• No results found

The question addressed is whether components of transformational IT leadership influence employees’ innovative behavior with IT and whether this is mediated by creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The question addressed is whether components of transformational IT leadership influence employees’ innovative behavior with IT and whether this is mediated by creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy"

Copied!
47
0
0

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

Hele tekst

(1)

STIMULATING INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR WITH IT:

THE IMPACT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL IT LEADERSHIP, CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY AND IT SELF-EFFICACY

Evita Tulic S2192586

MSc BA Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Supervisor dr. I. Maris-de Bresser

Co-assessor dr. B.J.M. Emans

July 9, 2015

Abstract

The importance and implementation of IT within organizations is growing rapidly. Still, organizations cannot fully benefit from their IT investment, as IT is underutilized by employees. Innovative use of IT can increase productivity and performance and can create a

competitive advantage for organizations. The purpose of this research is to investigate how organizations can stimulate employees’ innovative behavior with IT. The question addressed

is whether components of transformational IT leadership influence employees’ innovative behavior with IT and whether this is mediated by creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy.

An empirical research was conducted, in which 311 participants completed a questionnaire.

Results indicate that high performance expectations of leaders and employees’ creative self- efficacy are positively related to innovative behavior with IT, while IT self-efficacy has a negative impact on it. No support is found for the mediation by creative self-efficacy and IT

self-efficacy. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Words 15,925

(2)

1

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Theoretical Background 4

Innovation and Creativity 4

Innovative Behavior 5

Leadership 6

Self-efficacy 10

Creative Self-efficacy 11

IT Self-efficacy 12

Methodology 15

Data collection 15

Measurement 15

Data Analysis 18

Results 20

Mediation Analysis 23

Discussion 24

Theoretical Implications 28

Practical Implications 29

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 31

References 32

Appendices 39

Appendix I 39

Appendix II 42

Appendix III 43

Appendix IV 43

Appendix V 44

Appendix VI 45

Appendix VII 45

Appendix VIII 45

Appendix VIIII 46

(3)

2

Introduction

Today’s turbulent, competitive business environment forces organizations to be innovative and to find novel opportunities (Müller & Ulrich, 2013). Additionally, the current rapid technological change causes managers to realize the importance of encouraging their employees’ creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

The importance of employees’ creativity and innovativeness has been highlighted by previous research, which has shown that it can contribute to a firm’s survival and performance (Zhang & Bartol, 2010;

Amabile, 1996; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004).

The rapid technological change in business has led to an extensive use of information technology (IT) in organizations; most processes have become IT-enabled (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005). Although the implementation of IT in organizations has grown tremendously, it is still underutilized by the employees of organizations (Hsieh & Wang, 2007). A hospital in New Zealand, for example, invested in a telemedicine IT system, which would decrease the costs of the hospital drastically. However, as it turned out that the employees only used the system minimally, the hospital could not fully benefit from the system’s advantages (Al-Qirim, 2006).

It is of great importance to raise the utilization of IT, as IT can, when used in the right way, be a determinant of a sustainable competitive advantage for organizations (Li & Hsieh, 2007). Moreover, IT can increase the productivity of employees when used properly. Organizations in the U.S. started investing heavily in corporate IT during the mid-1990s, which eventually doubled the productivity growth of these organizations (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2008). Previous research has also shown that a higher level of IT utilization will positively affect the success of an integrated supply chain, which allows firms to integrate their activities with their customers and suppliers (Jitpaiboon & Sharma, 2011).

The advantages of IT utilization show the necessity for managers to encourage their employees to use IT properly.

Employees’ creativity and innovativeness have also grown in importance (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

Research has shown that when employees use IT in creative and novel ways, instead of in standard and routine ways, their task performance will increase (Wang, Li & Hsieh, 2011). Therefore, it is of interest to organizations to learn how to increase their employees’ innovative behavior with IT. Innovative behavior with IT here refers to the production and implementation of new ideas, procedures or processes by employees into their work with IT. An example of an organization which benefited from its employees’ innovative behavior with IT is CVS, which is the second largest pharmacy chain in the U.S.

(Fein, 2013). Its employees used the IT system in CVS stores to move up a process in the prescription protocol, which led to a dramatic increase in the customer satisfaction rates of the organization (McAfee

& Brynjolfsson, 2008). This is merely one example of organizations which gained success from their employees’ innovative behavior with IT and it illustrates the importance of determining how this behavior can be stimulated.

(4)

3 As managers’ leadership is a determinant of the right usage of IT by employees (Kim, Malhotra &

Narashiman, 2005), this study will use a widely researched concept of leadership, developed by Bass (1985): ‘transformational leadership’. Thite (2000) found that successful IT managers possess multiple features of transformational leadership, which suggests that this leadership style might be appropriate for encouraging employees to use IT creatively and innovatively. Li & Hsieh (2007) were one of the first who studied transformational leadership in the IT context. This research will extend their work by introducing the concept of transformational IT leadership, which consists of the transformational characteristics of leadership transformed to fit the IT field. In their research, Li & Hsieh (2007) state that research on transformational leadership in relation to IT is scarce and they stress the need for further research on leadership in the IT domain.

Another determinant of employee’s innovative behavior with IT could be self-efficacy, and more specifically, creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy. Creative self-efficacy refers to one’s belief of one’s capability to be creative and IT self-efficacy refers to one’s belief of his or her capability to use IT. Previous research on the relationship between creative self-efficacy and innovative behavior is scarce. However, a study by Hsu, Hou & Fan (2011) did indicate that a high level of creative self- efficacy leads to a high level of innovative behavior. This study will research whether this relationship is also applicable to the field of IT. Hereby, it will answer Müller & Ulrich’s (2013) call for more research on creativity in IT. IT self-efficacy is a relatively understudied concept, and no research has studied its influence on innovative behavior with IT yet. Previous research did find a positive relationship between the willingness of employees to try new IT and their IT self-efficacy (Thatcher &

Perrewé, 2002) and the characteristics of IT self-efficacy also suggest that it may influence innovative behavior with IT positively. As IT has grown in importance, but is still underutilized, it is essential to know what organizations can do to increase the utilization and whether their employees’ self-efficacy is a determinant of it.

The aim of this research is to examine how organizations can stimulate employees to use IT at work more innovatively. This will be done by investigating several relationships. Firstly, the relationship between the components of transformational IT leadership and employees’ innovative behavior with IT will be addressed. This will be followed by examining whether creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy influence innovative behavior with IT, and finally, it will be studied whether creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy mediate the relationship between transformational IT leadership and employees’

innovative behavior with IT. The final objective is to contribute to several streams of literature, mainly IT, leadership, self-efficacy and innovation.

This research will attempt to fill several gaps in the literature. Firstly, as Müller & Ulrich (2013) stressed that there is a lack of research on creativity in IT, this research will fill this gap by investigating employees’ self-perceived creativity in the field of IT. Moreover, it will focus on transformational IT

(5)

4 leadership, which is a new concept. With this, it will answer Li & Hsieh’s (2007) call for further research on leadership in IT. This study will also research the relationship between transformational IT leadership and employees’ innovative behavior with IT, since this relationship has not been studied yet in this field.

It is, though, of great importance to study it in the IT field, as it will aid managers in understanding how to inspire followers to utilize IT innovatively, and thereby, improve their performance. Thus, this research will offer theoretical contributions to the literature streams of IT, self-efficacy and leadership by providing new insights. Therefore, this study will address the following research question:

How does transformational IT leadership influence employees’ innovative behavior with IT and is this mediated by creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy?

This research is particularly relevant in this age, as IT plays a significant role in the success of today’s organizations (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005). As mentioned before, IT is currently underutilized by employees (Hsieh & Wang, 2007). This leads to the need for managers who can stimulate their employees to utilize IT fully and innovatively. The results of this research will assist managers with understanding how they can lead in a way that will enhance their employees’ innovative behavior with IT. Once enhanced, innovative use of IT can increase the employees’ performance (Wang, Li & Hsieh, 2011) and allow organizations to fully benefit from their IT systems.

Theoretical Background

In this section, a literature review will be conducted and the theoretical basis for the hypotheses of this research will be laid out. As this research regards the IT domain, it is of importance to define all concepts used clearly. This section will start with an analysis of the difference between creativity and innovation, which will be followed by the conceptualization of innovative behavior with IT. Then, the concept of transformational IT leadership will be introduced and explained. This will be followed by the definitions of creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy and this section will be concluded with the proposed conceptual model.

Innovation and Creativity

The expressions innovation and creativity have been used interchangeably in a vast amount of studies (Scott & Bruce, 1994; McLean, 2005). Although there is a clear distinction between the two concepts, some researchers believe that the difference is not substantial (West & Farr, 1990). Still, the two concepts do differ from each other and it is of importance to have a clear understanding of their definitions (McLean, 2005). Numerous definitions have been provided for creativity. In this research, the generally accepted definition developed by Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron (1996, p.

1155) will be used, who define creativity as “the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain”.

Innovation, on the other hand, is concerned with the actual implementation of these novel, creative ideas.

Amabile et al. (1996, p. 2) define innovation as “the successful implementation of creative ideas within

(6)

5 an organization”. Another distinction, according to McLean (2005) is that creativity usually occurs at the individual level, while innovation takes place at the organizational level. However, in this research, both creativity and innovation will be measured at the individual level, as this research aims at investigating how employees can use IT more innovatively.

According to Müller & Ulrich (2013), the merging of the two concepts usually takes place when researchers attempt to explain the innovation process. Creativity is usually seen as the “fuzzy” first stage of the innovation process, while innovation is regarded as the second step (Sarooghi, Libaers &

Burkemper, 2015). According to Kanter (1983) innovations can occur in various domains and types, for example, there are product innovations, but there are also process innovations. There are numerous creative ideas in organizations, which never reach the stage of implementation, and thus innovation. For an creative idea to become an innovation, its potential must be clear and acknowledged, sufficient resources must be available to execute the idea and it must be able to overcome some obstacles (McLean, 2005).

There are several stages an individual goes by in the individual innovation process. The first stage is the definition of the problem and the production of ideas for the solution of this problem. Then, the respective individual pursues recognition for his or her idea and tries to find support for it. At the last stage of the process, the individual provides a prototype of the idea or solution, by which he or she completes the idea. This idea is then ready to be implemented throughout the organization (Scott &

Bruce, 1994). According to Amabile et al. (1996), creativity and innovation are interdependent. Without creativity, no innovation is possible and without innovation, creativity might lose its significance (McLean, 2005).

Innovative Behavior

In this research, both concepts of creativity and innovation will be taken into account by measuring the innovative behavior of employees, with IT. This innovative behavior consists of all stages of the individual innovation process, thus, it also includes the “fuzzy” front-end of innovation; creativity (Scott

& Bruce, 1994). That is, because creativity and innovation are interdependent. A generally accepted definition of innovative behavior is “an employee’s intentional introduction or application of new ideas, products, processes, and procedures to his or her work role, work unit, or organization” (Yuan &

Woodman, 2010, p. 324). However, as this research solely regards working with IT in novel ways, an adapted definition is used here. In this research, innovative behavior with IT is defined as an employee’s intentional introduction and application of new ideas, processes and procedures to his or her work with IT. As the definition indicates, innovative behavior with IT includes both the generation of ideas as the actual implementation of these ideas, which is in line with Scott & Bruce’s (1994) conceptualization of innovative behavior. An example of innovative behavior with IT includes proposing novel ways to achieve objectives with the use of IT. It is important to note that innovative behavior in this research

(7)

6 does not regard the production of innovative products to be introduced by the organizations, but it focuses on the way employees use IT and perform their work with it in innovative ways.

Since it is of importance to actually use IT innovatively, instead of solely coming up with ideas on how to do this, it is interesting to investigate whether employees demonstrate actual innovative behavior.

Moreover, this research will answer Müller & Ulrich’s (2014) call for more research on creativity in the IS field by including creativity in the measurement of innovative behavior with IT and by investigating the concept of creative self-efficacy, which will be discussed later.

Leadership

Numerous studies have been performed on the concept of leadership, in which various definitions for the concept were used (Chen, 2002). In order to integrate these definitions, multiple researchers have started analyzing two forms of leadership, namely transactional and transformational leadership (De Groot, Kiker & Cross, 2000; Reuvers, Van Engen, Vinkenburg & Wilson-Evered, 2008). These two concepts were developed by Burns (1978) and extended by Bass (1985). Transformational leadership has been established from the concept of transactional leadership, and therefore it is of importance to define both concepts in order to understand their differences (Gundersen, Hellesoy & Raeder, 2012).

“The concept of transactional management stems from the notion that the manager-subordinate relationship is based on a transaction between the two, whereby managers exchange rewards for subordinates’ performance” (Burnes, 2011, p. 499). It can be said that an exchange process takes place, where followers who perform well get rewarded and those who do not perform well are penalized (Bass, 1990; Reuvers et al. 2008). These rewards and punishments can take many forms, for example, the rewards can be monetary or symbolic (Bass, 1997). It is generally believed that transactional leadership consists of three components: contingent reward, active management by exception and passive management by exception (Bass, 1997). Contingent reward involves defining objectives, providing resources to accomplish these objectives and providing rewards when performance is satisfying (Bass, 1997). Active management by exception consists of the establishment and enforcement of clear rules, while passive management by exception is intervening only when problems have come to attention (Reuvers et al. 2008).

However, only rewarding and punishing followers based on their performance will lead to low commitment of the follower, as their self-esteem is not taken into account (Shamir, 1991; Bass, 1997).

That is where transformational leadership comes in, which can be seen as an amplification of transactional leadership: “transformational leaders use the force of their personality to motivate followers to identify with the leader’s vision and to sacrifice their self-interest in favor of that of the group or organization” (Burnes, 2011, p. 499). This leads to increased contribution and effort from employees, as they develop a sense of trust and confidence in the leader and see the leader as an example (Bass, 1990). Transformational leadership can be characterized by four types of behavior.

(8)

7 Transformational leaders use their charisma to create a vision and to gain the trust of their followers, they use inspiration to motivate their followers, they provide intellectual stimulation by promoting intelligence and they give their followers individual consideration (Bass, 1990; Dvir, Eden, Avolio &

Shamir, 2002). Overall, a clear distinction between transactional and transformational leadership is that transactional leadership uses the extrinsic motivation of followers, while transformational leadership is focused on their intrinsic motivation (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992).

Previous research has found various organizational advantages of transformational leadership. Pillai &

Williams (2004, p. 144) found that transformational leadership leads to higher employee commitment and performance, “by enhancing employee self-efficacy and cohesiveness”. A study performed by Braun, Peus, Weisweiler & Frey (2013) showed a positive relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction at the individual and at the team level. They also found that the leadership style influenced team performance positively. Multiple other studies have found that transformational leadership has a positive impact on followers’ self-efficacy (Aggarwal & Krishnan, 2013), self- leadership and role perceptions (Choi, 2006). Thus, it can be said that organizations can benefit from leaders with transformational characteristics.

When linking leadership style to IT, one may argue that transformational leaders are better suited to enhance followers’ IT usage than transactional leaders. As stated earlier, today’s work environment is rapidly changing due to the technological change (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). This has caused the need for organizations to be able to adapt to the new circumstances and to be flexible (Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014). In order to do this, the leaders within an organizations must possess the capabilities to be flexible and adaptive. Previous research, however, has found that transactional leadership is less effective in changing environments (Afshari, Bakar & Luan, 2009). Moreover, research performed by Thite (2000) has shown that successful IT managers possess multiple characteristics of transformational leadership.

Therefore, it can be assumed that transformational leaders possess the capabilities of stimulating IT usage of employees, while transactional leaders do not. This assumption is reinforced by a research of Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers & Stam (2010), who found that transactional leadership is negatively related to innovative behavior when the perceived empowerment of employees is high. Due to the rising importance and underutilization of IT, and the growing interest in the transformational leadership style, it is essential to investigate whether transformational leadership can influence IT utilization positively. Moreover, Li & Hsieh (2007) asked for further research on leadership in IT and that is where this study will come in.

It is important to note that transactional and transformational leadership are not regarded as two extreme opposites in this research. The current literature is not clear on whether leaders can be only transformational or only transactional or whether they can possess a combination of the characteristics.

In this research, the work of Kanter (1989) is followed, who states that effective leaders might have to

(9)

8 possess a combination of transformational and transactional skills. Which skills are appropriate, is then dependent on the situation at hand (Burnes, 2011). As previous literature has led to the belief that characteristics of transformational leadership are likely to influence innovative behavior of employees positively, only the components of transformational leadership are included in this research. The components of transactional leadership are not analyzed, since previous research suggests leaders with transactional characteristics do not, or even negatively, influence innovative behavior.

In order to properly measure all elements of transformational leadership, the six components developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter (1990) will be discussed extensively. As there is currently no clear definition of transformational IT leadership, these six components will be adjusted to fit the field of IT. The six components, according to Podsakoff et al. (1990) are: Articulating a vision, proving an appropriate model, fostering acceptance at group goals, high performance expectations, individual support and intellectual stimulation. As to be expected, several of the components fit the four behaviors of transformational leadership discussed before (Bass, 1990).

Articulating a vision. This component consists of the transformational leader finding opportunities for his or her followers. He or she develops a clear vision, communicates this vision to the followers and tries to inspire them with this vision (Podsakoff et al. 1990). This component fits the charisma of transformational leaders that Bass (1990) identified as one of the characteristics of transformational leadership and it is a crucial characteristic of transformational leadership (Podsakoff et al. 1990). In order to fit this component to the field of IT, the definition of this component is altered slightly. It consists of the leader finding IT opportunities and developing and communicating a vision regarding IT.

Providing an appropriate model. The second component is also an essential characteristic of transformational leadership and it consists of the leader being an example to his or her followers (Podsakoff et al. 1990). He or she is seen as a model figure, which the followers would like to identify themselves with. Through this, the leader can influence the way followers behave, as they are expected to share the values of the leader (Podsakoff et al. 1990). To fit the field of IT, in this component the behavior of the leader with IT is seen as an example and his or her values also regard the field of IT.

Fostering acceptance of group goals. This component refers to the “behavior on the part of the leader aimed at promoting cooperation among employees and getting them to work together toward a common goal” (Podsakoff et al. 1990, p. 112). Here, the communication of a common goal and the cooperation between the followers are crucial. In this research, the common goal and cooperation are made possible through the use of IT.

High performance expectations. This part encompasses the expectations for high performance and quality the leader has from the followers (Podsakoff et al. 1990). This component shows some overlap with the exchange process taking place with transactional leaders, but it also consists of

(10)

9 motivating followers to perform “beyond the ordinary” (Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014, p. 129). When relating this component to IT, the expectations of the leader become related to high performance in the use of IT.

Individual support. This component distinguishes transformational leadership from transactional leadership. Transactional leaders are not concerned with individual wishes, while, according to this component, transformational leaders show concern for individuals’ needs. This component fits the characteristic of individual consideration developed by Bass (1990). This means that a transformational leader “gives personal attention, treats each employee individually, coaches, advises”

(Bass, 1990, p. 22), which leads to a higher job satisfaction and task performance of followers (Choi, 2006; Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014). The definition of this component will not be adjusted, as it relates to the leader and his or her followers in general.

Intellectual stimulation. The final component can be defined as “behavior of the leader that challenges followers to re-examine some of their assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed” (Podsakoff et al. 1990, p. 112). It can be related to Bass’ (1990, p. 22) definition of intellectual stimulation, which states that a transformational leader “promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful problem solving”. This component is particularly interesting for this research, as it is most likely related to the innovative behavior of followers. It can be seen as an encouragement for the employees to be creative and innovative. In order to fit the field of IT, the definition will consist of the re-examination of employees’ assumptions with regard to their work with IT and employees’ rethinking their ways of performing work with IT.

Although it has been theorized that transformational leadership influences innovative behavior positively (Hater & Bass, 1988; Bass & Avolio, 1990), empirical research on the relationship is scarce.

However, the studies which have investigated the relationship empirically, all found that transformational leadership has a positive effect on the innovative work behavior of employees (Janssen, 2002; Reuvers et al. 2008). Several studies also investigated whether transactional leadership and innovative work behavior are positively related. Reuvers et al. (2008) did not find a significant positive relationship between transactional leadership and innovative work behavior. Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers & Stam (2010) even found that transactional leadership is negatively related to innovative behavior when the perceived empowerment of employees is high. The focus of this study will be on transformational leadership, as it is more likely to positively influence employees’ innovativeness with IT and therefore the following hypothesis will be addressed in this research:

H1: Transformational IT Leadership is positively related to employees’ innovative behavior with IT.

(11)

10 Self-Efficacy

The concept of self-efficacy was developed by Bandura (1977) and can be defined as a person’s “belief in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 408). In other words, it is the belief whether or not a person can perform a task. It is a crucial element of Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory and consists of three dimensions. The first dimension is magnitude and can be defined as the

“level of task difficulty a person believes he or she can attain” (Gist, 1987, p. 472). The second dimension is strength and refers to “whether the conviction regarding magnitude is strong or weak”, and the final dimension is generality, which refers to “the degree to which the expectation is generalized across situations” (Gist, 1987, p. 472).

The theory of self-efficacy suggests that successes lead to an increase in self-efficacy, while failures decrease it. However, once a strong feeling of self-efficacy has been developed, failures do not have a large effect on it anymore (Bandura, 1986). Individuals assess their successes and failures based on two sources: their own performance and the knowledge of others (Schunk, 1991). Their own performance is the most reliable source, but observing others performing a task successfully, can increase one’s self- efficacy as well (Schunk, 1991). According to Bandura (1982), repeated performance accomplishment, called enactive mastery, is the most influential determinant of self-efficacy. The remaining determinants are vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal (Bandura, 1982). Vicarious experience consists of modeling a successful performance and is more effective after overcoming difficulty (Gist, 1987) and verbal persuasion refers to “convincing a person of his or her capability to perform a task” (Gist, 1987, p. 473). The last and least influential cue, emotional arousal, indicates that a person’s arousal during a moment can affect their self-efficacy. For example, when a person is experiencing a high level of anxiety, it may influence their self-efficacy negatively during the period the anxiety is felt.

Self-efficacy may seem similar to the concepts of confidence and esteem, but the difference is that self- efficacy is a narrower concept. Confidence and esteem are broad concepts mirroring the perception a person has about oneself. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, is the judgment of one’s capacity in a specific area (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Therefore, self-efficacy should be “tailored to the domain being studied”, which will also be done in this research (Gist, 1987, p. 472).

Behavioral and organizational studies have researched the concept of self-efficacy elaborately. Previous research has found that self-efficacy has a positive relationship with multiple work-related outcomes (Gist, 1987). A meta-analysis of 114 studies conducted by Stajkovic & Luthans (1988) has found that self-efficacy is a predictor of job performance. They also found that this relationship is moderated by task complexity. However, they believed that this moderation would decrease over time, as task complexity decreases through the familiarization of employees with a task (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1988).

(12)

11 A meta-analysis performed by Judge & Bono (2001) also found a positive relationship between self- efficacy and job performance. Moreover, it showed that self-efficacy influences job satisfaction positively. Another study found that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and work commitment (Pillai & Williams, 2004). The results from these studies show the significance of the concept of self-efficacy. As a high self-efficacy leads to a better work performance, it is a concept that it of great interest to organizations.

As mentioned before, self-efficacy should be tailored to the field it is being studied in (Bandura, 1982;

Gist, 1987). Since this research focuses on the IT domain and on innovative behavior, two forms of self- efficacy will be studied: creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy. These concepts and the reasoning behind the choice to research these concepts will be discussed elaborately in the following sections.

Creative Self-Efficacy

As self-efficacy should be tailored to the domain studied, the concept of creative self-efficacy developed by Tierney & Farmer (2002) has been regarded as an important extension of Bandura’s (1997) theory.

They defined creative self-efficacy as “the belief one has the ability to produce creative outcomes”

(Tierney & Farmer, 2002, p. 1138). Beghetto (2006) found that creative ability is an antecedent of creative self-efficacy and that thus, it may be regarded as a representation of a person’s creativity.

Numerous studies investigated the actual relationship between creative self-efficacy and creative performance and found a positive relationship between the two concepts (e.g. Tierney & Farmer, 2002;

Gong, Huang & Farh, 2009). However, as creativity is only the first stage of the innovation process, it is important to highlight that creative self-efficacy influences the innovation process as a whole.

Research by Hsu, Hou & Fan (2011) indicated that people with a high level of creative self-efficacy invest more time and are more dedicated to all of the stages of the individual innovation process: they devote more cognitive effort to the problem recognition and idea generation, they seek harder for support for their idea and therefore, they perform innovative tasks successfully. That is why a high level of creative self-efficacy leads to a high level of innovative behavior (Hsu, Hou & Fan, 2011). Since little research has been performed on the predictors of innovative behavior in the field of IT, while innovativeness is of great importance in IT, this study will investigate whether a high level of creative self-efficacy also leads to a high level of innovative behavior specifically with IT. Therefore, the following hypothesis is established:

H2: Creative self-efficacy is positively related to employees’ innovative behavior with IT.

People do not determine their belief in their creative capability in social isolation (Drazin, Glynn &

Kazanjian, 1999), but they rely on several cues (enactive mastery, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal) as discussed before. They rely on contextual factors in their work environment to assess their capability to be creative. Previous research has indicated that supervisors

(13)

12 are essential in the formation of employees’ self-efficacy (Eden, 1990). According to Tierney & Farmer (2002) supervisor support positively influences employees’ creative self-efficacy. They argue that this is the case, because supportive supervisors demonstrate two of the four cues of self-efficacy developed by Bandura (1986), namely vicarious experience and verbal persuasion. They exhibit the cue of vicarious experience by being a role model to the employees, which is regarded as an essential contextual factor for creativity (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). As ‘providing an appropriate model’ is one of the components of transformational leadership, it can be assumed that transformational leaders demonstrate this cue of vicarious experience. The second cue supportive supervisors demonstrate, verbal persuasion, comes from verbally expressing trust in or praise of employees’ capability to be creative (Tierney &

Farmer, 2002). This may even positively influence the final cue of emotional arousal, which will also increase creative self-efficacy. All in all, it can be assumed that leadership which is supportive of creativity has a positive effect on employees’ creative self-efficacy. As transformational leaders promote intellectual stimulation, creativity (e.g. Jung, 2001) and act as role models, they seem to fit Tierney &

Farmer’s (2002) idea of ‘supportive supervisors’. A research by Gong, Huang & Farh (2009) indeed found that transformational leadership and employee creative self-efficacy are positively related. As this relationship has not yet been investigated in the field of IT, the third hypothesis addressed in this research is:

H3: Transformational IT leadership is positively related to employees’ creative self-efficacy.

As mentioned before, there are several reasons to assume that transformational leadership is positively related to innovativeness with IT. However, in this study, it is presumed that this relationship is mediated by creative self-efficacy. Transformational leadership, or any form of leadership, can be seen as a contextual factor for employees. Previous research has indicated that such contextual factors do not influence behavior directly, but through psychological factors (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Choi, 2004). The way employees perceive contextual factors, influences their behavior. According to Choi (2004), creative self-efficacy is such a psychological factor. Therefore, it can be assumed that transformational leadership could influence innovative behavior with IT through creative self-efficacy. Choi (2004) investigated this relationship in a general context, and indeed found that creative self-efficacy mediates the influence of supportive leadership on creative performance. This research will add to the literature by investigating this mediation in the domain of IT and the following hypothesis will be addressed:

H4: Creative self-efficacy mediates the relationship between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT.

IT Self-Efficacy

This research is set in the field of IT, and therefore the concept of self-efficacy will once again be tailored to the IT domain. This concept has had multiple names over the past years, such as computer self- efficacy, internet self-efficacy and, the name which will be used in this study, IT self-efficacy. With the

(14)

13 growing use and importance of computers and IT, the concept of IT self-efficacy was developed, which can be defined as the “a person’s judgment of his or her ability to use a computer system” (Scott &

Walczak, 2009, p. 221). Compeau & Higgins (1995) applied the three dimensions of self-efficacy to the concept of IT self-efficacy: magnitude, strength and generalizability. A person with a high computer self-efficacy magnitude expects to be capable to complete more complex IT related tasks than a person with a low magnitude. When a person is highly convinced of his or her ability to complete IT related tasks, the strength of their IT self-efficacy is high. And finally, when a person has a high IT self-efficacy generalizability, he or she is able to use different IT products or systems with ease (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).

Previous research found that IT self-efficacy is positively related to computer usage (Fagan & Neill, 2004) and the intention to use ERP systems (Scott & Walczak, 2009). However, little to no research has been performed on the relationship between IT self-efficacy and innovative behavior with IT. It is essential for organizations to know whether employees’ IT self-efficacy influences their innovativeness with IT. If there is a positive relationship between these concepts, organizations may want to introduce programs, such as IT trainings, to increase the IT self-efficacy of their employees. When taking the dimensions of IT self-efficacy into account, it is likely that a high level of IT self-efficacy leads to more innovative behavior with IT. A person who scores high on all three dimensions is convinced of his or her ability to use IT in complex ways and may be inclined to try to use the IT in novel ways as well. He or she has less fear of failure, as IT self-efficacy is negatively related to computer anxiety (Fagan &

Neill, 2004).

In one research, the authors actually suggest that personal innovativeness with IT is positively related to IT self-efficacy (Thatcher & Perrewé, 2002). The authors define personal innovativeness with IT as

“the willingness of an individual to try out any new information technology” (Thatcher & Perrewé, 2002, p. 383) and they regard it as a stable trait over time. There are two essential differences between their research and this study. Firstly, their definition of personal innovativeness with IT differs from the definition for innovative behavior with IT used in this research. They regard it as the first time use of new IT, while in this research, it is seen as the continuous use of IT in novel ways. Secondly, they regard personal innovativeness with IT as a stable trait, while here, it is believed that innovative behavior is flexible and can be influenced by many factors, such as leadership style. This is in line with numerous studies on innovative behavior (e.g. Hsu, Hou & Fan, 2011). All in all, it is assumed that employees with a high IT self-efficacy are inclined to innovate more with IT compared to employees with a low IT self-efficacy, therefore the fifth hypothesis addressed in this research is:

H5: IT self-efficacy is positively related to employees’ innovative behavior with IT.

As with all other forms of self-efficacy, people assess their ability to use IT with the use of the four cues discussed before. Although no research has been performed on the influence of leadership on IT self-

(15)

14 efficacy, using the same reasoning as for the relationship between transformational leadership and creative self-efficacy, it can be assumed that transformational leadership is positively related to IT self- efficacy through the demonstration of the cues of vicarious experience and verbal persuasion. This assumption gains even more strength for the concept of transformational IT leadership, as this form of leadership encourages and supports the use of IT specifically. This research contributes to the current literature by investigating the following hypothesis:

H6: Transformational IT leadership is positively related to employees’ IT self-efficacy.

Finally, in this research, it is assumed that IT self-efficacy mediates the relationship between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT. That is, because IT self-efficacy can also be regarded as a psychological factor, through which the contextual factor of transformational IT leadership influences actual behavior. A transformational leader might be able to inspire innovative behavior with IT, but employees must believe that they actually have the ability to use IT well before behaving innovatively with it. Therefore, in this research, the assumption is made that transformational IT leadership increases employees’ IT self-efficacy, and that a higher level of innovative behavior with IT will be the outcome of this relationship. This is addressed through the final hypothesis of this research:

H7: IT self-efficacy mediates the relationship between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT.

An overview of the hypotheses and relationships addressed in this research can be found in the conceptual model depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Transformational IT

Leadership Innovative Behavior with IT

Creative Self-Efficacy

IT Self-Efficacy H1 H3 H2

H4

H6 H5

H7

(16)

15

Methodology

In this section, the methodology used to conduct this research is discussed. The method by which the data was collected is reported, followed by a description of the sample. Then the instruments used to measure all variables are presented and the section is finalized by the presentation of the factor analysis performed.

Data Collection

In order to collect data, an online and a paper version of a questionnaire were created, however, the online version was mainly used. The program Qualtrics Survey Software was used to create and distribute the online questionnaire. The paper version was given to relevant respondents, who completed the questionnaire in their own time and returned it when finished. The questionnaire was distributed during approximately four weeks in the Netherlands and was available in Dutch and English. The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix I. Participants were approached using e-mail, personal contact and social media. Respondents had to meet three requirements in order to be able to participate, which formed the sampling frame of this study. Firstly, the respondents had to be employed, for the aim of this research is to investigate how employees can use IT at work more innovatively. Secondly, as this research is focused on the use of IT, the respondents had to use IT on a daily basis at work. Finally, all respondents had to have a supervisor or leader, in order to be able to measure transformational IT leadership. Eventually, 448 respondents started the survey and 311 completed it and were taken into account during the analysis.

Sample. The sample consisted of 178 (57.2%) male and 133 (42.8%) female respondents, with an average age of 33 years. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 65 years, which approximates the working population of the Netherlands, as the population ranges from 15 to 65 years (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2014). The tenure of the respondents ranged from 0 to 38 years, with a mean of 6.66 years. The sample consisted of relatively well educated participants, as 68.5% had completed a polytechnic and/or University education. Table 1, presented below, shows the distribution per industry of the respondents. As can be seen, most of the respondents worked in healthcare, public services and business-to-business services.

Measurement

In order to ensure that all constructs were measured appropriately, measurement instruments from previous studies were used. The measurement instruments selected have been used and tested various times in literature. When there were multiple instruments available to measure the same construct, the instruments were assessed based on times used, reliability and length and the most appropriate were selected. All measurement instruments used in this research were presented on a seven-point Likert scale. For some of the instruments, this meant an increase from a five-point scale to a seven-point scale.

(17)

16 This was done, as it is a method to increase the validity and reliability of the data (Lozano, Garcia-Cueto

& Muniz, 2008). The measurement instruments per construct will be discussed below.

Table 1. Industry Distribution

Transformational IT leadership. A widely used instrument to measure transformational leadership is the instrument developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990). As transformational IT leadership is a relatively new concept, no measurement instrument existed for it. Therefore, to measure transformational IT leadership, the instrument by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was adapted to fit the field of IT. According to (Presser, Rothgeb, Couper, Lessler, Martin, Martin & Singer, 2004), it is allowed to adapt instruments to fit a specific field, as this reduces specification error. All dimensions were adapted to IT, except for the dimension of ‘individualized support’. As discussed before, this dimension regards the relationship between the leader and his or her followers in general, therefore, it cannot be adapted to a certain field. The adapted instrument has been pre-tested by two students (Sietsma, 2014; Biernath, 2014) by using respondent debriefing (Grimm, 2010). The complete instrument consisted of 22 questions. The dimension ‘articulating a vision’ was measured with the use of five items, an example question being “My team leader/manager is always seeking new ways in which IT can be used”. The dimension ‘providing an appropriate model’ consisted of three items. An example question was “My team leader/manager is a role model with regard to the IT use”. The third dimension, ‘fostering acceptance at group goals’ consisted of four items, and an example question was “My team leader/manager fosters collaboration among work groups by using IT tools”. The next dimension, ‘high performance expectations’ was measured through three items and consisted of questions such as “My team leader/manager insists on using IT tools to ensure best performance”. The fifth dimension,

‘individualized support’ consisted of four items, and a question measuring this dimension was “My team leader/manager shows respect for my personal feelings”. Finally, the dimension of ‘intellectual stimulation’ was measured with the use of three items and an example question was “My team leader/manager has stimulated me to think about old IT problems in new ways”. The complete instrument by Podsakoff et al. (1990) and the adaptation to IT can be found in Appendix II.

(18)

17 Creative self-efficacy. The original measurement instrument, developed by Tierney & Farmer (2002), and used in numerous studies, was used to measure the construct of creative self-efficacy. This instrument consisted of four items, measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). An example was “I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas”. The complete instrument is shown in Appendix III.

IT self-efficacy. The original measurement instrument of computer self-efficacy was developed by Compeau & Higgins (1995) and consisted of 10 items. However, this instrument was aimed at measuring the computer self-efficacy regarding a specific software package. As this research is about the use of all IT at work, the adapted version of the instrument by Wang, Wang, Lin & Tang (2003) was used to measure IT self-efficacy. The instrument consisted of four items, with an example question being

“I could complete the job using IT if there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go”, which were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The full instrument can be found in Appendix IV.

Innovative behavior with IT. The measurement instrument for innovative behavior was developed by Scott & Bruce (1994) and consists of questions covering the entire individual innovation process. Thus, it includes questions on both the creation of novel ideas, thus creativity, and the implementation of these ideas, thus innovation. As this instrument regarded innovative behavior in general, the questions were adapted to IT, which is, as mentioned before, allowed (Presser et al. 2004).

This resulted in an instrument consisting of six items, which were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). An example question was “I am innovative with IT”.

As the question suggests, innovative behavior was measured with the use of a self-report measure, thus employees assessed their own innovative behavior with IT. Although literature is unclear on whether self-assessment is suitable, there are reasons to believe it is an appropriate method. Particularly, previous research has shown that leaders are not necessarily able to assess the behavior of their followers better than the followers can assess their own behavior (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall & Waterson, 2000;

Hsu, Hou & Fan, 2011), as followers have more insights on the tasks they conduct (Shalley, Gilson &

Blum, 2009). Therefore, it is assumed that it is appropriate to use a self-report measure of innovative behavior with IT in this research.

Common method bias. Additionally, Harman’s single-factor test was performed to check whether common method bias was an issue in this research (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Common method bias might have been an issue due to the self-reported data. Harman’s single-factor test indicated that common method bias was not an issue in this case, as no single factor “accounted for the majority of the covariance among the measures” (Podsakoff et al. 2003, p. 889). The results of the test can be found in Appendix V.

(19)

18 Control variables. Several control variables were included in the analysis that may have an effect on innovative behavior with IT, creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy. According to Scott &

Bruce (1994), who studied innovative behavior in general, individual age and education may influence innovative behavior and therefore they included them as control variables in their research. As this research uses an instrument that is an adapted version of Scott & Bruce’s (1994) instrument for measuring innovative behavior with IT, age and education level will also be included as control variables in this study. Moreover, Tierney & Farmer (2002) found that job tenure had a negative influence on creative self-efficacy. Therefore, job tenure will be included as a control variable in this research as well.

Data Analysis

In order to analyze the data, several steps were taken. First, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed, which was followed by a test of reliability. Variables were regarded as reliable if their Cronbach’s alpha exceeded the threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). Then, the hypotheses were tested using a multiple regression analysis. The mediation analysis was performed using Baron & Kenny’s (1986) steps and Sobel’s test was used to draw conclusions with regard to the mediation hypotheses.

Every step of the analysis was executed with the use of the program IBM SPSS Statistics 22. In this section, the PCA and the reliability analysis will be discussed, whereas the multiple regression analysis and mediation analysis will be presented on in the results section.

Factor analysis. The first PCA was conducted on the variable of transformational IT leadership.

The PCA was performed on all 22 questions measuring the underlying dimensions of transformational IT leadership and it showed six components. Component 1 consisted of strong loadings of the dimensions ‘individualized support’ (TFL_ISU), component 2 consisted of high loadings of the dimension ‘fostering acceptance at group goals’ (TFL_FAG), the dimension ‘high performance expectations’ (TFL_HPE) loaded strongly on component 3 and the dimension ‘articulating a vision’

(TFL_AV) on component 4. Component 5 entailed strong loadings of the dimension ‘intellectual stimulation’ (TFL_IST) and finally, the dimension ‘providing an appropriate model’ (TFL_PAM) loaded on component 6. As the sample size was higher than 250, the threshold used for determining whether a loading was strong was 0.35 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998). Moreover, as multiple items suffered from cross-loadings, it was decided to exclude those items from analysis. The final PCA, therefore, consisted of 14 items and can be found in Appendix VI. The components extracted are in line with literature, since previous research indicated that transformational leadership consists of these six dimensions.

The second PCA was run on creative self-efficacy. This PCA resulted in one component with high loadings and thus, no cross-loadings. The results of the PCA can be seen in Appendix VII. This is again in line with literature, as creative self-efficacy is not expected to have any underlying dimensions. The third PCA was run on IT self-efficacy and initially showed two components, for one item loaded highly

(20)

19 on two components. Therefore, this item was excluded from analysis and the final PCA, which can be found in Appendix VIII, consisted of three items. The next PCA was performed on innovative behavior with IT and revealed one component with strong loadings, which is once again in line with literature.

The results of this PCA is shown can be seen in Table 2 below.

Table 2. PCA Innovative Behavior with IT Component

1 IBIT1 0.816 IBIT2 0.801 IBIT5 0.797 IBIT6 0.787 IBIT4 0.787 IBIT3 0.734

IBIT = Innovative Behavior with IT

The final PCA was conducted with all independent variables, thus, transformational IT leadership, creative self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy. In order to achieve simple structure, the Oblimin rotation method was used (Bryant & Yarnold, 1995) and one more item of transformational IT leadership was excluded from analysis due to persistent cross-loadings. This PCA consisted of eight components, with six of the components regarding the dimensions of transformational IT leadership, one component for creative-self efficacy and one component for IT self-efficacy. Table 3 presents the loadings per item and component of the PCA with all independent variables.

Reliability analysis. In order to perform the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha was used.

This measure shows whether there is internal consistency among the items (Vale, Silcock & Rawles, 1997). The Cronbach’s alpha of the dependent variable, innovative behavior with IT, equaled 0.877, which is well above the threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). The Cronbach’s alpha’s of the independent variables are shown in Table 3. As can be seen in the table, all dimensions of transformational IT leadership have a Cronbach’s alpha which is higher than 0.7. This is also the case for creative self- efficacy (0.840) and IT self-efficacy (0.839). Therefore, it can be concluded that there is internal consistency among the items.

Table 3. PCA and Cronbach’s alpha of Independent Variables

Component α

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

TFL_AV1 0.859 0.794

TFL_AV2 0.803

TFL_ISU1 0.824 0.816

(21)

20

TFL_ISU2 0.811

TFL_ISU3 0.792

TFL_ISU4 0.728

ITSE4 -0.921 0.839

ITSE3 -0.850

ITSE2 -0.824

CSE4 0.865 0.840

CSE1 0.848

CSE2 0.820

CSE3 0.799

TFL_IST1 0.885 0.714

TFL_IST2 0.868

TFL_HPE1 0.904 0.783

TFP_HPE2 0.896

TFL_FAG1 -0.612 0.889

TFL_FAG2 -0.595

TFL_PAM3 -0.636 N.A.

Results

In order to test the hypotheses, regression analyses were performed. As mentioned before, age, education level and tenure were regarded as control variables in this study, and therefore, they were included in all analyses. During each analysis, a check for multicollinearity was performed by assessing the VIF score. All VIF scores were well below the threshold of 4 (the highest VIF score was 2.479), which shows that multicollinearity was not an issue (Malhotra, 2010). The VIF scores per analysis can be found in Appendix VIIII. Moreover, the mean, standard deviation and correlation between the variables are shown in Table 4 presented below. The correlations were as expected, except for the correlation between IT self-efficacy and innovative behavior with IT, which turned out to be negative.

Table 4. Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations

A hierarchical regression was conducted to test H1, H2, and H5. The results of this regression are depicted in Table 5 below. In the first analysis, only the control variables were included. This showed

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

For this reason, the report of the Commission itself which identified the need for a new, concept of education based on the philosophy of Popagano, was the

Evidence is provided that the personal factor PIIT and three of the six sub-dimensions of the environmental factor transformational IT leadership have 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

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

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

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