The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between innovative climate, strategic orientation, work motivation, business performance and job performance.
Within the scope of the research, a survey was conducted with 400 engineers working in organizations operating within companies producing spare parts for automobile companies. IBM SPSS 25, IBM SPSS AMOS and LISREL programs were gradually used, and the data obtained were evaluated and analyzed.
The importance of strategic orientation and work motivation for organizations can be seen in the analysis results in terms of their positive effects.
In the production sector, where innovation and competition activities take place, not only strategic decisions but also motivation for employees must be realized within the organizational culture in order for the organizations to be successful. Strategic orientation is effective in achieving innovation and creation to the extent that employees are motivated.
In terms of successful performance, it is very important to manage companies with the right strategic understanding and to involve the employees. In order to realize the innovation climate and to be successful in performance criteria, motivation is considered a key factor, in particular for the automobile sector. Automobile companies are now turning to electric vehicle production using new generation technologies. However, they also attach importance to the use of smart technologies in cars. For this reason, the effects of strategic orientation and work motivation on performance and innovation are investigated in companies producing automobile spare parts.
Adiguzel, Z. and Sonmez Cakir, F. (2022), "Examining the effects of strategic orientation and motivation on performance and innovation in the production sector of automobile spare parts", European Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 131-153. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMS-01-2022-0007
Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Zafer Adiguzel and Fatma Sonmez Cakir
Published in European Journal of Management Studies. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode.
Global change, developments in strategic management and the necessity of transition from planner to cultural orientations have been compulsory in order to positively improve the performance of organizations. Strategic orientations are guiding principles that affect an organization's strategic plans and activities (Noble et al., 2002), and in fact, organizational success is generally attributed to strategic orientation (Slater and Narver, 1994). Strategic orientation is the efforts of organizations to create organizational behaviors appropriate to the strategies of managers. And, the effects of strategic orientation are influential on the values, beliefs, norms and organizational culture of the employees in gaining a competitive advantage in the market (Bulut et al., 2009). Additionally, motivation is one of the key concepts in the success of organizational and business performance. Indeed, the concept of motivation is seen as one of the factors affecting the success of organizations and employees: it impacts employee's willingness, productivity, active work influence and the desire of employees to achieve business success (Gök, 2009). In addition, managers can motivate employees and thereby help them to realize their potential, and in this way, employees can use all their capable talents and skills to benefit both themselves and the organization (Subba Rao, 2010).
One of the most important innovations brought about by the first industrial revolution has been the division of labor, in addition to its natural extension of specialization. This division, over time, has led to a change in employees and their willingness to work. Many researchers, from Taylor to Mayo, have explored ways to make indifferent and reluctant employees willing and interested again, and have conducted theoretical research and analysis of motivation. The most important issue for researchers is to find out the behaviors of employees, their different connections to work and their real reasoning. While some of the employees in business do their jobs with great interest and desire, those employees with low efficiency still exist. What is the reasoning as to why they are reluctant within the same conditions and similar abilities? While investigating the answer to this question, which constitutes the essence of motivation in businesses, various opinions about motivation have been put forward (Sabuncuoğlu and Tüz, 2005). While the direction of strategic orientation on the motivation of the employees is still being investigated, the importance of performance for both organizations and employees is an accepted fact. Target measurements help companies determine where they were in the past, where they are now, where they want to go and how to get there (Lebas, 1995). In specific, the performance criterion is used to quantify the efficiency or effectiveness of the activity (action) (Neely et al., 1995). Therefore, within the scope of the research, the direction of strategic orientation and motivation on business, innovation climate and business performance are examined. Clearly, because companies provide motivation within strategic orientation, employees will not only increase their performance but also will play an important role in boosting innovation. For this reason, companies should attach importance to strategic orientation and employees' work motivation for both performance and innovation.
Automobile companies are now turning to electric vehicle production using new generation technologies. However, they also attach importance to the use of smart technologies in cars. For this reason, as a result of the research carried out in companies producing automobile spare parts within the scope of the research, they have a positive effect on both strategic orientation and work motivation, performance and innovation. In other words, if companies provide motivation within strategic orientation, employees will not only increase their performance but also will play an important role in boosting innovation. For this reason, companies should attach importance to strategic orientation and employees' work motivation for both performance and innovation.
The research focused on the effects of strategic orientation and work motivation on 400 engineers in companies producing spare parts for automobile companies. Understanding the effects on performance criteria and innovation, the research has been structured to measure the impact of motivation on employees within the production sector operating in an intensive working environment. The structure of the article is primarily literature research. Methodology specifies the application of AMOS and LISREL programs used in the analysis method, and at the same time, it is stated which studies were created using the scales. After methodology, the purpose of the research, framework and analyses follow, completed with the discussion and conclusion sections. In the conclusion section, the limits of the research and suggestions for future studies are specified.
2.1 Strategic orientation
The concept of strategic orientation is a frequently used concept in strategic management, entrepreneurship and marketing (Liu and Fu, 2011). Strategic orientation reflects an outward-looking view of the business's strategic choices and environmental compatibility (He et al., 2020). Strategic orientation evaluates the ways in which businesses acquire, allocate and use resources to create dynamic capabilities (Amentie Kero and Sogbossi, 2017). Also, Resource-Based View (RBV) of theory suggests that an organization's resources are essential to superior firm performance, competitive advantage, and strategic success. Therefore, an organization should identify and make use of resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to copy and nonsubstitutable to gain competitive advantages and abnormal profits (Barney, 1991). RBV theory has been regarded as the base management theory for business excellence by researchers such as Idris et al. (2003), Oakland and Tanner (2008), and Fonseca (2021). So, strategic orientation influences how businesses interact with the external environment (customer, competitor and technology) (Zhou and Li, 2010). The concept of strategic orientation is used by many authors to define and explain organizational patterns, practices and values that are embedded in the strategic decision processes of businesses (Escribá-Esteve et al., 2009). The method of strategic orientation is applied in order to create appropriate behaviors for continuous superior performance of a business (Kim et al., 2013). And, strategic orientation determines and directs a company's behavior and market priorities, which in turn shapes the idea of new products (Spanjol et al., 2011). In this context, with a strategic oriented perspective, businesses are effectively able to recognize and evaluate their external and internal environment, and transform their resources into behaviors to create the right product/service. In this transformation, businesses may need to improve their product/service performances by acting with strategic aspects that constitute their deep-rooted values, beliefs and business philosophy (Altuntaş et al., 2013). Looking at the effects of strategic orientation positively affects the innovation climate of business, especially if strategic orientation is adopted within an intensely competitive and technological environment with unpredictable development (Lee et al., 2017). Another important effect of strategic orientation is the positive effect that businesses have on performance in innovation activities (Adams et al., 2019). Therefore, it is possible to successfully adapt the internal elements of the businesses to the external (industry/competition) environment within the framework of strategic orientation. Within this scope, it is examined how strategic orientation affects both work motivation and innovation climate, as well as performance variables.
2.2 Work motivation
Motivation is one of the most discussed topics in recent years. Work motivation is defined as stimulating, guiding and maintaining an employee's behavior related to the work. Employee motivation is directing the needs of the individual to a behavior that satisfies the individual and results in employee satisfaction (Hitka et al., 2018); in addition, work can be defined as a process of action taken in the environment (Keser, 2006). The motivation of employees is related to many variables, such as job satisfaction, employee turnover, absenteeism rates, intent to leave, performance and commitment (Herzberg, 2017). If these values reach the desired levels, this means that the administration is successful. Therefore, businesses have to give importance to the motivation of the employees (Bendickson et al., 2018). Furthermore, if the motivation of the employees is given greater importance, there should be a noticeable increase in the performances of the businesses (Garg, 2017). Motivation is all the work done to continuously mobilize one or more employees in a specific direction or directions (Eren, 2006). In short, motivation is seen as the result of interactions between employees, with other employees, and within the organization. Work motivation has many facets: “strengthening, directing and sustaining behavior in organizational settings”; “the power that drives people to choose and continue to work hard”; “the willingness to spend high levels of effort for organizational purposes”; “the dynamic resulting from the common effects of independent, personal and situational factors”; “the internal situation, the process of eliciting and sustaining goal-oriented behavior, a group of relatively static characteristics that affect an individual’s behavior or organizational behavior”; “the desire to achieve organizational goals”; “the thing that arises and stimulates going behavior to realize set goals”; and “the willingness to do something” (Ağca and Ertan, 2008). The importance of working motivation if the motivation of the employees is high both positively reflects on the innovation activities that the businesses aim to perform and positively affects the performance of the businesses (Wang and Chang, 2017). Within the scope of the research model, work motivation is examined for both independent and mediation effects, as well, the effects of innovation climate on business and work performance are analyzed.
2.3 Business performance
When the current literature on business performance is examined, it is seen that there are many studies on the concept of “performance” within the field of disciplines about business (Karbowski, 2019; Ali and Xie, 2021). Although it is a widely used variable in theoretical and applied research, the concept of performance is a concept that remains unclear, difficult to measure and does not have a compromised definition (Rogers and Wright, 1998). Pugh (1991) defines the concept of performance as the fulfillment of the goods, services or thought tasks set out to fulfill the objectives, and the performance is done in a way that also meets the predetermined criteria within the framework of the task (Helvacı, 2002). Pitt and Tucker (2008) define the concept of performance as how and to what extent the activities in a process can be realized, or the level of effectiveness of the outputs achieved as a result of a specific objective. Salt (2002) defines the concept of performance as the quantitative or qualitative expression of the point achieved by the individual, group or organization performing a work toward an intended goal. Hult et al. (2004) define business performance as the level of achievement of predetermined strategic objectives, the level of achievement of organizational objectives related to market share and an increase in sales and profitability. Yüreğir and Nakıboğlu (2007) state that performance measurement is a method of measuring objectively how goods, services or transactions are performed within a program, and in an objective manner. A business's performance is the output or result of work in a process over a given period of time. This result indicates the extent to which the entity has achieved its purpose or the extent to which a particular task has been fulfilled. In particular, the performances of businesses are taken into account for stakeholders. Table 1 shows the performance criteria in terms of stakeholders.
Considering the performance criteria in Table 1, it is clear that in a competitive environment, strategy and innovation have an important effect on achieving business goals. Because companies need to have a strategic and innovative management approach in order to be successful in the race with their competitors in the eyes of partners, customers, personnel and society. In terms of performance, businesses that are strategically weak and inadequate in innovation can fall behind their competitors. Accordingly, performance is the evaluation of efforts to achieve business objectives (López-Cabarcos et al., 2019; Nadhar et al., 2017). The research model examines the effects of strategic orientation and work motivation on business performance.
2.4 Innovative climate
Innovative climate is an organizational climate that supports innovation, encourages employees to innovate and provides the necessary support to employees (Jaiswal and Dhar, 2015; Newman et al., 2020). In the emergence of successful innovation, the existence of a supportive organizational environment is very important (Uzkurt, 2017; Trunina, 2017). Innovation within top management is necessary for building trust and honesty instead of focusing on individual interests. Additionally, innovation helps build an environment in which support and tolerance are built instead of punishment and condemnation (Pirtea et al., 2019). Although innovation can be defined as creating value by developing new information or finding new ways of using existing information; innovation can also be realized through new business models, management techniques and organizational structures (Baregheh et al., 2009). Surprisingly though, it is often discussed primarily in the development of new products and services (Jamrog et al., 2006). Similarly, Hamel (2006) stated that innovation not only means creating a new product or service but can also lead to innovation in management principles and processes, all of which can create a long-lasting competitive advantage and lead to dramatic changes in the position of competitiveness. Table 2 shows the research about what kind of innovation activities employees affect in the businesses.
Expressing the characteristic of the organization's openness to innovation, the climate of innovation is an indicator of factors, such as power distribution affecting innovative business behavior, effective decision making and practical risk taking (Isaksen et al., 2001). The climate of innovation expresses a structure that enables the creation of new ideas within the organization, as well as the opportunity to implement these ideas (Loewe and Dominiquini, 2006). Accordingly, it can be accepted that in organizations where innovation climate is dominant, it is an organizational structure in which employees are encouraged to innovate by the constant support of their creative and innovative behaviors (Isaksen and Ekvall, 2010). In this case, it requires organizations to have certain strategic skills. Organizations can create a structure with an innovative climate by encouraging their employees to think freely and readily convey their ideas (Chen and Huang, 2007). For this reason, the motivations of the employees are very important for innovation activities. Nonetheless, it is not enough for organizations to decide that they should be innovative. This decision should be supported by comfortable environments that encourage innovation (Schoellhammer, 2020; Übius et al., 2013). An employee's superiors are the most important representatives of management activities, policies and procedures. Therefore, there is a tendency to generalize employees' perceptions about their superiors to the whole organization (Xin et al., 2019). Accordingly, the employee's perception of the leader/manager will affect the organization's perception of the climate. Leaders are expected to think positively, to form a vision, to be willing to innovate and to reflect these characteristics to their environment, and accordingly, forcing employees to adhere to certain restrictive rules and patterns is not motivational (Emiroğlu, 2018). Therefore, in the scope of the research, the effects of strategic orientation and work motivation on innovation climate are examined.
2.5 Job performance
While businesses have many assets, including human resources, capital, finance, infrastructure and talents, the most prominent element among them is the human factor (Sara et al., 2021). The human factor affects the performance of the business; therefore, it is vital for businesses to develop and implement ways and methods to improve employee performance (Üçüncü, 2016). Within an organization, quick change is considered as organizations are constantly striving to create a difference, a superior product or service, where innovation and globalization prevails. Additionally, they must keep in mind that only within the importance of human power will the unique and replicable assets of institutions emerge. The importance of effective and efficient management of these human assets is steadily increasing (Bulutlar, 2007; Steinbauer et al., 2018); in contrast, the cumulative inefficiency that may arise in performance can have negative effects on national productivity and economic success (Davies et al., 2000). Although performance is predominantly addressed from the point of view of output, achievement of objectives and completion of the task, there is now a tendency toward the behavioral dimension of performance. Job performance is many things: the fulfillment and completion of a particular job (Chiu, 2005), a job, verb, work, fulfillment, work and processing (Öncer, 2000), a job to be done taking into account the quantity, quality, time and cost effectiveness (Smith and Goddard, 2002). The successful performance of the activities directly or indirectly related to the work of the employees determines the performance of the organization as a whole (Lam and Schaubroeck, 1999). Therefore, evaluation of employee performance is considered as one of the most important functions of human resources management. In studies related to performance evaluation, there are many factors including age, gender (Lee and Alvares, 1977), experience (Schmidt et al., 1986), interpersonal relationships (Antonioni and Park, 2001), perverse behaviors in the workplace (Dunlop and Lee, 2004) and organizational policies (Miron et al., 2004). The research model examines the effects of strategic orientation and work motivation on job performance.
2.6 Relationships between variables
The fact that organizations take risks in innovation and exhibit an active strategic stance may affect their performance in a competitive environment (Kasemsap, 2017). Businesses pay more attention to innovation as a result of intense competition and advances in technology (O'Regan and Ghobadian, 2005). Researchers also argue that with the support of strategic orientation, companies should give greater focus to supporting employees and helping them improve their skills (Slater et al., 2006; Adams et al., 2019). Depending on the market situation, each organization must use its resources strategically to increase its competitive position (Al-Ansaari et al., 2015). For this reason, the effect of strategic orientation on the innovation climate is investigated in companies that manufacture spare parts in the automotive sector, a sector with a dynamic structure. Because strategic orientation is the most important determinant of sustainable competition in organizations (Sarker and Palit, 2015; Nasir et al., 2017), the motivation of the employees should be given importance as much as the strategy. In order to support these explanations, hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c and H1d are examined within the scope of the research model. Clearly, in order to be successful in competition, the motivation of the employees is required. In other words, in order for new ideas and information to have a positive effect on performance and innovation, employees need to be well motivated (Pinder, 2014). Therefore, in order for the strategic decisions taken to be successfully implemented at the desired level, the employees must fulfill their duties and responsibilities successfully. For this reason, the better motivated the employees, the more positively it will affect performance and innovation in strategic decisions. In order to support these explanations, hypotheses H2a, H2b, H2c, H3a, H3b and H3c are examined within the scope of the research model.
The importance of the research is that continuous investments be implemented in line with the new developments occurring in the automotive industry; and in line with these investments, intense competition starts to occur in the concept of electric vehicles. The firms that are the first in the market will have the opportunity to gain an advantage in competition. In order for automobile companies to be successful, companies producing automobile parts are in an important position. Accordingly, it has been deemed appropriate to conduct research in terms of strategy and motivation as well as innovation and performance. It is believed that future studies in this field will be beneficial. In the context, the hypotheses examined and tested within the scope of the research are as follows:
Strategic orientation has a significant effect on work motivation.
Strategic orientation has a significant effect on business performance.
Strategic orientation has a significant effect on innovative climate.
Strategic orientation has a significant effect on job performance.
Work motivation has a significant effect on business performance.
Work motivation has a significant effect on innovative climate.
Work motivation has a significant effect on job performance.
In the relationship between strategic orientation and business performance, work motivation has the effect of a mediation variable.
In the relationship between strategic orientation and innovative climate, work motivation has the effect of a mediation variable.
In the relationship between strategic orientation and job performance, work motivation has the effect of a mediation variable.
3. Research goal
The aim of the research is to examine the concepts of strategy, innovation and performance, together with the work motivation effect, which is important for the productivity of the employees. For this reason, it becomes important to examine the effects of work motivation, and in the research, questionnaires were collected from engineers working in the manufacturing sector (companies producing spare parts for automobile companies).
In the data collection, a scale was formed in accordance with the available literature, established in order to determine the comprehensibility and suitability of the scale items, and was presented to the companies operating in the production sector as random sampling. In expressing and understanding the results of the pretest of 70 units, the statements that were found to have problems were reviewed, and the corrected scale was subjected to a pretest of 52 units: It was considered important to make the questions more comprehensible since it was thought that a decrease in the questions might lower the explanatory results. Thus, both descriptive and confirmation modeling were applied and the data analyzed. Since the data were analyzed to determine the relationship between statistical concepts, a quantitative analysis approach was adopted. And, in a quantitative research test, independent variables or variables were used to judge the effect on the dependent variable (Thomas et al., 2015). For this purpose and by providing literature support, a model was determined and both dependent and independent variable properties were taken in accordance with this model (Figure 1).
Within the scope of the aim of the research, the survey was conducted on 400 engineers working for the SME's (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) companies (companies producing spare parts for automobile companies) in Istanbul’s industrial zones in Turkey, and an online questionnaire was used as a data collection tool. These questionnaires were sent to the target participants' engineers via email, and the study was conducted between May 2021 and August 2021 (under pandemic conditions). Overall 428 responses were received from 2,126 emails sent; 218 males and 182 females answered the questionnaire. In total 20% of the participants were in the 26–35 age group, 65% were in the 36–45 age group, and the number of engineers over the age of 46 was 15%. Of the employees, 70% were bachelor graduates; 15% had master's degrees, and 3% had doctorate degrees. Furthermore, since 28 questionnaires were filled in incorrectly, they were excluded since it affected the factor values. As well, in order not to lose the data, the questions in the online survey were marked as “necessary” due to the fact that participation in the survey was on a voluntary basis (involuntary responses were prevented).
Firstly, the data obtained were analyzed in terms of the distribution of the answers given in the SPSS environment, and then, they were gradually analyzed by IBM AMOS and LISREL programs. After the factor and reliability analysis, correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationships between variables; regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses.
The questionnaire consists of five variables using Innovative Climate Scale; in the literature research, important studies were taken into consideration: Jaiswal and Dhar in 2015, Scott and Bruce in 1994, Hofmann et al., in 2003 and Wang et al., in 2013. Additionally, they were included in the analysis after a five-point Likert scale was used. In terms of Strategic Orientation Scale, Aragón-Sánchez and Sánchez-Marín (2005), Voss and Voss (2000), Gatignon and Xuereb (1997), Morgan and Strong (2003) were used. A Work Motivation Scale was used in the studies conducted by Gagné et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2016), Pool (1997) and DeVellis (2012). A Business Performance Scale was used in the studies conducted by Rangus and Slavec in 2017, Wiklund and Shepherd in 2003, and Morgan and Strong in 2003. The Job Performance Scale was used in the studies conducted by Chen and Silverthorne (2008), Janssen and Van Yperen (2004), and Rich et al. (2010). The scale used a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
There are 36 statements on the questionnaire presented in the first pretest phase. In the pretest, five expressions that do not have appropriate factor loadings or misunderstood or the high probability of misunderstanding were rearranged and the scale consisting of 36 expressions was resubjected to the pretest. The last scale was applied to 400 employees with one-on-one interviews. The aim of these interviews is to reduce the number of missing questionnaires that are not answered or not answered properly and to obtain full results. The implementation of a questionnaire took approximately 12 min, and it was during a lunch break to prevent staff from responding under time pressure. Firstly, the data obtained were analyzed in terms of the distribution of the answers given in the SPSS environment and then gradually analyzed by IBM AMOS and LISREL programs. Which questions are included under each factor; factor loads (F Score), factor numbers (F Score) and standardized values (S Scores) are calculated by the AMOS program and were calculated by LISREL and T values (t Score) that are presented in Table 3. When multiple normality tests were applied for each of the expressions, structural equation modeling was used in the analysis and explanations due to the fact that all expressions had normal distribution and that the data analyzed had sufficient size.
Regarding Factor analysis, in this test, Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett test results are used to determine the suitability of the data for analysis. While the KMO test is used to determine whether the data are suitable for factor analysis, the fact that this value is above 0.957 indicates that factor analysis can be applied to the data. The Bartlett test is also used to determine whether the data are suitable for factor analysis and whether the data are normally distributed. This test is also used to determine whether the correlation matrix, which is the interrelation of the questions, is a unit matrix. Calculated sig., if the value is less than 0.05, it is concluded that the data are suitable for factor analysis, have normal distribution and at the same time the correlation matrix is not a unit matrix. The fact that KMO is higher than 90 is interpreted as an “excellent” result (Tavşancıl, 2002). This value indicates that the data are appropriate for analysis of Bartlett's Test result sig. The value of 000 (sig. < 0.05) is also suitable for factor analysis of the data obtained. A Chi-square value is significant and shows that the data comes from a multivariate normal distribution. Total variance, explained in factor analysis, revealed that a five-factor structure explained 67.592% of the structure.
In Table 3, Expressions 1 are innovative climate (IC), Expressions 2 are strategic orientation (SO); Expressions 3 are work motivation (WM); Expressions 4 are business performance (BP), and Expressions 5 are job performance (JP). Factor load values, standardized results, t-test results of variables and p-value values showing the significance of these test results are presented in Table 3. All p-value values are less than 0.001, indicating that they are significant.
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed in the AMOS program for the model. The fit indices obtained from the models are given in Table 4. If the values in the table are examined, it can be seen that the model has good fit values for all goodness of fit values. After it was determined that the existing expressions were suitable for the model, relationship analysis, impact analysis and mediation variable effects were started.
In the reliability analysis, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranges from 0 to 1. The closer this value is to 1, the more reliable the structure of the data is. This coefficient of 0.50 or greater was determined to be acceptable in the literature review (Nunnally, 1978; Hair et al., 2000). The reliability coefficients were obtained for each factor, and the variance sizes were explained by the factors; KMO values of all factors and Bartlett test results are given in Table 5.
Table 5. When examined, it can be seen that the Cronbach's alpha coefficients are above 0.50 for each factor group. This result shows that the data are reliable. Variance explained values indicate the percentage of the factor that makes up the factor. These values are above 0.60 for all factors. As mentioned before, KMO and Bartlett’s tests provide information about the suitability of the data for factor analysis. All results show that the data are suitable for analysis. Descriptive statistics of the factors are given in Table 5. According to the factors created according to this table, the variables have normal distribution conditions. If the skewness and kurtosis coefficients are between +2 and −2, the data distribution can be considered as a normal distribution (Sönmez Çakır, 2019).
The correlation coefficient gives the degree of the relationship between the data (Landau et al., 2004). The correlation degrees of the factors are calculated and given in Table 6. After the determination of these values, testing of the hypotheses was started.
Correlation coefficients with double stars are significant correlations at 1% significance levels. A correlation coefficient test was performed to determine if the correlation coefficient β is not equal to zero. For this test, each correlation coefficient, i.e. β is not equal to zero, and hypothesis tests were conducted. As a result, all sig. values were found to be less than 0.01. This result shows that all correlation values are significant.
The linear regression results obtained according to the hypotheses are given in Table 7. At the same time, the sig. value calculated for the R Square values shows how much of the change in the dependent variable of the independent variable, and the F Value values shows whether the established model is significant as a whole values are given in Table 7. According to the results obtained, all sig., and all hypotheses were accepted since their values were less than 0.01.
In the relationship between SO and BP, WM has the effect of a mediation variable.
In the relationship between SO and IC, WM has the effect of a mediation variable.
In the relationship between SO and JP, WM has the effect of a mediation variable.
The AMOS program was used to analyze the effect of the mediation variable. After determining the exogenous and endogenous variables, the operations for the analysis model were performed for the H3a‐H3c hypotheses. The results obtained are given in Table 8.
Table 8 when it is examined, it can be seen that all p-value values are significant. In order to talk about the effect of the mediation variable, in the model in which the mediation variable is involved, the standardized relationship value must be reduced or made meaningless. The standardized value between SO and BP in the model is 0.471, as shown in Table 7. When the values of Tables 7 and 8 are compared in this way, it can be seen that in all analyses where WM enters the model as a mediation variable, WM has the effect of a mediation variable and reduces the previous relationships.
The common point of the definition of strategic orientation is that there are correct practices aimed at achieving ultimate and superior performance (Runing et al., 2014; Ogbari et al., 2018), and it can be assumed that performance outputs are also positively affected if carried out successfully, which is supported by the analysis results. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) emphasize the importance of cooperation in achieving common goals with the managers and employees of the organizations as a whole. This, in addition to emphasizing that the contribution of the employees to the company is positive and is based on the motivation of the employees. By looking at the research supporting the analysis results, Jayaweera (2015) and Syamsir (2020) stated that in the research, work motivation has a positive effect on job performance. Within the research of Nadhar et al. (2017), it is stated that work motivation has a positive effect on business performance. However, it is very important to know what motivation means. The concept of motivation was first described by Woodworth (1918) as the accumulation of energy that activates an organism in various ways. Motivation is defined as the drive of a person or a group at work to mobilize, direct, gain and sustain efforts (Hitka et al., 2019). Work motivation can also be defined as the willingness to make a high level of effort to achieve organizational goals by associating with contextual elements related to cultural and individual tendencies (Latham and Pinder, 2005). It is expected that organizations consisting of individuals with high work motivation will reach their goals more easily (Kurniawan and Heryanto, 2019). Individuals with low job motivation tend to leave their organizations. The important thing is that there are supportive elements to keep the motivation of the employees high. Therefore, the strategic decisions of the organization and the strategic orientation of the organization should be at a level that can impact the motivation of the employees, and the decisions determined by the management level should have a motivating contribution (Johansson et al., 2014). This motivating contribution, examined within the scope of the research model, can be seen as a result of the analysis. The concept of performance can be defined as the ability of an organization or business to reach the goals and targets by using the existing resources effectively and efficiently (Altuntaş and Dönmez, 2010). Kayabaşı (2010) evaluates the concept of performance as an indicator of the amount and quality of an individual or a certain group or organization, and the extent to which a goal is achieved for the purpose of a job, which in general, impacts the determination and evaluation of what is achieved as a result of a planned activity. Chahal et al. (2016) stated that strategic orientation has a positive effect on business performance, and Tenhiälä and Laamanen (2018), and Kerdpitak and Boonrattanakittibhumi (2020) also stated that strategic orientation has a positive effect on firm performance and efficiency in service and productivity, while frugality in production defines performance. This result is perceived as the fulfillment of business goals and objectives (Nursoy and Simsek, 2001), and within the scope of the research model, the success achieved in strategic orientation and motivation of employees is positively reflected in the outputs. Strategic orientation and work motivation are important in the success of companies that adapt to transformation. In fact, it is known that 100 years ago, the first electric cars were being tested, but because oil was cheaper than water, electric cars could not go into mass production at that time; 100 years later, when oil resources began to decline, the automobile industry accepted the need for a transformation and started to give importance to electric car production. And in this transformation, it is understood that strategic orientation and work motivation are important in companies that produce automobile parts. However, it would not be correct to generalize these results for every company. Therefore, comparing companies in different sectors with comparative analyses is recommended to contribute to the literature.
Consumers' expectations, consumption habits, income and product information change rapidly in a transition economy. Therefore, consumers' perceptions of the benefits of a product tend to change over time. A company's products/services that meet customers' needs may not meet their needs tomorrow. Organizations should continuously identify the changing preferences of customers and develop their innovation capabilities accordingly. In order for organizations to be successful in the competitive environment, senior managers must respond strategically to the changes in the market, use the organization's resources efficiently in the competitive environment, and exhibit a positive attitude toward change. The positive effect of strategic orientation can be seen in the analysis results. Strategically oriented organizations can be successful, both in terms of performance and innovation. Strategic moves play a key role in meeting the demands and expectations of customers in competition. The positive attitude of managers toward change facilitates the formation of an organizational climate that promotes innovation. Indeed, the prerequisite for success in strategy and performance include multiple facets: employee unity, a sense of cooperation and feelings of belonging to the company, and overall management empowerment that encourages employees to understand both the company and the market and to participate in the decision-making process. Therefore, it is important to create harmony among employees and to keep their motivation high in order to achieve success in performance and innovation. As a result of the research, it is understood that if the motivation of the employees is provided, there is a positive effect on both the climate of innovation and performance. Employees gathered around the same goal and target share the same identity within the organization, understand that changes and new actions are necessary, and are therefore more willing to work together and engage in productive activities. In addition, employees act together to facilitate the dissemination of ideas within the organization by participating in the decision-making process of the organization. This cooperation between employees is positively reflected in the creation of new ideas namely the climate of innovation. Naturally, explaining the success of organizations in innovation and performance is both a good management approach and the provision of motivation that will make the employees successful.
It is accepted that the limits of the study are some factors that may affect motivation. In particular, these factors, educational status, salary, experience, gender and age are outside the limits of the research. In the research, for the most part, white-collar employees in the production sector constituted the sample mass. At the same time, the results may differ in underdeveloped and developed countries, as research is also carried out in a developing country. For example, given the principle of working four days a week in Microsoft's organization in Japan, and an increase in productivity afterward, it is unlikely that the same practice will be applied in developing and/or underdeveloped countries. The application, though, can be applied in technology-intensive countries. In this scope, the constraints of research, sector, culture, company size, technology density and the country's level of development are important. In future studies, it is important to introduce new concepts in the field of innovation by taking into account these constraints.
The research model and the results provide the infrastructure for the creation of new research areas in terms of strategy–motivation–innovation concepts. This research can contribute to this topic, especially in the automobile industry, where there is not only rapid change but also increasing competition for those focusing on actualizing new strategic decisions: Tesla's introduction to the industry with the electric vehicle, the introduction of Sony's company electric vehicle, and Apple and Google's work on the electric vehicle. Therefore, strategic orientation and motivation to work will have an impact on the success of a business, in terms of performance and innovation. In addition, it will be possible to conduct new research in the field of strategy and innovation within different sectors and cultures, and to bring the results to the literature. When the variables examined in the research model are examined in different sectors, it may also be possible to obtain different results. For this reason, in order to contribute to the literature, it will be better to determine and examine variables in accordance with the sector or companies under investigation. Furthermore, in considering different sectors and different cultures, it will be important to consider factors, such as the effects between departments within the organization, education levels and experience, and to consider working conditions and opportunities in different cultures.
Performance criteria for stakeholders
|Stakeholder groups||Primary indicator(s)||Secondary indicator(s)|
|Partners||Return on investments||Increase in income|
Growth in expenses
|Customers||Customer satisfaction and service quality||Consumer research for different market and product requests|
Competence of employees
|Measuring employee thoughts with different dimensions|
Measuring consumer service indices with different dimensions
|Society||Public opinion (public impression)||Various external measurements|
Source(s): Atkinson et al. (1997)
Research on innovation activities in businesses
|Zaltman et al. (1973)|
|Tushman and Nadler (1986)|
SPSS factor results and LISREL results
|F.N.||F score||S score||T value||p-value|
|IC1: Creativity is encouraged in the company where I work||1||0.728||0.80||18.74||0|
|IC2: In the company where I work, our ability to work creatively is respected||1||0.642||0.56||11.81||0|
|IC3: In the company where I work, people are allowed to try to solve the same problems in different ways||1||0.756||0.77||17.90||0|
|IC4: The company where I work can be defined as flexible and can adapt to continuous change||1||0.839||0.77||17.88||0|
|IC5: The company I work for is open and sensitive to change||1||0.831||0.72||16.14||0|
|IC6: People in the company I work with often value others' ideas||1||0.571||0.78||18.31||0|
|IC7: We tend to remain tried and committed to the right paths in my company||1||0.538||0.80||18.99||0|
|SO1: The company I work for sacrifices its profitability in order to get a share from the market in its sector||2||0.785||0.80||19.30||0|
|SO2: The company I work with lowers prices to increase market share||2||0.688||0.82||20.04||0|
|SO3: The company I work for adjusts the prices below the prices applied by the companies it competes with||2||0.621||0.79||18.74||0|
|SO4: The company I work for maintains its market share to ensure cash flow and profitability||2||0.786||0.73||16.89||0|
|SO5: The company I work for emphasizes effective coordination between different functional areas||2||0.880||0.82||19.93||0|
|SO6: The company I work for provides support by using information systems developed during decision-making||2||0.768||0.79||18.66||0|
|SO7: The company I work for usually tries to make a comprehensive analysis when it has to make a big decision||2||0.847||0.75||17.36||0|
|SO8: The company I work with uses planning techniques||2||0.836||0.80||18.99||0|
|SO9: The company I work for uses Management information and control systems||2||0.856||0.84||20.73||0|
|SO10: The company I work for conducts workforce planning and performance evaluations of senior executives||2||0.808||0.82||19.92||0|
|SO11: The company I work for seems to have a very conservative view when making big decisions||2||0.844||0.82||19.74||0|
|SO12: In my company, risk analysis is carried out for a long time before new projects are approved||2||0.908||0.82||19.93||0|
|SO13: The company I work with takes decisions to support projects where the expected returns are final||2||0.696||0.81||19.62||0|
|WM1: My motivation is very high since I have no fear of being unemployed in the company I work for||3||0.678||0.80||15.58||0|
|WM2: Working at this company was my best choice in my life||3||0.906||0.80||15.06||0|
|WM3: Career success in the company I worked for made me feel safer||3||0.688||0.79||18.29||0|
|WM4: Although I have a very good offer, I never think of leaving my company||3||0.739||0.79||16.21||0|
|WM5: I am very pleased to work at this company||3||0.747||0.77||15.83||0|
|BP1: In the last 3 years, the company I worked with outperformed its competitors in terms of sales growth||4||0.810||0.80||18.54||0|
|BP2: In the last 3 years, the company where I worked has outperformed its competitors in relation to the increase in the number of new employees||4||0.943||0.84||20.18||0|
|BP3: In the last 3 years, the company where I worked has performed better than its competitors in terms of market share||4||0.858||0.81||18.76||0|
|BP4: In the last 3 years, the company where I worked has performed better than its competitors in terms of competing positions||4||0.679||0.78||17.79||0|
|JP1: In my company, I fulfill my responsibilities||5||0.750||0.80||18.90||0|
|JP2: In my company, I coordinate my duties||5||0.781||0.80||18.78||0|
|JP3: I evaluate my activities||5||0.790||0.79||18.55||0|
|JP4: I investigate the problems I have in my area of responsibility||5||0.894||0.79||18.34||0|
|JP5: In my company, importance is given to recruitment of appropriate personnel||5||0.832||0.77||17.80||0|
Goodness fit index value and reference values
|Goodness of fit statistics||Value||Reference values|
|Chi-square ()||1.378.942||()/Df < 5 good fit OR ()/Df < 3 good fit (1378.942/517 = 2.66)|
|Degrees of freedom||517|
|Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)||0.064||RMSEA < 0.05 perfect fit|
RMSEA < 0.08 good fit
0.08 ≤ RMSEA < 0.10 mediocre fit
0.10 ≥ RMSEA poor fit
|Root mean square residual (RMR)||0.036||RMR < 0.05|
|Normed fit index (NFI)||0.97||NFI > 0.95 good fit|
|Nonnormed fit index (NNFI)||0.98||NNFI > 0.95 good fit|
|Comparative fit index (CFI)||0.98||CFI > 0.95 good fit|
|Relative fit index (RFI)||0.97||0 < RFI < 1 Close to 1 better fit|
|Goodness of fit index (GFI)||0.83||GFI > 0.85|
Factor structures, reliability values and factor statistics
|Dimensions/factors||Number of items||Cronbach's alpha||Variance explained||KMO||Mean||Standard deviation||Skewness||Kurtosis|
Note(s): *p < 0.05
|IC. Sig. (2 tailed)||0.741** (0.000)||0.501** (0.000)||0.481** (0.000)||0.649** (0.000)|
|SO. Sig. (two-tailed)||1||0.471** (0.000)||0.572** (0.000)||0.557** (0.000)|
|BP. Sig. (two-tailed)||1||0.574** (0.000)||0.675** (0.000)|
|WM. Sig. (two-tailed)||1||0.576** (0.000)|
Note(s): **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
Linear regression results
|H||Independent variables/Dependent variables||Standard β||p-value||Adj. R square||F value||Reject/accept|
|H1a||SO has a significant effect on WM||0.572||0||0.326||193.998||Accept|
|H1b||SO has a significant effect on BP||0.471||0||0.220||113.324||Accept|
|H1c||SO has a significant effect on IC||0.741||0||0.548||483.991||Accept|
|H1d||SO has a significant effect on JP||0.557||0||0.308||178.577||Accept|
|H2a||WM has a significant effect on BP||0.574||0||0.378||195.557||Accept|
|H2b||WM has a significant effect on IC||0.481||0||0.229||119.580||Accept|
|H2c||WM has a significant effect on JP||0.576||0||0.330||197.348||Accept|
Note(s): Adj. = Adjusted
Adams, P., Freitas, I.M.B. and Fontana, R. (2019), “Strategic orientation, innovation performance and the moderating influence of marketing management”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 97, pp. 129-140, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.071.
Ağca, V. and Ertan, H. (2008), “Duygusal Bağlılık İçsel Motivasyon İlişkisi: Antalya'da Beş Yıldızlı Otellerde Bir İnceleme”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 135-156, available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/akuiibfd/issue/1628/20403.
Al-Ansaari, Y., Bederr, H. and Chen, C. (2015), “Strategic orientation and business performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 2287-2302, doi: 10.1108/MD-01-2015-0034.
Ali, S. and Xie, Y. (2021), “The impact of Industry 4.0 on organizational performance: the case of Pakistan's retail industry”, European Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 Nos 2/3, pp. 63-86, doi: 10.1108/EJMS-01-2021-0009.
Altuntaş, G. and Dömez, D. (2010), “Girişimcilik yönelimi ve örgütsel performans ilişkisi: Çanakkale bölgesinde faaliyet gösteren otel işletmelerinde bir araştırma”, Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business Administration, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 50-74.
Altuntaş, G., Semerciöz, F. and Eregez, H. (2013), “Linking strategic and market orientations to organizational performance: the role of innovation in private healthcare organizations”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 99, pp. 413-419, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.509.
Amentie Kero, Ch. and Sogbossi, B.B. (2017), “Competitive strategy orientation and innovative success: mediating market orientation a study of small-medium enterprises”, Global Journal of Management and Business Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 75-89, available at: https://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/view/2348.
Antonioni, D. and Park, H. (2001), “The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 479-495, doi: 10.1177/014920630102700405.
Aragón-Sánchez, A. and Sánchez-Marín, G. (2005), “Strategic orientation, management characteristics, and performance: a study of Spanish SMEs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 287-308, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00138.x.
Atkinson, A.A., Waterhouse, J.H. and Wells, R.B. (1997), “A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 25-37, available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/a-stakeholder-approach-to-strategic-performance-measurement/.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J. and Sambrook, S. (2009), “Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1323-1339, doi: 10.1108/00251740910984578.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120, doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108.
Bendickson, J., Gur, F.A. and Taylor, E.C. (2018), “Reducing environmental uncertainty: how high performance work systems moderate the resource dependence-firm performance relationship”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 252-264, doi: 10.1002/cjas.1412.
Bulut, Ç., Alpkan, L. and Yilmaz, C. (2009), “Stratejik Oryantasyonlar ve Firma Performansı İlişkisi: Literatür Gelişimi Üzerine Kavramsal Bir Çalışma”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-34.
Bulutlar, F. (2007), “İşgücü Farklılığı, Performans Değerlendirmesi ve Duygular”, in Dereli, Beliz (Ed.), İşgücündeki Farklılıkların Yönetimi Dahilinde, pp. 163-183.
Chahal, H., Dangwal, R.C. and Raina, S. (2016), “Marketing orientation, strategic orientation and their synergistic impact on business performance”, Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 27-52, doi: 10.1108/JRME-03-2016-0004.
Chen, C.J. and Huang, J.W. (2007), “How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management – the social interaction perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 104-118, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.11.001.
Chen, J.C. and Silverthorne, C. (2008), “The impact of locus of control on job stress, job performance and job satisfaction in Taiwan”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 572-582, doi: 10.1108/01437730810906326.
Chiu, S.K. (2005), “The linkage of job performance to goal setting, work motivation, team building, and organizational commitment in the high-tech industry in Taiwan”, Doctorate Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Florida.
Christensen, J.F. (1995), “Asset profiles for technological innovation”, Research Policy, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 727-745, doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)00794-8.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-590, doi: 10.5465/256406.
Davies, D.R., Matthews, G., Stammers, R.B. and Westerman, S.J. (2000), Human Performance: Cognition, Stress, and Individual Differences, 1st ed., Psychology Press, available at: https://www.routledge.com/Human-Performance-Cognition-Stress-and-Individual-Differences/Davies-Matthews-Stammers-Westerman/p/book/9780415044073.
DeVellis, R.F. (2012), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 3rd ed., SAGE, available at: https://www.worldcat.org/title/scale-development-theory-and-applications/oclc/697979981.
Dunlop, P.D. and Lee, K. (2004), “Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 67-80, doi: 10.1002/job.243.
Emiroğlu, A. (2018), İnovasyon ve teknoloji yönetimi, Ekin Yayıncılık, Bursa.
Eren, E. (2006), Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi, 9. Baskı, Beta Basım Yayın Dağıtım, İstanbul.
Escribá-Esteve, A., Sánchez-Peinado, L. and Sánchez-Peinado, E. (2009), “The influence of top management teams in the strategic orientation and performance of small and medium-sized enterprises”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 581-597, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00606.x.
Fonseca, L. (2021), “The EFQM 2020 model. A theoretical and critical review”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 33 Nos 9-10, pp. 1011-1038, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2021.1915121.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A.K., Bellerose, J., Benabou, Ch., Chemolli, E., Güntert, S.T., Halvari, H., Indiyastuti, D.L., Johnson, P.A., Hauan Molstad, M., Naudin, M., Ndao, A., Hagen Olafsen, A., Roussel, P., Wang, Z. and Westbye, C. (2015), “The multidimensional work motivation scale: validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 178-196, doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892.
Garg, N. (2017), “Workplace spirituality and organizational performance in Indian context: mediating effect of organizational commitment, work motivation and employee engagement”, South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 191-211, doi: 10.1177/2322093717736134.
Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997), “Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 77-90, doi: 10.1177/002224379703400107.
Gök, S. (2009), “Örgüt ikliminin çalışanların motivasyonuna etkisi üzerine bir araştırma”, Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 587-605.
Hair, J.F., Bush, R.P. and Ortinau, D.J. (2000), Marketing Research: A Practical Approach for the New Millennium, McGraw-Hill Education, New York.
Hamel, G. (2006), “The why, what, and how of management innovation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 72-84.
He, J., Chen, H. and Tsai, F.S. (2020), “Strategy orientation, innovation capacity endowment, and international R&D intensity of listed companies in China”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.3390/su12010344.
Helvacı, M.A. (2002), “Performans yönetimi sürecinde performans değerlendirmenin önemi”, AÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 35 Nos 1/2, pp. 155-169, available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/509272.
Herzberg, F. (2017), Motivation to Work, Routledge, London, doi: 10.4324/9781315124827.
Hitka, M., Kozubíková, Ľ. and Potkány, M. (2018), “Education and gender-based differences in employee motivation”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 80-95, doi: 10.3846/16111699.2017.1413009.
Hitka, M., Rózsa, Z., Potkány, M. and Ližbetinová, L. (2019), “Factors forming employee motivation influenced by regional and age-related differences”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 674-693, doi: 10.3846/jbem.2019.6586.
Hofmann, D.A., Morgeson, F.P. and Gerras, S.J. (2003), “Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: safety climate as an exemplar”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 170-178, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.170.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M. (2008), “Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 53-60, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254742561_Structural_Equation_Modeling_Guidelines_for_Determining_Model_Fit.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F. and Knight, G.A. (2004), “Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on business performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 429-438, doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015.
Idris, F., Abdullah, M., Idris, M.A. and Hussain, N. (2003), “Integrating resource-based view and stakeholder theory in developing the Malaysian excellence model: a conceptual framework”, Singapore Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 91-110.
Isaksen, S.G. and Ekvall, G. (2010), “Managing for innovation: the two faces of tension in creative climates”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 73-88, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00558.x.
Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J., Ekvall, G. and Britz, A. (2001), “Perceptions of the best and worst climates for creativity: preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 171-184, doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1302_5.
Jaiswal, N.K. and Dhar, R.L. (2015), “Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: a multilevel study”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 51, pp. 30-41, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.002.
Jamrog, J., Vickers, M. and Bear, D. (2006), “Building and sustaining a culture that supports innovation”, People and Strategy, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 9-19.
Janssen, O. and Van Yperen, N.W. (2004), “Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 368-384, doi: 10.5465/20159587.
Jayaweera, T. (2015), “Impact of work environmental factors on job performance, mediating role of work motivation: a study of hotel sector in England”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 271-278, doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v10n3p271.
Johansson, B., Sudzina, F. and Pucihar, A. (2014), “Alignment of business and information strategies and its impact on business performance”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 886-898, doi: 10.3846/16111699.2012.749806.
Karbowski, A. (2019), “Cooperative and non-cooperative R&D in product innovation and firm performance”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 1121-1142, doi: 10.3846/jbem.2019.11050.
Kasemsap, K. (2017), “Strategic innovation management: an integrative framework and causal model of knowledge management, strategic orientation, organizational innovation, and organizational performance”, in Organizational Culture and Behavior: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, IGI Global, pp. 86-101. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1913-3.ch005.
Kayabaşı, A. (2010), Rekabet gücü perspektifinde lojistik faaliyetlerde performans geliştirme, İstanbul Ticaret Odası, available at: https://books.google.lt/books/about/Rekabet_g%C3%BCc%C3%BC_perspektifinde_lojistik_f.html?id=QlPDZwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y.
Kerdpitak, C. and Boonrattanakittibhumi, C. (2020), “Effect of strategic orientation and organizational culture on firm's performance. Role of organizational commitments”, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 9, pp. 70-82, doi: 10.9770/jssi.2020.9.J(6.
Keser, A. (2006), Çalışma yaşamında motivasyon, Alfa Aktüel Yayınları, Bursa.
Kim, N., Im, S. and Slater, S.F. (2013), “Impact of knowledge type and strategic orientation on new product creativity and advantage in high-technology firms”, Journal of Product İnnovation Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 136-153, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00992.x.
Kline, T. (2005), Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation, Sage, London. doi: 10.4135/9781483385693.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1177/002224299005400201.
Kurniawan, H. and Heryanto, H. (2019), “Effect of work discipline and work environment on employee performance with work motivation as an intervening variable in Department of Tourism, Youth and Sport of Padang District”, Archives of Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 88-101, available at: https://journals.scholarpublishing.org/index.php/ABR/article/view/6639.
Lam, S.S. and Schaubroeck, J. (1999), “Total quality management and performance appraisal: an experimental study of process versus results and group versus individual approaches”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 445-457, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4<445::AID-JOB938>3.0.CO;2-J.
Landau, D.P., Tsai, S.H. and Exler, M. (2004), “A new approach to Monte Carlo simulations in statistical physics: Wang-Landau sampling”, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 72 No. 10, pp. 1294-1302, doi: 10.1119/1.1707017.
Latham, G.P. and Pinder, C.C. (2005), “Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 485-516, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105.
Lebas, M.J. (1995), “Performance measurement and performance management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 41 Nos 1/3, pp. 23-35, doi: 10.1016/0925-5273(95)00081-X.
Lee, C.S., Chan, L. and McNabb, D.E. (2017), “The role of strategic orientation in business innovation”, in 2017 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), IEEE, pp. 1-5. doi: 10.23919/PICMET.2017.8125241.
Lee, D.M. and Alvares, K.M. (1977), “Effects of sex on descriptions and evaluations of supervisory behavior in a simulated industrial setting”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 405-410, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.62.4.405.
Liu, B. and Fu, Z. (2011), “Relationship between strategic orientation and organizational performance in born global: a critical review”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 109-115, doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v6n3p109.
López-Cabarcos, M.Á., Srinivasan, S., Göttling-Oliveira-Monteiro, S. and Vázquez-Rodríguez, P. (2019), “Tacit knowledge and firm performance relationship. The role of product innovation and the firm level capabilities”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 330-350, doi: 10.3846/jbem.2019.9590.
Loewe, P. and Dominiquini, J. (2006), “Overcoming the barriers to effective innovation”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 24-31, doi: 10.1108/10878570610637858.
Miron, E., Erez, M. and Naveh, E. (2004), “Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 175-199, doi: 10.1002/job.237.
Morgan, R.E. and Strong, C.A. (2003), “Business performance and dimensions of strategic orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 163-176, doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00218-1.
Nadhar, M., Tawe, A. and Parawansa, D.A. (2017), “The effect of work motivation and entrepreneurship orientation on business performance through entrepreneurial commitments of coffee shops in Makassar”, International Review of Management and Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 470-474, available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/eco/journ3/2017-01-61.html.
Nasir, W.M.N.B.W.M., Al Mamun, A. and Breen, J. (2017), “Strategic orientation and performance of SMEs in Malaysia”, SAGE Open, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1177/2158244017712768.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116, doi: 10.1108/01443579510083622.
Newman, A., Round, H., Wang, S. and Mount, M. (2020), “Innovation climate: a systematic review of the literature and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 73-109, doi: 10.1111/joop.12283.
Ngai, S.S.Y., Cheung, C.K., Yuan, R. and Lin, S. (2016), “Work motivation of unemployed youths: moderating effects of financial dependence on parents”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 71, pp. 157-165, doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.11.005.
Noble, C.H., Sinha, R.K. and Kumar, A. (2002), “Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: a longitudinal assessment of performance implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 25-39, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.220.127.116.1113.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nursoy, M. and Şimşek, M. (2001), “Toplam kalite yönetiminde performans değerlendirme”, Standard: Teknik ve Ekonomik Dergi, Vol. 473, pp. 16-21.
Oakland, J.S. and Tanner, S.J. (2008), “The relationship between business excellence and performance–An empirical study using Kanji's leadership excellence model”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 19 Nos 7-8, pp. 733-749.
Ogbari, M.E., Ibidunni, O.S., Ogunnaike, O.O., Olokundun, A.M. and Amaihian, A.B. (2018), “A comparative analysis of small business strategic orientation: implications for performance”, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-15, available at: https://www.abacademies.org/articles/a-comparative-analysis-of-small-business-strategic-orientation-implications-for-performance-6934.html.
Öncer, M. (2000), “İşyeri ortamında çalışanların performansını etkileyen fiziksel çevre koşulları”, Verimlilik Dergisi, Vol. 3, pp. 133-152.
O'Regan, N. and Ghobadian, A. (2005), “Innovation in SMEs: the impact of strategic orientation and environmental perceptions”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 81-97, doi: 10.1108/17410400510576595.
Pinder, C.C. (2014), Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior, Psychology Press, New York. doi: 10.4324/9781315734606.
Pirtea, M.G., Sipos, G.L. and Ionescu, A. (2019), “Does corruption affects business innovation? Insights from emerging countries”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 715-733, doi: 10.3846/jbem.2019.10160.
Pitt, M. and Tucker, M. (2008), “Performance measurement in facilities management: driving innovation?”, Property Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 241-254, doi: 10.1108/02637470810894885.
Pool, S.W. (1997), “The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership behavior, and work motivation”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 131 No. 3, pp. 271-283, doi: 10.1080/00223989709603514.
Pugh, D. (1991), Organizational Behaviour, Prentice Hall International, London.
Rangus, K. and Slavec, A. (2017), “The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and absorptive capacity on firms' innovation and business performance”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 120, pp. 195-203, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.017.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635, doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.51468988.
Rogers, E.W. and Wright, P.M. (1998), “Measuring organizational performance in strategic human resource management: problems, prospects and performance information markets”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 311-331, doi: 10.1016/S1053-4822(98)90007-9.
Runing, H.S., Harsono, M. and Haryono, T. (2014), “The relationship between strategy orientation and marketing performance: the role of organizational change capability”, American International Journal of Contemporary Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 221-229, available at: http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_1_January_2014/21.pdf.
Sabuncuoğlu, Z. and Tüz, M. (2005), Örgütsel Psikoloji, Ezgi Yayınevi, Bursa.
Salt, A. (2002), “Performans yönetimi ve ücretlendirme sistemleri”, Yıliçi Projesi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Sara, I., Saputra, K.A.K. and Utama, I.W.K.J. (2021), “The effects of strategic planning, human resource and asset management on economic productivity: a case study in Indonesia”, The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 381-389.
Sarker, S. and Palit, M. (2015), “Strategic orientation and performance of small and medium enterprises in Bangladesh”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 572-586, doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2015.068643.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. and Müller, H. (2003), “Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures”, Methods of Psychological Research Online, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 23-74, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251060246_Evaluating_the_Fit_of_Structural_Equation_Models_Tests_of_Significance_and_Descriptive_Goodness-of-Fit_Measures.
Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E. and Outerbridge, A.N. (1986), “Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 432-439, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.432.
Schoellhammer, S. (2020), Innovation Exposed: Case Studies of Strategy, Organization and Culture in Heterarchies, Springer Nature, Wiesbaden. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-29335-2.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 580-607, doi: 10.2307/256701.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994), “Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 46-55, doi: 10.1177/002224299405800104.
Slater, S.F., Olson, E.M. and Hult, G.T.M. (2006), “The moderating influence of strategic orientation on the strategy formation capability–performance relationship”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 1221-1231, doi: 10.1002/smj.569.
Smith, P.C. and Goddard, M. (2002), “Performance management and operational research: a marriage made in heaven?”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 247-255, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601279.
Sönmez Çakır, F. (2019), Sosyal Bilimler için Parametrik Veri Analizi, 1. Baskı, Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara.
Spanjol, J., Qualls, W.J. and Rosa, J.A. (2011), “How many and what kind? The role of strategic orientation in new product ideation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 236-250, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00794.x.
Steinbauer, R., Renn, R.W., Chen, H.S. and Rhew, N. (2018), “Workplace ostracism, self-regulation, and job performance: moderating role of intrinsic work motivation”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 158 No. 6, pp. 767-783, doi: 10.1080/00224545.2018.1424110.
Subba Rao, P. (2010), Organisational Behavior, 1st ed., Himalaya Publishing House, Karnataka.
Syamsir, S. (2020), “Competence, job satisfaction, work motivation, and job performance of the Village (‘Nagari’) Masters in managing e-village finance”, International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1337-1350, available at: http://sersc.org/journals/index.php/IJAST/article/view/20153.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 7th ed., Pearson, Boston.
Tavşancıl, E. (2002), Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi, Nobel Yayıncılık, available at: https://www.worldcat.org/title/tutumlarn-olculmesi-ve-spss-ile-veri-analizi/oclc/635455743.
Tenhiälä, A. and Laamanen, T. (2018), “Right on the money? The contingent effects of strategic orientation and pay system design on firm performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 13, pp. 3408-3433, doi: 10.1002/smj.2953.
Thomas, J.R., Nelson, J.K. and Silverman, S.J. (2015), Research Methods in Physical Activity, Human Kinetics, Champaign.
Trunina, A. (2017), “The human capital: motivation in innovation”, 2017 IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON), IEEE, pp. 267-271. doi: 10.1109/TEMSCON.2017.7998387.
Tushman, M. and Nadler, D. (1986), “Organizing for innovation”, California Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 74-92, doi: 10.2307/41165203.
Übius, Ü., Alas, R. and Elenurm, T. (2013), “Impact of innovation climate on individual and organisational level factors in Asia and Europe”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.3846/16111699.2011.642081.
Üçüncü, K. (2016), “İş tatmini ve motivasyon. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi”, in Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Orman Endüstri Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı.
Uzkurt, C. (2017), Yenilik (inovasyon) Yönetimi ve Yenilikçi Örgüt Kültürü: Kültürel, Yönetimsel ve Makro Yaklaşım, 2. Baskı, Beta Basım, available at: https://docplayer.biz.tr/32503167-Yenilik-inovasyon-yonetimi-ve-yenilikci-orgut-kulturu.html.
Voss, G.B. and Voss, Z.G. (2000), “Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 67-83, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.18.104.22.16893.
Wang, H. and Chang, Y. (2017), “The influence of organizational creative climate and work motivation on employee's creative behavior”, Journal of Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 51-62.
Wang, P., Rode, J.C., Shi, K., Luo, Z. and Chen, W. (2013), “A workgroup climate perspective on the relationships among transformational leadership, workgroup diversity, and employee creativity”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 334-360, doi: 10.1177/1059601113488163.
Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2003), “Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 13, pp. 1307-1314, doi: 10.1002/smj.360.
Woodworth, R.S. (1918), Dynamic Psychology, Columbia University Press, New York. doi: 10.7312/wood90908.
Xin, K., Sun, Y., Zhang, R. and Liu, X. (2019), “Debt financing and technological innovation: evidence from China”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 841-859, doi: 10.3846/jbem.2019.10185.
Yüreğir, O.H. and Nakiboğlu, A.G.G. (2007), “Performans Ölçümüve Ölçüm Sistemleri: Genel Bir Bakış”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 545-562, available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cusosbil/issue/4377/60004.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbek, J. (1973), Innovations and Organizations, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Zhou, K.Z. and Li, C.B. (2010), “How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability in emerging economies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 224-231, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.003.
Zmud, R.W. (1982), “Diffusion of modern software practices: influence of centralization and formalization”, Management Science, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1421-1431, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.28.12.1421.