October 02, 2026
Innovation in traditional business models and its impact on the workplace
Innovation in Traditional Business Models and Its Impact on the Workplace
Fernanda Ramos Boullosa; Ariana Cericatto da Silva
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602892
Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.
Abstract
The study analyzed how innovation applied in traditional business models impacts the work environment. With this objective, a field survey was conducted involving 225 professionals from different sectors and hierarchical levels. Data collection occurred through a structured questionnaire, which investigated the profile, perceptions, and behaviors of the participants in relation to innovation. The results obtained indicated that employees of companies considered innovative perceived high levels of innovation, demonstrated greater engagement, motivation to propose improvements, and a better understanding of the implemented changes. In contrast, professionals from traditional companies presented a lower perception of innovation, greater neutrality towards transformations, and higher levels of stress and insecurity in the work environment. It was also observed that leadership, clear communication, support, and adequate training were identified as essential factors for facilitating adaptation to changes and increasing employee receptivity. It was concluded that organizational typology, associated with culture and management practices, directly influences how innovation is experienced internally and its effects on the work environment.
Keywords: Engagement; Traditional companies; Change management.
1. Introduction
The labor market has undergone accelerated transformations in recent decades, requiring companies from all sectors to reevaluate their business models. This reevaluation is fundamental not only for survival but also for competitiveness and growth in an increasingly complex scenario (Santos and Araújo, 2018).
In this dynamic context, organizations that fail to adapt run the risk of becoming obsolete. Conversely, those that adjust to new demands and transform the work environment can redefine their strategies and enhance the consumer experience (Kotter, 2012). The evolution of business needs drives the evolution of the work environment, with the growing adoption of new practices for shaping culture, management, and flexibility, aiming for greater employee engagement and motivation. However, this transition can generate significant challenges, such as resistance to change and the need for internal process restructuring. Such challenges require careful approaches to avoid conflicts or internal discontent (Silva and Costa, 2020).
Innovation, in this context, transcends the mere creation of new services or products. It encompasses the redesign of processes, the optimization of operations, and a high capacity for adaptation. The market’s drive for innovation stems not only from the need to overcome competitors but also from changes in consumer culture, which values the customer experience (Tidd et al., 2014). The ability to innovate is, therefore, a matter of survival and growth in an increasingly competitive and dynamic business environment (Schumpeter, 1934).
The analysis of how innovations are implemented in traditional business models and their impact on the work environment is crucial. Understanding the effectiveness of these implementations, the minimization of conflicts, and the promotion of a collaborative environment allows companies to better position themselves to face market challenges and meet consumer expectations. The relevance of this study lies in the need to investigate the strategies that organizations adopt to manage innovation, especially in traditional contexts, where adaptation can be more challenging.
Given this scenario, the present study aimed to analyze how innovation applied to traditional business models affects the work environment, seeking to identify how these changes were implemented and how organizations promoted innovation processes that contributed to the improvement of organizational performance, while simultaneously reducing possible internal conflicts and strengthening collaboration among employees.
2. Material and Methods
The study adopted a field research approach, quantitative in nature, to investigate the relationship between innovation in traditional business models and its impact on the work environment. The central objective was to analyze how these innovations were implemented and how organizations promoted processes that contributed to the improvement of organizational performance, while simultaneously seeking to reduce internal conflicts and strengthen collaboration among employees. The research strategy consisted of applying a structured questionnaire to collect data directly from professionals.
The research involved a total of 225 professionals, who worked in various sectors and occupied different hierarchical levels, from operational positions to strategic and management roles. Participant selection was by convenience, through the dissemination of the data collection instrument on social networks. Data collection was carried out in a specific period, between March 9 and 16, 2026. There was no explicit geographical restriction for participation.
The data collection instrument was a structured questionnaire, developed based on the study by Sousa (2024), which addressed the impact of organizational culture on the digital transformation of traditional companies. The questionnaire was adapted to align with the specific objectives of this research. It consisted of 22 multiple-choice questions, six of which were dedicated to characterizing the participants’ profile and the others formulated on a Likert scale.
The Likert scale was used to measure perceptions and behaviors related to innovation in the workplace. This scale, widely used in research (Aguiar, 2011; Correia, 2011; Campos, 2011), offered five response options for each statement: “Strongly Agree”, “Agree”, “Neutral/Indifferent”, “Disagree”, and “Strongly Disagree”. The purpose was to identify the participants’ characteristics and behavioral factors in the face of innovation.
The questionnaire application was carried out online, using the Google Forms platform, which facilitated the distribution and collection of responses. Before participation, the Free and Informed Consent Form (TCLE) was presented, as detailed in Appendix A of the work. The TCLE ensured that participants were fully informed about the purpose of the research, the use of data, and the confidentiality of information, ensuring voluntary participation, privacy, and anonymity of the respondents.
After data collection was completed, the raw data were organized into spreadsheets in Excel software. Subsequently, a descriptive analysis of the data was performed, which involved systematizing the information to facilitate the visualization and understanding of the observed patterns. This technique allowed for comparison between the different respondent profiles and the organizational typologies considered in the study.
3. Results and Discussion
The analysis of the collected data revealed significant insights into the perception of innovation and its impacts on the work environment across different organizational typologies. Initially, the demographic profile of the 225 participants indicated that the majority, 32%, were 50 years or older, with 52% being female and 84% residing in the Southeast region. Regarding position, 53% did not hold leadership roles, and 61% worked in the service sector. This initial characterization provided the context for understanding professionals’ perceptions and behaviors regarding innovation, allowing for a more in-depth analysis of organizational dynamics.
When investigating the self-identification of companies by employees, it was observed that 35.1% of participants classified their organizations as traditional, while 28.9% considered them consolidated and 28% as innovative. This initial distribution already suggests a heterogeneity in the perception of organizational culture, which deepens when analyzing the perceived level of innovation. For a more detailed analysis, the study focused on 135 respondents who categorized their companies as traditional or innovative, excluding those that did not clearly fit into one of these typologies.
The results demonstrated a significant association between organizational typology and the perception of the degree of innovation. In companies classified as traditional, 60% of respondents perceived the level of innovation as low or very low. In contrast, 95% of employees in innovative companies rated the level of innovation as high or very high. This disparity corroborates the literature that points out that traditional companies tend to present lower levels of innovation compared to innovative ones (Christensen, 1997; Tidd et al., 2014), highlighting the challenge of implementing changes in more rigid structures.
Additionally, the research revealed a perceptual bias, where the organizational culture and the company’s strategic positioning directly influence employees’ evaluation of the innovation level. This suggests that individual perception is a crucial factor, impacting engagement and innovative capacity. The majority of respondents from traditional companies, 71%, perceived their organizations as more conservative, while 77% of employees from innovative companies disagreed with this statement. This finding reinforces the idea that more flexible environments favor innovation, while rigid structures can hinder its adoption (Edmondson, 2019).
The understanding of the reasons for changes in processes and routines was largely positive, with 71% of respondents, regardless of company type, agreeing or fully agreeing that they clearly understand these reasons. This result indicates a high level of understanding on the part of employees, suggesting that organizations have been able to effectively communicate the justifications for transformations. However, receptiveness to change varied significantly among company types, being higher in innovative contexts, with greater dispersion of responses and neutrality in traditional companies.
The perception of leadership’s incentive for innovation also proved to be a differentiator. In hybrid companies, 100% of respondents agreed or fully agreed with the incentive for innovation, and in innovative companies, this percentage was 79%. In traditional companies, however, only 50% of employees perceived this incentive, with a higher presence of neutral and disagreement responses. This data indicates that leadership in more innovative environments is perceived as more active in stimulating innovation and experimentation, a critical factor for the success of change initiatives.
Investment in innovation and digital transformation was another point of divergence. Innovative companies showed high agreement, with 80% of respondents positive, and hybrid companies with 71%. In contrast, in traditional companies, only 33% of employees agreed with adequate investment, while 51% disagreed or totally disagreed. This lower perception in traditional contexts suggests a lower commitment to resources for innovation, which can impact the organization’s long-term adaptability and growth.
Employee motivation to suggest new ideas and improvements at work was significantly higher in innovative companies, with 89% of respondents agreeing or fully agreeing, and in hybrid companies, with 86%. In traditional companies, however, only 50% of employees felt motivated, with 22% neutral and 28% disagreeing. These results indicate that innovative and hybrid environments stimulate greater engagement and initiative, while traditional contexts tend to reduce employees’ active participation in proposing improvements, which can limit the flow of new ideas and internal evolution.
Knowledge about innovation initiatives and their results was also higher in innovative companies, with 77% of respondents agreeing or fully agreeing, and in hybrid companies, with 71%. In traditional companies, only 46% of employees reported having this knowledge, with 14% neutral and 26% disagreeing. This suggests that more innovative and hybrid organizations are better able to communicate their innovation actions and results, promoting greater engagement and a deeper understanding of the ongoing transformations.
Impacts on the workplace
The perception that the implemented innovations contribute to increased productivity was more positive in innovative companies, where approximately 75% of respondents agreed or fully agreed. In hybrid companies, 71% of participants showed a similar perception. In traditional companies, about 67% of employees also agreed or fully agreed, indicating that, although the majority recognize the positive impact of innovations on productivity, this effect is more noticeable in innovative and hybrid environments, where the innovation culture is more ingrained.
The changes resulting from innovation caused varying levels of discomfort or insecurity among employees. In hybrid companies, most respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that changes generate discomfort or insecurity, indicating a lower sense of insecurity. In innovative companies, the perception was more balanced, with 17 out of 56 respondents agreeing and 21 disagreeing. In traditional companies, 24 out of 72 employees agreed, while 32 disagreed, and 16 remained neutral, showing a more divided reaction.
The perception that innovations increased work stress levels was more expressive in traditional companies, reaching 67% of respondents who agreed or fully agreed. In contrast, in hybrid and innovative companies, this perception was significantly lower, with only 29% and 30% of employees, respectively, agreeing with the statement. This data suggests that, although innovation may generate some discomfort, hybrid and innovative environments manage to reduce the feeling of insecurity and stress, while in traditional companies, changes tend to generate greater discomfort and stress.
Despite differences in the perception of stress and insecurity, most collaborators in all types of organizations reported feeling prepared to deal with the changes promoted by the company. In innovative companies, approximately 80% of respondents agreed or fully agreed, and in hybrid companies, 100% reported preparedness. In traditional companies, about 81% of collaborators also felt prepared, with a small portion neutral or disagreeing. This indicates that, regardless of the organizational typology, there is a self-perception of capacity to face transformations.
The perception that changes respect the limits and capabilities of collaborators varied among company types. In innovative companies, 55% of respondents agreed or fully agreed, while in hybrid companies, this proportion was 43%. Surprisingly, in traditional companies, 61% of collaborators perceived that changes respect their limits, although with a higher presence of neutral and disagreement responses. These results suggest that, even in traditional contexts, organizations can demonstrate attention to collaborators’ capabilities, although in more innovative and hybrid environments this perception is positive, but less uniform.
In summary, employees of innovative companies showed greater engagement, motivation to propose improvements, understanding of implemented initiatives, and confidence in leadership support. On the other hand, traditional companies registered more dispersed responses, with a higher presence of neutrality and disagreement, especially regarding investments in innovation, clarity in communicating objectives and impacts of changes on well-being and productivity. These findings reinforce the relevance of a well-structured innovation culture and environments that promote psychological safety (Amabile and Kramer, 2011; Edmondson, 2019).
Training, Communication and Support
The perception regarding the offering of adequate training whenever a new tool or process is implemented has shown variations among company types. In innovative companies, approximately 55% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, while in hybrid companies, agreement reached 71%. In traditional companies, only about 40% of employees agreed or strongly agreed, with a higher presence of neutral and disagreeing responses. This data indicates that training to support changes is better perceived in hybrid and innovative companies, whereas in traditional contexts, this practice is less consistent and, therefore, less effective.
Leadership or company support during change processes was more perceived in innovative companies, with 73% of employees agreeing or strongly agreeing. In hybrid companies, 57% of respondents reported receiving adequate support. In traditional companies, 54% agreed or strongly agreed, while 20% disagreed and 21% remained neutral. Overall, the perception of support tends to be stronger in innovative environments, although the majority of employees in all types of organizations feel, in some way, supported during changes, which is crucial for change management (Kotter, 2012; Hughes, 2011).
Clarity in communicating the objectives of changes and innovations was perceived more positively in innovative companies, with 66% of employees agreeing or strongly agreeing. In hybrid companies, 57% reported a similar perception. In traditional companies, 54% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, while 33% were neutral or disagreed. These results indicate that, although the majority of employees perceive clear communication in all types of companies, the perception is slightly stronger in innovative contexts, which facilitates employee adaptation and engagement.
In summary, the research results demonstrate that organizational typology, associated with culture and management practices, directly influences how innovation is experienced internally and its effects on the work environment. Employees of innovative companies perceive a greater increase in productivity, less discomfort and stress when facing changes, as well as greater preparedness to deal with them. In contrast, traditional companies exhibit higher stress and insecurity, indicating that the implementation of changes in more rigid contexts demands special attention to people management, clear communication, leadership support, and adequate training to reduce resistance and stimulate engagement.
4. Conclusion
This study sought to analyze how innovation applied to traditional business models affects the work environment, identifying the implementation methods of changes and the promotion of innovative processes that contributed to organizational performance, the reduction of internal conflicts, and the strengthening of collaboration. It was found that employees of innovative companies showed greater engagement, motivation to propose improvements, and a deeper understanding of transformations. In contrast, professionals from traditional companies demonstrated lower perception of innovation, greater neutrality towards changes, and high levels of stress and insecurity. It was observed that leadership, clear communication, support, and adequate training were essential factors in facilitating adaptation and increasing employee receptivity. The main contribution of this work lies in highlighting that organizational typology, combined with culture and management practices, directly influences the experience of innovation and its impacts on the work environment, providing subsidies for organizations to develop more effective change management and engagement strategies.
However, the study presented limitations arising from the use of a convenience sample and the concentration of respondents in the Southeast region, which restricts the generalization of the findings. Additionally, the structured questionnaire employed limited the analysis of more subjective aspects of organizational culture and individual perceptions. For future research, it is suggested to expand the sample to include diverse regions and sectors, as well as to adopt qualitative approaches that allow for a deeper analysis. It is also recommended to include variables such as leadership style, digital maturity, and organizational climate, in order to expand the understanding of the factors that influence the adoption and impacts of innovation in organizations. This study reinforces the importance of integrating organizational culture, management practices, and people development to favor the implementation of innovation and mitigate the negative effects associated with changes in the work environment.
Bibliographic References
Aguiar, B.; Correia, W.; Campos, F. 2011. Uso da Escala Likert na Análise de Jogos. Dissertação. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Pernambuco, Brasil.
Amabile, T.M.; Kramer, S.J. 2011. The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement, and Creativity at Work. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA, USA.
Christensen, C.M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA.
Edmondson, A.C. 2019. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Hughes, M. 2011. Managing Change: A Critical Perspective. 2ed. CIPD Publishing, London, UK.
Kotter, J.P. 2012. Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA, USA.
Santos, P.V.S.; Araújo, M.A. 2018. Mudança e inovação organizacional: estudo de caso em uma empresa do cluster de biotecnologia em Minas Gerais. Revista de Administração e Inovação, 15(2): 123-145.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Silva, F.J.; Costa, L.B. 2020. Resistência à mudança organizacional e estresse no trabalho: percepções dos colaboradores. Saber Humano: Revista Científica da Faculdade Antonio Meneghetti, 12(1): 45-60.
Sousa, A.L.M. 2024. O impacto da cultura organizacional no contexto de transformação digital nas empresas tradicionais.
Tidd, J.; Bessant, J.; Pavitt, K. 2014. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. 6ed. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Business Management of the MBA USP/Esalq
To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform