O impacto da pressão institucional na inovação organizacional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizational innovation, the adoption of new management practices and models of work, is one of the main sources of competitive advantages for firms.Recent research has underlined the role of the institutional environment and isomorphic pressures in the behavior of organizations, particularly for the adoption of innovation.In order to understand what factors may influence the adoption of organizational innovation it is necessary to understand how institutional pressures impact it.The central question guiding this research is: how do institutional pressures (mimetic, normative, coercive) influence the adoption of organizational innovation?The cooperation between organizations was used to measure the different types of institutional pressure.Mimetic pressure was measured through the cooperation between competitors.Normative pressure was measured through the cooperation with consultancy firms and universities.Coercive pressure was measured through the cooperation with certifying organizations.In order to answer this research question a quantitative approach was adopted, based on secondary data from the Brazilian Research on Technological Innovation (Pintec) conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE).The data represents 38 sectors of the Brazilian economy, according to three researches conducted in 2008, 2011 and 2014.The statistical technique used was panel data analysis, which is recommended for datasets with both longitudinal and cross-sectional characteristics.The results show that normative institutional pressures from consultancy companies and institutional coercive pressures have a positive influence on the adoption of organizational innovation.Mimetic pressures were not significant, while normative pressures from universities are negatively correlated with organizational innovation.This research contributes to the academic literature on organizational innovation by demonstrating which types of organizational pressure influence its adoption.It also contributes to institutional theory by showing the necessity of differentiating the types of normative pressure according to its source.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".