Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. Innovative behaviour
Lukes et al. 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 et al. Innovative behaviour

672

Published on

Paper presented at the 27th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Melbourne, Australia July 11th-16th, 2010

Paper presented at the 27th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Melbourne, Australia July 11th-16th, 2010

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
672
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
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. Innovative behaviour of individuals and its support: The views from seven European and Asian cultures Martin Lukeš1 Ute Stephan2 Ivan Nový1 Hana Lorencová1 1 Prague University of Economics 2 Catholic University LeuvenICAP Congress, Melbourne, July 15, 2010
  • 2. Study Aims To develop theoretical model of innovation at work consisting of innovative behaviour, innovation outputs, and factors supporting innovative behaviour. To cross-culturally validate Innovative Behaviour Inventory and Innovation Support Inventory (Lukes, Stephan & Cernikova, 2009) in Eurasian cultures. To get qualitative views on the topic from managers in different countries who are responsible for continuous improvement in their companies.
  • 3. Innovation process & innovative behavior 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 Innovative behavior at work – idea generation (e.g. Unsworth, 2001; Amabile et al., 1996) – idea search (e.g. Kelley et al. 2009) – idea communication (e.g. Binnewies et al., 2007) – implementation starting activities (e.g. Baer & Frese, 2003) – involving others (e.g. Howell et al., 2005) – overcoming obstacles (e.g. Howell et al., 2005)
  • 4. Innovation support Climate perceptions are effective predictors of creativity and innovation performance (Hunter, Bedell & Mumford, 2007) Managerial support (e.g. Scott & Bruce, 1994) Organizational support (Hunter, Bedell & Mumford, 2007) National culture support – national culture influences organizational cultures (e.g. Fischer, 2009) – effective leadership styles (House et al., 2004) and championing behaviors are culture-bound (Shane & Venkataraman, 1995)
  • 5. Theoretical model
  • 6. Study 1: Sample & Data gathering Based on previous study (Lukes, Stephan & Cernikova, 2009) in Czech subsidiaries of international companies that showed sufficient criterion, factorial, convergent and discriminant validity Representative samples of adult (self-)employed population (total N = 2744 adults) in the Czech Rep., Germany, Italy, and Switzerland Phone interviews focused on different aspects of innovative behavior and factors influencing it 35 items in 10 scales Measures cross-culturally equivalent (configural, metric and scalar invariance)
  • 7. Model confirmation for CH, DE, IT, CZ Structural equation modelling (AMOS 17, Arbuckle, 2008) good model fit TLI =.944, NFI=.936, GFI=.947, AGFI=.938, RMR=.050, CFI =.949, RMSEA =.036, χ2 =2507.06, df =539
  • 8. Comparison of culture scale means Cz p D p It pWork-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 outputsInnovation 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 innovation behavior compared to SwitzerlandSignificant differences in all scales
  • 9. Main conclusions of Study 1 Cross-culturally approved measure of innovative behavior and its support Swiss are the most innovative culture and Germans the least innovative culture (Italy and the Czech Republic standing in between) National culture plays a significant role in influencing innovative behavior – 1) thanks to differences between national cultures – 2) cultural perceptions influence perception of organizational support and it influences perception of managerial support that influences innovative behavior ... but is only one of significant factors; age, employment status, occupation, education, technological development of a firm play a role in influencing innovative behavior as well as intellectual property issues etc.
  • 10. Study 2: Measurement equivalence for IND, CHN, RUS188 questionnaires from the international automotive companysubsidiaries in Russia, China and India; employees with previousexperience in implementing new ideas (N=61 for Russia, N=50 forChina, N=77 for India)Model Fit Comparison RMSEA CFI ΔCFI TLI ΔTLI Chi²(df) ΔChi²(Δdf) European Countries vs. Eurasian Transition Countries - .029 .937 - .931 - 3710.64 -1 Configural (1080)2 Full metric: 1st-order 1 vs. 2 .028 .937 -.000 .932 .001 3756.82 46.17 (25) factor loadings (1105)3 Full scalar: item 2. vs. 3 .029 .934 -.003 .930 -.002 3916.37 159.55 intercepts (1130) (25)4 Full metric: 2nd-order 3 vs. 4 .029 .934 -.000 .930 -.000 3922.23 5.87 (5) factor loadings (1135)5 Full scalar: 4 vs. 5 .029 .932 -.002 .929 -.001 4005.43 83.19 (5) intercepts of 1st- (1140) order factors6 Structural 5 vs. 6 .029 .932 -.000 .929 -.000 4019.05 13.63 (4) relations/model (1144)
  • 11. Study 3: Management interviews 50 interviews with managers (half of them CEO/GM) in 34 German-, Italian- and Swiss-based companies operating in the Czech Rep. 11 management interviews from the international automotive company subsidiaries in Russia, China and India Culture plays a significant role in influencing innovative behaviour – Czech way - improvisation, flexibility, and trial and error do-it-yourself approach – German way - systematic with detailed planning, large documentation, and a try to maximally reduce uncertainty – Swiss way - similar to German - systematic, conservative and earnest, but less bureaucratic – Italian way - personal and emotional, high level of creativity and importance of networking – Indian way - importance of nonmonetary appreciation and non-linear work approach, the role of castes – Chinese way - hardworking approach and stronger monetary focus – Russian way - relative passivity and dependence on managers decisions Specifics of national cultures are mirrored in organizational cultures with these national backgrounds
  • 12. Recommendations for companies Reward innovative behavior of employees: (symbolic) incentive bonus for suggesting a meaningful idea + interesting bonus dependent on the economic effect (culture specific – CZ, RU, CHN vs. DE, IN) Exchange of information between individual companies and countries, including benchmarking and best practices exchange International teams suitable for complex and time-consuming innovations – Preconditions: language knowledge, clear goal, time for team integration, respect to the culture specific ways to handle innovations Internal communication should cover all employees, but emphasize the role of managers, first-line employees and specialists developing new products and services Line employees perceive organizational support through the support from their direct superior, managers should be trained and motivated to support innovative ideas
  • 13. Conclusions  Developed and validated efficient holistic measures: Innovative Behavior Inventory and Innovation Support Inventory  The process is measurable and applicable for different innovation types, occupational groups and cultures.  Improved understanding of multi-faceted innovation process, individual behavior in it and the influencing factors, especially culture.
  • 14. Thank you for your attention Martin Lukeš University of Economics Dept. of Managerial Psychology and Sociology W. Churchill Sq. 4 130 67 Prague 3 tel.: +420 224 098 632 fax: +420 224 098 303 lukesm@vse.cz
  • 15. Work-related innovative behavior scalesIdea generation  3 items, e.g. When something does not function well at work, I try to find new solution.Idea search  3 items, e.g. I try to get new ideas from colleagues or business partners.Communicating ideas  4 items, e.g. I try to show my colleagues positive sides of new ideas.Implementation starting activities  3 items, e.g. I develop suitable plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas.Involving others  3 items, e.g. When I have a new idea, I look for people who are able to push it through.Overcoming obstacles  4 items, e.g. I usually do not finish until I accomplish the goal.Innovation outputs  3 items, e.g. I was often successful at work in implementing my ideas and putting them in practice.
  • 16. Innovation support scalesManagerial support  5 items, e.g. My manager supports me in implementing good ideas as soon as possible.Organizational support  3 items, e.g. The way of remuneration in our organization motivates employees to suggest new things and procedures.Cultural support  4 items, e.g. Most people in [country name] come up with new, original ideas at work.
  • 17. Cross-cultural equivalenceModel Comparison RMSEA CFI ΔCFI TLI ΔTLI Chi²(df) ΔChi²(Δdf)Czech 1 Configural - .029 .940 - .933 - 3493.43 (1080) - st 2 Full metric: 1 -order factor loadings 1 vs. 2 .029 .938 -.002 .933 .000 3597.66 (1105)) 104.23 (25) 3 Full scalar: item intercepts 2 vs. 3 .032 .920 -.018 .915 -.018 4343.458 (1130) 745.90 (25) 3.1 Partial scalar: item i. m5 and j5 free 2 vs. 3.1 .030 .930 -.008 .926 -.007 3930.60 (1127) 332.95 (22) nd 4 Full metric: 2 -order factor loadings 3.1 vs. 4 .030 .930 -.000 .926 -.000 3946.33 (1132) 15.73 (5) st 5 Full scalar: 1 -order factors intercepts 4 vs. 5 .031 .928 -.002 .924 -.002 4020.28 (1137) 73.95 (5) 6 Structural model 5 vs. 6 .031 .928 -.000 .925 .001 4029.13 (1141) 8.85 (4)German 1 Configural - .030 .933 - .927 - 3739.67 (1080) - 2 Full metric: 1st-order factor loadings 1 vs. 2 .030 .932 -.001 .927 -.000 3815.53 (1105) 75.86 (25) 3. Full scalar: item intercepts 2 vs. 3 .032 .924 -.008 .920 -.007 4166.61 (1130) 351.07 (25) 4. Full metric: 2nd-order factor loadings 3 vs. 4 .032 .924 -.000 .920 -.000 4185.68 (1135) 19.07 (5) st 5 Full scalar: 1 -order factors intercepts 4 vs. 5 .032 .923 -.001 .920 -.000 4204.41 (1140) 18.73 (5) 6 Structural model 5 vs. 6 .032 .923 -.000 .920 -.000 4215.03 (1144) 10.61 (4)Italian 1 Configural - .031 .929 - .921 - 3961.24 (1080) - 2 Full metric: 1st-order factor loadings 1 vs. 2 .031 .927 -.002 .922 +.001 4036.92 (1105) 75.680 (25) 3. Full scalar: item intercepts 2 vs. 3 .033 .920 -.007 .915 -.007 4374.52 (1130) 337.61 (25) 4. Full metric: 2nd-order factor loadings 3 vs. 4 .033 .919 -.001 .915 -.000 4391.47 (1135) 16.95 (5) st 5 Full scalar: 1 -order factors intercepts 4 vs. 5 .033 .916 -.003 .912 -.003 4540.58 (1140) 149.11 (5) 6 Structural model 5 vs. 6 .033 .916 -.000 .912 -.000 4550.42 (1144) 9.84 (4)Swiss 1 Configural - .030 .934 - .928 - 3685.83 (1080) - 2 Full metric: 1st-order factor loadings 1 vs. 2 .030 .933 -.001 .928 -.000 3743.69 (1105) 57.87 (25) 3. Full scalar: item intercepts 2 vs. 3 .031 .928 -.005 .924 -.004 4000.78 (1130) 257.09 (25) 4. Full metric: 2nd-order factor loadings 3 vs. 4 .031 .927 -.001 .924 -.000 4018.72 (1135) 17.93 (5) st 5 Full scalar: 1 -order factors intercepts 4 vs. 5 .031 .927 -.009 .924 -.000 4033.19 (1140) 14.47 (5) 6 Structural model 5 vs. 6 .031 .927 -.000 .924 -.000 4042.57 (1144) 9.38 (4)

×