Table 3. Results of the hierarchical...

Table 3.

Results of the hierarchical linear regression: exploratory innovation and firm performance relationship

Model	Control variables model β	Direct effect model β	Contingency model β	Configurational model β
Dependent variable: Firm performance
Constant	5.07	6.44	6.42	6.39
Control variables
Firm age	−0.15	−0.05	−0.06	−0.05
D1_ Private limited companies^a	−0.09	−0.08	−0.08	−0.09
D2_Public limited companies^b	−0.04	−0.08	−0.09	−0.11
Independent variables
Exploratory innovation		−0.55***	−0.54***	−0.52***
Centralisation		−0.00	−0.00	−0.01
Interactions
Exploratory innovation × centralisation			0.07	0.06
Exploratory innovation × dynamism			−0.03	−0.03
Centralisation × dynamism			0.06	0.08
Exploratory innovation × centralisation × environmental dynamism				0.07
R-square	0.026	0.323	0.332	0.335
Adjusted R-square	0.002	0.295	0.287	0.283
R-square change	0.026	0.298***	0.009	0.003

Model	Control variables model β	Direct effect model β	Contingency model β	Configurational model β
Dependent variable: Firm performance
Constant	5.07	6.44	6.42	6.39
Control variables
Firm age	−0.15	−0.05	−0.06	−0.05
D1_ Private limited companies^a	−0.09	−0.08	−0.08	−0.09
D2_Public limited companies^b	−0.04	−0.08	−0.09	−0.11
Independent variables
Exploratory innovation		−0.55***	−0.54***	−0.52***
Centralisation		−0.00	−0.00	−0.01
Interactions
Exploratory innovation × centralisation			0.07	0.06
Exploratory innovation × dynamism			−0.03	−0.03
Centralisation × dynamism			0.06	0.08
Exploratory innovation × centralisation × environmental dynamism				0.07
R-square	0.026	0.323	0.332	0.335
Adjusted R-square	0.002	0.295	0.287	0.283
R-square change	0.026	0.298***	0.009	0.003

Note(s):

***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10; Standardised βeta coefficients are reported; ^a,bFirm ownership was a categorical variable with three groups (i.e. private limited, public limited and others) and thus, two dummy variables were included in the model

Source(s): Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable