list of references978-3-658-27179-4/1.pdflist of references abstein, a., heidenreich, s., &...

List of References

Abstein, A., Heidenreich, S., & Spieth, P. (2014). Innovative Work Behaviour: The Impact of Comprehensive HR System Perceptions and the Role of Work–Life Conflict. Industry and Innovation.

Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis. The American Economic Review, 78(4), 678–690.

Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1971). The Organic Organization and Innovation. Sociology, 5(1), 63–82.

Albert, D., Kreutzer, M., & Lechner, C. (2015). Resolving the Paradox of Interdependence and Strategic Renewal. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 210–234.

Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Alexiev, A. S., Volberda, H. W., & Van den Bosch, F. A. J. (2016). Interorganizational collaboration and firm innovativeness: Unpacking the role of the organizational environment. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 974–984.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context (1st ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2012). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework Neil. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.

Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., & Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, 28(10), 644–657.

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. American Marketing Association, 14(3), 396–402.

Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Top management team diversity and innovativeness: The moderating role of interfunctional coordination. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 249–261.

Avlonitis, G. J., Kouremenos, A., & Tzokas, N. (1994). Assessing the Innovativeness of Organizations and its Antecedents: Project Innovstrat. European Journal of Marketing, 28(11), 5–28.

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019S. Hügel, Innovation in Service Industries, Essays in Real Estate Research 16, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27179-4

118 List of References

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor Innovation: Facilitating the Suggestion and Implementation of Ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 265–285.

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.

Balakrishnan, A., Kumara, S., & Sundaresan, S. (1999). Manufacturing in the Digital Age: Exploiting Information Technologies for Product Realization. Information Systems Frontiers, 1(1), 25–50.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. (Freeman, Ed.). New York.

Barajas-Portas, K., Artigas, E. M., Fernández, L. V., & Alarcón, C. N. (2017). Understanding Corporate Reputation through Satisfaction in Emerging Markets. International Journal of Sales, Retailing and Marketing, 6(2), 17–31.

Becher, D. a., & Frye, M. B. (2011). Does regulation substitute or complement governance? Journal of Banking and Finance, 35, 736–751.

Becker, J.-M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical Latent Variable Models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using Reflective-Formative Type Models. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 359–394.

Becker, S. W., & Whisler, T. L. (1967). The Innovative Organization: A Selective View of Current Theory and Research. The Journal of Business, 40(4), 462–469.

Bell, G. G. (2005). Research Notes and Commentaries: Clusters, Networks, and Firm Innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 287–295.

Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG (J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 66–80.

Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rational Heuristics: The simple rules that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1437–1464.

Birkinshaw, J., Bouquet, C., & Barsoux, J.-L. (2011). The 5 Myths of Innovation. MIT Sloan Mangagement Review, 52(2), 40-‐53.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability: Implications for Data Aggregation and Analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations (1st ed., pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blind, K. (2012). The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries. Research Policy, 41, 391–400.

List of References 119

Bollen, K. a. (2007). Interpretational confounding is due to Misspecification, not to type of Indicator: Comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological methods, 12(2), 219–28.

Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314.

Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the Measurement of Organizational Slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.

Bourgeois, L. J., & Singh, J. V. (1983). Organizational slack and political behavior among top management teams. Academy of Management Proceedings, 43, 43–47.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.

Bromiley, P. (1991). Testing a Causal Model of Corporate Risk Taking and Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 37–59.

Bunce, D., & West, M. (1994). Changing work environments: Innovative coping responses to occupational stress. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, 8(4), 37–41.

Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

Byrne, B. M. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York: Psychology Press.

Calantone, R., Cavusgil, S., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515–524.

Calantone, R., Garcia, R., & Dröoge, C. (2003). The Effects of Environmental Turbulence on New Product Development Strategy Planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 90–103.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

Carayannis, E. G., & Provance, M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 90–107.

Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2009). Trust, Connectivity, and Thriving: Implications for Innovative Behaviors at Work. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(3), 169–191.

Carnes, C. M., Chirico, F., Hitt, M. A., Huh, D. W., & Pisano, V. (2017). Resource Orchestration for Innovation: Structuring and Bundling Resources in Growth- and Maturity-Stage Firms. Long Range Planning, 50(4), 472–486.


Cenfetelli, B. R. T., & Bassellier, G. (2009). Interpretation of Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 689–707.

Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Chandler, G. N., Keller, C., & Lyon, D. W. (2000). Unraveling the Determinants and Consequences of an Innovation-Supportive Organizational Culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(1), 59–76.

Cheng, J. L. C., & Kesner, I. F. (1997). Organizational Slack and Response to Environmental Shifts: The Impact of Resource Allocation Patterns. Journal of Management, 23(1), 1–18.

Chin, W. W. (1998a). Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), VII–XVI.

Chin, W. W. (1998b). The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.

Chin, W. W. (2003). A permutation procedure for multi-group comparison of PLS models. In M. Vilares, M. Tenenhaus, P. Coelho, V. E. Vinzi, & A. Morineau (Eds.), PLS and Related Methods: Proceedings of the International Symposium PLS’ 03 (pp. 33–43). Lisbon: Decisia.

Chin, W. W. (2010). How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses. In E. V. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares - Concepts, Methods and Applications (pp. 655–690). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Chin, W. W., & Dibbern, J. (2010). An introduction to a permutation based procedure for multigroup PLS analysis: Results of tests of differences on simulated data and a cross cultural analysis of the sourcing of information system services between Germany and the USA. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares - Concepts, Methods and Applications (pp. 171–193). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.

Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural Equation Modeling Analysis with Small Samples Using Partial Least Squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. (1989). Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure. In R. Schmalensee & R. D. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization II (Vol. II, pp. 1060–1107).

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

Covin, J. G., & Covin, T. J. (1990). Competitive Aggressiveness, Environmental Context, and Small Firm Performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 14(4), 35–50.

Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.

Crowston, K., Sawyer, S., & Wigand, R. (2001). Investigating the Interplay between Structure and Information and Communications Technology in the Real Estate Industry. Information Technology & People, 14(2), 163–183.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.

Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2006). Product and Process Innovations: A Review of Organizational and Environmental Determinants. In J. Hage & M. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation, Science, and Industrial Change: A Research Handbook (pp. 38–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2011). Managerial Innovation: Conceptions, Processes, and Antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.

Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational Performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675.

Damanpour, F., & Wischnevsky, D. J. (2006). Research on innovation in organizations: Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23(4), 269–291.

Davila, A., Foster, G., & Gupta, M. (2003). Venture-Capital Financing and the Growth of Startup Firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6), 689–708.

Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal Structure, Market Dynamism, and the Strategy of Simple Rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413–452.


Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm. ournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38.

Desphandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1982). Factors Affecting the Use of Market Research Information: A Path Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 14–31.

Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73.

Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C. (2000). Changing Roles: Leadership in the 21st Century. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 18–34.

Dewangan, V., & Godse, M. (2014). Towards a holistic enterprise innovation performance measurement system. Technovation, 34(9), 536–545.

Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Incorporating Formative Measures into Covariance-Based Structural Equation Models. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 335–358.

Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203–1218.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.

Diaz, J. (1993). Science, Engineering, and the Discipline of Real Estate. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 1(2), 183–195.

Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent and Asymptotically Normal PLS Estimators for Linear Structural eEtions. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 81, 10–23.

Dobni, C. B. (2008). Measuring Innovation Culture in Organizations: The development of a generalized innovation culture construct using exploratory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 539–559.

Dolmans, S. A. M., Burg, E. Van, Reymen, I. M. M. J., & Romme, A. G. L. (2014). Dynamics of Resource Slack and Constraints: Resource Positions in Action. Organization Studies, 35(4), 511–549.

Dorenbosch, L., Engen, M. L. van, & Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job Innovation: The Impact of Job Design and Human Resource Management through Production Ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 129–141.

Edquist, C., Hommen, C. L., & McKelvey, M. (2001). Innovation and Employment: Process versus Product Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Edwards, J. R. (2011). The Fallacy of Formative Measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370–388.


Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2002). Rethinking the Effects of Stressors: A Longitudinal Study on Personal Initiative. Journal of Occupational and Health Psychology, 7(2002), 221–234.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research: Conceptual issues and application guidelines. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 195–211.

Gallouj, F., & Weinstein, O. (1997). Innovation in Services. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 537–556.

Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 110–132.

Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking Forward and Looking Backward: Cognitive and Experiential. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 113–137.

Geiger, S., & Hoffman, J. (1998). The impact of the regulatory environment and corporate level diversification on firm performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(4), 439–453.

Geiger, S. W., & Cashen, L. H. (2002). A Multidimensional Examination of Slack and its Impact on Innovation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(1), 68–84.

Geisser, S. (1974). A Predictive Approach to the Random Effects Model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107.

George, G. (2005). Slack Resources and the Performance of Privately Held Firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 661–676.

Goldsmith, R. E., & Foxall, G. R. (2003). The Measurement of Innovativeness. The International Handbook on Innovation, 321–330.

Graaskamp, J. A. (1991). Graaskamp on Real Estate. (S. P. Jarchow, Ed.). Washington, DC: ULI - the Urban Land Institute.

Gray, W. D. (2000). The Nature and Processing of Errors in Interactive Behavior. Cognitive Science, 24(2), 205–248.

Greve, H. R. (2003). A Behavioral Theory of R&D Expenditures and Innovations: Evidence from Shipbuilding. The Academy of Management Journal, 6, 685–702.

Gupta, A. K., & Singhal, A. (1993). Managing Human Resources for Innovation and Creativity. Research Technology Management, 36(3), 41–48.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1969). Routine Technology, Social Structure, and Organization Goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 366–377.

Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32, 1365–1379.


Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of Individual-Level Innovation at Work: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90–105.

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press. Henderson, J., & McAdam, R. (1997). Decision making in the fragmented

organisation: A utility perspective. Management Decision, 39(6), 461–469. Henseler, J. (2007). A new and simple approach to multi-group analysis in partial

least squares pathmodeling. In H. Martens, T. Næs, & M. Martens (Eds.), PLS’ 07 international symposium on PLS and related methods – causalities explored by indirect observation (pp. 104–107). Ås: Matforsk.

Henseler, J. (2012). PLS-MGA: A non-parametric approach to partial least squares-based multi-group analysis. In W. Gaul, A. Geyer-Schulz, L. Schmidt-Thieme, & J. Kunze (Eds.), Challenges at the interface of data analysis, computer science, and optimization: Studies in classification, data analysis, and knowledge organization (pp. 495–501). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A Comparison of Approaches for the Analysis of Interaction Effects Between Latent Variables Using Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 82–109.

Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., et al. (2014). Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Ronkko and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209.

Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research: Updated Guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing) (Vol. 20, pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Herold, D. M., Jayaraman, N., & Narayanaswamy, C. R. (2006). What is the Relationship between Organizational Slack and Innovation? Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(3), 372–392.

Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2006). Resource and Capability Constraints to Innovation in Small and Large Plants. Small Business Economics, 26(3), 257–277.

Hoegl, M., Gibbert, M., & Mazursky, D. (2008). Financial constraints in innovation projects: When is less more? Research Policy, 37, 1382–1391.

Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609–1621.

Hollenstein, H. (1996). A composite indicator of a firm’s innovativeness. An empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing. Research Policy, 25(4), 633–645.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Coriance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New aAnatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

Hull, F., & Hage, J. (1982). Organizing for Innovation: Beyond Burns and Stalker’s Organic Type. Sociology, 16(4), 564–577.

Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–438.

Hunt, M. S. (1972). Competition in the major house appliance industry 1960-1970. Harvard University.

Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, Learning: An Organizational and Empirical Integration Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54.

Hurley, R. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Knight, G. A. (2005). Innovativeness and capacity to innovate in a complexity of firm-level relationships: A response to Woodside (2004). Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 281–283.

Ishak, N. A. (2005). Promoting Employees’ Innovativeness and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour through Superior-Subordinate Relationship in the Workplace. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 13(2), 16–30.

Iwai, K. (1984). Schumpeterian dynamics: An evolutionary model of innovation and imitation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 5(2), 159–190.

Jalilvand, A., & Kim, S. M. (2013). Matching slack resources and investment strategies to achieve long-term performance: New perspectives on corporate adaptability. Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 10(1), 38–52.


James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating Within-Group Interrater Reliability With and Without Response Bias, 69(1), 85–98.

Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. a J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness Perceptions As a Moderator in the Curvilinear Relationships Between Job Demands, and Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039–1050.

Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 347–364.

Janssen, O. (2004). How Fairness Perceptions Make Innovative Bahvior More or Less Stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 201–215.

Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 573–579.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency cost, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

de Jong, J. P. J., & den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36.

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.

Just, T., Voigtländer, M., Eisfeld, R., Henger, R., Hesse, M., & Toschka, A. (2017). Wirtschaftsfaktor Immobilien 2017.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk Daniel. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.


Kallenberg, R., & Oliva, R. (2003). Managing the Transition From Products to Services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(2), 160–172.

Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169–211.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley.

Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1988). Project Performance and Locus of Influence in the R&D Matrix. In R. Katz (Ed.), Managing Professionals in Innovative Organizations: A Collection of Readings (pp. 469–484). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Keil, M., Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K.-K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., & Wassenaar, A. (2000). A Cross-Cultural Study on Escalation of Commitment Behavior in Software Projects. MIS Quarterly, 24(2), 299.

Kemery, E. R., & Dunlap, W. P. (1986). Partialling Factor Scores Does Not Control Method Variance: A Reply to Podsakoff and Todor. Journal of Management, 12(4), 525–544.

Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2010). Employee-driven innovation: extending the license to foster innovation. Management Decision, 48(1), 65–84.

Khandwalla, P. N. (1972). Environment and its impact on the organization. International Studies of Management & Organization, 2(3), 297–313.

Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The Design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual, and Contextual Adoption Factors on Hospital of Technological and Andministrative. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 689–713.

Klepper, S. (1997). Industry Life Cycles. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1), 145–182.

Koschatzky, K., Bross, U., & Stanovnik, P. (2001). Development and Innovation Potential in the Slovene Manufacturing Industry: Analysis of an Industrial Innovation Survey. Technovation, 21(5), 311–324.

Kristensen, K., & Eskildsen, J. (2010). Design of PLS-Based Satisfaction Studies. In E. V. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares - Concepts, Methods and Applications (pp. 247–277). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Kummerow, M., & Lun, J. C. (2005). Information and Communication Technology in the Real Estate Industry: Productivity, Industry Structure and Market Efficiency. Telecommunications Policy, 29(2–3), 173–190.


Kurzrock, B.-M. (2011). Lebenszyklus von Immobilien. In N. Rottke & M. Thomas (Eds.), Immobilienwirtschaftslehre Band 1: Management (pp. 421–446). Cologne: Immobilien Manager Verlag.

Labrecque, L. I., vor dem Esche, J., Mathwick, C., Novak, T. P., & Hofacker, C. F. (2013). Consumer power: Evolution in the Digital Age. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 257–269.

Lam, A. (2005). Organizational Innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 115–147). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47.

Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing Innovation Capability in Organisations: a Dynamic Capabilities Approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377–400.

Lawson, M. B. (2001). In Praise of Slack: Time Is of the Essence. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 125–135.

Lee, S. (2015). Slack and Innovation: Investigating the Relationship in Korea. Journal of Business Research, 68(9), 1895–1905.

Leitner, J., & Meyer, M. (2013). Organizational Slack and Innovation. In E. G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1412–1419). Springer.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535–550.

Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product Innovation Strategy and the Performance of new Technology Ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1123–1134.

Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venture, 16(5), 429–451.

Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., Birdi, K. S., Leiva, P. I., & Kausel, E. E. (2014). The role of weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 234–256.


Maira, A. N., & Thomas, R. J. (1998). Organizing on the Edge: Meeting the Demand for Innovation and Efficiency. Prism-Cambridge Massachusetts, 5–20.

Malerba, F. (2007). Innovation and the dynamics and evolution of industries: Progress and challenges. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(4), 675–699.

Manu, F. A. (1992). Innovation Orientation, Environment and Performance: A Comparison of U.S. and European Markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2), 333–359.

Manu, F. A., & Sriram, V. (1996). Innovation, Marketing Strategy, Environment, and Performance. Journal of Business Research, 35, 79–91.

Marlin, D., & Geiger, S. W. (2015). A Reexamination of the Organizational Slack and Innovation Relationship. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2683–2690.

Martin, R. E. (1986). Externality regulation and the monopoly firm. Journal of Public Economics, 29(3), 347–362.

Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 64–74.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

Matthews, L. M., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part II – A case study. European Business Review, 28(1), 208–224.

Mayers, D., & Smith Jr., C. W. (1994). Managerial Discretion, Regulation, and Stock Insurer Ownership Structure. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 61(4), 638–655.

McGee, J., & Howard, T. (1986). Strategic Groups: Theory, Research and Taxonomy. Strategic Management Journal, 7(2), 141–160.

Mendelson, H., & Ziegler, J. (1999). Survival of the Smartest: Managing Information for Rapid Action and World Class Performance. New York: Wiley.

Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a Firm-Level Dynamic Capability through Capitalizing on Market Orientation and Innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 63–73.

Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229–242.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. J. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.


Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms. Management Sciences, 29(7), 770 – 791.

Miller, D. (1987). The Structural And Environmental Correlates Of Business Strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 55–76.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1978). Archetypes of Strategy Formulation. Management Science, 24(9), 921–933.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-Making and Environment: The Third Link. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 221–235.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading Off Between Value Creation and Value Appropriation: The Financial Implications of Shifts in Strategic Emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 63–76.

Moos, B., Beimborn, D., Wagner, H. T., & Weitzel, T. (2010). Suggestions for measuring organizational innovativeness: A review. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10.

Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. H. (2009). Market Orientation, Marketing Capabilities, and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 909–920.

Muhanna, W., & Wolf, J. R. (2002). The Impact of E-commerce on the Real Estate Industry: Bean and Guttery Revisited. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 8(2), 141–174.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading Creative People: Orchestrating Expertise and Relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.

Nelson, R. (1991). Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2), 61–74.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. (2010). Psychological Contract Breaches, Organizational Commitment, and Innovation-Related Behaviors: A Latent Growth Modeling Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 744–751.

Ngan, P. T. (2015). Organisational Innovativeness: Motivation in an Employee’s Innovative Work Behavior. Scientific Bulletin – Economic Sciences, 14, 86–97.

Nohria, N., & Garcia-‐Pont, C. (1991). Global Strategic Linkages and Industry Structure. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 105–124.


Nohria, N., & Gualti, R. (1996). Is Slack Good or Bad for Innovation? The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245–1264.

Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1997). What is the Optimum Amount of Organizational Slack? A Study of the Relationship between Slack and Innovation in Multinational Firms. European Management Journal, 15(6), 603–611.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nybakk, E. (2012). Learning Orientation, Innovativeness and Financial

Performance in Traditional Manufacturing Firms: A Higher-Order Structural Equation Model. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(5), 1–34.

Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 543–565.

Østergaard, C. R., Timmermans, B., & Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy, 40(3), 500–509.

Pallas, F., Böckermann, F., Goetz, O., & Tecklenburg, K. (2013). Investigating Organisational Innovativeness: Developing a Multidimensional Formative Measure. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 1–41.

Patterson, F., Kerrin, M., & Gatto-Roissard, G. (2009). Characteristics & Behaviours of Innovative People in Organisations.

Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D. L., et al. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379–408.

Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2006). Understanding and Mitigating Uncertainty in Online Environments: A Principal-Agent Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105–136.

Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 133–145.

Petrescu, M. (2013). Marketing research using single-item indicators in structural equation models. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 1(2), 99–117.

Petter, S., Straub, D. W., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying Formative Constructs in IS Research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656.

Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.


Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

Porter, M. E. (1979). The Structure within Industries and Companies’ Performance. The Review of Economics and Statisitcs, 61(2), 214–227.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press. Powelson. Porter, M. E. (1981). The Contributions of Industrial Organization To Strategic

Management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 609–620. Prajogo, D. I., & Ahmed, P. K. (2006). Relationships Between Innovation

Stimulus, Innovation Capacity, and Innovation Performance. R&D Management, 36(5), 499–515.

Pries, F., & Janszen, F. (1995). Innovation in the Construction Industry: The Dominant Role of the Environment. Construction Management and Economics, 13(1), 43–51.

Pugliese, A., Minichilli, A., & Zattoni, A. (2014). Integrating agency and resource dependence theory: Firm profitability, industry regulation, and board task performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1189–1200.

Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of Innovative Work Behaviour: Development and Test of an Integrated Model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142–150.

Ravichandran, T. (2000). Redefining organizational innovation: towards theoretical advancements. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 10(2), 243–274.

Reichle, E. D., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (2000). The Neural Bases of Strategy and Skill in Sentence – Picture Verification. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 261–295.

Reuvers, M., van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2008). Transformational Leadership and Innovative Work Behaviour: Exploring the Relevance of Gender Differences. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 227–244.

Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor’s Comments: A Critical Look at the Use of PLS-SEM. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), III–XVI.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). The Diffusion of Innovation (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.


Roldán, J. L., & Sánchez-Franco, M. J. (2012). Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Using Partial Least Squares in Information Systems Research. In M. Mora, O. Gelman, A. Steenkamp, & M. S. Raisinghani (Eds.), Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems (pp. 43–62).

Rottke, N. (2011a). Immobilienwirtschaftslehre als wissenschaftliche Disziplin. In N. Rottke & M. Thomas (Eds.), Immobilienwirtschaftslehre Band 1: Management (pp. 27–72). Cologne: Immobilien Manager Verlag.

Rottke, N. (2011b). Institutionen im Modell immobilienwirtschaftlicher Aktivität. In N. Rottke & M. Thomas (Eds.), Immobilienwirtschaftslehre Band 1: Management (pp. 173–190). Cologne: Immobilien Manager Verlag.

Rottke, N. (2017a). Besonderheiten von Immobilien und deren Märkten. In N. Rottke & M. Voigtländer (Eds.), Immobilienwirtschaftslehre Band 2: Ökonomie (reprint., pp. 83–100). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

Rottke, N. (2017b). Ökonomie: interdisziplinärer Bestandteil der Immobilienwirtschaftslehre. In N. Rottke & M. Voigtländer (Eds.), Immobilienwirtschaftslehre Band 2: Ökonomie (reprint., pp. 38–82). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

Roy, S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Marsillac, E. (2012). The Effect of Misspecification of Reflective and Formative Constructs in Operations and Manufacturing Management. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 10(1), 34–52.

Rubera, G., & Kirca, A. H. (2012). Firm Innovativeness and Its Performance Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 130–147.

Rudd, J. M., Greenley, G. E., Beatson, A. T., & Lings, I. N. (2008). Strategic Planning and Performance: Extending the Debate. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 99–108.

Ruvio, A. a., Shoham, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Schwabsky, N. (2013). Organizational Innovativeness: Construct Development and Cross-Cultural Validation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 1–19.

Salavou, H. (2004). The concept of innovativeness: should we need to focus? European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1), 33–44.

Salge, T. O. (2011). A Behavioral Model of Innovative Search: Evidence from Public Hospital Services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), 181–210.

Santos, J. B., & Brito, L. A. L. (2012). Toward a Subjective Measurement Model for Firm Performance. Brazilian Administration Review, 9(6), 95–117.


Sarstedt, M., Becker, J.-M., Ringle, C. M., & Schwaiger, M. (2011). Uncovering and Treating Unobserved Heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Which Model Selection Criterion Provides an Appropriate Number of Segments? Schmalenbach Business Review, 63(1), 34–62.

Sarstedt, M., Diamantopoulos, A., & Salzberger, T. (2016). Should we use single items? Better not. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3199–3203.

Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In M. Sarstedt, M. Schwaiger, & C. R. Taylor (Eds.), Measurement and Research Methods in International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing) (Vol. 22, pp. 195–218). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2009). Treating Unobserved Heterogeneity in PLS Path Modelling: A Comparison of FIMIX-PLS with Different Data. Journal of Applied Statistics, 37(8), 1299–1318.

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Henseler, J., & Hair, J. F. (2014a). On the Emancipation of PLS-SEM: A Commentary on Rigdon (2012). Long Range Planning, 47(3), 154–160.

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Smith, D., Reams, R., & Hair, J. F. (2014b). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 105–115.

Sawyer, S., Crowston, K., Wigand, R. T., & Allbritton, M. (2003). The Social Embeddedness of Transactions: Evidence from the Residential Real-Estate Industry. The Information Society, 19(2), 135–154.

Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing Response Rate and Nonreponse bias in Web and Paper Surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409–432.

Schroeder, R., Van de Ven, A. H., Scudder, G., & Polley, D. (1989). The Development of Innovation Ides. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies (pp. 107–134). New York: Harper & Row.

Schulte, K. (2005). Immobilienökonomie Band I: Betriebswirtschaftliche Grundlagen. München: Oldenbourg Verlag.

Schulte, K., Rottke, N., & Pitschke, C. (2005). Transparency in the German real estate market. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 23(1), 90–108.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York.


Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behaviour: A Part Model of Individual Innovation in the Work Place. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

Sears, G. J., & Baba, V. V. (2011). Toward a Multistage, Multilevel Theory of Innovation. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28, 357–372.

Shahzad, A. M., Mousa, F. T., & Sharfman, M. P. (2016). The Implications of Slack Heterogeneity for the Slack-Resources and Corporate Social Performance Relationship. Journal of Business Research, 69(12).

Sharfman, M. P., Wolf, G., Chase, R. B., & Tansik, D. A. (1988). Antecedents of Organizational Slack. The Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 601–614.

Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: A framework for study and integration of innovation research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(6), 556–574.

Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in adminstrative organization (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Simsek, Z. (2007). CEO Tenure and Organizational Performance: An Intervening Model. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 653–662.

Singh, J. V. (1986). Performance, Slack, and Risk Taking in Organizational Decision Making. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 562–585.

Singh, K. (2004). Impact of HR Practices on Perceived Performance in India. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), 301–315.

Statistisches Bundesamt. (2006). Projektbericht: Immobilienwirtschaft in Deutschland 2006 - Entwicklungen und Ergebnisse. Wiesbaden.

Statistisches Bundesamt. (2008). Klassifikation der Wirtschaftszweige. Wiesbaden.

Stock, R. M., & Zacharias, N. A. (2011). Patterns and performance outcomes of innovation orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 870–888.

Stone, M. (1974). Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36(2), 111–147.

Straub, D., David, M.-C. B., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research. The Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 63–132.

Subramanian, A. (1996). Innovativeness: Redefining the concept. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13(3–4), 223–243.


Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631–647.

Sundbo, J. (1997). Management of Innovation in Services. The Service Industries Journal, 17(3), 432–455.

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explication Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.

Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169–183.

Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Tsai, K. H., & Yang, S. Y. (2013). Firm innovativeness and business performance: The joint moderating effects of market turbulence and competition. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8), 1279–1294.

Tuccillo, J. A. (1997). Technology and the Housing Markets. Business Economics, 32(3), 17–20.

Tushman, M. L. (1997). Winning through innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 25(4), 14–19.

Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639–656.

Utterback, J. M., & Suárez, F. F. (1993). Innovation, Competition, and Industry Structure. Research Policy, 22(1), 1–21.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254–259.

Van De Ven, A. H. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.

Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research: A Comparison of Approaches. Academi of Management Review.

Voigtländer, M., Gans, P., Westerheide, P., Demary, M., Meng, R., & Schmitz Veltin, A. (2009). Wirtschaftsfaktor Immobilien – Die Immobilienmärkte aus gesamtwirtschaftlicher Perspektive. Berlin.

Volberda, H. W. (1996). Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359–374.


Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303–313.

Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51.

Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured Imagination: The Role of Category Structure in Exemplar Generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 1–40.

Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, Creativity, and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 173–188.

Weiner, N., & Mahoney, T. A. (1981). A Model of Corporate Performance as a Function of Environmental, Organizational, and Leadership Influences. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 453–470.

Wernecke, M., Rottke, N., & Holzmann, C. (2004). Incorporating the Real Estate Cycle into Management Decisions — Evidence from Germany. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 10(3), 171.

West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Chichester: Wiley.

Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91.

Wilcox, J. B., Howell, R. D., & Breivik, E. (2008). Questions about formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1219–1228.

Williamson, O. E. (1963). Managerial Discretion and Business Behavior. The American Economic Review, 53(5), 1032–1057.

Wilson, B. (2010). Using PLS to Investigate Interaction Effects Between Higher Order Branding Constructs. In E. V. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares - Concepts, Methods and Applications (pp. 621–652). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Wind, J., & Mahajan, V. (1997). Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 1–12.

Wolfe, R. (1994). Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique and Suggested Research. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405–431.

Wu, C.-H., Parker, S. K., & de Jong, J. P. J. (2014). Need for Cognition as an Antecedent of Individual Innovation Behavior. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1511–1534.

Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: The Role of Performance and Image Outcome Expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342.


Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Financial Performance: A Taxonomic Approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340.

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

Appendix

Appendix A

The PLS algorithm internally works with standardized latent variable scores and the standardized indicators (i.e., a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one) are automatically produced (Henseler & Chin, 2010). Thus, the endogenous latent variables’ mean and standard deviation are not reported in the table below (table 16).

Table 16: Results of the dependent variables’ measurement model

Latent Variable

No. of items

Item Loadings Range

Scale CA

Scale CR

Scale AVE

PDI 4 0.837 - 0.878 0.886 0.921 0.746

PCI 4 0.698 - 0.830 0.806 0.869 0.625

PFP 4 0.687 - 0.890 0.774 0.854 0.596 Environmental Competitiveness 3 (5) 0.771 - 0.815 0.710 0.835 0.628

Environmental Dynamism 3 (5) 0.651 - 0.880 0.753 0.826 0.616

Environmental Heterogenity 1

Perceived Firm Determinism 1

SpinOff_MA 1

Firm Age 1

Firm Size 1

Market Size 1

Notes: PDI = Product Innovation;; PCI = Process Innovation;; PFP = Perceived Firm Performance;; No. = number of items after dropping those with too low loadings (original number of items).

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019S. Hügel, Innovation in Service Industries, Essays in Real Estate Research 16, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27179-4

140 Appendix

Table 17: Results of HTMT.85 (main effects model)

FI PDI PCI PFP EC ED EH PFD FI PDI 0.260

PCI 0.206 0.708

PFP 0.191 0.510 0.459

EC 0.252 0.324 0.254 0.170

ED 0.274 0.208 0.223 0.493 0.384

EH 0.093 0.054 0.111 0.103 0.124 0.611

PFD 0.235 0.356 0.232 0.043 0.094 0.125 0.035

Notes: PDI = Product Innovation;; PCI = Process Innovation;; PFP = Perceived Firm Performance;; EC = Environmental Competitiveness;; ED = Environmental Dynamism;; EH = Environmental Heterogeneity;; PFD = Perceived Firm Determinism.

Table 18: FIMIX-PLS analysis: Fit indices for the one to six-segment solutions

Number of Segments Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 AIC 265.569 251.282 257.414 262.686 252.882 262.647 AIC3 279.569 280.282 301.414 321.686 326.882 351.647 AIC4 293.569 309.282 345.414 380.686 400.882 440.647 BIC 298.199 318.873 359.966 400.200 425.356 470.082 CAIC 312.199 347.873 403.966 459.200 499.356 559.082 MDL5 540.720 821.238 1,122.175 1,422.250 1,707.253 2,011.820 LnL -118.784 -96.641 -84.707 -72.343 -52.441 -42.323 EN n/a 0.757 0.670 0.704 0.786 0.815 Notes: Based on null-model.

Appendix 141

Table 19: FIMIX-PLS analysis: Relative sample sizes for the one to six-segment solutions

Number of Segments RSS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Segment 1 1.000 0.788 0.567 0.440 0.438 0.370 Segment 2 - 0.212 0.221 0.276 0.230 0.215 Segment 3 - 0.212 0.162 0.152 0.173 Segment 4 - 0.122 0.115 0.140 Segment 5 - 0.066 0.062 Segment 6 - 0.040 Notes: Based on null-model;; RSS = Relative Segment Size;; SmartPLS 3 provides the relative segment sizes in declining order per solution in its final FIMIX-PLS results table (i.e., per column), meaning that the segment sizes in one row are not related to the specific segment number.

Table 20: Correlation matrix of the structural model’s latent variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

1. EC

2. ED 0.186

3. EH 0.085 0.535

4. FI -0.185 0.031 -0.031

5. FA 0.053 0.075 0.100 0.188

6. FS -0.034 -0.185 -0.169 -0.120 -0.244

7. PCI -0.210 0.198 0.009 0.147 0.080 -0.110

8. PDI -0.261 0.185 -0.042 0.239 0.089 0.009 0.616

9. Market 0.229 -0.001 -0.049 -0.144 -0.186 0.358 0.012 0.064

10. PFP 0.069 0.386 -0.071 0.115 0.013 0.046 0.405 0.452 0.026

11. PFD 0.081 0.094 0.035 -0.203 -0.054 0.184 0.230 0.336 0.108 0.034

12. MS -0.029 -0.273 -0.171 0.035 0.210 0.490 -0.087 -0.093 0.195 -0.236 0.142 Notes: EC = Environmental Competitiveness;; ED = Environmental Dynamism;; EH = Environmental Heterogeneity;; FI = Firm Innovativeness;; FA = Firm Age;; FS = Firm Size;; PDI = Product Innovation;; PCI = Process Innovation;; PFP = Perceived Firm Performance;; PFD = Perceived Firm Determinism;; MS = M&A or Spin-Off.

142 Appendix

Table 21: Measurement items and controls of the 1st study’s questionnaire (chapter 4)

Firm Innovativeness (7-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree;; 4 = neither nor;; 7 = strongly agree) Strategic Innovative Focus

(In) our organization …

Stra1 the management often pursues risky approaches and projects. dropped Stra2 always tries to be first to market with new goods and/or services.

Stra3 has at least one person who strongly supports new ideas in our top management.

Stra4 the management consults employees who are responsible for research, innovation or business development when it comes to strategic decisions.

Behavioural Innovativeness (In) our organization …

Beh1 we get a lot of support from managers if we want to try new ways of doing things.

Beh2 we tolerate individuals who do things in a different way. dropped Beh3 we are willing to try new ways of doing things and seek unusual, novel

solutions.

Beh4 we encourage people to think and behave in original and novel ways.

Minimal Critical Rules When it comes to new ideas and their realization (in) our organization …

Pro1 employees can make their own decisions within a set of a few simple rules much of the time.

Pro2 employees can act flexible within a moderate number of formal rules.

Pro3 a large number of complex rules on the way things are done occupy a central place. *

dropped

Pro4 trusts employees to take work-related decisions without getting permission first due to a few clear rules.

Cross-Functional Interfaces

(In) our organization …

Stru1 there is regular talk about possibilities for collaboration between units.

Stru2 coordinates information sharing between units through a knowledge network. dropped Stru3 we have cross-functional teams to exchange knowledge between

departments.

Stru4 uses temporary workgroups for collaboration between units on a regular basis.

Knowledge Transformation

In our organization …

Tra1 employees have the ability to structure and to use collected information and new knowledge.

Tra2 employees are used to absorb information and new knowledge, to prepare it for further purposes and to make it available to others.

Tra3 employees successfully link existing knowledge with new insights.

Tra4 employees are able to apply new knowledge in their practical work. dropped

Appendix 143

Innovation Output (7-point Likert scale: 1 = much worse;; 4 = the same;; 7 = much better) Product Innovation Please reflect on how your organization has been doing over the past 3 years relative to

your major competitors in terms of... Pd1 the level of newness of our organization’s new goods and/or service introductions. Pd2 the speed of developing new goods and/or rendering new services. Pd3 the number of new goods and/or services our firm has introduced to the market. Pd4 the number of our new goods and/or services that is first-to-market. Process Innovation

Please reflect on how your organization has been doing over the past 3 years relative to your major competitors in terms of...

Pc1 the level of newness of the technology used in our organization's processes. Pc2 the speed of adopting the latest technological innovations and techniques in our

processes. Pc3 the rate of change in our processes, techniques and technology. Pc4 being first when it comes to introducing new processes, techniques and technology.

Innovation Characteristics (Regularity: 1 = never;; 2 = occasionally;; 3 = permanently // Level of Significance: “tick as appropriate”) Regularity Please rate how regularly your organization has... PdR performed new goods and/or service introductions over the past 3 years. PcR introduced new processes, techniques and technology over the past 3 years. Product Innovations’ Level of Significance

Please reflect on the qualities of your organization’s new products and/or service introductions over the past 3 years. They are predominantly ...

PdS1 modest improvements designed to update the existing goods and/or services. PdS2 significant improvements in the category of the existing goods and/or services. PdS3 first of its type on the market in terms of goods and/or services in an already existing

category. PdS4 totally new and game-changing goods and/or service introductions. Process Innovations’ Level of Significance Please rate the qualities of the processes, techniques and technology your organization

has introduced over the past 3 years. They are predominantly ... PcS1 modest improvements designed to update the existing processes, techniques and/or

technologies. PcS2 significant improvements in the category of the existing processes, techniques and/or

technologies. PcS3 first of its type on the market in terms of processes, techniques and/or technologies in

an already existing category. PcS4 totally new and game-changing processes, techniques and/or technologies.

144 Appendix

Perceived Firm Performance (7-point Likert scale: 1 = much worse;; 4 = the same;; 7 = much better) Financial Performance

Which indicator does your firm primarly use to evaluate its financial performance? a) Return on investment b) Return on sales c) Return on assets d) Return on equity e) Cash flow from market operations f) Profit growth g) Others: ...

PFP Please rate your firm performance in terms of [ your previous answer (a) to (g) ] over the past 3 years relative to your main competitors.

Market Performance Which indicator does your firm primarly use to evaluate its market performance?

a) Market share b) Market share growth c) Growth in sales d) Satisfaction of customers or clients e) Acquiring new customers or clients f) Others: ...

PMP Please rate your firm performance in terms of [ your previous answer (a) to (f) ] over the past 3 years relative to your main competitors.

Organizational Performance Which indicator does your firm primarly use to evaluate its organizational performance and effectiveness?

a) Overall efficiency of operations b) Firm's overall reputation c) Ability to attract employees d) Ability to retain employees e) Others: POP Please rate your firm performance in terms of [ your previous answer (a) to (e) ] over the

past 3 years relative to your major competitors. Overall Firm Performance

OFP Please rate your overall firm performance over the past 3 years relative to your main competitors.

Appendix 145

External Environment (7-point Likert scale: 1 = much worse;; 4 = the same;; 7 = much better) Please reflect on how your firm has responded to changes in its environment over the past 3 years: Environmental Dynamism

In our market, ...

ED1 environmental changes are intense.

ED2 our clients regularly ask for new goods and/or services.

ED3 changes are taking place continuously.

ED4 the volumes of goods and/or services to be delivered change fast and often. dropped ED5 nothing has changed in a year. * dropped Environmental Competitiveness

(In) our market, ...

EC1 our competitors are relatively weak. *

EC2 our organizational unit has relatively strong competitors.

EC3 price competition is a hallmark. dropped EC4 competition is extremely high.

EC5 anything that one competitor can offer, others can match readily. dropped Environmental Heterogeneity

In our market, ...

EH1 the diversity in services and marketing tactics that cater to the different customers' and clients' needs has substantially increased.

Perceived Firm Determinism (PFD 1 – 3: 1 = strongly disagree … to 7 = strongly agree // PFD 4: 1 = not regulated;; 2 = highly unregulated … to 7 = highly regulated) Level of Regulation

In our business field ...

PFD1 there are barriers to entry. not used PFD2 there is an authority or regulatory body overseeing our firms’ behaviours. not used PFD3 the government has a stake. not used PFD4 Overall, how do you perceive the level of regulation in your business field? Notes: * reverse coded item;; “not used” items were only implemented in the questionnaire to prepare the respondent for the global measure PFD4.

146 Appendix

Firm Age (year of founding) Firm Size Number of employees in the target country 1 Less than 5 2 5 - 10 3 11 - 50 4 51 - 100 5 101 - 250 6 251 - 500 7 501 – 1,000 8 More than 1,000 9 No answer

Appendix 147

Appendix B

Table 22: Results of IWB’s alternative measurement model (second-order formative)

Second-order Construct First-order Construct VIF βi t-Value

Innovative Work Behaviour

Problem Recognition 2.069 - 0.225 0.628

Idea Generation 2.525 0.299 0.638 Idea Championing 2.334 0.405 1.505 Idea Realization 3.313 0.211 0.746

Notes: VIF = variance inflation factor;; path coefficient β and t-Value based on a bootstrapping with n = 5,000;; **p < .05;; *p < .1

Table 23: Results of HTMT.85 (per group)

Complete Data Set (403)

Age Edu FA FS Gen IWB RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 RA5 Ten Age

Edu 0.018

FA 0.076 0.002

FS 0.009 0.060 0.275

Gen 0.131 0.092 0.023 0.007

IWB 0.089 0.076 0.095 0.091 0.048

RA1 0.031 0.016 0.115 0.294 0.099 0.047

RA2 0.116 0.118 0.035 0.013 0.007 0.122 0.161

RA3 0.012 0.043 0.044 0.094 0.120 0.119 0.467 0.170

RA4 0.125 0.105 0.169 0.104 0.006 0.307 0.112 0.468 0.239

RA5 0.104 0.129 0.026 0.018 0.056 0.225 0.088 0.311 0.213 0.480

Ten 0.323 0.174 0.152 0.195 0.025 0.064 0.087 0.148 0.051 0.057 0.021

148 Appendix

Employees (148) Age Edu FA FS Gen IWB RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 RA5 Ten Age

Edu 0.068

FA 0.118 0.022

FS 0.153 0.080 0.205

Gen 0.052 0.129 0.091 0.116

IWB 0.049 0.079 0.130 0.038 0.078

RA1 0.024 0.038 0.053 0.201 0.059 0.085

RA2 0.110 0.083 0.002 0.005 0.012 0.088 0.195

RA3 0.005 0.095 0.017 0.024 0.124 0.195 0.389 0.225

RA4 0.021 0.156 0.131 0.005 0.074 0.270 0.175 0.521 0.318

RA5 0.121 0.188 0.033 0.025 0.062 0.155 0.068 0.324 0.329 0.539

Ten 0.375 0.137 0.197 0.277 0.029 0.048 0.149 0.202 0.067 0.094 0.093

Top-Management (155) Age Edu FA FS Gen IWB RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 RA5 Ten Age

Edu 0.210

FA 0.112 0.037

FS 0.161 0.078 0.353

Gen 0.026 0.013 0.087 0.021

IWB 0.108 0.106 0.114 0.083 0.088

RA1 0.053 0.103 0.179 0.325 0.069 0.163

RA2 0.188 0.165 0.105 0.017 0.035 0.324 0.106

RA3 0.061 0.040 0.138 0.151 0.059 0.069 0.581 0.074

RA4 0.090 0.056 0.214 0.074 0.068 0.252 0.148 0.446 0.150

RA5 0.086 0.054 0.016 0.004 0.067 0.344 0.124 0.292 0.030 0.421

Ten 0.261 0.223 0.098 0.155 0.021 0.142 0.027 0.076 0.036 0.047 0.076

Notes: Edu = Education;; FA = Firm Age;; FS = Firm Size;; Gen = Gender;; IWB = Innovative Work Behaviour;; RA 1 = Capital;; RA 2 = Skilled Labour;; RA 3 = Material Supply;; RA 4 = Managerial Talent;; RA 5 = Time;; Ten = Tenure.

Appendix 149

Table 24: Correlation matrix of the structural model’s latent variables (per group)

Complete Data Set (403)

Age Edu FA FS Gen IWB RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 RA5 Ten Age 1.000

Edu -0.018 1.000

FA -0.076 0.002 1.000

FS 0.009 0.060 -0.275 1.000

Gen 0.131 0.092 -0.023 -0.007 1.000

IWB 0.085 -0.073 0.094 -0.089 0.024 1.000

RA1 -0.031 0.016 -0.115 0.294 -0.099 0.020 1.000

RA2 0.116 -0.118 0.035 0.013 -0.007 0.117 0.161 1.000

RA3 -0.012 -0.043 -0.044 0.094 -0.120 0.114 0.467 0.170 1.000

RA4 0.125 -0.105 0.169 -0.104 -0.006 0.300 0.112 0.468 0.239 1.000

RA5 0.104 -0.129 -0.026 -0.018 -0.056 0.216 0.088 0.311 0.213 0.480 1.000

Ten 0.323 -0.174 -0.152 0.195 0.025 -0.017 0.087 0.148 0.051 0.057 0.021 1.00

Employees (148) Age Edu FA FS Gen IWB RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 RA5 Ten Age 1.000

Edu 0.068 1.000

FA -0.118 0.022 1.000

FS 0.153 0.080 -0.205 1.000

Gen 0.052 0.129 -0.091 0.116 1.000

IWB 0.015 -0.072 0.122 0.001 -0.029 1.000

RA1 0.024 -0.038 -0.053 0.201 -0.059 0.004 1.000

RA2 0.110 -0.083 -0.002 -0.005 0.012 0.015 0.195 1.000

RA3 -0.005 -0.095 0.017 0.024 -0.124 0.193 0.389 0.225 1.000

RA4 0.021 -0.156 0.131 0.005 -0.074 0.268 0.175 0.521 0.318 1.000

RA5 0.121 -0.188 -0.033 -0.025 -0.062 0.157 0.068 0.324 0.329 0.539 1.000

Ten 0.375 -0.137 -0.197 0.277 0.029 0.019 0.149 0.202 0.067 0.094 0.093 1.00

150 Appendix

Top-Management (155) Age Edu FA FS Gen IWB RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 RA5 Ten Age 1.000

Edu -0.210 1.000

FA -0.112 -0.037 1.000

FS 0.161 0.078 -0.353 1.000

Gen 0.026 -0.013 0.087 0.021 1.000

IWB -0.029 -0.105 -0.015 -0.017 -0.073 1.000

RA1 0.053 0.103 -0.179 0.325 -0.069 0.151 1.000

RA2 0.188 -0.165 0.105 0.017 -0.035 0.320 0.106 1.000

RA3 0.061 0.040 -0.138 0.151 -0.059 0.030 0.581 0.074 1.000

RA4 0.090 -0.056 0.214 -0.074 -0.068 0.246 0.148 0.446 0.150 1.000

RA5 0.086 -0.054 -0.016 -0.004 -0.067 0.341 0.124 0.292 0.030 0.421 1.000

Ten 0.261 -0.223 -0.098 0.155 -0.021 -0.092 0.027 0.076 0.036 -0.047 -0.076 1.00

Notes: Edu = Education;; FA = Firm Age;; FS = Firm Size;; Gen = Gender;; IWB = Innovative Work Behaviour;; RA 1 = Capital;; RA 2 = Skilled Labour;; RA 3 = Material Supply;; RA 4 = Managerial Talent;; RA 5 = Time;; Ten = Tenure.

Table 25: Result of the T-test for non-response bias

Mean Value Significance of t Fast Respondents Slow Respondents Emp TopMgmt Emp TopMgmt Emp TopMgmt

IWB° 5.38 5.68 5.57 6.05 0.17 0.03* RA1 5.21 5.07 5.69 5.19 0.07 0.70 RA2 5.75 5.72 6.02 6.00 0.10 0.17 RA3 4.54 4.63 5.05 4.64 0.06 0.97 RA4 4.89 5.67 5.47 5.89 0.01* 0.25 RA5 4.49 4.42 4.91 4.53 0.09 0.73 Notes: °aggregated measure for non-response testing;; Emp = Employees;; TopMgmt = Top Management;; IWB = Innovative Work Behaviour;; RA 1 = Capital;; RA 2 = Skilled Labour;; RA 3 = Material Supply;; RA 4 = Managerial Talent;; RA 5 = Time;; * significance at the .05 level

Appendix 151

Table 26: Measurement items and controls of the 2nd study’s questionnaire (chapter 5)

Innovative Work Behaviour (7-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree;; 4 = neither nor;; 7 = strongly agree) For each of the following statements, please, indicate to what extent they apply to you: Problem Recognition IWB1 I often look for opportunities to improve things. IWB5 I often pay attention to issues that are not part of my daily work. Idea Generation IWB4 I often search for new working methods, techniques or instruments. IWB6 I often generate original solutions for problems. IWB10 I often find new approaches to execute tasks. Idea Championing IWB3 I often make important organizational members enthusiastic about my ideas. IWB8 I often convince colleagues and supervisors about my ideas. Idea Realization IWB2 I often systematically introduce innovative ideas into work practices. IWB7 I often contribute to the implementation of new ideas. IWB9 I often put effort in the development of new things.

Organizational Slack (7-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree;; 4 = neither nor;; 7 = strongly agree) Please rate the abundance of the following resources for your firm. In our organization, we have quite plentiful ... Resource Availability RA1 Capital RA2 Skilled Labour RA3 Material Supply RA4 Managerial Talent RA5 Time to reflect the current business development and to actively think about wider

organizational problems.

152 Appendix

Firm Age (year of founding) Firm Size Number of employees in the target country 1 Less than 5 2 5 - 10 3 11 - 50 4 51 - 100 5 101 - 250 6 251 - 500 7 501 – 1,000 8 More than 1,000 9 No answer

list of references978-3-658-27179-4/1.pdflist of references abstein, a., heidenreich, s., &...

Documents