Custom «Alternative Hypothesis» Essay Paper

According to hypothesis H1, larger organizations have a higher probability of implementing innovations compared to the smaller ones. From the analysis of the questionnaires, basically 17 out of the 21 respondents agreed that ABC Company was a large company, despite the fact that it was still encountering challenges hindering change. The other 4 respondents rated this as a medium-sized organization. It is clear, therefore, that this hypothesis was not supported by the present study considering the fact that majority of the respondents concurred that ABC was a large company, but had not yet adopted innovation. The results are illustrated in the pie chart (diagram 1) below:

Diagram 1

The effect of organizational decentralization was also considered, and according to hypothesis H2, centralization impacted the process of implementing innovations negatively. This hypothesis also was not supported by the analysis considering the fact that 18 respondents actually considered ABC as a more decentralized company, yet it still encountered challenges in adopting innovation. Previous researches had also highlighted that specialization, particularly measured with regard to the highest level of education attained by the company’s employees, would enhance the process of adopting innovations within the organization, according to hypothesis H4, which stated that the higher the levels of specialization, the higher the probability of implementing innovation (Frambach and Schillewaert, 2002). This hypothesis was actually supported by the study as most of the respondents highlighted that the company lacked the necessary expertise to implement change. With regard to slack resources, hypothesis H5 stated that the lack of slack resources, particularly talented managers, materials, capital and educated employees hindered the adoption and implementation of innovation. This hypothesis was supported by the study, since a greater majority of the respondents highlighted that lack of these resources was impeding the implementation of innovation within the company.

•  

  0

  Preparing Orders

•  

  0

  Active Writers

•  

  0%

  Positive Feedback

•  

  0

  Support Agents

 

Title of your paper

Type of service

Type of assignment

Number of pages

-

+

Academic level

Timeframes

Spacing

Currency

USD

• Total price

Continue to order

 

With regard to the organizational attitudes, hypothesis H6 highlighted that the openness of the organization towards change facilitates entailed the adoption and implementation of innovations. However, this assumption was also supported by the analysis. The study also considered the age of the company, considering the fact that it had been suggested that the more established organizations were more likely to adopt innovations compared to the newly instituted ones. This was highlighted by hypothesis H7, which stated that older organizations tended to adopt and implement innovations sooner compared to the newly established ones. This presupposition was rejected by this study, indicating that the age of the company, or rather how long the company had been in operational, had no effect on the adoption of innovation. However, from the analysis of the organizational characteristics, it is apparent that the highlighted characteristics contained some significant impacts on the adoption of innovations within the company. With regard to the organizational characteristics, the factors that were found to have some significance on innovation included specialization, slack resources and the organizational attitudes. This is illustrated below (diagram2), basing on the responses obtained from the respondents:

Diagram 2

4.1.2 Environmental Characteristics

One of the environmental aspects being highlighted to have significant effects on the adoption and implementation of innovative changes within the organization is dynamism. It was deduced that the more dynamic environment enhanced the adoption of innovation. Hypothesis H8 highlighted that a more dynamic environment enhances the adoption and implementation of innovation within the organization. The analysis of this study did not support this assumption. It was also presumed that environmental uncertainty facilitated the adoption of innovation. In hypothesis H9, it was stated that more uncertain environment would make it easy for an organization to adopt and implement innovation. However, considering the fact that uncertainty could not be measured precisely, this could not also be supported by the study. Previous studies had also highlighted that competition played a significant role in facilitating the adoption of innovations within the organization (Aiken and Hage, 1971). It was believed that more competitive environment would facilitate the adoption of innovation, as this would offer the organization with a competitive advantage. Hypothesis H10 highlighted that a higher rate and amount of competitors within the environment would enhance the adoption of innovation. This hypothesis was supported by the analysis, since competitiveness facilitated the adoption of smaller changes within the company. From the data analysis in this study, it was also found that the collaborations the company had enabled it to initiate some of the earlier innovations. Therefore, it could be concluded that some environmental factors contained some impact on the company’s innovation. Looking at the response rate, 54% of the respondents believe that competition plays a significant role with regard to the adoption of innovation. 40% of the respondents highlighted that collaboration was important in implementing innovation, while 4 % and 2% were assigned to environmental uncertainty and dynamism, respectively. This is illustrated in the pie chart (diagram 3) below:

Diagram 3

4.1.3 Managerial Influence

The roles of the organization’s management were also tested by the hypotheses H12- H16. H12 looked at the impacts of the management and highlighted that negative attitudes of the organization’s management towards change and innovation hindered innovation. This hypothesis was supported by the analysis of the study, considering the fact that most of the respondents agreed that attitudes of the management towards innovation played a significant role when it came to innovation. In essence, 18 respondents agreed that the management attitudes were significant in innovation. Hypothesis H13 analyzed the role of a committed management team and stated that lack of commitment from the management towards innovation hindered the adoption and implementation of innovation. It is worth noting that this hypothesis was actually supported according to the analysis conducted in this study. It was noted that lack of commitment from the manager hindered the adoption and implementation of innovation. 

The next hypothesis, H14, looked at the orientation of the management team, and highlighted that a management team that was highly oriented towards innovation enhanced the adoption of innovation. The analysis that was conducted did not support this. According to hypothesis H15, a highly educated management team enhances the adoption of innovation within the organization. This was supported by the analysis of this study. Hypothesis H16 looked at the period the management team had been leading the organization and how it affected the adoption and implementation of innovation within the organization, stating that the newer the management team, the higher the probability of adopting and implementing innovation within the organization. This hypothesis was basically tested with the assessment of the average number of years the management team had been working for ABC Company. However, this presupposition was not supported by the analysis carried out by this study, since no statistical significance was indicated. Therefore, with regard to the impact that managers hold towards the adoption and implementation of innovation within the organization, from the analysis conducted in this study, it can be highlighted that, indeed, the organization’s management team plays a significant role in initiating changes within the organization. Basically, more emphasis is laid on the level of managerial attitudes and commitment towards attaining this goal. This implies, therefore, that lack of managerial commitment and their negative attitudes towards innovation hinder the adoption and implementation of innovation within the organization. 

4.1.4 Innovation Characteristics

The impacts of innovation characteristics on the adoption and implementation of innovation were discussed in the hypotheses H17-H19. This was studied in order to understand how the innovation characteristics could hinder the implementation of innovation within the organization. It was hypothesized that incompatibility and complexity hindered innovation within the organization, while the perceived relative advantage of an innovation would probably lead to its adoption. Hypothesis H17 was rejected by the study, since it had no statistical significance. It was also found out from the analysis of the questionnaires that indeed, the incompatibility and complexity of some of the innovations hindered the organization from innovating. Therefore, hypothesis H18 and H19 were supported by the analysis of this study. The findings revealed that the most influential factor when it comes to the innovation characteristics is the complexity of the innovation, which is followed by incompatibility. The findings with regard to the innovation characteristics are tabulated (diagram 4) below:

Diagram 4

4.1.5 Information Behavior

The information behavior was discussed by hypotheses H20-H22. Some of the main issues analyzed under information behavior include the activeness of the information, formal communication and sources of information. All these were rejected with regard to the analysis conducted in this study. Therefore, this implied that information behavior would not affect the adoption or implementation of innovation within the organization.

From analysis of the five factors, it is worth noting that managerial influence plays a significant role when it comes to organizational innovation, having been concurred by 14 respondents. This is followed by the organizational characteristics 10, after which the innovative characteristics come in 8, the environmental characteristics come next, while basically the information behavior does not contain any significance in innovation from the response provided in this study.  These are tabulated (diagram 5) below:

Diagram 5

Basically, these measurements were done in three distinct approaches, in order to ascertain the extent to which ABC Company viewed the significance of the identified factors.  The first approach was based on the establishment of a dichotomous variable, representing whether the company considers at least one factor as a significant barrier. This means that the variable would take the value 1 if the respondents considered it as a significant challenge to the innovation process from the available factors, and the value 0 for the other factors. The second approach was the categorical ordered variable, and in this approach, the respondents were required to represent the number of factors that the company considered as highly significant challenges. The third approach was based on the typical analysis of all the factors under a variable that was bounded between 1 and 4. This means, therefore, that if the company considers a factor, for instance, managerial influence to be of low importance, then it would be assigned the value of 1, while the most significant factor was assigned a value of 4. It is also worth noting that various hypotheses that had been developed from the earlier studies and thus had to be tested to ensure the validity of the obtained data. The results are tabulated (diagram 6) below:

Diagram 6

4.2 Is The Company Ready To Embrace Change?

It is worth noting that one of the main aims of the study was to assess whether ABC Company was actually ready to embrace change. This was basically assessed through the organization’s attitudes towards change and whatever the company had in place to ensure that change was attained. It is clear from the findings of the study that the company was ready to embrace change. The company made smaller initiatives to facilitate the attainment of the smaller changes within it. Furthermore, the company recognized that benefits of these smaller innovations were generating to the company with regard to speedy processes and thus, it was moving towards the adoption of modern innovations. A majority of the respondents agreed that the company required change and was actually ready to adopt the necessary innovations which would help it to embrace change. Basing on the findings, apparently 18 respondents agreed that the company was ready to embrace change, representing about 86 per cent. It therefore implies that the challenges that the company is encountering are the major impediments towards attaining change, considering the fact that the company is ready to change. However, it is important to bear in mind that apart from just the awareness of the benefits and the need to innovate, it is the company’s decision to embrace change that will facilitate the adoption of such changes (Frambach and Schillewaert, 2002). Besides, every company has its own needs that will determine whether or not the change process will be initiated. This is illustrated (diagram 7) below:

4.3 Discussion

Considering the fact that this study aimed at identifying the innovative challenges hindering organizational change, it was important that various factors relate to the adoption and implementation of innovation within the organization and be analyzed in order to identify their significance with regard to innovation (Grover et al. 1995). These factors would then facilitate the understanding of the challenges that hinder innovation within the organization. However, from the analysis of this empirical study, it is apparent that the most significant predicting factor for innovation for this organization is the managerial influence. Basically, the study has found out that the commitment of the management team is fundamental towards attaining the organizational change. This was particularly highlighted in reference to the earlier smaller innovations within the company and the commitment of the management team facilitated the attainment of such changes.

In essence, how an organization’s management is committed towards the implementation of the innovation plays a significant role in ensuring the organization becomes innovative. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that a highly educated management team would facilitate the adoption of the innovation (Aiken and Hage, 1971). This is because the implementation of innovation needs some level of expertise (Frambach and Schillewaert 2002). Besides, such a team will guide the organization in understanding why the changes are needed. It, therefore, follows that for innovation to be adopted within the organization, the management team must have some level of expertise. On other hand, other aspects such as the orientation of the management team towards innovation, and the period for which the management team has been leading the organization is articulated to have some significance by other studies, that were not supported. From the analysis carried out, it can be, therefore, deduced that lack of commitment towards innovation from the organizational management team, as well as lack of expertise, are the major hindrances of innovation within the Company.

The study has also found out that characteristics of the innovation are also important when it comes to the adoption of innovation within a company (Geroski, 2000). Before any innovation is adopted, the organization has to consider the relative benefits which the innovation would generate to the organization, and thus, if such benefits were not identified, it is the most probable that the innovation would not be adopted (Grover et al. 1995). However, from the analysis, it has been noted that the company is knowledgeable of benefits that come along with the implementation of innovation, since it initiated few smaller changes and noted the benefits, yet it is still encountering various challenges that hinder it from attaining organizational change (Ansoff, 1990). Basically, having the general knowledge of the benefits that come along with innovation is important, but does not give the assurance that innovations will be implemented (Damanpour, 1991). This is the reason why this presupposition was rejected by the analysis of this study.

Another important aspect discussed under the innovation characteristics is compatibility of the innovation with the organization’s operations and practices. Indeed, as highlighted from the research studies, one of the key aspects to consider before adopting innovation is its compatibility with the organizational routines (Kim and Srivastava, 1998). From the analysis carried out in this study, it has been investigated that compatibility takes a significant role when it comes to innovation. Most of the innovations were overlooked, since they were considered incompatible with the company’s practices and operations. Furthermore, the aspect of complexity was analyzed since it is considered to play a major role in innovation. The analysis has highlighted that the complexity of the innovations is one of the challenges hindering innovation within the company. It, therefore, follows that the innovation characteristics act as a hindrance to the implementation of innovation within the organization, particularly when the intended innovation is considered to be complex and incompatible with the company’s practices and daily operations. However, despite the fact that the company recognizes the benefits that are accompanied by the implementation of innovation, it is apparent that the company has not yet implemented innovation. Basically, the aspects of complexity and incompatibility are some of the main reasons as to why the company has not adopted innovation. The company has probably considered the innovation to be incompatible or too complex with its operations.

Another significant predictor of innovation within the organization is organizational characteristics (Geroski, 2000). Various aspects have been analyzed in this study. The findings of the study highlight that specialization is one of the main predictors of innovation within the organization. The company ought to have various specialized experts that would facilitate the attainment of the intended change. Basically, all types of innovation require appropriate level of expertise in order to be able to ensure the process becomes functional and attains its objectives (Grover et al. 1995). It becomes, therefore, difficult to implement such innovations, when there are no specialized individuals to gather such resources. Therefore, the findings of the study reveal that lack of specialization hinders innovation within the company. The aspect of resources shortage has also been analyzed with regard to talented managers, materials, capital and educated employees within the company. The findings revealed that lack of such resources hindered innovation within the company. The company lacked the necessary resources to facilitate the adoption of innovation. However, it is worth noting that most of the innovations demand a lot, particularly in terms of the financial cost, which most of organizations cannot afford. Most organizations, therefore, resort to outside funding, for instance, from the government and other donors, in order for them to implement the required innovation (Kotler, 1997). However, for ABC Company, the findings revealed that the company lacked the resources to facilitate innovation. The openness of the organization towards innovation is also a key predictor of innovation. The findings supported this presupposition as they considered the openness of the organization as a major determinant of innovation. This implies that one of the reasons as to why this company was not innovative is because it is not open towards innovation. Under the organizational characteristics, the findings of the study revealed that lack of specialization, resources and the openness of the company towards innovation are the main impediments of innovation within the company.

Under the environmental characteristics, some of the main predictors of innovation are competition and partners of the company. Apparently, one of the reasons as to why most organizations are turning into innovation today is for the purpose of attaining a competitive advantage. The contemporary competitive market demands call for an escalating customer value, which translates to the highest total cost, customer satisfaction, the lowest total cost and speedy production (Atkins et al. 2002), which can be attained only by implementing innovation within the organization. From the findings of this study, it is clear that the innovation is driven by competition. This considers the fact that competition drives the company to initiate the existing smaller innovations. However, despite the fact that the company recognizes the need of being competitive, it still encounters challenges hindering it from implementing innovation. In addition, it highlights that the more partners an organization has, the more likely it will innovate. Arguing from the point of view that such partners will provide some support, for instance, the financial support, it can be deduced that the organizational partners will facilitate the attainment of innovation within the organization (Ansoff, 1990). This assumption was supported by the analysis of the present study considering the fact that this has facilitated the attainment of initial changes within the company.

However, it is worth noting that various factor were considered to be non-significant by the present study. Some of the previous studies highlighted a strong significance of such factors with regard to organizational innovation (Grover et al. 1995). The fact that these factors have not been validated by the present study does not imply that they do not affect innovation. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind, that despite such factors bear no significance in the present study, they can be validated by other studies.

Apparently, from the analysis conducted in the present study, it can be highlighted that indeed, there are various challenges hindering organizational change within the company. These factors are:

• Lack of commitment from the management

• Complexity of the modern innovations

• Incompatibility with the company’s routine operations and practices

• Lack of expertise

• Inadequate resources, such as capital and materials

4.4 Theoretical Implications

It is worth noting that the present study contains various implications. Basically, the theoretical implications of the reviewed literature, along with the information obtained from the present study, will be analyzed. The existing studies and theories have highlighted various challenges hindering the attainment of organizational change, some of which have been supported by the present study, while some have actually been rejected. These challenges have been analyzed by looking at key factors, affecting the adoption and implementation of innovation within the organization (Grover et al. 1995). Basing on the findings of the study, several characteristics along with their effect on the adoption and implementation of innovation have been taken into account. The present study is basically based on these factors. Nonetheless, those factors that were found to be non-significant by the present study might, indeed, contain some strong effects on the adoption of the innovation within the organization, despite the fact that these factors were invalidated by the present study. For instance, formalization of the organizational process has been highlighted by other studies to have a stronger effect when it comes to the adoption and implementation of innovation within the company (Geroski, 2000). This aspect has not been supported by the analysis of this study probably because there might be other characteristics that affect the perceptions of formalization.

An active process of gathering and processing information within the organization might, indeed, alter with the perceptions associated with formalization. In addition, various aspects under the environmental characteristics might generate the need for the organization to create partnerships and cooperate, hence, in the process they can be more exposed to the modern innovations (Grover et al. 1995). In this way, innovation might be generated from the natural consequence of partnerships and active information. It is also important to note that the management aspect of the organization has been under discussion. However, the dimensions of the organizational management as discussed in this study are rather distinct compared to what is provided by the earlier studies. Some of the managerial aspects that were taken into consideration are the managerial attitudes, strategic planning and readiness, education levels along with the commitment. However, despite the fact that all of these aspects have been considered significant by the previous studies, the findings of this study have revealed that commitment contains a significant impact when it comes to the adoption and implementation of innovation within the company. This, therefore, gives the implication that lack of managerial commitment hindered innovation within the company. Besides, it can be noted that the top management has the potential to lead the entire organization into attaining innovation.

Apparently, from the analysis of the present study, it has been found out that managerial influence contains significant effects, particularly when it comes to the adoption and implementation of innovation within the organization. This implies, therefore, that if the organizational management is able to raise its commitment and attitude towards innovation, then organizational change will be attained. The study proposes that when hindering innovation, organizations can as well consider enhancing the commitment and attitudes of their management towards innovation. However, it is worth noting that this is not critical for all organizations considering the fact that organizations vary in size, practices and operations, as well as values.

This study adds important insights to the academic, as well as business world. To the academic field, this research has contributed to the present knowledge on innovative challenges hindering organizational change. The previous literature was used to develop the hypotheses that were later tested by the empirical study. To the business world, on the other hand, this paper highlights significant aspects that organizations need to take into account when initiating organizational change.

4.5 Limitations of the Study

This study encountered a few limitations. Some of the aspects being analyzed could not be measured, and therefore, the respondents provided their opinions basing on their current knowledge. In essence, their understanding of the factors under the study could have been totally different from whatever the study required, considering the fact that the questions were not explained to the respondents, and thus, their responses were based on their own understanding. This is because the approach applied does not provide the researcher with the opportunity to explain ambiguous questions (Churchill 1995). Therefore, the responses will be based on the understanding and views of the respondents, without considering the perspective of the researcher. The other limitation is that the findings of this study might differ due to the type of company analyzed. For instance, this company is rated as a large one, basing on the amount of employees the company has. However, how well these findings could be generalized to apply to the other large organizations remain unknown, since the practices and values of organizations differ, despite the fact that they are just rated as large organizations. The budget limitations made it difficult to conduct personal interviews that would explore on the topic under the study. The study resorted into use of questionnaires, which were mailed to the respondents as this was considered as a cost effective approach, hence, making it difficult for the researcher to obtain the specific individual responses.

In addition, it is worth noting that the use of mail surveys presents various challenges. For instance, this approach makes it difficult for the illiterates to take part in the study. It is indeed limited to the literate respondents who can actually read and interpret the questions, basing on their own understanding (Churchill, 1995). However, despite the fact that the illiterate cannot read and write, they might possess the necessary information that is required by the study. Furthermore, excluding the illiterates from taking part in the study might generate biased results, considering the fact that some of the target participants might be cut out of the study. Another disadvantage of applying the mail surveys is that the researchers cannot regulate the speed of the responses (Churchill, 1995). Another limitation encountered by the study was the non-return of the questionnaires. Apparently, the study targeted all of the ten departments of the company.  Three questionnaires were to be distributed to each of the department meaning that a total of thirty questionnaires were to be analyzed for this study. However, only 21 out of the 30 questionnaires were returned back for analysis. The small sample size made it challenging to come up with a more comprehensive statistical treatment, despite the fact that a valid statistical analysis was applied.