Share:


The relationships between technological turbulence, flow experience, innovation performance and small firm growth

    Alenka Slavec Gomezel   Affiliation
    ; Darija Aleksić   Affiliation

Abstract

The main objective of the paper is to address the question of how to foster innovation and small firm growth under different levels of technological turbulence. Specifically, the paper examines the relationship among risk-taking, arising from different levels of technological turbulence, flow experience, innovation and small firm growth (i.e. market share and ROI growth). The underlying premise of our research is that there are substantial differences in low and high technological environments in terms of the relationships of risk taking, flow at work, innovation and small firm growth. Based on a survey among 188 entrepreneurs, the paper tests the proposed relationships in technological diverse environments with structural equation modelling. The results show that, when the level of technological turbulence is high, flow experience is significantly related to innovation and small firm growth, while in low-technological turbulence environment such relationships are not present. The study contributes to the entrepreneurial literature by demonstrating that in highly turbulent environments, flow experience may promote entrepreneurs’ innovation and the efficiency of small firm performance. The study also provides new empirical insights about the relationship between entrepreneurs’ behaviour, which is influenced by environmental conditions, on the one hand and innovation and small firm growth on the other hand.

Keyword : entrepreneur, flow, environment, technological turbulence, innovation, small firm growth, structural equation modelling

How to Cite
Slavec Gomezel, A., & Aleksić, D. (2020). The relationships between technological turbulence, flow experience, innovation performance and small firm growth. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(3), 760-782. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.12280
Published in Issue
Apr 24, 2020
Abstract Views
902
PDF Downloads
469
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Abdi, K., Mardani, A., Senin, A., Tupenaite, L., Naimaviciene, J., Kanapeckiene, L., & Kutut, V. (2018). The effect of knowledge management, organizational culture and organizational learning on innovation in automotive industry. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2018.1477

Aleksić, D., Škerlavaj, M., & Dysvik, A. (2016). The flow of creativity for idea implementation. In M. Škerlavaj, M. Černe, A. Dysvik, & A. Carlsen (Eds.), Capitalizing on creativity at work: Fostering the implementation of creative ideas in organizations (pp. 29–38). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783476503

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A stateof-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128

Antončič, B. (2010). The entrepreneur’s general personality traits and technological developments. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5(12), 785–790.

Armstrong, J. S., & Collopy, F. (1996). Competitor orientation: Effects of objectives and information on managerial decisions and profitability. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(2), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379603300206

Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H. (2004). Strategic decision comprehensiveness and new product development outcomes in new technology ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159603

Baba, M., Mahmood, R., & Halipah, A. (2017). The moderating role of environmental turbulence on the relationship between organizational learning and firm innovativeness. International Journal of Management Research & Review, 7(2), 148–159.

Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0470

Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.007

Battistella, C., & De Toni, A. F. (2011). A methodology of technological foresight: A proposal and field study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6), 1029–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.01.006

Baumann, N., & Scheffer, D. (2011). Seeking flow in the achievement domain: The achievement flow motive behind flow experience. Motivation and Emotion, 35(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9195-4

Bodlaj, M., Coenders, G., & Žabkar, V. (2012). Responsive and proactive market orientation and innovation success under market and technological turbulence. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 13(4), 666–687. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.620143

Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509–520. https://doi.org/10.2307/255515

Busch, H., Hofer, J., Chasiotis, A., & Campos, D. (2013). The achievement flow motive as an element of the autotelic personality: Predicting educational attainment in three cultures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(2), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/255515

Buzzell, R. D., Gale, B. T., & Sultan, R. G. (1975). Market share-a key to profitability. Harvard Business Review, 53(1), 97–106.

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling for AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Calantone, R., Garcia, R., & Dröge, C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.2002003

Candi, M., van den Ende, J., & Gemser, G. (2013). Organizing innovation projects under technological turbulence. Technovation, 33(4–5), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.01.002

Cankurtaran, P., Langerak, F., & Griffin, A. (2013). Consequences of new product development speed: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(3), 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12011

Catry, B., & Chevalier, M. (1974). Market share strategy and the product life cycle: The competitive value of market share for a product varies with its stage in the product life cycle. Journal of Marketing, 38(4), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297403800405

Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the workplace: Characterizing within‐individual variability using a complexity science approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.747

Chen, H., Wigand, R. T., & Nilan, M. S. (1999). Optimal experience of web activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(5), 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00038-2

Chen, J., Neubaum, D. O., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.001

Chen, J., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). New product development speed: too much of a good thing? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00896.x

Chu, L.-C., & Lan, C.-H. (2010). Relationship between job characteristics and flow experience of R&D personnel: Case study of A High Technology Company in Taiwan. Journal of Global Business Management, 6(1), 1–10.

Collins, A. L., Sarkisian, N., & Winner, E. (2009). Flow and happiness in later life: An investigation into the role of daily and weekly flow experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(6), 703–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9116-3

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. HarperCollins Publishers.

Cunha, M. P. e, Rego, A., Oliveira, P., Rosado, P., & Habib, N. (2014). Product innovation in resourcepoor environments: Three research streams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12090

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277657

de Jorge Moreno, J., Laborda Castillo, L., & de Zuani Masere, E. (2010). Firm size and entrepreneurial characteristics: Evidence from the SME sector in Argentina. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.13

de Vaan, M. (2014). Interfirm networks in periods of technological turbulence and stability. Research Policy, 43(10), 1666–1680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.07.007

Debus, M. E., Sonnentag, S., Deutsch, W., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2014). Making flow happen: The effects of being recovered on work-related flow between and within days. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035881

Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 266–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.266

Dietrich, A. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the experience of flow. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(4), 746–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.07.002

Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32(3), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9102-4

Fernández, P., Del Río, M. L., Varela, J., & Bande, B. (2010). Relationships among functional units and new product performance: The moderating effect of technological turbulence. Technovation, 30(5–6), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.09.003

Ferrier, W. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1999). The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry dethronement: A study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/257009

Fredrickson, J. W. (1984). The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extension, observations, future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.5465/256039

Fuertes-Callén, Y., & Cuellar-Fernández, B. (2019). Inter-relationship between firm growth and profitability in a context of economic crisis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2019.6928

Gilinsky, A., Eyler, R., Newton, S., & A. Downing, J. (2019). Environmental perceptions on entrepreneurial thinking in the wine industry. Small Enterprise Research, 26(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2019.1570319

Gilsing, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Pieters, M. (2014). Mind the gap: Balancing alliance network and technology portfolios during periods of technological uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.04.010

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2016). 2015/2016 Global Report. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London.

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Hoffmann, J., Ramirez, R., & Lecamp, L. (2018). Right on time – Socioecological strategy and implications of turbulence in the Swiss watchmaking field. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.047

Hu, L., Gu, J., Wu, J., & Lado, A. A. (2018). Regulatory focus, environmental turbulence, and entrepreneur improvisation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0446-7

Hung, K.-P., & Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation, 33(10–11), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.06.006

Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.18.1.17

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700304

Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). The execution premium: Linking strategy to operations for competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press.

Kashefi, M. A. (2016). Effect of salvage market on strategic technology choice and capacity investment decision of firm under demand uncertainty. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.734325

Knatko, D., Shirokova, G., & Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Industry choice by young entrepreneurs in different country settings: The role of human and financial capital. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2015.1113199

Koh, H. C. (1996). Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA students. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949610113566

Lyle, M., Baird, I., Orris, B., & Kuratko, D. (1995). Formalized planning in small business: Increasing strategic choice. Journal of Small Business Management, 33(1), 38–50.

Maqbool, S., Černe, M., & Bortoluzzi, G. (2019). Micro-foundations of innovation: Employee silence, perceived time pressure, flow and innovative work behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2018-0013

McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., & Lamin, A. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation in a hostile and turbulent environment: Risk and innovativeness among successful Russian entrepreneurs. European Journal of International Management, 12(1–2), 191–221. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2018.089033

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250030102

Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64(2), 275–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00512.x

Mullins, J. W., & Sutherland, D. J. (1998). New product development in rapidly changing markets: An exploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(3), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1530224

Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton‐O’Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain‐specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000123856

Pak, O., & Mahmood, M. (2015). Impact of personality on risk tolerance and investment decisions: A study on potential investors of Kazakhstan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 25(4), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCoMA-01-2013-0002

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Pratono, A. H. (2016). Strategic orientation and information technological turbulence: Contingency perspective in SMEs. Business Process Management Journal, 22(2), 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2015-0066

Pratono, A. H. (2018). Does firm performance increase with risk-taking behavior under information technological turbulence? Empirical evidence from Indonesian SMEs. The Journal of Risk Finance, 19(4), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRF-10-2017-0170

Pratono, A. H., Ratih, R. V. S., & Arshad, D. (2018). Does entrepreneurial autonomy foster SME growth under technological turbulence? The empirical evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 3(3), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-018-0051-9

Reece, S. J., & Cool, R. W. (1978). Measuring investment center performance. Harvard Business Review, 56, 28–46.

Roper, S., & Tapinos, E. (2016). Taking risks in the face of uncertainty: An exploratory analysis of green innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 112, 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.037

Ruzzier, M., & Konecnik Ruzzier, M. (2014). On the relationship between firm size, resources, age at entry and internationalization: The case of Slovenian SMEs. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.745812

Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. (2011). The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.75.1.1

Slavec, A., Drnovšek, M., & Hisrich, R. D. (2017). Entrepreneurial openness: Concept development and measure validation. European Management Journal, 35(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.09.003

Spector, P. E. (2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8

Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391646

Venkataraman, S. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942–962. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.942

Wu, K. J., Tseng, M. L., Chiu, A. S., & Lim, M. K. (2017). Achieving competitive advantage through supply chain agility under uncertainty: A novel multi-criteria decision-making structure. International Journal of Production Economics, 190, 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.027

Wu, S., Levitas, E., & Priem, R. L. (2005). CEO tenure and company invention under differing levels of technological dynamism. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 859–873. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803927

Yasir, M., Majid, A., & Yasir, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial knowledge and start-up behavior in a turbulent environment. Journal of Management Development, 36(9), 1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2016-0193

Zhang, P., Wang, D. D., & Owen, C. L. (2015). A study of entrepreneurial intention of university students. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 5(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2014-0004

Zhao, Y., Cavusgil, E., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2014). An investigation of the black-box supplier integration in new product development. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1058–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.06.006