Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Published: 2019-01-03


Istanbul Arel University

Çiğdem KAYA

Çiğdem Kaya, PhD, is an instructor at Business Administration Department at Istanbul Arel University, Turkey. Her research and teaching interest include organizational theory, social entrepreneurship, social responsibility, and organizational behaviour. She has published her research in journals such as Management Research Review, Business Management Dynamics, International Journal of Business and Environment, among others.
Marmara University


Göksel Ataman is a professor of management at Marmara University, Turkey, where she holds International Business’ Chair in Business Administration. She holds a doctorate in management and organization from the Marmara University, Turkey.  While on sabbatical in 1996/1997, Professor Ataman spent eleven months in as a Visiting Researcher at the University Plymouth, England. She sits on the editorial boards of five journals. Her research interests include intercultural management, organizational culture, organizational theory and teamwork. She has published more than 30 academic articles has also written a book, which was published in 2001, 2002 and 2009. She teaches courses in organization theory and design and intercultural management at the undergraduate and graduate level.

Commercialization Center of Istanbul.

İbrahim H. ELBAŞI

İbrahim Elbasi is a third-year PhD Student at the Department of Management and Organization, Marmara University. He received a bachelor’s degree in business administration both from Istanbul Technical University and State University of New York at New Paltz by participating International Dual Diploma Program and a master’s degree in Strategy Science (Science and Technology Strategies) from Gebze Institute of High Technology. His interests are focused on strategic management, organization theory, innovation and entrepreneurship. He is also a managing director of Commercialization Center of Istanbul (Foundation), multi-functional entrepreneurship center.


Because innovation and environmental uncertainty are highly crucial concepts for organizations’ survival, and managers are key decision makers in organizational operations, investigating the relationship between innovation and environmental uncertainty from managers’ lenses is important. This study aims to explore how managers’ adoption of radical and incremental innovation is affected by perceived environmental uncertainty (PEU). Data collected from 230 managers that work for companies that operate in various industries has been analyzed by using Multinomial logistic regression analysis. Results of the study indicate that government and policies factor is the effective factor on managers’ decisions on innovation adoption, and in uncertain environments in terms of governmental and policy factor, managers choose to adopt both types of innovation since they want avoid to take risks of adopting solely one type of innovation. 


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M. W. (2009). “Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 696-717.
  2. Austin, J. E. 1990. Managing in developing countries. New York: Free Press.
  3. Benner, M. J., and Tushman, M. L. (2003). “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28, pp. 238-256.
  4. Cameron, C., and Trivedi, P. (2010). Microeconometrics Using Stata. Texas: Stata Press.
  5. Christensen, C.M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  6. Çetin, C. (2009). Liderlik stilleri, değişim yönetimi ve ekip çalışması [Leadership styles, change management and team works], İstanbul: İTO Yayınları.
  7. Daft, R. and Weick, K. (1984) “Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 9 No.2, pp. 284–95.
  8. Damanpour, F. and Schneider, M. (2006). “Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: effects of environment, organization and top managers”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 215–236.
  9. De Lancer Julnes, P. And Holzer, M. (2001). “Promoting utilization of performance measures in public organizations: an empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 693-708.
  10. Dewar, R.D. and J.E. Dutton (1986) "The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis", Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1422-1433.
  11. Duncan, R.B. (1972). “Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 313-327.
  12. Duquenne, M.-N., & Vlontzos, G. (2012). “The Greek olive oil market and the factor affecting it”. Discussion Paper Series, pp. 61-82.
  13. Elhamma, A. (2015). The relationship between activity based costing, perceived environmental uncertainty and global performance, International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp.73-90.
  14. Ettlie, J. E. (1983). “Organizational policy and innovation among suppliers to the food processing sector”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 27-44.
  15. Fores, B. and Camison, C. (2016). “Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol.69, pp. 831–848.
  16. Germain, R. (1996). “The role of context and structure in radical and incremental logistics innovation adoption”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35, pp. 117–127.
  17. Gibson, G. B. and Birkinshaw, J.(2004). “The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
  18. Gilsing, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., and Pieters, M. (2014). Mind the gap: Balancing alliance network and technology portfolios during periods of technological uncertainty, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 81, pp. 351–362.
  19. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., and Shalley, C. E. (2006). “The interplay between exploration and exploitation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp.693-706.
  20. Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  21. Hannan, M. T. and J. Freeman. (1977). Population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Society. Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 929-964.
  22. Hofstede, G. (1983). “National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural differences among nations”, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 13 No. 1-2, pp. 46-74.
  23. Hosmer, D., Lemeshow, S., Sturdivant, R. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression. Canada:Wiley&Sons Publications.
  24. İyigün, Ö. and Çetin, C. (2012). Psikolojik kontratın örgütsel sapma üzerindeki etkisi ve ilaç sektöründe bir araştırma [The impact of psychological contract on organizational deviance and a research in pharmaceutical sector], Öneri, Vol. 10 No. 37, pp.15-29.
  25. Jansen, J.J.P., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., (2005). “Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: the impact of environmental and organizational antecedents”, Schmallenbach Business Review, Vol. 57, pp. 351-363.
  26. Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and H.W. Volberda. (2006). “Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators”. Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 11, pp. 1661–1674.
  27. Karpak, B., Kaya, Ç. and Eunni, R. V. (2010). “Exploring the dynamics of innovation in high-tech industries: an ecological perspective”, Review of Business Research, Volume 10, Number 5, 2010, p. 42-53. Review of Business Research, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 42-53.
  28. Kartaltepe Behram, N. and Özdemirci, A. (2014). “The empirical link between environmental conditions, organizational culture, corporate entrepreneurship and performance: the mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 264-276.
  29. Kim, WC and Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
  30. Koberg, C. S., Detienne, D. R., and Heppard, K. A. (2003). “An empirical test of environmental, organizational, and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation”, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 14, pp. 21-45.
  31. Koza M.P. and Lewin A.Y. (1998). “The co-evolution of strategic alliances”, Organization Science, Vol. 9, pp. 255-264.
  32. Kuan, K.K.Y., and Chau, P. Y. K. (2001). “A perception based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology-organization-environment framework”, Information & Management, Vol. 38, pp. 507-521.
  33. Lavie, D., Kang, J., and Rosenkopf, L. (2011). Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances, Organization Science, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 1517–1538.
  34. Lavie, D., and Rosenkopf, L. (2006). “Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No.4, pp. 797-818.
  35. Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research.
  36. McCabe, D.L. (1990). “The assessment of perceived environmental uncertainty and economic performance”, Human Relations, Vol. 43 No. 12, pp 1203-1218.
  37. Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  38. Miller, K. D. (1997). Measurement of Perceived Environmental Uncertainties: Response and Extension, Purdue CIBER Working Papers, Paper 123,
  39. Milliken, FJ (1987). “Three types of perceived environmental uncertainty about the environment: state, effect and response uncertainty”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 133-143.
  40. Moore, G. C. and Benbasat, I. (1991). “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 192-221.
  41. Orlikowski, W.J. (1991). Radical and incremental innovations in systems development: an empirical investigation of case tools, CISR WP No. 221, Sloan WP No. 3283, Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  42. Sargut, S. (1994). Kültürlerarası Farklılaşma ve Yönetim [Cross Cultural Differentiation and Management], Verso Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  43. Smit, C. (2015). Uncertainty Avoidance in International Business: The Hidden Cultural Dimension You Need To Understand When Doing Business Overseas, Culture Matters., (accessed 17 October 2016).
  44. Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  45. Tidd, J. (2001). “Innovation management in context: environment, organization and performance”, International Journal of Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 169-183.
  46. Tornatzky, L. G. and Klein, K. J. (1982). “Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of findings”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 28-43.
  47. Tushman, M. L., and O’Reilly, C. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Rev. 38, 8–30.
  48. Tushman, M. L., and Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7 (pp. 171–222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  49. Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J, and Volberda, H. W. (2012): How firms shape knowledge to explore and exploit: a study of knowledge flows, knowledge stocks and innovative performance across units, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24:9, 929-950.

How to Cite

KAYA, Çiğdem, ATAMAN, G., & ELBAŞI, İbrahim H. (2019). PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTY AND INNOVATION ADOPTION: EXPLORING THE TURKISH CONTEXT. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(4), 770-789.