How Does Inter-Organizational Relational Governance Propel Firms’ Open Innovation? A Conditional Process Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theory and Hypotheses
2.1. Relational Governance and Innovation Performance
2.2. The Mediation Effect of Open Innovation
2.3. The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and Data
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Independent Variable
3.2.3. Controls
3.3. Reliability, Validity, and Common Method Variance
4. Analyses and Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
5.2. Managerial Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variable | Factor Loading |
---|---|
Trust (Zaheer et al. [45], Poppo et al. [47], Zhang and Zhou [27]), Cronbach’s α = 0.859, CR = 0.860, AVE = 0.550 | |
1. External partners negotiate fairly with us. | 0.734 |
2. External partners will not encroach on our interests. | 0.752 |
3. External partners always keep their promises. | 0.764 |
4. We are not hesitant to cooperate with external partners despite unclear specifications. | 0.727 |
5. External partners are trustworthy. | 0.732 |
Relational norms (Liu et al. [20], Arranz and de Arroyabe [30]), Cronbach’s α = 0.873, CR = 0.873, AVE = 0.633 | |
1. We exchange useful information with external partners. | 0.762 |
2. Ideas or suggestions can be communicated easily and efficiently in cooperation. | 0.818 |
3. Disagreements or conflicts can be resolved in negotiation | 0.770 |
4. We actively make joint decisions with external partners through mutual understanding. | 0.831 |
Inbound open innovation (Hung and Chou [34], Sisodiya et al. [64]), Cronbach’s α = 0.893, CR = 0.894, AVE = 0.627 | |
1. We regularly obtain useful knowledge from external innovators. | 0.770 |
2. To promote value creation, we often search for external ideas and technologies. | 0.802 |
3. We have established an effective system to acquire external knowledge. | 0.781 |
4. We actively cooperate with external innovators to obtain advanced experience and technology. | 0.803 |
5. Our R&D relies on establishing extensive partnerships with external innovators. | 0.802 |
Outbound open innovation (Hung and Chou [34], Lichtenthaler [56]), Cronbach’s α = 0.876, CR = 0.876, AVE = 0.587 | |
1. We actively export knowledge to external innovators. | 0.790 |
2. We usually sell technologies and patents to external innovators. | 0.746 |
3. To develop the commercial value of internal knowledge, we have set up a dedicated department. | 0.784 |
4. We hope that external innovators will purchase and use our technologies and patents. | 0.774 |
5. We often cooperate with external innovators to co-exploit technology. | 0.734 |
Innovation performance (Chen et al. [78], Huang et al. [37]), Cronbach’s α = 0.878, CR = 0.878, AVE = 0.590 | |
1. We have developed more new products than our competitors have. | 0.770 |
2. We develop new products faster than our competitors do. | 0.756 |
3. The proportion of new product sales in total sales is higher than that of competitors. | 0.775 |
4. The success rate of innovative projects is better than that of our competitors. | 0.770 |
5. The number of patent applications is higher than that of our competitors. | 0.770 |
Environmental dynamism (Jansen et al. [70]), Cronbach’s α = 0.868, CR = 0.869, AVE = 0.570 | |
1. The environment of our market is changing rapidly. | 0.738 |
2. New demands for products and services are constantly emerging in the market. | 0.806 |
3. In our market, changes are taking place continuously. | 0.711 |
4. In the past year, great changes have taken place in our market. | 0.744 |
5. The number of products and services in our market changes rapidly and frequently. | 0.769 |
Model fit indices | |
χ2 = 426.376, χ2/df = 1.178, p = 0.011, CFI = 0.986, GFI = 0.920, IFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.984, RMSEA = 0.024 |
References
- Bogers, M.; Chesbrough, H.; Heaton, S.; Teece, D.J. Strategic management of open innovation: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2019, 62, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H. The future of open innovation. Res. Manag. 2017, 60, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dittrich, K.; Duysters, G. Networking as a means to strategy change: The case of open innovation in mobile telephony. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2007, 24, 510–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felin, T.; Zenger, T.R. Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Res. Pol. 2014, 43, 914–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popa, S.; Soto-Acosta, P.; Martinez-Conesa, I. Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 118, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Liu, Z. Micro- and macro-dynamics of open innovation with a quadruple-helix model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Faems, D.; De Visser, M.; Andries, P.; Van Looy, B. Technology alliance portfolios and financial performance: Value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 785–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laursen, K.; Salter, A.J. The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Res. Pol. 2014, 43, 867–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wadhwa, A.; Bodas Freitas, I.M.; Sarkar, M.B. The paradox of openness and value protection strategies: Effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance. Organ. Sci. 2017, 28, 873–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miozzo, M.; Desyllas, P.; Lee, H.-f.; Miles, I. Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms. Res. Pol. 2016, 45, 1337–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lauritzen, G.D.; Karafyllia, M. Perspective: Leveraging open innovation through paradox. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2019, 36, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garriga, H.; von Krogh, G.; Spaeth, S. How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 1134–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H.; Lettl, C.; Ritter, T. Value creation and value capture in open innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2018, 35, 930–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bogers, M. The open innovation paradox: Knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2011, 14, 93–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piezunka, H.; Dahlander, L. Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Acad. Manag. J. 2015, 58, 856–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antons, D.; Piller, F.T. Opening the black box of “not invented here”: Attitudes, decision biases, and behavioral consequences. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 29, 193–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, O.D. Incomplete contracts and the theory of the firm. J. Law Econ. Organ. 1988, 4, 119–139. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, M.A.; Roehrich, J.K. Contracts, relationships and integration: Towards a model of the procurement of complex performance. Int. J. Procure. Manag. 2009, 2, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williamson, O.E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Luo, Y.; Liu, T. Governing buyer–supplier relationships through transactional and relational mechanisms: Evidence from China. J. Oper. Manag. 2009, 27, 294–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, K.Z.; Zhang, Q.; Sheng, S.; Xie, E.; Bao, Y. Are relational ties always good for knowledge acquisition? Buyer–supplier exchanges in China. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bicen, P.; Hunt, S.D.; Madhavaram, S. Coopetitive innovation alliance performance: Alliance competence, alliance’s market orientation, and relational governance. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poppo, L.; Zenger, T. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 707–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muthusamy, S.K.; White, M.A. Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: A social exchange view. Organ. Stud. 2005, 26, 415–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Z.; Lumineau, F. Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. J. Oper. Manag. 2015, 33–34, 15–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacNeil, I.R. The New Social Contract: An Inquiry into Modern Contractual Relations; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Q.; Zhou, K.Z. Governing interfirm knowledge transfer in the Chinese market: The interplay of formal and informal mechanisms. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2013, 42, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Zhang, C.; Jiang, F. Matching governance mechanisms with transaction-specific investment types and supplier roles: An empirical study of cross-border outsourcing relationships. Int. Bus. Rev. 2019, 28, 316–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhuang, G.; Zhou, N. Relational norms and collaborative activities: Roles in reducing opportunism in marketing channels. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 46, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arranz, N.; de Arroyabe, J.C.F. Effect of formal contracts, relational norms and trust on performance of joint research and development projects. Br. J. Manag. 2012, 23, 575–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Li, Y.; Shi, L.H.; Liu, T. Knowledge transfer in buyer-supplier relationships: The role of transactional and relational governance mechanisms. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 78, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zobel, A.-K.; Hagedoorn, J. Implications of open innovation for organizational boundaries and the governance of contractual relations. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 34, 400–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veer, T.; Lorenz, A.; Blind, K. How open is too open? The mitigating role of appropriation mechanisms in R&D cooperation settings. R&D Manag. 2016, 46, 1113–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, K.-P.; Chou, C. The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation 2013, 33, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Z.; Ahlstrom, D.; Li, J.; Cheng, D. Knowledge creation capability, absorptive capacity, and product innovativeness. R&D Manag. 2013, 43, 473–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Conesa, I.; Soto-Acosta, P.; Carayannis, E.G. On the path towards open innovation: Assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. J. Knowl. Manag. 2017, 21, 553–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.; Chen, J.; Liang, L. How open innovation performance responds to partner heterogeneity in China. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 26–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corral de Zubielqui, G.; Jones, J.; Audretsch, D. The influence of trust and collaboration with external partners on appropriability in open service firms. J. Technol. Transf. 2019, 44, 540–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouncken, R.B.; Clauß, T.; Fredrich, V. Product innovation through coopetition in alliances: Singular or plural governance? Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 53, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, F.J.; Tian, Y.; Huo, B.F. Relational governance and opportunism in logistics outsourcing relationships: Empirical evidence from China. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 2501–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, T.K.; Teng, B.-S. Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organ. Stud. 2001, 22, 251–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 874–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gulati, R.; Nickerson, J.A. Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance. Organ. Sci. 2008, 19, 688–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 709–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaheer, A.; McEvily, B.; Perrone, V. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organ. Sci. 1998, 9, 141–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.J.; Poppo, L.; Zhou, K.Z. Relational mechanisms, formal contracts, and local knowledge acquisition by international subsidiaries. Strateg. Manag. J. 2009, 31, 349–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poppo, L.; Zhou, K.Z.; Ryu, S. Alternative origins to interorganizational trust: An interdependence perspective on the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future. Organ. Sci. 2008, 19, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Inkpen, A.C.; Currall, S.C. The coevolution of trust, control, and learning in joint ventures. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15, 586–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jensen, P.H.; Palangkaraya, A.; Webster, E. Trust and the market for technology. Res. Pol. 2015, 44, 340–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maurer, I. How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: The impact of project staffing and project rewards on the formation of trust, knowledge acquisition and product innovation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heide, J.B.; John, G. Do norms matter in marketing relationships? J. Mark. 1992, 56, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cannon, J.P.; Achrol, R.S.; Gundlach, G.T. Contracts, norms, and plural form governance. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2000, 28, 180–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gençtürk, E.F.; Aulakh, P.S. Norms- and control-based governance of international manufacturer-distributor relational exchanges. J. Int. Mark. 2007, 15, 92–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Q.; Zhao, X.; Yeung, H.Y.J.; Liu, Y. Improving logistics outsourcing performance through transactional and relational mechanisms under transaction uncertainties: Evidence from China. Int. J. Product. Econ. 2016, 175, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lechner, C.; Frankenberger, K.; Floyd, S.W. Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 865–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lichtenthaler, U. Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: Examining environmental influences. R&D Manag. 2009, 39, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cassiman, B.; Valentini, G. Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary? Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 1034–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Krogh, G.; Netland, T.; Wörter, M. Winning with open process innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2018, 59, 53–56. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.-J.; Hsiao, Y.-C.; Chu, M.-A. Transfer mechanisms and knowledge transfer: The cooperative competency perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2531–2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.H. Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. 2008, 13, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spithoven, A.; Clarysse, B.; Knockaert, M. Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation 2010, 30, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutvonen, A. Strategic application of outbound open innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2011, 14, 460–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Dong, M.C.; Gu, J.; Dou, W. How do informal ties drive open innovation? The contingency role of market dynamism. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2017, 64, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sisodiya, S.R.; Johnson, J.L.; Grégoire, Y. Inbound open innovation for enhanced performance: Enablers and opportunities. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2013, 42, 836–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henkel, J.; Schöberl, S.; Alexy, O. The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Res. Pol. 2014, 43, 879–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexy, O.; West, J.; Klapper, H.; Reitzig, M. Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 1704–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C.C.J.; Huizingh, E.K.R.E. When is open innovation beneficial? The role of strategic orientation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 1235–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olander, H.; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P.; Blomqvist, K.; Ritala, P. The dynamics of relational and contractual governance mechanisms in knowledge sharing of collaborative R&D projects. Knowl. Process. Manag. 2010, 17, 188–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaworski, B.J.; Kohli, A.K. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, J.J.P.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.J.; Volberda, H.W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1661–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, C.C.J.; Sheu, C. Enhancing radical innovation: The interplays of open innovation activities, firm capabilities, and environmental dynamism. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2018, 26, 369–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.A.; O’Kane, C.; Chen, G. Business ties, political ties, and innovation performance in Chinese industrial firms: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and environmental dynamism. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 121, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanisławski, R. Open Innovation as a Value Chain for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Determinants of the Use of Open Innovation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gerbing, D.W.; Anderson, J.C. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. J. Mark. Res. 1988, 25, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostopoulos, K.; Papalexandris, A.; Papachroni, M.; Ioannou, G. Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 1335–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geringer, J.M.; Hebert, L. Measuring performance of international joint ventures. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1991, 22, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Chen, Y.; Vanhaverbeke, W. The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation 2011, 31, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malhotra, N.K.; Kim, S.S.; Patil, A. Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1865–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Preacher, K.J.; Rucker, D.D.; Hayes, A.F. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2007, 42, 185–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Category | Item | Number | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Firm size | <100 | 38 | 11.95% |
100–300 | 77 | 24.21% | |
301–500 | 72 | 22.64% | |
501–1000 | 88 | 27.67% | |
>1000 | 43 | 13.52% | |
Firm age | <5 | 36 | 11.32% |
5–10 | 90 | 28.30% | |
11–20 | 119 | 37.42% | |
21–30 | 52 | 16.35% | |
>30 | 21 | 6.60% | |
Industry | High-tech industry | 242 | 76.10% |
Traditional industry | 76 | 23.90% | |
Ownership | State-owned enterprises | 19 | 5.97% |
Private enterprises | 188 | 59.12% | |
Foreign-funded enterprises | 41 | 12.89% | |
Joint venture enterprises | 70 | 22.01% |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Industry | N/A | ||||||||
2. Firm size | −0.005 | N/A | |||||||
3. Firm age | 0.058 | 0.032 | N/A | ||||||
4. Trust | −0.086 | −0.002 | −0.007 | 0.742 | |||||
5. Relational norms | −0.107 | −0.011 | 0.068 | 0.201 ** | 0.796 | ||||
6. Inbound open innovation | −0.121 * | −0.056 | −0.092 | 0.321 ** | 0.254 ** | 0.792 | |||
7. Outbound open innovation | −0.141 * | −0.059 | −0.065 | 0.380 ** | 0.307 ** | 0.340 ** | 0.766 | ||
8. Environmental dynamism | −0.020 | 0.059 | −0.134 * | 0.183 ** | 0.222 ** | 0.238 ** | 0.283 ** | 0.754 | |
9. Innovation performance | −0.055 | 0.086 | 0.054 | 0.310 ** | 0.335 ** | 0.320 ** | 0.331 ** | 0.356 ** | 0.768 |
Mean | 0.530 | 3.070 | 2.790 | 3.127 | 3.231 | 3.354 | 3.286 | 3.117 | 3.375 |
SD | 0.500 | 1.240 | 1.059 | 0.706 | 0.890 | 0.777 | 0.747 | 0.853 | 0.781 |
Variables | Innovation Performance | Inbound Open Innovation | Outbound Open Innovation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | |
Industry | −0.090 | −0.007 | 0.011 | 0.034 | −0.181 * | −0.111 | −0.206 * | −0.125 |
(0.088) | (0.081) | (0.081) | (0.079) | (0.087) | (0.082) | (0.083) | (0.076) | |
Firm size | 0.053 | 0.056 | 0.071 * | 0.067 * | −0.034 | −0.032 | −0.035 | −0.033 |
(0.035) | (0.032) | (0.032) | (0.031) | (0.035) | (0.033) | (0.034) | (0.030) | |
Firm age | 0.040 | 0.025 | 0.066 | 0.046 | −0.061 | −0.071 | −0.039 | −0.051 |
(0.041) | (0.038) | (0.038) | (0.037) | (0.041) | (0.038) | (0.039) | (0.036) | |
Trust | 0.279 *** | 0.168 ** | 0.302 *** | 0.344 *** | ||||
(0.058) | (0.061) | (0.058) | (0.054) | |||||
Relational norms | 0.247 *** | 0.183 *** | 0.172 *** | 0.199 *** | ||||
(0.046) | (0.047) | (0.047) | (0.043) | |||||
Inbound open innovation | 0.247 *** | 0.178 *** | ||||||
(0.058) | (0.055) | |||||||
Outbound open innovation | 0.272 *** | 0.169 ** | ||||||
(0.046) | (0.059) | |||||||
R2 | 0.013 | 0.183 | 0.179 | 0.239 | 0.025 | 0.158 | 0.026 | 0.216 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.004 | 0.170 | 0.166 | 0.222 | 0.015 | 0.145 | 0.017 | 0.203 |
ΔR2 | 0.013 | 0.169 | 0.166 | 0.056 | 0.025 | 0.134 | 0.026 | 0.189 |
F-statistic | 1.419 | 13.960 *** | 13.604 *** | 13.885 *** | 2.652 * | 11.749 *** | 2.837 * | 17.173 *** |
Variables | Innovation Performance | ||
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 9 | Model 10 | |
Industry | −0.090 | −0.005 | −0.015 |
(0.088) | (0.078) | (0.077) | |
Firm size | 0.053 | 0.057 | 0.061 * |
(0.035) | (0.031) | (0.031) | |
Firm age | 0.040 | 0.087 * | 0.086 * |
(0.041) | (0.037) | (0.036) | |
Inbound open innovation | 0.206 *** | 0.194 *** | |
(0.054) | (0.053) | ||
Outbound open innovation | 0.208 *** | 0.181 *** | |
(0.057) | (0.056) | ||
Environmental dynamism | 0.239 *** | 0.218 *** | |
(0.048) | (0.048) | ||
Inbound open innovation × Environmental dynamism | 0.152 * | ||
(0.061) | |||
Outbound open innovation × Environmental dynamism | 0.123 * | ||
(0.059) | |||
R2 | 0.013 | 0.239 | 0.275 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.004 | 0.224 | 0.257 |
ΔR2 | 0.013 | 0.226 | 0.037 |
F-statistic | 1.419 | 16.248 *** | 14.675 *** |
Path | Conditional Indirect Effect of Open Innovation | Index of Moderated Mediation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Condition | Effect | SE | 95% CI | INDEX | SE | 95% CI | |
TR→IOI→IP | Low (−1 SD) | 0.014 | 0.029 | [−0.045, 0.071] | 0.065 | 0.028 | [0.017, 0.125] |
Middle (0 SD) | 0.069 | 0.023 | [0.028, 0.118] | ||||
High (+1 SD) | 0.125 | 0.037 | [0.059, 0.203] | ||||
TR→OOI→IP | Low (−1 SD) | 0.019 | 0.033 | [−0.048, 0.084] | 0.062 | 0.023 | [0.020, 0.112] |
Middle (0 SD) | 0.072 | 0.024 | [0.027, 0.124] | ||||
High (+1 SD) | 0.125 | 0.029 | [0.073, 0.189] | ||||
RN→IOI→IP | Low (−1 SD) | 0.001 | 0.019 | [−0.040, 0.037] | 0.051 | 0.020 | [0.018, 0.097] |
Middle (0 SD) | 0.044 | 0.016 | [0.017, 0.078] | ||||
High (+1 SD) | 0.088 | 0.027 | [0.041, 0.146] | ||||
RN→OOI→IP | Low (−1 SD) | 0.007 | 0.021 | [−0.034, 0.047] | 0.046 | 0.016 | [0.017, 0.079] |
Middle (0 SD) | 0.046 | 0.015 | [0.019, 0.078] | ||||
High (+1 SD) | 0.086 | 0.020 | [0.049, 0.127] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, L.; Zhang, H. How Does Inter-Organizational Relational Governance Propel Firms’ Open Innovation? A Conditional Process Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10209. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810209
Liu L, Zhang H. How Does Inter-Organizational Relational Governance Propel Firms’ Open Innovation? A Conditional Process Analysis. Sustainability. 2021; 13(18):10209. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810209
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Liu, and Hua Zhang. 2021. "How Does Inter-Organizational Relational Governance Propel Firms’ Open Innovation? A Conditional Process Analysis" Sustainability 13, no. 18: 10209. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810209
APA StyleLiu, L., & Zhang, H. (2021). How Does Inter-Organizational Relational Governance Propel Firms’ Open Innovation? A Conditional Process Analysis. Sustainability, 13(18), 10209. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810209