Institutional Theory Affects on Top Management for Implementing Service Excellence - Term Paper Example

INTRODUCTION Organisations need to excel in their delivery of services and provision of products in order to reflect good images among their stakeholders. Excellence in service delivery as well as production of products that are required by customers depends on how innovative organisations are to determine the types of service and products that customers want. Service delivery in the public sector is premised on the systems that public organisations have in place to manage their various operations. The top management of organisations is thus charged with the responsibility of ensuring that organisations meet the needs that their stakeholders expect them to meet. The operations of organisations can be said to be pegged on the institutions or rules that define them. These institutions are embodied through the organisations’ commitment to excellence in service delivery through their top management as well as other ranks of employees, the values that the organisations hold, commitment to deliver public value, commitment to service quality and innovation, and delivery of creative service among other factors. Organisations are thus subject to institutional pressures that call upon them to implement change, the top management’s commitment to delivery of service quality and innovation, the obstacles that may hinder the objectives that organisations set. One of the potential challenges is organisational slack, which according to Nohria and Gulati (1997, p. 32), is defined as “the pool of resources in an organization that is in excess of the minimum necessary to produce a given level of organisational output.” However, organisational slack is not necessarily a bad thing as it can be exploited for the better of the organisations, as will be discussed in the literature review section on this paper. The interaction between these factors can be conceptualised in a diagram as shown below. Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of the factors that affect service excellence and innovation Against the background information that has been outlined above, the purpose of the proposed research is to investigate how institutional pressures affect the commitment of top management to service excellence and service innovations and how this is affected by organisational slack. The study will be conducted in a number of public sectors organisations in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates including the economic development sector, the social development sector, the health and safety sector, the infrastructure and environment sector, and the security and justice sector. Objectives of the study The objectives of the proposed study are as follows: 1. To examine the effect of institutional pressures on top management in regard to enhancing public sector service innovation 2. To assess the institutional logics that affect on service excellence in government. 3. To examine how the top management in various government departments in Dubai are committed to service quality and excellence. 4. To establish how top management commitment to service innovation affects innovation in the organisations under study. 5. To examine how service quality and innovation in various government departments in Dubai is moderated by organisational slack. Research questions Based on the research objectives that have been stated above, the following research questions will be used in the study: 1. To what extent do institutional pressures play a role top management’s commitment to enhancing public sector service innovation? 2. What are some of the institutional logics that affect on service excellence in government? 3. What evidence is there to suggest that the top management members of staff in various government departments in Dubai are committed to service quality and excellence? 4. How does top management’s commitment to service innovation affect innovation in the organisations under study? 5. How is service quality and innovation in various government departments in Dubai moderated by organisational slack? Overview of the Dubai government departments The Dubai government comprises 46 units which are categorised under 10 major groups. These groups are as follows: government departments, public corporations, law enforcement bodies, offices, awards, public authorities, academic and training institutions, judicial entities, councils, and finally, centres (Dubai Smart Government 2015). LITERATURE REVIEW Overview of the literature review Institutions, institutional theory and organisational analysis Functionalist analyses of organisations According to Tolbert and Zucker (1996, p. 176), studies on organisations have been relatively few in the history of sociology. One of the reasons for this state of affaires is that in the early 1940s, organisations were not in general recognised by American sociologists as a characteristic social phenomenon that could be worth studying by its own right. Even though organisations had definitely been a subject of study by sociologists before the advent of functionalist analysis, such researches often treated organisations as aspects of social problems in general. Such social problems include intercommunity relations, social inequality, and social deviance among others. Because of this perception, the study of organisations was not entirely focused on organisations as the main subjects. Some level of interest in studying organisations seems to have been triggered primarily by the need to empirically test and develop the overall logic of the functionalist social theory. Along this line, organisations were regarded as smaller representations of the society or societies, and provided the opportunity to carry out the form of research that was needed for empirical examination of functionalist principles. Hence, as noted Tolbert and Zucker (1996, p. 176), one of the key features of analyses of organisations was a focus on the fundamentals of social change, an issue that the functionalist theory had often been accused by opponents of neglecting. Organisations and institutionalisation Further studies on organisations have led to the creation of a linkage between organisations and institutionalisation. Institutionalisation is regarded as a fundamental process in the development and perpetuation of lasting social groups such as organisations. Based on this approach, an institution is considered to be the outcome or end point of the institutionalisation process, and is defined as “a reciprocal typification of habitualised action by types of actors” (Tolbert & Zucker 1996, p. 180). In this regard, habitualised action denotes behaviours that have been established empirically and espoused by an actor or a group of actors (such as an organisation or a group of organisations) so as to help resolve persistent problems). Such behaviours are made a habit to the extent that they are brought into use by minimal decision making effort by the actors in reaction to a particular problem or change. The reciprocal typification of actions that have become a habit involved the creation of shared meanings or definitions that are connected to the habitualised behaviours (Tolbert & Zucker 1996, p. 180). The formation of institutions in organisations, or the institutionalisation process, involved at least two sequential processes. One of these processes is habitualisation, which has been described above; while the others are objectification and sedimentation based on the model by Tolbert and Zucker (1996). As implied above, habitualisation refers to the process by which acts that are recurrently repeated in the interaction of various actors are cast into a pattern (Currie 2010, pp. 4-5). It also involves the creation of new structural arrangements in reaction to a particular organisational problem or a set of problems, as well as the formalisation of such arrangements in the procedures and policies of an organisation or a group of organisations that face the same or related problems (Tolbert & Zucker 1996, p. 181). The processes that are involved in habitualisation can result in the formation of structures that can be categorised as being at the pre-institutionalisation stage. The processes involved in habitualisation are varied. For instance, organisations that are experiencing problems may, as part of their hunt for solutions, also take into consideration solutions developed by others. Along this line, replication of the solution may follow, but there is a little semblance of necessity among those involved in making decisions, since there is not agreements on the general benefit of the innovation or solution taken from outside. Therefore, adoption of the solution can be predicted largely by aspects that make a change economically or technically viable for a particular organisation (Tolbert & Zucker 1996, p. 181). While reviewing the concept of habitualisation, Currie (2010, p. 5) notes that habitualised behaviour relates to the manner in which individuals see the introduction of a new concept or innovation. Notably, since an organisation’s decision-makers may have a common view of ideas and knowledge that may render an innovation more practical and attractive, the acceptance of any given innovation may possibly and does happen in close association with the processes of adopting such innovations in other organisation. Currie (2010, p. 5) also points out that such a process is known as simultaneous innovation. As part of the institutionalisation process, objectification is a process that involves the establishment of some levels of social agreement among the decision makers in an organisation as regards the worth of a structure, as well as the increasing acceptance by organisations based on that agreement. In other words, objectification is the process by which the shared knowledge in an organisation becomes shared property various actors in the organisation collectively accepts it as being valuable, reliable, and useful for the all of the organisation’s members (Wiseman 2007, p. 1113). The consensus among decision-makers regarding the application of the shared knowledge can emanate from two dissimilar albeit not necessarily unrelated mechanisms. To start with, organisations may use evidence hat is collected directly from a wide array of sources (such as first-hand observation, news media and so forth) to evaluate the risk indicators of adopting a new structure (Tolbert & Zucker 1996, p. 182). Based on the extent to which the outcomes of structural change can be generalised, the noticeable outcomes for organisations that have implemented such changes before become a significant determinant of the decision that is to be adopted next. Hence, the objectification structure is partly an outcome of organisations’ monitoring of their competitors, as well as efforts by the organisations to improve their overall competitiveness. Objectification also follows models of sequential decision-making. these models are build upon the presumptions that there is some level of uncertainty in the outcomes various choices, and that makers of decisions will use information gathered from observing the choices made by others, as well as their own personal evaluations in determining which of the choice is the best (Tolbert & Zucker 1996, p. 183). Based on these conditions, the more widespread a particular choice becomes, the higher the probability that individuals will perceive it as the most favourable choice, and the less important will be independent judgements of decision-makers regarding the value of the choice (Tolbert & Zucker 1996, p. 183). The final aspect the institutionalisation process is sedimentation. According to Tolbert and Zucker (1996, p. 184), full institutionalisation encompasses sedimentation, which is a process that primarily rests on the chronological continuity of structure, and particularly on its survival across different generations of members of the organisation. Sedimentation is featured by both the nearly complete spread of structures over the members of a group of actors who may potentially be the appropriate adopters, and by the continuation of the structures over an extended period of time. Thus, sedimentation denotes both the depth and breadth dimensions of structures (Tolbert & Zucker 1996, p. 184). As noted by Kramsch (2014, p. 132), the process of sedimentation enables members of a social groups (such as members of an organisation or groups of organisations) to integrate their experiences into a shared stock of knowledge and a larger repository of collective memory. It is also at the stage of sedimentation that structures that have been put in place reproduce themselves and becomes the norm or “taken-for-granted in the wider society and at the level of the organisational field by individuals themselves (Currie 2010, p. 7). Identifying the factors that affect the levels of diffusion and the long-run retention of a structure is critical to understanding the process of sedimentation. One of these factors is the presence of a group of actors who are somewhat adversely influenced by the structures and who have the capacity to collectively mobilise against them (Tolbert & Zucker 1996, p. 184). According to the same authors, even when direct opposition to some structures lacks, sedimentation may be hindered by a lack of verifiable outcomes that are associated with certain structure. They also notes that complete institutionalisation of a structure can be achieved when there are conjoint effects a weak resistance by opposing groups, sustained cultural approval for and promotion by groups that advocate for the structures, as well as positive linkages with the required results. Resistance to any structure is likely to restrict the spread of the structure in different organisations that are chosen by theorisation as the pertinent adopters, while continued endorsement and confirmable benefits are required to deal with entropic propensities, and guarantee continuation of the structure over time. However, is also noted that in many cases the connection between the structure and the projected results is fairly distant, and manifestation of the effect is not easy to distinguish. As well given the establishment and promotion of substitute structures that can be used to attain the same goals, organisations may ditch older arrangements in support of newer and more promising structures (Currie 2010, p. 7). Institutions as reflected in organisations Institutions are defined as the social structures that have attained a high level of flexibility and which are transmitted through different elements such as relational systems, symbol systems, artefacts and routines (Ramanathan 2008, p. 24). Institutions play a role of laying the structure and making meaningful behaviours, roles as well as relationships among the members of a community, and in so doing, they organise the activities interactions of the members of the community (Scott 2008). This is to say that institutional approach that is taken by an organisation determines that strategy that the organisation is likely to pursue in its desire to fulfil its goals. Organisations have sets of rules and codes that guide their core operations, innovation, research, and day-to-day activities. The concept of institution in regard to the operations of organisations is pegged on the assumption that organisations are deeply embedded in the wider context of institutions. Hence, organisational practices are a direct embodiment of, or a response to, structures and rules that are established in the larger environment (Najeeb 2014, p. 25). This means that organisations operate based on the rules that they establish on their own as well those rules that are established by the wider society, such as the relevant government authorities. As well, this state of affairs denotes that the institutional environment of an organisation is the starting place for legitimatisation, incentives or rewards for, as well as limitations or sanctions on the activities that an organisation undertakes (Najeeb 2014, p. 25). Institutional theory thus guides the activities that organisations get engaged in, right from the top management to the employees in all other levels of the organisation. According to Berrone et al. (2013, pp. 892-893), institutional theory focuses on how social influence towards conformity determines the actions of organisations. The institutional strategy that is used in analysing organisations is known as organisational institutionalism. This concept (organisational institutionalism) deals with the general question of inquiring what the institutional perspective of an organisation says about organisational behaviour. Najeeb (2014, p. 25) also notes that institutional theory is an important tool to analyse organisational behaviour since it can respond to experiential mismatch, where what is seen in real organisations is different from what theories about organisations say. For instance, an organisation may set targets, but these targets may not be attained because of negative effects of organisational slack – where by the organisations, have excess resources and fails to follow the ideals of institutionalism that it has outlined to ensure that these resources are used to the maximum. Organisation’s institutional theory and legitimacy The institutional perceptive of organisations also views organisations as being connected; hence, organisations are intertwined in organisational relationships (Daft 2007, p. 189). According to Tolbert and Zucker (1996, p. 182), organisations are highly interconnected. Along the same line Daft (2007, p. 189) suggests that just as firms need to be efficient in their production in order to ensure their survival, the institutional view assert that organisations need legitimacy from the people that they affect or stakeholders. Ideally, it is argued that firms perform usually perform well when whey are seen by the larger society to have a legitimate right to exist (Daft 2007, p. 189; Berrone et al. 2013, p. 893). This is true whether the firms in questions are private or public sector organisations. Therefore, the institutional perspective offers a description of how organisations exist and succeed through relationship between the organisation and what the society expects of the organisation. The institutional environment within which the society exists is made or of values and norms from the stakeholder of any organisation (these include investors, customers, boards, associations, the government, and other collaborating organisations). Based on this, the institutional view presupposes that organizations come up with processes and structures to please outsiders (such as customers and other external stakeholders), and these activities ultimately take on a rule-like position in organisations. In addition, the institutional environment offers a reflection of what the greater society holds as appropriate ways of behaving and organising. Legitimacy has been defined as the general view that an organisation’s actions are proper, desirable, as well as appropriate in the context of the environment’s structure of values, beliefs and norms. Institutional theory therefore concerns itself with the set of intangible value and norms that shape behaviour, in contrast to the tangible elements of structure and technology. It is noted that organisations must align themselves within the emotional and cognitive expectations of their audience (Daft 2007, p. 189). That is, organisations must do what the environment expects them to do which is good for the society and the environment at large. For instance, people may not deposit money in a bank if the bank the does not send signals that it complies with existing deposit protection rules as well as other norms of prudent financial management. At the same time, a company that produces products that cause harm to the environment is not likely to be popular within the community in which it operates. Similarly, a government organisation that is slow in delivering service to the public is likely to receive widespread criticism from the public. Because of the significance of legitimacy, most organisations are concerned with showing their stakeholders that they are legitimate. For instance, many organisations actively manage and shape their reputations so as to enhance their reputations. Managers are also constantly looking for new and innovating ways of offering service to their customers in order to build the trust and confidence of the customers. Thus, innovations and service excellence have become some of the most crucial factors that determine the success and positioning of both private and public sector organisations (Labitzke, Svoboda & Schultz 2014). The need to enhance legitimacy also causes organisations to constantly modify their structures and operations in order to fit in the prevailing circumstances. According to Ramanathan (2008, p. 24), conforming to various requirements and rules makes organisations to change in order to increase their legitimacy, resource capabilities as well as survival capabilities. Organisations also strive to ensure that they reduce risks so as to enhance their survival. Ramanathan (2008, p. 24) notes that conforming to various institutional norms and requirements is made possible by coercive, normative and mimetic pressures, and that organisations which conform to the required norms realise some improvements in their performance – which in turn enhances their survival capabilities. The next section will review these pressures and explain how institutional theory affects aspects such as innovation service excellence through the various changes managers of organisations undertake. Institutional theory change pressures As noted above, conforming to institutional norms is facilitated by coercive, normative and mimetic pressures – which are the sources of organisational change (Penttinen & Tuunainen 2009, p. 271). Coercive isomorphism is a result of an organisations undergoing institutionalised pressure from another entity or organisation upon which is it dependent, to act in a specified manner (Saarinen & Välimaa 2012, p. 52; Furusten 1999, p. 25; Mizruchi & Fein 1999, p. 657). Coercive pressure can be observed when powerful organisations compel other organisations that have less influence to act in conformity to certain behaviours and actions so as to receive legitimacy, benefits that come with gaining legitimacy (Furusten 1999, p. 25). When the management of an organisation submits to coercive pressures, it can be perceived to be displaying conscious obedience to the integration of norms values as well as other institutional requirements. The benefits that accrue to organisations that act in compliance with the said regulations can include legitimacy, increased resources as well as attainment of sanctioning and accreditation (Saarinen & Välimaa 2012, p. 52). For instance, managers of organisations can be promised that they will receive more resources to improve service excellence or innovation if they meet certain institutional requirements. Examples of areas where coercive pressures are usually applied include institutionalised environments whereby professional bodies, government agencies, and credential bodies outline specific standards and rules that organisations must comply with so as to receive certain benefits. For instance, in government organisations, parliament can set rules that define how resources are allocated to public organisations based on how these organisations utilise the resources that are allocated to them. The managements of the affected organisations will thus be under pressure to come up with management policy rules that ensure that the requirements are met so that their organisations can benefit from the resources that they need. In other organisations too, the management of one organisation can be compelled to ensure that their organisation acts in accordance with certain rules and place sanctions if this requirement is not met. For instance, a retailer can decline to stock a certain supplier’s merchandise if the supplier produces the goods under inhumane conditions or destroys the environment while in the process of producing the goods in question. From the foregoing discussion, it can be seen that coercive pressure emanates from power relations that are presented in different forms, which can be formal, informal, indirect or direct. The pressures also come from different entities. What matters is how the managements of the affected organisations react to the various sources of power and the impact that the resultant change makes on the organisation. Apart from government coercive pressure that come from government mandates, there are also less direct and less formal types of coercive pressures, which can include ethical considerations or cultural expectations. What is important is that the entity that is the source of the coercive pressure must have measures to ensure constant observation and monitoring of the organisation to which pressure is being applied to ensure compliance with the desired requirements. Turning to normative pressures, these forms of pressure exist as a result of professionalism from particular organisational fields. Professionalism is a phenomenon that can be perceived as members in a particular occupation jointly giving meaning to the appropriate ways in which to undertake certain actions (Johnston 2013, p. 40). This is premised on the theory that individuals who are acting in a certain profession usually have some cultural behaviours and norms that are related to their occupation. Consequently, individuals within a certain occupation are more likely to have similar characteristics and traits, as a way of exhibiting their legitimacy. Normative pressure is imparted through the relevant norms that educational organisations disseminate to students via formal education, and through and individual’s connection with professional networks (Penttinen & Tuunainen 2009, p. 271). Thus in terms of management, managers of organizations have a duty to ensure that their employees adhere to the normative principles that are imparted top them both in learning institutions and at the place of work. For instance, managers need to constantly need to ensure that their employees are in touch with the requirements of their profession through retraining, involvement in workshops and professional training seminars, reading trade magazines and other related approaches. These sources of normative pressure are crucial in ensuring the development of organisational values and norms among professional managers or organisations as well as employees (Johnston 2013, p. 40; Penttinen & Tuunainen 2009, p. 271). The last form of the pressures that are responsible for organisational change is mimetic pressures. Mimetic pressure emanates from the fact that organisations have a tendency to model themselves on other organisations that are operating within their environment and which they consider to be legitimate and successful. Mimetic pressure thus leads organisations to copy or emulate successful best practices, remedies or solutions that have been adopted by other organisations. This copying or emulating what other organisations are doing has been considered to be as a result of the unpredictable environment in which many organisations operate. It is argued that when organisations are faced with a state of affairs in which the perceived appropriate course is not clear, they tend to mimic the actions of other organisations that they regard to be legitimate. The organisations that are being mimicked may not be aware that they are being modelled against, but they may just act merely as suitable sources of appropriate actions that the copying organisations may use. For instance, despite the challenges that are involved in offering government services online, many developing countries are coming up with online platforms through which can serve their citizens. Most of the models that the developing countries use are based on models that have been used by developed countries, and this thus show the mimetic pressure that developing country are experiencing to serve their citizens in a better way and more efficiently. According to Johnston (2013, p. 37), the advantage of organisations mimicking others is that such actions usually involve lows expenses in terms of resources. This is because the organisations that mimic others do not have to carry out research determine the impacts of a new systems on their performance they such impacts can be seen on the organisation that has already implemented the systems in questions. As well, the decisions that are derived from mimetic pressures are premised on offering a viable solution, involving little expense, to a problem that may be the outcome of an unclear action in an uncertain environment. Mimetic pressure is also seen when, for instance, a public sector commissioner’s view of good practice is shared and implemented among various public sector departments. In such a case, the view from the public sector commissioner becomes standardised and mimicked by various organisation in their effort to deliver excellent service to the public. There are also cases where organisations copy other organisations when they engage in practice such as downsizing to cope with difficult economic times. In such a case, the laying off of some employees may not be planned but may be seen as the best way to deal with the situation since another organisation that is deemed to have legitimacy has also implemented it. How institutional pressures affect top management commitment to service innovation and excellence Role of managers in ensuring service innovation and excellence The top management of any organisation undoubtedly plays a key role in ensuring that organisations innovate and provide excellent service to their clients. This role is embedded in the traditional functions of management, which are to plan, organise, staff the organisation, lead or direct and to control. To start with, managers have to plan for their organisations needs in terms of all types of resources what they the organisations need to achieve using these resources. They must also identify the different needs in the organisation and find ways of satisfying these needs. More importantly, managers must organise how to deploy the available resources in order to ensure that the resources are utilised to provide maximum benefits. The top management also has a role to staff the organisation and ensure that the employees are led in such a manner that that they embrace the organisation’s vision and objectives. This can be achieved by motivating the employees and rewarding them for their performance. As noted by Beevers (2006, p. 7), good human resource management is critical to the delivery of service in public organisation. In particular, the tope management needs to be cognisant of this fact by fostering a culture that pays attention to recruitment processes, planning for career development, performance measurement, as well as having reward systems for employees. It is also argued that rewarding employees for their performance motivates them and gives them a reason to pay more attention to excellent customer service as well as the organisation’s commitment to excellence (Beevers 2006, p. 7). As well, the to management staff are responsible for ensuring that the organisation meets its goals by ensuring that employees actually achieve the targets that have been set for them. Many authors have written by the role that management plays in ensuring that organisation meet their goals of innovations and providing excellent service of products to customers. For instance, it is argued that top management teams play a critical role in the process of searching for acquiring the knowledge that organisations require in order to attain their objectives. This is achieved when the top management teams facilitate the searching for and acquiring of new knowledge, which is then used within the organisation to make better strategic resolutions, to innovate and to help the organisation to grow (Li et al. 2013, p. 893). The study by Li et al. (2013) looked at top management’s attention to innovation by analysis how information search initiated by managers can spur the innovations and creation of new products. The authors argue that search is the “controlled and proactive process of attending to, examining, and evaluating new knowledge and information” (p. 893). They also suggest that many previous research studies have shown how firms come up with new products organically by searching for new information. Li et al. (2013, p. 893) point out that unfamiliar search terrains may be beneficial in terms of getting new information that is required for innovation. In explaining this statement, the authors opine that organisations that look for information further away and from unique what they already have in their knowledge base come up with novel products at a faster rate. Another point that the same authors put forward is that organisational search has a tendency to be problem-oriented, simple minded, and local; and that only when simple and local search efforts fail will the search process be expanded into new terrains t make it more complicated. This can be related to the notion of mimetic pressure, where organisations tend to ape what others are doing. The same explains why organisations will try to find simple solutions to problems before trying new and untested concepts. The top management also has a role to motivate the employees of an organisation to be innovative and to generate new ideas for the organisation. In their paper evaluating how managers’ experience is related to innovation and productivity, Daveri and Parisi (2015, p. 890) argue that the amount of managerial experience affects innovation and productivity. In particular, the authors suggest that businesses that led conservative senior managers are likely to be less inclined innovation and increasing productivity compared with their competitors that are more open to innovation. For instance, conservative manages are less inclined to embrace the use of new technologies such as those related to the use of the Internet. It is a known fact that innovation and productivity are depended on research and cash flow (Daveri & Parisi 2015, p. 891). As well, research and development enhance a firm’s innovation as well as productivity by facilitating the development of new products and by making it possible to adopt technologies that developed in other companies and countries (Daveri & Parisi 2015, p. 891). Cash flow has also been found to be crucial in helping avoid liquidity problems that obstruct the growth of yet to be developed innovations at their infancy stage (Daveri & Parisi 2015, p. 891). All these points are within the ambit of managers roles since managers have to sure that enough resources are allocated for research and development so as to guarantee high productivity. Managers also need to put in place policies to ensure that their organisations do not face cash flow problems, especially with the regard to the areas of research and development in order to ensure that new projects and initiated and followed up to completion. The top management of any organisation also shows its commitment to service innovation and excellence through the planning and control functions. According to Pinheiro (2010, p. 1), the success of any project depends on the effective use of human and financial resources. While managing innovation projects, managers also need to have project management frameworks that are supported by the senior management, as well as controls that span the project management spectrum of commencement, execution, monitoring, measurement of performance and control and conclusion. The control function of management in any company project can be accomplished by means of the project management plan, use of a project-matrix organisation, support of motivated and competent people as well as appropriate management techniques and tools (Pinheiro 2010, p. 1). The success of any innovation project to enhance service delivery and productivity depends on how well the top management is able to utilise the resources that are available. Moreover, the top management must be able to organise how the people that are available are going to accomplish the tasks and motivate them to do so. Two factors are important in this regard how the management deals with the employees and how the organisation uses its organisational design to manage the different tasks. When it comes to managing people, Pinheiro (2010, p. 1) argues that people are the most important aspect of any project management process and the means through which controls are started, executed and managed. For any project to be successful, an organisation’s must possess not just the required skills, qualifications, and experience for the task, but must also have work ethics and personality traits that are in line with the organisations culture and values (Daveri & Parisi 2015, p. 892; Pinheiro 2010, p. 5). Managers must be able to determine how to use the employees’ skills and experience in the best way possible. This can be achieved if the managers understand how best to motivate the employees through factors such as offering awards and recognition based on performance, availing opportunities for training and development, providing a comfortable work environment, offering tasks that are challenging, having employee-friendly work policies, involving employee in the decision making process and so on (Pinheiro 2010, p. 6). More importantly, managers must be guided by motivation theories such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Herzberg’s two factor theory, skinner’s behaviour modification/reinforcement theory, Vroom’s performance expectation theory, Mayo’s Hawthorne effect, and McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, McClelland’s need theory, equity theory and expectancy theory among others (Ramlall 2004; Pinheiro 2010, p. 6; Gagne & Deci 2005). Organisational design also plays an important role in innovation and service excellence (Pinheiro 2010, p. 6), and hence, managers must pay close attention to the concept. It is noted that over time, organisations have undergone changes to make their organisations design by removing some levels of hierarchy. The aim of this is to increase interactions and cooperation between members so as to increase efficiency in the attainment of an organisation’s goals. According to Pinheiro (2010, p. 6), a cross-functional project-matrix format of organisation is appropriate for organisations that are involved in innovation since it facilitates top down communication by interlinking people and functions and activities, enhances simultaneous discovery of ideas and reduces decision making time, allows disengagement of members of an organisation and their deployment to other tasks when opportunities arise, maximises use of human resources by pacing each employee where he/she fits most, and provides employees with opportunities for self-development, which enhances they job satisfaction and motivation. This view is supported in another research study, where it is noted that organisational practices such as problem-solving groups, project teams, and job rotation promote learning as well as exchange of knowledge, which are can make significant contributions to innovation and productivity (Jensen et al. 2007, p. 684). As well, Gann and Salter (2000) notes that firms are able to innovate and improve service drlivery whan they are able to apply concepts that integrate project and business practices within their operations. Institutions’ role in managers’ commitment to service innovation and excellence As noted above, institutions are the cornerstone of organisation’s operations. As noted by Edquist (2011, p. 5), with respect to innovation, organisations are actors or players, whereas institutions are the rules that guide the processes the organisations undertake. Overall, Geels (2004, p. 905) has identified three kinds of institutions or rules that managers have of organisations have to observe in their commitment to service innovation and excellence. These rules can be seen as the mainstay of the normative and mimetic pressures that affect the making of change in organisations. Based on Overall, Geels (2004, p. 905), the three categories of institutions are regulative, normative and cognitive. Under regulative rules, it is argue that examples of such institutions include formal laws, rules, sanctions, reward and cost structures, incentive structures, power systems, governance systems, standard and procedures and protocol among others (Geels 2004, p. 905). The basis of compliance to the aforementioned rules is expedience, meaning that managers have to abide by these rules for the benefit of their organisations. For instance, is an organisations has to implement a certain system in order to attain service excellence, then the top management has not other alternative but to seek ways to implement the required systems in order to attain the intended objectives. The idea behind regulative rules is that they are aimed at creating stability within an organisations and ensuring that organisations comply with the rules of the game. As well, regulative rules are legally sanctioned. Therefore, managers have to show their organisations’ commitment to the existing rules, which ultimately exhibits their legitimacy, by complying with the necessary regulative rules. Normative rules on the other hand include norms, values, role expectations, codes of conduct, as well as authority systems (Geels 2004, p. 905). As noted by Berrone et al. (2013, pp. 894), normative influences in general emanate from professional organisations as well as other important social actors, which are involved in defining appropriate behaviour as well as standard for the members of certain groups. In addition, these norms, which are oftentimes implicit, are associated with the issue of legitimacy. More importantly, in their pursuit for legitimacy, organisations try to make comparisons between what they are doing and what other are doing as well as what the required norms stipulate. Along this line, managers have a duty to ensure that their organisations play the roles that they are supposed to pay in the society. Therefore, they should strive to what is good for the wider community, since failing to do can lead to the organisations in question being vilified by the community. As such, managers when focusing on innovation, managers should aim at improving services, enhancing productivity or improving the quality of products for the benefit of the organisation’s stakeholders. The decisions that are made by managers from a normative view of institutions are based on concepts such as doing what is right abidance by what is permitted and avoiding violations of any principles that guide organisations (p. 1-2). More importantly, top managers should focus on ensuring that their organisations are relevant in the communities where they operate by becoming part of the wider society. That is, any efforts at improving service delivery and innovation should be premised on doing what is morally accepted and bringing positive change to the community or society in which the organisations operates. One study that was conducted by Berrone et al. (2013) gives an example of how normative rules influence managers’ commitment to innovation and service excellence in their organisation, especially in matter to do with the environment. This study drew upon literature on institutional theory and innovation, and from their findings, the authors have argued that when there are greater normative and regulatory pressures concerning environmental issues, the situation tends to positively affect firms’ proclivity to be involved in innovations that are aimed at environmental conservation and protection. The study involved an analysis of environment-related patents of 362 firms that traded publicly and which were operating in the polluting industries in the US. The findings by Berrone et al. (2013, p. 891) also show that institutional pressures can instigate innovations that are aimed at protecting the environment. It is also shown in the same study that firms that were initially doing poorly with respect to protecting the environment by reducing pollution can do better with increased normative and regulatory pressures. This means that increased pressure on firms to abide by the existing rules of professionalism in their areas of operation can make the firms to innovate more. More importantly, Berrone et al. (2013, p. 891) also suggest that the level of innovation that firms can engage in is determined by the availability of resources to support such innovation. In regard to cognitive rules, it is argued that such rules or institutions are based on priorities, beliefs, problem agendas, models of reality, and bodies of knowledge among other factors (Geels 2004, p. 905). Cognition also includes the cultural elements that preside over choice, in most cases not involving conscious thought (Berrone et al. (2013, p. 893). Ideally, top managers in organisations will try to learn from what is happening in the society in order to determine how to innovate to improve service delivery. Hence, cognitive rules are based on mimetic behaviour, learning and imitation. For instance, managers can try to solve the problems in their organisations by looking at what other organisations have done to solve similar problems in their own settings. Such rules are perceived to be conceptually correct since they are based on what has been implemented in other organisations. Most importantly, managers must rely on the stipulations that have been institutionalised in their organisations in regard to using ideas that are borrowed from outside the organisations. Institutional pressures and public service innovation and excellence Innovation in the public sector can be perceived to be occurring in a number as suggested by Windrum (2008). The first feature of public service innovation is that service innovation involves the offering of a new service or enabling and improvement in the quality of a service that already exists. Service innovation can also be seen in terms of service delivery innovation, which involved new or modified ways of providing public services. The third aspect is that service innovation can involve organisational and administrative innovation, which involves changes in routine and organisational structures. Service innovation in the public sector also involves conceptual innovation, which encompasses the development of new views and challenging existing assumptions. Service innovation can also be in terms of policy innovation, in which there are changes to behavioural intentions and thinking, finally, service innovation can be in the form of systemic innovation, in which case there are new or improved approaches of interacting with other stakeholders such as other organisations and other sources of knowledge (European Commission 2013, pp. 8-9). Based on the above features of service innovation in the public sector, the concept (public service innovation) has been defined as “an innovation is a new or significantly improved service, communication method, process or organisational method” (European Commission 2013, p. 9). It can also be noted from the above points that there are some differences between innovation as perceived in the private sector and the same concept as perceived in the public sector. For instance, public sector organisations mostly offer services, hence their innovation is largely related to services, as opposed to private sector organisations, which also produce services. Therefore while there is product innovation in the private sector, to a large extent, there is service innovation in public sector (it important to note that there are also public sector organisations that produce products). Process innovation and organisational innovations are similar in both private and public sector organisations. However, while in the private sector there is the concept of marketing innovation, the concept that denotes the same phenomenon in the public sector is communication innovation (European Commission 2013, p. 9). Public sector organisations mostly innovate along the lines of new methods of communication and improved processes of organisational methods. New or considerably improved methods of communication with the public include new or perked up strategies of promoting an organisation or new services that it offers, new or better ways of influencing the behaviour citizens or other users, or the initial commercial of services (or goods). New or considerable improved organisational methods or processes include new or better methods of offering services or facilitating interactions with users, improved or new delivery logistics for the inputs that and organisations uses, improved or new supporting activities like purchasing systems, maintenance, accounting and computing systems, improved or new systems of management, or improved or new methods of decision making or managing work responsibilities (European Commission 2013, p. 9). Many arguments have been offered to explain why organisations, and particularly public sector organisations, engage in change and innovation processes. On one hand, it is argued that change has become an important process, and that organisation’s characteristics have to change over time in order to pursue better organisational performance (for instance attaining higher effectiveness or efficiency) (Ashworth, Boyne & Delbridge 2007, p. 1). This view is based on growing literature on organisational performance and public management. Some of these studies have tested the effect of public management on service delivery, and the assumption has been that new organisational processes lead to better results. However, an alternative view is offered by the institutional theory, which proffer that the main objective of organisational change is not to achieve better substantive performance but to increase legitimacy (Ashworth, Boyne & Delbridge 2007, p. 1; Brignall & Modell 2000, p. 288). Put in another way, organisations change their internal attributes so as to conform to the expectations of the main stakeholders in the immediate environment. By doing this repeatedly, organisations are able to create rules and norms which are deemed acceptable in the organisation. Consequently, organisations that operate in the same field tend to have similar characteristics since the expectations of the stakeholder in the environment are nearly similar (Ashworth, Boyne & Delbridge 2007, pp. 1-2). Thus, based on the institutional theory, it can be argued that that pressures on public sectors organisations to improve service excellence and innovation and mainly arises from the citizens who use government services in one way or another. Institutional logics that affect on service excellence in government Based on a study that was conducted by Wanjau, Muiruri and Ayodo (2012, p. 119), that factors that affect service excellence in the provision of government service include customer’s perception of service quality, the capacity of employees to provide the required services, the technology that is available, the types of communication channels that are used, and the financial resources that the different government organisations have, each of these factors is explained in details in the following sections. The service quality dimension is pegged on the point that customers’ experiences determine how customers perceive the services that they receive in any organisation. Based on the service quality model, customers depend on five aspects that define the service that they receive. These are market communication, word of mouth, image, customer learning and customer needs. Additionally, experiences depend on the functional quality (how the service is delivered and the process that is followed) and the technical quality (what is being offered and the outcome), which are filtered by the image (the person). Both customers’ experiences and expectations can elicit a perception gap. The gap model alludes that the expected service is affected by factors such as word of mouth, a person’s need, past experience while using another service, and the external communication that is made by an organisation to customers. Based on this, a perception gap can be developed between the expected service and the perceived level of service. As noted by Hadiyati (2014, p. 106), in case the perceived service and the expected service are equal, then the service if perceived positively or well. However, in case the perceived service exceeds the expected service, the then quality of the service that is being offered is regarded to be of ideal quality. Conversely, if the perceived service is lower than the anticipated service, then the service quality of said to be poor or bad. The capacity of an organisation’s employees to offer the desired level of service also affects excellence in service provision. Notably, highly skilled staff such as nurses, administrators, physicians, clerks, accountants, and ancillary staff and so forth are crucial to offering high quality services in any government organisation. Hence, government institutions must use selective hiring process in order to get the best talent. As well, successful recruitment needs to be followed by application of measures to ensure retention and further training and development of the employees to ensure that they deliver excellent service to the public. Technology also affects services delivery in public sector organisations since like any other organisation, public sector organisations too have to embrace the use of technology. It has also been noted that making use of information technology is critical in enhancing the level of service delivery in public sector organisations (Wanjau, Muiruri & Ayodo 2012, p. 118). Technology is particularly important since it can be used to enhance the speed of service delivery and hence improve the legitimacy of public sector organisations, in accordance with the institutional theory. Another institutional issue that affects public sector service excellence is the communication channels that are established within the organisation. According to Wanjau, Muiruri and Ayodo (2012, p. 118), communication is the most crucial aspect of service delivery in any setting since the public always expect their questions regarding any service to be answered promptly. As well, a organisation is regarded to be responsive if it communicates timely to its clients and gives them an assurance of when their problems will be dealt with. Therefore any public sector organisation that establishes a reliable and efficient communication system with the members of the public is likely to be perceived more positively by the community and the rest of the society. In contrast, it can be said that an organisation that lacks an effective communication system will perceived negatively by the public, and this is likely to make it lose its legitimacy among the members of the public. Turning to financial resources it is argues that in many service organisations, financial management has been an obstacle to other functions that play a role in the delivery of services to clients. Financial resources are required in order for organisations to manage their operations and innovate, but they must also be used prudently in order to achieve the required targets. Public sector organisations are under institutional pressures to operate within the rules of financial management that have been established. One approach that has been suggested to deal with such problems is the ‘enlightened’ approach to financial management. This approach involves a more participative style where members of the public are involved in all aspects of the public organisations such as strategic planning, designing of costing system, quality control and motivation of personnel. In addition, public sector organisations need to follow requirements of financial accountability such as auditing, monitoring, as well as accounting mechanism that have been outlined by the respective country’s institutional and legal framework (Wanjau, Muiruri & Ayodo 2012, p. 119). How service quality and innovation are moderated by organisational slack Overview of organisational slack As was noted earlier, service excellence and innovation in public sector is affected by the institutional pressures that the organisation faces, the role that is played by the top management in ensuring that the organisation or departments achieves its objects, and organisational slack. As noted in the introduction, of this paper, organisational slack refers to a situation where an organisation has more resources that it needs to fulfil its present needs. Several authors have also defined this concept in different ways. For instance, Nohria and Gulati (1996, p. 1246) define ‘slack’ as the pool of resources that an organisation has which is in excess of the minimum amount that the organisation needs to produce a certain level or organisational output. On the other hand Sok and O’Cass (2015, p. 141) note that slack resources are the “excessive utilizable resources (i.e. financial and human resources) firms possess for further investment”. On their part, Yang, Chou and Chiu (2014, p. 155) quote the definition of slack as “the difference between total resources and total necessary payments”. In all these definitions, what comes out clearly is that slack refers to what an organisation has in terms of resources that is in excess of what the organisation actually needs in order to carry out is operations. Implications of slack for innovation in an organisation There are several arguments as to whether slack is good or bad for an organisation, especially with respect to the organisations operations such as research and development and innovation. To start with, it can be argued that too much or too little organisation is bad thing as it can result in lack of competitive advantage lack of a competitive advantage and organisational stress. For instance, when an organisation has too many resources that are not used, this means that the organisation is not performing optimally in regard to the resources that it has at its disposal. For example, the organisations could be having too many employees, some of whom do not have clearly defined roles but earn salaries from the organisation’s resources. An organisation could also be having financial resources and other assets that are not used fully, meaning that the organisation fails to take advantage of all the resource that it has to gain a competitive advantage. Too much slack in an organisation also lead to wastage of time and other resources since it makes it more time consuming to plan for the organisation’s operations based on the resources that are being used and those that exist as slack resources (Handy 2011). As the same time, when an organisation has too lean resources, the situation can lead to scenarios such as having very limited resources for research and development and innovation, burnouts and stress among employees due to the fact that there are fewer employees against a lot of work to be done, and susceptibility to shocks since the organisations does not have other resources that it can hold on to during difficult times. Handy (2011) also agues that slack conceal any problems that an organisations might be having such as linkages between various processes within the organisation. Many studies on the concept of organisational slack have highlighted the potential benefits of the concept. To start with, it is argued that slack resources may seem to make an organisation inefficient in the short run, but in the longer term, slack is necessary for an organisation’s survival as well as long-term effectiveness (Senaratne & Sexton 2011). The significance of Senaratne and Sexton’s (2011) assertion can be seen when one looks at some of the disadvantages of slack as discussed above. For instance, having slack resources means underutilized resources will affect an organisation’s competitiveness negatively in the short long run. However, in the long term, Senaratne and Sexton’s (2011) are of the view that slack will be beneficial to the organisation in question. As such, the two authors, based on a review of various sources of literature, argue that it is imperative that an organisation retains some slack resources, without committing all of them for immediate output, so that they can be readily available for use when the organisation needs them. This view is supported by Sok and O’Cass (2015, p. 141), who point out that the when an organisation posses slack resources, these resources are critical in that they embody a competitive factors for the organization in terms of other activities that the organisation perform in the future. The two authors note for instance that operations such as exploration and exploitation of new methods of doing a certain activity are part of the organisational processes that require supporting resources – and this is where the slack resources come in handy. The same authors also argue that based on this line of reasoning, organisations need to pursue simultaneous development of new resources by getting involved in a high level of exploration and making improvements in the current services through exploitation at a high level – all of which call upon the organisations in question to have slack resources. More importantly, it is argued that the decisions that managers make in regard to innovation and within the organisation will be influenced by the availability of slack resources. This is arguably because innovation is a time- and resource-consuming activity that must be supported by resources from the start to completion of the project. Along this line, it can be said that an organisation will d well in terms of innovation when it has slack resources to support the innovative processes over any given period of time. While discussing the relevance of slack to an organisation’s innovation process, Nohria and Gulati (1997) note that both opponents and advocates of slack agree that the phenomenon enhances experimentation as well as pursuing of new projects. The authors assert that in order for innovation to occur, organisations must deal with the ambiguity that is associated with coming up with innovative projects. They argue that the vagueness that surrounds new projects (for instance whether they will in deed be implemented and are appropriate and whether they will fail or succeed) makes it difficult to precisely determine the NPV (net present value) of such projects. Along this line, it is important to note that in order any innovation to be successful, there must be persistence and patient from all players involved, including the top management of the organisation, so as to deal with the uncertainty. In tandem with this point is that fact that slack frees up managerial attention to uncertainty since the managers of an organisation can rest assured that even when an innovation is uncertain, the organisation can still sustain it using the slack resources that are available. The opposite of slack or is that organisation that have little slack or no excess resources at all at their disposal will have the their management’s attention focused on short-terms achievements and performance instead of innovative projects that make an impact for the organisation in the longer-term (Nohria & Gulati 1997, p. 32). Thus, the availability of slack resources can arguably augment the number of new projects that an organisation can undertake. However to counter this view, it is also noted that slack can cause an increase in lack of discipline in regard to the use of resources. This is because as slack increases, the managers of an organisation may perceive the situation to be too comfortable for experimentation that could lead to innovation. Hence, new projects may be funded just because there are resources to support the process, and this could lead to bad projects being implemented which may be disastrous for the organisation in the long run. Specifically, Nohria and Gulati (1997, p. 33) suggest that the laid-back attitude towards discipline in the management of resources because of slack may result in scenario where there is an increase in both Type I and Type II errors. Type I errors are issues to do with opting to run a project that should not have been funded in the first place. On the other hand, Type II errors involve stopping projects that would ideally have needed to be continued. Such confusion can be tied together with Handy’s (2011) argument that slack conceal any problems that an organisation is facing as noted earlier in this discussion, since the negative sides of certain projects or activities within the organisation may not be realised immediately because of the cover provided by the existing slack resources. References Ashworth, R, Boyne, G & Delbridge, R 2007, ‘Escape from the iron cage? Organizational change and isomorphic pressures in the public sector’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, pp. 1-23. Beevers, R 2006, Customer service excellence in the public sector, Northern Housing Consortium, Sunderland. Berrone, 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. Brignall, S & Modell, S 2000, ‘An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’’, Management Accounting Research, vol. 11, pp. 281-306. Currie, WL 2010, ‘The policy- practice nexus of electronic health records adoption in the UK NHS: an institutional analysis’, Proceedings of tGov Workshop “10 (tGOV10) March 18 – 19 2010, Brunel University, West London. Daft, RL 2007, Organization theory and design, 9th edn, Thomas Higher Education, Mason, OH. Dubai Smart Government 2015, Government entities, viewed 10 August 2015, Edquist, C 2011, ‘Innovation policy design: identification of systemic problems’, Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE), Paper no. 2011/06, Lund University, Sweden. European Commission 2013, European public sector innovation scoreboard 2013: a pilot exercise, viewed 8 August 2015, Furusten, S 1999, Popular management books: how they are made and what they mean for organisations, Routledge, London. Gagne, M & Deci, EL 2005, ‘Self-determination theory and work motivation’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol. 26, pp. 331-362. Gann, DM & Salter, AJ 2000, ‘Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems’, Research Policy, vol. 29, pp. 955-972. Hadiyati, E 2014, ‘Service Quality and performance of public sector: study on immigration office in Indonesia’, International Journal of Marketing Studies, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 104-117. Handy, C 2011, Gods of management: the changing work of organisations, Souvenir Press, London. Johnston, M 2013, Mimetic, coercive and normative influences and the decision of national sport organisations to bid for world championship events (Master’s thesis), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland. Kramsch, C 2014, ‘Identity, role and voice in cross-cultural (mis)communication’, in J House, G Kasper & S Ross (eds), Misunderstanding in social life: discourse approaches to problematic talk, Routledge, New York, pp.129-153. Labitzke, G, Svoboda, S & Schultz, C 2014, ‘The role of dedicated innovation functions for innovation process control and performance – an empirical study among hospitals’, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 235-251. Li, Q, Maggitti, PG, Smith, KG, Tesluk, PE & Katila, R 2013, ‘Top management attention to innovation: the role of search selection and intensity in new product introductions’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 893-916. Mizruchi, MS & Fein, LC 1999, ‘The social construction of organisational knowledge: a study of the uses of coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, pp. 653-683. Najeeb, A 2014, ‘Institutional theory and human resource management’, in H Hasan (eds), being practical with theory: a window into business research (pp. 25-30), viewed 6 August 2015, 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?: a study of the relationship between slack and innovation in multinational firms’. Penttinen, E & Tuunainen, VK 2009, ‘Assessing the effect of external pressure in inter-organisational IS adoption – case electronic invoicing’, in R Sharman, HR Rao, TS Raghu (eds), ‘Exploring the grand challenges for next generation e-business’, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 269- 282. Pinheiro, AB 2010, ‘How do managers control technology-intensive work?’, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1-12. Ramanathan, TR 2008, The role of organisational change management in offshore outsourcing of information technology services: qualitative case studies from a multinational pharmaceutical company, Dissertation.com, Boca Raton, FL. Ramlall, S 2004, ‘A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organisations’, Journal of American Academy of Business, vol. 5, no. 1/2, pp. 52-63. Saarinen, T & Välimaa, J 2012, ‘Change as an intellectual device and as an object of research’, in B Stensaker, J Välimaa & C Sarrico (eds), Managing reform in universities: the dynamics of culture, identity and organisational change, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 41-62. Scott, W 2008, Institutions and organisations: ideas and interests, SAGE Publications Ltd, London. Senaratne, S & Sexton M 2011, Managing change in construction projects: a knowledge-based approach, Wiley-Blackwell, New York. 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. Tolbert, PS & Zucker, LG 1996, ‘The institutionalization of institutional theory’, in S Clegg, C Hardy & W Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies, SAGE, London, pp. 175-190. Wanjau,K, Muiruri, BM & Ayodo, E 2012, ‘Factors affecting provision of service quality in the public health sector: a case of Kenyatta National Hospital’, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 2, no. 13, pp. 114-125. Wiseman, E 2007, ‘The institutionalization of organizational learning: a neoinstitutional perspective’, Proceedings of OLKC 2007 – “Learning Fusion” Conference, Thursday, June 14 to Sunday, June 17, 2007, Ontario, Canada, viewed 10 August 2015, Yang, K-P, Chou, C & Chiu, Y-J 2014, ‘How unlearning affects radical innovation: The dynamics of social capital and slack resources’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, vol. 87, pp. 152–163. Read More