Openness to Innovations of the Regional Agro-Industry as a Subjective Factor of Innovative Activity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/2019-3-19Keywords:
innovations, innovative activity, openness to innovations, regional agri-food industry, stakeholders, innovation risks, subjective factor, innovative level, innovation resistance, innovation incentivesAbstract
The long-standing efforts of the agro-industry management to enhance the innovative processes resulted in more than modest innovative activity of their participants. The study assesses the openness to innovations of top managers and owners of the agroindustrial enterprises in Kurgan Oblast. We based the research on the thesis on the existence of a set of factors hampering innovative activity of the agro-industry, including subjective and socio-psychological factors. Moreover, we hypothesise that human factors play the decisive role in solving the problem of innovations’ implementation (or non-implementation). Underestimation of innovations’ role in the development of the managed system, main stakeholders’ resistance to innovations’ implementation cause agro-industry’s deceleration and implementation of the very conservative, inertial, extensive scenarios. We tested the hypothesis using a representative sample survey of top managers and owners of the small- and medium-sized agro-industrial enterprises. Using the standardised methodology of psychological testing of the main components of openness to innovations, we assessed an overall level of openness to innovations as fairly low. Organizational openness appeared to be the most problematic component, especially in comparison with relatively high values of personal and cognitive openness. For increasing innovative activity of the agro-industrial enterprises, we recommend state authorities, which regulate competitiveness, to use a more direct approach and the system of economic incentives for innovative behaviour. This system of incentives should include a system of standards of innovative activity that in case of failure would block the organization’s access to the programs of the agro-industry’s state support. The study’s results can be used in scientific research on the innovative activity of the regional agro-industry and in educational process of the field-oriented universities.References
Shadiyeva, D. (2016). Analiz mirovykh tendentsiy finansirovanya innovatsionnoy deyatelnosti [Analysis of the world trends in innovative activity financing]. Retrieved from: http://www.mirec.ru/upload/ckeditor/files/analiz-mirovykh-tendentsiy-finansirovaniya-innovatsionnoy-deyatelnosti.pdf. (Date of access: 31.01.2019). (In Russ.)
National Science Board. (2016). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators 2016 (NSB-2016–1), 889.
Shane, S. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 29–46.
Prigozhin, A. I. (1989). Novovvedeniya: stimuly i prepyatstviya [Innovations: incentives and obstacles]. Moscow: Politizdat, 186. (In Russ.)
Shane, S., Venkatarman, S. & Mac-Millan, I. (1995). Cultural differences in Innovation Strategies. Journal of Management, 21(5), 931–952.
Surovtsev, V. N., Nikulina, Yu. N. & Bilkov, V. A. (2015). Povyshenie effektivnosti truda v molochnom skotovodstve na osnove innovatsionnykh tekhnologiy [Improving labor efficiency in dairy cattle breeding on the basis of innovative technologies]. Ekonomika selskogo khozyaystva Rossii [The Economics of Agriculture in Russia], 6, 28–36. (In Russ.)
Polbitsyn, S. N., Drokin, V. V. & Zhuravlev, A. S. (2014). Obosnovanie prioritetov razvitiya regionalnykh agroinnovatsionnykh system [Substantiation of priorities for the development of regional agro-innovation systems]. Elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal «Upravlenie ekonomicheskimi sistemami» [Management of economic systems. Scientific electronic journal], 10. Retrieved from: http://www.uecs.ru (Date of access: 09.01.2019). (In Russ.)
Dezhina, I. G. & Kiseleva, V. V. (2008). Gosudarstvo, nauka i biznes v innovatsionnoy sisteme Rossii [State, science and business in the innovation system of Russia]. Moscow: IEPP, 227. (In Russ.)
Kleyner, G. B. & Mishurov, S. S. (Eds.). (2011). Innovatsionnoe razvitie regiona: potentsial, institut, mekhanizmy [Innovative development of the region: potential, institutions, mechanisms]. Ivanovo: GOU VPO «Ivanovskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet», CEMI RAN, Institute of system economic and psychological researches, 198. (In Russ.)
Etzkowitz, H. (2011). Innovatsionnaya Rossiya [Innovative Russia]. Innovatsii [Innovations], 4. Retrieved from: http://innov.etu.ru/innov/archive.nsf/8ca4d94487bf5271c325697a0044376d/b769d964 bd0939f844257940006098cf?OpenDocument (Date of access: 09.01.2019). (In Russ.)
Bautin, V. M. (2014). Mesto i rol innovatsiy v sovremennoy ekonomike [The place and role of innovation in the modern economy]. APK: ekonomika, upravlenie [AIC: economics, management], 8, 14–21. (In Russ.)
Thompson, A. A. & Strickland, A. J. (2013). Strategicheskiy menedzhment. Kontseptsii i situatsii dlya analiza [Strategic management]. Trans. from English. Moscow: Williams, 928. (In Russ.)
Grove, A. C. (1996). Vysokoeffektivnyy menedzhment [High output management]. Trans. from English. Moscow: Information and publishing house “Filin”, 280. (In Russ.)
Mariev, O. S. & Savin, I. V. (2010). Faktory innovatsionnoy aktivnosti rossiyskikh regionov: modelirovanie i empiricheskiy analiz [Factors of innovative activity in Russian regions: modeling and empirical analysis]. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of region], 3, 235–245. (In Russ.)
Srholec, M. (2011). A multilevel analysis of innovation in developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1539–1569.
Ermasova, N. B. & Nikitin, A. A. (2014). Faktory, vliyayushchie na innovatsionnuyu aktivnost organizatsiy [Factors Influencing the Innovation Activity of Organizations]. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya: Ekonomika. Upravlenie. Pravo [Izvestiya of Saratov University. New series. Series: Economics. Management. Law], 3, 495–503. (In Russ.)
Schøtt, T., & Jensen, K. W. (2016). Firms’ innovation benefiting from networking and institutional support: A global analysis of national and firm effects. Research Policy, 45(6), 1233–1246. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.006
Guariglia, A. & Liu, P. (2014). To what extent do financing constraints affect Chinese firms’ innovation activities? International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 223–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.irfa.2014.01.005.
Neganova, V. P. & Dudnik, A. V. (2018). Sovershenstvovanie gosudarstvennoy podderdzki APK regiona [Improving the State Support of Agriculture in a Region]. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of Region], 14(2), 651–662. DOI: 10.17059/2018–2-25 (In Russ.)
Pushkarev, A. A. (2017). Faktory innovatsionnoy aktivnosti v sovremennoy ekonomike [Innovative activity factors in modern economy]. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoy teorii [Russian journal of economic theory], 1, 161–165. (In Russ.)
Borisov, I. A. & Sharapova, V. M. (2016). Podkhody k empiricheskomu modelirovaniyu vnutrifirmennogo opportunizma [The approaches to empirical modeling of an intercorporate opportunism]. Novoe slovo v nauke: perspektivy razvitiya [A new word in science: development perspectives], 4–2(10), 58–60. (In Russ.)
Sharapova, V. & Sharapova, N. (2016). Theoretical aspects of payment: development and implementation of key performance indicators. Science and society, 2, 67–76.
Porter, M. E. & Heppelmann, J. E. (2017). Why Every Organization Needs an Augmented Reality Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 6, 46–57.
Buble, M. (2015). Tendencies in evolution of 21st century management. Management, 20, 1–17.
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622–629.
Inglehart, R. & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.
Dollinger, S. J., Burke, Ph. A. & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and Values. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3), 91–103.
Panteleeva, V. V. & Knysheva, T. P. (2016). Oprosnik innovatsionnoy gotovnosti personala [Innovational readiness of the personnel questionnaire]. Akmeologiya [Acmeology], 3, 81–86. (In Russ.)
Panteleeva, V. V. (2010) Struktura innovatsionnoy gotovnosti personala v aspekte organizatsionnoy kultury [Personnel’ innovative readiness structure in an aspect of organizational culture]. In: S. V. Bykov (Red.), Sotsialno-psikhologicheskie mekhanizmy organizatsionnoy kultury: sbornik statey [S. V. Bykov (Ed.), Socio-psychological mechanisms of the organizational culture: collectin of papers] (pp. 76–88). Samara: Samara Academy for the Humanities. (In Russ.)
Krasnorjadtseva, O. M, Balanev, D. Y. & Sheglova, E. A. (2011). Diagnosticheskie vozmozhnosti oprosnika «psikhologicheskaya gotovnost k innovatsionnoy deyatelnosti» [Diagnostic possibilities of questionnaire «Psychological preparedness for innovative activity»]. SPJ, 40. Retrieved from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/diagnosticheskie-vozmozhnosti-oprosnika-psihologicheskaya-gotovnost-k-innovatsionnoy-deyatelnosti (Date of access: 03.02.2019). (In Russ.)
Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.
Basadur, M. & Hausdorf, P. (1996). Measuring Divergent Thinking Attitudes Related to Creative Problem Solving and Innovation Management. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 21–32.
MacGregor, S. P. & Carleton, T. (Eds.). (2012). Sustaining Innovation. Collaboration Models for a Complex World. NY: Springer, 172.
Fedorenko, V. F., Buklagin, D. S. & Aronov, E. L. (2010). Innovatsionnaya deyatelnost v APK: sostoyanie, problemy, persperktivy [Innovative activity in AIC: current status, problems, perspectives]. Moscow, FSSI «Rosinformagrotech», 280. (In Russ.)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Valentina Petrovna Neganova, Aleksey Vyacheslavovich Dudnik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
