How Do Managers Make the Decision of Adoptinga Management Innovation?

  • Haifen Lin


This chapter aims to address why some managers pursue innovative opportunities by introducing new management practices while others do not in China, and what characteristics of managers affect their decision of introducing new practices and how. Data on 237 manages from different firms were collected to further examines the model, so as to uncover the affecting paths and internal mechanism of complicated decision. The results indicates that innovation intention, knowledge acquirement and risk perception directly affect management innovation decision level; innovation intention, knowledge acquirement and risk perception are influenced by entrepreneurial orientation, social network and cognitive biases of managers respectively; besides the three relevantly independent affecting paths, interrelations also exist cross paths; the three main factors produce both direct and indirect effect simultaneously.


  1. Abernathy, W.J., Utterback, J.M.: Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol. Rev. 80(7), 40–47 (1978)Google Scholar
  2. Adler, P.S.: Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 27(1), 17–40 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I.: From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I.: Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 1–63. Academic Press 20, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  5. Aldrich, H.E., Zimmer, C.: Entrepreneurship through social networks. (1986)Google Scholar
  6. Barley, S.R., Kunda, G.: Design and devotion: surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Adm. Sci. Q. 37(3), 363–399 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baron, R.A.: Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when enterpreneurs think differently than other people. J. Bus. Ventur. 13(4), 275–294 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazerman, M.: Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. Wiley, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  9. Bird, B.: Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Acad. Manag. Rev. 13(3), 442–453 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. Burt, R.S.: Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1992)Google Scholar
  11. Busenitz, L.W., Barney, J.B.: Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. J. Bus. Ventur. 12(1), 9–30 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Busenitz, L.W., Lau, C.M.: A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation. Entrep. Theory Pract. 20(4), 25–39 (1996) Google Scholar
  13. Calantone, R.J., Stanko, M.A.: Drivers of outsourced innovation: an exploratory study. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 24(3), 230–241 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll, G.R., Teo, A.C.: On the social networks of managers. Acad. Manag. J. 39(2), 421–440 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, A.C., Folta, T.B., Woo, C.Y.: Entrepreneurial information search. J. Bus. Ventur. 10(2), 107–120 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P.: Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strateg. Manag. J. 10(1), 75–87 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cyert, R.M., March, J.G.: A Behavioral Theory of The Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1963)Google Scholar
  18. De Carolis, D.M., Saparito, P.: Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: a theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 30(1), 41–56 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., Thongpapanl, N.: The moderating impact of internal social exchange processes on the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. J. Bus. Ventur. 25(1), 87–103 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duhaime, I.M., Schwenk, C.R.: Conjectures on cognitive simplification in acquisition and divestment decision making. Acad. Manag. Rev. 10(2), 287–295 (1985)Google Scholar
  21. Einhorn, H.J., Hogarth, R.M.: Judging probable cause. Psychol. Bull. 99(1), 3–19 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elenkov, D.S., Judge, W., Wright, P.: Strategic leadership and executive innovation influence: an international multi-cluster comparative study. Strateg. Manag. J. 26(7), 665–682 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Granovetter, M.: The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In: Marsden, P.V., Lin, N. (eds.) Social Structure and Network Analysis, pp. 105–130. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills (1982)Google Scholar
  24. Granovetter, M.: Economic action and social structure: a theory of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91(3), 481–510 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6), 1360–1380 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guillén, M.F.: Models of Management: Work, Authority, and Organization in A Comparative Perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1994)Google Scholar
  27. Gulati, R.: Alliances and networks. Strateg. Manag. J. 19(4), 293–317 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamel, G.: The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84(2), 72–84 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. Hashem, G., Tann, J.: The adoption of ISO 9000 standards within The Egyptian Context: a diffusion of innovation approach. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excellence 18(6), 631–652 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huber, G.P.: Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organ. Sci. 2(1), 88–115 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jack, S.L.: The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: a qualitative analysis. J. Manage. Stud. 42(6), 1233–1259 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahneman, D., Dan, L.: Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking. Manage. Sci. 39(1), 17–31 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kimberly, J.R., Evanisko, M.J.: Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Acad. Manag. J. Acad. Manag. 24(4), 689–713 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krackhardt, D.: The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. In: Nohria, N., Eccles, R.G. (eds.) Networks and Organization. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1992)Google Scholar
  35. Krueger, N.F., Carsrud, A.L.: Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship Reg. Dev. 5(4), 315–330 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Langer, E.J.: The illusion of control. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32(2), 311–328 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lesser, E.L.: Leveraging social capital in organizations. In: Lesser, E.L. (ed.) Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, pp. 3–16. Butterworth-Heineman, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  38. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B.: Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 20(2), 159–183 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic Inquiry Sage. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, California (1985)Google Scholar
  40. Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G.G.: Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking ii to performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21(1), 135–172 (1996)Google Scholar
  41. March, J.G., Simon, H.A.: Organizations. Wiley, New York (1958)Google Scholar
  42. Mccarthy, A.M., Schoorman, F.D., Cooper, A.C.: Reinvestment decisions by entrepreneurs: rational decision-making or escalation of commitment? J. Bus. Ventur. 8(1), 9–24 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mcevily, B., Perrone, V., Zaheer, A.: Trust as an organizing principle. Organ. Sci. 14(1), 91–103 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller, D.: The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manage. Sci. 29(7), 770–791 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller, D., Friesen, P.H.: Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum. Strateg. Manag. J. 3(1), 1–25 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., Mcdougall, P.P., Morse, E.A., Smith, J.B.: The distinctive and inclusive domain of entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship Theory Practi. 28(6), 505–518 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mol, M.J., Birkinshaw, J.: The sources of management innovation: when firms introduce new management practices. J. Bus. Res. 62(12), 1269–1280 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moreno, A.M., Casillas, J.C.: Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: a causal model. Entrepreneurship Theory Practi. 32(3), 507–528 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S.: Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(2), 242–266 (1998)Google Scholar
  50. Naman, J.L., Slevin, D.P.: Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical tests. Strateg. Manag. J. 14(2), 137–153 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ocasio, W.: Towards an attention-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 18(S1), 187–206 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oskamp, S.: Overconfidence in case-study judgments. J. Consult. Psychol. 29(3), 261–265 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Payne, W.A., Malcolm, D.C., Hossner, L.R., Lascao, R.J., Onken, A.B., Wendt, C.W.: Soil phosphorus availability and pearl millet water-use efficiency. Cropence 32(4), 1010–1015 (1992)Google Scholar
  54. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C.: Introduction to special topic forum: not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 393–404 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rowley, T., Behrens, D., Krackhardt, D.: Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strateg. Manag. J. 21(3), 369–386 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schafer, D.S.: Level of entrepreneurship and scanning source usage in very small businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory Practi. 15(2), 19–31 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwenk, C.R.: Information, cognitive biases, and commitment to a course of action. Acad. Manag. Rev. 11(2), 298 (1986)Google Scholar
  58. Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., Liden, R.C.: A social capital theory of career success. Acad. Manag. J. 44(2), 219–237 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S.: The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25(1), 217–226 (2000)Google Scholar
  60. Simon, M., Houghton, S.M., Aquino, K.: Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: how individuals decide to start companies. J. Bus. Ventur. 15(2), 113–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soo, Y.O., Cheng, Y., Wong, R., Hui, D.S., Lee, C.K., Tsang, K.K., Ng, M.H., Chan, P., Cheng, G., Sung, J.J.: Retrospective comparison of convalescent plasma with continuing cigh-dose methylprednisolone treatment in SARS patients. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 10(7), 676–678 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sternberg, R.J., Lubart, T.I.: An investment theory of creativity and its development. Hum. Dev. 34(1), 1–31 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thompson, S.C., Armstrong, W., Thomas, C.: Illusions of control, underestimations, and accuracy: a control heuristic explanation. Psychol. Bull. 123(2), 143 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tortoriello, M., Mcevily, B., Perrone, V.: The evolution of status hierarchies: network dynamics and status differentiation. GSIA Working Paper (2004)Google Scholar
  65. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1130 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Uzzi, B.: Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Adm. Sci. Q. 42(1), 35–67 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vickery, S., Dröge, C., Germain, R.: The relationship between product customization and organizational structure. J. Oper. Manag. 17(4), 377–391 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiklund, J.: The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory Practi. 24(1), 37–48 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Williams, L., Rao, K.: Information technology adoption: using classical adoption models to predict AEI software implementation. J. Bus. Logistics (1998)Google Scholar
  70. Yin, R.K.: Case study research: design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1994)Google Scholar
  71. Zaltman, G., Duncun, R., Holbek, J.: Innovations and Organizations. Wiley, New York (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Management and EconomicsDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations