《学科前沿文献读写议》课程作业
学生姓名： 何璐瑶
学 号： 201001013205
专 业： 工商管理
班 级： 工本102
浙江树人大学管理学院
2013年11月
ZHEJIANG SHUREN UNIVERSITY
毕业论文题目：企业学习能力对服务创新绩效的影响
英文文献原文：Service innovation andperformance in SMEs
Christopher M. McDermott
Lally School of Management & Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, New York, USA, and
Daniel I. Prajogo
Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between exploration and exploitation innovation, and business performance in small and medium enterprise (SME) service firms. Furthermore, the paper also examines the interaction between the two innovation orientations in
predicting business performance, and the influence of size in the effectiveness of each of them in enhancing business performance.
Design/methodology/approach – Using empirical data drawn from 180 managers in Australian service organisations, this study also compares the effect of ambidextrous innovation on business performance within these SMEs.
Findings – The findings show that, controlled for size, neither of the innovation orientations show significant, direct relationships with firms’ performance. However, ambidextrous innovation was positively associated with business performance, indicating a synergy between exploration and exploitation. Further examination indicates the relationship between exploration/exploitation innovation and performance is moderated by size within the authors’ sample of small firms. Research limitations/implications – Taken together, the results point to an interesting and complex relationship within SMEs relating to innovation orientation, size, and performance. This relationship suggests that service SMEs are best served by the simultaneous pursuit of both exploitiveand exploratory innovation. Originality/value –This research is original in that it deliberately focuses on innovation in service SMEs, an area that has not seen significant research previously. As such, the authors’ insights into therelat ionship between ambidextrous innovation and performance suggest the need for creating balanceand synergy between the two innovation types.Keywords Australia, Customer service management, Small to medium-sized enterprises, Organizational innovation, Organizational performance, Ambidextrous, Service Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Innovation has long been recognised as one of the key sources of competitive
advantage in business firms (Schumpeter, 1934), including in service sectors. Indeed, innovations in services have led to the greatest level of growth and dynamism over the
past several years in terms of economic activity. Consequently, innovation in service
firms has become an important topic in business competition. Given this increasing
role as a driver of competitive advantage, there is a growing body of research on the
subject. Studies on innovation are commonly focused on two major issues:
(1) the antecedents of innovation from either internal (i.e. organizational) and
external (i.e. business environment) perspectives; and
(2) the effect of innovation on business performance.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
This paper is focused on the latter, and seeks to investigate the pursuit of different
types of service innovations in small firms, and their relationship with business performance. As de Brentani (2001) suggests, the extent to which products (or services) yield benefits to firms in terms of business performance is significantly affected by the innovativeness of the products delivered. Much of the research on innovation focuses
on larger firms, who have significant budgets and formal R&D centres. Yet smaller
firms are often hailed as the source of future growth. Moreover, it is not clear whether our understanding of innovation taken from studies of larger firms is applicable to
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Oke et al. (2007) find that SMEs tend to focus heavily on incremental, rather than radical innovation. This runs counter to the common stereotype of the breakthrough coming from the small start-up firm. In a different study, Oke (2007) look specifically at the service sector and document the effectiveness of formal practices to foster radical innovation in these service firms. While these two studies look at services and SMEs separately, they do not examine the role of innovation within a sample of SMEs, as is our objective here.
This paper aims to contribute to our understanding of innovation in services by
building on the works of Oke et al. (2007) and Oke (2007) through exploring the relationship between firm size, innovation type pursued, and company performance.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. We begin with a discussion of the literature relating to innovation in services, the relationship between innovation and performance, as well as the role firm size plays in this research. This review ultimately builds to our hypotheses and research model. Next, we describe our sample and method. We then present our findings, and finish with a discussion of the implications
of this research, as well as its limitations.
2. Literature review
2.1 Service innovation Servicesareasignificantpartofmostmajoreconomies,andinnovationiswidelyviewed asasignificantdriverofgrowth infirms(Griffin, 1997;Agarwaletal.,2003). Areviewof literature on innovation in services indicates that this area, while growing, is still
under-researchedcomparedtomanufacturing sectors (Goldstein etal.,2002;Menoretal., 2002; Jaw et al., 2010). There is growing research, and frameworks are emerging that examine the new service development (NSD) process (Roth et al., 1997; Jaw et al., 2010).
A number of factors are identified that contribute to the difficulties in studying service innovations.First,the“fuzzy”natureofservicesout putsbringsdifficultiesinidentifying
and measuring the innovation, improvement, or change (Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997). Unlike innovation in manufactured goods, there is typically no physical product associatedwithaserviceinnovation,soobserversareatalossas towhereto“look”forthe innovation. As a result they are often under-reported or unobserved. Moreover, services are more immediately perishable, inseparable (production and consumption occur at the same time) and tend to be more heterogeneous (Lovelock, 1983), than manufactured products;theyarefundamentallydifferent,andinwaysthatmakethemhardertoidentify
and measure. Second, some researchers have suggested that services are rather
uninterestingwithrespecttoinnovationwhichmayhavecausedthemtoattractrelatively
little attention from scholars of innovation (Tether, 2005). Again, the lack of a physical componenttoaserviceinnovation(ascomparedto,say,aniPhoneornanotechnology)at
times detracts from its ability to garner either interest or attention.
Third, the impact of service innovation on business performance is less directly observable compared to manufacturing; in other words, because there is no physical product, it is often harder to convey the immediate benefit to consumers (e.g. it is not obviouslysmallerorbetterdesigned)andanybenefitmaynotbeimmediatelylinkedbythe customertoaninnovationperse.V ossetal.(1992)alsosuggestthatserviceinnovationmay
take a longer time to have impact on business performance in service than in manufacturing.Theservicemaybeperceivedasbeing“better,”butthisimprovementmay
not be as obviously linked to innovation as in the realm of manufactured goods. Lastly, V oss et al. (1992) suggest that while service innovations are commonly more rapidly implementedthanmanufacturing-basedinnovations,theyarealsomoreeasilycopied.This situation may discourage service firms from becoming involved in innovation projects, especiallymore radical ones, for the firmsare less likely tomaintain lengthy benefits than their counterparts in manufacturing environments. Consequently, the emphasis of innovationinservicesisoftenplacedoncontinuityratherthannewness(V ossetal.,1992).
It is not surprising, therefore, that manufacturing firms have been found to draw
larger benefits from various aspects of innovation compared to service firms, except in terms of the number of new products/services introduced to the market (Prajogo, 2006). It appears that while innovation is increasingly an important driver of competitive advantage in service firms, the very nature of innovation in services appears to limit
the attention it receives, from both managers and academics. As Menor et al. (2002) point out, there are still key challenges and opportunities in this arena.
Current research on innovation in services too often fails to differentiate between different types or categories of services in their analysis (Johnson et al., 2000;
Menor et al., 2002). Menor et al. (2002, pp. 151-2) highlight the specific research shortfalls in new service innovation associated with the fundamental question “H ow does the NSD process differ given particular characteristics of the service?” They also decry our lack of understanding of the operational antecedents to service innovation performance. As a field, we not only have trouble differentiating types of services in
our research, but also have considerable work to do in understanding the underlying relationships between service innovation and performance. Researchershaveproposedseveralserviceinnovationtypologiesthataddressthisfirst issue. One of the key criteria which have been used as the basis for establishing the typologiesisthedegreeofradicalnessofinnovation.Avlonitisetal.(2001)offeratypology which classifies service innovation into six different types: new to-the-market services, new-to-the-company services, new delivery processes, service modifications, service line extensions, and service repositioning. This typology reflects a continuum of the range of innovationfromdiscontinuous(radical)innovationtocontinuous(incremental)innovation (de Brentani, 2001). Radical innovation is fundamentally different from incremental innovation(Ettlieetal.,1984;DewarandDutton,1986;McDermottandO’Connor,2002).Yet whileOke(2007)findsanemphasisonradicalinnovationbyservicefirmstobeassociated
with elevated innovation performance, we know little about the relationship between the environmental context, innovation type pursued, and firm performance. In addition,
while Oke’s work is to be commended,it focuses on services, but does not focus on SMEs.
2.2 Exploration and exploitation innovation
The work of March (1991) on exploratory and exploitive innovation received attention
for its discussion regarding the importance of both types of innovation to the long-term viability of organizations. The definitions of both exploration and exploitation innovation have been found widely in the literature on the topic (March, 1991; He and Wong, 2004; Jansen et al., 2006; Uotila et al., 2009). Exploration innovation is often associated with more breakthrough or radical departures from existing offerings. It is associated with new to world products or services, creating new markets, and the identification of needs for emerging customers and markets. Exploitive innovation is associated with extensions to existing product and service lines. Existing knowledge is utilized to further incrementally improve offerings to satisfy existing customers in knownmarkets.Consistentwiththisnotion,inourstudy,exploitationinnovationrefers
to extensions and refinements to existing services. Explorative innovation, on the other hand, relates to the pursuit of new opportunities in the spirit of invention and experimentation.
Clearly, to a large extent the contrast between exploration and exploitation
innovation is reflective of that between discontinuous and incremental innovation (Tushman and Smith, 2002). While there is wide agreement that services differ in their aims across a spectrum between exploitive and explorative innovation, this is not alwaysreflectedinserviceinnovationresearch.Unfortunately,accordingtoMenoretal. (2002), it is too often the case in research that:
[...] new services are treated and studied in aggregate which is problematic given the different degrees of newness. Given the heterogeneous nature of most service offerings and concepts, such aggregation may create a bias that limits the[ir] predictive and external validity.
2.3 Ambidextrous service firms
There have been increasing arguments which suggest that firms need to pursue both exploratory and exploitive innovation to be successful. The concept of an ambidextrous organization (Tushman and O’Reilly III, 1996) argues that rather than emphasizing one area at the expense of the other, a balance between the two approaches is necessary. This is because an over-reliance on exploration without complementary levels of exploitation can lead to a “failure trap,” placing a continuous drain on the organization’s resources with no immediate financial reward in sight.
On the contrary, an excessive reliance on exploitation without supporting levels of exploration can drive the firm into a “success trap,” which leads firms to focus solely
on short-term returns while ignoring potential outcomes derived from exploration.
While the concept of ambidexterity sounds appealing, there is a counter argument
which suggests that ambidexterity is not widely feasible for most firms. In particular, March (1996), while supporting the importance of pursuing both exploration and exploitation to sustain long-term performance, strongly suggests that the two are essentially incompatible. This is primarily because each type of innovation will compete
for limited organizational resources. This suggests that exploration and exploitation shouldbeconsideredastwocontrastsofacontinuum.ThisissimilartoLeonard-Barton’s (1992) capability-rigidity paradox, which describes how efforts to enhance exploitive innovation hamper exploratory innovation. Consequently, because firms have limited resources and need to prioritize efforts and investments, it is important to examine the effects of different types of innovation on business performance.
In the next section we conceptually link these elements to another key operational variable, firm size, leading to the development of our hypotheses.
2.4 The issue of organizational size
The question of whether organizational size has an effect on innovation activities and outcomes has been the subject of a great deal of controversy and research (Stock et al., 2002). Schumpeter (1934) is among the first who associated innovation with large firms having monopoly power. Market dominance enabled an attitude towards risk-taking to be necessary for innovation. Size is considered to be positively related to radical innovation because larger firms have the ability to employ larger R&D staff, which in turnallowsthefirmtogenerateandaccumulatealargerstoreoftechnologicalknowledge
and capabilities. On the other hand,there are arguments that smaller firms have greater advantages in innovation because they can be more flexible, nimble and therefore be better able to adapt quickly, and to accept and affect change (Kanter, 1985). They have fewer layers of the organization to wade through when implementing change. While therehasnotbeenaclearcutfindingonthisdebate,thegeneralviewisinclinedtowards thepositiveeffectbetweensizeandinnovation.Thequestioniswhetherthiseffectholds
for service sectors in the same way it does in manufacturing. In his meta-analysis, Damanpour(1992)foundthatfirmsizehasapositiverelationshipwithinnovation,more
so among manufacturing firms than with service firms. This positive relationship between innovation and firm size was studied in Camison-Zornoza et al. (2004) with similar results. In a similar vein, the study by Tether (2005) showed that there was in generalapositivecorrelationbetweenfirmsizeandinnovationindicatorsforasampleof European firms, but again size effects were less clear in services than in manufacturing. The relationship between innovation and size gets more complex when we take into account the degree of radicalness of the innovation. Ettlie and Rubenstein (1987) argued that large companies can access key resources and would be able to take on more radical innovations, which often require additional funds for technical work, capital investment for plant and equipment as well as marketing and promotions compared to small companies. Further, Dewar and Dutton (1986) found that size is particularly related to radical innovation, meaning that larger firms would have a greater propensity to adopt radical or exploration innovation. The above notion and studies, however, are again mainly concerned with manufacturing firms, which may not be necessarily applied in service context.
2.5 Service innovation in SMEs
In their review of literature on innovation among SMEs, Oke et al.(2007) suggested that unlikeinnovationstudiesinlargefirms,thereisadearthofstudiesrelatingtothetypeof innovations (particularly between radical and incremental) that SMEs pursue. They argued that the debate on the relationship between firm’s size and the types of
innovationhasnotbeenwellresearchedempirically.Clearly,manyoftheorganizational
and contextual variables discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, above, might be expected to vary as a function of firm size. In their predominantly manufacturing-based sample, Oke et al. (2007) find that SMEs focus much more on incremental innovation than radical innovation.
The question remains, however, if firm size is related in any systematic way to innovation orientation in service firms. As we note above, research on innovation
in services has been shown to have different characteristics than in manufacturing environments. More important is the question of whether different innovation orientations are associated with the improved business performance. While innovation itself is widely viewed as a driver of performance (Schumpeter, 1934), it is unclear whether the different types of innovation are equally valued in improving the performance of service firms, particularly among SMEs. The present study seeks to contribute to this issue by considering innovation orientation as the explanatory factor which affects performance in a sample of SMEs. As such, this study compares the level oftwodifferentorientationsofinnovation(explorationandexploitation)andtheireffect
on business performance within SMEs. Specifically, the first hypothesis establishes a baseline by examining the extent to which firms differ in their innovation orientation and performance in a size-controlled sample of SMEs. Specifically:
H1.
There is a positive relationship between both (H1a) exploration and (H1b) exploitation innovation, and performance in SME service firms.
While our previous discussionofinnovationorientation inservice firms bringsforward many interesting research questions, there is currently much debate and discussion about the role of ambidextrous innovation and success. Yet, this important topic has scant discussionrelatingtofirm sizein services. Lubatkin et al.(2006) suggested,SMEs generally face thesamekind ofcompetitive pressurestojointly pursueexploitationand exploration as large firms. However, SMEs commonly suffer from limited slack resources in managing the competing innovation orientations necessary to attain ambidexterity. On the other hand, larger firms can manage these processes by creating structurally separate business units. Such superiority of resources (quantity and quality)provideslargerfirmsagreateropportunitytoachieveambidexteritythanSMEs (Cegarra-Navarro and Dewhurst, 2007). Also, balancing exploration and exploitation becomesmoreattractiveforlargefirmsfromalliancesperspective.Thisisbecausethese firms gain more by specializing in either exploration or exploitation within a given alliancedomain.Byfocusingon exploitation inone domainandexploration inthe other domain,theycanleveragebalanceacrosstheiralliancedomains;hence,maximizingthe value of their alliance portfolios (Lavie et al., 2009).
On balance, the above arguments suggest that large firms have a greater capacity to pursue ambidextrous innovation than SMEs. However, similar to the earlier discussion, the issue here is not whether SMEs can pursue ambidextrous innovation; rather, it is whetherSMEscanbenefitfromambidexterity.Inthisregard,weagainfoundconflicting arguments in the literature. Ebben and Johnson (2005), for example, studied ambidexterity in SMEs and found that pure strategies (in their study, defined as
efficiency versus flexibility) outperform those that pursue both. On the other hand, Lubatkin et al. (2006) suggested that despite the notion connecting large firms and ambidexterity, the relationship between ambide xtrous innovation and firm’s performance would be more evident at SMEs compared to larger firms. This is because theperformanceoflargerfirmswouldbedrivenbyamorebroadsetoffactorsotherthan specific innovations, such as multiple product lines, markets, and divisions. In other words, because the large firms are so broad and diverse, it is more difficult to assess linkage between ambidexterity and performance.
Given our previous discussions and literature review which highlight some fundamental differences between SMEs and large service firms, one might expect ambidextrousinnovationinasampleofSMEstobepositivelyassociatedwithimproved performance or whether it is better for SMEs to focus on individual innovation orientations. But this is not entirely clear. Literat ure suggests that “ambidextrous”innovationcanbedefinedinseveralways.Inthispaper,weadopttheoperationalisation
of ambidextrous from the study by He and Wong (2004) which regards a firm as ambidextrous if it scores high on both explorative and exploitative innovation strategies. In this case, the product term of the two scores (i.e. explorative and exploitative innovations) would be a good proxy measure of ambidexterity. He and Wong (2004) suggest that this approach in defining ambidexterity is associated to the typeofstrategicfitof“fitasmoderating”inthestrategyliterature(Venkatraman,1989). Specifically, a positive “fit as moderating” test would mean that exploration and exploitationaddvalue toeach other to improve firm performance,meaning that there is
a positive interaction effect between the two on firm performance. As such, we posit the following ambidexterity hypothesis in SMEs:
H2.
There is a positive interaction effect between explorative and exploitative
innovation strategies on firm performance in SMEs.
文献翻译（4000字以上）：
付政策对一个企业的影响已成为一个非常重要的问题。在个体水平上,先前的研究已经在薪酬政策的关系和几个重要的结构做出了自己的贡献,通过检查问题如满意(Dyer和特里奥特,1976;大米et al。,1990年),保留(霍尔泽,1990;理发师和毕捷,2000)和性能(Neal,1993;莱文,1993;特雷福etal。,1997)。在公司层面,一些研究认为匹配的薪酬政策与业务策略可能会增加组织绩效(英里和雪,卡罗尔,1984;1987)。此外,一些最近的研究在补偿层面上讨论业务战略的影响 (辛格和阿格沃尔,1999;Yanadori和马勒说,2006)。
尽管先前有关于解决战略视角的薪酬政策的研究,但只有一些进行了一些实证调查(如BalkinGomez-Mejia,1990;Montemayor,1996)。这些研究为后续研究提供了一个坚实的基础, 但他们的方法和对结果的解释仍然存在挑战，有待解决。例如,先前的分析是建立在小样本和几乎被外来因素影响控制下的,如公司规模和行业特征。因此,薪酬政策结合商业策略的效果对公司业绩的影响还有待全面检查。尽管支付政策被视为关键的人力资源杠杆从而影响员工的行为,提高公司性能(McLagan和Nel 1995;歌et al。,2005年),一些学者认为,人力资源支付可能在招聘和留住员工方面突显价值,但通常与生产力无关 (罗和Hallman,1981;山,1987)。其他作者认为个人激励工资可能会破坏团队合作,鼓励短期焦点,这常常降低组织绩效(菲费尔,2001)。增加工资可能也导致公司成本上升(贝克尔和Gerhart,1996)。关于强调对支付该战略薪酬角色需要进一步检查。
本研究利用一个大型数据集来支持一个先进的概念框架,并检查是否薪酬政策与业务策略匹配的概念最终支持更好的公司业绩。本文主要以台湾三个科技型服务行业——集成电路(IC)设计服务行业,系统集成服务业,软件服务行业以及几个影响这三个行业选择的因素。首先,获得熟练劳动力是一个服务公司努力提高它的竞争优势的重要组成部分。由于在一个先进的技术背景下，科技型服务公司从中获利,他们应该强调一个适当的薪酬政策来招募和激励高素质的人。第二,就与相关战略薪酬政策视角条款问题而言,现有研究不关注服务行业。第三,台湾曾经是世界一个重要的新兴市场,但由于中国的崛起和在国际市场的剧烈竞争，现在面临很大的挑战。科技型服务行业扮演着创新发起者和知识中介的重要作用,促进生产力在整个行业的增长。通过人力资源管理建立竞争优势对台湾的经济发展就有重大的利益,因此对于台湾的人力资源专业人员和研究人员是重要的问题。最后,实证方面,本研究利用一个基于技术的服务公司的数据集，这由执行署的预算、会计和统计(观察),台湾内阁办公室建立。这个大样本数据集提供了一个更完整的和适当的照片分析了研究变量。因此,这个调查的结果是这一领域的一个有趣的研究。
针对创新对科技型服务公司的重要性,这研究集中在一个特定的但重要的商业策略:创新策略。这一领域值得研究,因为没有研究者调查过薪酬政策结合创新战略对公司业绩的作用。本研究使用二级数据而不是来源于先前的研究中调查问卷原始数据。这种方法由于定性或态度倾向的受访者而限制其影响。因此,本研究更客观的检验战略薪酬视角。先前的研究并不把行业类型视为其框架中变量，即使不同行业可能有不同的劳动条件与市场情况和竞争。过整合不同行业的影响，这项研究提供了一个更全面的调查框架。这项研究的结果将激起人力资源专业人士，特别是台湾的人力资源人员和经理们的兴趣。本文的其余部分组织如下。以下部分评论文献,其次是表现的概念框架和研究假设。研究采用的方法和描述性统计使用的变量的分析将在下文揭示。以下部分提供分析结果和解释的讨论。最后部分总结研究结果和提出研究的意义。
文献综述
关于人力资源管理实践如何鼓励公司业绩这一问题，人力资源管理的领域包含两个相互竞争的方法。一些研究人员声称所有组织,无论其大小、行业或业务战略,人力资源管理应该采取所谓的“最佳实践”实现更好的性能。他们的争论意味着优越的管理实践是易于识别和可以转移到跨组织(亚瑟,1994年,Delery和腐朽的,1996)。然而,正如卡佩里和克罗克hefter(1996)陈述许多公司——一些非常成功——拒绝采纳那些(最好的)实践。“其他的方法,称为“最合适”,已经成为著名的产业文学。这种“最佳匹配”方法强调人力资源管理实践需要与组织环境、业务战略、薪酬计划相适应；更好的适应,更大的竞争优势(卡佩里和克罗克hefter,1996;Boxall和珀塞尔,2000)。
根据“最适合”的方法，只有当适当的集成在一个特定组织和环境下，人力资源策略是最有效的。进一步的,这种方法意味着交互作用,而不是“最佳实践”的角度中简单的线性关系 (Venkatraman,1989)。这也基于资源观点的竞争优势,即公司的战略和资源之间的联系是一个主要问题(巴尼,1991年)。人力资源实践最重要的也许是公司的资源,因为它们提供一种无形的资产，增强了公司的能力来处理一个动荡的环境(Chang和黄,2005)。
薪酬政策的战略角色在与文化相关的商业策略中显著突出，因为经理认为补偿作为重要人力资源杠杆转移员工对组织的目(McLagan和Nel,1995)。英里和雪(1984)观察了四大公司,并认为一个补偿策略可以恢复公司的竞争地位。换句话说,采用战略薪酬政策可以帮助公司取得更好的性能。利用波特的(1985)竞争战略框架,舒勒和杰克逊(1987)指出,公司采用创
新策略会有赔偿制度强调内部股权而不是外部或以市场为基础的股票。公司追求一项削减成本的策略会密切关注市场薪酬水平作出赔偿决定。系统地结合薪酬制度与竞争战略可以提高公司的效率和性能。此外,霍尔泽(1990)指出支付高于市场水平可能会提高员工的动机足以抵消劳动力成本的增加,从而提高公司的整体性能。
几项研究包括对薪酬政策的实证调查和业务战略关系。。Balkin和Gomez-Mejia(1990) 在制造企业调查了192名人力资源主管。他们的研究结果表明,商业策略(增长和维护公司薪酬策略)影响着公司支付策略。利用243个制造业公司为样本,Gomez-Mejia(1992)认为公司绩效与薪酬策略的强化或匹配企业战略有关。Montemayor(1996)调查了来自于不同的行业的282名公司高管们,统计结果不支持关于薪酬和性能泛型假说。这种缺乏支持表明与成本相比，创新者有一个更激进的薪酬政策。Montemayor(1996)进一步建议，与企业战略相匹配的薪酬政策的影响需要在不同的环境中进一步检查。Yanadori和马勒(2006)抽样237家高科技公司,发现一个公司的追求创新战略意图对相对支付的水平有显著影响。
总之,以往的研究强调薪酬政策结合与业务战略对公司业绩效果,但实证研究这个问
题是有限的。这篇文献的贡献在于从理论角度对这个问题进行分析。与过去的实证研究,本研究还探讨是否匹配的薪酬政策和创新战略确实改善公司业绩。
框架和假设
图1显示了本研究的概念框架。该框架表明,薪酬政策和创新战略组合影响技术型服务公司性能。这个概念框架进一步提出行业类型温和派这种关系。关于这些关系的特定的假设连同他们的基本原理将在下文详细陈述。
匹配的薪酬政策和创新战略的影响
战略补偿理论中的权变观点强调一个组织的战略和其所有系统之间的匹配将带来优越性能(Milkovich,1988;Gomez-Mejia和Balkin,1992)。在许多组织中,尤其是高科技企业, 创新已经被确定为实现竞争优势的一个重要的业务策略。通过成功的创新,一个公司可能实现其竞争对手缺乏的独特性。这种独特性可能允许公司收取更高的价格,从而提高公司的性能(波特,1985)。英里和雪(1984)认为,一个公司追求创新战略应采取高薪酬水平来达到更好的组织性能。先前的研究表明招聘熟练员工的重要性为技术创新(舒勒和杰克逊,1987;阿尔梅达和科格特来自,1999)。
根据效率工资理论,高工资可能会增加效率，实际上降低成本,因为他们吸引高质量的申请者,减少周转,增加工人的努力程度,减少“逃避”(Milkovich和纽曼,2004)。雇佣更好的雇员或激励员工是其工作更努力，从而提高效率。卡佩里和-肖万(1991) 使用员工的工资研究了一些汽车工厂逃避行为,他们发现,更高的工资降低卸责。此外,Rynes和
Boudreau(1986)指出更高的工资实际上吸引更多的合格的申请者。纵向研究的蔡和小王(2005)表明,高工资的公司通过提高劳动者来提高生产率。。从知识的角度来看, Van der Bijet al. (2003) and Song et al. (2005)表明,高工资奖励可以影响员工的行为, 促进高水平的知识应用,从而提高公司业绩。
在实践中, 支付更高的工资的组织相信他们能够吸引高质量的和富有成效的员工,从而达到降低单位劳动成本。在同一个市场，高薪酬的公司通常比薪水较低的公司吸引更多并且素质更高的申请人。这种观点的基本前提是工资竞争力影响组织的能力,以实现其补偿目标,这反过来会影响组织的绩效(莱文,1993)。由于技术服务所要求的技术技能主要是在人们头脑中的，以创新为导向的科技型企业必须保留创新型高素质劳动力或招募人们追求技术服务创新。因此, 追求创新和支付更高工资基于技术的服务公司应该更容易留住和招募有能力的员工，随后在各自的行业内取得更好的业绩。基于这些依据,第一个研究假设如下:
H1.匹配的薪酬政策和创新战略与公司的业绩成正相关
工业的调节角色
虽然还没有被广泛纳入研究范围、行业通常在业务战略和公司业绩之间担任实质性的调节者(鲁梅尔特,1991)。)。从权变的角度来看,该行业环境会影响一个公司经营的战略意图。这些意图,反过来,影响他们的人力资源管理实践(Van de VenDrazin,1985)。研究人员将技术环境作为一个主要维度，对科技型企业积极采用创新战略。这是因为技术变化可以使生产的产品和服务过时隔夜。同时,这些变化可以创建一系列新产品和服务(高和克莱伯,1982)。换句话说,技术变化增强了创新在一个基于技术的服务行业公司的重要性。
不同行业之间技术变革的速度不同。对于快速变化的技术行业中的公司，创新战略是其获得竞争优势(Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Balkin and Gomez-Mejia, 1987; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Koberg et al., 2003)极其必要的。根据上述研究的理论假设, 薪酬政策结合创新战略对公司业绩积极的效果在拥有高技术产业将强于拥有稳定技术条件的产业。换句话说,行业可能在补偿政策的竞赛和公司业绩的创新战略的关系上发挥调节作用。集成
电路(IC)产业是一个高度分散技术的行业。因此,在行业中，创新对公司业绩是至关重要的(Vanhaverbeke et al., 2002; Ziedonis, 2004). 台湾IC设计服务行业在高科技行业的实践和学术研究领域中一直代表着技术创新者(ITIS, 2004; Chang and Tsai, 2002; Hsieh et al., 2006)。因此,此研究的第二个研究假说如下:
H2. 薪酬水平结合创新战略对公司业绩的效果在集成电路设计服务行业强于软件和系统集成服务产业。