As organizations struggle to keep up with increasing technological expansions, consumer expectations and rapid global demands the search for opportunities for competitive advantage becomes more and more intense (Black & Synan, 1997). Off late this search has led to an increased focus on innovation, and it is fast becoming important not only as a mechanism for increased competitivity but also greater organizational endurance in the ever-changing global market (Salaman & Storey, 2002). Innovation is no longer just a slogan. It is now seen as a potential solution to all problems and has become ubiquitous in both the private and public sectors. It is among the top key drivers of productivity, becoming more popular as its role in increasing economic productivity, driving enterprise, improving efficiency, and delivering benefits to organization, customers and society. Innovators predict changes in the market and provide solutions before people even realize they need them.
Public sector cannot meet the needs of its citizens and stakeholders on a long-term basis unless they are willing to innovate. On the global scale it is regarded as crucial to wealth creation and economical advantage. It is crucial within the public sector in efficiency savings and in the creation of conducive conditions for economic success. Innovation has brought improvement to the functions of the organization such as reduction in expenses, introduction and improvement in product and service quality (Eren, 1982). Innovation is the reason why organization experience growth and remain competitive (Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt, 2005). Organizational innovation (OI) has been studied in many different contexts and there is an extensive scope of approaches to conceptualizing and defining it and the environment in which it functions. Essentially OI concerns with bringing transformation and introduction of new philosophies in the
way products and services designed and delivered in order to provide economic or social value.
Background of the Study
The economic and social changes taking place in Papua New Guinea is creating new and complex challenges for its government. Among the challenges, is the pressure for the Government of Papua New Guinea (GoPNG) to justify its spending in addressing escalating issues and public expectations. GoPNG needs to meet pressing demand of its citizens by creating new ways of interacting with the citizens in order to involve them in policymaking and greater accountability in public service delivery.
Nevertheless, the fact that the government is modernizing public administration, institutional fragmentation and complicated administrative procedures remain a major hindrance to the government’ transparency, efficiency and effectiveness. Hence, government to be more innovative so to successfully distribute its service effectively to citizens. In pursue of innovation, knowledge resource has become one of the most critical factors in driving innovation. As such it needs to understand further its dynamics and implications. In the modern-day age where innovation become crucial to the survival of organizations, knowledge resource has become the key factors (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997). Facing rapid changes, an organization should always be adapting and updating its knowledge to maintain its economical edges (Rademakers, 2005). According to previous literatures, knowledge is crucial in intensifying core competencies of organizations in order to continue to be innovative (Bollinger & Smith, 2001; Teece, 1998). Subsequently, knowledge is anticipated to become fundamental element in production and more than likely to succeed other elements such as capital, equipment and labor. According to Drucker (1993), knowledge workers would determine the competitiveness and productivity of organization in the future. As such, the efficient management of knowledge workers
must become priority in the organization. It has thus been given tremendous acknowledgement within the strategic management studies as an important strategic asset to provide the organization’s economical edge (Grant & Quiggin, 1997).
Additionally, another factor in pursue of innovation is retaining committed employees. Committed employees are always ready to improve their organizations. For many modern organizations, their priority is focused on retaining the commitment of their employees (Evans & Reiche, 2008). In such an aggressive and volatile competitive environment where job crisis and job cuts are foreseeable, the challenge of the organization is committing the top performers to the organization (Mayer & Allen, 1990). Organizations that does not commit to this, deserves to have scarce capable performers in the future to enable the organization to compete (Rappaport, Bancroft &
Okum, 2003).
Furthermore, OCB is identified to be another key factor. It is displayed to have positive influences on employees’ performances and this successively has apparent flow-on effects on the organization’s innovation. OCB is expressed through positive and constructive behaviors in which employees performs on their own accord which supports and benefits co-workers and the organization (Hunt, 1999). The employees’
willingness to share their knowledge among colleagues is considered as a non-obligatory behavior and it depends on the employee’s social relationships and the environment integrated by their organization (Lin, 1999; von Krogh, 2003). In the study by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), this give-and-take of knowledge among employees is facilitated by the social capital. Social capital refers to the network that supports the collaboration amongst employees (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). It is an important element in providing an atmosphere through which knowledge among employees can be exchanged (Makino & Inkpen, 2003). Behaviors like OCB prepare the ground that can help to create and maintain social capital in organization (Podsakoff, Whiting & Blume,
2009). These behaviors help to create communicative aspect of social capital (Ellinger, Musgrove, Bachrach, Baş & Wang, 2013). Consequently, there is a direct relationship between social capital and organizational performance since social capital prepares the ground for individual growth and organizational learning leading to knowledge sharing between employee and organizations (Lefebvre, Sorenson, Henchion & Gellynck, 2016) and increase trust in organization which enhances the efficiency of knowledge sharing. The employees that are found to be engaged in OCB, may not necessarily be the outstanding performer although they could be, they are found to be the ones that goes an extra mile in basic efforts necessary to accomplish satisfactory job. OCB is demonstrated to have increased productivity, proficiency and client satisfaction, and expenditures reduction and turnover rates in which firms can benefit from (Podsakoff et al., 2009).
Therefore, OC, OCB, KS and OI have become increasingly popular in the field of research and have been much discussed by different organizations in different settings throughout the world. The extent of literature demonstrates that there is potential to discuss these dimensions in different settings and sectors to broaden its validity. For this reason, this study is an attempt to be conducted in Papua New Guinean Public Sector. The study examines the influences of OC and OCB on OI, respectively.
Furthermore, the study also investigates whether employees’ KS behavior functions as an important mediator for the relationship of OC and OCB with OI, respectively.
Statement of the Problem
One common challenge confronted by the public sector is how to service its customers (public and private entities) better. Traditionally, public sector has been considered a docile mouthpiece in implementing mandated social policies. However, due to improved private sector service delivery, public sector is now seen as another provider of services by the citizens and businesses for the taxes they pay. While
government is striving to meet the expectations from the citizens and to balance priorities in effective allocation of resources, it is vital that new approaches are required. In pursue of new approaches, Government must emphasize innovation and be creative in developing mechanisms to alleviate and improve service delivery, process improvement, regulation and policy implementation. Consequently, tremendous pressure is on Papua New Guinea Public Sector to improve its services, which has led to the challenge of service delivery throughout the country. Lack of innovation has hindered the economic growth and success of the GoPNG with its key facilitator, the public sector. There are factors that can be accentuated to address this issue which this study intends to focus.
Purpose of the Study
There are a number of factors that have previously been studied to have influenced innovation. The purpose of this study is threefold and it intends to test the following factors within the Papua New Guinea public sector. First, this study aims to examine the relationships of OCB and OC with OI respectively. Second, the study aims to examine the relationship of OC and OCB with KS, respectively. Third, this study aims to test the mediating effect of KS for the relationships of organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment with organizational innovation respectively.
The relationship among these variables will be tested in this study to see whether they make significant difference on innovation.
Questions of the Study
To fulfill the purpose of this research with the aim to enhance organizational innovation, there are two major questions developed in which the study intends to respond to;
1. What are the relationships of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior with organizational innovation, respectively?
2. What are the relationships of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior with knowledge sharing, respectively?
3. Does knowledge sharing have a significant mediating effect for the relationship of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior with organizational innovation, respectively?
Significance of the Study
To address the lack of innovation issues within the public sector, the public sector must come up with alternatives to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its functions in delivering services. Essentially it implies that the government must strategically provide value for every expense with improved accessible quality services to all citizens. The public sector should be quick-thinking in exploring effective approaches to enhance service delivery at a reduced cost while improving citizens and private organization experience. The solution is that the government should prioritize the need of citizens and the private organizations during the stage of designing services and service delivery. Public sector does not choose its customers however, it is required to delivery service to its clients and the client’s different needs of services is another factor public sector should pay attention. The findings from this study will be used as a basis to which the public sector can identify gaps and take necessary actions to improve its organizational performance as well as providing necessary support to its employees and thus improve overall organizational performance in order to function more efficient in delivering service to its citizens innovatively. Furthermore, this study will provide recommendations for the public sector to use and to encourage and improve employees’ knowledge sharing behavior and their organizational commitment and inspire the employees to perform above and beyond necessary required obligations
to accomplish a satisfactory job. And finally, this study intends to create a platform to conduct future research and further improve in the areas of OC, OCB, OI and KS.
Definition of Key Terms Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
Podsakoff Ahearne & MacKenzie (1997), defined OCB as behavior exhibited by an employee that goes beyond expected behavior that promotes overall organizational functioning. It is a behavior that is not stated under an employee’s required role and responsibility and therefore is not usually formally rewarded. It is widely considered a positive behavior for individual, group and organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff et al., 2009). There are five dimensions of OCB. Among the five dimensions of OCB, this study used innovation behavior and altruism to measure this construct. Altruism is a voluntary behaviors or employees provide with the aim of assisting other employees deal with work issues (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2009).
Altruism refers to a member helping other members of the organization in their work.
Organizational commitment (OC)
Organizational commitment is the expression of a strong desire to contribute to the accomplishment of an organization’s goals resulting from an employee’s psychological connection and bonding to the organization (Mayer & Allen, 1990). It is important to have employees who are willing to dedicate to their organization. It costs organizations a lot to find appropriate employees and so it is important to have them committed to the future of the organization. OC has three dimensions, which are normative commitment, affective commitment and continuance commitment. This study emphasized and employed affective commitment rather than all three dimensions to measure the constructs. AC refers to employees' psychological attachment to an organization based on their identification with the objectives and values of their employer (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Knowledge sharing (KS)
Refers to the process that involves the exchange of task-related and work-related information, how to perform the tasks, or feedback work-related to work procedure.
(Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005; Cummings, 2004). The transferring or dissemination of information from one person or group to another is known as knowledge sharing. Darroch (2003), defined the connection of external knowledge sources to organizational members as organizational knowledge sharing.
The ideas, expertise and new information that can be gained from external sources mean organizational members stand to benefit from such sharing (Hamel & Prahalad, 1993).
Nooteboom (2000) extended that organizational innovation can result from knowledge sharing when connection is made that transcend organizational boundaries.
Organizational innovation (OI)
Organizational innovation refers to the process in which new organizational procedures are being created, adopted or implemented to enhance and improve organizational practices, workplace, or external relations, thus increasing effectiveness and efficiency of the organization (OECD, 2005). In the contemporary world of ever-increasing competition and advance methods of delivering services, organizations are required to be innovative in improving its in order to ahead. Organizations are required to seek ways to be creative and contribute to the current economic and/or social needs of the society.