The effects of organizational learning and innovativeness on organizational performance in the service provision sector

Os efeitos da aprendizagem e inovatividade organizacional sobre o desempenho organizacional no setor de prestação de serviços

Abstracts

Abstract

The objective of this study is to analyze the relationships between learning orientation, organizational innovativeness, and organizational performance in hotels and lodging establishments in Santa Catarina, Brazil. The methodological procedures employed to achieve this objective are grounded in the survey method and the study is of a descriptive nature. Structural equations modeling techniques were used to assess relationships between constructs and the final sample comprised 162 managers of hotels and lodging establishments in Santa Catarina. The main findings are as follows: (1) learning orientation has a positive and direct influence on organizational innovativeness; (2) organizational innovativeness does not significantly affect organizational performance; and (3) learning orientation does not have a positive relationship with organizational performance. It is therefore concluded that management of hotels and lodging establishments should take a proactive approach to their human resources, to raise employee awareness about actions that improve organizational learning and innovativeness, so they can have a positive impact on organizational performance.

Keywords:
Learning orientation; Organizational innovativeness; Organizational performance; Hotels and lodging establishments

Resumo

Este estudo objetivou avaliar o relacionamento entre orientação para a aprendizagem, inovatividade organizacional e desempenho organizacional nos meios de hospedagem de Santa Catarina. Os procedimentos metodológicos utilizados para obter respostas aos objetivos que orientaram este estudo seguiram as etapas do método survey, com características de um estudo de natureza descritiva. Para avaliação da relação entre os construtos, utilizou-se a técnica de modelagem de equações estruturais com uma amostra final 162 gestores de meios de hospedagens catarinenses. Como principais resultados obteve-se que: (1) a orientação para aprendizagem exerce uma influência positiva e direta sobre a inovatividade organizacional; (2) a inovatividade organizacional não influencia significativamente o desempenho organizacional; (3) a orientação para aprendizagem não possui relacionamento positivo com o desempenho organizacional. Verifica-se assim que a gestão de meios de hospedagem deve ter uma abordagem proativa frente à condução dos seus recursos humanos, a fim de conscientizar os funcionários para ações que melhorem a aprendizagem organizacional e a inovatividade, para que assim possam impactar positivamente no desempenho organizacional.

Palavras-chave:
Orientação para aprendizagem; Inovatividade organizacional; Desempenho organizacional; Meios de hospedagem

1 Introduction

Reconfiguration of the business world has placed ever greater value on knowledge as an important organizational resource, while the importance of innovations has gained ground in both academic and business circles. In recognition of knowledge as a factor in the success of organizations, learning-oriented organizations have emerged. In Brazil, there is currently growing interest in, and increasing discussion of, the subject of organizational learning within business studies (Querol et al., 2014).

It is possible to promote organizational learning by fostering creativity and making space for sharing ideas, in other words, by creating a business culture that is oriented towards development of knowledge. In turn, this context provides incentives for development of the capacity to create innovations, through introduction of new products, services or processes, as pointed out by Sinkula (1994) and by Slater & Narver (1995), who consider that learning orientation is an important characteristic for creation of organizational innovativeness.

Organizational innovativeness is increasingly considered important for firms because it is a characteristic that is inherent to the organization and one that can become a valuable and difficult to imitate resource. Hurley & Hult (1998) and Hult et al. (2004) agree that innovativeness means that a firm is willing to innovate, to implement new ideas, and to abandon outdated attitudes that no longer achieve the expected results for the organization.

As illustrated by the above, it has been shown that learning orientation and organizational innovativeness are factors that can be critical to the success of organizations in environments in which competition is constantly increasing. It is therefore believed that these characteristics can help firms to create differentiating factors that will allow them to get ahead of the competition.

In turn, these two characteristics can have a positive influence on firm performance (Sinkula, 1994; Slater & Narver, 1995; Shoham et al., 2012). Many studies have been conducted in order to investigate this subject, but research gaps still remain, as pointed out by Brazilian and international authors (Calantone et al., 2002; Hult et al., 2004; Perin et al., 2006; Yeung et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2008; Tajeddini, 2010; Walsh et al., 2011).

In view of the arguments laid out above, the objective of this study is to analyze the relationships between learning orientation, organizational innovativeness, and organizational performance in hotels and lodging establishments in Santa Catarina, Brazil.

This paper’s primary contribution is theoretical, since it will further studies of the constructs organizational learning and organizational innovativeness, which are subjects that already pervade international studies, but which are still incipient in Brazil. Its empirical component is relevant to two facets of practice: business and governmental. The results will contribute to management of hotels and lodging establishments, through demonstration of the importance of learning orientation and innovativeness to businesses’ performance. From the governmental perspective, it will enable identification of bottlenecks in the Santa Catarina hotel and lodging sector, which will in turn make it possible to improve planning within the tourism industry using indicators of these organizations’ innovativeness and performance as a basis.

This paper comprises five sections. This first section consists of a brief introduction and contextualization, explaining the reasons for conducting the study. The next section discusses general concepts related to the subjects of learning orientation, organizational innovativeness, and organizational performance and also presents the relationship between the constructs and the research hypotheses. The third section covers the methodological procedures employed in the study. The fourth section presents and discusses the results and the final section is dedicated to final comments, study limitations, and suggestions for future research.

2 Theoretical foundation

2.1 Learning orientation

Once firms have recognized the importance of learning, they need to ensure that their employees continually acquire and absorb knowledge and, at the same time, they must also manage organizational knowledge (Drucker, 1993). Learning orientation is therefore defined here as an organizational attitude that is focused on learning, i.e. a learning oriented firm constantly attempts to renew its resources, through learning.

In its simplest form, organizational learning means development of new knowledge with the capacity to change the firm’s behavior. However, behavior will only undergo change if the firm is willing to learn and to incorporate a new vision based on the knowledge acquired, which will enable it to achieve superior performance to its competitors (Sinkula, 1994; Slater & Narver, 1995).

An organization that has the capacity to learn will be capable of identifying and incorporating new knowledge, allowing it to act more reliably when decisions must be taken (De Geus, 1998). This characteristic can provide a firm with greater numbers of options in terms of what actions to take and which paths to follow.

Confirming this assumption, Huysman (2001) states a learning-oriented firm ensures the conditions necessary to allow it to reap good results, by developing structures and strategies that help its employees to learn. Once these learning mechanisms are in place, results such as innovation, firm alignment with the internal and external environment, efficiency, and creation of competitive advantage can be achieved.

However, Sinkula (2002) also points out that while all organizations have the capacity to learn, not all firms are learning-oriented. It has been concluded that the principal difference between these types of firms lies in their culture. Firms with a learning-oriented attitude and which have inculcated this objective in all of the members of the firm achieve superior results (Baker & Sinkula, 2007).

Kaya & Patton (2011) also adhere to the school of thought that relates learning orientation to increased performance and competitive advantage, emphasizing that learning orientation is an important factor in the process of acquisition and dissemination of information. They point out that since interpretation of this information is shared between members of the firm, it will have a positive impact on the organization’s results, through the actions of individuals and of the firm as a whole.

Through information sharing and communication, each department is able to examine and systematically structure information. In addition to commitment to learning and having a shared vision, Zehir & Basar (2016) observe that the team’s orientation to learning is an important factor in terms of building organizational learning orientation.

The concept of learning orientation is related to an organization’s capacity for learning and to its culture and the structure of its systems. On this point, it is argued that firms must have an organizational learning capability to be learning-oriented (Eris & Ozmen, 2012).

Commitment to learning refers the degree to which a learning environment is valued and promoted within the firm, while the shared vision functions as a means for establishing values in relation to individual learning, team learning, and organizational learning (Hsu & Cheng, 2017).

Siguaw et al. (2006) summarize learning orientation as an organization-wide understanding that implies learning and utilizing knowledge to help the firm to be innovative, i.e., to increase its organizational innovativeness.

2.2 Organizational innovativeness

Few studies in the innovation literature deal with the concept of innovativeness (Siguaw et al., 2006). In fact, there are many conceptual interpretations of innovativeness (Yildiz et al., 2014) and very often they refer to the term “innovation orientation” (Manu, 1992; Siguaw et al., 2006) or to “innovation” (Hurley & Hult, 1998; McLean, 2005).

Organizational innovativeness is an organizational characteristic that is part of the firm’s culture and reflects its intention to exploit new opportunities, thereby generating the capacity to innovate and, later, to introduce the effective innovations to the firm (Subramanian, 1996; Hurley & Hult, 1998). The word innovativeness can also be understood as representing a form of measurement of the degree of novelty of an innovation, while organizational innovativeness can also be defined as a firm’s capacity or propensity to innovate or develop new products (Hurley & Hult, 1998; Garcia & Calantone, 2002; Andreassi & Sbragia, 2002).

Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour (2000) understand innovativeness as synonymous with number of innovations, which can be of any type, adopted by an organization over a given period.

This is a similar definition to that proposed by Hult et al. (2003), whose study identified innovativeness as a cultural precursor, which provides the firm with social capital as a facilitator of the behavior of a learning organization, which is focused on understanding creativity and adaptability.

However, Hurley & Hult (1998) and Hult et al. (2004) agree that a clearer definition of innovativeness could be as an aspect of a firm’s culture, its willingness, propensity, and readiness to be innovative, to test new ideas, and discard old habits. This makes innovativeness an inherent characteristic of the firm, which is a valuable and difficult to imitate resource.

Organizational innovativeness implies a proactive firm characteristic, which follows certain routines and processes in order to exploit new opportunities, rather than simply improving its existing resources (Menguc & Auh, 2006). These authors also state that for a firm to be innovative, it must adopt a new mentality or new attitude, which must be shared and disseminated throughout the organization to be effective. Innovativeness is the firm’s capacity to innovate, which can lead to development of new products, services and processes (Raj & Srivastava, 2014).

Comprehending information, whether on the basis of the team’s experience or through research, leads to learning which, in turn, serves as a reference for innovation (Melo & Pereira, 2012). Innovative companies may be inclined to use new sources of information and they may also be pioneers or adopters of new practices. These leading firms may thus hold a favorable position which they can exploit to improve performance through new processes that help them to take advantage of opportunities or performance gaps (Micheels & Gow, 2015).

Recently, Shoham et al. (2012) conducted a study in which they determined that innovativeness was a multidimensional construct. They defined five dimensions to measure organizational innovativeness, specifically: creativity, risk-taking, future orientation, openness to change, and proactiveness. Chart 1 summarizes these authors’ five dimensions.

Chart 1
Dimensions of Organizational Innovativeness.

Dimension	Characteristic
Creativity	Implementing new ideas.
Risk-taking	Committing resources to risky decisions.
Future orientation	Facilitates a firm’s adaptation in rapidly-changing markets.
Openness to change	A firm’s willingness to adopt innovations.
Proactiveness	Proactive firms anticipate changes and exploit opportunities.

• Source: Prepared by the authors, based on Shoham et al. (2012).

The dimensions listed by the authors cited above are similar to the dimensions of the entrepreneurial orientation concept developed by Miller (1983). The dimensions risk-taking and proactiveness are the same, but innovativeness has a greater focus on adoption of innovation in the firm, which should be developed through characteristics inherent to the organization, which must be creative, must be oriented towards and alert to the future, and must be open to accepting changes in the firm.

Additionally, innovativeness has been tested by other researchers in a theoretical model representing the organizational conditions that enable innovation and influence innovation performance (Quandt et al., 2015). These authors identified that innovative organizations, with strongly developed organizational culture, leadership and learning processes, achieve superior performance in development and implementation of innovations.

The survey of managers conducted for this study employed scales presented in studies by Shoham et al. (2012), both for the construct of learning orientation and for organizational innovativeness.

2.3 Organizational performance

Studies of the subject of organizational performance have attempted to identify a better means of measuring it, since this is a variable that is widely discussed in organizational studies. In 1984, Gupta & Govidarajan (1984) were already claiming that organizational performance should not be analyzed exclusively in financial terms, but that subjective indicators should also be adopted.

Furthermore, Venkatraman & Ramanujam (1986) confirmed that researchers find it difficult to obtain valid data for measuring organizational performance and Wang & Ang (2004) claim that the majority of studies adopt perception-based performance measures because of the difficulty of accessing reliable secondary data. Therefore, in cases in which reliable objective data are unavailable, indicators constructed from measures of importance versus satisfaction as perceived by managers are often used as a second option (Hoque, 2005).

Both objective and subjective methods have been employed by studies dealing with measurement of performance in the tourism industry. For example, Jogaratnam et al. (1999) conduced a study of restaurants in which they employed subjective measurement of performance indicators attempting to identify market share, cash flow, sales growth, and profitability. However, in order to validate the responses, they also asked about objective data on total sales, growth of sales, and return on sales.

Haber & Reichel (2005) studied rural tourism in Israel, concluding that merely measuring profit is not enough to identify performance in this sector. They proposed using a combination of short and long term measures, including a combination of objective and subjective data in both. Subjective variables included occupancy rate, customer satisfaction, profitability, and success at creating new products and were measured using a 5-point Likert scale. The objective measures analyzed were number of employees, revenue at three points in time, and growth in revenue.

Carvalho (2008) conducted a quantitative study involving mangers of Brazilian hotels and asked the respondents what indicators they used to manage their businesses. The study identified the following measures: occupancy rate, average daily rate, and sales per room, followed by total sales, operational margins achieved, and change in costs and expenditure.

Working from the studies mentioned above, Carvalho (2011) developed a questionnaire to be used in the Brazilian hotels and lodging industry, which he validated himself, administering it in 170 hotels in the country.

Carvalho (2011) suggested using the following measures: total sales, occupancy rate, profit margin over total sales, sales per lodging unit, average daily rate, average cost per daily rate sold, and occupancy rate as a percentage. This model was adopted in the present study for measurement of the construct organizational performance.

2.4 Relationships between the constructs and the research hypotheses

As early as 1990, Cohen & Levinthal (1990) were already stating that learning orientation has a significant relationship with firm innovative thinking. This is because this strategic orientation can be understood as a lever that enables firms to renew continuously, which, through the new knowledge acquired, builds the firm’s capacity to innovate, offering new products, services, or processes (Damanpour, 1991).

Studies that have tested the relationship between these constructs have already shown that there is a positive relationship between learning orientation and innovativeness (Hurley & Hult, 1998; Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Calantone et al., 2002). Supporting this, Calantone et al. (2002) also argue that the greater a firm’s learning orientation the stronger its degree of innovativeness.

To the extent that innovation demands new information and knowledge so that new ideas can bloom, the ability to learn more quickly than competitors may prove to be the only sustainable competitive advantage in turbulent environments (Dulger et al., 2014). The higher commitment to learning would then lead to small businesses tending to be more innovative (Tajeddini & Mueller, 2009). The association between innovation and learning orientation has been demonstrated by Rhee et al. (2010), among others.

Therefore, we propose Hypothesis 1: Learning orientation has a positive influence on organizational innovativeness.

Han et al. (1998) and Baker & Sinkula (1999) have conducted studies showing that product innovation is a key element for sustainable, successful organizational performance. Hurley & Hult (1998) state that this is due to the growing need to study subjects related to the antecedents of innovation and the importance of discovering barriers to, and facilitators of, the innovation process (Henard & Szymanski, 2001).

Innovativeness has become an essential prerequisite for competitive advantage and is a determinant of performance (Van de Vrande et al., 2009). Since a firm that has innovativeness has an innovation-oriented attitude, it functions as a mechanism of differentiation between one firm and another, which can be a determinant of total sales volumes at the end of the month, and it is understood that innovativeness allows firms to achieve superior performance (Nieto & Quevedo, 2005; Olson et al., 2005; Tajeddini et al., 2006). Similarly, Shoham et al. (2012) found that organizational innovativeness had a positive influence on the performance of public sector firms.

Thus, we propose Hypothesis 2: Organizational innovativeness has a positive relationship with organizational performance.

The importance of organizational learning for a firm’s financial performance has been recognized in the literature (Ellinger et al., 2002). For example, firms that acquire a learning orientation have the capacity to predict environmental and market changes and are also willing to question and adjust their operational and management systems to achieve superior financial performance (Calantone et al., 2002).

One factor that stimulates research into the relationship between learning orientation and organizational performance is the growing number of studies investigating these two constructs, both in Brazil (Perin et al., 2004; Leopoldino & Loiola, 2010; Abbade, 2012) and internationally (Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Calantone et al., 2002; Hult et al., 2004; Lee & Tsai, 2005; Lin et al., 2008; Wang, 2008; Rhee et al., 2010; Shoham et al., 2012).

Abbade (2012) investigated relationships between market orientation, learning orientation, and organizational performance, conducting a survey of 123 small and medium enterprises in the central region of the state of Rio Grande do Sul. The results of the study indicated that learning orientation had a positive influence on organizational performance.

Another study, conducted by Suliyanto & Rahab (2012) with 150 small and medium enterprises, used structural equations modeling to attempt the identify the influence of organizational innovativeness, preceded by learning orientation, market orientation, and entrepreneurial orientation, on the organizational performance of firms. The results indicated that innovativeness has a strong influence on organizational performance.

The learning orientation approach incorporates a systems perspective, recognizing the importance of assembling the members of the organization to collectively promote a common language, shared knowledge, and joint actions, perceptions, and beliefs. This results in greater effort by the members of the organization to achieve the organization’s objectives, thereby improving its financial performance (Akgün et al., 2014).

These statements lead to Hypothesis 3: Learning orientation has a positive relationship with organizational performance.

3 Research methods

This study employs a quantitative, descriptive approach, using cross-sectional survey techniques, according to recommendations made by Malhotra (2001) and Hair et al. (2005).

The study population comprises all hotels and lodging establishments in the State of Santa Catarina. This population was chosen because of ongoing research projects studying the hotels and lodging industry and the competitiveness and sustainability of tourism destinations in Santa Catarina. The partners in these projects are the Santa Catarina industrial association (Federação das Industrias de Santa Catarina - FIESC) through its Santa Catarina industrial development program, tourism branch (PDIC 2022), and the Santa Catarina tourism agency (Santur).

In order to select the sample, which is non-probabilistic and by convenience, the hotels and lodging establishments listed by the Brazilian hotel industry association (ABIH - Associação Brasileira da Indústria de Hotéis) were investigated and a total of 166 questionnaires were returned. It should be pointed out that 116 questionnaires were collected online, using Google Drive, and 50 questionnaires were collected in loco by the researchers. After exclusion of questionnaires with missing values, the final sample comprised 162 valid observations.

The questionnaire used for data collection is inde ^{Appendix A}, and was made up of 63 questions divided into four blocks, as follows: questions 1 to 11 - control variables to characterize the firms in the sample (1); questions 12 to 18 - learning orientation variables (2), based on a study by Shoham et al. (2012); questions 19 to 53 - organizational innovativeness variables (3) based on studies by Martens (2009) and Shoham et al. (2012); and questions 54 to 63 - performance variables (4), based on Carvalho (2008, 2011).

All of the questions in the second and third blocks were measured using five-point Likert scales on which 1 is attributed to the response option disagree completely and 5 to agree completely. In the fourth block, on organizational performance, questions 54 to 58 asked about the perceived importance of performance measures, from 1 = least important to 5 = most important, and questions 59 to 63 asked how satisfied the respondents were with their organizations’ performance on each of the measures, from 1 = least satisfied to 5 = most satisfied.

The following statistical techniques were employed to analyze the data: calculation of descriptive statistics, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), conducted by Structural Equations Modeling (SEM). Standardized measures, acceptable coefficients and other analytical parameters were chosen in accordance with recommendations by Hair et al. (2005), Fávero et al. (2009), and Kline (2011).

After tabulation of the data using Microsoft Excel, descriptive analyses were conducted to describe the profile of the sample. Before analyzing the relationships between constructs with SEM, the construct learning orientation, the dimensions of organizational innovativeness, and the construct organizational performance were tested for unidimensionality using EFA. The EFA was conducted using SPSS 21.0. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using SEM with AMOS 21.0.

4 Discussion and analysis of results

4.1 Description of the profile of the sample

Initially, data were analyzed in order to identify the characteristics of the hotels and lodging establishments and their managers. Calculating descriptive statistics for the results revealed that the majority of the sample was composed of hotels (60.5%), followed by guesthouses (32.1%). With regard to size, the largest category was establishments with from 21 to 50 rental units (30.9%), followed by up to 20 rental units (29%). These hotels and lodging establishments predominantly do business in the leisure segment (31.5%), and have been doing business in the market for more than 10 years (76.5%). The survey of managers showed that 50.6% of the sample self-reported that they were male and the predominant age group was from 26 to 55 (42.6%).

4.2 Preliminary analyses

Failure to complete some of the questions in a survey is common in questionnaires based on respondents’ perceptions. This may be because the respondent forgot to fill out a given question, because of failure to understand a given utterance, or because of refusal to answer a given question. Questionnaires with missing values could cause erroneous analysis, and must therefore be excluded (Hair et al., 2005). In this study, 4 questionnaires were excluded for this reason.

The next step was to identify outliers, or atypical data, using the Mahalanobis distance (Hair et al., 2005). This analysis identified 15 outliers, but Hair et al. (2005) do not recommend excluding these data, because they consider that if they are eliminated the investigator runs the risk of improving the multivariate analysis at the cost of limiting its generalizability. Therefore, in accordance with their guidance, the data were analyzed with outliers included.

The normality of distribution of the sample data was tested by calculating asymmetry and kurtosis. If the results for these tests are between -2 and +2 for asymmetry and from -7 to +7 for kurtosis then the distribution can be considered near normal. The results of these analyses indicated that the distributions of all study variables fell within the bounds of near normality.

Multicollinearity of data is present when one variable can be predicted by the others, i.e., high rates of multicollinearity can interfere in the analysis by making it difficult to determine the true effect of the variables involved (Hair et al., 2005). Multicollinearity is assessed by calculating values for tolerance and for the variance inflation factor (VIF), where values with tolerances less than 0.19 and greater than 5.3 indicate multiple correlation exceeding 0.9, which characterizes multicollinearity. The results of this test identified no multicollinear variables.

4.3 Exploratory factor analysis: dimensionality and reliability of the scales

Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify the dimensionality of constructs, extracting principle components as suggested by Hair et al. (2005). Items were included in the construct if they met the following conditions: minimum factor loading of 0.7 and, consequently, a communality approaching 0.50, and a measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) value greater than 0.50.

It should be noted that 3 observable variables had to be removed from the construct learning orientation because they did not exhibit the minimum factor loading values stipulated or had inadequate communalities. The organizational innovativeness construct initially comprised 35 observable variables, subdivided into 5 dimensions. After this first stage of analysis, 15 variables and 4 dimensions remained. The dimensions creativity and openness to change could both be explained by just 1 factor, while the construct organizational performance retained all 5 of the variables initially proposed.

After exclusion of indicators that exhibited lower than expected values, the Kaiser-Meier-Olkin criterion (KMO) was applied to identify the set of latent dimensions in the data, which should exhibit values greater than or equal to 0.5; Bartlett’s sphericity was calculated, with a threshold for acceptability of p ≤ 0.05; and Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to test the internal consistency of variables and scale reliability, with a cutoff of greater than or equal to 0.70. Additionally, total variance explained by the constructs was also analyzed, with a minimum acceptable value of 50%, and the eigenvalue extracted for factor 1 was calculated, which should be at least 1. Table 1 lists the results of exploratory factor analysis for each of the constructs.

Table 1
Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Construct	KMO	Bartlett test	Cronbach’s alpha	Eigenvalue extracted	% variance explained
Learning orientation	0.788	p=0.000	0.819	2.646	66.140
Organizational innovativeness	0.873	p=0.000	0.898	3.202	73.329
Organizational performance	0.847	p=0.000	0.896	3.539	70.790

• Source: Research data.

4.4 Confirmatory factor analysis: structural equations modeling

The structural equations modeling method is commonly used in the applied social sciences when the objective is to analyze the relationships between three or more constructs, because it is capable of estimating multiple and interrelated relationships of dependence and is able to estimate unobserved concepts in these relationships (Hair et al., 2005).

The measures of fit calculated from the individual confirmatory factor analyses of the constructs and from the integrated model were considered satisfactory and so all of these constructs were included in the integrated model for the final analysis. Table 2 lists the fit indices used in this analysis and the minimum values required to be considered satisfactory.

Table 2
Minimum values expected for CFA.

CLASSIFICATION	MEASURE	MINIMUM EXPECTED VALUES
Absolute measures of fit	X2	p > 0.050
	GFI/AGFI	Greater than or equal to 0.9
	X2/GL	< 3.000
	RMSEA	Less than 0.080
Incremental measures of fit	NFI	Greater than 0.900
	CFI	Greater than or equal to 0.900
	TLI	Greater than or equal to 0.900

• Source: Adapted from Hair et al. (2005).

After analyzing each of the constructs individually with CFA, a general measurement model was built, for which a stable solution was sought, without identification and fit problems, using the indicators and coefficients described in the methodology section above. In the illustration, the covariances between constructs are represented by the curved, double-headed arrows.

Figure 1 shows the complete general measurement model, with all of the constructs and their respective indicators. The correlation between the dimensions learning orientation and organizational innovativeness was positive and significant, with a coefficient of 0.62. However, neither of the other relationships, learning orientation and organizational performance, or organizational innovativeness and organizational performance, were significant, with coefficients of 0.01 and 0.11 respectively.

Figure 1
General measurement model. Source: Research data.

It should be pointed that tests were conducted and the model was estimated another four times, with each of the dimensions of organizational innovativeness, in order to determine whether at least one of them had a positive impact on organizational performance, but none of them were significant.

The results were used to construct the structural model illustrated in Figure 2. In this diagram, ellipses represent latent variables, rectangles indicate observable variables, and circles represent the error terms associated with each latent or observable variable. The single-headed arrows joining ellipses to rectangles indicate reflexive relationships, while causal relationships are shown as arrows joining one ellipse to another. This shows that the only significant relationship in the model between first order constructs is the relationship between learning orientation and organizational innovativeness (β = 0.50). Neither of the other relationships, learning orientation and organizational performance, or organizational innovativeness and organizational performance, were significant.

Figure 2
Final structural model. Source: Research data.

On the basis of the estimated values shown in Figure 2, the fit indices for the final model can be considered acceptable. The value for chi-square divided by degrees of freedom (X² / df) was 1.574, which is considered valid, since Hair et al. (2005) recommend that this value should be less than 3. The values for CFI, TLI, and NFI were, respectively, 0.9935, 0.926, and 0.841, which can be considered acceptable if we follow Hair et al. (2005), who state that these values should be greater than 0.900. Finally, the RMSEA is considered to be good if it does not exceed 0.08 and since in this case it is 0.059, it can also be considered acceptable.

Based on the estimated values shown in Figure 2, the only significant relationship between first-order constructs in the model is between learning orientation and organizational innovativeness (β = 0.50).

4.5 Tests of hypotheses

Having conducted the statistical tests, this stage consists of demonstrating the extent to which the fit indices for the final model are satisfactory in terms of description of the relationships that were predicted and the results of administering the survey. The results shown below were produced using AMOS 21 software.

Chart 2 summarizes the hypotheses and their status, on the basis of analysis of significance and the magnitude of the parameters estimated (standardized factor loadings and variance).

Chart 2
Summary of hypotheses.

	Hypothesis	Standardized coefficient	P	Status
H1	Learning orientation has a positively influence on organizational innovativeness.	0.616	***	Confirmed
H2	Organizational innovativeness has a positive relationship with organizational performance.	0.171	0.192	Not confirmed
H3	Learning orientation has a positive relationship with organizational performance.	-0.093	0.460	Not confirmed

• Source: Research data

On the basis of the information shown in Chart 2, it can be concluded that H1 - Learning orientation has a positively influence on organizational innovativeness, was confirmed. Learning orientation has a positive relationship with organizational innovativeness.

Having confirmed this hypothesis, it can be stated that learning orientation supports a firm’s business innovation, increasing its employees’ creativity. When the employees / team members are encouraged to learn and develop new ideas, they will be in favor of implementing new organizational methods and business models and will incorporate new organizational strategies.

Furthermore, internal dissemination of internally generated information/knowledge by communication and interaction between team members/organizational functions and its interpretation and integration can set up an environment that is appropriate for collective business innovation efforts.

Firms that have learning orientation are more able to detect and exploit external opportunities and, consequently, to monitor and collect opportune and precise information, and to acquire information and new systems from external firms, in order to generate or transfer better management techniques and develop new commercial styles. These analyses are in agreement with the results of studies by Lemon & Sahota (2004), Jerez-Gómez et al. (2005), Chiva & Alegre (2009) and Alegre et al. (2012).

This result confirms previous studies that have concluded that learning orientation acts as a precursor of organizational innovativeness, i.e., that it has a positive relationship with this construct (Hurley & Hult, 1998; Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Calantone et al., 2002). As was shown by the authors who introduced the original construct of organizational innovativeness, the results for the relationship between these two constructs were positive.

In contrast, H2: Organizational innovativeness has a positive relationship with organizational performance, cannot be confirmed. Ferraresi (2010) studied the relationship between organizational innovativeness and organizational results with executives from Brazilian services and retail companies and also failed to find a significant relationship between these constructs. He stated that this could have been because the capacity to innovate does not alone guarantee a firm better performance, since it must implement the innovations.

Reasons that could have contributed to the failure to validate H2 include the fact that the types of customers served by the organizations surveyed are highly varied (high-income and low-income groups) and many hotels choose to provide goods/services that exactly meet their needs. This primarily means that innovativeness may not be captured in a uniform manner across the hotels surveyed, since investments in innovation may be high in some cases and low or nonexistent in others, and this was reflected in validation of the hypothesis. Another reason could be that the firms’ strategies are a response to competition and in such a diversified sample in some cases investments in innovation would be required and in others they would be unnecessary.

Furthermore, a study conducted by Abiola (2013) reported a similar result, stating that organizational innovativeness had no positive influence on the financial performance of small and medium firms that took part in a study carried out in Nigeria.

Additionally, H3: Learning orientation has a positive relationship with organizational performance, was not confirmed, which was also the case in a study by Abbade et al. (2012), who found that learning orientation did not have a significant direct relationship with organizational performance, but was mediated by market orientation. Learning orientation alone was not capable of having a positive influence on firm performance.

This result also finds support in work by Gomes & Wojahn (2017), who explained failure to confirm the same hypothesis by the indirect impact that organizational learning has on performance, i.e., that other mediating factors are needed for this hypothesis to be true. This possibility is also discussed in a study by López et al. (2005), who claimed that innovation is a mediator between learning and performance.

Confirmation of a positive relationship between learning orientation and performance could be conditional on mediation by other constructs, such as: innovativeness; capacity to absorb knowledge; and intellectual capital, among others.

5 Final comments

The primary objective of this study was to conduct research to evaluate relations between learning orientation, innovativeness, and performance in the hotel industry in Santa Catarina. With respect to the hotel sector, there are not many studies of these constructs and the this is a contribution towards increasing what is known about the relationships between them.

The results demonstrate that: (H1) learning orientation has a direct and positive influence on organizational innovativeness; (H2) organizational innovativeness does not have a significant influence on organizational performance; (H3) learning orientation does not have a positive relationship with organizational performance.

Managers could analyze the results of this study and improve the internal aspects of their hotel businesses to achieve better learning orientation and innovativeness. Even though this study did not detect relationships between these two constructs and performance, it is important to mention that in other studies this relationship was positive, demonstrating that managers of the firms studied could analyze the measures needed to achieve learning and innovation orientation, as proposed by Shoham et al. (2012), and take action to implement them, thereby improving the performance of their hotels.

With relation to H1, this study contributes to management of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), encouraging them to invest to increase innovation. Adoption of practices to adopt a learning-oriented attitude is of fundamental importance for SMEs to increase their competitiveness in the market. Managers should therefore encourage implementation of these practices in their hotels.

Managers of SMEs should take account of factors that influence learning, such as: firm values; commitment; team involvement, access to information, and routines and processes. It is also necessary that they encourage creativity; encourage new ideas and are receptive to them; make the team aware of their vision of the firm’s future; monitor the market and anticipate the firm’s competition in order to optimize the process of innovation.

With relation to H2 and H3, this study has initiated a discussion on why they were not validated in the hotel industry in Santa Catarina. It appears that in this industry the process is in an initial phase because the possible favorable influence of learning orientation and innovativeness on performance has not yet been revealed. Managers should take a proactive approach to this, making employees aware of actions that improve organizational learning and innovativeness so they can impact on performance. Every employee should be aware of their roles in delivery of the process and should be encouraged to take a proactive attitude to each task assigned.

A flexible management attitude will enable more robust correlations with performance. We believe that a twenty-first century hotel industry should be more able to improve its performance if managers take a better approach to the two variables studied. Greater use of information technology for learning would result in a greater capacity for SMEs to achieve innovation and, as a consequence, better performance.

Creation and maintenance of an environment that stimulates learning is an important aspect related to the performance of the organizations studied. Formation of working groups to improve existing routines and to create new routines will promote development of a shared language in common between the people who make up these groups, increasing their potential for assimilation and creation of new knowledge, and intensifying their potential for innovative learning (Gonzalez & Martins, 2011).

Managers can take advantage of existing knowledge from the electronic networks of other organizations and of their customers, in order to improve their business performance. In SMEs, learning orientation is dependent on the extent to which they share their knowledge and experiences with each other.

Social interactions, norms, and standard lines of communication based on trust and the willingness to cooperate between members of the SME are also of fundamental importance. This reveals the existence of a positive relationship between SMEs operating in the same environment, potentiating their innovative capabilities.. Innovative capabilities are crucial components in an SME’s strategy because they will be of help in the search for new business opportunities.

5.1 Limitations and suggestions for future research

Initially, this study’s primary limitation is related to the composition of the sample employed. The managers interviewed are from different types of hotels and lodging establishments, and were not classified by size, segment, or other attributes, which could have introduced bias to the results. It is worth mentioning that Brazil does not yet have an official classification of hotels and lodging establishments (one is currently under construction) and this could be a source of weakness in studies of this industry.

Another limitation is related to the method, since the independent and dependent variables in the questionnaire were provided by the same respondents, who provided data on the independent variable cross-sectionally. Additionally, In view of the nature of the data, the potential for generalization of the sample is a further limitation. The study was conducted in a particular national context: Brazilian hotels in general, and those located in the state of Santa Catarina in particular. It is important to point out that readers should be careful when generalizing these results to different cultural contexts.

One suggestion for further study is to replicate this study with a larger sample or in other sectors of the economy in order to determine whether hypotheses 2 and 3 would be confirmed. The three variables chosen are significant, but the study could be developed further by introducing additional relevant variables. Furthermore, the performance indicators could be extended, adding additional financial metrics and even non-financial variables in future studies.

Another prospect would be to widen the geographic area studied and compare the results with those from the original area, expanding the study to other states, to conduct a national study that covers the areas that are important for tourism in Brazil. Such an approach could have significant importance for managers in the areas studied. Another suggestion is that future studies could relate other constructs in addition to organizational innovativeness and learning orientation, in order to test whether they might have a positive influence on organizational performance. For example, relationships with entrepreneurial orientation or market orientation could be studied.

Appendix A Questionnaire.

Block 1. Profile of the respondent and characteristics of the firm

1) Name of firm and town:_____________________________________________

2) Your hotel is: a) (_ _) part of a chain b)(_ _) independent

3) Gender: a) (_ _) Male b) (_ _) Female c) (_ _) Other

4) Educational level:

a) (_ _) Primary Education b) (_ _) Some Secondary Education

c) (_ _) Graduated Secondary education d) (_ _) Some Higher Education

e) (_ _) Graduated Higher Education f) (_ _) Postgraduate

5) Age group:

a) (_ _) Less than 18 years b) (_ _) 19 to 25 years c) (_ _) 26 to 35 years

d) (_ _) 36 to 45 years e) (_ _) 46 to 55 years ` f) (_ _) Over 55 years

6) What is your job in the firm?

a) (_ _) General Manager b) (_ _) Operations Manager

c) (_ _) Sales Manager d) (_ _) Supervisor/Team Leader

e) (_ _) Other ________________________

7) How long have you been at this firm?

a) (_ _) Less than 5 years b) (_ _) 6 to 10 years c) (_ _) More than 10 years

8) In which of these categories is your firm classified?

a) (_ _) 3 star b) (_ _) 4 star c) (_ _) 5 star

9) Which of the options below best describes your hotel’s segment?

a) (_ _) Entirely business

b) (_ _) Predominantly business

c) (_ _) Business and leisure in equal proportions

d) (_ _) Predominantly leisure

e) (_ _) Entirely leisure

10) How long has your firm been in the market?

a) (_ _) Less than 5 years b) (_ _) 6 to 10 years c) (_ _) More than 10 years

11) How many employees does the firm have?

a) (_ _) Less than 19 b) (_ _) 20 to 99 c) (_ _) 100 to 499 d) (_ _) More than 499.

Block 2. Learning orientation

Please indicate the extent to which you agree that the statements below describe your firm, where 1 means disagree completely and 5 means agree completely.

Statements about the firm:	1 Disagree Completely	2 Disagree	3 Neutral	4 Agree	5 Completely Agree
12 - The firm believes that employee learning is an investment, not a cost.
13 - The firm has basic values that include learning as a key factor in improvement of processes and services.
14 - Since learning has been eliminated at the firm, we are compromising our organization.
15 - We agree that the ability to learn is a key factor in improvement of services and processes.
16 - The team is involved in decision-making on which areas need improving.
17 - I have access to the data that I need to perform my job in an efficient and effective manner.
18 - The organization does not have enough resources to implement systematic and adequate learning processes.

Block 3. Organizational innovativeness

Please indicate the extent to which you agree that the statements below describe your firm, where 1 means disagree completely and 5 means agree completely.

Statements about the firm:	1 Disagree Completely	2 Disagree	3 Neutral	4 Agree	5 Completely Agree
19 - Creativity is encouraged at the firm.
20 - The firm’s managers expect people to be useful in problem solving.
21 - We are constantly seeking to develop and provide new and improved services.
22 - Our ability to work creatively is respected by the leadership.
23 - We encourage use of original solutions when we deal with problems in the workplace.
24 - We are engaged and support new ideas, innovations, experiments, and creative processes.
25 - There are established practices at the firm for developing creativity.
26 - The firm is always seeking to develop new answers.
27 - The firm is quick to provide assistance for development of new ideas.
28 - The firm is open and receptive to new ideas.
29 - The people at the firm are always seeking for new and recent ways of dealing with problems.
30 - The firm seeks suggestions for changes to working routines.
31 - The firm is receptive to changes to working routines.
32 - The firm puts new knowledge learnt in training and education into practice.
33 - The firm sets a series of realistic objectives.
34 - The firm effectively guarantees that all managers and workers share the same vision for the future.
35 - The firm transmits a clear sense of future direction to employees.
36 - The firm has a realistic vision of the future for all departments and employees.
37 - The firm recognizes future opportunities.
38 - The firm monitors the market.
39 - The firm identifies customers’ future needs.
40 - The firm believes that high risks are worth it for great rewards.
41 - The firm encourages high risk strategies, despite knowing that some will fail.
42 - The firm likes to take high risk options.
43 - The firm adopts a vision that is not conservative in decision-making.
44 - The firm takes a strong and aggressive position in decision-making to maximize the likelihood of exploiting potential opportunities.
45 - The firm takes large scale actions to achieve the objectives of the organization.
46 - The firm does not like to “play safe”.
47 - The employees are constantly seeking new opportunities for the organization.
48 - We take initiatives to mold the environment to take advantage.
49 - We are always first to launch new services.
50 - We normally take the initiative to introduce new administrative techniques.
51 - The firm anticipates the competition.
52 - The firm anticipates problems.
53 - The firm has the people, resources, and equipment needed to develop new services.

Block 4. Organizational performance

Comparing the indicators below, please indicate the IMPORTANCE of each one to reflect your firm’s performance. The more important an indicator is to you, the closer to 5 you should score it, and the less important it is, the closer to 1 it should be scored.

Performance	(-) Importance (+)
	1	2	3	4	5
54 - Total sales
55 - Average occupation rate
56 - Average daily rate
57 - Sales per rental unit
58 - Average cost per unit sold

Now, comparing the same items as above, please indicate how SATISFIED your firm is with regard to each of these performance indicators. The more satisfied you are with an indicator, the closer to 5 you should score it, and the less satisfied you are, the closer to 1 it should be scored.

Performance	(-) Satisfaction (+)
	1	2	3	4	5
59 - Total sales
60 - Average occupation rate
61 - Average daily rate
62 - Sales per rental unit
63 - Average cost per unit sold

• How to cite: Werlang, N. B., & Rossetto, C. R. (2019). The effects of organizational learning and innovativeness on organizational performance in the service provision sector. Gestão & Produção, 26(3), e3641. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X3641-19
• Financial support: None.

References

• Abbade, E. B. (2012). O efeito da orientação para a aprendizagem no desempenho organizacional das empresas da região central do Rio Grande do Sul. Revista de Gestão, 19(2), 241-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.5700/rege461
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5700/rege461
• Abbade, E. B., Zanini, R. R., & Souza, A. M. (2012). Orientação para aprendizagem, orientação para mercado e desempenho organizacional: evidências empíricas. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 16(1), 118-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552012000100008
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552012000100008
• Abiola, I. (2013). Organizational learning, innovativeness and financial performance of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMES) in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), 179-186.
• Akgün, A. E., Ince, H., İmamoglu, S. Z., Keskin, H., & Kocoglu, İ. (2014). The mediator role of learning and business innovativeness between total quality management and financial performance. International Journal of Production Research, 52(3), 888-901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.843796
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.843796
• Alegre, J., Pla-Barber, J., Chiva, R., & Villar, C. (2012). Organisational learning capability, product innovation performance and export intensity. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24(5), 511-526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.674672
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.674672
• Andreassi, T., & Sbragia, R. (2002). Relações entre indicadores de P&D e de resultado empresarial. Revista de Administração, 37(1), 72-84.
• Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070399274002
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070399274002
• Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. (2007). Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation programs? An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4), 316-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00254.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00254.x
• Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6
• Carvalho, C. E. (2008). Indicadores de desempenho utilizados na indústria hoteleira (Tese de doutorado). Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Biguaçu.
• Carvalho, C. E. (2011). Relacionamento entre ambiente organizacional, capacidades, orientação estratégica e desempenho: um estudo no setor hoteleiro (Tese de doutorado). Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Biguaçu.
• Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2009). Organizational learning capability and job satisfaction: an empirical assessment in the ceramic tile industry. British Journal of Management, 20(3), 323-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00586.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00586.x
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99(397), 569-596. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2233763
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2233763
• Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
• De Geus, A. (1998). A empresa viva: como as organizações podem aprendem a prosperar a se perpetuar Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
• Drucker, P. (1993). Sociedade pós-capitalista São Paulo: Pioneira.
• Dulger, M., Alpay, G., Yilmaz, C., & Bodur, M. (2014). How do learning orientation and strategy yield innovativeness and superior firm performance? South African Journal of Business Management, 45(2), 35-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v45i2.123
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v45i2.123
• Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and firm’s financial performance: an empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 5-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1010
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1010
• Eris, E. D., & Ozmen, O. N. T. (2012). The effect of market orientation, learning orientation and innovativeness on firm performance: a research from turkish logistics sector. International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research, 5(1), 77-108.
• Fávero, L. P., Belfiore, P., Silva, F. L., & Chan, B. L. (2009). Análise de dados: modelagem multivariada para tomada de decisões Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
• Ferraresi, A. (2010). Gestão do conhecimento, orientação para o mercado, inovatividade e resultados organizacionais: um estudo em empresas instaladas no Brasil (Tese de doutorado). Faculdade e Economia, Administração e Contabilidade, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
• Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00132-1
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00132-1
• Gomes, G., & Wojahn, R. M. (2017). Organizational learning capability, innovation and performance: study in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES). Revista ADM, 52(2), 163-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.12.003
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.12.003
• Gonzalez, R. V. D., & Martins, M. F. (2011). Melhoria contínua e aprendizagem organizacional: múltiplos casos em empresas do setor automobilístico. Gestão & Produção, 18(3), 473-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2011000300003
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2011000300003
• Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (2000). The impact of organizational context on innovation adoption in commercial banks. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1), 14-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.820722
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.820722
• Gupta, A. K., & Govidarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 25-41.
• Haber, S., & Reichel, A. (2005). Identifying performance measures of small ventures - the case of the tourism industry. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(3), 257-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00137.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00137.x
• Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Análise multivariada de dados Porto Alegre: Bookman.
• Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 30-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200403
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200403
• Henard, D., & Szymanski, D. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 362-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.3.362.18861
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.3.362.18861
• Hoque, Z. (2005). Linking environmental uncertainty to non-financial performance measures and performance: a research note. The British Accounting Review, 37(4), 471-481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2005.08.003
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2005.08.003
• Hsu, C. C., & Cheng, C. S. (2017). The influence of learning orientation and human resource practices on firm innovativeness and innovations: an application of the push and pull framework. Journal of Economics and Management, 13(1), 27-51.
• Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. K. (2004). Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015
• Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Nichols, E. L., Jr. (2003). Organizational learning as a strategic resource in supply management. Journal of Operations Management, 21(5), 541-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2003.02.001
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2003.02.001
• Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200303
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200303
• Huysman, M. (2001). Contrabalançando tendenciosidades: uma revisão crítica da literatura sobre aprendizagem organizacional. In Easterbysmith, M., Burgoyne, J., & Araujo, L. (Eds.), Aprendizagem organizacional e organização de aprendizagem São Paulo: Atlas.
• Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning capability: a proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 715-725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.002
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.002
• Jogaratnam, G., Tse, E. C., & Olsen, M. D. (1999). An empirical analysis of entrepreneurship and performance in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 23(4), 339-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109634809902300401
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109634809902300401
• Kaya, N., & Patton, J. (2011). The effects of knowledge-based resources, market orientation and learning orientation on innovation performance: an empirical study of Turkish firms. Journal of International Development, 23(2), 204-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.1662
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.1662
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling New York: Guilford Press.
• Lee, T.-S., & Tsai, H.-J. (2005). The effects of business operation mode on market orientation, learning orientation and innovativeness. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(3), 325-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570510590147
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570510590147
• Lemon, M., & Sahota, P. S. (2004). Organizational culture as a knowledge repository for increased innovative capacity. Technovation, 24(6), 483-498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00102-5
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00102-5
• Leopoldino, C. B., & Loiola, E. (2010). Desempenho organizacional e aprendizagem organizacional: o que podemos aprender sobre essa relação? In Anais do Encontro Nacional da Associação Nacional de Pós-graduação e Pesquisa em Administração Rio de Janeiro: Anpad.
• Lin, C. Ch., Peng, C. H., & Kao, D. T. (2008). The innovativeness effect of market orientation and learning orientation on business performance. International Journal of Manpower, 29(8), 752-772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437720810919332
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437720810919332
• López, S., Peon, J. M., & Ordas, C. J. (2005). Organizational learning as a determining factor in business performance. The Learning Organization, 12(3), 227-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470510592494
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470510592494
• Malhotra, N. K. (2001). Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada Porto Alegre: Bookman.
• Manu, F. (1992). Innovation orientation, environment, and performance: a comparison of u.s. and european markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2), 333-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490271
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490271
• Martens, C. D. P. (2009). Proposição de um conjunto consolidado de elementos para guiar ações visando a orientação empreendedora em organizações de software (Tese de doutorado). Escola de Administração, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.
• McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: a review of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 226-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1523422305274528
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1523422305274528
• Melo, Y. C., & Pereira, M. C. (2012). Plataforma de aprendizagem para gestão de projetos: dois casos de implementação de projetos de automação para a indústria automobilística. Gestão & Produção, 19(3), 457-470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2012000300002
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2012000300002
• Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 63-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070305281090
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070305281090
• Micheels, E. T., & Gow, H. R. (2015). The effect of market orientation on learning, innovativeness, and performance in primary agriculture. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(2), 209-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12047
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12047
• Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
• Nieto, M., & Quevedo, P. (2005). Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort. Technovation, 25(10), 1141-1157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.05.001
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.05.001
• Olson, E., Slater, S., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005). The performance implications of fit among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behaviour. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 49-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.49.66362
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.49.66362
• Perin, M. G., Sampaio, C. H., Duhá, A. H., & Bitencourt, C. C. (2006). processo de aprendizagem organizacional e desempenho empresarial: o caso da indústria eletroeletrônica no Brasil. RAE Eletrônica, 5(2), 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1676-56482006000200005
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1676-56482006000200005
• Perin, M. G., Sampaio, C. H., & Faleiro, S. N. (2004). O impacto da orientação para o mercado e da orientação para aprendizagem sobre a inovação de produto: uma comparação entre a indústria eletroeletrônica e o setor de ensino universitário de administração. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 8(1), 79-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552004000100005
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552004000100005
• Quandt, C. O., Bezerra, C. A., & Ferraresi, A. A. (2015). Dimensões da inovatividade organizacional e seu impacto no desempenho inovador: proposição e avaliação de um modelo. Gestão e Produção, 22(4), 873-886. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X1568-14
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X1568-14
• Querol, M. A. P., Cassandre, M. P., & Bulgacov, Y. L. M. (2014). Teoria da Atividade: contribuições conceituais e metodológicas para o estudo da aprendizagem organizacional. Gestão e Produção, 21(2), 405-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X351
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X351
• Raj, R., & Srivastava, K. (2014). The mediating role of organizational learning on the relationship among organizational culture, HRM practices and innovativeness. Management and Labour Studies, 38(3), 201-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0258042X13509738
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0258042X13509738
• Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: mediation of learning orientation. Technovation, 30(1), 65-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.008
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.008
• Shoham, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., Ruvio, A., & Schwabsky, N. (2012). Testing an organizational innovativeness integrative model across cultures. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29(2), 226-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.01.002
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.01.002
• Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: a framework for study and integrating of innovation research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(6), 556-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00224.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00224.x
• Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800103
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800103
• Sinkula, J. M. (2002). Market-based success, organizational routines, and unlearning. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(4), 253-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620210431660
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620210431660
• Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900306
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900306
• Subramanian, A. (1996). Innovativeness: redefining the concept. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13(3-4), 223-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(96)01007-7
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(96)01007-7
• Suliyanto, A., & Rahab, P. (2012). The role of market orientation and learning orientation in improving innovativeness and performance of small and medium enterprises. Asian Social Science, 8(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n1p134
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n1p134
• Tajeddini, K., & Mueller, S. L. (2009). Entrepreneurial characteristics in Switzerland and the UK: a comparative study of techno-entrepreneurs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10843-008-0028-4
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10843-008-0028-4
• Tajeddini, K. (2010). Effect of customer orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on innovativeness: evidence from the hotel industry in Switzerland. Tourism Management, 31(2), 221-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.013
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.013
• Tajeddini, K., Trueman, M., & Larsen, G. (2006). Examining the effect of market orientation on innovativeness. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(5-6), 529-551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725706777978640
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725706777978640
• Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovative in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 2(6), 423-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001
• Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 11(4), 801-814.
• Walsh, M., Lynch, P., & Harrington, D. (2011). A capability-based framework for tourism innovativeness. Irish Journal of Management, 31(1), 21-41.
• Wang, C. K., & Ang, B. L. (2004). Determinants of venture performance in Singapore. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(4), 347-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2004.00116.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2004.00116.x
• Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 635-657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00246.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00246.x
• Yeung, A. C. L., Lai, K. H., & Yee, R. W. Y. (2007). Organizational learning, innovativeness, and organizational performance: a qualitative investigation. International Journal of Production Research, 45(11), 2459-2477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540601020460
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540601020460
• Yildiz, S., Basturk, F., & Boz, I. T. (2014). The effect of leadership and innovativeness on business performance. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 785-793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.064
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.064
• Zehir, C., & Basar, D. (2016). The relation between learning orientation and variables of firm performance with strategic human resources management applications in the Islamic banks in Turkey. International Business Research, Learning Orientation and Human Resource Practices on Innovations, 51(9), 40-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n3p40
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n3p40

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  08 Aug 2019
• Date of issue
  2019

History

• Received
  29 Nov 2016
• Accepted
  09 Sept 2017