The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1460-1060.htm

A closer look at determinants of A dynamic

capabilities
organizational capability to perspective

innovate (OCI)
A dynamic capabilities perspective
V
era-Line Montreuil Received 22 May 2019
Revised 24 October 2019
Universit
e du Qu
ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Canada 13 February 2020
Accepted 16 February 2020
Martin Lauzier
Universit
e du Qu
ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Canada and
Institut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, Canada, and
St
ephane Gagnon
Universit
e du Qu
ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a portrait of the main managerial and organizational
determinants of organizational capability to innovate (OCI). Despite its importance, research on the subject
seems limited, and little attempt has been made, over the years, to offer an in-depth and simultaneous analysis
of these particular determinants, as well as an exploration of the underlying and complex mechanisms
explaining their relationships to OCI.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic review of articles published between 1991 and 2018 was
conducted in ProQuest (ABI/INFORM Collection) and Scopus databases. A total of 64 articles were selected and
analysed through the use of a coding grid.
Findings – Results highlight five key OCI determinants, namely: leadership, support, communication, culture,
and learning. By using the dynamic capabilities theory (DCT) as a framework, this research suggests ways to
better understand the dynamic action of these determinants as well as their contributions to OCI. Findings also
suggest that OCI should be defined at the confluence of three perspectives (human, procedural and
environmental aspects) to embrace the multiple facets of this complex construct. Proposals for future research
are provided on how OCI can be better examined.
Originality/value – This research helps to understand the five core determinants through an integrated and
holistic view and represents the first attempt to systematically analyse the scientific literature on OCI through
the DCT lens.
Keywords Culture, Leadership, Learning, Communication, Support, Organizational capability to innovate
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
Organizational capability to innovate (OCI) is considered as one of the key drivers of
organizational performance and is, today more than ever, a valuable asset in maintaining a
competitive advantage in an unstable environment (Calantone et al., 2002; Crossan and
Apaydin, 2010; Mone et al., 1998; Shahzad et al., 2017). Scholars and practitioners have
become increasingly interested in OCI, since the rise of more complex innovation, the context
of fast-changing economies, the rapidly unfolding industry disruption make a major need for
organizations to have capabilities that allow them to be adaptive and innovative (De Martino
and Magnotti, 2018; Tarraço et al., 2019). Despite its central role in the sustainability
of organizational survival and the increasing attention towards this critical capability, few
studies have attempted to identify the main levers of OCI (e.g. Damanpour, 1991). Fewer
still have examined the dynamic role of OCI determinants in driving innovation. To European Journal of Innovation
Management
date, most of the reviews on the subject have taken a rather macroscopic outlook, lacking a © Emerald Publishing Limited
1460-1060
crucial focus on managerial and organizational determinants (e.g. Becheikh et al., 2006; DOI 10.1108/EJIM-05-2019-0127
EJIM Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). Using the dynamic capabilities theory (DCT) as a guiding
framework, this paper seeks to fill this gap by focusing particularly on these types of
determinants and by defining more precisely their role in strengthening innovation.
Various reasons can explain the need to establish a portrait of the main managerial and
organizational levers of OCI. First, by relying on a theoretical framework such as DTC, this
study seeks to provide a deeper understanding of the dynamic action of managerial and
organizational determinants in driving innovation. Second, this research aims to answer the
call for developing more models on OCI to capture its critical levers (Rodrigues Alves et al.,
2018; Sapprasert and Clausen, 2012). Third, by highlighting the conditions facilitating
innovation, this study could help organizations gage themselves with regards to conditions in
their environment that could nourish their capability to innovate.
Based on these contentions, the objectives of this article are as follows: it aims to provide,
through a systematic literature review, a portrait which allows the integration of previously
fragmented, contradictory and disconnected research results; drawing on various empirical
results, to offer a more holistic understanding of the relationship between managerial and
organizational determinants, and OCI; to shed light on the definition of OCI and the different
ways of conceptualizing it; to propose, through a systematic evaluation of empirical work in
the field of innovation, areas that are in critical need of development; and to provide avenues
for future research aimed at developing a more integrated and comprehensive research
agenda.
This paper aims to make six key contributions to the innovation field. First, to date, only a
few theoretical articles have reviewed the literature on OCI. To the best of our knowledge, the
last attempt was the study of Crossan and Apaydin (2010), which was published 10 years ago.
Based on more recent empirical results, this systematic literature review sheds new light on the
current state of knowledge on OCI and in contrast to previous works; it aims to offer an in-
depth analysis of the main managerial and organizational determinants of OCI, as well as
an analysis of the underlying and complex mechanisms explaining these relationships.
Second, there seems to be no literature review to date that has studied the role of determinants
on OCI through the lens of the DCT. Consequently, this contribution offers a fresher look upon
OCI determinants. Third, by studying and categorizing the different existing definitions of OCI
in three major different perspectives that seem to coexist in the literature, this paper advances
the reflections of scholars that some components or ways of viewing OCI have been
extensively studied, while other perspectives have been overlooked and need to be further
explored. Fourth, by taking a closer look at the simultaneous interaction/interplay between the
core determinants of OCI, this paper identifies the direct, indirect and conditional relationships
that need to be further investigated and critical gaps that need to be addressed. Fifth, this study
draws various observations: a lack of consistency in the literature in the way of measuring the
determinants and OCI, which can limit the comparability of results; a very limited use of
dynamic methodologies, such as multi-level or longitudinal research design; and a conceptual
overlap between “learning” and “knowledge management” constructs. These observations are
intended to shed light on the methodological shortcomings in the innovation literature and
suggest some avenues for advancing research. Finally, since most studies seem to examine
only one facet of a determinant when they are linked to OCI, this paper brings together a
number of these different facets of the same determinant to offer a more encompassing scope of
each determining factor of OCI, and formulates new definitional approaches that take into
account both the multiple facets of the determinants as well as the innovative context in which
they are studied.

2. Organizational capability to innovate (OCI)

Scientific literature abounds with definitions of organizational innovation. However,
many scholars agree that there is a lack of consensus on a clear conceptualization
(Camis
on-Zornoza et al., 2004; Hughes et al., 2018; Read, 2000). Despite this dissent, A dynamic
little research has been vested in a better understanding of these different definitions. capabilities
A closer look allows one to recognize natural groupings of definitions, viewing OCI
under three broad perspectives that are distinct and complementary. These are centred
perspective
on: (1) a system of beliefs and behaviours, (2) the organizational development process,
and (3) the responses of the organization to its environment (Table I).
OCI viewed through a system of beliefs and behaviours. This first perspective defines OCI as
collective beliefs and behaviours of an organization’s members; conceiving OCI through the
organization’s human potential. Researchers adopting such a view have defined OCI as the
creation and/or adoption of new ideas, beliefs or behaviours (Jia et al., 2018; Knight, 1967;
Noruzy et al., 2013). For other scholars, innovation is rooted in the acquisition of new
knowledge (Calantone et al., 2002), implementation of creative potential (Amabile et al., 1996),
mastering new skills (Nouri et al., 2017a, b), problem solving/original solutions (Hogan and
Coote, 2014) or risk-taking (Liao et al., 2012).
OCI viewed through the organizational development process. According to this second
perspective, OCI defines itself as the adoption of systems, procedures, products, services and
organizational processes. OCI is conceived through what is implemented, technically,
technologically and procedurally, in the organization to improve innovation. Researchers
advocating such a viewpoint have defined innovation as the adoption of systems, policies,
products, processes or services that are new to an organization, which aim to improve the
performance (Hurley and Hult, 1998; Sarros et al., 2011; Wang and Ahmed, 2007; Yang et al.,
2018). Other scholars suggest that innovation refers to the introduction of a new
administrative system, organizational scheme or structure (Jim
enez-Jim
enez and Sanz-
Valle, 2011; Liao and Wu, 2010; Mardani et al., 2018; Song, 2015).
OCI viewed through the responses of the organization to its environment. This third
perspective defines OCI through ways an organization responds to its environment and
external demands. In concordance with this view, Crossan and Apaydin (2010) defines OCI as
a series of steps that permit the adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added
innovation for economic and social spheres that transcend the boundaries of the organization.
For other scholars, innovation represents a strategy that aims to respond to an ever-changing
environment (Montes et al., 2005). It is also a way to expand to new business scopes by
entering in new sectors/markets (Lee and Song, 2015), to use external sources (e.g. research
groups, universities, competitors) to enhance research and development (Naqshbandi and
Tabche, 2018) or a strategy to develop new markets by using sophisticated marketing
methods (Salehi and Naseri, 2018). While also being an attempt by the organization to

Perspectives Definitions Focus Authors

OCI as a system of The creation or adoption of new Centred on human Jia et al. (2018); Noruzy
beliefs and behaviours ideas, beliefs and behaviours that potential et al. (2013); Salehi and
fosters innovation Naseri (2018)
OCI as an The adoption of new systems, Centred on Hurley and Hult (1998);
organizational procedures, products, services or processes, methods Mardani et al. (2018);
development process processes that leads to and systems Song (2015)
innovation
OCI as an The establishment of new Centred on Crossan and Apaydin Table I.
organization’s responses to environment and relationships with (2010); Montes et al. Three perspectives of
responses to its new ways to build external the environment (2005); Rodrigues Alves organizational
environment relationships conducive to et al. (2018) capacity to
innovation innovate (OCI)
EJIM manage, through new ways, its external relationships with competitors and other institutions
(Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2016; Rodrigues Alves et al., 2018).
In light of these perspectives of OCI, both complementary and distinct, it seems reasonable
to define such a capacity at the confluence of these three perspectives to embrace the multiple
facets of this complex construct. When OCI research is focused only on one or two of these
three perspectives, models may not be completed or offer a thorough understanding of the
concept, as they will have a narrow definition of “what” is being innovated, and the scope of
“how” and “why” innovation occurs. Once all facets of OCI are taken into account, we can
integrate innovation outcomes (i.e. systems, procedures, products, services or processes),
innovative human subjects (i.e. ideas, beliefs and behaviours), as well as the innovation
purpose, which is linked to an organization’s imperative to establish new responses to
environmental pressures.

3. Dynamic capabilities as a theoretical framework to study OCI determinants

Dynamic capabilities are defined as repetitive sets of practices and/or behaviours aimed at
creating, expanding and modifying resources (Miles, 2012). These resources (i.e. tangible,
intangible or even human) are the foundation upon which the organization builds on to
achieve its goals (Helfat et al., 2007; Winter, 2003).
According to Teece (2009), DCT provides a compelling framework for analysing the
impact of strategic actions on organizational performance. This framework suggests the
existence of managerial and organizational capabilities that are likely to help an organization
to distinguish itself from its competitors, while improving its ability to innovate. This theory
focuses on the critical role played by the implementation of actions and processes so that the
organization adapts and reconfigures itself in the face of a constantly changing environment
(Teece and Pisano, 1994; Teece et al., 1997).
Managerial capabilities refer more specifically to all management actions and behaviours
that create and reconfigure resources of the organization; while organizational capabilities
refer to all organizational practices or routines that systematically enable the renewal and
reorganization of resources to better cope with change (Adner and Helfat, 2003;
Labrouche, 2014).

4. Methodology
4.1 Data collection
4.1.1 Research strategy, inclusion criteria and period under study. Drawing on the
recommendations of Siddaway et al. (2018), a systematic literature review was conducted
to take stock of managerial and organizational determinants of OCI. In contrast to a
traditional or narrative review, a systematic review attempts to search, identify and evaluate,
according to a more objective, transparent and methodical approach, the results of a sample
of studies (Par
e et al., 2015; Tranfield et al., 2003).
To be included in this review, articles had to meet the following selection criteria: (a) be
published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and (b) assess the relationship between at least
one managerial or organizational determinant and innovation. Because the review focus on
what is changeable rather than less malleable personality traits, articles that examined solely
individual aspects, such as optimism, originality and tolerance of ambiguity were excluded.
With respect to the period under investigation, this review covers studies that have been
published from 1991 to 2018. The choice to use this point in time coincides with the publication
of Damanpour’s (1991) seminal work in Academy of Management Journal. With more than
8,000 citations in Google Scholar, and more than 1,500 citations in ProQuest, this highly
influential paper is well recognized as a landmark study for many scholars vested in
innovation. Moreover, as a result of trade liberalization, the 1990s were fundamental to the A dynamic
growth of innovation. Since then, innovation has increased steadily, and literature on the capabilities
subject has grown considerably. In light of these arguments, papers published between 1991
and 2018 are thus likely to provide relevant research material for the study of OCI determinants.
perspective
4.1.2 Data flow and selection procedure of articles. The data collection was carried out
according to the four standard and commonly used steps of “preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses” (PRISMA), namely 1-identification, 2-screening,
3-eligibility and 4-inclusion (Moher et al., 2009).
(1) The first step of data collection (identification) seeks to identify articles in ProQuest
(ABI/INFORM collection) and Scopus databases. This strategy was favoured since
both databases contain a wide range of scientific papers in the fields of management
and organizational behaviour and offer extensive coverage of peer-reviewed articles
in many journals. The keywords used to conduct the research were organizational
innovation and management, innovation management and determinants, innovation
and organizational behaviour, organizational innovation and performance. To
complete the research, references of several literature reviews were analysed
(Adams et al., 2006; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Koc, 2007; Mumford et al., 2002;
Rodrigues Alves et al., 2018), along with one meta-analysis (Damanpour, 1991).
Making use of the same terms, a search was also conducted on Google Scholar to add
any other articles that seemed relevant to the purpose of this study. Based on the
inclusion criteria, 105 articles were identified and screened. Articles that were
literature reviews, that were developing conceptual models or did not address
innovation were not included. The same treatment was applied to those that were
interested in innovation at the individual level, or were studying the consequences of
innovation rather than its determinants.
(2) The second step of the data collection (screening) seeks to confirm the inclusion of the
articles through reading titles and abstracts. This step led to the removal of 14 articles
as they were studying the influence of innovation on organizational factors rather
than examining the determinants of OCI or they were examining employee variables
only. This second step led to retain 91 articles for full-text assessment.
(3) The third step of the data collection (eligibility) seeks to confirm the inclusion of the
articles after a thorough reading. This step led to the removal of 28 articles.
(4) The fourth step of the data collection (inclusion) represents the final sample size of the
systematic review that is 64. Figure 1 shows the different steps that led to the final
sample according to the process of inclusion and exclusion of articles.

4.2 Data analysis

A review usually includes a type of analysis that may be qualitative or quantitative (Par
e
et al., 2015). Since the purpose of the study is to offer a better conceptual understanding of the
main determinants of innovation and their actions on OCI, the method employed for data
analysis was qualitative and descriptive. More specifically, the pattern-matching approach
suggested by Yin (1994) was applied. A coding grid was also used to analyse, among other
things, the research design, level of analysis, type of determinants, effect of determinants,
measurement scale, type of outcomes in each article in the final sample.

4.3 Data synthesis

A key element of a qualitative systematic review is the adoption of a text-based approach to
classify information and present it in a useful way (Par
e et al., 2015; Rodgers et al., 2009).
EJIM

Identiication
Screening
Eligibility

Figure 1.
Data flow chart of
Inclusion

literature search,
highlighting the
process of inclusion
and exclusion of
articles

Based on this contention and results of the pattern-matching analysis, five main
determinants emerged within the sample. These determinants (1) were by far the most
recurrent in reviewed articles, and (2) had systematically moderate to strong correlations
(0.30–0.71) with innovation. Through the literature search, other determinants have also been
identified (e.g. size and age of the organization, organizational structure). However, that these
conditions were far less predominant in the literature. Attention was therefore on the five
main levers of OCI. As the objective of a review is to offer a synthesis of knowledge through a
careful synthesis of information, these determinants were grouped according to two
categories of determinants, namely managerial and organizational determinants. In order to
better explain their role in strengthening OCI, these groupings were based on DCT
nomenclature (Teece, 2009). Table II presents descriptive characteristics of all studies
inventoried (e.g. country, sample size, type of participant), as well as OCI determinants.
Moreover, the 64 articles (final sample) were published in 45 academic journals ranging from
journals in management, business, psychology, organizational behaviour, human resource,
technology, marketing management, innovation management to social sciences.

5. Managerial and organizational determinants of OCI

In accordance with the DCT, some of the determinants alluded to the managerial component
(Teece, 2009). More precisely, leadership and support are considered managerial capabilities
since both specifically refer to actions taken by the management team to encourage
employees to adopt behaviours oriented towards innovation. Other capabilities referred more
to the organizational component of the theory. This is the case for communication, culture,
and learning as they refer to practices that can influence all employees and help to install a
fertile change and innovation environment.
 Managerial
determinants Organizational determinants
Author/s Year Country Participants n Leadership Support Communication Culture Learning

Adriansyah and Afiff 2015 Indonesia Top managers 49 ◆ ◆

Alpkan et al. 2010 Turkey Top and middle 184 ◆
managers
Alsalami et al. 2014 United Arab Employees 248 ◆ ◆
Emirates
Arag
on-Correa et al. 2007 Spain CEOs 900 ◆ ◆
Arif et al. 2012 Pakistan Employees 150 ◆
Baum and Locke 2004 United States CEOs and employees 229 ◆
Baum et al. 1998 United States CEOs and employees 183 ◆
Brandyberry 2003 United States Executives 275 ◆
Calantone et al. 2002 United States Senior executives 187 ◆
Carmeli et al. 2010 Israel Senior managers and 106 ◆
CEOs
Chen and Chang 2012 Taiwan Senior executives 1,182 ◆
Dobni 2008 Canada Employees 282 ◆
Eisenberger et al. 1990 United States Employees and managers 520 ◆
Garcia-Morales et al. 2008 Spain CEOs 408 ◆ ◆
Garcia-Morales et al. 2011 United States CEOs 164 ◆ ◆
Gumusluoglu and Ilsev 2009a Turkey Employees and managers 163 ◆
Hogan and Coote 2014 Australia Managers 91 ◆
Hurley and Hult 1998 United States Employees 9,648 ◆
Jia et al. 2018 China Students 133 ◆
Jim
enez-Jim
enez and Sanz- 2011 Spain – 451 ◆
Valle
Jimenez-Jimenez et al. 2008 Spain CEOs 744 ◆ ◆
Jung et al. 2003 Taiwan Senior managers 32 ◆ ◆
Khalili 2016 Iran Employees 1,172 ◆
Kivim€aki et al. 2000 Finland Employees 493 ◆
Laforet 2016 United Kingdom – 115 ◆
Lee et al. 2013 Malaysia Senior executives 162 ◆
Lee and Song 2015 Korea Employees 63 ◆

(continued )
perspective
capabilities
A dynamic

OCI determinants and

Table II.

characteristics of 64
descriptive

(1991-2018)
reviewed studies
 EJIM

Table II.
Managerial
determinants Organizational determinants
Author/s Year Country Participants n Leadership Support Communication Culture Learning

Liao et al. 2008 Taiwan – 485 ◆ ◆

Liao et al. 2012 Taiwan – 449 ◆
Liao and Wu 2010 Taiwan Managers and employees 327 ◆
Lin 2007 Taiwan Executives and 172 ◆ ◆
employees
Mardani et al. 2018 Iran CEOs and managers 226 ◆
Mart
ın de Castro et al. 2013 Spain Executives 251 ◆ ◆
Mokhber et al. 2015 Iran Managers 219 ◆
Mokhber et al. 2018 Iran Managers 219 ◆
Monge et al. 1992 United Sates Employees 1,925 ◆
Montes et al. 2005 Spain CEOs 202 ◆ ◆
Naqshbandi and Tabche 2018 India Top and middle 155 ◆ ◆
managers
Naranjo-Valencia et al. 2016 Spain CEOs 446 ◆
Noruzy et al. 2013 Iran Managers 280 ◆ ◆
Nouri et al. 2017b Iran Managers and employees 140 ◆
Obendhain and Johnson 2004 United States Directors and managers 922 ◆
Prasad and Junni 2016 United States Managers 163 ◆
Ruiz-Moreno et al. 2008 Spain Managers 202 ◆
Salehi and Naseri 2018 Iran Managers 103 ◆
Sanz-Valle et al. 2011 Spain CEOs 451 ◆ ◆
Sarros et al. 2008 Australia Managers 1,158 ◆ ◆
Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt 2016 Thailand Executives and 269 ◆ ◆
managers
Scott and Bruce 1994 United States Employees 189 ◆ ◆
Shahzad et al. 2017 Pakistan Employees 215 ◆ ◆
Song 2015 China Top and middle 115 ◆
managers
Sony and Naik 2012 India CEOs 495 ◆
Stanley Kam 2013 China – 196 ◆
Suh et al. 2018 Korea Managers and employees 4,350 ◆

(continued )
 Managerial
determinants Organizational determinants
Author/s Year Country Participants n Leadership Support Communication Culture Learning

Teo et al. 2006 China Executives 299 ◆

Tien and Chao 2012 – Directors – ◆
Uddin et al. 2017 Bangladesh Employees 285 ◆ ◆
Verdu-Jover et al. 2018 Spain Managers 190 ◆ ◆
Wang and Ellinger 2011 Taiwan Managers and employees 268 ◆
Widmann and Mulder 2018 Germany Employees 325 ◆
Xie et al. 2016 China Employees and managers 175 ◆
Zach 2016 United States CEOs 247 ◆ ◆
Zaied and Affes 2016 Tunisia – 200 ◆
Zeki
c et al. 2017 Croatia Managers 71 ◆ ◆
Note(s): A dash ( ) was inserted when information was not available in the article; managerial determinants refer to all management actions and behaviours that create
and reconfigure the resources of the organization; organizational determinants refer to all organizational practices or routines that systematically enable the renewal and
reorganization of resources to better cope with change
perspective
capabilities
A dynamic

Table II.
EJIM 5.1 Managerial determinants
5.1.1 Leadership. The concept of leadership refers to the process shared by members of
management to increase the ability of employees to perform their roles effectively (Sarros
et al., 2008; Yukl, 1999). Notably, leadership is considered as a lever of OCI when it: promotes
new ideas (Siegel and Kaemmerer, 1978); diffuses power (Carmeli et al., 2010); encourages
employee development (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009a); shares a vision (Jung et al., 2003);
inspires others (Noruzy et al., 2013); allows risk-taking (Arag
on-Correa et al., 2007); and
advocates innovative behaviour (Shane et al., 1995). Moreover, leadership facilitates OCI by
encouraging employees to think outside the box, to be creative (Jung et al., 2003), to see
problems from a different angle (Garc
ıa-Morales et al., 2008), and to question the status quo
(Hater and Bass, 1988).
Most studies in the literature show the positive influence of leadership on innovation
(Alsalami et al., 2014; Harborne and Johne, 2003; McDonough, 2000). Among them, studies of
Arag
on-Correa et al. (2007), Mokhber et al. (2018) and Prasad and Junni (2016) point out that a
leader who cares about employees and stimulates them intellectually contribute to the
adoption of innovative behaviour. Naqshbandi and Tabche (2018) who studied the
empowering leadership provide evidence that a leader who fosters empowerment, leads by
example and encourages employee participation, enhances innovative organizational
outputs. Sarros et al. (2008) also find that a management style that has an articulated
vision is associated with a positive climate for innovation. The work of Montes et al. (2005),
which was on the support leadership, shows that a leader who motivates employees and acts
as a mentor is positively related to organizational innovation. More specifically, Stanley Kam
(2013) finds that a proactive management style focused on the implementation of innovative
projects facilitates the introduction of administrative innovation and new products. Zach’s
(2016) study provides evidence that a management style that promotes change is linked to the
development of innovations.
Although leadership is recognized as a critical lever for OCI, this managerial
determinant, depending on the context and conditions in which it is exerting, can also
impede organizational innovation. Much of the research suggests that transformational
leadership, which is characterized by five dimensions according to Bass and Avolio (1997),
namely idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, attributive
charisma and individual consideration of employees, has a positive impact on innovation
(Garc
ıa-Morales et al., 2008; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009a; Jung et al., 2003; Khalili, 2016;
Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt, 2018; Uddin et al., 2017). However, according to the results of
Mokhber et al.’s (2015) study, idealized influence can be detrimental to innovation when the
leader establishes an unhealthy dependency relationship with his employees and when the
leader’s goals are opposed to those of the organization. Furthermore, transactional
leadership, which can be described as a conventional type of leadership focused on tasks
accomplishment and correcting behaviours in the event of a task failure, seems to have an
ambiguous relationship with innovation (Armandi et al., 2003). While some works (e.g. Jia
et al., 2018) reveal that transactional leadership is negatively related to organizational
innovation, other studies (e.g. Prasad and Junni, 2016) show that this same type of
leadership is positively associated with innovation. This last observation can be explained
by the fact that in certain contexts, this more directive leadership, which establishes clear
objectives and an explicit vision may be necessary, even beneficial, to innovate and
implement new ideas. This conclusion goes in the same direction as what Hou et al. (2019)
advance with regard to authoritarian leadership. According to these researchers,
authoritarian leadership, which exerts strong control and requires subordinates’
absolute obedience, is positively related to exploratory and exploitative innovation in
the Chinese culture. Hou et al. (2019) explain that authoritarian leaders tend to be more
specific and more practical in their innovation directives, which would contribute to
greater efficiency in certain contexts where this type of governance is essential. A dynamic
Nevertheless, excessively strict management tends to be detrimental to innovation as some capabilities
scholars point out (Amabile, 1998; Jia et al., 2018).
Considering these contentions, transformational leadership, empowering leadership,
perspective
support leadership, proactive leadership seem to be a significant determinants of OCI to
establish a climate in which innovation is encouraged. However, current knowledge
regarding transactional and authoritarian leadership still seems ambiguous as to which
contexts these types of leadership act as levers or barriers to OCI. We believe that more
research should be done to gain a better understanding of the effect of these types of
leadership on innovation and thus, help organizational leaders to make more informed
decisions about their practices. While the majority of studies in the field of innovation have
examined stable types of leadership, such as transformational or transactional leadership, we
believe that more research should examine the evolution of leaders’ behaviours according to
the different stages of innovation. Ford and Ford (2012) found that leaders in times of
organizational change alter their behaviours to sometimes be transformational and at other
times more directive. We believe that these kinds of avenues of research for the innovation
field would allow us to better understand in what context a type of directive or
transformational leadership is more appropriate. Moreover, while a large proportion of
studies have focused on the impact of leaders’ behaviours on OCI (e.g. sharing their vision,
encouraging employee development), more research should also focus on leaders’ motivations
to better understand how these motivations have an impact on their decision-making. For
example, according to Burke (2018), the desirable manager profile for change management
includes three elements: a high need for power, a low need for affiliation and a high inhibition,
in order to put the good of the organization before self-interest and being concerned with
getting things done, even for unpopular decisions. Finally, while most reviewed studies have
examined leadership through the individual lens, we believe that the innovation literature
should pay more attention to distributed leadership (e.g. joint leadership such as in unionized
setting or leadership involving different stakeholders) to gain a better understanding of such
still understudied phenomenon. We agree with Butler and Tregaskis (2018, p. 542) that “there
is a need to move away from ‘individually conceived leadership’ towards an appreciation of
leadership as a collective phenomenon”.
5.1.2 Support. Support refers to the degree of encouragement provided by management, as
well as the degree to which employees perceive how management values their contributions
(Eisenberger et al., 1990; Mumford and Gustafson, 1988; Sarros et al., 2011). More specifically,
support is key for OCI when employees receive help and encouragement in their attempts to
implement new ways of doing things or new initiatives (Anderson and West, 1998; Sarros
et al., 2011). Support enhances innovation also through actions undertaken by management to
facilitate, promote and establish an entrepreneurial spirit (Alpkan et al., 2010). It is the same
when management welcomes the diversity of opinions and when employees have the
necessary resources (e.g. material, equipment, time) and autonomy to innovate (Scott and
Bruce, 1994; Siegel and Kaemmerer, 1978).
Several studies show the existence of a positive relationship between support and
innovation (Arif et al., 2012; Farnese and Livi, 2016; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009b; Howell
and Avolio, 1993; Hsiao et al., 2014; Kwon Choi et al., 2013; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).
Among them, the work of Shahzad et al. (2017) provides evidence that support for change,
which includes granting awards and adopting a positive attitude towards flexibility,
promotes innovation. Lin (2007) also shows that top management support is associated with
firm innovation capability so that when employees receive help and resources, they are more
likely to adopt innovative behaviours. Jung et al. (2003) also find that a structure in which
employees can express their creativity contributes to strengthening organizational
innovation. Scott and Bruce (1994) point out that support for innovation, which is the
EJIM degree to which employees perceive their organization open to change, is positively related to
innovation. A study by Eisenberger et al. (1990) shows that support is positively associated
with the number of suggestions made by employees to improve working methods. Zeki
c et al.
(2017) also find that when the organization encourages employees in their creative
approaches and rewarding them based on their innovative ideas, this practice fosters the
establishment and maintenance of a climate conducive to innovation.
Taken together, these studies highlight the general idea that employees, who feel
supported and have the perception that their contributions bring value added to the
organization, would be more likely to adopt innovation-oriented behaviours. Therefore,
employees who have autonomy, flexibility, and opportunities to express their ideas would be
more inclined to innovate.

5.2 Organizational determinants

5.2.1 Communication. Communication refers to “a process of creating shared meaning
through the use of signs and symbols. The process occurs in and among dyads, groups, and
larger social structures through many means and for many purposes” (Papa et al., 2007, p. 3).
Communication has an impact on OCI when it promotes certain information dissemination
practises (Ebadi and Utterback, 1984; Fidler and Johnson, 1984). In terms of internal
communication, dissemination of relevant information allows employees better understand
their roles and implement appropriate actions to facilitate innovation processes (Lievens et al.,
1999; Monge et al., 1992). Through the sharing of ideas and interprofessional collaboration,
communication helps to facilitate the emergence of new ideas and innovation (Brandyberry,
2003). Communication also facilitates OCI by reducing uncertainty and instilling a climate of
trust in which open communication and information sharing minimize the ambiguity
inherent in innovation (Garc
ıa Morales et al., 2011). Moreover, the frequency and amount of
communication are not the only necessary conditions for fostering innovation, as the quality
of communication proves equally crucial (Tjosuold and McNeely, 1988). In terms of external
communication, gathering information on its environment and its competitors allows the
organization to make the necessary adjustments and stay innovative (Kivim€aki et al., 2000).
Many studies highlight the existence of a positive relationship between
communication and OCI (Ebaldi and Utterback, 1984; Lievens et al., 1999; Monge
et al., 1992). Among them, a study by Brandyberry (2003) reveals that organizations with
a high level of internal and external communication are more innovative than those with
a low level of internal and external communication. Garc
ıa-Morales et al. (2011) show
that internal communication, which is two-way, continuous, and promotes the sharing of
opinions in meetings, fosters innovation. The work of Arif et al. (2012) also points out
that a communication climate, characterized by an environment where employee
participation is encouraged, and information exchange is open, is associated with the
adoption of innovative behaviour (Costigan and Schmeidler, 2004). By focusing on
communication channels, Suh et al. (2018) find that employees perceive their organization
as more innovative when they have the opportunity to meet face-to-face with the leaders
and were consulted regularly.
While several studies agree that two-way communication which is done in a timely
manner and aims to meet employees’ demands is critical to facilitate OCI, some scholars argue
that certain forms of communication may not be suitable for innovation (Arif et al., 2012;
Garc
ıa-Morales et al., 2011). Accordingly, Arif et al. (2012) show that defensive
communication, characterized by vertical exchange of information, control and the
transmission of clear instructions to be followed, is negatively linked to innovation.
Garc
ıa-Morales et al. (2011) also argue that too much communication within the organization
can lead to conformity that inhibits creativity, by strengthening control over employees.
 These ideas highlight the potential of communication as a key condition of OCI. A dynamic
Organizations that foster an environment in which information is two-way, fluid, centred capabilities
on sharing ideas in a collaborative climate, and maintains a constant connection with their
environment will be more conducive to innovation. However, as mentioned by
perspective
Garc
ıa-Morales et al. (2011), asymmetric communication, which emphasizes top-down
communication, persuasion, manipulation and giving orders without any opportunity for
employees to exchange, may impede organizational innovation. In the same line of thought as
for the leadership literature, we believe that more research should examine the evolution of
types of communication according to the different stages of innovation. We believe that in
some contexts directive or top-down communication may be appropriate, while in other
contexts two-way communication may be more suitable for the efficiency of the organization.
Thus, we call on researchers to conduct more empirical studies to deepen our understanding
of the complex relationship between communication and OCI.
5.2.2 Culture. Organizational culture refers to the values and beliefs shared by members of
an organization that guide the expected behaviour (Schein, 2010). First, culture enhances OCI
through the values and norms that are conveyed (Zheng et al., 2010). Among others, an
organization whose values are centred on creativity and collaboration is more likely to
innovate (Caldwell and O’Reilly, 2003; Martins and Terblanche, 2003). It is the same when an
organization tolerates risks, values teamwork and employee development (Dobni, 2008;
Mart
ın de Castro et al., 2013). A culture that quickly reconfigures itself, when new
circumstances arise, was also found to foster innovation (Cameron and Quinn, 2011). In terms
of artefacts (i.e. the visible aspects of organizational culture), a workspace whose offices are
easily accessible facilitates exchanges in person and networking (Schein, 2010). The
organization can also strengthen its OCI through rituals by clearly informing employees of
what is expected of them and by recalling which behaviours are valued (Trice and Beyer,
1984). For example, by publicly acknowledging innovative behaviour, this practice helps
motivate other employees to do the same (Hogan and Coote, 2014).
Several prior studies suggest that different types of organizational culture are conducive
to innovation (Lau and Ngo, 2004; Mavondo and Farrell, 2003; Miron et al., 2004; Tien and
Chao, 2012). Among them, the study of Liao et al. (2012) points out that an innovative culture,
which provides a creative and challenging place to work and a supportive culture, which
involves employees in decision-making and provides a warm place to work, are associated
with innovation. The works of Shahzad et al. (2017) and Laforet (2016) show that a flexible
culture, that adapts easily to change, is positively linked to organizational innovation. Based
on the competing values framework of Cameron and Quinn (2011), Naranjo-Valencia et al.
(2016) as well as Obendhain and Johnson (2004) find that a culture of adhocracy, which
promotes values of creativity, freedom, and risk-taking, has a positive effect on innovation.
Through a dynamic perspective, Verdu-Jover et al. (2018) provide evidence that an adaptive
culture that is driven by the change is positively related to innovation. Adriansyah and Afiff
(2015) show that a developmental culture, which is characterized by adaptability, risk-taking
and resource acquisition, is conducive to innovation. Studies of Jimenez-Jimenez et al. (2008)
and Laforet (2016) also find that a market/external-oriented culture, which can be defined as
an organization’s cultural disposition to react to market demands and to the external
environment, is positively related to innovation. Finally, the work of Laforet (2016) also points
out that an organizational culture with a long-term orientation has a positive effect on
organizational innovation performance. According to this researcher, this relationship can be
explained by the fact that successful organizational innovation requires generally a
long-term view since capabilities can only be developed over time.
Although many studies show that different types of organizational culture, including
innovation culture that has been widely examined in empirical studies (e.g. Dobni, 2008;
Mart
ın de Castro et al., 2013; Xie et al., 2016), are critical levers for innovation, it seems that
EJIM certain types of culture can also be harmful to OCI. According to Naranjo-Valencia et al. (2016)
and Liao et al. (2012), a hierarchy/bureaucratic culture, which is characterized by
standardized rules, a high level of control and a focus on conformity, has a negative
impact on innovation due to the inertia it generates. In the same line of thought, Adriansyah
and Afiff (2015) show that rational culture, which is characterized by goal setting,
competence, and compliance by contract, does not foster innovation, since this type of
organizational culture values stability, obedience and consistency. Finally, Laforet (2016)
points out that the founder culture, by fostering family inertia and exercising strong
centralized control over the decision-making, impedes innovation.
Considering the above, different types of organizational culture (e.g. innovation culture,
adhocracy culture, developmental culture) seem to be an important factor in enhancing OCI
whether through values, beliefs or norms that promote innovative behaviours. However,
certain types of culture seems also be detrimental to OCI (e.g. hierarchy culture, rational
culture) and practitioners must be aware of the risks associated with these cultures when they
find themselves in an organization where the external environment is volatile (Tian et al.,
2018). The organization with a bureaucratic culture may thus be slower to react. While the
large majority of studies have examined the relationship between culture and innovation
from a dominant culture type, there is currently a research gap regarding multiple types of
culture. Only one study reviewed (i.e. Obendhain and Johnson, 2004) has examined the
relationship between an organization with multiple cultures and innovation. According to
Obendhain and Johnson (2004), organizations without a dominant culture have a high
frequency of organizational innovation. This could be explained by the fact that multi-culture
organizations (e.g. ambidextrous organizations) can both handle evolutionary and
revolutionary innovation, which is an essential asset for having an organizational
capability to innovate. There seems a critical need for further development in this area to
better understand how ambidextrous organizations can be important drivers for innovation.
This line of research seems promising whereas organizations are becoming more and more
complex structures and the reality of multiple cultures is expected to be more and more
common (Burke, 2018).
5.2.3 Learning. Learning is recognized by many as an important lever to maintain an
organization’s competitive advantage (Kiziloglu, 2015; Sutanto, 2017; Teo et al., 2006; Uddin
et al., 2017). From a systemic standpoint, learning refers to the processes involved in
acquiring, developing, sharing, using, and storing knowledge to improve an organization’s
performance (Kiziloglu, 2015; Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt, 2016; Vera and Crossan, 2003).
Learning facilitates OCI when there are exploration and development of new organizational
knowledge that is fundamentally different from those already acquired (Liao et al., 2008;
March, 1991; Sony and Naik, 2012). Learning also acts as a lever to OCI when there is an
improvement of existing knowledge (March, 1991). Moreover, learning is key to OCI because
it allows the organization to recognize its mistakes and those of its competitors and correct
them to better adapt to its environment (Nouri et al., 2017a, b). By adding the individual
expertise in bringing new knowledge to the organizational level, knowledge sharing is crucial
to foster innovation (Lin, 2007). Hence, knowledge sharing is necessary to generate an
apprenticeship among all members of the organization (Yeung et al., 1999). Without the
presence of learning, employees would repeat the same habits, distancing the organization of
innovation opportunities (Kiziloglu, 2015).
Much of the research highlights the positive relationship between learning and innovation
(Chen and Chang, 2012; Lee and Song, 2015; Salehi and Naseri, 2018; Wang and Ellinger, 2011;
Zaied and Affes, 2016). Among them, studies of Liao et al. (2008) and Montes et al. (2005) show
that learning enhances organizational performance in terms of administrative and technical
innovations. Garc
ıa-Morales et al. (2008) also find that an organization that makes better use
of its new or existing knowledge is more likely to introduce new products and services. A
study by Song (2015) provides evidence that an organization that is more flexible and faster to A dynamic
respond to new demands of its environment is associated with a higher level of innovation. capabilities
Lee et al. (2013) also show that sharing and storage of knowledge promote technological
innovation. As Mardani et al. (2018) observe as well, production, integration and application
perspective
of knowledge have a positive impact on the speed of innovation implementation, as well as the
quality and quantity of innovations.
Given these findings, it seems that learning plays a key role in fostering OCI. An
environment in which learning is promoted and shared among members of the organization
appears to be an asset to innovate. Moreover, through individual learning, the organization
can learn as a whole, suggesting the importance of instilling a continuous learning climate
that helps to better respond to new environmental pressures.

6. Discussion
6.1 Interplay between the five determinants and OCI
Surprisingly, only a small part (13 articles out of 64; 20.3%) of reviewed studies have
examined the interplay between two or more determinants of OCI and none have investigated
the five core determinants simultaneously. Specifically, learning has often been studied in
empirical studies as a mediator in the relationship between leadership and OCI, suggesting
that leadership can indirectly exert influence on innovation by supporting knowledge
acquisition, development, sharing (Arag
on-Correa et al., 2007; Noruzy et al., 2013). However,
the literature seems fragmented since some studies suggest that learning acts as a complete
mediator (e.g. Montes et al., 2005; Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt, 2016, 2018) and sometimes a
partial mediator (e.g. Garcia-Morales et al., 2008; Naqshbandi and Tabche, 2018), even in the
presence of the same type of leadership.
Moreover, almost no study has examined moderating relationships between the five
determinants, with the exception of Tien and Chao (2012) which examine the moderating role
of leadership in the relationship between organizational culture and innovation, as well as
Khalili (2016) who studies the moderating effect of support in the relationship between
leadership and OCI. Finally, while the reviewed studies have paid significant attention to the
mediating role of learning in the relationship between communication/culture and
innovation, as well as the mediating effect of culture in the relationship between
leadership and COI, studies are completely silent on the direct and indirect relationships
between communication and culture, communication and support as well as support and
learning when these determinants are studied in the context of innovation.
According to these conclusions, it seems that there is a critical need to explore in more
depth these gaps or inconsistencies observed in the innovation literature in order to gain a
deeper and comprehensive understanding of the interplay between core determinants of OCI.
We believe that more research efforts in this direction will allow both researchers to refine
their understanding of the complex relationships between these determinants, the underlying
mechanisms and innovation, and practitioners to make better decisions in contexts which are
expected to become more and more changeable, necessitating the need to adapt/modify one’s
practices quickly.

6.2 Scope and conceptualization concerns

One observation that stands out of this review is that most studies examine only one facet of a
determinant when they are linked to OCI. For example, in regard to communication, while
some works have focused on the role of internal and external communication in the creation of
OCI e.g. (Garc
ıa-Morales et al., 2011), others have instead focused on the influence of the
communication climate as a lever for innovation e.g. (Arif et al., 2012). Yet others focused on
the effect of communication channels to promote innovation e.g. (Suh et al., 2018). This review
EJIM brought together a number of these different facets of the same determinant to offer a more
encompassing scope of each determining factor of OCI. Furthermore, this effort suggests that
these determinants, when considered as potential levers of OCI, need to be contextualized. As
a result, this study formulates new definitional approaches that take into account both the
multiple facets of each of the determinants as well as the innovative context in which they are
studied (Table III).

6.3 Managerial dynamic capabilities and OCI

This review has highlighted that transformational, empowering, support and proactive
styles of leadership are crucial for OCI. Such management styles strengthen the
organization's resources to innovate; thus, a task-oriented management style is not enough
to facilitate OCI. Leadership must lead to employees’ skills development that promotes the
full development of human potential to maximize innovation spillovers.
Similarly, it was highlighted that support is more efficient as a determinant of OCI when
management provides the necessary autonomy and flexibility to employees to bring their
ideas. This flexible framework creates a fertile environment for innovation. Furthermore,
support offering only basic tools is not enough to strengthen OCI. It must encourage
employees’ initiative and instil a sense that their contributions have a real value-added to
improving organizational performance.

Determinants Definitions Aspects

Innovation-oriented Refers to a style of management that
leadership creates a proper context for change, and
which is centred on the empowerment
of employees and the sharing of power
that facilitate the emergence of new
ideas
Innovation-focused Refers to the support granted by
support management, and encouragement
provided to employees, in their efforts
to initiate innovative projects in the
organization
Innovation-centred Refers to a continuous flow of open,
communication fluid, two-way exchange between the
different members of the organization
as well as between the organization and
its environment
Innovation-oriented Refers to the instilment of values and
culture norms within the organization that
promotes creativity, employee
participation, freedom of opinion,
calculated risk-taking, and
collaboration in a change value way
Innovation-focused Refers to all organizational processes
Table III. learning involved in the acquisition,
Definitions of the five development, sharing, use and storage
main determinants of of knowledge that aim to develop a
organizational competitive advantage
capacity to
innovate (OCI)
(1) Management has a clear and common
vision
(2) Management seeks new opportunities
for the organization
(3) Management motivates and guides the
troops
(1) The organization provides resources
for innovation
(2) The organization values employees’
attempts to implement new ways of
doing things or new initiatives
(3) The organization is open to change
and welcomes the diversity of opinions
(1) Communication is frequent
(2) Communication is made in due course
(3) The organization encourages
employees to express themselves
(1) The organization calls into question
the status quo
(2) The organization attaches importance
to solving problems with flexibility
(3) The organization promotes employee-
driven initiatives
(1) The organization has processes to
integrate knowledge
(2) The organization has processes to
share knowledge
(3) The organization uses critical skills
and capabilities to create a competitive
advantage
 In light of these findings, this review notes that when managerial determinants take the A dynamic
form of dynamic capabilities, they facilitate OCI as they establish an organization that can capabilities
continually respond to its changing environment. Accordingly, these determinants are
seeking to develop, renew and reconfigure the organization to innovate and maintain a
perspective
competitive advantage against its competitors.

6.4 Organizational dynamic capabilities and OCI

This paper has highlighted that communication is a determinant of OCI when it is fluid, open,
and continuous. Top-down information sharing is not enough to create OCI. Communication
must promote a climate in which employees feel comfortable to propose their ideas and
receive useful information to lead innovative projects successfully.
Similarly, this review suggests that culture is proving a key factor of OCI when it
encourages the adoption of innovative behaviour by conveying values and norms that
promote creativity, initiative, risk-taking, or other values and norms that aim to increase
innovation. Thus, a change-oriented culture creates an organization that can easily adjust to
its environment and remains innovative.
Moreover, this paper has highlighted that learning is a core determinant of OCI through its
dynamic processes of knowledge management. Therefore, static knowledge is not enough to
generate OCI. The organization must engage in actions that cultivate learning reflexes of the
organization, such as acquiring, developing, and sharing new knowledge to improve
organizational innovation. The organization becomes more likely to adapt to changes in its
environment, contributing, thereby, to a greater OCI.
Given these findings, this study notes that vertical communication, conservative
culture and static knowledge are not enough to strengthen OCI. Specifically, when
these organizational determinants are configured in the form of dynamic capabilities,
they support OCI since they establish an organization that can react and adapt to a
volatile environment. As a result, these capabilities help create a flexible organizational
environment, resilient in reconfiguration and constant change.

6.5 Methodological concerns

This systematic review has identified some important methodological concerns in the
literature. The first refers to the lack of consistency as to how the determinants have been
measured in prior work. For each determinant, it is possible to note the existence of several
measurement scales. For example, for the “learning” construct, some scholars have used a
multidimensional scale of learning orientation (Calantone et al., 2002); others have instead
favoured a unidimensional organizational learning measure (Garc
ıa-Morales et al., 2008),
while others have relied on a four-dimensional measurement of organizational learning
ability (Teo et al., 2006). The diversity of scales thus suggests that the same construct is
conceptualized and operationalized in a widely different way according to the studies, which
reinforces the need to have definitions that are more encompassing than those that currently
exist, while facilitating the comparison of study results.
The second concern refers to the lack of consistency as to how OCI has been measured in
studies. The operationalization of OCI is fragmented and seems to be done according to the
three perspectives proposed in this review. For example, it was found that some scholars rely
solely on a measurement scale of innovation that focuses on human potential (e.g. innovative
behaviours) (Alsalami et al., 2014), while others use a measure that is centred on processes,
systems and methods (e.g. technological innovation) (Aragon-Correa et al., 2007). This review
also reveals that there is a dominant tendency in research (34 articles out of 64; 53.1%) to
examine OCI through the lens of improvement in terms of products/services and processes in
the organization (OCI viewed through the organizational development process) and less
attention is paid to the human potential side (OCI viewed through a system of beliefs and
EJIM behaviours) or the organization’s success in reacting to an ever-changing environment (OCI
viewed through the responses of the organization to its environment). To address such a
shortcoming, future research could further explore these two lesser-known perspectives, so
as to increase the level of understanding of these two ways of conceptualizing OCI. Moreover,
considering that the relationship between determinants and OCI can be influenced by the way
in which the latter is conceptualized, future research should consider these potential effects on
their results.
The third concern refers to the overlap between measures of learning and knowledge
management as determinants of OCI. In prior work, it is not uncommon to see that the
learning construct shares the same measurement items to the knowledge management
construct (e.g. the acquisition of new knowledge is found in both learning and knowledge
management scales, see Noruzy et al., 2013; Nouri et al., 2017a, b). This overlap suggests a
need to better clarify the distinctive roles of these two related constructs in strengthening
OCI. To deal with this issue, we call on researchers to conduct empirical work to better define
the precise role of learning and knowledge management, as well as to demonstrate the
discriminant validity between these two concepts.
The fourth concern refers to the dominant trend in studies to examine OCI through a
cross-sectional design. In this review, a majority of articles (61 out of 64; 95.3%) have used this
method. We notably call on researchers to conduct more longitudinal studies and dynamic
methodologies. As the capacity to innovate is a constant and evolving process, these types of
methodologies have the advantage to examine OCI over time and to take into account its
ever-changing nature (Kozlowski et al., 2013).
The last concern refers to the fact that team level is completely overlooked by prior work
related to OCI. In this review, a vast majority of articles (63 out of 64; 98.4%) study OCI based
on individual perception measurements. However, the team level is essential to consider for a
better understanding of the systemic component of innovation, since any perception of
employees is undoubtedly modulated by the group to which they belong. Further studies
might shed more light on this level, by applying multilevel analyses, so that research results
are more nuanced by the different team environments that prevail in the organization.

6.6 Practical implications

While this review was intended at the theoretical level, the contributions outlined in the
previous sections may have implications for managerial practice. Not only for innovation
management as a professional group, but for the role of OCI drivers within the management
function in general.
First, as the dynamic capabilities perspective is increasingly meaningful in fast-changing
economies, this framework can help guide managers on how to leverage the necessary OCI
determinants (whether managerial or organizational) given their context (Teece, 2009). For
example, in sectors where digital transformation is a key priority for survival (i.e. rapidly
unfolding industry disruption), organizations must rapidly sense and respond to their
environment by leveraging the best of their resources. Effective communications are key to
harness the efforts of all stakeholders around new, innovative, and ever-challenging
organizational goals. This determinant effectively creates a pacing of other factors such as
leadership and support, both requiring new ways of framing innovation to develop radically
evolving strategies. Factors such as culture and learning, which take more time to emerge, are
therefore seen as conditions that can help promote a climate conducive to innovation and
reinforce the organization’s strategy.
Second, the rise of more complex innovation processes can also lead to a changing focus
for management. As open innovation remains a growing trend in most sectors, it is associated
with significant opportunities and risks for intellectual property and profitability (Wang and
Islam, 2017). Although leadership may be one of the primary factors in that context to help
foster openness to innovation, it is only a catalyst that thereafter depends mostly on strong A dynamic
innovation culture and modern learning processes. Taken together, effects of these capabilities
determinants go deeper throughout the different layers of the organization and serve as a
safeguard mechanism to fully and rapidly leverage new sources of knowledge for innovation,
perspective
while at the same time ensuring continuity in rapidly shifting stakeholder configurations in
open innovation networks. Communication and executive support for innovation are then
used as levers that help to steer innovation initiatives that are both dependent and influencing
(i.e. co-evolving).
Third, while globalization in several sectors is being challenged by renewed protectionism,
innovation continues to depend heavily on strong partnerships between organizations across
continents (Ye and Kankanhalli, 2013). These trends evolve over several years at a time, and
this medium-term outlook leads organizations to focus more on leadership and executive
support as a means to steer innovation initiatives. Again, other OCI determinants can help
support the challenging task of keeping international and global projects cohesive, especially
by relying on a solid cultural foundation that helps the organization stay its course. This leads
again to a coherent innovation strategy that can best leverage all the strengths and
opportunities of the organization in a shifting global context.

6.7 Limitations
Although this study seems to be the first to provide a portrait through the dynamic
capabilities lens, some limitations need to be considered. While an effort was made to cover a
set of publications, all journals on organizational innovation could not be included. It is also
likely that if other databases were used to carry out the research, other relevant work might
have been identified. We recognize that the strategy used for selecting articles (e.g. namely
holding at first articles on the basis only of reading the titles and abstracts) might lead to
missing certain articles. However, cross-reference strategies used (i.e. considering reference
lists of major contributions, using other research engines) limited such possibilities. Lastly,
another limit could stem from the way the determinants were assembled. Although five were
identified and retained in this review, other determinants might have been found, and some of
them could have been subdivided into more precise categories (e.g. learning could be
separated from knowledge management). Hence, the five-factor structure is based on the
reflections of the authors as well as their appreciation of the literature.

6.8 Other avenues for future research

In terms of future research directions, developing a multidimensional measure of OCI
including tthe three perspectives (human, procedural and environmental aspects) seems to be
a logical next step. This measure would not only allow scholars to capture all the components
of OCI in their studies but also serve as a tool for practitioners to make a diagnosis of their
organizations’ OCI. Furthermore, this paper follows the direction of the work of Adams et al.
(2006) according to which it is not enough to simply assess the presence (or absence) of
innovation determinants in the organization; it is also essential to measure the quality of their
presence, as well as, their interplay when studying/assessing the level of organizational
innovation.
Another avenue for research is to empirically study the weight of each determinant as
predictors of OCI. More studies should investigate the interrelationships or interplay between
managerial and organizational determinants to see more clearly how they reinforce each
other in strengthening OCI. Future research efforts could also be devolved to check how some
employee characteristics contribute to strengthening the influence of these determining
conditions on OCI, through the use of multilevel modelling.
Another line of research that seems relevant is to validate this structure into five factors
with numerous business leaders, and that, in different cultural contexts to see if other major
EJIM determinants of OCI should be added to those already identified, through the use of
cross-organizational analysis.

7. Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to provide a portrait of the main managerial and
organizational determinants of OCI. Through a systematic review of the literature published
between 1991 and 2018, five core OCI determinants have been identified, namely: leadership,
support, communication, culture, and learning. Studied through the lens of DCT, these levers
were found to be essential capabilities for an organization to innovate and maintain a
competitive edge.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate 64 studies included in the final sample.
Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006), “Innovation management measurement: a review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 21-47.
Adner, R. and Helfat, C.E. (2003), “Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1011-1025.
*Adriansyah, A. and Afiff, A.Z. (2015), “Organizational culture, absorptive capacity, innovation
performance and competitive advantage: an integrated assessment in Indonesian banking
industry”, South East Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 70-86.
*Alpkan, L., Bulut, C., Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G. and Kilic, K. (2010), “Organizational support for
intrapreneurship and its interaction with human capital to enhance innovative performance”,
Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 732-755.
*Alsalami, E., Behery, M. and Abdullah, S. (2014), “Transformational leadership and its effects on
organizational learning and innovation: evidence from Dubai”, Journal of Applied Management
and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 61-81.
Amabile, T.M. (1998), How to Kill Creativity, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston,
MA, Vol. 87.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), “Assessing the work
environment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154-1184.
Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1998), “Measuring climate for work group innovation: development
and validation of the team climate inventory”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 235-258.
*Arag
on-Correa, J.A., Garc
ıa-Morales, V.J. and Cord
on-Pozo, E. (2007), “Leadership and organizational
learning’s role on innovation and performance: lessons from Spain”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 349-359.
*Arif, S., Zubair, A. and Manzoor, Y. (2012), “Innovative work behaviour and communication climate
among employees of advertising agencies”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 65-72.
Armandi, B., Oppedisano, J. and Sherman, H. (2003), “Leadership theory and practice: a ‘case’ in point”,
Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 1076-1088.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Revised Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind
Garden, Palo Alto, CA.
*Baum, J.R. and Locke, E.A. (2004), “The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to
subsequent venture growth”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 587-598.
*Baum, J.R., Locke, E.A. and Kirkpatrick, S.A. (1998), “A longitudinal study of the relation of vision
and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 43-54.
*Brandyberry, A.A. (2003), “Determinants of adoption for organisational innovations approaching A dynamic
saturation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 150-158.
capabilities
Becheikh, N., Landry, R. and Amara, N. (2006), “Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the
manufacturing sector: a systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003”, Technovation,
perspective
Vol. 26 Nos 5-6, pp. 644-664.
Burke, W.W. (2018), Organization Change: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Butler, P. and Tregaskis, O. (2018), “Distributed leadership and employee cynicism: trade unions as
joint change agents”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 540-554.
*Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y. (2002), “Learning orientation, firm innovation capability,
and firm performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 515-524.
Caldwell, D.F. and O’Reilly, C.A. (2003), “The determinants of team-based innovation in organizations:
the role of social influence”, Small Group Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 497-517.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2011), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values Framework, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Franciso, CA.
Camis
on-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcam
ı, R., Segarra-Cipr
es, M. and Boronat-Navarro, M. (2004), “A
meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size”, Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 331-361.
*Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R. and Gefen, D. (2010), “The importance of innovation leadership in cultivating
strategic fit and enhancing firm performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 339-349.
*Chen, S.T. and Chang, B.G. (2012), “The effects of absorptive capacity and decision speed on
organizational innovation: a study of organizational structure as an antecedent variable”,
Contemporary Management Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 27-50.
Costigan, J.I. and Schmeidler, M.A. (2004), “The communication climate inventory”, in Gordon, J. (Ed.),
The Pfeiffer Book of Successful Communication Skill-Building Tools, John Wiley & Sons, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 303-312.
Crossan, M.M. and Apaydin, M. (2010), “A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation:
a systematic review of the literature”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 1154-1191.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-590.
De Martino, M. and Magnotti, F. (2018), “The innovation capacity of small food firms in Italy”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 362-383.
*Dobni, C.B. (2008), “Measuring innovation culture in organizations: the development of a generalized
innovation culture construct using exploratory factor analysis”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 539-559.
Ebadi, Y.M. and Utterback, J.M. (1984), “The effects of communication on technological innovation”,
Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 572-585.
*Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1,
pp. 51-59.
Farnese, M.L. and Livi, S. (2016), “How reflexivity enhances organizational innovativeness: the
mediation role of team support for innovation and individual commitment”, Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 525-536.
Fidler, L.A. and Johnson, J.D. (1984), “Communication and innovation implementation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 704-711.
Ford, J.D. and Ford, L.W. (2012), “The leadership of organization change: a view from recent empirical
evidence”, in Shani, A.B., Pasemore, W.A. and Woodman, R.W. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Change and Development, Emerald Group, Bingley, pp. 1-36.
EJIM *Garc
ıa-Morales, V.J., Llor
ens-Montes, F.J. and Verd
u-Jover, A.J. (2008), “The effects of
transformational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge and
innovation”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 299-319.
*Garc
ıa-Morales, V.J., Mat
ıas-Reche, F. and Verd
u-Jover, A.J. (2011), “Influence of internal
communication on technological proactivity, organizational learning, and organizational
innovation in the pharmaceutical sector”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 150-177.
*Gumusluoglu, L. and Ilsev, A. (2009a), “Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational
innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 461-473.
glu, L. and Ilsev, A. (2009b), “Transformational leadership and organizational innovation:
Gumusluo
the roles of internal and external support for innovation”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 264-277.
Harbone, P. and Johne, A. (2003), “Creating project climate for successful product innovation”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 118-132.
Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 4,
pp. 695-702.
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D. and Winter, S.G. (2007),
Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, Blackwell, Oxford.
*Hogan, S.J. and Coote, L.V. (2014), “Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: a test of
Schein’s model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1609-1621.
Hou, B., Hong, J., Zhu, K. and Zhou, Y. (2019), “Paternalistic leadership and innovation: the moderating
effect of environmental dynamism”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 562-582.
Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of
control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 891-902.
Hsiao, H.C., Chang, J.C. and Chen, S.C. (2014), “The influence of support for innovation on
organizational innovation: taking organizational learning as a mediator”, The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 463-472.
Hughes, D.J., Lee, A., Tian, A.W., Newman, A. and Legood, A. (2018), “Leadership, creativity, and
innovation: a critical review and practical recommendations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 549-569.
*Hurley, R.F. and Hult, G.T.M. (1998), “Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an
integration and empirical examination”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 42-54.
*Jia, X., Chen, J., Mei, L. and Wu, Q. (2018), “How leadership matters in organizational innovation: a
perspective of openness”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 6-25.
*Jim
enez-Jim
enez, D. and Sanz-Valle, R. (2011), “Innovation, organizational learning, and
performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 408-417.
*Jimenez-Jimenez, D., Sanz Valle, R. and Hernandez-Espallardo, M. (2008), “Fostering innovation: the
role of market orientation and organizational learning”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 389-412.
*Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003), “The role of transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 14 Nos 4-5, pp. 525-544.
*Khalili, A. (2016), “Linking transformational leadership, creativity, innovation, and innovation-
supportive climate”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 9, pp. 2277-2293.
*Kivim€aki, M., L€ansisalmi, H., Elovainio, M., Heikkil€a, A., Lindstr€om, K., Harisalo, R. and Puolimatka,
L. (2000), “Communication as a determinant of organizational innovation”, R & D Management,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Kiziloglu, M. (2015), “The effect of organizational learning on firm innovation capability: an A dynamic
investigation in the banking sector”, Global Business and Management Research: International
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 17-33. capabilities
Knight, K.E. (1967), “A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process”, Journal of Business,
perspective
Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 478-496.
Koc, T. (2007), “Organizational determinants of innovation capacity in software companies”,
Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 373-385.
Kozlowski, S.W., Chao, G.T., Grand, J.A., Braun, M.T. and Kuljanin, G. (2013), “Advancing multilevel
research design: capturing the dynamics of emergence”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 581-615.
Kwon Choi, B., Koo Moon, H. and Ko, W. (2013), “An organization’s ethical climate, innovation, and
performance: effects of support for innovation and performance evaluation”, Management
Decision, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1250-1275.
Labrouche, G. (2014), “Les capacit
es dynamiques : un concept multidimensionnel en construction”, papier
pr
esent
e a la XXIIIe Conf
erence Internationale de Management Strat
egique, Rennes, France,
available at: http://www.strategie-aims.com/events/conferences/ (accessed 10 January 2019).
*Laforet, S. (2016), “Effects of organisational culture on organisational innovation performance in
family firms”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 379-407.
Lau, C.M. and Ngo, H.Y. (2004), “The HR system, organizational culture, and product innovation”,
International Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 685-703.
*Lee, E.S. and Song, D.W. (2015), “The effect of shipping knowledge and absorptive capacity on
organizational innovation and logistics value”, International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 218-237.
*Lee, V.H., Leong, L.Y., Hew, T.S. and Ooi, K.B. (2013), “Knowledge management: a key determinant in
advancing technological innovation?”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 848-872.
*Liao, S.H., Chang, W.J., Hu, D.C. and Yueh, Y.L. (2012), “Relationships among organizational culture,
knowledge acquisition, organizational learning, and organizational innovation in Taiwan’s
banking and insurance industries”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 52-70.
*Liao, S.H., Fei, W.C. and Liu, C.T. (2008), “Relationships between knowledge inertia, organizational
learning and organization innovation”, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 183-195.
*Liao, S.H. and Wu, C.C. (2010), “System perspective of knowledge management, organizational
learning, and organizational innovation”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 1096-1103.
Lievens, A., Moenaert, R. and Jegers, R. (1999), “Linking communication to innovation success in the
financial industry: a case study analysis”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
*Lin, H.F. (2007), “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3-4, pp. 315-332.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
*Mardani, A., Nikoosokhan, S., Moradi, M. and Doustar, M. (2018), “The relationship between
knowledge management and innovation performance”, The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 12-26.
Martins, E.C. and Terblanche, F. (2003), “Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and
innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-74.
*Mart
ın-de Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M., Navas-L
opez, J.E. and Cruz-Gonz
alez, J. (2013), “The
moderating role of innovation culture in the relationship between knowledge assets and
EJIM product innovation”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80 No. 2,
pp. 351-363.
Mavondo, F. and Farrell, M. (2003), “Cultural orientation: its relationship with market orientation,
innovation and organisational performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 241-249.
McDonough, E.F. III (2000), “Investigation on factors contributing to the success of cross-functional
teams”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 221-235.
Miles, J.A. (2012), Management and Organization Theory, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
Miron, E., Erez, M. and Naveh, E. (2004), “Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote
innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other?”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 175-199.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. and PRISMA Group. (2009), “Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, PLoS Medicine, Vol. 6
No. 7, pp. 1-6.
*Mokhber, M., bin Wan Ismail, W.K. and Vakilbashi, A. (2015), “Effect of transformational leadership
and its components on organizational innovation”, Iranian Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 221-241.
*Mokhber, M., Khairuzzaman, W. and Vakilbashi, A. (2018), “Leadership and innovation: the
moderator role of organization support for innovative behaviours”, Journal of Management and
Organization, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 108-128.
Mone, M.A., McKinley, W. and Barker, V.L. (1998), “Organizational decline and innovation: a
contingency framework”, Academy of Management Review Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 115-132.
*Monge, P.R., Cozzens, M.D. and Contractor, N.S. (1992), “Communication and motivational predictors
of the dynamics of organizational innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 250-274.
*Montes, F.J.L., Moreno, A.R. and Morales, V.G. (2005), “Influence of support leadership and teamwork
cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and performance: an empirical examination”,
Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 1159-1172.
Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B. (1988), “Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and
innovation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M. (2002), “Leading creative people:
orchestrating expertise and relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 705-750.
*Naqshbandi, M.M. and Tabche, I. (2018), “The interplay of leadership, absorptive capacity, and
organizational learning culture in open innovation: testing a moderated mediation model”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 133, pp. 156-167.
*Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jim
enez-Jim
enez, D. and Sanz-Valle, R. (2016), “Studying the links between
organizational culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish companies”, Revista
Latinoamericana de Psicolog
ıa, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 30-41.
*Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V.M., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. and Rezazadeh, A. (2013), “Relations
between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management,
organizational innovation, and organizational performance: an empirical investigation of
manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 64
Nos 5-8, pp. 1073-1085.
Nouri, B.A., Ghorbani, R. and Soltani, M. (2017a), “The effect of knowledge management on
organizational innovation with the mediating role of organizational learning (case study:
agricultural bank in Iran)”, Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 194-211.
*Nouri, B.A., Mousavi, M.M. and Soltani, M. (2017b), “Effect of transformational leadership and
knowledge management processes on organizational innovation in Ardabil University of
Medical Sciences”, International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, Vol. 3
No. 11, pp. 672-698.
*Obendhain, A.M. and Johnson, W.C. (2004), “Product and process innovation in service organizations: A dynamic
the influence of organizational culture in higher education institutions”, Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 91-113. capabilities
Papa, M.J., Daniels, T.D. and Spiker, B.K. (2007), Organizational Communication: Perspectives and
perspective
Trends, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Par
e, G., Trudel, M.C., Jaana, M. and Kitsiou, S. (2015), “Synthesizing information systems knowledge:
a typology of literature reviews”, Information and Management, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 183-199.
*Prasad, B. and Junni, P. (2016), “CEO transformational and transactional leadership and
organizational innovation: the moderating role of environmental dynamism”, Management
Decision, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 1542-1568.
Read, A. (2000), “Determinants of successful organisational innovation: a review of current research”,
Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 95-119.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Rodgers, M., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Roberts, H., Britten, N. and Popay, J. (2009), “Testing
methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews:
effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function”, Evaluation,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 49-73.
Rodrigues Alves, M.F., Vasconcelos Ribeiro Galina, S. and Dobelin, S. (2018), “Literature on
organizational innovation: past and future”, Innovation and Management Review, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 2-19.
*Ruiz-Moreno, A., Garcia-Morales, V.J. and Llorens-Montes, F.J. (2008), “The moderating effect of
organizational slack on the relation between perceptions of support for innovation and
organizational climate”, Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 509-525.
*Salehi, Y. and Naseri, A. (2018), “Investigate the relationship between organizational learning
capabilities and organizational innovation in the food industry (subsidiary industrial estates of
kermanshah province)”, International Journal of Information, Business and Management,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 222-237.
*Sanz-Valle, R., Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jim
enez-Jim
enez, D. and Perez-Caballero, L. (2011), “Linking
organizational learning with technical innovation and organizational culture”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 997-1015.
Sapprasert, K. and Clausen, T.H. (2012), “Organizational innovation and its effects”, Industrial and
Corporate Change, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1283-1305.
*Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K. and Santora, J.C. (2008), “Building a climate for innovation through
transformational leadership and organizational culture”, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 145-158.
Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K. and Santora, J.C. (2011), “Leadership vision, organizational culture, and
support for innovation in not-for-profit and for-profit organizations”, The Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 291-309.
*Sattayaraksa, T. and Boon-itt, S. (2016), “CEO transformational leadership and the new product
development process: the mediating roles of organizational learning and innovation culture”,
The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 730-749.
Sattayaraksa, T. and Boon-itt, S. (2018), “The roles of CEO transformational leadership and
organizational factors on product innovation performance”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 227-249.
Schein, E. (2010), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
*Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behaviour: a path model of
individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 580-607.
EJIM *Shahzad, F., Xiu, G. and Shahbaz, M. (2017), “Organizational culture and innovation performance in
Pakistan’s software industry”, Technology in Society, Vol. 51, pp. 66-73.
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. and MacMillan, I. (1995), “Cultural differences in innovation championing
strategies”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 931-952.
Siddaway, A.P., Wood, A.M. and Hedges, L.V. (2018), “How to do a systematic review: a best practice
guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses”,
Annual Review of Psychology, doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803.
Siegel, S.M. and Kaemmerer, W.F. (1978), “Measuring the perceived support for innovation in
organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 553-562.
*Song, Z.H. (2015), “Organizational learning, absorptive capacity, imitation and innovation: empirical
analyses of 115 firms across China”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 97-113.
*Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2012), “Six Sigma, organizational learning and innovation: an integration and
empirical examination”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29
No. 8, pp. 915-936.
*Stanley Kam, S.W. (2013), “The role of management involvement in innovation”, Management
Decision, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 709-729.
*Suh, J., Harrington, J. and Goodman, D. (2018), “Understanding the link between organizational
communication and innovation: an examination of public, nonprofit, and for-profit
organizations in South Korea”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 217-244.
Sutanto, E.M. (2017), “The influence of organizational learning capability and organizational creativity
on organizational innovation of Universities in East Java, Indonesia”, Asia Pacific Management
Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 128-135.
Tarraço, E.L., Bernardes, R.C., Borini, F.M. and Rossetto, D.E. (2019), “Innovation capabilities for
global R&D projects in subsidiaries”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 639-659.
Teece, D.J. (2009), Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management: Organizing for Innovation and
Growth, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Teece, D. and Pisano, G. (1994), “The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction”, Industrial and
Corporate Change, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 537-556.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
*Teo, H.H., Wang, X., Wei, K.K., Sia, C.L. and Lee, M.K. (2006), “Organizational learning capacity and
attitude toward complex technological innovations: an empirical study”, Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 264-279.
Tian, M., Deng, P., Zhang, Y. and Salmador, M.P. (2018), “How does culture influence innovation? A
systematic literature review”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 1088-1107.
*Tien, L.C. and Chao, H.S. (2012), “Effects of information culture and job satisfaction on the
organizational innovation - a study of different leadership styles as a moderator”, Advances in
Management and Applied Economics, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 83-110.
Tjosuold, D. and McNeely, L.T. (1988), “Innovation through communication in an educational
bureaucracy”, Communication Research, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 568-581.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M. (1984), “Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 653-669.
*Uddin, M.A., Fan, L. and Das, A.K. (2017), “A study of the impact of transformational leadership,
organizational learning, and knowledge management on organizational innovation”,
Management Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 42-54.
Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2003), “Organizational learning, knowledge management, and intellectual A dynamic
capital: an integrative conceptual model”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. (Eds), The
Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell, Oxford, capabilities
pp. 122-141. perspective
*Verdu-Jover, A.J., Alos-Simo, L. and Gomez-Gras, J.M. (2018), “Adaptive culture and product/service
innovation outcomes”, European Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 330-340.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2007), “Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-51.
Wang, H. and Islam, S.M. (2017), “Construction of an open innovation network and its mechanism
design for manufacturing enterprises: a resource-based perspective”, Frontiers of Business
Research in China, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 1-21.
*Wang, Y.L. and Ellinger, A.D. (2011), “Organizational learning: perception of external environment
and innovation performance”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32 No. 5-6, pp. 512-536.
*Widmann, A. and Mulder, R.H. (2018), “Team learning behaviours and innovative work behaviour in
work teams”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 501-520.
Winter, S.G. (2003), “Understanding dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24
No. 10, pp. 991-995.
*Xie, X., Wu, Y. and Zeng, S. (2016), “A theory of multi-dimensional organizational innovation cultures
and innovation performance in transitional economies: the role of team cohesion”, Chinese
Management Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 458-479.
Yang, Z., Nguyen, V.T. and Le, P.B. (2018), “Knowledge sharing serves as a mediator between
collaborative culture and innovation capability: an empirical research”, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 958-969.
Ye, J. and Kankanhalli, A. (2013), “Exploring innovation through open networks: a review and initial
research questions”, IIMB Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Yeung, A.K., Ulrich, D.O., Nason, S.W. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1999), Organizational Learning
Capability: Generating and Generalizing Ideas with Impact, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Yin, R.K., (1994), Case Study Research Design and Methods: Applied Social Research and Methods
Series, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.
*Zach, F. (2016), “Collaboration for innovation in tourism organizations: leadership support,
innovation formality, and communication”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 271-290.
*Zaied, R.M.B. and Affes, H. (2016), “The relationship between the sources of knowledge management,
organisational innovation and organisational performance”, International Journal of
Information, Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 185-206.
*Zeki
c, Z., Fabi
c, M.G. and Samarzija, L. (2017), “Factors contributing to the successful
implementation of management innovations”, Central European Public Administration
Review, Vol. 15 Nos 3-4, pp. 75-106.
Zheng, W., Yang, B. and McLean, G.N. (2010), “Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and
organizational effectiveness: mediating role of knowledge management”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 763-771.

Further reading
Frank, A. and Brownell, J. (1989), Organizational Communication and Behaviour: Communicating to
Improve Performance, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Orlando, FL.
EJIM Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A. (2014), “Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of
dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 831-850.
Rajapathirana, R.J. and Hui, Y. (2018), “Relationship between innovation capability, innovation type,
and firm performance”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 44-55.

Corresponding author
V
era-Line Montreuil can be contacted at: vera.line.m@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com