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

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Lukes Cultural Differences Innovative Behaviour "Cultural Differences in Innovative Behaviour:

427
views

Published on

Presented at the 14th European Congress of Work and Organisational psychology (EAWOP), May 13-16, 2009, Santiago de Compostella, Spain.

Presented at the 14th European Congress of Work and Organisational psychology (EAWOP), May 13-16, 2009, Santiago de Compostella, Spain.

Published in: Technology, Education

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
427
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
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 InnovationDemographic - Communicating Ideas Outcomes Variables - Implementation Starting Activities Business / - Involving OthersJob-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’sAspects of work-related innovative (standardized) Alpha Alpha CZ/D/It/Chbehavior 1st-order 2nd-order C2 .67 .85 .69 .73 .74 .72 .561Idea generation C3 .63 C5 .69 D2 .62 .74 .73 .75 .74 .71 .73Idea search D1 .76 D3 .72 E1 .67 .72 .83 .86 .81 .86 .80Communicating ideas E4 .78 F4 .79 G1 .79 E7 .72 .74 .78 .84 .79 .77 .72Implementation starting activities E8 .71 D4 .78 G3 .60 .72 .75 .82 .72 .75 .73Involving others G4 .81 G5 .73 H1 .79 .74 .85 .89 .82 .87 .83Overcoming obstacles H2 .73 H4 .71 H5 .74 I7 .74 .82 .81 .83 .81 .81 .76Innovation outputs I9 .73 I10 .68 I11 .64Note. Cz – Czech Republic, D – Germany, It – Italy, Ch – Switzerland, 1The low Cronbach’s Alpha for Switzerland seemsto 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 ItemsScales (standardized) AlphaPersonal innovativeness A1 .65 .72 .76 .64 .73 .70 A3 .52 A5 .49 A6 .50 A10 .67Cultural perception of innovative M1 .67 .69 .71 .71 .69 .70 M2 .74behavior M4 .54 M5 .41Managerial support J4 .76 .81 .86 .81 .77 .76 J5 .50 J6 .85 J8 .58 J9 .74Organizational support L1 .76 .80 .84 .81 .74 .76 L2 .59 L5 .74 L6 .76Note. 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 NFIPersonal Experimenting and Originality (Sample 1)1 Configural - .020 .992 - .980 - .9882 Full metric 1 vs. 2 .019 .987 -.005 .982 .002 .9803 Full scalar 2 vs. 3 .034 .944 -.043 .944 -.038 .9333.1 Partial scalar 2 vs. 3.1 .023 .979 -.008 .975 -.007 .9704 Factor variance 3.1 vs. 4 .028 .964 -.015 .961 -.014 .954Cultural Perception of Innovative Behavior (Sample 1)1 Configural - .011 .999 - .996 - .9982 Full metric 1 vs. 2 .027 .986 -.013 .974 -.022 .9822.1 Partial metric 1 vs. 2.1 .024 .994 -.005 .979 -.017 .9923. Initial partial scalar 2.1 vs. 3 .028 .988 .006 .972 .005 .9854. Factor variance 3 vs. 4 .033 .979 -.009 .962 -.011 .975Work-Related Innovative Behavior Scales (Sample 2)1 Configural - .026 .943 - .931 - .9192 Full metric 1 vs. 2 .026 .941 -.002 .932 -.001 .9163 Full scalar 2 vs. 3 .030 .916 -.025 .908 -.024 .8903.1 Partial scalar 2 vs. 3.1 .027 .935 -.006 .927 -.005 .9094 Factor variances 3.1 vs. 4 .027 .931 -.004 .924 -.003 .9055 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 Configural2 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) scalar3.1 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 Configural2 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 pPersonal innovativenessPersonal experimenting and originality .27*** <.001 .24*** <.001 .15*** <.001Work-related innovative behaviorIdea generation .21*** <.001 .22*** <.001 .19*** <.001Idea search .06 .182 .09* .024 .12** .007Communicating ideas .08 .075 .16*** <.001 .03 .517Implementation starting activities .10 .116 .11* .045 -.50*** <.001Involving others .10 .051 .22*** <.001 .19*** <.001Overcoming obstacles .10* .029 .08* .037 .01 .841Innovation outputs .19*** <.001 .30*** <.001 -.09 .053Support for innovative behaviourManagerial support (employee-perceived) .19** .005 .37*** <.001 .32*** <.001Organizational support .14* .024 .21*** <.001 .33*** <.001Cultural perception of innovative behavior -.09* .016 .09** .005 -.27*** <.001Notes: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 innovationbehavior compared to Switzerland. Significant differences in all scalesManagerial 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)