• No results found

MASTER THESIS The Rest of the Story: A Comparative Perspective between IT Self-leadership and Team Innovativeness

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "MASTER THESIS The Rest of the Story: A Comparative Perspective between IT Self-leadership and Team Innovativeness"

Copied!
51
0
0

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

Hele tekst

(1)

MASTER THESIS

The Rest of the Story: A Comparative Perspective

between IT Self-leadership and Team Innovativeness

Research for Msc-Business Administration

Change Management

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

By: Penghui Li

Student number: S2394561

Supervisor: Yeliz Eseryel

(2)

Abstract

The concept of IT self-leadership in general represents the IT use in self-leadership. IT Self-leadership is actually defined into two different levels — the individual-level IT self-leadership and the team-level IT self-leadership. This research aims at discovering the influence of different level IT self-leaderships on team innovativeness and the mediation effect between the two levels of IT self-leadership. An online survey is used in this study. In total, information of 150 participants are collected and analyzed. Team innovativeness that consist of dimensions of idea generation and idea implementation are examined separately. Empirical results show that the individual-level IT self-leadership has a negative influence on team innovativeness while the team-level IT self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovativeness. In addition, outcome about the individual-level IT self-leadership as a mediator significantly reduces the effects between the team-level IT self-leadership and team innovativeness. Although the mediation effect has reduction function, however, the overall outcome still represents that IT self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovativeness.

(3)

Content

Introduction ... - 3 -

Research question ... - 6 -

Literature review ... - 7 -

From Self-leadership to IT self-leadership ... - 7 -

Team level IT Self-Leadership and innovativeness ... - 8 -

Individual level IT Self-Leadership and innovativeness ... - 10 -

Individual level self-leadership, team level self-leadership and team innovativeness .... - 12 -

Company type ... - 14 -

Conceptual model ... - 15 -

Methods ... - 16 -

Data collection and sample ... - 16 -

Procedure ... - 18 - Measures ... - 18 - Independent variables ... - 18 - Dependent variable ... - 20 - Control variable ... - 20 - Results ... - 21 - Factor analysis ... - 21 - Reliability analysis ... - 24 -

Regression result for individual level IT self-leadership ... - 24 -

Regression results for team level IT self-leadership ... - 26 -

Mediation analysis result for “SEBOL” test... - 27 -

Mediation analysis results for control variables ... - 30 -

Discussion ... - 34 -

Contributions to theory and contributions to practice ... - 36 -

Research limitation and further research ... - 37 -

(4)

Introduction

Over the past 10 years, considerable research has investigated leadership in order to discover the influences of leadership behavior (Bono and Judge, 2003). Meanwhile, numerous management researches emphasize on understanding different leadership styles. The primary research historically focus on exploring how supervisors and leaders affect followers while the different perspectives were introduced to the management literature, taking an alternative approach by focusing on how people manage and lead themselves (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011) in the recent years. Consequently, self-leadership is introduced and posits that even though external forces such as leaders often influence employees’ behaviors, internal rather than external forces ultimately control actions (Manz, 1986).

The concept of self-leadership has been dramatically discussed in the last decades (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). More specifically, the generally definition about self-leadership is (Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck, 2004; Manz and Sims, 2001): “Self-leadership is a process through which people influence themselves to achieve the self-direction and self-motivation necessary to perform.” Self-leadership was built on several related theories of self-influence including self-regulation (Kanfer, 1970; Carver and Scheier, 1981), self-control (Cautela, 1969; Mahoney and Arnkoff, 1978) and self-management (Andrasik and Heimberg, 1982; Luthans and Davis, 1979).

(5)

with information technology is that people innovatively use the existing information technologies or the new ITs, when they find ways to adjust, combine and use IT to improve either their own work, or coordination of their team. This is defined as “IT self-leadership”. Moreover, performing IT self-leadership often requires a number of knowledgeable workers and skillful employees who can integrate their intellectual capital to accomplish the required work (Pearce and Manz, 2005). Therefore, a concentration of human capital on IT self-leadership is necessary.

Self-leadership is a concept that spans from top level to down level in organization. It ties the research at individual-level analysis and at team-level analysis together (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). At the individual-level analysis, studies consistently show that increased self-leadership corresponds with better affective responses and improved work performance. At the team-level analysis, both affective outcome and performance of self-leadership appear to be moderated by contextual factors (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). In essence, self-leadership with technology occurs when individuals or teams identify a situation that can process innovation in accomplishment of tasks combing with information technology as the self-imposed strategy to encourage the process even the task not request IT (Eseryel, 2013). This is similar to self-leadership that teams and individuals perceive a situation, which aim at engaging new behavior to unify actions with standards to encourage the desired behavior (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). Therefore, self-leadership can extend, self-leadership can extend to IT self-leadership at both the team-level and the individual-level research because of the similarity.

(6)

work (Amabile, 1996). When members of an organization are lack of autonomy and freedom, they will not be able to create innovative thoughts and action. They only adopt the most straightforward top-down options (Amabile, 1998) and this fact becomes more significant when relating to the self-leadership in information and technology department.

According to Dibrell (2008), a company or a team, which is expected to have the capacity to sustain sustained innovation, has to be guaranteed that they have not only recourses for new products but also the structure or processes to deal the problem creatively. IT is an essence of building this capacity (Dibrell, Davis and Craig, 2008). Therefore, when innovation is complemented by the use of IT and lead to new products or processes or instruments for assisting the current woks, the team loyalty, efficiency, and demands for achievement will increased. This in turn, means the increase of team success (Dibrell, Davis, and Craig, 2008).

Although, authors and experts did numerous researches on the relationship between self-leadership and creativity (Kalyar, 2011); self-leadership and innovation (Curral and Marques-Quinteiro, 2009); self-leadership and innovative behavior (Carmeli, Meitar and Weisberg, 2006); self-leadership and team innovation (Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg and Boerner, 2008) and information technology and innovation (Dibrell, Davis, and Craig, 2008), the previous researches only discuss the overall relationship between self-leadership and innovation and ignore the fact that self-leadership has two different levels (i.e. individual level and team level) and each level has distinguished features (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). Moreover, previous studies do not consider self-leadership with the use of information technology. Therefore, when the concept extends from a single self-leadership to more IT oriented self-leadership, it is necessary to understand the relationship between different levels of IT self-leadership and team innovativeness.

(7)

Research question

What is the relationship between individual-level IT self-leadership and team innovativeness? What is the relationship between team-level IT self-leadership and team innovativeness?

(8)

Literature review

From Self-leadership to IT self-leadership

The theoretical framework for self-leadership presented by Manz (1986) is shown in Figure 1. This framework is grounded in the concept of control theory (Carver and Scheier, 1982). The framework illustrates that self-regulation circle begins with perceiving the situation and comparing its current states in order to find gaps. It then fills in those gaps by generating new behaviors and finally use the impacts of new behaviors as feedback to start a new round (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). The concept of self-leadership actually has two dimensions, that is, individual-level self-leadership and team-level self-leadership (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011).

Figure 1: Theoretical framework for self-leadership

(Sources: Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Self-leadership: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 185-222)

Manz (2001) defines self-leadership as “a process through which people influence themselves to achieve the self-direction and self-motivation necessary to perform.”

This research focuses on the self-leadership with the use of IT. This extends the concept of self-leadership to IT self-leadership. Recently, the concept of IT self-leadership turns to gain a lot of attentions as information technology becomes dramatically important in current business activities. People view the use of IT as a competitive instrument for the implementation of strategic performance and the facilitation of core competencies (Dibrell,

(9)

IT self-leadership provides a broader, encompassing perspective that includes both the focus of information system and a primarily surpassed discipline which behaviorally grounded in self-management process (Nambisan, 2013; Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). Combining with the definition of self-leadership, this research broadly define IT self-leadership as“the process of influencing oneself through information technology”. More specifically, using the reference of Manz (1986) who originally introduced the concept of self-leadership, paper develops the concept and describes IT self-leadership as“a comprehensive self-influence perspective which concerns leading oneself toward the performance of naturally motivating tasks by incorporating information technologies, even tasks not refer to use any information technology”.

Team level IT Self-Leadership and innovativeness

There is a tendency to develop a thoughtful self-leadership thinking at all levels in current business organizations, especially when it comes to knowledge and information technology work (Pearce and Manz, 2005). Traditionally, self-leadership efforts narrowly focus on individuals, which take a formal leadership position. In contrast to this traditional approach, researchers argue that followers in teams should also be taken into account in order to generate reasonable outcomes (Pearce and Manz, 2005). This is significantly needed in the case of team-based knowledge work.

Theorists extended the concept of self-management and self-leadership to team level analysis. The basic function of team-level self-leadership based on work design theories. Those theories such as characteristics theory (Hackman and Oldham, 1976) and socio-technical systems theory (Cummings, 1978) believe that teams, rather than individuals, are the relevant unit of analysis such as job.

(10)

Therefore, team autonomy can be seen as the most representative factor to capture the team self-leadership (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). Previous researchers extend the concept to illustrate that autonomy represents the extent to which teams allow scheduling the work freely and independently, making decisions and choosing the methods used for the performance of tasks (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). Authors argue that self-leadership behaviors of co-workers show increase or decrease depending on autonomy level (Curral and Marques-Quinteiro, 2009). As team-level self-leadership has a high team autonomy, thus, self-leadership impact on team performance was positively effects by autonomy.

The freedom from jobs allows employees to have their own decision and action which turn out to help the team building up an environmental situation for innovation (Politis, 2005). Researcher has indicated that the role of self-leadership is to facilitate team performance, which in turn fosters innovative outcomes (Ekvall, 1991; Osborn, 1963; Parners, 1992). Thus, there is a dynamic relationship between the team-level self-leadership and the team innovativeness.

Authors argue that team autonomy improves development speed of new products so that improve the innovativeness (Carbonell and Rodriguez-Escudero, 2011). Team autonomy has functions that support team with local control over the task of a different department, which will contribute to prevent interference from the functional managers (Emmanualides, 1993). It also contributes to the team’s strong feeling of responsibility over the project’s outcomes, which in turn leads to higher work effectiveness (Zirger and Hartley, 1994; Bonner et al., 2002). Therefore, allowing people to make decision in the project team not only reduces the time for decision making which in turn reducing the time of product development cycle but also responds more quickly to environment turbulence (McDonough and Barczak, 1991; Reilly et al., 2003). By this way, the innovativeness can be improved.

(11)

IT. Therefore, team-level self-leadership that is represent by autonomy positively correlate to innovative usage of information technology (Ahuja and Thatcher, 2005). The role of the IT not only as the digital tool of an enabler that allow workers to have their own decision-making processes and self-management systems but also as a trigger that impacts on innovative process (Nambisan, 2013). Therefore, both employees and managers can improve their working efficiency and support the creative thinking and innovative behaviors in the team by using the IT tools to assist self-leadership, this may in turn leads to high team innovativeness.

Summarizing all of the above, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypotheses 1: The team-level IT self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovativeness.

Individual level IT Self-Leadership and innovativeness

The IT self-leadership at the individual level expresses the most traditional thinking about self-leadership efforts. Those are self-control and self-influence (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). Thoresen and Mahoney (1974) propose a definition of self-control, that is “ A person displays self-control when in the relative absence of immediate external constraints, he or she engages in behavior whose previous probability has been less than that of alternatively available behaviors.”This definition means that self-control is a one way reaction that passively happens after the external force.

The concept of self-influence especially focus on environmental factors and behaviors of self-management (Cohen et al., 1997; Manz and Sims, 1987; Uhl-Bien and Graen, 1998). More specifically, varieties of strategies for individual self-influence about those factors and behaviors have been examined (Andrasik and Heimberg, 1982; Hackman, 1986; Luthans and Davis, 1979; Manz, 1986; Manz and Sims, 1980; Neck and Manz, 2010). These strategies were self-observation, self-management of cues, self-goal setting, self-reward/criticism, and rehearsal. It is noteworthy that self-influence strategies all aim to reduce or eliminate undesired behaviors (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011).

(12)

employees only perform their own leadership role in teams and concern about their own efforts of the entire projects while ignoring other’s thinking or taking risks and making a decision based on their own efforts. There are not many interactions between team members’ activities (Carmeli, Meitar and Weisberg, 2006). Thus, individual-level self-leadership fits to the highly centralized organization with tight and strict hierarchy. The entire top-down structures support the information and technology flow.

Self-leadership researchers prove that creativity and innovation are the expected outcomes of individual self-leadership (DiLiello and Houghton 2006; Neck and Houghton 2006). Creativity is an individual and cultural phenomenon that allows people to turn possibility into reality (Tan, 2007) and can be seen as the ability and capacity to bring new and useful ideas about the firm’s products, practices, services or procedure (Mumford, 2003; Shalley and Gilson, 2004). When the new ideas are implemented successfully in a team or an organization, creativity becomes innovation. Creativity is an antecedent factor of individual innovation (Heye, 2006; Schilling, 2008). Evidences show that self-leadership skills are significant factors that positively influence innovative behaviors (Carmeli, et al, 2006). When employees are leading themselves in defining and solving problems, making decisions and discovering new opportunities now as well as in future, their ability for innovation is encouraged (Pearce and Manz, 2005). Therefore, we assume individuals who have features like self-control and self-influence show positive effects on the teams’ innovativeness.

Moreover, theoretically, researchers propose that IT directly influences the strategy to firm performance. For the self-leadership with the use of IT, IT is seen as the virtual instruments to build the capacity of sustaining innovation (King and Burgess, 2006). Using IT not only makes resources feasible for new products but also provides collaborative structures and processes to creatively deal with the problems and to connect the innovation with a current business (Bhaskaran, 2006). Lee and Runge (2001) found that people employ IT widely and successfully in innovative teams. Based on the above logic consideration and discussion, we suggest the following hypothesis:

(13)

Individual level self-leadership, team level self-leadership and team innovativeness

Previous articles explore the relationship between self-leadership and team innovativeness (Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg and Boerner, 2008), however, interrelations between each level of self-leadership with IT application on daily work and team innovativeness are still not yet clear.

As the individual-level and the team-level IT self-leadership coexist and interact to each other, the correlation between the two needs to be specified. Each level of IT self-leadership influences team innovativeness through its relationship with another level of IT self-leadership is the essence of this research. Literature describe that mediation exists when an independent variable influence a dependent variable indirectly through at least one mediator (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). Moreover, as causal effects evoke mediation (Preacher and Hayes, 2008), it is informative to understand the causality as the correlation in between. Therefore, we propose the team-level IT self-leadership exerts influences on team innovativeness through the mediator-the individual-level IT self-leadership.

Articles about the team-level self-leadership have partly described that if the team has a high degree of autonomy over project decisions, team members are more likely rely on themselves for working decisions. This increase the information sharing, activities coordination and creative consideration within the team (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). This proves that the team-level self-leadership showing an additional critical influence on team innovativeness.

(14)

Team innovativeness

“Innovativeness refers to the inclination for the organization to engage in innovative behavior” (Auh and Menguc, 2005). Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek (1973) pointed out that there are two stages of innovation: initiation and implementation. The initiation stage in other

research is also called as “openness to the innovation” or the generation of new idea. Levitt (1962) observed that “being willing to destroy the old is the heart of innovation and the

means to enormous profits”. Furthermore, the diversity affects an organization’s orientation toward innovation, namely innovativeness.

Researches about team innovativeness and team innovation have already stated that team process is an antecedent of the concept of innovativeness. This paper relates those concepts to the IT self-leadership in order to explain how the IT self-leadership affects the team innovation. In particularly, innovation in products and services is still seem to be a vital part of the regular business processes (Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg and Boerner, 2008). This research therefore wants to look one-step further and to investigate how team innovativeness can been influenced and what are the factors that is more directly related to team innovativeness. West’s team climate theory (1990) is particularly focused on the area that this paper will emphasize and is highly relevant to the research about team innovation. The way in which he examined team innovation was developed by integrating the existing research and relating to the crucial team factors that team innovation have. West’s research suggests that support for innovation and climate for excellence are key factors in teams’ ability to innovate. The research announce that foundation of support for innovation has a process focus. (i.e., it reflects cooperative behavior in the process of realizing outcomes), climate for excellence have an outcome focus (i.e., it reflects a shared concern with quality of outcomes-the common goals).

By summarizing the discussion above, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypotheses3: The team-level IT self-leadership positively influences team innovativeness through its relationship with individual-level IT self-leadership.

(15)

self-leadership is positive.

Hypotheses 3b: The effect of individual-level IT self-leadership on team innovativeness partialling out the effect of team-level IT self-leadership is positive.

Company type:

In the end, the type of company has also been considered as a control variable which is relevant to team innovativeness. Company which gain benefit and competitive advantages of information and technology is called IT-based Advantage Company (Powell and Dent-Micallef, 1997). According to Powell (1997), a firm is assumed as an IT-based advantage company show has features such as using the IT as advantages perpetually through continuous and lead-edge technology innovation, moving first and building up first move advantage, or embedding the IT into the organization and daily management. On the contrary, the non IT-based advantage company uses resource-based advantage or others advantage instead of IT advantage in competition.

Until now, literatures and researches all demonstrate a positive relationship between the use of IT and the competitive advantages of the company focusing on case study and specific IT success (Buday, 1996, Powell and Dent-Micallef, 1997). The impacts of IT on innovation have also been clearly seen as the feature of IT advantages. Therefore, the IT advantages embedded in companies can be treated as a factor to make companies becomes innovative. Because of this, we propose that the influence of IT-based advantage company on team innovativeness and the influence of non-IT based advantage company on team innovativeness is different.

(16)

The conceptual model of this research is illustrated as follows:

Conceptual model:

Model A:

H1

H2

Model B: (Mediation)

H3

H3

H3a

H3b

H2 H3

H4

Team level IT self-leadership:

Work scheduling Autonomy Decision-making autonomy Work methods autonomy

Individual level IT self-leadership: Self-goal setting Self-observation Self-reward Self-cueing Self-punishment Visualizing successful performance Team innovativeness:

New idea generation New idea implementation

Control variable: Company type

Team level IT self-leadership:

Work scheduling Autonomy Decision-making autonomy Work methods autonomy

Individual level IT self-leadership: Self-goal setting Self-observation Self-reward Self-cueing Self-punishment Visualizing successful performance Team innovativeness:

(17)

Methods

Data collection and sample

Participants

In this research, study is taken place in five different Chinese companies in China. All participants are full time employees and are willing to fill in the questionnaires. Questionnaires, written and discussed in English first, finally translated into Chinese for all participants.

Participants have been equally chosen from five companies in order to guarantee representativeness and reliability of the sample. Based on Powell (1997), three companies are assumed as IT-based Advantage Company and the other two are non IT-based advantage company(see company description below). In each company, people are chosen following the rule of 10 teams per company, each team has 3-4 persons to answer the online questionnaire. Team leaders from those companies help to accomplish the identification of teams. Team leaders are asked about how employees work in their teams. Questions aim to find out whether they are willing to finish their tasks with the help of IT without enforcement and whether they work individually or work together as a team that have autonomy and share common goals. Based on answers, teams for the individual-level or the team-level self-leadership are identified. Participants are asked to answer the questionnaires clearly and specifically. We obtained sufficient and useful information from this online survey to build up the database.

(18)

Company description

Hisense (Haixin) Co., Ltd., Haier Group, and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd represent three companies that show IT self-leadership among employees in their departments. People working in those companies are willing to use IT to facilitate their daily works. Their team leaders or HR managers described that they could accomplish their missions incorporating with information technology even the IT is not required. Information technology plays a critical role in their daily working environment.

These three companies are also IT-based advantage company. They make their first move advantage in Chinese electronic/IT products. According to Powell (1997), features of these companies are using IT and lead-edge technology innovation in the long run or embedding IT into the organization and daily management. Employees in those companies often have IT working experience or study IT. Information and technology are the two vital components forming the label of the company. Employees are not only using IT for daily work, but also using it as tools for breakthrough and innovation for daily working in their own position.

Yutong Group Co., Ltd. is a bus company and Jiumuwang Co, Ltd is a kitchen-sanitation company. They are partly IT self-leadership companies because the IT self-leadership does Table 1:the descriptive statistics(n=150)

variable Count Percentage

Company name # % IT-based advantage company Company Huawei 26 17.33 Company Haier 22 14.67 Company Haixin 26 17.33 Non IT-based advantage company Company Yutong 38 25.33 Company Jiumuwang 38 25.33

Age (in years) # %

(19)

not exist in all departments. It only exists in some departments such as IT department or marketing department. For this research, teams from these departments are used. Team leaders described that employees in some departments will use IT to improve their working performance. They control and manage the use of IT by themselves without any enforcement. However, these two companies are not IT-based advantage company because they do not use IT as their competitive advantages and do not continuously use IT as lead-edge technology (Powell, 1997).

Procedure

Specific questionnaire are made for participants. All the questionnaires are answered online in China. Employees from five different Chinese companies do the survey all on their own. Protesting for the questionnaire is done by several employees in able to make people fully understand about the entire question and make sure the accuracy of the answer for the database.

Measures

For this research, online survey was used as the research method to acquire all information which are relevant to this research. The methods that used in this research paper mainly depend on factor analysis, regression analysis and “MEBOL” analysis. “MEBOL” analysis is a mediation test which exist when some variables affect dependent variables indirectly through intervening or mediator variables (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). Mediation is useful when test aims at discovering causal effects for variables (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). As the individual-level and the team-level IT self-leadership often concurrently exist, research about how one level of IT self-leadership affects team innovativeness by exerting the another level of IT self-leadership as the intervening variable. By using this fundamental and widely used quantitative research approach, we find out the most significant and relative results to answer the main question and sub-questions. For each variables, this paper will evaluate them by suitable theory and analysis.

Independent variables

(20)

by adjusting the 35-item scale questionnaire from Houghton and Neck (2002). The original questionnaire refines 6 factors which are meaningful for the concept. They are self-goal setting, self-punishment, self-observation, self-reward, self-cueing and visualizing successful performance. We converted those questions and adjust them to IT self-leadership. More specifically, questions are adjusted to IT use at work to help people improve their work performance (such as social media, apps or day-to-day systems). The use of IT at work is important. Question such as “I establish specific goals for my own performance” is converted to “I establish specific goals for my own performance with the help of IT”. Moreover, questions were adjusted to the definition of IT self-leadership, which is defined as finishing tasks with the information technology even the tasks not require the IT use. For example, question such as “I keep track of how well I am doing at work” was adjusted to “I use IT tools to keep track of how well I am doing at work, although nobody requires me to do so”. A 7-point scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) is used for measuring the individual-level IT self-leadership. Questions with numbers from 1 to 19 under the title “IT self-leadership-use of IT for own tasks” are the questions related to this variable. (See appendix I)

(21)

self-leadership-team use IT for team task” are the questions for this variable. (See appendix I) The converted constructs and the language have been examined by pre-answering. Several people are asked about how well they can understand the adjusted question and their suggestion on the correction of language errors. The final adjusted English version is the final questionnaire (See appendix I). Then, the questionnaire has been translated to Chinese. The Chinese version is examined by Chinese people and after that, the final version is published online.

Dependent variable

Innovativeness. In order to measure the dependent variable innovativeness, items need to include both idea development and idea implementation. The team innovativeness was tested using 22-items scale based on Axtell et al. (2000) and West and Anderson (1996). The questions for these dependent variables are separately assessing idea generation and idea implementation. All items were rated on the 7-point scale ranging from 1 (e.g., no idea implemented) to 7 (e.g., many new ideas implemented). Questions with numbers from 1 to 7 under title “team innovation” are the questions for this variable. (See appendix I)

Control variable

(22)

Results

Factor analysis

The survey composes of 50 items abstracted from previous existing constructs. Each variable consists of 4 to 7 questions and the internal correlation of the variable is examined by factor analysis. In general, factor analysis aims to identify the underlying variables and factors which mostly can represent the pattern of correlations within a bunch of observed items. In this research, two parallel factor analyses are conducted. The first 28 items that represent the independent variable of the individual-level IT self-leadership and the team-level IT self-leadership are examined in order to check test whether the prospected independent variables are indeed the underlying dimensions of the concept of IT self-leadership. The remaining 22 items are constructs for the concept of team innovativeness.

Extraction of factors

(23)

Chinese companies, hence, combining these items can maximally use the data to increase the reliability. Furthermore, the culture difference also needs to take into consideration because self-goal setting and visualizing successful performance are similar concepts in Chinese people’s cognition.

The outcomes of the team-level IT self-leadership are same as that we have conceptualized in the theoretical section. The three variables of the team-level IT self-leadership are work scheduling autonomy, work methods autonomy and decision-making autonomy. The detailed results of factor analysis for each variable are illustrated in Table 2. Table 2: rotated factor matrix using VARIMAX procedure for IT self-leadership

The dependent variable of this research has two sub-variables. One is new idea generation for team innovativeness and another is new idea implementation for team

Factors

items Self goal

(24)

innovativeness. Results of factor analysis demonstrate that all the relevant items measuring team innovativeness successfully extract into these two underling variables. These two underlying variables distinguish from each other and have different inter-correlation. The detailed result of factor analysis for these variables is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: rotated factor matrix using VARIMAX procedure for team innovativeness

Items New Idea Generation New Idea Implementation

(25)

Reliability analysis is used to test internal consistency and to assess the reliability of summated scale where items are added to the total score. Value of cornbach’s Alpha is the demonstration of reliability. According to Malhotra (2007), a combach’s alpha equal or bigger that 0.9 indicate that internal consistency is excellent. If alpha is bigger than 0.8 but less than 0.9 means that internal consistency is good. When alpha is bigger than 0.7 but less than 0.8, the internal consistency is acceptable. Alpha that is less than 0.7 represents questionable and poor internal consistency. As shown in table 4, the alphas of different factors range from 0.91 to 0.94. This indicates an excellent and reliable internal consistency of different factors. Table 4 also shows the means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients for all variables. The correlation coefficients have both positive and negative correlation relationship between each pair of variables, this confirm the both positive and negative relationship between independent variables and dependent variables in the conceptual model. (P < 0.05).

Table 4: cornbach’s Alpha, Mean, standard Deviations and correlation coefficients

variable items α mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

new idea generation 7 0.916 5.404 1.151 1

self goal setting 4 0.924 5.055 1.600 -0.275b

1 self punishment 3 0.940 3.047 1.433 -0.327b 0 1 self observation 3 0.935 5.223 1.706 -0.366b 0 0 1 self reward 3 0.926 5.110 1.375 -0.586b 0 0 0 1 self cueing 2 0.919 5.870 1.845 -0.252b 0 0 0 0 1

decision making autonomy 3 0.930 3.560 2.471 0.437b

0.066 -0.188a

-0.496b

-0.339b

-0.058 1

work schedule autonomy 3 0.912 3.403 2.25 0.677b

-0.525b

-0.352b

-0.007 -0.197a

-0.310b

0 1

work method autonomy 2 0.940 4.330 2.319 0.438b

-0.976 -0.075 -0.572b

-0.168a

-0.211b

0 0 1

new idea implementation 7 0.929 4.893 1.054 0.902b

-0.527b -0.247b -0.319b -0.569b -0.306b 0.479b 0.684b 0.391b 1 Note: a: p-value<0.05 two-tailed b: p-value<0.01 two-tailed

Regression result for individual level IT self-leadership

In this research, we hypothesizes that the individual-level IT self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovativeness. As the concept of team innovativeness has two categories: new idea generation and new idea implementation, we conduct two separate regression analysis for the two categories of team innovativeness.

(26)

self-leadership and new idea generation. Variables of the individual-level IT self-leadership, that is, self-goal setting, self-punishment, self-observation self-reward and self-cueing, lead to a good fit of the model with F (2) =74.1, p<0.05. The R square shows that this variables explain 71.3% of the variance in new idea generation. This hypothesis 1 is rejected as the beta value of all variables show a negative influence (p<0.05). This result indicates that the individual-level IT self-leadership has negative influence on new idea generation. Among all the five variables, self-reward (β= -0.586) has the strongest negative effect on new idea generation than others.

Table 5: Regression results for individual level IT self-leadership and new idea generation

variables hypothesis beta

self goal setting 1 -0.275b

self punishment 1 -0.327b self observation 1 -0.366b self reward 1 -0.586b self cueing 1 -0.252b R2 0.723b Adjusted R2 0.713b R2 change F-value 74.10b

Notes: a: p-value<0.01 b: p-value<0.05 c: p-value<0.10

Table 6 reveals the results of the relationship between the individual-level IT self-leadership and new idea implementation. Variables of the individual-level IT self-leadership are self-goal setting, self-punishment, self-observation, self-reward and self-cueing. We get a good fit of the model with F (2) =72.85, p<0.05. The R square shows that variables of the individual-level IT self-leadership explain 85.2% variance in new idea implementation. The hypothesis 1 is rejected as the beta value of all different variables show a negative influence (p<0.05). This result indicates that the individual-level IT self-leadership have a negative influence on new idea implementation. Among all the five variables, self-reward(β= -0.568) has strongest negative effect on new idea implementation than others.

(27)

variables hypothesis beta

self goal setting 1 -0.527b

self punishment 1 -0.247b self observation 1 -0.319b self reward 1 -0.568b self cueing 1 -0.306b R2 0.857b Adjusted R2 0.852b R2 change F-value 72.85b

Notes: a: p-value<0.01 b: p-value<0.05 c: p-value<0.10

Regression results for team level IT self-leadership

The team-level IT self-leadership is another independent variable in this study. We hypothesize that the team-level IT self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovativeness. As afore mentioned, the team innovativeness has two categories of new idea generation and new idea implementation, we thus conduct two separate regression analysis to examine the relationship between independent variable and team innovativeness.

Table 7 reveals the regression results. Variables of the team-level IT self-leadership, that is, decision-making autonomy, work schedule autonomy and work method autonomy, leads to a good fit of the model with F (2) =258.30, p<0.05. The R square shows that these variables explain 83.8% variance in new idea generation. Our hypothesis 2 is supported as the beta value of all different variables show positive influence (p<0.05). This result indicates that the team-level IT self-leadership have a positive influence on new idea generation. Among all three variables, work schedule autonomy (β=0.568) has strongest positive effect on new idea generation than others.

Table 7: Regression results for team level IT self-leadership and new idea generation

variables hypothesis beta

decision making autonomy 2 0.437b

work schedule autonomy 2 0.677b

work method autonomy 2 0.438b

R2 0.842b

adjusted R2 0.838

R2 change

(28)

Table 8 reveals the regression results of the hypotheses about the relationship between the team-level IT self-leadership and new idea implementation. Variables of individual-level IT self-leadership, that is, decision-making autonomy, work schedule autonomy and work method autonomy, leads to a good fit of the model with F (2) =275.76, p<0.05. The R square shows that these variables explain 84.7% variance in new idea implementation. The hypothesis 2 is supported as the beta value of all different variables show positive influence (p<0.05). This result indicates that the team-level IT self-leadership has a positive influence on new idea implementation. Among all the five variables, work schedule autonomy (β =0.684) has the strongest negative effect on new idea implementation than others.

Table 8: Regression results for team level IT self-leadership and new idea implementation

variables hypothesis beta

decision making autonomy 2 0.479b

work schedule autonomy 2 0.684b

work method autonomy 2 0.391b

R2 0.850b

adjusted R2 0.847b

R2 change

F-value 275.76b

Notes: a: p-value<0.01 b: p-value<0.05 c: p-value<0.10

Given our empirical results, hypothesis 1 is supported and hypothesis 2 is rejected. The tables above indicate that basically the two different levels of IT self-leadership show opposite effects on team innovativeness. The individual-level IT self-leadership has a negative influence on team innovativeness while the team-level IT self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovativeness. The contrary result implies that the two independent variables interact with each other and together influence team innovativeness. Therefore, a mediation test is applied in order to examine the interaction between the two independent variables and the overall influence of IT self-leadership on team innovativeness.

Mediation analysis result for “SEBOL” test

(29)

influence of independent variables (the team-level IT self-leadership) on mediation variable (the individual-level IT self-leadership). Path “b” represents the influence of mediation variable (the individual-level IT self-leadership) on the dependent variable (team innovativeness). Path “c” represents the influence of independent variable (the team-level IT self-leadership) on the dependent variable (team innovativeness).

Path “c’” represents the influence of independent variable (the team-level IT self-leadership) on the dependent variable (team innovativeness) controlling for the mediation variable (the individual-level IT self-leadership). In addition, the total effects equal indirect effects plus direct effect.

Figure 2: mediation model applies in this research

By running the Marco in SPSS statistics, we get the result of the mediation analysis in the following table. The table includes both direct and indirect effects. As team innovativeness has two categories, we again examine the two categories separately. In order to examine the mediating effect, we combine the five different variables for the individual-level IT self-leadership to one variable, and repeat the same procedure to create one variable for the team-level IT self-leadership.

(30)

correlation. The influence of the individual-level IT self-leadership on new idea generation while controlling by the team-level IT self-leadership is negative (Coeff=0.0688). The effects of the team-level IT self-leadership on new idea generation while controlling by the individual-level IT self-leadership is positive (Coeff=0.9606).

Moreover, we do not find a significant effect of the individual-level IT self-leadership on new idea generation while controlling by the team-level IT self-leadership (p=0.404>0.05). In addition, there is no significant indirect effect either (p=0.4028>0.05). Finally, the results of bootstrap reveal that indirect effects also not significant ( LL95CI= -0.2223,UL95CI=0.0890). Since zero is a possible value between a negative number and a positive number then we can conclude that the indirect effect is insignificant.

Table 9: Indirect effects for new idea generation

Direct and indirect effects

coefficient S.E. t sig.(two)

b(YX) 0.8988 0.360 24.9374 0.000

b(MX) -0.8984 0.361 -24.8919 0.000

b(YM.X) 0.0688 0.822 0.8378 0.404

b(YX.M) 0.9606 0.822 11.6916 0.000

Indirect effect and significance using normal distribution

value S.E. LL95CI UL95CI Z Sig.(two)

effect -0.0618 0.0739 -0.2067 0.0830 0.8366 0.4028

Bootstrap results for indirect effect

data mean S.E. LL99CI LL95CI UL95CI UL99CI

effect -0.0618 -0.0632 0.0777 -0.2743 -0.2223 0.0890 0.1372

number of bootstrap resamples

number 5000

Note: sample size n=150

(31)

On the other hand, the effect of the team-level IT self-leadership on new idea implementation is positive while controlling by the individual-level IT self-leadership (Coeff =0.5643).

All four relationships in the mediating model are significant (p<0.05). Results of bootstrap reveal that the indirect effect is significant ( LL95CI= 0.2612,UL95CI=0.4268). Since zero does not occur between the LL and the UL then we can conclude that the indirect effect is significant. Value of indirect effect is 0.3413.

Table 10: Indirect effects for new idea implementation

Direct and indirect effects

coefficient S.E. t sig.(two)

b(YX) 0.9056 0.349 25.9702 0.000

b(MX) -0.8984 0.361 -24.8919 0.000

b(YM.X) -0.3799 0.733 -5.1850 0.000

b(YX.M) 0.5643 0.733 7.7021 0.000

Indirect effect and significance using normal distribution

value S.E. LL95CI UL95CI Z Sig.(two)

effect 0.3413 0.0673 0.2094 0.4732 5.0721 0.0000

Bootstrap results for indirect effect

data mean S.E. LL99CI LL95CI UL95CI UL99CI

effect 0.3413 0.3423 0.0420 0.2357 0.2612 0.4268 0.4544

number of bootstrap resamples Number 5000

Note: sample size n=150

Results of table 9 indicates that the indirect effect in the mediation model for new idea generation is not significant, therefore, the research uses the result of idea implementation as team innovativeness to discuss the practical implication of our findings.

The sample size of this mediation test is n=150, which means 150 participants’ data have been used for the analysis. The samples are equally picked up from different teams. In general, mediation test shows high reliability when the sample size is bigger than 200. However, the sample size of this research is still acceptable as it represents the data for what research want to test.

(32)

been used as a control variable. There are two types of company. One type is the IT-based advantaged company and the other is the non IT-based advantaged company. They are used for comparison in order to discover whether there is a difference between the IT-based advantage company and the non IT-based advantaged company in terms of the relationship between IT self-leadership and team innovativeness. SPSS for “SEBOL” test has also been separately made for these two types of company.

Table 11shows the general effect of independent variables on team innovativeness within IT-based advantage company. According to the table, results reveal that the team-level IT self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovativeness (Coeff=0.8808, n=74) while the individual-level IT self-leadership has a negative influence on team innovativeness (Coeff=-0.9131,n=74). This represents a negative correlation between the two variables. Moreover, there is a negative effect of the individual-level IT self-leadership on team innovativeness while controlling by the team-level IT self-leadership (Coeff= -0.2632, n=74). There is a positive effect of the team-level IT self-leadership on new idea implementation while controlling by the individual-level IT self-leadership (Coeff=0.6405, n=74).

All four relationships show significant coefficients in this model. The results of bootstrap reveal that the indirect effect is significant. ( LL95CI= 0.0608,UL95CI=0.4199). Since zero does not occur between the LL and the UL then we can conclude that the indirect effect is significant. Value of indirect effect is p=0.2404.

Table 11: Mediation effects for IT-based advantage company

Direct and indirect effects

coefficient S.E. t sig.(two)

b(YX) 0.8808 0.0426 20.6680 0.000

b(MX) -0.9131 0.0486 -18.7809 0.000

b(YM.X) -0.2632 0.0992 -2.6527 0.098

b(YX.M) 0.6405 0.0994 6.4418 0.000

Indirect effect and significance using normal distribution

value S.E. LL95CI UL95CI Z Sig.(two)

effect 0.2404 0.0916 0.0608 0.4199 2.6230 0.0087

Bootstrap results for indirect effect

data mean S.E. LL99CI LL95CI UL95CI UL99CI

(33)

number of bootstrap resamples Number 5000

Note: sample size n=74

Table 12 shows the general effect of independent variables on team innovativeness within the non IT-based advantage company. Results indicate that the team-level IT self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovativeness (Coeff=0.9199, n=76) while it has a negative impact on the individual-level IT self-leadership (Coeff=-0.8757,n=76). This represents a negative correlation between the two variables. Moreover, there is a negative effect of the individual-level IT self-leadership on team innovativeness while controlling by the team-level IT self-leadership (Coeff=-0.4653, n=76). There is a positive effect of the team-level IT self-leadership on new idea implementation while controlling by the individual-level IT self-leadership (Coeff=0.5124, n=76).

All four relationships show significant coefficients in this model. The results of bootstrap reveal that the indirect effect is significant. ( LL95CI= 0.02543,UL95CI=0.2931). Since zero does not occur between the LL and the UL then we can conclude that the indirect effect is significant. Value of indirect effect is p=0.4074.

Table 12: Mediation effects for non IT-based advantage company

Direct and indirect effects

coefficient S.E. t sig.(two)

b(YX) 0.9199 0.0551 16.6800 0.000

b(MX) -0.8757 0.0542 -16.1506 0.000

b(YM.X) -0.4653 0.1059 -4.3954 0.000

b(YX.M) 0.5124 0.1050 4.8789 0.000

Indirect effect and significance using normal distribution

value S.E. LL95CI UL95CI Z Sig.(two)

effect 0.4074 0.0962 0.2188 0.5961 4.2336 0.0000

Bootstrap results for indirect effect

data mean S.E. LL99CI LL95CI UL95CI UL99CI

effect 0.4074 0.4091 0.0634 0.2543 0.2931 0.5418 0.6004

number of bootstrap resamples Number 5000

(34)

This paper aims to discover whether the mediation effect in the conceptual model shows difference between the IT-based advantage company and the non IT-based advantage company. The result of the control variable indicates that there exists the differences between two types of company. Within the IT-based advantage company the indirect effect of the individual-level IT self-leadership is 0.2404, which is lower than the outcome of the non-IT based advantage company’s, which is 0.4704. This result indicates that the IT-based advantage company, which assisted by completed IT system, prevents the negative mediation influence of the individual-level IT self-leadership. On the contrary, within the non IT-based advantage companies, because of the lack of IT usage, such prevention is lower than the IT-based advantage companies, thus it results to a relative stronger mediation effect.

(35)

Discussion

The study of this paper aims to find out the relationship between IT self-leadership and team innovativeness. Previous literature already makes contributes to this area. Numerous researches indicate that self-leadership and team innovativeness highly related to each other (Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg and Boerner, 2008) (Carmeli, Meitar and Weisberg, 2006). This study zooms the concept of self-leadership into details. Two different levels of self-leadership represent different perceptions of self-leadership, which may lead to different influences. Moreover, the use of IT in self-leadership is found to be critical as well. This paper combines these concepts and examines how the two levels of IT self-leadership separately affect the team innovativeness and what the mediation effects are.

After the data collection and the data analysis, we get result for each hypothesis. The hypothesis 1 has been supported and hypothesis 2 has been rejected by empirical results. The individual-level IT self-leadership has a negative influence on team innovativeness while the team-level IT self-leadership have a positive effect on team innovativeness.

(36)

there are many team members, each one has their own distinct needs and considerations. Without a common goal, employees with different personal goals work in a team will have hostile opinion and finally unsatisfied about the each other. This may lead to team break up rather than team innovativeness. Therefore, the individual-level IT self-leadership negatively correlated to team innovativeness. Problems such as low efficiency or lack of communication are also the consequence of this type of self-leadership.

The team-level IT self-leadership has a strong positive influence on team innovativeness. Autonomy of work decision, work scheduling and work method allow employees to think more about common goals of their teams. With the help of autonomy, all team members’ opinions can be combined to maximize the outcomes of the team decision or team product. This in turn leads to a high team efficiency and therefore high team innovativeness.

Hypothesis 3 has been supported by the mediation test. The individual-level IT self-leadership as a mediator reduces the influence of the team-level IT self-leadership on team innovativeness. Hypothesis 3a and 3b both have been rejected as the coefficient between the team-level IT self-leadership and the individual-level IT self-leadership, and the coefficient between the individual-level IT self-leadership and team innovativeness are negative. As explained, the individual-level IT self-leadership as a mediation variable reduces the effect between the team-level IT self-leadership and team innovativeness. The coefficient decrease from 0.9056 to 0.5643 and the indirect effect of the mediator is 0.3413. The mediation effect represents the causal effect in our model (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). Nevertheless, IT self-leadership overall show a positive relationship with team innovativeness for both idea generation and idea implementation, even though the two levels of IT self-leadership negatively correlated to each other. This outcome implies that the team-level IT self-leadership is dominant for innovation in a working team, and is more important than the individual-IT self-leadership. Personal creativity is important, however, it is more important to balance the two levels IT self-leadership in order to generate the optimal outcomes, which is the final aim for team management.

(37)

the non IT-based advantage company. This result proves that companies with IT advantages capture the ability of influencing employees to finish tasks by using more IT and the IT-based advantage company can build up an environment for workers to control new IT for high team performance and team innovativeness. Therefore, company builds up own IT advantage can help team become more innovative and this leads to high competitiveness in the future.

Contributions to theory and contributions to practice

Although team innovativeness is a concept that has been widely discussed in the last decades, this research addresses new relationship concerning IT self-leadership in two different levels and the causal effects in the relationship between the two levels of IT self-leadership and team innovativeness. The findings of this study contribute to the enrichment of the IT self-leadership, help to clarify the relationship between each level of IT self-leadership and team innovativeness. Literatures about self-leadership with team innovation (Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg and Boerner, 2008) and self-leadership with innovative behavior (Carmeli, Meitar and Weisberg, 2006) generally describe the relationship between self-leadership and team innovativeness. However, these articles neither take the two different levels of self-leadership into account nor explore how each level affects team innovativeness. Based on the study of self-leadership (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011) and the study of IT use in self-leadership (Eseryel, 2013; Ahuja and Thatcher, 2005), this research extend those studies to find out the influence of different level IT self-leaderships on team innovativeness and the casual effects between the two levels of IT self-leadership as a mediation effect.

(38)

self-management for workers may not lead to team innovativeness. Giving more autonomies to teams and making common goals in teams can improve team innovativeness.

Research limitation and further research

This research has limitations in several areas which lead to further research in the field of relationship between IT self-leadership and team innovativeness. First of all, the participants of this paper who assist with survey data collection are mainly from China. Therefore, we can only interpret our results within the boundary of China. As companies are all from China and Chinese people are familiar with these companies, there may be a potential sample selection bias because individuals who filled in the survey might share similar thinking. Future research could extend this research using samples from different geographic regions. Method of random sampling can be used in order to reduce sample selection bias while keeping the representiveness. Secondly, empirical results do not fully take the culture different into account. Comparison between Chinese culture and European culture has been ignored because of restriction of the samples. Therefore, research on exploring differences between different cultural and social environments can be formulated for future research. Last, there are 150 participants used for data analysis. Future research can use a bigger sample (bigger than 200 participants). This could make the research more reliable as the reliability will be increased especial for mediation test due to larger sample size.

(39)

Conclusion

Ultimately, this paper has shown that IT self-leadership as a whole has a positive relationship with team innovativeness while the two different levels of IT self-leadership present different influences. The individual-level IT self-leadership has a negative correlation with team innovativeness because employees as an individual merely think about personal objectives without common goals and perform without cooperative behavior. The individual-level IT self-leadership is found to be significantly positively correlates to creativity but not team innovativeness in other studies (Tan, 2007; Mumford, 2003; Kalyar, 2011; Shalley and Gilson, 2004). Therefore, employees with dis-concentrated and scattered personal creativity disorderly work with each other and against each other in teams, which would lead to low team innovativeness. Differently from individual-level IT self-leadership, the team-level IT self-leadership has a strong positive influence on team innovativeness because autonomy for cooperative behavior is fundamental action and common goal is the core part for team communication and establishment.

Moreover, the empirical result shows significance when individual-level IT self-leadership as the mediator decreases the relationship between team-level IT self-leadership and team innovativeness. Nevertheless, the overall effect on team innovativeness is still positive when both the individual-level and the team-level IT self-leadership exist in teams at the same time. Therefore, in a business team, people use information technology to facilitate their own work efficiency will make the team benefit diminished because of the scattered disunited contribution.

The different effect between the IT-based company and the non IT-based company on team innovativeness is instructive and meaningful for company management. Result shows that the influence of IT self-leadership on team innovativeness is stronger in the IT-based company than that in the non IT-based company. Managers need to think about how to make their company into the IT-based company in the future in order to face the competition.

(40)
(41)

APPENDIX: I Questionnaire:

Dear participant,

As outlined, the survey deals with leadership behavior, self- leadership, team innovation and satisfaction in teams. Before we start with the survey, we would like to ask you some general questions. The following information can be provided voluntarily. Nevertheless, that information will improve the validity of the study. All information provided by you will remain confidential and will only be used for the purposes of this study.

What is your age?

What is your gender? Man

Woman  What is the name of your company?

What is the size of your company? (number of employees) <100  100-300  >300  What is the name of the industry in which your

company is operating? What is your job title?

IT Self-leadership

This set of questions is about your ICT usage at work (e.g. social media, to day-to-day systems you use, apps, etc.). Please refer in your answers to the same team that you have referred to before. The second part is the influence of team use IT to improve the work. Please refer in your answers to the same teams that you have referred to before.

Use of IT for own tasks Strongly

disagree Disagre e Disagree somewhat Neutral Agree somewhat Agree Strongl y agree

1. I establish specific goals for my own

performance with the help of IT.       

2. I Use IT tools to reach my goals, although my task description does not require me to use IT.

      

3. I consciously keep goals in mind for my

work efforts by the help of IT.       

4. I work toward specific goals I have set for

myself with the help of IT.       

5. I use IT tools to keep track of how well I am doing at work, although nobody requires me to do so.

      

6. I use IT tools to help me pay attention to

how well I am doing in my work.       

(42)

8. I visualize myself successfully performing

a task using IT before I actually do the task        9. Sometimes I picture in my mind a

successful performance by the help of IT before I actually do a task

      

10. I imagine myself performing well with

the help of IT on important tasks.       

11. I visualize myself overcoming the

changes I face with the help of IT.       

12. When I have mastered an ICT tool, I

often reward myself.       

13. When I use the IT tools to complete task successfully, I often reward myself with something I like.

      

14. When I do an assignment especially well by the help of IT tools, I like to treat myself with something or activity I especially enjoy.

      

15. I remind myself of what I need to

accomplish by the help of IT tools.       

16. I use IT tools as reminders to help me

focus on the things I need to accomplish.        17. I tend to get down on myself when I

performed poorly even by the help of IT tools.

      

18. I tend to be tough on myself in my thinking when I have not done well on a task even by the help of the IT tools.

      

19. I feel guilt when I perform and task

poorly with IT.       

Team Use of IT for team tasks Strongly disagree Disagre e Disagree somewha t Neutral Agree somew hat Agree Strong ly agree 1. Using IT allows my team to make our

decisions about how to schedule our work.        2. Using IT allows my team to decide on the

order in which things are done on the job.        3. Using IT helps our team to plan how to do

our work.       

4. The IT gives me more chances to use my personal initiative or judgment on carrying out the work in our team

      

5. Using IT helps my team to make a lot of

(43)

6. Using IT provides my team with

significant autonomy in making decisions       

7. Using IT helps my team to make decisions about what methods we use to complete our work.

      

8. Using of IT gives my team considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how we do our work.

      

9. Using IT helps our team to decide on our

own how to go about doing our work.       

Team innovation

This part deals with the generation of new ideas in your team. Please indicate to what extent your team develops ideas concerning the following aspects of work.

Idea generation concerning ...

No new ideas generated 1 2 3 4 5 6 Many new ideas generated 7

1. new targets or objectives       

2. new methods to achieve work targets       

3. new working methods or techniques       

4. new information or recording systems       

5. new products or product improvements       

6. new processes       

7. other aspects of work       

When you think about the ideas generated by your team, how would you assess their quality according to the following scales?

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The literature states that the effects of the different factors leadership, team-oriented behavior, and attitude on team effectiveness are all positive; except for hypothesis 3b

” 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

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

If I'm by myself and I'm feeling unhappy, i make an effort to think of something funny to cheer myself up My manager usually thinks of something funny about the situation, If

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

The independent variable media depiction, the external variables, and the internal variables will determine the value of the dependent variable in this study,