"If your actions
inspire others to
dream more,
learn more, do
more and
become more,
you are a leader"
a study on Innovation Stimulating
Leader Behavior within the Public
Sector
June 28, 2015 Final Le Blanc, Manon M.F.G.L. 10499261 Frank D. Belschak Date Version Author Student nr. Supervisor University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Business SchoolExecutive Programme Management Studies Leadership and Organization
Acknowledgements
The rapid speed with which our society today is changing in tomorrow is challenging our public sector. We need to be better, smaller, faster, more efficient and deliver custom services at the same time. One of the fun parts of my job is looking for the key to unlock the potential that is present within our workforce, that will help us to create and accomplish the ideas needed to face the challenges of tomorrow. It has been a great pleasure to trail my curiosity by exploring the behavior that is key to the potential of my public sector colleagues. Knowledge that I will treasure for the rest of my professional life. During my research I had wonderful conversations on the subject and discovered qualities that were hidden to me before. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my interviewees for accepting my invite in the first place, and the open conversation that followed.
This thesis is the accomplishment of many. First of all I would like to thank CF as she believed in me and provided me with the opportunity to pursue my dream of getting a master’s degree. Without her this thesis would not be presented to you today. Secondly, I would like to thank my friends and family for keeping up with me while missing calls and birthdays and seeing more of the "back of my laptop than me". Thirdly, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Frank Belschak for the feedback that enhanced my thinking. And last but certainly not least, I owe my deepest gratitude to my better half, for his patience, support, love and care while I was typing the night away.
This thesis is a tribute to my parents who taught me that life is full of possibilities, which is proven again by the presentation of this thesis.
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Manon M.F.G.L. Le Blanc 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
Content
Abstract... 4
Chapter 1. Introduction ... 5
Chapter 2. Innovation ... 8
2.1. Innovation research ... 8
2.2. Comparing Public and Private organizations ... 9
Chapter 3. Innovative Work Behavior ... 12
Chapter 4. Leadership ... 14
4.1. General Leadership styles ... 14
4.2. Specific Leader behaviors ... 16
4.2.1. Prior research private sector ... 16
4.1.2. Prior research public sector ... 19
4.3. Summary ... 21
Chapter 5. Research design ... 24
5.1. Research method ... 24
5.2. Data collection ... 24
5.3. Validity ... 25
5.4. Data analyses ... 25
Chapter 6. Results ... 27
6.1. Role model for innovation... 28
6.2. Intellectually stimulate your employees ... 28
6.3. Stimulate knowledge diffusion ... 30
6.4. Provide a clear direction ... 31
6.5. Delegate to your employees ... 33
6.6. Be supportive for innovation ... 34
6.7. Provide your employees with feedback ... 36
6.8. Recognize innovative efforts ... 36
6.9. Reward innovative work behavior ... 38
6.10. Provide resources for innovation... 38
6.11. Assign tasks correspondingly ... 39
Chapter 7. Discussion ... 41
7.1. Organize work for innovation ... 41
7.2. Encourage employees ... 43
7.3. Be a sponsor for innovation ... 45
7.4. Summary ... 46
7.5. Implications for practice ... 49
7.6. Limitations and future research ... 49
Chapter 8. Conclusions ... 51
4
Abstract
The differences between private and public sector innovations, such as the source of revenues, the value delivered, the constraints that the organization experiences and the incentives for employees "make the public sector a far less fertile ground for innovation than the private sector". Public sector employees therefore seem to have to overcome larger barriers to innovate than private sector employees, as the public sector has less maneuver space for adjusting their mission, choosing their means and making mistakes along. Based on this, it can be concluded that leaders within the public sector are up for a delicate task when leading for innovation. This research focuses on exploring the leader behaviors needed to complete this task successfully.
Although a number of research studies on public sector innovations have been completed to better understand the enablers and obstructs of innovation within the public sector, the studies did not focus on the antecedent of leader behavior in particular. Therefore not all leader behaviors that contribute to the innovative work behavior of public sector employees had been inventoried up until now. The results of this thesis contribute to prior research on the antecedents that support or hinder innovation within the public sector by defining 11 leaders behaviors that contribute to an innovation strategy within the public sector, using the innovative work behavior of employees as a rationale for that linkage. Based on a literature research and a qualitative analyses of 17 (one-on-one) semi-structured in-depth interviews with leaders as well as employees it can be concluded that employees within the public sector foremost need a safe environment to innovate, where leaders organize the work for innovation, encourage employees to show innovative work behavior and sponsor them during the innovation process, especially when the innovation is challenged.
The results were compared to prior research on leader behaviors that stimulate innovative work behavior in the private sector to see whether there are differences. The findings suggest that the leader behaviors needed within the public sector context resemble the leader behaviors needed within the private sector. Though, based on the literature review and the findings it can be assumed that the impact on the innovative work behavior of employees differs between the sectors. Further research could address by using a quantitative approach.
5
Chapter 1. Introduction
According to research, leaders have a powerful influence on the behavior of their employees (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Yukl, 2002). Henry Kissinger once stated: “The task of a leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been”. Effective leadership means mobilizing and influencing followers in the required direction and is a mean for most companies to stimulate change and realize company ambitions (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Yukl, 2002; Gurdjian, Halbeisen & Lane, 2014). Schuler & Jackson (1987) state that employees should be managed differently depending on the business strategy. The strategy of the business is seen as the description of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an organization, and the policies and plans for carrying out those goals (Andrews & Roland, 1987; Grant, 1991; Mintzberg, 2003). As the organizational long-term goals and objectives of organizations change, employees may be asked to exhibit different behaviors (Schuler & Jackson, 1987). When pursuing an innovation strategy employees may be asked to explore opportunities, give new solutions to existing problems and develop and apply new ideas (Janssen, 2000; Schuler & Jackson, 1987; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). If employees are asked to change their behaviors aligned with the organizational objectives, leaders should conjointly adjust their behavior to remain effective (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). When innovation is an objective, leaders should adjust their behavior to support and enhance innovative work behavior of employees (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).
Although research has been done on the effect of leader behaviors on innovative employee behavior within the private sector, for instance on the positive effect of granting autonomy by leaders on the innovative behavior of employees (Krause, 2004; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007), less attention has been given to the effect of leader behavior on innovative employee behavior within the public sector (Borins, 2001; 2002; 2014; Mulgan & Albury, 2003; Albury, 2005; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Osborne, 1998; Hartley, 2005). Borins (2001, 2002) studied that a substantial amount of the innovations within the public sector are brought to life by public sector professionals showing innovative work behavior. As leaders have a powerful influence on the behavior of employees, it seems interesting to research which leader behavior is needed to stimulate innovative work behavior of employees within the public sector. It is interesting for a number of reasons: firstly, the source of resources, value delivered, constraints and the incentive systems that enhance or hinder employees to show innovative work behavior differ from the private sector (Fottler, 1981; Moore, 2000; Damanpour, 1991; Albury, 2005; Hartley, 2005;
6
Mulgan & Albury, 2003; Borins, 2001, 2002). Secondly, the public sector has been facing challenges that have forced the sector to innovate, while at the same time the public sector is obliged to sustain continuity and be accountable for the public and Parliament, that are eager to scrutinize the organization when innovation fails (Damanpour, 1991; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Mulgan & Albury, 2003; Borins, 2002; Albury, 2005; Hartley, 2005). Innovation within the public sector should be seen as crucial for the performance of the non-profit sector and not as a “luxury” (Albury, 2005; Borins, 2001, 2002; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990).
This thesis will build on the work of Den Jong & Den Hartog (2007) on the influence of leader behaviors on the innovative work behavior of private sector employees and on prior work on case studies of public sector innovations. Although a number of research studies (Borins, 2001; 2002; 2014; Mulgan & Albury, 2003; Albury, 2005; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Osborne, 1998; Hartley, 2005) have been completed to better understand the enablers and hinders of innovation within the public sector, they did not focus on the antecedent of leader behavior on innovative work behavior of public sector employees in specific. This thesis will add to the knowledge on the enablers and hinders of innovation within the public sector by exploring the needed leader behaviors that contribute to an innovation strategy in the public sector, using the innovative work behavior of employees as a rationale for that linkage. A better understanding of what kind of leader behavior is needed for public sector employees to show innovative behavior is important for the public sector to innovate successfully. Prior scholars stated that more research is needed to explore the processes which support and hinder innovation within the public sector (Borins, 2001; 2002; 2014; Mulgan & Albury, 2003; Albury, 2005; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Osborne, 1998; Hartley, 2005; West & Altink, 1996). Taking knowledge and expertise from research on strategy, organizational behavior and leadership within private and public contexts, this research can contribute to the knowledge on the roles that people play in the realization of organizational objectives (Wright et al., 1994).
The main question of this thesis, 'what leader behavior will contribute to an innovation strategy within the public sector, using the innovative work behavior of employees as a rationale for that linkage', will be answered through a literature review of the research on innovation within the private and public sector, the construct of innovative work behavior and the leader behaviors and antecedents that are researched to enhance the innovative work behavior of private an public sector employees. This literature research will be combined with a qualitative data analysis of semi-structured (one-on-one) interviews with leaders and semi-structured (one-on-one) interviews
7
with employees on the relation between the needed employee behavior and required leader behaviors within a public organization. Leaders as well as employees will be questioned in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the leader behaviors related to the innovative work behavior of employees within the public sector. This approach addresses a limitation of the research of De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) as the research of De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) only used leaders as a source of relevant leader behaviors. Employees - as the receiving end of the leader behavior - can provide an additional perspective on what the most desirable leader behavior is to stimulate their innovative work behavior. Additionally, conducting semi-structured interviews with leaders as well as employees will deepen prior research on the enablers and obstructs of innovation within the public sector through exploring the leader behavior as an antecedent that supports innovation within the public sector.
8
Chapter 2. Innovation
This chapter firstly describes innovation as a research field. It shortly discusses the origin and development of innovation research and the various perspectives on innovation. Secondly this chapter discusses the differences between the private and public sector and the effect of these differences concerning innovation. This thesis aims to explore the leader behaviors that contribute to an innovation strategy within the public sector using the innovative work behavior of employees as a rationale for that linkage, and to make a comparison with the leader behavior researched to contribute to innovation within the private sector.
2.1. Innovation research
While innovation is as old as mankind, the study of innovation as a separate research field has only started in the twentieth century (Schumpeter, 1934; Fagerberg, 2003). Schumpeter (1934) was among the first to recognize innovation, the creation and implementation of something new, as an instrument for the development of economic value. Innovation research has for a long time been dominated by the economics research field but has developed a broader foundation with the expansion to research fields like administrative science, communications, psychology and sociology (West & Altink, 1996; Tidd, 2001; Fagerberg, 2003). Innovation consists of various ingredients and is a result of continuing interaction between these ingredients (Fagerberg, 2003). Innovation has been defined as "a complex activity which proceeds from the conceptualization of a new idea to a solution of the problem and the actual utilization of economic or social value" (Myers & Marquis, 1969). An innovation could be a new product or service, or a new technology, administrative system or plan relating to organizational members and intended to contribute to organizational performance (Damanpour, 1991). Innovation is a process "through which new ideas, objects and practices are created, developed or reinvented" (Rogers, 1995). An innovation strategy is used to develop products and services that are new and different from those of competitors, in order to gain an advantage within the competitive market (Porter, 2008).
Innovation research can be approached from various perspectives, depending on the unit of analysis. Object based studies address the innovation itself, while subject-based innovation studies focus on the actors within the innovation process, such as the industry, organization or individual (De Jong & Vermeulen, 2005). Innovation can also be distinguished into several types, such as the product, process, administrative and technical types of innovation (Knight, 1967; Evan, 1966; Damanpour & Evan, 1984; Damanpour, 1991; Tidd, 2001; Fagerberg, 2003; Friedrich et al.,
9
2010). While product innovation is used to characterize the development of new goods and services, process innovations are improvements in the ways these goods and services are produced (Fagerberg, 2003; Tidd, 2001; Friedrich et al., 2010). The division into administrative and technical innovations relates to distinctions between social structures and technologies and includes product as well as process innovations (Evan, 1966). Technical innovations relate directly to the activities of an organization in the development of products and services and the technology of the production process. Administrative innovations involve organizational structure and administrative processes, which are indirectly related to activities of an organization and are more directly related to its management (Damanpour & Evan, 1984; Knight, 1967). Another distinction that can be made is the scope of innovation, whether the innovation is new to the world, the industry, the community or just the organization (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). What prior research on innovation has in common is the development of something new, a process, product, service, program or plan, the utilization of this new element to add value and a benefit reaping component. As this thesis approaches innovation subject based, focused on the behavior of the actor 'leader' within the innovation process, it will follow prior research and define the pursuing of an innovation strategy as 'a long term goal of an organization for the purpose of this thesis as all organizational activities related to developing new products, services, processes, programs or plans and implementing these in order to utilize economic or social value for the organization' (Myers & Marquis, 1969; Damanpour, 1991; Fagerberg, 2003).
2.2. Comparing Public and Private organizations
For the past decades scholars have tried to define a 'best practice' for managing and organizing innovation, as policy makers and business leaders are eager to learn how to foster innovation (Fagerberg, 2003). Innovation has been rated by executives as one of the most important activities in "maintaining long-term organizational viability" (Friedrich et al., 2010). A common 'best practice' for all sectors how to manage and organize innovation has not been found, as the best practice of innovation management seems contingent on a range of factors such as the environment and organizational configurations (Fagerberg, 2003; Tidd, 2001; Damanpour, 1991). For instance the type of organization or the extra organizational context such as the industry influences the innovativeness of an organization (Damanpour, 1991; Tidd, 2001). The definition of innovation within an private sector context leans more to 'producing and delivering the most unique products and services amongst competitors in order to gain competitive advantage', as the stick is fear of
10
extinction resembling a dinosaur (Porter, 1985, 2008; Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Hartley, 2005). Innovation within the public sector is however less clearly defined, as it is not necessarily linked to a new psychical product and survival, but more focused on improving the relations between the governmental organization and its service users through new services, processes, programs or plans (Hartley, 2005; Albury, 2005). The majority of research on public sector innovation are case studies on innovations identified by innovation awards which have led to conclusions on the enablers and obstructs of innovation within the public sector (Borins, 2001; 2002; Mulgan & Albury, 2003; Albury, 2005; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Hartley, 2005). Some scholars conclude that innovation efforts conflict with traditional values such as stability and accountability, others conclude that innovation is a necessary mean for the public sector to improve the services delivered (Terry, 1998; Borins, 2001; Albury, 2005; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990). Although innovation within the public sector tends to take longer and is arguably slower, the public sector is far from not innovating at all (Borins, 2001; 2002; Albury, 2005).
Scholars describe the source of revenues, the value delivered, the constraints that the organization experiences and the incentives for employees as key differences between the private and public sector (Fottler, 1981; Damanpour, 1991; Moore, 2000; Borins, 2002; Albury, 2005; Hartley, 2005; Mulgan & Albury, 2003). Organizations within both sectors need to attend to adding value for the audience that supplies their resources in order to survive. Private organizations deliver what customers want through a market mechanism, as the decision of customers to purchase the goods and services are at the core of the revenues delivered to shareholders (Moore, 2000; Damanpour, 1991). Public organizations are on the other hand obliged to deliver a mission that the public - represented by politicians - has requested and pays taxes for. These missions can be less easily translated to financial targets as they are defined by the value that is produced for the society at large such as 'ensure a safe living environment for all citizens' (Moore, 2000; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Damanpour, 1991). Services concerning that mission are only delivered when the public has defined them as publicly valuable (Moore, 2000; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Borins, 2001). In sum, a public sector is striving to achieve its mission rather than to increase its revenues. Moore (2000) recapped this crucial difference as "in public sector organizations, money is the means to a desired social end. In the private sector, the products and services delivered are the means to the end of making money". This makes that a private organization has the liberty to turn to any mean, as long as they create revenues, while a public organization has to perform within the boundaries of the mission that they are held accountable for
11
by the public (Moore, 2000; Fottler, 1981; Perry & Rainy, 1988; Hartley, 2005). Borins (2001) concluded that these differences "makes the public sector a far less fertile ground for innovation than the private sector".
12
Chapter 3. Innovative Work Behavior
A comprehensive study of Borins (2001) within the public sector showed that innovation emerges from all employee levels which calls for research on how to enhance this innovative work behavior. Innovative work behavior is a set of individual behaviors with which employees intentionally introduce innovations (Farr & Ford, 1990). It is being on the lookout for promising ideas and knowing how to utilize these for the benefit of your organization (Altshuler & Zegans, 1990). Part of this behavior is overlapping creativity, as it concerns the development of new ideas for products, services, processes and programs (Amabile, 1996). Creativity of employees has been researched as employees focusing on the development of new ideas concerning products, services, processes and plans (Amabile, 1996). Though innovative work behavior and creativity have a certain overlap, innovative work behavior constructs, contradictory to creative behavior, dimensions of the intension of adding value and the behavior of not only coming up with ideas but also applying them (Schumpeter, 1934; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Amabile, 1996). Unlike creativity, innovative work behavior is supposed to reap a benefit through the addition of the application dimension (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Creativity can be seen as the first dimension within the construct of innovative work behavior (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Research on the dimensions of innovative work behavior is still in development. Various scholars have tried to develop a multidimensional construct but found primarily high correlations between the dimensions of innovative work behavior within a one-dimensional construct (Janssen, 2000; Kleysen & Street, 2001; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). The dimensions of innovative work behavior are often linked to the different stages of the innovation process, the activities that need to be carried out in order to successfully develop new processes, products, services, programs or plans (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Zaltman et al., 1973; King & Anderson, 2002). De Jong & Den Hartog (2010) operationalized the exploration, generation, championing and implementation of ideas as four potential dimensions of innovative work behavior. Scholars prior to them defined innovative work behavior as a two-dimensional construct such as the initiation and application of new ideas (Farr & Ford, 1990) and the idea generation and idea application (Krause, 2004), or a three-dimensional construct as the idea generation, coalition building and idea realization (Scott & Bruce, 1994) and the idea generation, promotion and implementation (Janssen, 2000). Although the construct of innovative work behavior is theoretically treated as multi-dimensional, most researchers conclude that the different dimensions of the construct of innovative work behavior are highly correlated and that the construct of innovative work behavior should for now be handled as a one-dimensional,
13
covering different behavioral aspects (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Janssen, 2000; Kleysen & Street, 2001; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Although there is no strong evidence for innovative work behavior being a multi-dimensional construct, based on prior research it can be concluded that innovation is not just a new idea, but it is a practice of coming up and implementing these new ideas (Zaltman et al., 1973; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Janssen, 2000; Kleysen & Street, 2001; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010).
Given the objective of this study and in line with the empirical evidence, innovative work behavior will be treated as a one-dimensional construct. Within this one-dimensional construct, innovative work behavior can be seen as the intentional behaviors that are needed to complete the activities within the stages of the innovation process (Zaltman et al., 1973; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). This thesis follows the suggestion by De Jong & Den Hartog (2010), who were inspired by Janssen (2000), Kleysen & Street (2001) and Scott & Bruce (1994), an defines innovative work behavior as a mix of behaviors covering different dimensions reflecting the innovation process. These dimensions consist out of activities related to the exploration and generation of new ideas concerning products, services, processes, programs or plans or the improvement of current ones to solve identified problems and help to enter new markets, the championing behavior of pushing ideas beyond internal roadblocks and the realization of new ideas by building coalitions, being persistent and expressing enthusiasm, confidence and a result-oriented attitude (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Janssen, 2000; Kleysen & Street, 2001; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). The construct of innovative work behavior developed by Den Hartog & De Jong (2010) is used as a rationale for the link between the long-term objective of innovation within the public sector and the desired innovation-stimulating behavior of public sector leaders. The use of this construct provides the opportunity to explore whether there are noteworthy differences between desirable private and public leader behaviors as the source of revenues, value delivered, constraints and the incentives for employees result in larger barriers for public organizations and their employees to innovate compared to the private sector (Fottler, 1981; Damanpour, 1991; Moore, 2000; Borins, 2002; Albury, 2005; Hartley, 2005; Mulgan & Albury, 2003).
14
Chapter 4. Leadership
One of the means to enhance innovative work behavior is leadership, as leaders influence employees towards achieving the desired objectives (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Yukl, 2002; Gurdjian, Halbeisen & Lane, 2014). Leadership is "the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively" (Yukl, 2002). Over the last decades much research has been devoted to the topic leadership. After decades of research devoted to the identification of specific physical, ability and personality trait characteristics of the ideal leader, research shifted to the behavior of an ideal leader. This style approach to leadership changed the perspective of stable characteristics by birth to an ideal behavioral pattern of leaders (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Within this thesis research the behavioral approach to leadership will be addressed as the aim is to understand the specific leader behaviors that positively influence the - for an innovation strategy needed - innovative work behavior of employees (Zaltman et al., 1973; Schuler & Jackson, 1987). This chapter expands on leadership as a mean for companies to stimulate innovation, as leaders and their behavior is at the core of this thesis research. It firstly addresses general leadership styles that include leader behaviors that influence the innovative work behavior of employees. Secondly it provides an overview of the research on specific leader behaviors within the private sector and the research on the enablers of innovation within the public sector.
4.1. General Leadership styles
The impact of leaders on the innovative work behavior of employees seems intuitive, though most behavioral leadership studies explore the performance outcomes of leader behavior rather than strategy-related outcomes (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Prior research on the relation between leader behaviors and innovative work behavior and leader behavior and creativity, as one of the dimensions of innovative work behavior, mostly focused on theory-based leadership styles. Four of these leadership styles, transactional and transformational leadership, participative leadership and the leader-member exchange theory, and their influence on innovative work behavior of employees are described.
Transformational leaders with inspirational leadership qualities are visionary, trustworthy and inspirational messengers (Bass, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993). Leaders with transformational qualities are researched to intellectually stimulate their followers to question the status quo and influence them to pursue goals that are past self-interest (Scott & Bruce, 1998; Bass; 1985; 1999).
15
Transformational leadership consists out of four dimensions, charisma, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and inspirational motivation (Bass, 1985; 1999). Leader with charisma are high regarded by their followers and inspire employees to follow them (Bass, 1985; 199; Oke; 2009). With inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders shape the responses of followers to problems and motivate them to pursue the problems that are worth pursuing, which is likely to stimulate innovative work behavior (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Mumford et al., 2002; Friedrich et al., 2010; Bass, 1985, 1999; Oke et al., 2009). Transformational leaders show individual consideration as they focus on the wellbeing of the employee and their ambitions and support needed (Bass, 1985, 1999; Oke et al., 2009). Transformational leader are able to increase the number of ideas and the variation among these ideas (Jung, 2001). However, the impact of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior has also been shown to be negative, as leaders that present a clear vision would inhibit employees from developing innovative ideas of their own (Mumford & Licuanan, 2004). Also Jaussi & Dionne (2003) have found that transformational leadership can have a negative effect on the creative behavior of employees. On the other hand, transformational leaders are attributed to be more willing to support new ideas and could therefore be contributing to the innovative work behavior of employees (Mumford & Licuanan, 2004). Although scholars researched that transformational leaders enhance the creativity more than transactional leaders do, some aspects of transactional leadership are researched to enhance the innovative work behavior. Transactional leaders perform contingency rewards and management by exchange, as they exchange resources for the employee’s effort on needed role behaviors (Oke et al., 2009; Scott & Bruce, 1998). Transactional leaders who plan en assign tasks and clarify the standard to be met are researched to enhance the innovative work behavior of employees, as the sense making provides a direction (Mumford et al., 2002; Oke et al., 2009). However, detailed plans can hinder the creative process as it increases the control placed on employees to explore and generate ideas (Mumford et al., 2002). Both transactional and transformational leader, as they are at both ends of a continuum, have aspects that positively and negatively influence the innovative work behavior of employees (Bass, 1999; Mumford et al., 2002; Scott & Bruce, 1998; Mumford & Licuanan, 2004; Jaussi & Dionne, 2003; Oke et al., 2009).
Leader Member exchange is a leadership style that can include both of the transformational and transactional behaviors, as it includes the relation on the exchange of resources and efforts as well as the exchange of more non-contractual elements such as support and trust (Scott & Bruce, 1998). The latter will provide a context in which employees will be more motivated to explore and
16
generate ideas (Scott & Bruce, 1998; Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999). The quality of the relation between a leader and a member, described through the Leader-Member exchange theory (LMX) has been researched to have a positive effect on the innovative work behavior of employees, as employees in these relationships are granted with more autonomy, support and opportunities to show innovative work behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1998; Basu & Green, 1997). The interaction between leaders and employees encourages and supports employees to explore and generate ideas (Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999; Basu & Green, 1997). Leaders that establish a relationship within their employees are researched to enhance the commitment of their employees, which leads to higher motivation (Basu & Green, 1997). Amabile (1996) researched that employees who are more motivated are more creative. Participative leaders involve employees in decision-making and grant autonomy to design their tasks (Yukl, 2002). Krause (2004) found empirical evidence for a positive relationship between leaders that provide freedom and autonomy and involve employees in decision-making and the innovative work behavior of employees. Individuals are more likely to show innovative work behavior when they have freedom and autonomy due to extensive delegation as this improves the perception of control over a situation and the perceived ability to be able to try out new and improved ways of doings things (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Kraus, 2004; West & Altink, 1996).
4.2. Specific Leader behaviors
4.2.1. Prior research private sector
Although these leadership styles have behavioral aspects that enhance innovative work behavior, these theory-based leadership styles cannot be fully applied to the leadership of innovation (Mumford & Licuanan, 2004; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Based on prior research De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) conclude that most studies on "the connection between leadership and innovative work behavior have explored the role of theory-based leadership styles that were originally developed for the purpose of assessing the impact of leader behavior on performance or effectiveness instead of innovation related outcomes". Following this conclusion, De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) developed a multi-dimensional construct of innovation-stimulating leadership that include leader behaviors that influence innovative work behavior. According to De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) no conclusions on a set of leader behaviors that enhances innovative work behavior can be drawn yet based on research prior to theirs. Building on this conclusion their aim was to
17
provide insight on "what particular leader behaviors are likely to enhance employees’ innovative work behavior" (Den Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). The overview of innovation-stimulating leader behaviors as result of their research are based on the established 'managerial practices' of Yukl (2002), that represent a description of what leaders do in their daily work and prior research on single leader behaviors part of the patterns consisting theory-based leadership styles. De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) define innovation-stimulating leadership as "all leader behaviors that stimulate individuals to initiate and intentionally introduce new and useful ideas, processes, products and procedures within their work role, group or organization."
The intellectual stimulation of employees, challenging them to be non-conformist to the status quo stimulates the exploration and generation of new ideas (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Friedrich et al., 2010; Bass, 1985, 1999; Oke et al., 2009). Leaders that consult and involve employees in decision-making have been researched to stimulate the exploration and generation of innovative ideas of employees (Yukl, 2002; 2006; Krause, 2004; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Leader support towards an innovative effort has been researched to have a positive effect on the innovative work behavior and motivation to innovate, which leads to more creative behavior of employees (Yukl, 2002; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Krause, 2004; Amabile, 1996). The support of employees is especially needed during the implementation of an innovation, as mistakes should not lead to a reprimand but should be used as a learning opportunity for the organization (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Oke et al., 2009). Individual employees are motivated to explore and manipulate their environment and are creative in doing so but need to be feel secure and safe in order to show innovative work behavior (West & Altink, 1996). De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) found that "when you do not support your subordinates when problems arise, you can forget successful innovation". De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) concluded that providing resources leads to application of new ideas. "Being enthusiastic about an idea is one thing, but employees will not believe you if you do not come up with the resources to develop it" (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Individuals will additionally be more likely to show innovative work behavior if they perceive that it will pay-off (Farr & Ford, 1990). Rewarding includes giving compliments, awards and organizing ceremonies (Yukl, 2002; Farr & Ford, 1990).
Furthermore the recognition of ideas enhances the idea generation and application behavior of employees (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Leaders are indicated to positively influence innovative work behavior by emphasizing the importance of innovation and encouraging creativity (Mumford, 2002; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Shalley and Gilson (2004) found that if employees
18
experience that innovation is an important topic within the organization, they are more likely to show the expected behavior. Researchers concluded that role modelling by leaders encourages risk-taking by employees and increases the desired behavior of employees, as its shows employees which behavior is expected and valued (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003; Bandura, 1986). The innovative work behavior of employees is enhanced by leader behavior that tends to provide a vision on the role and preferred type of innovations, providing focus for employees to innovate (Den Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Oke et al., 2009). Providing direction for future activities of employees support the effective implementation of innovations (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Oke et al., 2009). Next, appropriate assignment of tasks can positively influence innovative work behavior as an appropriate task can provide a challenge for employees (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Oke et al., 2009). On the other hand, too many directions and excessive monitoring behavior can also hinder the innovative work behavior of an employee. Employees require autonomy and control over their work in order for them to utilize their creativity and innovativeness (Krause, 2004; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Oke et al., 2009). Providing informal feedback is researched to be stimulating as it creates the opportunity to develop and improve the idea. The diffusion on knowledge between employees will enhance the creativity of employees, it provides the ability to get acquainted with various perspectives (Perry-Smith, 2006; Mumford et al., 2002). When leaders stimulate the diffusion of knowledge, employees will be more creative (Mumford et al., 2002)
Based on prior literature and a research on the leaders behaviors that influence the innovative work behavior of employees, De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) concluded that the behaviors summarized in Table 1. can have a positive influence on the innovative work behavior of private sector employees.
Table 1: Innovation-stimulating leader behavior private sector
Positive influence on innovative work behavior (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007) 1. role modelling - being an example of innovative behavior
2. intellectual stimulation - teasing subordinates to come up with ideas and to evaluate current practices
3. stimulation of knowledge diffusion
- stimulating open and transparent communication, introducing supportive communication structures 4. providing a vision - communicating an explicit vision on the role and
preferred type of innovation, providing directions for future activities
5. consulting employees - checking with people before initiating changes that may affect them, incorporating their ideas and suggestions in decisions
6. delegating to employees - giving subordinates sufficient autonomy to determine relatively independently how to do a job
19
7. being supportive for innovation - acting friendly to innovative employees, being patient and helpful, listening, looking out for someone’s interests if problems arise
8. organizing feedback - ensuring feedback on concepts and first trials, providing feedback to employees, asking customers for their opinion
9. recognizing the efforts - showing appreciation for innovative performances 10. rewarding employees that show
innovative work behavior
- providing financial/material rewards for innovative performances
11. provide resources for innovation - providing time and money to implement ideas 12. assigning tasks - providing employees with challenging tasks, make
allowance for employees’ commitment when assigning tasks
4.1.2. Prior research public sector
Prior research within the private sector shows that stimulating innovative work behavior requires continuous consideration from leaders, as employees need to be stimulated, supported and guided throughout the innovation process. Adding the constraints that the public sector experiences, it can be concluded that leaders within the public sector are up for a delicate task. Unfortunately there is much less research on the needed leader behavior to stimulate innovation within the public sector than within the private sector. Based on literature research on private sector innovations and case studies on public sector innovations identified by innovation awards, public sector scholars made recommendations on the enablers and obstructs of innovation within the public sector (Borins, 2001; 2002; 2014; Mulgan & Albury, 2003; Albury, 2005; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Osborne, 1998; Hartley, 2005). This prior research includes recommendations on the role that the political and senior executives play in successful innovations within the public sector, such as the managerial attitude towards change (Damanpour, 1991), the autonomy that employees should have in order to innovate (Borins, 2002; Albury, 2005), the support that innovations need to succeed (Borins, 2002; Damanpour, 1991; Albury, 2005; Mulgan & Albury, 2003) and the learning experiences that enhance creativity (Borins, 2001; Albury, 2005; Mulgan & Albury, 2003). However, more research is needed to explore the enablers and hinders for innovation within the public sector, as the extra organizational context and organizational configurations of the public sector have an effect on the ability of public sector employees to show innovative work behavior. The higher degree of external control on the activities of the public sector for instance hinder employees in showing innovative work behavior (Borins, 2002; Damanpour, 1991; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990). "While business leaders are focusing on innovation as a key competitive success, government policy makers are preoccupied with damage control"
20
(Altshuler & Zegans, 1990). The high external control furthermore has an effect on the internal bureaucratic structure, the level on which decisions are made as well as the formal rules and procedures used to achieve the mission for instance decrease the ability and involvement of public sector employees when it comes to innovation (Borins, 2002; Fottler, 1981; Damanpour, 1996 Altshuler & Zegans, 1990). Through centralization and formalization employees are not encouraged to generate new ideas as the availability of information is limited and rules are inflexible, just as the job descriptions (Damanpour, 1996; Borins, 2002). Public sector employees have less to gain from innovating and are more at risk, as the penalties for the violation of standard procedures are perceived as severe as the media’s and opposition parties’ interest in exposing failures is high (Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Borins, 2002; Rainey, 1979; Fottler, 1981; Perry & Rainy, 1988; Albury, 2005). Resources also have, in comparison to the private sector, a tentative character. Budgetary control agencies have the mandate to recapture cost savings which hinders public organizations in classifying funds for innovative efforts to come (Borins, 2001; Albury, 2005).
Considering this, public sector employees seem to have to overcome larger barriers to innovate than private sector employees as the public sector has less maneuver space for adjusting their mission, choosing their means and making mistakes along (Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Borins, 2002). However, the public sector faces challenges that forces the sector to innovate (Borins, 2002; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Albury, 2005). It therefore seems necessary to find out more about how innovative work behavior within the public sector can be stimulated. Although public sector employees are more likely to be punished for failures than rewarded for successes by politicians and media, research on the enablers and obstructs of innovation within the public sector by scholars as Mulgan & Albury (2003), Altshuler & Zegans (1990) and Borins (2000; 2001; 2014) concluded that employees within the public sector are motivated to be innovative and succeed with support of authority. Public sector scholars propose that making the organizational objectives clear to encourage employees to act innovative, consulting employees in decision-making processes and recognizing and rewarding the innovative effort through for instance innovation awards had contributed to the success of the innovations (Borins, 2002; Damanpour, 1991; Albury, 2005). On other case studies, Borins (2002) and Albury (2005) concluded that the fact that the innovation had been identified as an award finalist partially had to do with providing the initiators with resources and the autonomy that they needed to develop and implement the innovative idea. Scholars also concluded that innovations initiated by public sector employees had positive relationships with support of their immediate leader, who protected and ensured that innovative
21
projects would have a fair chance within the organization (Borins, 2002; Mulgan & Albury, 2003). This support is necessary as "innovation requires advocates and often become the subject of debate within an organization" (Borins, 2002; Damanpour, 1991; Albury, 2005). Innovation is a process of trial and error. This means that despite the fear of public scrutiny, experimentation should be supported and learning experiences that are at the root of innovations should be stimulated (Yukl, 2002; Borins, 2001; Albury, 2005; Mulgan & Albury, 2003). Furthermore encouraging learning experiences inside and outside the organization, such as joining conferences and stimulating the diffusion of knowledge within the organization by for instance diversity in working groups are according to Borins (2001, 2002), Damanpour (1991), Albury (2005) and Mulgan & Albury (2003) configurations that should be used to support innovations, as they enhance the creative process when solving problems. The recommendations made by prior public sector researches as described above are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Recommendations on how to stimulate innovation within the public sector
Positive influence on innovative work behavior (Borins, 2001; 2002; 2014; Mulgan & Albury, 2003; Albury, 2005; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Osborne, 1998; Hartley, 2005)
1. stimulation of knowledge diffusion
- stimulating open and transparent communication, introducing supportive communication structures 2. consulting employees - checking with people before initiating changes that
may affect them, incorporating their ideas and suggestions in decisions
3. making the organizational objectives clear
- establish the department’s priorities, providing a focus for innovators
4. delegation - giving subordinates sufficient autonomy to determine relatively independently how to do a job
5. being supportive for innovation - acting friendly to innovative employees, being patient and helpful, listening, looking out for someone’s interests if problems arise
6. stimulate experimentation - stimulate the development of a wide variety of approaches and learn from the failures that inevitably will occur
7. stimulate learning experiences - stimulate learning experiences inside and outside the organization by visiting conferences, congresses 8. provide resources for innovation - providing time and money to implement ideas 9. recognizing the efforts - showing appreciation for innovative performances 10. rewarding employees that show
innovative work behavior
- providing financial/material rewards for innovative performances
4.3. Summary
The recommendations of public sector scholars based on their analyses on the characteristics of public sector innovations have resemblances with the leader behaviors that are researched by De
22
Jong & Den Hartog (2007) to stimulate innovative work behavior of private sector employees. Similar to the results within the private sector, the results on the analyses of the public sector case studies show that consulting and delegating to employees, recognizing and rewarding innovative efforts and providing resources and support are stimuli for innovation within the public sector. 'Providing a vision' as a leader behavior within the private sector differs slightly from the recommendation for public sector organizations of 'making the organizational objectives clear', as the vision that private sector literature mentions is related to the innovation itself, while the 'organizational objective' is an establishment of the department’s mission, providing a focus for innovators (Borins, 2001; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Additionally, literature research shows that learning experiences inside and outside the organization and the stimulation of experimentation is proposed as stimulating to public sector employees, while behaviors such as organizing feedback, assigning tasks, role modelling and intellectual stimulation, as results of private sector research, are up until this moment not mentioned within the public sector context (Borins, 2001; 2002; Mulgan & Albury, 2003; Albury, 2005; Altshuler & Zegans, 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Hartley, 2005).
Although prior research of public sector scholars on the enablers and obstructs of innovation within the public sector shows resemblance with the research on leader behaviors that stimulate innovative work behavior, it did not focus on the antecedent of leader behavior within the public sector context in particular. An additional qualitative study is therefore needed to define the leader behaviors that contribute to the innovative work behavior of public sector employees as the extra organizational context and organizational configurations of the public sector have an effect on the ability of public sector employees to show innovative work behavior and could hinder the public sector to innovate successfully. This research focusses on the leader behaviors when pursuing an innovation strategy within the public sector, using employees needed innovative behavior as a rationale for that linkage. The main question of this thesis is:
What leader behavior positively contributes to the realization of an innovation strategy within the public sector, using the innovative work behavior of employees as a rationale for that linkage?
To answer the main question, all stimuli brought up by public as well as private sector literature will be utilized as potential leader behaviors that could stimulate innovative work behavior within the public sector. Based on the prior research within the private and public sector and the results of
23
the exploration as part of this thesis, conclusions can be drawn on a set of leader behaviors that will stimulate employees within the public sector to show innovative work behavior. Additionally it will address whether the existing research on innovation stimulating leader behavior within the private sector is also applicable to public organizations, or whether an innovation strategy within the public sector requires different leader behaviors. The overview of the private and public sector stimuli of innovation is presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Overview of stimuli for innovation PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR
1. stimulation of knowledge diffusion 2. stimulate learning experiences 3. stimulate experimentation 4. role modelling
5. intellectual stimulation 6. providing a vision
7. making the organizational objectives clear 8. consulting employees
9. delegating to employees 10. being supportive for innovation 11. organizing feedback
12. recognizing the efforts
13. rewarding employees that show innovative work behavior
14. provide resources for innovation 15. assigning tasks
24
Chapter 5. Research design
Chapter 5 describes the research design of this thesis. It addresses the research method, how the data is collected, the validity of this thesis research an how the data is analyzed.
5.1. Research method
The main question of this thesis will be answered through a qualitative data analyses starting with a literature review of the research on innovation, innovative work behavior and the leader behaviors that are researched to enhance the innovative work behavior of employees within the private and public sector (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). This literature research will be combined with an explorative case study on a public organization through the use of semi-structured (one-on-one) interviews with leaders and semi-structured (one-(one-on-one) interviews with employees on the relation between the needed employee behavior and required leader behaviors (Yin, 2009). This approach suits the explorative character of the research question (Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1989; Saunders & Thornhill, 2012). Interviews are particularly useful for getting the story behind a participant's experiences as in-depth information around the topic can be gathered. Leaders as well as employees will be questioned in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the leader behaviors related to the innovative work behavior of employees within the public sector. Through the analyses of the data collected through interviews this thesis research will explore which leader behaviors are needed when pursuing an innovation strategy in the public sector, using the innovative work behavior of employees as a rationale for that linkage, and to what extent these leadership behaviors are different from the behaviors needed in the private sector.
5.2. Data collection
The case study is embedded within a large public central government organization that marked innovation as one of their long-term objectives but is not identified as an award winner, while having responsibilities that require continuity and are at the core interest of the media, public and Parliament. Nine leaders and eight1 employees were approached as cases through purposive
sampling with regard to diversity aspects such as gender, detachment and position (Eisenhardt, 1989). Each respondent was approached as either a leader or an employee. The leaders that were selected all lead (groups of) employees as part of their daily work. The interviewees were approached personally. The in total 17 interviews of approximately 45 minutes were held using a
1 Nine interviews with employees were conducted. Though due to theft of the recording machine, one interview with an employee was lost before it was transcribed.
25
semi-structured format. Leaders and employees were encouraged to speak freely about their experiences with innovations and the leader behavior that stimulated or hindered innovative work behavior. To explore the needed leader behavior when pursuing an innovation strategy, using innovative work behavior of employees as a rationale, the following leading questions were asked to leaders:
"Kun je een voorbeeld beschrijven van een situatie waarin (een van) je medewerkers (het zojuist beschreven) innovatief werkgedrag vertoonde? Wat heb jij als leidinggevende in deze situatie(s) gedaan, wat heb je gedaan om het innovatief gedrag van je medewerker te bevorderen? Wat doe je om het innovatief werkgedrag van je medewerkers te bevorderen? Wat had je nog meer of beter kunnen doen om je medewerkers te ondersteunen bij het tonen van innovatief gedrag? Heb je nog een voorbeeld? Is er nog iets wat je denkt dat interessant kan zijn voor mijn onderzoek?" Correspondingly, employees were asked:
"Kun je me vertellen over wanneer heb jij voor de laatste keer (het zojuist beschreven) innovatief gedrag hebt vertoond en kun je beschrijven wat je toen deed? Kun je me aangeven wat je leidinggevende toen heeft gedaan? Wat had je leidinggevende volgens jou nog meer of beter kunnen doen om je te ondersteunen bij het tonen van innovatief gedrag? Heb je nog een voorbeeld? Wat voor gedrag van je leidinggevende draagt bij aan jouw innovatief gedrag? Is er nog iets wat je denkt dat interessant kan zijn voor mijn onderzoek?"
The responses of the participants were coded to ensure the anonymity of the interviewees. An interview guide served as support during the interviews. The interviews were recorded and transcribed into interview reports.
5.3. Validity
The construct validity of this thesis is assured through the use of multiple sources to determine the needed leader behaviors. This approach addresses a limitation of the research of De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) as this study only used leaders as a source of relevant leader behaviors.
Credibility of the research is ensured through a clear research framework and replication logic of the explorative research done (Yin, 2009). To ensure the correct interpretation of the data, the transcripts and findings were shared with the interviewees.
5.4. Data analyses
The interviews were recorded and transcribed into interview reports. The next step is data reduction (Miles & Huberman, 1984). The analyses of the interview data was conducted through a deductive approach, first using a coding list consisting of stimulating leader behaviors and enablers of innovative work behavior within the private and public sector as described in the theoretical chapter (for a summary see Table 4. below). Coding reduces the data and conducts condensation of the data (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Based on the behaviors on the coding list relevant
26
segments within the interview data were assigned, in order to explore the set of needed leader behaviors that enhance the innovative work behavior of employees within the public sector. Segments varied from one to multiple sentences.
Table 4: Coding list based on prior research PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR
1. stimulation of knowledge diffusion 2. stimulate learning experiences 3. stimulate experimentation 4. role modelling
5. intellectual stimulation 6. providing a vision
7. making the organizational objectives clear 8. consulting employees
9. delegating to employees 10. being supportive for innovation 11. organizing feedback
12. recognizing the efforts
13. rewarding employees that show innovative work behavior
14. provide resources for innovation 15. assigning tasks
To distinct the statements made by leaders and employees, an 'L' or 'E' was added to the code. Throughout the process of coding the interview data existing codes were merged, as through the coding process appeared that the statements that were brought up in the interviews had intersections with several codes on the initial coding list. After all data was coded, a final examination of the interview data was done to ensure that all relevant segments of data were used. The analyses, assigning the segments of interview data to codes was done with support of the software program NVivo. To support the process of coding the data a manual check has been done to ensure that the coding process was done adequate and all segments of interview data were assigned to the appropriate code. Welsch (2002) concluded that a combination of both manual and NVivo is likely to lead to the best results.
27
Chapter 6. Results
This chapter presents the findings from the analyses of the interview data. It addresses the leader behaviors that positively contribute to the realization of an innovation strategy within the public sector, using the innovative work behavior of employees as a rationale for that linkage. Based on prior research within the private and public sector and the results of the research as part of this thesis, conclusions can be drawn concerning innovation stimulating leader behavior within the public sector and the differences between the leaders behavior that stimulate innovate work behavior within the private and public sector. The data shows 11 leader behaviors that enhance the innovative work behavior of employees. The leader behaviors found are summarized in Table 5. below.
Table 5: Results data analyses on innovation stimulating leader behavior within the public sector Positive influence on innovative work behavior
1. role model for innovation - be an example of innovative behavior, explore, generate, champion and implement ideas yourself.
2. intellectually stimulate your employees
- intellectually stimulate your employees by teasing them to come up with ideas and to evaluate current practices - incorporate the ideas of employees and suggestions to
solve problems that arise 3. provide your employees
with feedback
- ensure feedback on concepts and first trials, provide feedback to employees, ask questions
4. stimulation of knowledge diffusion and learning experiences
- stimulate open and transparent communication and introduce supportive communication structures - support learning experiences inside and outside the
organization
5. provide a clear direction - establish the department’s priorities, providing a focus for employees
6. assign tasks correspondingly
- provide employees with challenging and profile matching tasks
7. delegate to employees - give subordinates sufficient autonomy to determine relatively independently how to do a job
8. be supportive for
innovation, make room for experimentation (and making mistakes along)
- act friendly to innovative employees, be patient and helpful, listening, look out for someone’s interests if problems arise
- support experimentation within the organization by promoting a 'trial and error' approach
9. provide resources for innovation
- provide time and money to implement ideas
10.recognize innovative efforts
- recognize innovative efforts, show appreciation for innovative performances
11.reward innovative work behavior
- provide a financial or material rewards for innovative performances
28 6.1. Role model for innovation
The majority of interviewees articulated the importance of role modelling by leaders. Role modelling is described as evidence that innovative work behavior is accepted and desirable and acts as catalyst for innovative work behavior of employees. Jaussi & Dionne (2003) researched that role modelling by leaders increases the desired behavior of employees. The data shows that role modelling is especially needed for reassurance that innovative work behavior is accepted, as illustrated by:
E1: "Want op het moment dat je aan de leidinggevende ziet, of merkt dat deze zich laat afremmen door de omgeving, zal het ook zo zijn dat je ook als medewerker ook nooit zo’n stap zou maken."
Role modelling encourages risk-taking by employees - as an inevitable aspect of innovation - as it will provide employees with more comfort in taking these risks. Interviews state that enhancing innovative work behavior of employees starts with them demonstrating what behavior is expected, such as exploring opportunities, developing ideas and championing and implementing ideas. This role modelling of innovative work behavior stimulates employees to model the presented behavior as employees are more likely to show innovative work behavior when the desired behavior, including the correct rules and procedures, has been demonstrated The data shows that leaders who demonstrate the appropriate behavior are stimulating employees:
L1: "Bedoel niet alleen hier in de kamer maar ook richting de directie wat we dan gaan of waar, welke kant we op moeten. Ja... juist die voorbeeldrol, die trekkende rol."
L7: "Ik denk dat je sowieso als leidinggevende een belangrijke rol hebt in de werkbeleving van medewerkers. Dat is gewoon de mate waarin je... met het humeur waarmee je zelf op de afdeling rondloopt heeft effect op de mensen met wie je samenwerkt, en de manier waarop zij weer samenwerken."
E2: (...) "Dan denk ik, ik vind dat weer getuigen van je durft te innoveren, je durft iets te doen wat nog niet eerder is gedaan."
E7: "Mijn leidinggevende is ook best open over zichzelf. Dat vind ik ook wel een hele belangrijke waarde. Als je je zelf kwetsbaar durft op te stellen als leider, dan nodig je ook bijna uit naar de anderen, naar de medewerkers of anderen, dat je het ook durft te zijn."
Q: "Wat heeft de leidinggevende gedaan om dat te bereiken?" E8: "Ja, dat is voorbeeldgedrag."
6.2. Intellectually stimulate your employees
Leaders and employees mention intellectual stimulation as stimulating for innovation. The interviewees state that leaders should ask questions that stimulate employees to explore and come up with new ideas, as illustrated by:
L1: "In de huidige setting vraag ik iedereen die ik spreek, doen we het wel goed, moeten we hè, hoe moeten we het anders doen?"
"Ik stimuleer mijn medewerkers door aan te geven van, dit gaan we niet meer doen. Hoe dan wel? Ja, bedenk het. Ja het is toch vragen, openstellen. Je moet vragen om goede ideeën."
