Comunicacion, Aprendizaje Organizacioal en El Sector Farmaceutico PDF

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Influence of Internal Communication on

Technological Proactivity, Organizational
Learning, and Organizational Innovation
in the Pharmaceutical Sector
Vctor J. Garca-Morales1 , Fernando Matas-Reche1 , & Antonio J.

Verdu-Jover 2
1 School of Economics and Business, University of Granada, Campus Cartuja, Granada 18071, Spain
2 Faculty of Social and Juridical Sciences, University Miguel Hernandez, Elche (Alicante) 03202, Spain
This investigation formulates a global model to analyze the influence of internal com-
munication (IC) on technological proactivity (TP), organizational learning (OL), and
organizational innovation (OI); the direct and indirect relationships between these strategic
variables; and the influence of OI on organizational performance (OP). The hypotheses are
tested using data from 164 European and U.S. technological firms. The results show that
(a) IC influences TP, OL, and OI; (b) TP influences OL and OI, and OL influences OI; and
(c) OI influences OP. This article discusses these findings and provides several implications
for future research.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01530.x
In todays information and knowledge society, communication networks permit the

flow of messages among communicators across time and space. By means of these
networks, businesses use the creative and intellectual assets of their people to produce
value (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). In communication networks, good internal
communication (IC) is crucial; organizations should adopt strategies to make IC flow
quickly and render it a key resource for knowledge (Jablin & Putnam, 2001; Monge
& Contractor, 2003). IC examines how people communicate in organizations and
the nature of effective communication systems in organizations (Grunig, Grunig, &
Dozier, 2002, p. 486).
Through IC, organizations encourage their members to acquire the organizations
values and to feel supported while also stimulating the organizations ability to receive
initiatives from its members and be more competitive. IC thus enables the intro-
duction, dissemination, acceptance, and internalization of the new values (change)
Corresponding author: Vctor J. Garca-Morales; e-mail: victorj@ugr.es
150 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

V. J. Garca-Morales et al. Empirical Examination by Internal Communication
and management guidelines that accompany organizational development (Welch &

Jackson, 2007). By increasing the possibilities for participation, IC fosters initiatives
(creativity), becoming a factor for integration, motivation, and personal development
(Conduit & Mavondo, 2001; Grunig et al., 2002; Jablin & Putnam, 2001).
The literature has referred to IC as internal relations, employee communication,
employee relations, internal public relations, and staff communication (Welch &
Jackson, 2007). Our study follows Holtzhausens (2002) argument in using the term
IC because it is more inclusive and symmetrical than the other labels. Because of
its multidisciplinary interest, IC also has been defined in many ways. Frank and
Brownell (1989, pp. 56) define it as the communications transactions between
individuals and/or groups at various levels and in different areas of specialization
that are intended to design and redesign organizations to implement designs, and to
co-ordinate day-to-day activities. From a strategic management perspective, Welch
and Jackson (2007, p. 183) define IC as the strategic management of interactions
and relationships between stakeholders at all levels within organizations.
Scholars and practitioners concur that symmetrical two-way communication is
important to successful IC and increases the likelihood that members of the organi-
zation will be satisfied with their individual jobs and with the organization as a whole
(Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Grunig et al., 2002). Two-way communication encourages
internal line management communication, internal team peer communication,
and internal project peer communication (Welch & Jackson, 2007). This school of
thought defines two-way symmetrical communication as a model of public relations
that attempts to balance the interests of the organization and its publics, is based
on research, and uses communication to manage conflict with strategic publics
(Grunig et al., 2002, p. 15).
Symmetrical communication takes place through dialogue, negotiation, listening,
and conflict management rather than through persuasion, manipulation, and the giv-
ing of orders. Asymmetrical communication in organizations, in contrast, is generally
top-down. It is designed to control the behavior of employees in ways the management
desires (Grunig et al., 2002). This investigation aims to deepen our understanding
of the influence of IC on organizational performance (OP) through technological
proactivity (TP), organizational learning (OL), and organizational innovation (OI).
A consistent and open IC strategy should follow a (technologically) proactive
approach to develop more direct, committed, and highly efficient employees (Bacal,
2008). The development of IC fosters the proactive use of new technologies to enable
evaluation, assimilation, and application of new knowledge to improve competitive
position (Garca Morales, 2004). Proactive technology makes communication faster
and more effective than that of competitors who foster reactive technologies (Black,
2008) and help resolve conflicts (Hogg, Lomicky, & Weiner, 2008). TP indicates the
firms ability to initiate changes in its strategic technological policies rather than to
react to events (Miles & Snow, 1978). It involves taking the technological initiative
in an effort to shape the technological environment to ones own advantage. TP
is defined as embedded in the firms routines and processes that are designed to
Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association 151

Empirical Examination by Internal Communication V. J. Garca-Morales et al.
maintain a technological leadership position by monitoring external technology,

including competitors strategies in competition (Aragon Correa, 1998). Firms with
TP develop technological processes oriented to integrating information and oppor-
tunities, adopting a prospector approach. Such proactivity is especially important in
environments characterized by intense technological uncertainty and change (Garca
Morales, Ruiz Moreno, & Llorens Montes, 2007).
IC and TP are related to the enacted environment perspective developed by
Weick (2001). In Weicks terms, IC can be seen as a sense-making activity that
employs language genres (new technologies) to capture and construct organizational
identities and to produce the organizations response (Yeomans, 2008). Following
Weicks perspective, TP would mean that organizational strategists are influenced by
IC in creating their organization and substantially contribute to enactment of their
technological environment (Garca Morales, 2004).
Much has also been written in the discipline of IC and OL, but little attention has
been paid to the importance of IC for OL. IC affects how any organization can learn.
IC strategies that help leaders connect with employees for the purposes of learning
ultimately help the organization to do its work better, too (Zurawski, 2004). OL is a
key dynamic capacity and should be fostered through learning organizations (Aragon
Correa, Garca Morales, & Cordon Pozo, 2007; Senge, 1990). OL is the process by
which individual knowledge is increased in an organized way and transformed into
part of the organizations knowledge system. This process occurs within a community
of interaction in which knowledge is created and expands in a dynamic between the
tacit and the explicit (Cho & McLeod, 2007; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Although this field has received contributions from different theories, OL is usually
analyzed as a social construction, a political process, or a cultural artifact. As social
construction, OL enables new entrants to organizations to learn to perform effectively
through prior informal exchanges and IC with others (Barker & Camarata, 1998).
Communities of practice learn through IC, information-sharing and story-telling in
pursuing a common endeavor (Yeomans, 2008). IC is a sense-making activity that
employs language genres to capture and construct organizational identities and to
produce the organizations response and OL (Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, & Kleiner,
1994; Weick, 2001; Yeomans, 2008). From a political perspective, organizational
politics can be either a barrier to OL or a natural feature of any social process
(Easterby-Smith & Araujo, 1999). By a barrier to OL, we mean the defensive routines
and the generation of what Argyris called the Model 1 theory-in-use organizational
culture (Argyris & Schon, 1996). Learning organizations must, however, foster Model
2 theory-in-use organizational culture. This requires the presence of IC and open
dialogue. Good IC enables analysis of politics as an integral part of organizational
life, incorporating OL in the political processes (Senge, 1990; Yeomans, 2008). OL
can also be regarded as a manifestation of organizational culture. Learning as a
cultural artifact enables understanding of what happens in peoples heads, between
people, and in their actions, practices, and interpretations of practice (Jablin &
Putnam, 2001). From this perspective, IC is strategic and enables new employees to

learn the accepted patterns of organizational behavior. Effective IC thus nurtures the
social, political, and culture perspective of OL and fosters learning among employees
(Yeomans, 2008; Zurawski, 2004). IC is a precondition necessary for developing OL
(Barker & Camarata, 1998).
IC impacts OI as a social-interaction construction. OI has been widely defined
as the adoption of an idea or behavior pertaining to a product, service, device,
system, policy, or program that is new to the organization adopting it (Damanpour &
Gopalakrishnan, 2001). The attention given to the importance of IC and interaction
in the OI process has given rise to a growing perspective that the act of organizing itself
is best understood as a dynamic social construction based on the meaning people
derive from their work-related interaction and dialogue (Bouwen & Fry, 1991). The
manner in which characteristics of the OI are transmitted through IC and structural
aspects of IC determines the ultimate implementation of OI (Fidler & Johnson,
1984). IC processes are a critical factor stimulating or hindering OI (Johnson, 2005).
Frequent IC has been argued to be strategic to OI because it can either facilitate or
hinder the dispersion, diversity, and cross-fertilization of ideas within an organization
(Damanpour, 1991). Theories such as those of organizational knowledge creation and
OL suggest the importance of IC for OI. It is interaction and communication among
individuals which lead to the expansion of new knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995; Senge, 1990). Many scholars in the field of OI management argue that OI
processes are essentially (internal/external) communication processing activities
(Ebadi & Utterback, 1984; Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Johnson, 2005). IC that enables
relevant information to reach the intended information sources/receivers in time will
stimulate OI (Lievens, Moenaert, & Jegers, 1999). IC can help to reduce the amount
of uncertainty perceived during the OI life cycle (cognitive effect), to improve
the organizational climate surrounding the OI (affective effect), and to achieve
cross-functional cooperation and active involvement of innovation team members
(behavioral effect) (Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Lievens et al., 1999).
These three strategic variables influenced by IC (TP, OL, and OI) are interrelated
among themselves. TP affects OL (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Garca Morales, 2004;
Garca Morales et al., 2007). From the perspective of change, OL enables differ-
entiation between technologically reactive and proactive approaches. Technological
reactivity fosters OL as a process of technological adaptation to the environment. The
organization learns in its interaction with the technology. In this process of adjusting
to the technology, the organization learns (in single-loop learning) by responding
to a stimulusresponse model. In contrast, TP enables organizations not only to
adapt to the new technology (incremental improvements) but also to promote their
own technological change (renewal and continuous development). It fosters the
organizations capacity to learn continuously (double-loop learning) and transform
itself (Garca Morales et al., 2007; Senge, 1990).
TP also influences OI (Garca Morales, 2004; Garca Morales et al., 2007). The
proactive generation of new technologies initiates a process of perceiving this new
technological opportunity and generates new tasks for development, production,

and commercialization, tasks directed toward achieving the inventions commercial

success (Garca & Calantone, 2002). Both the theory of sociotechnical system and the
dual-core model of OI recognize the importance of technology in OI (Daft, 1989).
Although OI includes more than technological change, a large number of OIs are
closely related to a proactive focus on technology (Daft, 1989; Garca Morales et al.,
2007). New technology can be viewed as an enabler of process innovations. Research
also shows that the proactive adoption of technology and OP are mediated by OI
(Garca & Calantone, 2002).
Several models have been proposed to explain the key role of OL as an antecedent
of OI (Baker & Sinkula, 2007; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Garca Morales et al., 2007).
Drawing on the theories of resources and capacities, research by Aragon Correa
et al. (2007) proposes that leadership style and OL positively affect OI. Stata (1989)
regards innovation as a result of individuals and OL and as the only source of lasting
competitive advantage in a knowledge-intensive industry. Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995) suggest that OI occurs when employees share their knowledge and when
this shared knowledge generates new and common insights (OL) that enhance OI.
Through OL, from both its successes and its failures, the firm can generate greater OI
capability than its competitors (Calantone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002). Although many
studies have reported OL as antecedent of OI, they do not provide enough empirical
evidence to link these processes (Darroch & McNaugton, 2002).
OI affects OP. Different theories of OIfor example, from the perspective of
strategic management (Aragon Correa et al., 2007; Hyvonen & Tuominen, 2006) or
from a resources and capacities perspective (Lengnick-Hall, 1992; Porter, 1990; Ruiz
Moreno, Garca Morales, & Llorens Montes, 2008)show the strategic importance
of OI for OP. These theories recognize OI as essential for the survival and growth of
organizations (Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 2001; Hurley & Hult, 1998). Although
OI is prescribed as a means to improve OP, many firms do not or cannot develop
this capability properly. Researchers have urged attention to what makes it possible
for firms to develop OI (Garca Morales et al., 2007).
Based on the foregoing, this study will (a) analyze the influence of IC on TP,
OL, and OI; (b) show the influence both of TP on OL and OI and of OL on OI;
and (c) show that OI influences OP. Although some previous studies contribute
significantly to the understanding of IC, they have not addressed how the efficacy
of IC depends on the simultaneous influence (direct and indirect) of different
organizational strategic factors. The relatively slight attention paid in practice to
these topics contrasts with its importance in technological firms.
Hypotheses
The influence of IC on TP, OL, and OI

Owing to the growing uncertainty in our contemporary knowledge and infor-
mation society, interest in developing IC drives changes in the technologies that
stimulate it (Garca Morales, 2004; Senge et al., 1994). The environment in which

high-technology firms operate is characterized by great changes in the needs and

tastes of consumers, leading to a rapid introduction of new technologies to anticipate
the competitions moves. High TP can exploit new opportunities derived from the
position of technological leadership and respond quickly to clients needs (Miles
& Snow, 1978). The need to develop IC fosters the development of new tech-
nologies that enable greater retention and transfer of knowledge throughout the
organization, creating numerous links between the different functions and divisions
and overcoming various limitations of formal organization. The existence of IC
and TP also enables the firm to improve OL (Garca Morales, 2004). IC conflicts
stimulate the development of new technologies to resolve these conflicts (Hogg
et al., 2008). Organizations also use proactive technologies to make IC faster and
more efficient than that of their competitors to obtain competitive advantage (Black,
2008). Thus,
H1: IC will be positively associated with TP in technological firms.
Communication is considered a basic ability that can facilitate or hinder OL and

the creation of different competences (Davenport, Harris, De Long, & Jacobson,
2001). It can enable or impede information sharing, dialogue, and tacit knowledge,
three key raw materials that sustain knowledge creation and learning (Bronn &
Bronn, 2003; Gumus, 2007; Senge et al., 1994). It can also encourage or block the
interrelation between all the organizations subjects and between the organization
and its environment. Open and flexible communication is necessary for the good
development of OL, whereas nonparticipatory and rigid communication represses
the capacity for OL (Garca Morales, 2004).
Argyris and Schon (1996) argue that IC is a significant process that can encourage
or block the understanding of theory-in-use necessary for OL to occur. For Yeomans
(2008), IC can contribute to the development of OL through sense-making processes.
Zurawski (2004) mentions OL as an outcome of effective IC. Because a firms ability
to learn faster than its competitors is critical to long-term success, leaders must
encourage IC strategies that support OL. However, more often than one would
wish, poor IC becomes an obstacle to OL (Stata, 1989). Drawing on rational choice
theory and social exchange theory, Barker and Camarata (1998) argue that IC is
embedded in the preconditions necessary for developing learning organizations, in
the indicators needed for preparing for this state, and in the five disciplines of learning
organizations, which are developed through enriched relationships that are created
and enabled through IC.
In technological organizations, a good system of IC is required before any
corrective (adaptive) or modifying (generative) learning about the technology can
be undertaken. IC processes concerning technology can either help or hinder the
transformation of tacit technological knowledge into explicit. This knowledge can
then be disseminated to and interpreted by other members of the organization, who
can apply it, enabling the organization to retain it for future use (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995). Taking into account the possible positive or negative effects of IC on OL, we
state the need to test this relationship in technological organizations. Thus,
H2: IC will be associated with OL in technological firms.
Communication is a critical factor in OI (Bouwen & Fry, 1991; Tjosuold &

McNeely, 1988). To foster OI, communication should be open, consider and try to
understand the opinions of others, and combine and integrate ideassomething that
does not always occur (Tjosuold & McNeely, 1988). Enhanced communication quality
results in a broader awareness of the implications of an OI, thereby facilitating its
involvement in the organization. Communication also plays a key role in overcoming
resistance to OIs and in the reduction of uncertainty relating to them, with more
communication necessary for uncertain projects. A firms success in overcoming the
risk associated with OI will be determined in large part by the amount of resources it
devotes to structural characteristics related to organizational communication (Fidler
& Johnson, 1984).
However, too much communication may impede OI, creating problems such
as conformity from highly redundant linkages. Weaker ties are generally beneficial
for creativity because they are more likely to provide access to diverse perspectives,
whereas stronger ties have neutral effects (Burt, 2005; Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-
Smith & Shalley, 2003). Implementing OI has important consequences for the
communication costs incurred in innovation implementation (Fidler & Johnson,
1984). In the literature on IC, various studies analyze its relationship to OI, observing
its positive or negative effects on the presence or absence of certain characteristics
and qualities (Brandyberry, 2003; Damanpour, 1991). IC can facilitate survival or
dissemination of new ideas within an organization and increase their number and
diversity, which results in cross-fertilization of ideas (Ross, 1974). Therefore, this
relationship should be tested empirically.
IC should contribute to OI by reducing the amount of uncertainty, improving the
organizational climate, and achieving cross-functional cooperation (Lievens et al.,
1999). However, it is difficult to persuade members that the proposed OI will be more
beneficial than the current practice. Effective persuasion requires communicating a
positive message and developing IC programs that facilitate, support, and promote
participation and involvement. As OI is a social process based on the communicative
interaction among members at all levels, interpersonal and IC have become central
to achieving or failing to achieve OI and better performance. To maximize the
chances in successful implementation, it is necessary to develop an effective system of
organizational IC that will promote internal members acceptance of and involvement
in OI (Hargie & Tourish, 1996).
In technological firms, strategic planning for technology and innovation man-
agement must therefore incorporate an effective IC strategy that forms a central
part in any plan to carry through OI (Hargie & Tourish, 1996). IC, along with
the structures and relationships that facilitate it, can and must be managed. This

is especially challenging because technology transfer may involve the difficulties of

communicating between the different technocultures of scientists and engineers,
between business entrepreneurs and managers, and between managers and organi-
zational members (Irwin, Hoffman, & Lamont, 1998). The technological problem is,
in large measure, an activity of IC. In the case of technologically stimulated projects,
good IC might lead to the initiation and execution of the OI and poor IC to its rejec-
tion (Ebadi & Utterback, 1984). Taking into account the possible positive or negative
effects of IC on OI, we indicate the need to test this relationship empirically. Thus,
H3: IC will be associated with OI in technological firms.
The influence of TP on OL and innovation

Technology is a key input for increasing efficiency of OL capacity and thus for
achieving competitive advantage (Garca Morales, 2004). Firms can adopt a tech-
nologically reactive or proactive approach. In the technologically reactive approach,
OL is associated with the organizations development of technological behaviors
that adapt to the environment, OL being situated in the frame of a technological
stimulusresponse model. The firm learns adaptive or reactive learning (firm
corrects and redirects its technologies). OL is associated with the knowledge and
experience generated during the interaction with the technological environment, on
the basis of which the firm adapts its technologies and actions to that environment
(Argyris & Schon, 1996; Senge, 1990).
In the technologically proactive approach, OL is linked to the firms capacity to
transform itself technologically and to change (Senge et al., 1994). Technologically
proactive organizations do not simply adapt technologically to their environment
but are also capable of causing their own technological change and thus influencing
that environmentproactive learning. They have the potential to expand their
learning capability, promoting such technological growth and generating competitive
advantage (Garca Morales, Llorens Montes, & Verdu Jover, 2006; Senge, 1990). TP
generates proactive OL that not only allows detection of existing technological errors
but also changes technological values of theory-in-use, strategies, and assumptions,
enabling the firm to obtain greater competitive advantage than with adaptive learning
generated by technological reactivity (Li & Lin, 2008). Thus,
H4: TP will be positively associated with OL in technological firms.
One of the essential components of innovative strategy is the presence of proactiv-

ity (Garca Morales et al., 2006), defined earlier as the firms ability to initiate changes
in its strategic policies concerning entrepreneurial, engineering, and administrative
Correa, 1998; Miles & Snow, 1978). The
activity rather than to react to events (Aragon
engineering dimension refers to the technology used for developing competitiveness.
The most technologically proactive firms are prepared to invest heavily to enhance
their technological leadership, whereas the least technologically proactive firms only
invest in new technology when they are convinced of its potential benefits. The most

technologically proactive firms will thus be more innovative than firms following
other kinds of strategies (Aragon Correa, 1998; Cravens, Piercy, & Low, 2002).
Organizations with technological reactivity are characterized by less bold and
challenging, more stable culturesclimates that do not support and are not rich in
technological ideas. These organizations usually have neither the capacity to innovate
ahead of the rest nor the capacity to perceive any need for OI (Garca Morales
et al., 2007). In such conservative organizations, OI takes place only in response to
technological challenges and threats (Miller & Friesen, 1982). Other organizations
possess a high degree of TP, however. Conscious of the need to innovate, they
possess the openness and flexibility necessary to conceive and carry out OI. These
firms aspire to control their environment, not simply adjust to it, for this aspiration
encourages a greater innovative spirit. They take a technologically proactive attitude,
shaping both the forces and the conditions that affect the firm (Garca Morales et al.,
2007). TP enables them to have flexible technologies capable of responding quickly
to change-generating radical innovations (Li & Lin, 2008; Miles & Snow, 1978). Such
firms are more open in their perspectives and technological behavior and accept OI
as a vital central element of strategy (Miller & Friesen, 1982). Thus,
H5: TP will be positively associated with OI in technological firms.
The influence of OL on OI
The literature on OI has received important contributions from works on OL
indicating the relationship between them or analyzing OL as an antecedent of
OI (Aragon Correa et al., 2007; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Different types of OL
(adaptive/generative) and OI (incremental/radical) are also closely and positively
linked (Garca Morales, 2004). The deeper the OI reaches, the greater is the degree of
OL required. The organizational knowledge creation process by which new knowledge
is drawn from existing knowledge (OL) is the cornerstone of OI activities (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995). OI is dependent on the organizational knowledge base, promoted
by OL (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
Although many studies have reported aspects of OL as antecedents of OI, empirical
studies are needed to link the process of OL to OI and to analyze it in technological
organizations (Darroch & McNaugton, 2002). OL performs an essential role in OI
by supporting creativity, inspiring new knowledge, and increasing the potential to
apply them, fostering an innovative culture (Garca Morales et al., 2007; Hurley &
Hult, 1998). A technological organization committed to OL increases its capability
for OI and has the knowledge required to anticipate customer needs, possesses more
state-of-the art technology, uses that technology in OI, and has a stronger capacity to
understand the strengths and weaknesses of rivals. By learning from rivals successes
as well as their failures, the firm can generate greater capability for OI than its
competitors (Calantone et al., 2002). Thus,
H6: OL will be positively associated with OI in technological firms.

The influence of OI on OP
Different theories have revealed that OI is essential for better performance. For
example, the strategic theory studies argue that organizations that adopt an OI
first are better able to create isolation mechanisms that render knowledge of
the OI inaccessible to competitors, enabling profit margins to be protected and
important benefits to be gained (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988). Aragon Correa
et al. (2007) use a strategic perspective to show how both an individual feature
such as leadership style and a collective process such as OL affect OI simul-
taneously and positively, which in turn affects OP. Furthermore, technological
organizations with greater OI will achieve a better response from the environment,
making it easier to obtain the capabilities needed to increase OP and consolidate
a sustainable competitive advantage (Garca Morales et al., 2007; Hurley & Hult,
1998). The studies based on the theory of resources and capacities argue that
the combination of human abilities and knowledge that a firm needs to develop
different kinds of OI make outside imitation more difficult and encourage bet-
ter performance (Lengnick-Hall, 1992). Likewise, the organizations capacity to
use OI to adjust to market demands (Porter, 1990) and the availability of the
capacities and technologies needed to adopt the OI (Miller, 1990) will enable the
firm to obtain greater competitive advantages. In the technological arena, it has
been shown empirically that the more valuable, imperfectly imitable, and rare the
innovations are, the higher the performance will be (Irwin et al., 1998). Using
econometric methods, Loo f and Heshmati (2002) demonstrate that the capital
proceeding from knowledge contributes to the presence of heterogeneity among
firms. Therefore, not fostering projects and innovative activities will have a neg-
ative impact on OP. Many studies argue a positive relationship between OI and
performance within the framework of the theory of resources and capabilities
through different variables such as organizational slack, learning orientation, and
customer-based or supply chain assets (Hyvonen & Tuominen, 2006; Ruiz Moreno
et al., 2008).
Some researchers affirm, however, that one should not assume a positive rela-
tionship between OI and performance, as creative destruction can occur (Foster &
Kaplan, 2001; McCraw, 2007). Others state that one cannot establish a relationship
between OI and performance but only between different aspects of OI and perfor-
mance, as some aspects are related positively and others unrelated or even negatively
related (Hall & Bagchi-Sen, 2002). Still other authors differentiate between technical
and administrative innovation and analyze how both are related to performance
(Llorens Montes, Ruiz Moreno, & Garca Morales, 2005). We can also distinguish
between exploratory (more effective in dynamic environments) and exploitative
(more effective in more competitive environments) innovation (Jansen, Van Den
Bosch, & Volberda, 2006). Thus,
H7: OI will be positively associated with OP in technological firms.

Methodology
Sample and procedure

The population for this study consisted of pharmaceutical organizations in Europe
and the United States. The sample was selected by means of stratified sampling
with proportional allocation (size and geographical location) from the Amadeus
and Hoovers database, which includes firms with a certain volume of business and
international prestige. Drawing on our knowledge about key dimensions, previous
contacts with managers and scholars, and new interviews with managers and aca-
demics interested in the topic and familiar with technology and the pharmaceutical
sector, we developed a structured questionnaire to investigate how organizations
face these issues.
As in previous studies on high-tech organizations (Li, Ng, & Gaber, 2007), the
key informants in this study were Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). The CEOs were
expected to be knowledgeable about the issues being researched and able and willing
to communicate about them. CEOs play a major role in informing and molding
the variables under study by determining the types of behavior that are supported
(Baer & Frese, 2003). Furthermore, the CEO is ultimately responsible for plotting
the firms direction and plans as well as for guiding the actions carried out to achieve
them (Westphal & Fredrickson, 2001). The same types of informant were chosen,
because this means that the level of influence among the firms is constant, which
increases the validity of the variables measurements. We requested that informants
not answer the questionnaire unless they had direct knowledge of the variables in
question (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). This decreased the percentage of responses but
increased the reliability and validity of the questionnaires received (Li et al., 2007).
Surveys were mailed to the 2,476 selected pharmaceutical organizations (high-
technology firms) along with a cover letter. We used this method because it allowed us
to reach a greater number of firms at a lower cost, to exert less pressure for immediate
reply, and to provide the interviewees with a greater sense of autonomy. To reduce
possible desirability bias, we promised to keep all individual responses completely con-
fidential and confirmed that our analysis would be restricted to an aggregate level that
would prevent the identification of any organization. If the survey was not returned,
we sent another copy later. This enabled us to obtain 164 valid responses (Table 1).
To assess nonresponse bias, the characteristics of responding businesses were
compared with those of the nonresponding businesses. This analysis indicated that
respondents did not differ significantly from nonrespondents with respect to return
on assets/equity/sales or number of employees/patents/new products. Nor did we
find significant difference between early and late respondents (Table 1). Likewise, a
series of chi-square and t tests revealed no significant differences due to geographical
location or size in the variables studied.
As the data in the study were collected using the same survey instrument, there
is a possibility of common method bias (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). We tested for this possibility using Harmans one-factor test (Konrad &

Table 1 Technical Details of the Research
V. J. Garca-Morales et al.
Responding
Nonresponding Responding Responding Businesses
Businesses Businesses T Value Businesses (Seconnd T Value
Variables (Total) (Total) (Significant) (First Mailing) Mailing) (Significant)
Return on assets 21.69 23.17 0.458 (0.649) 22.67 23.34 0.09 (0.9)
Return on equity 22.02 27.92 1.73 (0.100) 35.27 25.63 0.924 (0.379)
Return on sales 18.68 20.67 0.791 (0.429) 16.95 22.90 0.968 (0.338)
Number of employees 466.11 453.53 0.137 (0.891) 370.48 510.30 0.771 (0.442)
Patents 17.04 15.87 0.242 (0.810) 16.10 13.62 0.286 (0.779)
New products 30.20 26.22 0.457 (0.649) 27.02 23.50 0.248 (0.805)
Sector/geographical location Pharmaceutical/Europe, America
Methodology/procedure Structured questionnaire/stratified sample with proportional allocation
Sample (response) size/error 2,476 (164) organizations/7.6%
Confidence level 95%, p q = 0.50; Z = 1.96
Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

Period of data collection From February 2003 to June 2004
161
Empirical Examination by Internal Communication
Linnehan, 1995), in which all variables in the study were entered simultaneously in
an exploratory factor analysis. The basic assumption of Harmans test is that, if a
single factor from the factor analysis explains a significant amount of the variance in
the data, there is strong evidence of common method bias. In our test, four factors
(eigenvalues > 1.0) were extracted, accounting for 64% of the total variance, whereas
factor one accounted for 27% of the variance. As several factors, not just one single
factor, were identified and because the first factor did not account for the majority of
the variance, a substantial amount of common method variance does not appear to
be present (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
Measures
Internal communication
Various studies have developed scales to measure IC (Downs & Adrian, 2004). The
IABC study questionnaire (Grunig et al., 2002) was adopted and five items used
(Appendix). We used a Likert-type 5-point scale (1, total disagreement and 5, total
agreement) and developed a confirmatory factor analysis to validate our scales (25 =
19.04, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .06, normed fit index
[NFI] = .97, non-normed fit index [NNFI] = .95, comparative fit index [CFI] = .98).
The scale was unidimensional with good validity and reliability ( = .752).
Technological proactivity
Using previous scales (Miles & Snow, 1978; Robertson & Chetty, 2000), we drew up
a Likert-type 5-point scale (1, total disagreement and 5, total agreement) with four
adapted items. The lowest value (1) corresponds to the attributes of technological
reactivity and the highest (5) to TP. We developed a confirmatory factor analysis to
validate our scales (22 = 1.41, RMSEA = .01, NFI = .97, NNFI = .99, CFI = .99).
Recommendations in the literature required deleting Item 3, as the magnitude of the
factor loading was less than 0.4 ( = 0.31, Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1999),
the t value was not significant for a significance level of 5% (t = 1.57, Anderson &
Gerbing, 1982), and its individual reliability was less than 0.5 (R2 = .01, Sharma,
1996). The scale final of three items was unidimensional (Appendix) with good
validity and reliability ( = .758).
Organizational learning
This capability has received much more theoretical than empirical attention. Different
studies use subjective and objective data on OL (Aragon Correa et al., 2007; Garca
Morales et al., 2007). We included questions on both types of assessment in our
interviews. To avoid possible response bias, we preferred to use three objective items
from the data (Appendix, = .802). We calculated the correlation between the
objective and subjective data and found it to be high and significant (.87, p < .01
knowledge workers; .76, p < .01 number of programs, courses, and seminars; .78,
p < .01 expenditure on programs to develop knowledge).

Organizational innovation
The strategic literature uses both subjective and objective data to measure OI
(Hurley & Hult, 1998). We included questions on both types of assessment and
used the Amadeus and Hoovers database to obtain objective data. We calculated
the correlation between the objective and subjective data and found it to be high
and significant (.87, p < .01 new patents; .76; p < .01 new products; .78; p < .01
expenditure on R&D). To avoid possible response bias, we preferred to use three
items of objective data (Appendix, = .726).
Organizational performance
The literature has widely established high correlation and concurrent validity between
objective and subjective data on OP, which implies that both are valid when calculating
a firms performance (Homburg, Krohmer, & Workman, 1999). We included
questions involving both types of assessment and used the Amadeus and Hoovers
database to obtain objective data. We calculated the correlation between objective
and subjective data, and these were high and significant (.85, p < .05; 0.79, p < .05;
0.88, p < .01 return on assets, equity, and sales, respectively). To avoid possible
response bias, we preferred to use three items of objective data (Appendix, = .741).
Model and analysis

The LISREL 8.30 program was used to test the theoretical model. Figure 1 shows the
foundation of the model proposed and the hypotheses to be contrasted. We used a
recursive nonsaturated model, taking IC (1 ) as the exogenous latent variable; TP
(1 ) as the first-grade endogenous latent variable; and OL (2 ), OI (3 ), and OP (4 )
as the second-grade endogenous latent variables.
1
Technological
Proactivity
H 1 (+) H 5 (+)
H 4 (+)
1 3 H 7 (+) 4
Internal Organizational Organizational
Communication Innovation Performance
H3
H2
H 6 (+)
2
Organizational
Learning
Figure 1 Hypothesized model.

Results
First, Table 2 reports the means and standard deviations for all the measures as well as
the interfactor correlations matrix for the study variables to evaluate the significance
level of existing relationships. The tests for tolerance (lowest value 0.565 > 0.1)
and variance inflation factor (highest value 1.769 < 10) yielded values close to 1,
indicating absence of multicolinearity (Hair et al., 1999). Second, structural equation
modeling was performed to estimate direct and indirect effects (Bollen, 1989). We
checked the hypothesis of multivariate normality distribution required for using
some common estimation methods. We use LISREL 8.30s PRELIS processor. These
results reveal the following values for a 5% significance level: skewness (p = .001),
kurtosis (p = .001), and the joint evaluation of skewness and kurtosis (p = .001).
Based on the results, we decided to use the weighted least squares procedure,
taking as input data the polychoric correlation matrix and asymptotic covariance
(Figure 2).
With respect to the quality of the measurement model, the constructs display
satisfactory levels of reliability (0.82 composite reliabilities 0.93, 0.61 shared
variance 0.75, Table 3). Convergent validity can be judged by looking at both the
significance of the factor loadings and the shared variance. The amount of variance
shared or captured by a construct should be greater than the amount of measurement
error (shared variance > 0.50). All the multi-item constructs meet this criterion, each
loading () being significantly related to its underlying factor (t values > 13.81) in
support of convergent validity. We also confirm that discriminant validity is achieved
among all constructs, as the confidence interval for the correlation between each pair
of critical dimensions does not produce a value of 1 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1982).
Evaluating the global fit of the model, we can see that the 2 test does not
indicate a good fit according to the recommendations in the specialized literature
for the evaluation of goodness of fit, which indicate that the 2 statistic shows
great sensitivity to many factors, such as sample size, and recommend that it be
complemented with other measurements of quality of fit (e.g., Gerbing & Anderson,
1992; Hair et al., 1999). These measurements (goodness of fit index [GFI] = .95;
adjusted goodness of fit index [AGFI] = .97; RMSEA = .052; NFI = .92; NNFI =
.97; CFI = .98; parsimony goodness of fit index [PGFI] = .71) yield adequate values,
indicating that the model shows acceptable fit. All the modification indices for the
pathways between major variables were small, suggesting that adding paths would
not significantly improve the fit. The residuals of the covariances were also small and
centered around zero. If we look at the standardized parameter estimates (Table 4),
the findings show that IC is positively related to and affects TP (11 = .42, p < .001,
R2 = .24), as predicted in Hypothesis 1. OL appears to be influenced positively by IC
(21 = .39, p < .05), verifying Hypothesis 2 in the positive sense. Furthermore, we
have shown an indirect effect (.15, p < .05) of IC on OL due to TP (.42 .36; see
Bollen, 1989, for calculation rules). The global influence (.54, p < .001) of IC on OL
is also positive.

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Internal communication 3.995 0.711 1.000

2. Technological proactivity 3.419 0.651 0.604 1.000
3. Organizational learning (OL) 3.963 0.688 0.450 0.415 1.000
4. Organizational innovation (OI) 3.586 0.618 0.463 0.493 0.378 1.000
5. Organizational performance (OP) 3.561 0.742 0.563 0.545 0.385 0.430 1.000
Note: The variables OL, OI, and OP were categorized to calculate the mean and SD.
p < 0.05. p < 0.01. p < .001 (two-tailed).

165
1 2 3
TECPRO1 TECPRO2 TECPRO4

y21=.85 8
ORGINN1
y11=.80 y31=86
y73=.75
ORGINN2 9
1
Technological 83=.84
y
1 INTCOM1 Proactivity ORGINN3 9

x11=.72 y93=.76 10
1 ORGPE1
2 INTCOM2 11= .42*** 31 = .46*** 104=.81
y
x21=.90 1
31= .33** 3 4
3 INTCOM3 Internal Organizational Organizational 11
ORGPE2
Communication Innovation Performance
x31=.92 21 = .36* y114=.80
43 = .75***
4 INTCOM4
21= .39* 32 = .21* 3 4 y124=.89
x41=.91
ORGPE3 12
5 INTCOM5 2
x51=.88 Organizational
Learning
2
y42=.85 y52=.94 y62=.71
ORGLEA1 ORGLEA2 ORGLEA3
4 5 6
Figure 2 Results of structural equation model.
As regards the relation between IC and OI, we find both a direct and significant
relationship (31 = .33, p < .01) and an indirect relationship (.34, p < .001) through
TP (.42 .46), OL (.39 .21), and TP-OL (.42 .36 .21). The total effect (direct
and indirect) of IC on OI also shows a significant and positive relationship (0.64,
p < .001) overall, supporting Hypothesis 3 in the positive sense.
OL appears to be influenced strongly by TP (21 = .36, p < .05), supporting
Hypothesis 4. Comparing the magnitudes of these effects indicates that the total effect
of IC on OL is larger than the effect of TP on OL. Globally, OL is explained well by the
model (R2 = .51). TP has a positive, statistically significant, and direct association
with OI (31 = .46, p < .001) and an indirect relationship (.07, p < .10) through
OL (.36 .21). The total effect of TP shows a significant and positive relationship
(0.34, p < .001) overall, supporting Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 6 holds because the
parameter estimates verify a positive and statistically significant association between
OL and innovation (32 = .21, p < .05). Overall, OI is explained well by the model
(R2 = .84), and the total effect of IC is significantly larger than the effect of TP
and OL on OI. Finally, the hypotheses relate OI to OP (43 = .75, p < .001).
Organizations capability to innovate enables the improvement of OP (R2 = .73). In
addition to these effects, we have shown indirect effects of IC, TP, and OL on OP
(Table 4).

Table 3 Validity, Reliability, and Internal Consistency
Validity, Reliability, and Internal Consistency

Correlation
Variables Items Parameter R2 AM Confidence Interval
INTCOM1 x11 0.72 (r.i.) 0.51

Internal INTCOM2 x21 0.90 (14.85) 0.81 = 0.845
communication INTCOM3 x31 0.92 (14.81) 0.85 CR = 0.937
(IC) INTCOM4 x41 0.91 (14.84) 0.82 SV = 0.752
INTCOM5 x51 0.88 (14.11) 0.77 IC-TP 0.36 0.55
y IC-OL 0.31 0.50
Technological TECPRO1 11 0.80 (r.i.) 0.64 = 0.758
y IC-OI 0.29 0.47
proactivity TECPRO2 21 0.85 (16.24) 0.72 CR = 0.875
y IC-OP 0.39 0.56
(TP) TECPRO4 31 0.86 (16.35) 0.74 SV = 0.700
y TP-OL 0.350.55
Organizational ORGLEA1 42 0.85 (r.i.) 0.72 = 0.802
y TP-OI 0.360.55
learning ORGLEA2 52 0.94 (19.11) 0.89 CR = 0.876
y TP-OP 0.450.64
(OL) ORGLEA3 62 0.71 (14.20) 0.51 SV = 0.705
y
OL-OI 0.300.50
Organizational ORGINN1 73 0.75 (r.i.) 0.56 = 0.726 OL-OP 0.400.60
y
innovation ORGINN2 83 0.84 (15.30) 0.70 CR = 0.826 OI-OP 0.390.57
y
(OI) ORGINN3 93 0.76 (13.81) 0.58 SV = 0.614
y
Organizational ORGPE1 104 0.81 (r.i.) 0.66 = 0.741
y

performance ORGPE2 114 0.80 (15.16) 0.64 CR = 0.872
y
(OP) ORGPE3 124 0.89 (17.00) 0.79 SV = 0.696
Note: = standardized structural coefficient (t students in parentheses); R2 = reliability; AM = adjustment measurement; = Cronbachs alpha;
CR = composite reliability; SV = shared variance; r.i. = reference indicator.
p < .001 (two-tailed).
167
168
Table 4 Direct, Indirect, and Global Effects
Standardized Structural
Coefficients T
Effect From To Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Internal communication Technological proactivity 0.42 0.42 6.30 6.30

Internal communication Organizational learning 0.39 0.15 0.54 2.32 2.07 7.61
Internal communication Organizational innovation 0.33 0.31 0.64 2.62 3.96 8.02
Internal communication Organizational performance 0.48 0.48 7.79 7.79

Technological proactivity Organizational learning 0.36 0.36 2.07 2.07
Technological proactivity Organizational innovation 0.46 0.07 0.53 3.43 1.67 3.96
Technological proactivity Organizational performance 0.40 0.40 3.99 3.99
Organizational learning Organizational innovation 0.21 0.21 2.30 2.30
Organizational learning Organizational performance 0.16 0.16 2.30 2.30
Organizational innovation Organizational performance 0.75 0.75 12.54 12.54
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Discussion and future research
Discussion and implications

This study starts from a theoretical model to show empirically how IC influences
TP, OL, and OI and the influence of OI on OP. The investigation has various
implications for management, starting from the formulation of a theoretical model.
First, the results verify empirically that IC helps to develop a foundation of TP (Bacal,
2008; Black, 2008; Garca Morales et al., 2007; Yeomans, 2008). In an increasingly
globalized economic and social environment marked by the rigorous need to achieve
efficiency in IC, the power of new technologies is more and more necessary to
facilitate IC to overcome barriers in time and space. Sender and receiver do not have
to share the same space or time to be able to develop effective communication. New
technologies also enable us to increase the capacity for storing and disseminating
knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The proactive implementation of these new
technologies also drives the distribution of this knowledge within the firm. It enables
new systems to administrate knowledge and new procedures to organize the flows of
information generated within firms (Garca Morales, 2004).
These new technologies must be applied efficiently, encouraging interaction
between sender and receiver and creation of the right free flow of dialogue on and
exploration of collective foundations of thought as well as individual and collective
ideas. Such interaction enables the development of a collaborative and coordinated
spirit of thinking (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 1990). Managers should therefore
foster a climate of dialogue that promotes aptitude for IC and avoids destructive
discussion, stimulating reflection (Senge et al., 1994) and the application of new
proactive technologies. Such qualities enable resolution of specific conflicts, reduce
communication costs (Hogg et al., 2008), and generate competitive advantages over
other firms with less effective and more reactive technologies (Black, 2008; Garca
Morales, 2004; Senge, 1990).
Second, the results of this research support a positive relationship between IC and
OL in technological firms. The study does not show that IC acts negatively, impeding
the interrelation between the organizations subjects (Garca Morales, 2004; Gumus,
2007; Senge et al., 1994; Stata, 1989). Effective IC creates and maintains OL (Argyris
& Schon, 1996; Garca Morales, 2004; Senge et al., 1994). Inside the organization,
IC must create a greater sense of connectedness at all levels. IC between managers
and members of the organization not only enhances management support but also
provides the organizations members with feedback to improve their job performance
(Conduit & Mavondo, 2001). Oral, nonverbal, and written communication and new
managerial roles must foster coaching, facilitating, and teaching of IC. Effective IC
enables managers to build trust, embrace change, shape organizational cultures, and
foster learning among their employees (Zurawski, 2004). Effective IC enables the
articulation of common cognitive and affective concepts and creates a structure that
enables the generation, use, and communication of organizational knowledge among
the members of the organization. There is thus an important relationship between

IC, knowledge, and OL (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Senge et al., 1994). Encouraging
an integrated view of IC may produce the generative OL needed for tomorrows
organizations and members (Barker & Camarata, 1998; Yeomans, 2008).
Third, we verify a positive relationship between IC and OI in technological
firms. Although there was a strong possibility that the relationship between the two
constructs might be negative (Perry-Smith, 2006; Tjosuold & McNeely, 1988), our
study did not produce this result. Rather, firms must develop an effective system of
IC that will promote members acceptance of and involvement in OI (Brandyberry,
2003; Damanpour, 1991; Lievens et al., 1999). Effective methods and channels of IC
should be established and used by all involved in the innovation (Hargies & Tourish,
1996). Managers must act as effective agents of change in the OI process and be able
to disseminate IC (Senge et al., 1994), generating the knowledge spiral within the
firm (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Thus, the firm can overcome obstacles that create
poor or excessive IC in the OI (Burt, 2005; Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Perry-Smith,
2006; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003).
Fourth, this research has shown empirically that the strategic capacities stimulated
by IC in technological firms have a positive relationship among themselves. Firms
with TP achieve more progress on the production and technology side, are more
prepared to invest heavily to enhance their technological leadership, and have
flexible technologies capable of responding quickly to change, whereas firms with
technological reactivity only invest in new technology when they are convinced
of its potential benefits (Bahlman, 1990; Garca Morales et al., 2007). TP enables
technological firms to foster technological transformation and to stimulate generative
OL. The proactive investment in new technologies facilitates OL (Garca Morales,
2004; Senge et al., 1994).
TP also drives innovative strategy and is essential in intelligent organizations
(Aragon Correa, 1998), encouraging firms to adopt advanced, technologically
innovative postures directly and indirectly through OL (Garca Morales et al.,
2007). The most innovative organizations are not satisfied with improving existing
technologies only when driven by the necessity of a technological environment
undergoing intense change. Rather, they try to create new, proactive technological
systems that enable them to generate competitive advantage in the market (Aragon
Correa, 1998; Miles & Snow, 1978). Managers should foster collective commitment
to TP in the firm (Cravens et al., 2002).
This research also verifies empirically that OL influences OI positively and
directly and OP indirectly (Aragon Correa et al., 2007; Garca Morales et al., 2007).
The innovative firm is an organization that learns and that knows how to make and
keep itself technologically competent. Management should foster OL to enable the
organization to change its behavior and thus to renew itself technologically, preventing
it from falling into technological stagnation and allowing it to generate OI. The firm
must seek synergy between exploration and exploitation to improve performance.
Based on the foregoing, organizations should make OL a central element of strategic
intent by investing in it and speaking publicly about it, eliminating negative group

dynamics that might impede OL and establishing positive dynamics to inspire

collaborative OL. Strong commitment is needed to disseminate the learning process
(Garca Morales, 2004; Senge et al., 1994), as are managers who are good mentors
guiding the other members in their professional trajectories through faith in their
capacity to learn and innovate (Senge, 1990).
Fifth, this research provides support for the relationship between OI and per-
formance consistent with prior research (Aragon Correa et al., 2007) and provides
additional evidence of the importance of OI as a source of competitive advantage.
The firms support for innovation is critical both inside and outside the organization.
Inside the organization, one must create a context favorable to OI but vigilant against
possible drawbacks (Foster & Kaplan, 2001; McCraw, 2007). Managers can do much
to prepare the minds of the organizations members and should develop this dynamic
capability (Aragon Correa, 1998; Calantone et al., 2002; Loo f & Heshmati, 2002).
Because innovation is not an individual act but a collective achievement, it takes
work to create a context that legitimates OI behavior, dedicates resources to OI, and
assumes a structure and culture that nourish the development and implementation of
OI (Senge et al., 1994). Outside the organization, the manager plays an essential role
in connecting the organization to its environment by gaining acceptance (consumers,
clients, and other interest groups) and support for innovation (Garca Morales, 2004).
The sources of OI and achievement of sustainable competitive advantage in
technological firms are really sustained by a complex of essential resources and
technological capabilities in the organization (IC, TP, and OL). Organizations should
analyze and develop all resources and capabilities that enable them to obtain better
competitive position in the market. Organizations must also regenerate their essential
competences to confront technological changes in the environment through OI. In
this way, firms acquire a dynamic and innovative vision that can improve OP without
harming the environment, generating their own unique resources and technological
Correa, 1998;
capabilities that are valuable and difficult to replace or imitate (Aragon
Hurley & Hult, 1998; Irwin et al., 1998).
Limitations and future research

This research has several limitations that suggest further possibilities for empirical
research. First, survey data based on self-reports may be subject to social desirability
bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). However, assurance of anonymity can reduce such
bias even for responses related to sensitive topics (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995). The
low risk of social desirability bias in this study was indicated by several managers
who commented that it made no sense at all for their companies to go beyond
regulatory compliance. Still, the responses are subject to interpretation by individual
managers. Second, our method is open to the possibility of common method bias.
This possibility was tested using Harmans one-factor test and does not appear to be
present (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The use of objective
measures for several variables (OL, OI, and OP) reduced the risk of common method
variance. Third, the cross-sectional nature of the research on a series of dynamic

concepts (OI and OL) allows us to analyze only a specific situation in time of the
organizations studied, not their overall conduct through time. Our approach has
reduced the magnitude of this problem, because dynamic characteristics and causal
affirmations can be made if the relationships are based on theoretical rationales (Hair
et al., 1999). This is why we began with a theoretical effort that would allow us to
identify and check for the formal existence of the different causeeffect relationships.
Future research should focus on longitudinal study.
Fourth, to reduce the possible bias associated with data collected from a single
key informant, we used objective measures of OL, innovation, and performance.
For IC and TP, we followed other similar studies and measured the variables using
CEOs as the subject of study. These studies show that, although numerous actors
may be involved in these processes, it is acceptable to use CEOs (Baer & Frese, 2003;
Garca Morales et al., 2007; Llorens Montes et al., 2005). However, the use of multiple
respondents would have been preferable. It is unlikely that any one individual can
provide a comprehensive view of one organization (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Fifth,
this research focuses on the pharmaceutical industry, a sector with great economic
influence and one of the most important sectors that uses advanced technology.
Most pharmaceutical firms are international in character and have branches in many
countries. Our findings are generalizable to other medium- and high-technology
sectors (e.g., aerospace construction, electronic components, the automobile industry,
and computer-related activities), all of which have a strong scientific and technical
base. New technology can rapidly render current technology obsolete, and the
implications of new emerging technologies can create or revolutionize markets
and demand. These sectors also share high percentages of scientific and technical
personnel, large contributions to research and development, great dynamism of
technology, and great potential for growth. Comparable studies in other sectors would
help us to acquire a better understanding of the strategic relationships researched.
Sixth, the research analyzes OI as a whole and does not develop the differences
between radical and incremental innovation. These two types of innovations work
through different processes. Nevertheless, most of the innovations in the sample were
radical. The small number of organizations in this study which showed incremental
innovation as basic innovation can be attributed to the fact that we were analyzing
high-technology firms. This prevented us from dividing the sample into organizations
with radical innovations and organizations with incremental innovations and then
applying LISREL analysis. Future studies should attempt to develop the possible
differences. Seventh, the rate of response is low. We did, however, perform different
comparisons with the general population to justify the use of this sample (e.g., patents
and new products). Finally, our model only analyzes IC, TP, and OL that, strategically,
have been recognized as catalysts in the innovation process. Other factors could be
analyzed, such as external communication, shared vision, or teamwork (Senge, 1990;
Senge et al., 1994). However, it should be noted that the strategic variables we
chose (IC, TP, and OL) explain a significant amount of variance in OI. We should
also examine other consequences of introducing an innovation process (quality

improvement and staff satisfaction). More attention to the influence of specific

technological strategic factors on OI is necessary in the future.
Acknowledgments
Project ECO2009-09241 (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation) and PO8-
SEJ-4057 (Project of Excellence of Andalusia) partially supported this research. We
thank all the managers who contributed their time and ideas to this study.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Some methods for respecifying measurement
models to obtain unidimensional construct measures. Journal of Marketing Research,
19, 453460.
Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural
Aragon
environment. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556567.
Correa, J. A., Garca Morales, V. J., & Cordon
Aragon Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and
organizational learnings role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain.
Industrial Marketing Management, 36(3), 349359.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice.
London: Addison-Wesley.
Bacal, R. (2008). Internal communication strategies: The neglected strategic element. Free
Article. Retrieved from http://www.work911.com/articles/comstrat.htm.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and
psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 4568.
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2007). Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation
programs? An organizational learning perspective. The Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 24(4), 316334.
Bahlmann, T. (1990). The learning organization in a turbulent environment. European
Journal of Management Research, 9(4), 167182.
Barker, R. T., & Camarata, M. R. (1998). The role of communication in creating and
maintaining a learning organization: Preconditions, indicators, and disciplines. The
Journal of Business Communication, 35(4), 443467.
Black, A. (2008). Secrets to success when using technology for benefits communication.
Benefits and Compensation Digest, 45(5), 2831.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Bouwen, R., & Fry, R. (1991). Organizational innovation and learning. International Studies
of Management and Organization, 21(4), 3751.
Brandyberry, A. A. (2003). Determinants of adoption for organizational innovations
approaching saturation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(3), 150158.
Bronn, P. S., & Bronn, C. (2003). A reflective stakeholder approach: Co-orientation as a basis
for communication and learning. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 291303.
Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage & closure: An introduction to social capital. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation
capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515524.

Cho, J., & McLeod, D. M. (2007). Structural antecedents to knowledge and participation:
Extending the knowledge gap concept to participation. Journal of Communication, 57,
205228.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128152.
Conduit, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2001). How critical is internal customer orientation to
market orientation? Journal of Business Research, 51, 1124.
Cravens, D. W., Piercy, N. F., & Low, G. S. (2002). The innovation challenges of proactive
cannibalisation and discontinuous technology. European Business Review, 14(4),
257270.
Daft, R. L. (1989). Organization theory and design. St. Paul, MN: West.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organisational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants
and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555590.
Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of product and
process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 4565.
Darroch, J., & McNaugton, R. (2002). Examining the link between knowledge management
practices and types of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3), 210222.
Davenport, T. T., Harris, J. G., De Long, D. W., & Jacobson, A. L. (2001). Data to knowledge
to results: Building an analytic capability. California Management Review, 43(2), 117138.
Downs, C. W., & Adrian, A. D. (2004). Assessing organizational communication: Strategic
communication audit. New York: Guilford Press.
Easterby-Smith, M., & Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Current debates and
opportunities. In M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne, & L. Araujo (Eds.), Organizational
learning and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 122).
London: Sage.
Ebadi, Y. M., & Utterback, J. M. (1984). The effects of communication on technological
innovation. Management Science, 30(5), 572585.
Fidler, L. A., & Johnson, J. D. (1984). Communication and innovation implementation.
Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 704711.
Foster, R., & Kaplan, S. (2001). Creative destruction: Why companies that are built to last
underperform the marketand how to successfully transform them. New York: Doubleday.
Frank, A., & Brownell, J. (1989). Organizational communication and behavior:
Communicating to improve performance, Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Garca, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 19, 110132.
Garca Morales, V. J. (2004). Aprendizaje organizacional: Delimitacion y determinantes
estrategicos. Granada, Spain: Universidad de Granada.
Garca Morales, V. J., Llorens Montes, F. J., & Verdu Jover, A. J. (2006). Antecedents and
consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in
entrepreneurship. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 106(1/2), 2142.
Garca Morales, V. J., Ruiz Moreno, A., & Llorens Montes, F. J. (2007). Effects of technology
absorptive capacity and technology proactivity on organizational learning, innovation
and performance: An empirical examination. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, 19(4), 527558.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit indices
for structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21(2), 132160.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective
organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gumus, M. (2007). The effect of communication on knowledge sharing in organizations.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.tlainc.
com/articl133.htm.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1999). Analisis multivariante.
Madrid, Spain: Prentice Hall.
Hall, L. A., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2002). A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance
in the Canadian biotechnology industry. Technovation, 22, 231244.
Hargie, C., & Tourish, D. (1996). Corporate communication in the management of
innovation and change. Corporate Communications, 1(2), 311.
Hogg, N. M., Lomicky, C. S., & Weiner, S. F. (2008). Computer-mediated communication
and the Gallaudet University community: A preliminary report. American Annals of the
Deaf, 153(1), 8996.
Homburg, C., Krohmer, H., & Workman, J. P. (1999). Strategic consensus and performance:
The role of strategy type and market-related dynamism. Strategic Management Journal,
20, 339357.
Holtzhausen, D. (2002). The effects of a divisionalized and decentralized organizational
structure on a formal internal communication function in a South African organization.
Journal of Communication Management, 6, 323339.
Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational
learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 4254.
Hyvonen, S., & Tuominen, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial innovations, market-driven
intangibles and learning orientation: Critical indicators for performance advantages
in SMEs. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 7(6), 643660.
Irwin, J. G., Hoffman, J. J., & Lamont, B. T. (1998). The effect of the acquisition of
technological innovations on organizational performance: A resource-based view.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15, 2554.
Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (2001). New handbook of organizational communication.
London: Sage.
Jansen, J., Van Den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative
innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental
moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 16611674.
Johnson, J. D. (2005). Innovation and knowledge management: The cancer information science
research consortium. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Konrad, A., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal
employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 787820.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1992). Innovation and competitive advantage: What we know and
what we need to learn. Journal of Management, 18, 399429.
Li, C., & Lin, C. (2008). The nature of market orientation and the ambidexterity of
innovations. Management Decision, 46(7), 10021026.

Li, L., Ng, P., & Gaber, B. (2007). Determinants of small trading companies performance in
high-tech industries. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 26(5), 5772.
Lieberman, M., & Montgomery, D. (1988). First mover advantages. Strategic Management
Journal, 9, 4158.
Lievens, A., Moenaert, R., & Jegers, R. (1999). Linking communication to innovation success
in the financial industry: A case study analysis. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 30(1), 2347.
Llorens Montes, F. J., Ruiz Moreno, A., & Garca Morales, V. J. (2005). Influence of support
leadership and teamwork cohesion of organizational learning, innovation and
performance: An empirical examination. Technovation, 25(10), 11591172.
Loo f, H., & Heshmati, A. (2002). Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: A
firm-level innovation study. International Journal of Production Economics, 76, 6185.
McCraw, T. K. (2007). Prophet of innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and creative destruction.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus paradox. New York: Harper-Collins.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms:
Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 125.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating
individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85101.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic
social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89106.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531544.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
Robertson, C., & Chetty, S. K. (2000). An approach to understanding export performance.
International Business Review, 9, 211235.
Ross, P. F. (1974). Innovation adoption by organizations. Personnel Psychology, 27, 2147.
Ruiz Moreno, A. R., Garca Morales, V. J., & Llorens Montes, F. J. (2008). The moderating
effect of organizational slack on the relation between perceptions of support for
innovation and organizational climate. Personnel Review, 37(5), 509525.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline
fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariable techniques. New York: Wiley.
Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to management innovation. Sloan
Management Review, 30(3), 6374.

Tjosuold, D., & McNeely, L. T. (1988). Innovation through communication in an

educational bureaucracy. Communication Research, 15(5), 568581.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell.
Welch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder
approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2), 177198.
Westphal, J. D., & Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Who directs strategic change? Director
experience, the selection of new CEOs, and change in corporate strategy. Strategic
Management Journal, 22, 11131137.
Yeomans, L. (2008). ?. . .? Its a general meeting, its not for us?. . .?: Internal
communication and organizational learningAn interpretive approach. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 13(3), 271286.
Zurawski, C. (2004). In praise of small talk: Leaders can fuel organizational learning through
communication. Communication World, 21(6), 2244.
Appendix
Internal communication. (a) Most communication between managers and other
members of the organization can be said to be two-way communication. (b) The
organization encourages its members to express differences of opinion. (c) The
communication in the organization helps managers to be responsive to the
problems of other members of the organization. (d) Members of the organization
are usually informed about major changes (e.g., in mission) that affect their job
before they take place. (e) Members of the organization are not afraid to speak
up during meetings with superiors and managers.
Technological proactivity. (a) The organization has a strong tendency to undertake
proactive technological projects (projects with a lower possibility of success but
very high potential returns) rather than a strong tendency to undertake known
technological projects (with normal and certain returns). (b) When confronted
with decision-making technological situations, the organization typically adopts a
bold, aggressive, and proactive posture to maximize the probability of exploiting
technological potential opportunities rather than typically adopting a cautious
wait and see posture. (c) The main technological concern of the organization
is to have flexible innovative technologies rather than to find cost-reducing
technologies.
Organizational learning. (a) Number of members in the organization whose work
involves a large proportion of learning or knowledge acquisition (knowledge
workers). (b) Number of programs, courses, and seminars that members of
the organization have received to acquire knowledge or learn to allow the
development of critical competences and capabilities. (c) Total amount that the
organization has spent on programs to develop knowledge.
Organizational innovation. (a) Number of new patents in the organization.
(b) Number of new products developed by the organization. (c) Total amount
that the organization has spent on R&D.
Organizational performance. The organizations performance measured by
(a) return on assets, (b) return on equity, and (c) return on sales.

Vctor J. Garca-Morales

Fernando Matas-Reche

Antonio J. Verd-Jover

Edificio La Galia. Avda. del Ferrocarril,

164
12
3
Linfluence de la communication interne sur la proactivit technologique, sur

lapprentissage organisationnel et sur linnovation organisationnelle dans le secteur
pharmaceutique
Vctor J. Garca-Morales, Fernando Matas-Reche & Antonio J. Verd-Jover
Cette recherche nonce un modle global permettant danalyser (a) linfluence de la

communication interne sur la proactivit technologique, sur lapprentissage organisationnel et sur
linnovation organisationnelle, (b) les relations directes et indirectes entre ces variables
stratgiques et (c) linfluence de linnovation organisationnelle sur les rsultats organisationnels.
Les hypothses sont vrifies grce des donnes de 164 entreprises de technologie europennes
et amricaines. Les rsultats dmontrent que (1) la communication interne influence la proactivit
technologique, lapprentissage organisationnel et linnovation organisationnelle, (2) la proactivit
technologique influence lapprentissage organisationnel et linnovation organisationnelle, alors
que lapprentissage organisationnel influence linnovation organisationnelle et (3) linnovation
organisationnelle influence les rsultats organisationnels. Larticle commente ces rsultats et
offre plusieurs avenues pour la recherche future.
Mots cls : communication interne, proactivit technologique, apprentissage organisationnel,

innovation organisationnelle, rsultats organisationnels
Der Einfluss interner Kommunikation auf technologische Proaktivitt, organisationales
Lernen und organisationale Innovation auf dem pharmazeutischen Sektor
Vctor J. Garca-Morales, Fernando Matas-Reche & Antonio J. Verd-Jover
In dieser Untersuchung formulieren wir ein globales Modell zur Analyse von: dem Einfluss
interner Kommunikation auf technologische Proaktivitt, organisationales Lernen und
organisationale Innovation; die direkten und indirekten Beziehungen zwischen diesen
strategischen Variablen, und den Einfluss von organisationaler Innovation auf die
Arbeitsleistung der Organisation. Die Hypothesen werden an Daten von 164 europischen
und amerikanischen Technologiefirmen getestet. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass (1) interne
Kommunikation technologische Proaktivitt, organisationales Lernen und organisationale
Innovation beeinflusst; (2) technologische Proaktivitt organisationales Lernen und
organisationale Innovation beeinflusst, und organisationales Lernen organisationale
Innovation beeinflusst; (3) organisationale Innovation die Arbeitsleistung der Organisation
beeinflusst. Der Artikel diskutiert die Ergebnisse und bietet Schlussfolgerungen fr weitere
Forschung.
Schlsselbegriffe: interne Kommunikation, technologische Proaktivitt, organisationales

Lernen, organisationale Innovation, Arbeitsleistung der Organisation
,
. , .
164 .
1) , ,
, 2) ,
, 3)
.
La Influencia de la Comunicacin Interna sobre la Proactividad Tecnologa, el Aprendizaje
Organizacional y la Innovacin Organizacional en el Sector Farmacutico
Vctor J. Garca-Morales
School of Economics and Business
University of Granada, Campus Cartuja, s.n.
Granada 18071.
Spain (E.U.)
Fernando Matas-Reche
School of Economics and Business
University of Granada, Campus Cartuja, s.n.
Granada 18071.
Spain (E.U.)
Antonio J. Verd-Jover
Faculty of Social and Juridical Sciences
University Miguel Hernandez
Edificio La Galia. Avda. del Ferrocarril, s/n
Elche (Alicante) 03202.
Spain (EUROPE).
Resumen
Esta investigacin formula un modelo global para analizar la influencia de la comunicacin
interna sobre la proactividad tecnologa, el aprendizaje organizacional y la innovacin
organizacional; las relaciones directas e indirectas entre estas variables estratgicas; y la
influencia de la innovacin organizacional sobre la performance organizacional. Las hiptesis
son puestas a prueba usando los datos de 164 firmas tecnolgicas Europeas y Americanas. Los
resultados muestran que (1) la comunicacin interna influye sobre la proactividad tecnolgica, el
aprendizaje organizacional y la innovacin organizacional; (2) la proactividad tecnolgica

influencia el aprendizaje organizacional y la innovacin organizacional, y el aprendizaje
organizacional influye la innovacin organizacional; (3) la innovacin organizacional influye la
performancia organizacional. Este manuscrito discute estos hallazgos y provee varias
implicancias para investigaciones futuras.
Palabras Claves: Comunicacin Interna, Proactividad Tecnolgica, Aprendizaje Organizacional,
Innovacin Organizacional, Performance Organizacional

Copyright of Journal of Communication is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Comunicacion, Aprendizaje Organizacioal en El Sector Farmaceutico PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Comunicacion, Aprendizaje Organizacioal en El Sector Farmaceutico PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

Influence of Internal Communication on

In todays information and knowledge society, communication networks permit the

Corresponding author: Vctor J. Garca-Morales; e-mail: victorj@ugr.es

150 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

and management guidelines that accompany organizational development (Welch &

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association 151

maintain a technological leadership position by monitoring external technology,

152 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association 153

and commercialization, tasks directed toward achieving the inventions commercial

The influence of IC on TP, OL, and OI

154 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

high-technology firms operate is characterized by great changes in the needs and

H1: IC will be positively associated with TP in technological firms.

Communication is considered a basic ability that can facilitate or hinder OL and

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association 155

H2: IC will be associated with OL in technological firms.

Communication is a critical factor in OI (Bouwen & Fry, 1991; Tjosuold &

156 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

is especially challenging because technology transfer may involve the difficulties of

H3: IC will be associated with OI in technological firms.

The influence of TP on OL and innovation

H4: TP will be positively associated with OL in technological firms.

One of the essential components of innovative strategy is the presence of proactiv-

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association 157

H5: TP will be positively associated with OI in technological firms.

H6: OL will be positively associated with OI in technological firms.

158 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

H7: OI will be positively associated with OP in technological firms.

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association 159

Sample and procedure

160 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

162 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

Model and analysis

Figure 1 Hypothesized model.

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association 163

164 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

1. Internal communication 3.995 0.711 1.000

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

TECPRO1 TECPRO2 TECPRO4

1 INTCOM1 Proactivity ORGINN3 9

y42=.85 y52=.94 y62=.71

ORGLEA1 ORGLEA2 ORGLEA3

Figure 2 Results of structural equation model.

166 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

Validity, Reliability, and Internal Consistency

INTCOM1 x11 0.72 (r.i.) 0.51

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

Internal communication Technological proactivity 0.42 0.42 6.30 6.30

Internal communication Organizational performance 0.48 0.48 7.79 7.79

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

Discussion and future research

Discussion and implications

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association 169

170 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

dynamics that might impede OL and establishing positive dynamics to inspire

Limitations and future research

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association 171

172 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 150177 2011 International Communication Association

improvement and staff satisfaction). More attention to the influence of specific