Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 233

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Communication and Motivational Predictors of the Dynamics of Organizational Innovation

Monge, Peter R., Cozzens, Michael D., Contractor, Noshir S.·1992·Organization Science

Abstract

This paper reports on research designed to test a dynamic model of the causes of organizational innovation. Two communication variables (level of information and group communication) and three motivational variables (perceptions of equity, expectations of benefits, and perceived social pressure) were derived from equity theory, expectancy theory and the theory of reasoned action. These variables were used to predict the number of innovative ideas contributed by members of the organizations. Weekly data were collected for over a year from five firms and were analyzed with multivariate time series techniques. The results indicated that the communication variables were causes of organizational innovation but the motivational variables were not. Across the five firms, the variance explained by the model ranged from a low of 30 percent to a high of 78 percent. In four of the five firms, the forecast accuracy for the amount of individual innovation ranged from a low of 77 percent to a high of 85 percent.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.3.2.250

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Monge, P. R., Cozzens, M. D., & Contractor, N. S.
Venue
Organization Science
Published
1992-05
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
250-274
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
OpenAlex
W2009182761
Cited by
233
References
2
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.