Name and academic title of the first author:
Dr. Vojko POTOCAN, full professor
Institution/Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor
Postal Address:
Razlagova 14, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
Phone:
+38622290255
Fax:
+38622516681
E-mail address:
vojko.potocan@uni-mb.si
Name and academic title of the second author:
Dr. Zlatko NEDELKO, Assistant
Institution/Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor
Postal Address:
Razlagova 14, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
Phone:
+38622290131
Fax:
+38622516681
E-mail address:
zlatko.nedelko@uni-mb.si
CHALLENGING DILEMMAS ABOUT WORKING VALUES AND
INNOVATIVENESS OF ORGANIZATIONS
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The purpose of this contribution is to report on research about how organization
stakeholders’ personal values influence innovativeness of organizations. In the current economic
conditions all organizations must continually innovate, i.e. beneficially renew, their working and
behaviour. We focus our research on the organization stakeholders’ understanding and perception
about innovative working/innovations. We treat selected values as a base to research and to
endeavour to understand differences in the perception of organization stakeholders about
innovativeness of organizations. The contribution considers two basic problems: 1) How to create a
process model for the invention-innovation-diffusion process (IIDP)/innovations, and 2) How
organization stakeholders understand/evaluate innovativeness in their organization.
Design/methodology/approach – In this paper qualitative analysis is applied on the basis of the
selected cognitions from Business and Psychological theories. The quantitative analysis is limited to
desk research about selected cognitions from Psychological theories, and analysis of the selected
results from our survey about personal values of organizations’ stakeholders.
Findings – Values are a crucial emotional part of human attributes. They can be viewed as a
subjective part of the starting points of any human working/behaviour process, including innovative
business. Values have an important impact on an organizational stakeholder’s perception about
IIDP/innovations of the organization. To clarify and beneficially use values for improving the
IIDP/innovations, one must understand relations between values and attitudes, attitudes and
IIDP/innovations, etc. With the mentioned theoretical basis and together with result of our research
we try to offer a possible approach – improving organizational IIDP/innovations.
Research limitation/implications – Research is limited to hypotheses, broader qualitative research in
desk research, and some quantitative analysis of results from our survey. Other practical experience
is considered implicitly.
Practical implications – This paper lays an important ground-work for the development of a more
holistic understanding of the role and importance of organization stakeholders’ values as a
background of their perception and/or for business in general, and/or understanding of relationships
between organizational stakeholders’ values and selected important factors of innovativeness of
organizations. We suggest a more specifically created and target-oriented approach to research how
to improve the understanding of the relations between values and innovativeness as a selected
characteristic of business.
Key words: Innovation, Innovativeness, Organization, Organization stakeholders, Personal values
1
1.
THE SELECTED PROBLEM AND VIEWPOINT
An organization is not only a business system (BS), which it is when the selected viewpoint
of dealing with it exposes its business attributes. Called with different names (such as firm,
enterprise, company) BSs became very influential institutions of the modern age (See e.g.
Schumpeter, 1934; Fagerberg et al., 2006; Kuratko, 2008; Fink, Kraus, 2009). Since the great
majority of BSs are small and medium enterprises (SMEs), it is almost impossible to reach
any goal in the society without engaging also the SMEs (See e.g. Hebert, Link, 1989; Fink,
Kraus, 2009). Currently, in Europe about 99 % of all enterprises are SMEs, employing
beyond 50 % employees (See e.g. Potocan, Mulej, 2007; Potocan, 2008; Rebernik et al.,
2009). Demands over SMEs have developed from efficiency by - adding quality, range,
uniqueness, and sustainability, in synergy, over recent decades (See e.g. Collins, Porras,
1994; Collins, 2001; Potocan, Mulej, 2007; Potocan, Mulej, 2009; Potocan, Mulej, 2010).
This requires innovations all the time.
Innovation is defined as every novelty found beneficial in the experience of its users (Afuah,
1998; Rogers, 2003; EU, 2006). Or, in other words: Innovation = invention +
commercialization (Afuah, 1998).
The modern BSs face two important challenges, at least: how to satisfy demanding
customer’s requirements, and how to make their own business requisitely innovative to make
customers happier with it, than with competitor's supplies.
Therefore, SMEs must create and implement holistic development like, or even more than,
the bigger enterprises. Meeting these requirements depends on influential humans, not only
on the institutional order alone. If we wish to understand the human part, we must take into
consideration mutual interdependence and synergetic entity of values, culture, ethics and
norm (i.e. VKEN) on all important levels, and in all functions of SMEs. In this framework the
values (and especially working values) provide bases for innovativeness of BSs, including
SMEs.
We discuss here the issue of improving the level of innovativeness on the basis of knowing:
the role and the meaning of IIDP/innovations for working and behavior of SMEs, possibilities
to assure human bases for innovativeness, the role and importance of organizational
stakeholders’ values as a background of their perception about innovativeness in SMEs, and
relations between the organizational stakeholders’ values and the selected important factors
of innovativeness of organizations.
2. THE HUMAN PART OF PRECONDITIONS OF THE INNOVATIVE BUSINESS
Around the world, 80% of humankind lives in the less innovative countries, partly in
undeveloped countries, partly in the more traditional areas inside the innovative countries
(See e.g. Mulej, 2000; Potocan, 2005; Potocan, Mulej, 2007; Mulej, 2007; Rebernik et al.,
2009).
Everywhere, making the innovative business the prevailing practice requires systemic change
of the inherited culture and practice. At least, it requires making and implementation in a
harmonized working of both:
2
-
The institutional economic and legal order supportive of innovative business; and
The innovation-friendly behavior of decisive participants of innovative business in
organizations as BSs.
Traditional economists tend to suppose that the institutions alone can work well enough (See
e.g. Casson, 1982; Robbins, 2002; White, 2005; Fagerberg et al., 2006; Leydesforff, 2006;
Mullins, 2006; Lawrence, Weber, 2007; Kuratko, 2008). Influential persons in organization
tend to read the institutional systems measures from their own viewpoints, though. Thus, the
business reality is not only based on economics, but also – to an equal level of importance –
on management and organization of human relations.
In the innovative business, a central role belongs to interdisciplinary co-operation and
therefore to interdependence in the professional invention/innovation teams. They do not
consist of the research and development professionals only, but marketing professionals, at
least, must be equal-footed for teams to make inventions and make innovations from them,
while anthropologists and ethnologists are required increasingly, too, because their
observation methods can shed light on future needs of potential customers (See e.g. Barabba,
2004; Mulej, 2000; Potocan, 2005; Potocan, Mulej, 2007; Sheshimski et al., 2007; Potocan,
2008; Potocan, 2009; Pyka, Scharnhorst, 2009). This includes SMEs, their owners, managers,
employees, consultants and other business partners.
The contemporary need for requisite holism requires professionals to accept their practical
interdependence and enter interdisciplinary co-operation concerning all invention/innovation
processes and all resulting novelties – inventions, suggestions, potential innovations,
innovations, and their diffusion in markets.
Not even research, development, and marketing, professionals are enough, all operation
managers and professionals in production, design, finance, human resource services, law,
etc., are equally unavoidable – for innovation to result. Even if their co-operation is quite
holistic, everything cannot be foreseen and in every phase mentioned above a small portion
of its results proceeds to the next stage. Stages do not follow each other in a simple linear
style, but in interdependence: the later ones also impact the earlier ones, e.g. through
expectations, estimations, future research, prognoses etc., not only by feedback feeding a next
cycle.
In the briefed IIDP very different people show up, per functional areas, professions, human
personality attributes, values, etc. (Mulej, 2000; Potocan, 2005; Potocan, Mulej, 2007; Mulej,
2007; Potocan, 2009). From all organizational subjective parts for IIDP/innovations we will
expose influence of VCEN (See Table 1).
Table 1: Circular interdependence of values, culture, ethics, and norms
Individual values (interdependent with ↔
knowledge)
Culture = values shared by many, habits
making them a round-off social group
↕
+
↕
Norms = prescribed values on right ↔ Ethics = prevailing values on right and
and wrong in a social group
3.
wrong in a social group
THE ROLE OF VALUES FOR INNOVATIVENESS OF SMEs
3
There are two main approaches to human values (and/or whole VCEN) in working/behavior
of SMEs as BSs rather than biological, social, environmental etc. systems.
Some see SME’s values/VCEN as a complex entity which mostly comes from society (and/or
other important environments) via norms from prevailing VCEN in society (See e.g.
Swedberg, 2000; Mullins, 2006; Huczynski, Buchanan, 2007; Conway, Steward, 2009; etc.).
Other authors see SME’s values/VCEN just as results of interests, motives, etc. of the most
influential group of organization (See e.g. Robbins, 2002; Mullins, 2006; Huczynski,
Buchanan, 2007; Fink, Klaus, 2009; etc.). This means that there are many different
definitions of values of SMEs and/or SMEs stakeholders.
More about the role and importance of the entire VCEN for SMEs see in e.g. Becker and
McClintock (1967), Rokeach (1973), Hofstede (1994), and Schwartz (1992). More about role
and importance of values in the innovation working and behavior of SMEs, see e.g.
Swedberg (2000), Cavanagh (2005), Potocan and Mulej (2007), and Chesbrough (2009).
But all researchers also face the dilemma, how to understanding possibilities for changing of
values and hence of VCEN. From different theoretical cognitions about values (in
philosophy, sociology, psychology, etc.) we based our work on cognitions from different
authors in psychology (See e.g. Rokeach, 1968; Schwartz, 1994; etc.). These researches focus
on empirical detecting of the real state of values and responses to issues related to the topic of
values.
Various authors share a relatively unified understanding and definition of the basic functions
of values (See e.g. Rokeach, 1968; Schwartz, 1994; Hofstede, 2001; etc.). They claim that the
values’ basic functions direct individuals’ behavior, solving of conflicts, decision making,
and motivating. Every person has a relatively personal and possibly broad set of values,
which he/she forms as a values-based hierarchy of values, i.e. a value system (as a complex
entity, not as a mental picture of it). In the same way values on all levels of the human action
can be worked on.
An individual’s value system is relatively durable, ordered, and stable; but their hierarchy can
change along with changes in society, culture, personal experience, etc., which influence the
changing of the relative importance of single values for the given individual (and the
organized forms of his/her actions) (see e.g. Rokeach, 1973: 11). Changing of values is a
complex and long-lasting process; it can support or hinder IIDP. Our consideration of it is
based on findings of many theorists that the process of changing of values consists only, or
mostly, of changes of the relative importance of single values inside the value system rather
than of changes in the structure (content related) of the value system itself (See e.g. Becker,
McClintock, 1967; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992; Hofstede, 2001; etc.).
For SME and/or SMEs stakeholders its/their values (and other parts of VCEN) make
important building blocks/elements/components of working and behavior of SMEs’
stakeholders (See: Schwartz, 1992; Cavanagh, 2005; Mullins, 2006; Potocan, 2009; etc.).
From the SMEs’ viewpoint, the IIDP is primarily based on knowledge, experiences,
competences, but SMEs also try to improve other basic blocks of their working – e.g. values
of SMEs’ stakeholders.
Importance of SMEs’ stakeholders’ values for understanding of their and SMEs’
innovativeness is acknowledged in both literature on, and practice of, SMEs and/or
innovativeness of SMEs. But there is no shared opinion in what way should SMEs transmit
4
values to SMEs’ stakeholders, and vice versa, to make prevailing VCEN from the influential
ones’ values.
SMEs’ stakeholders’ attributes can, most generally, be defined on the basis of attributes of
their working and behavior in SMEs (See e.g. Becker, McClintock, 1967; Rokeach, 1973;
Potocan, Mulej, 2007; Potocan, 2008; Potocan, 2009; etc.). In line with findings of various
authors we may conclude that working/behavior of SMEs’ stakeholders are under important
impact of their cognitive bases and values (and/or entire VCEN and/or parts of VCEN), first
of all. Inside this framework it is true in the most general lines, that the crucial personal
values of SMEs’ stakeholders influence the attributes of their working/behavior.
The cognitive bases of VCEN of SMEs’ stakeholders can influence their SME in two ways:
- The crucial VCENs of stakeholders (and especially the values of stakeholders)
influence the SMEs process indirectly, through the SMEs stakeholders’ cognitive and
decision-making bases; or
- A synergetic impact of the cognitive bases and values of SMEs stakeholders (and/or
all their VCEN) takes place.
For a more holistic consideration of working/behavior of stakeholders in SMEs one must take
in account further three groups of factors, at least: impacts from SMEs’ environments,
bounded rationality and irrationality of individuals, and their selective perceptions (see e.g.
Potocan, Mulej, 2007; Potocan, 2008; Potocan, 2009; etc.).
4.
INNOVATIVENESS OF SMEs
Entrepreneurs and/or other entrepreneurial humans support IIDP/innovations (See e.g. Lester,
Piore, 2004; Fagerberg et al., 2006; Leydesforff, 2006; Chesbrough, 2009; etc.). In the
current economic circumstances, SMEs must be viewed as inventions that are supposed to
become innovations, including more than the SMEs’ products. All influential stakeholders
must be persuaded in a process for the transition from invention to innovation to happen.
The formation of the innovative work of SMEs depends on most SMEs’ stakeholders’
cognitions and understanding of the role and importance of IIDP/innovation. Often, owners,
entrepreneurs, and managers of SMEs are specialists in their professional (especially
engineering) area(s) with less knowledge and experiences about: interdisciplinary
cooperation, holistic understanding of IIDP, innovations, and management of IIDP (See e.g.
Katz, 2003; Gloor, 2006; Fink, Kraus, 2009; Greene, 2009; Pyka, Scharnhorst, 2009).
In both theory and business practice many different models of innovation, innovation of
business, and management of IIDP/innovation has been developed. The basic goal of these
models is to assure the needed additional knowledge and support for innovative work of BSs,
-including SMEs (See e.g. Rhinesmith, 1999; Huston, Sakkab, 2006; Huczynski, Buchanan,
2007; Skarzynski, Gibson, 2008; Conway, Steward, 2009; etc.).
Below we present our process model of the management of IIDP/innovation, which we
developed (see e.g. Potocan, Mulej, 2010) in the frame of the research about the influence of
innovation on companies. Why do we need another model for consideration of innovations?
Neither theory nor practice offer a solution trying to more holistically consider this topic. On the
other hand, in business reality, SMEs try to simultaneously learn and define similarities
between different cognitions of innovation managers in order to define the requisite
unification of consideration, to learn to know, and to quite objectively clarify differences
5
among different theoretical cognitions (e.g. definitions, theories, models) as bases for
understanding the potential differences in consideration of IIDP/innovations.
To help SMEs, we have developed and formed a requisitely holistic and unified general
framework for research of innovations management of SMEs/BSs. The model of general
framework is meant to match the needs of mastering of the process with the chosen
cognitions and their model-presentations of IIDP/innovations, and innovation management
(see Figure 1).
UN-CONSIDERED ENVIRONMENT AND INFLUENCES
Outer influences on innovations
Z
X
IIDP system
- internal factors (e.g. human resources,
structure, technology, products/services,
culture, etc.)
- external factors (e.g. market
conditions, legislation, etc.)
Other levels
Y
IIDP’s flow per phasess and content
Innovations
IIDP factors
Factors of IIDP management
Individual level
Invention-Innovation-Diffusion process
IIDP’s management flow per phases and content
X – FACTORS OF INNOVATIONS
Management of IIDP/innovations
IIDP management system
Y – CHARACTERISTICS OF
INNOVATIONS
- types of innovations
- sorts of innovations
- forms of innovations
- extent of innnovation
- importance of innovations
- etc.
Z – CONDITIONS FOR
INNOVATIONS
- considered internal conditions
- considered external conditions
Organizational level
Figure 1: The model of general framework for research of innovations management of SMEs
Managers try to attain unification of consideration of the tackled problems by using four
criteria (as viewpoints of consideration, possibly in synergy) defining the general framework
for innovation management; they are: Innovations, IIDP, Management of IIDP/innovation,
and outer influences on innovations (More about selected criteria/viewpoints of
consideration, but not in synergy see e.g. Potocan, 2008; Potocan, 2009; Potocan, Mulej,
2009; Potocan, Mulej, 2010).
5.
INNOVATIONS
ORGANIZATIONS
AND
INNOVATIVE
BEHAVIOR
IN
SLOVENIAN
SMEs cannot avoid the modern global economy and its demand for innovative business as a
precondition for competitiveness. From all SMEs stakeholders we focused on SMEs
members. Given their small size and related pool of professionals, SMEs need to work very
hard on members’ innovativeness and related personal traits. Making a SME successful must
be considered as an IIDP that tackles: the businesses mix of the given size, the SME as an
entrepreneurial achievement, and entity of VCEN.
Thus all preconditions concerning both the content and the process of innovation must be
considered, which requires the holism and therefore systemic rather than one-sided
thinking/behavior of the usual specialists. Hence, VCEN of owners, entrepreneurs, SME’s
members must also be innovated along with their knowledge.
6
Therefore the following hypotheses are postulated:
H1: Stakeholders of Slovenian SME’s consider innovation as an important characteristic of
their working.
Figures from research on diffusion of novelties aimed at becoming innovations (See e.g.
Afuah, 1998; Rogers, 2003; Lester, Piore, 2004; Chesbrough et al., 2006) include into rather
innovative recipients of novelties only about 18 - 30 % of all adults. This means that new
concepts such as economic entrepreneurship replacing routine-loving behavior (including
employment without a lot of own responsibility) are difficult to implement.
From the viewpoint of current situation in Slovenia, the level of understanding and
acceptance of innovations among SME’s members is relatively favorable. About details of
general framework, institutional conditions for innovativeness and state of innovativeness in
Slovenian organizations see Rebernik, et al. (2000-2009) and Potocan and Mulej (2007). The
results of survey of personal values of members in Slovenian organizations in 2010 indicate
that members of organizations consider innovations (and innovative conditions) as important
characteristics of their working (Potocan, Nedelko, 2010).
Innovative thinking of SME’s members is importantly dependent upon all synergetic
objective factors (e.g. organization goals, requirements of owners, shareholders) and
especially subjective starting points of management. In that frame we can emphasize values
of SME’s members, as one among crucial factors, which influence innovative thinking of
SME’s members.
This leads to the conclusion that SME’s members, based on their personal values, recognize
and/or are aware of their need for innovative thinking, which is executed through their
working and behavior in organizations. Key factor in that frame are personal values of SME’s
members, which are either favorable either unfavorable to innovative thinking, working, and
behavior of SME’s members.
Based on our previous researching and cognitions of others (see: O'Reilly et al., 1991;
Ralston et al., 1997; Lester, Piore, 2004; etc.), we identified the following set of criteria for
examination of innovative thinking: 1) SME’s members’ stimulation for creativity; 2)
Openness of SME’s members for new ideas and other’s knowledge; 3) Benevolence to
changes; 4) Perception of risk; 5) Innovativeness as a value.
H2: The personal values of SME’s stakeholders in Slovenian organizations support their
innovative thinking
Figures from research of entrepreneurship and innovativeness include finding that about 40 %
of the adults in a society must be entrepreneurial persons to make enterprises economic rather
than only legal entities, called enterprises (see e.g. Rogers, 2003; Rebernik et al., 2004;
Chesbrough et al., 2006; Chesbrough, 2009). This percentage must be achieved by innovation
(as a process) of human values, which will not be a novelty yielding no benefit to its users,
but an innovation (as outcome). The results of survey of members of Slovenian organizations
in 2010 indicate that personal values of organizations’ members do influence (and/or support)
innovative thinking of members in Slovenian organizations (Potocan, Nedelko, 2010).
Based on presented cognitions and our experiences, we identified several (most probably)
relationships between items (which constitute construct innovative thinking) and selected
7
personal values of management) (see for example Katz, 2003; Gloor, 2006). Cognitions are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Significant values for innovative thinking
Innovative thinking
Significant personal value
SME’s members stimulation for creativity
Creativity
Openness of SME’s members for new ideas and Broad-minded
other’s knowledge
Benevolence to changes
Dynamic life
Perception of risk
Daring
Innovativeness as a value
Innovativeness
Methods
Based on our cognitions presented above, we include in our sample SME’s members. Our
sample consists of 260 members of SMEs in Slovenia. Data were obtained through a field
survey of personal values of SME’s members in Slovenian SMEs in 2010. Sample included
SME’s from all Slovenia (i.e. a relatively representative regional coverage; sample met the
basic-activity structure of Slovenian SMEs, with a good fit to the industry-based structure of
the Slovenian economy). According to proposed hypotheses we measured personal values of
SME’s members and innovative thinking. More facts about survey are available with the
authors of this contribution.
For measuring personal values “The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS)” was used (Schwartz,
1994). To the original SVS, which consists of 56 items, we add “innovativeness” as a value.
Respondents rate each personal value, using a 9-point Likert-type scale, ranging from
“opposed to my values” (-1) to “of supreme importance” (7) (see: Ralston et al., 1997;
Yammarino et al., 2005).
For measuring “innovative thinking” we identify the construct “Innovative thinking”, based
on different prior studies of innovativeness (see e.g. O’Reilly et al., 1991; Potocan, Mulej,
2007). 5 items in construct are measured using 7-point Likert-type scale, with anchors
refereeing to low innovative thinking (1) and high innovative thinking (7). Items in the
construct assess SME’s members’ stimulation for creativity (1 – not supporting; 7 –
supporting); openness of SME’s members for new ideas and other’s knowledge (1 – refusing;
7 – accepting); benevolence to changes (1 – don’t support; 7 - support); perception of risk (1
– refusion; 7 – preference); and innovativeness as a value (1 – low; 7 – high).
For examination of the impact of personal values at innovative thinking, we identify
relationships between the selected personal values (i.e. creativity, broad-minded, dynamic
life, daring, innovativeness) and items in the construct “innovative thinking”.
For analyzing data, several methods were used. Based on tests of normality (we used
Kolmogorov Smirnov test), we can conclude that all items (i.e. items included for testing of
both hypotheses) are not congruent with normal distribution (see e.g. Argyrous, 2006). Since
assumptions about normality are markedly violated, we used adequate non-parametric
statistics tests (when applicable). In that frame Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rho) was
used for measuring association between the selected item about innovative thinking and
detected personal value of SMEs members. We used Cronbach’s alpha for measuring
reliability of construct in Hypothesis 1 (i.e. innovative thinking). More about the utilized
methods for data analysis see in Argyrous (2006).
8
Results of Survey
Results for Hypothesis 1
H1: Stakeholders of Slovenian SME’s consider innovation as an important characteristic of
their working.
To measure “Innovative thinking” we identify the construct “Innovative thinking”, which
consists of five items (see Table 3). All 260 cases were processed in analysis. Cronbach’s
alpha is 0.806, which indicates high overall internal consistency among the five items
representing the Innovative thinking construct.
Table 3: Mean values for “Innovative thinking” items
N
Management
stimulation for
creativity
Openness of
management for ideas
and knowledge of
employees
Benevolence to changes
Perception of risk
Innovativeness as a
value
Valid N (listwise)
Minimum Maximum
260
1
8
Mean
6,50
Std. Deviation
1,511
260
1
8
6,83
1,369
260
260
260
1
1
1
8
8
8
6,53
5,63
6,63
1,482
1,623
1,611
260
Based on the obtained results we can make several tentative conclusions about “Innovative
thinking” of the Slovenian SME’s members:
- Among several items the most important is openness of SME’s members for new
ideas and other’s knowledge, while perception of risk is the lowest.
- SME’s members are willing to accept new ideas and other’s knowledge (i.e. from
environment of organization, from other members of organizations), since the current
situation (e.g. coping with crisis; post-transition period of organizational
transformation) require mobilization of all available ideas and knowledge for
organizations to survive in fierce (e.g. emerging, global) competition. On the other
hand, accepting (also) ideas of other members is an important prerequisite for
innovations in organizations and especially SME’s (the ‘open innovation concept’).
- SME’s members stimulate creativity of other member of SME, since creativity is
central to innovativeness. On the other hand SME’s members must be benevolent to
changes, because innovativeness is based on (continuous, hopefully beneficial)
changes.
- On the other hand SME’s members are not very willing to accept (too high) risks.
This could have deeper roots, e.g. in the traditional aversive perception to risk among
Slovenians.
We support Hypothesis 1.
9
Results for Hypothesis 2
H2: The personal values of SME’s stakeholders in Slovenian organizations support their
innovative thinking
In our conclusions regarding Hypothesis 1, we point out several possible relations between
personal values of SME’s members and items referring to innovative thinking. That will be
outlined in frame of testing Hypothesis 2. For the purpose of researching the impact of
personal values on innovative thinking we assign (more or less) significant personal value to
each item in construct (See Table 4).
Table 4: Correlation between innovative thinking and personal values
Innovative thinking
1. SME’s members stimulation
for creativity
2. Openness of SME’s
members for new ideas and
other’s
3. Benevolence to changes
4. Perception of risk
5. Innovativeness as a value
Significant personal value
Creativity
Correlation
r=0.172 (p=0.005)
Broad-minded
r=0.343 (p=0.000)
Dynamic life
Daring
Innovativeness
r=0.106 (p=0.087)
r=0.124 (p=0.046)
r=0.293 (p=0.000)
Results in Table 4 indicate that there are significant relationships between the detected
personal value and the selected item innovative thinking (p<0.05). In one instance (i.e.
benevolence to change and dynamic life) a correlation of 0.076 (p=0.223) indicate no
relationship. Regarding strength of relationship we can conclude for relationships 2 and 5
(see Table above) that the relationship is quite strong for the (used) explorative approach and
from our selected view point. Other two relationships, 1 and 4, indicate weaker relationship.
Some tentative conclusions about relationship between innovative thinking and SME’s
members’ personal values are:
- SME’s members who value creativity (as a personal value) highly, put a lot of effort
to stimulate creativity of other organizational members;
- SME’s members who are broad-minded, are open for new ideas and knowledge of
other employees;
- SME’s members who give more priority to daring, are therefore more benevolent to
changes in organization; and
- SME’s members, who value innovativeness, are very much concerned with
innovativeness and consequently innovative thinking, which they spread among other
members of organization.
On the base of our research we can therefore support 4 of 5 identified relationships in Table 3
(p<0.005).
6.
SOME CONCLUSIONS
The primary aim of our paper was to present possible ways for improvement of SMEs. In that
framework and based on the presented theoretical cognitions, we introduce and test items for
measuring innovative thinking and their linkage to personal values of SME’s members.
Regarding the relative importance of other measured characteristics of organization (which
10
are not presented here) we can conclude that innovativeness is considered as an important
characteristic of SME’s members. We therefore support Hypothesis 1.
Based on examination of relationship between the selected personal values and innovative
thinking, we can conclude that SME’s members’ personal values play an important role in
innovativeness of SME’s members: the strength of relationship is significant, and from the
selected viewpoint relatively good. We therefore could confirm Hypothesis 2, in four of five
identified relationships.
Results from the survey reveal that SMEs’ members (in Slovenian SMEs) estimate
innovativeness as an important value of their work and/or work of organization. Importance
of these findings results also from the fact that Slovenia – in macro-economic terms – lies
very close to the average of European Union.
This paper lays possible ground work for future examination of relationship between SMEs’
members’ personal values and innovativeness of SME’s members. This is a crucial part of the
background of possible ways for improvement of SMEs.
REFERENCES
Afuah, A. (1998): Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation, and Profits,
Harvard Press, New York
Argyrous, G. (2006): Statistics for Research, Sage Publications, London
Barabba, V. (2004): Surviving Transformation: Lessons from GM’s Surprising
Turnaround, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Becker, G. and McClintock, C. (1967): Value: Behavioral Decision Theory, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 239-286
Casson, M. (1982): The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, Barnes and Noble, Totowa
Cavanagh, G. (2005): American Business Values: With International Perspectives, Prentice
Hall, New York
Chesbrough, H. (2009): Open Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2006): Open Innovation: Researching a
New Paradigm, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Collins, J. (2001): Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and others don’t. Good to
Great, Random House Business Books, Sydney
Collins, J. and Porras, J. (1994): Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies,
Harper Business, New York
Conway, S. and Steward, F. (2009): Managing and Shaping Innovation, Oxford University
Press, Oxford
European Union (EU) (2006): Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: Making
Europe a pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility, EU Publishing, Brussels
Fagerberg, J., Mowey, D. and Nelson, R. (2006): The Oxford Handbook of Innovation,
Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fink, M. and Kraus, S. (eds.) (2009): The Management of Small and Medium Enterprises,
Routledge, New York
Gloor, A. (2006): Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage through Collaborative
Innovation Networks, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Greene, C. (2009): Entrepreneurship: Ideas in Action, South-Western, Mason
Hebert, R. and Link, A. (1989): In Search of the Meaning of Entrepreneurship, Small
Business Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 39-49
11
Hofstede, G. (1994): Value Survey Module 1994 Manual, Institute for Research on
Intercultural Cooperation, Maastricht
Hofstede, G. (2001): Culture's Consequences, SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Huston, L. and Sakkab, N. (2006): Connect and Develop: Inside Procter & Gamble’s New
Model for Innovation, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 58-66
Huczynski, A. and Buchanan, D. (2007): Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, Harlow
Katz, R. (ed.) (2003): The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation, Oxford
University Press, Oxford
Kuratko, D. (2008): Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, and Practice, South-Western
College Pub, Cincinnati
Lawrence, A. and Weber, J. (2007): Business and Society, McGraw-Hill, New York
Lester, K. and Piore, M. (2004): Innovation - The Missing Dimension, Harvard Business
Press, Cambridge
Leydesdorff, L. (2006): The Knowledge-based Economy, Universal Publishers, Boca Raton
Mulej, M. (2000): The Dialectical Systems Theory, Faculty of Economics and Business,
Maribor
Mulej, M. (2007): Systems theory, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 24, No. 3,
pp. 547-357
Mullins, L. (2006): Essentials of organizational behavior, Prentice Hall, Harlow
O'Reilly, A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D. (1991): People and organizational culture: A
profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit, The Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 487-516
Potocan, V. (2005): Efficiency vs. effectiveness, Organization, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 570-576
Potocan, V. (2008): Management ethics: Interest vs. normative approaches, International
journal of global business and economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 62-68
Potocan, V. (2009): What culture do we need for economic development, The business
review, 2009, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 102-107
Potocan, V. and Mulej, M. (2007): From an institutional transition to a real one into an
innovative enterprise, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor
Potocan, V. and Mulej, M. (2009), How to improve innovativeness of SMEs, Management,
Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-20
Potocan, V. and Mulej, M. (2010): From an institutional transition to a real one into an
innovative enterprise II, FEB, Maribor
Potocan, V. and Nedelko, Z. (2010): Survey of personal values of members in Slovenian
organizations, FEB, Maribor
Pyka, A. and Scharnhorst, A. (2009): Innovation Networks, Springer, Berlin
Ralston, D., Holt, H., Terpstra, H. and Yu, C. (1997): The impact of national culture and
economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan
& China, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 177-207
Rebernik, M. (et al.) (2000-2009): Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – GEM, FEB, Maribor
Robbins, S. (2002): Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, New York
Rogers, E. (2003): Diffusion of Innovation, The Free Press, New York
Rhinesmith, S. (1999): A Manager's Guide to Globalization, Erwin, Chicago
Rokeach, M. (1968): Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Rokeach, M. (1973): The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York
Schumpeter, J. (1934): The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge
Schwartz, S. (1992): Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and
empirical tests in 20 countries, Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 25, No. 1,
pp. 1-65
12
Schwartz, S. (1994): Are there universals in the content and structure of values, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 19-45
Sheshimski, E., Strom, R. and Baumol, W. (2007): Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and the
Growth Mechanism of the Free-Enterprise Economies, Princeton University Press,
Princeton
Skarzynski, P. and Gibson, R. (2008): Innovation to the Core, Harvard Business Press,
Boston
Swedberg, R. (2000): Entrepreneurship: The Social View, Oxford University Press, New
York
White, J. (2005): Contemporary Moral Problems, Wadsworth, Surrey
Yammarino, J., Dionne, D., Uk Chun, J., and Dansereau, F. (2005): Leadership and Levels
of Analysis: A State-of-the-Science Review, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 879919
13