The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Managerial innovation has gained increased popularity in research and practice because of its positive effects on organisational renewal and performance. Regardless of the growing number of studies on management innovation, there is still a lack of research that integrates and synthesises this body of knowledge. This study undertakes a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to gain insight into existing empirical studies on management innovation. Our content analysis and review of 66 studies from 1981 to 2017 analyses the trends and background of research into management innovation. In addition, we develop a model of management innovation grounded in selected theoretical lenses to advance our understanding of the different drivers, moderators, mediators and outcomes of management innovation. Results of the meta-analysis show that management innovation is positively related to organisational size (rc = .282), knowledge management (rc = 0.608), organisational learning (rc = 0.692), firms’ overall performance (rc = 0.393), and financial performance (rc = 0.269). Finally, we have identified several research gaps and provided a future research agenda in the context of managerial innovation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207 · Cited by 3,026
Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x · Cited by 1,747
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x · Cited by 1,296
Cavanagh, S. (1997) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr.4.3.5.s2 · Cited by 1,133
Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.013 · Cited by 442
SCHMIDT, F. L., SHAFFER, J. A., & OH, I. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00132.x · Cited by 190
Blut, M., Frennea, C. M., Mittal, V., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2015) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.01.001 · Cited by 21
Cited by
Safaei, M., Sundararajan, E. A., Driss, M., Boulila, W., & Shapi'i, A. (2021) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104754 · Cited by 720
A mixed-methods study of CEO transformational leadership and firm performance
Jensen, M., Potočnik, K., & Chaudhry, S. (2020) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2020.05.004 · Cited by 111
Acceptance of 5 G technology: Mediation role of Trust and Concentration
Akbari, M., Rezvani, A., Shahriari, E., Zúñiga, M. Á., & Pouladian, H. (2020) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101585 · Cited by 72
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Khosravi, P., Newton, C., & Rezvani, A.
- Venue
- European Management Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 694-707
- ISSN
- 0263-2373 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2922227222
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 5.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
- The paper
- Khosravi, P., Newton, C., & Rezvani, A. (2019). Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
