsukubaBunkyo-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations