IBIMA Publishing

The Journal of Organizational Management Studies

http://ibimapublishing.com/articles/JOMS/2018/703891/
Vol. 2018 (2018), Article ID 703891, 15 pages
DOI: 10.5171/2018. 703891

Research Article

How can leadership and organizational culture predict innovation in small,

medium and large enterprises?
Eva Petiz Lousã1 and Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico2

1
Polytechnic Institute of Porto, CEOS.PP , Centre for Organisational and Social Studies of
P.Porto. Porto, Portugal
2
University of Coimbra, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Coimbra, Portugal

Correspondence should be addressed to: Eva Petiz Lousã; evapetiz@netcabo.pt

Received date: 9 October 2017; Accepted date: 28 November 2017; published date: 6 June
2018

Academic Editor: Mireia Tintoré

Copyright © 2018. Eva Petiz Lousã and Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico . Distributed
under Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0

Abstract

This study intends to analyse the effects of leadership and organizational culture in
innovation in small, medium and large Portuguese enterprises. The sample is
composed of 102 organizations (68.6% small, 24.5% medium-sized and 5.9% large
companies), from which a total of 854 workers answered to the Transformational
Leadership Scale and the Organizational Culture Questionnaire Denison.
Additionally, a total of 102 top managers of each organization answered a
questionnaire concerning the innovation activity in their organization. Data analysis
was performed with structural equation modelling. The results showed that the size
of the company moderates the relationship between leadership and organizational
culture in the prediction of innovation. This moderation surpasses the differentiated
effect size of leadership in innovation predicted by culture, showing also influence
on the contribution of the several variables in the model.

Keywords: Organizational culture, transformational leadership, organizational

innovation, organizational size.
______________

Cite this Article as: Eva Petiz Lousã and Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico (2018),"
How can leadership and organizational culture predict innovation in small, medium and
large enterprises?", The Journal of Organizational Management Studies, Vol. 2018
(2018), Article ID 703891, DOI: 10.5171/2018.703891
 Introduction

Innovation has become increasingly important and determinant of organizational

performance, success, and longer-term survival (Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou, 2014;
Ramos, Anderson, Peiró, and Zijlstra, 2016). The dynamic and competitive environment,
rapid changes in technology, high demands on new products and services, require
organizations to develop new approaches that are more attractive to their stakeholders and
respond effectively to the challenges they face.
Inovasi telah menjadi semakin penting dan penentu kinerja organisasi, kesuksesan, dan
kelangsungan hidup jangka panjang (Anderson, Potočnik dan Zhou, 2014; Ramos, Anderson,
Peiró, dan Zijlstra, 2016). Lingkungan yang dinamis dan kompetitif, perubahan teknologi yang
cepat, tuntutan tinggi terhadap produk dan layanan baru, menuntut organisasi untuk
mengembangkan pendekatan baru yang lebih menarik bagi para pemangku kepentingan mereka
dan merespons secara efektif terhadap tantangan yang mereka hadapi.
The role that leadership plays in promoting innovation has been the subject of study over
the last decade. Particularly, transformational leadership has been highlighted as one which
supports the organizational innovation (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009a, 2009b; Jung, Chow,
and Wu, 2008; Jung, Wu and Chow, 2003; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange, 2002).
Transformational leaders seek their followers to develop their own capacities and achieve
exceptional results, their role being to stimulate, inspire and support the growth and
development of their followers as leaders (Bass, 1999; Bass and Riggio, 2006). This type of
leadership grants a sense of empowerment to its followers and aligns the individual, leader,
group and organization's interests and objectives. Transformational leadership has been
conceptualized in four components: idealized influence, intellectual stimulation,
inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration (Bass and Riggio, 2006).
Nevertheless, some studies found only a unidimensional measure of transformational
leadership(e.g. Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009).
Peran yang dimainkan kepemimpinan dalam mempromosikan inovasi telah menjadi
bahan studi

1. dekade terakhir. Khususnya, kepemimpinan transformasional telah disorot

sebagai salah satu yang mendukung inovasi organisasi (Gumusluoglu dan Ilsev,
2009a, 2009b; Jung, Chow, dan Wu, 2008; Jung, Wu dan Chow, 2003; Mumford,
Scott, Gaddis, dan Strange, 2002 ). Pemimpin transformasional mencari pengikut
mereka untuk mengembangkan kapasitas mereka sendiri dan mencapai hasil yang
luar biasa, peran mereka adalah untuk merangsang, menginspirasi dan
mendukung pertumbuhan dan pengembangan pengikut mereka sebagai pemimpin
(Bass, 1999; Bass dan Riggio, 2006). Jenis kepemimpinan ini memberikan rasa
pemberdayaan kepada para pengikutnya dan menyelaraskan kepentingan dan
tujuan individu, pemimpin, kelompok dan organisasi. Kepemimpinan
transformasional telah dikonseptualisasikan dalam empat komponen: pengaruh
ideal, stimulasi intelektual, motivasi inspirasional, dan pertimbangan individual
(Bass dan Riggio, 2006). Namun demikian, beberapa studi hanya menemukan
ukuran unidimensional kepemimpinan transformasional (mis. Gumusluoglu dan
Ilsev, 2009).
 Another factor that plays an important role in innovation is the organizational culture (Jung,
et al., 2003; Sarros, Cooper, and Santora, 2008). That is, the degree to which the members of
an organization feel that the organization supports them and encourages them to take
innovative initiatives and explore new approaches has an impact on the intensity of
innovation in the organization (Amabile et al., 1996; Chandler, Keller and Lyon; 2000).
Among the models of analysis of organizational culture is Denison's organizational culture
model (Denison, Nieminen, and Kotrba, 2014), whose dimensions inherent to the model
have proved to be useful and valid for the process of diagnosis of organizational culture. The
model proposes the existence of four dimensions: Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability
and Mission.
model telah terbukti bermanfaat dan valid untuk proses diagnosis budaya organisasi. Model
ini mengusulkan keberadaan empat dimensi: Keterlibatan, Konsistensi, Kemampuan Faktor
lain yang memainkan peran penting dalam inovasi adalah budaya organisasi (Jung, et al.,
2003; Sarros, Cooper, dan Santora, 2008). Yaitu, sejauh mana anggota organisasi merasa
bahwa organisasi mendukung mereka dan mendorong mereka untuk mengambil inisiatif
inovatif dan mengeksplorasi pendekatan baru berdampak pada intensitas inovasi dalam
organisasi (Amabile et al., 1996; Chandler, Keller dan Lyon; 2000). Di antara model analisis
budaya organisasi adalah model budaya organisasi Denison (Denison, Nieminen, dan
Kotrba, 2014), yang dimensi yang melekat pada Beradaptasi dan Misi.
The Involvement dimension reflects how much the members of the organization are
involved in the management process. The Consistency dimension reflects the sharing of core
values, consensus and common goals and objectives among members at all levels of the
organization. The Adaptability dimension refers to the ability of organizations to adapt
quickly to changing their environment, taking risks, learning from their mistakes, and
adding value to their customers, seeing their opportunities to survive and grow. The Mission
dimension provides the organization with a strategic direction, purpose or design, which
allows it to set its global goals, as well as expressing the vision of how it will be in the
future, giving its members an appropriate course of action. All these traits were linked to
organizational effectiveness; nevertheless, in the present study we will relate this model to
organizational innovation.
Dimensi Keterlibatan mencerminkan seberapa banyak anggota organisasi terlibat dalam
proses manajemen. Dimensi Konsistensi mencerminkan pembagian nilai-nilai inti, konsensus,
dan tujuan serta sasaran bersama di antara anggota di semua tingkatan organisasi. Dimensi
Adaptabilitas mengacu pada kemampuan organisasi untuk beradaptasi dengan cepat dalam
mengubah lingkungan mereka, mengambil risiko, belajar dari kesalahan mereka, dan
menambahkan nilai kepada pelanggan mereka, melihat peluang mereka untuk bertahan hidup
dan tumbuh. Dimensi Misi menyediakan organisasi dengan arah, tujuan atau desain strategis,
yang memungkinkan organisasi untuk menetapkan tujuan globalnya, serta mengekspresikan visi
tentang bagaimana hal itu akan terjadi di masa depan, memberikan para anggotanya tindakan
yang tepat. Semua sifat ini terkait dengan efektivitas organisasi; namun demikian, dalam
penelitian ini kami akan menghubungkan model ini dengan inovasi organisasi.

As we pointed out, leadership and organizational culture play an essential role so that
innovation can occur. However, just as Bass and Riggio (2006) advocate, leadership and
culture are interconnected in such a way that organizational cultures can be described in
terms of transformational qualities. So, we will explore the interrelation between these two
constructs.
Seperti yang kami tunjukkan, kepemimpinan dan budaya organisasi memainkan peran penting
sehingga inovasi dapat terjadi. Namun, seperti Bass dan Riggio (2006) mengadvokasi,
kepemimpinan dan budaya saling berhubungan sedemikian rupa sehingga budaya organisasi
dapat dijelaskan dalam hal kualitas transformasional. Jadi, kita akan mengeksplorasi keterkaitan
antara dua konstruksi ini.
In turn, organizational innovation is a complex and multidimensional process (Wolfe, 1994).
Some studies conceptualize innovation as a process that involves the generation of new or
significantly improved ideas and their implementation (e.g. Amabile et al., 1996), as well as
a process of creating value from ideas (Tidd and Bessant, 2014). The OECD (2005)
recommends that companies can explore new products or services, business processes, work
organization or marketing or improvements to existing ones in an innovative way. So, we
consider innovation as a process that involves the creation of new ideas, or a significant
improvement, and the implementation of these ideas in the products or services, business
processes, work organization or marketing, that could benefit the company, its stakeholders
and the society in general (Lousã, 2013). We use a set of innovation indicators developed by
Lousã (2013), based on the academic literature (e.g. Scott and Bruce, 1994; Jung et al.,
2003), on the Portuguese instruments such as the Innovation Scoring System (COTEC,
2017), as well as on expert interviews. The instrument has three dimensions concerning the
companies’ activity oriented towards innovation, these are as follows: Resources, Processes
and Results. Innovation resources aim to analyse the inputs for the organisation towards the
activities for innovation, such as the resources available, the level of qualifications and the
participation in lifelong learning activities of the human resources, investment/expenditures
in Research and Development. The innovation processes aim to analyse relevant process to
the innovative dynamic, such as partnerships, cooperation networks and protection and
enhancement of knowledge. And finally, innovation results aim to evaluate the outcomes of
the activities of a company, such as: the turnover in the last three years; the evolution of
sales of new products / services or significant improvements over the last three years; the
ideas generated in the company transformed into innovative designs and the enterprise
image.
dapat menggambarkan dalam hal kualitas transformasional. Jadi, kita akan membahas
keterkaitan antara dua konstruksi ini.
Pada gilirannya, inovasi organisasi adalah proses yang kompleks dan multidimensi (Wolfe,
1994). Beberapa studi mengkonseptualisasikan inovasi sebagai proses yang melibatkan generasi
ide baru atau yang secara signifikan ditingkatkan dan implementasinya (mis. Amabile et al.,
1996), serta proses menciptakan nilai dari ide (Tidd dan Bessant, 2014). OECD (2005)
merekomendasikan bahwa perusahaan dapat mengeksplorasi produk atau layanan baru, proses
bisnis, organisasi kerja atau pemasaran atau perbaikan yang sudah ada dengan cara yang inovatif.
Jadi, kami menganggap inovasi sebagai proses yang melibatkan penciptaan ide-ide baru, atau
peningkatan yang signifikan, dan penerapan ide-ide ini dalam produk atau layanan, proses bisnis,
organisasi kerja atau pemasaran, yang dapat bermanfaat bagi perusahaan, pemangku kepentingan
dan masyarakat pada umumnya (Lousã, 2013). Kami menggunakan seperangkat indikator
inovasi yang dikembangkan oleh Lousã (2013), berdasarkan literatur akademik (misalnya Scott
dan Bruce, 1994; Jung et al., 2003), pada instrumen Portugis seperti Innovation Scoring System
(COTEC, 2017) , serta wawancara ahli. Instrumen ini memiliki tiga dimensi mengenai aktivitas
perusahaan yang berorientasi pada inovasi, yaitu sebagai berikut: Sumber Daya, Proses, dan
Hasil. Sumber daya inovasi bertujuan untuk menganalisis input untuk organisasi terhadap
kegiatan untuk inovasi, seperti sumber daya yang tersedia, tingkat kualifikasi dan partisipasi
dalam kegiatan pembelajaran seumur hidup dari sumber daya manusia, investasi / pengeluaran
dalam Penelitian dan Pengembangan. Proses inovasi bertujuan untuk menganalisis proses yang
relevan dengan dinamika inovatif, seperti kemitraan, jaringan kerja sama, dan perlindungan serta
peningkatan pengetahuan. Dan akhirnya, hasil inovasi bertujuan untuk mengevaluasi hasil
kegiatan perusahaan, seperti: omset dalam tiga tahun terakhir; evolusi penjualan produk /
layanan baru atau peningkatan signifikan selama tiga tahun terakhir; ide-ide yang dihasilkan
perusahaan berubah menjadi desain inovatif dan citra perusahaan.

Based on the literature that analyses, on the one hand, the role of leadership in innovation and, on
the other hand, the influence that culture has on innovation, we have developed an exploratory
model that starts from the interdependence between culture and leadership and analyses the
influence of this association in innovation. However, there is some empirical evidence that
shows that company size is an important variable in the relationship between transformational
leadership and organizational innovation (e.g. Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda;
2012; Khan, Rehman and Fatima, 2009) as the organizational culture influences organizational
innovation (e.g. Chandler et al., 2000). So, we propose in this study to analyse the effect that
organizational culture and transformational leadership have on organizational innovation, taking
into account the size of the company.
Berdasarkan literatur yang menganalisis, di satu sisi, peran kepemimpinan dalam inovasi dan, di
sisi lain, pengaruh budaya terhadap inovasi, kami telah mengembangkan model eksplorasi yang
dimulai dari saling ketergantungan antara budaya dan kepemimpinan dan analisis pengaruh
asosiasi ini dalam inovasi. Namun, ada beberapa bukti empiris yang menunjukkan bahwa ukuran
perusahaan adalah variabel penting dalam hubungan antara kepemimpinan transformasional dan
inovasi organisasi (misalnya Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, dan Volberda; 2012; Khan,
Rehman dan Fatima, 2009) sebagai budaya organisasi mempengaruhi inovasi organisasi
(misalnya Chandler et al., 2000). Jadi, kami mengusulkan dalam penelitian ini untuk
menganalisis pengaruh budaya organisasi dan kepemimpinan transformasional terhadap inovasi
organisasi, dengan mempertimbangkan ukuran perusahaan.
Method

Sample

The data were collected from 102 Portuguese organizations, among 854 workers. Regarding
the dimension of the sample, there are 30.4% micro-enterprises, 38.2% small companies;
24.5% medium-sized companies and 5.9% large companies, according to the European
classification. These percentages are close to the enterprises’ distribution in Portugal, since
it is mainly made up of micro, small and medium enterprises. The age of the companies
varies between two and 115 years (M = 18.98 years, SD = 18.97 years) and the employees
per company range from two to 643 (M = 61.51 per company, SD = 114.86).
Data dikumpulkan dari 102 organisasi Portugis, di antara 854 pekerja. Mengenai dimensi
sampel, ada 30,4% usaha mikro, 38,2% perusahaan kecil; 24,5% perusahaan menengah dan 5,9%
perusahaan besar, menurut klasifikasi Eropa. Persentase ini dekat dengan distribusi perusahaan
di Portugal, karena sebagian besar terdiri dari usaha mikro, kecil dan menengah. Usia perusahaan
bervariasi antara dua dan 115 tahun (M = 18,98 tahun, SD = 18,97 tahun) dan karyawan per
perusahaan berkisar dari dua hingga 643 (M = 61,51 per perusahaan, SD = 114,86).
The company’s size was operationalized considering the number of employees in the
company, and was categorized as: Micro (1-9 employees); Small (10-49 employees);
Medium (50-249 employees) and Large (≥ 250 employees).

Measures

Organizational Culture Questionnaire

In the present study, we use the Organizational Culture Questionnaire Denison (Denison et al,
2014), consisting of 60 questions that measure four dimensions of organizational culture:
involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission (α between .63 and .87). A Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) showed a good fit, χ2/df = 3.22, CFI = .85, and RMSEA =.054 (CI. 90
between .052 and .055).
Dalam penelitian ini, kami menggunakan Kuisioner Budaya Organisasi Denison (Denison et al,
2014), yang terdiri dari 60 pertanyaan yang mengukur empat dimensi budaya organisasi:
keterlibatan, konsistensi, kemampuan beradaptasi dan misi (α antara 0,63 dan 0,87). Analisis
Faktor Konfirmatori (CFA) menunjukkan kecocokan yang baik, χ2 / df = 3.22, CFI = .85, dan
RMSEA = .054 (CI. 90 antara .052 dan .055).
Transformational Leadership Scale
The items that make up this scale were inspired by the four components of transformational
leadership developed by Bass (1985). The version used for this study is composed by 17 items.
CFA showed an acceptable fit, CFI = .91, χ2/df = 5.61, and RMSEA =.08 (CI. 90 between .075
and .89). Reliability was very good (α = .96).
Item-item yang membentuk skala ini terinspirasi oleh empat komponen kepemimpinan
transformasional yang dikembangkan oleh Bass (1985). Versi yang digunakan untuk penelitian
ini terdiri dari 17 item. CFA menunjukkan kecocokan yang dapat diterima, CFI = .91, χ2 / df =
5.61, dan RMSEA = .08 (CI. 90 antara .075 dan .89). Keandalan sangat baik (α = 0,960)
Innovation measurement

In the proposal of the exploratory model, we have identified the relational structures that are
intended to be measured and we have chosen, in the case of innovative measures, the
operationalizations that are best likely to represent the construct (Bollen, 1989; Hoyle, 1995,
Loehlin, 1997), all of them being present in the innovation index from Table 1.
Dalam proposal model eksplorasi, kami telah mengidentifikasi struktur relasional yang
dimaksudkan untuk diukur dan kami telah memilih, dalam hal langkah-langkah inovatif,
operasionalisasi yang paling mungkin mewakili konstruk (Bollen, 1989; Hoyle, 1995 , Loehlin,
1997), semuanya hadir dalam indeks inovasi dari Tabel 1.
The calculation of the innovation index was performed from the standardization of the
individual indicators and, subsequently, from their aggregation, from the sum of the
different standardized individual indicators, obtaining a "z-Score" without weighting.
Penghitungan indeks inovasi dilakukan dari standardisasi masing-masing indikator dan,
kemudian, dari agregasi mereka, dari jumlah berbagai indikator individu standar,
memperoleh "z-Score" tanpa bobot..
Table 1: Measures and operationalization of Innovation

Contribution of innovation activities to the image of an

Company image organization. All the
items were rated on five point scale, ranging from one (much
(image) worse) to five
(much better). A principal component analysis reveal only one
dimension
composed of five items (α = .82). An example of an item of this
measure is
“innovation activities contribute to attract more customers in
the face of
competition.
This is a subscale of climate innovation support from Scott and
Resources made Bruce (1994).
Responses were given on five-point Likert scale (ranging from '
available totally
disagree' to' totally agree'). The main component analysis was
(resources); carried out,
revealing only one dimension composed of five items (α = .74).
An example of
an item of this measure is “in this organization, there are
adequate resources
dedicated to innovation”.
Level of Years of education
qualifications
Lifelong learning/ Percentage of workers who participated in lifelong learning
 activities,
innovation oriented, concerning the previous year, these data
Training activities were obtained in
official documents.
Investment/expenditures made by the company in R&D in the
Investment in last three years,
Researc
h and these data were obtained from official documents.
Development

This measures the type of the company’s cooperation networks

Partnerships and with other
entities towards innovation (e.g. competitors, suppliers,
Cooperation customers,
universities, higher education institutions, R&D units).
____________
__

This measures the type of company’s networks (e.g. international

Networks cooperation
networks)
This measures the ways that the company usually used to protect
Protection and and
enhancement of enhance knowledge, (e.g. patenting).
knowledge
The evolution of the growth or decline of an activity in the last
Turnovers three years.
These data were obtained from official documents.
The volume of sales of new products/services or those that
Volume of sales of significantly
improved in the past three years. The type of response adopted
new considers a
products/services scale with three options: Decreased (1), Same (2), Increased (3).
or those that
significantly

Procedures

The data used in the present study were collected taking into account ethical issues such as
participants’ anonymity and confidentiality, and also to avoid bias. After having agreed to
participate, the top management of each organization was asked about the innovation
activity at their organization through a questionnaire. Each of them was instructed about the
objectives and procedures of the internet-based study via e-mail or telephone. Anonymous
and strictly confidential data treatment was assured. Due to the level at which the top
management operates, we expected that they were knowledgeable regarding the resources,
processes and results of the innovation of their organizations. The measures of leadership
and organizational culture, in each firm, were answered by a representative sample of
employees, based on the organization, their distribution at the organizational structure and
the departments involved.
 Data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini dikumpulkan dengan mempertimbangkan
masalah etika seperti anonimitas dan kerahasiaan peserta, dan juga untuk menghindari bias.
Setelah setuju untuk berpartisipasi, manajemen puncak masing-masing organisasi ditanya
tentang kegiatan inovasi di organisasi mereka melalui kuesioner. Masing-masing dari mereka
diinstruksikan tentang tujuan dan prosedur penelitian berbasis internet melalui email atau
telepon. Perawatan data anonim dan sangat rahasia dijamin. Karena tingkat di mana manajemen
puncak beroperasi, kami berharap mereka memiliki pengetahuan mengenai sumber daya, proses
dan hasil dari inovasi organisasi mereka. Ukuran kepemimpinan dan budaya organisasi, di setiap
perusahaan, dijawab oleh sampel karyawan yang representatif, berdasarkan organisasi,
distribusinya pada struktur organisasi, dan departemen yang terlibat.

Data Analysis

All the analyses were completed using the statistical program SPSS and AMOS 22.0 for
Windows. Outliers were analysed according to Mahalanobis squared distance (Tabachnick
and Fidell, 2013), and were excluded.
Semua analisis diselesaikan menggunakan program statistik SPSS dan AMOS 22.0 untuk
Windows. Pencilan dianalisis sesuai dengan jarak kuadrat Mahalanobis (Tabachnick dan Fidell,
2013), dan dikeluarkan.
CFA was performed with AMOS (v. 22.0; Arbuckle, 2013), with maximum likelihood as
the estimation method (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2004). Goodness of fit was analyzed by the
following indices: NFI (Normed of fit index; good fit is considered if NFI > .80;
Schumacker and Lomax, 2010), CFI (Comparative fit index; good fit if CFI > .90; Bentler
1990), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; acceptable fit if RMSEA < .08
according to Kline, 2011, and Schumacker and Lomax, 2010, although according to
Marôco, 2011, acceptable fit is considered if RMSEA < .10), and X2/df (chi-square/degrees
of freedom; acceptable fit if X2/df < 5; Arbuckle, 2013; Loehlin, 2004). According to
Bentler (1990), and Schumacker and Lomax (2010), X 2 is irrelevant for samples higher than
500 subjects.
CFA dilakukan dengan AMOS (v. 22.0; Arbuckle, 2013), dengan kemungkinan maksimum
sebagai metode estimasi (Jöreskog dan Sörbom, 2004). Goodness of fit dianalisis dengan indeks
berikut: NFI (Normed of fit index; good fit dianggap jika NFI> .80; Schumacker dan Lomax,
2010), CFI (Indeks kesesuaian komparatif; kecocokan baik jika CFI> .90; Bentler 1990 ),
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; fit yang dapat diterima jika RMSEA <0,08
menurut Kline, 2011, dan Schumacker dan Lomax, 2010, meskipun menurut Marôco, 2011, fit
yang dapat diterima dianggap jika RMSEA <.10), dan X2 / df (chi-square / derajat kebebasan;
cocok jika X2 / df <5; Arbuckle, 2013; Loehlin, 2004). Menurut Bentler (1990), dan Schumacker
dan Lomax (2010), X2 tidak relevan untuk sampel yang lebih tinggi dari 500 subjek.
Results
measures of Leadership, Innovation and Culture (and the corresponding dimensions) were
analyzed concerning the descriptive statistics (see Table 2). Correlations between all measures w
Both ere presented in Table 3. Leadership showed, according to Cohen (1988), a moderate
correlation with Innovation (r = .33) and with Culture as a total score (r = .45); the
association between Innovation and Culture was small (r = .183).
Keduanya disajikan pada Tabel 3. Kepemimpinan menunjukkan, menurut Cohen (1988),
korelasi moderat dengan Inovasi (r = 0,33) dan dengan Budaya sebagai skor total (r =
0,45); hubungan antara Inovasi dan Budaya kecil (r = 0,183).

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of Measures of Leadership, Innovation,

and Culture and their dimensions
Minimum Maximum M SD
Leadership 2.08 4.20 3.27 0.36
Innovation (sum) -11.91 14.51 1.51 4.55
Company
image 2.33 5.00 4.11 0.63
resources made 1.40 5.00 3.70 0.67
available
Level of
qualification 1.00 7.30 3.71 1.52
Training activities 1.00 5.00 3.22 1.30
Partnerships 0.00 8.00 3.88 1.99
Networking of 0.00 3.00 0.96 1.09
cooperation
Protection and
appreciation of 0.00 5.00 2.01 1.63
knowledge

Ideas transformed
into 5.00
1.00 2.68 0.86
innovative projects

Sales volume of new

/ 5.00
improved or
improved 1.00 2.70 0.90
products / services

Turnover
growth -61883792.15 10934788.00 -1636283.84 8304586.42

Research &
-1269435.00 8543536.00 59898.26 588458.47
Development growth

Culture (sum) 6.66 21.80 15.43 2.37

Involvement 1.42 5.65 4.03 0.64
Team Orientation 1.15 4.86 3.49 0.57
Capability of 1.41 5.65 4.02 0.70
Development
Consistency 1.35 4.80 3.38 0.52
Core Values 1.58 5.02 3.56 0.54
Agreement 1.47 5.60 3.95 0.62
Coordination & 1.20 4.88 3.33 0.55
Integration
Adaptability 1.71 5.47 3.89 0.58
Creating
Change 1.82 5.61 3.97 0.61
Customer
Focus 1.13 3.60 2.56 0.36
Organizational 1.53 5.16 3.73 0.55
Learning
 Mission 2.09 5.88 4.13 0.68
Strategic Direction
& 1.64 5.74 4.07 0.75
Intent
Goals & Objectives 1.64 5.24 3.67 0.63
Vision 1.72 5.28 3.68 0.62
 The Journal of Organizational Management
7 Studies
______________________________________________________________________
_______
Table 3: Intercorrelation matrix of measures of Leadership, Innovation, and
Culture and their
dimension
s

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
- .
1. Lea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
dershi
p 3 2 3 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 2
3 0 7 8 9 1 5 4 7 1 2 8 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 0 4 3 6 3 3 1 0
2. Inn . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ovatio
n 1 4 6 5 6 5 4 2 3 4 2 . 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
0 7
(sum) 7 0 6 0 1 2 0 4 5 2 3 8 7 5 7 8 0 8 7 9 9 1 9 7 6 6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Ima
1 3 1 0 2 1 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
ge
7 4 8 4 9 9 6 9 0 0 7 5 4 4 7 9 6 4 7 7 3 6 7 2 5 6
. . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Res . 1
ources 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 9
4 0 2 5 1 4 8 8 0 0 8 6 8 9 0 9 5 1 3 7 2 0 3 8
. . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Qu 1 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 . 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
alification 1 9
4 0 4 7 0 7 9 4 5 9 9 1 5 5 5 2 3 2 0 3 0 9 9
. . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Tra 1 1 1 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
inning 5 0 1 6 1 0 0 6 4 4 5 5 5 4 3 7 6 9 7 8 7 9 9
6 4
. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Par 1 4 2 0 1 . 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
tnerships 3 5 8 0 2 9 9 0 8 1 9 9 9 6 8 9 6 8 7 1 4 6
5
. . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Net 1 2 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
workin
g 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 5 8 4 5 4 1 3 1 1 4 2 4 3 1
6 1 6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
9. Pro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t.Ap.Know 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 3 1 6 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 8 5 4 4 5 4 1 5 4
 . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.
ProjectT 1 2 . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
.I 0 0 3
6 4 6 9 5 4 5 7 8 7 3 0 1 5 0 2 4 0
11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Business
1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
V.E
9 1 1 9 8 7 1 3 9 8 1 3 8 0 2 4 1 2

______________

Eva Petiz Lousã and Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico (2018), The Journal of
Organizational Management Studies, DOI: 10.5171/2018.703891
 The Journal of Organizational Management
Studies 8
______________________________________________________________________
______

- - . .
. - - - . - - - - - - - -
12. Tur.Gro . . . . . . . . . . . . .
wth 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 3 3 5 6 4 5
13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RDGrow
1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
th
4 0 9 9 3 5 2 3 5 5 4 4 8 9 7 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14. Culture 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9
7 5 3 9 6 7 4 9 6 1 7 7 9 4 5
15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Involvm
1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 8 7 8 8
ent
9 7 8 5 6 2 5 2 6 2 9 9 6 6
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
16. Team
1 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 8 8
Orient.
5 6 2 4 0 2 9 3 9 5 6 2 3
17.
Capabilit .
. . . . . . . . . . .
y 1 9 9 9 8 9 8 8 8 8 7 8 8
Developme 4 1 2 7 1 8 1 8 5 6 2 2
nt
18. . . . . . . . . . . .
Consiste
1 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 9
ncy
8 9 6 8 5 9 5 4 5 1 1
. . . . . . . . . .
19. Values 1 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 8 8 8
7 2 5 1 6 2 1 3 8 8
. . . . . . . . .
20. Agreem
1 9 9 9 8 9 9 8 8 8
ent
4 6 2 7 3 1 2 8 9
21. Coor. . . . . . . . .
&
1 9 8 8 8 8 7 8 8
Integ
2 9 5 9 8 9 6 6
22. . . . . . . .
Adaptab
1 9 9 9 9 8 9 9
ility
8 3 9 7 9 4 5
23. . . . . . .
Creat.Ch
1 9 9 9 8 9 9
ange
1 6 3 5 0 1
24. . . . . .
Custome
1 9 9 8 8 8
r Fo.
1 0 1 8 8
. . . .
25. Org.
1 9 8 9 9
Learning
4 6 1 2
. . .
26. Mission 1 9 9 9
4 9 9

______________

Eva Petiz Lousã and Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico (2018), The Journal of
Organizational Management Studies, DOI: 10.5171/2018.703891
 The Journal of Organizational Management
9 Studies
______________________________________________________________________
_______

27. . .
Strat.Dir
19 9
.& Int
1 2
28. .
Goals&O
1 9
bjec
7
29. Vision 1

Legend: Company image (image); resources made available (resources); level of

qualification (qualification); training activities (Training); partnerships (partnerships);
networks of cooperation (networking); protection and appreciation of knowledge
(Prot.Ap.Know); ideas transformed into innovative projects (I.T. Project); sales volume
of new / improved or improved products / services (Business V.E); turnover growth
(Turn. Growth); Research & Development growth (R&D growth); Team Orientation
(Team Orient.); Capability Development (Cap.Develop.); Coordination & Integration
(Coor. & Integ); Creating Change (Creat.Change); Customer Focus (Customer Fo.);
Organizational Learning (Org. Learning); Strategic Direction & Intent (Strat.Dir.& Int);
Goals & Objectives (Goals&Objec).
Legenda: Citra perusahaan (gambar); sumber daya yang tersedia (sumber daya); tingkat
kualifikasi (kualifikasi); kegiatan pelatihan (Pelatihan); kemitraan (kemitraan); jaringan kerja sama
(networking); perlindungan dan apresiasi pengetahuan (Prot.Ap.Know); ide-ide diubah menjadi
proyek inovatif (Proyek I.T.); volume penjualan produk / layanan baru / lebih baik atau lebih baik
(Bisnis V.E); pertumbuhan omset (Turn. Growth); Pertumbuhan Penelitian & Pengembangan
(pertumbuhan Litbang); Orientasi Tim (Orientasi Tim); Pengembangan Kemampuan
(Cap.Develop.); Koordinasi & Integrasi (Coor. & Integ); Menciptakan Perubahan (Creat.Change);
Fokus Pelanggan (Customer Fo.); Pembelajaran Organisasi (Organisasi Pembelajaran); Arah
Strategis & Intent (Strat.Dir. & Int); Sasaran & Tujuan (Sasaran & Objec).
Note: r >.08 are significant at p < .05; .10 < r < .30 have a small effect size, 30 < r < .50
have a medium effect size; r > .50 have a large effect size (Cohen, 1988).
Catatan: r> .08 signifikan pada p <.05; .10 <r <.30 memiliki ukuran efek kecil, 30 <r <.50
memiliki ukuran efek sedang; r> .50 memiliki ukuran efek yang besar (Cohen, 1988).
A structural model was established and the measurement model was specified according to
literature (Byrne, 2010; Schumacker and Lomax, 2010), considering micro and small
enterprises in one model (n = 464 see Figure 1, unconstrained model) and the medium and
large enterprises in another model (n =
Model struktural didirikan dan model pengukuran ditentukan sesuai dengan literatur (Byrne, 2010;
Schumacker dan Lomax, 2010), mempertimbangkan usaha mikro dan kecil dalam satu model (n =
464 lihat Gambar 1, model tidak dibatasi) dan sedang dan besar perusahaan dalam model lain (n =
385; see Figure 2, unconstrained model) tested by multi-group analysis. The results showed a
good fit considering NFI = .858 and an acceptable fit for CFI = .874 and RMSEA=.087 (CI .
90 between .085 and .090). The score obtained for CMIN/DF (448) was 7.43, p < .001.
385; lihat Gambar 2, model yang tidak dibatasi) diuji dengan analisis multi-kelompok. Hasilnya
menunjukkan kecocokan yang baik dengan mempertimbangkan NFI = .858 dan kecocokan yang
dapat diterima untuk CFI = .874 dan RMSEA = .087 (CI .90 antara .085 dan .090). Skor yang
diperoleh untuk CMIN / DF (448) adalah 7.43, p <.001.
 The Journal of Organizational Management Studies 10

__________________________________________________________________________
__

Legend: Company image (image); resources made available (resources); level of

qualification (qualification); training activities (Training); partnerships (partnerships);
networks of cooperation (networking); protection and appreciation of knowledge
(Prot.Ap.Know); ideas transformed into innovative projects (I.T. Project); sales volume
of new / improved or improved products / services (Business V.E); turnover growth
(Turn. Growth); Research & Development growth (R&D growth); Team Orientation
(Team Orient.); Capability Development (Cap.Develop.); Coordination & Integration
(Coor. & Integ); Creating Change (Creat.Change); Customer Focus (Customer Fo.);
Organizational Learning (Org. Learning); Strategic Direction & Intent (Strat.Dir.& Int);
Goals & Objectives (Goals&Objec).
Legenda: Citra perusahaan (gambar); sumber daya yang tersedia (sumber daya); tingkat
kualifikasi (kualifikasi); kegiatan pelatihan (Pelatihan); kemitraan (kemitraan); jaringan kerja
sama (networking); perlindungan dan apresiasi pengetahuan (Prot.Ap.Know); ide-ide diubah
menjadi proyek inovatif (Proyek I.T.); volume penjualan produk / layanan baru / lebih baik atau
lebih baik (Bisnis V.E); pertumbuhan omset (Turn. Growth); Pertumbuhan Penelitian &
Pengembangan (pertumbuhan Litbang); Orientasi Tim (Orientasi Tim); Pengembangan
Kemampuan (Cap.Develop.); Koordinasi & Integrasi (Coor. & Integ); Menciptakan Perubahan
(Creat.Change); Fokus Pelanggan (Customer Fo.); Pembelajaran Organisasi (Organisasi
Pembelajaran); Arah Strategis & Intent (Strat.Dir. & Int); Sasaran & Tujuan (Sasaran & Objec).
Fig. 1: Innovation predicted by organizational culture and leadership in Micro and Small
Enterprises: Standardized regression coefficients

Legend: Company image (image); resources made available (resources); level of

qualification (qualification); training activities (Training); partnerships (partnerships);
networks of cooperation (networking); protection and appreciation of knowledge
(Prot.Ap.Know); ideas transformed into innovative projects (I.T. Project); sales volume
of new / improved or improved products / services (Business V.E); turnover growth
(Turn. Growth); Research & Development growth (R&D growth); Team Orientation
(Team Orient.); Capability Development (Cap.Develop.); Coordination & Integration
(Coor. & Integ); Creating Change (Creat.Change); Customer Focus (Customer Fo.);
Organizational Learning (Org. Learning); Strategic Direction & Intent (Strat.Dir.& Int);
Goals & Objectives (Goals&Objec).
Legenda: Citra perusahaan (gambar); sumber daya yang tersedia (sumber daya); tingkat
kualifikasi (kualifikasi); kegiatan pelatihan (Pelatihan); kemitraan (kemitraan); jaringan kerja
sama (networking); perlindungan dan apresiasi pengetahuan (Prot.Ap.Know); ide-ide diubah
menjadi proyek inovatif (Proyek I.T.); volume penjualan produk / layanan baru / lebih baik atau
lebih baik (Bisnis V.E); pertumbuhan omset (Turn. Growth); Pertumbuhan Penelitian &
Pengembangan (pertumbuhan Litbang); Orientasi Tim (Orientasi Tim); Pengembangan
Kemampuan (Cap.Develop.); Koordinasi & Integrasi (Coor. & Integ); Menciptakan Perubahan
(Creat.Change); Fokus Pelanggan (Customer Fo.); Pembelajaran Organisasi (Organisasi
Pembelajaran); Arah Strategis & Intent (Strat.Dir. & Int); Sasaran & Tujuan (Sasaran & Objec).
Fig. 2: Innovation predicted by organizational culture and leadership in Medium and
Large
Enterprises: Standardized regression coefficients

Analyzing the two models resulting from the structural analysis, we found very significant
differences, which lead us to conclude the moderation effect of the company size variable.
In the multiple regression coefficient of the direct determination of culture for innovation,
we find that it is significant in micro and small firms (β = .21), while it is null in medium
and large firms (β = -.01). Thus, the size of the organization is a factor that must be taken
into account when analysing the effects of culture and its impact on innovation. In micro and
small companies, culture has a direct impact on innovation. In the case of medium and large
companies, culture only has an effect on innovation through intervention of the leader. In
these larger companies, the leader is fundamental in the way culture promotes innovation. In
micro and small companies, the role of the leader is also important, and, also, there is a
direct influence of organizational culture on the promotion of innovation, as well as the
combined effect of transformational leadership and culture on innovation.
Menganalisis dua model yang dihasilkan dari analisis struktural, kami menemukan
perbedaan yang sangat signifikan, yang mengarahkan kami untuk menyimpulkan efek moderasi
dari variabel ukuran perusahaan. Dalam koefisien regresi berganda dari penentuan langsung
budaya untuk inovasi, kami menemukan bahwa itu signifikan dalam perusahaan mikro dan kecil
(β = .21), sementara itu nol di perusahaan menengah dan besar (β = -.01). Dengan demikian,
ukuran organisasi adalah faktor yang harus diperhitungkan ketika menganalisis efek budaya dan
dampaknya terhadap inovasi. Dalam perusahaan mikro dan kecil, budaya memiliki dampak
langsung pada inovasi. Dalam kasus perusahaan menengah dan besar, budaya hanya berpengaruh
pada inovasi melalui intervensi pemimpin. Dalam perusahaan yang lebih besar ini, pemimpin
merupakan hal mendasar dalam cara budaya mempromosikan inovasi. Dalam perusahaan mikro
dan kecil, peran pemimpin juga penting, dan, juga, ada pengaruh langsung budaya organisasi
terhadap promosi inovasi, serta efek gabungan dari kepemimpinan transformasional dan budaya
terhadap inovasi.
Comparing between the two models of the simple regression coefficients, we found that in
micro and small companies all indicators of innovation are significant in the promotion of it.
However, in the medium and large companies, the variables protection and valorisation of
knowledge, growth in R & D and the evolution of turnover are insignificant. It should also
be noted that in companies of all sizes we find a negative effect of the growth of turnover in
promoting innovation.
Membandingkan antara dua model koefisien regresi sederhana, kami menemukan bahwa
di perusahaan mikro dan kecil semua indikator inovasi signifikan dalam mempromosikannya.
Namun, di perusahaan menengah dan besar, variabel perlindungan dan penilaian pengetahuan,
pertumbuhan R & D dan evolusi turnover tidak signifikan. Juga harus dicatat bahwa dalam
perusahaan dari semua ukuran kita menemukan efek negatif dari pertumbuhan turnover dalam
mempromosikan inovasi.
Discussion/Conclusion

The proposed structural model showed that the variable size of the company acts as a
moderator, producing differential effects not only on the leadership role in the relationship
 between culture and innovation, but also on the contribution of each indicator to innovation.
In this sense, the present study contributes to a better understanding of the effects of
company’s size on the relationships between leadership, culture and innovation.
Model struktural yang diusulkan menunjukkan bahwa ukuran variabel perusahaan
bertindak sebagai moderator, menghasilkan efek yang berbeda tidak hanya pada peran
kepemimpinan dalam hubungan antara budaya dan inovasi, tetapi juga pada kontribusi masing-
masing indikator untuk inovasi. Dalam pengertian ini, penelitian ini berkontribusi pada
pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang efek ukuran perusahaan pada hubungan antara
kepemimpinan, budaya dan inovasi.
The present study showed that, in smaller companies, the organization's culture is more
directly associated with innovation, with a greater impact on innovative processes, resources
and results. In this type of companies, we have verified that the leader acts together with the
culture in the promotion of innovation, with the evident impact of both in the processes and
the results of the innovation. Regarding innovation indicators, it is clear that in micro and
small companies; the contribution is stronger and positive in the processes (e.g. networks,
qualification, protection and valorisation of knowledge) and results (e.g. image and ideas
transformed into projects innovators). This result is consistent with Chandler et al, (2000)
which found that companies with cultures supportive of innovation tend to be smaller.
Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa, di perusahaan yang lebih kecil, budaya organisasi lebih
terkait langsung dengan inovasi, dengan dampak yang lebih besar pada proses, sumber daya, dan
hasil yang inovatif. Dalam jenis perusahaan ini, kami telah memverifikasi bahwa pemimpin
bertindak bersama-sama dengan budaya dalam mempromosikan inovasi, dengan dampak nyata
dari kedua proses dan hasil inovasi. Mengenai indikator inovasi, jelas bahwa di perusahaan
mikro dan kecil; kontribusi lebih kuat dan positif dalam proses (mis. jaringan, kualifikasi,
perlindungan, dan penilaian pengetahuan) dan hasilnya (mis. citra dan gagasan diubah menjadi
inovator proyek). Hasil ini konsisten dengan Chandler et al, (2000) yang menemukan bahwa
perusahaan dengan budaya yang mendukung inovasi cenderung lebih kecil.
In comparative terms, we found that the organizational culture does not have direct effects
on innovation in the larger companies, and the role of the leader in the promotion of
innovation is fundamental. In this type of companies, the contribution of innovation
indicators is more focused on the resources made available. Although other contributions
(e.g. human resources qualification, cooperation networks, partnerships, participation in
training activity, ideas transformed into innovative projects) are visible, they have a smaller
influence in determining innovation compared to micro and small enterprises. These results
are consistent with Vaccaro et al. (2012), which show that larger organizations need more of
a transformational leadership to compensate for their complexity and allow innovation to
occur. Also, as Damanpour and Schneider (2006) point out, larger organizations can
dedicate more resources to innovation activity, and top managers play an important role in
allocating these resources. They are also consistent with Khan et al., (2009; p.683), which
point out the role of the transformational leadership and their dynamic capabilities to
enhance organizational innovation in organizations with larger size and with ample
resources. Dalam istilah komparatif, kami menemukan bahwa budaya organisasi tidak
memiliki efek langsung pada inovasi di perusahaan besar, dan peran pemimpin dalam
promosi inovasi adalah fundamental. Dalam jenis perusahaan ini, kontribusi indikator
inovasi lebih fokus pada sumber daya yang tersedia. Meskipun kontribusi lain (mis.
Kualifikasi sumber daya manusia, jaringan kerja sama, kemitraan, partisipasi dalam kegiatan
pelatihan, gagasan yang diubah menjadi proyek inovatif) terlihat, mereka memiliki pengaruh
yang lebih kecil dalam menentukan inovasi dibandingkan dengan usaha mikro dan kecil.
Hasil ini konsisten dengan Vaccaro et al. (2012), yang menunjukkan bahwa organisasi yang
lebih besar membutuhkan lebih banyak kepemimpinan transformasional untuk mengimbangi
kompleksitas mereka dan memungkinkan inovasi terjadi. Juga, seperti yang Damanpour dan
Schneider (2006) tunjukkan, organisasi yang lebih besar dapat mendedikasikan lebih banyak
sumber daya untuk kegiatan inovasi, dan manajer puncak memainkan peran penting dalam
mengalokasikan sumber daya ini. Mereka juga konsisten dengan Khan et al., (2009; p.683),
yang menunjukkan peran kepemimpinan transformasional dan kemampuan dinamis mereka
untuk meningkatkan inovasi organisasi dalam organisasi dengan ukuran lebih besar dan
dengan sumber daya yang cukup.
The major contribution of the present study for the existing literature is that leadership should
focus on developing a conductive culture that facilitates and promotes innovation, in other
words, in an innovation-driven culture.

Limitations

In the present study we found that some indicators of innovation are important in one situation
and less important in others. Growth indicators, on the other hand, were not influential. This
aspect should be considered with some caution. If, on the one hand, these growth indicators may
not reflect the company's ability to focus its activity on innovation, then, we should not be
oblivious to the fact that a large number of the companies that make up our sample have not
invested in research and development over the past three years, and even those that have done so
have not shown very significant increases in their activities over the last three years. It may also
occur, such as Jung et al. (2003) suggest that this measure reflects the desire of companies to
support innovation efforts, but that this is not turned into processes or results, at least from a
short-term perspective. Also at the level of the variable turnover growth, we find that its
contribution to innovation is negative. In fact, as previously noted, a decrease in sales volume in
the last three years of the companies' lives was evident, reflecting the situation of crisis that, in
recent years, affected most Portuguese companies. This will undoubtedly be a promising area for
future research.
Dalam penelitian ini kami menemukan bahwa beberapa indikator inovasi penting dalam satu
situasi dan kurang penting dalam situasi lain. Indikator pertumbuhan, di sisi lain, tidak
berpengaruh. Aspek ini harus dipertimbangkan dengan hati-hati. Jika, di satu sisi, indikator
pertumbuhan ini mungkin tidak mencerminkan kemampuan perusahaan untuk memfokuskan
aktivitasnya pada inovasi, maka, kita tidak boleh lupa akan kenyataan bahwa sejumlah besar
perusahaan yang membentuk sampel kami belum berinvestasi dalam penelitian. dan
pengembangan selama tiga tahun terakhir, dan bahkan mereka yang telah melakukannya belum
menunjukkan peningkatan yang sangat signifikan dalam kegiatan mereka selama tiga tahun
terakhir. Mungkin juga terjadi, seperti Jung et al. (2003) menyarankan bahwa langkah ini
mencerminkan keinginan perusahaan untuk mendukung upaya inovasi, tetapi ini tidak berubah
menjadi proses atau hasil, setidaknya dari perspektif jangka pendek. Juga pada tingkat
pertumbuhan turnover variabel, kami menemukan bahwa kontribusinya terhadap inovasi adalah
negatif. Faktanya, seperti dicatat sebelumnya, penurunan volume penjualan dalam tiga tahun
terakhir kehidupan perusahaan terlihat jelas, mencerminkan situasi krisis yang, dalam beberapa
tahun terakhir, memengaruhi sebagian besar perusahaan Portugis. Ini pasti akan menjadi area
yang menjanjikan untuk penelitian di masa depan.

______________

Acknowledgment

We thank A. Duarte Gomes, University of Coimbra, Faculty of Psychology and Education

Sciences, Portugal, for the guidance provided in the present study.

References
1. Amablie, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., and Herron, M. (1996), ‘Assessing the
work environment for creativity’, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 1154-1184.

2. Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., and Zhou, J. (2014), ‘ Innovation and Creativity in
Organizations: A State-of-the Science Review and Prospective Commentary’, Journal of
Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.

3. Arbuckle, J. L. (2013), Amos 22 user’s guide, Chicago, IL: SPSS.

4. Bass, B. M. (1999), ‘Two decades of

research and development in transformational leadership’, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), 9-32.

5. Bass, B. M., and Riggio, R. E. (2006), Transformational leadership (2 ed.), Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

6. Bentler, P. (1990), ‘Quantitative methods in psychology: Comparative fit indexes in

structural models’, Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

7. Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural equations with latent variables, New York: Wiley.

8. Byrne, B. M. (2010), Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,

applications and programming (2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

9. Chandler, G. N., Keller, C., and Lyon, D. W. (2000), ‘Unravelling the determinants and

Eva Petiz Lousã and Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico (2018), The Journal of
Organizational Management Studies, DOI: 10.5171/2018.703891
The Journal of Organizational Management Studies 14

__________________________________________________________________________
__

consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture’ Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice, 25 (1), 59-76.

10. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.), New
York: Academic Press.

11. COTEC. Portugal (Maio, 2017), Innovation scoring. manual de apoio ao preenchimento
do sistema innovation scoring da cotec, Cotec Portugal, Associação empresarial para a
inovação.

12. Damanpour, F., and Schneider, M. (2006), ‘Phases of the adoption of innovation in
organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers’, British Journal of
Management, 17 (3), 215–236.

13. Denison, D., Nieminen, L. and Kotrba, L.

(2014), ‘Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture
effectiveness surveys’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23 (1),
145-161.

14. Gumusluoglu, L., and Ilsev, A. (2009), ‘Transformational leadership, creativity, and
organizational innovation’, Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473.

15. Hoyle, R. (1995), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

16. Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago:
Scientific Software International.

17. Jung, D. I., Chow, C., and Wu, A. (2003), ‘The Role of Transformational Leadership in
Enhancing Organizational Innovation: Hypotheses and Some Preliminary Findings’,
Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525–544.

18. Jung, D. I., Wu, A., and Chow, C. (2008), ‘Towards understanding the direct and
indirect effects of CEOs' transformational leadership on firm Innovation’, Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 582–594.

______________
19. Khan, R.; Rehman, A. U. and Fatima, A. (2009), ‘Transformational leadership and
organizational innovation: Moderated by organizational size’, African Journal of Business
Management, 3 (11), pp. 678-684.

20. Kline, R. (2011), Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3ª ed.), New
York: The Guilford Press.

21. Loehlin, J. C. (1997), Latent variable models, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

22. Lousã, E. P. (2013), Liderança empreendedora e cultura de inovação em organizações

de base tecnológica e análise comparativa entre setores de atividade, A Dissertation
submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the doctor of philosophy, University of
Coimbra, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Portugal.

23. Marôco, J. (2011), Análise de equações estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, software &
aplicações, Pêro Pinheiro: Report Number.

24. Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gladdis, B., and Strange, J. M. (2002), ‘Leading creative
people: orchestrating expertise and relationships’, Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-
750.

25. OECD. (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for collecting and Interpreting Innovation
Data, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

26. Ramos, J., Anderson, N., Peiró, J. M., and Zijlstra, F. (2016), ‘Studying innovation in
organizations: a dialectic perspective - introduction to the special issue’, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 477–480.

27. Schumacker, R. E., and Lomax, R. G. (2010), A beginner’s guide to structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.), Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eva Petiz Lousã and Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico (2018), The Journal of
Organizational Management Studies, DOI: 10.5171/2018.703891
15 The Journal of Organizational Management
Studies

__________________________________________________________________________
___

28. Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994), ‘Determinants of innovative behavior: a path
model of individual innovation in the workplace’, Academy of Management Journal, 37,
580−607.

29. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013), Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.), New
Jersey: Pearson Education.

30. Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2014), Strategic Innovation Management, Chichester: John
Wiley.
31. Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., and Volberda, H. W. (2012 January),
‘Management Innovation and Leadership: The Moderating Role of Organizational Size’,
Journal of Management Studies, 49 (1), 28-51.

32. Wolfe, R. (1994), ‘Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research
directions’, Journal of Management Studies, 31, 405-431.

______________

Eva Petiz Lousã and Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico (2018), The Journal of
Organizational Management Studies, DOI: 10.5171/2018.703891