Rezart Prifti
University of Tirana, Rr. Arben Broci. Albania


3rd International Scientific Conference – EMAN 2019 – Economics and Management: How to Cope With Disrupted Times, Ljubljana – Slovenia, March 28, 2019, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS published by: Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Management Koper, Slovenia; Doba Business School – Maribor, Slovenia; Integrated Business Faculty –  Skopje, Macedonia; Faculty of Management – Zajecar, Serbia, ISBN 978-86-80194-17-2, ISSN 2683-4510


Organizational innovation theories mostly utilize a dichotomous division between types of innovation and stages of innovation. For instance, the dual core theory dissects innovation in administrative and technical dimensions, hereby emphasizing the dissimilarities between technical and social systems of an organization (Daft 1978; Damanpour & Evan 1984). Moreover, the theory of innovation radicalness uses a different phrasing of organizational innovativeness, whereas the ambidextrous theory of innovation examines how an organization adopts certain innovations by identifying two separate stages. This paper’s purpose is to investigate how organizational innovation affects two other aspects of innovation – technical and administrative innovation – which comprise the general innovation construct. The study was conducted employing a sample of 100 Albanian firms, where the organizational innovation model has been enquired to test the effect it exercises on general organizational innovativeness (simply referred to as innovation). This structure is further controlled by the influence of several independent variables, including company size, employee education level, production vs. service-based orientation, and whether the firm sources its research and development (R&D) activities internally or externally. Despite some inconclusive evidence, the empirical findings presented in this study demonstrate an overall positive relationship between organizational innovation and firm innovative activity, as related to technical and administrative innovation. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the only Albanian study that measures organizational innovation and firm innovativeness.


Organizational innovation, Technical innovation, Administrative innovation, Firm Innovativeness, Dual core theory, Innovation radicalness, Ambidextrous theory


[1] Abernathy, W. & Utterback, J., 1978. Patterns of Industrial Innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), pp.40–47.
[2] Armbruster, H. et al., 2008. Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, 28(10), pp.644–657.
[3] Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G. & Mol, M.J., 2008. Management Innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), pp.825–845.
[4] Bledow, R. et al., 2009. A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, pp.305– 337.
[5] Camisón, C. & Villar-López, A., 2012. Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance.
[6] Daft, R.L., 1978. A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), pp.193–210.
[7] Damanpour, F., 1991. Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), pp.555–590.
[8] Damanpour, F. & Aravind, D., 2011. Managerial Innovation: Conceptions, Processes, and Antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), pp.423–454.
[9] Damanpour, F. & Evan, W.M., 1984. Organizational Innovation and Performance: The Problem of “Organizational Lag.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), pp.392–409.
[10] Damanpour, F. & Gopalakrishnan, S., 1998. Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: the role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1), pp.1–24.
[11] Damanpour, F., Szabat, K.A. & Evan, W.M., 1989. The Relationship Between Types of Innovation and Organizational Performance. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6), pp.587–602.
[12] Duncan, R.B., 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1, pp.167–188.
[13] Freeman, C. & Soete, L., 1997. The Economics of Industrial Innovation 3d ed., The MIT Press.
[14] Goffin, K. & Mitchell, R., 2010. Innovation management: strategy and implementation using the pentathlon framework, Palgrave Macmillan.
[15] Gopalakrishnan, S., 2000. Unraveling the links between dimensions of innovation and organizational performance. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11(1), pp.137–153.
[16] Gusenleitner, N., 2016. Practical Implications of the Ambidexterity Concepts, 1.
[17] Hamel, G., 2006. The Why, What, and How of Management Innovation. Harvard Business Review, (February), pp.1–15.
[18] Hamel, G., 2009. Moon Shots for Management.
[19] Hwang, A.-S., 2004. Integrating Technology, Marketing and Management Innovation: Research- Technology Management: Vol 47, No 4. Research-Technology Management, 47(4).
[20] Katila, R. & Chen, E.L., 2008. Effects of Search Timing on Innovation: The Value of Not Being in Sync with Rivals. Administrative Science Quarterly, (53), pp.593–625.
[21] 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), pp.689–713.
[22] Lundvall, B., 1985. Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction.
[23] OECD, 2005. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition,
[24] O’Reilly, C.A. & Tushman, M.L., 2013. Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future.
[25] Shea, C.M., 2005. Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(3), pp.185–200.
[26] Škerlavaj, M., Song, J.H. & Lee, Y., 2010. Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), pp.6390–6403.
[27] Stoneman, P. & Battisti, G., 2010. The diffusion of new technology. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation.
[28] Teece, D.J., 1980. The Diffusion of an Administrative Innovation. Management Science, 26(5), pp.464–470.
[29] Tushman, M.L. & O’Reilly, C.A., 1996. The Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4).
[30] Vaccaro, I.G. et al., 2012. Management Innovation and Leadership: The Moderating Role of Organizational Size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), pp.28–51.
[31] Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), pp.171–180.

Share this

Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans – UdEkoM Balkan
179 Ustanicka St, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Udekom Balkans is a dynamic non-governmental and non-profit organization, established in 2014 with a mission to foster the growth of scientific knowledge within the Balkan region and beyond. Our primary objectives include advancing the fields of management and economics, as well as providing educational resources to our members and the wider public.

Who We Are: Our members include esteemed university professors from various scientific disciplines, postgraduate students, and experts from ministries, public administrations, private and public enterprises, multinational corporations, associations, and similar organizations.

Building Bridges Together: Over the course of nine years since our establishment, the Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans has established impactful partnerships with more than 1,000 diverse institutions across the Balkan region and worldwide.

EMAN conference publications are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.