Understanding how firms can promote exploratory and exploitative innovations is of high interest for both scholars and practitioners. Although a substantial body of research has emphasized that top management's transformational leadership is crucial to innovation, the mechanisms through which strategic leaders influence these distinct types of innovations remain unclear. Building on upper echelon and social learning theory, this study develops and empirically examines a model that investigates the mediating roles of three distinct strategic orientations (market, learning, and entrepreneurial orientation) on the relationship between transformational leadership and exploratory and exploitative innovation. Using meta‐analytic methods combined with structural equation modeling, this study integrates findings from separate research streams, covering over 15 years of research, and using a sample of 215 effect sizes from 75 studies. The results from the partial mediation model reveal that transformational leaders play a key role in creating these specific strategic orientations which, in turn, support different innovation outcomes. Specifically, the findings indicate that transformational leaders promote exploitative innovations predominantly by building a market orientation, whereas they foster exploratory innovations by stimulating an entrepreneurial and a learning orientation. Hence, this study extends upper echelon research by uncovering the different mechanisms through which transformational leaders promote exploratory and exploitative innovations as it theoretically identifies and empirically validates the unique mediating roles of three specific strategic orientations. The results thus provide valuable insights for the challenging management of exploratory and exploitative innovations, as they provide a “guiding map” which reveals how transformational leaders from the top may use specific orientations to foster these distinct types of innovations.

Research on entrepreneurial organizations has grown rapidly over recent decades. However, prior research has developed different ways to conceptualize entrepreneurial organizations, resulting in an ongoing discussion and a highly complex body of research, thus hindering the evolution of the literature. To improve our understanding of the structure and content of the field, we provide a synthesis of these conceptualizations and how they are reflected in the literature through a bibliometric analysis. Our findings uncover research topics and theoretical foundations of the field and how certain conversations pursue them through different conceptualizations. Building on our results, we identify future research opportunities.

An increasing body of research has emphasized that managerial social networks are crucial for innovation. However, empirical research has yielded inconclusive results which have stimulated an ongoing debate about which type of networks are most conducive to innovation: bonding (cohesive) or bridging (diverse) networks? To resolve this debate, a growing number of scholars have argued that whether cohesive or diverse networks are more beneficial for innovation depends on the context. To extend this stream of research, this study draws on social network and institutional theory to examine the moderating role of both formal and informal institutional environments. Using several meta‐analytic techniques to integrate findings from 88 studies, thereby spanning 26 different countries and 20 years of research, the results of this study reveal that institutional environments significantly moderate the impact bonding and bridging networks have on innovation. In particular, the findings indicate that cohesive networks are more effective to stimulate innovation in weak political, regulatory, and financial institutions as well as in collectivistic cultures, whereas diverse networks are more beneficial for innovation in strong political and regulatory institutions as well as in individualistic cultures. This study thus extends prior research on managerial networks and innovation by uncovering how formal and informal institutions influence whether bridging or bonding networks are more beneficial for innovation. For practitioners, the results provide important insights as they reveal how top managers can cope with different formal institutions and cultural settings through specific types of networks to best promote innovation. Practitioner Points Top managers can use different types of networks (cohesive vs. diverse) to foster innovation. However, whether cohesive or diverse networks are more beneficial for innovation depends on the institutional environment in which they are embedded. As establishing and maintaining networks is costly and time‐consuming, top managers should focus on the fit between the type of network and the institutional setting they are in to best promote innovation. Specifically, top managers should build cohesive networks to cope with weak political, regulatory, and financial institutions, whereas they should invest in diverse networks in strong political and regulatory institutions to foster innovation. Moreover, top managers should establish cohesive networks to foster innovation in collectivistic cultures, whereas they should build diverse networks in individualistic cultures.

No abstract

Understanding product innovation in family firms is an important research endeavor given the economic predominance of those firms, their idiosyncrasies, and the importance of constant renewal for those firms to achieve transgenerational survival. Recently, family firm research has highlighted the role of next‐generation chief executive officers (CEOs; i.e., successors) who are often seen as drivers for innovating a family firm’s products. However, prior research has typically neglected that predecessors, who are often portrayed as less willing to introduce product innovation, frequently remain involved postsuccession through occupying board positions and thus still substantially influence the decision‐making processes and outcomes of family firms, such as product innovation. As a result, our understanding of the role of predecessors and their postsuccession involvement in family firms’ product innovation remains unclear. Building on stakeholder salience theory and on insights from the literature on innovation and succession in family firms, we develop hypotheses about how and under which conditions the predecessor’s board retention affects product innovation in family firms after succession. Building on more than 200 family firm CEO succession cases in small‐ and medium‐sized, privately owned family firms, our results reveal that the predecessor’s board retention negatively affects product innovation. This negative effect is strengthened with increasing involvement of the predecessor in the successor selection process, and it is offset in the case of family succession. Our findings contribute to the emerging stream of research on family firm succession and product innovation and provide important implications for practice.