Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Lukes Cultural Differences Innovative Behaviour
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Lukes Cultural Differences Innovative Behaviour

1,015
views

Published on

Cultural Differences in Innovative Behaviour: …

Cultural Differences in Innovative Behaviour:
4-country Study with Representative Samples

Presented at the 14th conference of the European Association of Work and Organisational Psychology, May13-16, 2009, Santiago de Compostella, Spain.

Published in: Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,015
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Cultural Differences in Innovative Behaviour: 4-country Study with Representative Samples Martin Lukeš Alena Černíková Ute Stephan Tomáš Svátek Prague University of Economics 14th EAWOP Congress Santiago de Compostela, May 13-16
  • 2. Study objectives Identification of cultural differences in innovative behaviour Creation of an independent measure of innovative behaviour and innovation support Comparing the role of culture with other factors influencing innovative behaviours
  • 3. Key definitions Innovation – process of new idea creation or adoption and a subsequent effort to develop it into a new product, service, process or business model with an expected added value for a potential user Culture – shows up in the values, beliefs, norms, behavioral practices, and symbols shared, acquired, and advanced by the members of a large group
  • 4. Model Values General Personal IB Innovativeness General Beliefs about Work-related IB Innovations - Idea Generation Social / - Idea Search Innovation Demographic - Communicating Ideas Outcomes Variables - Implementation Starting Activities Business / - Involving Others Job-related - Overcoming Obstacles Variables Manager’s Organizational Support – MP/EP Support
  • 5. Questionnaire development - Pilot Step 1: – 13 scales tested, 95 items in total – 57 newly developed items, other items used or modified based on previous surveys - 12 items from Scott and Bruce (1994), 8 items from Howell, Shea, and Higgins (2005), 5 items from Jackson Personality Inventory (1994), etc. – piloted with 96 students of VSE – December 2007 Step 2: – 5 items reformulated, 2 added, 20 deleted, 77 items in total – translation and backtranslation to EN, DE, IT, FR – Sample: students of WHU and Regensburg U. (N=24 and 55), Bocconi (N=42), EPFL Lausanne (N=36), employees of Skoda Auto (N = 172) – January - March 2008 Final version for Adult population survey – 50 items, 13 scales
  • 6. Sample & Data gathering Sample: 4795 adults, Czech Rep. (N=1004), Germany (N=1285), Italy (N=1256), Switzerland (N=1250) Representativeness: checked for each country by using χ2 test of good fit (exc. CZ + IT - education, CH – age) Data gathering: May - July 2008 by CATI technique by agencies Median, IFAK, Linksystem, P. Roberts and Partners In total, 121281 calls done, 66792 taken, response rate 15 % (CZ) – 24 % (IT)
  • 7. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Work-Related Innovative Behavior Scales Loading Cronbach’s Items Cronbach’s Aspects of work-related innovative (standardized) Alpha Alpha CZ/D/It/Ch behavior 1st-order 2nd-order C2 .67 .85 .69 .73 .74 .72 .561 Idea generation C3 .63 C5 .69 D2 .62 .74 .73 .75 .74 .71 .73 Idea search D1 .76 D3 .72 E1 .67 .72 .83 .86 .81 .86 .80 Communicating ideas E4 .78 F4 .79 G1 .79 E7 .72 .74 .78 .84 .79 .77 .72 Implementation starting activities E8 .71 D4 .78 G3 .60 .72 .75 .82 .72 .75 .73 Involving others G4 .81 G5 .73 H1 .79 .74 .85 .89 .82 .87 .83 Overcoming obstacles H2 .73 H4 .71 H5 .74 I7 .74 .82 .81 .83 .81 .81 .76 Innovation outputs I9 .73 I10 .68 I11 .64 Note. Cz – Czech Republic, D – Germany, It – Italy, Ch – Switzerland, 1The low Cronbach’s Alpha for Switzerland seems to be due to translation problems of item C2 within the French version used in Switzerland (cf. also results of measurement invariance tests).
  • 8. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Innovativeness and Innovation Support Scales Cronbach’s Alpha Loading Cronbach’s CZ/D/It/Ch Items Scales (standardized) Alpha Personal innovativeness A1 .65 .72 .76 .64 .73 .70 A3 .52 A5 .49 A6 .50 A10 .67 Cultural perception of innovative M1 .67 .69 .71 .71 .69 .70 M2 .74 behavior M4 .54 M5 .41 Managerial support J4 .76 .81 .86 .81 .77 .76 J5 .50 J6 .85 J8 .58 J9 .74 Organizational support L1 .76 .80 .84 .81 .74 .76 L2 .59 L5 .74 L6 .76 Note. Cz – Czech Republic, D – Germany, It – Italy, Ch – Switzerland, Scales evaluated separately
  • 9. Cross-cultural measurement invariance Ensures that mean comparisons across cultures can be validly conducted Tested with multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (e.g., Kline, 2005; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998) based on maximum likelihood estimation (AMOS 6) 4 types of equivalence measured – Configural - whether the factor structures of our scales were replicable with the same number of factors – Metric - whether item loadings were comparable – Scalar - whether item intercepts were comparable – Of factor covariances - whether factors showed comparable variance and for multi-factor models whether the relations among factors were comparable
  • 10. Cross-cultural measurement invariance (1) Model Comparison RMSEA CFI ∆CFI TLI ∆TLI NFI Personal Experimenting and Originality (Sample 1) 1 Configural - .020 .992 - .980 - .988 2 Full metric 1 vs. 2 .019 .987 -.005 .982 .002 .980 3 Full scalar 2 vs. 3 .034 .944 -.043 .944 -.038 .933 3.1 Partial scalar 2 vs. 3.1 .023 .979 -.008 .975 -.007 .970 4 Factor variance 3.1 vs. 4 .028 .964 -.015 .961 -.014 .954 Cultural Perception of Innovative Behavior (Sample 1) 1 Configural - .011 .999 - .996 - .998 2 Full metric 1 vs. 2 .027 .986 -.013 .974 -.022 .982 2.1 Partial metric 1 vs. 2.1 .024 .994 -.005 .979 -.017 .992 3. Initial partial scalar 2.1 vs. 3 .028 .988 .006 .972 .005 .985 4. Factor variance 3 vs. 4 .033 .979 -.009 .962 -.011 .975 Work-Related Innovative Behavior Scales (Sample 2) 1 Configural - .026 .943 - .931 - .919 2 Full metric 1 vs. 2 .026 .941 -.002 .932 -.001 .916 3 Full scalar 2 vs. 3 .030 .916 -.025 .908 -.024 .890 3.1 Partial scalar 2 vs. 3.1 .027 .935 -.006 .927 -.005 .909 4 Factor variances 3.1 vs. 4 .027 .931 -.004 .924 -.003 .905 5 Factor covariances 4 vs. 5 .028 .925 -.006 .922 -.002 .897
  • 11. Cross-cultural measurement invariance (2) Model Comparison RMSEA CFI ∆CFI TLI ∆TLI NFI ∆NFI Chi²(df) ∆Chi²(∆df) Managerial Support for Innovative Behavior (Sample 3) - .039 .983 - .966 - .979 - 95.63 (20) - 1 Configural 2 Full metric 1 vs. 2 .042 .967 -.017 .959 -.007 .961 -.018 176.17 (32) 80.54 (12) 2.1 Partial metric 1. vs. 2.1 .032 .983 -.000 .976 +.010 .977 -.002 104.70 (29) 9.07 (9) 3 Initial partial 2.1 vs. 3 .035 .973 -.010 .972 -.004 .965 -.012 157.10 (38) 52.40 (9) scalar 3.1 Final partial scalar 2 vs. 3.1 .033 .978 -.005 .975 -.001 .970 -.007 132.53 (35) 27.83 (6) 4 Factor variance 3.1 vs. 4 .033 .976 -.002 .975 -.000 .968 -.002 114.97 (38) 17.56 (3) Organizational Support for Innovative Behavior (Sample 4) - .024 .996 - .989 - .994 - 20.10 (8) - 1 Configural 2 Full metric 1 vs. 2 .016 .996 -.000 .995 +.006 .991 -.003 29.45 (17) 9.35 (9) 3 Full scalar 2 vs. 3 .033 .977 -.019 .979 -.016 .970 -.021 105.20 (26) 75.75 (9) 3.1 Final partial scalar 2 vs. 3.1 .026 .988 -.008 .987 -.008 .981 -.010 64.23 (23) 34.78 (6) 4 Factor variance 3.1 vs. 4 .031 .980 -.008 .981 -.006 .972 -.009 95.30 (26) 31.06 (3)
  • 12. Comparison of culture scale means Cz p D p It p Personal innovativeness Personal experimenting and originality .27*** <.001 .24*** <.001 .15*** <.001 Work-related innovative behavior Idea generation .21*** <.001 .22*** <.001 .19*** <.001 Idea search .06 .182 .09* .024 .12** .007 Communicating ideas .08 .075 .16*** <.001 .03 .517 Implementation starting activities .10 .116 .11* .045 -.50*** <.001 Involving others .10 .051 .22*** <.001 .19*** <.001 Overcoming obstacles .10* .029 .08* .037 .01 .841 Innovation outputs .19*** <.001 .30*** <.001 -.09 .053 Support for innovative behaviour Managerial support (employee-perceived) .19** .005 .37*** <.001 .32*** <.001 Organizational support .14* .024 .21*** <.001 .33*** <.001 Cultural perception of innovative behavior -.09* .016 .09** .005 -.27*** <.001 Notes: Mean Differences in Innovation Scales (Estimates based on final Scalar Invariance Models) Switzerland as ‘reference culture’, Italicized values – scale means lower compared to Switzerland, i.e. higher innovation behavior compared to Switzerland. Significant differences in all scales Managerial support (manager-perceived) – no scalar invariance achieved
  • 13. Other factors than culture Age: 8/11 scales, 18-24 x 25-54 x 55-64 Gender: 8/11 scales, men x women Subordinates: 10/11, with x without Occupation: 11/11, managers, professionals x clerks Branch: 9/11, non-profits Education: 10/11, tertiary – behavior, basic – support scales Work status: 11/11 employer x self-employed x employee Firm use of modern technologies: 11/11, high x medium x low
  • 14. Next steps Comparing our behaviour related data with the data from the European Social Survey (values) – CZ, D, CH, IT Survey in multinational companies in CR – with German, Italian, and Swiss origin – 34 companies, 50 management interviews, 434 employee questionnaires – focused on innovative behaviour and innovation support – new scales added: Monitoring implementation process and Organizational processes for innovation Survey in Skoda Auto subsidiaries in Russia, India, China
  • 15. Main conclusions Swiss were the people with the most innovative behavior, and the highest innovation support and Germans in many aspects of the innovation process the least innovative ones. Czechs and Italians perceived their culture as more innovative than Swiss and Germans. Italians were more engaged in „implementation starting activities“ Innovative behaviour differs based on employment status, gender, occupation, business branch, high vs. low-tech companies, age There are also other important factors besides culture that influence innovation outputs - e.g. Intellectual property (EIS, 2008), and effectiveness of organizational processes in which Germany excels and CR or Italy lags behind.
  • 16. Thank you for your attention! Martin Lukeš University of Economics Dept. of Managerial Psychology and Sociology W. Churchill Sq. 4 130 67 Prague 3 lukesm@vse.cz,
  • 17. Validation efforts Scales – Our own scales – Scales used for validation (en-cz backtranslation) Jackson Personality Inventory (1994) Baer, Oldham (2006), Zhou, George (2001) Tang (2008) Howell, Shea, Higgins (2005) Scott and Bruce (1994) Howell, Shea, Higgins (2005) Hornsby, Kuratko (1999) Graen, Uhl-Bien (1995) - LMX, Schyns, Paul (1999) Stephan (2008) Comparing our data with the objective data from continuous improvement systems (e.g. Continental)