A Chain Multiple Mediation Model Linking Strategic, Management, and Technological Innovations to Firm Competitiveness

Han, Chen; Gao, Shanxing

doi:10.7819/rbgn.v21i5.4030

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Rev. Bras. Gest. Neg. (Online) 21 (04) • Oct-Dec 2019 • https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v21i5.4030 copy

A Chain Multiple Mediation Model Linking Strategic, Management, and Technological Innovations to Firm Competitiveness

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Purpose:

This study attempts to build an integrated framework to discuss the influence of three types of innovations, i.e. strategic, management, and technological innovations, on firm competitiveness.

Design/methodology/approach:

Paired survey responses are collected from 303 firms located in China. A confirmatory factor analysis is implemented with SPSS AMOS software to check the reliability and validity of all measures through structural equation modeling. Four hypotheses are empirically examined with SPSS PROCESS Macro in combination with a bias-corrected bootstrapping technique to test the chain multiple mediation model linking strategic, management, and technological innovations to firm competitiveness.

Findings:

Although strategic, management, and technological innovations are carried out at different organizational levels, they formulate a holistic framework to jointly improve firm competitiveness. Strategic innovation strengthens firm competitiveness through three parallel routes, i.e. via management innovation, via technological innovation, and via the serial mediating mechanism of management and technological innovations. Also, the mediation effect of management innovation is significantly stronger than that of technological innovation.

Originality/value:

This study integrates strategic, management, and technological innovations into the process of improving firm competitiveness to account for their joint influences, challenging the conventional paradigm where different types of innovations are investigated separately. Cross-domain knowledge flow, exchange, and combination are realized within the broad innovation construct.

Keywords:
strategic innovation; management innovation; technological innovation; firm competitiveness; chain multiple mediation

Models	χ2	df	P	χ2/df	GFI	CFI	IFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
(i) One-factor model	951.037	90	p<0.001	10.567	0.660	0.661	0.663	0.605	0.108	0.178
(ii) Two-factor model	680.022	89	p<0.001	7.641	0.732	0.767	0.769	0.726	0.096	0.148
(iii) Three-factor model	458.032	87	p<0.001	5.265	0.797	0.854	0.855	0.824	0.079	0.119
(iv) Four-factor model	196.207	84	p<0.001	2.336	0.922	0.956	0.956	0.945	0.049	0.067

Variables	Items	Standardized factor loadings	AVE	Cronbach’s α	Composite Reliability
strategic innovation	Compared to your major competitors, how would you rate your firm’s innovativeness in the following areas:
	Our business model is quite unique.	0.768	67.29%	0.890	0.892
	Our strategies are different from other firms in our industry.	0.807
	Our firm strives to maintain the uniqueness of our strategies.	0.867
	Our strategies have great potential value.	0.836
management innovation	Compared to your major competitors, how would you rate your firm’s innovativeness in the following areas:
	We are more innovative than our competitors in deciding what methods to use to achieve our targets and objectives.	0.762	57.59%	0.838	0.844
	We are more innovative than our competitors in initiating new procedures or systems.	0.795
	We are more innovative than our competitors in developing new ways of achieving our targets and objectives.	0.808
	We are more innovative than our competitors in initiating changes in the job contents and work methods of our staff.	0.662
technological innovation	Compared to your major competitors, how would you rate your firm’s innovativeness in the following areas:
	developing new products, processes, and technologies	0.705	62.12%	0.831	0.830
	conducting revolutionary scientific research and technological inventions	0.783
	developing highly original and innovative products and services	0.868
firm competitiveness	Compared to your major competitors, how would you rate your firm’s competitiveness in the following areas:
	We often defeat our competitors in the marketplace.	0.689	62.96%	0.867	0.871
	Our company can provide higher quality products and services to customers.	0.729
	Our company can recognize market changes in competition rules more promptly.	0.878
	Our company can respond to new market opportunities more promptly.	0.861

Variables	Mean	S.D.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. firm age	2.575	0.951	1
2. firm size	6.457	1.971	0.498^**	1
3. ownership type	0.386	0.488	0.315^**	0.213^**	1
4. hi-tech	0.452	0.499	-0.042	0.042	-0.230^**	1
5. industry competition	3.617	0.830	0.154^**	0.089	-0.096	-0.029	1
6. industry development stage	2.558	0.535	0.288^**	0.203^**	0.128^*	-0.111	0.182^**	1
7. strategic innovation	4.708	1.152	-0.129^*	0.009	-0.243^**	0.152^**	0.111	-0.007	0.820
8. management innovation	4.696	0.941	-0.090	0.008	-0.060	0.025	0.085	-0.051	0.528^**	0.759
9. technological innovation	4.670	1.207	-0.084	0.073	-0.178^**	0.322^**	0.084	0.043	0.464^**	0.379^**	0.788
10. firm competitiveness	4.963	0.963	-0.084	0.027	-0.196^**	0.218^**	0.038	-0.066	0.544^**	0.525^**	0.419^**	0.793

	Coefficient	SE	LLCI (95%)	ULCI (95%)
Total effect	0.430	0.042	0.347	0.513
Direct effect	0.243	0.048	0.149	0.338
Indirect effects
Total indirect effect	0.187	0.035	0.124	0.261
Route 1: via management innovation	0.146	0.030	0.091	0.211
Route 2: via management and technological innovations	0.012	0.008	0.001	0.032
Route 3: via technological innovation	0.029	0.017	0.001	0.068
Route 1 minus route 2	0.135	0.033	0.074	0.203
Route 1 minus route 3	0.117	0.036	0.054	0.195
Route 2 minus route 3	-0.017	0.015	-0.058	0.003
Completely standardized indirect effect (ab_cs)
	Coefficient	SE	LLCI (95%)	ULCI (95%)
Total indirect effect	0.222	0.041	0.149	0.310
Route 1: via management innovation	0.174	0.034	0.112	0.246
Route 2: via management and technological innovations	0.014	0.009	0.001	0.038
Route 3: via technological innovation	0.034	0.021	0.001	0.082
Percent mediation (P_M)
Total indirect effect	0.434	0.093	0.276	0.635
Route 1: via management innovation	0.340	0.075	0.212	0.515
Route 2: via management and technological innovations	0.027	0.019	0.001	0.077
Route 3: via technological innovation	0.067	0.042	0.001	0.166

Hypothesis	Path	Standardized indirect effect	Significant or not¹	Result
1	Strategic inn.→management inn.→competitiveness	0.146	Yes	Supported
2	Strategic inn.→technological inn.→competitiveness	0.029	Yes	Supported
3	Mediation effect: management inn.>technological inn.	0.146>0.029	Yes	Supported
4	Strategic inn.→management inn.→technological inn.→competitiveness	0.012	Yes	Supported

Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado, Av. da Liberdade, 532, 01.502-001 , São Paulo, SP, Brasil , (+55 11) 3272-2340 , (+55 11) 3272-2302, (+55 11) 3272-2302 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rbgn@fecap.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] 1.
Chen Han, Bachelor’s degree in English and Finance and PhD candidate in Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, P.R. China. E-mail: hanchen0219@stu.xjtu.edu.cn

Contribution	Chen Han	Shanxing Gao
1. Definition of research problem	√	√
2. Development of hypotheses or research questions (empirical studies)	√
3. Development of theoretical propositions (theoretical work)	√
4. Theoretical foundation/ Literature review	√
5. Definition of methodological procedures	√
6. Data collection	√	√
7. Statistical analysis	√
8. Analysis and interpretation of data	√
9. Critical revision of the manuscript	√
10. Manuscript writing	√
11. Other (supervision)		√