Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CEO innovation orientation and R&D intensity in small and medium-sized firms: the moderating role of firm growth

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although upper echelon literature has found evidence for the effect of executives’ characteristics on firm strategy such as the level of research and development (R&D) intensity, research on how different behaviors, values, personalities, motivations, and experiences of executives influence the R&D intensity of small and medium-sized firms is scarce. Applying upper echelon theory, this study uses firm growth (sales and employee growth) as a contingency factor to analyze variations in the effect of chief executive officer (CEO) innovation orientation on R&D intensity in small and medium-sized firms. As research on the direct effect of firm growth on R&D intensity is inconclusive, this study applies firm growth as an indirect effect to show whether the impact of CEO innovation orientation on R&D intensity differs in times of low growth compared to times of high growth in small and medium-sized firms. Using a sample of 77 German CEOs of small and medium-sized firms operating in manufacturing industries, results show that CEO innovation orientation has a positive effect on R&D intensity, and firm growth affects this relationship. Specifically, high CEO innovation orientation has a positive effect on R&D intensity in firms with low growth, while its impact disappears in firms that experience strong growth. Implications and future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acs ZJ, Carlsson B, Karlsson C (1999) The linkages among entrepreneurship, SMEs and the macroeconomy. In: Acs ZJ, Carlsson B, Karlsson C (eds) Entrepreneurship, small and medium-sized enterprises and the macroeconomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion P, Howitt P (1998) Endogenous growth theory. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion P, Bond S, Klemm A, Marinescu I (2004) Technology and financial structure: are innovative firms different? J Eur Econ Assoc 2:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion P, Bloom N, Blundell R, Griffith R, Howitt P (2005) Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship. Quart J Econ 120:701–728

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadjian CL, Robinson P (2001) Safety in numbers: downsizing and the deinstitutionalization of permanent employment in Japan. Admin Sci Quart 46:622–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand J, Singh H (1997) Asset redeployment, acquisitions and corporate strategy in declining industries. Strateg Manag J 18:99–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andries P, Czarnitzki D (2014) Small firm innovation performance and employee involvement. Small Bus Econ 43:21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli C (1989) A failure-inducement model of research and development expenditure: Italian evidence from the early 1980s. J Econ Behav Organ 12:159–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis S, Woerter M (2011) Firm characteristics and the cyclicality of R&D investments. KOF Working Papers No. 277, Zurich

  • Avolio BJ, Sosik JJ, Jung DI, Berson Y (2003) Leadership models, methods, and applications. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ (eds) Handbook of psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 277–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkema HG, Shvyrkov O (2007) Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion? Strateg Manag J 28:663–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker VL, Mueller GC (2002) CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Manag Sci 48:782–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlevy G (2007) On the cyclicality of research and development. Am Econ Rev 97:1131–1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta analysis. Pers Psychol 44:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick MR, Bradley BH, Kristof-Brown AL, Colbert AE (2007) The moderating role of top management team interdependence: implications for real teams and working groups. Acad Manag J 50:544–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum CF, Schaffer ME, Stillman S (2002) IVENDOG: Stata module to calculate Durbin-Wu-Hausman endogeneity test after ivreg. Boston College Department of Economics, Boston

  • Baysinger BD, Hoskisson RE (1989) Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in multiproduct firms. Acad Manag J 32:310–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger BD, Kosnik RD, Turk TA (1991) Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy. Acad Manag J 34:205–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennedsen M, Wolfenzon D (2000) The balance of power in closely held corporations. J Financ Econ 58:113–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boal KB, Hooijberg R (2001) Strategic leadership research: moving on. Leadersh Q 11:515–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brunninge O, Nordqvist M, Wiklund J (2007) Corporate governance and strategic change in SMEs: the effects of ownership, board composition and top management teams. Small Bus Econ 29:295–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone RJ, Garcia R, Dröge C (2003) The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. J Prod Innov Manag 20:90–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campello M, Graham JR, Harvey CR (2010) The real effects of financial constraints: evidence from a financial crisis. J Financ Econ 97:470–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter MA, Geletkanycz MA, Sanders WG (2004) Upper echelons research revisited: antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. J Manag 30:749–778

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee A, Hambrick DC (2007) It’s all about me: narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Admin Sci Quart 52:351–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W-R, Miller KD (2007) Situational and institutional determinants of firms’ R&D search intensity. Strateg Manag J 28:369–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child J (1974) Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance. J Manag Stud 11:175–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad A, Rao R (2009) Firm growth and R&D expenditure. Econ Innov New Tech 19:127–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2002) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossland C, Hambrick DC (2007) How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: a study of CEO effects in three countries. Strateg Manag J 28:767–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daellenbach US, McCarthy AM, Schoenecker TS (1999) Commitment to innovation: the impact of top management team characteristics. R&D Manag 29:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson R, Mackinnon JG (1983) Estimation and interference in econometrics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess GG, Ireland RD, Hitt MA (1990) Industry effects and strategic management research. J Manag 16:7–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddleston KA, Kellermanns FW (2007) Destructive and productive family relationships: a stewardship theory perspective. J Bus Ventur 22:545–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddleston KA, Kellermanns FW, Sarathy R (2008) Resource configuration in family firms: linking resources, strategic planning and technological opportunities to performance. J Manag Stud 45:26–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisinga R, Grotenhuis M, Pelzer B (2013) The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman–Brown? Int J Public Health 58:637–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie JE (1998) R&D and global manufacturing performance. Manag Sci 44:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010) The 2010 EU industrial R&D investment scoreboard. Joint Research Centre and Directorate General for Research, Luxembourg

  • European Commission (2013) Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013. doi:10.2769/72530

  • Evans MG (1985) A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 36:305–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk M (2012) Quantile estimates of the impact of R&D intensity on firm performance. Small Bus Econ 39:19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felekoglu B, Moultrie J (2014) Top management involvement in new product development: a review and synthesis. J Prod Innov Manag 31:159–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filatotchev I, Piesse J (2009) R&D, internationalization and growth of newly listed firms: European evidence. J Int Bus Stud 40:1260–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filippetti A, Archibugi D (2011) Innovation in times of crisis: national systems of innovation, structure, and demand. Res Pol 40:179–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford RH (1988) Outside directors and the privately-owned firm: are they necessary? Entrep Theory Pract 13:49–57

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Manjón JV, Romero-Merino ME (2012) Research, development, and firm growth. Empirical evidence from European top R&D spending firms. Res Pol 41:1084–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George G (2005) Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Acad Manag J 48:661–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (2013) Policy for small and medium-sized businesses. Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology. http://www.bmwi.de/EN/Topics/Economy/small-business-policy.html. Accessed 05 Nov 2013

  • Geroski PA, Gregg P (1997) Coping with recession. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilley KM, Walters BA, Olson BJ (2002) Top management team risk taking propensities and firm performance: direct and moderating effects. J Bus Strateg 19:95–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve HR (2003) A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: evidence from shipbuilding. Acad Manag J 46:685–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve HR (2011) Positional rigidity: low performance and resource acquisition in large and small firms. Strateg Manag J 32:103–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec D, Ioannidis E (1999) Causes of fluctuations in R&D expenditures: a quantitative analysis, vol 29. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall B, Lotti F, Mairesse J (2009) Innovation and productivity in SMEs: empirical evidence for Italy. Small Bus Econ 33:13–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC (2005) Upper echelons theory: Origins, twists and turns, and lessons learned. In: Smith KG, Hitt MA (eds) Great minds in management: The process of theory development. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 109–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC (2007) Upper echelons theory: an update. Acad Manag Rev 32:334–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S (1987) Managerial discretion: a bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Res Organ Behav 9:369–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manag Rev 9:193–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S, Mooney AC (2005) Executive job demands: new insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Acad Manag Rev 30:472–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MLA, Hambrick DC (1997) Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: evidence of CEO hubris. Admin Sci Quart 42:103–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill CWL, Snell SA (1989) Effects of ownership structure and control on corporate productivity. Acad Manag J 32:25–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himmelberg CP, Petersen BC (1994) R&D and internal finance: a panel study of small firms in high-tech industries. Rev Econ Stat 76:38–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt MA, Tyler BB (1991) Strategic decision models: integrating different perspectives. Strateg Manag J 12:327–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho Yew K, Tjahjapranata M, Yap Chee M (2006) Size, leverage, concentration, and R&D investment in generating growth opportunities. J Bus 79:851–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Hölzl W (2009) Is the R&D behaviour of fast-growing SMEs different? Evidence from CIS III data for 16 countries. Small Bus Econ 33:59–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson RE, Hitt MA (1988) Strategic control systems and relative R&D investment in large multiproduct firms. Strateg Manag J 9:605–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsbeck M, Lehmann EE, Weiß D, Wirsching K (2012) Innovationsverhalten in Familienunternehmen. Z Betriebswirtschaft 82:71–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hundley G, Jacobson CK, Park SH (1996) Effects of profitability and liquidity on R&D intensity: Japanese and U.S. companies compared. Acad Manag J 39:1659–1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley RF, Hult GTM (1998) Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. J Mark 62:42–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse M (2000) Boards of directors in SMEs: a review and research agenda. Entrep Reg Dev 12:271–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J Appl Psychol 69:85–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1993) rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J Appl Psychol 78:306–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamien MI, Schwartz NL (1982) Market structure and innovation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanuk L, Berenson C (1975) Mail surveys and response rates: a literature review. J Mark Res 12:440–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keh HT, Foo MD, Lim BC (2002) Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrep Theory Pract 27:125–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight D, Pearce CL, Smith KG, Olian JD, Sims HP, Smith KA, Flood P (1999) Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strateg Manag J 20:445–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiczy ND, Hack A, Kellermanns FW (2014a) New product portfolio performance in family firms. J Bus Res 67:1065–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiczy ND, Hack A, Kellermanns FW (2014b) The relationship between top management team innovation orientation and firm growth: the mediating role of firm innovativeness. Int J Innov Manag. doi:10.1142/S136391961550005X

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraiczy ND, Hack A, Kellermanns FW (2014c) What makes a family firm innovative? CEO risk-taking propensity and the organizational context of family firms. J Prod Innov Manag. doi:10.1111/jpim.12203

  • Kumar N, Stern LW, Anderson JC (1993) Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Acad Manag J 36:1633–1651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence BS (1997) The black box of organizational demography. Organ Sci 8:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le SA, Walters B, Kroll M (2006) The moderating effects of external monitors on the relationship between R&D spending and firm performance. J Bus Res 59:278–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee PM, O’Neill HM (2003) Ownership structures and R&D investments of US and Japanese firms: agency and stewardship perspectives. Acad Manag J 46:212–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Tang YI (2010) CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Acad Manag J 53:45–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling Y, Kellermanns FW (2010) The effects of family firm specific sources of TMT diversity: the moderating role of information exchange frequency. J Manag Stud 47:322–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotti F, Santarelli E, Vivarelli M (2009) Defending Gibrat’s law as a long-run regularity. Small Bus Econ 32:31–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mairesse J, Hall B, Branstetter L, Crepon B (1999) Does cash flow cause investment and R&D? An exploration using panel data for French, Japanese, and United States scientific firms. In: Audretsch DB, Thurik R (eds) Innovation, industry evolution, and employment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazen AM, Graf LA, Kellogg CE, Hemmasi M (1987a) Statistical power in contemporary management research. Acad Manag J 30:369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazen AM, Hemmasi M, Lewis MF (1987b) Assessment of statistical power in contemporary strategy research. Strateg Manag J 8:403–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Dröge C (1986) Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Admin Sci Quart 31:539–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Toulouse J-M (1986a) Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in small firms. Manag Sci 32:1389–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Toulouse J-M (1986b) Strategy, structure, CEO personality and performance in small firms. Am J Small Bus 10:47–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Lee J, Chang S, Le Breton-Miller I (2009) Filling the institutional void: the social behavior and performance of family vs non-family technology firms in emerging markets. J Int Bus Stud 40:802–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi R, Swift T (2011) Proactive R&D management and firm growth: a punctuated equilibrium model. Res Pol 40:429–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz-Bullón F, Sanchez-Bueno MJ (2011) The impact of family involvement on the R&D intensity of publicly traded firms. Fam Bus Rev 24:62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadkarni S, Herrmann P (2010) CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the case of the indian business process outsourcing industry. Acad Manag J 53:1050–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver JC, Slater SF, MacLachlan DL (2004) Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success. J Prod Innov Manag 21:334–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohria N, Gulati R (1996) Is slack good or bad for innovation? Acad Manag J 39:1245–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes PM, Serrasqueiro Z, Leitão J (2012) Is there a linear relationship between R&D intensity and growth? Empirical evidence of non-high-tech vs. high-tech SMEs. Res Pol 41:36–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim AN (1966) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Argilés R, Vivarelli M, Voigt P (2009) R&D in SMEs: a paradox? Small Bus Econ 33:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher P, Smith AD (2001) Top management team heterogeneity: personality, power, and proxies. Organ Sci 12:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manag 12:531–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch A, Wiklund J, Lumpkin GT, Frese M (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrep Theory Pract 33:761–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resick CJ, Weingarden SM, Whitman DS, Hiller NJ (2009) The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. J Appl Psychol 94:1365–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbusch N, Brinckmann J, Bausch A (2011) Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. J Bus Ventur 26:441–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer FM (1984) Innovation and growth: Schumpeterian perspectives. MIT Press Books, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott SG, Bruce RA (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad Manag J 37:580–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidler J (1974) On using informants: a technique for collecting quantitative data and controlling measurement error in organization analysis. Am Sociol Rev 39:816–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel SM, Kaemmerer WF (1978) Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. J Appl Psychol 63:553–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souitaris V (2001) Strategic influences of technological innovation in Greece. Br J Manag 12:131–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM, Sandelands LE, Dutton JE (1981) Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: a multilevel analysis. Admin Sci Quart 26:501–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe AL (1965) Social structure and organizations. In: March JG (ed) Handbook of organizations. Rand McNally & Company, Chicago, pp 142–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Talke K, Salomo S, Rost K (2010) How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields. Res Pol 39:907–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson P (2001) The microeconomics of an R&D-based model of endogenous growth. J Econ Growth 6:263–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upton N, Teal EJ, Felan JT (2001) Strategic and business planning practices of fast growth family firms. J Small Bus Manag 39:60–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace JC, Little LM, Hill AD, Ridge JW (2010) CEO regulatory foci, environmental dynamism, and small firm performance. J Small Bus Manag 48:580–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter J, Kellermanns FW, Lechner C (2012) Decision making within and between organizations: rationality, politics and alliance performance. J Manag 38:1582–1610

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema MF, Bantel KA (1992) Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Acad Manag J 35:91–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund J, Shepherd DA (2003) Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strateg Manag J 24:1307–1314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright M, Kellermanns FW (2011) Family firms: a research agenda and publication guide. J Fam Bus Strateg 2:187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra SA, Hayton JC, Salvato C (2004) Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms: a resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrep Theory Pract 28:363–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Organization and Human Resource Management, University of Bern, Engehaldenstrasse 4, 3012, Bern, Switzerland

    Nils D. Kraiczy & Andreas Hack

  2. Witten Institute for Family Business, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausenstr. 50, 58448, Witten, Germany

    Andreas Hack

  3. Department of Management, University of North Carolina – Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, 28223-0001, NC, USA

    Franz W. Kellermanns

  4. Institute of Family Businesses, WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management, Burgplatz 2, 56179, Vallendar, Germany

    Franz W. Kellermanns

Authors
  1. Nils D. Kraiczy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Hack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Franz W. Kellermanns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nils D. Kraiczy.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Scale items and reliabilities
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kraiczy, N.D., Hack, A. & Kellermanns, F.W. CEO innovation orientation and R&D intensity in small and medium-sized firms: the moderating role of firm growth. J Bus Econ 85, 851–872 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0755-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0755-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation