Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Linking multiple layers of innovation-oriented corporate culture, product program innovativeness, and business performance: a contingency approach

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, firms have invested considerably in programs to raise their innovativeness by inspiring employees with an innovation-oriented corporate culture. However, extant literature is inconclusive on how an innovation-oriented culture leads to increases in product program innovativeness (PPI). This study investigates this question by analyzing a multilayer model of innovation-oriented corporate culture, using data from three different informants: marketing managers, R&D managers, and customers. The effects of innovation-oriented values and norms on PPI are fully mediated by cultural artifacts. Therefore, values and norms must be transformed into specific artifacts to exert an influence on innovativeness. Furthermore, market dynamism and technological turbulence have opposite moderating effects on the relationship between innovation-oriented artifacts and PPI. Market dynamism weakens this relationship, whereas technological turbulence strengthens it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Innovation orientation differs from market orientation in several respects. As an overarching philosophy, an innovation orientation focuses on overcoming hurdles and enhancing a company’s ability to innovate; a market orientation places the highest priority on creating and maintaining superior customer value (e.g., Berthon et al. 2004; Zhou et al. 2005). In terms of target markets, an innovation orientation focuses on existing and new markets and customers, whereas a market orientation strives to satisfy and understand existing customers and markets. Although “both market and innovation orientations can facilitate innovation” (Zhou et al. 2005, p. 1050), an innovation orientation is more likely to generate breakthroughs, while a market orientation tends to foster incremental innovations (Hurley and Hult 1998). Finally, whereas an innovation orientation is primarily internally oriented, a market orientation has an external focus.

  2. Because of their particularities, cultural artifacts may help decrease internal stickiness (Szulanski 1996), and thereby offer direction to employees, but they also may reduce the elusiveness for competitors to replicate corporate culture. However, because artifacts are the last step in establishing a corporate culture and require values and norms as necessary prerequisites (Gebhardt et al. 2006), an innovation-oriented corporate culture satisfies the criteria imposed by the RBV (Barney 1986; Hall 1992).

  3. The finding of relatively high correlations between cultural layers is consistent with prior research. For example, Lee et al. (2006) report a correlation of 0.55 between cultural norms and artifacts; Farrell (2005) finds a correlation of 0.62 between cultural norms and artifacts and 0.81 between cultural values and norms. These studies do not indicate any problems with discriminant validity.

  4. We also tested the contingent roles of market dynamism and technological turbulence on the relationships between innovation-oriented cultural values or norms and PPI. The results indicated non-significant effects on these linkages.

References

  • Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 362–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akaike, H. (1992). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Breakthroughs in statistics (pp. 610–624). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Algina, J., & Moulder, B. C. (2001). A note on estimating the Jöreskog-Yang model for latent interactions using LISREL 8.3. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(1), 40–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., de Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: a constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance: a contingency approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(4), 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Differential potency of factors affecting innovation performance in manufacturing and services firms in Australia. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K., Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2005). The contingent value of responsive and proactive market orientations for new product program performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(6), 464–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equation models and hypothesis testing. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research (pp. 386–422). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banbury, C. M., & Mitchell, W. (1995). The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 615–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthon, P., Hulbert, J. M., & Pitt, L. (2004). Innovation or customer orientation? An empirical investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 1065–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(6), 424–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biazzo, S. (2009). Flexibility, structuration, and simultaneity in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(3), 336–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: a study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buganza, T., & Verganti, R. (2006). Life-cycle flexibility: how to measure and improve the innovative capability in turbulent environments. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1), 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R. J., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R. J., Chan, K., & Cui, A. S. (2006). Decomposing product innovativeness and its effects on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 408–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R. J., Harmancioglu, N., & Droge, C. (2010). Inconclusive innovation “returns”: a meta-analysis of research on innovation in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(7), 1065–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H.-J., & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market value. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1979). The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1985). Overall corporate strategies for new product programs. Industrial Marketing Management, 14(3), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., & de Brentani, U. (1991). New industrial financial services: what distinguishes the winners? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(2), 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crook, T. R., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Todd, S. Y. (2008). Strategic resources and performance: a meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1141–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dandridge, T. C., Mitroff, I., & Joyce, W. F. (1980). Organizational symbolism: a topic to expand organizational analysis. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(6), 357–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Brentani, U., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: impact on performance of international new product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), 309–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1120–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The innovator’s DNA. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E. (2008). Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. (2005). The effect of a market-oriented organisational culture on sales-force behaviour and attitudes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13(4), 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J.-M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, J. F. (2006). Creating a market orientation: a longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: a critical review of the empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 421–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. M., & McAllaster, C. (2002). Want innovation? Then use cultural artifacts that support it. Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), 74–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture: measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Krohmer, H., & Workman, J. P. (1999). Strategic consensus and performance: the role of strategy type and market-related dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Droll, M., & Totzek, D. (2008). Customer prioritization: does it pay off, and how should it be implemented? Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 110–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Arrfelt, M. (2007). Strategic supply chain management: improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 1035–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Misleading heuristics and moderated multiple regression models. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 100–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, B., & Davenport, T. H. (2008). Reverse engineering Google’s innovation machine. Harvard Business Review, 86(4), 58–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R. (2002). New product search over time: past ideas in their prime time? Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 995–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinschmidt, E. J., de Brentani, U., & Salomo, S. (2007). Performance of global new product development programs: a resource-based view. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(5), 419–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R., & Leone, R. P. (2011). Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, C.-M., & Ngo, H.-Y. (2004). The HR system, organizational culture, and product innovation. International Business Review, 13(6), 685–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., Petersen, K. J., Cousins, P. D., & Handfield, R. B. (2009). Knowledge sharing in interorganizational product development teams: the effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 156–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Yoon, S. J., Kim, S., & Kang, J. W. (2006). The integrated effects of market–oriented culture and marketing strategy on firm performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(3), 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leenders, M. A. A. M., & Wierenga, B. (2008). The effect of the marketing-R&D interface on new product performance: the critical role of resources and scope. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(1), 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-selectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977). A general contingency theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 181–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: evaluations of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9(3), 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K. T. (2006). Structural equation models of latent interaction and quadratic effects. In G. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 225–265). Greenwich, CT: IAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, S. K., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Prescott, J. E. (2004). The global acquisition, leverage, and protection of technological competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9), 713–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., Kim, D., & Lee, D. H. (1996). Factors affecting new product success: cross-country comparisons. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(6), 530–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C. H., Sinha, R. K., & Kumar, A. (2002). Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: a longitudinal assessment of performance implications. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995). Organizing for effective new product development: the moderating role of product innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 48–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paladino, A. (2007). Investigating the drivers of innovation and new product success: a comparison of strategic orientations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 534–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paladino, A. (2008). Analyzing the effects of market and resource orientations on innovative outcomes in times of turbulence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 577–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: the creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, D. K., Gruver, K., & Allen, J. (2009). Innovation in turbulent times. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1994). Innovative cultures and organizations. In T. J. Allen (Ed.), Information technology and the corporation of the 1990s: Research studies (pp. 125–146). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, H., & Davis, S. M. (1981). Matching corporate culture and business strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 10(1), 30–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A. J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: a framework for study and integration of innovation research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(6), 556–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1998). Customer-led and market-oriented: let’s not confuse the two. Strategic Management Journal, 19(10), 1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, C. J. (1995). A philosophy for innovation: the role of unconventional individuals in innovation success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(5), 431–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigliani, I. (2008). Artifacts and creativity: The role of artifacts during the creative process in a product design firm. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1–6.

  • Stock, R. M. (2006). Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners between supplier and customer companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 588–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, R. M. (2011). How does product program innovativeness affect customer satisfaction? A comparison of goods and services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 813–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, R. M., & Zacharias, N. A. (2011). Patterns and performance outcomes of innovation orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 870–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, D. M., Kroff, M. W., & Troy, L. C. (2007). Innovativeness and new product success: insights from the cumulative evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2009). Radical innovation across nations: the preeminence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 892–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. (1968). The development of contractual norms in bargaining: replication and variation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 12(1), 102–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bruggen, G. H., Lilien, G. L., & Kacker, M. (2002). Informants in organizational marketing research: why use multiple informants and how to aggregate responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(4), 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Drazin, R. (1985). The concept of fit in contingency theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 333–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2008). Critical incidents and the impact of satisfaction on customer share. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 423–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Nielsen, A. P. (2002). Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 377–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., Yang, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Developing strategic orientation in China: antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations. Journal of Business Research, 58(8), 1049–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zien, K. A., & Buckler, S. A. (1997). Dreams to market: crafting a culture of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4), 274–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude for financial support from the Vereinigung von Freunden der Technischen Universität zu Darmstadt e.V. (Association of Supporters of the Technische Universität Darmstadt). They also thank Gisela Bieling and Sebastian Dreher for their helpful comments on previous drafts of this article, as well as the anonymous JAMS reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions throughout the review process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing and Human Resource Management, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Hochschulstr. 1, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany

    Ruth Maria Stock, Bjoern Six & Nicolas A. Zacharias

Authors
  1. Ruth Maria Stock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bjoern Six
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolas A. Zacharias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Maria Stock.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Scale items for construct measures
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stock, R.M., Six, B. & Zacharias, N.A. Linking multiple layers of innovation-oriented corporate culture, product program innovativeness, and business performance: a contingency approach. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 41, 283–299 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0306-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0306-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation