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 Economics2 Catholic University Leuven

ICAP Congress, Melbourne, July 15, 2010

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.

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)

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)

Theoretical model

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)

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

Comparison of culture scale means

Cz p D p It p

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

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 SwitzerlandSignificant differences in all scales

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.

Study 2: Measurement equivalence for IND, CHN, RUS

Model Fit Comparison RMSEA CFI ΔCFI TLI ΔTLI Chi²(df) ΔChi²(Δdf)

European Countries vs. Eurasian Transition Countries

1 Configural - .029 .937 - .931 - 3710.64

(1080)-

2 Full metric: 1st-order factor loadings

1 vs. 2 .028 .937 -.000 .932 .001 3756.82 (1105)

46.17 (25)

3 Full scalar: item intercepts

2. vs. 3 .029 .934 -.003 .930 -.002 3916.37 (1130)

159.55 (25)

4 Full metric: 2nd-order factor loadings

3 vs. 4 .029 .934 -.000 .930 -.000 3922.23 (1135)

5.87 (5)

5 Full scalar: intercepts of 1st-order factors

4 vs. 5 .029 .932 -.002 .929 -.001 4005.43 (1140)

83.19 (5)

6 Structural relations/model

5 vs. 6 .029 .932 -.000 .929 -.000 4019.05 (1144)

13.63 (4)

188 questionnaires from the international automotive company subsidiaries in Russia, China and India; employees with previous experience in implementing new ideas (N=61 for Russia, N=50 for China, N=77 for India)

Study 3: Management interviews

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 manager's decisions

Specifics of national cultures are mirrored in organizational cultures with these national backgrounds

50 interviews with managers (half of them CEO/GM) in 34 German-, Italian- andSwiss-based companies operating in the Czech Rep.

11 management interviews from the international automotive company subsidiaries in Russia, China and India

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, CHNvs. 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

Conclusions

Developed and validated efficient holistic measures:Innovative Behavior Inventory and InnovationSupport Inventory

The process is measurable and applicable fordifferent innovation types, occupational groups andcultures.

Improved understanding of multi-faceted innovationprocess, individual behavior in it and the influencingfactors, especially culture.

Thank you for your attention

Martin Lukeš

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

tel.: +420 224 098 632fax: +420 224 098 303

lukesm@vse.cz

Work-related innovative behavior scales

Idea 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.

Innovation support scales

Managerial 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.

Cross-cultural equivalenceModel Comparison RMSEA CFI ΔCFI TLI ΔTLI Chi²(df) ΔChi²(Δdf)Czech1 Configural - .029 .940 - .933 - 3493.43 (1080) -2 Full metric: 1st-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)4 Full metric: 2nd-order factor loadings 3.1 vs. 4 .030 .930 -.000 .926 -.000 3946.33 (1132) 15.73 (5)5 Full scalar: 1st-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)

German1 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)5 Full scalar: 1st-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)

Italian1 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)5 Full scalar: 1st-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)

Swiss1 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)5 Full scalar: 1st-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)