• No results found

IT SELF-LEADERSHIP AND TEAM INNOVATIVENESS AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF IT SELF-LEADERSHIP ON PRODUCT AND PROCESS INNOVATION WITHIN TEAMS

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "IT SELF-LEADERSHIP AND TEAM INNOVATIVENESS AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF IT SELF-LEADERSHIP ON PRODUCT AND PROCESS INNOVATION WITHIN TEAMS"

Copied!
62
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

IT SELF-LEADERSHIP AND TEAM INNOVATIVENESS

AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF IT SELF-LEADERSHIP ON

PRODUCT AND PROCESS INNOVATION WITHIN TEAMS

Master thesis, MSc Business Administration, Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

ABSTRACT

This study examines the influence of IT self-leadership on the innovativeness of teams. By means of an explorative, multiple case study, the mechanism between both constructs is examined. The field of IT self-leadership is elaborated by connecting self-leadership literature and information technology studies. Thereafter, the influence on team’ innovativeness is researched by making the distinction between product and process innovation and by linking it with the innovative work behavior (IWB) model. The study is conducted at six different teams, where the context of those teams was distributed between small organizations and large multinationals. Results show that IT self-leadership influences innovative behavior by enhancing communication, feedback, brainstorming, networking, sharing knowledge, visualization and adaptive behavior. Moreover, product innovations appear to be mostly influenced by IT self-leadership through technology driven idea generation. Process innovation however, is driven by the business and less by IT self-leadership. Last, this paper provides practical suggestions to improve IT self-leadership and thereby innovation. Organizations should encourage team members to act in an IT self-leading way by making enough time available to search for new solutions and by enabling decentralized decision making.

(3)

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 7

2.1. IT self-leadership 7

2.2. Product and process innovation in teams 10

3. METHODOLOGY 14

3.1. Data collection 14

3.2. Case descriptions 15

3.3. Data analysis 17

4. RESULTS 19

4.1. Product innovation and IT self-leadership 20 4.2. Process innovation and IT self-leadership 23

4.3. Other outcomes IT self-leadership 26

` 4.4. Other factors influencing innovation 29

5. DISCUSSION 32

5.1. Conclusions 32

5.2. Theoretical implication 35

5.3. Limitations and further research 36

5.4. Practical limitations 38

6. REFERENCES 39

APPENDIX A: Systematic literature review 46

APPENDIX B: Interview protocol 48

(4)

1. INTRODUCTION

In the past decade there has been a rapid increase of work teams in organizations which has changed the structure of organizations (Yang and Guy, 2011). For teams to keep their effectiveness in this changing environment, innovation is critical (Lee, 2008). Despite the rise of interest in innovation, not all factors of influence are fully addressed (Conway and Steward, 2009; Boso et al., 2013). This leads to the search for new factors that influence innovation. Where self-leadership is proposed to have a positive influence on innovation (Phelan and Young, 2003), and information technologies (IT) are associated with a higher success rate of innovation (Carlo et al., 2012), the combination of the two is a new interesting influencing factor. As Wang and Li (2011) state, the behavioral outcomes of innovation with IT are important on the research agenda and Manz (1992) state that technology might be an important factor within the field of self-leadership. Therefore, this study will examine the influence of IT self-leadership on innovation in teams.

(5)

2006). The self-leadership theory assumes that individuals’ perception of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation can be improved by self-leadership strategies to improve their behaviors (Bandura, 1991; Deci and Ryan, 1985; Manz, 1986). Self-leadership can be seen as a leadership technique; instead of relying on an external leader, individuals can make their own choices, set their own goals, monitor their own performance, and motivate and reward themselves (Hauschildt and Konradt, 2012). Self-leadership has a positive influence on team performance and motivation (Konradt, 2009; Neck and Houghton, 2006) and as pointed out, it has an impact on innovativeness of teams. Self-leading individuals are considered to be more creative (Phelan and Young, 2003). Creative self-leaders are reflecting their internal process and construct their own thoughts and intentions towards changes, enhancements, and innovations. Carmeli et al. (2006) examined the role of self-leadership on innovative behavior of individuals. Their study showed that self-leaders display high levels of innovative behavior in organizations (Cameli and Weisberg, 2006). Furthermore, they found that organizations can train individuals to improve their self-leading skills and thus improve innovation and performance.

(6)

how this mechanism works. The findings shall contribute to the understanding of innovativeness of teams and moreover will set a starting point to research how IT self-leadership can be managed to improve product and process innovative behavior. Therefore, the research question will be:

How does IT self-leadership influence product and process innovation of teams?

Answering this research question can both contribute to the theoretical and practical field. By exploring the field of IT self-leadership and its influence on innovativeness of teams, both researchers and practitioners can benefit. Gaining more knowledge about how individuals use IT and how it influences technology and innovation (Manz, 1992) can give insights in how individual IT use can be managed (Cameli and Weisberg, 2006). With a growing emphasis on IT systems within teams, this research will also contribute to the practice by giving a better understanding of innovation in teams. In contradiction of most previous research on self-leadership (Bandura, 1991; Deci and Ryan, 1985; Manz, 1986), this study came up with more practical implications, which can be used to manage IT self-leadership within teams.

(7)

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In the theoretical framework, the different variables of this research will be explained by means of a literature review. First, product and process innovation in teams will be explained and linked to information technologies. After this, IT self-leadership will be explored and will be linked with innovation.

2.1. Product and process innovation in teams

2.1.1. Team innovativeness

As stated in the introduction, organizations need to innovate to remain competitive in the changing and turbulent environment (Lee, 2008). Innovation is the ability to create or improve something which adds value to the organization (Jacobs, 2007), the development or implementation of products, which strives for commercial success (Garcia and Calantone, 2002), or the improvement of production processes (Jacobs, 2007), that require a substantial degree of learning (Bodewes and de Jong, 2003). Therefore, in this study, team innovativeness can be defined as the ability to do something new or different within a team that adds value to the organization (Jacobs, 2007; Garcia and Calatone, 2002; Liu, 2013). Comparably, only a few studies have examined innovation in teams, which is a considerable shortcoming since it is often the case that an innovation is developed by a team (West and Farr, 1990). Innovation is the commercialization of creative ideas (Im and Montoya, 2012), where creativity is a well-known factor that enhances innovation (DiLiello and Houghton, 2006). Creativity is the construction of novel, fruitful, and suitable new ideas or solutions by individuals or teams (Amabili, 1996). Innovation is the actual implementation of these creative ideas; therefore creativity can be seen as a driver of innovation. Innovation can be split up in changes in products (product innovation) and changes in internal processes (process innovation) (Tidd, 2001).

(8)

Street, 2001). In the second stage (idea generation), the ideas become more concrete (Mumford, 2000). It entails the activities of combining and reorganizing information and concepts to find solutions (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010). Once ideas are generated, the third stage of idea championing starts. New ideas will most likely face resistance; therefore this stage is required to overcome resistance to change (Van de Ven, 1986). Idea championing is the search for support for innovation by propagating and selling its success and getting the right people involved (Howell et al., 2005). The last stage (idea implementation) refers to making the innovation part of the organization (process innovation) or the industry (product innovation) (Kleysen and Street, 2001). These stages are visualized in figure 1.

Figure 1: Stages of Innovative Work Behavior (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010)

Team innovativeness can be assessed by measuring the number of innovations or new ideas produced by a team (1), the team’s performance on technique (2), and the ability to adapt to changes within teams (3) (Liu, 2013).

2.1.2. IT and innovation

(9)

Information technologies consist of software and hardware (Pearlson and Saunders, 2009). Software refers to all nonphysical components of a computer, not only the programs that run on the computer but also the data which is intended to be processed by the programs (Kuchling and Weber, 2005). Pearlson and Saunders (2009) mention lots of different information systems. Examples of software applications as described by Pearlson and Saunders (2009), which can be used to enhance work performance, are:

● Video teleconference: Can be used to communicate without the need of meeting in an office. ● Instant messaging or chats: For communication in the office, within teams or the whole

organization.

● Groupware: Discuss topics and share files in a password protected web-based environment. ● Social networks: A web-based service which allows individuals or teams to create a public

profile, in this study especially for the purpose of sharing thoughts and promoting ideas.

Individuals and teams also have the possibility to choose using hardware to enhance their performance. Most employees nowadays have a PC and a smartphone available to use, but the use of tablets is less common.

Creativity and innovation are strongly connected to the use of technologies by applying IT in new ways (Wang and Li, 2011). This novel application of IT can support task performance and pushes the use to a higher level which surpasses routine ways of use. As stated, innovation consist of two parts; changes in products (product innovation) and changes in the internal process (process innovation) (Tidd, 2001). Product innovation refers to what is produced while process innovation concerns how existing products/services are produced (Edquist et al., 2001). Information technologies can contribute to process innovation by affecting how transactions are processed, how the work is done, how customers are dealt with, how suppliers are dealt with and how new customers are approached (Fichman et al., 2014). Information systems are mainly put into practice to optimize internal processes and thereby are mostly considered to apply to process innovation (Pearlson and Saunders, 2009). But IT systems can also be deployed to generate novel ideas for products or services. By using different data systems, thoughts can be structured to find solutions (Neck and Houghton, 2006; Seligman, 2011). Moreover, Fichman et al. (2014) states that the development of new products or services can be enabled or be a part of IT. With the help of IT, new products can be developed or existing products can be improved (Fichman et al., 2014).

(10)

can be put into practice to elaborate the novel idea and to receive feedback of others (Mumford, 2000; Pearlson and Saunders, 2009). In the third stage, idea championing, IT can be used to overcome resistance by involving the whole organization and to sell the idea intern (Howell et al., 2005). The last stage of the IWB model is idea implementation. In this stage IT can be operationalized to sell the idea to customers or to make the innovation part of the organization (Kleysen and Street, 2001; Fichman et al., 2014) by, for example, making the information available to others with IT.

2.2. IT Self-Leadership

2.2.1. Self-Leadership

(11)

be grouped into ‘constructive thoughts pattern strategies’ (Neck and Houghton, 2006). Constructive thoughts pattern strategies are those strategies that create a positive and focused mindset by taking away distractions and learn from past actions. (Neck and Houghton 2006; Seligman 2011). These three strategies can be trained to improve organizational and team performance and innovativeness (Carmeli et al., 2006). Skills associated with these strategy groups, can be managed to increase members perception of behavior-focused, constructive thoughts patterns, and natural rewarding strategies which will contribute to the innovativeness of teams (Neck and Manz, 1996).

Another important topic to address is individual self-leadership versus team self-leadership. Self-leadership is mostly described in the literature as a process at individual level. But Konradt (2009) also stresses the importance of self-leadership in teams. Team self-leadership will lead to higher collective responsibility for decision making and behavioral control at the workgroup level. Also Uhl-Bien and Graen (1998) found a positive effect of individual self-management on the effectiveness of teamwork. One other characteristic of team self-leadership is collective cognition (Stewart et al., 2011), this is collectively processing information within the team (Converse, 1993)

2.2.2. IT Self-leadership

To define the term IT leadership, this section will connect information technologies with self-leadership. Information technologies, as explained before, facilitate the work of people and their behaviors (McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2008). Just like self-leading strategies, information technologies help organizations to enhance performance at individual and team level. Where the movement towards self-leading behavior is influenced by technology (Manz, 1992), the link between information technologies and self-leadership can be made. A condition for seeing it as self-leading behavior is that the information system is not part of the assigned task description (Hauschildt and Konradt, 2012). Therefore, IT self-leadership can be defined as the choice of an individual or team to use information technologies in order to enhance their own performance, where such technologies are not part of the original description of the task (Manz, 1992; McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2008). It includes; using new IT systems (1), combining different IT systems in a new way (2), or using an existing IT system on a higher level than it was used before (3). IT self-leadership can occur on individual and team level. On individual level, individuals use IT systems to direct and motivate themselves (Manz, 1986). On team level, it will lead to higher collective responsibility for decision making and behavioral control at the workgroup (Konradt, 2009). Moreover, higher levels of (IT) self-leadership lead to increased efforts towards the team (Hauschildt and Konradt, 2012).

(12)

can partly be combined with IT. Therefore the following strategies arise: IT behavioral focused strategies (1) are strategies that use IT, based on improving individual goal behavior by observing themselves and others. An example of these strategies is the use of IT to observe whether specific targets are achieved. IT Natural reward strategies (2) include using IT for setting goals and to work towards these goals. IT constructive thoughts pattern strategies (3) are those strategies in which IT is utilized to create a focused mindset, in which can be learnt from the past, and in which data can be stored to construct individuals’ and teams’ thoughts. The described IT self-leadership strategies can, just like the self-leading strategies (Carmeli et al., 2006; Neck and Manz, 1996) be trained and managed to improve team performance and innovativeness.

2.2.3. IT self-leadership strategies and innovation

(13)

Creativity and innovation can best be motivated by giving employees autonomy and intellectual freedom (Curral and Marques-Quinteriro, 2009), behaviors that are strongly connected with self-leadership. Individuals with strong self-leadership are mostly considered to be more innovative and creative than individuals with low self-leadership (DiLiello and Houghton, 2006). This view is partly supported by Carmeli et al. (2006) and Phelan and Young (2003); both found that there is an impact of self-leadership on creativity. According to Carmeli et al. (2006), creative self-leadership consists of three strategies; renewed cognitive construction of beliefs, perceptions, assumptions, and ways of thinking (1), creative mental imagery in which creative behavior can solve dilemmas (2), and creative self-talk, which involves dialog and feedback that improves the ability to achieve goals (3) (Phelan and Young, 2003).

To extend this connection between self-leadership and IT, the stages of innovative work behavior (de Jong and den Hartog, 2010) are connected to the different self-leadership strategies (figure 2) as described by Manz and Neck (1991). This has resulted in a combination of the three IT self-leadership strategies with the IWB model. IT constructive thought pattern strategies are essential in the first and second stage of the IWB process. These IT strategies help individuals and teams to recognize problems and generate new ideas or solutions. IT behavioral focused strategies can be used in the third stage, where goal behavior for individuals and teams positively influence the championing of the innovation. IT natural reward strategies are important in the last stage of the IWB process. When people lead them self by setting goals, self-rewards, and seeing the new innovation as a positive change, the implementation process will be eased.

Figure 2: Connecting IWB and IT self-leadership strategies

(14)

3. METHODOLOGY

This section elaborates on the procedure of this study. In order to broaden the field of IT self-leadership and its influence on team innovativeness, an explorative study as described by Eisenhardt (1989) was conducted. By starting with a systematic literature review on self-leadership in combination with IT and innovation, as described in section 2.2.3., it was found that the relationship between self-leadership and IT is not well addressed (Appendix A). Therefore, qualitative theory development is most appropriate (Myers, 2009; Ozcan and Eisenhardt, 2009). In order to answer the research question, IT self-leadership needed to be defined, which is done in the first part of this study by systematically reviewing the literature. After defining IT self-leadership, the relation between IT self-leadership and team innovativeness on product and process level was examined in means of an inductive research by doing a multiple case study. Since this study aims to understand the behaviors of individuals within teams and mechanisms of different constructs, in depth interviews are appropriate to gain a good understanding in this relation (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). Moreover, case studies are more likely to generate new theories (Eisenhardt, 1989). Below, the data collection, case descriptions and the data analysis will be described.

3.1. Data Collection

(15)

with IT self-leadership. Moreover, different firm sizes were included to increase the generalizability of the study. Within the teams, the goal was to approximately interview two to five participants. In six out of the seven interviewed teams this was achieved. A total of twenty participants were interviewed, ten of them being product innovative and ten process innovative (table 1). Whether a team was product or process innovative was set up front, but was also checked within the interview. Because there appeared to be differences in IT self-leading behavior between members, the team members were chosen by their familiarity with IT and drive to find new IT.

At the approximate number of 15 interviews, the results started overlapping, but for the reliability of the comparison between product and process innovation the other interviews were still contributive. This study is conducted with semi-structured interviews. Although the questions were prepared up front to find consistent and reliable results, the loose and flexible setting left room for new insights (Galletta, 2013). In the interview, the degree of innovation and IT self-leadership is established. The questions were categorized in idea generation and idea implementation at product and process level. The IWB model was used for this categorization, where idea exploration and generation were taken together to capture the first part of innovation and idea championing and idea implementation were taken together to capture the last part of innovation. After this, relations between the different concepts are asked to find in what extent the interviewee connects IT and self-leadership with innovation. This relation was examined by formulating question with the critical incident technique. Interviewees were asked to describe a situation in which they were innovative and were asked to tell more about the way they used IT and self-leadership for this (see appendix B for the interview protocol). The critical incident technique is useful to gather specific behaviors (Flanagan, 1954), which is useful in this study to capture innovative and IT self-leading behavior. The interviews were taped and written down afterwards.

3.2. Case descriptions

(16)

Team Team description Company Number of employees Partici- pants Product or process innovative

1 ICT management team 1 B2B software developer 25 4 Process 2 ICT development team 1 B2B software developer 25 5 Product 3 ICT management team 2 Business telecom provider 40 3 Process

4 ICT development team 2 Business telecom provider 40 2 Product

5 News team Innovative news company 200 3 Product

6 Petro chemistry team Consultancy company 1400 1 Process

Oil multinational 92.000 1 Process

7 Mobile technology team Electronics multinational 177.000 1 Product

Total 20

Table 1: Participants

B2B software developer - ICT management and development teams 1

This company is a small sized ICT company, based in Groningen, is specialized in developing mobile software for business to business solutions to improve internal processes. The company is considered to be one of the most innovative companies in Groningen and being a leader in new IT solutions, thus a high potential for valuable information. Two teams were interviewed at this company, a management team and a development team. Four members of the management team were interviewed that were mostly doing process innovation. The product innovation within this firm was mostly done by the developers, where five members were interviewed. The employees of this company are constantly searching for new IT to improve their performance or to find new products for customers.

Business telecom provider - ICT management and development teams 2

(17)

Innovative news company - News team

Employees of this (regional) news company were part of this study because they are considered as being one of the most innovative regional news companies in the Netherlands. This company has pulled all regional news companies in the Netherlands to make a mobile news application. The team responsible for this was interviewed for this study.

Consultancy company / Oil multinational – Petro chemistry team

This team consists of people from different companies. The goal of this team is to optimize the safety process within the oil multinational by mobile apps. Two people from this team were interviewed, one from an oil company and one from a consultancy company. The project is considered as being very innovative for the oil company, which is the reason of including it in this study. Furthermore, including companies of different sizes may increase the generalizability of the findings.

Electronics multinational - Mobile technology team

Unfortunately, only one member of this team was interviewed. The reason to still include this in the study, is the valuable information this participant added. This company is one of the largest electronic multinationals in the world. The mobile technology team is responsible for the mobile innovation in the company. The team is considered as being product innovative.

3.3. Data analysis

(18)

that are not, to set clear research boundaries These two categories will be presented in the result section, but are not directly related with the research question, thus will not be discussed extensively. During the coding a fourth main category was found that emerged from interesting views from the participants that were not directly related with innovation. These codes were grouped in; Other outcomes in relation with IT self-leadership (4).

(19)

4. RESULTS

The results of the cross case analysis will be presented in this section. The results for the relation between product innovation and IT self-leadership will first be given, then the results for the relation between process innovation and IT self-leadership. These results are related with IT self-leadership, because the IT is chosen by individuals or teams to enhance their performance, where the task description did not specifically ask for the use of this IT. This section will end with other benefits from IT self-leadership and other factors that influence innovation. The presentation of the results is supported by parts of the coding schema. The complete coding schema can be found in Appendix C.

The participating teams in this study resulted not to be completely product or process innovative. Some team members of product innovative teams were more working on process innovations and vice versa. The table below presents the final number of participants and their relation to either product or process innovation.

Team Team description Company Number of

employees

Partici - pants

Product or process innovative 1 ICT management team 1 B2B software developer 25 4 Process (4) 2 ICT development team 1 B2B software developer 25 5 Product (4) / Process (1) 3 ICT management team 2 Business telecom provider 40 3 Process (2) / Product (1)

4 ICT development team 2 Business telecom provider 40 2 Product (2) 5 News team Innovative news company 200 3 Product (2) / Process (1)

6 Petro chemistry team Consultancy company 1400 1 Process (2) Oil multinational 92.000 1

7 Mobile technology team Electronics multinational 177.000 1 Product (1)

Total 20 Product (10) / Process (10)

(20)

4. 1. Product innovation and IT self-leadership

4.1.1. Product idea generation and IT self-leadership

The category product idea generation consists of the exploration and generation of novel product ideas by IT self-leadership. The findings of this study suggest that the exploration and generation of new product ideas with IT self-leadership is mostly driven by technology, and not by business. The main reason why product innovation was triggered by technology was that modern external technologies overtook the business. One of the interviewees, part of the news team, argued; “We were in a situation where we [our news] were caught up by Twitter”. The news this new company generated was not fast enough to compete with Twitter, therefore a product innovation had to be initiated. Another way how teams generate novel product ideas, which was shown by 3 out of the 4 product teams, is formulated by one of the participants: “Especially the following of innovative websites en innovative people helps to find new ideas”. These results indicate that the exploration of new product ideas is driven by technology, which is strongly related to IT self-leadership because it is not something described within the task description, but a free choice to find new ideas with the help of IT.

The generation of new ideas appears to be largely influenced by IT self-leadership. The results from all product cases indicate that the generation of novel product ideas is positively influenced by; communication tools (1), by gathering and sharing knowledge with IT (2), and by network tools (3). Communication tools, chosen by recipients, are for example; WhatsApp, Telegram and other instant messaging tools. These tools contribute to the generation of novel ideas by supporting the brainstorming within a team. One of the interviewees indicated; “The brainstorming of different ideas is enhanced through a chat tool”. Communication tools also added towards the generation of novel ideas by providing a platform for feedback. Such tools make it easier to provide feedback for ideas, as one of the recipients stated: “This [communication tool] also helps for feedback, which made it easier because you don’t have to give feedback face to face”.

The results suggest that product idea generation is also positively influenced by the gathering and sharing of knowledge with IT in a self-leading way. The gathering and sharing of IT contributes by providing a place for team members to be able to see and work in all documents. This gives team members the opportunity to provide feedback and to share ideas with others, without involvement of a manager. IT tools which are used for this purpose are for example Google Drive and forum tools. One of the interviewees argued; “We use Google Drive a lot. We can use IT to share documents with others and they can give feedback”.

(21)

websites, searching on social media and by communicating with people from other companies and countries. As one of the interviewees stated; “We use a chat box where people from different countries enter to discuss how to implement the product”.

Subcategory Code Example

Product idea generation by communication tools

Brainstorming by

communication tool

"The brainstorming of different ideas is enhanced through a chat tool"

Feedback by communication

tool

"This [communication tool] also helps for feedback, which is made easier because you don't have to give feedback face to face"

Communication with chat tool

"We don't have to use mail anymore, with the chat tool we can do everything"

Product idea generation by gathering and sharing knowledge with IT

Data gathering by forum tool

“We have used Basecamp [forum tool] to

gather data and to be able to see it other times”

Feedback by sharing tool

"We use Google Drive a lot. We can share documents with others and they can give feedback"

Sharing documents with

sharing tool

“Mostly I work alone, but IT enables us

to work together in documents”

Sharing ideas with IT

“We have a Google Doc [sharing tool] to

write down ideas and share it, so everyone could read it and give their ideas"

Working in same document

“We can work in the same document to improve our ideas”

Product idea generation and exploration by network tools

Following innovative websites

for ideas

“Especially the following of innovative websites en innovative people helps to find new ideas”

Searching on social media

“Via internet, for example on Twitter and

LinkedIn, I find valuable ideas”

Communication with other

companies and countries

"We use a chat box where people from different countries enter to discuss how to implement the product"

Technology driven

innovation

Caught up by other

technologies "We were in a situation where we [our

news] were caught up by Twitter"

Following innovative ideas by

IT

“Especially the following of innovative

websites en innovative people helps to find new ideas”

"We find ideas by following innovative ideas on websites of competitors"

Technological opportunity

(22)

4.1.2. Product idea implementation and IT self-leadership

The category product idea implementation consists of the championing and implementation of product ideas by IT self-leadership. The results indicate that IT self-leadership contributes to both championing and implementation of novel product ideas. The championing of ideas by IT self-leadership is done by choosing IT with the purpose of visualization (1), prototyping (2) and by working around standard procedures (3). Visualization appears to be very important for the championing of novel product ideas, 7 out of the 10 participants with product innovation indicated this. One of the interviewees argued; “Photoshop is holy for this [implementation] (...) to sell something, people need to visualize it”. Visualizing the idea for the organization helps to sell the idea by providing an example or prototype. Results show that it is a commonly used tool for the championing of a new idea. Prototypes can be used to visualize a concept, as one of the interviewees stated; "[To sell the new idea] we use a tool for prototyping (…) by which the customer can see how it works”.

In the large companies, IT self-leadership was generally lower. This was mainly because centralized decision making hindered own choices. Sometimes IT self-leadership was used to work around these standard procedures. One of the interviewees, who is working at a large multinational, argued; “We have decided not to make the new product a part of the current business (...) if we had followed the official path, the innovation would not have been possible”. In this team, the new (IT) product was built outside of the business. Once the success was proven, the company accepted the new innovative product.

(23)

Subcategory Code Example Championing by IT

self-leadership Visualization by IT

"Photoshop is holy for this

[implementation] (..) to sell something, people need to visualize it".

Working around standard

procedures by IT

"We have decided not to make the new

product as a part of the current business (..) if we had followed the official path, the innovation would not have been possible"

Prototyping

"[To sell the new idea] we use a tool for prototyping (…) by which the customer can see how it works"

Product idea implementation

by sharing knowledge Feedback by IT

"We use a forum to discuss projects with the customer (…) they can give feedback, which helps for the implementation"

Sharing ideas with IT

"We have a Google Doc [sharing tool] to write down ideas and share it, so everyone could read it and give their ideas"

Table 4: Coding schema: category product idea implementation and IT self-leadership

4.2. Process innovation and IT self-leadership

4.2.1. Process idea generation and IT self-leadership

The results from the interviews show that process idea generation is less connected to IT self-leadership in comparison to product idea generation. Only 4 out of the 10 interviewees that were part of a process innovative team, indicated to score high on IT self-leadership. In comparison to 7 out of 10 interviewees part of product innovative teams. This could be because it is mainly driven by a gap in the business. One of the interviewees argued; “There was a need for improvement, so the team leader asked me to do research in how this could be improved”. 8 out of 10 interviewees within process innovative teams, stated that the process innovation was triggered by the business. The starting point of a process improvement could be a business analysis or the need for a process optimization, which is supported by one of the interviewees; “We have gone through the whole process and looked how we could improve it with IT”. Within the category process idea generation there was not a clear distinction between the exploration and generation of ideas. Because a process innovation appears to be business driven, the exploration of ideas was mostly skipped because the gap in the business was already clear.

(24)

and the possibility to brainstorm with the communication tool as a facilitator. A participant, part of the management team of an ICT company argued; “It is possible [with the communication tool] to put different people in a group to let them brainstorm about the problem”.

Gathering and sharing knowledge also facilitates the generation of process improvement ideas. As one of the interviewees argued; “It was not needed anymore to sit in the same room, with the new system it was possible to work in the same document from different places”. The possibility to choose to work in the same document is a huge benefit for team members, because the work becomes faster and more efficient which can lead to more and better improvement ideas.

Subcategory Code Example

Business driven innovation Process optimization from the

business

“We have gone through the whole process and looked how we could improve it with IT”

Business analysis

"There was a need for improvement, so the team leader asked me to do research how this could be improved"

Process idea generation by

communication tools Communication by chat tool

"This communication tool helps to

exchange innovative ideas"

Less meetings because of chat

tool

"It was not needed anymore to sit in the same room, with the new system it was possible to work in the same document from different places´´

Brainstorming with chat tool

"It is possible [with the communication tool] to put different people in a group to let them brainstorm about the problem"

Gathering and sharing

documents with IT Working in same document

“I worked together with somebody with Google Docs, in this way we could work in the same document and see each other work”

Chat tool for gathering and sharing documents

"We use IT to chat and share documents (..) different people can be placed within a group to share their ideas and to

brainstorm"

Table 5: Coding schema: category process idea generation and IT self-leadership

4.2.2. Process idea implementation and IT self-leadership

(25)

visualization by IT. Using prototypes to create a visual example for the customer helped the ICT teams part of this research greatly. One of the participants argued; “We use a tool for prototyping, the customer really sees the benefit of this (...) this spares a lot of time”. The actual implementation of the process improvement is influenced by IT self-leadership through finding new IT for the sharing of knowledge within the team. Factors that benefit to the sharing of knowledge are; the sharing of ideas, the possibility to discuss the implementation with IT, improved planning with IT and the possibility for feedback with IT. The possibility for feedback involves the team members within the project, gives them natural rewards for their work and makes them more aware of the progress. One of the interviewees stated; “It [forum tool] is a program in which people can give feedback on projects. It really motivates people, because it makes them aware of the progress”. Moreover, it becomes easier to give feedback, as one of the members of an ICT company states: “[IT] also enables me to give more feedback, because it is not face to face but in a system”

Subcategory Code Example

Championing by IT

self-leadership

Visualization by prototypes

with IT

"We use a tool for prototyping, the customer really sees the benefit of this (..) this spares a lot of time"

Process idea implementation

by sharing knowledge Sharing ideas with IT

"For this [implementation] we used Google Drive to share a document with the new way of working so everyone could read it”

Discussing with IT “[For the implementation] we use a chat

tool to discuss the progress with each other”

Feedback with IT

"It [forum tool] is a program in which people can give feedback on projects. It really motivates people, because it makes them aware of the progress"

“[IT] also enables me to give more feedback, because it is not face to face but in a system”

Planning with IT

“We use an IT system to create tickets for

the tasks that must be done, as a planning tool”

(26)

4.3. Other outcomes IT self-leadership

4.3.1. Degree of IT self-leadership

Within the interview, IT self-leadership was assessed with the following question: How often do you, or your team, try to improve the performance by using IT, even though you were not specifically asked to use this IT? Several factors emerged from this question that influences the degree of IT self-leadership. The results show that high IT self-leadership is strongly connected with a decentralized management. Within the teams part of the smaller companies, where the management was decentralized, most interviewees indicated that improving performance by choosing IT was part of the business. One of the interviewees argued; “Because nothing is centralized through the management, we come up with our own [IT] solutions”. Teams, part of a decentralized company, mostly have more freedom to make own choices. But it may also be due to the fact that these smaller companies in this study are ICT companies. Within these companies, the employees are mostly of a younger age and looking for new IT is part of their business. One participant of this study argued; “I am always looking for new ways to improve my performance, mostly with ICT”. Another one stated: "This [finding new IT solutions] is something where we always strive for in this company"

Low IT self-leadership is strongly connected with a centralized management. Teams part of a company with a centralized management mostly have less freedom to make own choices. Therefore, permission is needed of the management to make choices in new IT, which impedes IT self-leadership. One of the interviewees argued; “Something as Dropbox is not allowed here, it is not safe enough. That is why it is blocked by the headquarters”. Companies with a centralized management in this study, appear to be the bigger companies. Within these companies, employees need to adapt to the current IT. Mostly there are standard toolsets and there is not much room for change.

(27)

Subcategory Code Example High IT

self-leadership Decentralized management

"Because nothing is centralized through the management, we come up with our own [IT] solutions"

IT self-leadership part of the

business

"This [finding new IT solutions] is something where we always strive for in this company"

Always on search for new

solutions

"I am always looking for new ways to improve my performance, mostly with ICT"

Young employees

“Maybe it is because we have a lot of young employees, they are looking more for new IT tools”

Low IT

self-leadership Centralized management

"We have very complex ICT management, because the decisions are made in Korea [headquarters] ,

Physical meetings important “I think it is very useful to sit together and talk about it”

IT self-leadership not part of

business

“Our company is a news company, so finding new IT is not part of the business”

Permission needed for IT use

"Something as Dropbox is not allowed here, it is mostly not safe enough. That's why it is blocked by the headquarters"

Short term projects hinder IT

self-leadership

"I'm not doing that [searching for new IT] a lot, because I need to finish projects for the customer"

Adapting to current IT “I think it is important to use [the IT] what the company uses I work for”

Standard toolsets “The work we do, does not require new tool

sets. The standard tool sets are sufficient”

No trust in external systems “The head office is blocking new IT systems,

because it is not safe enough”

Table 7: Coding schema: category degree of IT self-leadership

4.3.2. Influence IT self-leadership

(28)

Individual IT self-leadership

Team IT self-leadership

Flexible working Working from different places Improved communication Improved team communication

Cloud access to documents Team communication in

groups

Keeping it visible for others Less effort for communication

Controlled working Checks for mistakes Giving feedback

Feedback Communication across

company’s boundaries Reminders / To Do lists Improved team work Simultaneous working Storing data without the risk of

loosing

Gathering and sharing knowledge

Structured working Controlled task management

Other benefits Paperless working Time management

Visualization Automation

Sparing time Flexible team work No physical meetings

Automation Access everywhere

Other benefits Paperless working

Table 8: Influence IT self-leadership on individual and team level

4.3.4. IT choice

(29)

4.4. Other factors influencing innovation

Within the interviews, also other reasons for the success or failure of an innovation were asked. By this way, the boundaries could be set for factors that were influenced by self-leadership and those that were not. The findings of these questions will not be extensively described; however, a summary of the main results will be given. Because there appears to be small differences between product and process innovation for these categories, the results are presented together.

4.4.1. Innovation by IT without self-leadership

This coding category incorporates IT factors that influence innovation, but without self-leadership. Results indicate that innovation without self-leadership is mostly business driven. Team members are assigned by their leaders to research or analyze problems in the company. As one of the interviewees stated: “Change was needed, the team leader asked me to do a research for solutions”. This clearly indicates a business driven change, but because the task was assigned by the team leader there is no self-leadership. Solutions for these problems are found through IT by searching for ideas, for example, by internet. The implementation of the ideas is enabled by IT through sharing and gathering knowledge. This enables team members to work simultaneously and to share information, which helps to implement new ideas.

Category Subcategory Code

Idea generation by IT

Business driven innovation Research for ideas by IT

Problem analysis with IT

Business problem

Exploring existing ideas by IT Searching on internet for ideas Idea implementation by

IT Championing by IT Giving presentations by IT

Visualization by IT

Controlled working by IT Controlling the processes by IT

Sharing and gathering

knowledge with IT Simultaneous working with IT

Sharing information with IT

(30)

4.4.2. Innovation by other means

A lot of data emerged from the interviews which were related to innovation, but not to IT or IT self-leadership. Since it is valuable data, the results are summarized in this section.

(31)

Category Subcategory Code Idea generation by other

means

Business driven innovation Missing something in the business

Customer triggered innovation

Business research

Existing ideas Looking at other companies

Consulting others

Knowledge from other job

Own knowledge

Looking at the market

New ideas Brainstorming

Idea implementation by

other means

Championing Pitching

Selling a simple idea

Selling with a good story

Presentations/courses

Product specific reasons for

implementation success First time success of product

Currently a hot topic

Success proven by trial

Employee specific reasons for

implementation success Using own knowledge

Having the right people

Need for change accepted

Getting everyone involved

Culture Open atmosphere

Involvement of employees

Others listen to ideas

Other reasons for success Having the right people

Having enough time for implementation

Gaining trust for acceptance

Creating commitment

Filling a business gap

Planning

Managing expectations

External partner

Feedback on innovation

(32)

5. DISCUSSION

5.1. Conclusions

The research question will be answered in this section by summarizing and concluding the results of this study. Next, the theoretical implications, will be given. After this the limitations of this study and suggestions for further research will be elaborated. Last, practical implications for organizations will be presented.

Research question: How does IT self-leadership influence product and process innovation of teams?

The give answer to this research question, first the benefit of IT self-leadership emerged from the interviews will be discussed and after this it will be linked to team innovativeness. Beforehand, it was expected that IT influences product and process innovation differently. However, it appears to be that the influence of IT self-leadership does not differs a lot between both. This is the reason for combining the results into one comprehensive model, which has ultimately led to the model for IT self-leadership and team’ innovativeness.

IT self-leadership is defined in this study as the choice of an individual or team to use information technologies in order to enhance own performance, where such technologies are not part of the original task description (Manz, 1992; McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2008). Several IT self-leadership strategies arose from the literature, which are IT behavioral focused strategies (1), IT natural reward strategies (2) and IT constructive thoughts pattern strategies (3). These strategies were connected with the stages of the IWB model (figure 3). The results from this study explored the mechanism between innovation, which was assessed by means of the IWB model, and IT self-leadership, which is linked with the IT self-leadership strategies. The first two stages of the model are idea exploration and idea generation, which can be connected with IT constructive thought pattern strategies. IT constructive thoughts pattern strategies work through a more controlled work setting, which is enabled by IT self-leadership. This study has shown that this mechanism works through self-chosen information technologies by enabling people to check work, through feedback with communication tools, through the storage and sharing of data and by setting reminders. This contributes to the recognition of problems and generation of novel ideas or solutions (Manz and Neck, 1991).

(33)

the innovation by providing prototypes and visual images. These factors enable individuals to improve their goal behavior by providing a clear future goal (Manz and Neck, 1991). The factor ‘working around standards’, which was found in one of the cases, is not part of this mechanism because it does not influence the idea championing through IT behavioral focused strategies. Nevertheless, it does positively influence innovation. IT can be used to work around standard procedures to make new IT part of the organization.

The fourth and last stage of the IWB model is idea implementation. This stage is connected in this study with IT natural reward strategies. IT natural reward strategies are considered to ease the implementation process by leading people to set goals, self-rewards and seeing the new innovation as a positive change (Deci, 1975). Only a part of this mechanism is found. People, who tend to be adaptive towards innovation because of IT self-leadership, appear to be positively influencing the implementation of a novel idea. Most interviewees who indicated to be self-leading in IT, considered this to be a result of a decentralized company where IT self-leadership is part of the business. A decentralized management is considered to give more freedom to employees (Kline and Martin, 1958) for setting goals and rewards, but this is not found in this study. However, most interviewees stated that they consider IT self-leadership as being a part of the business. This influences individuals’ attitude towards change and triggers adaptive behavior. When change and innovation is a day to day event within an organization, members of such organization are considered to be more open towards new innovations. The factor ‘sharing knowledge’, which was found in the cases, is important for the implementation process, because implementers of a new innovation can see positive feedback as a reward for their work. This has led to a final model of IT self-leadership and innovation, answering the research question of this study (Figure 3).

(34)

The results from the exploration of the mechanism between IT self-leadership and team innovativeness show evidence for the existence of certain relationships. This has resulted in several propositions:

P1: The idea exploration and generation process of innovation is positively influenced IT constructive thought pattern strategies through communication, networking and sharing knowledge.

P2: The idea championing process of innovation is positively influenced by IT behavioral focused strategies through visualization.

P3: The idea implementation process of innovation is positively influenced by IT natural reward strategies through the sharing of knowledge and adaptive behavior.

As mentioned, the factors that influence the mechanism between innovation and IT self-leadership appear not to differ a lot between product and process innovation. Although, the reason to innovate in an IT self-leading way does. Product innovation refers to what is produced while process innovation concerns how existing products or services are produced (Edquist et al., 2001). Information technology is mostly considered to optimize internal processes and therefore it is mostly considered to apply to process innovation (Pearlson and Saunders, 2009). But this study has found that IT self-leadership also influences product innovations, because the introduction of new products is triggered by new technologies or because a company is being caught up by other technologies. This technology driven product innovation within a company is mostly started by individuals or teams who are behaving in an IT self-leading way. By using IT in a new way, novel product ideas can be found. For example; by structuring thoughts or by networking new insights can be generated. Process innovation however, is mostly driven by a gap in the business. This business driven innovation could still be considered as IT self-leading in some cases, because the gap or opportunity was discovered and exploited by an individual or team and IT was used to fulfill this. This has led to the following two propositions:

P4: Product innovation by IT self-leadership is technology driven.

P5: Process innovation by IT self-leadership is business driven.

(35)

Manz, 1986). Decentralization within a company enables team members to behave in such way (Kline and Martin, 1958). A centralized management hinders the freedom of employees; team members need permission to use new IT and need to adapt to the current used IT. The teams part of the small companies within this study showed a higher degree of IT self-leadership. Those companies were less centralized than bigger companies and allowed more freedom of choice. This is confirmed by Kline and Martin (1958), by stating that decentralized companies give individuals freedom to act instead of authority to act. This has led to the final proposition of this study.

P6: Firm size has a negative influence on IT self-leadership.

5.2. Theoretical implications

This section elaborates on the findings of this study compared with prior studies. Parts of the literature was confirmed and extended but some of the results of this study contradict prior research. First, three IT self-leadership strategies emerged from the literature (Manz and Neck, 1991; Neck and Houghton, 2006; Seligman, 2011). The results of this study only found two of the strategies to be clearly present at organizations. IT behavioral focused strategies and IT constructive thought pattern strategies appeared to influence innovation within a company, this relation for IT natural reward strategies however, was not as clear. IT natural reward strategies are considered to ease the implementation process by leading people to set goals, self-rewards and by seeing the new innovation as a positive change (Deci, 1975). The results of this study contradict this; only the last factor was found. The results of the cases did not support a relation for goal setting, self-rewards and innovation. It appeared that goal setting and rewards were mostly determined by team leaders, which impede IT self-leading behavior.

(36)

executed; by visualizing the idea to others in the organization. In the last stage of the IWB model (idea implementation), IT is mostly put into practice to share knowledge with others in order to implement the idea. This confirms existing literature of the IWB model (Kleysen and Street, 2001; Fichman et al., 2014) which states that IT can be used to make innovation part of the organization.

Third, literature examined the training of employees to adapt IT self-leading behavior with the goal to enhance performance and innovativeness (Cameli and Weisberg, 2006). The results however, indicate that this is only possible when the structure and culture of the organizations allows employees to make own choices. Therefore, this study extends the prior work of Cameli and Weisberg (2006) and Neck and Manz (1996) by suggesting that IT self-leadership can be trained and enhanced within an organization, but only when this organization adapts an open culture and a decentralized structure. This is also supported by Curral and Marques-Quinteiro, 2009) by stating that employees need autonomy and intellectual freedom to enhance creativity and innovation.

Fourth, literature suggests that IT self-leadership can occur on both individual and team level (Manz, 1986). At individual level, Manz (1986) suggest that (IT) self-leadership leads to more direction and motivation. At team level, it will lead to higher collective responsibility for decisions making and behavioral control at the workgroup (Konradt, 2009). The findings of this study partly supports this, individuals use new IT for direction and motivation. Moreover, it extends previous research by finding that individual IT self-leadership creates more flexible and controlled working. At team level, evidence from this study suggests that team IT self-leadership leads to improved communication and team work, which partly confirms the research of Konradt (2009). Using IT in a new way for communication and team work has led in many cases towards higher collective responsibility and behavioral control through improved feedback and the sharing of knowledge.

Last, Cameli et al. (2006) and Curral and Marques-Quinteiro (2009) stated that intrinsic motivation and compensations enhances individual self-leadership. For IT self-leadership, this relation is only partly supported. Prior researchers (Cameli et al., 2006; Curral and Marques-Quinteiro, 2009) explained intrinsic motivation as recognition and non-cash rewards for employees, where this study has found that employees are mostly motivated by improved work conditions. Team members appeared to be motivated to find new IT when this makes their own work easier, faster and more pleasant.

5.3. Limitations and further research

(37)

different company sizes, but the results are still bounded to specific cases. Second, since the interviews are in-depth, respondents can give socially desirable answers. This can be seen as limitation, because it can decrease the reliability of the study. Although anonymity was guaranteed, this setting may have led to more unreliable reactions of respondents. Third, in advance of the data gathering it was stated that some teams are product innovative and some are process innovative. But in reality it appears that teams consist of both people. This resulted in the fact that not all teams were purely product or process innovative. Therefore, within case analyses became less focused on one concept and became more reliable within the cross case analysis. Fourth, the teams interviewed within the study were mostly part of ICT companies. Employees of an ICT company are mostly no storytellers, which resulted in the fact that some interviews may not have captured all relevant information. Fifth, in one of the cases, only one team member was interviewed. This hinders the reliability of that case, but because this interviewed provided valuable information it was still included in this study.

The conclusions of this study generate suggestions for further research. First of all, the broad design of this study tried to capture all factors that influence the relation between IT self-leadership and innovation. To claim that all factors are taken in consideration however, is not realistic. In the future, other factors that influence the mechanism between innovation and IT self-leadership can be explored. For example, this research focused on innovation at team level, while self-leadership is mostly researched on individual level (Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck, 1991; Houghton and Neck, 2002). Although higher levels of IT self-leadership leads to increased efforts towards the team (Hauschildt, and Konradt, 2012), focusing on individual innovative behavior might result in different conclusion. Another example is the focus on software within this research. Although the research was not designed to focus only at software, the results show that hardware was not taken in consideration by the interviewees. Focusing on hardware, for example the use of tablets, may lead to interesting results in the field on IT self-leadership.

(38)

5.4. Practical implications

Within the beginning of this study, it is stated that IT self-leadership is a skill that can be managed. By encouraging IT self-leadership, teams can become more innovative. IT self-leading behavior takes the ambivalence for change away, because individuals are naturally motivated to look for new ways to improve performance by IT. This skill can be trained, thus performance and innovativeness can be improved (Carmeli et al., 2006; Neck and Manz, 1996).

This implies that organizations should encourage IT self-leadership to enhance innovation within teams. IT can facilitate the entire process of innovation, from the exploration till implementation. But only training IT self-leadership skills is not enough. Several factors should be considered by organizations in order to enable IT self-leadership and enhance innovation. The first is freedom of IT choice. Employees should be encouraged to make own choices in what IT they use. Most large companies have rules regarding the use of IT, where only a few systems are allowed to use. The setting of these rules kills IT self-leadership and therefore hinders innovation. When employees have the freedom to choose own IT, the might be enabled to find new ideas. The second factor which can be managed by organizations is the time available to search for new IT ideas. In order to provide space for individuals and teams for IT self-leadership, managers should make enough time available to search for new IT. Otherwise, short term projects will hinder self-leadership and thereby impede innovation.

(39)

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. & Conti, R. (1996). Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-85.

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (pp. 77-87). Harvard Business School Publishing.

Bandura, A. (1991), “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 248-87.

Bandura, A., Blanchard, E.B. and Ritter, B. (1969), “Relative efficacy of desensitization and modeling approaches for inducing behavioral, affective, and attitudinal changes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 173-99.

Bodewes, W., & De Jong, J. P. J. (2003). Innovatie in het MKB: Eigenaardigheden in context, proces en management. Management Executive, 1(14).

Boso, N., Story, V. M., Cadogan, J. W., Micevski, M., & Kadic-Maglajlic, S. (2013). Firm Innovativeness and Export Performance: Environmental, Networking, and Structural Contingencies. Journal of Marketing Research,21(4), 62-87.

Carlo, J. L., Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2012). A Knowledge-Based Model of Radical Innovation in Small Software Firms. MIS Quarterly, 36(3).

Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75-90.

Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2011). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit. Sage.

Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Individual and group decision making: Current issues, 221.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Returning to the case of asymmetric firms, the next example shows that a rise in competitive pressure u can reduce both the number of firms in the market and the efficiency level of

The dissertation opens with a summary and a table of contents. Then, nine chapters follow in total, of which the last two are a reference list and the appendices. Here follows a

” In this example, the tediousness of the request procedures that have to be followed resulted in an enhanced IT self-leadership, but it also occurs that these type

H4: The expected mediating relationship of work engagement on the relation between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT is moderated by a

Ultimately, this paper has shown that IT self-leadership as a whole has a positive relationship with team innovativeness while the two different levels of IT

The climate for innovation moderates the relationship between IT self-leadership and innovative behaviour with IT such that the effect of this leadership on

Overall, this research will shed light on the concepts of transformational leadership and self-leadership in the IT- context and investigates whether leaders can

By additional analyses, the six transformational leadership dimensions showed several significant interaction effects with knowledge sharing, in predicting IT