Demystifying the Role of Slack Resources and Paradox Mindset for Organizational Creativity in Family and Non-Family Firms

• Autorzy: Katarzyna Bratnicka-Myśliwiec , Tomasz Ingram

Warianty tytułu

Rola luzów zasobowych oraz nastawienia umysłu na paradoks dla twórczości organizacyjnej w firmach rodzinnych i nierodzinnych

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

Cel: w artykule podjęto próbę wyjaśnienia wzajemnych zależności pomiędzy nastawieniem umysłu na paradoks, luzów zasobowych oraz twórczości organizacyjnej w firmach rodzinnych i nierodzinnych. Artykuł koncentruje się na identyfikacji podobieństw i różnic między tymi dwoma typami organizacji. Metodologia: w celu zbadania wymienionych zależności przeprowadzono empiryczne badania ilościowe na próbie 343 polskich firm rodzinnych i nierodzinnych. Dane zebrano jesienią 2019 roku. Aby móc ocenić różnice między firmami rodzinnymi i nierodzinnymi, kierowano się zaleceniami dla analiz wielogrupowych SEM; w związku z tym dla każdego modelu wykonano dwie estymacje - jedną, w której relacje między zmiennymi były ograniczone, a drugą, w której zmienne były nieograniczone. Wyniki: luzy zasobowe, w szczególności finansowe i materialne, w dużym stopniu wyjaśniają zmienność twórczości organizacyjnej w wymiarach twórczej nowości i twórczej użyteczności w obu typach organizacji. Tymczasem nastawienie umysłu na paradoks prowadzi do wzrostu twórczej nowości w firmach rodzinnych, ale jest nieistotne w przedsiębiorstwach nierodzinnych. Ogólnie różnice pomiędzy modelami determinant twórczości organizacyjnej w firmach rodzinnych i nierodzinnych nie są istotne statystycznie w przeprowadzonych badaniach. Ograniczenia/implikacje badawcze: wyniki badań wskazują, że luzy zasobowe są niezbędnym warunkiem twórczości organizacyjnej w firmach zarówno rodzinnych, jak i nierodzinnych. Uważamy, że przyszłe badania nad determinantami wymiarów twórczości organizacyjnej w tych firmach powinny uwzględniać również inne czynniki, w tym kulturę organizacyjną, strategię, misję, dostępność zasobów, uczenie się organizacji czy zarządzanie zmianą. Oryginalność/wartość: przeprowadzone przez nas badanie przyczynia się do rozwoju teorii nastawienia umysłu na paradoks poprzez uwzględnienie w analizie poziomu całej organizacji, co do tej pory nie znajdowało się w polu zainteresowania badaczy. Badanie to dostarcza również argumentów przemawiających za słusznością konceptualizacji i pomiaru nastawienia umysłu na paradoks jako konstruktu jednowymiarowego. (abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

Purpose: The objective of the article is to explain mutual relationships between paradox mindset, slack resources, and organizational creativity in family and non-family businesses. The paper focuses on identifying similarities and differences between these two types of organizations. Design/methodology/approach: To investigate the relationships of our paper, we conducted empirical quantitative research on the sample of 343 Polish family and non-family businesses. The data were gathered in the fall of 2019. To assess the differences between family and non-family companies, we followed the recommendations of SEM multigroup analyses; thus, two estimations were made for every model - one where relationships between variables were restricted, and one where variables were unrestricted. Findings: We conclude that slack resources, financial and material, in particular, explain the variability of organizational creativity (operationalized in two dimensions: as creative novelty and as creative usefulness) to a great extent in both types of organization. At the same time, the paradox mindset leads to increased creative novelty in family businesses while it is unimportant in their non-family counterparts. Overall, the differences between the models of determinants of organizational creativity in family and non-family firms are not statistically significant in the present study. Research limitations/implications: The research results prove that slack resources are a necessary condition of organizational creativity in both family and non-family businesses. We believe that future research on the determinants of organizational creativity dimensions in family and non-family firms should consider more determinants, including organizational culture, strategy, mission, resource availability, organizational learning, and change management. Originality/value: The contribution of our study lies in developing the paradox mindset theory by conducting an analysis at the level of the entire organization, which has not attracted the attention of researchers so far. This study also provides arguments for the validity of the conceptualization and measurement of the paradox mindset in a one-dimensional approach. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Twórczość organizacyjna; Przedsiębiorstwo rodzinne; Badania empiryczne; Paradoks; Przedsiębiorstwo

EN

Organizational creativity; Family-owned business; Empirical researches; Paradox; Enterprises

• Czasopismo: Problemy Zarządzania
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: 20
• Numer: nr 2 (96)
• Strony: 176-196

Twórcy

autor

Katarzyna Bratnicka-Myśliwiec

• University of Economics in Katowice, Poland

autor

Tomasz Ingram

• University of Economics in Katowice, Poland

Bibliografia

• Acar, O. A., Tarakci, M., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2019). Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review. Journal of Management, 45(1), 96-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318805832.
• Alessandri, T., Cerrato, D., & Depperu, D. (2014). Organizational slack, experience, and acquisition behavior across varying economic environments. Management Decision, 52(5), 967-982. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2013-0608.
• Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Springer-Verlag. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8.
• Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123-167). JAI Press.
• Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001.
• Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review and prospective commentary. Journal of Management, 40, 1297-1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128.
• Ashwin, A. S., Krishnan, R. T., & George, R. (2016). Board characteristics, financial slack and R&D investments: An empirical analysis of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. International Studies of Management & Organization, 46(1), 8-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015.1007007.
• Awan, U., Bhatti, S. H., Shamim, S., Khan, Z., Akhtar, P., & Balta, M. E. (2021). The role of big data analytics in manufacturing agility and performance: Moderation- mediation analysis of organizational creativity and of the involvement of customers as data analysts. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12549.
• Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1102-1119. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amj.2009.0470.
• Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm out- comes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 615-633. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.499.
• Bjerregaard, T., & Lauring, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship as institutional change: Strategies of bridging institutional contradictions. European Management Review, 9(1), 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-4762.2012.01026.x.
• Blomberg, A., Kallio, T., & Pohjanpää, H. (2017). Antecedents of organizational creativity: Drivers, barriers or both?. Journal of Innovation Management, 5(1), 78-104. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_005.001_0007.
• Bradley, S. W., Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. (2011). The importance of slack for new organizations facing 'tough' environments. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 1071-1097. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00906.x.
• Bratnicka-Myśliwiec, K. (2017). TwórczoĂć w przedsigbiorstwie. Perspektywa obustronno- Ăci organizacyjnej. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach.
• Bratnicka-Myśliwiec, K., Wronka-Pośpiech, M., & Ingram, T. (2019). Does socioemotional wealth matier for competitive advantage? A case of Polish family businesses. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(1), 123-146. https://doi.org/10.7341/20191515.
• Bratnicki, M. (2020). Przedsigbiorstwo w kontekĂcie niepewnoĂci. Aspekty poznawcze i emocjonalne. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii WSB.
• Calic, G., Helie, S., Bontis, N., & Mosakowski, E. (2018). Creativity from paradoxical experience: A theory of how individuals achieve creativity while adopting paradoxical frames. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23, 397-418. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2018-0223.
• Chang, Y. Y., & Shih, H. Y. (2019). Work curiosity: a new lens for understanding employee creativity. Human Resources Management Review, 29(4), 100672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.10.005.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 443-507). American Council on Education.
• Cummings, A., & Oldham, G.R. (1997). Enhancing creativity: Managing work contexts for the high potential employee. California Management Review, 40, 22-38. https:// doi.org/10.2307/41165920.
• Cunha, M., Rego, A., Clegg, S., & Jarvis, W. P. (2020). Stewardship as process: A paradox perspective. European Management Journal (Advance online publication). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.006.v Cunha, M. P., & Bednarek, R. (2020). A source of novelty and/or absurdity: The paradoxes of management. International Journal of Business Environment, 11(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbe.2020.105476.
• Cunha, M. P., Bednarek, R., & Smith, W. (2019). Integrative ambidexterity: One paradoxical mode of learning. The Learning Organization, 26(4), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2019-0038.
• Dananjaya, I., & Kuswanto, A., (2015). Influence of external factors on the performance through the network of small and medium enterprises. European Journal of Business and Management, 2(2), 38-49.
• De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Bass, M. (2011). Creativity in individuals and groups: Basic principles with practical implications. In D. De Cremer, L. van Dick, & J. K. Murningham (Eds.), Social psychology and organizations (pp. 297-324). Routledge.
• de Jong, A., Zacharias, N. A., & Nijssen, E. J. (2021). How young companies can effectively manage their slack resources over time to ensure sales growth: The contingent role of value-based selling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(2), 304-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00746-y.
• Demirkan, I. (2018). The impact of firm resources on innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(4), 672-694. http:// doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2017-0196.
• Dokko, G., & Gaba, W. (2012). Venturing into new territory: Career experiences of venture capital managers and practice variation. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 563-583. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0909.
• Fortwengel, J., Schüßler, E., & Sydow, J. (2017). Studying organizational creativity as process: Fluidity or duality? Creativity and Innovation Management, 26, 5-16. http://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12187.
• Gallo, M. A., Tapies, J., & Cappuyns, K. (2004). Comparison of family and nonfamily business: Financial logic and personal preferences. Family Business Review, 17(4), 303-318. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1741-6248.2004.00020.x.
• García-Granero, A., Llopis, Ó., Fernández-Mesa, A., & Alegre, J. (2015). Unraveling the link between managerial risk-taking and innovation: The mediating role of a risk-taking climate. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1094-1104. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.10.012.
• George, G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 661-676. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159685.
• George, J.M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 439-477. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/078559814. https://doi.org/10.5465/078559814.
• Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2008). Determinants of the internationalization pathways of family firms: An examination of family influence. Family Business Review, 21(2), 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1741-6248.2008.00119.x.
• Gruys, M. L., Munshi, N. V., & Dewett, T. C. (2011). When antecedents diverge: Exploring novelty and value as dimensions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2), 132-137. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2011.01.005.
• Harvey S., & Kou C. Y. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 346-386. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0001839213498591.
• Hassard, J., Kelemen, M., & Cox, J. W. (2008). Disorganization theory: Explorations in alternative organizational analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203932087.
• Hirigoyen, G., & Labaki, R. (2012). The role of regret in the owner-manager decision-making in the family business: A conceptual approach. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(2), 118-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.03.004.
• Ingram, A. E., Lewis, M. W., Barton, S., & Gartner, W. B. (2016). Paradox and innovation in family firms: The role of paradoxical thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(1), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fetap.12113.
• Ingram, T., Kraśnicka, T., & GEód, G. (2020). Relationships between familiness, innovation and organizational performance in Polish family businesses. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(4), 701-718. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12407.
• Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., Shanine, K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2017). Introducing the family: A review of family science with implications for management research. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 309-341. http://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0053.
• Juillerat, T. L. (2011). Novel hence useless? Re-examining assumptions about creativity and innovation. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, (1), 1-2. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2011.65869477.
• Kim, C. & Bettis, R. A. (2014), Cash is surprisingly valuable as a strategic asset. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13), 2053-2063. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2205.
• Kim, H., Kim, H., & Lee, P. M. (2008). Ownership structure and the relationship between financial slack and R&D investments: Evidence from Korean firms. Organization Science, 19(3), 404-418. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0360.
• Koot, W., Sabelis, I., & Ybema, S. (1996). Contradictions in context: Puzzling over paradoxes in contemporary organizations, VU University Press.
• Kozbelt, A. Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20-47). Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.004.
• Kreiser, P., Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., Ireland, R. D., & Hornsby, J. S. (2021). Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Extending our knowledge boundaries through configuration theory. Small Business Economics, 56(2), 739-758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00198-x.
• Lattuch, F. (2019). Family firm innovation strategy: Contradictions and tradition. Journal of Business Strategy, 40(3), 36-42. http://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-03-2018-0046.
• Leoncini, R. (2017). How to learn from failure. Organizational creativity, learning, innovation and the benefit of failure. Rutgers Business Review, 2(1), 98-104.
• Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776. https://doi.org/10.2307/259204.
• Lin, C. Y. Y., & Liu, F. C. (2012). A cross-level analysis of organizational creativity climate and perceived innovation: The mediating effect of work motivation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1), 55-76. http://doi.org/10.1108/146010612111 92834.
• Liu, H., Ning, H., Mu, Q., Zheng, Y., Zeng, J., Yang, L. T., Ruang, R., & Ma, J. (2019). A review of the smart world. Future Generation Computer Systems, 96, 678-691. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.
• Liu, Y., Xu, S., & Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: How a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 347-366. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021886319888267.
• Livengood, R. S., & Reger, R. K. (2010). That's our turf! Identity domain and competitive dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 35, 48-66. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.1.zok48.
• Mannucci, P. V., & Yong, K. (2018). The differential impact of knowledge depth and knowledge breadth on creativity over individual careers. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1741-1763. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0529.
• Marín-Vinuesa, L. M., Scarpellini, S., Portillo-Tarragona, P., & Moneva, J. M. (2020). The impact of eco-innovation on performance through the measurement of financial resources and green patents. Organization & Environment, 33(2), 285-310. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1086026618819103.
• Marody, M. (1976). Sens empiryczny a sens teoretyczny pojgcia postawy. Analiza metodologiczna zasad doboru wskaíników w badaniach nad postawami. PWN.
• Mattingly, J. E., & Olsen, L. (2018). Performance outcomes of investing slack resources in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(4), 481-498. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1548051818762336.
• Medase, S. K. (2020). Product innovation and employees' slack time. The moderating role of firm age & size. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(3), 151-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.11.001.
• Meyer, M., & Leitner, J. (2018). Slack and innovation: The role of human resources in nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29(2), 181-201. http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21316.
• Millar, C. C., Groth, O., & Mahon, J. F. (2018). Management innovation in a VUCA world: Challenges and recommendations. California Management Review, 61(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0008125618805111.
• Miller, D., & LeBreton-Miller, I. (2014). Deconstructing socioemotional wealth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38, 713-720. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fet ap.12111.
• Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.006.
• Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594.
• Montag, T., Maertz, C. P., & Baer, M. (2012). A critical analyses of workplace creativity criterion space. Journal of Management, 38, 1362-1386. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441835.
• Morgan, T. J., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2014). Hooked on the feeling: The affective component of socioemotional wealth in family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5, 280-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.07.001.
• Moultrie, J., & Young, A. (2009). Exploratory study of organizational creativity in creative organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00536.x.
• Munjal, S., Requejo, I., & Kundu, S. K. (2019). Offshore outsourcing and firm performance: Moderating effects of size, growth and slack resources. Journal of Business Research, 103, 484-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.014.
• Nijstad, B. A., Berger-Selman, F., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Innovation in top management teams: Minority dissent, transformational leadership, and radical innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 310-322. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/1359432X.2012.734038. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.734038.
• Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245-264. https://doi.org/10.2307/256998.
• Oliver, A. L., April, S., & Kalish, Y. (2019). Organizational creativity-innovation process and breakthrough under time constraints: Mid-point transformation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(3), 318-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12326.
• Osono, E., Shimizu, N., Takeuchi, H., & Durton, J. (2008). Extreme Toyota: Radical contradictions that drive success at the world's best manufacturer. Wiley.
• Pan, Y., Shang, Y., & Malika, R. (2021). Enhancing creativity in organizations: the role of the need for cognition. Management Decision, 59(9), 2057-2076. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2019-0516.
• Pradies, C., Aust, I., Bednarek, R., Brandl, J., Carmine, S., Cheal, J., Cunha, M. P. e, Gaim, M., Keegan, A., Lê, J. K, Miron-Spektor, E., Nielsen, R. K., Pouthier, V., Sharma, G., Sparr, J. L., Vince, R., & Keller, J. (2021). The lived experience of paradox: How individuals navigate tensions during the pandemic crisis. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30(2), 154-167. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1056492620986874.
• Puccio, G. J., & Cabra, J. F. (2012). Idea generation and idea evaluation: Cognitive skills and deliberate practices. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 189-215). Academic Press/Elsevier. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3.00009-4.
• Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 65-107. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421.
• Ranger-Moore, J. (1997). Bigger may be better, but is older wiser? Organizational age and size in the New York life insurance industry. American Sociological Review, 62, 903-920. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657346.
• Sellier, A. L., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). Focus! Creative success is enjoyed through restricted choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 996-1007. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0407.
• Shao, Y., Nijstad, B., & Tauber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership.
• Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance, 155, 7-19. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008.
• Shrivastava, P. (2014). Special volume on organizational creativity and sustainability theme "Paths for integrating creativity and sustainability". Journal of Cleaner Production, 30, 1e3. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.015.
• Sleesman, D. J. (2019). Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.008.
• Smith, M. (2007). "Real" managerial differences between family and non-family firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 13(5), 278-29 https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550710780876.
• Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958.
• Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Both/and leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62-70.
• Soper, D. S. (2022). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. Available from https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc.
• Sorenson, R. (2011). Social capital and family business. In R. L. Sorenson (Ed.), Family business and social capital (pp. 1-32). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849807388.
• Sue-Chan, C., & Hempel, P. S. (2010). Disentangling the novel from the useful. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, Montreal.
• Sullivan, D. M., & Ford, C. M. (2010). The alignment of measures and constructs in organizational research: The case of testing measurement models of creativity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 505-521. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40682669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9147-8.
• Troilo, G., De Luca, L. M., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2014). More innovation with less? A strategic contingency view of slack resources, information search, and radical innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 259-277. http://doi. org/10.1111/jpim.12094.
• Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26, 289-297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378025.
• Vanacker, T., Collewaert, V., & Zahra, S. A. (2017). Slack resources, firm performance, and the institutional context: Evidence from privately held European firms. Strategic Management Journal, 38(6), 1305-1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2583.
• Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159499.
• Weiss, M., Hoegl, M., & Gibbert, M. (2017). How does material resource adequacy affect innovation project performance? A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(6), 842-863. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12368.
• Whelan-Berry, K. S., & Somerville, K. A. (2010). Linking change drivers and the organizational change process: A review and synthesis. Journal of Change Management, 10(2), 175-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697011003795651.
• Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2009.12.003.
• Zheng, W., Kark, R., & Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 584-596. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001.
• Zhou, J., & Ren, R. (2012). Striving for creativity. Building positive contexts in the workplace. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive scholarship (pp. 97-109). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001.
• Zhu, C., Leung, V. C., Shu, L., & Ngai, E. C. H. (2015). Green internet of things for smart world. IEEE Access, 3, 2151-2162. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2497312.
• Zou, T., Ertug, G., & George, G. (2018). The capacity to innovate: A meta-analysis of absorptive capacity. Innovation, 20(2), 87-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2018.1428105.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.7172/1644-9584.96.9