بررسی اثر تعدیل‌کننده اختیارات مدیریتی بر فناوری بلاک‌چین و کیفیت نوآوری شرکت‌ها

فتحی, محمد رضا; برومند هدف, بهناز

doi:10.66224/jii.4.1.34

بررسی اثر تعدیل‌کننده اختیارات مدیریتی بر فناوری بلاک‌چین و کیفیت نوآوری شرکت‌ها

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

محمد رضا فتحی ¹

بهناز برومند هدف ²

¹ گروه مدیریت صنعتی و فناوری، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران.

² گروه مدیریت کسب ‌وکار، دانشگاه پیام نور، کرج، ایران.

10.66224/jii.4.1.34

چکیده

با توجه به نقش کلیدی مدیران به‌عنوان تصمیم‌گیرندگان حیاتی در شرکت‌ها، هدف این پژوهش بررسی اثر تعدیل‌کننده اختیارات مدیریتی بر رابطه بین فناوری بلاک‌چین و کیفیت نوآوری شرکت‌ها است. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل خبرگان علمی، مدیران و فعالان شرکت‌های تولیدی استان تهران بود که به‌نوعی با فناوری بلاک‌چین درگیر بودند. از این جامعه، ۳۸۴ نفر به‌عنوان نمونه انتخاب شدند. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها پرسشنامه بود و تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از روش معادلات ساختاری و نرم‌افزارهای SPSS و SmartPLS انجام شد. در این پژوهش، اثر تعدیل‌کننده سه نوع اختیارات مدیریتی شامل اختیارات محیطی، سازمانی و اضافی بر رابطه بین فناوری بلاک‌چین و کیفیت نوآوری شرکت‌ها بررسی شد. نتایج نشان داد اختیارات محیطی با ضریب مسیر 0.253 و مقدار معناداری 3.326 و اختیارات اضافی با ضریب مسیر 0.291 و مقدار معناداری 3.865، رابطه مثبت بین فناوری بلاک‌چین و کیفیت نوآوری شرکت‌ها را تقویت می‌کنند. در مقابل، اختیارات سازمانی با ضریب مسیر 0.642- و مقدار معناداری 8.465- این رابطه را تضعیف می‌کند. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد در عصر کنونی فناوری اطلاعات که مرزهای مدیریتی شرکت‌ها کمرنگ شده است، توجه به نوع و سطح اختیارات مدیریتی در شرکت‌هایی که از فناوری بلاک‌چین استفاده می‌کنند اهمیت ویژه‌ای دارد. نتایج این پژوهش می‌تواند راهنمای مفیدی برای مدیران در اتخاذ تصمیمات راهبردی نوآورانه باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

اختیارات مدیریتی

فناوری بلاک‌چین

کیفیت نوآوری

عنوان مقاله English

Examining the Moderating Effect of Managerial Discretion on Blockchain Technology and Firms’ Innovation Quality

نویسندگان English

Mohammad Reza Fathi ¹

Behnaz Boromand Hadaf ²

¹ Department of Industrial Management and Technology, Faculty of Management and Accounting, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.

² Department of Business Management, Payame Noor University, Karaj, Iran.

چکیده English

Given the importance of the role of managers as critical decision-makers and participants in firms, the purpose of this study is to examine the moderating effect of managerial discretion on blockchain technology and firms’ innovation quality. The statistical population of this study includes all academic experts, managers, and practitioners in manufacturing companies in Tehran Province who were in some way involved with blockchain technology, from whom 384 individuals were selected as the sample. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire, and the research data were analyzed using the structural equation modeling method and the statistical software SPSS and SmartPLS. In this study, the moderating effect of three types of managerial discretion namely environmental discretion, organizational discretion, and extra discretion on the relationship between blockchain technology and firms’ innovation quality was examined. The results showed that environmental discretion, with a path coefficient of 0.253 and a significance value of 3.326, strengthens the positive relationship between blockchain technology and firms’ innovation quality. Organizational discretion, with a path coefficient of −0.642 and a significance value of −8.465, weakens the positive relationship between blockchain technology and firms’ innovation quality. Moreover, extra discretion, with a path coefficient of 0.291 and a significance value of 3.865, strengthens the positive relationship between blockchain technology and firms’ innovation quality. In explaining the research findings, it can be stated that we have entered the golden age of information technology, which has blurred the managerial boundaries of firms, and this is especially true in companies where blockchain technology is well developed and widely used. Accordingly, companies should pay sufficient attention to innovations related to technical skills. This result provides an inspiring and useful reference for company managers when undertaking technological innovation and making strategic innovation decisions.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Managerial discretion

Blockchain technology

Innovation quality

[1] Urbinati A, Bogers M, Chiesa V, Frattini F. Creating and capturing value from Big Data: A multiple-case study analysis of provider companies. Technovation. 2019;84:21–36.
[2] Nasiri M, Ukko J, Saunila M, Rantala T. Managing the digital supply chain: The role of smart technologies. Technovation. 2020;96:102121.
[3] Risius M, Spohrer K. A blockchain research framework. Bus Inf Syst Eng. 2017;59(6):385–409.
[4] Chin T, Wang W, Yang M, Duan Y, Chen Y. The moderating effect of managerial discretion on blockchain technology and the firms’ innovation quality: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Int J Prod Econ. 2021;240:108219.
[5] Crosby M, Pattanayak P, Verma S, Kalyanaraman V. Blockchain technology: Beyond bitcoin. Appl Innov. 2016;2:6–10.
[6] Haleem A, Kumar S, Luthra S. Flexible system approach for understanding requisites of product innovation management. Glob J Flex Syst Manag. 2018;19(1):19–37.
[7] Tiscini R, Testarmata S, Ciaburri M, Ferrari E. The blockchain as a sustainable business model innovation. Manag Decis. 2020.
[8] Hambrick DC. Upper echelons theory: An update. Acad Manag Rev. 2007;32(2):334–343.
[9] Li J, Tang YI. CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Acad Manag J. 2010;53(1):45–68.
[10] Gupta V, Mortal SC, Yang T. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm value: Does managerial discretion play a role? Rev Manag Sci. 2018;12(1):1–26.
[11] Ponomareva Y. Balancing control and delegation: The moderating influence of managerial discretion on performance effects of board monitoring and CEO human capital. J Manag Govern. 2019;23(1):195–225.
[12] Lavie D, Rosenkopf L. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad Manag J. 2006;49(4):797–818.
[13] Khoshkar F, Safarpour M, Niroomandrad H. Investigating high levels of managerial discretion and supervisory power on the relationship between managerial ability and financial performance of companies. Q J New Res Approaches Manag Account. 2020;4(37):92–116. [In Persian]
[14] Farman-Ara V. Investigating the relationship between information asymmetry and managerial discretion with financing and investment in companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. Financ Econ. 2018;12(43):209–232. [In Persian]
[15] Rasouli SS, Jafarzadeh Afshari A, Salmani Seraji S. Real options theory for risk management in information technology projects. Asset Manag Financ. 2017;5(2):185–200. [In Persian]
[16] Kezazi A, Shool A. The effect of total quality management on innovation performance: The moderating effect of organizational learning. Manag Stud: Improv Transf. 2013;22(71):1–17. [In Persian]
[17] Sajjadi SH, Dastgir M, Hosseinzadeh A, Mohammad Omid A. Investigating the ways of using managerial discretion in reporting future profitability and the effect of firm characteristics on the use of such discretion. Account Knowl. 2012;3(8):7–30. [In Persian]
[18] Liao Z, Zhang M. The influence of responsible leadership on environmental innovation and environmental performance: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2020;27(5):2016–2027.
[19] Chung D, Cho TS, Kang J. The linkage between TMT knowledge diversity and firm-level innovation: The role of organizational search scope and managerial discretion. Int J Technol Manag. 2018;78(3):208–233.
[20] Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50.
[21] Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S. Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Res Organ Behav. 1987;9:369–406.
[22] Ponomareva Y. Balancing control and delegation: The moderating influence of managerial discretion on performance effects of board monitoring and CEO experience. J Manag Govern. 2016;1–31.