Management innovation in the hotel industry

Tourism Management 46 (2015) 51e58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Management innovation in the hotel industry s b, 1 Julia Nieves*, a, Mercedes Segarra-Cipre a

Institute of Tourism and Sustainable Development (TIDES), University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Facultad de Economía, Empresa y Turismo, C-109, Campus Universitario de Tafira, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017, Spain b n, 12071, Spain Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Universitat Jaume I, Campus Riu Sec, Castello

h i g h l i g h t s This paper analyses hotel firms established throughout the Spanish territory. The impact of internal and external factors on management innovation is tested. Human capital and integration capability positively influence management innovation. Relationships with external change agents positively affect management innovation. Relationships with industry agents are not related to management innovation.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 6 February 2014 Accepted 11 June 2014 Available online

The study of management innovation has gained relevance in recent years, but there is a lack of empirical research analysing the factors that favour it. This article contemplates two types of antecedents of management innovation in the hospitality industry. In the internal context of the company, the influence of the employees' knowledge and skills is analysed, as well as the company's capacity to integrate this knowledge. In the external setting, an evaluation is performed of the way relationships established with tourist industry agents and external change agents affect the development of management innovation. The data obtained from 109 firms operating hotel establishments in Spain show that both the internal resources and the relations with external change agents determine the introduction of management innovations. However, access to knowledge held by tourist industry agents does not influence management innovation. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Management innovation Human capital Integration capability Social relationships External change agents Hotel industry

1. Introduction Although it involves risks and its success is not guaranteed, innovation is considered a requirement for adapting to a changing environment (Damanpour, Walker, & Avellaneda, 2009; Danneels, 2002; Rhee, Park, & Lee, 2010). Due to strong competition, numerous technological advancements and changes in consumers' tastes, firms' survival depends on their capacity to develop or adopt innovations (Buhalis & Law, 2008; Damanpour et al., 2009; Wang & Ahmed, 2004). For years, studies on innovation have focused on its technological aspects. However, the field of innovation deals with other aspects, such as business model innovation, service innovation or management innovation (Gallego, Rubalcaba, & Hipp, 2013; Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009). Management innovation is a relatively * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 928458134; fax: þ34 928458685. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Nieves), [email protected] s). (M. Segarra-Cipre 1 Tel.: þ34 964728537; fax: þ34 964728629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.06.002 0261-5177/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

recent term, although the concept has been discussed previously using similar terms such as organizational or administrative innovation (Daft, 1978; Damanpour, 1987; Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981). Innovation in management principles and processes has received growing academic interest, and in recent years studies have ana n & Villarlysed it together with technological innovation (Camiso pez, 2014; Hecker & Ganter, 2013; Khanagha, Volberda, Sidhu, Lo & Oshri, 2013) and independently. The article by Birkinshaw, Hamel, and Mol (2008) provided an interesting discussion on management innovation, which led to other papers on this topic (Cerne, Jaklic, & Skerlavaj, 2013; Khanagha et al., 2013; Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009; Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2012; Walker, Damanpour, & Devece, 2010) that will probably provide the basis for many future research opportunities. Management innovation explains an important part of a company's innovative performance (Jacob & Groizard, 2007; Volberda, Van Den Bosch, & Heij, 2013). It can create sustainable competitive advantages that lead to economic success (D'Amato & Roome,

52

J. Nieves, M. Segarra-Cipres / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 51e58

2009; Hamel, 2006; Wu, 2010), and it can redefine an industry through the propagation of new ideas (Vaccaro et al., 2012). These innovations in management practices and processes are especially relevant to services activities (Gallego et al., 2013; Van der Aa & Elfring, 2002). However, because the study of management innovation as a relevant variable has only emerged in recent years, little is known about its determining factors (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009; Vaccaro et al., 2012), and studies in the hospitality sector are especially scarce. Therefore, research studies should be carried out to reach a better understanding of management innovation (Volberda et al., 2013). Birkinshaw et al. (2008) identify four perspectives on management innovation: i) institutional, which is related to the socioeconomic conditions in which management innovation takes place; ii) fashion, which focuses on the interaction between those who supply ideas and those who use them; iii) cultural, which refers to the way an organization reacts to the introduction of new management ideas and practices; and iv) rational, which focuses on improvements in organizational effectiveness provided by management innovation. The present study aims to contribute to the emerging scholarly discourse by combining the rational and fashion perspectives to analyse antecedents of management innovation in hotel firms. Specifically, it analyses the role played by two internal resources, human capital and integration capability, as well as the effect of managers' relations with external agents as promoters of management innovation. Therefore, the study makes it possible to advance the knowledge in the underdeveloped literature on management innovation by empirically testing the role played by internal and external factors to the organization. In order to achieve these objectives, this paper is structured in the following way. First, the article focuses on the concept of management innovation by describing the existing literature in this field and building a set of hypotheses around its antecedents. Next, an empirical study is presented that was carried out with a sample of 109 companies operating hotel establishments throughout the Spanish territory. Finally, the article discusses the study's results, implications and limitations, as well as possible questions for future research.

2. Theory and hypotheses 2.1. Management innovation The literature presents two perspectives, both considered valid, of the degree of novelty in management innovations (Birkinshaw et al., 2008): ‘new to the state of the art’, which means there is no known precedent; and new to the adopting organization. Both perspectives view innovation as a significant improvement in past management activities and competences designed to favour a closer alignment with the competitive environment (Hollen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2013). Management innovation, therefore, refers to the generation or adoption of management processes, practices, structures or techniques that are new to the company and affect its performance in terms of innovation, productivity and competitiveness (Birkinshaw et al., 2008; Volberda et al., 2013). Therefore, it involves (Volberda et al., 2013:3): “changes in the way management work is done, involving a departure from traditional processes (i.e., what managers do as part of their jobs); in practices (i.e., the routines that turn ideas into actionable tools); in structure (i.e., the way in which responsibility is allocated); and in techniques (i.e., the procedures used to accomplish a specific task or goal)”. The literature shows a consensus that these changes can constitute one of the main sources of competitive advantage for firms, given that they are context-specific, complex, ambiguous and hard to replicate

(Klippel, Peter, & Antunes, 2008; Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009; Vaccaro et al., 2012; Volberda et al., 2013). Management innovation has characteristics that distinguish it from product innovations. On the one hand, management innovations are basically introduced to improve the efficiency of the organization's internal administrative processes, while the innovation of goods or services tries to satisfy external demands (Walker et al., 2010). On the other hand, the non-technological nature of management innovation means that, in its development and adoption, the firm's managers play a more important role than technicians or researchers do (Hecker & Ganter, 2013). Scant empirical research has analysed the variables that foster management innovation. The first studies carried out in this field were more focused on structural aspects of the organization. According to Daft (1978), a mechanistic structure is appropriate for administrative innovations. Damanpour (1987) finds that administrative intensity and organizational size positively influence administrative innovations. A meta-analysis carried out by Kimberly and Evanisko (1981) shows that vertical and functional differentiation is positively associated with administrative innovations. More recent studies have incorporated new variables as determinants of management innovation. Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) show that management innovation depends on both the internal context of the company and the external search for new knowledge. According to Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson (2009), firm size, the use of assets, services in addition to accommodation, and employees' qualifications positively influence management innovation. Vaccaro et al. (2012) find that transformational and transactional leadership behaviours positively contribute to management innovation. The study by Hecker and Ganter (2013) shows that rapid technological changes favour the firm's propensity to adopt management innovation. Cerne et al. (2013) find that knowledge exchange is positively related to management innovation. This article adopts, on the one hand, a rational perspective to examine how two internal resources favour the introduction of new management practices, processes and structures designed to enhance firm performance. The paper proposes, first, that the employees' knowledge, abilities and skills, as well the organization's capacity to integrate this knowledge, favour the development of management innovation. However, although companies can undertake management innovation processes on their own, they find it valuable to selectively use outsiders, who represent a source of ideas for different settings (Birkinshaw & Mol, 2006). Therefore, on the other hand, the article proposes that access to external knowledge influences management innovation from a fashion perspective; that is, managers use new management ideas presented by ‘‘fashion setters’’ (D'Amato & Roome, 2009). Specifically, the study proposes that new knowledge is accessed through two types of relationships that managers can have with external agents, and it suggests that these relationships influence management innovation in different ways. The first proposal is that managers' relationships with tourist industry agents does not influence the development of management innovation because the idiosyncratic nature of management practices and processes hinders the transfer of knowledge from one organization to another (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009). The second proposal is that managers' relationships with external change agents favour the introduction of management innovation, given that the literature considers these agents to be fundamental in initiating and driving the process (Birkinshaw et al., 2008; Birkinshaw & Mol, 2006; Volberda et al., 2013). 2.2. Human capital and management innovation The literature emphasizes the role of human capital as an antecedent of knowledge creation and innovation. A high level of


knowledge, abilities and skills favours better use of information, rapid learning, and the effective application of what was learnt, all pez-Cabrales & of which contribute positively to innovation (Lo Valle, 2008). Similarly, employees with high levels of knowledge will probably be more receptive to new ideas and changes (Boeker, 1997). Furthermore, high levels of human capital are associated with more tacit knowledge, familiarity and efficiency, which reduce the perception of risk and favour change (Bruns, Holland, Shepherd, & Wiklund, 2008). In addition, when employees have high levels of knowledge, the combination and exchange of this knowledge will be more productive, creating more knowledge (Smith, Collins, & Clark, 2005). Moreover, as new knowledge is built on the stock of existing knowledge, a prior knowledge base favours the comprehension and absorption of the knowledge to which one is exposed (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Thus, organizations with better human capital can improve their capacity to handle the complex processes that accompany change (Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981; Young, Charns, & Shortell, 2001) and create new knowledge (Smith et al., 2005). Specifically in the area of management innovation, Birkinshaw et al. (2008) highlight the key role of human agency in the development of new management practices, processes and structures. Qualified employees are an important attribute of companies and represent one of their key management innovation resources (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009; Volberda et al., 2013; Zolnik & Sutter, 2010). Individuals play a fundamental role in identifying new tendencies and supporting initiatives related to management changes (Vaccaro et al., 2012). Wu (2010) points out that highly qualified employees increase the capacity to develop management innovation because they have strong analytical abilities and a broad knowledge base. Along the same lines, Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) consider that well-educated employees are capable of perceiving questions beyond their specific jobs, increasing the possibilities of introducing new management practices. Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson (2009) suggest that knowledge resources are more important for management innovations than for any other type of innovation. They find that management innovation increases when companies have more employees with university degrees. Moreover, the study by Kimberly and Evanisko (1981) shows that the educational level of the administrator positively determines the introduction of management innovations. These arguments lead to the following hypothesis. Hypothesis H1. The firm's human capital positively affects the introduction of management innovations. 2.3. Integration capability and management innovation Different types of employees have different types of knowledge related to the organization, which makes it possible for individuals to contribute proposals related to their specific abilities that fit the organization's objectives (Avlonitis, Kouremenos, & Tzokas, 1994). These different types of knowledge can become a valuable resource when the company is able to integrate them. Integration capability is defined as the ability to combine individual knowledge, and it consists of three basic routines (Pavlou & El Sawy, 2011): i) contribution, which relates to collecting and combining individual inputs; ii) representation, which makes it possible to build a shared understanding; and iii) Interrelation, which relates to a new logic of collective interaction. Integration capability favours the transformation of diverse knowledge into a new form of knowledge that is both integrated and novel, fostering the innovative activity (Salazar, Lant, Fiore, & Salas, 2012). Management innovation is the result of the way different individuals think, interpret, act or interact (McCabe, 2000). Therefore,

53

if management innovation must be analysed as the product of collective action, and not as the will of specific individuals, it will be necessary to integrate the knowledge of different individuals within the organization. In other words, the organization must be capable of effectively managing and integrating the employees' knowledge, which requires knowing where the different types of abilities and skills are located. In this way, managers can obtain precise information that helps them to make well-informed decisions about what solutions can be adopted, allowing them to be more successful in the search for management innovations (Cerne et al., 2013). In summary, given that management innovation is a supra-individual process, the organization will obtain advantages if it can integrate individual knowledge into a collective system. Based on these arguments, this article formulates the following hypothesis. Hypothesis H2. The organization's capacity to integrate the employees' knowledge positively affects the introduction of management innovations. 2.4. Managers' external relationships and management innovation The role of external social networks as determinants of innovation has repeatedly been emphasized in the literature (Ahuja, 2000; Hjalager, 2010; Molina & Martínez, 2010; Novelli, Schmitz, & Spencer, 2006). Knowledge situated outside the organizational limits provides companies with varied and numerous sources of knowledge, whose combination can give rise to true innovations (Miller, Fern, & Cardinal, 2007). This paper analyses how social relationships between members of firms' management teams and external agents influence the adoption of management innovations. Vaccaro et al. (2012) state that managers have the capacity to significantly influence the development of management innovations, due to their prominent role within the organization. Different research studies show that acquiring knowledge from outside sources is a critical determinant of management innovation (Damanpour & Aravind, 2011; Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009; Volberda et al., 2013). Specifically, Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) point out that building knowledge-based external relationships positively influences the ability to successfully introduce new management practices. These authors argue that at least part of this outside knowledge must come from specific organizations that have knowledge about management practices. Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) analyse one category of sources, the so-called market sources, which include suppliers, clients or customers, competitors, consultants, and commercial laboratories/R&D enterprises. This paper addresses external knowledge sources by distinguishing between managers' relationships with: i) external change agents, which include consultants and academic researchers; and ii) tourist industry agents, which include clients, suppliers and companies in the sector. Management innovation has been related to agents outside the company who have appropriate abilities and novel ideas, and whose external position allows them to overcome organizational inertia and challenge the existing norms (Wright, Sturdy, & Wylie, 2012). Based on this argument, this study adopts a fashion perspective that “focuses on how management innovations emerge through the dynamic interplay between managers who use new management ideas and ‘fashion setters’ who put forward those ideas” (Birkinshaw et al., 2008:826), and it proposes that managers' relationships with external change agents favour management innovation. Volberda et al. (2013) argue that the search for management innovation is influenced by external change agents because new practices, processes or structures are often modelled by third parties, such as consultants and academic researchers, who

54


initiate and lead the process. According to Birkinshaw and Mol (2006), external change agents focus more on ideas than on practical questions. However, together with the organization's managers, they are able to reduce the gap between the concept and implementation of management innovations. On the other hand, the literature highlights that the development of management innovation is a complex process and specific to the company. Its idiosyncratic and intangible nature makes it difficult to imitate (Cerne et al., 2013), replicate (Volberda et al., 2013) or transfer from one organization to another (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009). Therefore, management innovations are generally unique to each adopting firm (Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 2001) and have strong roots in the organizational and social context of the company that implements them (Hecker & Ganter, 2013). Likewise, the knowledge involved in these types of innovations has an important tacit component, which can interfere with its comprehension and assimilation by external observers (Hecker & Ganter, 2013). Based on these arguments, this study proposes that the top management team's relationships with external change agents are more important than their relationships with tourist industry agents in the introduction of management innovations. Therefore, although external relationships in general provide access to information, knowledge and ideas that can favour management innovation activities, this paper proposes that relationships with external change agents play a more determinant role than relationships with tourism industry agents. Hypothesis H3a. The top management team's social relationships with external change agents positively affect the introduction of management innovations. Hypothesis H3b. The top management team's social relationships with tourist industry agents positively affect the introduction of management innovations. Hypothesis H3c. Social relationships with external change agents affect the introduction of management innovations more than social relationships with tourist industry agents.

3. Methods 3.1. Sample The context of this study is the Spanish hotel industry. Spain is the second country in the world in terms of international tourism income ($59.9 billion US) and the fourth tourist destination in the world in terms of international tourist arrivals, with a total of 56.2 million visitors in the year 2011 (World Tourism Organization, 2013). Specifically, the population under study is made up of firms dedicated to tourist hotel lodgings that have a staff of 50 or more employees and operate establishments with three or more stars in Spanish territory. Higher category hotels are better suited to testing the proposed hypotheses because they present greater professionalism, have more qualified personnel, and compete more n, 2000; on the basis of knowledge and innovation (Camiso Ordanini & Parasuraman, 2011; Pikkemaat & Peters, 2005). Data on firms operating tourist establishments in Spain were obtained from the Hostelmarket 2011 Annual Report. The population is composed of 523 companies, and the decision was made to study all of the firms that made up the population. The research methodology chosen was the survey, implemented through a selfadministered questionnaire. The data collection process was carried out between September 2011 and March 2012. During this period, the companies in the study population were contacted six times, both by e-mail (four messages) and by surface mail (two

letters). The data collection process ended with the reception of a total of 112 questionnaires, of which 109 were considered valid. This number represents a response rate of 20.84%, which implies a sampling error of 8.36%. The professional and demographic variables contained in the questionnaire show that the majority of those surveyed perform general management functions, have more than 10 years of experience in the sector, and have high-level academic studies. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the companies in the population and in the sample. The KolmogoroveSmirnov statistical contrast was used to compare the accumulated frequencies of accommodation units, number of employees, and sales figures for the population and the sample. The results reveal that there are no significant differences, indicating that the sample obtained is a good representation of the population being studied. 3.2. Measurement To measure all of the variables, 7-point Likert-type scales were used. Appendix A shows the items on the scales used to measure human capital, integration capability and management innovation. Human capital was measured by adapting the scale used by Subramaniam and Youndt (2005). To measure integration capacity, the scale proposed by Pavlou and El Sawy (2011) was used. Management innovation was measured based on what was established in the Oslo Manual (OECD/Eurostat, 2005). Although the Oslo Manual uses the term organizational innovations, the concept can be considered equivalent to management innovation (Hecker & Ganter, 2013). For these variables measured with scales, the individuals surveyed were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with the items on the questionnaire, using a response range from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree. The managers' external social relationships were measured as an additive index. To evaluate the social relationships with industry agents, the interviewees were asked if any members of the top management team maintained work-related personal contact with: i) end users; ii) intermediate customers (travel agencies, tour operators, etc.); iii) other hotel chains or establishments; iv) other companies in the sector (transport, leisure, restaurants, etc.); or v) suppliers of equipment, software, material, etc. Relationships with external change agents were measured by asking the managers if any members of the top management team maintained workrelated personal contact with: i) consultants or experts; ii) universities, agencies or research and innovation institutes. The response range was from 1 ¼ almost never to 7 ¼ almost always. Due to the difficulty of asking each of the top management members this question, in this study we adapted the questions to the perception of the manager who filled out the questionnaire. This methodology has been used previously by authors such as Houghton, Smith, and Hood (2009) and Lau (2011). This study statistically controlled the effect of firm size, measured through the logarithmic transformation of the number of employees. There is no consensus in the literature about the relationship between firm size and management innovation. Daft Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the population and the sample. Population Minimum No. establishments (in Spain) No. accommodation units (in Spain) No. employees 2010 sales (MV)

1

Sample Maximum 175

Minimum 1

48

35,897

48

50 .70

35,728 1294.10

50

Maximum 175 21,141

.70

23,400 1294.10


(1978) finds that the firm size has no effect on the process of administrative innovation. Wu (2010) suggests that the inertia that characterizes large companies can keep them from adopting new management practices because this implies facing more organizational challenges. According to Vaccaro (2010), larger organizations, although they have a larger stock of resources, can lack the necessary flexibility to introduce management innovations. Likewise, Vaccaro et al. (2012) argue that large organizations can find it more difficult to develop management innovation due to their greater complexity, bureaucratic formalization, and increased spatial separation. However, their study shows that the effect of transformational leadership on management innovation increases with organizational size. Kimberly and Evanisko (1981) find that organizational size is positively associated with management innovations. Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) state that large companies are more likely to introduce new management practices, given that they have more resources, including knowledge about management practices and human capital. Volberda et al. (2013) point out that large companies have been shown to have more ingenuity than small ones, but their need to introduce management innovations is also greater. Specifically in the hospitality industry, Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson (2009) find that firm size is positively related to management innovation in hotels. Consequently, we expect to find a positive relationship between firm size and management innovation. 4. Analysis and results Unlike scales, additive indexes do not have to be highly correlated with each other, so that Cronbach's alpha is not an appropriate measure, and factorial analysis is not an appropriate procedure (Delery, 1998; Yamao, de Cieri, & Hutchings, 2009). Therefore, the evaluation of the psychometric properties was carried out on the variables measured with scales. Exploratory factorial analysis (EFA), in a phase prior to the confirmatory factorial analysis, showed the existence of only one dimension in the scales used. After performing the EFA, the measurement model was estimated by means of confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) to test the goodness of fit of each scale (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The scales showed a good level of fit and acceptable psychometric properties (Appendix A). Their reliability was evaluated based on the Cronbach's alpha coefficient and by calculating the composite reliability and variance extracted. The Cronbach's alpha values were above .87. The composite reliability in all the constructs was above .91. Moreover, the average variance extracted (AVE) was above .72 on all the scales, surpassing the recommended threshold of .50. In the same way, the convergent validity of the scales was contrasted, given that all the standardized estimators of the regression weights of the latent variable on the indicators are statistically significant, positive, and greater than .77. Finally, the discriminant validity was evaluated by testing whether the AVE of each construct was greater than the squared correlation between two constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). To simplify the procedure, the square root of the variance extracted of each construct was calculated (Table 2). As can be observed, all the constructs have the property of discriminant validity. To contrast the hypotheses, multiple lineal regression analyses were performed. One of the assumptions that must be met to guarantee the validity of the lineal regression model is the independence of the error terms. The DurbineWatson (DeW) statistic provides information about the degree of independence existing between the residuals. If the value of the statistic is near 2, it can be assumed that there is independence (Durbin & Watson, 1951). Likewise, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was examined for each independent variable in order to evaluate the risk of

55

multicollinearity. The VIF values ranged from 1.200 to 2.262, indicating that multicollinearity is not a problem. Four models were specified for the regression analysis (Table 3). Model 1 only includes the control variable, and it is significant at p < 0.001. Model 2 also includes the effect of the variables that represent the two internal resources analysed, human capital and integrating capability. Model 2 is significant at the p < 0.001 level and explains an additional 36% of the variance, compared to Model 1. Model 3 includes managers' external relationships, both with tourist industry agents and with external change agents, in addition to the control variable. Model 3 is also significant at the p < 0.001 level and explains 32% of the variance in management innovation. The results for Model 3 indicate that relationships with external change agents positively and significantly affect the introduction of management innovation, but relations with tourist industry agents do not show a significant relationship with management innovation. Finally, Model 4 includes all the variables that have a significant effect on management innovation, in addition to the control variable. As Table 3 shows, Model 4 is significant at the p < 0.001 level and explains 50% of the variance in management innovation. The results show that the two internal resources analysed, human capital and integrating capability, positively and significantly influence management innovation, supporting H1 and H2. The results also support H3a, which proposes a positive relationship between managers' social relations with external change agents and management innovation. However, there is no empirical evidence for the hypothesis that social relationships with tourism industry agents have a positive effect on management innovation; therefore, H3b is not supported. Moreover, given that only the social relationships with external change agents influence management innovation, H3c is not supported either. Table 3 shows that firm size is positively related to management innovation (Model 1 and Model 3), although this relationship is no longer significant when human capital and integration capability are included (Model 2). These results suggest that the relationship between firm size and management innovation is mediated by some of these internal resources analysed. In order to evaluate this mediator effect, additional regression analyses were performed. Following Baron and Kenny's procedure (1986), first it was observed that firm size (Model 1) and human capital (Model 2) are positively related to management innovation. Second, the effect of firm size on human capital was examined. The results indicate that this relationship is positive and significant (b ¼ .358; p ¼ 0.001). Finally, the joint effect of firm size and human capital on management innovation was examined. The coefficients show that the relationship between human capital and management innovation is positive and

Table 2 Measurement information: mean, standard deviation, correlations (n ¼ 109). Mean Stand. (1) Deviat. (1) Human capital 3.96 (2) Integration 4.07 capability (3) Social relationships 5.31 with industry agents 4.68 (4) Social relationships with external change agents (4) Management 3.59 innovation (5) Firm size 603.5

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1.11 .99

(.869) .660** (.849)

1.10

.418** .439** n.a.

1.53

.499** .487** .698** n.a.

1.22

.634** .620** .381** .525** (.851)

1992.5 .358** .241* .040

(6)

.218** .348** n.a.

**The correlation is significant at .01 level (bilateral). *The correlation is significant at .05 level (bilateral). The elements on the diagonal (values between parentheses) correspond to the square root of the AVE of the construct; n.a: not applicable.

56


Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression analyses: management innovation. VIF

Firm size Human capital Integration capability Social relationships with industry agents Social relationships with external change agents R2 Adjusted R2 F change DeW

1.200 2.058 1.910 2.089 2.262

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Beta

t-value

Beta

t-value

Beta

t-value

Beta

t-value

.348

3.840***

.137 .350 .356

1.834 3.623*** 3.833***

.255

3.092**

.128 .287 .297

1.757 2.958** 3.191**

.083 .412 .337 .318 17.776 2.086

.743 3.576**

.210 .521 .502 28.265 2.297

2.596*

.121 .113 14.744 2.226

.490 .475 33.603 2.356

n ¼ 109. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

significant (b ¼ .584; p < 0.001), but the inclusion of the human capital variable in the model makes the relationship between company size and management innovation become non-significant (b ¼ .139; p > 0.05). Therefore, human capital plays a mediator role in the relationship between firm size and management innovation. The same procedure was followed to evaluate the possible mediator effect of integration capability. The results show that, when including firm size and integration capability together in the model, the effect of firm size on management innovation continues to be significant (b ¼ .211; p < 0.01), indicating that integration capability does not mediate in this relationship. 5. Discussion and conclusions This article combines two theoretical perspectives, rational and fashion, to analyse the antecedents of management innovation in firms in the hotel industry. Based on a rational approach, the study has showed that certain internal and external factors favour management innovations and, therefore, contribute to improving organizational efficacy. From a fashion perspective, the study has empirically showed the important role played by providers of management ideas, as they help to identify and implement new practices, processes or structures. The theoretical study by Birkinshaw et al. (2008) points to two groups of individuals who shape the process of management innovation: internal change agents or employees, and external change agents or consultants, academic researchers, and gurus. The present empirical study shows that both resources, internal and external, are factors that explain the introduction of new management practices and processes. Specifically, the results suggest that employees with high levels of knowledge, abilities and skills play a relevant role in the introduction of management innovations. Likewise, the firm's capacity to integrate the knowledge dispersed throughout the organization positively influences the achievement of management innovations. These results complement the proposals by McCabe (2000), who states that, even though management innovations are located in a context of power and inequality, they constitute a process in which managers and workers can participate on equal terms. Improving the capacity for innovation can also be achieved by relying on agents outside the organization. In this sense, this study finds that the management team's relationships with tourist industry agents do not show a significant relationship with management innovation. The results suggest that the specific and idiosyncratic nature of management innovation hinders the transfer of knowledge from external organizations. Thus, managers will not be able to absorb this type of knowledge to implement their own management innovations. The study by Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) finds that market sources provide new ideas

that influence the introduction of new management practices in all sectors, except construction and utilities and other services. Their results, together with the results from the present study, suggest that additional studies should be carried out to evaluate: i) the effects that the different types of external relationships can have on management innovation; and ii) the effects that external relationships can have on management innovation activities in companies from different economic sectors. In addition, the data show that relationships with external change agents contribute significantly to the introduction of new management practices. External change agents have specific knowledge and prior experience related to management innovations, which means they have the capacity to help the organization to adopt new practices, processes and structures. These results are consistent with the theoretical proposals of Birkinshaw and Mol (2006), who maintain that external change agents generally provide initial inspiration for management innovation, in addition to helping to shape and legitimize the process. Damanpour (1996) distinguishes between generation (development) and adoption (use) of new ideas or practices. The results suggest that relationships with external change agents can foster the adoption of practices and processes that already exist in the industry but are a novelty for the adopting firm. On the other hand, the implementation of management innovations developed by the firm itself could be determined by the firm's internal resources, specifically human capital and integration capability. However, additional research is needed to test these relationships, given that this study only shows that these internal resources and the relations with external change agents are antecedents of management innovations. Finally, the study finds that human capital mediates the relationship between firm size and management innovations. Therefore, the disparate results shown by previous studies may be due to the fact that they did not take into account other organizational variables affecting this relationship. 6. Implications This study makes a novel contribution to the hospitality literature because it is a pioneer study in examining internal and external factors together as determinants of management innovation in the hotel industry. The results show that employees' knowledge and the capacity to integrate this knowledge favour the introduction of management innovations. Likewise, they show that, in the sector analysed, only the relationships that managers establish with external change agents affect the achievement of management innovations. The particular organizational characteristics of each firm make any management changes highly specific, which reduces the possibility of transferring them from one organization to another. Consequently, the study shows that the


introduction of new management practices and processes is only fostered by the information and knowledge coming from external expert sources, that is, the knowledge provided by consultants or academic researchers. In addition, this study developed a scale to measure management innovation, based on what was established in the Oslo Manual (OECD/Eurostat, 2005), and this scale shows acceptable psychometric properties. Regarding the practical implications, the study suggests that firms can be more successful in developing management innovations if they invest in human capital and establish systems that make it possible to integrate the knowledge of the different members of the organization. Moreover, relations with specialists, such as consultants or researchers, are a tool that management teams can use to promote new management practices, processes and structures.

7. Limitations and future research This study presents some limitations that suggest possibilities for future research. One limitation stems from the use of the key informant technique. In the initial phases of the study, we noticed the difficulty of having a large enough number of multiple informants. Therefore, we tried to mitigate the possible perceptual bias by assuring, to some degree, the reliability of the responses. For this reason, the informants in the sample obtained have considerable professional experience, both in the sector and in the company, they occupy positions of responsibility, and they have an overall vision of the organization. In addition, the measurement scale for management innovations was developed based on the information in the third edition of the Oslo Manual (OECD/Eurostat, 2005), where this type of innovation is included for the first time. The Manual expressly states that this is a new experimental concept, even though it has been tested successfully in other countries. Future editions of the Oslo Manual, in addition to the emerging research on the concept of management innovation, can refine the measurement scale for this type of innovation. Future research should also provide further knowledge about management innovation, evaluating to what degree its implementation affects companies' results. Likewise, future qualitative studies could provide more in-depth information about the role of the different external change agents in the different phases of the innovation process (development, adoption, implementation). Analysing the way management innovations are adopted and spread at the level of tourist destinations would be another important field of research.

Appendix A. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

Itema

Factor loading

Scale 1: Human capital. Cronbach's alpha ¼ .923; Composite reliability ¼ .925; AVE ¼ .756 HC_1 Our employees are highly skilled.* .870 HC_2 Our employees are widely considered the .890 best in our industry. HC_3 Our employees are creative and bright. .871 HC_4 Our employees are experts in their .895 particular jobs and functions. HC_5 Our employees develop new ideas and .924 knowledge. Scale 2: Integration Capability. Cronbach's alpha ¼ .926; Composite reliability ¼ .928; AVE ¼ .722 IC_1 Employee's individual contributions are .845 channelled through their work group. .858

Std. lx

e .817 .870 .859 .929

.794 .811

57

(continued ) Itema

Factor loading

Std. lx

IC_2 Members of the firm have a global understanding of each other's tasks and responsibilities. .837 .776 IC_3 We are fully aware of who in the firm has specialized skills and knowledge relevant to our work. .926 .922 IC_4 We carefully interrelate actions between members of the firm to meet changing conditions. IC_5 Members of the firm manage to .930 .933 successfully interconnect their activities. Scale 3: Management Innovation. Cronbach's alpha ¼ .875; Composite reliability ¼ .913; Average variance extracted ¼ .725 .907 .885 MI_1 We frequently introduce organizational changes to improve the division of responsibilities and decision making (e.g., decentralisation, department restructuring, etc.). .897 .859 MI_2 We frequently introduce new methods for managing external relationships with other firms or public institutions (e.g., new alliances, new forms of cooperation, etc.). .902 .873 MI_3 We often introduce new practices in work organization or firm procedures (e.g., new quality management practices, new information and knowledge-management systems, etc.). .855 .785 MI _4 The new organizational methods that we have incorporated have been pioneering in the sector. a

To fit the measurement model, one item was dropped. This is marked “*”.

Appendix B. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.06.002.

References Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly,, 45(3), 435e455. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411e423. Avlonitis, G., Kouremenos, A., & Tzokas, N. (1994). Assessing the innovativeness of organizations and its antecedents: project Innovstrat. European Journal of Marketing, 28(11), 5e28. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatoremediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173e1182. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825e845. Birkinshaw, J., & Mol, M. (2006). How management innovation happens. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(4), 81e88. Boeker, W. (1997). Executive migration and strategic change: the effect of top manager movement on product market entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 213e236. Bruns, V., Holland, V., Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. (2008). The role of human capital in loan officers' decision policies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 485e506. Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internetdthe state of eTourism research. Tourism Management, 29(4), 609e623. n, C. (2000). Strategic attitudes and information technologies in the hospiCamiso tality business: an empirical analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19(2), 125e143. n, C., & Villar-Lo pez, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of Camiso technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2891e2902. Cerne, M., Jaklic, M., & Skerlavaj, M. (2013). Management innovation in focus: the role of knowledge exchange, organizational size, and IT system development and utilization. European Management Review, 10(1), 153e166. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,, 35(1), 128e152.

58


Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 193e210. Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675e688. Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science,, 42(5), 693e716. Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2011). Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423e454. Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizatios. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 45e65. 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), 650e675. D'Amato, A., & Roome, N. (2009). Leadership of organizational change. Toward an integrated model of leadership for corporate responsibility and sustainable development: a process model of corporate responsibility beyond management innovation. Corporate Governance, 9(4), 421e434. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of products innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal,, 23(12), 1095e1121. Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: implications for research. Human Resources Management Review, 8(3), 289e309. Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1951). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. II. Biometrika, 38(1/2), 159e177. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(February), 39e50. Gallego, J., Rubalcaba, L., & Hipp, C. (2013). Services and organisational innovation: the right mix for value creation. Management Decision, 51(6), 1117e1134. Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(2), 72e84. Hecker, A., & Ganter, A. (2013). The influence of product market competition on technological and management innovation: firm-level evidence from a largescale survey. European Management Review, 10(1), 17e33. Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31(1), 1e12. Hollen, R. M. A., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2013). The role of management innovation in enabling technological process innovation: an interorganizational perspective. European Management Review, 10(1), 35e50. Houghton, S. M., Smith, A. D., & Hood, J. N. (2009). The influence of social capital on strategic choice: an examination of the effects of external and internal network relationships on strategic complexity. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1255e1261. Jacob, M., & Groizard, J. L. (2007). Technology transfer and multinationals: the case of Balearic hotel chains' investments in two developing economies. Tourism Management,, 28(4), 976e992. Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., Sidhu, J., & Oshri, I. (2013). Management innovation and adoption of emerging technologies: the case of cloud computing. European Management Review, 10(1), 51e67. Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 689e713. Klippel, A. F., Peter, C. O., & Antunes, J. A. V., Jr. (2008). Management innovation, a way for mining companies to survive in a globalized world. Utilities Policy, 16, 332e333. Lau, C. M. (2011). Team and organizational resources, strategic orientations, and firm performance in a transitional economy. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1344e1351. pez-Cabrales, A., & Valle, R. (2008). Capital humano, pra cticas de gestio n Lo n relacionadas? Revista Europea de Direccio n y Economía de la empresarial: ¿Esta Empresa, 17(2), 155e178. McCabe, D. (2000). ‘Waiting for dead men's shoes’: towards a cultural understanding of management innovation. Human Relations,, 55(5), 505e536. Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. (2007). The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 308e326. Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: when firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1269e1280. Molina, F. X., & Martínez, M. T. (2010). Social networks: effects of social capital on firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(2), 258e279. Novelli, M., Schmitz, B., & Spencer, T. (2006). Networks, clusters and innovation in tourism: a UK experience. Tourism Management,, 27(6), 1141e1152. OECD/Eurostat. (2005). Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/OSLO/EN/ OSLO-EN.PDF Accessed 02.01.14. Ordanini, A., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Service innovation viewed through a service-dominant logic lens: a conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 3e23. Orfila-Sintes, F., & Mattsson, J. (2009). Innovation behavior in the hotel industry. Omega,, 37(2), 380e394. Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences,, 42(1), 239e273.

Pikkemaat, B., & Peters, M. (2005). Towards the measurement of innovationda pilot study in the small and medium sized hotel industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 6(3), 89e112. Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: mediation of learning orientation. Technovation,, 30(1), 65e75. Salazar, M. R., Lant, T. K., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research,, 43(5), 527e558. Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, creation capability and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy Management Journal,, 48(2), 346e357. Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450e463. Vaccaro, I. G. (2010). Management innovation: Studies on the role of internal change agents. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Doctoral thesis. Available at http:// www.erim.eur.nl/doctoral-programme/phd-in-management/phd-projects/de tail/348-management_innovation_studies_on_the_role_of_internal_change_a gents/ Accessed 03.01.14. Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2012). Management innovation and leadership: the moderating role of organizational size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28e51. Van der Aa, W., & Elfring, T. (2002). Realizing innovation in services. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18(2), 155e171. Volberda, H. W., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Heij, C. V. (2013). Management innovation: management as fertile ground for innovation. European Management Review, 10(1), 1e15. Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2010). Management innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 367e386. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organizational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303e313. World Tourism Organization. (2013). UNWTO tourism highlights 2013 edition. Available at http://mkt.unwto.org/en/publication/unwto-tourism-highlights2013-edition Accessed 03.01.14. Wright, C., Sturdy, A., & Wylie, N. (2012). Management innovation through standardization: consultants as standardizers of organizational practice. Research Policy, 41(3), 652e662. Wu, L.-Y. (2010). Which companies should implement management innovation? A commentary essay. Journal of Business Research., 63(3), 321e323. Yamao, S., de Cieri, H., & Hutchings, K. (2009). Transferring subsidiary knowledge to global headquarters: subsidiary senior executives' perceptions of the role of HR configurations in the development of knowledge stocks. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 531e554. Young, G. J., Charns, M. P., & Shortell, S. M. (2001). Top manager and network effects on the adoption of innovative management practices: a study of TQM in a public hospital system. Strategic Management Journal,, 22(10), 935e951. Zolnik, E. J., & Sutter, R. (2010). Workforce management innovations in transportation agencies: overcoming obstacles to public sector innovation. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15(1), 2e15.

Julia Nieves, Ph.D. in Business Administration is an Assistant Professor at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. She has combined her teaching work with her professional activity in the financial and the audit sector. Her research focuses on knowledge strategic management and innovation in services with particular emphasis on hospitality industry. She has published in journals such as Tourism Management, International Journal of Hospitality Management and Knowledge Management Research and Practice.

s is an associate professor at the Mercedes Segarra-Cipre Department of Business Management and Marketing at n, Spain). She obtained her Universitat Jaume I (Castello Ph.D. in business administration. Her primary research interests cover knowledge management, open innovation strategies and human resource management. She has published in journals such as Organization Studies, Universia Business Review, Personnel Review and Journal of Knowledge Management.