ORGANIZATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATIVENESS. Salvatore ZAPPALÀ & Fabio MASSEI University of Bologna – Italy. XXXIII Joint IAREP/SABE colloquium Rome. 3-6 September 2008. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION. Introduction A Definition of Organizational Innovation
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
ORGANIZATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATIVENESS
Salvatore ZAPPALÀ & Fabio MASSEIUniversity of Bologna – Italy
XXXIII Joint IAREP/SABE colloquium
Rome. 3-6 September 2008
“... In the current wave standards of costs, reliability, functionality, quality of goods and services can, at best, ensure survival; they are no longer able to differentiate companies….
As a result, innovation... has become one of the key avenues to achieve differentiation.”
Rajan. A. (2001) Centre for Research in Employment and Technology in Europe.
- Intentional rather than accidental
- Designed to benefit someone
- New to the setting of adaptation
1)Organizational design approach: link between organizational structure, size, sector (and so on) (macro-level) and characteristics and organizational innovation (Lam. A. Working papers. 2004).
2) Organizational cognition and learning approach: link between individual and group-social processes (cognition, creativity or social support) (micro-level) and organizational capabilities to develop new ideas and innovation (Lam. A. Working papers. 2004).
The major components of work context facilitating development and implementation of innovations:
(Woodman et al., 1993; Amabile, 1996;
Anderson at al., 2004; Shalley & Gilson, 2004)
Exploratory Research Aim: to examine if antecedents at different levels (organizational, team, job and individual) are related to different measures of organizational innovation
H1.: Companies that adopt more innovations have different organizational, team and job characteristics compared to companies that adopt less innovation (Number of Innovations related to organizational psycho-social variables)
H2.: Companies perceived as more innovative by the employees present more effective and innovation oriented organizational, team, job and individual characteristics (Perception of innovativeness related to organizationalpsycho-social variables )
Intrinsic motivation:“the motivation to do an activity for it’s own sake. because it is intrinsically interesting. enjoyable. or satisfying” (Tierney & Farmer. 2002).
Creative self-efficacy:“the belief that one has the ability to produce creative outcomes” (Tierney & Farmer. 2002).
Job demands: time pressure and challenges (The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire – COPSOQ. National Institute of Occupational Health. Denmark).
Autonomy: job discretion and influence on decision related to the work (COPSOQ).
Skill variety: activities that challenge skills and abilities (COPSOQ).
Creativity goals: relevance of creativity to achieve the job objectives (items based on Loke’s Goal theory. developed by Gro Ellen Mathisen).
MAIN MEASURES: PREDICTORS
- Team level
Leader support:“Supportive Supervision” (Oldham & Cummings. 1996).
Leader-member exchange (LMX):quality of the relationship between supervisor and employees (Tierney & Farmer. 1999).
Coherence:coherence between the inputs that the supervisor sends and his/hers actual actions(developed by GEM ).
Supervisor developmental feedback:leader’s feedback which is oriented towards development (Zhou. 2003).
Openness to change:organizational readiness to changes (adapted from Siegel & Kammerer. 1978).
Resource availability:access to resources. material. time expertise (developed by GEM).
Handling risk:1)Risk: encouragement of risk taking for developing new ideas) 2) Error: mistakes tolerance (adapted from Caldwell & O’Reilly. 2003).
Systems for receiving and supporting ideas and suggestions:availability of procedure to present and develop new ideas (developed by GEM).
Size/Dimension:number of employees.
MAIN MEASURES: INNOVATION
SELF-REPORTED MEASURE (rated by employees and companies owners):
- Innovative behaviour measureto evaluate organizational innovative behaviours (based on Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Averages (scale 1-7).
T-test showed no difference between companies reporting more and less innovations on all variables.
H1 not confirmed.
Objective Measures of Innovation, Correlations.
*p < .05; N = 10
RESULTS: ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
Predictors and Innovation Measures, Correlations.
*p < .05; **p < .01
RESULTS: INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. CorrelationsbetweenEmployees Evaluation of I.B. and Predictors
*p < .05; **p < .01 N = 158
RESULTS: INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Hierarchical Regression: Employees Evaluation of Organizational Innovativeness regressed on Organizational, Team, Job and Individual, Characteristics
*p < .01
RESULTS: INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Stepwise Regression Analysis:Employees Evaluation of Organizational Innovativeness regressed on Organizational, Team, Job and Individual, Characteristics
H2 partially confirmed.
7) COMMENTS and CONCLUSION
COMMENTS and CONCLUSION
4) In general, employees perceive a positive psycho-social climate (related to the small company size?)
5) The companies that adopt more innovations are also more error tolerant.
6) The limited number of companiesinduced us to an individual level analysis; this showed Supervisor support, creativity goals and openness to change as the team, job and organizational most important variables to predict employees evaluation of organizational innovativeness.
In other words:
1) different measures of innovativeness seem to be related to different aspects of organizational functioning,
2) at the psycho-social level, the employees perception of company innovativeness is related to (at least one aspect of) all the antecedent levels.
Thank you for your attention.