1
“Innovative Behavior with IT: The Impact of Transformational IT Leadership
through Work Engagement and the Influence of a Climate for Innovation.”
Renate Hendriksen
S2519550
MSc BA Change Management
Supervisor:
Dr. I. Maris-de Bresser
Co-assessor:
Prof. Dr. B. J. M. Emans
June 25, 2015
Words: 15,994
AbstractOrganizations invest heavily in information technology (IT). Underperformance of IT is caused by underutilization, which can be addressed by increasing an individuals’ innovative behavior with IT. In this study, the question addressed is about how leaders by means of transformational IT leadership
can influence the innovative use of IT through changed levels of work engagement, and how the perceived climate for innovation plays a role in this. Results from 256 respondents from a variety of
industries provide that transformational IT leadership influences work engagement, which has a positive influence on an employees’ innovative behavior with IT. However, only the individual oriented dimensions of transformational IT leadership are positively related to work engagement, the
overall leadership dimensions show negative relations. The perceived availability of resources to be innovative is shown to have an important positive impact, whereas the perceived support for
innovation in an organization has no influence.
2 Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Literature Review and Background 6
2.1 Innovative Behavior with IT 6
2.2 Work Engagement 7
2.3 Transformational IT Leadership 9
2.4 Psychological Climate for Innovation 13
3. Methodology 16
3.1 Data Collection and Sample 16
3.2 Measurement 17 3.2.1 Measures 18 3.2.2 Quality Criteria 19 3.3 Data Analysis 20 4. Results 22 4.1 Descriptives 23
4.2 Structural Equation Modelling 23
5. Discussion and Conclusion 25
5.1 Discussion 25 5.2 Theoretical Implications 27 5.3 Practical Implications 28 5.4 Limitations 29 5.5 Future Research 30 5.6 Conclusion 30 References 31
Appendix A Sample Industries 38
Appendix B Questionnaire 39
Appendix C Translations to the IT Context 43
Appendix D Descriptives and Correlations 45
3 1. Introduction
Organizations are increasingly dependent on information technology (Wang, Butler, Hsieh & Hsu, 2008), and the usage behavior of employees (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005). Bagayogo, Lapointe and Bassellier (2014, p. 362) indicate that “a major problem confronting organizations is that they spend millions of dollars for applications that underperform because they are underutilized”. Innovation with IT is important to address this underutilization of IT (Hsieh & Wei, 2007). Innovative behavior is among others influenced by personal factors, like engagement (Park, Song, Yoon, Kim, 2013), and also by organizational factors such as a climate for innovation (Ren & Zhang, 2015). Besides, transformational leaders highly encourage work engagement of employees (Attridge, 2009), and therefore plays an indirect important role in the innovative behavior with IT. The present study aims to further investigate these interesting and increasingly important subjects.
Over the past years, organizations have invested heavily in information technologies (ITs) to enhance their services and increase competitiveness (Jasperson, et al., 2005;Wang, Li & Hsieh, 2013). Wang et al. (2013, p. 1105) mention that “since the 1980s, organizations spend up to 50% of their new capital investment on IT-related activities”. Besides, “despite the economic downturn, global IT spending has still increased by nearly 8%, reaching $3.4 trillion in 2008” (Wang et al., 2013, p. 1105). This marks the importance of IT in today’s organizational functioning. However, the implementation of information technology in organizations is costly and has a relatively low success rate (Legris, Ingham & Collerette, 2003). Wang, Chou, and Jiang (2005, p. 173) state that “ERP implementation projects were, on average, 178% over budget, took 2.5 times as long as intended and delivered only 30% of the promised benefits”. The performance gains from the IT systems implemented depend largely on the way features are used, effectively and extensively (Bagayogo et al., 2014; Deng & Chi, 2012). Jasperson et al. (2005) mention that existing evidence suggests that organizations underutilize the functions of IT, “users employ quite narrow feature breadths, operate at low levels of feature use, and rarely initiate technology- or task-related extensions of the available features” (p. 526). This underutilization therefore might cause the underachievement of expected benefits. Hsieh and Wei (2007) approached the issue of underutilization by studying the concept of ‘innovate with IT’, which refers to “user’s applying IT in novel ways to support his or her task performance” (Wang et al., 2013, p. 1105). They mention that it is of great importance for organizations to understand the reasons and drivers for the innovative use of IT to maximize their returns on IT investments. Ahuja and Thatcher (2005) also articulate the importance of employees’ innovation with IT in the environmental context. Those organizations that can encourage employees to use IT in creative and innovative ways respond more successful to changing markets (Wang, et al., 2008).
4 percent of the costs related to IT arise within the post-adoption stage (Ortiz de Guinea & Webster, 2013). Therefore, economic benefits can be achieved by expanding the use of IT within this post-adoption stage (Jasperson et al., 2005). Wang et al. (2013, p. 1117) state that “instead of buying new IT, attaining higher level usage behaviors of and extracting more value from already installed IT could be a worthwhile effort with a much lower incremental financial investment”.
The responsibility of an organization’s use of IT is shared between IT and line managers (Bassellier, Benbasat & Reich, 2003). This implies that managers have an important leadership position in influencing the innovative use of IT within organizations. There is a large amount of literature on the effects of transformational leadership and on transformational leadership and innovation, but little has been written on the influences of transformational leadership in the field of IT (Li & Hsieh, 2007; Eisenbeiss, Van Knippenberg & Boerner, 2008). The impact of leadership in IT research deserves more attention, since research now largely focus on specific managerial roles and behaviors, and therefore does not provide an overall picture (Cho, Park & Michel, 2011).
Transformational leadership is about giving followers a purpose, a vision of something to aim for and on creating follower identification with the leader (Senior & Swailes, 2011). The use of a vision positively influences job satisfaction and work engagement (Vincent-Hoper, Muser & Janneck, 2012). Besides, transformational leaders motivate followers to perform beyond expectations (Cho et al., 2011), which is also indicated as influencing work engagement (Kopperud, Martinsen & Humborstad, 2014; Song, Kolb, Lee & Kim, 2012). Engagement is an important characteristic for organizations, since it contributes to the bottom line performance (Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010). Agarwal (2014, p. 42) also indicates that “an engaged workforce is considered to be a cornerstone of competitive advantage”. Innovative behaviors occur when individuals feel engaged with their work (Gomes, Curral & Caetano, 2015). This indicates the importance of engagement, but only one out of five employees seems to be engaged in their work (Attridge, 2009). Research on innovation as an outcome or consequence of work engagement is scarce, and also the IT context in relation to work engagement is under researched (Bhatnagar, 2012). Wang et al., (2013) describe that managers should focus on IT experiences and also on the expectations among users. Transformational leaders might influence an individuals’ work engagement, but this important link also needs further research (Kopperud, Martinsen & Humborstad, 2014; Şahin, Çubuk & Uslu, 2014). Therefore, this study addresses the important subject of how transformational IT leadership might influence the level of innovative behavior with IT through influencing an employees’ work engagement.
5 (Scott & Bruce, 1994, p. 582). A climate for innovation is a situational characteristic that encourages innovative work behavior (Kheng & Mahmood, 2013). Therefore, the organization might play an important role in increasing the innovative behavior with IT by enhancing their climate for innovation.
Following these observations in theory and practice, the purpose of this research is to provide insight into the interplay between transformational IT leadership, work engagement and the innovative behavior with IT and how this is influenced by an organizational climate for innovation. This interesting and valuable gap, based on the above review, will be explored by means of the following research question:
How does transformational IT leadership influence the innovative behavior with IT of employees through work engagement? Is this mediating relationship of work engagement moderated by a climate for innovation?
The goal of this study is first to understand how the level of work engagement is related to the innovative behavior with IT of employees, Besides we want to know how leader/manager by means of transformational IT leadership influences the level of work engagement. Then, the mediating effect of work engagement will be addressed, how it carries the influences of transformational IT leadership to the innovative behavior with IT. Finally, we want to bring a contribution to theory and practice by exploring the moderating relationship of an organizations’ climate for innovation on the mediating effects of work engagement.
This paper contributes to the literature streams of information technology, innovation, transformational leadership, and work engagement as outlined above. It answers research calls to study the post-adoption phase of IT implementation, transformational leadership in the context of IT, and the influences of transformational leadership on work engagement. Besides, it answers calls to study innovation as an outcome of work engagement, work engagement in the context of IT, mediating effects of work engagement, and also the exploration of organizational level influences by a climate for innovation.
6 2. Literature Review and Background
This literature review and background section presents the concepts innovative behavior with IT, work engagement, transformational IT leadership, and psychological climate for innovation. The concepts are explicitly defined, relevant literature is elaborated and the expected relationships between the concepts are argued. Also, the hypotheses and conceptual model are presented.
2.1 Innovative Behavior with IT
Innovation begins with the notion of creativity and creative ideas of individuals. Creativity and innovation are in the literature used as integrative concepts, which is defined by Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou (2014, p 1298) as “the process, outcomes, and products of attempts to develop and introduce new and improved ways of doing things”. Creativity is described as the generation of novel ideas, and innovation is presented as the phase after creativity of implementing those creative ideas (Amabile, Conti, Lazenby & Herron, 1996; Anderson et al, 2014). Scott and Bruce (1994) explain that creativity is the first phase of innovation, where creativity encompasses the production of novel ideas and innovation is about the production or adoption of novel ideas and their implementation. This implies that creativity is a necessary condition for innovation (Shinjeng, Zimmer & Lee, 2014).
Fichman, Dos Santos and Zheng (2014) describe that innovation in information technologies change the technical and administrative core of organizations. Information technology in their view consists of hardware, software applications, and content. Lauterbach and Mueller (2014) present that the process of adoption of IT flows through different phases. They move from adoption through adaptive adoption to post-adoptive-behavior. Adoption is described by Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra and King (2000) as behavior that occurs in an organizational setting where employees are allowed to use the new IT system available. Adaptation is defined by them as “a process of modifying existing conditions in an effort to achieve alignment” (p. 572). Besides, they define appropriations as “the immediate, visible actions that evidence deeper structuration processes” (p. 571), which is a post-adoptive behavior. This implies that an individuals’ innovative behavior with IT can be studied from different phases of IT implementation. As indicated before, this research focuses on the post-adoptive innovative behaviors, since this phase is of growing interest and yet under researched (Bagayogo et al., 2014).
7 the field of innovation with IT is the ‘intention to explore IT’ (Wang et al., 2013). Karahanna and Agarwal (2006) define the ‘intention to explore’ as a user’s experimentation with IT and seeking new ways of using it. Third, the study of Wang et al. (2008) focuses on individual’s actual behavior along the concept of ‘innovate with IT’, which is defined as “new uses of existing workplace information technologies by an individual to support his/her task performance”(p. 28). Wang et al. (2013, p. 1106) describe that the innovative use of IT has to do with “the generation and implementation of individual users’ creative ideas in the form of IT usage behaviors”.
The above constructs present a different interpretation of how individuals innovate with IT, of which the first two are based on intentions. Wang et al. (2008) state that it is recently recommended to investigate the actual behavior of individuals instead of their intentions as a predictor of behavior. Their argument comes from Kim, Malhotra & Narasimhan (2005) who studied the evaluations-intention-usage relationship on which a lot of theories are based. Kim et al. (2005) found that past use weakens the predictability of actual usage behaviors, supported by their findings that habit and automaticity play an important role in usage. Jasperson et al. (2005, p. 528) also provide that “past behavior has a direct effect on future behavior over and above the effect of intention”. Therefore, in this study the actual innovative behavior with IT will be addressed.
Innovative behavior with IT is in this study defined along the concept of ‘innovative behavior’ of Scott and Bruce (1994). They describe innovative behavior in terms of three stages; problem recognition and the generation of ideas, promotion of a solution and building a coalition, and the realization of the idea institutionalized into organizational functioning (Xerri, 2014). Since the subject of this research is innovative behavior with IT, these stages are adapted to the field of IT.
Ahuja and Thatcher (2005) emphasize the importance of future research in how factors such as management support and individual differences might influence the use of IT and therefore also the innovative behavior with IT. Additionally, it is argued that research on transformational leadership lacks important mediating variables that relate transformational leadership to performance (Bass et al., 2003). Besides, research on innovative behavior with IT suggests that personal differences might influence the innovative use of IT (Wang et al., 2008). In this research, the influence of work engagement on the innovative behavior with IT will be explored.
2.2 Work Engagement
8 positive psychology and positive organizational behavior (Mills, Culbertson & Fullagar, 2012). Scholars and practitioners are increasingly interested in the concept of engagement, but are not unanimous about a definition. Macey and Schneider (2008, p. 4) provided that “common to these definitions is the notion that engagement is a desirable condition, has an organizational purpose, and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and energy so it has both attitudinal and behavioral components”. The behavioral components therefore might play a role in an individuals’ innovative behavior with IT.
Work engagement is developed as an important construct to understand performance and well-being within organizations (Costa, Passos & Bakker, 2014). Work engagement in this research is defined as “a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind” (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá & Bakker, 2002). Schaufeli et al. (2002) have identified three dimensions of work engagement, which are mostly used in literature. Vigor is the first category proposed by Schaufeli et al. (2002). Vigor represents high levels of energy while working, clear and conscientious efforts and the perseverance when faced with difficult situations (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011; Kassing, Piemonte, Goman & Mitchel, 2012). Another factor that according to Schaufeli et al. (2002) is part of work engagement is Dedication. This can be described as the enthusiasm, and involvement of employees and their feelings of inspiration, pride and challenge (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011; Kassing et al., 2012). Finally, Absorption is the last category that belongs to the concept work engagement as described by Schaufeli et al. (2002). The feeling of absorption can be referred to as the way one is totally concentrated on work, time passes quickly, and that it is difficult to disconnect from the work (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011; Kassing et al., 2012).
Over the past decade, the concept of work engagement has become more popular because research provides relationships between work engagement and several positive individual and organizational consequences. Work engagement is positively related to for example, job performance (Bakker, Demerouti & Ten Brummelhuis, 2012), and innovation (Hakanen, Perhoniemi & Tppinen-Tanner, 2008). Saks (2006) found that employees’ attitudes, intentions and behaviors are influenced by work engagement. In particular, he mentions job satisfaction and commitment. Prior studies also revealed that job resources and personal resources are the key antecedents of work engagement (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011). Engagement is often considered as the positive counterpart of burnout (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). However Schaufeli and Bakker (2004, p. 293) found that “burnout and engagement exhibit different patterns of possible causes and consequences”, which implies that both constructs can be analyzed separately.
9 Literature addresses the importance of engagement on performance when implementing IT (Wang, Chang, Jiang & Klein, 2011), and the alignment of IT with user needs through engagement (McManus, 2004). But it does not address the influence on the actual IT usage behavior in the post-adoption phase. Research on employee creativity and innovative work behavior reveals that “it is frequently assumed that antecedents like job autonomy affect innovative behavior through changed levels of employees’ work engagement” (De Spiegelaere, et al., 2014, p. 320). Contrary, research also provides that work engagement increases job satisfaction, but job satisfaction actually reduces creativity (Wang & Ma, 2013). However, Bhatnagar (2012, p. ) states that “engaged workers are more creative, more productive and more willing to go the extra mile” (p. 932) and Hakanen et al. (2008) provided that work engagement increases personal initiative and therefore innovation. Although research provides contrary evidence, in this study it is expected that work engagement positively relates to innovative behavior. User engagement plays an important role at the implementation of IT projects (Wang et al., 2011), therefore it is expected that work engagement also positively influences innovative behavior within the context of IT.
H1: The level of work engagement is positively related to innovative behavior with IT. 1
Disengagement is associated with perceived low levels of management support (Attridge, 2009). Besides, management support might depend on the leadership style used, and leadership in the context of IT needs more attention (Cho et al., 2011). Transformational leadership is researched extensively. However, little has been written on the influences of transformational leadership in the field of IT (Li and Hsieh, 2007).
2.3 Transformational IT Leadership
Leaders play an important and responsible role in the subject of IT within an organization, therefore it is important to consider different types of leadership styles. Among other distinctions, the transformational and transactional leadership styles are presented and grounded in the literature. Transactional leadership reflects the use of praise, rewards and resources to which followers agreed and worked for (Bass, Jung, Avolio & Berson, 2003). Bass et al. (2003) state that transactional leadership “clarifies expectations and offers recognition when goals are achieved” (p. 208). It is already shown that transactional leadership relates in a positive way to the commitment, satisfaction, and performance of employees (Bass et al., 2003).
In contrast to transactional leadership, transformational leadership is “not based on a ‘give and take’ relationship, but on the leader’s personality, traits, and ability to make a difference through
1
10 example, articulating of an energizing vision, and challenging goals” (Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014, p. 128). Transformational leadership helps followers believe in themselves and in their mission (Bass et al., 2003). Transformational leaders “inspire the values and ideals of followers and ultimately motivate followers to perform beyond expectations” (Cho et al., 2011, p. 270).
Authors differ somewhat from each other in how they identify transformational leadership (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990), but the majority shares a common perspective that “by articulating a vision of the future of the organization, providing a model that is consistent with that vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and providing individualized support, effective leaders change basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers so that they are willing to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996, p. 260). These characteristics of transformational leadership raise employees to higher levels of potential and therefore might increase engagement. It is expected that transformational leadership also might encourage employees to perform their jobs with the help of IT beyond expectations and thereby influence the innovative behavior with IT.
Several studies already examined the effect of leadership on IT success (Bass et al., 2003), but there is less attention on the specific role of transformational leadership in this context. Cho et al. (2011) and Ekiko (2014) conclude that transformational leadership positively influence the success of IT implementation. This implies that transformational leadership is important in the IT context, but it has only a few times been directed at IT by adapting the dimensions to the IT context (Biernath, 2014; Sietsma, 2014).
Transformational leadership is researched in a variety of ways. One commonly used way to identify the components of transformational leadership is by means of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass et al., 2003), which consists of the following transformational leadership components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. However, the transformational leadership inventory (TFL) of Podsakoff et al. (1990) describes transformational leadership along six dimensions, which are presented in Table 1 and adapted to the context of IT. In this study, the six dimensions of Podsakoff et al.(1990) are used since it is already adapted to the IT context before (Biernath, 2014; Sietsma, 2014), and it is more extensive, which might provide a deeper and more specific understanding into the effects.
Dimensions of transformational IT leadership Identifying and
Articulating an IT-Vision
Behavior on the part of the leader aimed at identifying new opportunities in IT for his or her unit/division/company, and developing, articulating, and
inspiring others with his or her IT vision of the future.
Providing an Appropriate IT-role Model
11
Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals Through IT
Behavior, in the context of IT, on the part of the leader aimed at promoting cooperation among employees with IT, and getting them to work together toward a common goal with the use of IT.
High Performance Expectations with IT
Behavior that demonstrates the leader’s expectations for excellence, quality, and/ or high performance in the use of IT on the part of followers.
Providing Individualized Support
Behavior on the part of the leader that indicates that he/she respects followers and is concerned about their personal feelings and needs within the field of IT.
Intellectual Stimulation with IT
Behavior, in the context of IT, on the part of the leader that challenges followers to re-examine some of their assumptions about their use of IT and rethink how it can be performed.
(Podsakoff et al., 1990; Biernath, 2014; Sietsma, 2014).
TABLE 1 DIMENSIONS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL IT LEADERSHIP
Attridge (2009, p. 393) indicates that transformational leadership highly encourages work engagement of employees, since a transformational leader “provides a clear vision, inspires and motivates, offers intellectual challenges, and shows real interest in the need of workers”. These are all characteristics that indicates that leaders recognize and consider personal characteristics of employees. Zhu, Avolio and Walumbwa (2009) address the potential influence of transformational leadership on work engagement with the argument that transformational leadership emphasizes an employees’ responsibilities for taking challenges. Empirical evidence supports this positive relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement, across organizations and cultures (Attridge, 2009; Vincent-Hoper et al., 2012). However, instead of differences in organizations and cultures, the contexts in which transformational leadership is executed might also be important. Since the organizational investments in IT are increasing (Li & Hsieh, 2007), it can be implied that IT might become increasingly crucial in jobs. Therefore, it is important to study the effects of transformational leadership adapted to the context of IT on work engagement. Cho et al. (2011) provide that transformational leadership in the context of IT is important from the practical viewpoint that indicates that IT is underutilized. They state that transformational leaders can provide specific IT leadership and support since they “recognize each user’s different capabilities, needs, and developmental stage”, which therefore might influences work engagement (Cho et al., 2011, p. 271). Based on this literature review, it is expected that work engagement is positively influenced transformational leadership in the context of IT.
H2: The level of transformational IT leadership is positively related to work engagement.
12 with their job. Therefore, it is expected that also in the context of IT, the identification and articulation of a vision related to the use of IT will increase work engagement.
Providing an Appropriate IT-role Model & work engagement. Babcock-Roberson and Strickland (2010) found a significant positive relationship between charismatic leadership and work engagement. Charismatic leadership in their view contains of “providing followers with a role model for ethical conduct and a clear sense of purpose that is energizing” (Babcock-Robertson & Strickland, 2010, p. 314). This to a large extend corresponds to the ‘providing an appropriate IT-role model’ dimension of the TLI (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Along the importance of the IT context explained above it is therefore expected that this dimension will positively relate to work engagement.
Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals Through IT & work engagement. Kopperud et al. (2014, p. 31) argue that group cooperation is important in increasing work engagement, since they reason that “group processes seem to be involved in the enhancement and maintenance of work engagement”. Therefore, it is expected that the behavior of a leader aimed at cooperation within a group with the help of IT would also positively influence the level of work engagement.
High Performance Expectations with IT & work engagement. Transformational leaders are described as providing employees with high challenges (Kopperud et al., 2014). Vincent-Hoper et al. (2012) also indicate that transformational leaders positively challenge employees to increase their willingness to put effort in their jobs. These challenges positively influence work engagement, since Kopperud et al. (2014, p. 31) also state that “recent research has suggested that high challenges might foster work engagement given that they are perceived as positive by the employee”. Therefore, it is expected that high performance expectations with the use of IT will also increase the level of work engagement.
Providing Individualized Support & work engagement. The attention of transformational leaders for an employees’ individual needs, feelings and development is related to the development of ones sense of “self-determination and psychological meaningfulness and safety” (Zhu et al., 2009, p. 595). According to Zhu et al. (2009) these are characteristics that lead to higher levels of work engagement, which creates our expectations.
Intellectual Stimulation with IT & work engagement. Zhu et al. (2009) provide that transformational leaders make followers reassess their ways of doing things, which increases follower identification with the work and it is thereby also expected that their level of work engagement will increase. Therefore, in this study it is expected that the dimension ‘intellectual stimulation with IT’ will increase work engagement.
H2a: The level of transformational IT leadership – identifying and articulating an IT-vision – is positively related to work engagement.
13
H2c: The level of transformational IT leadership – fostering the acceptance of group goals through IT – is positively related to work engagement.
H2d: The level of transformational IT leadership – high performance expectations with IT – is positively related to work engagement.
H2e: The level of transformational IT leadership – providing individualized support – is positively related to work engagement.
H2f: The level of transformational IT leadership – intellectual stimulation with IT – is positively related to work engagement.
In addition, mediating effects of work engagement have been demonstrated in several studies (Park, et al., 2013). Work engagement for example fully mediates the relationship between autonomy and job performance (Bakker & Bal, 2010), and it mediates the relationship between job resources and proactive behavior at work (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). Several authors called for research on mediating effects to explain the transformational leadership influences on innovation (Eisenbeiss, et al., 2008). Therefore, explaining the mediating influence of work engagement is important in this study.
Literature mentions that the relationship of transformational leadership and innovative behavior with IT through work engagement, needs further empirical evidence (Kopperud, Martinsen & Humborstad, 2014; Şahin, Çubuk & Uslu, 2014). Based on the above review, it is expected that work engagement will mediate the relationship between transformational IT leadership and an individuals’ innovative behavior with IT.
H3: Work engagement acts as a mediator between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT.
Kataria, Garg and Rastogi (2013) provide that engagement is a two-way relationship between the organization and the individual. Therefore, the organizational environment might also play a critical role in how engagement is related to innovative use of IT. In this research, the psychological climate for innovation is studied to address this influence.
2.4 Psychological Climate for Innovation
14 “assumptions, beliefs, meaning and values primarily studied through qualitative methods”, while organizational climate regards “the practices and behaviors through which culture is manifested” (McLean, 2005, p. 229). Hunter, Bedell and Mumford (2007, p. 70) also indicate that organizational climate, contrary to organizational culture, is “a localized phenomenon reflecting experienced, environmental press”. An organization’s climate is therefore the factor that connects the context of an organization with the behavior of employees (King, et al., 2007). Literature about innovative behavior with IT suggests that the influence of contextual factors is a potential fruitful area of research (Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005; Jasperson et al., 2005), which also indicates the importance of including organizational climate in this study.
Organizational climate is examined globally, while recent studies on climate tend to focus on a specific climate along a particular area of interest (King, et al., 2007). An organization’s climate is by Hunter et al. (2007) described as a domain referenced phenomenon, which also indicates the subject specificity. King et al. (2007) mention that one important area of interest today has received limited attention of academic researchers in the context of organizational climate, namely an organization’s climate for innovation. The climate for innovation is characterized by organizations with an orientation toward “innovative change, support for their members ... and a tolerance for diversity” (Scott & Bruce, 1994, p. 583).
The psychological climate for innovation construct used in this research can be described along two dimensions, support for innovation and resource supply (Scott & Bruce, 1994). The support for innovation dimension can be indicated along the perceived organizational support construct extensively used in literature. Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined as the perceptions of employees that the organization values their contribution, are willing to reward efforts, and cares about their well-being (Cho et al., 2011; Chao-Chan & Na-Ting, 2014). Scott and Bruce (1994) placed the interpretation of POS in the context of innovation. Resource supply is in by McLean (2005) addressed along the concepts of time and money. He provides that there needs to be a balance in the level of time and money, too little or too much will negatively affect innovative behavior. King et al. (2007) found that an innovative climate may provide individuals with the space they need to be innovative and increase their efficiency. Therefore, with the term resource several concepts are addressed.
15 behavior of employees. However, research on the relationship between organizational climate and innovation is still limited (McLean, 2005). Wang and Rode (2010) provide evidence that transformational leadership is less strongly related with employee creativity when there exists a climate for innovation than when there does not or partially exists a climate for innovation. It is already argued that work engagement is expected to mediate the relationship between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT, and therefore climate for innovation might play an important moderating role in this mediation relationship. In this study it is expected that also in the context of IT, the psychological climate for innovation will influence the relationship between work engagement and innovative behavior.
H4: The expected mediating relationship of work engagement on the relation between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT is moderated by a psychological climate for innovation.
Evidence can be found that “individuals are more likely to accept new technologies when they perceive strong top management support” (Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005, p. 451). However, the continuous usage in the post-adoption phase of these technologies is only limited addressed. Ahuja and Thatcher (2005) provide that managers really need to continuously support innovation with IT. Management support “reflects the formal stance of an organization towards IS usage, providing clues about the plausible consequences of using the technology” (Wang et al., 2008, p. 30). Therefore, it is expected that ‘support for innovation’ will positively moderate the relationship between work engagement and innovative behavior with IT.
H4a: The expected mediating relationship of work engagement on the relation between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT is moderated by support for innovation.
16
H4b: The expected mediating relationship of work engagement on the relation between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT is moderated by resource supply.
The expected relationships are depicted in a conceptual model (Figure 1). The conceptual model proposes that transformational IT leadership, including its six different dimensions, positively influences the variable work engagement, and work engagement has a positive relationship with innovative behavior with IT. Moreover, the psychological climate for innovation variable, including two dimensions, moderates the relationship between work engagement and innovative behavior with IT.
FIGURE 1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
3. Methodology
This section provides an explanation of the methods used in this research. First, the process of data collection is described and the sample is presented. Second, the measurement of the different variables used in this study are explained. Finally, the analyses conducted are presented and the results of the confirmatory factor analyses (CFA’s) explained.
3.1 Data Collection and Sample
17 was used, since it provides several advantages like speed, cost and flexibility (Lumsden & Morgan, 2005). However, paper based questionnaires were printed to make sure that potential respondents with an unknown e-mail address could also participate in this research. The potential bias because of the presence of a researcher was overcome by asking the respondents to take the questionnaire home and then return it back at another time.
The sample of this study consists of 256 employees (N = 256) who have a leader/manager and use IT on a daily basis in their jobs. The requirement of daily IT use ensures that people can understand the questions and provide veracious answers. All types and sizes of firms are included, since this research is aimed at the individual level of aggregation and therefore differences on firm level are not within the scope of this research. Besides, there is no clear argumentation why specific firms might not be suited to this research. The IT structure of start-up companies might be not fully grown, and innovation is needed. Within SME’s, there is evidence that innovation is the key factor for survival (Chien-Liang & Chi-Yi, 2014). Moreover, within multinational companies innovative behavior with IT might be important to fully utilize the existing IT, which is an important global expense (Wang et al., 2013). The sampling method used was based on non-probability sampling, since we are interested in whether there is a positive or negative effect and its amount, which fits this sampling method (Blumberg et al., 2011). The specific non-probability sampling methods used are judgment sampling and snowball sampling. At first, we addressed possible respondents by our self with an introductory e-mail and the link to the online questionnaire. Then, we also asked these respondents if they could forward our message and questionnaire link to other people who fitted the research criteria. These sampling methods are relatively sensitive to sampling bias (Blumberg et al., 2011), but they were used because of the limited available time, money, and population data. The data were gathered with the remark that all data are held in the strictest confidence and are used only for the purpose of the study of a team of three researchers, from which this study is part of.
Respondents work in a variety of industries, presented in appendix A. The industries that are the most represented are: Retail and/or wholesale (10.9%), Services (business-to-business) (21.5%); Healthcare (14.5%); and Public services (18.4%). The sample consists of 54,7% males and 45,3% females. Their age varies from 19 till 65, with 25% of the respondents being 23 or younger, and 50% between 23 and 44 years old. Moreover, the education of the respondents ranged from primary education (3.5%) till PHD (0.8%) with a large majority of 68.8% that has polytechnic and/or university education.
3.2 Measurement
18 3.2.1 Measures .
Innovative behavior with IT. This construct is measured along the innovative behavior construct of Scott & Bruce (1994), which was developed based on the work of Kanter (1988). The six items of the measurement scale from Scott & Bruce (1994) were adapted to the context of IT and translated to self-measurement (Appendix C). The area of IT was included in the items, without changing the meaning of the original items.
Transformational IT leadership. In order to measure the construct transformational IT leadership, the well-used transformational leadership behavior inventory (TLI) of Podsakoff et al. (1990) is translated to the IT context. The purpose of these adjustments was to measure how leaders by means of transformational leadership focused on IT stimulate followers in their use of IT. These adaptations to IT are also presented in appendix C. The concept consists of six dimensions and a total of 22 items: (1) Articulating an IT-vision, contains five items; (2) Providing an appropriate IT-role model, contains three items; (3) Fostering the acceptance of group goals through IT, contains four items; (4) High performance expectations with IT, contains three items; (5) Individualized support, contains four items; and (6) Intellectual stimulation with IT, contains four items.
Work engagement. Work engagement is an increasingly popular construct in research (Agarwal, 2014), which is in many cases measured along the Utrecht Work engagement Scale (UWES). In this study, the nine-item version of the UWES is used. This version is developed and validated by Schaufeli et al. (2006), and based on a more extensive 24-item scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002). The nine-item scale of Schaufeli et al. (2006) consists of three moderately strong related dimensions; vigor, dedication, and absorption (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). As indicated, since these three individual dimensions were not found, the scale was used to measure work engagement in total.
Climate for innovation. In order to measure the construct climate for innovation, the well-known construct of Scott and Bruce (1994) of psychological climate for innovation is used. This scale is based on the innovative climate measure of Siegel and Kaemmerer (1978). The climate for innovation scale of Scott and Bruce (1994) consists of 22-items. The 22-item scale was reassessed for its length and its fit within this study, which resulted in the use of a 17-item scale in the questionnaire. The climate for innovation scale consists of two dimensions; support for innovation, measured along 13 items; and resource supply, measured along four items.
19 dependent variable is also controlled for age, since Hui & Tan (1996) have shown that age can positively influence an employees’ attitude at work.
3.2.2 Quality criteria.
Validity. The validity of the measures was guaranteed, since all measures were used and considered valid in previous research. However, the adaptations to the IT context might have threatened this validity. The IT context is relatively under researched and therefore it is uncertain whether the scales used in other contexts are also complete and valid within the IT context (Blumberg et al., 2011). To minimize this threat, we used a scale for transformational IT leadership which was used in a thesis before without noticeable problems (Biernath, 2014). Besides, the scale of innovative behavior was developed in the context of technological innovation. Therefore, Hameed et al. (2012) indicate that this scale can be adapted to the IT context, without a threat for the validity of the measure. The translations from the original items into the IT context are presented in appendix C. The questions that were phrased contrary in the questionnaire were reverse coded during the data analysis to ensure internal validity. Another possible threat to validity are outliers. However, in this study only a few outliers were detected, and those were outliers only on one construct. These did not considerably influence the research results and were therefore not deleted (Hair, Black, Tatham & Anderson, 1998).
Reliability. The original scales used were developed in English. Since it was expected that most of the respondents were Dutch, the scales were translated to Dutch to overcome linguistic problems (Adler, 1983). This might have threatened the reliability. However, along the methodology of Adler (1983) the questionnaires were translated equivalent, not literally identical, and translated at first by three researchers together and then checked by an expert in both languages to minimize this threat. The constructs used provided good reliabilities in previous research (Scot & Bruce, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Schaufeli et al., 2006). Besides, the adjusted transformational IT leadership scale was pre-tested and used in a Master’s thesis before, and provided reliabilities based on the Cronbach’s alpha between 0.792 and 0.846 for each dimension (Biernath, 2014). The reliability of the measures in this study was also tested along the Cronbach’s Alpha, provided in the data analysis part.
The measures for the constructs of innovative behavior with IT, transformational IT leadership, and climate for innovation were originally measured on a five-point Likert-type scale. However, a seven-point Likert-type scale was used in this study, since Lozaro, Garcia-Cueto and Muniz (2008) state that an increase in the number of response categories positively influences reliability and validity of the data. By teamwork we also minimized the possible reliability threats, since in a team of three researchers we together conducted the data gathering and the first parts of the data analyses which applied to all our studies.
20 Organ, 1986). However, to test for the existence of the single source bias in this study, the Harman’s single factor test was conducted in LISREL8.80. The output provided a X2 of 3688.75 with 35 degrees of freedom, which was not a significant improvement from the conceptualized model and therefore it can be concluded that single source bias is not an issue in this study.
Generalizability. The generalizability of this study is limited, since only the context of IT was addressed. There is not enough evidence whether the context of IT can be generalized to a wider business context. However, the IT context was the specific focus of this study and a wide variety of respondents is included, in terms of age, gender, education and industry. This spread in respondents increases the generalizability of this study, within the context of IT (Aken, Van Berends & Van der Bij, 2012).
3.3 Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using SPSS and LISREL8.80. Respondents with missing data were removed, the items were coded, and the analyses of the descriptives and correlations were conducted using SPSS. Then, the confirmatory factor analyses (CFA’s) and structural equation modelling (SEM) analyses were conducted using LISREL8.80. LISREL8.80 was used, instead of SPSS, since LISREL provides an overall view of the conceptual model that takes into account the influences of all variables used in this study and the fit of the complete conceptualized model. At first, regression analyses were conducted in SPSS, in which it was noticed that the components of transformational IT leadership influence each other in their relation with work engagement and indirectly with innovative behavior with IT. Therefore, it was not reliable to conduct regression analysis for each component of transformational IT leadership separately along the theory of Baron and Kenny (1986). Besides, since the different components influence each other it is more reliable to depict the complete conceptualized model using SEM in LISREL (Hair et al., 1998).
The results of the CFA’s are presented below. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test for the reliability of the developed constructs. The descriptives and SEM analysis are provided at the results part.
21
Construct/ Items Factor
loadings
t-value Cronbach
’s Alpha Innovative behavior with IT
- IBwIT1 - IBwIT2 - IBwIT3 - IBwIT4 - IBwIT5 - IBwIT6 0.79 0.69 0.69 0.75 0.75 0.66 14.18* 11.87* 11.74* 13.11* 13.11* 11.04* 0.88
Chi-square = 8.94; Df = 8; RMSEA = 0.021; Std RMR= 0.020; NFI = 0.99; CFI = 1.00; GFI = 0.99
* = p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
TABLE 2 CFA INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR WITH IT
Second, a CFA was conducted including all independent, mediating, and moderating variables used in this study (Table 3). Coefficients with an absolute value of < 0.4 were again suppressed (Hair et al., 1998). Some items were deleted based on their loading on multiple constructs or on their low item-to-construct loading. The CFA provided six components of ‘transformational IT leadership’, which is consistent with the literature review. This resulted in a 17-item measure of transformational IT leadership. The CFA provided one component for ‘work engagement’, which is inconsistent with the literature review. However, Sonnentag (2003) also did not find the three-factor structure suggested in the literature and decided to use the total score as a measure for work engagement. Schaufeli et al. (2006), who developed the measurement scale, also indicate that the three dimensions are closely related. Besides, Bakker and Demerouti (2008) argue that in empirical research the total score for work engagement may be more useful, since the dimensions are highly correlated. Therefore, it is decided to use an overall scale of work engagement which consists of 8-items. Moreover, the CFA provided two components of ‘climate for innovation’, which is consistent with the literature review. This resulted in a 6-item measure of climate for innovation.
Construct/ Items Factor
loadings
t-value Cronbach
’s Alpha Transformational IT leadership:
- Identifying and Articulating an IT-Vision o TFITL_AV2
o TFITL_AV3 o TFITL_AV4 o TFITL_AV5
- Providing an Appropriate IT-role Model o TFITL_PAM1
o TFITL_PAM2 o TFITL_PAM3
22 o TFITL_FAG3
o TFITL_FAG4
- High Performance Expectations with IT o TFITL_HPE3
- Providing Individualized Support o TFITL_ISU1
o TFITL_ISU2 o TFITL_ISU4
- Intellectual Stimulation with IT o TFITL_IST1 o TFITL_IST2 o TFITL_IST3 Work engagement o WE_VI1 o WE_VI3 o WE_DE1 o WE_DE2 o WE_DE3 o WE_AB1 o WE_AB2
Psychological climate for innovation: - Support for innovation
o CLI_S6 o CLI_S7 o CLI_S8 - Resource Supply o CLI_R1 o CLI_R2 o CLI_R3 0.77 0.84 1.00 0.80 0.66 0.82 0.67 0.76 0.69 0.80 0.83 0.92 0.83 0.87 0.75 0.82 0.58 0.85 0.66 0.76 0.77 0.65 14.14* 16.03* N/A 13.76* 10.90* 14.22* 10.87* 12.87* 11.39* 15.19* 15.97* 18.96* 16.24* 17.37* 13.89* 15.80* 9.08* 13.51* 10.38* 13.11* 13.17* 10.67* N/A 0.80 0.75 0.94 0.74 0.77
Chi-square = 580.28; Df = 370; RMSEA = 0.047; Std RMR= 0.059; NFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.98; GFI = 0.87
* = p < 0.01 (two tailed)
TABLE 3 CFA TRANSFORMATIONAL IT LEADERSHIP, WORK ENGAGEMENT, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE FOR INNOVATION
The statistics in Table 3 show a good fit of the model with a Chi-Square of 580.28 and 370 Degrees of Freedom. The overall fit indices range from 0.87 to 0.98, in which 0.87 is slightly below the threshold of 0.90, but since the others are good enough this model can be indicated as having a good fit (Hair et al., 1998). The loadings of the items to their constructs are all highly significant.
4. Results
23 4.1 Descriptives
The descriptives of the sample data, together with the correlations of the constructs are presented in appendix D. It is noticed that from the six transformational IT leadership dimensions, individualized support is most used and intellectual stimulation is least used by the leaders/managers of the respondents included in this study. Besides, it can be deducted that the respondents have a relatively high level of work engagement, since the mean is 5.35 out of 7. From the correlations it is important to notice that the ‘innovative behavior with IT’ construct only correlates with two dimensions of transformational leadership and that work engagement correlates highly significant with all dimensions used in this research.
4.2 Structural Equation Modelling
Path analysis using the maximum likelihood estimation in LISREL8.80 was conducted to determine whether our hypotheses 1 – 4 can be accepted or rejected. The results are displayed in Figure 2, and the more comprehensive tables behind this model are provided in appendix E. It is provided that the Chi-Square is 3.13 with 8 Degrees of Freedom, The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is 0.0, the standardized Root Mean Square Residual (std. RMR) is 0.0074, the Normed Fit Index (NFI) is 1.00, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is 1.00, and finally the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) is 1.00. All Goodness of Fit Statistics greatly exceed the threshold of 0.90 (Hair et al.,1998). Therefore, it can be deducted that this model has a good fit.
Chi-square = 3.13; Df = 8; RMSEA = 0.0; Std RMR= 0.0074; NFI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00; GFI = 1.00
* = p < 0.05 (one-tailed), ** = p < 0.01 (one-tailed), *** = p < 0.001 (one-tailed)
24 Hypothesis one states that it is expected that work engagement is positively related to innovative behavior with IT. The results in Figure 2, indicate that work engagement, although weak, positively influences the innovative behavior with IT of employees (B = 0.12) at a significance level of p < 0.05. Therefore, hypothesis one can be accepted.
Hypothesis two presents that it is expected that the six individual dimensions of transformational IT leadership positively relate to work engagement. The results in Figure 2 provide that two dimensions highly significant influence work engagement in a positive way. The dimensions ‘high performance expectations with IT’ and ‘providing individualized support’ have a highly significant positive influence on work engagement (B = 1.18, B = 1.21; p < 0.001). Besides, the dimension ‘intellectual stimulation with IT’ , although weak, positively influences the level of work engagement (B = 0.32; p < 0.05). Moreover, the two dimensions ‘articulating a vision’ and ‘fostering the acceptance of group goals’ have a negative impact on work engagement (B = -0.54, B = -0.57; p < 0.05). Concluding, transformational IT leadership partially influences work engagement in both positive and negative ways. Therefore, hypothesis two can be rejected.
Hypothesis three states that it is expected that work engagement acts as a mediator between the six dimensions of transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT. To answer this hypothesis we were guided by the theory of Kelloway (1998). Kelloway (1998) proposed to conduct a sequence of mediation tests, which implies a proposed mediation model, a partially mediated model, and a non-mediated model. However, the goodness-of-fit statistics of the model depicted in Figure 2 indicate that no model is better than this one. This can be deducted since the model has a Chi-Square of 3.13 and all modification indices are less than 3.84 (Appendix E), which provides that there are no significant improvements possible (Hair et al., 1998).
25 Finally, hypothesis four presents that it is expected that the climate for innovation in an organization will moderate the mediating relationship of work engagement on innovative behavior with IT. From the model it can be deducted that the ‘resource supply’ dimension of the psychological climate for innovation construct significantly moderates the relation between work engagement and innovative behavior with IT (B = 0.13; p < 0.01). Resource supply is not directly related to the innovative behavior with IT, only by influencing its’ relationship with work engagement. The ‘support for innovation’ dimension was deleted from the model since it did not have any significant relationships and LISREL indicated that the model would significantly improve by deleting this dimension. Additionally, I wanted to keep the model as simple as possible and therefore the dimension ‘support for innovation’ was also for practical reasons deleted. Since one partial mediation and four full mediation relationships are found in this model, it can be said that ‘resource supply’ moderates these mediating relationships of work engagement. Therefore, also this fourth hypothesis can be partially accepted.
The control variables included in this research are age, gender, and education. Gender is highly significant, negatively related to innovative behavior with IT (B = -0.58; p < 0.001). This implies that women are less innovative with IT than man are. Besides, education is highly significant, positively related to innovative behavior with IT (B = 0.40; p < 0.001). This implies that the higher educated, the more innovative employees are. Besides, work engagement was controlled for age. This resulted in a highly significant, positively relation (B = 0.04; p < 0.001), which indicates that the older the employee, the more engaged he/she is with the work.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
In this final section the results of this study are analyzed and compared with the literature. After that, the theoretical and practical implications of this study are presented, limitations are discussed, and future research possibilities are addressed. Finally, an overall conclusion is provided.
5.1 Discussion
26 Zhu, Avolio and Walumbwa (2009) address the influence of transformational leadership on work engagement with the argument that transformational leadership emphasizes an employees’ responsibilities for taking challenges. Besides, Attridge (2009) provide that transformational leaders encourage work engagement through their motivational capacities and interests in the needs of individual employees. Empirical evidence supports the positive relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement, across organizations and cultures (Attridge, 2009; Vincent-Hoper et al., 2012). Therefore it was expected that also in the context of IT, transformational IT leadership positively influences work engagement. However, the results provide contrary evidence for the individual dimensions.
From the six individual dimensions of transformational IT leadership, ‘high performance expectations with IT’ and ‘providing individualized support’ are highly significant related to work engagement in a positive way. Besides, the ‘intellectual stimulation with IT’ dimension has a weak, but significant positive relationship. These results imply that expectations for excellence and quality in the use of IT, providing employees with IT challenges and knowing their individual IT needs and feelings actually is important to increase work engagement. This finding is consistent with the literature (Kopperud et al., 2014; Vincent-Hoper et al., 2012). Along Kopperud et al. (2014) it can also be implied that employees perceive challenges in the use of IT as positive, which therefore increases engagement.
Contrary to the literature are the negative relationships with work engagement of the dimensions ‘identifying and articulating an IT-vision’ and ‘fostering the acceptance of group goals through IT’. Attridge (2009) stated that visionary leadership increases work engagement, but this study provides that leadership along an IT-vision decreases work engagement. The change to the context of IT might therefore be an explanation for this unexpected finding. Besides, Kopperud et al. (2014) provided that group processes seem to be important in increasing work engagement. However, as the results indicate, group processes through the use of IT are presumably perceived as different by employees and therefore have a negative effect on work engagement. Finally, the dimension ‘providing an appropriate IT-role model’ has no effects on work engagement, this implies that the engagement of individuals does not change as a reaction on how the leader interacts with IT which can be followed by employees (Podsakoff et al., 1990).
27 Mediating effects of work engagement are demonstrated in several studies (Park et al., 2013). The results of this study also indicate that an, although weak, mediating effect of work engagement on the relation between five dimensions of transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT exist. This is consistent with the overall expectations derived from the literature, since De Spiegelaere et al. (2014) mention for example that aspects like job autonomy have an effect on an employees’ innovative behavior through changes in work engagement. However, not all mediating relationships are positive, as was expected. The partial mediation of ‘articulating an IT vision’ and the full mediation of ‘fostering the acceptance of group goals through IT’ provide negative mediating relationships. A possible explanation for these findings might be the evidence Vincent-Hoper et al. (2012) provided, that transformational leadership also increases job satisfaction, but that this decreases creativity (Wang & Ma, 2013).
The psychological climate for innovation was expected to have a moderating function on the mediating relationships, since Sui et al. (2012) indicate that organizational climates influence employees’ functioning. Besides, facilitating conditions have a direct influence on individuals’ use of IT (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The results of this study provide that only the resource supply part of a psychological climate for innovation has a moderating role in the relationship between work engagement and innovative behavior with IT. Ahuja and Thatcher (2005, p. 451) indicated that employees “are more likely to accept new technologies when they perceive strong top management support”. This is contrary to our findings in which the support for innovation does not play a role in innovative behavior. The post-adaption phase of IT implementation addressed in this study might therefore cause the findings contrary to the phase of technology acceptance studied by Ahuja and Thatcher (2005).
5.2 Theoretical Implications
This study contributes to the literature streams of information technology, innovation, transformational leadership, and work engagement. Different research calls were answered. The post-adoption phase, and the context of IT are important parts of the theoretical contributions of this study. The current research on IT focuses primarily on IT adoption, the first stage of IT use but there is growing interest in the post-adoption phase (Bagayogo et al., 2014). This study shows that that the post-adoption phase actually differs from the adoption phase in the context of IT.
28 This study also answered a call to study work engagement. Work engagement is increasingly popular in research but research on innovation as an outcome of work engagement or work engagement in the context of IT was still scarce (Bhatnagar, 2012). This study found a, relatively weak, relationship between work engagement and innovative behavior with IT. Besides, Kopperud et al. (2014) and Şahin et al. (2014) indicated that the link between transformational leadership and work engagement needed further research. Evidence for the existence of this link is provided in this study, however this was not the same for all dimensions. The individual dimensions differ to a large extent in that they have a positive, negative, or even no effect on work engagement.
Besides, this study addressed the call for research on mediating effects to explain the indirect transformational leadership influences on innovation (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008), and the role of work engagement in this relationship (Kopperud et al., 2014; Şahin et al., 2014). This study found partial evidence for this expected relationship.
Finally, this study contributes to the literature in considering the influences of organizational level support for innovation, characterized as a potential fruitful area to study (Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005; Jasperson et al., 2005). The support dimension is used in the literature a lot (Cho et al., 2011), whereas the resource supply dimension is not yet considered in the context of IT. This study contributes that resource supply plays a role in this IT context and support does not.
5.3 Practical Implications
Organizations are increasingly dependent on IT, but existing evidence indicates that the functions of IT are underutilized (Wang et al., 2008; Jasperson et al., 2005). Innovative use of IT is important in maximizing the returns on IT investments (Wang et al., 2008). Therefore, it is considered important for organizations and managers to know how employees are stimulated to behave in innovative ways with IT. In this study, transformational leadership in the context of IT is used to address this important managerial position. The results imply that it is important for managers to identify new opportunities in IT and lead by means of an IT-vision that inspires employees. This type of leadership will directly increase innovative behavior.
29 leaders to improve and use their skills to provide employees with personal attention and individual focused leadership in the context of IT to increase their engagement. This all together implies that leaders can also influence the level of innovative behavior with IT of employees by increasing their transformational IT leadership aimed at the individual. This is important, since it provides that not only a vision is important in increasing innovative behavior, but transformational leaders also have an indirect influence through work engagement.
On the organizational level, this study provides that it is important for organizations to make sure that employees perceive the organizational climate as having enough resources to be innovative with IT. Support for innovation has no influences, which indicates that the orientation of an organization towards creativity or the way the organization supports new ideas does not influence employees’ innovative behavior with IT (Scott & Bruce, 1994). It is important for organizations to anticipate on and account for this importance of resources in future organizational functioning.
5.4 Limitations
