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

Martin LukešMartin LukešAlena ČerníkováUte StephanTomáš Svátek

Prague University of Economics

14th EAWOP CongressSantiago de Compostela, May 13-16

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 otherfactors influencing innovative behaviours

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

Values

GeneralBeliefsabout

Innovations

Personal IBGeneral

Innovativeness

Work-related IB

- Idea Generation

Model

Social /Demographic

Variables

- Idea Search- Communicating Ideas- Implementation StartingActivities- Involving Others- Overcoming Obstacles

Manager’sSupport – MP/EP

OrganizationalSupport

InnovationOutcomes

Business /Job-related

Variables

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

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)CH – age)

� Data gathering: May - July 2008 by CATI techniqueby agencies Median, IFAK, Linksystem, P. Roberts and Partners

� In total, 121281 calls done, 66792 taken, response rate 15 % (CZ) – 24 % (IT)

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Work-Related Innovative Behavior Scales

Aspects of work-related innovative behavior

ItemsLoading (standardized) Cronbach’s

Alpha

Cronbach’s AlphaCZ/D/It/Ch1st-order 2nd-order

Idea generation C2C3C5

.67

.63

.69

.85 .69 .73 .74 .72 .561

Idea search D2D1D3

.62

.76

.72

.74 .73 .75 .74 .71 .73

Communicating ideas E1E4F4

.67

.78

.79

.72 .83 .86 .81 .86 .80

F4G1

.79

.79

Implementation starting activities E7E8D4

.72

.71

.78

.74 .78 .84 .79 .77 .72

Involving others G3G4G5

.60

.81

.73

.72 .75 .82 .72 .75 .73

Overcoming obstacles H1H2H4H5

.79

.73

.71

.74

.74 .85 .89 .82 .87 .83

Innovation outputs I7I9I10I11

.74

.73

.68

.64

.82 .81 .83 .81 .81 .76

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).

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Innovativeness and Innovation Support Scales

ScalesItems

Loading (standardized)

Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s AlphaCZ/D/It/Ch

Personal innovativeness A1A3A5A6A10

.65

.52

.49

.50

.67

.72 .76 .64 .73 .70

Cultural perception of innovativebehavior

M1M2

.67

.74.69 .71 .71 .69 .70

behavior M2M4M5

.74

.54

.41

Managerial support J4J5J6J8J9

.76

.50

.85

.58

.74

.81 .86 .81 .77 .76

Organizational support L1L2L5L6

.76

.59

.74

.76

.80 .84 .81 .74 .76

Note.Cz – Czech Republic, D – Germany, It – Italy, Ch – Switzerland, Scales evaluated separately

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� 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

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

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)

1 Configural- .039 .983 - .966 - .979 - 95.63 (20) -

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)3 Initial partial scalar

2.1 vs. 3 .035 .973 -.010 .972 -.004 .965 -.012 157.10 (38) 52.40 (9)

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)

1 Configural - .024 .996 - .989 - .994 - 20.10 (8) -

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)

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*** <.001Implementation 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 scalesManagerial support (manager-perceived) – no scalar invariance achieved

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� 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

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– 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

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“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.

Thank you for your attention!

Martin Lukeš

University of EconomicsDept. of Managerial Psychology and SociologyW. Churchill Sq. 4130 67 Prague 3

lukesm@vse.cz ,

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) �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)