Advertisement

Discussion of findings and implications for theory and practice

Abstract

In the following, empirical findings are discussed and theoretical implications are highlighted. The present study’s findings are discussed in the order of the underlying hypotheses testing. Hence, results regarding both personality measures are discussed first. This is particularly useful, since the variable ‘personality — go-getting’ has also been used as a covariate for some hypotheses. Accordingly, group means have been adjusted for that variable. The effects on the results of the other dependent variables will be interpreted. Although no hypothesis has been formulated regarding the employees’ overall job satisfaction, results for this variable are discussed as well, since it has also been used as a covariate. Furthermore, figures are presented that show the group means for each variable in order to facilitate the discussion. In case variables have been adjusted by a covariate, both raw means and adjusted means are displayed.

Keywords

Intrinsic Motivation Open Innovation Management Support Business Unit Extrinsic Motivation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

o

  1. O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 488.Google Scholar
  2. Chatman, J. A. and Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: a model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diener, E., Larsen, R. J. and Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person x situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(3): 582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Sundgren, M., Dimenas, E., Gustafsson, J. E. and Seiart, M. (2005). Drivers of organizational creativity: a path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D. R&D Management, 35(4): 366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A. and Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5): 952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A. and Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5): 951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sundgren, M., Dimenas, E., Gustafsson, J. E. and Seiart, M. (2005). Drivers of organizational creativity: a path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D. R&D Management, 35(4): 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 128 f.Google Scholar
  10. Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the MH syndrome. R&D Management, 36(4): 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. pp. 136 ff.Google Scholar
  12. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 148 ff.Google Scholar
  13. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 149.Google Scholar
  14. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 193 ff.Google Scholar
  15. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 197 f.Google Scholar
  16. Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2): 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 137.Google Scholar
  18. Laden, K. (1996). ‘Not Invented There,’ or, the other person’s dessert always looks better! Research-Technology Management, 39(6): 10.Google Scholar
  19. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 199.Google Scholar
  20. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 173.Google Scholar
  21. Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. p. 53.Google Scholar
  22. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 274.Google Scholar
  23. Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L. and Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: an application to e-business. Journal of Marketing, 66(3): 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L. and Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: an application to e-business. Journal of Marketing, 66(3): 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L. and Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: an application to e-business. Journal of Marketing, 66(3): 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L. and Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: an application to e-business. Journal of Marketing, 66(3): 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van de Ven, A. H. and Chu, Y.-H. (1989). A psychometric assessment of the Minnesota innovation survey. In: Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies. Oxford: 55–103.Google Scholar
  28. van de Ven, A. H. and Chu, Y.-H. (1989). A psychometric assessment of the Minnesota innovation survey. In: Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies. Oxford: 75.Google Scholar
  29. van de Ven, A. H. and Grazman, D. N. (1997). Technological innovation, learning, and leadership. In: Garud, R., Nayyar, P. and Shapira, Z. (Eds.).Technological innovation: oversights and foresight. New York: 279.Google Scholar
  30. de Brentani, U. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: impact on performance of international new product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5): 318.Google Scholar
  31. Hurmelinna, P., Kylaheiko, K. and Jauhiainen, T. (2007). The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis. Technovation, 27(3): 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 73.Google Scholar
  33. Vitt, J. (1998). Schlüsselerfinder in der industriellen Forschung und Entwicklung: Strategien für das Akquisitionsmanagement in Unternehmen. Wiesbaden. pp. 178 f.Google Scholar
  34. Vitt, J. (1998). Schlüsselerfinder in der industriellen Forschung und Entwicklung: Strategien für das Akquisitionsmanagement in Unternehmen. Wiesbaden. pp. 6 f.Google Scholar
  35. Brast, C. (2006). Post Merger Integration betrieblicher Forschung und Entwicklung (F&E). Wiesbaden. pp. 237 ff.Google Scholar
  36. Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C. L. (1993). The role of culture compatibility in successful organizational marriage. Academy of Management Executive, 7(2): 68.Google Scholar
  37. Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. Eds. (2006). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford. p. 288.Google Scholar
  38. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B. and Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2): 882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Crowne, D. P. and Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: studies in evaluative dependence. New York. p. 109.Google Scholar
  40. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B. and Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2): 888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rivette, K. G. and Kline, D. (2000). Rembrandts in the attic: unlocking the hidden value of patents. Boston.Google Scholar
  42. Davis, J. L. and Harrison, S. S. (2001). Edison in the boardroom: how leading companies realize value from their intellectual assets. New York.Google Scholar
  43. Kline, D. (2003). Sharing the corporate crown jewels. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3): 89–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr.Th. Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008

Personalised recommendations