Factors affecting the theorization and labeling phase of training management innovation process: A case study of two commercial swine farms in Batangas and Cavite, Philippines
In my dissertation, I investigated the management innovation process of Birkinshaw, Hamel, & Mol (2008) to explain the slow developments of management innovations into legitimate management practices. In my literature review, it appeared that the lack of well-developed theorization and labeling...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Animo Repository
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_doctoral/565 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | De La Salle University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | In my dissertation, I investigated the management innovation process of Birkinshaw, Hamel, & Mol (2008) to explain the slow developments of management innovations into legitimate management practices. In my literature review, it appeared that the lack of well-developed theorization and labeling was a gap in the management innovation process. This led me to examine the institutional factors and the individual factors in the management innovation process, and to determine how the individual factors mediated the influences of institutional factors on theorization and labeling. Through a two-case study research, I investigated two (2) training management innovations of two (2) large swine production companies and the responses from their managers and employees. I confirmed through analytic generalization, using outcome pattern matching of verified data, that individual factors such as areas of attention of managers, employees response and, the institutional factors explained the uncommon occurrence of theorization and labeling. The managers understanding of the objectives of the training management innovation, managers attitude, and employees response strengthened the promotion, acceptance and retention of the training programs although characterized with undocumented processes. Governance and enforcement required compliance while goal alignment, social legitimacy, efficiency, organizational grounding, and trust motivated managers and employees to promote and retain training management innovations. The lack of social legitimacy and enforcement to extend the training programs to outside firms limited the conduct of theorized practice out of immediate context. For building theory, I empirically observed and validated the phenomena of management innovation process of Birkinshaw et al. (2008), theorization and labeling, and specific factors. |
|---|