IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/53man2016.html

Determinants of Employee Innovative Behavior: Do Foreign and Domestic Companies in Russia Differ?

Author

Listed:
  • A.S. Gogoleva

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • E.S. Balabanova

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Azer G. Efendiev

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

This paper investigates employees’ individual innovative behavior. Three main stages of innovative process – new ideas generation, their promotion and implementation – are examined. 623 Russian employees of domestic and foreign companies operating in Russia were surveyed. The results show high significance of individual determinants (status and self-assessment of professional competence), favorable organizational environment (managerial incentives) and types of decision-making for all three stages of innovative process. The authors’ main proposition that foreign companies demonstrate higher level of individual innovative activity was not confirmed but qualitative distinctions at all three stages of innovative process were revealed.

Suggested Citation

  • A.S. Gogoleva & E.S. Balabanova & Azer G. Efendiev, 2016. "Determinants of Employee Innovative Behavior: Do Foreign and Domestic Companies in Russia Differ?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 53/MAN/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:53man2016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wp.hse.ru/data/2016/11/28/1112777273/53MAN2016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    3. Castellacci, Fulvio & Natera, Jose Miguel, 2013. "The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 579-594.
    4. Evgeny Yassin & Nadezhda Lebedeva, 2009. "Culture and Innovation: Approach to the Problem," Foresight and STI Governance, National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 3(2), pages 16-26.
    5. Igor Gurkov, 2011. "Innovative actions and innovation (in)capabilities of Russian industrial companies: a further extension of observations," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 507-516, May.
    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. Irena A. Esaulova, 2020. "Company innovative values differentiation in the context of personal mechanisms of employee proactivity and work types," Upravlenets, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 41-52, April.

    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. Nicola Bellini & Jukka Teras & Hakan Ylinenpaa, 2012. "Science and Technology Parks in the Age of Open Innovation. The Finnish Case," Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, Niccolò Cusano University, issue 1 Innovat, pages 25-44.
    2. Francesco Aiello & Paola Cardamone & Valeria Pupo, 2019. "New evidence on the firm-university linkages in Europe. The role of meritocratic management practices," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(6), pages 813-828, November.
    3. Titze, Mirko & Brachert, Matthias & Günther, Jutta & Schwartz, Michael, 2010. "Die Identifikation von Wissenschaftsräumen: Eine Konzeptstudie über methodische Ansätze sowie Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der empirischen Erfassung," IWH-Sonderhefte 5/2010, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    4. Chen, Wei & Song, Hongti, 2024. "National innovation system: Measurement of overall effectiveness and analysis of influencing factors," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    5. Ryan, Paul & Geoghegan, Will & Hilliard, Rachel, 2018. "The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 15-27.
    6. Peine, Alexander, 2008. "Technological paradigms and complex technical systems--The case of Smart Homes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 508-529, April.
    7. Donato Iacobucci, 2014. "Designing and Implementing a Smart Specialisation Strategy at Regional Level: Some Open Questions," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1), pages 107-126.
    8. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & van den Berg, Jesse & Koch, Joost & Hekkert, Marko P., 2015. "Smart innovation policy: How network position and project composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1094-1107.
    9. Faïz Gallouj & Antonello Zanfei, 2013. "Innovation in public services: Filling a gap in the literature," Post-Print halshs-01114107, HAL.
    10. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    11. Sergio G Lazzarini & Luiz F Mesquita & Felipe Monteiro & Aldo Musacchio, 2021. "Leviathan as an inventor: An extended agency model of state-owned versus private firm invention in emerging and developed economies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(4), pages 560-594, June.
    12. Margit Kirs & Veiko Lember & Erkki Karo, 2021. "Technology transfer in economic periphery: Emerging patterns and policy challenges," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(6), pages 677-706, November.
    13. Havas, Attila, 2014. "Types of knowledge and diversity of business-academia collaborations: Implications for measurement and policy," MPRA Paper 65908, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 May 2015.
    14. Ana Ferreira & Ana Lúcia Teixeira, 2016. "Intra- And Extra-Organisational Foundations Of Innovation Processes — The Information And Communication Technology Sector Under The Crisis In Portugal," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(06), pages 1-44, August.
    15. Arnold Verbeek & Koenraad Debackere & Marc Luwel, 2003. "Science cited in patents: A geographic "flow" analysis of bibliographic citation patterns in patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 241-263, October.
    16. Diego R. Moraes Silva & André T. Furtado & Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2018. "University-industry R&D cooperation in Brazil: a sectoral approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 285-315, April.
    17. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 3(1), pages 25-35, March.
    18. Leydesdorff, Loet & Dolfsma, Wilfred & Van der Panne, Gerben, 2006. "Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among 'technology, organization, and territory'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 181-199, March.
    19. Paola Cardamone & Valeria Pupo, 2015. "R&D Cooperation Between Firms And Universities. Some Evidence In Five European Countries," Working Papers 201501, Università della Calabria, Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica e Finanza "Giovanni Anania" - DESF.
    20. Marco Capasso & Elena Cefis & Koen Frenken, 2016. "Spatial Differentiation in Industrial Dynamics. The Case of the Netherlands (1994–2005)," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 107(3), pages 316-330, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • M12 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hig:wpaper:53man2016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.