影響員工創新行為因素之跨層次研究

全文

(1)A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Employee Innovative Work Behaviour. by Zheng-Yi Edward Liu. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of. MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: Chih-Chien Steven Lai, Ph.D. Tsan-Ying Stanley Lin, Ph.D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan January, 2014.

(2)

(3) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Many people have contributed for this thesis. First and foremost, I am immensely indebted to my thesis advisors, Professor Chih-Chien Lai (賴志樫) and Professor Tsan-Ying Lin (林燦螢) for their excellent guidance, inspiration, insightful discussions, exceptional dedication, and sustained encouragement. One could not wish for better supervision. A very special thank is owed to Professor Ta-Wei Lee (李大偉) for his careful reading and valuable suggestions included in this thesis, inspired and challenged me. I would like to express my sincerely gratitude to Professor Lung-Sheng Lee (李隆盛) and Professor Kuen-Yi Lin (林坤誼) who gave me invaluable opportunities to accumulate research experience. I am thankful to Professor Cheng-Hui Wang (王正慧) who inspired my dedication to research methods. I would also like to thank Professor Shir-Tau Tsai (蔡錫濤) for his ideas, discussions and feedback. Thank you Pei-Ling Hsieh (謝佩伶), Pei-Wen Kao (高珮文), and Yuan-Ching Chen (陳遠晴) for the sustained support in helping me alleviate the burden of administrative affairs, therefore I can focus entirely on the study. I would also like to thank all of the anonymous participants who graciously donated their time to this study. This thesis would not have been written without the unconditional support from my family.. Zheng-Yi Edward Liu, January 2014.

(4) This page was intentionally left blank..

(5) ABSTRACT Departing from the emphasis on individualized phenomenon of creative behaviour in prior innovation research, this study developed a multilevel model of employee innovative work behaviour that incorporates employee-level influences of accessed social capital, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and firm-level influences of organisational climate for innovation. The analyses of the multilevel data collected from 922 Taiwanese working adults in 36 business firms across various industries indicated that both employee- and firm-level factors are associated positively with innovative work behaviour, and that, on average, the relationship between employees’ extrinsic motivational orientations and innovative work behaviours is more likely to be stronger when they perceive high supportive climates for innovation. This study may lead to a better understanding as regards how to motivate and support employees engaged in innovation-related activities in their jobs. Theoretical and managerial implications were discussed. Keywords: innovative work behaviour, accessed social capital, work motivation, organisational climate for innovation, hierarchical linear modeling. I.

(6) This page was intentionally left blank.. II.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ III LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. V LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ VII CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 Research Background ........................................................................................................ 1 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................... 4 Research Purpose ............................................................................................................... 5 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 5 Delimitations ...................................................................................................................... 5 Definition of Key Terms .................................................................................................... 6. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 9 Innovative Work Behaviour ............................................................................................... 9 Accessed Social Capital ................................................................................................... 17 Work Motivation .............................................................................................................. 21 Organisational Climate for Innovation ............................................................................ 27 Hypothesis Development ................................................................................................. 36. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 43 Research Framework ....................................................................................................... 43 Research Procedures ........................................................................................................ 46 Measures .......................................................................................................................... 48 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 49 Data Analysis Methods .................................................................................................... 53. III.

(8) Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................................ 58. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................. 59 Psychometric Characteristics of the Measures ................................................................ 59 Hypothesis Tests .............................................................................................................. 68 Summary of Analysis Results .......................................................................................... 84 Discussion of Research Findings ..................................................................................... 86. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ................................ 93 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 93 Theoretical and Managerial Implications ........................................................................ 97 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................... 100 Final Considerations ...................................................................................................... 101. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 103 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................... 120 APPENDIX B: SPSS SCRIPTS FOR COMPUTING RWG ............................. 124. IV.

(9) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Psychometric Comparison for the Measures of Innovative Work Behaviour ..... 16 Table 2.2. Conceptual Definitions and Dimensions of Organisational Climate for Innovation .............................................................................................................................. 32 Table 2.3 .Psychometric Comparison of the Measures of Organisational Climate for Innovation ............................................................................................................ 35 Table 3.1. The Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 44 Table 4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Innovative Work Behaviour Scale .... 61 Table 4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Intrinsic Motivation Scale ................. 62 Table 4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Extrinsic Motivation Scale ................ 63 Table 4.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Organisational Climate for Innovation Scale ..................................................................................................................... 65 Table 4.5. The Goodness-of-fit Comparison between First-order and Second-order Measurement Models of Organisational Climate for Innovation Scale ............... 66 Table 4.6. The Second-order Factor Loadings and the Correlation between the First-order Factors .................................................................................................................. 67 Table 4.7. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations................................................. 69 Table 4.8. The Null Model for Testing the Between-company Variance in Innovative Work Behaviour ............................................................................................................. 70 Table 4.9. The Test Results for the Between-company Variance in Innovative Work Behaviour ............................................................................................................. 71 Table 4.10. .The Random Coefficient Regression Model for Testing the Main Effects of Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Accessed Social Capital on Innovative Work Behaviour ................................................................................. 73. V.

(10) Table 4.11. .The Test Results for The Main Effects of Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Accessed Social Capital on Innovative Work Behaviour .......... 75 Table 4.12...The Mean-as-outcome Model Incorporating with the Main Effects of Employee-level Predictors for Testing the Cross-level Effect of Organisational Climate for Innovation on Innovative Work Behavior ........................................ 77 Table 4.13...The Test Results for the Cross-level Effects of Organisational Climate for Innovation on Innovative Work Behaviour .......................................................... 79 Table 4.14. .The Full Model for Testing the Cross-level Moderating of Organisational Climate for Innovation on the Relationships between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation and Innovative Work Behaviour. ....................................... 81 Table 4.15. .The Test Results for the Cross-level Moderating Effects of Organisational Climate for Innovation on the Relationships between Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Innovative Work Behaviour ....................................... 83 Table 4.16. .Summary of Analysis Results .............................................................................. 85. VI.

(11) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. .Psychological Process of Motivation: Drives, Needs, and Behaviors.................. 22 Figure 2.2. .An Interactionist Model for Organizational Creativity ........................................ 37 Figure 3.1. .Hypothesized Multilevel Model of Innovative Work Behaviour. ........................ 43 Figure 3.2. .Research Procedures. ............................................................................................ 47 Figure 4.1. .Cross-Level Moderating Effect of Organisational Climate for Innovation on the Relationship between Extrinsic Motivation and Innovative Work Behaviour. .... 82. VII.

(12) This page was intentionally left blank.. VIII.

(13) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. 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. 1.

(14) 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 2.

(15) 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. 3.

(16) 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.. 4.

(17) 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.. 5.

(18) 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). 6.

(19) 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).. 7.

(20) 8.

(21) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. 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. 9.

(22) 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 10.

(23) 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 11.

(24) 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 12.

(25) 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, 13.

(26) 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 14.

(27) 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.. 15.

(28) Table 2.1. Psychometric Comparison for the Measures of Innovative Work Behaviour Validity. Dimension. Reliabilitya Content .89. Criterion. Construct. ×. .97. ×. (.78 / .81)b. × ×. Number Year. Author. 6. 1994. Scott and Bruce. 170. 9. 2000. Janssen. ×. 225. 14. 2001. Kleysen and Street. ×. ×. 339. 8. 2004. Krause. ×. ×. 512. 9. 2006. Chen. IGd. ICe. IRf. sample. of items. ×. ×. ×. 172. ×. ×. ×. ×. ×. × ×. ×. .95. .93. IEc. Size of. ×. ×. Note. a Cronbach’s ; b (generation and testing of ideas/ implementation); c idea exploration; d idea generation; e idea championing; f idea realization.. 16.

(29) 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 17.

(30) 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 18.

(31) 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 19.

(32) 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.. 20.

(33) 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 their jobs, turning out better work performance (Pinder, 1998; Steers et al., 2004). In this section, the study first investigates the concepts of motivation and work motivation. During the next phase, two major types of work motivation as motivational orientation, namely, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, are discussed. Finally, the measures for assessing employee’s motivational orientation are reviewed.. Motivation The term of motivation derived from the Latin word, movere, for movement means “to move” (Steers et al, 2004, p.379), therefore “to be motivated means to be moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.54). Despite having over than one hundred definitions (Rainey, 2000), the concept of motivation refers to individual’s psychological processes derived from his or her physical and/or psychological drives which produce the needs for acquiring incentives to reduce the imbalances or deficiencies (Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Latham & Pinder, 2005; McShane & Glinow, 2010; Pinder, 1988; Sewards & Sewards, 2002). In this view, motivation which can be regarded as internal mechanisms within a person (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981) emphasizes on individual’s perceived factors (e.g. safety, social, and esteem), and on internal psychological processes in determining her or his aroused motivation caused by particular physical or psychological deficiencies/imbalances. Figure 2.1 presents the psychological process of motivation. 21.

(34) Drives (Prime movers). Needs. Decisions and. (Second movers). Behaviors. e.g., a drive from. e.g., a need for. e.g., to make friends. feeling loneliness. building relationship. with someone. Figure 2.1. Psychological Process of Motivation: Drives, Needs, and Behaviors.. Work Motivation The concept of motivation to be introduced into workplace (i.e., work motivation) refers to employee’s psychologically energetic forces which can determine her or his direction, intensity and persistence of work-related behaviour towards attaining organisational goals (Dessler, 2004; Latham & Pinder, 2005; Leonard et al., 1999; McShane & Glinow, 2010; Pinder, 1998; Robbins & Judge, 2009). Indeed, direction, intensity, and persistence are the three major elements of work motivation which establish a standing point of motivation research－what factors and approaches can channel (direction), energize (intensity), and sustain (persistence) employees’ work-related behaviours in their jobs (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Latham & Pinder, 2005; Locke & Latham, 2004; Mitchell, 1997; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Steers et al., 2004). The first element, direction, concerns that whether employees efforts can be channeled into organisational benefits (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Kanfer, 1991; Leonard et al., 1999), which is related to the directing aspect of work motivation (e.g., organisational goals) (Robbins & Judge, 2009) and the functional implication for employees (e.g., employee’s engagement) (McShane & Glinow, 2010), implying that the nature of motivation in the workplace is purposive and goal-oriented. The second element, intensity, stressing the arousal and maintenance aspects of work motivation (e.g. money, challenge, and achievement), refers to that how hard employees try 22.

(35) to obtain work goals, indicating the importance of energizing the extent of employee’s job involvement to exert enough efforts in their jobs (McShane & Glinow, 2010). The third element, persistence which is associated with how long employees can maintain their efforts in their jobs refers to that motivation at work is an ongoing process, that is, sustaining employee’s work-related behaviour over time is essential until employees reach their work goals (Kanfer, 1991; Seo, Barrett & Bartunek, 2004). Because motivation refers to a set of psychological processes directed towards achieving particular goals, work motivation was considered not as being behavioural-oriented but emotional- or cognitive-based (McShane & Glinow, 2010; Robbins & Judge, 2009). Despite having the same drives, people would have different emotional responses which may result in different behaviours. The case in point could be that employees who “feel” motivated are more likely to be effectively productive (Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Grant & Sumanth, 2009), creative (Amabile, 1993) and to be willing to make long-term efforts in their jobs (Grant, 2008; Robbins & Judge, 2009; in contrast, employees who “feel” unmotivated are more likely to spend little efforts on their duties (Amabile, 1993; Colbert, Mount, Witt, Harter, & Barrick, 2004). In summary, work motivation indicates the underlying reasons moving employees to perform their work. How to motivate employees consists of three primary missions, that is, channeling, energizing, and sustaining employees’ efforts in their jobs. From an academic perspective, the development and richness of work motivation theories were based mainly on the three key elements, namely direction, intensity, and persistence. Finally, employees’ work motivation may fluctuate, depending on their perceptions and social environment (Amabile, 1993).. 23.

(36) Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Motivation Although the theory of work motivation is still evolving, many scholars have noted that work motivation can be categorized into two types, namely, intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM) (Amabile, 1993; Amabile et al., 1994; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992; Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2012; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier, & Villeneuve, 2009). From the perspective of cognitive psychology, IM refers to that a person’s motivation to engage in work is primarily for the sheer enjoyment, challenge, pleasure of the work per se, because he or she is aware that the work itself is interesting or fun. In this case, the work itself serves as the major incentive of work motivation. By contrast, EM refers to that a person’s motivation to perform work is primarily for the desired or the promised rewards, such as pay, promotion, the avoidance of punishment, and so forth, because he or she is aware that the efforts may result in certain external returns. In this case, the work itself is viewed as an instrument (Amabile, 1993; Davis et al., 1992; Grant, 2008; Haivas et al., 2012; Leonard et al., 1999; Lepper et al., 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In sum, IM is associated with the enjoyment from the work itself, whereas EM is related to the perceived usefulness from the work. Although EM is often viewed as the opposite side of IM which may undermine IM (Deci & Ryan, 2000), Amabile (1993) argued that EM can be compatible with IM when extrinsic motivators (e.g., positive feedback) do not lead individuals to feel being controlled or constrained by external forces. Amabile (1993) further noted that motivation not only is a temporary, situation-specific state influenced by social environment, but also is a relatively stable trait viewed as a substrate on which reactions to particular environmental conditions, reflecting one’s basic motivational orientation. According to Amabile’s (1993) Motivational Synergy Model, first, although EM and IM can complement each other, EM is more likely to contribute to IM when work environment 24.

(37) demonstrates reasonable emphases on extrinsic motivators which are supportive of intrinsic involvement. Furthermore, EM is more likely to combine with IM successfully when the initial level of IM is high enough. Third, although the extrinsic motivators which are positive for enhancing individual’s competence or autonomy can combine synergistically with IM, the non-synergic extrinsic motivators that may cause individuals feel controlled or constrained by external forces are considered as being less beneficial to IM. In addition, the degree to which intrinsic or extrinsic motivators can match people’s basic motivational orientation can decide the extent of their job satisfaction. Finally, the extent of people’s motivational orientation can influence their work performance. To conclude, a school of scholars claims that there may have a competitive relationship between IM and EM, for example, when people’s personality traits or environmental situations makes them feel intrinsically motivated, the impact from extrinsic motivation may be weakened (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kohn, 1996; Lepper, Keavney, & Drake, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 1996). By contrast, another school claims that there may have a complementary relationship or an independent relationship between IM and EM, suggesting that EM may not negatively confound IM, and that extrinsic motivators, such as the money, may produce either positive or negative effects on people’s work motivation (Amabile, 1993; Amabile et al., 1994; Cameron, 2001; Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001; Cameron & Pierce, 1994).. Measures of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation As highlighted in motivation literature, IM and EM are two major classifications of motivational orientation. Assessing employee’s motivational orientation aims to understand his or her work preference (Amabile, 1993; Amabile et al., 1994). Work preference refers to individual’s motivational orientation which can be measured through individual differences in the degree to which employees perceive themselves intrinsically and/or extrinsically motivated towards their tasks or work-related behaviours (Amabile et al., 1994; Gilbert, Sohi, & McEachern, 2008). This study drawing on Amabile’s (1993) perspective of work 25.

(38) motivation as motivational orientation towards work adopts Work Preference Inventory (WPI; Amabile et al., 1994) as the research instrument for assessing employee’s work preference. The study reviews and discusses WPI as follows. The instrument of WPI consists of two primary scales labeled as Intrinsic Motivation (IM) and Extrinsic Motivation (EM). The IM scale was subdivided into two secondary scales, namely Challenge (5 items; e.g., “curiosity is the driving force behind mush of what I do”) and Enjoyment (10 items; e.g., “what matters most to me is enjoying what I do”) (p.956). Anchored in theoretical foundation of motivation, the IM scale captures five elements of motivation including self-determination, competence, task involvement, curiosity, and interests. The EM scale was also subdivided into two secondary scales including Outward (10 items; e.g., “I have to feel that I’m earning something for what I do”) and Compensation (5 items; e.g., “I’m strongly motivated by the money I can earn”) (p.956), which captures five elements, namely, competition concerns, evaluation concerns, recognition concerns, a focus on money, and other tangible incentives. The data used to develop WPI was collected across a period of 8 years. Two groups of sample were surveyed, including undergraduate students and working adults. The internal consistency for the primary scales was acceptable for both students (Cronbach’s s = .79 for IM and = .78 for EM) and adults (.75 for IM and .70 for EM). The short-term test-retest reliabilities, across a period of six months, for both student (.84 for IM and .94 for EM) and adults (.89 for IM and .80 for EM) were satisfactory. The longer term stability (up to 4 years) of WPI scales was quite strong, indicating intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations could be understood as relatively stable individual characteristics. The factorial validity was obtained by showing that stronger four-factor model’s fit indexes for both students and adults (pp.957-959).. 26.

(39) Organisational Climate for Innovation The research in organisational climate for innovation (OCI) has received considerable attention over the past few decades. A growing number of theoretical and empirical studies are now available to shed important light on the connotation, determinants, outcomes, and measures of OCI (Amabile et al., 1996; Anderson & West, 1998; Hunter et al., 2007; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010; West & Anderson, 1996; Woodman et al., 1993). A review of literature indicated that the construct of organisational climate has suffered from conflicting definitions and inconsistencies in operationalization (McLean, 2005; Patterson et al., 2005). In addition, methodological issues regarding how to measure organisational climate have been widely discussed, such as the representativeness of sample and the unit of analysis (Anderson & West, 1998; Glick, 1985; Hellriegel & Slocum, 1978; Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). In this section, the study investigates the connotation of organisational climate, followed by the conceptual and operational definitions as well as the dimensions of OCI. In addition, the study performs a review of OCI measures.. Organisational Climate The theoretical rationale of organisational climate was considered being derived from Lewin’s (1951) thoughts of the relationship between individuals and their social environment (Denison, 1996) that individual’s behaviour is the function of the people and their psychological environment, implying that the social environment may impact on individuals’ behaviour. Although there are various ways to conceptualize and operationalize organisational climate, the dominant perspective, namely, shared perceptions approach (Patterson et al., 2005), defined organisational climate as “shared perceptions of organisational events, practices, and procedures and the kinds of behaviours that are rewarded, supported, and expected in a setting” (Schneider, 1990, p.384). Such shared perceptions are primarily descriptive rather than affective or evaluative (Patterson et al., 2005). Hence, organisational 27.

(40) climate reflecting the aspect of social environment in organisations thus can be represented as a number of perceptual variables describing the interactions between employees and their organisational environments (Amabile et al., 1996; Glick, 1985). A review of organisational climate literature indicated that the two terms, namely organisational climate and organisational culture, are similar but different concepts and sometimes both terms are used interchangeably (Denison, 1996; Glick, 1985; McLean, 2005). Organisational culture refers to the relatively stable aspects which are deeply embedded in organisations because culture is associated with the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and values held by organisational members. By contrast, organisational climate anchored in organisation’s value system portrays organisational environment in relatively static terms, therefore organisational climate was considered as being relatively temporary social environment which is perceived by organisational members (Denison, 1996; Schein, 2004; Schneider, 2000). From the perspectives of epistemology and methodology, organisational culture which is considered as being conceptualized and idiographic is based on sociological, anthropological discipline and on symbolic interactionist roots of culture; in contrast, organisational climate which is derived from social psychology is primarily comparative and nomothetic (Denison, 1996, p.625; Glick, 1985). The approaches to measure organisational climate can be classified into two major categories, generalized climate approach and facet-specific climate approach (Anderson & West, 1998; Patterson et al., 2005). Generalized climate approach normally introducing a class of organisational variables, such as value, leadership style, communication, and so forth, is more advantageous on the provision of an overall snapshot for organisational functioning (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000), whereas facet-specific approach providing a number of perceptual variables tied to specific interests (e.g., innovation) contributes more precise and targeted information for use in specific areas (Ashkanasy et al., 2000; Rousseau, 28.

(41) 1988), such as the improvement of customer satisfaction (Schneider, 1990), company safety (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996), and innovation (Klein & Sorra, 1996). However, although generalized climate approach captures a global perception of work environment, it may contain unnecessary dimensions for a study seeking particular interests. Glick (1985) drawing on the law of Occam’s razor suggested to limit the numbers of climate dimensions by following the research interest. Similarly, Schneider, White, and Paul (1998) argued that work settings have different climates such as safety, service, production, security, and innovation, hence, organisational climate should have a focus tied to something interest, and that the dimensions of climate will differ depending on the purpose of the research and the criterion of interest. From a methodological perspective, Switzer et al. (1999) recommended that using a facet-specific measure may be adequate if it is not desirable to make normative comparisons. To summarize, organisational climate can be understood as the surface manifestation of organisational culture, reflecting the characteristics of organisation’s culture values (Patterson et al., 2005). Moreover, organisational climate represents employees’ perceptions of organisational polices, practices, procedures, and patterns of interactions and behaviours (Schneider, 2000), which supports various work outcomes, such as safety behaviours as well as safety compliance (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996; Neal, Griffin, & Hart, 2000), service quality (Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998), and innovative behaviour (Amabile et al., 1996; Klein & Sorra, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; West & Anderson, 1996).. Organisational Climate for Innovation Although there is a general consensus on what the essential knowledge basis of the field consists of, there may have considerable disagreement among researchers about the dimensions of OCI. Amabile et al. (1996) drawing on contextual theories of organisational creativity defined OCI as social environment which can influence both the level and the frequency of creative behaviour. They proposed a model of the work environment for 29.

(42) creativity, and thereafter developed an instrument, KEYS, for assessing individual’s perceptions of the work environment for creativity. The KEYS consists of eight dimensions which are divided into two major factors, namely stimulant factors (i.e., organisational encouragement, supervisory encouragement, work group supports, sufficient resources, challenging work, and freedom) and obstacle factors (i.e., organisational impediments and workload pressure) (p.1159). The stimulant factors are those incentives which may facilitate employee’s creativity such as an organisational culture that encourages creativity, the freedom in deciding what work to do or how to do it, an access of appropriate resources including funds, materials, information, and so forth; in contrast, the obstacle factors are the disincentives which may inhibit employee’s creativity such as harsh criticism of new ideas, an avoidance of taking risks, unrealistic expectation for productivity, and having many political problems in an organisation (p.1166). In addition, Ekvall (1996) seeing organisational climate as intervening variable defined OCI as organisational realities which may influence organisational processes such as learning, motivation, and decision-making, and may have effects on innovation, productivity, job satisfaction, and so forth. Ekvall (1996) developed Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ) for measuring organisational environment that may impede or stimulate creativity and innovation. The CCQ captures eleven dimensions, namely challenge, freedom, idea support, trust/openness, dynamism/liveliness, playfulness/humor, debates, conflicts, risk taking, and idea time (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010, p.76). The dimension of conflicts is regarded as an obstacle factor negatively associated with creativity and innovation, for example, a high degree of conflict may result in employees dislike each other and slander good ideas. By contrast, the rest of nine dimensions are viewed as stimulant factors which are beneficial to creativity and innovation, such as a relaxed atmosphere, a strong level of trust, and a reasonable time for developing new ideas (p.75).. 30.

(43) Chiou, Chen, and Lin (2009) defined OCI as environmental factors which may facilitate or inhibit employees’ creativity in their organisations. They drawing on previous seminal works related to creative climate research (Amabile, 1995; Hunter et al., 2005; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004) designed Creative Organisational Climate Inventory (COCI) for measuring the extent to which organisations support creativity/innovation. The COCI includes six stimulant factors, namely value, job style, resource, teamwork, leadership, learning, and environment. The first dimension, vision, refers to organisational value and culture that encourages creative thinking, learning with errors, and initiative. Job style concerns the degree to which employees have freedom to perform their jobs. Resource is related to providing employees sufficient aids on equipment, information and professional assistance. Teamwork describes that whether the work group members have consistent job goals as well as smooth communication. Leadership is associated with supervisors’ supports on innovation and delegation. Learning is connected with the continuous development of human resources. Finally, environment is in relation to physical work conditions which can promote creativity, such as rapport atmosphere, satisfactory work space, and so forth (p.78). To summarize, although multiple types of climate can be distinguished (e.g., climate for service, climate for safety, climate for innovation), this study which aims to investigate that whether social environment in organisations influences employee innovative work behaviour focuses on the climate of innovation. Accordingly, the study adopting the perspective of facet-specific climate considers OCI as employees’ shared perceptions regarding various practices, processes, and procedures of innovation which may facilitate or inhibit their initiation and intentional introduction of new and useful ideas. Table 2.2 presents the conceptual definitions of OCI.. 31.

(44) Table 2.2. Conceptual Definitions and Dimensions of Organisational Climate for Innovation Factors. Definitions. Stimulant. Obstacle. Year. Author. 1996. Amabile et al.. 1996. Ekvall. 1998. Anderson & West. 2009. Chiou et al.. Organisational Encouragement; The social environment which can. Supervisory Encouragement;. influence both the level and the frequency. Work Group Supports;. of creative behaviour.. Sufficient Resources;. Organisational impediments; Workload pressure.. Challenging Work; Freedom. The organisational realities which may. Challenge; Freedom; Idea. influence organisational processes such as. Support; Trust/Openness;. decision-making, learning, and motivation,. Dynamism/Liveliness;. and may have effects on innovation,. Playfulness/Humor; Debates;. productivity, job satisfaction, and so forth.. Risk Taking; Idea Time.. Individuals’ shared perceptions of the value of innovation demonstrated in their work groups.. Conflicts.. Vision; Participative Safety; Support for Innovation; Task Orientation; Interaction Frequency.. The environmental factors which may. Value; Job Style; Resource;. facilitate or inhibit employees’ creativity in. Teamwork; Leadership;. their organisations.. Learning; Environment.. 32.

(45) Measures of Organisational Climate for Innovation Despite numerous instruments available for measuring OCI, only a few showed a sounded theoretical basis and good psychometric properties (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004, p.136; Patterson et al., 2005, p.379). Reviewing four instruments for assessing creative environments of organisation, Mathisen & Einarsen (2004) indicated that only two scales demonstrate scientific quality, namely, KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity (Amabile et al., 1996) and Team Climate Inventory (TCI; Anderson & West, 1998). Because Mathisen & Einarsen’s (2004) study already provided sufficient and detailed information for the two instruments to be used for the conclusion of this subsection, the following review of OCI measure focuses on Creative Organisational Climate Inventory (COCI; Chiou et al., 2009), an research instrument developed based on Taiwanese cultural background for assessing creativity climate. The COCI aims to assess the extent to which organisations support creativity/innovation. Drawing on the perspective of organisational social psychology, Chiou et al. (2009) adopted a qualitative approach to collect descriptive data which focused mainly on the environmental factors that may facilitate or inhibit employee’s creativity. The COCI comprises seven categories/factors which includes of 35 items, namely, Value (6 items; e.g., our company values human capital and encourages creative thinking), Job Style (4 items; e.g., the job allows me to make my own decisions the work goals and schedules), Resource (4 items; I have sufficient equipment to do my work), Teamwork (5 items; e.g., my colleagues and team members share consistent work goals), Leadership (5 items; my supervisor can respect and support the innovations on my job), Learning (6 items; training is important in my company), and Environment (5 items; I can freely decorate my work environment) (p.84). The factorial validity was confirmed by showing that the first-order oblique model in which all factors were specified as intercorrelated has stronger fit indexes than the first-order 33.

(46) orthogonal model (p.82). In addition, a higher-order latent factor named as organisational creative climate was considered available. The COCI showed that the seven subscales possessed acceptable composite reliability (CR ranging between .82 and .92) and average variance extracted (AVE ranging between .47 and .68). The Cronbach’s coefficient alphas ranged between .82 and .92 for all the subscales, with an overall reliability of .96 (p.83). To conclude, all the three instruments, KEYS, TCI, and COCI, are firmly anchored in creativity or innovation theories, showing adequate internal consistency, yet two of them (i.e., TCI and COCI) were not test-retested. The content, criterion, and construct validity of the three instruments were empirically confirmed through confirmatory factor analyses. Considering the cross-cultural appropriateness of research instrument and the questionnaire length (number of items) (Switzer et al., 1999, p.400), COCI would be relatively appropriate than KEYS and TCI for this study. Table 2.3 presents the results of psychometric comparison for the three instruments.. 34.

(47) Table 2.3. Psychometric Comparison of the Measures of Organisational Climate for Innovation Reliability. Validity Samplec. Measure. Number Factor. Internal consistencya. Test-retest. KEYS. .84. .86. ×. ×. ×. 3,708d. 8. 66. TCI. (.94/ .89 /.92 /.92 /.84)b. Not reported. ×. ×. ×. 917e. 5. 38. COCI. .96. Not reported. ×. ×. ×. 1,338f. 7. 35. Content. Criterion. of Items. Construct. Note. KEYS = KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity (Amabile et al., 1996); TCI = Team Climate Inventory (Anderson & West, 1998); COCI = Creative Organisational Climate Inventory (Chiou et al., 2009); a = Cronbach’s  ; b = (Vision/ Participative Safety/ Support for Innovation / Task Orientation/ Interaction Frequency); c = confirmatory data; d = American working adults from 26 various companies; e = British working adults from 121various teams; f = Taiwanese working adults from 6 various industries.. 35.