The influence of vision, organizational learning and culture on innovative behaviour

(1)

The influence of vision, organizational learning and culture on

innovative behaviour

Harm Balder (10899537)

Master thesis MSc Business Studies

Track: Leadership and Management

Supervisor: Merlijn Venus

(2)

2 Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Harm Balder who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

3 Abstract

This study aimed to examine the influence of vision that emphasizes innovation,

organizational learning and organizational culture on innovation in an organization. Data was collected from 134 employees working in a Dutch firedepartment. The research model looked at the effect of vision of innovation, the mediating effect of organizational learning and the moderating effect of organizational culture. In this research 3 hypotheses were tested to research the relation of these variables on each other and to show how they directly and indirectly have an effect on innovation. The results provide support for the expectation that a direct and positive relationship exists between vision of innovation and innovative work behaviour. A mediating effect of organizational learning and a moderating effect of

organizational culture were not proven in this research. The implications of these findings for practice and research are discussed.

Keywords: vision, organizational learning, organizational culture, transformational leadership, innovation.

(4)

4

1. Introduction

Innovation is an important topic within organizations today. Leaders and managers in an organization are constantly looking for sustainable competitive advantage towards over and above other organizations. If organizations want to survive they have to constantly adapt to environmental, organizational and technological changes. Nowadays it’s a dog eat dog world, organizations must strive to be more innovative than the other organizations; it’s a question of compete or die. Furthermore; times are changing. The economic crisis of the last few years has forced organizations to cut costs. As a result, a lot of organizations have had to be creative and learn how to organize their activities with a lesser budget. This trend is expected to

continue. With the main goal to deliver the same (or higher) quality of activities with the same (or less) amount of money, organizations face major challenges. This asks for a shift in mind-set. Employees are being asked to adapt to new behaviours and attitudes to ensure the

organization is capable of change and able to constantly adapt to new environmental,

organizational and technological developments. Innovation seems to be the mean to improve organizational performance.

The leaders and managers in these organizations play an important role in making this shift happen. Considerable academic research has been conducted into the role of leaders and managers in stimulating innovation, e.g. on the leadership-innovation relationship (Rosing et al. 2011), Gumusluoglu et al. (2007) researched Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation and Aragón-Correa et al. (2005) undertook research into leadership and organizational learning’s role on innovation and performance. There is no discussion about the positive effect of transformational leadership on innovation amongst scholars. Transformational leadership however is a broad term. This research specifically focuses on one of the important aspects of transformational leadership, namely vision. West (1990) presents four team climate factors that facilitate innovation. The first is about vision which

(7)

7 has to be understandable, valued and accepted by team members. As van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) state “the communication of an inspiring vision probably more than anything else is seen to distinguish charismatic-transformational leadership from other forms of leadership” (p.19). Both van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) as well as West (1990) show how important the role of vision can be for innovation in an organization. There is however limited research conducted on the importance of vision in relation to innovation within an

organization. First steps about the role of vision are taken by van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) who use the term visionary leadership: a specific part of transformational/charismatic leadership with a focus on the communication of a vision.

Several other factors have a significant impact on innovation in an organization. Aragón-Correa et al. (2005) state that the presence of a learning organization can be a positive stimulator for the presence of innovation. In both learning and innovation, creativity and new ideas are seen as important stimulators. Alongside this, leaders and managers have to deal with an organizational culture whose values can have a positive or negative effect on

innovation. Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) developed the Competing Value Framework (CVF) which has been used in several researches. According to their model an organizational culture consists of four types. Each type has a specific set of dominant values. With this model scholars have empirical proven that organizational culture plays an important role in the presence of innovation (e.g. Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2011).

The objective of this study is to research the different aspects that influence the ability of an organization to become more innovative. In this research vision, as an aspect of

transformational leadership, is seen as an important variable for an organization to innovate. It is thought that when vision explicitly emphasizes innovation, it will stimulate creativity and innovation in an organization. With the presence of creativity it is also believed that a learning organization also plays an important explanatory role. And at last it is believed that the

(8)

8 presence of a specific organizational culture also plays a role in the presence of innovative work behaviour. So different questions can be asked: What is the specific role of vision as part of transformational leadership in relation to innovation? Does organizational learning have a mediating effect on the relationship between vision and innovation? And do

organizational values have a moderating effect on the relation between vision and a learning organization?

According to the proposed model, a vision of innovation positively relates to the innovative work behaviour of employees. It is believed that when the organizational culture exists of values that stimulate innovation, the culture will have a positive effect on the relation between vision and learning organization. Organizational culture will have a moderating effect on this relation. It is also thought that when organizational learning is present in the organization that this translates the effect of vision and the interaction between vision and culture on innovation. Organizational learning will have a mediating effect on this relation. Fig. 1 shows the research model developed for this purpose.

Fig.1 Research model

Vision of leadership Organizational learning Innovation Organization values

(9)

9

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Innovation

As mentioned in the introduction innovation and creativity in the workplace have become increasingly important contributing factors of organizational performance, success and longer-term survival. The presence of both creativity and innovation in an organization has become “a source of distinct competitive advantage” (Anderson et al., 2014, p. 1298). West and Farr (1990) define innovation as “the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or wider society” (p. 9). From this definition you can conclude that innovation and creativity are not the same. Innovation requires creativity and creativity can be seen as an important part of innovation. It is the first step you have to take. Where creativity enhances the birth of original and useful ideas, innovation takes a step further in implementing these new ideas. From this point of view innovation can be seen in a social context. Besides the development of new ideas, innovation also requires to roll-out and sell the new ideas to other persons and/or groups within an organization (Rosing et al. 2011). Creativity and innovation cannot be seen as a linear process, making innovation processes complex and hard to divide in separate steps. On the contrary, the requirements to generate and implement ideas alternate throughout the innovation process in an ever-changing manner. This factor makes innovation “full of paradoxes and tensions” (Rosing et al., 2011, p. 957). Following Scott and Bruce’s (1994), Janssen (2000) divide innovation in three steps: idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization. These three steps are seen as behaviours of employees with no logic or timing and go beyond prescribed role expectations as Janssen (2000) states. Both Rosing et al. (2011) and Janssen (2000) confirm the complexity of innovation processes in an organization.

Not only the innovation processes is complex also the different aspects which

(10)

10 well as Anderson et al. (2014) summaries the different researches on innovation. Scholars have emphasized the important role of leaders (leadership style) in relation to innovation (e.g. Anderson et al., 2014; Rosing et al., 2011). In the next chapter the relation between

transformational leadership, specifically the role of vision (as part of a transformational leadership style), and innovation will be explained.

2.2 Transformational leadership and vision

Gumusluoglu et al. (2009) states that Burns (1978) introduced the transformational leadership theory. Bass and Avolio (1995) further developed the theory. Transformational leadership exist of four components. The first is charismatic role modelling: the leader inspires admiration, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation by using charisma. The second component is individualized consideration, in which the leader invests in the relation with the employee and pays attention to aspiration, needs and skills. The third component is inspirational motivation; (…) “the leader articulates an exciting vision of the future, shows the followers how to achieve the goals, and expresses his or her belief that they can do it” (Gumusluoglu et all., 2009, p. 462). The fourth component is intellectual stimulation. The leader stimulates employees to reframe (old) problems and gives the employee new insights.

Transformational leadership behaviours closely match the determinants of innovation and creativity at the workplace. Different research (Gumusluoglu, et al., 2009; Rosing et al., 2011; Jung et al., 2003; Aragón-Correa et al., 2007) has shown there is a positive relation between the presence of transformational leadership and the level of innovation in an organization. Employees show greater effort and are willing to perform more for the organization when a (transformational) leader is able to formulate a vision which makes it clear what kind of behaviour is being asked from the employee to realize the vision. Jung et al. (2003) also refer to Mumford et al. (2002) who have argued that a transformational leader can stimulate creativity in an organization when a vision motivates this process. This is

(11)

11 because; ‘‘by framing vision in terms of work goals and articulating this vision through

project selection and project evaluation rather than overt affective appeals, a work-focused vision or mission may be promulgated that will enhance people’s creative efforts’’ (p.716). Where Mumford et al (2002) emphasize the framing of vision in terms of work goals, van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) argue that vision should be more abstract than in terms of work goals. They make a distinction between qualitative and quantitative terms and see vision more as a spot on the horizon. Because a vision is seen as ongoing, van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) underpin the challenge to measure the realization of the vision and to monitor the progress. They take the importance of vision by a leader to a higher level. Van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) use the term visionary leadership to emphasize the role of communicating a vision as part of transformational leadership. The key question which can be made is what exactly is this articulating of an important vision? How can a vision be framed in terms of work goals in the knowledge that they are abstract and are focused on an image in the future? In what way does vision, as part of transformational leadership, have a positive contribution on innovation? Van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) define a vision as “what is conceived and communicated by the leader in terms of an image of a future for a collective” (p. 6). So the major challenge for leaders is to formulate an image of a future collective that has a focus on innovation. This vision should have a positive contribution to individual creative efforts and to the innovation of the organization as a whole. Therefore:

Hypotheses 1: The more a vision emphasizes the importance of innovation the more the

organization will become innovative.

Not only leaders have an effect on the innovative work behaviour of employees. Several studies emphasize that the presence of a learning organization translates the effects of vision

(12)

12 and organizational culture to become innovative. In the following paragraphs the effect of learning and culture on the relation between vision and innovative work behaviour will be explained with two hypotheses as a result.

2.3 Influence of vision on innovation; the role of learning and culture

2.3.1 Organizational learning

An important aspect for an organization to become more innovative is the presence of organizational learning. In the following, I will argue that organizational learning plays an important role in explaining the effects of a vision of innovation on innovative behavior. Aragón-Correa et al. (2007) states that many scholars “in the growing literature on

organizational learning have noted a positive relationship between organizational learning and firm innovation” (p. 350). Also Jiménez-Jiménez et al. (2011) see learning in an organization as a key role in enhancing flexibility and speed in the innovative process. Organizational learning supports creativity, inspires new knowledge and ideas and increases the ability to understand and apply them. An important aspect of the previous sentence is knowledge. To enhance organizational learning, knowledge plays an important role in an organization. When knowledge is acquired, distributed, interpreted and stored (as a memory) in the organization, employees have the ability to absorb new ideas and to apply these ideas in practice (Jiménez-Jiménez et al., 2011) The most advanced form of organizational learning, generative learning, occurs when an organization is willing to question long-held

assumptions about its mission, customers, capabilities, or strategy and generate changes in its practices, strategies, and values (Aragón-Correa et al, 2007, p. 351). This kind of learning underpins radical innovations in products and processes.

So the presence of a learning organization can be a positive stimulator for innovation in an organization. The key element in this assumption is the supportive element of

(13)

13 (1996) confirms the idea that knowledge is a key component for creativity. Creativity can be seen as one of the first steps to be taken in the innovative process. Enhancing learning and creativity in an organization will be an important step to become more innovative as an organization. Jiménez-Jiménez et al. (2011) state “Organizational learning allows the development, acquisition, transformation and exploitation of new knowledge that enhances organizational innovation” (p.410). As mentioned earlier employees show greater effort and are willing to perform more for the organization when a (transformational) leader is able to formulate a vision. The image of the vision has to stimulate a specific kind of behaviour from the employee to realize the vision. Leaders, who formulate a vision based on creativity, new ideas and innovation and communicate this vision, will stimulate organizational learning. When employees perform likewise, the presence of organizational learning will stimulate innovative work behaviour in an organization.

2.3.2 Culture

Naranjo-Valencia et al. (2011) state that “in order to innovate and adopt technological progress successfully, firms have to meet certain requirements in terms of their internal behaviour and their external relationships” (p. 58). Internal behaviour can be seen as the organizational culture which plays a key role in learning and innovation. Culture can stimulate creativity, learning and innovative behaviour among the members of an organization; it can lead them to accept learning and innovation as a basic value of the organization and can foster commitment to it.

Organizational culture can have an effect on learning and innovation in two ways; from the perspectives of socialization and of coordination. “Through socialization, individuals can know whether creative and innovative behaviours are part of the path the business treads. At the same time, the business can, through activities, policies and procedures, generate values, which support creativity and innovation, and its innovative capacity will subsequently

(14)

14 improve” (Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2011, p. 58). From this point of view it would be logic to say that when values of creativity and innovation are already present in the culture of an organization, a vision of innovation is more likely to stimulate innovation. The step from vision to innovation can easily be translated by learning. Moreover Jung et al (2008)

emphasize the role of the organizational culture by stating: “When there is not a climate that supports or values innovative initiatives, a CEO’s transformational leadership behaviours alone may only marginally stimulate employee efforts towards innovation” (p. 584). This is an important statement which will be examined in this research.

Considerable research has been done on organizational culture. A model which is often used is the Competing Values Framework’s (CVF) by Quinn (1988). The CVF suggests that culture types are expected to relate to different organizational effectiveness indicators as a function of their basic assumptions, values, and structures. By using the CVF it will be

possible to investigate the type of culture which is dominant in an organization. The CVF distinguish four types of culture; clan, adhocracy, hierarchy and market. The four types form a quadrant on two axes; flexibility-control and internal-external. Kalliath et al. (1999) added several values to the four types of culture and transformed them into four new types; human relations, open systems, internal process and rational goals. According to Quinn and

Rohrbaugh's (1983) the end result of an adhocracy (open systems) is innovation and cutting-edge output. A dominant open systems culture is seen as a creative place to work where leaders are seen as entrepreneurs who are innovative and take risks. To them competitive advantage is important for the organization and change is more common than an exception for the organization. Important values of an open systems culture like creative problem solving and new ideas are direct related to a learning organization. The end result of a hierarchy cultural type (internal process) will be efficiency, timeliness and smooth functioning. Key words for this type of culture are structure, procedures, formal and leaders who see

(15)

15 themselves as good coordinators and organizers. The main focus of the organization is on stability and efficiency. A clan culture (human relations) has a focus on family values, were leaders are seen as mentors or even parent figures. Loyalty and tradition are important values in this type of culture. Important aspects of a market culture (rational goals) are results, winning and hard driving competitive. The presence of a specific type of dominant culture will have influence on the level of learning and, as a result, innovation in an organization. It is more likely that the presence of a dominant adhocracy/open systems culture will have a positive effect on the relation between vision and learning. For example, an innovative leader who stimulates creativity in the organization will see a positive development of learning when innovation and creativity are important values within the organizational culture. It will be harder for an innovative leader who stimulates creativity to achieve a learning organization when the culture exists of a dominant hierarchy/internal process culture with values as structure, stability and processes. It is supposed that the organizational culture will have a strengthening effect on the relation between vision and organizational learning, which in turn will stimulate innovation. From these arguments the second and the third hypotheses are:

Hypotheses 2: The organizational culture will have a moderating effect on the relation

between the vision on innovation and the learning organization such that, the effect of vision of innovation on learning will be stronger when an organization has a strong adhocracy/open systems culture.

Hypothesis 3: The interaction between vision and organizational culture on innovation is

mediated by a learning organization. In such a way that a positive vision of innovation will interact with the presence of a dominant adhocracy culture in impacting the perception of being a learning organization, which in turn will have a positive effect on innovative behaviour.

(16)

16

3. Methodology

The research was conducted within the Dutch firedepartment Kennemerland. A structured questionnaire has been developed to investigate how the organization faces vision of leadership, organizational culture type, learning and innovation issues. Because all of the leaders and employees are Dutch, the questionnaires were written in Dutch to avoid any language issues. The questionnaires have been mailed to the employees of the firedepartment along with a cover letter. To reduce possible desirability bias, participants were informed that their response remained confidential. The given reaction period was one month. Within that month two reminders were send to those that did not respond.

3.1 Sample

The population consisted of Dutch employees working at the firedepartment of

Kennemerland. The firedepartment consist of professionals and volunteers. In this research the sample consisted of the professionals. They were asked to participate. All of the 314 professionals (36 leaders and 278 employees) were approached to fill in the survey. The survey was distributed by the online program Qualtrics. It was not possible to skip a question or not to answer a question. The variable innovative work behaviour of employees was leader-rated and self-leader-rated. Leaders received a second survey on innovative work behaviour for every employee who had responded on the survey. Of the sample, 134 completed

questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 43%. Of the 134, 102 questionnaires were returned by 23 leaders (of 36 leaders), a response rate of 76,7%. Participants were predominantly male (88%), with an average of 44,84 years (SD = 9,39) and a mean working years tenure of 15,92 (SD = 9,65). The mean working years tenure of employee under the current leader was 4,44 (SD = 4,12).

(17)

17

3.2 Measures

Developing new scales is a complex task. Wherever possible the research used pretested scales from past empirical studies to ensure their validity and reliability.

3.2.1 Vision on innovation

To measure vision of innovation a 3-item scale was used based on the research of Stam et al. (2014), which assesses an employee’s perception of the use of vision of leaders to stimulate innovation within an organization. Results in this research showed that the scale was

unidimensional and had high reliability (α = 0,907). The 3 items were translated from English to Dutch via google translate and visa-versa. An example item is “My direct supervisor regularly discusses that innovation and creativity are important for the team’s future”. A 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used.

3.2.2 Organizational learning

A four-item scale was used to measure organizational learning. This scale was developed by Aragón-Correa et al. (2007) and showed in previous research that the scale was

unidimensional and had high reliability (α = .92). In this research the reliability of the scale was also high (α = .81). The four-item scale was translated from English to Dutch via google translate and visa-versa. An example item is “Has the organization acquired much new and relevant knowledge over the last 3 years”. A 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used.

3.2.3 Organizational culture

To investigate the organizational culture the 32-item scale of Kalliath et al. (1999) was used which is based on the competing values model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983). Kalliath et al. (1999) modified the version of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) and added four items to each subscale to increase the internal consistency of the competing values scale. For every cultural type eight values were tested. The reliability of the modified scale in their research ranged from a Cronbach’s α of .81 to .91 with the organization as the referent. In this research the

(18)

18 reliability of the modified scale ranged from a Cronbach’s α of .76 to .92. The respondents were asked to give their opinion on the 32 values in terms of importance within the

organization. An example of a value for a hierarchical/internal process culture is

“Centralization (only one or a few people make most of the decisions)”. An example of a value for a clan/human relations culture is: “Empowerment of employees to act”.

Adhocracy/open systems culture was tested by values like “Creative problem solving”. “Getting the job done” is an example of a value which was part of a market/rational goal culture. Respondents were asked to answer according to a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Not important at all) to 5 (Very important).

3.2.4 Innovative work behaviour

Innovative work behaviour was assessed by a 9-item scale which was mentioned in the

research of Janssen (2000) and is based on Scott and Bruce’s (1994). The 9-items refer to idea generation (3-items), idea promotion (3-items) and idea realization (3-items). The 9-item scale was assessed by both the respondents (self-reports) and their leaders (leader-reports) to have a higher reliability. Research of Janssen (2000) showed a Cronbach’s α of .95 for the self-rated and .96 for the leader-rated score on innovation. In this research a Cronbach’s α of .95 for the self-rated and .93 for the leader-rated score on innovation was shown. An example of an item on the idea generation is: “Searching out new working methods, techniques, or instruments”. One of the items of idea promotion is: “Mobilizing support for innovative ideas”. An example of idea realization is: “Introducing innovative ideas into the work environment in a systematic way”. The measurement was conducted on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3.2.5 Control variables

In this study the following control variables were used; gender, age, organization tenure, and leader tenure.

(19)

19

4. Analytic strategy

4.1 Recoding

The recoding of counter-indicative items was not applied; the same scale was applied to all questions. Additionally, a mistake was found in the survey on the item age. The data of age was recoded into the right value. In order to make the analysis on gender readable, the scale was adapted from 1 (Male), 2 (Female) to 0 (Male), 1 (Female).

4.2 Reliability

Reliability analysis enables the examination of the consistency of measurements. Reliability checks were run for vision of innovation, learning organization, organizational culture and leader-rated innovative work behavior. The Cronbach’s alpha were calculated to verify if all the items in one scale measure the same, or if some questions should not be used for analysis. As exhibited in table 1, all four variables have a Cronbach’s alpha > .7, which indicates high level of internal consistency.

Table 1: Cronbach’s Alpha

Variable Cronbach’s Alpha Vision of leadership 0.87 Learning organization 0.85 Organizational culture 0.89 Innovative work behaviour 0.93

4.3 Computing Scale Means

In preparation of the regression analysis, new variables as a function of existing variables were created for hypothesis testing. The mean of all items were calculated to describe a variable. Means and standard deviations of all variables are exhibited in table 2.

(20)

20

5. Results

In this section the main results of the research will be presented. In the first paragraph the means, standard deviations and correlations are shown. In the second paragraph the results of the regression analysis are presented.

5.1 Correlations

Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations as well as the correlation between the variables. A tendency to a positive relation exists among vision of leadership, learning

organization and organizational culture. The linear relation between learning organization and organization culture shows the highest positive relation, with a significance value less than 0.01.

Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Gender .11 .30

2. Age 44.84 9.39 -.159

3. Leader rated Innovation 3.12 .72 -.016 -.218* (0.93) 4. Vision of leadership 3.11 .89 -.133 -.153 .254* (0.87)

6. Organization culture 3.11 .81 -.210* .116 .170 .368** .416** (0.89) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) N = 133, except for leader-rated Innovation (N = 102) (….) = Cronbach’s alpha

5.2 Regression analysis

To test the three hypotheses, a regression analysis was conducted with an SPSS macro of Hayes (2012). The macro of Hayes (2012) generates bias corrected 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for the conditional indirect effects using 5,000 bootstrap samples.

(21)

21 Model 7 of Hayes (2012) was used for this research (fig. 2 and 3):

Fig. 2 Conceptual model:

Fig. 3 Statistical model:

Table 3 provides an overview of the regression analysis. Firstly, the direct relationship between vision of leadership on innovation and innovative work behaviour shows a significant effect (p < 0.05, effect = 0.193, SE = 0.083, CL: .0272 to .359). Meaning perceived vision of innovation by an employee leads to higher innovative work behaviour, which proves hypothesis 1. The results indicate that the interaction between vision of innovation and organizational culture (IV x Moderator) on learning organization is not

(22)

22 the first model (outcome learning organization) is significant (p < 0.05). The model explains 18% of the variance of learning organization. The interaction of the variables of the first model however is not significant. The summary of the second model (outcome innovative work behaviour) also is significant (p < 0.05). The model explains 10% of the variance of innovation. The results however show no significant relation between learning organization and innovation (p > 0.05). This means that the interaction between vision and organizational culture on innovation is not mediated by a learning organization, so hypothesis 3 is also rejected.

Table 3: Moderated Mediation Analysis

Learning

organisation (M)

Leader rated innovative work behaviour (Y)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE P

Vision of leadership on innovation (X) a1 -0.28 0.27 0.92 c’1 0.19 0.08 0.02 Learning organization (M) - - - b1 -0.04 0.09 0.62 Organizational culture (W) a2 0.15 0.30 0.62 c’2 - - - IV x Moderator (XW) a3 0.01 0.01 0.31 c’3 - - - Constant i1 1.45 i2 3.32 R2 = 0.18 R2 = 0.10 F(5,96) = 5.27, p< .001 F(4,97) = 2.69, p< .001

(23)

23 After testing the research model an additional test was performed. A hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate the ability of vision and the different culture types to predict an effect on the dependent variable innovation, after controlling for gender and age. Table 4 provides an overview of the analyse. In the first step of hierarchical multiple regression, two predictors were entered: gender and age. This model was statistically not significant F (2,92) = 2,69; p > 0.05. After entry of vision of leader, learning organisation, organisational culture (Competing values model; Human Relations, Open Systems, Internal Process, Rational Goals) at Step 2 the total variances explained by the model as a whole was 15% F (6, 93) = 2,92, p < 0.05. In the final model, two out of eight predictors were

statistically significant, with organizational culture Human Relations recording a higher Beta value (β = .39, p < 0.05) than age (β = -.25, p < 0.05).

Table 4: Multiple regression analysis

Variables R² ΔR² B SE Β t P Step 1 0.05 Gender -.10 .20 -.05 -.51 .61 Age -.02 .01 -.23 -2.28 .03 Step 2 0.20 0.15 Gender .07 .20 .03 .35 .73 Age -.02 .01 -.24 -2.46 .02 Learning organization -.09 .09 -.09 -.90 .37 Human Relations .36 .12 .39 3.04 .00 Internal Process -.06 .14 -.05 -.44 .66

(24)

24

Open systems

.01 .14 .01 .06 .96

Rational goals

(25)

25

6. Discussion and conclusion

Several studies have suggested that the presence of a transformational leader who focusses on innovation in his vision will have a positive effect on innovation within an organization. Important aspects which play a role on this relation are the presence of a learning organization and an organizational culture which stimulate the innovative work behaviour of employees. The model of this research looked at the effect of vision on innovative work behaviour, the mediating effect of organizational learning and the moderating effect of organizational

culture. In this research 3 hypotheses were tested to research the relation of these variables on each other and to show how they directly and indirectly have an effect on innovative work behaviour. The results showed a direct and positive relation between vision and innovative work behaviour. There was no evidence found for a mediating effect of organizational learning neither a moderating effect of organizational culture.

6.1 Theoretical implications

Findings based on research in a Dutch firedepartment provide support of the expectation that a direct and positive relationship exists between vision and innovative work behaviour. These results support the idea that only one of the four components of transformational leadership, inspirational motivation, can have a direct and positive effect on the innovative work behaviour of employees. The findings of the first hypothesis contribute to the article of van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) who see visionary leadership as an important motivator to change and innovation. The results of this research are a small step forward in an evidenced-based conclusion about the role of vision (visionary leadership) on innovation and contribute to the research of van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) . In contrast to Jung et al. (2008) the findings of the first and second hypotheses also show that the organizational culture has lesser impact on innovative work behaviour than the role of the leader. This research didn’t find a positive interaction between vision and organizational culture on a learning organization. Neither did this research find a positive relation between the interaction of vision and

(26)

26 organizational culture on innovation by mediation of the learning organization. In contrast to the current literature, the relation between organizational culture, vision and learning

organization was not proven by this research.

As mentioned earlier a lot of research has been done on the relation of the different variables of this research model on innovation. The effect of transformational leadership (Arargón-Correa et al, 2007; García-Morales et al., 2012; Gumuslouglu et al., 2009),vision (Van Knippenberg and Stam, 2014), organizational culture (Schneider et al., 2013; Naranjo – Valencia et al., 2011; Kalliath et al., 1999; Hooijberg and Petrock, 1993)and learning

organization (Hirst et al., 2009; Jiménez-Jiménez et al., 2011;) on innovation have been researched in different kinds of combinations and in different research models. Overall

conclusion of previous research shows a positive and significant influence of every mentioned variable on innovation. To my knowledge, it is however the first time that vision (as part of transformational leadership), organizational learning, organizational culture and innovation are empirically researched in one model. The contribution of this research lies precisely in the combination of these variables and the results of the research model. Several factors may help to explain the findings in this research.

First of all this research provides evidenced-based results of the effect of vision of innovation (visionary leadership) on innovation. The effect of transformational leadership on innovation has already been proven but the results of this research show that vision as part of transformational leadership plays a specific role in becoming innovative. The finding

contributes to the research of van Knippenberg and Stam (2014).

Secondly, it is difficult to understand why the variable organizational learning does not mediate the interaction between vision and organizational culture on innovation. The results don’t contribute to earlier research on the role of organizational learning on innovative

(27)

27 behaviour. An explanation of this finding can be given in the used measurement. Aragón-Correa et al. (2007) already mentioned that the learning organization received more

theoretical than empirical attention. So the question is if this research really was measuring the variable learning organization? On the other hand, what if it did? The findings show no mediating effect of organizational learning on innovation. Maybe the presence of knowledge and creativity is not essential to stimulate innovative work behaviour. When present in an organization, it would be a positive stimulator in an innovative process. If learning is not present, it wouldn’t mean that an organization can’t become more innovative.

Thirdly, literature shows that there is more or less an agreement about the definition of innovation. However, how innovation is measured in an organization differs per research. Jung et al. (2003) look at innovation on an organizational level and focus on the output (e.g. products, ideas, procedures,) from a business perspective. Jiménez-Jiménez et al. (2011) measure innovation in a variety of ways (output, input and timing) and Gumuslouglu et al. (2009) research innovation on innovativeness tendency and success of product innovation. These examples of research methods on innovation make it difficult to compare the outcomes of the different studies with this research. Anderson et al. (2014) have made an enumeration of the different measurement methods. Their research shows most of the research is done on the individual level and team levels. Scholars have to be aware of these differences in order to make conclusions about innovation and different aspects which influence innovation.

A fourth theoretical implication of this research is that results are based on a public (non-profit) organization. Most empirical research on innovation is based on profit

organizations. To ensure that the different outcomes of this study derive from the sample and does not derive from a shortcoming in the theory it is recommended to test this research model in other public organizations. In addition, to my knowledge there is not a lot of research done on the subject of vision as part of transformational leadership, innovation,

(28)

28 learning organization and culture within public organizations. Borins (2002) conducted

research between the link of innovation and leadership in the public sector but remained in general on the subject of leadership and was primarily concerned with informal leaders. It is understandable that a public organization will feel less pressure to become more innovative because there is no concurrent/competitor. Borins (2002) argues that within the public sector, organizations maintain monopoly positions whereby they don’t feel the pressure of rivalry. Organizations like the firedepartment don’t feel the pressure of a concurrent. So innovative work behaviour has to be developed from inside the organization with the knowledge that external pressure to survive and to be better than the competition, is not present.

Fifth, there are a few contextual aspects to mention. The research was conducted in a firedepartment which is based on a hierarchical structure. In this culture, employees will feel a power distance between themselves and their leaders and prefer having top managers taking more control of the work process and to lead by example (Jung et al., 2003, p. 539). This might be an explanation for not finding any relation between organizational learning, culture and innovative work behaviour. Another contextual factor to explain the unexpected findings is the chosen firedepartment. This particular firedepartment has had several reorganizations in the past few years and had to deal with cost reduction. The employees are still recovering from these changes. Perception of the employee on the leader and leader on the employee can therefore be tainted, resulting in a negative atmosphere between employees and leaders and therefore affecting the results of this research. Glegg et al. (2002) state that elements of trust are implicated in the innovation process, probably acting as the main effect. So when the reorganizations within the firedepartment have had an effect on trust between leaders and employees this would have been an important variable in the research model.

Finally, it is surprising that the results of the additional hierarchical multiple regression show no predictable effect of an open systems culture on innovative work

(29)

29 behaviour. Instead this research shows a predictable effect of a dominant human relation culture type on innovative work behaviour. These findings are not corresponding with current studies on the CFV and could mean that the values of a clan (human relations) culture have a stronger relation with innovative work behaviour than an adhocracy (open systems) culture. This leads to the conclusion that the values of the CFV formulated by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) may have been evolved and it is time to redesign the values. It might be the case that currently the values of a clan (human relations) culture contribute more to innovation than the values of a adhocracy (open systems) culture.

6.2 Research limitations

The results of this research are not expected when looking at the literature. Several

limitations should be taken into account for the current findings. Firstly, the research is based on one organization. A larger sample (more than one firedepartment) would have a positive effect on the validity of the research. Secondly, the sample is based on one specific public organization. It would be interesting for future research to test the model in different public (non-profit) organizations to see if the results underpin the current literature. Thirdly, in this research only vision as part of transformational leadership has been researched. From the perception of an employee, it is possible that the leader as a whole is rated by the employee instead of vision as a specific part. Future research should focus on the four components of transformational leadership to conclude if vision on innovation is the main variable on the effect of innovative work behaviour. Finally, to see the effect of vision on learning and innovation, a longitudinal study would be helpful. By paying attention on innovation in the vision of a leader, the effect of this attention can be measured over a longer period of time which makes conclusions on the relation of the different variables of this research model more reliable. Different scholars (e.g. Jiménez-Jiménez et al., 2011; Jung et al., 2008) already have

(30)

30 mentioned this recommendation. However to my knowledge, a longitudinal study on the variables of this research model has not yet been done.

6.3 Practical implications

This research has shown that there is a direct relation between vision on innovation and innovative work behaviour. Notably it is also the first time a firedepartment has been used as a sample for research on these subjects. A practical implication of this research is that the findings could stimulate leaders to pay more attention on vision when they want to develop innovative work behaviour amongst employees. A leader who articulates an exciting vision of innovation will have a knock-on effect on the innovative work behaviour of the employees. The leader shows employees how they can achieve the goals and expresses his or her belief that they can do it (Gumuslouglu et al., 2009). It would be helpful if this vision will become a verbal communication of an image of a future (van Knippenberg and Stam, 2014). The results also show that the organizational culture doesn’t play a role in the relation between vision and innovation. Literature shows this is questionable. Based on this research, the conclusion can be drawn that by focusing on leadership, the chance to become a more innovative

organization is present. If organizational culture had played a role, the organization would have had to invest a lot in changing a culture. Cultural change however is far more difficult than coaching a specific group of leaders in developing a vision of innovation and the behaviour associated with this. The leaders should be the subject of management training to improve the innovation in the organization.

6.4 Conclusion and future research

This research contributes and complements the current literature and allows the formulation of further research on the subject of, and factors relating to, innovation. Different factors (contextual and theoretical) are mentioned to explain the results of this research. The findings of this research show no direct or indirect influence of a learning organization or

(31)

31 organizational culture on innovative behaviour. Additional empirical research is needed to validate these findings. Based on the sample of this research it seems that trust could play a specific role between the variables of this research model. Future research should pay more attention to the influence of trust on the variable vision and the interaction between vision and trust on innovation. Furthermore additional research will be required to test the results of the CFV model and the impact of specific values on innovation.

Overall this research gives an insight in the role of vision on innovation. The results show that an organization can make significant gains by paying more attention to vision of innovation at leadership level. More empirical research is welcome to test the research model and to develop the theories on vision and on innovation.

(32)

32

References

- Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to" the social psychology of creativity.". Westview press.

- Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.

- Aragón-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organizational learning's role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial marketing management, 36(3), 349-359.

- Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(8), 467-476.

- Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. (2002). Implicating trust in the innovation process†. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 409-422.

- García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through

organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040-1050.

- Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of business research, 62(4), 461-473.

- Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.

- Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677.

(33)

33 - Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on

employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293.

- Hooijberg, R., & Petrock, F. (1993). On cultural change: Using the competing values framework to help leaders execute a transformational strategy. Human Resource Management, 32(1), 29-50.

- Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of business research, 64(4), 408-417.

- Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 525-544.

- Jung, D. D., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W. (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs' transformational leadership on firm innovation. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 582-594.

- Kalliath, T. J., Bluedorn, A. C., & Strube, M. J. (1999). A test of value congruence effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1175-1198.

- Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750.

- Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55-72. - Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:

Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management science, 29(3), 363-377.

(34)

34 - Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the

leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.

- Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual review of psychology, 64, 361-388.

- Stam, D., Lord, R. G., Knippenberg, D. V., & Wisse, B. (2014). An image of who we might become: Vision communication, possible selves, and vision pursuit.

Organization Science, 25(4), 1172-1194.

- Van Knippenberg, D., & Stam, D. (2014). Visionary leadership. chapter, 12, 241-259. - West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups.

- West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychology and organizational strategies.

(35)

35

Appendix: Questionnaire (Dutch)

Enquête Brandweer Kennemerland

Beste deelnemer,

Allereerst hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek. Binnen brandweer

Kennemerland zijn we al enige tijd bezig om vorm te geven aan de lerende organisatie en aan innovatie. De vragenlijst die u invult maakt deel uit van het onderzoek “lerende organisatie, (visie op) innovatie en de invloed van de organisatie cultuur”. Het doel van dit onderzoek is om uw mening op deze vier onderwerpen te geven. De resultaten van dit onderzoek zullen gebruikt worden en bijdragen aan een nieuwe stap in de ontwikkeling van brandweer Kennemerland. Op de hierna volgende pagina’s worden u vragen gesteld of uitspraken voorgelegd, die betrekking hebben op de vier eerder genoemde onderwerpen. Het is de

bedoeling dat u per onderwerp het antwoord kiest wat het beste aansluit op uw beleving. Voor de betrouwbaarheid van de antwoorden op het onderwerp innovatie zal tevens u

leidinggevende gevraagd worden om deze te scoren. Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt ongeveer 10 minuten. Bedenkt u alstublieft dat: - Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden; - Alleen uw EIGEN mening belangrijk is, niet die van anderen; - Het is belangrijk om ook in twijfel gevallen altijd een antwoord te geven. Sla liefst geen vragen over.

N.B. De antwoorden op deze vragenlijst worden strikt vertrouwelijk en anoniem behandeld. De antwoorden zijn niet terug te leiden tot jou als persoon!!!

(36)

36 Visie op innovatie

Onderstaande stellingen hebben betrekking op die visie van uw leidinggevende op innovatie. Op een schaal van “geheel niet van toepassing" tot een schaal van “geheel van toepassing” kan aangegeven worden wat voor u van toepassing is op elke stelling.

Geheel mee oneens

Mee oneens Neutraal Mee eens Geheel mee

eens Mijn direct leidinggevende communiceert vaak in zijn/haar visie het belang van creativiteit      Mijn direct leidinggevende geeft regelmatig aan dat innovatie en creativiteit belangrijk zijn voor de toekomst van het team      Mijn direct leidinggevende heeft een team voor ogen dat de nadruk legt op creativiteit en innovatie      Mijn direct leidinggevende heeft een duidelijk beeld van de positie van ons team

in de toekomst van ons bedrijf.      Mijn direct leidinggevende

heeft een idee naar welke richting ons

(37)

37 team op dient te gaan. Mijn direct leidinggevende heeft een duidelijk beeld

van wat er van ons verwacht

wordt in de toekomst.

(38)

38 De lerende organisatie

De lerende organisatie bevorderd creativiteit, inspireert tot nieuwe kennis en ideeën, en verhoogt het vermogen om nieuwe kennis en ideeën te begrijpen en deze toe te passen. Onderstaande stellingen hebben betrekking op de lerende organisatie. Op een schaal van “geheel niet van toepassing” tot een schaal van “geheel van toepassing” kan aangegeven worden wat voor u van toepassing is op elke stelling.

Geheel mee oneens

eens Brandweer Kennemerland heeft, in de afgelopen drie jaar, veel nieuwe en relevante kennis verworven.      De medewerkers van brandweer Kennemerland hebben, in de afgelopen drie jaar, kritische capaciteiten en vaardigheden verworven.      Organisatorische verbeteringen van brandweer Kennemerland zijn de afgelopen drie jaar beïnvloed door de toetreding van nieuwe kennis.      Brandweer Kennemerland is een lerende organisatie.     

(39)

39 Organisatiecultuur brandweer Kennemerland

Onderstaande punten hebben betrekking op waarden/typeringen die van belang kunnen zijn binnen een organisatie. Door op alle 32 waarden te scoren wordt inzichtelijk welk type organisatiecultuur dominant aanwezig is binnen de brandweer Kennemerland. Op een schaal van “geheel niet belangrijk” tot een schaal van “zeer belangrijk” kunt u aangegeven hoe een waarde/typering scoort binnen de brandweer. Geef voor elke waarde aan in hoeverre u van mening bent dat deze belangrijk wordt gevonden door de organisatie:

Geheel niet belangrijk

Niet belangrijk

Neutraal Belangrijk Zeer

belangrijk Menselijke relaties, teamwork en cohesie      Inspraak van medewerkers en open discussie      Luisteren naar zorgen en ideeën van medewerkers      Medewerkers zelfstandig laten beslissen      Hoge moraal onder medewerkers      Loyaliteit      Vertrouwen en openheid      Vriendelijkheid      Centrale aansturing (slechts één of een paar mensen nemen de meeste beslissingen)      Voorspelbaarheid en zekerheid      Stabiliteit en continuïteit     

(40)

40 Behouden van de bestaande systemen en structuur      Controle houden over werkprocessen      Orde      Regels en voorschriften      Zekerheid en betrouwbaarheid      Flexibiliteit (het maken van uitzonderingen op de regels of plannen wanneer

dat nodig is)

     Innovatie en verandering      Uitbreiding en groei      Creatief oplossen van problemen      Decentralisatie (veel mensen hebben een stem

in de besluitvorming)

    

Het nemen van

risico      Het verstrekken van de nieuwste diensten, producten en technieken      Nieuwe ideeën      Taakgerichtheid      Efficiëntie, productiviteit en winstgevendheid      Excellente resultaten en kwaliteit      Vaststellen van     

(41)

41 doelstellingen en

verduidelijking van doelen Het afmaken van

werk     

Het behalen van

gestelde doelen     

Een competitieve

instelling     

(42)

42 Innovatie

Onderstaande omschrijvingen hebben betrekking op innovatie. Bij innovatie wordt uitgegaan van het hebben van een idee, het promoten van een idee en het realiseren van een idee. Op een schaal van “geheel niet van toepassing” tot een schaal van “geheel van toepassing” kan

aangegeven worden wat op u van toepassing is. Ik ben bezig met:

Geheel mee oneens

eens 1. Het creëren van nieuwe ideeën voor moeilijke vraagstukken (idee generatie)      2. Het zoeken van nieuwe werkmethoden, technieken of instrumenten (idee generatie)      3. Het genereren van originele oplossingen voor problemen (idee generatie)      4. Het mobiliseren van ondersteuning voor innovatieve ideeën (idee promotie)      5. Het verkrijgen van goedkeuring voor innovatieve ideeën (idee promotie)      6. Het creëren van enthousiasme bij belangrijke     

(43)

43 organisatieleden voor innovatieve ideeën (idee promotie) 7. Het omzetten van innovatieve ideeën in bruikbare toepassingen (idee realisatie)      8. Het invoeren van innovatieve ideeën in de werkomgeving op een systematische manier (idee realisatie)      9. Het evalueren van

het nut van innovatieve ideeën (idee realisatie)

(44)

44 Algemene vragen Welke sector bent u werkzaam voor?

 Repressie  P&P  P&N Wat is uw geslacht?  Man  Vrouw

(45)

45 Wat is uw leeftijd?  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62

(46)

46  63  64  65  66  67

Hoe lang bent u als beroeps werkzaam binnen de brandweer? (afgerond in jaren)

Hoe lang werkt u al met uw huidige leidinggevende? (afgerond In jaren)

Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek! Wanneer u vragen heeft naar aanleiding van deze enquête of over het onderzoek kunt u altijd contact opnemen met Harm Balder, hbalder@vrk.nl

The influence of vision, organizational learning and culture on innovative behaviour