ORIGINAL PAPER
THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL CULTURE ON INNOVATION PERFORMANCE OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
 
More details
Hide details
1
AGH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT
Online publication date: 2017-03-31
Publication date: 2017-03-31
 
NSZ 2017;12(1):307–318
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Different countries attain different levels of innovation performance, what can be seen in many reports, statistical data, rankings and literature published. Analysis of the previous research sug­gests that this could be caused by the dissimilarities in their cultures. The goal of this article is to investi­gate whether a relation between a country's culture and its innovation performance level indeed exists. The research is focused on European Economic Area countries and Switzerland. By applying the models of multiple linear regression to the selected and statistically verińed secondary data taken from reliable sources and further quality assurance of these results, it has been proven that there is an influence of national culture on innovation performance. Characteristics of cultures with a low value of Power Distance and high value of lndulgence might be seen as characteristics demanded by organisations like universities - suggested areas of changes are divided into two main ones, which are positively related with innovation performance: employees (partnership between them and hap­piness of them) and workplace (flexible working hours as well as optimistic and friendly atmosphere).
 
REFERENCES (17)
1.
BAREGHEH A., ROWLEY J., SAMBROOK S., 2009, Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation, “Management decision”, Volume 47, Issue 8, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bangor.
 
2.
CZERWONKA M., 2015, Charakterystyka wskaźników modelu kulturowego Hofstede, [in:] O nowy ład finansowy w Polsce. Rekomendacje dla animatorów życia gospodarczego, (ed.) J. Ostaszewski, Opracowanie naukowe z serii Przedsiębiorczość, Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH, Warszawa.
 
3.
DUMAZEDIER J., 1960, Current problems of the sociology of leisure, “International Social Science Journal”, Volume 12, Issue 4, UNESCO, Paris.
 
4.
FURMAN J. L., PORTER M. E., & STERN S., 2002, The determinants of national innovative capacity, “Research policy”, Volume 31, Issue 6, Elsevier B.V., Boston.
 
5.
GUOJUAN Z., SHULING W., & JUNLI Z., 2010, Research on the Happiness Management Model from the Perspective of Psychological Capital, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Innovation & Management.
 
6.
HAGEDOORN J., & CLOODT M., 2003, Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?, “Research policy”, Volume 32, Issue 8, Elsevier B.V., Maastricht.
 
7.
HALIM H. A., AHMAD N. H., RAMAYAH T., & HANIFAH H., 2014, The Growth of Innovative Performance among SMEs: Leveraging on Organisational Culture and Innovative Human Capital, “Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development”, Volume 2, Issue 1, New York.
 
8.
HOFSTEDE G., HOFSTEDE G. J., & MINKOV M., 2010, Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, London.
 
9.
NELSON R. R. (ed.), 1993, ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
 
10.
PATTERSON, F., 2000, The Innovation Potential Indicator: Test Manual and User’s Guide, Psychologist's Press, Oxford.
 
11.
RINNE T., STEEL G. D., FAIRWEATHER J., 2012, Hofstede and Shane revisited the role of power distance and individualism in national-level innovation success, “Cross-cultural research”, Volume 46, Issue 2, SAGE Publication, Thousand Oaks.
 
12.
SHANE S., 1992, Why do some societies invent more than others?, “Journal of Business Venturing”, Volume 7, Issue 1, Elsevier B.V., Philadelphia.
 
13.
SHANE S., 1993, Cultural influences on national rates of innovation, “Journal of Business Venturing”, Volume 8, Issue 1, Elsevier B.V., Philadelphia.
 
14.
WILT J., & REVELLE W., 2009, Extraversion, [in:] Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, (ed.) M. Leary & R. Hoyle, The Guilford Press, New York.
 
15.
HOLLANDERS H., ES-SADKI N. & KANERVA M., Innovation Union Scoreboard 2016, European Commission, European Union 2016, http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/d..., (03.09.2016).
 
16.
OECD. OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. OECD Publishing, Paris 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789..., (21.09.2016).
 
17.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INSEAD & WIPO, 2016, The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with Global Innovation. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva, https://www.globalinnovationin..., (03.09.2016).
 
eISSN:2719-860X
ISSN:1896-9380