The Effects of Openness on Managerial Innovation in Cameroonian Companies

The Effects of Openness on Managerial Innovation in Cameroonian Companies

Joel Stephan Tagne, Paul Ningaye, Georges Kobou
Copyright: © 2021 |Pages: 16
DOI: 10.4018/JOEUC.20210701.oa2
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyze the effects of openness on the adoption of managerial innovation by Cameroonian companies, as well as comparing the share of managerial innovation resulting from inter-organizational networks of the same group and of different groups. Noting a lack of such a study on Cameroon, this study used data from the Centre de Recherche en Economie et Gestion (CEREG) to achieve the objective. Using a binary probit model and a recursive bivariate probit model, the authors found that, first, a company that collaborates with other companies has an increased probability of 0.37 of adopting new managerial practices, compared to another company that does not collaborate. Second, a company belonging to a group that collaborates with companies of a different group has an increased probability of 0.30 of adopting new managerial practices, compared to a company that only collaborates with companies of the group to which she belongs. Business leaders should cooperate with all market players.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

Innovation is seen as a major driving force for economic development (Fagerberg, 1987; Wang & Chan, 2013) and even for sustainable development (Shen, Siraj, Jiang, Zhu & Li, 2020). Many researchers present innovation as the introduction of a new product or process into operations, but the improvement of an existing product or process can also be considered as an innovation (Ozgen, Nijkamp & Poot, 2013). However, according to Le Roy et al. (2013), this definition is more suitable for technological innovations in research and development laboratories. Other authors have focused their attention on non-technological innovations such as administrative and managerial innovations. Evan (1966) considers an administrative innovation to be an innovative idea relating to the recruitment of staff, the allocation of resources, the definition of tasks, the management method or the development of staff. On the other hand, Hamel (2006) presents managerial innovation as a new organization, a new administrative system, new managerial practices or new techniques that can create value for the organization adopting them. It refers to human capital, leadership and performance (Ziadlou, 2020). Thus, a company is considered to have innovated at the managerial level if it has adopted new management practices or methods to improve its overall performance (La Roy, Robert & Giuliani, 2013; Montalvan-Burbano, Plaza-Ubeda, Perez-Valls & Sabando-Vera, 2019).

By using the data from the “Centre de Recherche en Economie et Gestion (CEREG)” of the University of Yaoundé II, 51.79% of Cameroonian companies declare that they have innovated at the managerial level. To further enhance this level of innovation, many determinants have been identified using two approaches; the first approach considers innovation to be technological and is determined by enormous investment in research and development, the qualification of the workforce and the spread of new information and communication technologies (Biatour & Kegels, 2008). The second approach considers non-technological innovation, which is put into practice by staff training, customer/supplier relations and, to a lesser extent, research and development (Mongo, 2013). These different determinants are referred to as internal determinants of the innovation process.

Faced with an increasingly dynamic and complex market, many companies are turning to the open innovation model characterized by collaborations and partnerships (Cheng, Lyu, Su & Han, 2019; Dekkers, Koukou, Mitchell & Sinclair, 2019). Thus, a company may have other external resources that can strengthen its innovation potential (Stanisławski & Lisowska, 2015). In such a case we speak of open innovation (Huang & Rice, 2012). This type of innovation combines both internal and external ideas from the company (Bogers, Chesbrough & Moedas, 2018). By collaborating with other actors, a company is likely to multiply its sources of innovation to which it has access. These external actors are customers, suppliers, universities, research laboratories, public authorities and competitors. Thus, by collaborating with these external actors, firms can access external knowledge and ideas that complement and enhance their knowledge bases, thus effectively accelerating innovation (Terjesen & Patel, 2017; Zobel, Lokshin & Hagedoorn, 2017; Di Nauta, Merola, Caputo & Evangelista, 2018; Sun & Cao, 2018; Cheng, Lyu, Su & Han, 2019).

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 36: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 35: 3 Issues (2023)
Volume 34: 10 Issues (2022)
Volume 33: 6 Issues (2021)
Volume 32: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 31: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 30: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 29: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 28: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 27: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 26: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 25: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 24: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 23: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 22: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 21: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 20: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 19: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 18: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2005)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2004)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2003)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2002)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2001)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2000)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (1999)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (1998)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (1997)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (1996)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (1995)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (1994)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (1993)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (1992)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (1991)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (1990)
Volume 1: 3 Issues (1989)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing