Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose Organizational innovation (OI) is important for multinational enterprises to adapt to changes in their broader technological and market environments. Despite its power to transform organizations, OI has remained at the periphery of international business (IB) scholarship. The purpose of this paper is that IB is particularly equipped to further the understanding of OI. IB studies place significant value on “context” and how the context in which the firm operates can enable or hinder the evolution of internal routines and practices, leading (or not) to OI. Design/methodology/approach The authors identify the key challenges which have contributed to the seemingly less important role of OI in IB, notable among them being the ambiguity of concepts associated with OI across different research fields. The authors advance the research agenda by offering a comprehensive definition of OI. The authors then put forward an integrative framework where the authors discuss the importance, and contribution, of IB to OI and vice versa. Findings The literature is characterized by terminological and empirical ambiguity. Some management scholars have coined the term “management innovation” with a clear element of invention and state-of-the-art attached to it. Others have referred to “organizational innovation,” when exploring incremental and targeted changes to extant team- and firm-level practices. In turn, IB scholars developed their own terminology, often (implicitly) referring to technological innovations as “asset-type firm-specific advantages” (FSAs) and associating OI with “transaction-type” FSAs. Originality/value The authors offer a new definition for OI – to address the challenges associated with terminological ambiguity. The authors put forward an integrative framework of OI in IB. The proposed framework of OI emphasizes the wider organizational context in which OI takes place, i.e. firm heterogeneity; and the broader external (IB) context of OI.
Juergensen et al. (Wed,) studied this question.