How to increase production performance of Slovak agricultural companies: The key task of supporting innovative work behavior and information sharing

https://doi.org/10.17221/319/2020-AGRICECONCitation:

Jankelová N., Joniaková Z. (2021): How to increase production performance of Slovak agricultural companies: The key task of supporting innovative work behavior and information sharing. Agric. Econ. – Czech, 67: 11–20.

download PDF

The goal of this paper is to test the hypothesis of positive correlation between the innovative work behavior (IWB) support on the part of agricultural managers and the production performance of agricultural companies, mediated through information sharing in the companies. The research was performed on a sample of 175 companies of primary agricultural production in Slovakia. All data was analysed using the SPSS version 22.0 software package. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to assess the internal consistency of scales reliability. The Baron and Kenny mediator model was also used. The hypothesis was confirmed by the research. Complete mediation was identified where up to 91.6% of the overall effect is mediated through the sharing of the information variable. The practical implications of the research point out that the transparency of communication and support of innovations introduce positive effects in relation to the performance of agricultural companies. The IWB support is a predictor of production performance of agricultural companies. However, it does not have a clear effect; the effects of other factors are important. The IWB support positively affects the production performance of companies through the sharing of information between the managers and the employees, which becomes an important tool of innovative management. Agricultural cooperatives and joint stock companies can profit less significantly from the IWB support through the sharing of information than limited liability companies. The effect of IWB support on the production performance of cooperatives in natural expression shows statistically less significant impact.

References:
Anderson N., Potočnik K., Zhou J. (2014): Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40: 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
 
Aragon-Correa J.A., Martin-Tapia I., Hurtado-Torres N.E. (2013): Proactive environmental strategies and employee inclusion: The positive effects of information sharing and promoting collaboration and the influence of uncertainty. Organization and Environment, 2: 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026613489034
 
Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. (1986): The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
 
Carson J.B., Tesluk P.E., Marrone J.A. (2007): Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 5: 1217–1234.
 
De Jong J., Den Hartog D. (2010): Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 1: 23–36.
 
De Spiegelaere S., Van Gye G., De Witt H., Van Hootege G. (2015): Job design, work engagement and innovative work behavior: A multi-level study on Karasek's learning hypothesis. Management Revue, 2: 123–137. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2015-2-123
 
De Spiegelaere S., Van Gye G., Van Hootege G. (2016): Not all autonomy is the same. Different dimensions of job autonomy and their relation to work engagement & innovative work. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 26: 515–527.
 
Gibson C.B., Porath C.L., Benson G.S., Lawler E.E. (2007): What results when firms implement practices: The differential relationship between specific practices, firm financial performance, customer service, and quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6: 1467–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1467
 
Hofmann D.A. (1997): An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 6: 723–44.
 
Hoch J.E. (2014): Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 5: 541–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2012-0053
 
Chand M., Markova G. (2019): The European Union's aging population: Challenges for human resource management. Thunderbird International Business Review, 61: 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22023
 
Jankelová N., Joniakova Z., Blstakova J., Nemethova I. (2017): Readiness of human resource departments of agricultural enterprises for implementation of the new roles of human resource professionals. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 63: 461–470. https://doi.org/10.17221/189/2016-AGRICECON
 
Jankelová N., Remeňová K., Skorková Z., Némethová I. (2019): Innovative approaches to management with emphasis on soft factors and their impact on the efficiency of agribusiness companies. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 65: 203–211. https://doi.org/10.17221/202/2018-AGRICECON
 
Ketokivi M., Castañer X. (2004): Strategic planning as an integrative device. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 337–365.
 
Lähdesmäki M., Suutari T. (2020): Good workers, good firms? Rural SMEs legitimising immigrant workforce. Journal of Rural Studies, 77: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.035
 
Lorga A.M., Dobre C. (2018): Trends of agricultural management in Romania. Agrolife Scientific Journal, 7: 76–81.
 
Lezoche M., Hernandez J.E., Díaz M.E., Panetto H., Kac-przyk J. (2020): Agri-food 4.0: A survey of the supply chains and technologies for the future agriculture. Computers in Industry, 117: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103187
 
Min J., Kim Y., Lee S., Jang T., Kim I., Song J. (2019): The Fourth Industrial Revolution and its impact on occupational health and safety, worker's compensation and labor conditions. Safety and Health at Work, 10: 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.09.005
 
Mussner T., Strobl A., Veider V., Matzler K. (2017): The effect of work ethic on employees' individual innovation behavior. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26: 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12243
 
Nisula A.M., Kianto A. (2016): The antecedents of individual innovative behaviour in temporary group innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25: 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12163
 
Pfeffer J. (2010): Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24: 34–45.
 
Radaelli G., Lettieri E., Mura M., Spiller N. (2014): Knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour in healthcare: A micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23: 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12084
 
Srivastava A., Bartol K.M., Locke E.A. (2006): Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 6: 1239–1251. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478718
 
Thakur D., Chander M. (2018): Use of social media in agricultural extension: Some evidences from India. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 4: 1334–1346.
 
Tsegaye W.K., Su Q., Malik M. (2019): Expatriate cultural values alignment: The mediating effect of cross-cultural adjustment level on innovative behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28: 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12308
 
Urbancová H., Vrabcová P. (2020): Age management as a human resources management strategy with a focus on the primary sector of the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 66: 251–259. https://doi.org/10.17221/11/2020-AGRICECON
 
Vos S.C., Buckner M.M. (2015): Social media messages in an emerging health crisis: Tweeting bird flu. Journal of Health Communication, 3: 301–308.
 
download PDF

© 2021 Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences | Prohlášení o přístupnosti