Organizational Innovativeness: Construct Development and Cross-Cultural Validation

Organizational Innovativeness: Construct Development andCross-Cultural ValidationAyalla A. Ruvio, Aviv Shoham, Eran Vigoda-Gadot, and Nitza Schwabsky

Organizational innovativeness (OI) is a central concept in academic research and managerial practice. In many cases,OI has been operationalized as the number of innovations organizations adopt. In contrast, this paper conceptualizesOI as a five-dimensional construct (creativity, openness, future orientation, risk-taking, and proactiveness) representingthe organizational climate, which refers to the organization’s ability to generate ideas and innovate continually overtime. The findings support the conceptualization and operationalization of the five-dimensional OI, validated inNorway, Israel, and Spain. These results shed new light on existing findings and can promote new research directionsas well as guide strategic managerial decision-making.

Introduction

O rganizational innovativeness (OI) is perceivedin contemporary literature as a desirable aspectof organizations because it energizes them and

enhances their probability of survival and continuedsuccess (Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997; Hurleyand Hult, 1998; Hurley, Hult, and Knight, 2005; Siguaw,Simpson, and Enz, 2006; Subramanian, 1996). As such,OI has been studied extensively in multiple disciplines(e.g., management, marketing, entrepreneurship). Studieshave mostly concentrated on OI’s relationships with stra-tegic, market, and entrepreneurial orientations (EOs),organizational learning, performance, leadership, andother outcomes (e.g., Atuahene-Gima, 1996; Baker andSinkula, 1999; Deshpandé and Farley, 2004; Deshpandé,Farley, and Webster, 1993; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009;Han, Kim, and Srivastava, 1998; Hult, Hurley, andKnight, 2004; Hurley and Hult, 1998). In light of theextensiveness of the literature, surprisingly few system-atic efforts have been made to conceptualize and developa valid OI measure (Garcia and Calantone, 2002; Moos,Beimborn, Wagner, and Weitzel, 2010; Wang andAhmed, 2004). This paper aims to address this gap andprovide an interdisciplinary conceptualization and mea-surement of OI, and validate it in a cross-cultural context.

OI has suffered from theoretical and measurementmisconceptions, leading to inconsistent findings about itsrelationships with its antecedents and outcomes (Gauvin

and Sinha, 1993; Salavou, 2004; Subramanian andNilakanta, 1996; Wang and Ahmed, 2004). These incon-sistencies have resulted from overlapping conceptualiza-tions of innovativeness and innovations (Damanpour,1991; Garcia and Calantone, 2002) or from failing toprovide a clear distinction between the two concepts(Garcia and Calantone, 2002; Hurley et al., 2005; Wangand Ahmed, 2004). Operationally, OI has often beendefined as the number of innovations that organizationshave adopted (Avlonitis, Kouremennos, and Tzokas,1994; Garcia and Calantone, 2002; Subramanian, 1996).This view implies that the more innovations an organiza-tion adopts, the more innovative it is. Furthermore, evenwhen the difference between innovativeness and innova-tion was acknowledged, OI has been measured usingunidimensional scales (Avlonitis et al., 1994; Hurley andHult, 1998; Salavou, 2004; Subramanian, 1996; Wangand Ahmed, 2004).

In contrast, this paper distinguishes between OI andinnovation. OI represents an organizational climate thatprovides environmental support for the continuous gen-eration of new ideas and products over time (Hurleyet al., 2005; Salavou, 2004; Subramanian and Nilakanta,1996). Conversely, innovation refers to new ideas, prod-ucts, or methods, thus making them the outcomes of OI(Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997; Hult et al., 2004;Rogers, 1995; Salavou, 2004; Subramanian andNilakanta, 1996). Stated differently, organizations withhigher levels of OI are more inclined to implement oradopt more innovations (Hurley et al., 2005).

Given OI’s potentially important role in managementand in light of the limitations noted above, the purposesof this paper are fourfold. First, based on a thoroughliterature screening, in-depth interviews, and focus

Address correspondence to: Ayalla A. Ruvio, Marketing Department,Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, North BusinessCollege Complex, 632 Bogue St., East Lansing, MI 48824-1121. E-mail:[email protected]. Tel: 517-432-6467.

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2013;31(5):••–••© 2013 Product Development & Management AssociationDOI: 10.1111/jpim.12141

mailto:[email protected]

groups, a multidimensional conceptualization of OIis proposed, including creativity, openness, futureorientation, risk-taking, and proactiveness. Second, anoperationalization for the multidimensional OI con-struct is offered. Following a rigorous measurementapproach (Churchill, 1979; Sharma and Weathers, 2003;Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1995), the proposedoperationalization meets the dual challenge of achievingparsimony in the numbers of items used while at the sametime maintaining the complexity and multidimensionalityof the OI construct (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1995).Conceptualizing and measuring OI as a multidimensionalconstruct has several advantages over measuring it as aunidimensional construct: (1) it captures multiple aspectsof OI and provides more comprehensive theoreticalinsights about it, whereas those insights may be sub-

sumed in unidimensional constructs; (2) it providesgreater understanding of the nature of the interrelation-ships among OI dimensions; (3) it provides a more accu-rate diagnostic tools for assessing activities associatedwith OI in organizational settings; and (4) from a mana-gerial perspective, it provides managers with a means fordetecting specific points of strength and weaknesses, todirect their strategic decision-making and resource allo-cations (Segars and Grover, 1998; Siguaw et al., 2006;Wang and Ahmed, 2004).

Third, the multidimensional conceptualization andoperationalization of OI is validated in a three-country,cross-national European context (Spain, Israel, andNorway). Making comparisons across countries anddrawing generalized conclusions depends on the abilityof the construct under study to have the same meaningin different research contexts (Mullen, 1995; Myers,Calantone, Page, and Taylor, 2000; Sharma andWeathers, 2003; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). Tothe best of our knowledge, this is the first OI measure tobe cross-culturally validated.

Finally, study 2 provides empirical support for theadvantages of the proposed multidimensional measure-ment of OI over Hurley and Hult’s (1998) unidimensionalmeasurement. In addition the distinction between OI andanother closely related theoretical construct—EO—isdemonstrated. Given that the conceptualization of EOshares some characteristics with the conceptualization ofOI (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996;Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, and Frese, 2009), several nec-essary steps have been taken to show the distinctionbetween the two.

Literature Review: Five Dimensions of OI

Generally, OI has been perceived as a desirable facet oforganizations that can assume different forms in variousorganizational contexts (Moos et al., 2010; Siguaw et al.,2006; Wang and Ahmed, 2004). For example, accordingto Lumpkin and Dess (1996), “Innovativeness reflects thefirm’s tendency to engage in and support new ideas,novelty experimentation and creative processes that mayresult in new products, services or technological pro-cesses” (p. 142). Garcia and Calantone (2002) alsostressed the issue of “newness” in the context ofinnovativeness and claimed that it “is the capacity of anew innovation to influence the firm’s existing marketingresources, technological resources, skills, knowledge,capabilities, or strategy” (p. 113). While diverse defini-tions have been used, most have operationalized OI as thenumber of implemented innovations. Thus, theoretically

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Ayalla Ruvio is an assistant professor of marketing at the BroadCollege of Business at Michigan State University. She is an appliedconsumer behavior researcher who focuses on issues such as consum-ers’ decision-making regarding new products, identity and consumption,and cross-cultural consumer behavior. Her research has been publishedin refereed journals as well as featured in numerous media outlets allover the world, including the TODAY show, Good Morning America,TIME magazine, New York Times, The Atlantic, The Telegraph, and theToronto STAR, and on CNN.

Dr. Aviv Shoham (Ph.D., 1993, University of Oregon) is an associateprofessor of marketing and head of the Business Administration Depart-ment at University of Haifa, Israel. He serves as a visiting professor atthe Ljubljana University, Slovenia. His research focuses on internationalmarketing management/strategy and international consumer behavior.His research has been published in journals such as Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Management International Review,Journal of International Marketing, International Marketing Review,Journal of Business Research, Journal of Advertising Research, Inter-national Business Review, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Euro-pean Journal of Marketing, European Journal of Management, Journalof Engineering and Technology Management, and Journal of GlobalMarketing.

Professor Eran Vigoda-Gadot is the head of the School of PoliticalScience and the head of the Center for Public Management and Policy,University of Haifa, Israel. Vigoda-Gadot is the author and coauthor ofmore than 170 articles and book chapters, 10 books and symposiums, aswell as many other scholarly presentations and working papers in thefield of political science, public administration, management, and orga-nizational behavior.

Dr. Nitza Schwabsky is the head of the Department of EducationalLeadership and Administration at Gordon College of Education, Haifa,Israel, and a senior researcher at the Center for Public Management andPolicy at the University of Haifa, Israel. Her research interests andpublications are in the areas of public and educational leadershipand administration. She earned her Ph.D. in Educational Policy andManagement at the University of Oregon, and a Post-doctorate in PublicManagement and Policy at the University of Haifa, Israel.

2 J PROD INNOV MANAG A. A. RUVIO ET AL.2013;31(5):••–••

and empirically, organizations that implemented moreinnovations have been perceived as having higher levelsof innovativeness (Avlonitis et al., 1994; Salavou, 2004;Subramanian, 1996; Wang and Ahmed, 2004).

However, a few studies have differentiated OI frominnovation. Rogers (1995) defined OI as an indication ofbehavioral change. Subramanian (1996) highlighted OI’sendurance and consistent ability to innovate over a periodof time (see also Siguaw et al., 2006; Subramanian andNilakanta, 1996). Avlonitis et al. (1994) stated that “orga-nizational innovativeness represents a latent capability offirms” and that OI “is not associated with the adoption ofspecific innovations and, therefore, innovativeness alonecannot predict the adoption or rejection of specific inno-vations” (pp. 9–10).

Hurley et al. (2005) distinguished between innova-tiveness and the capacity to innovate (Hult et al., 2004;Hurley and Hult, 1998; Hurley et al., 2005). According totheir conceptualization, innovativeness is a part of orga-nizational culture, and innovative capacity is its outcome.In their model, the capacity to innovate results frominnovativeness and serves as a mediator betweeninnovativeness and the organization’s competitive advan-tage and performance. This capacity can be measured bythe number of innovations an organization successfullyadopts or develops. As such, innovativeness is notcoupled with specific product innovations; rather, itreflects a cultural trait of the organization and the will-ingness to pursue new opportunities. This paper refinesHurley et al.’s (2005) view and argues that OI is thesurface-level manifestation of the organization’s culture,namely its climate. In other words, OI reflects the orga-nizational activities that produce visible and tangibleinnovative outcomes (Baer and Frese, 2002; Denison,1996). However, while these studies conceptualized OI asdifferent from innovations, their primary goal was notscale development. As such, they often used ad hoc uni-dimensional measures of OI that were not validated sys-tematically (Wang and Ahmed, 2004).

Recently, researchers have called for the developmentof a multidimensional measure that captures the complexnature of OI, provides a more comprehensive theoreticalunderstanding of this concept and its dimensions, andadvances scholarly investigation into the organizationalactivities associated with OI both as predictors and asconsequences (Moos et al., 2010; Wang and Ahmed,2004). Nevertheless, only two such conceptualizationsappear in the literature. Wang and Ahmed (2004) concep-tualize innovativeness as “an organization’s overallinnovative capability” to produce innovative outcomes(p. 304). They identify five areas of such innovative out-

comes: product, market, process, behavior, and strategicinnovation. This conceptualization echoes Hurley et al.’s(2005) argument that an organization’s innovative capac-ity should be regarded as an outcome of OI, defined asorganizational culture. Moos and colleagues (2010) takea different view of OI and focus on the direction ofinnovativeness. They propose a two-dimensional, direc-tional perspective on OI that differentiates input-orientedfrom output-oriented directions. While their view of OIprovides further support for the multifaceted nature of OI,their conceptualization of OI, based on their extensiveliterature review, remainsa theoretical proposal in thatthey do not validate it empirically.

In light of this literature, OI is conceptualized as amultidimensional construct reflecting an organizationalclimate that facilitates innovative outcomes over time.Five OI dimensions were identified: creativity, openness,future orientation, risk-taking, and proactiveness. Table 1provides a list of exemplary articles that have defined OIusing one or more of these dimensions. In addition, study2 compares the unidimensional approach of OI to theproposed multidimensional scale, the details of whichwill be provided in a later section.

Creativity

Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) definedorganizational-level creativity as “the creation of a valu-able, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, orprocess by individuals working together in a complexsocial system” (p. 293). This definition frames creativityas a subset of the broader domain of innovation (Amabile,1997; Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000). Indeed, creativityand innovation have often been regarded as overlappingconstructs, although the former focuses on the generationof new ideas, while the latter focuses on implementingand transforming new ideas into products, technologies,or processes (Amabile, 1997). The concept of newness asreflected in creativity is essential to the concept ofinnovativeness because it distinguishes innovation fromchange (Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000).

Notably, not all new ideas are generated inside theorganization. Because some ideas are generated exter-nally and are later adopted by the organization(Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 1998; Woodman et al.,1993), the concept of creativity was extended to includethe adoption of external new ideas.

Organizational Openness

This dimension refers to the flexibility and adaptability oforganizations in responding to new ideas and changes.

ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATIVENESS J PROD INNOV MANAG 32013;31(5):••–••

Some scholars conceptualized openness as a personal-level construct that requires individuals to be receptiveto divergent views, tolerant of ambiguity, and users ofnontraditional thinking (Costa and McCrae, 1987). Nev-ertheless, openness can be studied at the organizationallevel (Hult et al., 2004; Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek,

1973). For example, Hurley and Hult (1998) definedinnovativeness in terms of “openness to new ideas as anaspect of a firm’s culture” (p. 44), and Taggar (2002)argued for and documented “a positive associationbetween openness to experience and creativity processes,as measured by group member behavior” (p. 317). In

Table 1. Existing Definitions of Innovativeness/Innovation

Source Definitions of Innovativeness/Innovation Creativity OpennessFuture

Orientation Risk-Taking Proactiveness

Miller and Friesen(1983, p. 222)

Innovation, which includes introductions ofnew products and production-servicetechnologies, the search for novel solutionsto marketing and production problems, theattempt to lead rather than to followcompetitors (proactiveness), andrisk-taking.

X X X

Khan andManopichetwattana(1989, p. 598)

Innovative firms would show a greaterwillingness for risk-taking and proactivemarket leadership.

X X

Woodman et al.(1993, p. 293)

The authors frame the definition oforganizational creativity as a subset of thebroader domain of innovation.

X

Bolton (1993, p. 72) Different types of innovation (e.g.,administrative versus technologicalinnovations) possess different levels of riskfor prospective adopters.

X

Morgan and Strong(1998, p. 1057)

The proactive behaviour of organizations is acore constituent of innovation.

X

Amabile, Conti,Coon, Lazenby,and Herron (1996,p. 1155)

Creativity is the seed for all innovation. X

Amabile (1997,p. 39)

The most important elements of the innovationorientation are: a value placed on creativityand innovation in general, an orientationtoward risk (versus an orientation towardmaintaining the status quo), a sense of pridein the organization’s members andenthusiasm about what they are capable ofdoing, and an offensive strategy of takingthe lead toward the future (versus adefensive strategy of simply wanting toprotect the organization’s past position).

X X X X

Hurley and Hult(1998, p. 44)

Openness to new ideas as an aspect of afirm’s culture.

X

Siguaw et al. (2006,p. 562)

Innovation-oriented firms possess theinclusion of a future-oriented concept of thebusiness.

X

Keskin (2006,p. 399)

Innovativeness . . . refers to that portion of afirm’s culture that promotes and supportsnovel ideas, experimentation, and opennessto new ideas.

X

Laursen and Salter(2006, p. 132)

The focus on openness . . . in studies ofinnovation reflects a wider trend in studiesof firm behavior that suggest that thenetwork of relationships between the firmand its external environment can play animportant role in shaping performance.

X


short, organizations should be open and receptive to andpursue new ideas. Organizational openness addresseswhether organizational members are willing to considerthe adoption of innovations or whether they resist it. Vande Ven (1986) referred to this tendency as the manage-ment of an organization’s cultural attention toward rec-ognizing the need for new ideas and actions. Hence,organizational openness to new ideas and changes isviewed as a dimension of the OI construct.

Future Orientation

This dimension reflects a temporal perspective of organi-zational preparedness for future environmental changesand positioning in light of such changes (Ford, 2002;Morgan and Strong, 1998; Venkatraman, 1989).Christensen (1997) described the “innovator’s dilemma”as a trade-off between the utilization of knowledgeacquired in the past (backward-looking) and the explora-tion of future opportunities (forward-looking). Mostorganizations tend to rely on past experiences in theirdecision-making processes instead of envisioning futurepotentialities that may enhance their competitive advan-tage (Ford, 2002).

A forward-looking perspective allows managers to“think outside the box,” thus enabling them to find inno-vative solutions to problems (Gavetti and Levinthal,2000). Ford (2002) associated futurity with creativityand innovation in organizational decision-making andargued, “leaders who raise concerns about the efficacy ofcurrent routines promote consideration of longer timeframes when evaluating alternative proposals and . . .could instigate creativity, change, and dynamic capabili-ties” (p. 643). Similarly, the innovation literature differ-entiates between incremental innovations, based on amodest revision of past achievements, and radicalinnovations that are prompted by future possibilities(Christensen, 1997). Thus, innovative organizations needto be future-oriented.

Risk-Taking

Risk-taking refers to possible gains or losses resultingfrom a given action (Morgan and Strong, 2003). In anorganizational context, risk-taking is defined as “thedegree to which managers are willing to make large andrisky resource commitments” (Miller and Friesen, 1978,p. 923). This definition implies that risk-taking affectsdecision-making processes in resource allocation, thedevelopment of competitive strategies (Baird andThomas, 1985; Morgan and Strong, 2003), and the

choices of which new products to develop and inwhich markets to operate (Morgan and Strong, 2003;Venkatraman, 1989).

Developing or adopting innovations is inherently riskybecause valuable outcomes are not ensured (Caruana,Ewing, and Ramaseshan, 2002; Lumpkin and Dess,1996). The strategic management literature associateshigh levels of risk-taking with novelty, such as investingin unexplored technologies or introducing new productsinto new markets (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Rauch et al.,2009; Venkatraman, 1989). Because OI requires thedevelopment of new products or processes, risk-taking ischaracteristic of highly innovative organizations.

Proactiveness

Proactiveness refers to an organization’s pursuit ofbusiness opportunities, whether related or unrelated toits present product lines (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001;Venkatraman, 1989). As such, proactiveness is needed toenable firms to overcome inertia by taking the initiativefor exploiting emerging opportunities, experimentingwith change, and anticipating and acting on future needs(Dess, Lumpkin, and Covin, 1997; Rauch et al., 2009).

Because proactiveness suggests an emphasis on initi-ating activities, which is one of the stages of the IOprocess (Zaltman et al., 1973), the management, market-ing, and entrepreneurship literatures view it as central toinnovative organizational behavior (Dess et al., 1997;Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Morgan and Strong, 2003).Moreover, proactiveness also requires managers to con-vince employees of the merit of the innovation in order toimplement it (Caruana et al., 2002). Thus, proactivenessis an integral part of OI.

In sum, conceptualizing OI is the first goal of thisresearch. It is conceptualized as a five-dimensional con-struct, including creativity, openness, future orientation,risk-taking, and proactiveness. The next section willprovide empirical support for this conceptualization.Then, study 2 will demonstrate the superiority of thisconceptualization of OI over the unidimensionalapproach and the discriminant validity of the proposedconstruct over the theoretically close concept of EO.

Method of the Main Study

Population and Samples

The study population included mid-level managers insocial and health service organizations from threecountries: Norway, Spain, and Israel. Using Hofstede’s


(2001) well-known work on cultural values, three coun-tries that differed from one another as much as possiblewere selected. Specifically, Israel and Norway are appre-ciably higher on power distance than Spain; Spain andIsrael score much higher than Norway on uncertaintyavoidance and on masculinity; and Norway’s score onindividualism exceeds those of Israel and Spain. Keepingthese differences in mind, as is the case in any studysampling from a universe (of countries, in this case),caution should be exercised when generalizing theresults reported below.

A total of 536 questionnaires were distributed on thebasis of convenience sampling in social and health-careorganizations in these three countries. Mid-level manag-ers who worked closely with the organization’s consum-ers and at the same time were knowledgeable about theorganization’s climate and goals were targeted (Bagozzi,Phillips, and Lynn, 1991). The research team in eachcountry selected between 5 and 10 leading organizationsin the fields of social services (i.e., dealing with childrenin need, elderly populations, or the unemployed) orhealth care (public clinics or hospitals). In each organi-zation, data were collected from different departments.An effort was made not to collect data from managers inthe same department. In Norway, 647 respondents wereasked to fill out the questionnaire, and 243 provided com-plete questionnaires (a 37.5% response rate). In Spain,500 respondents were asked to fill out the questionnaire,and 145 provided complete questionnaires (a 29%response rate). In both of these countries, the respondentswere randomly selected from pregenerated lists. The par-ticipants received the survey with a return envelope tomail back to the research teams. Two follow-up mailingswere sent to nonresponding participants. In Israel, 221respondents were asked to fill out the questionnaire, and139 provided complete questionnaires (a 62.8% responserate). The overall response rate was 39.2%. The higherIsraeli response rate was due to the use of face-to-facedata collection, rather than the mail surveys employed inthe other two countries. The local team’s experience witha very low response rate in mail surveys with managers inIsrael led to the decision to use the face-to-face methodfor data collection.

The demographic profile shows that the Norwegiansample includes more females (77.8%), who are older(mean = 47.3) and more educated (mean = 17.4) than theother two samples. Males comprise 52.6% of the Spanishsample, and are younger (mean = 38.4) and less educated(mean = 14.5) than the other two samples. The Israelisample is more similar to the Norwegian in that itincludes a majority of females (66.9%) and features

similar levels of education (mean = 16.0), but is moresimilar to the Spanish one in age (mean = 40.3). Thesedifferences could potentially affect the findings, an issuediscussed in the Limitations section of the paper.However, it should be noted that this paper seeks todemonstrate the cross-cultural invariance of OI. Demon-strating invariance across diverse country samples shouldenhance confidence in the findings, an issue revisited inthe Discussion section.

Measures

Based on the proposed multidimensional conceptualiza-tion (the first goal of this paper), the second objectiveof this paper is to offer an operationalization of OI,following a rigorous measurement approach. Thus,the operationalization discussed below meets a dualchallenge, namely to achieve parsimony by using onlya few items while maintaining the complex andmultidimensional OI conceptualization (Steenkamp andBaumgartner, 1995).

The first step in the scale development was to validatethe five dimensions via an interdisciplinary review of therelevant literature, 46 in-depth interviews, two focusgroups, and feedback that was received from multiplepresentations at academic conferences for further valida-tion (see the Content Validity section for more details).Next, the relevant literature was reviewed to find vali-dated scale items with which to measure the identifieddimensions. Relying on established scales to develop newscales is a common practice, as long as there is a con-vincing theoretical basis to support the overarching con-struct (Kandemir,Yaprak, and Cavusgil, 2006). Items thatreflect the perception of the dimensions as they emergedfrom the interviews and the focus groups were selected.Following Steenkamp and Baumgartner’s (1995) recom-mendation, the goal was to maintain a balance betweenkeeping the length of the scale parsimonious (with 4–5items in each dimension) while maintaining the underly-ing theoretical conceptualizations. This approach resultedin a reasonable scale length, thus reducing potential studycosts and respondent fatigue (see Sharma and Weathers,2003). Table 2 provides a list of the items scored on a5-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “stronglyagree”) used to operationalize each subdimension of OI.

The original scales were in English, and a back-translation was needed to create the versions for thestudy. Bilingual individuals translated the scales fromEnglish into the three local languages. Then, these ver-sions were translated back into English by other bilingualindividuals, who had not seen the original scales. The


final step included a comparison of the three versions ofthe questionnaire in each country and an assessment ofthe translation and cultural accuracy by two translatorsand a third bilingual individual. Disagreements wereresolved through discussion to obtain the final versionsfor the study.

Creativity. Siegel and Kaemmerer’s (1978) andTierney, Farmer, and Graen’s (1999) 5-item scale wasused (α = .94 in the original). The scale assesses thecreative thinking and behaviors of the organizations’managers. Cronbach’s α ranged from .84 to .86.

Organizational openness. This scale is a subset of theeight items used by Siegel and Kaemmerer (1978) and byAnderson and West (1998) to measure enacted supportfor innovation and an open-minded approach to newideas (α = .94 in the original). The scale uses the fouritems with the highest loading in the original scales and

that reflected the perception of this dimension for theinterviewees. Cronbach’s α ranged from .82 to .88.

Future orientation. This scale is based on Javidan andWaldman’s (2003) vision dimension of charismatic lead-ership profile (α = .93 in the original), which representsthe extent to which managers have a clear sense of direc-tion and share it with their employees. The scale uses thefour items with the highest loading in the original scaleand with the best match to the perceptions of theinterviewees. Cronbach’s α ranged from .86 to .88.

Risk-taking. Four items were selected from Jaworskiand Kohli’s (1993) 6-item risk-aversion scale (α = .85 inthe original). Items with the highest loading in a previousIsraeli study were selected (Rose and Shoham, 2002).This scale reflects the disposition of management towardpursuing uncertain or risky decisions. Cronbach’s α inthis study ranged from .79 to .82.

Table 2. Item Measures and Reliability for Innovativeness

Norway (α) Spain (α) Israel (α)

CreativityIn this organization . . .

CR1 Creativity is encouragedCR2 Managers expected to be resourceful problem solversCR3 We are constantly looking to develop and offer new or improved services .86 .84 .84CR4 Our ability to function creatively is respected by the leadershipCR5 Managers are encouraged to use original approaches when dealing with problems in the workplaceOpenness

This organization . . .OP1 Is always moving toward the development of new answersOP2 Assistance in developing new ideas is readily available .82 .85 .88OP3 Is open and responsive to changesOP4 Managers here are always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problemsFuture Orientation

This organization . . .FO1 Establishes a realistic set of future goals for itselfFO2 Effectively ensures that all managers and employees share the same vision of the futureFO3 Conveys a clear sense of future direction to employees .86 .88 .86FO4 Has a realistic vision of the future for all departments and employeesRisk-Taking

This organization . . .RT1 Believes that higher risks are worth taking for high payoffsRT2 Encourages innovative strategies, knowing well that some will failRT3 Likes to take big risks .82 .79 .81RT4 Does not like to “play it safe”Proactiveness

In this organization . . .PR1 Managers are constantly seeking new opportunities for the organizationPR2 Managers take the initiative in an effort to shape the environment to the organization’s advantage .78 .80 .83PR3 Managers are often the first to introduce new servicesPR4 Managers usually take the initiative by introducing new administrative techniques


Proactiveness. This scale was based on Covin andSlevin’s (1989) scale (α = .87 in the original). They usedit to measure the degree to which managers possess aproactive orientation. The original scale included tworeversed items, emphasizing nonproactiveness. Based ona pilot study, these items were rephrased to reflect aproactive tendency. In addition, one multifaceted itemwas split into two. Cronbach’s α of these four itemsranged from .78 to .83.

Figure 1 presents the structure of the OI construct.

Analysis

The third purpose of this paper is to provide cross-cultural validation of the proposed OI measure. Structuralequation modeling (SEM; AMOS 19, SPSS Inc.,Chicago, IL) was used to examine the validity and cross-cultural invariance of the proposed OI operationalization.SEM was used because of its rigorousness in establishing

construct validity and measurement invariance acrosscountries (e.g., Sharma and Weathers, 2003; Steenkampand Baumgartner, 1998). The analysis was conducted intwo stages. First, the construct validity of OI within eachcountry was tested, using confirmatory factor analysis(CFA). Then its invariance across countries was estab-lished, using multiple-group SEMs.

All SEM tests were based on maximum likelihoodestimation (Byrne, 2002). Criteria used in testing forgoodness-of-fit models included a comparative fit index(CFI), normed-fit index (NFI), nonnormed-fit index(NNFI), and root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA). Values over .90 are considered indicative of agood model fit, and Browne and Cudek (1993) suggestthat RMSEA values under .08 are indicative of a reason-able model fit.

Common Method Bias

Given that cross-sectional, self-report surveys are suscep-tible to common method variance (CMV) bias, followingPodsakoff and Organ (1986), Harmon’s one-factor testwas used to address this concern. This test entails enter-ing all of the items of the latent dimensions into a singlefactor using CFA procedures. This model produced verypoor fit statistics that ranged from .680 to .740,RMSEA = .12 (χ2 = 1939.09, d.f. = 510; p = .00) indicat-ing that there was no general factor that accounted for themajority of the covariance across these variables. There-fore, the risk of CMV bias is minimal.

Results

Within-Groups Validity: Construct Validity

Construct validity requires a determination of contentvalidity, composite reliability, unidimensionality, andconvergent, discriminant, and predictive or nomologicvalidity (Garver and Mentzer, 1999). Methodologically,“each of the measured factors must be modeled in isola-tion, then in pairs, and then as a collective network”(Segars and Grover, 1998, p. 148).

Content validity. Several measures have been taken inorder to establish the scale’s content validity. First, athorough review of the literature on innovativeness wasconducted in order to establish OI’s dimensions. Theselection of the theoretical dimensions was based onthe various definitions presented in the literature (seeTable 1; Moos et al., 2010; Wang and Ahmed, 2004).

CREATIVITY

OPENNESS

FUTURE ORIENTATION

RISK-TAKING

PROACTIVENESS

OP1

OP2

OP3

OP4

FO1

FO2

FO3

FO4

RT1

RT2

RT3

RT4

PR1

PR2

PR3

PR4

CR1

CR2

CR4

CR5

CR3

Figure 1. Theoretical Model of Innovativeness


Next, in-depth interviews were conducted with threetop managers and three mid-level managers in socialservice and health organizations in each country (a totalof 26 interviews). They were regarded as key informantswho could provide information about the perceptions andpractice of OI in their organizations (Bagozzi et al.,1991). The interviewers were research assistants whowere given very specific instructions as to how to conductthe interviews. They described the goal of the interviewbriefly, and the respondents were asked to think aboutinnovativeness in general and the meaning it takes in theirown organization. All interviews were tape recorded andtranscribed, and those from Norway and Spain weretranslated into English. The responders’ anonymity waskept by separating their personal information from theinterviews. The interviews were read several times by allfour research team members, who individually identifiedand listed recurring themes in the data. Then, the teammembers met to discuss the key themes as they emergedfrom the interviews and identify the most importantdimensions of OI (Strauss and Corbin, 2007).

Second, two focus groups with academic experts inthe field of organizational innovations and innovativenesswere conducted (Calder, 1977). Specifically, the groupswere asked to discuss the meaning of OI. Each meetingtook about 90 minutes and was recorded as well. Theteam members participated in these focus groups andnoted the participants’ main points and views. Thesepoints were later evaluated along with the informationthat was gathered from the interviews.

Finally, the measurement model was presented atthree international academic conferences to audiences ofacademicians involved in research in the same domain.Thus, the content validity of OI was established.

Composite reliability. The estimated compositereliabilities of the five factors in the three countries(Table 3) ranged from .82 to .88 for the Israeli sample,.79 to .86 in the Norwegian sample, and .80 to .89 inthe Spanish sample, demonstrating strong compositereliability for the latent variables in each country. Thesereliabilities are higher than the recommended thresholdof .70 (Garver and Mentzer, 1999). Thus, overall, thescales have the required levels of composite reliability.

Unidimensionality and convergent validity. Thefactor loadings of all items for all latent variables inthe three countries were significant and high (Table 4).The lowest factor loading was for one creativity itemin the Spanish sample (.46). However, because this itemhad a reasonable loading in the other two countries, and

its scale exhibited unidimensionality, it was retained(Segars and Grover, 1998). Goodness-of-fit statistics forall measurement models were high (NFI, NNFI, andCFI ≥ .90). While the RMSEAs were slightly higher thandesirable in some cases, overall, the models fit the data.

Average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor wasalso calculated. AVEs for the OI dimensions were over50% (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Garver and Mentzer,1999) and ranged between 51% and 65% in the Israelisample, 50% and 60% in the Norwegian sample, and 51%and 66% in the Spanish sample, demonstrating good con-vergent validity. In sum, the loadings, fit statistics, andAVEs suggest that each scale captures a significantamount of variation in the latent OI dimensions and thateach is unidimensional for all countries.

Discriminant validity. Testing for discriminant valid-ity is done by constraining the correlation between allpairs of latent variables (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988)and comparing the χ2 of the constrained and uncon-strained models. Discriminant validity is determined ifthe χ2 difference between the two models is significant(Bagozzi et al., 1991; Garver and Mentzer, 1999;Venkatraman, 1989). Twenty covariance structures wereestimated (10 constrained, 10 unconstrained) and 10 χ2

differences for each country were evaluated (Table 4).All χ2 differences were significant (p < .001), indicatingthat each scale is significantly different from all others.Table 3 also shows that the estimated correlationsbetween all construct pairs ranged between .44 and .82 inthe Israeli sample, .49 and .74 in the Norwegian sample,and .60 and .81 in the Spanish sample, all below the .90cutoff (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Fornell and Larcker, 1981),demonstrating discriminant validity.

Discriminant validity was also determined by compar-ing the mean of the extracted variance to the sharedvariance for all combinations of pairs of dimensions in allcountries (30 comparisons). In support of the argumentfor discriminant validity, in fully 28 cases, the extractedvariance exceeded the shared variance (the two excep-tions being for Spain’s creativity and future orientation,and Israel’s creativity and proactiveness, for which bothdifferences were very minor). Given the results of the twotests, it can be concluded that the scales exhibit discrimi-nant validity.

Assessing the overall model. Table 5 reports theresults of the overall measurement models. The resultsmirror the estimates reported in previous stages. All load-ings are high, ranging from .609 to .882 in the Israelisample, .557 to .836 in the Norwegian sample, and .508


Table 3. Measures of Unidimensionality and Convergence Validity

Norway Spain Israel

CreativityCR1 .78 .69 .67CR2 .70 .78 .67CR3 .65 .46 .68CR4 .81 .64 .78CR5 .80 .91 .77

χ2 (d.f.); sig. 5.18(5); .39 11.66(5); .04 5.27(5); .38NFI, NNFI, CFI, RMSEA .99; .99; .99;.01 .99; 99; 99;.09 .99; .99; .99;.02Composite reliability .86 .83 .84AVE 56% 51% 51%Mean (SD) 4.08 (.63) 2.92 (.70) 3.72 (.75)Openness

OP1 .51 .57 .79OP2 .84 .81 .88OP3 .87 .90 .89OP4 .70 .80 .66

χ2 (d.f.); sig. 4.80(2); .09 3.81(2); .14 0.62(2); 0.73NFI, NNFI, CFI, RMSEA .99; .99; .99;.08 .99; .99; .99; .08 .99; .99; .99; .01Composite reliability .82 .86 .88AVE 55% 61% 65%Mean (SD) 3.56 (.70) 2.71 (.88) 3.53 (.85)Future orientation

FO1 .67 .75 .64FO2 .87 .81 .85FO3 .84 .91 .84FO4 .70 .77 .82

χ2 (d.f.); sig. 9.09(2); .01 6.61(2); .04 8.79(2); .01NFI, NNFI, CFI, RMSEA .99; .99; .99;.12 .99; .98; .99;.12 .99; .98; .99;.16Composite reliability .86 .89 .87AVE 60% 66% 62%Mean (SD) 3.55 (.75) 2.59 (.88) 3.46 (.96)Risk-taking

RT1 .71 .74 .75RT2 .79 .69 .76RT3 .75 .74 .78RT4 .68 .66 .60

χ2 (d.f.); sig. 3.83(2); .15 13.85(2); .00 13.26(2); .00NFI, NNFI, CFI, RMSEA .99; .99; .99;.06 .99; .97; .99;.20 .99; .95; .99;.20Composite reliability .82 .80 .82AVE 54% 50% 53%Mean (SD) 2.90 (.76) 2.69 (.88) 3.08 (.92)Proactiveness

PR1 .64 .55 .63PR2 .84 .72 .68PR3 .69 .88 .81PR4 .62 .67 .82

χ2 (d.f.); sig. 6.86(2); .03 27.24(2); .00 0.71(2); .70NFI, NNFI, CFI, RMSEA .98; .96; .98; .10 .98; .92; .98; .29 .99; .99; .99; .01Composite reliability .79 .81 .82AVE 50% 52% 54%Mean (SD) 3.45 (.67) 3.99 (.73) 3.43 (.80)


to .871 in the Spanish sample. Correlation coefficientsranged from .46 to .83 for the Israeli sample, .49 to .74 forthe Norwegian sample, and .48 to .82 for the Spanishsample, and fit measures ranged from .969 to .984,RMSEA = .04, χ2 = 1093.35 (d.f. = 537; p ≤ .01).

These findings confirm the measurement quality of theitems and the stability of the factor solution (Segars andGrover, 1998). They also suggest that the indicators of themodel are unidimensional and that the constructs aredistinct. In other words, organizations with a very highlevel of innovativeness should score high on all dimen-sions. However, at the same time, some organizations canscore high on certain dimensions and low on others.

Second-order factor analysis. A first-order factormodel is a unidimensional model, suggesting that the

phenomenon under investigation is measured directlyfrom its indicators. A second-order factor model suggeststhat the phenomenon is multidimensional and that there isa higher-level factor that explains the relationshipsbetween the first-order factors (Segars and Grover, 1998).Such models are needed when the correlations betweenthe latent variables are relatively high (≥ .70) or whenthere is a theoretical rationale for a higher-order construct(Garver and Mentzer, 1999). Although most correlationsbetween the latent variables in this study were below .70across countries, there was a theoretical rationale for ahigher-order OI construct, so a second-order analysis wasperformed. The second order model fit the data well(χ2 = 1132.29 [d.f. = 552], NFI = .968, NNFI = .980,CFI = .983, and RMSEA = .044). The χ2 differencebetween the first- and the second-order model (38.92; 15

Table 4. Measures of Discriminate Validity

CorrelationEstimate*

ConstrainedModel χ2 (d.f)

UnconstrainedModel χ2 (d.f) Δ χ2

(1)**

NorwayCreativity with Openness .74 125.88 (27)* 50.03 (26)* 75.85

Future orientation .66 124.93 (27)* 33.63 (26) 91.30Risk-taking .49 137.40 (27)* 37.23 (26)* 100.17Proactiveness .72 169.57 (27)* 66.27 (26)* 103.30

Openness with Future orientation .73 114.62 (20)* 43.53 (19)* 71.09Risk-taking .54 144.30 (20)* 63.73 (19)* 80.57Proactiveness .62 138.76 (20)* 55.58 (19)* 83.18

Future orientation with Risk-taking .57 129.68 (20)* 47.83 (19)* 81.85Proactiveness .58 139.17 (20)* 36.20 (19)* 102.97

Risk-taking with Proactiveness .54 114.59 (20)* 33.61 (19)* 80.98Spain

Creativity with Openness .81 117.62 (27)* 79.92 (26)* 37.70Future orientation .77 101.26 (27)* 73.08 (26)* 28.18Risk-taking .60 117.31 (27)* 73.84 (26)* 43.47Proactiveness .51 161.61 (27)* 105.78 (26)* 55.83

Openness with Future orientation .80 57.12 (20)* 31.89 (19)* 25.23Risk-taking .67 95.54 (20)* 60.72 (19)* 34.82Proactiveness .59 94.35 (20)* 59.60 (19)* 34.75

Future orientation with Risk-taking .77 87.36 (20)* 71.13 (20)* 16.23Proactiveness .56 117.72 (20) 84.94 (19)* 32.78

Risk-taking with Proactiveness .59 94.35 (20)* 59.60 (19)* 34.75Israel

Creativity with Openness .67 84.42 (27)* 46.63 (26)* 37.79Future orientation .61 71.02 (27)* 44.24 (26)* 26.78Risk-taking .44 70.52 (27)* 43.58 (26)* 26.94Proactiveness .82 100.28 (27)* 77.41 (26)* 22.87

Openness with Future orientation .75 46.77 (20)* 29.43 (19)* 17.34Risk-taking .62 51.91 (20)* 27.43 (19) 24.48Proactiveness .60 50.50 (20)* 20.97 (19) 29.53

Future orientation with Risk-taking .62 68.02 (20)* 55.01 (19)* 13.01Proactiveness .56 48.84 (20)* 29.33 (19) 19.51

Risk-taking with Proactiveness .51 63.34 (20)* 31.75 (19)* 31.59

* Significant at p < .001.** All the chi-square differences are significant at p < .001.


d.f.) was significant (p < .001) and supports the use of thesecond- over the first-order model.

Nomological validity. Because researchers haveregarded OI as a mediator of the relationship betweenmarket orientation (MO) and organizational performance(Atuahene-Gima, 1996; Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001;Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Deshpandé and Farley, 2004;Deshpandé et al., 1993; Han et al., 1998; Hult et al.,2004; Hurley and Hult, 1998), the nomologic validity ofOI was assessed by testing a MO → OI → performancesequence model. MO was measured using Jaworski andKohli’s (1993) scale (average α = .77 in the original), and

organizational performance was measured based onCaruana, Ramaseshan, and Ewing’s (1999) 4-item scale(see also Dess and Robinson, 1984; Lumpkin and Dess,2001). The 4-item performance scale was a subjectivescale that reflects the managers’ assessments of organi-zational performance in the previous three years, com-pared with the organization’s goals. This measure is acommon subjective assessment of organizational perfor-mance, and previous research has confirmed the strongcorrelation between subjective and objective measures ofperformance (Caruana et al., 1999; Dess and Robinson,1984; Lumpkin and Dess, 2001). The data corroboratedthis sequence with positive and significant (p = .00) MO

Table 5. Factor Loadings and Correlations between Constructs

Norway Spain Israel

Factor loadingsa

CR1* .79 .80 .70CR2 .69 .72 .65CR3 Creativity .66 .51 .75CR4 .78 .63 .72CR5 .81 .85 .75OP1* .56 .79 .80OP2 Openness .83 .87 .86OP3 .84 .85 .88OP4 .72 .60 .68FO1* .69 .80 .66FO2 Future orientation .87 .82 .85FO3 .82 .86 .81FO4 .72 .77 .82RT1* .73 .69 .75RT2 Risk-taking .77 .76 .75RT3 .74 .75 .79RT4 .69 .61 .61PR1* .70 .64 .74PR2 Proactiveness .81 .79 .69PR3 .66 .79 .75PR4 .62 .65 .76

CorrelationsCreativity Proactiveness .73 .53 .83Creativity Openness .74 .82 .67Creativity Future orientation .67 .79 .62Creativity Risk-taking .49 .64 .46Openness Risk-taking .54 .68 .62Openness Proactiveness .63 .48 .62Openness Future orientation .73 .80 .74Future orientation Proactiveness .59 .58 .58Future orientation Risk-taking .57 .77 .62Risk-taking Proactiveness .64 .60 .53

χ2 (d.f.) 1093.35 (537)Fit measures for all three countries NFI .97

NNFI .98CFI .98RMSEA .04

a All factor loadings and correlations were significant at p < .001. Asterisks represent loadings whose setups were equal to one.


→ OI (γ Norway = .82, γSpain = .83, and γIsrael = .68) and OI→ performance relationships (γ Norway = .72, γSpain = .42,and γ Israel = .75). Goodness-of-fit measurers indicated agood fit (χ2 = 517.30 [d.f. = 127, p = .00]; NFI = .91;NNFI = .93; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .05) in support of OI’snomological validity. In sum, the construct validity of OIwas established in all three countries.

Between-Groups Validity:Cross-Cultural Invariance

Several steps were taken for testing cross-cultural invari-ance (Mullen, 1995; Myers et al., 2000; Steenkamp andBaumgartner, 1998). First, configural invariance wastested. In this analysis, no constraints were imposedacross groups in order to assess whether the same simplestructure of factor loadings was obtained in all threecountries. Then, the metric covariance invariance wasexamined by constraining the factor loadings to be invari-ant across countries. This invariance test helps diagnosetranslation equivalence (Mullen, 1995). If metric invari-ance holds, meaningful comparisons of the scores acrosscountries are possible (Steenkamp and Baumgartner,1998). Next, the factor covariance invariance was testedby constraining the correlations between the latent vari-ables to be equal across countries. This test assesses nor-mative validity and overall measurement structureconsistency (Myers et al., 2000). Table 6 presents theresults of the cross-cultural invariance testing.

Configural invariance was tested by model 1, inwhich no constraints were imposed across groups. Asnoted in the overall assessment of the multigroup model,

this procedure resulted in acceptable model fit statistics.The data support the five-factor model in all countries,indicating that OI exhibits the same simple factorstructure.

Metric covariance invariance (model 2) was tested byconstraining the factor loadings of the indicators to beequal across countries. Model 2 also resulted in anacceptable fit (χ2 = 1164.33 [569 d.f.], NFI = .969,NNFI = .979, CFI = .984, and RMSEA = .044). How-ever, the χ2 difference between model 1 and model 2(70.98; 32 d.f.) was significant (p < .05). Hence, the con-strained model was rejected in favor of the unconstrainedsimple structure model. This result indicates that thefactor loadings vary across countries, pointing to a pos-sible translation problem (Mullen, 1995). The factorloadings in the three countries were examined, and threeitems with the greatest differences in loading were iden-tified (openness1, creative3, and proactiveness4). Theloading of these items was unconstrained, and the modelwas re-run. The revised model fit the data well(χ2 = 1131.15 [d.f. = 563], NFI = .968, NNFI = .980,CFI = .983, and RMSEA = .044). The χ2 differencebetween the simple structure model and the semi-constrained, equal-loading model was 37.80 with 26 d.f.This nonsignificant difference (p ≥ 0.05) prompted theacceptance of the semiconstrained model in which nodifferences between the groups on 17 factor loadings (outof 20) are assumed.

Factor covariance invariance was tested by con-straining the correlations between the latent variables toequality across groups (model 3). This analysis yieldedχ2 = 1123.03 (d.f. = 557), NFI = .968, NNFI = .979,

Table 6. Measurement Equivalence Tests: CFAs Constrained at Several Levels

χ2* df NFI NNFI CFI RMSEAModel

Comparison Δ χ2 Δ d.f. Δp-Value Conclusion

Factorial validation:Israel 306.53 179 .97 .98 .99 .07Norway 336.27 179 .98 .99 .99 .06Spain 450.15 179 .95 .96 .97 .10

Cross-cultural invariant:Model 1 Unconstrained 1093.35 537 .97 .98 .98 .04Model 2 λ constrained 1164.33 569 .97 .98 .98 .04 (2)-(1) 70.98 32 .00 unsupportedModel 3 ϕ constrained 1123.03 557 .97 .98 .98 .04 (3)-(1) 29.68 20 .08 supportedModel 4 ϕ, λ constrained 1195.81 589 .97 .98 .98 .04 (4)-(2) 31.48 20 .06 supportedCross-cultural invariant after modificationa:Model 1 Unconstrained 1093.35 537 .97 .98 .98 .04Model 2 λ constrained 1131.15 563 .97 .98 .98 .04 (2)-(1) 37.80 26 .06 supportedModel 3 ϕ constrained 1123.03 557 .97 .98 .98 .04 (3)-(1) 29.68 20 .08 supportedModel 4 ϕ, λ constrained 1159.67 583 .97 .98 .98 .04 (4)-(2) 36.64 26 .08 supported

* All significant at p < .01.a Modification includes unconstrained loadings of variables: openness1, creative3, and proactiveness4.


CFI = .983, and RMSEA = .044. The χ2 differencebetween this model and the simple structure model wasnot significant (Δχ2 = 29.68; 20 d.f.), supporting a rejec-tion of the unconstrained model in favor of the con-strained structure model. This result indicates that thefactor correlations are invariant across countries.

In model 4, the factor loading and the correlationsbetween the factors were constrained. The fit statisticswere χ2 = 1159.67 (d.f. = 583), NFI = .967, NNFI = .980,CFI = .983, and RMSEA = .044. The difference(Δχ2 = 23.22; 13 d.f.) between model 3 and model 4 wasnot significant. Thus, the factor structure is consistentacross countries, and the latent constructs are not com-posed differently with respect to the measured variables.

OI comparisons across countries. Once cross-cultural invariance was established, a comparison of themeans of the OI dimensions across the countries could bemade. The means and standard deviations of each dimen-sion in each country are presented in Table 3. Multivari-ate analysis (MANOVA) demonstrated significantdifferences (p = .00) between the countries with regard toall of the OI dimensions: creativity (F(2,522) = 133.03),openness (F(2,522) = 60.83), risk-taking (F(2,522) = 7.33),future orientation (F(2,522) = 65.70), and proactiveness(F(2,522) = 20.23). Norwegian managers reported thehighest level of creativity, but they were similar to Israelimanagers on all other dimensions. Spanish managersreported the lowest level of means on all dimensionscompared to Norway and Israel. Of the five dimensions,creativity was highest among Norwegian and Israeli man-agers, and risk-taking was the lowest. Spanish managerswere highest on proactiveness and the lowest on futureorientation. Overall, the level of OI in Norway andIsrael was similar (MNorway = 3.54, standard deviation[SD] = .56; MIsrael = 3.43, SD = .68) and significantlyhigher than that of Spain (M = 2.78, SD = .70;F(2,522) = 71.89, p = .00).

These results indicate that, in general, Norwegian,Spanish, and Israeli managers hold the same factor andcorrelation structure of OI. Furthermore, they are invari-ant with regard to the perceived internal structure of theconstructs. At this point, study 2 was developed toaddress the two issues raised earlier, namely, the superi-ority of the five-dimensional conceptualization of OI andits distinctiveness from EO.

Study 2

Theoretically, a five-dimensional approach to OI shouldbe richer, but may have a “price tag” in terms of its

parsimony. A second issue raised earlier is the conceptualoverlap between OI and EO. Given these issues, a secondstudy was designed in order to evaluate these two issues.The second study involved a new sample of Israeli man-agers, not included in the main study. A total of 126managers, enrolled in an executive graduate program at auniversity in northern Israel participated, of whom 123returned complete questionnaires.

The questionnaire included all of the original itemsand scales of the main study with two additions. First, theunidimensional scale developed by Hurley and Hult(1998) was included (α = .82 in the original). This scaleincludes four items and was reliable in this new sample(α = .70). In addition, the EO scale was also included(Covin and Slevin, 1989; α = .87, α = .85 in the originals,respectively), and was found reliable in study 2 (α = .71).

Comparing the five-dimensional and the unidimen-sional OI scales involved two analyses. First, these twoscales were compared to establish that they were empiri-cally distinct. Then, the model used in the main study wasre-analyzed twice with the new data, once with the formerand once with the latter, to establish that the five-dimensional operationalization was superior to the one-dimensional one.

The first analysis was done through two measurementmodels, one in which Hurley and Hult’s (1998) measurewas freed to correlate with the five-dimensional measureand one in which it was forced to the value of 1.0. Thefirst model led to χ2 of 95.47 (d.f. = 34; p > 0.05), withNFI = .974, NNFI = .972, CFI = .983, and RMSEA =.122. The second model (with the link fixed at 1.0) led topoorer fit statistics, namely χ2 was 122.90 (d.f. = 35;p > 0.05), NFI = .966, NNFI = .961, CFI = .975, andRMSEA = .143. Importantly, the difference between thetwo models showed that the freed model fitted the datasignificantly better (Δχ2 = 27.426; 1 d.f. ≥ the critical χ2

of 6.63, p ≤ 0.01). Thus, it can be concluded that there isa significant difference between the two constructs andthat they are empirically distinct.

In the second analysis, the structural model was testedfirst with the proposed five-dimensional scale, and thenwith Hurley and Hult’s (1998) measure. The use of the OIscale led to a model with satisfactory fit statistics.Specifically, while χ2 was 88.04 (d.f. = 42; p < 0.05),NFI = .980, NNFI = .984, CFI = .990, and RMSEA =.094. The use of the unidimensional scale led topoorer fit statistics, namely χ2 was 153.45 (d.f. = 42;p < 0.05), NFI = .961, NNFI = .955, CFI = .971, andRMSEA = .147.

Additional support for the proposed operationalizationcomes from the higher explained variance of OI (by


market orientation) and performance (by OI). Specifi-cally, market orientation explained .54 of the variance inOI using the multidimensional scale and only .30 of thevariance using Hurley and Hult’s scale. Likewise, OIexplained .67 of the variance in performance using themultidimensional scale and only .25 of the variance usingHurley and Hult’s scale.

Finally, the significance of the differences wasassessed by comparing the strength of the relationshipsbetween MO and OI (.74 and .55 using the multidimen-sional scale and Hurley and Hult’s scale, respectively;t = 2.03) and OI and performance (.67 and .50 using themultidimensional scale and Hurley and Hult’s scale,respectively; t = 2.57), following the procedure outlinedby Neter, Wasserman, and Kutner (1989, p. 533). Thedifferences were significant, suggesting that the rela-tionships using the multidimensional scale were stron-ger than those using the unidimensional Hurley andHult’s (1998) scale. In short, beyond being a richer con-ceptualization, the five-dimensional scale resulted inbetter fit statistics, higher levels of explained variances,and stronger relationships than the one-dimensionalscale.

The second issue addressed in this study was the dis-tinction between OI and an EO. EO “refers to the pro-cesses, practices, and decision-making activities thatlead to new entry” (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, p. 136).In this sense, an EO shares some characteristics withOI, such as the propensity of the organization to inno-vate, take risks, and be proactive relative to marketplaceopportunities (Rauch et al., 2009). For that reason, anempirical discrimination between the constructs waswarranted. Thus, two measurement models were tested,one in which the relationship between OI and EO wasfreed, and one in which it was set to 1.0. The firstmodel led to better fit statistics, namely χ2 of38.199 (d.f. = 19; p < 0.05), NFI = .989, NNFI = .989,CFI = .994, and RMSEA = .091. The second model(with the link fixed at 1.0) led to poorer fit statistics,namely χ2 = 85.309 (d.f. = 20; p < 0.05), NFI = .975,NNFI = .965, CFI = .980, and RMSEA = .164. Impor-tantly, the difference between the two models showedthat the freed model fit the data better (Δχ2 = 47.110;1 d.f. ≥ the critical χ2 of 6.63, p ≤ 0.01). In short,EO and OI overlap conceptually, but are distinctoperationally.

In sum, the findings support the superiority ofthe five-dimensional approach over a one-dimensionalrepresentation of OI. Furthermore, the discriminantvalidity of the OI scale from the related EO scale wasestablished.

Discussion

To lead in a culture of change, it is important to be anexpert on innovativeness, not just innovation.

—Michel Fullan

Despite the long-standing literature on innovation, theconceptual work on OI is scarce and offers very littledevelopment of the concept or its measurement (Hultet al., 2004; Moos et al., 2010; Wang and Ahmed, 2004).An established conceptualization and measurement of OIis needed to promote the academic discourse on thisconcept as well as advance managerial practices. Takingan interdisciplinary approach, OI was conceptualized asan organizational climate consisting of five dimensions:creativity, organizational openness, future orientation,risk-taking, and proactiveness. In addition to this newconceptualization, the main contributions of this paperalso include developing a scale to measure OI, establish-ing its cross-cultural invariance, demonstrating itssuperiority over a unidimensional approach, and differ-entiating it from EO. The theoretical, empirical, and prac-tical contributions are discussed below.

Theoretical Contributions

Given that OI is a central construct in management, it istheoretically important to achieve a widely accepted con-ceptualization and to clarify its definition (Gauvin andSinha, 1993; Salavou, 2004; Wang and Ahmed, 2004).The proposed conceptualization of OI as a multidimen-sional construct mirrors its complex and interdisciplinarynature. This conceptualization may shed new light onexisting findings and promote new research directions.Specifically, using a multidimensional construct mayprovide a more accurate understanding of the relation-ships between OI and its antecedents and consequencesin wider nomological models. For example, organiza-tional learning is regarded as an antecedent ofinnovativeness (e.g., Hult et al., 2004; Siguaw et al.,2006; Woodside, 2005). However, exploration of the rela-tionships between organizational learning and the variousdimensions of OI identified in this study might reveal thatorganizational learning has a stronger relationship withopenness (Calantone, Cavusgil, and Zhao, 2002) and cre-ativity (Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000; Hirst, VanKnippenberg, and Zhou, 2009) than with OI’s otherdimensions. Wang and Ahmed (2004) identified fivedomains of innovativeness outcomes (behavioral,product, process, market, and strategic). It may be thecase that certain OI dimensions are more relevant in


promoting specific innovativeness outcomes. Based onWang and Ahmed’s (2004) conceptualization, it can behypothesized that proactiveness will exhibit a strong rela-tionship with strategic outcomes, and risk-taking willhave a strong relationship with behavioral outcomes.Future exploration of the proposed OI construct in widernomological models is needed to further develop its theo-retical implications.

Developing a valid OI measure is an important mana-gerial research task (Deshpandé and Farley, 2004;Salavou, 2004). Most existing measures have been sim-plistic rather than based on soundly developed scales(Salavou, 2004; Wang and Ahmed, 2004) and categorizedorganizations as innovative or noninnovative (Mooset al., 2010; Wang and Ahmed, 2004). While such sim-plistic measurements of OI are appealing for their ease ofadministration and interpretation, they might lead toerrors in conclusions. The narrow scope of such unidi-mensional scales might cause researchers to overlookimportant aspects of OI or to draw inaccurate conclusionsregarding the level of innovativeness in organizations.Consequently, if the measures of innovativeness do notreflect the true nature of the concept, its relationship withother constructs under study would also be questionable.Of particular importance is the relationship betweenOI and performance. Given that OI is regarded as astrong contributor to an organization’s performance(Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997; Hurley andHult, 1998; Hurley et al., 2005; Siguaw et al., 2006;Subramanian, 1996), such errors in conclusions mightundermine the theoretical implications of the study.Using the multidimensional OI measure proposed in thispaper will allow a more comprehensive, multifacetedview of OI.

The findings also support the notion that OI and EOare related, but theoretically and empirically distinct.While EO shares some characteristics with OI, such asthe propensity of the organization to innovate, takerisks, and be proactive relative to marketplace opportu-nities (Rauch et al., 2009), it also features aspects thatdo not relate to OI, such as autonomy and competitiveaggressiveness. In addition, the proposed conceptualiza-tion of OI integrates other dimensions that are notpart of an EO, such as creativity, openness to newideas, and future orientation. Furthermore, unlike anEO, OI does not require a new market entry strategy(Hult et al., 2004; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996); an orga-nization with high levels of OI still might not be entre-preneurial. An interesting future avenue for research isto better crystallize the distinction between these con-structs as well as to explore their unique and combined

contribution to organizational performance and competi-tive advantage.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study toestablish the reliability and validity of the OI constructcross-culturally. The growing interest in internationalmanagement research reflects a worldwide phenomenonof globalization. Therefore, there is an imperative needfor a cross-culturally valid measure of OI to promoteresearch and practice. Cross-cultural equivalence must beachieved for management theories and their associatedconstructs to be extended across cultures and carry thesame meaning. Lack of evidence for measurementinvariance can lead to weak, ambiguous, or erroneousconclusions that might affect the ability of the organiza-tion to cope with international competition (Myers et al.,2000; Sharma and Weathers, 2003; Steenkamp andBaumgartner, 1998). The cross-national validation of OIprovides scholars with confidence about using it in futureresearch. Nevertheless, the generalizability limits of theOI measure should be noted. Note that the OI scale wasvalidated only in Western countries. It might be the casethat in Eastern cultures, for example, the dimension offuture orientation has a different meaning, as these soci-eties have high levels of long-term orientation (Bearden,Money, and Nevins, 2006; Hofstede, 2001). Thus, furtherinvestigation of the cross-cultural validity of OI scale incultures other than Western ones is needed.

Practical Contributions

The validated multidimensional measure of OI can be auseful tool for accurately assessing the structure andnature of innovativeness within organizations. Managerswho wish to promote their organization’s (or strategicunit’s) innovativeness climate can use the OI measure asa strategic diagnostic tool. Instead of relying on simplisticmeasures such as the number of innovations to determinewhether the level of OI is high or low (Garcia andCalantone, 2002; Salavou, 2004; Subramanian, 1996;Wang and Ahmed, 2004), using this tool they can obtainmore useful and comprehensive information regardingthe domains of OI in which their organization excels orneeds improvement. Thus, managers may conclude thatalthough they have good creative ideas, they are not pro-active enough in introducing them to the marketplace.Furthermore, based on this measurement managers maydecide that certain dimensions of OI are less central to theorganization from a strategic point of view. For example,an organization may conclude that a moderate level ofrisk-taking is preferable and focus on other dimensions ofOI. In addition, managers can use this measure to monitor


their OI over time and adjust their prioritization ofaspects of OI in accordance with their strategic goals andmission. Thus, this multidimensional view of OI canassist managers with the decision making and resourceallocation associated with promoting OI in their organi-zations (or strategic units), while minimizing the risk oferroneous conclusions based on a simplistic, unidimen-sional view of OI.

Limitations

This research sought to conceptualize and operationalizeOI. Such an attempt is liable to suffer from some limita-tions. One potential limitation concerns the range ofdeveloped subdimensions for OI. Because of the com-plexity of OI, some facets of OI may have been over-looked. However, the effect of this limitation seems to beminimal because the conceptualization of OI incorpo-rated multiple rounds of theory building through a litera-ture review as well as expert opinions. Moreover, each ofthe dimensions used has been included, solely or withothers, in previous research. In addition, the resultssupported the within- and cross-culture validation ofthe proposed conceptualization of OI using rigorousmethodological approaches of theory testing (Churchill,1979; Sharma and Weathers, 2003; Steenkamp andBaumgartner, 1995).

Another potential limitation concerns the nature of thesamples used in this research. As noted, the survey tar-geted convenience samples of mid-level managers insocial service organizations who were likely to have therelevant knowledge needed to provide meaningfulresponses. Researchers have acknowledged the differ-ences in the degree to which organizations in differentindustries engage in innovative activity as well as thedifferences in the nature of such activities (e.g.,Damanpour, Walker, and Avellaneda, 2009; Gauvin andSinha, 1993). The specific nature of the organizationsused in this study may have had an impact on the con-ceptualization of OI. For instance, other dimensionsmight be more relevant to organizations in differentindustries. Further validation of OI conceptualization andmeasurement should be done in organizations from otherindustries.

In conclusion, this study served as a first step inintroducing an interdisciplinary conceptualization andoperationalization of OI as an organizational climate con-sisting of five dimensions (creativity, openness to newideas, future orientation, risk-taking, and proactiveness).Collectively, using a rigorous measurement approach(Churchill, 1979; Sharma and Weathers, 2003;

Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1995), the results reportedin this paper support the structure and validity of thismeasure in different countries. Despite the limitationsnoted earlier, these results provide a promising first stepthat will hopefully facilitate the future study of OI indifferent nomological models, industries, and cultures.

References

Amabile, T. M. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing whatyou love and loving what you do. California Management Review 40(1): 39–58.

Amabile, T. M., R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazenby, and M. Herron. 1996.Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Manage-ment Journal 39 (5): 1154–84.

Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural equation modeling inpractice: A review and recommended two-step approach. PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3): 411–23.

Anderson, N. R., and M. A. West. 1998. Measuring climate for work groupinnovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory.Journal of Organizational Behavior 19 (3): 235–58.

Atuahene-Gima, K. 1996. Market orientation and innovation. Journal ofBusiness Research 35 (2): 93–103.

Atuahene-Gima, K., and A. Ko. 2001. An empirical investigation of theeffect of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation alignmenton product innovation. Organizational Science 12 (1): 54–74.

Avlonitis, G. J., A. Kouremennos, and N. Tzokas. 1994. Assessing theinnovativeness of organizations and its antecedents: Project Innovstart.European Journal of Marketing 28 (11): 5–28.

Baer, M., and M. Frese. 2002. Innovation is not enough: Climates forinitiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm per-formance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (1): 45–68.

Bagozzi, R. P., Y. Y. Phillips, and W. Lynn. 1991. Assessing constructvalidity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly36 (3): 421–58.

Baird, I. S., and H. Thomas. 1985. Toward a contingency model of strategicrisk taking. Academy of Management Review 10 (2): 230–43.

Baker, W. E., and J. M. Sinkula. 1999. The synergistic effect of marketorientation and learning orientation on organizational performance.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (4): 411–27.

Bearden, W. O., R. B. Money, and J. L. Nevins. 2006. A measure oflong-term orientation: Development and validation. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 34 (3): 456–67.

Bharadwaj, S., and A. Menon. 2000. Making innovation happen in organi-zations: Individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativitylearning mechanisms or both? Journal of Product Innovation and Man-agement 17 (6): 424–34.

Bolton, M. K. 1993. Organizational innovation and substandard perfor-mance: When is necessity the mother of innovation? OrganizationalScience 4 (1): 57–75.

Browne, M. W., and R. Cudek. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing modelfit. In Testing structural equation models, ed. K. A. Bollen and J. S.Long, 136–62. New York: Sage.

Byrne, M. B. 2002. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic con-cepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Calantone, R. J., S. T. Cavusgil, and Y. Zhao. 2002. Learning orientation,firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial MarketingManagement 31 (6): 515–24.

Calder, B. J. 1977. Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketingresearch. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3): 353–64.


Caruana, A. M., T. Ewing, and B. Ramaseshan. 2002. Effects of someenvironmental challenges and centralization on the entrepreneurial ori-entation and performance of public sector entities. The Service Indus-tries Journal 22 (2): 43–58.

Caruana, A. M., B. Ramaseshan, and M. T. Ewing. 1999. Market orienta-tion and performance in the public sector: The role of organizationalcommitment. Journal of Global Marketing 12 (3): 59–79.

Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovator’s dilemma. Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School Press.

Churchill, G. A., Jr. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures ofmarketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February):64–73.

Costa, P. T., and R. R. McCrae. 1987. Neuroticism, somatic complaints, anddisease: Is the bark worse than the bite? Journal of Personality 55:299–316.

Covin, J. G., and D. Slevin. 1989. Strategic management of small firms inhostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal 10(1): 75–87.

Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effectsof determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal 34(3): 555–90.

Damanpour, F., and S. Gopalakrishnan. 1998. Theories of organizationalstructure and innovation adoption: The role of environmental change.Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 15 (1): 1–24.

Damanpour, F., R. M. Walker, and C. N. Avellaneda. 2009. Combinativeeffects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitu-dinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies 46(4): 650–75.

Denison, D. R. 1996. What is the difference between organizational cultureand organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade ofparadigm wars. Academy of Management Review 21 (3): 619–54.

Deshpandé, R., and J. U. Farley. 2004. Organizational culture, marketorientation, innovativeness, and firm performance: An internationalodyssey. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21 (1): 3–22.

Deshpandé, R., J. U. Farley, and F. E. Webster. 1993. Corporate culturecustomer orientation and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrateanalysis. Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 23–27.

Dess, G. G., T. G. Lumpkin, and J. G. Covin. 1997. Entrepreneurial strategymaking and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurationalmodels. Strategic Management Journal 18 (9): 677–95.

Dess, G. G., and R. B. Robinson. 1984. Measuring organizational perfor-mance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic ManagementJournal 5 (3): 265–73.

Ford, C. M. 2002. The futurity of decisions as a facilitator of organizationalcreativity and change. Journal of Organizational Change Management15 (6): 635–46.

Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation modelswith unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Mar-keting Research 18 (1): 39–50.

Garcia, R., and R. Calantone. 2002. A critical look at the technologicalinnovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literaturereview. Journal of Product Innovation Management 19 (2): 110–32.

Garver, M. S., and J. T. Mentzer. 1999. Logistics research methods:Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity.Journal of Business Logistics 20 (1): 33–57.

Gauvin, S., and R. K. Sinha. 1993. Innovativeness in industrial organiza-tion: A two stage model of adoption. International Journal of Researchin Marketing 10 (2): 165–83.

Gavetti, G., and D. Levinthal. 2000. Looking forward and looking back-ward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quar-terly 45 (1): 113–37.

Gopalakrishnan, S., and F. Damanpour. 1997. A review of innovationresearch in economics, sociology and technology management.Omega, International Journal of Management Science 25 (1): 15–29.

Gumusluoglu, L., and A. Ilsev. 2009. Transformational leadership andorganizational innovation: The roles of internal and external support forinnovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26 (3): 264–77.

Han, J., N. Kim, and R. K. Srivastava. 1998. Market orientation and orga-nizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of Mar-keting 62 (4): 30–45.

Hirst, G., D. Van Knippenberg, and J. Zhou. 2009. A cross-level perspectiveon employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, andindividual creativity. Academy of Management Journal 52 (2): 280–93.

Hofstede, G. H. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behav-iors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hult, T. M., R. F. Hurley, and G. A. Knight. 2004. Innovativeness: Itsantecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial MarketingManagement 33 (5): 429–38.

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

Hurley, R. F., T. M. Hult, and G. A. Knight. 2005. Innovativeness andcapacity to innovate in a complexity of firm-level relationships: Aresponse to Woodside 2004. Industrial Marketing Management 34 (3):281–83.

Javidan, M., and D. A. Waldman. 2003. Exploring charismatic leadership inthe public sector: Measurement and consequences. Public Administra-tion Review 63 (2): 229–42.

Jaworski, B. J., and A. K. Kohli. 1993. Market orientation: Antecedents andconsequences. Journal of Marketing 57 (3): 53–70.

Kandemir, D., A. Yaprak, and S. T. Cavusgil. 2006. Alliance orientation:Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (3): 324–40.

Keskin, H. 2006. Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovationcapabilities in SMEs: An extended model. European Journal of Inno-vation Management 9 (4): 396–417.

Khan, A. M., and V. Manopichetwattana. 1989. Innovative andnoninnovative small firms: Types and characteristics. ManagementScience 35: 595–606.

Laursen, K., and A. Salter. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of opennessin explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturingfirms. Strategic Management Journal 27: 131–50.

Lumpkin, T. G., and G. G. Dess. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurialorientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Man-agement Journal 21 (1): 135–72.

Lumpkin, T. G., and G. G. Dess. 2001. Linking two dimensions of entre-preneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role ofenvironment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing 16(5): 429–51.

Miller, D., and P. H. Friesen. 1978. Archetypes of strategy formulation.Management Science 24 (9): 921–33.

Miller, D., and P. H. Friesen. 1983. Strategy-making and environment: Thethird link. Strategic Management Journal 4 (3): 221–35.

Moos, B., D. Beimborn, H. T. Wagner, and T. Weitzel. 2010. Suggestionsfor measuring organizational innovativeness: A review. In System Sci-ences (HICSS), Proceedings of the 43nd Hawaii International Confer-ence on System Sciences (HICSS-43), IEEE Computer Society.

Morgan, R. E., and C. A. Strong. 1998. Market orientation and dimensionsof strategic orientation. European Journal of Marketing 32 (11/12):1051–67.

Morgan, R. E., and C. A. Strong. 2003. Business performance and dimen-sions of strategic orientation. Journal of Business Research 56 (3):163–76.

Mullen, M. R. 1995. Diagnosing measurement equivalence in crossnational research. Journal of International Business Studies 26 (3):573–96.


Myers, M. B., R. R. Calantone, T. G. Page, and C. R. Taylor. 2000.Academic insight: An application of multiple-group causal models inassessing cross-cultural measurement equivalence. Journal of Interna-tional Marketing 8 (4): 108–21.

Neter, J., W. Wasserman, and M. H. Kutner. 1989. Applied linear regres-sion models. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1986. Self-reports in organizationalresearch: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (4):531–44.

Rauch, A., J. Wiklund, G. T. Lumpkin, and M. Frese. 2009. Entrepreneurialorientation and business performance: An assessment of past researchand suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice33 (3): 761–87.

Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The FreePress.

Rose, G. M., and A. Shoham. 2002. Export performance and market ori-entation: Establishing an empirical link. Journal of Business Research55 (3): 217–25.

Salavou, H. 2004. The concept of innovativeness: Should we need to focus?European Journal of Innovation Management 7 (1): 33–44.

Segars, A. H., and V. Grover. 1998. Strategic information systems planningsuccess: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. MISQuarterly 22 (2): 139–63.

Sharma, S., and D. Weathers. 2003. Assessing generalizability of scalesused in cross-national research. International Journal of Research inMarketing 20 (3): 287–95.

Siegel, S. M., and W. F. Kaemmerer. 1978. Measuring the perceivedsupport for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology63 (5): 553–62.

Siguaw, J. A., P. M. Simpson, and C. A. Enz. 2006. Conceptualizinginnovation orientation: A framework for study and integration of inno-vation research. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23 (6):556–74.

Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., and H. Baumgartner. 1995. Development of cross-national validation of a short form of CSI as a measure optimumstimulation level. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12:97–104.

Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., and H. Baumgartner. 1998. Assessing measurementinvariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of ConsumerResearch 25 (1): 78–93.

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 2007. Basics of qualitative research: Techniquesand procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Incorporated.

Subramanian, A. 1996. An explanation of splaying. Journal of Algorithms20 (3): 512–25.

Subramanian, A., and S. Nilakanta. 1996. Organizational innovativeness:Exploring the relationship between organizational determinants ofinnovation, types of innovations, and measures of organizational per-formance. Omega, International Journal of Management Science 24(6): 631–47.

Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individualcreative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of ManagementJournal 45 (2): 315–30.

Tierney, P., S. M. Farmer, and G. B. Graen. 1999. An examination ofleadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and rela-tionships. Personnel Psychology 52 (3): 591–620.

Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation.Management Science 32 (5): 590–607.

Venkatraman, N. 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: Towardverbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review14 (3): 423–44.

Wang, C. L., and P. K. Ahmed. 2004. The development and validation of theorganisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factoranalysis. European Journal of Innovation Management 7 (4): 303–13.

Woodman, R. W., J. E. Sawyer, and R. W. Griffin. 1993. Toward a theory oforganizational creativity. Academy of Management Review 18 (2): 293–321.

Woodside, A. G. 2005. Firm orientations, innovativeness, and businessperformance: Advancing a system dynamics view following a commenton Hult, Hurley, and Knight’s 2004 study. Industrial Marketing Man-agement 34 (3): 275–79.

Zaltman, G., R. Duncan, and J. Holbek. 1973. Innovations and organiza-tions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.


Organizational Innovativeness: Construct Development and Cross-Cultural Validation

Documents

Transcript of Organizational Innovativeness: Construct Development and Cross-Cultural Validation