Research on Influence of Manager’s Innovation Preference on Innovation-Decision Making

Chen Tao, Yang Liu

Technology and Business College of Sichuan, Dujiangyan, China.
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

DOI: 10.4236/ti.2012.33026                

Abstract

It is one of the key factors which cause “innovation dilemma” that managers prefer to support the sustaining innovation project. From the view of the manager’s innovation preference, the main propose of the paper is to study why it happened. The manager’s innovation preference will guide and motivate the staffs how to innovate, therefore it is appropriate to analyze it by using the principal agent theory. Conclusions can be got by establishing and analyzing a multi-task principal-agent model. First of all, the model basically explains why incumbent enterprises prefer adopting sustaining innovation and entrant enterprises are inclined to disruptive innovation project. Secondly, the selection rights of middle managers towards innovation projects determine the strategic direction of enterprises. Manager’s innovation preference is consistent with the innovation types of employees. At last, the paper suggests that incumbent enterprises should indeed establish self-organizations or spin-off organizations to better carry out disruptive business.

Keywords

Innovation Preference; Principal-Agent Model; Disruptive Innovation; Profits from Innovation

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, “The Knowledge Creating Company,” Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
[2]	C. M. Christensen and M. E. Raynor, “The Innovator’s Solution,” Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2003.
[3]	C. K. Prahalad and G. Hamel, “The Core Competence of the Corporation,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, 1990, pp. 79-91.
[4]	M. E. Porter, “Competitive Strategy,” Free Press, New York, 1980.
[5]	D. Leonard-Barton, “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. S1, 1992, pp. 111-125.
[6]	P. Aghion and J. Tirole, “The Management of Innovation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 109, No. 4, 1994, pp. 1185-1209. doi:10.2307/2118360
[7]	T. Hellmann and V. Thiele, “Incentives and Innovation: A Multitasking Approach,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2011, pp. 78-128. doi:10.1257/mic.3.1.78
[8]	W. Lazonick, “Innovative Enterprise and Historical Transformation,” Enterprise & Society, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2002, pp. 3-47. doi:10.1093/es/3.1.3
[9]	O. E. Williamson, “Vertical Integration and Related Variations on a Transaction-Cost Economic Theme,” In: J. E. Stiglitz and G. F. Mathewson, Eds., New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1986.
[10]	S. J. Grossman and O. D. Hart, “The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Lateral and Vertical Integration,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94, No. 4, 1986, pp. 691-719. doi:10.2307/1833199
[11]	R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter, “The Schumpeterian Trade off Revisited,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 72, No. 1, 1982, pp. 114-132.
[12]	K. Arrow, “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventions,” In: R. Nelson, Ed., The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press, New York, 1962, pp. 609-626.
[13]	D. Teece, “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy,” Research Policy, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1986, pp. 285-305. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2