|
|
|
| Enterprise Digital Transformation, Employees' Digital Cognition and Innovation Performance: Is Technology the Knife,While I am the Lamb to Slaughter? |
| Ma Jun,Guo Mingjie |
| (School of Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China ) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Because of the developing digital economy and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the information and communication technologies play an increasingly prominent role in enterprise innovation, such as big data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence and Internet of Things. Digital transformation(DT) has become a strategic adjustment direction for enterprises to improve innovation performance and reduce costs and optimize services. But some enterprises undergoing DT find it difficult to give full play to the potential advantages of digital economy due to obstacles such as weak transformation ability, high transformation cost and long performance improvement cycle. They meet with problems of poor performance in the early stage of DT or weak improvement in the later stage. This is also called the DT paradox which is similar to the IT productivity paradox and the new digital economy paradox. According to the digitalization practices of global enterprises, the DT paradox can be summarized into three cases: (1)DT cannot improve enterprise performance; (2)it is conducive to performance improvement in the early stage, but its effect is not obvious or even negative in the later stage; (3)DT does not improve enterprise performance at the beginning, but it is good for improving performance after its downturn. The third case is most popular in China, namely the downturn of digital transformation. So how to resolve the DT paradox and tide over the downturn has become a major issue. However, the existing studies about digital innovation cannot yet elaborate on the role of employees' cognition in the process by which new technologies affect innovation output. It is difficult for researchers to systematically explain the causes and countermeasures of DT paradox. Hence, guided by the IT capability theory, social cognitive theory and social identity theory, this paper aims to clarify the relationship between DT and enterprise innovation performance from the perspective of employees' digital cognition.#br#This paper obtains 8 785 unbalanced panel data of 1 403 listed companies by screening all Chinese A-share listed companies from 2011 to 2020. The nonlinear effect of DT on innovation performance is tested by using the two-way fixed-effect model and a series of robustness tests are conducted by changing the measurement method of variables, adjusting the sample range, and using instrumental variable analysis. Then the effect of employees' digital cognition is tested, and the effect is the abbreviation of employees' cognition of the results of DT on nonlinear relations. Employees' digital cognition generally includes employees' cognition of whether DT improves their own interests or organizational performance, and it is characterized by employees' personal digital cognition(PDC) and organizational digital cognition(ODC). When employees are engaged in the DT, they tend to form a comparative cognition by comparing their corporate performance with other enterprises in their daily work or network interactions,and then this cognition may influence their behavior and performance. The moderating effect of ODC is tested by introducing interaction terms between DT and ODC.#br#The results show that there is a U-shaped relationship between DT and innovation performance. Namely, there is a downturn in the DT process of enterprises. The turning point from decline to rise is about 0.7 million yuan for those companies with non-zero DT assets. It is shown that PDC plays a partial mediating role in U-shaped relationship and ODC moderates the U-shaped relationship. PDC does play a mediating role in the latter stage, but not in the first stage. ODC can result in the turning point moving left and make the U-shaped relationship more steep.#br#By integrating the IT capability theory, social cognitive theory and social identity theory , this study analyzes the possible path of enterprise digital innovation from the perspective of employees' digital cognition. It takes the Chinese listed companies as the research object, confirms the existence of U-shaped relationship and reveals the mediating role of PDC and the moderating effect of ODC on the relationship between DT and innovation performance. Enterprises are suggested to optimize employees' digital cognition from PDC and ODC and apply digital technology to create a good employee cognitive climate which is beneficial to organizational innovation.#br#
|
|
Received: 25 May 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] NAMBISAN S, WRIGHT M, FELDMAN M. The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: progress, challenges and key themes [J]. Research Policy, 2019, 48(8): 1037731-1037739.
[2] YOO Y, HENFRIDSSON O, LYYTINEN K. Research commentary——the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research[J]. Information Systems Research, 2010, 21(4): 724-735.
[3] LUSCH R F, NAMBISAN S. Service innovation: a service-dominant logic perspective[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2015, 39(1): 155-175.
[4] BOGERS M, CHESBROUGH H, MOEDAS C. Open innovation: research, practices, and policies[J]. California Management Review, 2018, 60(2): 5-16.
[5] YANG C, HUANG Q, LI Z, et al. Big data and cloud computing: innovation opportunities and challenges[J]. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2017, 10(1): 13-53.
[6] MIKALEF P, GUPTA M. Artificial intelligence capability: conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance[J]. Information&Management, 2021, 58(1): 1034341-10343420.
[7] 刘淑春,闫津臣,张思雪,等. 企业管理数字化变革能提升投入产出效率吗[J]. 管理世界,2021,37(5): 170-190.
[8] GEBAUER H, FLEISCH E, LAMPRECHT C, et al. Growth paths for overcoming the digitalization paradox[J]. Business Horizons, 2020, 63(3): 313-323.
[9] NAMBISAN S, LYYTINEN K, MAJCHRZAK A, et al. Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2017, 41(1): 223-238.
[10] VIAL G. Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda[J]. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2019, 28(2): 118-144.
[11] 闫俊周,姬婉莹,熊壮. 数字创新研究综述与展望[J]. 科研管理,2021,42(4): 11-20.
[12] 谢卫红,李忠顺,李秀敏,等. 数字化创新研究的知识结构与拓展方向[J]. 经济管理,2020,42(12): 184-202.
[13] HESS T, MATT C, BENLIAN A, et al. Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy[J]. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2016, 15(2): 123-139.
[14] COLBERT A, YEE N, GEORGE G. The digital workforce and the workplace of the future[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2016, 59(3):731-739.
[15] 王海花,杜梅. 数字技术、员工参与与企业创新绩效[J]. 研究与发展管理,2021,33(1): 138-148.
[16] DAVIS F D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology[J]. MIS Quarterly, 1989, 13(3): 319-340.
[17] PARK N, RHOADS M, HOU J, et al. Understanding the acceptance of teleconferencing systems among employees: an extension of the technology acceptance model[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014, 39: 118-127.
[18] DELONE W H, MCLEAN E R. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable[J]. Information Systems Research, 1992, 3(1): 60-95.
[19] BHARADWAJ A S. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2000, 24(1): 169-196.
[20] 王才. 数字化转型对企业创新绩效的作用机制研究[J]. 当代经济管理,2021,43(3): 34-42.
[21] 黄节根,吉祥熙,李元旭. 数字化水平对企业创新绩效的影响研究——来自沪深A股上市公司的经验证据[J]. 江西社会科学,2021,41(5): 61-72,254.
[22] 何帆,刘红霞. 数字经济视角下实体企业数字化变革的业绩提升效应评估[J]. 改革,2019,32(4): 137-148.
[23] LI M, JIA S. Resource orchestration for innovation: the dual role of information technology[J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2018, 30(10): 1136-1147.
[24] KARHADE P P, DONG J Q. Information technology investment and commercialized innovation performance: dynamic adjustment costs and curvilinear impacts[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2021, 45(3): 1007-1024.
[25] 梁超,祝运海. 美的智造:传统制造业的数字化转型[J]. 清华管理评论,2019,10(9): 106-113.
[26] JONES T M. Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(2): 404-437.
[27] GARMANN-JOHNSEN N F, HELMERSEN M, EIKEBROKK T R. Employee-driven digitalization in healthcare: codesigning services that deliver[J]. Health Policy and Technology, 2020, 9(2): 247-254.
[28] MALIK N, TRIPATHI S N, KAR A K, et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on employees working in industry 4.0 led organizations[J]. International Journal of Manpower, 2021, 43(2): 334-354.
[29] KOHLI R, MELVILLE N P. Digital innovation: a review and synthesis[J]. Information Systems Journal, 2019, 29(1): 200-223.
[30] BANDURA A. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001, 52(1): 1-26.
[31] 黄俊,贾煜,秦颖,等. 员工感知的企业员工责任会激发员工创新行为吗——工作满足和工作投入的中介作用[J]. 科技进步与对策,2016,33(22): 116-121.
[32] KOZANOGLU D C, ABEDIN B. Understanding the role of employees in digital transformation: conceptualization of digital literacy of employees as a multi-dimensional organizational affordance[J]. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 2020, 34(6): 1649-1672.
[33] TAJFEL H, TURNER J. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict[J]. Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 1979, 33: 94-109.
[34] ASHFORTH B E, MAEL F. Social identity theory and the organization[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14(1):20-39.
[35] BANDURA A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory[M]. Englewood Cliifs: Prentice Hall, 1986.
[36] 冯根福,郑明波,温军,等. 究竟哪些因素决定了中国企业的技术创新——基于九大中文经济学权威期刊和A股上市公司数据的再实证[J]. 中国工业经济,2021,38(1): 17-35.
[37] EL A A, GOND J P, SWAEN V, et al. How do employees perceive corporate responsibility?development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale[J]. Journal of Management, 2018, 44(2): 619-657.
[38] 房国忠,张闯,陈佳颖. 员工社交媒介使用研究述评[J]. 中国人力资源开发,2020,37(4): 34-50,78.
[39] LIND J T, MEHLUM H. With or without U? the appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship[J]. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 2010, 72(1): 109-118.
[40] HAYES A F, PREACHER K J. Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear[J]. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2010, 45(4): 627-660.
[41] HAANS R F J, PIETERS C, HE Z L. Thinking about U: theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2016, 37(7): 1177-1195.
|
|
|
|
