You are on page 1of 25

European Journal of Innovation Management

Culture and climate for innovation

Pervaiz K. Ahmed
Article information:
To cite this document:
Pervaiz K. Ahmed, (1998),"Culture and climate for innovation", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp.
30 - 43
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded on: 13 September 2016, At: 19:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 32 other documents.
To copy this document:
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 24410 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1998),"Culture and innovation", Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 4 pp. 13-21 http://
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

(2005),"A leader's guide to creating an innovation culture", Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 33 Iss 4 pp. 38-45 http://
(2010),"Organizational culture as determinant of product innovation", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13
Iss 4 pp. 466-480

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:406254 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit for more information.
About Emerald
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Culture and climate for Virtually all companies talk about innovation,
innovation and the importance of doing innovation,
many actually try to do it, and only a few
actually succeed in doing it. The reality is that
innovation, for the most part, frightens organi-
sations because it is inevitably linked to risk.
Many companies pay lip service to the power
Pervaiz K. Ahmed
and benefits of innovation. To a large extent
most remain averse to the aggressive invest-
ment and commitment that innovation
demands. Instead they dabble in innovation
and creativity. Even though innovation is
debated in senior level meetings as being the
lifeblood of the company, and occasional
resources and R&D funds are thrown at it,
The author
often the commitment usually ends there.
However, becoming innovative demands more
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

Pervaiz K. Ahmed is Unilever Lecturer in Innovation

Management at the University of Bradford, Bradford, UK than debate and resources; it requires an
organisational culture that constantly guides
Abstract organisational members to strive for innovation
Notes that many companies pay lip service to the idea and a climate that is conducive to creativity.
of innovation and stresses that becoming innovative Innovation is holistic in nature. It covers
requires an organisational culture which nurtures innova- the entire range of activities necessary to
tion and is conducive to creativity. Considers the nature of provide value to customers and a satisfactory
organisational climate and of organisational culture, return to the business. As Buckler (1997)
focusing on factors which make for an effective organisa- suggests, innovation is an environment, a
tional culture. Looks at the interplay between various culture almost spiritual force that exists in
organisational factors and innovation and suggests a company and drives value creation. Inno-
elements which promote innovation. Concludes that the vation maybe viewed as three fairly distinct
most innovative companies of the future will be those phases which are often viewed to be sequen-
which have created appropriate cultures and climates. tial but in reality are iterative and often run
concurrently. The first is the idea generation
phase which is typically the fuzzy front end. A
lot of the ideas from this stage typically do not
proceed onto the second stage, because often
numerous problems show up, ranging from
feasibility to compatibility with strategic
direction. At the second stage most frequently
encountered is the structured methodology
phase which typically consists of some type of
stage-gate system. Most large companies
deploy some variation of a structured
methodology. The stage-gate system consists
of hoops which the new idea must pass in
order to demonstrate its feasibility and com-
patibility with the organisations objectives.
The third stage is commercialisation. This
phase consists of actually making the idea an
operational feasibility. In others words, the
product is produced so as to allow extraction
of value from all that has been created in the
earlier phases.
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 1 Number 1 1998 pp. 3043 Although innovation cannot be touched,
MCB University Press ISSN 1460-1060 heard, tasted or seen it can be felt. It is
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

probably best described as a pervasive attitude is indicative of the way the business runs itself
that allows business to see beyond the present on a daily and routine basis. In one sense it is
and create the future. In short, innovation is the encapsulation of the organisations true
the engine of change and in todays fiercely priorities.
competitive environment resisting change is Humans are active observers of the envi-
dangerous. Companies cannot protect them- ronment in which they live. They shape the
selves from change regardless of their excel- environment and are shaped by the environ-
lence or the vastness of their current resource ment in which they exist and from which they
basin. Change, while it brings uncertainty and infer organisational priorities. From this
risk, also creates opportunity. The key driver understanding they align themselves to
of the organisations ability to change is inno- achieve their own particular ends. At times
vation. However, simply deciding that the these personal ends may coincide with those
organisation has to be innovative is not suffi- of the organisation or they may conflict.
cient. That decision must be backed by Understanding and perceptions of the envi-
actions that create an environment in which ronment act as guiding mechanisms. The
people are so comfortable with innovation practices and procedures that come to define
that they create it. these perceptions are labelled climate.
Culture is a primary determinant of inno- Scheider et al. (1996) define four dimensions
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

vation. Possession of positive cultural charac- of climate:

teristics provides the organisation with neces- (1) Nature of interpersonal relationships
sary ingredients to innovate. Culture has is there trust or mistrust?;
multiple elements which can serve to enhance
are relationships reciprocal and based
or inhibit the tendency to innovate. Moreover
on collaboration, or are they competi-
the culture of innovation needs to be matched
against the appropriate organisational con-
does the organisation socialise new-
text. To examine culture in isolation is a
comers and support them to perform,
mistake, and to simply identify one type of
or does it allow them to achieve and
culture and propose it as the panacea to an
assimilate simply by independent
organisations lack of innovation is to com-
pound that mistake.
do the individuals feel valued by the
Innovation cultures and innovation (2) Nature of hierarchy
climates are decisions made centrally or
through consensus and participation?;
Visiting companies like 3M, Hewlett-
Packard, Sony, Honda, The Body Shop, one is there a spirit of teamwork or is work
is left with a feeling that is not often encoun- more or less individualistic?;
tered in ordinary companies. This feeling are there any special privileges accord-
often defies definition yet despite its intangi- ed to certain individuals, such as man-
bility contains organisational concreteness as agement staff?
real as the machinery on the shop-floor. This (3) Nature of work
feeling usually is found rooted in the prevail- is work challenging or boring?;
ing psyche of each organisation. A company are jobs tightly defined and produce
like 3M feels dynamic while some of its coun- routines or do they provide flexibility?;
terparts feel rather staid and unexciting. The are sufficient resources provided to
feel of the organisation reflects both its cli- undertake the tasks for which individu-
mate and culture. The term climate histori- als are given responsibility?
cally stems/originates from organisational (4) Focus of support and rewards
theorists such as Kurt Lewin (leadership what aspects of performance are
styles create social climates), Douglas appraised and rewarded?;
Mcgregor (theory X and Y) , who used the what projects and actions/behaviours
term to refer to social climate, and organisa- get supported?;
tional climate respectively. The climate of the is getting the work done (quantity) or
organisation is inferred by its members getting the work right (quality) reward-
through the organisations practices, ed?;
procedures and rewards systems deployed and on what basis are people hired?
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

The parameters listed above help to define Furthermore, culture can be thought of as
climate. It is primarily from these sources that having two components: explicit or implicit.
employees draw inferences about the organi- The distinction between explicit and implicit
sational environment in which they reside and components of culture is important in that it
understand the priorities accorded to certain allows a better understanding of how to
goals that the organisation espouses. analyse and manage it. Explicit culture repre-
Closely allied to the concept of climate is sents the typical patterns of behaviour by the
culture. Organisational culture refers to people and the distinctive artefacts that they
deeply held beliefs and values. Culture is produce and live within. Implicit component
therefore, in a sense, a reflection of climate, of culture refers to a values, beliefs, norms
but operates at a deeper level. Whereas cli- and premises which underline and determine,
mate is observable in the practices and poli- the observed patterns of behaviour (i.e. those
cies of the organisation, the beliefs and values expressed within explicit culture). The dis-
of culture are not visible at that level but exist tinction is necessary because it serves to
as cognitive schema which govern behaviour highlight that it is easier to manipulate explicit
and actions to given environmental stimuli. aspects when trying to fashion organisational
To illustrate the inter-linkage, 3M has the change. For example, in trying to make the
practice of setting aside a certain amount of company customer oriented it may be possi-
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

time for employees to do creative work on ble to elicit certain actions and behaviours
their own initiatives. To support this, specific from employees through relatively simple
seed funding is provided, and the individuals training in customer satisfaction techniques
are encouraged to share and involve and but not necessarily effect any change in
become involved in each others projects. implicit culture. A change in implicit culture
These practices and support (climate) make would necessitate altering the value set of the
individuals believe that senior management individual members to the extent that it
values innovation (culture). Culture thus became an unconscious norm of action,
appears to stem from the interpretations that rather than guided by procedural or other
employees give to their experience of organi- organisational control routines. The degree
sational reality (why things are the way they and extent to which this happens is dependent
are and the how and why of organisational on the strength of the culture.
priorities.) The strength of culture depends primarily
If the notion of innovation culture is to be on two things:
useful, it is important to be clear about what (1) Pervasiveness of the norms beliefs and
we mean by the term. Failure to specify it behaviours in the explicit culture (the
clearly leads to confusion and misunderstand- proportion of members holding strongly
ing. The question, what is innovation culture, to specific beliefs and standards of behav-
is pertinent yet complex. The reason for this is iours).
partly to do with the way the concept of cul- (2) Match between the implicit and explicit
ture has evolved and partly to do with the aspects of culture.
inherent complexity within the concept itself.
Another way of looking at culture is in terms
It is perhaps important to remember that the
of cultural norms. Creating culture through
concept of corporate culture has developed
use of words is however seldom enough.
from anthropological attempts to understand
Essentially norms vary along two dimensions
whole societies. The term, over time, came to
(O Reilly, 1989):
be used to other social groupings, ranging
(1) The intensity: amount of approval/disap-
from whole nations, corporations, depart-
proval attached to an expectation.
ments and even teams within businesses.
(2) Crystallisation: prevalence with which the
There are a multitude of definitions of
norm is shared.
culture but most suggest culture is the pattern
of arrangement or behaviour adopted by a For instance when analysing an organisations
group (society, corporation, or team) as the culture it may be that certain values are held
accepted way of solving problems. As such, widely but with no intensity, e.g. everyone
culture includes all the institutionalised ways understands what top management wants,
and the implicit beliefs, norms, values and but there is no strong approval/disapproval.
premises which underline and govern By way of contrast, it may be that a given
behaviour. norm such as innovation, is positively valued
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

in one group (marketing and R&D) and or authority cannot. Moreover, given the
negatively valued by another (say manufactur- nature of culture and climate, it is clear that
ing). There is intensity but no crystallisation. senior managers play a critical role in shaping
It is only when there exist both intensity and culture, since they are able to give priority to
consensus that strong cultures exist. This is innovation, as well as make efforts, in terms of
why it is difficult to develop or change culture. rewards for instance, to guard against compla-
Strong cultures score highly on each of the cency. Employees take the priorities set by
above attributes. Moreover, really strong what management values, and use these to
cultures work at the implicit level and exert a guide their actions. The challenge for man-
greater degree of control over peoples behav- agement then is to make sure that the employ-
iour and beliefs. Strong cultures can be bene- ees make the right type of attributions, since
ficial as well as harmful, depending on the any mismatches or miscommunication quite
circumstances in which the organisation finds easily leads to confusion and chaos.
itself. The value of strong cultures is that by
virtue of deeply-held assumptions and beliefs
Organisational culture and effectiveness
the organisation is able to facilitate behaviours
in accordance to organisational principles. A Having examined the issue of defining cul-
company that can create strong culture has ture, it is necessary to check the attributes that
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

employees who believe in its products, its make for its effectiveness. The topic of culture
customers, and its processes. and effectiveness is of central importance, yet
However, organisations need also to be the area is beset by a formidable set of
wary of a strong culture. As well as being a research problems. According to Denison and
strength, it can in circumstances be a hin- Mishra (1995), any theory of cultural effec-
drance. To effectively use culture over the tiveness must encompass a broad range of
long term, organisations need to also possess phenomena extending from core assumptions
certain values and assumptions about accept- to visible artefacts, and from social structures
ing change. These values must be driven by to individual meaning. In addition, the theory
the strategic direction in which the company must also address culture as symbolic repre-
is moving. Without these a strong culture can sentations of past attempts at adaptation and
be a barrier to recognising the need for survival, as well as a set of limiting or enabling
change, and being able to reconstitute itself conditions for future adaptation. Even though
even if the need is recognised. Supporting this attempts at integration have been made there
apparently contradictory facet of culture, is still very limited consensus regarding a
Denison (1990), in a longitudinal study found universal theory, and a great deal of scepti-
evidence that suggests incoherent and weak cism exists about whether culture can ever be
cultures at one point in time were associated measured in a way that allows one organisa-
with greater organisational effectiveness in the tion to be compared with another.
future, and that some strong cultures eventu-
ally led to decline in corporate performance. Empirical evidence: culture effectiveness
Clearly, balance and understanding of context The empirical work on organisational culture
is important. Cultures with strong drive for can be traced back early to the work of classi-
innovation and change can lead to problems cal organisation theorists such as Burns and
when market circumstances and customer Stalker (1961), Lawrence and Lorsh (1967),
requirements demand predictability and Likert (1961). In more recent times a vast
conforming to specifications. John Scullys base of popular literature on the subject was
rescue of Apple Computers from the innova- started by writers such as Peters and Water-
tive but less predictable culture created by man (1982) in espousing a theory of excel-
Steve Jobs is a good example of the weakness lence, which purports to identify cultural
of a strong culture. characteristics of successful companies.
Generally we can say that because culture Numerous studies have produced evidence
can directly affect behaviour it can help a which highlights the importance of culture to
company to prosper. An innovative culture organisational performance and effectiveness.
can make it easy for senior management to To cite a handful of exemplary studies, Wilkins
implement innovation strategies and plans.. and Ouchi (1983) discuss the concept of
The key benefit is that often it can do things clan organisation and explore the hypotheti-
that simple use of formal systems, procedures cal conditions under which clans would be
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

more efficient organisational forms. Gordon high conformity and little or no dissent.
(1985) highlighted that high and low per- Nonetheless in each case the degree of
forming companies in the banking and utili- consistency of the system is a salient trait
ties industries had different culture profiles. of the organisations culture.
Kotter and Heskett (1992) present an analysis (3) Adaptability, or the capacity for internal
of the relationship between strong cultures, change in response to external conditions, is a
adaptive cultures and effectiveness. Most cultural trait that is positively related to
recently Deshpande et al. (1993) link culture effectiveness. Effective organisations must
types to innovativeness. Deshpande et al., develop norms and beliefs that support
using a synthesis of over 100 previous studies their capacity to receive and interpret
in organisational behaviour, sociology and signals from their environment and trans-
anthropology, define four generic culture late them into cognitive, behavioural and
types: market culture, adhocracy culture, clan structural changes. When consistency
culture and hierarchical culture. Their study becomes detached from the external
appears to suggest that a certain variety of environment, firms will often develop into
cultures are more able to enhance innovative- insular bureaucracies, and are unlikely to
ness than other types. Market and adhocracy be adaptable.
cultures score highly for high performance (4) Sense of mission or long term vision is a
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

companies, exhibiting a statistically signifi- cultural trait that is positively related to

cant relationship. A study by Goran Ekvall effectiveness. Interestingly this contrasts
(1993) in Sweden further supports the link with the adaptability notion, in that it
between culture and innovativeness. emphasises the stability of an organisa-
More generally, Dennison and Mishra tions central purpose and de-emphasises
(1995) identify four cultural traits and values its capacity for situational adaptability
that are associated with cultural effectiveness. and change. A mission appears to provide
These are briefly defined below: two major influences on the organisa-
(1) Involvement is a cultural trait which is posi- tions functioning. First, a mission pro-
tively related to effectiveness. Involvement of vides purpose and meaning, and a host of
a large number of participants appears to non-economic reasons why the organisa-
be linked with effectiveness by virtue of tions work is important. Second, a sense
providing a collective definition of behav- of mission defines the appropriate course
iours, systems, and meanings in a way that of action for the organisation and its
calls for individual conformity. Typically members. Both of these factors reflect
this involvement is gained through inte- and amplify the key values of the organi-
gration around a small number of key sation.
values. This characteristic is popularly
recognised as a strong culture. Involve- Denison and Mishra (1995) propose that for
ment and participation create a sense of effectiveness, organisations need to reconcile
ownership and responsibility. Out of this all four of these traits. The four traits together
ownership grows a greater commitment to serve to acknowledge two contrasts: the con-
the organisation and a growing capacity to trast between internal integration and exter-
operate under conditions of ambiguity. nal adaptation, and the contrast between
(2) Consistency is a cultural trait that is positive- change and stability. Involvement and consis-
ly related to effectiveness. Consistency has tency have as their focus the dynamics of
both positive and negative organisational internal integration, while mission and adapt-
consequences. The positive influence of ability address the dynamics of external adap-
consistency is that it provides integration tation. This focus is consistent with Scheins
and co-ordination. The negative aspect is (1985) observation that culture is developed
that highly consistent cultures are often as an organisation learns to cope with the dual
the most resistant to change and adapta- problems of external adaptation and internal
tion. The concept of consistency allows integration. In addition, involvement and
us to explain the existence of sub-cultures adaptability describe traits related to an
within an organisation. Sources of inte- organisations capacity to change, while the
gration range from a limited set of rules consistency and mission are more likely to
about when and how to agree and dis- contribute to the organisations capacity to
agree, all the way to a unitary culture with remain stable and predictable over time.
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

The individual and innovation culture associative fluency

fluency of expression
People play a role in organisational culture.
figural fluency
Organisations need to consider the type of
ideational fluency
employees that can most effectively drive
speech fluency
innovation. From a diverse range of research
word fluency
(psychology to management) it has been
practical ideational fluency
found that a core of reasonably stable person-
ality traits characterise creative individuals. A
(Carrol, 1985)
select few of these are listed:
Personality traits for innovation
high valuation of aesthetic qualities in
broad interests (Guildford, 1983)
attraction to complexity
high energy Personal motivational factors affecting
independence of judgement innovation
intuition At the individual level numerous motivation-
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

self-confidence related factors have been identified as drivers

ability to accommodate opposites of creative production. The key ones are
firm sense of self as creative presented below:
(Baron and Harrington, 1981) Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation
persistence Intrinsic motivation is a key driver of creativi-
curiosity ty (Amabile, 1990; Baron and Harrington,
energy 1981). In fact extrinsic interventions such as
intellectual honesty rewards and evaluations appear to adversely
(Amabile 1988) affect innovation motivation because they
internal locus of control (reflective/intro- appear to redirect attention from experi-
spective) menting to following rules or technicalities
(Woodman and Schoenfeldt, 1990) of performing a specific task. Furthermore,
Although there appears to be general agree- apprehension about evaluation appears to
ment that personality is related to creativity, divert attention away from the innovation
attempts to try and use this inventory type of because individuals become reluctant to take
approach in an organisational setting as pre- risks since these risks may be negatively evalu-
dictor of creative accomplishments is fraught ated. Contrarily, in order to be creative, indi-
with dangers, and is hardly likely to be any viduals need freedom to take risks, play with
more useful than attempts at picking good ideas and expand the range of considerations
leaders through the use of trait theory from which solutions may emerge.
approaches. Nevertheless it does highlight the Challenging individuals
need to focus on individual actors, and to try Open ended, non-structured tasks engender
and nurture such characteristics or at least higher creativity than narrow jobs. This
bring them out, if necessary, in an organisa- occurs by virtue of the fact that people
tional setting..
respond positively when they are challenged
and provided sufficient scope to generate
Cognitive factors and innovation
novel solutions. It appears that it is not the
Cognitive factors also appear to be associated
individual who lacks creative potential but it is
with the ability to innovate. Research appears
the organisational expectations that exert a
to indicate a number of cognitive factors are
primary debilitating effect upon the individ-
associated with creativity. For example, med-
uals inclination to innovate (Shalley and
ical psychology indicates differences in cogni-
Oldham, 1985).
tive processing, ascribing left cerebral cortex
to rational thinking, and the right brain to Skills and knowledge
intuition. Creativity is affected by relevant skills such as
Cognitive parameters affecting idea pro- expertise, technical skills, talent etc. However
duction are given below: such domain-related skills can have both
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

positive as well as negative consequences. outward looking; willingness to take on

Positively, knowledge enhances the possibility external ideas;
of creating new understanding. Negatively, flexibility with respect to changing needs;
high domain-relevant skills may narrow the non-hierarchical;
search heuristics to learnt routines and there- information flow downwards as well as
by constrain fundamentally new perspectives. upwards.
This can lead to functional fixedness.
At a more macro-level Schneider et al. Mechanistic structures hinder
(1996) suggest that organisations may attract innovation
and select persons with matching styles. rigid departmental separation and func-
Organisational culture, as well as other tional specialisation;
aspects of the organisation, may be difficult to hierarchical;
change because people who are attracted to bureaucratic;
the organisation may be resistant to accepting many rules and set procedures;
new cognitive styles. When a change is forced, formal reporting;
those persons attracted by the old organisa- long decision chains and slow decision
tion may leave because they no longer match making;
the newly accepted cognitive style. Among little individual freedom of action;
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

other things, this culture-cognitive style communication via the written word;
match suggests that organisational conditions much information flow upwards; directives
flow downwards.
(including training programs) supportive of
creativity will be effective only to the extent
that the potential and current organisational Cultural norms for innovation
members know of and prefer these conditions.
Bearing in mind that the external context
impacts heavily upon innovation and recipro-
Structure and innovation cally, the intrinsic creativity inherent in the
organisation defines its ability to adapt to, and
Although most research appears to agree that
even shape the environment, we can ask how
innovation is influenced by social processes,
can culture promote innovation? Indeed does
research in this area thus far has taken a back
culture hinder or enhance the process of
seat to research on individual differences and
creativity and innovation? The answer is that
antecedents. Generally it can be said that
it simply depends on the norms that are wide-
innovation is enhanced by organic structures
ly held by the organisation. If the right types
rather than mechanistic structures. Innova-
of norms are held and are widely shared then
tion is increased by the use of highly participa- culture can activate creativity. Just as easily, if
tive structures and cultures (e.g. high perfor- the wrong culture exists, no matter the effort
mance-high commitment work systems and good intention of individuals trying to
(Burnside, 1990). For instance, an idea promote innovation, few ideas are likely to be
champion must be made to feel part of the forthcoming .
total innovation; at the very least he/she must A variety of research (Andrew, 1996;
be allowed to follow the progress of the inno- Filipczak, 1997; Judge et al., 1997; OReilly,
vation. This builds involvement via ownership 1989; Picken and Dess, 1997; Pinchot and
and enhances attachment and commitment at Pinchot, 1996; Schneider et al., 1996; Warner
the organisational level. There is also a strong et al., 1997), appear to point to the same set of
case here to let the individual lead the project critical norms involved in promoting and
in a total sense from beginning to end. implementing innovation and creativity.
Norms that promote innovation are pre-
Organic structures promote innovation sented below.
freedom from rules;
participative and informal; Challenge and belief in action
many views aired and considered; The degree of which employees are involved
face to face communication; little red tape; in daily operations and the degree of stretch
inter-disciplinary teams; breaking down required.
departmental barriers; Key attributes:
emphasis on creative interaction and aims; dont be obsessed with precision;
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

emphasis on results; Debates

meet your commitments; The degree to which employees feel free to
anxiety about timeliness; debate issues actively, and the degree to which
value getting things done; minority views are expressed readily and
hard work is expected and appreciated; listened to with an open mind.
eagerness to get things done; Key attributes:
cut through bureaucracy. expect and accept conflict;
accept criticism;
Freedom and risk-taking dont be too sensitive.
The degree to which the individuals are given
latitude in defining and executing their own Cross-functional interaction and
work. freedom
Key attributes: The degree to which interaction across func-
freedom to experiment; tions is facilitated and encouraged.
challenge the status quo; Key attributes:
expectation that innovation is part of your move people around;
job; teamwork;
freedom to try things and fail; manage interdependencies;
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

acceptance of mistakes; flexibility in jobs, budgets, functional areas.

allow discussion of dumb ideas;
no punishment for mistakes. Myths and stories
The degree to which success stories are
designed and celebrated.
Dynamism and future orientation
Key attributes:
The degree to which the organisation is active
symbolism and action;
and forward looking.
build and disseminate stories and myths.
Key attributes:
forget the past;
Leadership commitment and
willingness not to focus on the short term;
drive to improve;
The extent to which leadership exhibits real
positive attitudes towards change;
commitment and leads by example and
positive attitudes toward the environment;
actions rather than just empty exhortation.
empower people;
Key attributes:
emphasis on quality.
senior management commitment;
walk the talk;
External orientation declaration in mission/vision.
The degree to which the organisation is sensi-
tive to customers and external environment. Awards and rewards
Key attributes: The manner in which successes (and failures)
adopt customers perspective; are celebrated are rewarded.
build relationships with all external inter- Key attributes:
faces (supplier, distributors). ideas are valued;
top management attention and support;
Trusts and openness respect for beginning ideas;
The degree of emotional safety that employ- celebration of accomplishments e.g.
ees experience in their working relationships. awards;
When there is high trust, new ideas surface suggestions are implemented;
easily. encouragement.
Key attributes:
open communication and share Innovation time and training
communication; The amount of time and training employees
listen better; are given to develop new ideas and new possi-
open access; bilities and the way in which new ideas are
accept criticism; received and treated.
encourage lateral thinking; Key attributes:
intellectual honesty. built-in resource slack ;
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

funds budgets; work toward a common end (Collins and

time; Porras, 1991).
opportunities; Despite these concerns , Ledford et al.
promotions; (1994) suggest that if correctly formulated
tools; and expressed, philosophy statements can
infrastructure e.g. rooms, equipment etc; provide three advantages. First, the state-
continuous training; ments can be used to guide behaviours and
encourage lateral thinking; decision making. Second, philosophy state-
encourage skills development. ments express organisational culture, which
can help employees interpret ambiguous
Corporate identification and unity stimuli. Third, they may contribute to organi-
The extent to which employees identify with sational performance by motivating employ-
the company, its philosophy, its products and ees or inspiring feelings of commitment.
customers. Importantly it is worth bearing in mind that
Key attributes: the statement does not have to move moun-
sense of pride; tains to make a cumulative difference in firm
willingness to share the credit; performance. If the individual employees
sense of ownership; become just a little bit more dedicated to
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

eliminate mixed messages; innovation, exert just a little bit more effort
shared vision and common direction; towards creativity goals, care a just a little bit
build consensus; more about their work, then the statement
may produce a positive return on the invest-
mutual respect and trust;
ment needed to create it.
concern for the whole organisation.
So what makes a statement effective?
According to Ledford et al. (1994), an effec-
Organisational structure: autonomy and
tive statement consists of four basic guiding
principles to bring a statement to life:
The degree to which the structure facilitates
(1) Make it a compelling statement. Avoid
innovation activities.
boring details and routine descriptions.
Key attributes:
(2) Install an effective communication and
decision making responsibility at lower
implementation process.
(3) Creates strong linkage between the
decentralised procedures;
philosophy and the systems governing
freedom to act;
expectation of action; (4) Have an ongoing process of affirmation
belief the individual can have an impact; and renewal.
quick, flexible decision making, minimise
bureaucracy. Leadership and innovation culture
Leading edge organisations consistently
Corporate missions, philosophy innovate, and do so with courage. It is the task
statements and innovation culture of organisational leaders to provide the cul-
ture and climate that nurtures and acknowl-
Having a clear corporate philosophy enables edges innovation at every level. Notwithstand-
individuals to co-ordinate their activities to ing the fact that leadership is critically impor-
achieve common purposes, even in the tant, it is nevertheless insufficient on its own
absence of direction from their managers to build a culture of continuous improvement
(Ouchi, 1983). One effect of corporate state- and innovation. To build a culture of innova-
ments is their influence in creating a strong tion, many innovation champions must be
culture capable of appropriately guiding identified, recruited, developed, trained,
behaviours and actions. However there is also encouraged and acknowledged throughout
a degree of doubt as to whether statements of the organisation.
credo have any value in driving the organisa- In order to build a successful and sustain-
tion forward. Most statements encountered able culture of innovation, leadership needs to
often are of little value because they fail to accomplish two broad tasks. First leaders
grab peoples attention or motivate them to need to be acutely sensitive to their
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

environment and acutely aware of the impact effectively seed a climate conducive to innova-
that they themselves have on those around tion. It is important to note that it is not suffi-
them. This sensitivity enables them to provide cient to only emphasise one or few practices.
an important human perspective to the task at Climates are created by numerous elements
hand and is critical because it is only within coming together to reinforce employee per-
this awareness that the leader can begin to ceptions. Weaknesses or contradictions, even
bridge the gap between leaderspeak and the along single dimensions, can quite easily
real world of organisational culture. The debilitate efforts. For example, if rewards are
second factor is the ability of leaders to accept not structured for innovation but are given for
and deal with ambiguity. Innovation cannot efficient performance of routine operations,
occur without ambiguity, and organisations then no matter how seductive the other cues
and individuals that are not able to tolerate and perceptions are, employees are likely to
ambiguity in the work place environment and respond with caution and uncertainty. This is
relationships reproduce only routine actions. particularly the case because perceptions of
Innovative structures for example cannot have the climate are made on aggregates of experi-
all attendant problems worked out in advance. ence.
Leaders need to build a deep appreciation of Additionally, management create climate
this fact, otherwise there will be a tendency to not by what they say but by their actions. It is
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

create cultures of blame. Tolerance of ambi- through visible actions over time rather than
guity allows space for risk taking, and explo- through simple statements that employees
ration of alternative solution spaces which do begin to cement perceptions. It is only when
not always produce business results. This employees see things happening around them,
hedges against constant deployment of tried and to things that push them towards innova-
and tested routines for all occasions. Tom tion, that they begin to internalise the values
Peters comes close to the mark in highlighting of innovation. At innovative companies, the
that most successful managers have an unusu- whole system of organisational function is
al ability to resolve paradox, to translate con- geared-up to emphasise innovation (who gets
flicts and tensions into excitement, high hired, how they are rewarded, how the organi-
commitment and superior performance. sation is designed and laid out, what processes
Characteristics that distinguish highly are given priority and resource back-up, and
innovative firms against less innovative com- so on).
panies are as follows:
Top management commits both financial Leadership, innovation and
and emotional support to innovation, and empowerment
they promote innovation through champi-
ons and advocates for innovation. Empowering people to innovate is one of the
Top management has to ensure that realis- most effective ways for leaders to mobilise the
tic and accurate assessments of the markets energies of people to be creative. Combined
are made for the planned innovation. with leadership support and commitment,
Highly innovative firms are close to the end empowerment gives people freedom to take
users, and are accurately able to assess responsibility for innovation. Empowerment
potential demand. in the presence of strong cultures that guide
actions and behaviour produces both energy
Top management ensures that innovation
and enthusiasm for consistent work towards
projects get the necessary support from all
an innovative goal. Employees themselves are
levels of the organisation.
able to devise ways that allow them to inno-
Top management ensures that structured
vate and accomplish their tasks. The only
methodology/systems are set in place so
serious problem with empowerment occurs
that each innovation goes through a careful
when it is provided in an organisation without
screening process prior to actual imple-
a strong value system capable of driving activ-
ities in a unified and aligned manner to the
The above suggests that senior management super-ordinate goals of the organisation. In
play a pivotal role in enhancing or hindering these conditions, empowerment is little less
organisational innovation. If senior manage- than abdication of responsibility, and when
ment are able to install all of the above types responsibility and power is pushed down-
of procedures and practices then they wards, chaos typically ensues.
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

Even with empowerment, innovative They need also to understand the penalties if
actions can be incapacitated. Often people inefficiencies creep into aspects of their task.
encounter organisational barriers which In this way, understanding of risk provides
inhibit innovation. Some typical organisation- clear definition of the priority and space for
al barriers encountered are listed below: innovative actions. Without knowing that risk
self-imposed barriers; tolerance exists within the organisation,
unwarranted assumptions; employees tend not to be willing to try and
one correct answer thinking; innovate, or engage in activities that are a
failing to challenge the obvious; departure from tradition.
pressure to conform; The best way for leaders to define the action
fear of looking foolish. space, is not to be so precise as to discourage
innovation, but to stipulate a broad direction
Killer phrases also abound, a few of which are
which is consistent and clear. This means that
listed below:
as leaders they must be capable of accepting
it will cost too much;
ambiguity, and able to place trust in employ-
we have never done things that way;
ees ability to stretch out to goals rather than
if its that good, why hasnt someone
prescribe details of specific actions which stifle
thought of it before?;
and smother creative actions.
has it been done somewhere else?;
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

yes, but
Structure involvement
it cant be done that way;
Involvement is not something that just occurs
its impossible;
on its own. Senior management need to design
into their organisations ways of buying involve-
Actions that need to be addressed in order for ment. Involvement requires emotional encour-
the empowerment to contribute to innovation agement, as well as an infrastructure to create
are listed below: possibilities of involvement. Organisational
design and layout can be used to create a physi-
Establish meaningful actions cal environment to enhance interaction.
boundary Awards and special recognition schemes are
For employees to be creative and innovative other mechanisms to encourage buy-in into
they need to understand the primacy of the innovation as a philosophy and way of organi-
innovation agenda, and need to understand sational life. Establishing specific mechanisms
how far they are being empowered to achieve for structured involvement such as quality
these ends. Successful companies need to circles is yet another device to encourage active
draw actions boundary through a process of participation into the programme. Without
explicitly defining the domain of action and direct structures to induce innovation, leader-
the priority, and the level of responsibility and ship commitment to innovation remains an
empowerment provided to reach these ends. empty exhortation and produces empty results.
Most often such transmission occurs through
mission and vision statements. Devised cor- Accountability
rectly, these statements can act as powerful A very common problem in empowered
enablers. Incorrectly, they can be just as innovation is that everyone is encouraged to
powerful disablers breeding cynicism and participate in cross-functional process
discontent. involvement, to an extent that almost every-
body loses track of who is accountable for
Define risk tolerance what. The result of unrestricted and uncon-
Employees need to know the level of risks that trolled empowerment is chaos. As new
they can take safely. This helps them to define processes are put in place then new forms of
the space within which they are allowed to act behavioural guidance must be provided and
in an empowered manner, and the occasions must be accompanied by redefinitions of
when they need to approach organisational responsibility. While empowerment, on the
ratification for engaging in actions. For exam- surface, looks like an unstructured process, in
ple, employees need to understand how much reality it is anything but that. It is in fact a
time they can spend on their pet projects, and clear definition of domains in which the indi-
how much effort they need to ensure that their viduals are allowed to exert creative discre-
routine operations are not made sub-optimal. tion, and the responsibility that they must
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

execute while engaging in their total task as innovative companies behave as focused
employees of the organisation. communities whereas less innovative compa-
nies units behave more like traditional
Action orientation rather than bureaucratic departments. They suggest four
bureaucracy orientation managerial practices that influence the mak-
To ensure that innovation occurs, leaders ing of such goal-directed communities.
must ensure that there are no bureaucratic
bottlenecks which suffocate attempts at inno- Balanced autonomy
vation. One primary culprit of this is overly Autonomy is defined as having control over
bureaucratic procedures for rubber-stamping means as well as the ends of ones work. This
approval or reporting requirements. Faced concept appears to be one of central impor-
with such obstacles, a lot of employee tance. There are two types of autonomy:
initiatives fail. In fact a large proportion of strategic autonomy: the freedom to set
suggestion schemes appear to fail not because ones own agenda;
there is a lack of ideas but because of the operational autonomy: the freedom to
protocols, and the failure of the protocols to
attack a problem, once it has been set by
process with sufficient speed either a
the organisation, in ways that are deter-
favourable or unfavourable response.
mined by the individual self.
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

Employee innovativeness is not always the

stumbling block often it is the organisational Operational autonomy encourages a sense of
processes and structures which are so burden- the individual and promotes entrepreneurial
some and unwieldy that they create high level spirit, whereas strategic autonomy is more to
of unresponsiveness. Through leadership do with the level of alignment with organisa-
commitment to re-engineer out unfruitful tional goals. It appears that firms that are
elements of bureaucracy, processes and struc- most innovative emphasise operational auton-
ture can lay the foundation for a climate of omy but retain strategic autonomy for top
innovation. management. Top management appear to
specify ultimate goals to be attained but there-
Characteristics of innovation climates after provide freedom to allow individuals to
and cultures be creative in the ways they achieve goals.
Giving strategic autonomy, in the sense of
Despite the interest in the field of innovation, allowing individuals a large degree of freedom
much of the research evidence concerning to determine their destiny, ultimately leads to
management practices about innovation
less innovation. The results of strategic auton-
cultures and creative climate remains unsys-
omy are an absence of guidelines and focus in
tematic and anecdotal. As mentioned earlier,
effort. In contrast, having too little opera-
the importance of culture has been empha-
tional autonomy also has the effect of creating
sised by organisational theorists such as Burns
imbalance. Here the roadmaps become too
and Stalker (1961), who present a case for
rigidly specified, and control drives out innov-
organic structures as opposed to mechanistic
ative flair, leading eventually to bureaucratic
structures. In popular literature, Peters and
Waterman (1982), similarly present argu- atmospheres. What works best is a balance
ments which suggest that in order to facilitate between operational and strategic autonomy.
innovation, work environments must be
simultaneously tight and loose. Burlgeman Personalised recognition
and Sayles (1986) highlight the dependency Rewarding individuals for their contribution
of innovation with the development and to the organisation is widely used by corpora-
maintenance of an appropriate context within tions. However, while recognition can take
which innovation can occur. Judge et al. many forms there is a common distinction:
(1997) in presenting findings from a study of rewards can be either extrinsic or intrinsic.
R&D units compare cultures and climates Extrinsic rewards are things such as pay
between innovative and less-innovative firms increases, bonuses and shares and stock
and argue that the key distinguishing factor options. Intrinsic rewards are those that are
between innovative and less innovative firms is based on internal feelings of accomplishment
the ability of management to create a sense of by the recipient. For example, being personal-
community in the workplace. Highly ly thanked by the CEO, or being recognised
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

by the peer group, being awarded an award or Continuity of slack

trophy. Slack is the cushion of resources which allows
Innovative companies appear to rely heavi- an organisation to adapt to internal and exter-
ly on personalised intrinsic awards, both for nal pressures. Slack has been correlated posi-
individuals as well as groups. Less innovative tively to innovation. Judge et al. (1997) note
companies tend to place almost exclusive that it is not just the existence of slack but the
emphasis on extrinsic awards. It appears that existence of slack over time that appears to
when individuals are motivated more by have positive impact upon innovation. They
intrinsic desires than extrinsic desires then find less innovative firms have slack but these
there is greater creative thought and action. firms appear to have experienced significant
Nevertheless, it has to be stated that extrinsic disruptions or discontinuities of slack in their
rewards have to be present at a base level in past or were expecting disruptions in the
order to ensure that individuals are at least future. Therefore innovativeness seems to be
comfortable with their salary. Beyond the base linked with both experience and expectations
salary thresholds it appears that innovation is of slack resources. It can be hypothesised that
primarily driven by self-esteem level rather slack, and future expectations of uninterrupt-
than external monetary rewards. It appears ed slack, provide scope for the organisation
that extrinsic rewards often yield only and its members to take risks that they would
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

temporary compliance. Extrinsic rewards not take under conditions of no slack, or

promote competitive behaviours which dis- interruptions in slack. Organisationally, this
rupt workplace relationships, inhibit openness would appear to indicate the need for generat-
ing a base-line stock of slack in a variety of
and learning, discourage risk-taking, and can
critical resources (such as time and seed
effectively undermine interest in work itself.
funding for new projects).
When extrinsic rewards are used, individuals
tend to channel their energies in trying to get
the extrinsic reward rather than unleash their Conclusion
creative potential.
In attempting to build an enduring company, it
is vitally important to understand the key role
Integrated socio-technical system
of the soft side of the organisation in innova-
Highly innovative companies appear to place
tion. Companies like IBM and Apple saw their
equal emphasis on the technical side as well as
fortunes overturned because of their inability
the social side of the organisation. In other
to focus upon innovation, and more important-
words, they look to nurture not only technical
ly to understand the importance of culture and
abilities and expertise but also promote a
climate in innovation. Apple Computers, after
sense of sharing and togetherness. Fostering the departure of Steve Jobs, encountered
group cohesiveness requires paying attention dramatic failure despite its focus upon innova-
to the recruitment process to ensure social tion. One of the reasons for this, was that its
fit beyond technical expertise, and also leaders narrowly focused their total efforts in
about carefully integrating new individuals trying to come up with the next great innova-
through a well-designed socialisation pro- tion. Instead, their time would have been better
gramme. Less innovative firms on the other spent designing and creating an environment
hand appear to be more concerned with that would be able to create innovations of the
explicit, aggressive individual goals. Less future. Companies aspiring towards innovative
innovative firms tend to create environments goals need to learn from the examples of highly
of independence, whereas innovative ones successful companies like 3M, The Body Shop
create environments of co-operation. Highly whose leaders spend their energy and effort in
innovative companies also appear to place building organisational cultures and climates
much more reasonable goal expectations, and which perpetually create innovation.
try not to overload individuals with projects. In accepting this viewpoint, the key ques-
The prevalent belief being that too many tion in innovation begins to change from the
projects spread effort too thinly, leading traditional issue of focusing effort on the next
individuals to step from the surface of one to great innovation to one which asks whether
the next. These conditions create time pres- you are creating an environment that stimu-
sures which militate strongly against innova- lates innovation. Are you simply focusing on
tiveness. your product portfolio or are you focused on
Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management
Pervaiz K. Ahmed Volume 1 Number 1 1998 3043

building a culture that cannot be copied? Are Ekvall Goran (1993), Creativity in project work: a longitu-
you busy inventing a narrow base of products, dinal study of a product development project,
or are you experimenting with creating innova- Creativity and Innovation Management, March,
tiveness? Without doubt the most innovative pp. 17-26.
companies of the future will be dominated by Gordon, (1985), The relationship between corporate
those that do not simply focus energies upon culture to industry sector and corporate perfor-
mance, in Kilman, R.H., Saxton, M.J., Serpa, R. and
product and technical innovation, but those
asscoc. (Eds), Gaining Control of Corporate Culture,
who have managed to build enduring environ-
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
ments of human communities striving towards
Guildford, J.P. (1983), Transformation abilities or func-
innovation through the creation of appropriate
tions, Journal of Creative Behaviour, Vol. 17,
cultures and climate. This will be the energy of pp. 75-83.
renewal and the drive to a successful future.
Judge, W.Q., Fryxell, G.E. and Dooley, R.S. (1997), The
new task of R&D, management: creating goal
References directed communities for innovation, California
Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, Spring,
Amabile, T.M. (1988), A model of creativity and innovation pp. 72-84.
in organisations, in Straw, B.M. and Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organisational
Performance, Free Press, New York, NY.
Behaviour, Vol. 10, pp. 123-67, JAI Press, Greenwich,
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

CT. Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J. (1967), Organisation and

Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integra-
Amabile T.M. (1990), Within you, without you: the social
psychology of creativity and beyond, in Runco, M.A. tion, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
and Albert, R.S. (Eds), Theories of Creativity, pp. 61- Likert, R.L. (1961), New Patterns of Management,
91, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Andrew, C.A. (1996), The peopleware paradigm, Ledford, .G.E., Wendnhof, J.R. and Strahley, J.T. (1994),
Hospital Materials Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, Realising a corporate philosophy, Organisational
pp. 47-60. Dynamics, pp. 5-19.
Barron, F.B. and Harrington, D.M. (1981), Creativity, OReilly, C.O. (1989), Corporations, culture and commit-
intelligence, and personality, Annual review of ment: motivation and social control in large organi-
Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 439-76. sations, California Management Review, Summer,
Buckler, S.A. (1997), The spiritual nature of innovation, pp. 9-25.
Research-Technology Management, March-April,
Ouchi, W. (1983), Theory Z: How American Business can
pp. 43-7.
meet the Japanese Challenge, Addison-Wesley,
Burgleman, R.A. and Sayles, L.R. (1986), Inside Corporate Reading, MA.
Innovation: Strategy, Structure and Managerial
Skills, Free Press, New York, NY. Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excel-
lence: Lessons from Americas Best Run Companies,
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961), The Management of
Innovation, Tavistock Publications, London. Warner Books, New York, NY.

Burnside, R.M. (1990), Improving corporate climates for Pinchot, E. and Pinchot, G. (1996), Seeding a climate for
creativity, in West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (Eds), Innova- innovation, Executive Excellence, June, pp. 17-18.
tion and Creativity at Work, Wiley, Chichester, Shalley, C.E. and Oldham, G.R. (1985), Effects of goal
pp. 265-84. difficulty and expected evaluation on intrinsic
Bruner, M. (1996), Adopting an organisational culture of motivation: a laboratory study, Academy of
continual change, CMA Magazine, September Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 628-40.
1996. Schein, E.H. (1985) Organisational Culture and Leadership,
Carroll, J.B. (1985), Domains of cognitive ability, paper Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
presented at the meeting of American Association
Schneider, B., Gunnarson, S.K. and Niles-Jolly, K. (1996),
for the Advancement of Science, Los Angeles.
Creating the climate and culture of success,
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1991), Organisational vision Organisational Dynamics, pp. 17-29.
and visionary organisations, California Manage-
ment Review, Vol. 34, pp. 30-52. Schneider, B., Brief, A.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1996), Creating
a climate and culture for sustainable change,
Denison, D.R. (1990), Corporate Culture and Organisation-
Organisational Dynamics, Spring, pp. 7-19.
al Effectiveness, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Wilkins, A. and Ouchi, W. (1983), Efficient cultures:
Denison, D.R. and Mishra, A.K. (1995), Toward a theory of
organisational culture and effectiveness, Organisa- exploring the relationship between culture and
tion Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 204-23. organisational performance, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 60, pp. 468-98.
Deshpande, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. (1993),
Corporate culture, customer orientation and Woodman, R.W. and Schoenfeldt, L.F. (1990), An interac-
innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analy- tionist model of creative behavior, Journal of
sis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 23-7. Creative Behaviour, Vol. 24, pp. 279-90.
This article has been cited by:

1. John M. Keesler. 2016. Trauma-informed Day Services for Individuals with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities: Exploring
Staff Understanding and Perception within an Innovative Programme. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
29:5, 481-492. [CrossRef]
2. Eric Christian Brun. 2016. Ambidexterity and Ambiguity: The Link Between Ambiguity Management and Contextual
Ambidexterity in Innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 13:04, 1650013. [CrossRef]
3. XieXuemei Xuemei Xie WuYonghui Yonghui Wu ZengSaixing Saixing Zeng School of Management, Shanghai University,
Shanghai, China Shanghai University, Shanghai, China Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China . 2016. A theory
of multi-dimensional organizational innovation cultures and innovation performance in transitional economies. Chinese
Management Studies 10:3, 458-479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Irene Y.H. Fan IKI-SEA, Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand Rongbin W.B. Lee Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Knowledge Management and Innovation Research Center, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
Hong Kong . 2016. Intellectual capital-based innovation planning: empirical studies using wiNK model. Journal of Intellectual
Capital 17:3, 553-569. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Kong Seng Lai, Nor'Aini Yusof, Ernawati Mustafa Kamal. 2016. Organizational culture of the architectural firm: a case in a
developing country. International Journal of Construction Management 16:3, 197-208. [CrossRef]
6. Xiangzheng Deng, Zhan Wang, Chunhong Zhao. 2016. ECONOMIC EVOLUTION IN CHINA ECOLOGICALLY
FRAGILE REGIONS. Journal of Economic Surveys 30:3, 552-576. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

7. Minglong Li, Cathy H.C. Hsu. 2016. Linking customer-employee exchange and employee innovative behavior. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 56, 87-97. [CrossRef]
8. Anna Arcari, Anna Pistoni, Enrico Moretto, Paolo Ossola, Daniele Tonini. 2016. How Italian companies are monitoring
innovation. MANAGEMENT CONTROL :2, 143-165. [CrossRef]
9. DayanMumin Mumin Dayan Mumin Dayan is an Associate Professor at the United Arab Emirates University, UAE. He
received his MBA degree in Marketing from the Bennett S. Le Bow College of Business at Drexel University and PhD
degree in Marketing from the Fox School of Business in Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. His current research
areas are new product/technology development, cognitive/social psychology in innovation and small business management
and decision-making in teams. His work has been published in journals such as Industrial Marketing Management, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, R&D Management, Long Range
Planning and Research Policy. ZaccaRobert Robert Zacca Robert Zacca is an Assistant Professor of Management and
Entrepreneurship at the United Arab Emirates University, UAE. He earned his MBA degree from Plymouth State University,
New Hampshire, UK, and PhD in Entrepreneurship from Cracow University of Economics, Poland. His current research
areas are drivers and enablers of innovative enterprises and entrepreneurial creativity. He has recently won a National Research
Foundation grant from the UAE to investigate the Drivers and Enablers of Innovative Start-ups within the UAE, and
his work has been published in journals such as Management Decision Journal, International Journal of Entrepreneurship
& Innovation, Creativity and Innovation Management and IEEE International Technology Management Conferences.
HusainZafar Zafar Husain Zafar Husain is an Assistant Professor of Management of Technology and Innovation in the
College of Business Administration at Al Ain University of Science and Technology, UAE. He completed his PhD at
Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India. His research interests focus on strategic management of technology
and innovation, technology-based innovation and entrepreneurship, business intelligence and performance management. Di
BenedettoAnthony Anthony Di Benedetto Anthony Di Benedetto is a Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management
and Senior Washburn Research Fellow, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. He was Editor-in-Chief of Journal of
Product Innovation Management for nine years and is the co-author of New Products Management. He earned his PhD,
MBA and BSc at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. His research is in the areas of product development, product
launch strategy and industrial marketing management. He has published in journals such as Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Management Science, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of
Operations Management and IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. RyanJames C. James C. Ryan James C.
Ryan is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior in the
College of Business and Economics at the United Arab Emirates University, UAE. He completed his PhD at Dublin City
University and MA and BSc in psychology at University College Dublin, Ireland. He has worked in universities in Ireland,
New Zealand and the UAE. His research interests focus on workplace motivation, leadership and culture in organizational
contexts with additional interests in work values and entrepreneurship. College of Business and Economics, United Arab
Emirates University, Al Ain, UAE Department of Business Administration, College of Business, AlFaisal University, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia College of Business Administration, Al Ain University of Science and Technology, Al Ain, UAE Department
of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Department of Business Administration, College of Business and Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain,
UAE . 2016. The effect of entrepreneurial orientation, willingness to change, and development culture on new product
exploration in small enterprises. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:5, 668-683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. LasradoFlevy Flevy Lasrado Flevy Lasrado is presently associated with the Sharjah Institute of Technology and heads the
quality assurance department. She completed her PhD at the University of Salford UK, during which she undertook the study
of suggestion schemes. She carries 15+ years of diverse experience in Higher Education (HE) and is actively pursuing research
for quality enhancement in HE sector. ArifMohammed Mohammed Arif Mohammed Arif is a Professor at the School of
Built Environment at the University of Salford UK. RizviAftab Aftab Rizvi Aftab Rizvi is an Associate Professor of Decision
sciences at Manipal University, Dubai. UrdzikChris Chris Urdzik Chris Urdzik is currently an Adjunct Assistant Professor at
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA. He has over 35 years of industry experience
in aerospace management. He holds masters degrees in Aeronautical Science and Management and regularly lectures in those
disciplines. Quality Assurance Department, Sharjah Institute of Technology, Sharjah, UAE School of Built Environment,
University of Salford, Manchester, UK Department of Business, Manipal University, Dubai, UAE Department of Business
Administration, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA . 2016. Critical success
factors for employee suggestion schemes: a literature review. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 24:2, 315-339.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Siti Hajar Mohd Roffeei, Yusniza Kamarulzaman, Farrah Dina Yusop. 2016. Innovation Culture in Higher Learning
Institutions: A Proposed Framework. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 219, 401-408. [CrossRef]
12. Zeeshan Ali. 2016. Sustainable New Product Development and Social Sustainability: The Impact of Stakeholder Support.
Sustainability: The Journal of Record 9:2, 88-98. [CrossRef]
13. Jane Sutton, Hannah E. Family, Jennifer A. Scott, Heather Gage, Denise A. Taylor. 2016. The influence of organisational
climate on care of patients with schizophrenia: a qualitative analysis of health care professionals views. International Journal
of Clinical Pharmacy 38:2, 344-352. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

INNOVATION PARTNERSHIPS. International Journal of Innovation Management 20:01, 1650005. [CrossRef]
15. Alexandra Durcikova, Kelly J. Fadel. 2016. Knowledge sourcing from repositories: The role of system characteristics and
psychological climate. Information & Management 53:1, 64-78. [CrossRef]
16. Julia C. Naranjo-Valencia, Daniel Jimnez-Jimnez, Raquel Sanz-Valle. 2016. Studying the links between organizational
culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish companies. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologa 48:1, 30-41. [CrossRef]
17. Anwar Amin, Michael BellEnabling Innovation in Acehnese Schools 137-144. [CrossRef]
18. Marie Heidingsfelder, Kora Kimpel, Kathinka Best, Martina Schraudner. 2015. Shaping Future Adapting design know-
how to reorient innovation towards public preferences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 101, 291-298. [CrossRef]
19. Annika Steiber, Sverker Alnge. 2015. Organizational innovation: verifying a comprehensive model for catalyzing
organizational development and change. Triple Helix 2:1. . [CrossRef]
20. Jurgita Giniuniene, Lolita Jurksiene. 2015. Dynamic Capabilities, Innovation and Organizational Learning: Interrelations and
Impact on Firm Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 213, 985-991. [CrossRef]
21. Mooweon Rhee, Jin Suk Park, Taeyoung Yoo. 2015. The contradictory roles of ambiguity for innovation in an industry: how
beneficial are standardisation and classification?. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 27:9, 1114-1128. [CrossRef]
22. Patthera Suwannathat Technopreneurship and Innovation Management Program, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand Pasu Decharin Department of Commerce, Chulalongkorn Business School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand Anupap Somboonsavatdee Department of Statistics, Chulalongkorn Business School, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, Thailand . 2015. Fostering innovation in public organizations in Thailand. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis 23:4, 528-544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A NUANCED UNDERSTANDING OF AT. International Journal of Innovation Management 19:05, 1550046. [CrossRef]
24. Anna Karlsson, Katarina Lund Stetler. 2015. Frequency Versus Effect Obstacles to Innovation and Their Relationship to
Innovation Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 12:05, 1550025. [CrossRef]
25. Katarina Lund Stetler. 2015. Creativity Just in Time? The Role of Delivery Precision in Product Development. International
Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 12:05, 1550026. [CrossRef]
26. Ana Cristina G. Castro Silva, Cristiano Hora de O. Fontes, Ava Santana Barbosa. 2015. Multicriteria evaluation model
for organizational performance management applied to the Polo Fruit Exporter of the So Francisco Valley. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture 117, 168-176. [CrossRef]
27. M. Muzamil Naqshbandi, Sharan Kaur, Pin Ma. 2015. What organizational culture types enable and retard open innovation?.
Quality & Quantity 49:5, 2123-2144. [CrossRef]
28. N. Chutivongse, N. GerdsriProposed steps to analyze organizational characteristics and develop a roadmap for being an
innovative organization 728-735. [CrossRef]
29. Edison Jair Duque Oliva. 2015. CLIMA DE INNOVACIN PARA LA INNOVACIN. Suma de Negocios 6:14, 125-129.
30. Altmann Peter 1 , Engberg Robert 2 1,2Halmstad University, School of Business and Engineering, Halmstad, Sweden, . 2015. Managing Human Resources and Technology Innovation: The Impact
of Process and Outcome Uncertainties. International Journal of Innovation Science 7:2, 91-106. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract]
31. Najmedin Meshkati, Yalda Khashe. 2015. Operators' Improvisation in Complex Technological Systems: Successfully Tackling
Ambiguity, Enhancing Resiliency and the Last Resort to Averting Disaster. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
23:2, 90-96. [CrossRef]
32. Tomi J. Kallio Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Pori, Finland. Kirsi-Mari Kallio Turku School of Economics,
University of Turku, Pori, Finland. Annika Johanna Blomberg Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Pori,
Finland. . 2015. Physical space, culture and organisational creativity a longitudinal study. Facilities 33:5/6, 389-411.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Abdul Rahim Abu Bakar, Zafar U. Ahmed. 2015. Technology Motivation in E-Marketing Adoption Among Malaysian
Manufacturers. Journal of Transnational Management 20:2, 126-152. [CrossRef]
34. Nader Seyyedamiri, Nezameddin Faghih. 2015. Studying entrepreneurial marketing for information technology SMEs based
on the classic grounded theory. QScience Connect 2015:1, 9. [CrossRef]
35. Julia C. Naranjo-Valencia, Gregorio Caldern-Hernndez. 2015. Construyendo una cultura de innovacin. Una propuesta de
transformacin cultural. Estudios Gerenciales 31:135, 223-236. [CrossRef]
36. Morgan Miles, Audrey Gilmore, Paul Harrigan, Gemma Lewis, Zubin Sethna. 2015. Exploring entrepreneurial marketing.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 23:2, 94-111. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

37. Katarzyna Szczepaska-Woszczyna. 2015. Leadership and Organizational Culture as the Normative Influence of Top
Management on Employee's Behaviour in the Innovation Process. Procedia Economics and Finance 34, 396-402. [CrossRef]
38. Sharn OrchardEntrepreneurship and the Human Capital of Organizational Innovation: The Intrapreneur 111-138. [CrossRef]
39. Amal Ghalib Rashid Al-Mamoori, Zainal Ariffin Ahmad. 2015. Linking Organizational Structure, Technological Support
and Process Innovation: the Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing in the Iraqi Textile Industry. SHS Web of Conferences
18, 01007. [CrossRef]
40. Peter W. Arbuckle, Michael D. Lepech, Gregory A. Keoleian. 2014. The Role of Concrete Industry Standards as Institutional
Barriers to More Sustainable Concrete Bridge Infrastructure. Advances in Civil Engineering Materials 3:1, 20130109.
41. S. Sai Manohar, Shiv R. Pandit. 2014. Core Values and Beliefs: A Study of Leading Innovative Organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics 125:4, 667-680. [CrossRef]
42. Muhammad Shakeel Sadiq Jajja Suleman Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore,
Pakistan Shaukat Ali Brah Karachi School of Business and Leadership, Karachi, Pakistan Syed Zahoor Hassan Suleman
Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan Vijay R. Kannan Jon M. Huntsman
School of Business, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA . 2014. An examination of product innovation and buyer-
supplier relationship in Pakistani firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63:8, 1031-1045.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Elina Riivari, Anna-Maija Lms. 2014. Does it Pay to Be Ethical? Examining the Relationship Between Organisations
Ethical Culture and Innovativeness. Journal of Business Ethics 124:1, 1-17. [CrossRef]
International Journal of Innovation Management 18:04, 1450021. [CrossRef]
45. David A. Patterson Silver Wolf (Adelv unegv Waya), Catherine Dulmus, Eugene Maguin, John Keesler, Byron Powell. 2014.
Organizational Leaders and Staff Members Appraisals of Their Work Environment Within a Childrens Social Service
System. Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership & Governance 38:3, 215-227. [CrossRef]
46. Ching-Sung Lee, Yen-Cheng Chen, Pei-Ling Tsui, Tung-Han Yu. 2014. Examining the relations between open innovation
climate and job satisfaction with a PLS path model. Quality & Quantity 48:3, 1705-1722. [CrossRef]
47. Senay Sabah, Alan L. Carsrud, Akin Kocak. 2014. The Impact of Cultural Openness, Religion, and Nationalism on
Entrepreneurial Intensity: Six Prototypical Cases of Turkish Family Firms. Journal of Small Business Management 52:2,
306-324. [CrossRef]
48. Rita Zybartait, Ignas Dzemyda. 2014. Creativity Enhancement in Lithuanian Furniture Manufacturing Business According
to International Business Development. Mokslas - Lietuvos ateitis 6:1, 93-102. [CrossRef]
49. Kalanit Efrat. 2014. The direct and indirect impact of culture on innovation. Technovation 34:1, 12-20. [CrossRef]
50. Mita Mehta, Arti Chandani, B. Neeraja. 2014. Creativity and Innovation: Assurance for Growth. Procedia Economics and
Finance 11, 804-811. [CrossRef]
51. Eva Velasco, Ibon Zamanillo, Teresa Garcia Del Valle. 2013. Mobilizing Company Members' Full Innovative Potential. Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 23:6, 541-559. [CrossRef]
Journal of Innovation Management 17:05, 1350025. [CrossRef]
53. Kayhan Tajeddini, Ulf Elg, Myfanwy Trueman. 2013. Efficiency and effectiveness of small retailers: The role of customer
and entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20:5, 453-462. [CrossRef]
54. Arnifa Asmawi, Sabarudin Zakaria, Chong Chin Wei. 2013. Understanding transformational leadership and R&D culture in
Malaysian universities. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 15:3, 287-304. [CrossRef]
FORMATIVE MEASURE. International Journal of Innovation Management 17:04, 1350009. [CrossRef]
INNOVATIVENESS. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 10:04, 1350018. [CrossRef]
57. Ray Uzwyshyn, Aida Marissa Smith, Priscilla Coulter, Christy Stevens, Susan Hyland. 2013. A Virtual, Globally Dispersed
Twenty-First Century Academic Library System. The Reference Librarian 54:3, 226-235. [CrossRef]
58. Adegoke Oke. 2013. Linking manufacturing flexibility to innovation performance in manufacturing plants. International
Journal of Production Economics 143:2, 242-247. [CrossRef]
59. Jerome Gard, Guido Baltes, Daniel Wehle, Bernhard KatzyAn integrating model of autonomy in corporate entrepreneurship
1-14. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

60. Salih Yesil, Ahmet Kaya. 2013. The Effect of Organizational Culture on Firm Financial Performance: Evidence from a
Developing Country. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81, 428-437. [CrossRef]
61. Salih Yesil, Fikret Sozbilir. 2013. An Empirical Investigation into the Impact of Personality on Individual Innovation Behaviour
in the Workplace. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81, 540-551. [CrossRef]
62. Annika SteiberDepartment of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
Sweden Sverker AlngeDepartment of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden. 2013. A corporate system for continuous innovation: the case of Google Inc. European Journal of
Innovation Management 16:2, 243-264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Arnifa Asmawi, Sabarudin Zakaria, Chong Chin Wei. 2013. Understanding transformational leadership and R&D culture in
Malaysian universities. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 2612-2649. [CrossRef]
64. Adela J. McMurray, Md. Mazharul Islam, James C. Sarros, Andrew Pirola-Merlo. 2013. Workplace Innovation in a Nonprofit
Organization. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 23:3, 367-388. [CrossRef]
65. K. B. Tharan, Somayehsdat BahmanniaTransformational leadership and homogeneous innovative behavior: Moderate roles
of collectivist orientation and subjective norm toward knowledge sharing 55-58. [CrossRef]
66. Norbert Burger, Thorsten Staake, Elgar Fleisch, Christofer Hierold. 2013. Managing technology development teams -
exploring the case of microsytems and nanosystems. R&D Management 43:2, 162-186. [CrossRef]
67. Victor Wilfredo Bohorquez LopezBased at CENTRUM Catolica, PUCP, Lima, Peru. Jose EstevesBased at IE Business
School, Madrid, Spain. 2013. Acquiring external knowledge to avoid wheel reinvention. Journal of Knowledge Management
17:1, 87-105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Haris M. Noor, Bariah Dzulkifli. 2013. Assessing Leadership Practices, Organizational Climate and Its Effect towards
Innovative Work Behaviour in R&D. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 129-133. [CrossRef]
69. Karun Pratoom, Gomon Savatsomboon. 2012. Explaining factors affecting individual innovation: The case of producer group
members in Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29:4, 1063-1087. [CrossRef]
70. Monique Goepel, Katharina Hlzle, Dodo zu Knyphausen-Aufse. 2012. Individuals Innovation Response Behaviour: A
Framework of Antecedents and Opportunities for Future Research. Creativity and Innovation Management 21:4, 412-426.
71. Antonio LerroSusanne NilssonBased in the Division of Integrated Product Development, School of Industrial Engineering
and Management, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. 2012. Exploring problem finding in a medical device
company. Measuring Business Excellence 16:4, 66-78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Elisabeth Clark, Brian Webster. 2012. Innovation and its contribution to the scholarship of learning and teaching. Nurse
Education Today 32:7, 729-731. [CrossRef]
73. Ian CombeAston University, Birmingham, UKIan CombeMarketing Group, Aston Business School, Aston University,
Birmingham, UK. 2012. Marketing and flexibility: debates past, present and future. European Journal of Marketing 46:10,
1257-1267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Elina RiivariOpen University, University of Jyvskyl, Jyvskyl, Finland AnnaMaija LmsSchool of Business and
Economics, University of Jyvskyl, Jyvskyl, Finland Johanna KujalaSchool of Economics and Business Administration,
University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Erika HeiskanenJuuriharja Consulting Group Oy, Helsinki, Finland. 2012. The
ethical culture of organisations and organisational innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management 15:3, 310-331.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Aneika L. SimmonsDepartment of Management and Marketing, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA
Victor E. SowerDepartment of Management and Marketing, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA. 2012.
Leadership sagacity and its relationship with individual creative performance and innovation. European Journal of Innovation
Management 15:3, 298-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. E PawlowskiOrganizational innovations and knowledge based enterprises 3-12. [CrossRef]
77. Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu, James C Ryan, Kamel A Fantazy. 2012. Transformational leadership in Pakistan: An examination
of the relationship of transformational leadership to organizational culture and innovation propensity. Journal of Management
& Organization 18:4, 461-480. [CrossRef]
78. Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu, James C Ryan, Kamel A Fantazy. 2012. Transformational leadership in Pakistan: An examination
of the relationship of transformational leadership to organizational culture and innovation propensity. Journal of Management
& Organization 18:04, 461-480. [CrossRef]
79. Mazlum Celik, Omer Turunc, Necdet Bilgin. 2012. Moderating Role of the Ethic. Journal of Applied Sciences 12:6, 544-552.
80. Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu, James C. Ryan, Kamel A. Fantazy. 2012. Transformational Leadership in Pakistan: An Examination
of the Relationship of Transformational Leadership to Organizational Culture and Innovation Propensity. Journal of
Management & Organization 997-1046. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

81. Roman KmieciakFaculty of Organisation and Management, Silesian University of Technology, Zabrze, Poland Anna
MichnaFaculty of Organisation and Management, Silesian University of Technology, Zabrze, Poland Anna MeczynskaFaculty
of Organisation and Management, Silesian University of Technology, Zabrze, Poland. 2012. Innovativeness, empowerment
and IT capability: evidence from SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:5, 707-728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Keng-Boon Ooi, Binshan Lin, Pei-Lee Teh, Alain Yee-Loong Chong. 2012. Does TQM support innovation performance
in Malaysia's manufacturing industry?. Journal of Business Economics and Management 13:2, 366-393. [CrossRef]
83. Julia C. Naranjo-Valencia, Daniel Jimnez Jimnez, Raquel Sanz-Valle. 2012. Es la cultura organizativa un determinante de
la innovacin en la empresa?. Cuadernos de Economa y Direccin de la Empresa 15:2, 63-72. [CrossRef]
84. Elizabeth Daniel, Andrew Myers, Keith Dixon. 2012. Adoption rationales of new management practices. Journal of Business
Research 65:3, 371-380. [CrossRef]
ENOUGH FOR FOSTERING INNOVATION?. International Journal of Innovation Management 16:01, 1250005. [CrossRef]
IN HIGH-TECH SMES. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 09:01, 1250005. [CrossRef]
87. Ulrik Brandi, Cathrine HasseEmployee-Driven Innovation and Practice-Based Learning in Organizational Cultures 127-148.
88. Bari'ah Dzulkifli, Haris Md.NoorFramework of the mediating effect of organizational climate on the relationship between
leadership practices and innovative work behavior 614-619. [CrossRef]
89. Bjrn Remneland-Wikhamn, Wajda Wikhamn. 2011. Open Innovation Climate Measure: The Introduction of a Validated
Scale. Creativity and Innovation Management 20:4, 284-295. [CrossRef]
economische en sociale geografie 102:5, 532-547. [CrossRef]
91. Anne LinkeInstitute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany Ansgar ZerfassInstitute
of Communication and Media Studies, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 2011. Internal communication and innovation
culture: developing a change framework. Journal of Communication Management 15:4, 332-348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. Arnifa Asmawi, Avvari V. Mohan. 2011. Unveiling dimensions of organizational culture: an exploratory study in Malaysian
R&D organizations. R&D Management 41:5, 509-523. [CrossRef]
93. Gregorio Martnde Castro, Pedro LpezSez and Miriam DelgadoVerdeRaquel SanzValleAssociate Professor at the
Department of Management, University of Murcia Julia C. NaranjoValenciaAssociate Professor at the Department of
Industrial Engineering, National University of Colombia. Campus La Nubia, Manizales, Colombia Daniel Jimnez
JimnezAssociate Professor at the Department of Management, University of Murcia. Campus de Espinardo, Murcia,
Spain Laureano PerezCaballeroDoctoral student at the Department of Management, University of Murcia. Campus de
Espinardo, Murcia, Spain. 2011. Linking organizational learning with technical innovation and organizational culture. Journal
of Knowledge Management 15:6, 997-1015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Asef KarimiDepartment of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj,
Iran Iraj MalekmohamadiCollege of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Mahmoud Ahmadpour
DaryaniDepartment of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
Ahmad RezvanfarDepartment of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj,
Iran. 2011. A conceptual model of intrapreneurship in the Iranian agricultural extension organization. Journal of European
Industrial Training 35:7, 632-657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Peter Nielsen and Palle RasmussenAalborg University, DenmarkInocencia Mara MartnezLenBusiness Management
Department, Technical University of Cartagena, Cartagena, Spain Jose A. MartnezGarcaTechnical University of Cartagena,
Cartagena, Spain. 2011. The influence of organizational structure on organizational learning. International Journal of
Manpower 32:5/6, 537-566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
96. Hsing-Er Lin, Edward F. McDonough. 2011. Investigating the Role of Leadership and Organizational Culture in Fostering
Innovation Ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58:3, 497-509. [CrossRef]
97. Karen Smith. 2011. Cultivating innovative learning and teaching cultures: a question of garden design. Teaching in Higher
Education 16:4, 427-438. [CrossRef]
98. James C. Sarros, Anne M. Sarros. 2011. Five years on: leadership challenges of an experienced CEO. School Leadership &
Management 31:3, 235-260. [CrossRef]
99. Daniel I. PrajogoDepartment of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Christopher M. McDermottLally
School of Management and Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, USA. 2011. The relationship
between multidimensional organizational culture and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 31:7, 712-735. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

100. Ambika Koonj Beharry, Kit Fai PunManaging innovation practices of SMEs in the Caribbean: An exploratory study 324-328.
101. James C. SarrosDepartment of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Brian K. CooperDepartment of
Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Joseph C. SantoraDepartment of Management, Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia School of International Management, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, Paris, France. 2011. Leadership vision,
organizational culture, and support for innovation in notforprofit and forprofit organizations. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal 32:3, 291-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Jan Terje KarlsenNorwegian School of Management BI, Oslo, Norway. 2011. Supportive culture for efficient project
uncertainty management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 4:2, 240-256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
103. Richa AwasthyOrganizational Behaviour Area, International Management Institute, New Delhi, India Vijayalakshmi
ChandrasekaranOrganizational Behaviour Area, IFMR, Chennai, India Rajen K. GuptaHuman Behaviour and Organizational
Development Area, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India. 2011. Topdown change in a public sector bank:
lessons from employees' livedin experiences. Journal of Indian Business Research 3:1, 43-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
104. Julia C. NaranjoValenciaFacultad de Administracin, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Manizales, Colombia Daniel
JimnezJimnezDepartmento Organizacin de Empresas y Finanzas, Faculty Economa y Empresa, Universidad de Murcia,
Campus de Espinardo, Espinardo (Murcia), Spain Raquel SanzValleDepartmento Organizacin de Empresas y Finanzas,
Faculty Economa y Empresa, Universidad de Murcia, Campus de Espinardo, Espinardo (Murcia), Spain. 2011. Innovation
or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision 49:1, 55-72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. B. YanAn approach to new product development management in SMEs 1072-1076. [CrossRef]
106. Ali E. Akgn, Halit Keskin, John C. Byrne. 2010. Procedural Justice Climate in New Product Development Teams:
Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27:7, 1096-1111. [CrossRef]
107. Rutaichanok Jingjit, Marianna Fotaki. 2010. Confucian Ethics and the Limited Impact of the New Public Management
Reform in Thailand. Journal of Business Ethics 97:S1, 61-73. [CrossRef]
108. Julia C. Naranjo ValenciaUniversidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Manizales, Colombia Raquel Sanz ValleFacultad de
Economa y Empresa, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain Daniel Jimnez JimnezFacultad de Economa y Empresa,
Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain. 2010. Organizational culture as determinant of product innovation. European Journal
of Innovation Management 13:4, 466-480. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. Dinh Thai Hoang, Barbara Igel, Tritos Laosirihongthong. 2010. Total quality management (TQM) strategy and
organisational characteristics: Evidence from a recent WTO member. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 21:9,
931-951. [CrossRef]
110. Dunhu LiuResearch on Risk Control of Knowledge Share in Knowledge Network Based on Relation Capital 1-4. [CrossRef]
111. Nigar Demircan akar, Alper Ertrk. 2010. Comparing Innovation Capability of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises:
Examining the Effects of Organizational Culture and Empowerment. Journal of Small Business Management 48:3, 325-359.
112. Tua A. BjrklundAalto University Design Factory, Espoo, Finland. 2010. Enhancing creative knowledgework: challenges
and points of leverage. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 3:3, 517-525. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
113. Sibylle HeilbrunnRuppin Academic Center, Emek Hefer, Israel. 2010. Entrepreneurial opportunities in changing
communities. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 17:2, 247-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. Understanding Large-Scale Project Failure . [CrossRef]
115. Athanasios Hadjimanolis. 2010. Methods of Political Marketing in (Trans)Formation of Innovation Culture. Journal of
Political Marketing 9:1-2, 93-110. [CrossRef]
116. Nilmini Wickramasinghe, Arthur Tatnall, Rajeev K. Bali. 2010. Using Actor-Network Theory to Facilitate a Superior
Understanding of Knowledge Creation and Knowledge Transfer. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and
Technological Innovation 2:4, 30-42. [CrossRef]
117. Juliet MacMahon, Sarah MacCurtain, Michelle OSullivanBullying, Culture, and Climate in Health care Organizations: A
theoretical Framework 82-96. [CrossRef]
118. T. Gorschek, S. Fricker, K. Palm, S. Kunsman. 2010. A Lightweight Innovation Process for Software-Intensive Product
Development. IEEE Software 27:1, 37-45. [CrossRef]
119. Chun-Liang Chen, Yi-Long Jaw. 2009. Building global dynamic capabilities through innovation: A case study of Taiwan's
cultural organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 26:4, 247-263. [CrossRef]
120. Michele O'DwyerDepartment of Management and Marketing, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick,
Ireland Audrey GilmoreUniversity of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK David CarsonUniversity of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK.
2009. Innovative marketing in SMEs: a theoretical framework. European Business Review 21:6, 504-515. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
121. Kriengsak PanuwatwanichGriffith School of Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Rodney A.
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

StewartGriffith School of Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Sherif MohamedGriffith School of
Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. 2009. Validation of an empirical model for innovation diffusion in
Australian design firms. Construction Innovation 9:4, 449-467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
122. Michele O'Dwyer, Audrey Gilmore, David Carson. 2009. Innovative marketing in SMEs: an empirical study. Journal of
Strategic Marketing 17:5, 383-396. [CrossRef]
123. Kriengsak Panuwatwanich, Rodney A. Stewart, Sherif Mohamed. 2009. Critical pathways to enhanced innovation diffusion
and business performance in Australian design firms. Automation in Construction 18:6, 790-797. [CrossRef]
124. Eric Brun, Alf Steinar Saetre. 2009. Managing Ambiguity in New Product Development Projects. Creativity and Innovation
Management 18:1, 24-34. [CrossRef]
125. Michele O'DwyerDepartment of Management and Marketing, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick,
Ireland Audrey GilmoreUniversity of Ulster, Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland David CarsonUniversity of Ulster,
Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland. 2009. Innovative marketing in SMEs. European Journal of Marketing 43:1/2,
46-61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
126. Meng-Lei Monica Hu, Jeou-Shyan Horng, Yu-Hua Christine Sun. 2009. Hospitality teams: Knowledge sharing and service
innovation performance. Tourism Management 30:1, 41-50. [CrossRef]
127. Eric BrunDepartment of Business Administration, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway Alf Steinar SaetreThe
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Trondheim, Norway
Martin GjelsvikInternational Research Institute of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway. 2009. Classification of ambiguity in new
product development projects. European Journal of Innovation Management 12:1, 62-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
CONCEPTUAL MODEL. International Journal of Innovation Management 12:04, 655-676. [CrossRef]
129. Kriengsak PanuwatwanichGriffith School of Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Rodney A.
StewartGriffith School of Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Sherif MohamedGriffith School of
Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. 2008. The role of climate for innovation in enhancing business
performance. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 15:5, 407-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
130. Taran Patel, Chirag Patel. 2008. Learning cultures for sustained innovation success. Innovation: The European Journal of
Social Science Research 21:3, 233-251. [CrossRef]
131. Sukhvir Singh PanesarCenter for Maintenance and Asset Management, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway and
AGR EMI Team, Sandnes, Norway Tore MarkesetCenter for Maintenance and Asset Management, University of Stavanger,
Stavanger, Norway. 2008. Development of a framework for industrial service innovation management and coordination.
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 14:2, 177-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
132. Riikka EllonenLappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business and Technology Business Research Center,
Lappeenranta, Finland Kirsimarja BlomqvistLappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business and Technology
Business Research Center, Lappeenranta, Finland Kaisu PuumalainenLappeenranta University of Technology, School of
Business and Technology Business Research Center, Lappeenranta, Finland. 2008. The role of trust in organisational
innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management 11:2, 160-181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
133. Klaus-Peter Wiedmann, Axel Lippold, Holger Buxel. 2008. Status quo der theoretischen und empirischen
Innovationskulturforschung sowie Konstruktkonzeptualisierung des Phnomens Innovationskultur. der markt 47:1, 43-60.
134. Jukka OjasaloLaurea University of Applied Sciences, Espoo, Finland. 2008. Management of innovation networks: a case study
of different approaches. European Journal of Innovation Management 11:1, 51-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
International Journal of Innovation Management 11:04, 441-467. [CrossRef]
THE CASE OF GREECE. Journal of Enterprising Culture 15:04, 393-419. [CrossRef]
137. K. Yang. 2007. Examining Perceived Honest Performance Reporting by Public Organizations: Bureaucratic Politics and
Organizational Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19:1, 81-105. [CrossRef]
138. ShuiYee WongDepartment of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong,
Kowloon, Hong Kong, China KwaiSang ChinDepartment of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management,
City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China. 2007. Organizational innovation management. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 107:9, 1290-1315. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
139. Judy H. Gray, Iain L. Densten. 2007. How Leaders Woo Followers in the Romance of Leadership. Applied Psychology 56:4,
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

558-581. [CrossRef]
140. Paul Shum, Grier Lin. 2007. A world class new product development best practices model. International Journal of Production
Research 45:7, 1609-1629. [CrossRef]
141. Dinh Thai HoangSchool of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang, Pathumthani, Thailand
Barbara IgelSchool of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang, Pathumthani, Thailand Tritos
LaosirihongthongIndustrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat University, Klong Luang,
Pathumthani, Thailand. 2006. The impact of total quality management on innovation. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 23:9, 1092-1117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
142. Professor Francisco Jaview CarrilloRon DvirDirector of Innovation Ecology, Israel. Yael SchwartzbergInstitute for Democratic
Education, Israel. Haya AvniPisga Be'er Sheva, Israel. Carol WebbResearch officer at Knowledge and Innovation Systems
Centre, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK. Fiona LetticeSenior Lecturer at the Norwich
Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.. 2006. The future center as an urban innovation engine. Journal
of Knowledge Management 10:5, 110-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
143. Matjaz MulejMajda BasticFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia Gabrijela Leskovar
SpacapanFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia. 2006. What do transition
organizations lack to be innovative?. Kybernetes 35:7/8, 972-992. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
144. CameloOrdaz CarmenFacultad de CC. EE. y Empresariales, Universidad de Cdiz, Cdiz, Spain FernndezAlles Mara de
la LuzFacultad de CC. EE. y Empresariales, Universidad de Cdiz, Cdiz, Spain MartnezFierro SalustianoFacultad de CC.
EE. y Empresariales, Universidad de Cdiz, Cdiz, Spain. 2006. Influence of top management team vision and work team
characteristics on innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 9:2, 179-201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
145. Graydon Davison, Paul Hyland. 2006. Continuous innovation in a complex and dynamic environment: The case of the
Australian health service. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development 5:1, 41-59. [CrossRef]
146. Marcus Arvidsson, Curt R Johansson, sa Ek, Roland Akselsson. 2006. Organizational climate in air traffic control. Applied
Ergonomics 37:2, 119-129. [CrossRef]
INNOVATION IN THE MEDIA SECTOR. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 03:01, 83-105.
148. Dermot Fennelly, Kathryn Cormican. 2006. Value chain migration from production to product centred operations: an analysis
of the Irish medical device industry. Technovation 26:1, 86-94. [CrossRef]
149. Paul HumphreysUniversity of Ulster, Belfast, UK Rodney McAdamUniversity of Ulster, Belfast, UK Jonathon
LeckeyUniversity of Ulster, Belfast, UK. 2005. Longitudinal evaluation of innovation implementation in SMEs. European
Journal of Innovation Management 8:3, 283-304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
150. Graydon DavisonCollege of Law and Business, School of Management, University of Western Sydney, Penrith South DC,
New South Wales, Australia. 2005. Configured for innovation: the case of palliative care. European Journal of Innovation
Management 8:2, 205-226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
151. Young Hoon Kwak, Kenneth Scott LaPlace. 2005. Examining risk tolerance in project-driven organization. Technovation
25:6, 691-695. [CrossRef]
152. Fang ZhaoSchool of Management, Business Faculty, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. 2005. Exploring the synergy
between entrepreneurship and innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 11:1, 25-41.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
153. Sandra G. Leggat, Judith DwyerInspiring Innovation 209-231. [CrossRef]
work group creativity and innovation: Norwegian validation of the team climate inventory (TCI). Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology 45:5, 383-392. [CrossRef]
155. Ron DvirFounder and CEO, Innovation Ecology, Pardesiya, Israel ( Edna PasherCEO, Management
Consultants, Herzliya, Israel ( 2004. Innovation engines for knowledge cities: an innovation ecology
perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management 8:5, 16-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
156. Kathryn Cormican, David OSullivan. 2004. Auditing best practice for effective product innovation management. Technovation
24:10, 819-829. [CrossRef]
157. Md Zabid Abdul RashidCentre for Graduate Studies, Open University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Murali
SambasivanUniversity Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia Azmawani Abdul RahmanUniversity Putra Malaysia, Selangor,
Malaysia. 2004. The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal 25:2, 161-179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
158. Claudine A. Soosay, Paul W. Hyland. 2004. Driving Innovation in Logistics: Case Studies in Distribution Centres. Creativity
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)

and Innovation Management 13:1, 41-51. [CrossRef]

159. Ellen Martins, Nico Martins, Fransie Terblanche AN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE MODEL TO STIMULATE
160. Graydon DavisonSchool of Management at the University of Western Sydney, Penshurst, Australia. 2004. Palliative care teams
and management levers. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 10:1/2, 12-19. [Abstract] [Full Text]
161. Catherine L. Wang, Pervaiz K. Ahmed. 2003. Making Organisational Memory Perform. Journal of Information & Knowledge
Management 02:03, 229-235. [CrossRef]
162. Kathryn Cormican, David O'Sullivan. 2003. A Scorecard for Supporting Enterprise Knowledge Management. Journal of
Information & Knowledge Management 02:03, 191-201. [CrossRef]
163. Paul HarbornePaul Harborne is a Senior Member of the Innovation Research Unit, a Visiting Fellow and Visiting Lecturer
at the City University Business School, London, UK.Axel JohneAxel Johne is Professor of Marketing and Director of
the Innovation Research Unit, at the City University Business School, London, UK.. 2003. Creating a project climate for
successful product innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 6:2, 118-132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
164. Catherine L. WangCatherine L. Wang is currently a Research Assistant at the Wolverhampton Business School and member
of the Centre for Enterprise Excellence. Her research interest includes organizational learning, knowledge management,
and quality and innovation management. She previously worked as a Research Assistant at the Coventry and Warwickshire
Chamber of Commerce.Pervaiz K. AhmedProfessor Pervaiz K. Ahmed, is Director, Japanese Management Research Unit, and
Head of the Centre for Enterprise Excellence. He has published over 100 papers in international journals and has presented
as keynote speaker at a number of prestigious venues. He is currently the editor of the European Journal of Innovation
Management. He was editor of Business Process Management Journal from 19962000 and coeditor of the International
Journal of Benchmarking, Quality Focus, Journal of Management in Medicine until 2000. He currently serves on the editorial
advisory board of numerous international journals. He is also active in the European Foundation for Quality Management, and
has served as a panel member for academic awards for four years. Additionally, he has worked with many blue chip companies
such as Eida Faberge, Lever Europe, Birds Eye Walls, Van den Berg Foods, AT&T etc.. 2003. Structure and structural
dimensions for knowledgebased organizations. Measuring Business Excellence 7:1, 51-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
165. E.C. MartinsE.C. Martins is Management Consultant in Organisational Diagnostics, Glenvista, Johannesburg, South Africa.F.
TerblancheF. Terblanche is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Information Science, University of South Africa, Pretoria,
South Africa.. 2003. Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation
Management 6:1, 64-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
166. Frances M. HillThe Queens University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, UKLee K. CollinsThe Queens University of Belfast,
Northern Ireland, UKAU>. 2000. A descriptive and analytical model of organisational transformation. International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management 17:9, 966-983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
167. Nilmini Wickramasinghe, Arthur Tatnall, Rajeev K. BaliUsing Actor-Network Theory to Facilitate a Superior Understanding
of Knowledge Creation and Knowledge Transfer 205-218. [CrossRef]
168. N. Moguilnaia, D. Coconete, E.M. Sankara NarayananHuman aspect of rapid product commercialization in power
microelectronics 247-251. [CrossRef]
169. Kai JakobsThe Role of the Individual in ICT Standardisation 244-261. [CrossRef]
170. Antonios D. Kargas, Dimitris VaroutasThe Role of Organizational Culture to the Management of Telecommunication
Companies 295-309. [CrossRef]
171. Natalya Sergeeva, Milan RadosavljevicTowards a Theoretical Framework for Creative Participation 84-103. [CrossRef]
172. Alper ErtrkInnovation Capability in High-Tech Companies 228-252. [CrossRef]
173. Achilleas BoukisManaging Innovation within Organizations 266-290. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Multimedia University At 19:14 13 September 2016 (PT)