European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Management Journal

Volume 37, Issue 6, December 2019, page 694-707
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/emj

Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of

past decades of research
Pouria Khosravi a, *, Cameron Newton a, Azadeh Rezvani b
a
Faculty of Business, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
b
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, 4072, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Managerial innovation has gained increased popularity in research and practice because of its positive
Received 6 September 2018 effects on organisational renewal and performance. Regardless of the growing number of studies on
Received in revised form management innovation, there is still a lack of research that integrates and synthesises this body of
4 March 2019
knowledge. This study undertakes a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to gain insight
Accepted 15 March 2019
Available online xxx
into existing empirical studies on management innovation. Our content analysis and review of 66 studies
from 1981 to 2017 analyses the trends and background of research into management innovation. In
addition, we develop a model of management innovation grounded in selected theoretical lenses to
Keywords:
Management innovation
advance our understanding of the different drivers, moderators, mediators and outcomes of manage-
Systematic review ment innovation. Results of the meta-analysis show that management innovation is positively related to
Organisational innovation organisational size (rc ¼ .282), knowledge management (rc ¼ 0.608), organisational learning (rc ¼ 0.692),
Innovation outcomes firms’ overall performance (rc ¼ 0.393), and financial performance (rc ¼ 0.269). Finally, we have identified
Meta-analysis several research gaps and provided a future research agenda in the context of managerial innovation.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Innovation is considered to be one of the most important and
sustainable sources of long-term success of organisations (Camiso
n
& Villar-Lo
pez, 2014; Chang & Hughes, 2012; Iturrioz, Arago
n, &
Narvaiza, 2015). Challenges organisations face in today’s global
market relate to not only offering novel products and solutions but
also altering the nature of management within organisations to-
wards improving productivity, the quality of customer service and
performance (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012). Most of the innovation
literature has been focused on exploring how an organisation can
embrace technological innovation (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010).
However, recently scholars in multiple disciplines have emphasised
the critical role of management innovation (MI) for organisational
renewal, and performance (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012; Walker,
Damanpour, & Devece, 2011). For instance, Mol and Birkinshaw
(2009) argued that MI not only enables technological innovation,
but also is one of the most vital sources of competitive advantage.
* Corresponding author. 2 George St, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
E-mail addresses: pouria.khosravi@hdr.qut.edu.au (P. Khosravi), cj.newton@qut.
edu.au (C. Newton), a.rezvani@uq.edu.au (A. Rezvani).
To better understand and unpack the notion of MI, scholars have
found a number of drivers that promote MI, such as leadership
behaviours, organisational learning and organisational size (Lo
pez-
Nicola
s & Meron ~ o-Cerda
n, 2011; Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, &
Volberda, 2012). Although these studies provide valuable insights,
the literature offers contradictory findings regarding the intensity
and the direction of the relationships. Studies have presented
inconsistent findings and contradictory arguments for a couple of
variables (e.g., organisational size, financial performance). For
instance, some studies have found positive associations between
size and MI (Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017; Hansen, 2010; Nieves, 2016)
while others indicated that the relationship was weak to non-

existent (Vaccaro et al., 2012; Cerne, 
Jaklic, & Skerlavaj, 2013). In
addition, the literature lacks a rigorous synthesis of the antecedents
and outcomes of MI with these antecedents not coherently inte-
grated into the literature. Indeed, a consistent set of drivers and
outcomes of MI has yet to be recognized. These gaps in the body of
knowledge make it impossible to draw dependable conclusions
regarding the drivers and outcomes of MI, which in turn hinders
reliable recommendations for management practices.
Taking into account these gaps in the literature, and scholars’
calls to address the absence of systematic reviews regarding MI
(Damanpour & Aravind, 2012; Cerne,  
Kase, & Skerlavaj, 2016), our

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
0263-2373/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
2 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
main goals in this study are to comprehend and synthesise the
advances in the field of MI over the past decades, address the in-
consistencies in the literature and elaborate limitations of the
literature on MI, and provide recommendations for future research.
More specifically, the present study first undertakes a systematic
review of the literature in order to identify drivers and outcomes of
MI. We explore relationships between MI with all drivers and
outcome variables that have been empirically studied in the sys-
tematic review. Second, we conduct a meta-analysis to further
explore drivers and outcomes of MI where adequate independent
empirical studies are available.
This study contributes to the literature on MI in various ways.
First, it synthesises the contributions of research published in the
field of MI. Second, it develops a framework that covers studies on
the drivers, mediators, moderators, and outcomes of MI. Third, it
uses a meta-analysis method to aggregate prior empirical studies
on MI to identify the direction and effectestrength of various
drivers and outcomes of MI. Forth, through its critical analysis of
the literature, this study highlights the gaps in the literature and
provides suggestions for future studies to further explore the field.
This is critical given that MI is still in its infancy stage and therefore,
research on MI is strong in certain areas whereas weak in others.
2. Management innovation
Innovation has been researched in many academic disciplines
including business administration, public management, and sociol-
ogy, using diverse methodologies and levels of analysis (Sears &
Baba, 2011). Scholars have generally agreed on two types of
innovations, namely, technological and non-technological
(Damanpour & Aravind, 2012). Non-technological innovations have
been referred to MI and administrative innovation (Birkinshaw,
Hamel, & Mol, 2008; Kraus, Pohjola, & Koponen, 2012). These two
types of innovations have a significant overlap and are used to
differentiate from product, technological and process innovations
(Damanpour & Aravind, 2012).
The differences between MI and technological innovation lie in
the fundamental difference between what each type of innovation
produces. Technological innovations consist of some process or
product development and can be codified (Yam, Lo, Tang, & Lau,
2011). On the other hand, MI is “usually a highly complex social
system with many different actors and relationships” (Birkinshaw,
2006). Management innovation contributes to a longer lasting
competitive advantage that is difficult to replicate (Pisano & Teece,
2007). For comprehensive differences between technological and
management innovation please refer to Damanpour and Aravind
(2012) and Birkinshaw et al. (2008). We adopt the definition of
managerial innovations from Damanpour and Aravind (2012) as
“new approaches in knowledge for performing the work of man-
agement and new processes that produce changes in the organi-
sation’s strategy, structure, administrative procedures, and
systems” (p. 429e432).
Existing reviews to date concentrate primarily on the drivers
and outcomes of technological innovations. For instance,
Büschgens, Bausch, and Balkin (2013) emphasise the role of
organisational culture and technological innovation. Kaur Kapoor,
Dwivedi, and Williams (2014) reviewed technological innovation
adoption, and Slater, Mohr, and Sengupta (2014) examined studies
on radical product innovation. The reviews on MI that have been
published recently aim to conceptually, rather than empirically,
explain the significance and antecedents of MI or are only based on
very small samples of studies (e.g. Damanpour & Aravind, 2012;
Volberda, Van Den Bosch, & Heij, 2013). Damanpour and Aravind
(2012), for instance, reviewed the conceptual development, adop-
tion processes and antecedents of MI. The authors found several
Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
drivers of MI including organisational size, manager education and
organisational network. However, it must be noted that this review
was not systematic and focussed on a very small number of papers

relating to MI. In addition, Cerne et al. (2016) conducted a biblio-
metric analysis and found differences between general innovation
literature and non-technological innovation in regards to the
development process, antecedents and outcomes. However, none
of the above studies addressed the inconsistency in the MI litera-
ture nor provided a consistent set of drivers and outcomes of MI.
From another perspective, like variables have been referred to in
different studies inconsistently, adding further confusion to the big
picture understanding of the phenomena. For example, organisa-
tion size has been studied as an antecedent (Damanpour &
Schneider, 2006) and also a moderator (Cerne  et al., 2013). In
addition, the effects presented in these studies vary significantly
with regard to both the intensity and the direction of effects.
Overall, existing literature as a whole relating to MI is immature
and, as such, lacks clarity and the ability to reliably inform future
research and practice. In response to this, a systematic review and
meta-analysis of empirical studies are required to address the
existing shortcomings and contribute to future research directions.
To inspire the development of innovation, there is a need to
study the influence of the internal/external drivers and outcomes of
innovation (Ruiz, Garcia & Llorens 2005; Hjalager, 2010). Identi-
fying the drivers of MI offers additional means to understanding
and facilitating organisational innovative capabilities (Martinez-
Roman, Gamero & Tamayo 2011). Drivers of MI which need to be
further explored include both environmental and organisational
variables, their underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions.
Moreover, there is a need to look deeper into the consequences of
adopting MI to find various outcomes. Therefore, our main goal in
this study is to comprehend and synthesise the advances in the
field of MI over the past decades, address the inconsistency in the
literature and provide future research directions.
3. Methodology
We first explain the systematic review procedure, followed by a
description of the meta-analytic procedure. First, we explored the
relationships between MI and various drivers and outcome vari-
ables in the systematic review. Further, in the meta-analysis, we
focused on those variables that were studied in at least four inde-
pendent samples.
3.1. Systematic review procedures
We conducted our review following the three-staged guidelines
suggested by Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart (2003) and Kitchenham
(2004): planning, execution, and reporting. In the planning stage,
we prepared a study plan for the review and developed a review
protocol based on the objectives of the study. In the execution
stage, we developed search keywords, identified the data sources,
defined study selection criteria, extracted and synthesised data
from selected studies. In the reporting stage, we reported our
findings.
3.1.1. Search terms
Before the actual search for the articles, several initial searches
of ScienceDirect and Google Scholar were undertaken. These
searches retrieved some relevant articles to determine keywords
and optimal search terms. In the next stage, all relevant keywords
were searched in September 2017. Electronic databases searched
were ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Wiley, and ABI/Inform. Based
on the initial search and following previous reviews (e.g. Crossan &
Apaydin, 2010; Kaur Kapoor et al., 2014; Pittaway et al., 2004;
 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Rezvani & Khosravi, 2018) these databases were judged to cover the
relevant articles. We searched the following keywords in the pub-
lications’ titles, abstracts, keywords or full texts: (“management
innovation” or “managerial innovation” or “administrative inno-
vation” or “organisational innovation”). In addition, a manual
search through the reference selection of studies was carried out to
find studies not covered in the search of the databases.
3.1.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Following previous studies (e.g., Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; De
Bakker, Boonstra, & Wortmann, 2010; Desmidt, Prinzie, &
Decramer, 2011; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003) we included
empirical studies (1) from peer-reviewed journals because these
are expected to report on validated findings and have the highest
impact on the field (Ordanini, Rubera, & DeFillippi, 2008) and (2)
focused on MI rather than technological innovation. The following
studies were excluded (1) in languages other than English (2) book
chapter, conceptual, conference, and review papers as we are
interested in empirical evidence on MI (3) opinions and unpub-
lished full-text documents.
3.1.3. Study selection process
Based on the search criteria, we identified 5289 initial papers. It
is common to retrieve a very large number of hits from the searches
in databases. Therefore, once all studies had been retrieved from
the databases, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to
identify relevant studies. We first removed the duplicate publica-
tions (N ¼ 652), and then excluded papers based on the title
(N ¼ 3966). The abstracts of the remaining 671 studies were
reviewed to ensure that the papers fit the focus and scope of this
study. This process brought down the number of studies to 98. The
first author then read the full text of the 98 studies and selected 66
papers based on the inclusion criteria.
In the next stage, data from the 66 studies were extracted and
synthesised for the purpose of systematic review. Data synthesis
was achieved using content analysis. Content analysis is an estab-
lished method of research and is used to condense text into fewer
content-related categories (Cavanagh, 1997). Content analysis was
used to categorise drivers and outcomes of MI. Following Ritchie
et al.‘s (2013) method, a series of steps were undertaken in order
to analyse the papers in our final pool. First, the literature was read
and textually analysed to derive a set of suitable categories. This led
to identifying recurring themes from the collected literature with
precise reference to drivers and outcomes of MI. After the themes
were identified the authors arranged the main categories and their
attributes to compare the identified categories. The categorisation
was performed in two rounds. During the process, some of the
categories were merged or revised in order to achieve our final
classification. Any discordances were settled during meetings with
authors and the complete set of final categories was finalised. The
extracted data was organised and examined based on (1) de-
mographics (2) study design and methodology, (3) drivers of
innovation, (4) innovation outcomes.
3.2. Meta-analytical procedures
Following previously published reviews in management litera-
ture (e.g. Blut, Frennea, Mittal, & Mothersbaugh, 2015; Klier,
Schwens, Zapkau, & Dikova, 2017) we used Hunter and Schmidt’s
(2004) analytic guideline in this study. The correlation co-
efficients this method uses to analyses the sample provides ad-
vantages such as path analysis. In addition, this method is superior
to others because it provides methods to correct errors of mea-
surement and sampling errors (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). In this
study, two authors independently coded all antecedents and
Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
3
outcomes in this meta-analytic data set. Prior to the analysis, we
corrected both sampling and measurement errors before analysis.
For sampling error, we calculated the sample size-weighted cor-
relations. For correlations, an average reliability coefficient was
computed. When the reliability estimate was not provided, the
average of the reliability estimates for that construct from the other
articles included in this study was used. For measurement error,
each stated correlation was divided by the square root of the re-
liabilities of the two constructs. In addition to the sample size un-
weighted correlation (Avg r) and the sample size-weighted and
reliability-corrected correlation (rc), we calculate the confidence
and credibility intervals for rc. The significance of rc is indicated by
the confidence interval not including zero (Geyskens, Krishnan,
Steenkamp, & Cunha, 2009; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
3.2.1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria in meta-analysis
The set of empirical studies included in the systematic review
was also included in the meta-analysis. First, we included only
empirical studies and simulation studies were excluded. Second,
we excluded studies that used the same dataset and stated the
same correlations as in previously published papers. Finally,
following the recommendation of Hunter and Schmidt (2004) and
previously published studies (e.g. Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois,
2008; Moghimi, Zacher, Scheibe, & Van Yperen, 2017; Schmidt,
Shaffer, & Oh, 2008; Underhill, 2006) we included variables with
at least four empirical sample in the analysis.
3.2.2. Measures of key constructs
The meta-analysis examined relationships between MI and
three drivers: organisational size, knowledge management and
organisational learning (see Table 2). In the included studies,
organisational size was operationalised as the number of em-
ployees. Knowledge management was operationalised as a multi-
dimensional construct encompassing knowledge selection,
obtainment, expansion, establishment and storage. Organisational
learning was measured as a multi-item scale including a commit-
ment to learning, experimentation and openness. We also exam-
ined the relationship between MI and two outcome variables:
financial and overall performance. The included studies in the
meta-analysis used a range of overall performance measures
including the rational goal model (e.g. productivity, market share
and relationship with stakeholders). Financial performance was
measured as financial profitability, sales profitability Return on
investment and assets. Finally, MI operationalised as a multi-
dimensional construct consists of MI in administrative procedure,
new practices, processes, and structures.
4. Characteristics of included studies
As Fig. 1 shows, the number of studies investigating MI has
increased rapidly in recent years. There is a notable increase in
publications from 2009, which suggests MI has grabbed the
attention of academics and practitioners as a key concern for an
organisation’s ability to effectively address today’s business de-
mands and achieve competitive advantage.
In order to ascertain countries with the most research regarding
MI, a simple counting of papers was conducted. As Fig. 2 shows
many of the studies were conducted in the United States of America
(n ¼ 18), Spain (n ¼ 10), followed by five studies in Taiwan. It is
noticeable that contributions from researchers investigating MI in
other countries are very low.
The articles included in this study were published in 34 different
journals. Most of them were published in the Journal of Business
Research (n ¼ 11), Technovation (n ¼ 5), European Management
Review (n ¼ 3) and Journal of Management Studies (n ¼ 3). This
4 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

drivers by the complexity theory, managerial by the upper echelon

10 theory, and attributes of innovation by the innovation diffusion
8 theory. The current study does not intend to test the proposed
theories rather, the theories serve as a basis for categorizing and
6 coding drivers and outcomes of MI into meaningful categories.
4
5.1.1. Organisational antecedents of innovation
2 Organisational antecedents are defined as those characteristics
that reflect the structural, learning and culture of an organisation.
0
Organisational factors affect the organisational ability to adopt an
1981
1984
1985
1989
1996
1998
2000
2001
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
innovation (Camiso
n & Villar-Lo

pez, 2014). The organisational an-
tecedents of MI can be conceptualised using the resource-based
Fig. 1. Frequency of the publications per year.
view and the theory of dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt and
Martin, 2000; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Teece et al., 1997)
which explain that diverse resource among organisations offers the
foundation of innovations. The resource-based view posits that
20
18 organisations use combinations of tangible (e.g. technology,
16 18 equipment) and intangible resources (e.g. employee skills, knowl-
14 edge sharing) to generate specific capabilities which facilitate the
12
10
adoption of new MI. Organisational characteristics are the key
8 10 enabling factors in innovation because the organisation’s existing
6 capacities to achieve new resources will constrain innovation op-
4
5 tions (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012). Organisational related factors
2 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 can be further classified into organisational size, knowledge man-
Denmark

Germany
Finland
Australia

Colombia
Canada
Malaysia
France
USA

China

Korea
Italy

agement, organisational structure and strategy, human resource

UK
Netherlands

Slovenia
Spain

sweden
Brazil

Turkey
Taiwan

Austria

Cyrus

management (HRM), dynamic capabilities, organisational culture/

Fig. 2. Frequency of the publications per country.
could be useful to researchers seeking to conduct future studies in
MI and contribute to the existing discussions.
The theories used in the MI studies are mainly adapted from the
organisation and management science discipline. As Table 1 shows,
the most commonly used theories are resource and capability
based theory and organisational learning. However, many studies
in our final pool did not conduct their research based on estab-
lished theories, which may prevent scholars from following a sys-
tematic approach, or from building on, or testing established
theories in this area (March & Smith, 1995). It is essential for future
research to design and conduct a study based on theoretical
frameworks to provide a clarification for hypothesised relations.
5. Results
5.1. Result of systematic review
Fig. 3 represents the result of our systematic review. The
selected 66 studies were thoroughly examined in a search for
drivers and outcomes of MI. After arriving at several distinguish-
able drivers and outcomes of MI, we have classified them in a model
of MI grounded in selected theoretical lenses which permits a more
comprehensive means to incorporate the different drivers of MI.
The proposed model of MI consolidates various theories central to
the innovation literature to bond various theoretical model into a
coherent whole (Tsoukas, 1994). As Fig. 3 shows, we categorised the
drivers of innovation management into four main categories,
namely: organisational, environmental, managerial and attributes
of innovation. We also categorised outcomes of MI into three sub-
categories, namely: performance, innovation and capabilities out-
comes. The relationship between each category and MI can be
supported by a distinct theory: organisational drivers by resource-
based view and the theory of dynamic capability, environmental
climate, networks and organisational resources. As Table 2 shows,
of the 8 organisational categories affecting MI, organisational size
and knowledge management are the are the most frequently cited
categories.
A review of the studies has shown that among the major
organisational factors, organisational size was the most frequent
cited factor. In addition, the systematic review found (a) direct and
(b) moderating effects of the role of organisational size in MI.
Direct effect of organisational size: Studies including (Damanpour
& Schneider, 2006) and Ganter and Hecker (2013) have found a
positive relationship between organisational size and MI. They
have argued that larger organisations are more successful in
adopting innovations because of the availability of organisational
resources such as sophisticated ICT facilities and control systems as
well as professional and skilled workers. These resources facilitate
effective managerial decision making by providing a greater degree
of coordination and exchange of ideas.
Moderation effect of organisational size: Cerne  et al. (2013)
empirically determined that organisational size negatively mod-
erates the relationship between knowledge exchange and MI. They
argued that internal communication and social relationship are
much more challenging in large organisations compared to the
smaller ones; therefore negatively affect MI. In the same vein,
Vaccaro et al. (2012) examined the moderating role of organisa-
tional size between transformational, transactional leadership and
MI. They have argued that the effectiveness of leadership behaviour
depends on the contextual setting such as organisational size, and
found that the effect of transactional leadership and MI is stronger
in smaller organisations. In contrast, transformational leaders are
more successful in pursuing MI in large organisations. The negative
relationship of organisational size on MI can be viewed through the
public choice theory that argues large organisations are inefficient,
monopolistic, and unable to react to the environmental changes,
and as such are not likely to innovate (Boyne, 2002).
Knowledge management is the next most frequently cited
antecedent in this category. Knowledge is not only a significant
resource for a business, but also it aids as a foundation for
competitive advantage (Liao & Wu, 2010). Knowledge management
is the process of acquiring, sharing, using and developing

Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Table 1
Theories used in management innovation articles.

Theory Sources

Resource and capability based (Camiso
n & Villar-Lo

theory
Organisational learning
Institutional theory
Innovation theory
Human capital theory
Theory of knowledge inertia
Full range theory of leadership
Knowledge management
theory
Dynamic capability
Learning theory
Contingency theory
Organisational theory
Behavioural theory
Ability-opportunity-
motivation theory
Knowledge-based theory of
the firm
Innovation diffusion

pez, 2011) (Camiso

n & Villar-Lo

pez, 2014) (Gebauer, 2011) (Montes, Moreno, & Morales, 2005) (Die

guez-Soto et al.,
2016) (Pino, Felzensztein, Zwerg-Villegas, & Arias-Bolzmann, 2016)
(Liao & Wu, 2010) (Kim & Lui, 2015) (Kuo, 2011)
(Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009) (Walker, Damanpour, & Devece, 2010)
(Chang & Lee, 2008) (Kam Sing Wong, 2013)
(Antonioli, 2009)
(Liao, Fei, & Liu, 2008)
(Vaccaro et al., 2012) (Jaskyte, 2011) (Elenkov & Manev, 2009)
(Liao & Wu, 2010)
(Lin, Su, & Higgins, 2016)
(Kim & Lui, 2015)
(Naranjo-Gil, 2009)
(Montes et al., 2005)
(Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009)
(Tan & Nasurdin, 2010)
(Chang & Lee, 2008)
(Douglas, Overstreet, & Hazen, 2016)

Table 2
Organisational antecedents.

Factors Sources

Organisational size (Cobo-Benita, Rodríguez-Segura, Ortiz-Marcos, & Ballesteros-Sa
nchez, 2016) (Naranjo-Gil, 2009) (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006) (Ganter &
Hecker, 2013) (Hansen, 2010) (Hecker & Ganter, 2013) (Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981) (Subramanian & Nilakanta, 1996) (Fennell, 1984)

n & Villar-Lo
(Vaccaro et al., 2012) (Camiso
pez, 2011) (Nieves, 2016) (Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017)
Knowledge management
Organisational learning
n & Villar-Lo
(Camiso
pez, 2011) (Montes et al., 2005) (Garrido & Camarero, 2010) (Liao et al., 2008) (Liao & Wu, 2010) (Jime

nez-Jime

nez &
Sanz-Valle, 2011) (Nieves, 2016)
Knowledge management/ 
(De Souza Bermejo et al., 2015) (Cerne et al., 2013) (Chang & Lee, 2008) (Liao et al., 2008) (Liao & Wu, 2010) (Hecker & Ganter, 2013)
exchange
Absorptive capacity (Ali & Park, 2016) (Lin et al., 2016) (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009) (Ali, Kan, & Sarstedt, 2016)
Organisational memory (Camiso
n & Villar-Lo
pez, 2011)
Organisational structure and strategy
Organisational strategy (Naranjo-Gil, 2009)
Centralisation (Jaskyte, 2011) (Subramanian & Nilakanta, 1996)
Standardisation (Wright, Sturdy, & Wylie, 2012) (Llach, Castro, Bikfalvi, & Marimon, 2012)
Formalisation (Persaud, 2005) (Subramanian & Nilakanta, 1996)
Organisational complexity (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006) (Fennell, 1984)
Organisational Policy

(Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonz

alez, 2007)
Distinct functional groups (Ravichandran, 2000)
HRM
HRM practices

(Kuo, 2011) (Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonz
lez, 2007) (Tan & Nasurdin, 2011) (Douglas et al., 2016) (Die
a
guez-Soto et al., 2016)
Employee capability (De Souza Bermejo et al., 2015)
Highly educated workforce (Ganter & Hecker, 2013)
Dynamic capabilities
Integrative capability (Lin et al., 2016)
Sensing capability (Lin et al., 2016)
Manufacturing flexibility (Camiso
n & Villar Lo

pez, 2010)
Organisational Culture/Climate
Innovative culture (Ali & Park, 2016)
Firm’s internal context (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009)
Networks
Partnership

(Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonz

alez, 2007) (Cobo-Benita et al., 2016) (Ganter & Hecker, 2013)
External communication (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006)
Market network (Antonioli, 2009) (Kim & Lui, 2015) (Young, Charns, & Shortell, 2001) (Douglas et al., 2016)
Relational capability (Lin et al., 2016)
Organisational resources
People

(Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonz

alez, 2007)
IT systems/Software 
(De Souza Bermejo et al., 2015) (Cerne et al., 2013)

knowledge in an organisation (Chang & Lee, 2008). Knowledge
management can trigger MI by enabling transfer and creation of
new knowledge, thus leading to the development of novel ideas (De
Souza Bermejo, Tonelli, Galliers, Oliveira, & Zambalde, 2015).
Within this category, several studies suggest that organisational
learning is a driver of MI. The fundamental concept is that learning
plays a vital role in enabling organisations to attain flexibility
within the innovation process (Hansen, 2010). Innovation entails
that individuals obtain new knowledge and share it within the
organisation. Organisational learning allows the development,
acquisition, and transformation of the knowledge which enhances
MI (Camiso
n & Villar-Lo

pez, 2011).

Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
6 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 3. Drivers and outcomes of management innovation emerging from the literature review.
5.1.2. Environmental antecedents of innovation
Organisations may exercise different types of innovations in
their efforts to position themselves favourably within the envi-
ronment (Ganter & Hecker, 2013). Environmental factors refer to
the market or sector within which the organisation works, and can
include political and societal (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
Characteristics of an organisation’s environment may be central to
innovation because research shows that the main motivation for MI
comes from the external environment (Damanpour & Schneider,
2006). The importance of environmental antecedents has been
identified by complexity theory. Complexity theory argues that
organisations are dynamical systems that import vitality and
dynamism from their environments. Altering environmental forces,
such as new demands from customers or suppliers, and new reg-
ulations from government, alongside with market and technolog-
ical advances, drive organisational changes and innovation. In other
word, the innovation can be view as an organisational change in
reaction to environmental demands and conditions (Kim & Lui,
2015). For instance, studies have found that the level of dyna-
mism and competitiveness in the environment is a key condition
for MI (i.e., Kim & Lui, 2015; Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
Our literature search found 10 drivers related to the external
environment affecting MI. This category is composed of three sub-
categories: market dynamics, political and legal, and people/com-
munity. The most studied category is market dynamics which de-
fines the dynamic, or changes between market factors, that result
from the constant changes in both supply and demands. As Table 3
shows, competition in the market is the most frequently cited
factor in this group. Ganter and Hecker (2013) and Hecker and
Ganter (2013), for instance, found competition in the market
gives the organisation a short-term edge, which results in a higher
level of adoption of MI. They argue that competition between in-
dustries signifies environmental threats to organisation survival.
Consequently, organisations in the competition are keen to adopt
new innovations to gain competitive advantages.
Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
5.1.3. Managerial antecedents of innovation
The importance of managerial factors in the context of MI is
supported by many theories and empirical studies. In particular
upper echelon theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Scholars used
upper echelons theory to analyse the relationship between the
characteristics of top managers and organisational innovation and
performance. Upper echelons theory posits that leaders’ charac-
teristics, personalities and behaviours significantly influence their
analyses of the circumstances they face and, in turn, affect their
choices (e.g. adopt new innovation). Senior executives as key
leaders in organisations play a significant role in fostering MI


(Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonz
lez, 2007). Based on the papers in
a
this category we consolidate leaders’ ability to innovate into three
categories: leadership behaviour, stewardship and characteristics
and attitudes (see Table 4).
Top managers can positively influence different facets of man-
agement such as innovative management practices and processes
by utilising various leadership behaviours (Rezvani, Khosravi, &
Dong, 2017). Support for this argument can be found in several
studies (e.g. Elenkov, Judge, & Wright, 2005; Vaccaro et al., 2012).
The majority of these studies focused on examining the influence of
transformational and/or transactional leadership styles on MI.
Collectively these papers found a positive relationship between
both types of transformational and transactional leadership and MI
(e.g. Jaskyte, 2011; Vaccaro et al., 2012). These studies argued,
through idealised influence, transformational leaders stimulate MI
by reducing complexity and encouraging synergies by working
together with followers (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003)
enabling and empowering them to adopt new management pro-
cesses. By means of intellectual stimulation, transformational
leaders encourage followers to rethink existing structures and
adopt new management practices. Through individualised consid-
eration, transformational leaders consider followers individually to
emphasise appreciation for each of them and their ideas (Jaskyte,
2011).
 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Table 3
Environmental antecedents.

Factors Sources

Market dynamics
Competition on the markets/Competitive pressure (Ganter & Hecker, 2013) (Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981) (Smith & Taebel, 1985) (Hecker & Ganter, 2013)
Rapid technology changes (Ganter & Hecker, 2013) (Hecker & Ganter, 2013)
Uncertainty in the market (Naranjo-Gil, 2009)
Market concentration (Naranjo-Gil, 2009)
Environmental dynamism (Ravichandran, 2000)
Political and legal
Local legal environment (Jiao, Koo, & Cui, 2015)
Government effectiveness (Jiao et al., 2015)
Presence of union (Fennell, 1984)
People/Communities
Population growth (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006) (Smith & Taebel, 1985)
Community wealth (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006)

Table 4
Managerial antecedents.

Factors Sources

Leadership behaviours
Transformational leadership (Jaskyte, 2011) (Vaccaro et al., 2012) (Elenkov & Manev, 2009)
Transactional leadership (Vaccaro et al., 2012)
Strategic leadership (Elenkov et al., 2005)
Relentless leadership (Douglas et al., 2016)
Stewardship
Top management support

(Montes et al., 2005) (Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonz
lez, 2007) (Ravichandran, 2000)
a
Management involvement (Kam Sing Wong, 2013)
Organisational commitment (Gundry, Mun~ oz-Fernandez, Ofstein, & Ortega-Egea, 2015)
Characteristics and attitudes
Manager’s tenure (Young et al., 2001) (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006)
Manager’s education/self-directed learning (Ho, 2011) (Young et al., 2001)
Manager’s attitude towards innovation (Drury & Farhoomand, 1996)

The second category e Stewardship e refers to overall re- Table 5

sponsibilities within the organisation. In order to implement new Attributes of innovation.

MI, top managers must fulfil multiple roles (Montes et al., 2005).
For instance, top managers have a significant influence on MI by
shaping organisational culture and building capacity for change
(Kam Sing Wong, 2013). Moreover, they control resources and in-
fluence major decisions in the organisation (Kam Sing Wong, 2013).
Some support for this argument can be found in the articles by Kam
Sing Wong (2013) and Ravichandran (2000) that found a positive
association between top management support and MI.
The third category e Characteristics and attitudes e refers to a
specific individual, and the micro level characteristics of leaders,
such as their personality, attitude, and level of education. We found
four studies explored the connections between personal charac-
teristics and innovation management. These studies argued top
managers’ personal characteristics and education affect how the
organisational climate encourages innovation. For instance,
Damanpour and Schneider (2006) found education levels of top
managers positively affects adoption of MI. They argued that highly
educated managers have the ability to resolve unforeseen problems
and provide better solutions with the adoption of MI.
5.1.4. Attributes of innovation
The innovation diffusion theory identified a set of innovation
attributes which affect the adoption decisions (Rogers, 2003). The
innovation diffusion theory posits that the high rate of innovation
adoption would be a feature of its attributes such as compatibility
and relative advantage. A few studies in our final pool have
examined the role of attributes of managerial innovation on its
adoption (see Table 5). These studies argued that perceived ad-
vantages or awareness of the benefits of MI inspire organisations to
adopt it. For instance, Schneider (2007) found that the relative
Factors Study examples
Relative advantage (Schneider, 2007)
Cost (Damanpour & Schneider, 2008)
Impact on performance (Damanpour & Schneider, 2008)
advantage of new managerial innovation is positively related to its
adoption. Damanpour and Schneider (2008) explored the effect of
innovation cost and impact on performance in public organisations
and found a positive association between cost and impact on the
adoption of MI.
5.1.5. Moderators and mediators
The literature suggests several moderators and mediators to
explain the relationship between antecedent factors and MI (see
Table 6). Most of the studies explored the organisational and
managerial factors including organisational size, culture and top
management tenure except two studies conducted by Camiso
n and

pez (2010) and Lee, Lee, and Garrett (2017) who considered
Villar Lo
MI as a mediator and moderator. Camiso
n and Villar Lo

pez (2010),
in their empirical study of 159 Spanish firms, found that the effect
of manufacturing flexibility on organisational performance was
mediated by MI. They argued that manufacturing flexibility help
organisations to establish innovation such as new relationships
with suppliers or customers. Consequently, MI can help to motivate
the workforce and prepare them to adopt changes with a positive
influence on organisational performance.
5.1.6. Management innovation outcomes
As Table 7 demonstrates, our selected set of studies investigated

Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
8 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 6
Moderator and mediator variables.

Factors Relationship Sources

Organisational size
Organisational size
Organisational size
Cultural intelligence
Social culture
Top management team tenure
heterogeneity
Orientation to innovation
Innovative culture
IT system
Management innovation
Management innovation
Moderates the relationship between transformational/transactional leadership (Vaccaro et al., 2012)
and MI
Negatively moderates the relationship between knowledge exchange and MI 
(Cerne et al., 2013)
Moderates the relationship between innovation and firm performance
nez-Jime
(Jime
nez & Sanz-Valle, 2011)
Moderates the effect of senior expatriates’ leadership on organisational (Liao et al., 2008)
innovation
Moderates the relationship of strategic leadership behaviours with executive (Elenkov et al., 2005)
influence on MI
Moderates the relationship of strategic leadership behaviours with executive (Elenkov et al., 2005)
influence on MI
Partially mediates the relationship between organisational commitment and MI (Gundry, Mun ~ oz-Fernandez, Ofstein, & Ortega-
Egea, 2015)
Mediates the relationship between absorptive capacity and MI (Ali & Park, 2016)
Mediates the relationship between knowledge exchange and MI 
(Cerne et al., 2013)
Mediates the relationship between manufacturing flexibility and firm (Camiso
n & Villar Lo
pez, 2010)
performance
Moderates the relationship between process innovation and firm performance (Lee et al., 2017)

Table 7
Management innovation outcomes.

Outcomes Sources

Performance outcomes
Financial performance (Montes et al., 2005) (Evangelista & Vezzani, 2010) (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009) (Nieves, 2016) (Camiso
n & Villar Lo

pez, 2010) (Ho, 2011)
(Antonioli, 2009) (Lee et al., 2017) (Garrido & Camarero, 2010) (Yeh-Yun Lin & Yi-Ching Chen, 2007) (Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017) (Gunday, Ulusoy,
Kilic, & Alpkan, 2011)
Operative/service (Montes et al., 2005) (Naranjo-Gil, 2009) (Damanpour et al., 2009) (Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017)
performance
Overall performance (Camiso
n & Villar-Lo
pez, 2014) (Hansen, 2010) (Kraus et al., 2012) (Mazzanti, Pini, & Tortia, 2006) (Gunday et al., 2011) (Damanpour & Evan,
1984) (Damanpour, Szabat, & Evan, 1989) (Lee et al., 2017) (Kuo, 2011) (Jime
nez-Jime
nez & Sanz-Valle, 2011) (Ali et al., 2016)
Innovation performance (Gunday et al., 2011) (Pino et al., 2016)
Management (Walker et al., 2010)
performance
Innovation outcomes
Technological

(Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonz
lez, 2007) (Khanagha, Volberda, Sidhu, & Oshri, 2013) (Le Bas et al., 2015) (Staropoli, 1998) (Damanpour &
a
innovation Evan, 1984) (Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017)
Product innovation (Nieves, 2016) (Kraus et al., 2012) (Damanpour et al., 1989)
Process innovation (Camiso
n & Villar-Lo
pez, 2014) (Gunday et al., 2011)
Marketing innovation (Pino et al., 2016)
Success of innovation (Cobo-Benita et al., 2016)
projects
Capabilities outcomes
Dynamic capabilities (Gebauer, 2011)
Learning capabilities (Nieves, 2016)

three main outcomes of MI: capabilities, innovation, and perfor-
mance outcomes. Regardless of the increasing number of studies
discussing MI, empirical studies regarding management
innovationeoutcomes relationship remain scarce. The studies use
of various performance measures are based on the objective/sub-
jective characters of the measure.
The first category is related to performance outcomes. An or-
ganisation’s ability to compete successfully and perform well is
linked to its ability to embrace innovation. Researchers have argued
that MI is the main driver of long-term organisational performance
(Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009). Recently, scholars have started to test
whether MI leads to higher organisational performance. The rela-
tionship between MI and performance can be viewed through the
resource-based view (Damanpour, Walker, & Avellaneda, 2009;
Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009). The resource-based view argues that
organisations with certain capabilities and superior characteristics
will gain competitive advantages and therefore achieve higher
performance. According to the resource-based view, a capability
refers to the distribution and reconfiguration of resources to
embrace innovation, increase productivity and accomplish strategic
goals (Terziovski, 2010).
The second category is related to the innovation outcomes. As
Table 7 shows, researchers found that MI has a positive influence on
technology, process and product innovation. Management inno-
vation can provide unique and valuable working practices and
organisational structures that can advance the ability of organisa-
tions to adopt new technology or process innovation. For instance,
Le Bas, Mothe, and Nguyen-Thi (2015) have argued MI enhances
flexibility and organisational skills, which facilitate the develop-
ment of technological innovation.
The third category is related to the capabilities outcomes. Prior
studies in innovation literature have mostly focused on the pre-
dictable pathway by which organisational capabilities lead to MI
(e.g. De Souza Bermejo et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2016). They have
argued that the ability to implement MI lies at the heart of an or-
ganisation’s dynamic capabilities (De Souza Bermejo et al., 2015).
However, recent studies also emphasise the role of MI in enhancing
dynamic capabilities. Dynamic capabilities include capabilities for
identifying and dealing with opportunities and threats, the ability
to identify the need for change, formulate a suitable response, and
when necessary, alter operational capabilities (Teece, 2007).
Nevertheless, few studies investigated the potential impact of MI

Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

on organisations’ dynamic capabilities (see Table 8). For instance,

70
Gebauer (2011), through case studies of manufacturing companies 57.5
60
found that MI had a positive influence on dynamic capabilities. He
50 42.4
suggested in order to enhance dynamic capabilities, organisations 38
40
should adopt the most appropriate forms of MI. This relationship 28
30
can be viewed through the socio-technical perspective that modi- 18.1 15.1
20 12 10
fications in the technical system should be matched with modifi-
10 2 3
cations in the social system, that is, MI, of an organisation to
0
enhance its outcome. Organisational Managerial Environmental Attributes Outcomes

Number of Studies Percentage

5.1.7. Frequency of the different drivers and outcomes
We examined which antecedents are the most frequently
studied in the context of MI. Fig. 4 shows the frequency of the
different drivers and outcomes studied in the existing literature.
Several conclusions can be drawn from Fig. 4. First, organisational
antecedents play the largest role in enabling MI. As Fig. 4 shows,
58.3% of the drivers found in our review are related to the organ-
isational category. This is in line with previous studies, highlighting
the importance of internal organisational antecedents (e.g. Mol &
Birkinshaw, 2009). Second, 57.6% of the studies did not report any
outcomes (only 42.4% studied relevant outcomes). This potentially
demonstrates that existing research is more interested in exam-
ining factors influencing MI rather than the outcomes of MI. The
other reasons may be related to the challenges associated with
measuring MI outcomes and lack of well-established measures
(Armbruster, Bikfalvi, Kinkel, & Lay, 2008). More research is
required to identify various benefits or outcomes of MI.
5.2. Result of meta-analysis
Fig. 4. Percentage of the publications per category.
in the systematic review we found a positive relationship between
MI and organisational learning (e.g. r ¼ 0.260, Montes et al., 2005;
r ¼ 0.760, Liao & Wu, 2010; r ¼ 0.362, Nieves, 2016).
The meta-analysis revealed that the relationship between
financial performance and MI was positive and significant
(rc ¼ .269). This contradicts some of the systematic review findings.
The systematic review revealed evidence that the relationship be-
tween financial performance and MI was positive and significant
(e.g. r ¼ .16, Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017; r ¼ 0.57, Camiso
n & Villar
Lo
pez, 2010; r ¼ 0.54, Nieves, 2016), but also revealed nonsignifi-
cant relationships (r ¼ 0.02, Lee et al., 2017). In addition, the meta-
analysis showed that the relationship between overall performance
and MI was positive and significant (rc ¼ .269). Similarly, systematic
review revealed a positive relationship (e.g. r ¼ 0.42, Jime
nez-
Jime
nez & Sanz-Valle, 2011; r ¼ 0.48, Ali et al., 2016).

In the meta-analysis, as we explained in section 3.2.1, we
included driver and outcome variables that were examined in at
least four independent studies. Table 8 represents the result of the
meta-analysis.
The result of meta-analysis shows that organisational size
significantly and positively influences MI (rc ¼ 0.282: see Table 2).
However, analysis of the literature revealed contradictory findings.
These results showed that the relationships between organisational
size and MI varied with some studies revealing positive and sig-
nificant effects (e.g. r ¼ 0.204, Naranjo-Gil, 2009; r ¼ 0.35, Hansen,
2010; r ¼ 0.362, Nieves, 2016; r ¼ 0.256, Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017)
and others finding the effects to be non-significant (e.g.

r ¼ 0.12,Vaccaro et al., 2012; r ¼ 0.069, Cerne et al., 2013).
The meta-analysis showed that the association between MI and
knowledge management was positive and significant (rc ¼ 0.608) as
well as the relationship between MI and organisational learning
(rc ¼ 0.692). The systematic review also showed that the relation-
ship between MI and knowledge management was positive (e.g.

r ¼ .230, Liao & Wu, 2010; r ¼ 0.519, Cerne et al., 2013). In addition,
6. Discussion and future research directions
This study reported on the antecedents and outcomes of MI
present in the existing literature. Regardless of the increased
number of studies referring to MI, there is a lack of review of this
body of knowledge. This study answers a call by Damanpour and
Aravind (2012) for a systematic literature review of MI. By inves-
tigating the drivers and outcomes of MI, this study developed a
holistic picture of what existing empirical studies have found and
address the inconsistencies in the literature. Consistent with recent
recommendations to develop a higher standard of methodological
rigour of reviews of the management literature and to minimise the
selection bias (Newbert, 2007), we employed a systematic litera-
ture review approach and analysed 66 articles published in forty-
three academic journals over the period 1981 to 2017.
This study provides two major contributions to the MI literature.
The first contribution of this study is to deliver a quantitative
synthesis of the MI literature by deriving empirical generalizations
and explore the sources for inconsistencies in the empirical studies.

Table 8
Result of meta-analysis.

K N Avg r rc SDc 95% CI 80% CV Q Q df Qp

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Antecedents
Size 15 21445 .228 .282 .062 .217 .290 .165 .336 111.44 14 .000
OL 6 1493 .598 .692 .181 .467 .763 .384 .846 131.07 5 .000
KM 5 4020 .449 .608 .103 .442 .628 .403 .667 88.89 4 .000
Outcomes
FP 7 2083 .333 .269 .270 .058 .468 -.083 .610 182.83 6 .000
OP 6 1783 .345 .393 .128 .219 .440 .165 .493 42.71 5 .000

Note: OL, organisational learning; KM, knowledge management; OP, overall performance; FP, Financial performance; K, number of studies; N, sample size; Avg r, mean r
(unweighted); rc, sample size weighted and reliability-corrected mean; SDc, standard deviation for rc; CI, confidence interval; CV, credibility intervals; Q, chi-square test of
heterogeneity; Q fd, degree of freedom for chi-square test; Q p, p value for chi-square test.

Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
10 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
The systematic review shows that existing research reveals con-
tradictory findings regarding the intensity of the relationship be-
tween MI and organisational size, which makes it challenging to
draw overall conclusions. On the one hand, some studies found a
positive relationship between size and MI and propose that
organisational size is one of the best drivers of MI (e.g. Azar &
Ciabuschi, 2017; Hansen, 2010; Nieves, 2016). On the other hand,
different studies found non-significant relationships (e.g. Vaccaro

et al., 2012; Cerne et al., 2013). The results of the meta-analysis
offer more guidance, revealing a positive and significant relation-
ship exist between size and MI (rc ¼ 0.282). Although we found a
positive and significant relationship between size and MI, meta-
analysed relationships show variation. This suggests that modera-
tors might explain the mixed findings among the primary studies.
Therefore, future studies could explore various moderators in this
relationship.
In addition, the systematic review found that the results
regarding the association between MI and financial performance
are not consistent. While most of the studies reported positive
association (e.g. Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017; Camiso
n & Villar Lo

pez,
2010; Lee et al. (2017) found a non-significant relationship.
Although the results of the meta-analysis show that a positive and
significant relationship exists (rc ¼ 0.269), previous meta-analysis
studies have argued that these contradictory findings may be
somehow conditioned by differences or biases in measuring the
constructs. For instance, Bou-Llusar et al. (2001) explained that the
effect of performance is affected by the way the organisational
dimension is measured. In this regard, we found that Lee et al.
(2017) operationalised a single measure of financial performance,
while other studies used multidimensional measures. This may
explain the non-significant relationship in their study. Therefore,
we recommend future studies use multidimensional measures of
financial performance.
Our second contribution to the growing, but still scattered body
of knowledge into MI is the categorisation of drivers and outcomes
of MI. Until now, the existing research lacked such systematic re-
view as most of the research concentrated on unpacking the
concept of technological innovation. Our review builds on
Damanpour and Aravind (2012) by offering a systematic, large-
scale review of the empirical research into MI, and proposing a
consistent taxonomy of the drivers and outcomes that can be now
systematically used in future studies. We proposed a model of
drivers and outcomes of MI based on empirical studies. Within the
new framework of MI, it is possible to clarify the effects of various
drivers on MI with the theoretical views of the resource-based
view, the theory of dynamic capability, the complexity theory, the
upper echelon theory, and the innovation diffusion theory. There-
fore, one of the contributions of this study is an effort to aid a
deeper understanding of existing theories, which may guide future
studies to develop new ones. The MI model proposed in this study
offers a good starting point for future empirical research on one or
more of the identified MI drivers or outcomes presented in this
study.
6.1. Future research on drivers of management innovation
As we explained above, the existing research found several an-
tecedents which we categorised into four categories including
environmental, organisational and managerial antecedents. Our
systematic review demonstrated that research regarding the rela-
tionship between those antecedents is scant. Most of the studies
tend to study each driver of MI in isolation from the others. How-
ever, based on system theory we suggest that the various drivers
(see Fig. 3) affect each other, indicating a complex interplay be-
tween and among them. Future research could explore how diverse
Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
antecedents complement one another the adoption of manage-
ment innovation. For example, several studies have found that
learning is beneficial to MI (e.g. Camiso
n & Villar-Lo
pez, 2011).
Based on the contingency theory the effects of learning expected to
differ across diverse environmental conditions. Future studies can
examine under which conditions learning is more or less effective.
The research on attributes of MI is still scant. For example, given
the importance of innovation characteristics such as perceived
usefulness, cost reduction, improvement of the firm’s competitive
position and relative advantages on technological innovation
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2008) we assumed that these charac-
teristics may have a positive influence on managerial innovation.
Therefore, future studies should consider examining the influence
of characteristics of the innovation itself on adoption of managerial
innovation.
A number of studies in our final pool investigated the role of top
management in adopting MI. They found top managers’ leadership
behaviours and personal characteristics positively affect MI
(Rezvani et al., 2017). We suggest that future studies explore two
additional dimensions’ of the role of top management. First,
scholars argued that top managers when structuring and imple-
menting innovation should use various management strategies and
tactics such as managing incentives, conducting innovation audits,
reviewing work progress and pursuing strategic hires (Khosravi,
Rezvani, & Ahmad, 2013; Mumford, 2000; Rezvani, Dong, &
Khosravi, 2017). However, there is a lack of studies regarding
management strategies in the MI context. Future studies should
identify which management strategies are useful in different stages
of MI. Second, the studies in our final pool focused primarily on the
two leadership styles: transformational and transactional (Rezvani,
Khosravi, Subasinghage, & Perera, 2012). Studies showed various
leadership behaviours such as emergent and servant leadership
have positive effects on technological innovation (Khosravi,
Rezvani, Subasinghage, & Perera, 2012; Rezvani, Barrett &
Khosravi, 2018; Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014). Future
studies may test these relationships in the context of MI.
Multiple studies in our final pool paid attention to the envi-
ronmental antecedents of managerial innovation. Environmental
antecedents are mostly related to the country-level dynamics of the
political system, population, and market concentration
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). However, most of the included
studies in our final pool collected their data from either the USA or
Spain (see Fig. 2). Therefore, more diverse geographical studies are
needed for the generalisability of the findings. Moreover, there is a
lack of studies on cross-national samples, however, this is under-
standably expected given the prominence of the local context when
studying MI, and comparative studies across countries could indi-
cate to what extent environmental drivers are generalisable.
6.2. Future research on the outcomes of management innovation
The previous studies on MI have identified and empirically
tested several associations between various constructs. Above, we
explained the most often researched associations between the
drivers, mediators, moderators, and outcomes of MI. Yet, there are
several relationships that have thus far been neglected or not been
fully identified.
Evidence of the linkage between MI and the desired outcome
remains weak. Most of the prior studies focused on financial per-
formance as an outcome of MI, while only limited research inves-
tigated how MI affects other outcomes such as dynamic capabilities
or different types of innovation such as product or technical inno-
vation. Moreover, important performance measures such as effec-
tiveness and efficacy are still missing and performance is often
measured using one-dimensional criteria. Using one-dimensional
 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
criteria for assessing the organisational performance such as
financial performance can have problematic consequences such as
generating biased estimations of MI and overall success of the
organisation. We suggest that future studies explore at least four
additional dimensions’ of the MIeoutcome relationship. First, to
increase the robustness of findings, future research should consider
using multiple performance measurements and explore the mod-
erators and mediators between MI and performance. Second, more
research is required to identify under which conditions MI will lead
to other types of innovations, such as technological innovation.
Thus far there has been only limited research investigating these


relationships (e.g. Le Bas et al., 2015; Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-
Gonz
alez, 2007). Third, future studies should differentiate between
short-term and long-term performance as management literature
suggests there are important differences (Lunnan & Haugland,
2008). Future research could use longitudinal methodologies to
further examine the long-term effects of MI on various types of
organisational performance outcomes. Differentiating between
short-term and long-term outcomes could offer additional insights
into the true benefits of MI. It could be that MI efforts may not
provide immediate results, but could have far-reaching long-term
performance results. Lastly, Teece et al. (1997) and Armbruster et al.
(2008) argued that measuring the outcomes of MI is very chal-
lenging. In this regard, Lin et al. (2016) propose a process-oriented
way of measuring MI instead of the traditional result-oriented way
of measuring intangible technological innovation. Therefore, future
studies could use this approach to measure the outcome of MI.
6.3. Future research on multi-level analysis
Management innovation is taking shape as a research paradigm
in the innovation literature. Research on MI has examined a range
of variables, including environmental, organisational, managerial
antecedents, mediators/moderators, and outcomes. Regardless of
these findings, the majority of the empirical research does not use
established theoretical frameworks and did not distinguish be-
tween the levels of analysis when investigating MI. It would appear
that the MI research could benefit from future studies, which are
based on existing theoretical insights as well as identifying the level
of analysis.
Identifying the level of analysis is critically important because it
provides further insights in terms of the interaction between the
levels, and explains how one level of analysis affects the other
(Rezvani, Khosravi, & Ashkanasy, 2018; Snijders, 2011, pp.
879e882). It is vital that studies are explicit about each level of
analysis as identified by system theory (Rezvani & Khosravi, 2019).
It is also essential to differentiate between the level at which
innovation is apprehended. Typically, MI research focuses on either
the business unit or the firm level of analysis. Few studies have
explored how the drivers at the individual level affect MI outcomes.
We would like to highlight the need for studies covering multiple
levels of analysis. To fully capture MI in organisation future studies
could explore the relationship and interaction between business
unit level and a firm level of analysis and how MI at one level affects
the other level. For instance, how employee capabilities and
absorptive capacity at the individual level enhance MI at the
organisational level.
6.4. Future research on multi-stage management innovation
There have been shortcomings related to investigating different
stages of the MI process. It is established that technological inno-
vation consists of four stages including conceptualisation, genera-
tion, adoption and diffusion (Kim & Huarng, 2011). Similar to the
process of technological innovation, Birkinshaw et al. (2008)
Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
11
developed a process of MI consisting of four interlinked phases:
1) motivation, 2) invention, 3) implementation, and 4) theorisation.
Based on the same concept, Lin and Su (2014) focused on adoption
of MI, and developed a two-phase process of adoption: 1) a decision
that reflects the initiation phases of problem identification, inno-
vation perception, attitude formation, problem diagnoses, innova-
tion revision, proposal evaluation and implementation; 2)
implementation that reflects the actions that relate to modifying
the innovation, preparing the organisation for its use, acceptance of
the innovation, and continuous use of the innovation. Most of the
studies in our final pool focused on the later stages of innovation
such as innovation adoption. There is a lack of research on the early
stages of the innovation process. In addition, the current literature
has not answered questions related to different drivers that are
vital in different stages of managerial innovation. Future research
should differentiate the diverse stages of innovation that needs to
be dealt with and find out how effort in one stage, for instance, in
conceptualisation, will affect other stages. Moreover, there is a lack
of studies on multi-stage MI. Therefore, future studies should focus,
for instance, on two or more stages of MI and then dive deep into
drivers and theoretical grounds related to those stages.
7. Managerial implications
This study provides important implications for managers. Our
proposed framework can assist organisational leaders to better
account for the various factors that might facilitate or hinder MI in
practice. Our categorisation of internal and external drivers and
outcomes of MI, helps organisations direct their attention to
appropriate drivers and offers guidance on how managers or
practitioners can go about enhancing their organisation’s potential
MI capability. For instance, an essential strategic action for man-
agers involves finding an ideal size for their organisation. Our
finding showed that even if the results of several studies support a
positive association between organisational size and MI, other
studies have suggested that this relationship is more complex.
Although firm size can be increased or decreased through internal
development or mergers, acquisitions and outsourcing, managers
should consider their organisation’s size before implementing a
new MI. In addition, we have found several environmental factors
such as market dynamics and political environments that affect MI.
Therefore, managers must think about their firm’s location and take
advantage of various factors related to the environment sur-
rounding their firm. Finally, the diversity of drivers and outcomes of
MI shown in this study could also help managers to better under-
stand the variety of opportunities they face along the MI process.
8. Limitations of the study
First, the findings of this paper are based on the data gathered
from previous studies. Therefore, the limitations of our reference
studies may also apply to this study. Second, we only included peer-
reviewed journal articles in our study and excluded conference
papers, books and unpublished full-text documents. Thus poten-
tially restricting access to other results. However, we selected this
sampling strategy following previous published studies (e.g.
Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; De Bakker et al., 2010; Desmidt et al.,
2011; Verquer et al., 2003) because peer-reviewed journal articles
are more likely to report on validated findings and have the highest
impact on the field (Ordanini et al., 2008). The effects stated in
published studies may be larger than those stated in unpublished
ones. Excluding unpublished articles is thus may introduce a bias
into the effect size of our result. While such an issue is common in
most meta-analyses (Schmidt & Hunter, 2014; Rosenthal, 1984), our
result should be interpreted with care. Following previous reviews
12 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
(e.g. Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Kaur Kapoor et al., 2014; Pittaway
et al., 2004), we only searched four databases (ScienceDirect,
Web of Science, Wiley, and ABI/Inform). In addition, we note that
with the increasing number of studies on MI we cannot guarantee
to have taken into account all the studies in this area. Although we
believe that the extensive searches still provides an illustration of
the current state of MI research, future research may wish to study
this phenomenon by including other databases, conceptualised and
unpublished studies.
9. Conclusion
Managerial innovation has been an interesting topic for acade-
micians as well as practitioners because of its positive effects on
organisational renewal and performance. Regardless of the
increasing number of studies referring to MI, there is a lack of
studies that integrate and synthesise this body of knowledge. We
developed a model of MI to advance our understanding of the
various drivers, moderators, mediators and outcomes of MI. Prac-
tically, this model is important because it allows organisations to
evaluate their weaknesses and strength prior to the MI adoption. It,
therefore, increases the chance of successful adoption and may
prevent organisations from wasting their precious resources. In
addition, the proposed model in this study offers a good starting
point for future research on one or more of the identified MI drivers
or outcomes presented in our model.
References
Ali, M., Kan, K. A. S., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Direct and configurational paths of
absorptive capacity and organizational innovation to successful organizational
performance. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5317e5323.
Ali, M., & Park, K. (2016). The mediating role of an innovative culture in the rela-
tionship between absorptive capacity and technical and non-technical inno-
vation. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1669e1675.
Antonioli, D. (2009). Industrial relations, techno-organizational innovation and firm
economic performance. Economia Politica, 26(1), 21e52.
Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., & Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation:
The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys.
Technovation, 28(10), 644e657.
Azar, G., & Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation,
and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensive-
ness. International Business Review, 26(2), 324e336.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance
by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 207.
Birkinshaw, M. M. J. (2006). How management innovation happens. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 47(4), 81.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of
Management Review, 33(4), 825e845.
Blut, M., Frennea, C. M., Mittal, V., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2015). How procedural,
financial and relational switching costs affect customer satisfaction, repurchase
intentions, and repurchase behavior: A meta-analysis. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 32(2), 226e229.
Bou-Llusar, J. C., Camiso
n-Zornoza, C., & Escrig-Tena, A. B. (2001). Measuring the
relationship between firm perceived quality and customer satisfaction and its
influence on purchase intentions. Total Quality Management, 12(6), 719e734.
Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: what’s the difference? Journal
of Management Studies, 39(1), 97e122.
Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational culture and inno-
vation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
30(4), 763e781.
Camiso
n, C., & Villar Lo

pez, A. (2010). An examination of the relationship between
manufacturing flexibility and firm performance: The mediating role of inno-
vation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(8),
853e878.
Camiso
n, C., & Villar-Lo
pez, A. (2011). Non-technical innovation: Organizational
memory and learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sus-
tained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8),
1294e1304.
Camiso
n, C., & Villar-Lo

pez, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of
technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business
Research, 67(1), 2891e2902.
Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: Concepts, methods and applications. Nurse
Researcher, 4(3), 5e13.

Cerne, M., Jakli 
c, M., & Skerlavaj, M. (2013). Management innovation in focus: The
Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
role of knowledge exchange, organizational size, and IT system development
and utilization. European Management Review, 10(3), 153e166.
 
Cerne, M., Kase, R., & Skerlavaj, M. (2016). Non-technological innovation research:
Evaluating the intellectual structure and prospects of an emerging field. Scan-
dinavian Journal of Management, 32(2), 69e85.
Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to
medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1e17.
Chang, S.-C., & Lee, M.-S. (2008). The linkage between knowledge accumulation
capability and organizational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management,
12(1), 3e20.
Cobo-Benita, J. R., Rodríguez-Segura, E., Ortiz-Marcos, I., & Ballesteros-S
anchez, L.
(2016). Innovation projects performance: Analyzing the impact of organiza-
tional characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1357e1360.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organi-
zational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 47(6), 1154e1191.
Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, pro-
cesses, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423e454.
Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance:
The problem of"organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 392e409.
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in
organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British
Journal of Management, 17(3), 215e236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2006.00498.x.
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2008). Characteristics of innovation and innovation
adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 495e522.
Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. A., & Evan, W. M. (1989). The relationship between types
of innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies,
26(6), 587e602.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of
innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of
service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650e675.
De Bakker, K., Boonstra, A., & Wortmann, H. (2010). Does risk management
contribute to it project success? A meta-analysis of empirical evidence. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 493e503.
De Souza Bermejo, P. H., Tonelli, A. O., Galliers, R. D., Oliveira, T., & Zambalde, A. L.
(2015). Conceptualizing organizational innovation: The case of the Brazilian
software industry. Information & Management, 53(4), 493e503.
Desmidt, S., Prinzie, A., & Decramer, A. (2011). Looking for the value of mission
statements: A meta-analysis of 20 years of research. Management Decision,
49(3), 468e483.

guez-Soto, J., Dure
Die
ndez, A., García-Pe
rez-de-Lema, D., & Ruiz-Palomo, D. (2016).
Technological, management, and persistent innovation in small and medium
family firms: The influence of professionalism. Canadian Journal of Adminis-
trative Sciences - Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration, 33(4),
332e346.
Douglas, M. A., Overstreet, R. E., & Hazen, B. T. (2016). Art of the possible or fool’s
errand? Diffusion of large-scale management innovation. Business Horizons,
59(4), 379e389.
Drury, D. H., & Farhoomand, A. (1996). Innovation adoption of EDI. Information
Resources Management Journal, 9(3), 5e14.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does mentoring
matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-
mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254e267.
Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W., & Wright, P. (2005). Strategic leadership and executive
innovation influence: An international multi-cluster comparative study. Stra-
tegic Management Journal, 26(7), 665e682.
Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership’s effects on
innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44(4),
357e369.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they?
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10e11), 1105e1121.
Evangelista, R., & Vezzani, A. (2010). The economic impact of technological and
organizational innovations. A firm-level analysis. Research Policy, 39(10),
1253e1263.
Fennell, M. L. (1984). Synergy, influence, and information in the adoption of
administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 113e129.
Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2013). Deciphering antecedents of organizational innova-
tion. Journal of Business Research, 66(5), 575e584.
Garrido, M. J., & Camarero, C. (2010). Assessing the impact of organizational
learning and innovation on performance in cultural organizations. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(3), 215e232.
Gebauer, H. (2011). Exploring the contribution of management innovation to the
evolution of dynamic capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8),
1238e1250.
Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and
evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of
Management, 35(2), 393e419.
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on
firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2),
662e676.
Gundry, L. K., Mun ~ oz-Fernandez, A., Ofstein, L. F., & Ortega-Egea, T. (2015). Inno-
vating in organizations: A model of climate components facilitating the creation of
new value. Creativity and Innovation Management.
 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a
reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193e206.
Hansen, M. B. (2010). Marketization and economic performance: Competitive
tendering in the social sector. Public Management Review, 12(2), 255e274.
Hecker, A., & Ganter, A. (2013). The influence of product market competition on
technological and management innovation: Firm-level evidence from a large-
scale survey. European Management Review, 10(1), 17e33.
Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Man-
agement, 31(1), 1e12.
Ho, L.-A. (2011). Meditation, learning, organizational innovation and performance.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(1), 113e131.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and
bias in research findings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Iturrioz, C., Arago
n, C., & Narvaiza, L. (2015). How to foster shared innovation within
SMEs’ networks: Social capital and the role of intermediaries. European Man-
agement Journal, 33(2), 104e115.
Jaskyte, K. (2011). Predictors of administrative and technological innovations in
nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 77e86.
Jiao, H., Koo, C. K., & Cui, Y. (2015). Legal environment, government effectiveness
and firms’ innovation in China: Examining the moderating influence of gov-
ernment ownership. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 96, 15e24.
Jime
nez-Jime
nez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning,
and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408e417.
Kam Sing Wong, S. (2013). The role of management involvement in innovation.
Management Decision, 51(4), 709e729.
Kaur Kapoor, K., Dwivedi, Y., & Williams, M. (2014). Innovation adoption attributes:
A review and synthesis of research findings. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 17(3), 327e348.
Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., Sidhu, J., & Oshri, I. (2013). Management innovation and
adoption of emerging technologies: The case of cloud computing. European
Management Review, 10(1), 51e67.
Khosravi, P., Rezvani, A., & Ahmad, M. N. (2013). Does organizational identification
lead to information system success. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(3),
402e408.
Khosravi, P., Rezvani, A., Subasinghage, M., & Perera, M. (2012). January). In-
dividuals’ absorptive capacity in enterprise system assimilation. In ACIS 2012:
Location, location, location: Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian conference on
information systems 2012 (pp. 1e7). ACIS.
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of
individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of
technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal,
24(4), 689e713.
Kim, S.-H., & Huarng, K.-H. (2011). Winning strategies for innovation and high-
technology products management. Journal of Business Research, 64(11),
1147e1150.
Kim, Y., & Lui, S. S. (2015). The impacts of external network and business group on
innovation: Do the types of innovation matter? Journal of Business Research,
68(9), 1964e1973.
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews (Vol. 33, pp.
1e26). Keele, UK: Keele University.
Klier, H., Schwens, C., Zapkau, F. B., & Dikova, D. (2017). Which resources matter
how and where? A meta-analysis on firms’ foreign establishment mode choice.
Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 304e339.
Kraus, S., Pohjola, M., & Koponen, A. (2012). Innovation in family firms: An empirical
analysis linking organizational and managerial innovation to corporate success.
Review of Managerial Science, 6(3), 265e286.
Kuo, T.-H. (2011). How to improve organizational performance through learning
and knowledge? International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 581e603.
Le Bas, C., Mothe, C., & Nguyen-Thi, T. U. (2015). The differentiated impacts of
organizational innovation practices on technological innovation persistence.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(1), 110e127.
Lee, R., Lee, J. H., & Garrett, T. C. (2017). Synergy effects of innovation on firm
performance. Journal of Business Research.
Liao, S.-H., Fei, W.-C., & Liu, C.-T. (2008). Relationships between knowledge inertia,
organizational learning and organization innovation. Technovation, 28(4),
183e195.
Liao, S.-H., & Wu, C.-C. (2010). System perspective of knowledge management,
organizational learning, and organizational innovation. Expert Systems with
Applications, 37(2), 1096e1103.
Lin, H., & Su, J. (2014). A case study on adoptive management innovation in China.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(1), 83e114.
Lin, H. F., Su, J.-Q., & Higgins, A. (2016). How dynamic capabilities affect adoption of
management innovations. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 862e876.
Llach, J., Castro, R. d., Bikfalvi, A., & Marimon, F. (2012). The relationship between
environmental management systems and organizational innovations. Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 22(4), 307e316.
Lo
pez-Nicola
s, C., & Meron ~ o-Cerda
L. (2011). Strategic knowledge management,

n, A.
innovation and performance. International Journal of Information Management,
31(6), 502e509.
Lunnan, R., & Haugland, S. A. (2008). Predicting and measuring alliance perfor-
mance: A multidimensional analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5),
545e556.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on infor-
mation technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251e266.
Martínez-Rom
an, J. A., Gamero, J., & Tamayo, J. A. (2011). Analysis of innovation in
Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
13
SMEs using an innovative capability-based non-linear model: A study in the
province of Seville (Spain). Technovation, 31(9), 459e475.
Mazzanti, M., Pini, P., & Tortia, E. (2006). Organizational innovations, human re-
sources and firm performance: The Emilia-Romagna food sector. The Journal of
Socio-Economics, 35(1), 123e141.
Moghimi, D., Zacher, H., Scheibe, S., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2017). The selection,
optimization, and compensation model in the work context: A systematic re-
view and meta-analysis of two decades of research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38(2), 247e275.
Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: When
firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62(12),
1269e1280.
Montes, F. J. L., Moreno, A. R., & Morales, V. G. (2005). Influence of support lead-
ership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and
performance: An empirical examination. Technovation, 25(10), 1159e1172.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for
innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3), 313e351.
Naranjo-Gil, D. (2009). The influence of environmental and organizational factors
on innovation adoptions: Consequences for performance in public sector or-
ganizations. Technovation, 29(12), 810e818.
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An
assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal,
28(2), 121e146.
Nieves, J. (2016). Outcomes of management innovation: An empirical analysis in the
services industry. European Management Review, 13(2), 125e136.
Ordanini, A., Rubera, G., & DeFillippi, R. (2008). The many moods of inter-organi-
zational imitation: A critical review. International Journal of Management Re-
views, 10(4), 375e398.
Persaud, A. (2005). Enhancing synergistic innovative capability in multinational
corporations: An empirical investigation. Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement, 22(5), 412e429.
Pino, C., Felzensztein, C., Zwerg-Villegas, A. M., & Arias-Bolzmann, L. (2016). Non-
technological innovations: Market performance of exporting firms in South
America. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4385e4393.
Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. (2007). How to capture value from innovation: Shaping
intellectual property and industry architecture. California Management Review,
50(1), 278e296.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and
innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Man-
agement Reviews, 5(3e4), 137e168.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard
Business Review, 68(3), 79e91.
Ravichandran, T. (2000). Swiftness and intensity of administrative innovation
adoption: An empirical study of TQM in information systems. Decision Sciences,
31(3), 691e724.
Rezvani, A., Dong, L., & Khosravi, P. (2017). Promoting the continuing usage of
strategic information systems: The role of supervisory leadership in the suc-
cessful implementation of enterprise systems. International Journal of Informa-
tion Management, 37(5), 417e430.
Rezvani, A., & Khosravi, P. (2018). A comprehensive assessment of project success
within various large projects. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 6(1).
Rezvani, A., & Khosravi, P. (2019). Emotional intelligence: The key to mitigating
stress and fostering trust among software developers working on information
system projects. International Journal of Information Management, 48(Oct),
139e150.
Rezvani, A., Khosravi, P., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2018). Examining the in-
terdependencies among emotional intelligence, trust, and performance in
infrastructure projects: A multilevel study. International Journal of Project
Management, 36(8), 1034e1046.
Rezvani, A., Khosravi, P., & Dong, mj L. (2017). Motivating users toward continued
usage of information systems: Self-determination theory perspective. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 76, 263e275.
Rezvani, A., Khosravi, P., Subasinghage, M., & Perera, M. (2012, January). How does
contingent reward affect enterprise resource planning continuance intention?
The role of contingent reward transactional leadership. In ACIS 2012: Location,
location, location: Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian conference on information
systems 2012 (pp. 1e9). ACIS.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research
practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1986). Meta-analytic procedures for social science research Sage
Publications: Beverly Hills, 1984, 148 pp. Educational Researcher, 15(8), 18e20.
Ruiz Moreno, A., García Morales, V., & Llore
ns Montes, F. J. (2005). Learning during
the quality management process: Antecedents and effects in service firms. In-
dustrial Management & Data Systems, 105(8), 1001e1021.


Santos-Vijande, M. L., & Alvarez-Gonz
lez, L. I. (2007). Innovativeness and organi-
a
zational innovation in total quality oriented firms: The moderating role of
market turbulence. Technovation, 27(9), 514e532.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2014). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and
bias in research findings. Sage publications.
Schmidt, F. L., Shaffer, J. A., & Oh, I. S. (2008). Increased accuracy for range restriction
corrections: Implications for the role of personality and general mental ability
in job and training performance. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), 827e868.
Schneider, M. (2007). Do attributes of innovative administrative practices influence
their adoption?: An exploratory study of US local government. Public
14 P. Khosravi et al. / European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Performance and Management Review, 30(4), 598e622.
Sears, G. J., & Baba, V. V. (2011). Toward a multistage, multilevel theory of inno-
vation. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences - Revue Canadienne des Sci-
ences de l Administration, 28(4), 357e372.
Slater, S. F., Mohr, J. J., & Sengupta, S. (2014). Radical product innovation capability:
Literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 552e566.
Smith, A. C., & Taebel, D. A. (1985). Administrative innovation in municipal gov-
ernment. International Journal of Public Administration, 7(2), 149e177.
Snijders, T. A. (2011). Multilevel analysis. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Staropoli, C. (1998). Cooperation in R&D in the pharmaceutical industrydthe
network as an organizational innovation governing technological innovation.
Technovation, 18(1), 13e23.
Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring
the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of
innovations, and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6),
631e647.
Tan, C. L., & Nasurdin, A. M. (2011). Human resource management practices and
organizational innovation: Assessing the mediating role of knowledge man-
agement effectiveness. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2),
155e167.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509e533.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro-
foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 28(13), 1319e1350.
Terziovski, M. (2010). Innovation practice and its performance implications in small
and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector: A resource-based
view. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 892e902.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review.
British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207e222.
Please cite this article as: Khosravi, P et al., Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research,
European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
View publication stats
Tsoukas, H. (1994). Refining common sense: Types of knowledge in management
studies. Journal of Management Studies, 31(6), 761e780.
Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate
settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68(2), 292e307.
Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2012). Man-
agement innovation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational size.
Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28e51.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations
between personeorganization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 63(3), 473e489.
Volberda, H. W., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Heij, C. V. (2013). Management innovation:
Management as fertile ground for innovation. European Management Review,
10(1), 1e15.
Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2010). Management innovation and
organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance manage-
ment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 367e386.
Wright, C., Sturdy, A., & Wylie, N. (2012). Management innovation through stan-
dardization: Consultants as standardizers of organizational practice. Research
Policy, 41(3), 652e662.
Yam, R. C., Lo, W., Tang, E. P., & Lau, A. K. (2011). Analysis of sources of innovation,
technological innovation capabilities, and performance: An empirical study of
Hong Kong manufacturing industries. Research Policy, 40(3), 391e402.
Yeh-Yun Lin, C., & Yi-Ching Chen, M. (2007). Does innovation lead to performance?
An empirical study of SMEs in Taiwan. Management Research News, 30(2),
115e132.
Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership
foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification
and prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1395e1404.
Young, G. J., Charns, M. P., & Shortell, S. M. (2001). Top manager and network effects
on the adoption of innovative management practices: A study of TQM in a
public hospital system. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 935e951.