Asiye YÜKSEL

24814

Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations

Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations

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.
Keywords:

Antagonist, Antagonist Coalition, Chaos, Innovation Intellectual Capital,

PDF

___

  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Aragon-Sânchez, A., & Sânchez-Marin, G. (2005). Strategic Orientation, Management Characteristics, and Performance: A Study of Spanish SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(3), 287-308. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1985), The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Damanpour, F. (2017). Organizational Innovation. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Dickel, D. G., & de Moura, G. L. (2016). Organizational Performance Evaluation in Intangible Criteria: A Model Based on Knowledge Man-agement and Innovation Management. RAIRevista De Administraçao EInovaçao, 13(3), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.rai.2016.06.005 google scholar
  • Dolan S. & Garcia S. (2003). An Auerbach, Understanding and Managing Chaos in Organisations. International Journal of Management. 20(1), 2. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Hamel G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston: MA google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2019). The Basic Trait of Antagonism: An Unfortunately Underappreciated Construct. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 118-126. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed-method Design: Principles and Procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Left Coast Press. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Pervaiz, K. A (1998). Benchmarking for Quality. Management & Technology, 5(1), 45-58. google scholar
  • Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N. C. & Edvinsson, L. (1997). Intellectual Capital, Navigating the New Business Landscape, Macmillan Business, London : Springer. google scholar
  • Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research. 3rdedn, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Smith, S. & Paquette, S. (2010). Creativity, Chaos, and Knowledge Management. Business Information Review, 27(2), 118-123. http://doi.org.10.1177/0266382110366956 google scholar
  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Thietart, R. A. & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos Theory and Organization. Organization Science, 6(1), 19-3. https://doi.Org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.19. google scholar
  • Turan, A. (2015). Examining the Impact of Machiavellianism on Psychological Withdrawal, Physical Withdrawal and Antagonistic Behavior. Global Business and Management Research, 7(3), 87. google scholar
  • Turner D.W. (2010) Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Researcher. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760. google scholar
  • Wilson, J. (1966). Innovation İn Organizations: Notes Toward A Theory. In James D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to Organizational Design. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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/UCMA-09-2017-0094 google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
Istanbul Management Journal-Cover
  • Başlangıç: 1975
  • Yayıncı: İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Intellectual Capital and Chaos of Innovation: Antagonist Coalition in Organizations

Asiye YÜKSEL

Kaizen and Productivity: The Mediating Effect of the Customer-supplier Relationship Using Smart-PLS

Mulugeta GİRMA