This chapter is divided into six sections. Section one provides the background information as regards the inception of this study. Section two describes the significance of this study derived from an inspection of the overview of research background. Section three presents the purposes of this study as per the research gap located and discussed at the end of section one. Section four illustrates the delimitations of this study. Finally, section five provides the definition of key terms.
Research Background
Innovation plays a critical role in today’s business environment, where market leadership often hinges on product innovation as well as creative marketing strategies (Barrett, Balloun, & Weinstein, 2012). Nurturing and inspiring creativity in employees, such that ideas can applied creatively, has thus gradually become an indispensable managerial practice both in the field of human resource development (HRD) and that of human resource management (HRM) (McLean, 2005). However, while creativity on the part of individuals is a starting point for innovation (Amabile, 1996), no innovation can be actualized in the absence of various employee innovative work behaviours, since any creative idea, if not implemented, is but a castle in the air. Therefore, it is of pivotal importance to fully understand the factors that influence employees innovative work behaviour, which is the primary motivation of the study.
Social capital may play a critical role on employee’s engagement of innovation activities such as the generation of new and useful ideas (Burt, 2000; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Although the positive contribution of social capital on innovation has gradually received much attention (Calantone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002; Casanueva & Gallego, 2010; Hult, Hurley, & Knight, 2004), employee’s accessed social capital in the correlative relationship with their innovative work behaviour has not been given the attention it needs. Drawing on
social resources theory, Lin (2002) noted that people’s accessed social capital as capability of social capital, that is, the quantity and diversity of social relations, refers to their social relations as the value resources embedded in social networks that can be borrowed and employed to facilitate their purposive actions. From a viewpoint of common sense, people’s social capital viewed as social credential can be used to facilitate their actions (Lin, 2002), therefore it is reasonable to argue that employees who possess more acquaintances showing better occupational diversity may have better social capital to enhance their innovativeness due to their having a greater chance of acquiring more diverse useful thoughts and ideas, if, compared with those lacking of social capital with such quantity and quality. Therefore, it is of great significance to investigate whether social capital is related to innovative work behaviour, which is the second motivation of the study.
In addition, how to inspire, motivate, and support employees’ innovative behaviours has always been a major issue both from the dimension of theory and practice (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Not only has employee work motivation always been a haunting problem for business leaders and managers, but it has been the easiest and most straightforward way to influence employees’ work-related behaviours in the workplace (Amabile, 1993). To date, the majority of studies have almost unexceptionally focused on innovation at the level of individuals in organisations (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999), discussing the relationship innovative work behaviour and individual characteristics such as personality traits, abilities, and cognitive styles (Williams & Yang, 1999). Yet, only few attempts have been made to establish a direct relationship between work motivation as employee’s basic motivational orientation and innovative work behaviour. However, because work motivation not only is a temporary, situation-specific state influenced by the social environment of organisation but also is a relatively stable trait (Amabile, 1993) reflecting employee’s basic motivational orientation that can be viewed as a substrate on which reactions to particular higher-level contextual conditions (Woodman et al., 1993), it is of great significance to
acquire more in-depth understanding on whether employee’s motivational orientation in the correlative relationship with innovative work behaviour does exist in hierarchically structured organisations after considering meaningful organisational-level factors (e.g., innovation climate), which is the third motivation of the study.
Furthermore, the social environment of organisation, such as organisational climate for innovation, may influence the level as well as the frequency of creative behaviours (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996), specifically, company’s support or negligence in regard to the policies, practices, and procedures of innovation may facilitate or inhibit employee’s innovative work behaviours (Amabile et al., 1996; Hofmann, 1997; Kanter, 1988;
Klein & Sorra, 1996; Lin & Liu, 2010; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tsai & Kao, 2004). Because individual’s behaviour is the outcome of complicated person-situation interaction (Woodman et al., 1993) where not merely individual’s characteristics but also social environment can influence his or her behaviours (Lewin, 1951), it is advisable that the impact of the climate for innovation on innovative work behaviour be taken into account, which is the fourth motivation of the study.
The last but not the least is that although understanding why and when employees are willing to take the initiative in innovation-related activities and to demonstrate innovative behaviours is critical in situations where companies intend to motivate and support such behaviours, prior research focusing mainly on employee innovative work behaviours at the individual-level or deeming it as a personality-trait-related phenomenon may resulted in limited understanding of the complicated manners such as that whether individual-level factor of motivational orientation and organisational-level factor of innovation climate may exercise interactive influences on innovative work behaviour as individual outcome variable.
Hence, in an attempt to bridge the gap in this scope of knowledge, it is necessary to conduct a multilevel research to discuss the relationships between innovative work behaviour, accessed social capital, work motivation, and organisational climate for innovation.
Significance of the Study
This study may contribute to the existing innovation research in several aspects. Perhaps the primary contribution of this study might be that it gave an attempt to establish a direct relationship between accessed social capital and innovative work behaviour, which has thus far been relatively little research into this issue. In addition, although previous innovation research has examined the relationship between work motivation and creativity, to date, there is but little research conducted to investigate whether work motivation as employees’ basic motivational orientations to influence innovative work behaviours. Therefore, the second contribution of this study was enhancing the understanding of the relationship between motivational orientation and innovative work behaviour, as is distinct from the dominant emphasis in prior research on individual’s personality traits and creativity. From a view of motivation, prior research has shown that individual-level work motivation as well as perceived organisational climate for innovation are positively correlated with innovative work behaviour (Amabile et al., 1996; Tsai & Kao, 2004); this study, in contrast, proposed that the climate for innovation at the firm level would be more likely to serve as an enhancing condition that moderates the extent to which motivational orientation influences innovative work behaviour after considering the influences of accessed social capital. Hence, the third contribution of this study was demonstrating a multilevel model of innovative work behaviour which may better serve to understand whether accessed social capital, motivational orientation, and organisational climate for innovation can exert positive influences on innovative work behaviour. To conclude, this study, with its implications for theory and practice, may lead to a better understanding as to how to motivate and support employees with jobs that apply and/or call for innovation to a certain extent.
Research Purpose
Based on the research background and motivation, this study drawing on multilevel theoretical perspective aims to investigate the relationships between accessed social capital, work motivation, organisational climate for innovation, and innovative work behaviour, and to derive related theoretical and managerial implications.
Research Questions
According to the research purposes derived from the background and motivation of the study, three research questions needed to be answered include:
1. Whether the employee-level factors of accessed social capital and work motivation are related to innovative work behaviour?
2. Whether the firm-level factor of organisational climate for innovation exerts a contextual effect on employee innovative work behaviour?
3. 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?
Delimitations
Based on the concern that innovation is critical in today’s business environment, where accessed social capital, work motivation, and organisational climate for innovation may play indispensable roles, and that all organisational innovations are actualized through employees’
various innovative work behaviours, the foci of this study are on the relationships between accessed social capital, work motivation, organisational climate for innovation, and innovative work behaviour.
Definition of Key Terms
Four main constructs investigated in this study include employee innovative work behaviour, accessed social capital, work motivation, and organisational climate for innovation, as described below:
Innovative Work Behaviour
This construct is conceptualized as a cluster of employee innovative work behaviours directed towards the exploration, the generation, the championing, and the realization of new and useful concepts, ideas, procedures, processes, products, services, either within a work role, a group or an organisation (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Dorenbosch et al, 2005;
Kleysen & Street, 2001; Krause, 2004). In this study, this construct is expressed in terms that reflect employees’ psychological propensity of demonstrating innovative behaviour.
Accessed Social Capital
This construct defined as employee’s capability of social capital refers to the quantity and diversity of social relations as value resources embedded in social networks that can be borrowed and utilized to fulfill one’s expressive or instrumental objectives (Bourdieu, 1986;
Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2002; Putnam, 1995; Portes, 1998).
Work Motivation
This construct refers to an employee’s psychologically energetic forces that can determine his or her direction, intensity and persistence of work-related behaviour towards attaining organisational goals (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Leonard, Beauvais, & Scholl, 1999).
Theoretically, work motivation is divided into two major types of motivational orientation, namely, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1993).
Intrinsic motivation.
This construct refers to that an employee’s motivation to engage in specific work activities is primarily for the sheer enjoyment and challenge of the work per se because he or she considers work itself as interesting or fun (Amabile, 1993).
Extrinsic motivation.
This construct refers to that an employee’s motivation to perform specific work activities is primarily for the desired or promised rewards, such as recognition, because he or she considers the efforts paid will result in certain external returns (Amabile, 1993).
Organisational Climate for Innovation
This construct refers to a facet-specific climate wherein various types of support for innovation activities, to a greater or lesser extent, are provided in an organisation (Amabile et al., 1996; Anderson & West, 1998; Chiou, Chen, & Lin, 2009; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). In this study, the construct is expressed in terms that reflect employees’ psychologically meaningful perceptions of organisational settings for innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994).