IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v70y2017icp193-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managerial disposition and front-end innovation success

Author

Listed:
  • Mohan, Mayoor
  • Voss, Kevin E.
  • Jiménez, Fernando R.

Abstract

The link between innovation culture and firm performance is well established. However, the specific mechanism via which innovation culture facilitates better managerial decision-making in front-end innovation remains unknown. Based on manager activation theory, the authors propose that innovation culture enables decision-making comprehensiveness—the full exploration of new ideas—by inhibiting the deleterious effects of the fear of negative evaluation and allowing managers to apply themselves to those areas in which they feel most competent. In turn, decision-making comprehensiveness is positively related to front-end innovation success. The model was tested with survey data collected from a sample of 172 innovation decision-makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohan, Mayoor & Voss, Kevin E. & Jiménez, Fernando R., 2017. "Managerial disposition and front-end innovation success," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 193-201.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:70:y:2017:i:c:p:193-201
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296316305069
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Trautmann & Ferdinand Vieider & Peter Wakker, 2008. "Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 225-243, June.
    2. Van de Ven, Andrew R., 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Agricultural Research Policy Seminar 139708, University of Minnesota Extension.
    3. Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 590-607, May.
    4. García-Granero, Ana & Llopis, Óscar & Fernández-Mesa, Anabel & Alegre, Joaquín, 2015. "Unraveling the link between managerial risk-taking and innovation: The mediating role of a risk-taking climate," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1094-1104.
    5. Fox, Craig R. & Weber, Martin, 2002. "Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 476-498, May.
    6. Ali, Murad & Park, Kichan, 2016. "The mediating role of an innovative culture in the relationship between absorptive capacity and technical and non-technical innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1669-1675.
    7. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    8. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1998. "A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(7), pages 879-895, July.
    9. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    10. Cleveland, Mark & Rojas-Méndez, José I. & Laroche, Michel & Papadopoulos, Nicolas, 2016. "Identity, culture, dispositions and behavior: A cross-national examination of globalization and culture change," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 1090-1102.
    11. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226316529 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    13. Taylor, Kimberly A., 1995. "Testing Credit and Blame Attributions as Explanation for Choices under Ambiguity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 128-137, November.
    14. William M. P. Klein & Jennifer L. Cerully & Matthew M. Monin & Don A. Moore, 2010. "Ability, chance, and ambiguity aversion: Revisiting the competence hypothesis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(3), pages 192-199, June.
    15. Curley, Shawn P. & Yates, J. Frank & Abrams, Richard A., 1986. "Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 230-256, October.
    16. Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & Ashutosh Patil, 2006. "Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1865-1883, December.
    17. Geert Hofstede, 1994. "Management Scientists Are Human," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 4-13, January.
    18. Chen, Shouming & Bu, Miao & Wu, Sibin & Liang, Xin, 2015. "How does TMT attention to innovation of Chinese firms influence firm innovation activities? A study on the moderating role of corporate governance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1127-1135.
    19. Karan Girotra & Christian Terwiesch & Karl T. Ulrich, 2010. "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 591-605, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dziallas, Marisa, 2020. "How to evaluate innovative ideas and concepts at the front-end?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 502-518.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. José Lara Resende & George Wu, 2010. "Competence effects for choices involving gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 109-132, April.
    2. Ashish Varma & Kaushal Bhalotia & Karan Gambhir, 2020. "Innovating for competitive advantage: managerial risk-taking ability counterbalances management controls," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(2), pages 389-409, June.
    3. Fox, Craig R. & Weber, Martin, 2002. "Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 476-498, May.
    4. Venkatraman, Srinivasan & Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D., 2006. "Multiple prospect framing and decision behavior: The mediational roles of perceived riskiness and perceived ambiguity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-73, September.
    5. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    6. Matthias Gysler & Jamie Kruse & Renate Schubert, 2002. "Ambiguity and Gender Differences in Financial Decision Making: An Experimental Examination of Competence and Confidence Effects," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 02/23, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    7. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    8. Sophie Hooge & Milena Chen & Dominique Laousse, 2019. "Managing the emergence of concepts in fuzzy front end: a framework of strategic performance and emerging process of innovation briefs," Post-Print hal-02167857, HAL.
    9. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Embedded lead users—The benefits of employing users for corporate innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 168-180.
    10. Stefan Trautmann & Ferdinand Vieider & Peter Wakker, 2008. "Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 225-243, June.
    11. Anna Maffioletti & Michele Santoni, 2019. "Emotion and Knowledge in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(4), pages 1-28, September.
    12. Zhihua Li & Julia Müller & Peter P. Wakker & Tong V. Wang, 2018. "The Rich Domain of Ambiguity Explored," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3227-3240, July.
    13. Keck, Steffen & Diecidue, Enrico & Budescu, David V., 2014. "Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-71.
    14. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    15. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2015. "A test of mechanical ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 153-162.
    16. repec:fgv:epgrbe:v:65:n:3:a:2 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Smithson, Michael, 1999. "Conflict Aversion: Preference for Ambiguity vs Conflict in Sources and Evidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 179-198, September.
    18. Fairley, Kim & Sanfey, Alan & Vyrastekova, Jana & Weitzel, Utz, 2012. "Social risk and ambiguity in the trust game," MPRA Paper 42302, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Cédric Lesage & Yuan Ding & Thomas Jeanjean & Hervé Stolowy, 2009. "An experiment in the economic consequences of additional disclosure: The case of the Fair Value of Unlisted Equity Investments," Post-Print hal-00495573, HAL.
    20. K. P. M. Winssen & R. C. Kleef & W. P. M. M. Ven, 2016. "Potential determinants of deductible uptake in health insurance: How to increase uptake in The Netherlands?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1059-1072, December.
    21. Roca, Mercè & Maule, A. John, 2009. "The effects of endowment on the demand for probabilistic information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 56-66, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:70:y:2017:i:c:p:193-201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nithya Sathishkumar). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.