175 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers 1 Received: 22nd November 2024; Accepted: 3rd March 2024 Effects of Corporate Purpose on Organizational Innovation: An Explanatory Mixed-Methods Analysis Marco ARRAYA 1 , Anabela MONTEIRO 2 1 Universidade Europeia (Lisboa, Portugal); Graduate School of Business Leadership, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa; and NECE – Research Unit in Business Sciences, Covilhã, Portugal, ORCID 0000-0002-0114-313X, marco@arraya.net 2 Universidade Europeia (Lisboa, Portugal); CiTUR – Centre of Applied Research in Tourism and Hospitality of the Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, ORCID 0000-0001-8506-6073 Purpose: The current study has two primary goals: first, to examine the influence of corporate purpose on organi - zational innovation and second, to analyze the sequential mediation effect of both a people-centric approach and infrastructure between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. Design/Methodology: A sequential explanatory mixed-method design was used in this study. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and PROCESS macro were applied based on 188 online questionnaires completed by employees of a leading Portuguese publishing company, followed by a thematic analysis of 37 structured interviews. Results: The quantitative findings indicate that corporate purpose has a positive impact on organizational innova - tion and that both the people-centric approach and organizational infrastructure serve as significant mediators in the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. Moreover, the people-centric approach and organizational infrastructure sequentially mediate the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. The qualitative data corroborate and deepen these findings, revealing the crucial role of a people-centric approach and organizational infrastructure as mediators in corporate purpose to cope with organizational innovation. Conclusions: Our study provides theoretical and practical implications for practitioners, researchers, and business leaders to better understand the relationship between these concepts and opportunities for further research. Keywords: Corporate purpose, Organizational infrastructure, Organizational innovation, People-centric approach, Sequential mediation DOI: 10.2478/orga-2025-0011 1 Introduction Peter Drucker, a prominent figure in modern man- agement, was one of the first to stress the importance of having a clear corporate purpose. In his influential book “Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices,” pub- lished in 1974, Drucker emphasized the core purpose of a business as the chief goal of delivering value to customers and enhancing their well-being. Thus, one of the key ele- ments contributing to a business’s corporate purpose and potential economic success is proximity to customers. This factor enables validation of the business model, ensures its 176 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers survival, attracts resources, and promotes the well-being of customers and other stakeholders. From this perspective, it can be reasoned that corporate purposes transcend market- ing tactics (Harrison et al., 2020). Instead, it represents the driving force behind a company’s existence, the reason for its business activities, and the foundation upon which its purpose is built (Gartenberg, 2023; van Ingen et al., 2021). Essentially, it serves as a catalyst for fostering customer well-being and business viability (Harrison et al., 2020). Thus, the primary objective of any business is to prior- itize customers, which involves capturing, satisfying, and retaining them. This requires continuous focus on organi- zational innovation and efficiency in the use of resources, capabilities, organizational infrastructure, systems, pro- cesses, and operations. By achieving these goals, a compa- ny can differentiate itself from its competitors in the mar- ketplace and create a unified approach among the diverse stakeholders involved in the creation, shared production, and consumer welfare processes (Blair & Stout, 1999; Re- ichheld et al., 2021). This customer-centric approach en- hances a company’s sustainability because customers are considered valuable members of society who contribute to the economy by purchasing goods and services, benefiting both the company and society as a whole. This customer-centric approach was further reinforced by Reichheld et al. (2021), who conducted a compre- hensive analysis of numerous businesses, arguing that a company’s purpose should be to improve the lives of its customers and that this mission should be embraced by all members of the organization. In 2011, Pink highlighted the significance of finding a purpose in one’s work, which holds true for both employees and larger communities. Ac- cording to Freeman and Ginena (2015), companies with a clear purpose can improve their quality of life and posi- tively contribute to society. Given the statements made above, corporate purpose refers to the meaning, identity, inspiration, actions, and consequences of a company on society and its stakehold- ers (Henderson & Van den Steen, 2015; Mayer, 2021; Porter & Kramer, 2019). This serves as a means for em- ployees to align themselves with the overall goals that contribute to the long-term sustainability of the company and to improve society (Ellsworth, 2002). This promotes collaboration and performance among employees, teams, and knowledge networks, ultimately benefiting those who utilize a company’s products or services (Breuer & Lüde- ke-Freund, 2017; Hollensbe et al., 2014; Mourkogiannis, 2008). To maintain a competitive edge, companies must en- gage in ongoing innovation cycles that focus on attracting, satisfying, and retaining their customers. This makes or- ganizational innovation a key aspect of business endeav- ors. It involves the process of imbuing resources, capabili- ties, systems, and processes with newfound organizational effectiveness, resulting in improved economic and social outcomes and the creation of wealth. According to Druck- er (1974) and Rogers (1995), this requires the implemen- tation of new organizational practices that produce a sig- nificant impact and value while adhering to the company’s purpose. Essentially, this study posits that organizational innovation reflects new practices implemented in a com- pany that have a significant and meaningful impact. Thus, this study focuses on organizational innovation, encom- passing fresh approaches to work, administrative modi- fications, and managerial styles that alter the process of converting imaginative concepts into tangible goods and services with the ultimate objective of attaining a competi- tive edge (Baregheh et al., 2009; Fay et al., 2014; Migdadi, 2019). Referring to the concept of organizational innovation and the dynamic capabilities view (DCV), two crucial me- diating constructs have emerged (Al-Tal & Emeagwali, 2019; Arraya & Ferreira, 2024; Carew et al., 2009): (1) employee-focused human resource practices and an inter- nal network of motivated individuals who think and act proactively, that is, companies with a people-centric ap- proach; and (2) a well-structured organizational infrastruc- ture composed of resources, capabilities, competencies, processes, and routines that foster innovation. The DCV posits that companies can gain a competitive advantage and attain significant economic returns by ef- fectively adapting, integrating, reconfiguring, and coordi- nating their internal and external capabilities to respond to market dynamics through innovation (Kareem et al., 2024; Teece, 2023). Furthermore, this approach emphasizes the importance of a people-centric approach in developing organizational competencies that positively affect overall performance and enhance a company’s competitive ad- vantage (Buzzao & Rizzi, 2020; Harsch & Festing, 2019; Khan et al., 2020). Hence, human resources are given a people-centric approach as part of their dynamic capabili- ties, which can serve as a source of competitive advantage, its direct influence on organizational infrastructure, and its role as an unexplored mediator in the literature on corpo- rate purposes and organizational innovation. A company’s organizational infrastructure refers to its organization, which includes resources, capabilities, pro- cesses, microsystems, routines, workflows, and practices that are aligned with its corporate purpose and support a customer-centric culture (Carew et al., 2009; Drucker, 1974; Grant, 2010). This organizational infrastructure should enable a company to rapidly adapt and innovate in response to changes in the external environment; stream- line work processes; enhance the quality of products, ser- vices, and customer experience; expedite coordination between individuals and departments; and facilitate work (Carew et al., 2009; Lamberti, 2013). It also potentially serves as a mediator between corporate purpose and or- ganizational innovation, which has not yet been explored. The significance of corporate purpose as a guiding 177 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers principle for organizational innovation cannot be over- stated. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this orientation can be amplified through the mediation of people-centric approaches and organizational infrastructure. To the best of our knowledge, no study has examined the interconnec- tions between these four constructs. To demonstrate the scarcity of studies on the relationship between these con- structs, a bibliographic search was conducted in the Scop- us and Web of Science (WoS) databases. The search used the search string terms “corporate purpose” OR “company purpose”; “organizational innovation” OR “innovation”; “people-centric”; and “organizational infrastructure”. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English journals with no imposed time limits. The search process encompassed “all fields” to identify relevant arti- cles, and six search equations were processed, as shown in Table 1. The literature search yielded 148 and 119 articles from the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases, respec- tively, totaling 267 articles. After merging the two databas- es and removing duplicate studies based on title screening, 185 articles were selected for the review. The researchers searched for articles that fulfilled the four constructs de- fined in this study, and none of the studies presented a con- jugation of these dimensions. According to research find- ings, it is apparent that academics have not demonstrated a growing interest in subject matter over the years. Considering DCV , the following research question is posited: can the relationship between a company’s purpose and organizational innovation be sequentially mediated by a human-centric approach and organizational structure? Thus, this study explores the research gap in the mediators that influence the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. An explanatory sequential design was chosen as the methodology for the study, as it involves using quantitative research (a serial multi-medi- ation model) as a preliminary step for subsequent qualita- tive investigation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; Homer & Lim, 2024). This study makes significant contributions to the ex- isting literature on the significance of corporate purpose and organizational innovation. The first contribution is the identification of two sequential mediators, namely a (A) (B) (C) (D) “Corporate purpose” OR “Company purpose” (A) - 23 3 0 “Organizational innovation” OR “Innovation” (B) 76 - 39 47 “People centric” (C) 36 12 - 7 “Organizational Infrastructure” (D) 1 15 8 - Table 1: Search strategies to select articles Note: Scopus (left-side) e Web of Science (WoS) (right-side) people-centric approach and organizational infrastructure, which explain the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. The second contribution is a favorable environment for fostering innovation that results when the corporate purpose is combined with a people-centered approach and supportive organizational infrastructure. The third contribution is the crucial inter- action between people and organizational infrastructure, which is essential for a company’s adaptation to external trends and the maintenance of a creative network. The fourth contribution is the specificity of the organization- al infrastructure, which makes it difficult to replicate or imitate, thus serving as a critical factor in maintaining a competitive market position. The fifth contribution is the direct virtuous cycle provided by the four constructs. Fi- nally, this study identifies gaps and future directions that can help improve our understanding of the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. These contributions will enable practitioners, researchers, and business leaders to better comprehend the relationship between these concepts, prioritize initiatives, and devel- op operational methodologies that facilitate the long-term success of companies. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a literature review and formulates re- search hypotheses. Sections 3 and 4 describe the research methodology in detail along with the corresponding re- sults. Section 5 discusses the implications and presents the conclusions, and Section 6 concludes with the limitations and future areas of investigation. 2 Theoretical Framework The adoption of a corporate purpose that encompasses customer satisfaction and business viability, and promotes a better society, serves as a guiding light for a company’s success (Henderson, 2020). To achieve this, it is crucial to involve all stakeholders and prioritize the well-being of employees and customers (Ellsworth, 2002; Henderson, 2020; Metcalf & Benn, 2012; Sisodia & Gelb, 2019). In doing so, the purpose directly influences the necessary changes in the company’s policies and practices to enhance 178 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers customer operations, achieve better social outcomes, and improve stakeholder relationships (Mayer, 2021). Alterations in the trajectory of improved performance standards necessitate a dynamic strategy that encompass- es three fundamental elements (Peters 1987): adaptability, initiative, and entrepreneurial creativity. In simpler terms, this involves a fluid organizational structure that embraces change and fosters a culture of innovation and proactive problem-solving, underpinned by three foundational pil- lars: purpose, people, and strategy. A clear and shared corporate purpose inspires commit- ment and drives action, resulting in the creation of value within a company (Ellsworth, 2002; Henderson, 2020; Pink, 2011). This can be achieved by aligning individu- als with the company’s purpose of finding meaning and encouragement in their work and designing an organiza- tional infrastructure that supports the company’s strategy and tactics (Henderson, 2020; Mayer, 2021). Additionally, promoting organizational innovation to meet customer and stakeholder needs can help achieve this goal. Ultimately, as Drucker (1974: 361) stated, “the purpose of an organi- zation is to enable ordinary human beings to do extraordi- nary things.” 2.1 Corporate Purpose and organizational innovation According to Ocasio et al. (2023), corporate purpose enables managers to overcome “business myopia” in re- sponse to crises and uncertainties, thereby enabling them to discover new insights, maintain their focus, and main- tain the company’s direction. Similarly, Henderson (2020) asserted that corporate purpose alerts a company to new business opportunities, thereby increasing the likelihood that the company will “see” the need for innovation. Mad- den (2017) posited that corporate purpose promotes the survival and prosperity of a company through innovation and efficiency gains by fostering feedback and learning, which are essential components of the company’s innova- tion process. Organizational ability, creativity, agility, initiative, technological advancement, and human resource manage- ment are the key factors in achieving innovation. These el- ements work together to foster continuous learning and ex- ploration, as well as to acquire new resources, knowledge, and capabilities from the external environment. By incor- porating these resources and capabilities into a company, stakeholders, particularly customers, value new products and processes (Camisón & Villar-López, 2014; Chen et al., 2019; Lawson & Samson, 2001; Silva & Cirani, 2020). A company’s corporate purpose serves as a guide for its strategy and innovation activities, as it integrates resourc- es, capabilities, methods, and business practices to align all departments towards a common goal, thereby fostering a culture of transformation within the organization (Agu- ilera, 2023; Gartenberg et al., 2019; Madden, 2017; Teece, 2023; Yemiscigil, 2019). Given the vital role of innovation in attracting and re- taining customers, it is imperative to investigate whether corporate purpose affects organizational innovation. Con- sequently, we propose the following hypothesis: H1. Corporate Purpose is positively related to organi- zational innovation. 2.2 Multiple mediating roles of People- centric and Infrastructure A people-centric approach refers to placing a compa- ny’s employees at the center of everything. This involves understanding their needs, promoting knowledge sharing, fostering creativity, considering opinions in decision-mak- ing processes, and what inspires and motivating them to give their best (Lepeley, 2017; Upadhyay & Kumar, 2020). This result was consistent with the findings of Halbes- leben et al. (2014), Lepeley (2017), and Malnight et al. (2019), a people-centric approach serves as an essential strategic element for the success of any business irrespec- tive of its unique business model and innovation process. This is due to the fact that employee engagement, enable- ment, and empowerment are crucial components of this approach. When employees feel valued and cared for, they are driven by a deep sense of purpose and strong intrin- sic motivation, which has a significant impact on reducing absenteeism, turnover, safety incidents, and quality inci- dents (defects), and improving customer metrics, produc- tivity, profitability, and outperforming competitors. This approach can lead to several benefits, including increased job satisfaction, higher talent retention, and improved pro- ductivity and profitability (Fu et al., 2015; Ma Prieto & Pilar Pérez-Santana, 2014). Consequently, for businesses to succeed, it is essential to maintain a work environment that fosters a sense of belonging, respect, and recognition among the employees. According to Meijerink et al. (2020) and Mehta et al. (2016), fostering such an environment can lead to increased employee engagement, improved com- munication, and heightened morale, ultimately resulting in a positive impact on a company’s bottom line. An enabling work environment is equipped with the essential resources, expertise, technology, and processes required to excel in roles and achieve objectives (Colen- baugh & Reigel, 2010). This fosters employee empower- ment, which enhances the capabilities of individuals and benefits the company. Providing employees with the au- tonomy to make decisions without seeking approval from others is one way that leaders can demonstrate their ap- preciation, resulting in increased productivity, improved service quality, heightened job satisfaction, and improved skill development (Yin et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). 179 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers Several studies have shown that adopting a people-centric approach can lead to improved safety records, reduced staff turnover, increased job satisfaction, and greater in- volvement, ultimately enhancing a company’s overall per- formance (Buzzao & Rizzi, 2020; Upadhyay & Kumar, 2020). Considering the aforementioned points, it can be con- cluded that a people-centric approach forms a crucial as- pect of the paradigm of Person-Organization Adjustment, which considers the two types of relationships that may exist between individuals and organizations (Verquer et al., 2003). These relationships involve the mutual satis- faction of each other’s needs and the sharing of similar characteristics and interests between the individual and organization. According to van Ingen et al. (2021), the adjustment of the founding purpose and values as part of the person–organization adjustment process serves as an explanatory mechanism that links corporate purpose with the organization’s outcomes. Moreover, a people-centric approach can positively affect innovation and the overall company performance. Commitment-oriented HR practices motivate employees to interact socially while carrying out their day-to-day tasks, thereby increasing creativity and innovation capaci- ty (Ceylan, 2013; Popa et al., 2017). Therefore, companies adopting this approach are more likely to develop skills that benefit their innovation and performance. Consistent with these findings, our research posits that a people-cen- tered approach serves as a mediator between an organi- zation’s purpose and its innovative endeavors. Therefore, the preceding arguments suggest the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2. A people-centric approach mediates the relationship between corporate purpose and organization- al innovation. We argue that organizational infrastructure is a strate- gic and operational system that consists of essential and core resources and capabilities to support operations and company objectives. Its agent is people, and its micro-level includes processes, routines, tools, workflow, and practic- es that enable it to achieve its goals in a financially viable, scalable, and sustainable manner (Arraya, 2024; Teece, 2023). Thus, a company’s organizational infrastructure is a critical component that must be carefully planned and managed to ensure long-term success. These elements are intended to foster a customer-cen- tric culture and achieve predefined goals (Carew et al., 2009; Grant, 2010). A well-designed organizational infra- structure should facilitate a company’s ability to adapt and innovate in response to external changes, streamline work processes, enhance product and service quality, and im- prove customer experience. Additionally, it should facil- itate coordination between different work areas and indi- viduals, and make work more efficient (Carew et al., 2009; Lamberti, 2013). Therefore, the preceding arguments sug- gest the following hypothesis: H3. Organizational infrastructure mediates the rela- tionship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. Previous research suggests that corporate purpose and organizational innovation are linked through a people-cen- tered approach and organizational infrastructure, as evi- denced by the arguments presented above. Employees are considered one of the most critical stakeholders as they are responsible for executing the company’s initiatives and bearing their consequences (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). For a company to achieve its corporate purpose, it is essential that its employees accept and support its objectives (Moss- holder et al., 2011). In doing so, they can apply their knowl- edge and skills, offer innovative solutions, and undertake value-generating activities (Lepeley, 2017; Upadhyay & Kumar, 2020). However, this requires organizational in- frastructure that supports and differentiates the company from its competitors. Such an infrastructure brings togeth- er resources and capabilities that, when working together, enable the company to operate effectively, generate inno- vative technological ideas, develop and execute them to penetrate the market, and create customer satisfaction and economic value (Barney et al., 2021). Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis: H4. The people-centric approach and organizational infrastructure play sequential mediating roles in the as- sociation between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. Integrating hypotheses H1–H4, the research model is presented in Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual model to examine the relationship between corporate purpose, people-centric and organizational infra- structure, and organizational innovation. The direction of the arrow signifies the influence of one dimension on the consequent 180 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers 3 Methodology A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design that integrated quantitative and qualitative approaches was im- plemented for triangulation to assess the extent to which quantitative and qualitative findings corroborated each other (Creswell & Plano Clarke, 2017; Morse, 2018). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected sequen- tially and analyzed independently, and the latter was used to elucidate the former and bridge gaps in the quantita- tive outcomes. Subsequently, the data were merged and integrated to generate research implications for theory and practice (Morse & Neihaus, 2009). For the quantitative component, the population con- sisted of a single-company approach, which enabled re- searchers to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the elements and factors that influence the organizational context (Yin, 2009). For the qualitative component, the sample comprised respondents from highly competitive service industries with experience and familiarity with the concepts of corporate purpose and organizational innova- tion. By conducting interviews with a distinct sample from the population surveyed in the questionnaire, the potential bias in responses from middle- and high-level managers is mitigated as they tend to overestimate the positive as- pects of the organizations they manage (Kianto, 2009). Furthermore, considering the constructs examined in this study, it is essential to triangulate the data using interview- ees [good informants (Morse, 1989)] to ensure validity (Morse et al., 2006). Purposive sampling techniques have been employed to ensure data richness (Nyimbili & Nyim- bili, 2024). The subsequent sections delineate the details of data collection, analysis, and results for each phase, in- cluding qualitative data. 3.1 Phase I: Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis The empirical data used in this study were collected through an online cross-sectional survey conducted be- tween April and May 2023. The survey consisted of 26 items and measured four dimensions: purpose — inde- pendent dimension based on Arraya and Ferreira (2024), people-centric — mediator dimension based on Arraya and Ferreira (2024), seven items; infrastructure — medi- ator dimension based on Arraya and Ferreira (2024), six items; and organizational innovation — dependent varia- ble with ten items. Since the study is explanatory, we collected data via an online survey of employees, administrative staff, and directors (Kianto, 2009) of a significant company in Portu- gal’s publishing industry, employing over 250 individuals and operating through three distribution channels: stores, digital platforms, and resellers. This entity was chosen for the following reasons: (1) Grawe et al.’s (2009) finding that limiting the population to a single industry enhanc- es the study’s internal validity; (2) it is rational to choose a relevant company in the industry for in-depth research; (3) the company that has been selected has a well-defined corporate purpose: “the promotion of individual and social reading habits and the promotion of better knowledge and use, oral and written, of the Portuguese language”; (4) it experiences substantial competitive pressure on a consist- ent basis across all its operational segments, necessitating adaptation and innovation to maintain its competitive po- sition; and (5) its strategic process incorporates corporate purpose as an element that provides direction, focus, and motivates employees to work toward a common objective. Of the 188 participants who completed the survey, 31.90% were male and 68.10% were female. The average age of the participants was 38.92 years, and the average tenure was 10.77 years. In addition, 58.00% of the partici- pants had a university degree. The dimensions employed in this study were deter- mined based on existing literature and evaluated using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= “strongly disagree”; 5= “strongly agree”). A comprehensive list of measurement items is presented in Table 2. Regarding the quality of the responses, we used every measure to ensure anonymity of the participants. Further- more, to assess the potential for common method bias, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test, which involved subjecting the research items to principal component fac- tor analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The results of this test indicated that the factor loading was below 40%, in- dicating that the common method bias was not a concern. Additionally, we carried out a full-collinearity test (Kock, 2015), and the results showed that the variance inflation factor values were below the threshold of 3.3, further con- firming that common method bias was not present. 3.1.1 Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and test of psychometric properties An exploratory factor analysis was performed to in- vestigate the relationships between the items, and the suit- ability of the data for factor analysis was first evaluated. The Pearson correlation matrix showed coefficients of 0.50 or higher, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin overall MSA value was 0.940, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically sig- nificant at 0.01, indicating that the correlation matrix was suitable for factor analysis (Table 2). The oblique promax technique was used, and four factors were extracted that explained 47.00% of the variance. All loadings are great- er than 0.40. In addition, CFI=0.940 (>0.9), TLI=0.910 (>0.9), and RMSEA=0.068 (<0.09) were greater than the threshold values (Saunders et al., 2016). 181 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers Indicator Mean (n=188) Sd (n=188) Factor Loading Corporate Purpose The leadership in our firm aligns with this shared purpose. 3.596 0.863 0.716 People in our firm have a passion for shared purposes. 3.383 0.926 0.767 In our firm, the purpose is properly defined and understood by people. 3.580 0.833 0.67 People-centric approach Our firm continually incorporates new learning into standard ways of doing business. 3.346 0.861 0.792 In our firm people are willing to exchange and combine ideas with their co-workers. 3.766 0.826 0.547 In our firm people have easy access to the information they need to do their job effectively. 3.644 0.824 0.638 Our firm provides people with appropriate information about import- ant changes. 3.612 0.861 0.716 In our firm everyone has the opportunity to influence the decisions that affect them. 2.979 0.986 0.607 Infrastructure In our firm, systems, structures, and formal and informal practices are integrated and aligned. 3.479 0.797 0.766 In our firm, formal and informal systems, structures, and practices make it easier for employees to complete their work. 3.335 0.889 0.73 In our firm, people, processes, and work routines are hard-to-copy systems that allow us to do things better than competitors while creating value for customers. 3.410 0.832 0.674 In our firm, all work processes are designed to make it easier for customers to conduct business with us. 3.511 0.824 0.641 Our firm has a clearly stated set of capabilities–that is, things you do better than anyone else–that customers’ values and competitors cannot beat. 3.521 0.843 0.597 Our firm anticipates changes in the market and responds proactively. 3.463 0.868 0.685 Table 2: Means, standard deviations, and factor loadings 182 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers Indicator Mean (n=188) Sd (n=188) Factor Loading Organizational Innovation Our organization is often first-to-market with new innovations. 3.176 1.001 0.733 In our organization, innovation is a way of life. 3.330 0.958 0.774 We are constantly looking for ways to improve our business process- es. 3.782 0.890 0.743 Our senior managers are able to effectively cascade the innovation message throughout the organization. 3.484 0.933 0.739 Our senior management team is diverse in their thinking – they have different ideas about how things should be done. 3.261 0.914 0.773 Our organization has a clear innovation vision. 3.303 0.901 0.768 Everyone in our organization knows what we want to achieve with our innovation programs. 3.340 0.890 0.722 We have continuous strategic initiatives aimed at improving our performance. 3.564 0.948 0.767 Our key executives are prepared to take risks to grow the organiza- tion or to improve performance. 3.441 0.909 0.746 We are prepared to discontinue products and services that contrib- ute only marginally to our success. 3.335 0.787 0.492 Table 2: Means, standard deviations, and factor loadings (continue) Reliability and validity tests were conducted to confirm internal consistency and reliability of the variables. Cron- bach’s alpha (>0.70) and composite reliability (CR>0.70) were used to verify the variables’ internal consistency and reliability (Hair et al., 2010). Additionally, discriminant validity was established based on the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and cross-loading, as all items loaded the highest on the corresponding latent constructs. Further- more, the square root of the latent variable A VEs exceeded the corresponding latent-variable correlations in each in- stance (see Table 3). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to establish convergent validity and dimen- sionality of the factors. The model showed goodness of fit with χ2/df=2.233, CFI=0.907 (>0.9), NFI=0.903 (>0.9), TLI=0.901 (>0.9), and RMSEA=0.081 (<0.09). Thus, the model fit results are acceptable (Saunders et al., 2016). The results of the Pearson correlation analysis are pre- sented in Table 3. Notably, all correlations were statistical- ly significant at the 95% confidence level. Furthermore, all four factors showed positive correlations. The con- firmed correlations and linear relationships between the predictors, mediators, and dependent variables satisfied the preconditions for conducting PROCESS analyses, as specified by Saunders et al. (2016). The empirical findings support this conceptual model. 3.2 Phase II: Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis The open-ended interview protocol has several ad- vantages, including its ability to concentrate specifically 183 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers on the research topic at hand, obtain comprehensive and practical information, elicit perceived causal inferences, and access to individuals’ fundamental experiences in the real world, especially when the phenomenon being studied is rare and infrequently observed. This approach is pre- ferred for acquiring extensive and insightful empirical data (Kvale & Brinkman, 2015; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2009). Although the survey outcomes influenced the com- position of the interview inquiries, they maintained an open-ended format to encourage participant-driven re- sponses. These questions were developed by referencing existing literature, which was determined following the completion of the initial phase (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The interviews followed a structured protocol with open-ended questions in four different areas: (1) the re- lationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation; (2) the relationship between the people-cen- tered approach, corporate purposes, and organizational innovation; (3) the relationship between organizational infrastructure, corporate purposes, and organizational in- novation; and (4) how the relationship between the peo- ple-centered approach and organizational infrastructure simultaneously interferes with the relationship between corporate purposes and organizational innovation. Purposive criterion sampling was used to select partic- ipants for the interviews (Nyimbili & Nyimbili, 2024) be- cause the study aimed to explore the theoretical knowledge and practical experience of the phenomena being studied (Creswell & Plano Clarke, 2017). This sampling technique uses specific criteria, including (1) respondents possessing experience in highly competitive service industries and (2) respondents demonstrating familiarity with the concepts of corporate purpose and organizational innovation. Potential participants were identified through the professional social network LinkedIn and invited to participate via a private message. Data saturation was attained through 37 interviews as the responses provided by the participants displayed a final similarity (Saunders et al, 2018). These interviews were conducted between June and July 2024, and as they were Table 3: Pearson correlation and other key dimension measures Variable 1 2 3 4 α CR AVE 1. Purpose 0.773 0.815 0.761 0.598 2. People-centric 0.791*** 0.793 0.872 0.796 0.629 3. Infrastructure 0.648*** 0.704*** 0.736 0.811 0.840 0.542 4.Organizational Innovation 0.721*** 0.733*** 0.741*** 0.751 0.925 0.918 0.564 Note: Internal consistency (α), critical ratio (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), square root of AVE estimates is presented in boldface. *** p < 0,001 conducted in Portuguese in Portugal, they were transcribed and translated into English. The participants were 23 males and 14 females. Their average age was 51.6 years, with 52 percent between the ages of 50 and 59 years, and all 37 had a university degree (six bachelor’s degrees, seven master’s degrees, and 24 PhDs). The answers to the interviews were transcribed, summarized, and categorized according to similar factors to provide data for the qualitative study. 4 Results 4.1 Phase 1: Quantitative results 4.2 Robustness test To assess the reliability of the mediating findings, we adhered to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure, which entails the following stages to evaluate People-centric and Infrastructure mediating effects on the relationship be- tween Corporate Purpose and Organizational Innovation. First, we verified that Corporate Purpose significantly af- fects Organizational Innovation. Second, we verified that Corporate Purpose significantly affects both People-cen- tric and Infrastructure. Third, we demonstrated the signif- icant and positive indirect effect of Corporate Purpose on Organizational Innovation through People-centric, indi- cating that Corporate Purpose exerts a positive influence on Organizational Innovation by leveraging the impact of People-centric. Fourth, we demonstrate the presence of a significant indirect effect between Corporate Purpose on Organizational Innovation through Infrastructure, indicat- ing that Corporate Purpose exerts a positive influence on Organizational Innovation through the mediation of In- frastructure. Fifth, we confirm the presence of a positive and significant indirect effect between Corporate Purpose on Organizational Innovation through both People-cen- tric and Infrastructure, revealing that People-centric and Infrastructure sequentially and positively mediate the re- lationship between Corporate Purpose and Organizational Innovation. 184 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers 4.3 Direct effects analysis The PROCESS by JASP (0.18.3) computer program was used to perform direct effects tests. Table 4 presents the results of these tests, including the path coefficients for direct effects. According to our hypothesis, Purpose pos- itively influences Organizational Innovation (β = 0.265, p < 0.01), and this effect was verified. Additionally, our findings indicate that People-centric has a positive and sta- tistically significant impact on Organizational Innovation (β = 0.250, p = 0.002) as does Infrastructure (β = 0.424, p < 0.01). No control variables (gender or education) were found to have a statistically significant effect on Organiza- tional Innovation. 4.4 Mediating effects analysis This research focuses on investigating the mediating role of People-centric and Infrastructure in the connection between Purpose and Organizational Innovation, as sug- gested by hypotheses H2, H3, and H4. Table 4 presents the results of the mediation analysis using the bootstrap method. The indirect effect of the Peo- ple-centric approach on the relationship between Purpose and Organizational Innovation is significantly positive (β = 0.175, p = 0.002, 95% CI = 0.022–0.304) as the bootstrap confidence interval excludes zero. Thus, H2 is justified. Furthermore, the indirect effect of Infrastructure on the relationship between Purpose and Organizational Innova- tion is significantly positive (β = 0.091, p = 0.007, 95% CI = 0.024–0.176), as the bootstrap confidence interval does not contain zero. Therefore, H3 was verified. Finally, the multi-mediating effect of People-centric and Infrastructure on the relationship between Purpose and Organizational Innovation is significantly positive (β = 0.151, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.080–0.240). with bootstrap confidence inter- vals greater than zero. Hence, H4 was confirmed. Label Estimate β Std. Error z-value p Corporate Purpose → Organizational Innovation c1 0.265 0.067 3.977 < .001 People-centric → Organizational Innovation b1 0.250 0.081 3.096 0.002 Organizational Infrastructure → Organizational Innovation b2 0.424 0.065 6.511 < .001 Corporate Purpose → People-centric a1 0.697 0.039 17.713 < .001 Corporate Purpose → Organizational Infrastructure a2 0.215 0.073 2.952 0.003 People-centric → Organizational Infrastructure d1 0.510 0.083 6.173 < .001 Mediation effects Label Estimate β Std. Error z-value p Corporate Purpose → Organizational Innovation c1 0.265 0.067 3.977 < .001 Corporate Purpose → People-centric → Organiza- tional Innovation a1*b1 0.175 0.057 3.050 0.002 Corporate Purpose → Organizational Infrastruc- ture → Organizational Innovation a2*b2 0.091 0.034 2.689 0.007 Corporate Purpose → People-centric → Organiza- tional Infrastructure → Organizational Innovation a1*d1*b2 0.151 0.035 4.343 < .001 Total effects Label Estimate β Std. Error z-value p Corporate Purpose → Organizational Innovation | Total c1+a1*b1+a2*b2+a1*d1*b2 0.682 0.048 14.266 < .001 Corporate Purpose → Organizational Innovation | Total Indirect a1*b1+a2*b2+a1*d1*b2 0.417 0.059 7.005 < .001 Table 4: Results of the multiple mediator model: direct and indirect effects Note. Confidence intervals are bias-corrected percentile bootstrapped. Path coefficients (Bootstrap = 5000). Standard errors, z -values and p -values are based on the delta method. 185 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers Table 5: Themes, meaning, frequency, and exemplary quotes related to participants’ interviews Theme Meaning Frequency Exemplary Quotes Corporate Purpose impacts or influences organi- zational innovation. Corporate Purpose is the objective of motivating teams of skilled individuals to collaborate and carry out specific tasks that ultimately benefit those who utilise their products or ser- vices. (Hollens- be et al., 2014; Mourkogiannis, 2008). Organizational innovation is the process of converting cre- ative ideas into concrete prod- ucts, services, administrative modifications, novel working methods, or management styles to secure a competitive advantage. (Baregheh et al., 2009; Fay et al., 2014; Migdadi, 2019). 34 I1: “A shared vision of corporate purpose is essential for promoting organizational innovation, as it serves as a guide, providing a compass that directs individual and collective innovation activities and initiatives. … Finally, it boosts cooperation between team members and within the organization, facilitating the implementation of new ideas and innovative solutions.” I4: “The corporate purpose, by clearly defining the company’s values and goals, provides a frame of reference for all employees. This alignment of objectives is crucial for organizational innovation.” I5: “When an organization’s employees are aligned with its corporate purpose, this will have a positive impact on the organization.” I7: “For organizational innovation to take place there needs to be alignment with the corpo- rate purpose.” I11: “Corporate Purpose forces organizational innovation.” I15: “Corporate purpose influences by establishing a clear vision and fundamental values that guide the company’s actions and decisions.” I17: “Corporate purpose, in my opinion, is also reflected in organizational leadership, which can play an important role in change, particularly in the shift towards organizational innova- tion.” I23: “A common purpose promotes a sense of organization and collaboration, which are essen- tial for innovation.” I28: “When a company has a clear purpose of creating value for stakeholders and improving economic and social results, it tends to encourage its employees to think creatively and con- stantly look for new solutions. Often, corporate purposes include commitments to sustainabil- ity and social responsibility, which drive organizational innovation towards more efficient and responsible practices.” I32: “Corporate purpose can play a crucial role in organizational innovation, as it establishes a clear and inspiring direction that can mobilize all levels of the organization.” I37: “It (corporate purpose) represents the organization’s DNA, translating its present and future impact on all its stakeholders. Considering that innovation consists of a way of being in the world that relegates permanent updating, as a way, even of subsistence and progress, I would say that innovation is inherent to purpose.” 4.5 Phase 2: Qualitative results The qualitative results are organized and presented be- low, and categorized according to the four questions. Ta- ble 5 summarizes the themes, frequency, and exemplary quotes relating to how the people-centered approach and infrastructure serve as mediators in the relationship be- tween Corporate Purpose and Organizational Innovation. 5 Discussion In this research, we aim to investigate the link between corporate purpose and organizational innovation while also assessing the sequential mediating roles of the peo- ple-centric approach and organizational infrastructure in the relationship between these two variables. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has explored these relationships, as proven by bibliographic research. The results of both investigations indicate a positive correlation between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. This finding supports the notion that corporate purpose acts as a driving force for organizational innova- tion (Schultz, 2014). The quantitative data (β=0.265) fur- ther confirms that corporate purpose has a positive impact on organizational innovation, a conclusion shared by the interviewees. Interviewee I32 is an example of a widely held opinion when he states, “corporate purpose can play a crucial role in organizational innovation, as it provides a clear and inspiring direction that can motivate all lev- els of the organization”. However, interviewee I37 takes it a step further by asserting that corporate purpose is the 186 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers Theme Meaning Frequency Exemplary Quotes Peo- ple-centric approach is a third dimen- sion that interferes with the relationship between corporate purpose and orga- nizational innovation. People-cen- tric approach focuses on prioritizing em- ployees within a company by understanding their needs, encouraging knowledge sharing, foster- ing creativity, considering their opinions in decision-mak- ing, and identifying what motivates them to perform at their best (Lepeley, 2017; Upadhyay & Kumar, 2020). 15 I1: “This perspective is more in line with reality, as a people-centered approach creates a more conducive environment for experimentation and creativity. By understanding and meeting em- ployees’ needs, promoting knowledge sharing and considering their opinions in decision-mak- ing processes, the organization not only inspires and motivates its employees, but also creates fertile ground for innovation.” I4: “I believe that a people-centered approach ensures that employees understand and com- mit to the corporate purpose in a deep and personal way, thus facilitating organizational inno- vation. Furthermore, by valuing and considering the opinions of all employees, the company benefits from a diversity of perspectives.” I5: “... after all, it’s the people who can make the difference in an organization”. I13: “Innovation only happens when people feel part of the organization, are heard, and even if they make mistakes, they know that they can always get it right and be recognized for it; the victories of each one are the victories of all and that are celebrated by everyone because everyone is proud to belong to the organization to which they dedicate themselves daily.” I15: “The people-centered approach acts as an integrating element that strengthens the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation. By ensuring that employees are involved, motivated and included in decision-making processes, this approach creates a favorable environment for innovation.” I16: “Firstly, because it takes account of the skills resident in the organization. Secondly, because it makes it possible to create sharing and synergy between the various departments/ stakeholders.” I17: Employees are agents of organizational change (innovation), and if they become aware of a company’s purpose (corporate), they can contribute to achieving organizational goals. I24: “A people-centered approach is indispensable if employees are to understand, accept and mobilize themselves to apply organizational innovation in the light of the corporate purpose. The corporate purpose must serve as an aggregating factor to harmonize ideas and visions.” I28: “The people-centered approach, by putting employees at the center of everything, acts as a crucial dimension linking Corporate Purpose and Organizational Innovation. This approach positively influences both elements in a number of ways: By putting employees at the center, the company creates a working environment aligned with its values and objectives, fosters creativity, commitment and productivity, in a culture of continuous and sustainable innova- tion.” I32: “The people-centered approach can act as a bridge between Corporate Purpose and Organizational Innovation: 1. Involvement and alignment with purpose ....; 2. Stimulation of creativity and innovation .... 3. knowledge sharing and collaboration ...” I37: “In fact, I consider that the people-centered approach does not refer only to the organiza- tion’s employees, but also to all the people affected by the organization’s performance, where, in reality, the organization’s own employees will be the center. As mentioned above, this underlies the purpose, and therefore, innovation.” Table 5: Themes, meaning, frequency, and exemplary quotes related to participants’ interviews (Continue) 187 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers Theme Meaning Frequency Exemplary Quotes Infra- structure is a third dimen- sion that interferes with the relationship between corporate purpose and orga- nizational innovation. Infrastructure is a strategic and operational system that consists of essential and core resources and capabilities to support operations and company objectives. Its agent is the people, and its micro-level includes the processes, routines, tools, workflow, and practices that enable it to achieve its goals in a financially viable, scalable, and sustainable manner (Arraya, 2024; Teece, 2023). 21 I1: “The greater the formality and rigidity of the infrastructure, the less flexibility there is for improvisation and experimentation, which are essential for organizational learning and innovation processes.” I1: “Excessive formalization can create barriers to creativity and agility, which are fundamental characteristics for innovation.” I1: “Formal infrastructure can lead to a disproportionate emphasis on operational efficiency to the detriment of exploring new possibilities.” I2: “The infrastructure is related to the strategy. Therefore, if this is a strategy, then resourc- es and capabilities are essential elements to guarantee the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation.” I4: “In addition, well-defined processes and routines aligned with the corporate purpose ensure that the company’s daily activities are always geared towards strategic objectives, allowing room for innovation.” I6: “Formal infrastructure allows a company to be organized and facilitates communication, autonomy, and innovation.” I7: “Formal infrastructure determines how organizational innovation is conducted. Innovation does not happen unless the company has the capacity to do so.” I8: “The means and resources made available by the company to its employees are funda- mental to achieving the desired objectives and without which, no matter how goodwill and dedication you have, you will always fall short of the desired goal.” I13: “Overly formal and hierarchical infrastructures are cumbersome and slow structures that increasingly have difficulty in being close to their audiences.” I14: “I think that this third dimension of “organizational infrastructure” contributes to the improvement of the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation (and vice versa; that is, if there is no organizational infrastructure or it is weak, this worsens the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation). Reason 1: With more organizational infrastructure, organizations are more empowered and have more tools to innovate. Reason 2: With the existence of a strong organizational infrastructure, employees feel that resources, skills, processes, routines, tools, and workflows are made available in an organized/structured way, which encourages employees to develop their work and contribute to organizational innovation in an organized/structured way. I15: “Formal infrastructure ensures that the company’s resources, systems, and processes are aligned with its corporate purpose, creating a cohesive environment geared toward innova- tion.” I18: “The formal structure should be an enabler or instrument to achieve the company’s goals. The profile, simplicity, logic of the structure and the availability of resources will certainly influence the purpose and innovation.” I23: “A well-designed organizational structure can facilitate communication and collaboration, ensuring that everyone works towards the same purpose.” I32: “A company’s organizational infrastructure should act as a mechanism that enables and enhances the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation: 1. Struc- tural support for strategic alignment …; 2. Efficiency and Consistency in Innovation Implemen- tation …; 3. facilitation of a culture of innovation and collaboration...” I37: “Organizational infrastructure can promote or retract from innovation. Purpose: The or- ganization’s DNA impacts the structure and tends to change it in order to improve the impact of the organization’s activity on its different stakeholders. In this sense, the purpose tends to counteract the possible negative effects of formal infrastructure on innovation and promote its alteration to promote innovation.” Table 5: Themes, meaning, frequency, and exemplary quotes related to participants’ interviews (Continue) 188 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers Theme Meaning Frequency Exemplary Quotes People-cen- tric ap- proach and Infrastruc- ture play sequential mediating roles in the association between corporate purpose and orga- nizational innovation. See concepts above. 17 I2: The relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation rests on the condition that resources and capabilities are properly matched, as well as the infrastructure that follows.” I4: “A people-centered approach and formal infrastructure act simultaneously in the relation- ship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation, creating a balanced environ- ment where employees’ motivation and capacity are harnessed.” I7: “The relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation is mediated by the people-centered approach and the infrastructure form.” I15: “The people-centered approach and the formal infrastructure act simultaneously in the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation, creating an environ- ment where culture and structure complement each other.” I17: “People need infrastructure to carry out their missions in the organization. An infrastruc- ture that is coherent with people’s roles is “halfway there” to achieve the corporate purpose and support organizational change (innovation).” I19: “A purpose obviously needs to exist, but it alone does not result in innovation.” I23: “The people-centered approach and the formal infrastructure act in a complementary way in the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation.” I28: “They work to strengthen the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation... creating a synergy that aligns the organizational culture with the structure to support innovation.” Table 5: Themes, meaning, frequency, and exemplary quotes related to participants’ interviews (Continue) company’s DNA, “it (corporate purpose) represents the or- ganization’s DNA, reflecting its present and future impact on all its stakeholders”. He argues that innovation is inher- ently linked to purpose as it involves a constant update of ways of being in the world that is necessary for survival and progress. The metaphor of DNA is instructive because of its significance in the survival and prosperity of a company. DNA contains the necessary instructions for a company to develop, function, and achieve agility and authenticity in dynamic environments (Bonchek, 2016). A company’s DNA serves as the foundation upon which its vision and values are built, as it encompasses not only its identity, but also the motivation it imparts to stakeholders for practices that are advantageous to society as a whole. A company operates within an ecosystem based on the mutually beneficial and adaptive interdependence of its DNA with the environment (Arraya, 2024; Bonchek, 2016; Joly, 2021). Its primary objective is not to maximize profits but rather to fulfill its corporate purpose, which is to benefit all stakeholders, especially customers. It is plau- sible to suggest that the impact of corporate purpose on or- ganizational innovation is due to an architecture that puts employees, in order to serve the well-being of customers, at the heart of the business, as evidenced by the result of the people-centric approach mediation between corporate purpose and organizational innovation [c1 (β=0.265) < a1*b1 (β=0.175)]. as interviewee I1says” it enhances (cor- porate purpose) cooperation between team members and within the organization, facilitating the implementation of new ideas and innovative solutions,” fostering the de- velopment of authentic relationships with employees in a manner that leads to optimal outcomes. Essentially, busi- ness fundamentally involves fostering human relationships supported by individuals working together for a common purpose. This shared purpose motivates, inspires, and pas- sionates them to work collaboratively with colleagues, customers, and everyone within the company’s sphere of influence to achieve the collective goal (Joly, 2021). The results indicate that corporate purpose, as a factor influencing the person–organization adjustment process, is closely tied to organizational innovation. In an interview, I28 stated, “When a company has a clear purpose of creat- ing value for stakeholders and achieving economic and so- cial outcomes, it typically motivates its employees to think creatively and persistently seek innovative solutions”. It is reasonable to posit that individuals perceive the myri- ad resources provided by a company as serving to focus their attention on their work, motivating them and foster- ing effective performance. Effective leadership within a company fosters a focus on people; however, to be suc- cessful, it must seek and choose individuals who possess characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes that align with the corporate purpose, prevailing culture, values, objectives, and existing practices (Ashfaq & Hamid, 2021; Huang, 2021). Through the adaptation of their emotions, thoughts, 189 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers knowledge, and behaviors to new environments, they can achieve goals and fulfill work commitments (Davies et al., 2019; Thorpe & Schmüller, 1958). While corporate purpose encompasses the entire organization, its success ultimately depends on its leadership. As interviewee I13 mentioned, “leaders exist to serve their people,” and inter- viewee I17 emphasized that “the corporate purpose, in my view, is also reflected in organizational leadership, which can play an important role in driving change, particularly in organizational innovation.” Leaders at all levels play crucial roles in creating, developing, implementing, and supervising corporate goals. However, strong leadership at higher levels can strengthen and expand these efforts (Smith et al., 2018). Rey and Bastons (2019) also high- lighted the importance of leadership and employee com- mitment to the corporate purpose and the alignment of the purpose with company practices in achieving desired goals. A company’s practices are underpinned by its organi- zational infrastructure, which comprises resources, meth- ods, procedures, routines, and tactics that support lead- ership, decision making, and the pursuit of its corporate purpose and objectives (Bocken & Geradts, 2020). The mediation of organizational infrastructure between corpo- rate purpose and organizational innovation [c1 (β=0.265) < a2*b2 (β=0.091)] reveals its impact on facilitating the efficient operation of organizational innovation. As stated by some of our interviewees, “organizational infrastruc- ture is a vehicle” (I20) with a “clear but flexible structure” (I3), whose “well-defined processes and routines aligned with the corporate purpose ensure that the company’s daily activities are always directed towards strategic objectives, allowing room for innovation” (I4) and that “the relation- ship between corporate purpose and organizational inno- vation is supported by the condition that the resources and capabilities are properly adequate, as well as the structure followed” (I2). However, interviewee I7 drew attention to “organizational infrastructure conditions in the way or- ganizational innovation is conducted. Innovation does not happen without a company having the capacity to do so. Therefore, even if supported by corporate purpose, organ- izational infrastructure conditions impose limits on organ- izational innovation initiatives”. It is reasonable to assert that organizational infrastructure ensures the daily func- tioning of the company and, through appropriate organiza- tional capabilities, enables the identification, exploitation, and shaping of new opportunities while continually trans- forming the company’s business model via organization- al innovation (Weerawardena et al., 2015; Teece, 2023). Thus, organizational infrastructure is recognized as a me- diator that contributes to the success of innovative work (Carew et al., 2009). The theoretical significance of corporate purpose and organizational infrastructure has often been recognized, but their relationship with organizational innovation is only possible because people are the common denominator (Felin & Foss, 2005). Thus, it is the knowledge and skills possessed by employees that execute their corporate pur- pose, utilize infrastructure, and innovate. In other words, understanding and internalizing a company’s purpose can significantly influence how employees achieve their goals and enhance customer and worker satisfaction. Further- more, the results confirm that the people-centric approach and organizational infrastructure sequentially mediate [c1 (β=0.265) < a2*d1*b2 (β=0.151)] between corporate pur- pose and organizational innovation. Our interviewees ex- cel in the same vein, “the combination of a clear purpose with a culture of valuing human capital results in a more dynamic, creative organization capable of continuously in- novating. ... The people-centered approach and formal in- frastructure act simultaneously in the relationship between corporate purpose and organizational innovation, creating an environment where culture and organizational infra- structure complement each other” (I15), “the people-cen- tered approach and organizational infrastructure comple- ment each other to facilitate organizational innovation in alignment with corporate purpose. Together, they create a clear and efficient work environment, empower and em- power employees, sustaining an inclusive and continuous culture of innovation” (I33), and “when an organization esteems its employees and takes them into account in the construction of its corporate purpose, it will always want to find innovative solutions and changes that improve the team’s results. It’s a win-win situation” (I5). This highlights the importance of focusing on em- ployees and their skills and competencies to transform or reconfigure organizational resources and capabilities that reshape infrastructure and influence innovation as well as how this organizational infrastructure facilitates work and contributes to successful organizational innovation (Chaubey et al., 2022; Farida & Setiawan, 2022; Teece, 2023). Additionally, a combination of these dimensions drives innovation, but the ability to generate innovation is not only a cognitive ability, but also a function of learned and practiced behaviors (Dyer et al., 2011). As such, the guiding beacon behavior of corporate purpose, business behavior centered on people who work and strive for the company, and the organizational infrastructure that builds and adapts to all aspects of the company’s architecture, re- sources, capabilities, processes, routines, and relationships serve to enhance creative impact, innovation, and custom- er well-being. 5.1 Contributions for theory and practice Considering the outcomes highlighted, our aim is to make a meaningful contribution to the existing body of knowledge on how these mediators facilitate the impact of 190 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers corporate purpose on organizational innovation, ultimately delivering value to customers while simultaneously pro- moting their well-being. To this end, our research adds value to the literature on corporate purpose, DCV , and or- ganizational innovation in various ways, with the principal implications outlined below. First, our study suggests that corporate purpose, when combined with a people-centric approach and supportive organizational infrastructure, can foster an environment that encourages innovation. By prioritizing people, a com- pany can facilitate the sharing of new ideas and promote a learning culture that increases the likelihood of successful innovation. Second, it is important to recognize the role of people within a company’s micro-fundamentals. However, the in- terplay between individuals and organizational resources, capabilities, and practices is essential to allow a company to adapt to external trends and to modify or transform the organizational infrastructure to develop and nurture an un- spoken creative network and maintain a competitive edge. Third, our study emphasizes the mediating role of or- ganizational infrastructure. Each company has a unique configuration of resources, capabilities, skills, and knowl- edge that enables it to coordinate and execute activities and utilize its assets for organizational innovation. The specificity of a company’s infrastructure makes it difficult to replicate or imitate, thus providing a competitive advan- tage for the company that develops it. Therefore, organi- zational infrastructure is a critical factor in maintaining a competitive position in the market. Finally, our study revealed a straightforward virtuous cycle. Customer satisfaction is one of the primary goals for a company’s corporate purpose. To achieve this objective, it is essential to promote an approach centered on indi- viduals who share the company’s purpose. This approach motivates and empowers individuals and teams to exhibit credible and trustworthy behaviors. Simultaneously, they built, promoted, and nurtured the infrastructure to support this purpose. This results in innovation and enhancement of products and experiences valued by customers, which in turn sustains a competitive advantage. However, it is crucial for a company to maintain consistency and coher- ence in their actions to achieve their goals. This requires articulating values, strategies, core business processes, de- cision-making orientations, and operations coherently and consistently. 6 Conclusion This study makes a significant contribution to the anal- ysis of the relationship between corporate purpose and or- ganizational innovation from the perspective of dynamic capabilities view. The research incorporated a people-cen- tric approach and organizational infrastructure as sequen- tial mediators in the analysis. The importance of corporate purpose in maintaining and enhancing a company’s com- petitiveness through customer satisfaction and organiza- tional innovation is indisputable. This study corroborates the significance of corporate purpose in organizational in- novation and demonstrates how the sequential mediation of a people-centric approach and organizational infrastruc- ture reinforces this connection. This research suggests that adopting a people-centric approach and organizational infrastructure may serve as an effective means for a company to enhance its organiza- tional innovation. An organization in which one of the ob- jectives of the corporate purpose is customer satisfaction demonstrates proficiency in identifying, seizing, and cre- ating new opportunities, transforming resources and capa- bilities, and adapting to customer needs and technological advancements in the market, all of which are crucial to the pursuit of organizational innovation. By considering the people-centric approach and organizational infrastructure as core constructs, a company facilitates organizational innovation, leverages knowledge, and improves its ability to satisfy customers. This approach emphasizes essential human requirements, extends a company’s scope, and ex- pands its market beyond its current operations. Therefore, corporate purpose, people-centric approach, and infrastructure collectively contribute to promoting or- ganizational innovation. This study enhances the under- standing of the virtuous cycle “corporate purpose – peo- ple-centric – organizational infrastructure – organizational innovation” as a fundamental component of customer sat- isfaction and organizational success. Although this research presents significant contribu- tions to theory and practice, there are avenues for further investigations, such as: (1) exploring and understand- ing whether the customer’s perception of the company’s corporate purpose is a significant factor in the purchase decision; (2) comparing whether the innovation strategies employed in the company reflect its corporate purpose; (3) conducting exploratory research to assess whether the corporate purpose helps the company withstand internal or external shocks; (4) investigating whether human resource management practices incorporate corporate purpose as a guiding principle and contribute to driving organizational innovation; (5) in this study, we considered the mediation of a stakeholder (an approach centered on the individuals employed by the company) and we suggest investigating the mediating or moderating role of other stakeholders and how they enhance the development and leverage of the relationship between organizational purpose and organi- zational innovation; and (6) future research may employ longitudinal design and different populations to confirm the direction of causality and examine the effects of two of the four constructs studied on company performance: corporate purpose and organizational infrastructure. Finally, it is essential to acknowledge the potential 191 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers limitations of this study: (1) a cross-sectional design was employed, which reflects the respondents’ perceptions at a single point in time, necessitating caution in generaliz- ing the results to other industries and populations (Tsang, 2014); (2) the quantitative component of this study focused solely on one company in Portugal, and although the rig- or of the field research ensures internal validity, construct validity, and reliability (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010), the re- sults should be interpreted with caution when generalized (Tsang, 2014). Consequently, future research employing a longitudinal design and comparing the results across dif- ferent regions and sectors may contribute to the elimina- tion of contextual and cultural biases. Finally, (3) external reliability could be enhanced by conducting surveys across various types of companies (e.g., technology, industry, and financial) to ascertain their perceptions of corporate pur- pose and its influence on business performance. Acknowledgement The authors extend their sincere appreciation to the Ed- itor-in-Chief, Professor Maja Meško, and the two anony- mous reviewers for their valuable support. Their thorough reviews and insightful comments have greatly contributed to this research. Additionally, we acknowledge the coop- eration of the company involved and all individuals who assisted in the execution of this study. Literature Aguilera, R.V . (2023). Corporate Purpose in Comparative Perspective: The Role of Governance. Strategy Sci- ence, 8(2), 193-201. doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0198 Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968. doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079 Al-Tal, M.J.Y . and Emeagwali, O.L. (2019). Knowl- edge-based HR Practices and Innovation in SMEs. Organizacija, 52(1), 6-21. doi.org/10.2478/orga-2019- 0002 Arraya, M. & Ferreira, J.J. (2024). Are We Competitive? A Firm Competitiveness Fit Scale. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 0, 1–15. doi:10.1002/ joe.22284 Arraya, M. (2024). Capabilities configurational method for organizations’ sustainability: antecedents and con- sequences. International Journal of Management Con- cepts and Philosophy, 17(2), 215-233. doi:10.1504/ ijmcp.2023.10056206 Ashfaq, B., and Hamid, A. (2021). Person-organization fit and organization citizenship behavior: Modeling the work engagement as a mediator. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 13(1), 19–39. doi:10.1108/ apjba-12-2019-0255 Baregheh, A., Rowley, J. & Sambrook, S. (2009). To- wards a multidisciplinary definition of innova- tion. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323-1339. doi:10.1108/00251740910984578 Barney, J.B., Ketchen, Jr, D.J., & Wright, M. (2021). Re- source-Based Theory and the Value Creation Frame- work. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1936-1955. doi:10.1177/01492063211021655 Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-me- diator variable distinction in social psychological re- search: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider- ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Blair, M., & Stout, L.A. (1999). A Team Production Theo- ry of Corporate Law. Virginia Law Review, 85(2), 247- 328. doi:10.2139/ssrn.425500 Bocken, N.M.P. & Geradts, T.H.J. (2020). Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 53, 101950. doi.org/10.1016/j. lrp.2019.101950 Bonchek, M. (2016). How to Discover Your Company’s DNA. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, Sep- tember, 2-5. https://hbr.org/2016/12/how-to-discover- your-companys-dna Breuer, H. & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2017). Values-Based Network and Business Model Innovation. Interna- tional Journal of Innovation Management, 21(3), Art. 1750028, 1-35. doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617500281 Buzzao, G., & Rizzi, F . (2020). On the conceptualization and measurement of dynamic capabilities for sustain- ability: Building theory through a systematic litera- ture review. Business Strategy and The Environment, 30,135–175. doi.org/10.1002/bse.2614 Camisón, C., and A. Villar-López. (2014). Organizational Innovation as an Enabler of Technological Innovation Capabilities and firm Performance. Journal of Busi- ness Research, 67(1), 2891–2902. doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2012.06.004 Carew, D., Kandarian, F., Parisi-Carew, E. & Stoner, J. (2009). Is your organization high performing? In Ken Blanchard (Eds). Leading at a higher level, revised and expanded edition: Blanchard on leadership and creating high performing organizations, 2nd Edition. Pearson. Ceylan, C. (2013). Commitment-based HR practices, different types of innovation activities and firm inno- vation performance. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 24(1), 208-226. doi.org/10.1 080/09585192.2012.680601 Chaubey, A., Sahoo, C.K. and Das, K.C. (2022). Examin- 192 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers ing the effect of training and employee creativity on or- ganizational innovation: a moderated mediation analy- sis. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(2), 499-524. doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-06-2020-2271 Chen, Q., Wang, C.H. & Huang, S.Z. (2019). Effects of or- ganizational innovation and technological innovation capabilities on firm performance: evidence from firms in China’s Pearl River Delta. Asia Pacific Business Re- view, 26(1), 72-96. doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2019.1 592339 Colenbaugh, R. and Reigel, B. (2010). Enabling, engag- ing, and rewarding employees. A Study of World-at- Work Reward Professionals. HayGroup. Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clarke, V .L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE. Davies, S.E., Stoermer, S., & Froese, F.J. (2019). When the going gets tough: the influence of expatriate resil- ience and perceived organizational inclusion climate on work adjustment and turnover intentions. The In- ternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(8), 1393–1417. doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.15 28558 Drucker, P.F. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibili- ties, Practices. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Dyer, J., Gregersen, H.B., & Christensen, C. (2011). The Innovator’ s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disrup- tive Innovators. Boston, MA., Harvard Business Re- view Press. Eisenhardt, K.M. & Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. doi. org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 Ellsworth, R.R. (2002). Leading with Purpose: The New Corporate Realities. Stanford University Press, Stan- ford. Farida, I. & Setiawan, D. (2022). Business strategies and competitive advantage: the role of performance and innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 163. doi.org/10.3390/ joitmc8030163 Fay, D., Shipton, H., West, M. & Patterson, M. (2014). Teamwork and organizational innovation: the moder- ating role of the HRM context. Creativity and Inno- vation Management, 24(2), 261-277. doi.org/10.1111/ caim.12100 Felin, T. & Foss, N. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 441–455. doi.org/10.1177/1476127005055796 Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structur- al equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 Freeman, R. & Ginena, K. (2015). Rethinking the purpose of the corporation: Challenges from stakeholder theo- ry. Notizie di Politeia, 31, 9-18. Fu, N., Flood, P.C., Bosak, J., Morris, T. and O’Regan, P. (2015). How do high performance work systems influence organizational innovation in professional service firms?”. Employee Relations, 37(2), 209-231. doi:10.1108/ER-10-2013-0155 Gartenberg, C. (2023). The contingent relationship be- tween purpose and profits. Strategy Science, 8(2), 257- 269. doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0194 Gartenberg, C., Prat, A., and Serafeim, G. (2019). Corpo- rate Purpose and Financial Performance. Organization Science, 30(1), 1–18. doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1230 Gibbert, M. and Ruigrok, W. (2010). The ‘what’ and ‘how’ of case study rigor: three strategies based on published work. Organization Research Methods, 13, pp. 710– 737. doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351319 Grant, R.M. (2010). Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 7th edition. Wiley. Grawe, S.J., Chen, H. & Daugherty, P.J. (2009). The re- lationship between strategic orientation, service in- novation, and performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(4), 282-300. doi.org/10.1108/09600030910962249 Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. & Tatham, R.L. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson, New Jersey. Halbesleben, J.R., Neveu, J.P., Paustian-Underdahl, S.C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” under- standing the role of resources in conservation of re- sources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334– 1364. doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130 Harrison, J.S., Phillips, R.A. and Freeman, R.E. (2020). On the 2019 business roundtable ‘statement on the pur- pose of a corporation’. Journal of Management, 46(7), 1223-1237. doi.org/10.1177/0149206319892669 Harsch, K. & Festing, M. (2019). Dynamic talent manage- ment capabilities and organizational agility—A quali- tative exploration. Human Resource Management, 59, 43–61. doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21972 Henderson, R. & Van den Steen, E. (2015). Why Do Firms Have “Purpose”? The Firm’s Role as a Carrier of Identity and Reputation. American Economic Review, 105(5): 326–30. doi:10.1257/aer.p20151072 Henderson, R. (2020). Innovation in the 21st Century: Architectural Change, Purpose, and the Challenges of Our Time. Management Science, Articles in Advance, 1–10. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020.3746 Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., & George, G. (2014). Organizations with purpose. Academy of Management, 57(5), 1227e1234. doi: 10.5465/ amj.2014.4005 Homer, S.T., & Lim, W.M. (2024). Theory development in a globalized world: Bridging “Doing as the Ro- mans Do” with “Understanding Why the Romans Do It”. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 193 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers 43(3), 127–138. doi.org/10.1002/joe.22234 Huang, J.-C. (2021). Effects of person-organization fit objective feedback and subjective perception on or- ganizational attractiveness in online recruitment. Per- sonnel Review, 51(4), 1262–1276. doi.org/10.1108/ PR-06-2020-0449 Joly, H. (2021). Creating a Meaningful Corporate Purpose. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, October, 1-12. https://hbr.org/2021/10/creating-a-meaning- ful-corporate-purpose Kareem, M.A., Kummitha, H.R., and Kolloju, N. (2024). The Mediating Role of Innovation Capabilities on the Relationship between Dynamic Capabilities and Firm Competitive Performance. Organizacija, 57(1), 56-71. doi: 10.2478/orga-2024-0004 Khan, O., Daddi, T., & Iraldo, F . (2020). The role of dy- namic capabilities in circular economy implementa- tion and performance of companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27, 3018-3033. doi.org/10.1002/csr.2020 Kianto, A. (2009). Development and validation of a survey instrument for measuring organisational renewal capa- bility. International Journal Technology Management, 42(1/2), 69–88. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2008.018061 Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. doi: 10.4018/ ijec.2015100101 Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 3rd Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lamberti, L. (2013). Customer centricity: The construct and the operational antecedents. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21, 588 - 612. doi.org/10.1080/096525 4X.2013.817476 Lawson, B. & Samson, D. (2001). Developing inno- vation capability in organisations: a dynamic capa- bilities approach. International Journal of Innova- tion Management, 5(3), 377-400. doi.org/10.1142/ S1363919601000427 Lepeley, M.T. (2017). Human centered management: The five global pillars of organization quality and sustain- ability. Routledge. Ma Prieto, I. & Pilar Pérez-Santana, M. (2014). Managing innovative work behavior: the role of human resource practices. Personnel Review, 43(2), 184-208. doi. org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0199 Madden, B.J. (2017). The Purpose of the Firm, Valuation, and the Management of Intangibles. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 29(2), 76-86. doi.org/10.1111/ jacf.12235 Malnight, T.W., Buche, I., & Dhanaraj, C. (2019). Put purpose at the core of your strategy. Harvard Business Review, 97(5), 70-79. https://hbr.org/2019/09/put-pur- pose-at-the-core-of-your-strategy Mayer, C. (2021). The Future of the Corporation and the Economics of Purpose. Journal of Management Stud- ies, 58(3), 887-901. doi.org/10.1111/joms.12660 Mehta, M., Chandani, A., Moksha, N., & Parul, C. (2016). Trends in employee engagement practices in global and Indian companies: A technique to curb attrition. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(15), 45– 48. doi: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i15/92128 Meijerink, J., Bos-Nehles, A., & de Leede, J. (2020). How employees’ pro-activity translates high-commitment HRM systems into work engagement: The mediating role of job crafting. The International Journal of Hu- man Resource Management, 31(22), 2893–2918. doi. org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1475402 Metcalf, L. & Benn, S. (2012). The corporation is ailing social technology: creating a “fit for purpose” design for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics ,111(2), 195–210. doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1201-1 Migdadi, M. (2019). Organizational learning capability, innovation and organizational performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(1), 151-172. doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2018-0246 Morse, J.M. (1989) Strategies for sampling. In: Morse, J. (ed.) Qualitative nursing research: a contemporary dia- logue, pp. 117-31. Rockville, MD, USA: Aspen Press. Morse, J.M. (2018). Reframing rigor in qualitative in- quiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y .S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 796-816). Sage. Morse, J.M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Principles and proce- dures of mixed methods design. Left Coast Press. Mossholder, K.W., Richardson, H.A., & Settoon, R.P. (2011). Human resource systems and helping in or- ganizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 33-52. doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2009.0402 Mourkogiannis, N. (2008). HR’s Return to Purpose-Fo- cused Organizations. Employment Relations, 35(2), 25-30. doi.org/10.1002/ert.20198 Nyimbili, F. & Nyimbili, L. (2024). Types of Purposive Sampling Techniques with Their Examples and Appli- cation in Qualitative Research Studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies: English Lang., Teaching, Literature, Linguistics & Communi- cation, 5(1),90-99. doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419 Ocasio, W., Kraatz, M., & Chandler, D. (2023). Making sense of corporate purpose. Strategy Science, 8(2),123- 138. doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0054 Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising Truth of What Mo- tivates Us. Riverhead Books. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science re- search and recommendations on how to control it. 194 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi. org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 Popa, S, Soto-Acosta, P. & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017). Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innova- tion climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118(C), 134-142. doi.org/10.1016/j.tech- fore.2017.02.014 Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2019). Creating shared val- ue. In Managing Sustainable Business; Springer: Ber- lin/Heidelberg, Germany, 323–346. Reichheld, F.F., Darnell, D., & Burns, M. (2021). Winning on Purpose: The Unbeatable Strategy of Loving Cus- tomers. Harvard Business Review Press. Rey, C. & Bastons, M. (2019). Three Dimensions of Pur- pose – Knowledge, Motivation and Action. Chapter 3 (pp.29-42) In: Rey, C., Bastons, M., Sotok, P. (eds), Purpose-driven Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of In0novations, Free Press, New York, NY . Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Sat- uration in qualitative research: exploring its conceptu- alization and operationalization. Quality & quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574- 8 Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students (7 th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pear- son Education. Schultz, J.R. (2014). Framing the Organization’s Purpose With Its Ultimate Goals in Mind. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, March/April, 46-55. doi. org/10.1002/joe.21543 Silva, J.J., & Cirani, C.B.S. (2020). The capability of organizational innovation: systematic review of lit- erature and research proposals. Gestão & Produção, 27(4), e4819. doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X4819-20 Sisodia, R. & Gelb, M.J. (2019). The healing organization. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Smith, T., Kirkman, B., Chen, G., & Lemoine, G. (2018). Leading Teams Research: When Employees work on Multiple Teams. Harvard Business Review Digi- tal Articles, September, 1-5. https://hbr.org/2018/09/ research-when-employees-work-on-multiple-teams- good-bosses-can-have-ripple-effects Teece, D.J. (2023). The Evolution of the Dynamic Ca- pabilities Framework. In: Adams, R., Grichnik, D., Pundziene, A., V olkmann, C. (eds) Artificiality and Sustainability in Entrepreneurship. FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham. Thorpe, L.P. & Schmuller, A.M. (1958). Personality: An Interdisciplinary Approach. D Van Nostrand Compa- ny: New York, NY , USA. Tsang, E.W.K. (2014). Generalizing from Research Find- ings: The Merits of Case Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 369–383. doi: 10.1111/ ijmr.12024 Upadhyay, P. & Kumar, A. (2020) The intermediating role of organizational culture and internal analytical knowl- edge between the capability of big data analytics and a firm’s performance. International Journal of Infor- mation Management, 52, 102100. doi.org/10.1016/j. ijinfomgt.2020.102100 van Ingen, R., Peters, P., De Ruiter, M., & Robben, H. (2021). Exploring the meaning of organizational purpose at a new dawn: The development of a con- ceptual model through expert interviews. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 675543. doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2021.675543 Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A me- ta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489. doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00036-2 Weerawardena, J., Mort, G.S., Salunke, S., Knight, G., & Liesch, P.W. (2015). The role of the market sub-system and the socio-technical sub-system in innovation and firm performance: a dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 221–239. doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0382-9 Yemiscigil, A. (2019). Purpose: A New Paradigm with Im- plications for Policy, Business, and Individual Lives. Global Relations Forum, Young Academics Program Analysis Paper Series No.5. https://www.gif.org.tr/ files/ayse-yemiscigil-makale.pdf Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research. Design and meth- ods. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, Sage, California. Yin, Y ., Wang, Y ., & Lu, Y . (2019). Antecedents and out- comes of employee empowerment practices: a the- oretical extension with empirical evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(4), 564–584. doi. org/10.1111/1748-8583.12243 Zhang., L, Zhang, Y ., Dallas, M., Xu, S., & Hu, J. (2018). How perceived empowerment HR practices influence work engagement in social enterprises–a moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(20):2971–2999. doi.org/10 .1080/09585192.2018.1479874 Marco Arraya is Assistant Professor at European University, Lisboa, Portugal. He holds a PhD in Strategic Management at Universidade Aberta, Portugal and a Post-Doctorate in Management at Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal. His main research interests include dynamic capabilities, strategic management, marketing, and organizational change. Marco is a published author with academic articles in international journals, and he has a long experience in competitive industries, such as the CEO. 195 Organizacija, V olume 58 Issue 2, May 2025 Research Papers Anabela Monteiro, PhD in Tourism, Leisure and Culture from the University of Coimbra and Cultural Animation graduate from ESAD.CR/Leiria P.I., works as an Assistant Professor at European University (EU), Lisboa, Portugal. She coordinates the postgraduate programs in Hospitality and Event Management at UE Online. As a researcher at CiTUR (Polytechnic Institute of Leiria), she contributes to tourism and hospitality studies. She is also an Associate Editor of Humanities and Social Sciences Communications at Springer Nature Group. Anabela is a published author with academic articles in national and international journals. Her research focuses on decision makers and key factors that influence destination choice.