Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations

Yıl: 2023 Cilt: Sayı: 94 Sayfa Aralığı: 16 - 27 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002 İndeks Tarihi: 23-07-2023

Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations

Öz:
As a critical resource of human capital, employees might be the leading supporters of innovation management considering the integrated intellectual capital. In addition to the formal organizational structure, employees in an organization usually group informally within the institution. They conflict by taking an opposing role to other informal groups. When a manager/leader comes from outside or "someone from within the organization" takes a new position, conflicting groups quickly take a stand against the newcomer and even come together spontaneously with other groups. Hence, opposition groups’ unity against this newcomer within the organization has been defined as an "Antagonist Coalition in Organizations". The antagonist action structure that is the subject of this article plays a role in innovation management and negatively affects the process. This research examines the chaotic effect of antagonist coalitions on innovation. The semi-structured observation questionnaire was used as a data collection tool in the research. The tables containing the frequency values were used to analyze the survey data. The answers to the open-ended question were analyzed by qualitative data analysis. As a result of the research, most of the participants expressed a positive opinion on an antagonist coalition in organizations and that this would drive innovation into chaos. Study findings indicate a significant relationship between the antagonist coalition in organizations and the chaos of innovation.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Anderson, N. Potocnik, K. & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A state-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333. https://doi.org.10.1177/0149206314527128
  • Antunes, H. D. J. G. & Pinheiro, P. G. (2020). Linking Knowledge Management, Organizational Learning and Memory. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.04.002
  • Aragón-Sánchez, A., & Sánchez-Marín, G. (2005). Strategic Orientation, Management Characteristics, and Performance: A Study of Spanish SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(3), 287–308.
  • Baxter, P. (2003). The Development of Nurse Decision Making: A Case Study of a Four Year Baccalaureate Nursing Programme. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON. http://hdl.handle.net/11375/6027
  • Bonacich, E. (1972). A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market. American Sociological Review 37(October), 547-59 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2093450
  • Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. (2008). Interactive and Cumulative Effects of Multiple Human Stressors in Marine Systems. Ecology Letters, 11(12), 1304–1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01253.x
  • Cormican, K., & O’Sullivan, D. (2003). A Collaborative Knowledge Management tool for Product Innovation Management. International Journal of Technology Management, 26(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003144
  • Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1985), The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource.
  • Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. (2008). Interactive and Cumulative Effects of Multiple Human Stressors in Marine Systems. Ecology Letters, 11(12), 1304–1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01253.x
  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34 . https://doi.org/10.5465/256406.
  • Damanpour, F. (2017). Organizational Innovation. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management.
  • Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of Semi-Structured Interviews. Nurse researcher, 13(1). https://doi.org/ 10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.19.c5997
  • Dickel, D. G., & de Moura, G. L. (2016). Organizational Performance Evaluation in Intangible Criteria: A Model Based on Knowledge Man agement and Innovation Management. RAI Revista De Administração E Inovação, 13(3), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2016.06.005
  • Dolan S. & Garcia S. (2003). An Auerbach, Understanding and Managing Chaos in Organisations. International Journal of Management. 20(1), 2.
  • Edvinsson, L. & Sullivan, P. (1996). Developing a Model for Managing Intellectual Capital. European Management Journal, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(96)00022-9.
  • Gorry, G. A. & Westbrook, R. A. (2013). Customers, Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(1), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.14.
  • Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of Personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 795–824). Academic Press: San Diego, CA. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50031-7
  • Hamel G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston: MA
  • Jardon, C. M. (2015). The Use of Intellectual Capital to Obtain Competitive Advantages in Regional Small and Medium Enterprises. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(4), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.4
  • John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and research, 2,102-138.
  • Katila, R. & Shane S.(2005). When Does Lack of Resources Make New Firms Innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5), 814–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803924.
  • Labovitz, S. & Hagedorn, R. (1975). A Structural-Behavioral Theory of Intergroup Antagonism. Social Forces, 53(3), 444–448. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/53.3.444.
  • Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J. & Huang, J. C. (2017). Human Resource Systems, Employee Creativity, and Firm Innovation: The Moderating Role of Firm Ownership. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3),1164-1188. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0230.
  • Levitis, D. A., Lidicker Jr, W. Z., & Freund, G. (2009). Behavioural Biologists do not Agree on What Constitutes Behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 78(1), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.03.018
  • Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2019). The Basic Trait of Antagonism: An Unfortunately Underappreciated Construct. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 118-126.
  • McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and Constructing Diversity in Semi-structured Interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393615597674.
  • Markham, S. K. (2000). Corporate Championing and Antagonism as Forms of Political Behavior: An R&D Perspective. Organization Science, 11(4), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.429.14599.
  • Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Morse, J. M. (2012). The Implications of Interview Type and Structure in Mixed-method Designs. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft, 193-204.
  • Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed-method Design: Principles and Procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Left Coast Press.
  • Montag, T., Maertz, J. C. P. & Baer, M. (2012). Critical Analysis of the Workplace Creativity Criterion Space. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1362-1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441835
  • Parks, C. D., Joireman, J. & Van Lange, P. A. (2013), “Cooperation, Trust and Antagonism How Public goods are Promoted”. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(3), 119-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612474436
  • Pervaiz, K. A (1998). Benchmarking for Quality. Management & Technology, 5(1), 45-58.
  • Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N. C. & Edvinsson, L. (1997). Intellectual Capital, Navigating the New Business Landscape, Macmillan Business, London : Springer.
  • Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research. 3rdedn, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
  • Silverman, D. (2000). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text, and Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. http://nbn resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs010363
  • Smith, S. & Paquette, S. (2010). Creativity, Chaos, and Knowledge Management. Business Information Review, 27(2), 118–123. http://doi.org.10.1177/0266382110366956
  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Styhre, A. (2007). Against the Antagonist View of Professional – Manager Relationships: The Case of the Culture Industry. Human Resource Development. 10(4), 401-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860701718794.
  • Subramaniam, M. & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.1740791.
  • Thiétart, R. A. & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos Theory and Organization. Organization Science, 6(1), 19–3. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.19.
  • Turan, A. (2015). Examining the Impact of Machiavellianism on Psychological Withdrawal, Physical Withdrawal and Antagonistic Behavior. Global Business and Management Research, 7(3), 87.
  • Turner D.W. (2010) Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Researcher. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754–760.
  • Wilson, J. (1966). Innovation İn Organizations: Notes Toward A Theory. In James D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to Organizational Design. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
  • Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique, and Suggested Research Directions. Journal of Management Studies. 31(3), 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00624.x
  • Wu, W.Y., Chang, M. & Chen, C. (2008). Promoting Innovation Through the Accumulation of Intellectual Capital, Social Capital and En trepreneurial Orientation. R&D Management 38(3), 265-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9914.00120-i1
  • Wu, W., Liu, Y., Kim, Y. & Gao, P. (2018). How Does Emotional Conflict Affect Innovation Behavior? International Journal Of Conflict Management, 29(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2017-0094
  • Yoo, H.-J., Sim, T., Choi, A., Park, H.-J., Yang, H., Heo, H. M., . . . Mun, J. H. (2016). Quantifying Coordination Between Agonist and Antagonist Muscles During A Gait. Journal Of Mechanical Science And Technology, 30(11), 5321–5328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12206-016-1156-8.
APA YÜKSEL A (2023). Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. , 16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
Chicago YÜKSEL Asiye Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. (2023): 16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
MLA YÜKSEL Asiye Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. , 2023, ss.16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
AMA YÜKSEL A Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. . 2023; 16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
Vancouver YÜKSEL A Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. . 2023; 16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
IEEE YÜKSEL A "Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations." , ss.16 - 27, 2023. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
ISNAD YÜKSEL, Asiye. "Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations". (2023), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
APA YÜKSEL A (2023). Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. Istanbul Management Journal, (94), 16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
Chicago YÜKSEL Asiye Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. Istanbul Management Journal , no.94 (2023): 16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
MLA YÜKSEL Asiye Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. Istanbul Management Journal, vol., no.94, 2023, ss.16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
AMA YÜKSEL A Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. Istanbul Management Journal. 2023; (94): 16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
Vancouver YÜKSEL A Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations. Istanbul Management Journal. 2023; (94): 16 - 27. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
IEEE YÜKSEL A "Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations." Istanbul Management Journal, , ss.16 - 27, 2023. 10.26650/imj.2023.94.002
ISNAD YÜKSEL, Asiye. "Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations". Istanbul Management Journal 94 (2023), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.26650/imj.2023.94.002