This thesis presented a hierarchical model to explain the phenomenon of employee innovative work behaviour. The theoretical foundations and the hypotheses were explored in chapter two and the empirical hypotheses derived tested in chapter four. The conclusion summarizes the empirical results discussed. This chapter is divided into four sections. Section one presents the conclusions of this study. Section two discusses the theoretical and managerial implications of the results. Section three illustrates the limitations of this study and the suggestions for future research. Final considers are elucidated in section four.
Conclusions
The general conclusion is that accessed social capital (ASC), work motivation (WM), and organisational climate for innovation (OCI) are strongly associated with the propensity innovative work behaviour (IWB), and that OCI moderates the relationship between EM and IWB. As mentioned throughout the theory, ASC, WM, and OCI are critical factors for enhancing employees’ IWB propensities, which is corroborated in this study as the three factors have clear effects on employee’s willingness to exhibit innovative behaviours. The results show that in all organisations studied employees with many heterogeneous acquaintances and higher orientations to the motivation of challenge, enjoyment and recognition are more likely to exhibit stronger innovative behaviours, and that employees tend to show stronger propensities of innovative behaviours when they perceive a higher degree of supportive climates for innovation where extrinsically motivated employees are more likely to demonstrate stronger propensities of innovative behaviour when the supportive climates for innovation are higher.
Empirical evidence for hypotheses and answers to the research questions
The thesis is motivated by four research questions with appropriate hypotheses for each research questions advanced and tested in chapter two and four. The questions, hypotheses and results that support or do not the hypotheses are presented.
The first research question elucidates that whether the employee-level factors of accessed social capital and work motivation are related to innovative work behaviour?
The corresponding hypotheses are H1, H2, and H3:
H1: Intrinsic motivation is positively related to innovative work behaviour (Employees with a higher orientation to intrinsic motivation are more likely to exhibit stronger propensities of innovative work behaviour.).
This hypothesis was verified. The result shows that employee’s intrinsic motivational orientations are associated with their IWB propensities. More precisely, employees are more likely to demonstrate strong IWB propensity when they consider innovation activities challenging and/or interesting.
H2: Extrinsic motivation is positively related to innovative work behaviour (Employees with a higher orientation to extrinsic motivation are more likely to exhibit stronger propensities of innovative work behaviour.).
This hypothesis was verified. The result shows that employee’s extrinsic motivational orientations are correlated with their IWB propensities. Employees are more likely to exhibit strong IWB propensity when they consider innovation activities as instruments for obtaining recognition.
H3: Accessed social capital is positively related to innovative work behaviour (Employees with more diverse acquaintances are more likely to exhibit stronger propensities of innovative work behaviour.).
This hypothesis was verified. The result shows that employee’s accessed social capital is
related to their IWB propensities. More specifically, employees with more heterogeneous acquaintances are more likely to exhibit strong IWB propensities.
The second research question elucidates that whether the firm-level factor of organisational climate for innovation exerts a contextual effect on employee innovative work behaviour?
The corresponding hypothesis is H5:
H4: Organisational climate for innovation is positively related to innovative work behaviour (On average, employees are more likely to exhibit stronger propensities of innovative work behaviour when they perceive a higher extent of supportive climates for innovation.).
This hypothesis was verified. The result shows that employees’ perceptions of organisational climate for innovation are correlated with their IWB propensities. Employees are more likely to exhibit strong IWB propensities when they perceived supportive climates for innovation.
The third research question elucidates that whether the firm-level factor of organisational climate for innovation exerts a cross-level moderating effect on the relationship between work motivation and innovative work behaviour?
The corresponding hypotheses are H5 and H6:
H5: Organisational climate for innovation positively moderates the relationship between intrinsic motivation and innovative work behaviour (On average, when employees perceive a higher degree of supportive climates for innovation, the extent to which employees’ intrinsic motivational orientations contribute to their propensities of innovative work behaviour is more likely stronger.).
This hypothesis was rejected. The result shows that the consensual perceptions of the climates for innovation are uncorrelated with the mean relationships between employees’
extrinsic motivational orientations and their IWB propensities.
H6: Organisational climate for innovation positively moderates the relationship between extrinsic motivation and innovative work behaviour (On average, when employees perceive a higher degree of supportive climates for innovation, the extent to which employees’ extrinsic motivational orientations contribute to their propensities of innovative work behaviour is more likely stronger.).
This hypothesis was verified. The result shows that there is a tendency for companies of high climates for innovation to have greater input-output relationships between employees’
extrinsic motivational orientations and their IWB propensities than do companies with low climates for innovation. More precisely, extrinsically motivated employees among companies are more likely to have stronger IWB propensities when they perceived supportive climates for innovation.
Theoretical and Managerial Implications
This study makes several theoretical contributions to the innovation, social capital, and psychological climate for innovation literatures. Based on the research conclusions, the corresponding theoretical and managerial implications were discussed as follows.
Theoretical Implications
Accessed social capital and innovative work behaviour.
The study provides an exploratory finding regarding the capability of employee’s social relations (i.e., ASC) correlates positively with employee’s propensity of innovative work behaviour. Although the formation of social network and the quality of within-company interpersonal relationship associated positively with the extent of engaging in innovation activities (Obstfeld, 2005) and the number of generating new ideas (De Long & Fahey, 2000;
McFadyen & Cannella, 2004; Smith et al., 2005) respectively, whether the quantity and diversity of social relations affects IWB propensity has rarely been studied. The result expands the factors influencing employee innovative work behaviour. However, given the exploratory nature of the result, any interpretations provided based on this preliminary finding should be treated circumspectly.
Hierarchical linear model of employee innovative work behaviour.
In addition, the study not only theoretically developed the hierarchical model of employee innovative work behaviour by integrating the research on social capital, work motivation, and psychological climate for innovation, but also empirically showed the cross-level moderating role of the climate for innovation on the relationship between recognition motivational orientation and innovative work behaviour in all organisations studied. Although partial research findings of this multilevel study are in accordance with the results of the previous studies which have tested the direct effects of IM, EM, and OCI on IWB at the level of individual (Amabile et al., 1996; Tsai & Kao, 2004; Scott & Bruce, 1994),
the research findings of previous and current studies, however, complement each other, the compatibility of the results is all the more impressive.
Motivational heterogeneity incorporating with supportive climate for innovation.
Perhaps the most important implication of the research findings is that this study empirically demonstrates that work motivation as individual differences in challenge, enjoyment, and recognition orientation of motivation and the contextual factor of supportive climate for innovation play indispensable roles at the different levels in helping employees inspire their propensities of innovative work behaviour, where recognition orientation as synergistically extrinsic motivator (Amabile, 1993) may be likely to combine successfully with supportive climate for innovation to enhance employee’s propensity of innovative behaviour.
Managerial Implications
Accessed social capital and innovative work behaviour.
The research finding of the positive relationship between ASC and IWB provides an important managerial implication that managers should assist employees in building more and diverse social relational networks to enhance IWB propensity. Although there may have some difficulties in helping employees connect with external social relations, considering the utility of weak ties (i.e., heterogeneous social ties), managers can expand and maintain employees’ internal social ties by creating rapport interpersonal relationships between employees among departments of an organisation.
Work motivation and innovative work behaviour.
In addition, the research findings concerning the positive relationship between IM, EM, and IWB suggest that perhaps managers would not face a dilemma in selecting prospective employee candidates by considering their orientations to intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, managers, however, should inspire employees’ orientations to challenge, enjoyment, and/or recognition motivation in order to creating high frequency and level of innovative behaviour.
Several ways can be used. First, managers can increase employees’ beliefs by clearly explaining that demonstrating innovative behaviours will result in their valued outcomes, such as recognition. In addition, managers can provide examples of other employees whose showing innovative behaviours have resulted in their expected valued outcomes. Third, managers can also increase the expected value of performing innovative behaviour, such as individualized public recognition. Finally, mangers should utilize positive leadership to transfer employees’ motivation into their jobs.
Organisational climate for innovation and innovative work behaviour.
The research finding shows that the average level on supportive OCI of an organisation is associated positively with the average performance on employee’s IWB propensity of that organisation. Therefore, from an organisational perspective, managers and leaders should dedicate in building high-level supportive climates for innovation, thereby a higher level average performance of employee’s IWB propensity could be reasonably expected. Given that innovation plays a critical role in today’s business environment, managers and leaders could increase organisational competitiveness by enhancing employees’ IWB propensities through high-level supportive climates for innovation.
Organisational climate for innovation interacting with work motivation.
The last but not the least is that the result indicates a supportive climate for innovation at the level of organisation is more likely to interact positively with recognition orientation at the level of employee. This finding elucidates that the recognition as an important element of behavioural patterns for innovation should be taken into account when managers intend to establish the climates for innovation because extrinsically motivated employees may view the recognition as desired rewards, valued outcomes, and resources and/or opportunities for participating in innovation activities. More specifically, managers should convey behavioural expectations through the climates which signal that exhibiting innovative behaviours will lead to obtaining recognition.
Consequently, employees with many heterogeneous acquaintances and a higher degree of the orientations to challenge, enjoyment, and recognition motivation are more likely to show stronger IWB propensities. Employees who tend to be motivated by recognition are more likely to show stronger IWB propensities when they perceive supportive climates for innovation rewarding them with recognition.
Limitations and Future Research
Although this study endeavoured to perfect the research design, it still had the following limitations. First, the dependent variable in this study was the propensity of innovative work behaviour, which is a subjective indicator. Therefore, whether the findings of this study can be applied to situations with an objective IWB indicator remains to be investigated. Because the possibility that an objective innovative work behaviour indicator is distorted by human judgement is relatively low, whether the factors of ASC, IM, EM, and OCI still possess predictive power for an objective IWB indicator requires further discussion. This study suggests that future researchers include both objective and subjective indicators in their studies to address this concern.
Additionally, the data studied did not include observations in each and every industry, thus whether the findings and suggestions provided by this study can be applied to other populations in other industries requires further discussion. Given the exploratory nature of the finding that ASC correlates to IWB, this study suggests that future researchers undertake small-scale research using quantitative and qualitative methods to address the issue that whether different occupational categories (different social resources) correlate with IWB propensity in various degrees.
Despite these limitations, the results of this study expand the factors that influence innovative behaviour and enhance the current understanding of the relationships between accessed social capital, work motivation, organisational climate for innovation, and innovative work behaviour.
Final Considerations
Clearly, more studies are required to extend the findings of this research by considering a broader set of motivational orientations (e.g., ego orientation, introjected orientation, and integrative orientation). How occupational diversity influence IWB propensity remains an interesting issue. Researchers should also extend the findings regarding ASC and IWB.
This page was intentionally left blank
REFERENCES
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. Retrieved from
http://www.tue-tm.org/INAM/Assignment1/ahuja.pdf
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. Retrieved form
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/78997509/701520272/name/Oct+19+Cited+%231+Manag e+THE+THEORY+OF+PLANNED+BEHAVIOR.pdf
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185-201.doi:10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-S
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 231-253. doi:
10.1080/10400418909534321
Amabile, T. M., Burnside, R. M., & Gryskiewciz, S.S. (1999). User’s manual for KEYS, assessing the climate for creativity: A survey from the Center for Creative Leadership.
Greensboro, N. C.: Center for Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184. doi:
10.2307/256995
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5 Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation:
Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235-258. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C
Anderson, N., & King, N. (1993). Innovation in organizations. In C.L. Cooper, & I.T.
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
1-34). Chichester: John Wiley.
Anderson, N., de Drew, Carsten K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of
innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147-173. doi: 10.1002/job.236
Aryee, S., & Chay, Y.W. (2001). Workplace justice, citizenship behavior, and turnover intentions in a union context: examining the mediating role of perceived union support and union instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 154-160.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.154
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, Celeste P.M., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Handbook of Organizational Culture and Change. Sage Publications.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-97. doi:10.1177/009207038801600107 Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian
Journal of Management, 13(2), 275-302. doi:10.1177/031289628801300210
Barrett, H., Balloun, J., & Weinstein, A. (2012). Creative Climate: A critical success factor for 21st century organizations. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 6(2), 202-219. doi:10.1504/IJBIR.2012.045637
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36–57. doi: 10.5465/AMP.2007.24286163
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-Member Exchange and Transformational Behaviors in Leader-Member Dyads Leadership: An Empirical Examination of Innovative. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 477-499. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00643.x Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual
Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002223 Blau, P. M., (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4), 400-417.doi:10.1177/1094428104268542
Bliese, P. D., Halverson, R. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2002). Benchmarking multilevel methods in leadership: The articles, the model, and the data set. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(1), 3-14. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00101-1
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson (Eds.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). NY: Greenwood Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345-423. Retrieved from
http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/The%20Network%20Structure%20of%20Soci al%20Capital.pdf
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 331-361.
doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6
Cameron, J. (2001). Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation－A limited phenomenon: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001). Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 29-42. doi:10.3102/00346543071001029
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.
doi:10.3102/00346543064003363
Cameron, J., Banko, K.M., & Pierce, W.D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: the myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24(1), 1-44. Retrieved from http://www.behavior.org/resources/331.pdf
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with observable variables. In G.
W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp.65-115).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Carol Yeh-Yun Lin, Feng-Chuan Liu, (2012). A cross-level analysis of organizational creativity climate and perceived innovation: The mediating effect of work motivation.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1), 55-76. doi:
10.1108/14601061211192834
Casanueva, C., & Gallego, A. (2010). Social capital and individual innovativeness in
university research networks. Network Analysis Application in Innovation Studies, 12(1), 105-117. doi: 10.5172/impp.12.1.105
Chen, S. L. (2006). A Multilevel Analysis of Innovation Behavior and Innovation
Performance: Perspective of Resource Based Theory (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://etd.lib.nsysu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/getfile?URN=etd-0831106-142534&file name=etd-0831106-142534.pdf
Chi-Tung Tsai, & Chuan-Feng Kao. (2004). The Relationships among Motivational
Orientations, Climate for Organizational Innovation, and Employee Innovative Behavior:
A test of Amabile’s Motivational Synergy Model. Journal of Management, 21(5), 571-592. Retrieved from
http://203.68.252.38:8080/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=12065&folderId=26903
&name=DLFE-624.pdf
Chi-Tung Tsai. (2008). Intrinsic Motivation and Employee Creativity: Tests of Amabile’s Three-Way Interaction Effect and Shin’s Mediation Effect. Journal of Management, 25(5), 549-575. Retrieved form http://jom.management.org.tw/catalog/view.aspx?id=50 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 599-609. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67.
doi:10.1177/0149206310388419
Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1988). Measurement error and theory testing in consumer research: An illustration of the importance of construct validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 579-582. doi: 10.1086/209137
Cummings, L. L. (1965). Organizational climates for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 8(3), 220-227. doi: 10.2307/254790
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to user computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity &
Innovation Management, 19(1), 23-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management.
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127. doi:10.5465/AME.2000.3979820 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi:
10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. W. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivation
processes. In Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp.
39-80). New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999a). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969. doi: 10.2307/256718
Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the Difference between Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate? A Native’s Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars.
Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619-654. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9702100310 Dessler, G. (2004). Management: Principles and Practices for Tomorrow’s Leaders. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA:
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: