This chapter is divided into five sections. The first four sections discuss the literature regarding innovative work behaviour (section one), accessed social capital (section two), work motivation (section three), and organisational climate for innovation (section four).
Section five illustrates the reasoning of the hypothesized relationships between the variables.
Further details are provided in the following paragraphs.
Innovative Work Behaviour Innovative Work Behaviour
Innovative work behaviour (IWB) is an extended concept of innovation regarding to the use of creative ideas. A review of literature indicates that although the two concepts, namely innovation and creativity, often used interchangeably in scholastic research (McLean, 2005;
Scott & Bruce, 1994) are in actuality somewhat different in their attributes and are sometimes thought to be interactive with each other (Amabile, 1993; Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007;
Ng & Feldman, 2012; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; West & Farr, 1990), creativity viewed as an initial point for the innovation process only constitutes a necessary, but not sufficient, condition in terms of individual innovation (Amabile, 1996, p.1).
The construct of IWB refers to a cluster of behaviours associated with different stages of innovation process (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Janssen, 2000; Krause, 2004; Scott &
Bruce, 1994). The theoretical foundation of aforementioned viewpoint was derived from the activity-stage model of innovation (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1973) which focuses mainly on the actual activities carried out for creating new products, service or work procedures by breaking down the innovation process into a number of distinct activities.
Several scholars, however, indicated that innovation should be a non-linear continuous happening (Ruttan, 2001; Pavitt, 2005; Van de Ven, Andrew, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman, 1999), hence the activity-stage model often viewed as being too simplistic in terms of
describing innovation activities seemed not without its flaws (Anderson et al., 2004). Despite such dispute, Kanter (1988) noted that those activity-stage-based models of innovation should still be applicable for analytical purposes, and suggested that innovation-related behaviours can be better understood through an examination for the major phases of innovation process (p.172). Because each distinct phase of innovation process not only captures, but also reflects its corresponding behaviours regarding innovation, innovative behaviours, therefore in other words, are embedded into many correlated but different phases of innovation process.
Kanter (1988) considered that innovation in the workplace begins with the activation of employees to sense or seize a new opportunity, and therefore proposed a four-stage framework of innovation process comprising the activities of idea generation, coalition building, idea realization, and transformation. The framework illustrates that employees’
innovation begins with their recognition of opportunity (e.g., the problems arising in their jobs), and afterwards they create a new way to response the problems. During the next stage, employees try to search potential allies and seek for their supports. In the final stage of transformation, employees ultimately produce “a prototype or model of the innovation”
(p.191), namely, the commercialization of products.
Similarly, Scott and Bruce (1994) drawing on Kanter’s (1988) work of the stages of innovation process defined innovation as “a multistage process, with different activities and different behaviours necessary at each stage” (p.582). They proposed a two-stage framework of innovation process to conceptualize and operationalize IWB. The framework presents two major types of innovation-related activity, namely, idea generation and idea implementation.
However, although the framework captures most Kanter’s thoughts, the stage of recognizing opportunity of innovation seemed to be ignored.
A review of literature indicated that there seems no general consensus on what the stages of individual innovation consists of, nonetheless recent studies on capturing the formations of IWB revealed four crucial dimensions, that is, the exploration of innovation opportunity, idea
generation, idea championing, and idea implementation/realization (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Kleysen & Street, 2001; Krause, 2004).
The exploration of innovation opportunity which regards as the antecedent condition of idea generation refers to the discovering of the problems occurred in jobs (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). The exploratory activity which aims to shorten the extent of the mismatches between actual and desired performance is regarded to be associated with various innovative behaviours including paying attention to opportunity sources, gathering information about opportunities, and wondering how things can be improved (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010;
Kleysen & Street, 2001).
Idea generation is considered as another important dimension of IWB, which refers to the behaviours related to generating new concepts/ideas for the later purposive improvement actions to cope with the problems occurred in jobs (Ford, 1996; Kleysen & Street, 2001). Idea championing denotes the behaviours associated with persuading and influencing the key figures of organisations to support new and useful ideas (Anderson & King, 1993; Dougherty
& Hardy, 1996; Maute & Locander, 1994; Shane, 1994). The behaviours regarding idea championing are often viewed as being essential and critical for innovation, because although new ideas may appear to fit performance gaps, it may be uncertain that whether the ideas can generate economic benefits and a certain degree of resistance can be expected (De Jong &
Den Hartog, 2010).
Finally, idea implementation refers to transforming new ideas into reality (Farr & Ford, 1990; Glynn, 1996; West & Farr, 1990). Any proposed creative idea, if not implemented, is but a castle in the air. The behaviours in relation to this phase include developing and testing a new work procedure, and commercializing a new product or service (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Kanter, 1988).
In summary, according to the review of literature, this study considers IWB as a cluster of employee’s behaviour directed towards the exploration, generation, championing, and
realization of new and useful concepts, ideas, procedures, processes, products and services, within a work role, group or organisation.
Measures of Innovative Work Behaviour
Although a growing number of theoretical and empirical studies are now available to shed important light on IWB dimensions (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Glynn, 1996; Kanter, 1988; Kleysen & Street, 2001; Ng & Feldman., 2012; Scott &
Bruce, 1994; Woodman et al., 1993), the measures of IWB are still in evolution. A review of literature indicated that only a few empirical studies regarding individual innovation were conducted through multi-dimensional measures for assessing IWB (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Dorenbosch et al, 2005; Kleysen & Street, 2001; Krause, 2004); in contrast, most studies tend to view IWB as one-dimensional construct (Basu & Green, 1997; Chen, 2006;
Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Spreitzer, 1995). For the purpose of instrument selection, this study performed a review of the psychometric properties for several major IWB measures. The review was conducted by classifying major related literature into two categories, namely, one-dimensional and multi-dimensional IWB measures.
One-dimensional IWB measure.
Scott and Bruce (1994) drawing on Kanter’s (1988) thoughts of multistage process of innovation developed a 6-item one-dimensional IWB scale through in-depth interviews with the managers of an R&D facility. The scale captured four types of IWB, namely, idea generation (e.g., “creates creative ideas”), coalition building (e.g., “promotes and champions ideas to others”), idea championing (e.g., “searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas”), and idea realization (e.g., “develops adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas”) (p.607). The reason why IWB viewed as single-dimensional construct was that “individuals can be expected to be involved in any combination of these behaviours at any one time” (p.582). The data employed to assess IWB was collected from the respondents working as engineers, scientists, and technicians in a
large, centralized R&D facility of a major U.S. industrial corporation. The criterion validity was obtained by showing a positive correlation between respondent’s number of innovation disclosures and the IWB scale (r = .33, p < .001). The internal consistency of the scale was reported being acceptable (Cronbach’s = .89) (p.590).
Janssen (2000) also drawing on Kanter’s (1988) work defined IWB in the workplace as complex innovation activities consisting of three behavioural aspects, namely idea generation (e.g., “creating new ideas for improvements”), idea promotion (e.g., “mobilizing support for innovative ideas) ”, and idea realization (e.g., “transforming innovative ideas into useful applications”) (p.292). The 9-item one-dimensional IWB scale was derived from Scott and Bruce’s (1994) IWB measure. The data used to develop the scale was collected from non-management employees within a Dutch manufacturer in the food sector. Because the results of the construct validity for the scale assessed through a correlation analysis indicated that the intercorrelations between the three aspects of innovative behaviour were relatively high, such as idea generation and idea realization (r = .84), the three dimensions were combined additively to create an overall scale (Cronbach’s = .95) (p.292).
Chen (2006) defined employee’s innovation as multistage activities represented by a cluster of behaviours regarding the exploration, the generation, the championing, and the implementation of new and useful ideas. Her 9-item modified IWB scale was derived from Scott and Bruce’s (1994) IWB scale and was developed using the subjects from Taiwanese in-group members from various industries, such as communication, biotechnology, high technology, and computer and peripheral. The scale used for assessing the extent to which employees demonstrate innovative behaviour captured four major behavioural aspects of innovation activity including idea exploration (e.g., searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas), idea generation (e.g., generates new work methods or ideas), idea championing (e.g.., promotes ideas to the key men in organisation), and idea implementation (e.g., implements new ideas to improve work procedure, product, technique,
and service) (p.114). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results for the construct validity of the scale was confirmed by showing that the fit indexes fell within in an acceptable range (p.46). The internal consistency of the scale reported using Cronbach’s coefficient was .93.
Multi-dimensional IWB measures.
Krause (2004) who defined innovation as all intentional results of action bringing about perceived changes within the organisation considered IWB as two-dimensional construct comprising two major behavioural aspects of innovation, namely, the generation and testing of ideas and the implementation of ideas. The 9-item two-dimensional IWB scale that was developed based on the sample of middle managers who came from various German organisations includes the items such as “during the process of innovation I invested time and energy to find better variants” (generating and testing ideas), and “the result of the innovation process is that I used the innovation myself” (implementing ideas) (p.90). The internal consistency of the scale was reported at Cronbach’s = .78 for the subscale of generation and testing of ideas, and at Cronbach’s = .81 for another subscale (p.89).
Kleysen and Street (2001) who performed an extensive review of literature regarding innovation research proposed that IWB was a multi-dimensional construct which can include five behavioural dimensions of innovation, namely, opportunity exploration, generativity, formative investigations, championing, and application. The sample items included “pay attention to non-routine issues in your work, department, organisation or the market place”
(opportunity exploration), “generates ideas or solutions to address problem” (generativity),
“experiment with new ideas and solutions” (formative investigation), “take the risk to support new ideas” (championing), and “implement changes that seem to be beneficial” (application) (p.293). The data used to develop this 14-item IWB scale was collected from the employees in different organisations from various industries such as highway transportation, software consulting, and equipment leasing. Although the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results indicated that the theoretical factor structure was represented well by the 14 items, the CFA
results showed inadequate fit indexes (p.290). The internal consistency of the scales was acceptable (Cronbach’s s between .72 and .89) (p.291).
In summary, considering the quality of psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural appropriateness of the measures (Switzer, Wisniewski, Dew, & Schultz, 1999, p.400), Chen’s (2006) 9-item IWB scale is considered relatively appropriate for the study. Table 2.1 presents the results of psychometric comparison for IWB measures.
Table 2.1.
Psychometric Comparison for the Measures of Innovative Work Behaviour
Reliabilitya
Validity Dimension Size of
sample
Number of items
Year Author
Content Criterion Construct IEc IGd ICe IRf
.89 × × × × 172 6 1994 Scott and Bruce
.95 × × × × 170 9 2000 Janssen
.97 × × × × × 225 14 2001 Kleysen and Street
(.78 / .81)b × × × × 339 8 2004 Krause
.93 × × × × × 512 9 2006 Chen
Note. a Cronbach’s ; b (generation and testing of ideas/ implementation); c idea exploration; d idea generation; e idea championing; f idea realization.
Accessed Social Capital Social Capital
The theoretical foundation of social capital was derived from the theory of capital that can be traced to Karl Marx who viewed capital as part of surplus value captured by capitalists and generated from the process of commodities production and exchange. From the perspective of economics, the notion of capital, in Marxian view, refers to the investment of expected returns in the marketplace (e.g., economics, politics, labour, or community) (Lin, 2002). In other words, capital is resources that can be invested and mobolized to produce profits or to facilitate action. From the perspective of sociology, social capital refers to the resources embedded in social networks that can be invested to acquire desired returns in a specific marketplace (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1990; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 1995). Stated simply, social capital is valuable resources captured through social relations in social networks (Lin, 2002). A review of literature indicated three major theoretical approaches to conceptualize social capital, namely, weak tie theory (Granovetter, 1973), structural holes theory (Burt, 1992), and social resources theory (Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981), which were discussed as follows.
Social Capital Theory
Granovetter (1973) drawing on Homan’s insights of social exchange theory and homophily principle indicated that homogeneous and heterogeneous social circles (i.e. social cliques) can be distinguished through denser and more reciprocally interconnected partners.
According to Granovetter (1973), the ties among members of a social circle are more likely to be strong (i.e. strong ties) because the members of a social circle tend to have homophilous characteristics such as similar education background, living style, and the ways of doing things, and also because such homophilous similarities can also extend to information as valuable resources, the information possessed by those members is more likely to be quickly shared and exchanged by the members of a social circle (Granovetter, 1973, 1974). Despite
the advantage of strong ties, the strength of weak ties suggests that an individual is more likely to have better social capital through the interaction with some other heterogeneous social circles because he or she can reach wider diverse resources. However, the aforementioned proposition of the strength of weak ties should be premised on the assumption that heterogeneous resources are beneficial to individuals’ purposive actions.
Burt’s (1992) structural holes theory focusing mainly on the pattern of relations indicates that the position occupied by an individual in social network would be more important than the strength of his or her relations (i.e. the strength of ties). A structural hole refers to the network location (i.e. a node) between two individuals who are not connected with each other.
In Burt’s view, an individual would be more likely to be more advantageous if he or she was connected to other members who are themselves unconnected with each other in their social networks (Burt’s, 1992, 1997). Like weak tie theory, structural holes theory indicates the importance of heterogeneous resources. However, structural holes theory focuses more on the pattern of network structure rather than the strength of ties per se; therefore, regardless of the strength of relations, individuals who occupy the nodes linking unconnected members in their social networks are considered to have better social capital and, thus, would have better returns such as information and some other desired resources.
The third theoretical approach to conceptualize social capital is social resources theory (Lin et al, 1981; Lin, 2002). Social resources theory is premised on the assumption that “all actors will take actions to promote their self-interests by maintaining and gaining value resources if such opportunities are available” (Lin, 2002, p.31). From the view of promoting self-interests, an individual’s motive to take actions for acquiring or maintaining value resources initiates either his or her expressive action or instrumental action, or both (Lin, 2002). Thus, social resources theory suggests that it may not the weak ties itself that conveys advantage, but the ties are more likely to reach someone with the desired value resources required for an individual to facilitate his or her expressive or instrumental actions. In Lin’s
view, social capital is not individual’s possessed goods, but the resources embedded in social network that can be borrowed and employed through direct or indirect relations.
Accessed Social Capital
Lin (2002) drawing on social resources theory proposed two types of social capital, namely, accessed social capital (ASC) and mobilized social capital (MSC) (p.83). ASC refers to people’s total quantity of social relation that can be acquired through their various channels, while MSC refers to the social relations which are particularly selected from ASC to help achieve people’s purposive actions whereby MSC can be viewed as a subset of ASC. In addition, ASC centers mainly on the scale of social relations in a social network, whereas MSC emphasizes on the strength of contact status and of the types of the relationship between contact and actor on actor’s purposive actions.
In summary, the notion of social capital refers to the social relations as value resources embedded in social networks that can be borrowed and employed to fulfill one’s expressive or instrumental objectives. The following section discusses the measure of ASC due to the focus of this study on the relationship between the quantity and diversity of social relations and IWB.
Measure of Accessed Social Capital
A review of social capital literature indicated two major approaches commonly used to measure ASC: name generators (Fischer & Shavit, 1995) and position generators (Lin &
Dumin, 1986). Name generators aims to understand people’s network structure, that is, the characteristics of their social resources (Burt, 1984), which is conducted by the analyses of qualitative data collected from research subjects who self-report the information including gender, education, and occupation of their friends or specific contacts. Although this method was considered as being advantageous to understand people’s egocentric networks (Lin, Chen,
& Fu, 2010), it may be difficult to examine the validity of the results (Marsden, 2005).
Another method, position generators, focuses on the quality and quantity of people’s
social capital. This method drawing on social resources theory is premised on the assumption that the occupational locations in the structure of a society are primary carriers of social capital which are loaded with major social resources (Lin et al., 2010). Hence, because different occupations carry different social resources, those people whose acquaintances present better occupational diversity are considered as possessing better social capital.
Therefore, whether an individual know the acquaintances of particular occupations reflects that whether he or she can contact with those particular social locations (i.e. occupations) and the social resources of those locations through his or her social ties (Lin, 1999). The method of position generators was indicated as validated and reliable research instrument for measuring social capital (van der Gaag, Snijders, & Flap, 2008).
According to Lin et al. (2010), the measurement of ASC by using position generators consists of four major operational points. First, a researcher designs a questionnaire listing ten to twenty representative occupations across all hierarchies of a society. Each occupation has its corresponding score of occupational prestige. Next, the respondents are asked to answer the question: do you have any acquaintance that has the following occupations?
Third, according to respondents’ answers, three indicators are constructed, namely, upper reachability, heterogeneity, and extensity. The first indicator aims to understand the best resources accessed, specifically, it refers to the uppermost occupation that a respondent can reach through his or her social ties. The second indicator, heterogeneity, refers to the range of occupations whose resources reachable through social ties. The third indicator, extensity, indicates the sum of the number of occupations reachable, which reflects the diversity of occupations and their embedded social resources. Finally, the three indicators are used to create a composite variable as the construct of ASC by computing the factor score through exploratory factor analysis.
Work Motivation
The topic of work motivation theoretically and practically plays a central role both in the fields of management and organisational behaviour (Amabile, 1993; Grant, 2008; Porter, Bigley, & Steers, 2003; Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004). Academic researchers dedicating in the development of useful and valuable theories of effective management practice view work motivation as a fundamental building block (Latham & Pinder, 2005). In addition, leaders and managers in organisations often view work motivation as an integral part of the performance equation at all levels because motivated employees tend to exert more efforts in
The topic of work motivation theoretically and practically plays a central role both in the fields of management and organisational behaviour (Amabile, 1993; Grant, 2008; Porter, Bigley, & Steers, 2003; Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004). Academic researchers dedicating in the development of useful and valuable theories of effective management practice view work motivation as a fundamental building block (Latham & Pinder, 2005). In addition, leaders and managers in organisations often view work motivation as an integral part of the performance equation at all levels because motivated employees tend to exert more efforts in