The role of innovative work behaviour and knowledge-based dynamic capabilities in increasing the innovative performance of agricultural enterprises

https://doi.org/10.17221/151/2021-AGRICECONCitation:

Jankelová N., Joniaková Z. (2021): The role of innovative work behaviour and knowledge-based dynamic capability in increasing the innovative performance of agricultural enterprises. Agric. Econ. – Czech, 67: 363–372.

supplementary materialdownload PDF

The purpose of this study is to examine the interrelationships among the variables of the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) of agrarian management, innovative work behaviour (IWB) of employees, knowledge-based dynamic capabilities (KBDC) and innovative performance (IP) of agrarian enterprises. We analysed not only direct effects but also the possibilities of mediating these effects to increase the overall effect on IP. A questionnaire survey was used to collect data from managers of agribusinesses in Slovakia (175 respondents). We used the partial least squares structural equation modelling method and the appropriate software to test the theoretical research model and the proposed hypotheses to examine the relationships among the individual selected constructs in more depth. The findings point to the existence of a statistically significant relationship between EO and IP, which, however, is weaker than the overall effect of the involvement of mediation variables. Each mediation variable (IWB and KBDC) increases the overall effect separately, but their joint mediation action is of the greatest importance, when full mediation takes place. The strength of the relationship between the two main variables is also influenced by the size of the agrarian enterprise such that being larger has a negative moderation effect. Significant differences were also identified in the legal forms of business in favour of companies over agricultural co-operatives (ACs).

References:
Ambrus A. (2020): Difficulties of application precision technology on a Hungarian farm. Economics of Agriculture, 2: 28–37.
 
Berthet E.T., Hickey G.M., Klerkx L. (2018): Opening design and innovation processes in agriculture: Insights from design and management sciences and future directions. Agricultural Systems, 165: 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.06.004
 
Boğan E., Dedeoğlu B.B. (2017): The effects of perceived behavioral integrity of supervisors on employee outcomes: Moderating effects of tenure. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26: 511–531.
 
Bolin J.H. (2014): Hayes Andrew F. (2013): Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, USA, the Guilford Press: Book Review. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51: 335–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050
 
Cabello-Medina C., López-Cabrales Á., Valle-Cabrera R. (2011): Leveraging the innovative performance of human capital through HRM and social capital in Spanish firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 807–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.555125
 
Carolan M. (2020): Automated agrifood futures: Robotics, labor and the distributive politics of digital agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47: 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1584189
 
Chin W.W. (2010): How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Esposito Vinzi V., Chin W.W., Henseler J., Wang H. (eds.): Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg: 655–690.
 
Damanpour F., Aravind D. (2012): Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8: 423–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00233.x
 
Darnhofer I. (2021): Resilience or how do we enable agricultural systems to ride the waves of unexpected change? Agricultural Systems, 187: 102–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102997
 
De Jong J., Den Hartog D. (2010): Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19: 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
 
Dias C., Rodrigues R.G., Ferreira J.J. (2021): Small agricultural businesses' performance – What is the role of dynamic capabilities, entrepreneurial orientation, and environmental sustainability commitment? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30: 1898–1912. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2723
 
Fleming A., Jakku E., Fielke S., Taylor B.M., Lacey J., Terhorst A., Stitzlein C. (2021): Foresighting Australian digital agricultural futures: Applying responsible innovation thinking to anticipate research and development impact under different scenarios. Agricultural Systems, 190: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103120
 
Gardašević J., Brkić I., Krstić T. (2020): Innovations in agricultural and wine production sector. Journal of Agronomy, Technology and Engineering Management, 3: 448–454.
 
Hair J.F., Hollingsworth C.L., Randolph A.B., Chong A.Y.L. (2017): An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117: 442–458.
 
Henseler J., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. (2015): A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43: 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
 
Huberty M. (2015): Awaiting the second big data revolution: From digital noise to value creation. Journal of Industry Competition and Trade, 15: 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-014-0190-4
 
Jiang X., Li Y. (2009): An empirical investigation of knowledge management and innovative performance: The case of alliances. Research Policy, 38: 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.002
 
Jimenéz-Jimenéz D., Sanz-Valle R. (2011): Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64: 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010
 
Kaya B., Abubakar A.M., Behravesh E., Yildiz H., Mert I.S. (2020): Antecedents of innovative performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Journal of Business Research, 114: 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.016
 
Kock N. (2015): Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
 
Laborde D., Martin W., Swinnen J., Vos R. (2020): COVID-19 risks to global food security. Science, 369: 500–502. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc4765
 
Ogbonnaya C., Valizade D. (2018): High performance work practices, employee outcomes and organizational performance: A 2-1-2 multilevel mediation analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29: 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1146320
 
Prange C., Pinho J.C. (2017): How personal and organizational drivers impact on SME international performance: The mediating role of organizational innovation. International Business Review, 26: 1114–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.04.004
 
Rauch A., Wiklund J., Lumpkin G.T., Frese M. (2009): Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33: 761–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
 
Rijswijk K., Klerkx L., Turner J.A. (2019): Digitalisation in the New Zealand agricultural knowledge and innovation system: Initial understandings and emerging organisational responses to digital agriculture. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100313
 
Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M., Mitchell R., Gudergan S.P. (2020): Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31: 1617–1643. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1416655
 
Roberts N., Grover V. (2012): Investigating firm's customer agility and firm performance: The importance of aligning sense and respond capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 65: 579–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.009
 
Roldán J., Sánchez-Franco M.J. (2012): Variance-based structural equation modeling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. In: Mora M., Gelman O., Steenkamp A.L., Raisinghani M. (eds.): Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems. Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA, IGI Global: 193–221.
 
Rose D.C., Chilvers J. (2018): Agriculture 4.0: Broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2: 1–7.
 
Schaffer B.S., Riordan C.M. (2003): A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best- -practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6: 169–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251542
 
Seo R. (2019): Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation performance: Insights from Korean ventures. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4: 675–695. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2019-0023
 
Shan P., Song M., Ju X. (2016): Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: Is innovation speed a missing link? Journal of Business Research, 69: 683–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.032
 
Toffolutti V., Stuckler D., McKee M. (2020): Is the COVID-19 pandemic turning into a European food crisis? European Journal of Public Health, 30: 626–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa101
 
Wang C., Walker E., Redmond J. (2007): Explaining the lack of strategic planning in SMEs: The importance of owner motivation. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 12: 1–16.
 
West J. (2014). Challenges of funding open innovation platforms: Lessons from Symbian Ltd. In: Chesbrough H., Vanhaverbeke W., West J. (eds.): New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press: 71–93.
 
Zheng S., Wu X., Du J. (2011): Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and innovation in networked environments. Journal of Knowledge Management 15: 1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111179352
 
supplementary materialdownload PDF

© 2021 Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences | Prohlášení o přístupnosti