Institutional Theory, Service excellence, and Innovation - Research Proposal Example

Institutional theory, service excellence and innovation Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 4 1.1 Objectives 4 1.To examine the effect of institutional pressures on top management in enhancing public sector service innovation 5 1.2 Hypotheses 5 1.3 Justification 8 1.4 Operational definition of terms 9 1.5 Literature review 11 1.5.1 Research rationale 11 1.5.2 Research gap 12 1.5.3 Influence of institutional theory on actions of top management 12 1.5.4 Impact of institutional logics on service excellence and innovation 13 1.5.5 Impact of organizational slack on service innovation and excellence 13 1.6 Conceptual framework 14 Figure 1: Conceptual framework on institutional theory and service innovation 15 1.7 Research methods 15 Appendices 21 Survey Questionnaire 21 List of figures Figure 1: Conceptual framework on institutional theory and service innovation 15 Title: How institutional theory affects the implementation of service excellence and innovation in firms: Approach of top management to organizational slack. 1.0 Introduction Institutional framework and top management are interconnected in organizational outcomes and decision making with varying levels of organizational slack. Technology systems such as enterprise systems are being adopted continuously throughout the life cycle of organizations through institutional forces and the efforts of top management. Kim et al. (2014) argues that firms utilize slack resources such as unused capacity, unnecessary capital, and redundant employees so as to adapt to environment changes, hence improving capability of innovation. Institutional forces through the theory on information technology innovation as organizations assimilate business innovation systems and organizational work processes (Coule & Patmore, 2013). However, Nohria and Gulati (1996) notes that organizations may undermine their capacity to innovate when they attempt to eliminate slack despite being essential for experimentation of innovative projects and new strategies. Liang et al. (2011) confirms that top management mediates institutional forces and organizational behavior required in driving an innovative culture. The institutional forces under normative, coercive and mimetic forces are predicted in institutional theory and are known to integrate internal and expert external knowledge. Organizations that utilize information and knowledge are bound to have increased levels of effectiveness and efficiency (Vargo et al. 2015). Knowledge and information utilize innovation and organizational culture to increase service excellence and quality. Organizations with history of continuous improvement are likely to make progression in developing a successful innovative culture (McAdam, 1998). The public sector is responding to changes in innovation as the top management support institutional outcomes that favor service excellence and quality services. 1.1 Objectives 1. To examine the effect of institutional pressures on top management in enhancing public sector service innovation 2. To assess the institutional logics that affect on service excellence in government 3. To examine top management commitment to service quality and excellence 4. To establish top management commitment to service innovation 5. To examine how service quality and innovation are moderated by organizational slack 1.2 Hypotheses Proposition 1: Influence of institutional pressures on top management in service innovation H11: Mimetic forces affect top management commitment to service innovation H12: Normative forces affect top management commitment to service innovation H13: Coercive forces affect top management commitment to service innovation This proposition assumes the presence of isomorphic pressures on top management in firms trigger some level of internal creativity. Based on the works of Liang et al. (2007), top management has the capability to mediate utility business innovative systems under influence of external institutional pressures. Companies using Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems provided survey data. Empirical study by these authors using partial squares analyses found that mimetic forces affected the beliefs of top management who in turn affected their levels of participation in assimilating the usage of ERP systems. On normative forces, institutional pressures do not affect top management capability to engage in service innovation but affects the usage of innovations in firms. Coercive pressures also positively affect participation of top management in innovation. These findings were consistent with those of Decramer et al. (2012) who observed that coercive pressures were significant in adopting innovative systems such as employee performance management systems. However, Wong et al. (2009) argues that firms that are open to both success and failure of information systems innovations can handle institutional pressures better than firms with top managers fixed to success. Most of the authors above were concerned on technical and financial concerns of top management of private productive industries with little attention to institutional pressures on top management of public sector. Although related studies by Nurdin et al. (2012) show that institutional forces influence adoption and implementation of e-government systems, the extent at which it leads to improvement in service performance and administration is yet to be understood. Proposition 2: Institutional pressures affect top management commitment service excellence in public sector H21: Mimetic forces affect top management commitment to service excellence H22: Normative forces affect top management commitment to service excellence H23: Coercive forces affect top management commitment to service excellence This proposition draws from the works of Kirkpatrick and Ackroyd (2003) regarding the aspect of ‘new managerialism’ founded on organizational change in the public sector. In the same note, Ashworth et al. (2007) argues that public sector organizations that conform to isomorphic pressures such as mimetic, coercive and normative have stronger organizational cultures and strategies as opposed to processes and structures. Service delivery as influenced by public management has been tested by a number of empirical studies with the conclusion that new organizations forms engender better results. However, the subject of legitimacy has had greater support compared to organizational change. Service excellence is a product of expectations of key stakeholders surrounding the business environment. Frumkin and Galaskiewicz (2004) suggest convergence and compliance as behaviors that support institutional theory. The authors agree that there is little connection between institutional pressures in organizations and attributes of organizational environments to provide greater satisfaction to customers. Reay and Hinings (2004) indicates that there is little research in beliefs and values of top management to pursue service delivery when dominant institutional logic changes. Proposition 3: Top management is committed to service quality H3: Top management commitment to service quality affects organizational service quality This proposition is based on the assumption that top management is not only driven by shareholders interests but a genuine pursuit of customer satisfaction. Frontline employees have a huge role in customer satisfaction because they have voice-to-voice or face-to-face interactions. Despite the myriad problems faced by these employees, the actions of managers to retain high performing and skilled employees is even an uphill task. Karatepe et al. (2012) agrees that it is difficult for top management to be committed to quality service with weak reward, empowerment and training systems. However, Aiello (2011) argues that top management commitment to service excellence is strong but mixed. This indicates that there is need to investigate internal and external barriers to customer experience such as technology, quality regulations, communication and inconsistencies since they have implications on service excellence in public organizations. Proposition 4: Top management commitment to service innovation H4: Top management commitment to service innovation in affect organizational service innovation This proposition draws from the desire by top management to ensure firms gain competitive advantage by investing in product and process innovation and knowledge information systems. Siegfried (2011) agrees that innovation in organizations require commitment and willingness by top management to accept success along with success. A more predictable and stable business environment may find it difficult to foster innovation. Mustafa and Bon (2012) underscore the need for top management to be committed to total quality management necessary for organizational performance. The study will attempt to understand how top management in public sector organizations influence service innovation. Proposal 5: Service innovation and service excellence is moderated by organizational slack H5: Service quality and service innovation are moderated by organizational slack This proposition emphasizes on organizational slack as a moderator variable to service innovation and service excellence. Tan and Peng (2003) suggest that slack inhibits performance and breeds inefficiency but requires further contingency perspectives in discussing the impact on firm performance. Organizational slack is seen as a form of inefficiency that undermines service excellence. However, organizations with redundant resources and idle capital can engage in service innovation by undertaking reforms and modernizations (Troilo et al. 2014). However, overlap and duplication is a waste of resources and failure to share redundant information may discourage communication and dialogue. Leitner (2009) found organizational slack as an influential factor determining the innovative behavior of organization managers and employees. However, the author agrees that the relationship between organizational slack and innovation is still vague. 1.3 Justification Top management in most firms engages in technological innovation to gain competitive advantage but at different levels of resource utilization (Ziang et al. 2010). This implies that service innovation and excellence depends on organizational slack and institutional pressures that compels top management to act. Public organizations aim at improving service excellence and satisfying customers through innovation, efficiency and quality. For public firms to gain competitive advantage, the top management should draw insights on innovation and institutional forces of regulation and performance (Lars et al. 2011). Besides, institutional theory has brought in environmental and sustainability pressure that prevails on organizations to protect their legitimacy. Strong regulatory institutions engender firms that innovate sustainably and guides managers to make use of firm’s knowledge sources. Therefore, a committed top management to innovation and service quality is determined by pressures from institutional theories (LiuBrian & Kleiner, 2001). 1.4 Operational definition of terms Government department: An element of a government organ within the public sector that provides services to the people (Ruiz-Carrillo & Fernandez-Ortiz, 2005). Diverse governmental institutions utilize service excellence techniques and mechanisms to focus on societal welfare improvement and improved satisfaction of the demands and expectations to customers (Rönnbäck & Eriksson, 2012) Institutional theory: Describes the behavioral and structural changes in organizations due to desire for organizational legitimacy and efficiency (Coule & Patmore, 2013; Beronne et al. 2013; Vargo et al. 2015; Liang et al. 2007). Nurdin et al. (2012) defines institutional theory as the concept that encompasses internal and external forces that influence uptake of information systems in private or public firms. Wong et al. (2009, p.5) observes that “Institutional theory provides a foundation of investigating institutional pressures on information technology management…but these pressures may not give the desired outcomes”. Institutional theory encompasses constraints and enablers of firm behavior through punishments, negative sanctions and rules (Campbell, 2007). Institutional theory defines organizations with productive and social systems under influence from the institutional environment and gets embedded in the broader social context (Scott, 2001). Organizational slack: Ability of organizations to use redundant resource and research and development activities to enhance high performance from innovative tasks (Kim et al. 2014; Marlin & Geiger, 2015; Liu et al. 2014) Slack diminishes discipline on innovative projects but fosters experimentation (Nohria & Gulati, 1996; Lee, 2015). Nohria and Gulati (1997, p. 604) describes organizational slack involving a resource pool in excess of minimum required to provide a given organizational output. Moreover, organizational slack is defined as“…cushion of potential and actual resources that organizations need for successful adaptation to internal pressures and changes with regard to external environment” Bourgeois (1981, p. 30) Public sector: Institutions that provide services and usually run by the government in order to serve citizens and other customers. Public sector is ordinarily government departments involved in service to citizens, service quality improvement and provision of services to the people (Jabnoun & Khalifa, 2005; Rui & Batista, 2007). Public value: The action of public managers in continuously defining, discovering and being productive and responsive to the needs of citizens (Al-Raisi & Al-Khouri, 2010). Just the same way profit making firms relate with their customers, service quality prevails on public organizations to perceive citizens as customers (Moore, 1995, p. 159). Service excellence: The desire for quality services offered by public institutions in satisfying and exceeding the needs of customers (Gronroos, 2004). In an organized service delivery, service provider exceeds customer expectations hence creating loyalty, higher levels of satisfaction, and delight among customers. Moreover, “…service excellence programs are popular in the current competitive world in which the public sector is making attempts to compete with the private sector in service delivery, organizational excellence and public value” Gouthier et al. 2012). Service innovation: Use of new technology and development and design of new services and functions (Makharita, 2005; Djelal et al. 2013). Technologies push individuals and firms to the extent of becoming difficult to refuse to adopt any technology (Rui & Batista, 2007; Nohria & Gulati, 1996; Yang et al. 2013). Service innovation has also been defined as “…having high levels of defined system borders, tacit knowledge, concern behaviors and work relations between service givers and receivers” Hartley and Pike (2005, p. 4). Service quality: The principles of service excellence designed by organizations to determine level of customer satisfaction in public sector (Sandy et al. 2011; Robert & Kong, 2011) The customer perception on state of service enables them to utilize well-organized and lucrative services such as enhanced services, better service attainment, improved intelligibility and accountability, and efficacy (Marlin & Geiger, 2015). Top management: The strategic managers in the level of decision making as to embrace innovative and quality processes and systems in an organization (Moore, 1995). Agents or principals acting on shareholder’s behalf (Nohria & Gulati, 1996; Djelal et al. 2013). Mustafa and Bon (2012) observe that top management is a strategic team tasked with the responsibility of carrying out innovations and effects to implement quality practices. 1.5 Literature review 1.5.1 Research rationale The study on institutional theory is based on the works of various authors who have attempted to connect it with efforts of top management to engage firm’s resources to satisfy customers. Public sector organizations also seek to compete with the private sector in delivering services to the people but they face challenges in driving service excellence and innovation (Jabnoun & Khalifa, 2005). Based on the understanding of innovation and excellence, there is need to understand how organizations are informed by institutional pressures on top management to engage redundant resources so as to increase competitive advantage. On the same note, there is need to understand how organizational slack affects service innovation and service excellence as desired by top management in the organization. 1.5.2 Research gap Most studies have attempted to link institutional pressures on top management to adopt innovative practices that will make firms more sustainable and competitive. However, there is disconnection on linkages between institutional logic and nature of slack resources that strategic managers will need to employ so as to foster innovation and excellence. Gil-Marques & Moreno-Luzon (2013) prevails on top management develop innovative strategies to meet the needs of shareholders and customers. Kim et al. (2014) establishes that under resource-constrained environments, organizational slack allows firms to engage in new innovative projects. This study will attempt to connect institutional pressures (Liang et al. 2007), public service excellence and service innovation (Siegfried (2011), and the attempt by top management to consider organizational capacity in converting slack resources (Kim et al. 2014) to pursue interests of citizens and engage in socially sustainable business practices. 1.5.3 Influence of institutional theory on actions of top management Firms are under institutional pressure to be responsible to its stakeholders through sustainable inventions and focus on customer satisfaction (Gil-Marques & Moreno-Luzon, 2013). Institutional theory posits that behavioral and structural changes are not much about competition but the need for organizational legitimacy and efficiency. According to Liang et al. (2007) institutional pressures are important for innovation adoption and implementation in organizations. Firm culture draws on collective innovation efforts to determine success through the efforts of top management. Support and commitment of top management lead to quality improvement and change in corporate culture. Top management mediates the influences that institutional forces have on business process innovation (Wu & Lin, 2011). It is evident that at assimilation stage, institutional pressures are critical for information technology adoption in firms. In essence, the top management facilitates business process innovation by complying with institutional pressures (Coule & Patmore, 2013). Managers are obliged to conform to institutional demands, secure organizational success and societal legitimacy through innovation. This means that the firm has to be competitive and unique by developing unique resources and complying with the institutions concerned with environmental issues. Managers can take the lead in environmental innovation by understanding technology responses and efficient use of resources. 1.5.4 Impact of institutional logics on service excellence and innovation Coule and Patmore (2013) observe that the state has established source of power to control through allocation of financial resources and legislation. Practices that underpin public management are influenced by institutional logics in terms of belief systems and institutionalized organizing principles that fosters public service innovation and role of state. Ronnback and Erickson (2012) argue that top management should focus on practices such as Six Sigma, ISO and Lean since they are embedded in the organizational culture such as digital innovation and are present in all quality management programs. Organizations that embrace digital innovation have more likelihood of greater organizational performance (Wang & Pervaiz, 2002). This indicates that the top management has a role in applying institutional theories in order to enhance service excellence, customer satisfaction and drive innovation in firms. Innovation is key in public sector effectiveness since units across and within government needs to innovate in order to gain competitive advantage over its rivals (Beronne et al. 2013). Indeed, institutional logics provide a legitimate case in service system membership and the type of innovation practices that are legitimate in responding to social needs. 1.5.5 Impact of organizational slack on service innovation and excellence Most firms achieve innovation by efficiently and effectively utilizing its internal resources. Under resource-constrained environments, organizational slack allows firms to engage in new innovative projects (Kim et al. 2014). According to Nohria and Gulati (1996), slack can be detrimental to innovation if it is too little or too much. They obtain that although slack diminishes discipline over innovative projects, it fosters greater experimentation. Marlin and Geiger (2015) concur that organizational slack is beneficial to firms as it increases the potential for firm innovation and buffers from shortage of funds. Entrepreneurial orientation of firms determines the rate of absorption of slack. For example, in high-tech settings or high levels of entrepreneurial orientation, product innovation tends to be highly correlated with unabsorbed slack and radical innovation (Liu et al. 2012; Troilo et al. 2014). Slack resources and empowerment of employees helps in achieving service quality by exploiting and exploring service innovation. As observed by Sok and O’Cass (2015), managers perceive the market in terms of how they perceive available slack resources and market competitiveness in achieving service innovation and superior financial outcomes. Firms combine new and useful knowledge by innovation to drive value creation and enhance social practices and processes. Institutional theories need to emphasize innovative systems that extend beyond collaborative networks and firm-centered production activities to focus on service-ecosystems linkages (Vargo et al. 2015). 1.6 Conceptual framework The concept of institutional theory is provided framework argues that institutional pressures prevail on top management to act in favor of shareholder’s interests. Commitment and support by top management is engendered by pressures such as coercive (government regulation and policies), mimetic (mimicking actions of other organizations) and normative (professionalization). The framework below shows that these institutional forces lead to adoption of innovative systems and the influence on their configuration during implementation. The result of innovation in firms, especially public sector, there is rapid improvement in efficiency and customer satisfaction. Organizational slack influence service excellence and service innovation such as enterprise resource are planning and business process mapping (Vrande et al. 2009). Figure 1: Conceptual framework on institutional theory and service innovation From the framework above, the role of top management in public sector departments is to utilize organizational slack and control of resources and innovation. Top management is driven by institutional pressures such as coercive, mimetic and normative forces to act in the interest of all its stakeholders in productive innovations (Coras & Tantau, 2014). 1.7 Research methods The aim of the study is to establish how institutional theory affects on top management to implementing service excellence and innovation. Using quantitative research design, the data will be collected from 120 public sector departments in the UAE. This will be a survey of top management and employees using self-administered questionnaires. On employees, simple random sampling will be used to obtain the desired number of respondents into the sample. However, stratified random sampling will be applied in selecting top management into the sample. Chi-square statistics will be used to test hypothesis and relationship between variables while descriptive statistics will help in determining measures of central tendency and dispersion. Reference list Aiello, T 2011, Top management’s perceptions of service excellence and hospitality: The case of Dr. P. Phillips Hospital. University of Central Florida. Al-Raisi, AN & Al-Khouri, AM 2010, Public Value and ROI in the Government Sector, Journal of Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 1-5. Beronne, P Fosfuri, A Gelabert, L & Gomez-Mejia, LR 2013, Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 891-909. Bourgeois, LJ 1981, On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, pp. 29-39. Campbell, JL 2007, Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 946-967. Coras, EL & Tantau, AD 2014, Open innovation-the good, the bad and the uncertainties, The USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration. Vol. 14, no. 19, pp. 38- 45. Corradini, C 2013, Serial and persistent innovation in UK small companies, University of Nottingham. Coule, T & Patmore, B 2013, Institutional logics, institutional work, and public service innovation in non-profit organizations, Public Administration, Vol. 91, no.4, pp. 980-997. Decramer, A Smolders, C Vanderstraeten, A & Christiaens, J 2012, The Impact of Institutional Pressures on Employee Performance Management Systems in Higher Education in the Low Countries, British Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. S88–S103. Djelal, F Gallouj, F Miles, I 2013, Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which places for public services. Structural change and economics dynamics. Vol. 27, pp. 98-117. Frumkin, P & Galaskiewicz, J 2004, Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14:283– 307. Gil-Marques, MD Moreno-Luzon, M 2013, Driving human resources towards quality and innovation in a highly competitive environment, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 34, no. 8 pp. 839 – 860. Gronroos, C 2004, A service quality model and its marketing implications, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 36-44. Gouthier, M, Giese, A & Bartl, C 2012, Service excellence models: a critical discussion and comparison, Managing Service Quality, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 447-464. Hartley, J Pike, A 2005, Managing to improve public services, Advanced institute of management research. Jabnoun, N & Khalifa, A 2005, A customized measure of service quality in the UAE, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 Iss: 4, pp.374-388. Karatepe, OS Karadas, G 2012, The effect of management commitment to service quality on job Embeddedness and performance outcomes, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 5, pp. 8-18. Kim, SK Cho, H Khieu, H 2014, Slack and R&D strategy: The effect of slack and internal R&D and External R&D and Innovation. Journal of Management policy and Practice. Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 33-39. Kirkpatrick, I & Ackroyd, S 2003, Transforming the professional archetype? The new managerialism in UK social services. Public Management Review, 5:511–31. Lars, W Löfgren, M Gustafsson, A 2011, Identifying ideas of attractive quality in the innovation process, The TQM Journal, Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 87 – 99. Lee, S 2015, Slack and innovation: Investigating the relationship in Korea. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 68, pp. 1895-1905. Leitner, JS 2009, Organizational slack and its impact on innovation in nonprofit organizations. A theoretical and empirical approach. Doctoral thesis, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. Liang, H Saraf, N Hu, Q Xhue, Y 2007, Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of management, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 59-87. Liu, H Ding, X Guo, H & Luo, J 2014, How does slack affect product innovation in high- tech Chinese firms: The contingent value of entrepreneurial orientation. Asian Pacific Journal of Management. Vol. 31, pp. 47-68. LiuBrian, V & Kleiner, CH 2001, Global trends in managing innovation and quality, Management Research News, Vol. 24, no. ¾, pp. 13 – 16. Marlin, D & Geiger, SW 2015, A reexamination of the organizational slack and innovative relationship. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 30, pp. 1-7. McAdam, R Gren, A Kelly, B 1998, Investigation of the relationship between total quality and innovation: a research study involving small organizations, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 1, no. 3 pp. 139 – 147. Moore, M 1995, Creating Value: Strategic Management in Government, Cambridge: MA, Harvard University Press. International Journal of Public sector Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 158-167. Moss, HK 2007, Improving service quality with the theory of constraints, Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, pp. 1-15. Mustafa, EM Bon, AT 2012, Role of top management leadership and commitment in total quality management in service organization in Malaysia: A review and conceptual framework, Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 51, pp. 11029-11033. Nohria, N & Gulati, R 1996, Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1245-1264. Nohria, N & Gulati, R 1997, What is the optimum amount of organizational slack?, European Management Journal, 15, 603-611. Nurdin, N Stockdale, R & Scheepers, H 2012, The influence of external institutional pressures on local e-government adoption and implementation: A coercive perspective within an Indonesian Local e-government context. International Federation for Information Processing. LNCS. Reay, T & Hinings, CR 2004, Change in organizational fields: A study of competing institutional logics. Paper presented at SCANCOR Workshop on ‘Understanding Institutional Change’, Stanford University. Robert, J & Kong, X 2011, The customer experience: a road-map for improvement, Managing Service QualityVol. 21, No. 1, pp5-24. Rönnbäck, Å Eriksson, H 2012, A case study on quality management and digital innovation, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 408 – 422. Rui DS & Batista, L 2007, Boosting government reputation through CRM, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20 Iss 7 pp. 588-607. Ruiz-Carrillo, J & Fernandez-Ortiz, R 2005, Theoretical foundation of the EFQM model: the resource-based view, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 16, no.1, pp. 31-55. Sandy, NG, Meredith ED, Dagger TS 2011, Generating positive word-of-mouth in the service experience, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21, no. 2, pp 133-151. Scott, WR 2001, Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Siegfried, M 2011, Creating an innovation culture, Institute for supply management. Sok, P & O'Cass, A 2015, Achieving service quality through service innovation exploration – exploitation: the critical role of employee empowerment and slack resources, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 137 – 149. Tan, J & Peng, MW 2003, Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: two studies from an emerging economy, Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1249-1263. Troilo, G Luca, LM Atuahene-Gima, K 2013, More Innovation with less? A strategic contingency view of slack resources, information search, and radical innovation. Journal of Product innovation management. Vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 259-277. Vargo, SI Wieland, H Akaka, MA 2015, Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystem perspective, Industrial marketing management, Vol. 44. pp. 63-72. Vrande, V Jong, JP Vanhaverbeke, W Rochemont, M 2009, Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges, Technovation, Vol. 29, pp. 423-437. Wang, CL Pervaiz KA 2002, Learning through quality and innovation, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 417–423. West, J & Gallagher, S 2006, Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open source software, R&D Management, Vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 319- 331. Wong, CW, Lai, K Teo, TS 2009, Institutional Pressures and mindful IT management: The case of container terminal in China. Information and Management. Vol. 46, pp. 434-441. Wu, S Lin M 2011, The influence of innovation strategy and organizational innovation on innovation quality and performance, International Journal of Organizational Innovation, Vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 45-76. Yang, KP Chou, C & Chiu, YJ 2013, How unlearning affects radical innovation: The dynamics of social capital and slack resources. Technological forecasting & social change. Vol. 87, pp. 152-163. Appendices Survey Questionnaire I am a postgraduate student undertaking research on the influence of institutional theory on top management’s pursuit of service innovation and service excellence moderated by organizational slack. This study targets UAE public organizations. Your responses will be held confidential and private. Thank you for your willingness to participate in this exercise. Q. 1 Influence of institutional pressures on top management in service innovation This question draws the isomorphic pressures from Liang et al. (2007) who mentioned normative, mimetic and coercive forces as influencing the beliefs and behaviors of top management to embrace innovative systems in organizations. The measurement scales for the statements are; SD-Strongly Disagree, D-Disagree, N-Neutral, A-Agree, SA-Strongly Agree Statements SD D N A SA Normative pressures affect top management approach to service innovation Coercive forces affect top management approach to service innovation Mimetic forces affect top management approach to service innovation Q.2 Institutional pressures affect top management commitment to service excellence This question is derived from institutional forces as mentioned in the study by Liang et al. (2007), Kirkpatrick and Ackroyd (2003) and also as applied by Reay and Hinings (2004) on how beliefs and values of top management affects their contribution to service excellence in their organization. The measurement scales for the statements are; SD-Strongly Disagree, D-Disagree, N-Neutral, A-Agree, SA-Strongly Agree Statements SD D N A SA Normative pressures affect top management commitment to service excellence Coercive forces affect top management commitment to service excellence Mimetic forces affect top management commitment to service excellence Q.3 Top management is committed to service quality in public sector This question draws from the empirical studies of Aeillo (2011) and Karatepe et al. (2012) who argued that top management may have mixed feelings on pursuit service excellence but at the same time investing in reward, training and compensation systems. Statements SD D N A SA Top managerial staff in public sector organizations are committed to service quality Top management are committed to total quality management and pursuit of excellence Top management’s behavior and beliefs favor service quality Q.4 Top management is committed to service innovation This question is drawn from the understanding of Siegfried (2011) regarding innovation in organizations and commitment and willingness by top management to accept success along with success. Similarly, Mustafa and Bon (2012) provide important perspectives on top management commitment to total quality management which fosters service innovation. Statements SD D N A SA Top management are committed and willing to pursue service innovation Top management encourage staff to be innovative and creative Top management provide resources and funding for innovative ideas and projects Q.5 Service innovation and service excellence are moderated by organizational slack This question is drawn from Tan and Peng (2003) who mentioned that organizational slack undermines efficiency and service delivery. However, Leitner (2009) is supportive of slack resources needed in service innovation. Statements SD D N A SA Organizational slack inhibits service excellence Organizational slack provides resources for service innovation Organizational slack discourages efficiency and effectiveness in public sector ………………….Thank you…………………….. Read More