Exploring the effects of individual innovativeness dimensions on performance: a study with pharmaceutical managers

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 51 Sayı: 2, 256 - 262, 31.08.2021

Nilay Tarhan , Sevgi Şar

Öz

Background and Aims: Innovation is a crucial factor for individuals and businesses, particularly in the period of Industry 4.0. The objectives of the present study are to explore the factor structure of the Individual Innovativeness Scale (IS) in a manager sample, and then to investigate the dimensions’ impact on performance. Methods: A questionnaire was administered to managers in the pharmaceutical industry. Factor structure of the Individual Innovativeness Scale was determined via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Afterwards, impacts of the dimensions on performance were assigned. Results: After exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, three dimensions emerged: resistance to change, openness to experience, and opinion leading. The regression model showed that opinion leading and openness to experience were significant predictors of performance. Conclusion: The IS is three dimensional in the pharmaceutical manager sample. Performance of pharmaceutical managers are affected from opinion leading and openness to experience. This paper has both theoretical and practical contributions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Individual innovativeness, openness to experience, opinion leading, resistance to change, performance

Kaynakça

• • Adolph, S., Tisch, M., & Metternich, J. (2014). Challenges and approaches to competency development for future production. Journal of International Scientific Publications–Educational Alternatives, 12(1), 1001-1010.
• • Anderson, N. R., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: a constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147-173.
• • Arslan, M., Tarhan, N., & Sar, S. (2017). Examination of the community pharmacists’ intention to pharmacist partnership using the theory of planned behavior: a structural equation model. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, 51(2), 216-225.
• • Arslan, M., & Şar, S. (2018). Examination of environmentally friendly “green” logistics behavior of managers in the pharmaceutical sector using the theory of planned behavior. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 14(11), 1007-1014.
• • Babapour, J., Gholipourb, A., & Mehralian, G. (2018). Human resource management challenges to develop pharmaceutical industry: evidence from developing countries. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 17(Suppl2), 224-238.
• • Bartone, P. T., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Laberg, J. C., & Snook, S. A. (2009). Big five personality factors, hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(6), 498-521.
• • Celik, K. (2013). The relationship between individual innovativeness and self-efficacy levels of student teachers. International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 6(1), 56-67.
• • Chao, C. W., Reid, M., & Mavondo, F. T. (2012). Consumer innovativeness influence on really new product adoption. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 20(3), 211-217.
• • Chang, H. T., Chou, Y. J., Liou, J. W., & Tu, Y. T. (2016). The effects of perfectionism on innovative behavior and job burnout: Team workplace friendship as a moderator. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 260-265.
• • Chen, C. P., Weng, J. Y., Yang, C. S., & Tseng, F. M. (2018). Employing a data mining approach for identification of mobile opinion leaders and their content usage patterns in large telecommunications datasets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 130, 88-98.
• • Cho, S., & Workman, J. (2011). Gender, fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership, and need for touch: Effects on multi-channel choice and touch/non-touch preference in clothing shopping. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15(3), 363-382.
• • Çelik, H. E., & Yılmaz, V. (2016). LISREL 9.1 ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi temel kavramlar, uygulamalar, programlama (3th ed.) [Structural equation modeling with LISREL 9.1 basic concepts, applications, programming]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• • Çöl, G. (2008). Algılanan güçlendirmenin işgören performansı üzerine etkileri [The effects of perceived empowerment on employee performance]. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9(1), 35-46.
• • Darmawan, D. (2017). The effect of the big five personality on job performance. Management & Accounting Research Journal, 2(1), 36-42.
• • De Jong, J. P. J, & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.
• • Ding, B. (2018). Pharma industry 4.0: Literature review and research opportunities in sustainable pharmaceutical supply chains. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 119, 115-130.
• • Ertuğ, N., & Kaya, H. (2017). Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Bireysel Yenilikçilik Profilleri ve Yenilikçiliğin Önündeki Engellerin İncelenmesi [Investigating the individual innovativeness profiles and barriers to innovativeness in undergraduate nursing students]. Hemşirelikte Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi (HEAD), 14(3), 192-197.
• • Goldsmith, R. E., & Desborde, R. (1991). A validity study of a measure of opinion leadership. Journal of Business Research, 22(1), 11-19.
• • Grzybowska, K., & Łupicka, A. (2017). Key competencies for Industry 4.0. Economics & Management Innovations, 1(1), 250-253.
• • Gu, H., Duverger, P., & Yu, L. (2017). Can innovative behavior be led by management? A study from the lodging business. Tourism Management, 63, 144-157.
• • Gümüştekin, G. E., & Öztemiz, A. B. (2005). Örgütlerde stresin verimlilik ve performansla etkileşimi [Productivity and performance interaction with stres of organizations]. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1), 271-288.
• • Gürkan, G. C., & Demiralay, T. (2017). Bireysel yenilikçiliğin çalışanın yenilikçi davranışı üzerindeki etkisinde içsel motivasyonun aracılık rolü: Türkiye’de cerrahlar örneği. [The mediator effect of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between individual innovativeness and employee’s innovative behavior: the case of surgeons in Turkey]. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. 6(1), 65-90.
• • Hachana, R., Berraies, S., & Ftiti, Z. (2018). Identifying personality traits associated with entrepreneurial success: does gender matter? Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, art32Iart32XXV.
• • Hair, F. J., Anderson, E. R., Tatham, L. R., & Black, C. W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. • Harris, J. A. (2004). Measured intelligence, achievement, openness to experience, and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(4), 913-929.
• • Horváth, D., & Szabó, R. Z. (2019). Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 119-132.
• • Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65.
• • IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics Base for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
• • Inuwa, M. (2017). Relationship between job equity and performance of employee : A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management Future, 1(1), 8-15.
• • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2015). LISREL 9.2 for Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
• • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide, Scientific Software International, Chicago.
• • Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A., Stumpf, V., & Kobsda, C. (2013). Umsetzungsempfehlungen für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0 – Abschlussbericht des Arbeitskreises Industrie 4.0. Berlin.
• • Kılıçer, K., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2010). Bireysel yenilikçilik ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Individual innovativeness scale (IS): the study of adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 150- 164.
• • Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-74.
• • Kılıçer, K., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2013). Exploring the perceived barriers to innovativeness: views of Turkish pre-service teachers as technology leaders. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28, 246-265.
• • Klang, A. (2012). The relationship between personality and job performance in sales: a replication of past research and an extension to a Swedish context (Master Thesis). Retrieved from https:// www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:542263/FULLTEXT01.pdf
• • Kovács, O. (2017). Az Ipar 4.0 komplexitása – I Közgazdasági Szle, 64, 823-851.
• • Kumar, S. H., Talasila, D., Gowrav, M. P., & Gangadharappa, H.V. (2020). Adaptations of pharma 4.0 from industry 4.0. Drug Invention Today, 14(3), 405-415.
• • Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Age, resistance to change, and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 741-760.
• • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90.
• • Özden, G., Cevik, S., & Sarıtaş, S. Ç. (2019). Do the online information searching strategies affect individual innovativeness in nursing students? Annals of Medical Research, 26(4), 629-635.
• • Pallister, J. G., & Foxall, G. R. (1998). Psychometric properties of the Hurt–Joseph–Cook scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Technovation, 18(11), 663-675.
• • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• • Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 989-993.
• • Rogers, E. M., & Cartano, D. G. (1962). Methods of measuring opinion leadership. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 435-441.
• • Sarıoğlu, A. (2014). Bireysel yenilikçilik ölçeğinin hemşirelikte geçerlik ve güvenirliği (Master Thesis). Retrieved from tez.yok.gov. tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
• • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74.
• • Schuhmacher, A., Germann, P. G., Trill, H., & Gassmann, O. (2013). Models for open innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug Discovery Today, 18(23-24), 1133-1137.
• • Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
• • Shoham, A., & Ruvio, A. (2008). Opinion leaders and followers: A replication and extension. Psychology & Marketing, 25(3), 280- 297.
• • Sigler, T. H., & Pearson, C. M. (2000). Creating an empowering culture: examining the relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment. Journal of Quality Management, 5, 27-52.
• • Tarhan, N., Arslan, M., & Şar, S. (2017). A structural equation model for pharmacy students’ acquiring knowledge-based behavior towards complementary and alternative medicine. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 16, 54-60.
• • Thoresen, C. J., Bradley, J. C., Blıese, P. D., & Thoresen, J. D. (2004). The big five personality traits and individual job performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 835-853.
• • Vila, L. E., Perez, P. J., & Coll-Serrano, V. (2014). Innovation at the workplace: Do professional competencies matter? Journal of Business Research, 67, 752-757.
• • Wang, X., & Dass, M. (2017). Building innovation capability: The role of top management innovativeness and relative-exploration orientation. Journal of Business Research, 76, 127-135.
• • Williams, S. D. (2004). Personality, attitude, and leader influences on divergent thinking and creativity in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3),187-204.
• • Wu, M. Y., & Lee, Y. R. (2011). The effects of internal marketing, job satisfaction and service attitude on job performance among high-tech firm. African Journal of Business Management, 5(32), 12551-12562.
• • Yıldız, S., Baştürk, F., & Boz Taştan İ. (2014). The effect of leadership and innovativeness on business performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 785-793.
• • Yılmaz, V., Çelik, H. E., & Arslan, M. S.T . (2010). Enerji çeşitleri ve geri dönüşüme karşı tutumların çevresel davranışa etkisi [Effects of attitude towards energy variety and recycling on environmental behaviors]. Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 20(2), 323-342.
• • Yilmaz, O., & Bayraktar, D.M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of educational technologies and their individual innovativeness categories. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3458-3461.
• • Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: a critical review and proposal for future research directions. In Martocchio, J. J. & Ferris, G. R. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Elsevier, Oxford.
• • Zor, U., Linder, S., & Endenich, C. (2019). CEO characteristics and budgeting practices in emerging market SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(2), 658-678.