Master thesis, Human Resource Management

Master thesis, Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

April, 2014

Marije Sibma Student number: S1713086 E-mail: m.sibma@student.rug.nl

Supervisor/ University of Groningen Prof. Dr. O. Janssen

Supervisor/ field of study Mrs. M. Rijksschroef

Head of HR department of the municipality of Zwolle

processes. Yet is relatively vague which factors specifically influence the ability of individuals to implement their creative ideas. This study posits that and innovative team climate and individual networking ability separately stimulate the ‘individual innovation process’ which runs from individual idea generation to idea implementation. Data is gathered with a questionnaire for employees working at a local governmental organization in The Netherlands, a middle sized capital city of the province Overijssel in The Netherlands. Results show that an innovative team climate has a great direct effect on individual idea implementation, instead of a moderating effect as expected. Networking ability resulted to function as a moderator, as expected. The results give new insights about the individual innovation process, innovative team climate, networking ability wherein implications for further research are formulated.

Keywords: Individual innovation, creativity, team climate for innovation, networking ability,

moderator

INTRODUCTION

Innovation becomes relevant to a greater extent for organizations in general (Christensen, C. M., 2013) wherein management and Human Resource departments are trying to generate an innovative minded workforce. To start, creativity differs between jobs, education levels and organizational tenure (Unsworth, 2001), but can emerge in every facet of the organization. Individuals who innovate within their working practice, organization or wider society deliver organization relevant performance, but also reach higher satisfaction and better self-reflection in their work. Consequently, a high potential gain exists for organizations in promoting individuals to engage in innovation processes.

However, despite of the fact that several programs try to promote an individual’s motivation and ability to perform innovatively, there is a lot to obtain in enhancing this process. In scientific research, the implementation of individual ideas is one of the most relevant innovation-issues (Baer, 2012, Anderson &

West, 1998). Specifically, stimulating factors for creativity are abundantly researched, whereas factors of influence on the ultimate implementation of these ideas have remained relatively vague.

Idea generation or creativity¹ is defined in recent studies as the first stage of the innovation process. Idea implementation, which starts when an idea is generated and mentioned to others, is identified as the second stage of the innovation process. This second stage is subject of research in the current study and can be defined as critical to biases and highly political (Rogers 1962, Baer, 2012). For this reason, the idea implementation stage is a hard stage to fulfill successively. Consequently, it is important to generate valuable interactions, wherein a surrounding ‘climate’ is relevant, although initiative of individuals is relevant as well. These two factors can be translated into concepts derived from organizational science. In the current research, the potential of an innovative team climate (Anderson and West, 1998) and individual networking ability (Baer, 2012) to promote individual idea implementation is examined.

Baer (2012) pointed out that little attention is given to the individual level of this innovation

process. Additionally, West (2002) remarked the great importance of influential factors on idea

implementation rather than on idea generation, which reflects on his extensive research to an innovative

team climate. While a great deal of empirical work on several influential factors on innovation processes

has emerged over the past two decades and some theoretical attention has been given to the interactions

between those factors, a significant gap still exists in our understanding of the implementation stage of the

individual innovation process. Given the potential of individuals to generate ideas and consequently

implement those ideas, this is remarkable. Individuals have the opportunity to deliver great efforts for

organizational innovative successes. If organizations are able to create an innovative climate and that

fosters individual attitudes, individuals are to a greater extent able to enhance their performance. With realizing this, each individual can reach great benefits for themselves, the organization or the wider society.

Research needs to explore if structural factors, such as an innovative team climate and Networking Ability, serve as meaningful influences on the individual ability to implement ideas. In the current research I will look at the influence of an innovative team climate, networking ability, and at the interaction between those two factors on the individual innovation process, as showed in the research model of figure 1. By doing so, this research deals with Baers’ notion that more attention needs to be paid to influential factors on the quality of the individual innovation process (Baer, 2012).

Figure 1: research model with the three hypothesized effects between the variables.

THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK The individual innovation process

The first stage of the ‘individual innovation process’ is creativity. Diverse types of creativity, initiated by different individuals in a wide range of situations lead to valuable innovations (Unsworth, 2001, Madjar, Greenberg & Chen, 2011). Relevant creative ideas can be both explicitly radical, which can be typified as ‘out of the box’, whereas more subtly incremental ideas can be typified as ‘inside the box’

(Madjar et al., 2011). Both kinds of creative ideas can lead to relevant innovative outcomes for both the organization and employee self. Consequently, the concept of creativity in the current model is captured in a relatively broad way.

The second stage of the ‘individual innovation process’ is that of idea implementation. Following Baer (2012), the current research focuses on this second stage until ultimate idea implementation. An idea needs to be reshaped many times before it can function into practice, through which the quality, rather than the quantity, of the implementation is relevant. Before ultimate idea implementation is reached, an idea reaches other stages of implementation, which can benefit organizational performance and individual satisfaction and reflection at work as well. To optimize the quality of this process, it is relevant that an individual is interacting with a diversity of people to modify their ideas and battle with structural and cultural barriers (West, 2002). To some extent the quality of this process is promoted by nature, because individuals have the motivation and ability to invest in the implementation of their ideas. Why this is the case, is explained below with notions out of different studies (Axtell, 2004, Baer, 2012, Janssen et al, 2004).

Individuals are highly motivated to implement their own ideas, because their ideas concern a relevant problem in their work environment. When these kinds of creative ideas are ultimately implemented, the problem can be solved. As a consequence, individuals reach a higher job satisfaction, greater well-being, reduced stress levels and performance enhancement when they implement ideas (Janssen & Yperen, van, 2004). In addition, individuals are motivated themselves to enhance their individual capability for developing something. Creating new constructs in the working practice is meaningful and novel to individuals and promotes job satisfaction and self-reflection (Madjar et al., 2011;

Bharadwaj& Menon, 2000).

Individuals are able to implement their generated ideas, because they have become specialists

concerning their idea during its development. Their tasks and working practice makes employees a

specialist concerning their work. This idea-specific knowledge supports the implementation of individual

ideas (Obstfeld, 1995).

The motivation and ability of individuals is also triggered by organizational factors and foster the quality of the implementation process as well. Factors like the presence of coworkers (Madjar et al, 2011) team climate, (Anderson & West, 1998; Hulsheger, Anderson, Salgado, 2009; West, 2002) and leadership (Eissenbeiss, Knippenberg, Boerner, 2008) influence the individual motivation and ability to implement ideas.

Previous research has consistently documented that the individual generation of ideas is a positive predictor of individual idea implementation (Axtell et al., 2006). For example in their study in two large aerospace companies, Clegg, Unsworth, Epitropaki & Parker (2002) found a positive association of .57 between the number of ideas employees had generated and the extent to which these ideas were implemented. Generally, it can be concluded that individuals are a moving force during the implementation of their own ideas because they have the motivation and ability to implement their ideas.

Next to that, organizational factors stimulate this process as well. Bearing this in mind, the first hypothesis is formulated.

Hypothesis 1. Individual idea generation is positively related to individual idea implementation.

The requirements of the individual innovation process

Nevertheless, a high qualified individual innovation process is not self-evident; much ideas do not lead to ultimate implementation. The abilities and motivation of individuals who have generated a relevant creative idea foster in some sense the implementation, but implementation mostly needs special attention before it is reached successively (West, 2002). This is caused by two properties of new and creative ideas.

Firstly, individuals initially do not see the limitations and weaknesses of their new and creative ideas. This symptom is identified by Rogers (1962) and is called the ‘pro-innovation bias’. Individuals have a tendency to overestimate the quality of their ideas and try to implement it anyhow. For this reason, ideas must be modified and reinforced with the help of others before they can be implemented in practice (Baer & Frese, 2003; Hulsheger et al, 2009, Scott & Bruce, 1994). Baer (2012) recognized the importance of others in implementing ideas and he showed that strong relations with colleagues, who already were present before the creative idea had emerged, helped the person to acquire in the modification and reinforcement of the idea.

Secondly, creative ideas are novel to some extent, even when they imply no radical changes (Baer, 2012). A new idea implies change, wherein the individual experiences skepticism and resistance.

As a consequence, the implementation of ideas can be a venturesome undertaking (Madjar et al, 2011).

The tendency of the surrounding to resist new ideas and their implementation does not promote the

collection of resources and support, which are highly relevant for idea implementation (Baer, 2012;

Eissenbeiss et al, 1998; Magadley, 2012; West, 2002). Hence, when someone has the opportunity to extensively explain an idea to others, skepticism will diminish and team members will help to shape the idea and might provide in some resources.

These two properties of new and creative ideas are the main reasons why individual innovation processes can be defined as highly political and critical to biases (Baer, 2012, Anderson and West, 1998).

Since this study is focusing on letting the whole workforce reach individual innovation, critical factors during the individual innovation process must be diminished. Those critical factors can be overcome to promote valuable interactions about the aimed innovation.

With valuable interactions, individuals face limitations and weaknesses concerning their ideas and are better able break through cultural and structural barriers. Consequently, two factors which seem the most important surrounding factor (innovative team climate) and individual factor (networking ability) for letting the individual have valuable interactions are added to the current research model. How these two factors makes individuals easier coping with the political and critical process, is elaborated in the following paragraphs.

The stimulation of an innovative team climate

In teams, interaction and cooperation is always present, but the extent to which a shared focus on idea implementation is present, differs. To let interactions foster the individual implementation of ideas, an Innovative Team Climate is a relevant factor in the current research model.

A team is defined by Anderson and West (1998) as a (semi-) permanent group to which individuals are assigned, whom they identify with, and whom they interact with regularly in order to perform work related tasks. The shared focus on innovation in a team in which the individual is located, can be of great influence on interactions surrounding the individual his idea and is thus subject of the current research. The shared focus on innovation is generally more present, when an Innovative Team Climate is dominant. To explain what the construct of an Innovate Team Climate is, two different perspectives are set out.

The first perspective emphasizes climate as an organizational attribute which is defined by Glick (1985) as a broad class of organizational variables that describe the context of an individual’s actions. The second perspective defines climate as a set of perceptions that reflect on how work environments are perceived (James, Joyce and Slocum, 1988). When the perceptions of the environment are dominantly shared, a climate is shaped.

The second, rather psychological perspective of a climate is used in this research. Anderson &

West(1998) adopted this notion of shared perceptions to define an ‘Innovative Team Climate’, and has

conducted several studies over the last two decades, in order to develop a valid construct (Anderson,. &

West, 1998, West & Farr, 1989 & West, 2002). When shared perceptions among innovation exist in a team, interactions about new ideas arise more easily. These ‘innovative-minded’ interactions in teams where the ‘Innovative Team Climate’ is high, help to refine an idea and to break barriers.

The studies of Anderson and West resulted in a four factor model of work group innovation, hypothesizing that four major factors of the team climate are associated with ‘innovativeness’. These factors all accumulate the Innovative Team Climate, which means that the more the four factors are dominant in a team, the more a shared perception on the aim for innovation is dependent. How the four factors of the climate exactly enhance the individual innovation process is elaborated below. The factors are translated into the measureable constructs ‘vision’, ‘support for innovation’, ‘climate for excellence’

and ‘participative safety’.

Vision is an idea that represents a higher order goal at work (West, 1990). Firstly, when individuals can see the higher order goal of tasks they have to conduct, they are more likely to invent the way to reach this goal. As is stated earlier in this section, creativity remains relevant after the first idea generation, because creative abilities can be used to reshape the first version of the concept. Secondly, a clear vision within a team is translated into objectives for the working practice, which promotes practical actions concerning this vision. As a consequence, individuals in teams which have objectives and tasks that can be related to the vision, are more likely to reach and conduct them. Hence, when individuals in a team perceive a clear vision, they are more inventive in reaching idea implementation and conduct more practical actions. For these two reasons, a clear and dominant vision within a team climate promotes the implementation of individual ideas.

Support for innovation is defined by West (1990) as the expectation, approval, and practical support to introduce new ways of doing things in the work environment. This varies regarding the extent to which it is articulated and enacted, which is both relevant for innovation (Anderson and West, 1998).

Enacted support provides active support, which relates to the supply of resources needed to let employees execute innovational actions. Resources such as the availability of time within the individual his working practice, eventually liquid capital, and practical help can facilitate the fulfillment of innovational actions (Madjar et al., 2011, Magadley, 2012). If individuals their actions concerning innovation are feasible by the organization, they are more capable and motivated to implement their creative ideas within their job.

Articulated support is generally found in personnel documents, policy statements, or spread

through word and mouth. The articulated kind of support merely promotes the motivation individuals to

implemented their ideas. Individuals are more motivated to invest in successful implementation if

management articulates the importance of it (Schroeder, van de Ven, Schrudder & Polley, 1991). For

these reasons, if individuals experience both enacted and articulated support for innovation in their team, it enhances their capability and motivation to execute innovational actions and thus to reach ultimate idea implementation.

A climate for excellence is defined by Anderson & West (1998) as a shared concern with excellence of quality of task performance in relation to shared vision or outcomes. This factor describes a shared focus on fulfilling tasks in excellent ways, in line with the prescribed policies, procedures and methods. This is characterized by evaluations, modifications, control systems, and critical appraisals within a team.

A climate for excellence in teams leads to the exploration of opposing opinions and the consideration of alternatives in order to choose the best option (Eissenbeiss et al., 2008). In addition, team members are willing to work at the maximum of ability (Eissenbeiss et al., 2008; Somech & Drach- Zahavy, 2013).

Individuals might at first be helped to overcome obstacles during the implementation process of their ideas because their team members critically assess their actions for implementing the idea.

(Eissenbeiss et al., 2008; Hulsheger et al., 2009). Furthermore, within a dominant climate for excellence, team members are willing to deliver efforts and thereby assist in fulfilling the idea implementation of their team member. With this devotion of team members on innovation, individuals get extra help in either kind of way to reach the result.

In addition, individuals are conscious of the focus on excellence which causes a third process in individuals. The consciousness of a climate focused on excellence makes individuals wanting their ideas to complement this focus. As a consequence, they critically reflect more on the value of their own ideas by themselves. The individual becomes more independent in modifying ideas and makes them able to modifying ideas and implementing them. When individuals experience that they get valuable assist and are critically reflected to their ideas and actions, they are helped with a climate for excellence during their idea implementation.

Participative safety is a construct whereby involvement in decision-making is motivated and reinforced, while the environment is perceived as interpersonally non-threatening (Anderson & West, 1998, Magadley, 2012).

When it is safe to participate and individuals have mentioned their ideas to team members, team

members are providing help to individuals, which can occur in three ways. Firstly, team members will

mention feedback easily and more often. Secondly, team members are more involved in the decisions

made, concerning the implementation of the idea, through which they are motivated to invest in the

outcome and thus provide practical help to the individual. With a high perceived safety to participate in

the team, individuals can profit of it concerning idea implementation. Individuals get feedback and practical help from involved team members at different moments in the process, whereby the idea can smoothly be defined. In addition, individuals behave more receptive towards feedback and take comments into account in order to fine tune the idea, which will get support from team members in implementing the idea. (Somech, 2011, Magadley, 2012).

As the explanation implies, the different factors of an Innovative Team Climate have their own associations with ‘innovativeness’. Whether variations occur across teams has not been pointed out yet, because the role of each factor is not crystal clear (Anderson and West, 1998). For the current construct can be stated that the more each of the four factors is dominant, the more it stimulates idea implementation. With this notion, the four factors function evenly additional to each other.

The four factors together shape a sufficient set of surrounding perceptions which the individual has, is beneficial for promoting individual implementation. To summarize, the innovative team climate foster a successful fulfillment of the individual innovation process. The pro innovation bias is diminished with three mechanisms. At first, an individual is provided with more and better qualified feedback concerning his idea. Second, the feedback that is provided, can be used in a more constructive way by the individual. Third, individuals are more critical to their own ideas, which makes them more capable to implement their ideas individually. The conquest of reluctance is also fostered because individuals have a higher motivation towards the fulfillment of goals and the efforts which have to be made are more practically feasible.

An innovative team climate has four factors that provide stimulating mechanisms during the individual innovation process by which individuals can better overcome the pro-innovation bias and reluctance against their ideas. With this, the second hypothesis can be formulated.

Hypothesis 2. An Innovative Team Climate positively moderates the effect from individual idea generation to individual idea implementation.

The stimulation of individual networking ability

A supporting climate within a team cannot sustain in all required resources for the implementation of ideas. A team concerns a relatively restricted part of the organization, by which more general problems concerning the implementation may not be solved. In this light, Obstfeld (1995) remarks the importance of both dense and broad networks for integrating new concepts. Teams are dense networks and generally deliver technical knowledge and repeated interactions to individuals who want to implement a new concept.

The actions which are needed are generally promoted by dense networks. However, innovation

needs new insights and general feedback, wherein broad networks can are an addition to dense networks.

Broad networks contain these more diverse types of contacts. Diverse contacts can provide access to new information and opportunities and ‘social’ knowledge about organizational support, eventual partnerships and coalitions. The greater diversity and representativeness of the whole organization makes a dense network relevant for the conquest of organizational reluctance and the practical refinement of the idea.

In addition, both theoretical and quantitative research has claimed over the last decades that an individual needs to interact with a large diversity of people to realize change (i.e. Ferris, 2007, Magadley, 2012). Ideas, new to the unit of adoption, will likely conflict with some interests or groups in the organization, regardless of how promising an idea may be (Baer, 2012). In order to implement these ideas, one has to create partnerships (Hamber et al, 2008), effective coalitions (Kanter, 1983) and assemble different potential supporters to attract attention from management (Dutton & Ashford, 1983).

Consequently, interactions through the whole organization is relevant for idea implementation, next to the interaction with team members. To reach valuable interactions, one should make efficient use of a relevant network (Baer, 2012, Ferris, 2007). Individuals scoring high on networking ability have established a broad network by identifying different contacts, developing friendships and building coalitions. This established network is beneficial during idea implementation. When the individual innovation process has started, the individual recognizes the assets available through his contacts as valuable, specifically for idea implementation. Individual take advantage of their contacts which have a possibility to contribute to these implementation-relevant assets, by positioning themselves strategically towards the other during interactions and by using assertiveness as an influence tactic.

The general conclusion can be drawn that individuals scoring high on networking ability promotes both the development of a relevant network and efficient use of it. The research of Baer (2012) adapted this ability as a contingency during individual innovation, which has led to relevant promotion of implementation of individual ideas. With these arguments, the third hypothesis can be formulated.

Hypothesis 3. Individual Networking Ability enhances the effect of individual idea generation to individual idea implementation.

Radical and incremental creativity: potential differences during the individual innovation process

The logic of the current model is based on the requirements for a successful process from individual idea

generation to implementation. These requirements mostly emerge because of the novelty of creative ideas

(Baer, 2012). The more novel an idea is, the more it generates reluctance and needs to be refined before it

can function into practice, which both is done during the implementation stage. However, creative ideas

differ in the extent to which they are considered novel, which is already implied by Kirton (1976) who

defined the difference between adapters and innovators during problem solving. Recent studies

accumulate evidence for different types of creative performance (Madjar et al., 2011, Shalley, 2004, Unsworth, 2004).

Different antecedents of creative performance are identified by Madjar et al. (2011), by which he generally develops two types of creativity; radical creativity and incremental creativity. Madjar et al.

(2011) theorized, following Kirton (1994), that these concepts of creativity are orthogonal and thus both can lead to great changes and innovative outcomes.

Radical creative ideas suggest new and set-breaking frameworks or processes. Ideas concerning this type of creativity are rather abstract and emerge in the early stage of problem definition, whereby the individual can interpret the problem relatively free. An individual’s willingness to take risks and practical resources for creativity are several antecedents for radical creativity. Radical creative ideas need more persuasion, active acquirement of resources and support to be implemented.

Incremental creative ideas imply changes to existing practices or products and emerge when individuals search for refinements or adopt continuing models. Ideas concerning this type of creativity are rather practical and merely emerge when the problem is already defined, but the solution still has to be found. Incremental creativity has antecedents such as tendency to conform, organizational identification and extrinsic motivation. The conformity to practice of incremental creative ideas may be the reason why these ideas are more likely to acquire support, be accepted and implemented.

On account of these implications the relevancy of the moderating factors in the current model differs for the two types of creative ideas. Incremental ideas concern merely a change to an already existing product. Implementation of those ideas need in the greatest sense refinement on a specific area by which specific, technical feedback is required. Reluctance will merely come out of those specific areas wherein social knowledge about attitudes among the idea of the whole organization is less relevant.

Feedback is the most relevant for incremental, subtle ideas when it concerns technical knowledge, which is in the greatest sense attendant in the team of the individual. For this reason, the implementation of incremental ideas have a higher need for an innovative team climate than for networking ability, so an innovative team climate is relatively the most important factor for the implementation of incremental ideas. On account of this, the effect proposed in hypothesis 2 has the greatest influence on the implementation process of incremental ideas.

Radical ideas concern merely a change for the whole organization by which eventual reluctance but also relevanmt feedback about the implementation can be attendant in every area of the organization.

To conquest this reluctance and acquire relevant feedback, interactions throughout the whole organization

are more relevant for radical ideas than for incremental ideas. On account of this, the effect proposed in

hypothesis 3 has the greatest influence on the implementation process of incremental ideas relative to radical ideas.

Given the limited amount of research that specified the differences in the implementation processes of these types of creativity, especially on an individual level, I chose to examine the difference in impact of the two moderating factors on the implementation process of the two types of creativity in an exploratory manner. To conduct this exploration, the main effect is split up, by which the whole analysis is conducted on both the radical and incremental part of both creativity and implementation.

METHOD

Research setting and participants

In order to test the hypotheses, data is gathered from employees working at a local governmental organization in The Netherlands, a middle sized capital city of the province Overijssel in The Netherlands. The data is gathered with a questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to all employees and was available for six weeks. To reach a response rate as high as possible during this period, several methods were used; reminders on social media of the organization were placed;

announcements in newsletters or group mails of several departments were sent; emails to some departments were personally sent by their head managers and at last, flyers at coffee corners were spread.

These actions were combined with chat sessions at coffee corners of different departments. Out of the 1200 employees invited to participate in the study, a total of 58 respondents completed all sections of the questionnaire.

There are several explanations for this small sample size within this large population of employees. Three arguments were the most mentioned during the chat sessions at the coffee corners; at first, a great amount of employees mentioned they had no time to participate. Secondly, employees mentioned they were fed up with questionnaires. The third reason which was mentioned, concerned the topic of this research; many employees have experienced a lot of organizational changes and therefore they were skeptical about the goal of this research. A lot of changes have been conducted the last years.

Therefore, employees do not believe anymore in the adaptation of new knowledge to their working

practice. Additionally, at this moment a lot of cost savings and employee reductions take place at

corporate organizations. A lot of employees are sure they have to leave the organization or, they have

concerns about their job security.

Measures

The way the variables are measured, is outlined in the following section. Each variable, except the controlling variables, exists out of a scale; by which the items will be shortly outlined in the following paragraphs. In Appendix 1 are all the items for each variable briefly defined.

Radical creativity. The variable radical creativity is measured with a self-report of employees on the extent of four statements, which were describing the generation of radical ideas, were typified for the work they produced. The mean score of the four items together resulted in the variable radical creativity.

Incremental Creativity. The variable radical implementation is measured with a self-report of employees on the extent of four statements, which were describing the generation of radical ideas, were typified for the work they produced. The mean score of the four items together resulted in the variable incremental creativity.

Radical implementation. Radical implementation contained three items which measured the perception of the respondent of the radical ideas they developed, were implemented by themselves over the past year. On a scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always), employees rated the extent into their ideas reached certain stages of implementation; Over the past year, how often it happens that your radical ideas (1) are chosen to elaborated further and developed; (2) ultimately are turned into useful applications and; (3) are ultimately successful applied and used in practice? These items were measured on a scale, ranging from for all the items. The mean score of the three items together resulted in the variable radical implementation.

Incremental Implementation. Incremental implementation is measured with the same items for

radical implementation, but with the description of incremental ideas above the questions for the respondent. The mean score of the three items together resulted in the variable incremental implementation.

Innovative team climate. The first moderator of the model, innovative team climate, is measured

by 25 items concerning the individual perceptions of the team climate. The list of items for measuring an

innovative team climate, developed by Anderson and West (1998), was shortened and translated to Dutch

by Strating & Nieboer, which is also used for the current research. However, the list of items for the

factor of the climate ‘support for innovation’, is extended with two items out of the list of Anderson and

West, because the shortened version not measured enacted support. Two items of articulated support out

the list of West with the highest loading in the principal component analysis of their study were added to

the current list. Additionally, some translations are reformulated, to make the statements more suitable for

respondents in the population of the current study.

Before using these items for creating the construct of innovative team climate, a principal component analysis is conducted to measure the contribution of each of the 25 factors within the scale of an innovative climate. The analysis identified three relevant components within the data, which correlate highly with each other. These results are not as expected following the four factor model of Anderson &

West (1998). However, all items were relevant declaring those three components so with this analysis is decided to include all the items within the variable innovative team climate. Next to the results, the additional hypothesis (Spreitzer, 1995) of the innovative team climate construct states that the four factors are argued to combine additively to create the overall construct. The more factors of the climate are present in a team, the more complete an innovative climate is attendant. Correlation between components is satisfying. Therefore, all items remained in the scale to measure the innovative team climate. The significance of the scale and the factor loadings of the items and is represented in appendix 2.

Networking ability. The second moderator of the model, networking ability, is measured with 2 items measuring the respondent’s self-reported networking capability on a scale from 1 (totally not agree) to 5 (totally agree). The two items contained out of two statements which were used by Baer (2012).

Education level. The first controlling variable is measured on a scale of 8 items ranging from only elementary school to a master’s degree.

Age. The second controlling variable is measured by asking employees to fill in their year of birth in an open field. Three respondents answered with 0000 or 1234, which are sorted out of the data.

Team tenure. The third controlling variable is measured on a scale of 13 items ranging from less than one year to more than 20 years.

Organizational tenure. The fourth controlling variable is measured on a scale of 13 items ranging from less than one year to more than 20 years.

To let count measures which by which not each item was filled in by the respondents, missing items were filled in with the mean. After this, complete empty items were filled in with the mean of the computed variable. incremental creativity (30 cases) and incremental implementation (35 cases) were mostly completed with mean scores, relative to radical creativity (2 cases) and radical implementation (18 cases). The moderator variables innovative team climate (15 cases), networking ability (22 cases) and the control variables education level (39 cases), age (42 cases), team tenure (39 cases) and organizational tenure (39 cases) were also completed with mean scores.

The Cronbach’s alpha’s scores of the four creativity and implementation variables and ‘the

innovative team climate’ were high enough to compute a new variable in SPSS. The scale of networking

ability was already tested by Baer (2012) and has showed to be higher than .70. The scores on Cronbach’s

alpha above .70 were accepted values for a construct, .60 scores were seen as sufficient (Field, 2013).

Data analysis

To measure the expected relations between the variables, a multiple regression analysis is performed. The four control variables level of education, age, team tenure and organizational tenure are added in the first step. In the second step the dependent variables radical idea generation incremental idea generation, team climate for innovation and networking capability are added. In the third step the two- way interactions are added and in the fourth step the three-way interactions are added. All dependent variables are standardized before the analyses were conducted. The hypotheses are mainly tested with the Beta scores after regression. Hypothesis 1 and 2 are tested with the step 2, hypothesis 3 and 4 with step 2 and 3, and hypothesis 5 with step 5. To test whether the steps of the variables together in the models remained significant, the F-ratio is of each step in the model is checked.

RESULTS

Preliminary results

The mean scores, standard deviations and the Pearson zero-order correlations among all variables used for analysis are presented in table 1. As can be seen, the correlations between the variables of the main effects are positive and significant; radical creativity and radical implementation correlate convincing positive (r=.385, p<0.05), which is earlier observed in individual innovation literature (Baer, 2012, Clegg et al, 2002). incremental creativity and incremental implementation correlate less significant but still positive (r=.192, p<0.10) The two types of creativity correlate in a great extent with each other (r=.601, p<0.05) as is the same for the two types of implementation (r=.701, p<0.05).

The correlations between the moderator variable innovative team climate and two types of Creativity are not significant. However, the correlations between innovative team climate and the independent variables radical implementation (r=.360, p<0.05) and incremental implementation (r=.254, p<0.10) are positive and significant, which demonstrates that an innovative team climate is positively associated with both types of implementation, but not with creativity.

The correlations between the moderator variable networking ability and the independent variables

radical creativity (r=.205, p<0.10) and incremental creativity (r=.320, p<0.05) are, though marginally,

significant. Similarly, the correlations between networking ability and the dependent variables radical

implementation (r=.280, p<0.05) and incremental implementation (r=.483, p<0.05) are highly positive

and significant. These results demonstrate that networking ability is positively associated with both

creativity and implementation.

The results according to the additional expectations will be considered at the conclusion concerning the results.

Tests of hypotheses

In order to test the hypotheses, two multiple linear regressions are conducted, which are shown in table 2 and table 3. Table 2 shows the results of regression on radical Implementation. Table 3 shows the results of regression on Incremental Implementation. In step 1 of both regressions, the four controlling variables are added. For both regressions, the other form of creativity is added as a fifth controlling variable. In step 2, the independent variables are added by which the main effects of the model are measured, but also the direct effects of de moderating variables to Implementation. In step 3, the two-way interactions between the independent variable creativity and the two moderating variables team climate for innovation and networking ability are added by which the moderating effects are measured.

Hypothesis 1 The first hypothesis supposed that creativity leads to implementation. As table 2 shows, after controlling for the control variables in step 1, a second step of a multilevel analysis testing the main effects, found radical creativity to be positively related (β=.342, p<0,05) to radical implementation, which supports Hypothesis 1. Table 3 shows that the second part of the independent variable, incremental creativity, is positively related (β =.272, p<0,05) to incremental implementation.

With the significance of the effects from creativity to implementation, Hypothesis 1 is supported by the results.

Hypothesis 2 The second hypothesis supposed that an innovative team climate moderated the effect from creativity to implementation. However, the third step testing the effect of the two-way interaction term of an innovative team climate with radical implementation had no significant effect on radical implementation (β=.109) by which the expectation of a moderating effect is not satisfied. As the third step of table 3 shows, neither the effect of the interaction term between an innovative team climate and incremental creativity had a significant effect on incremental implementation (β=.098). The results cannot confirm Hypothesis 2.

Rather, the effect of innovative team climate was significant directly on radical and incremental implementation. Implications on this result are discussed.

Hyposthesis 3 The third hypothesis supposed that networking ability moderated the effect from

creativity to implementation. As the third step of table 2 shows, networking ability interacting with

radical creativity had no significant effect on radical implementation (β=.136). However, the third step of

table 3 shows that networking ability interacting with incremental creativity has a positive and significant

effect on incremental implementation(β =.233, p<0,05). The effect as supposed can only be confirmed for the Incremental part of the main effect. The results can partly confirm Hypothesis 3.

The effect of incremental creativity interacting with networking ability on incremental implementation is shown in figure 2. As can be seen, the scores on incremental implementation are higher for high or low networking ability.

Results according to the additional expectations.

The preliminary results. According to the additional expectations, the preliminary results shown in table 1 can tell us something. The mean scores of radical creativity (2,8977) are lower than the mean scores on incremental creativity (3,2614). The mean score of radical implementation (2,4005) is a bit smaller than incremental implementation (2,4588).

Difference in effects. The significant direct effect of innovative team climate is greater on the

radical than on incremental implementation. networking ability has shown to be a significant moderator

only at the incremental part of the main effect.

Table 1: Means, standard deviations and correlations among all variables used for analysis

* p<0,05, ** p<0,01;

Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Education 2 .8193 .72891 _

2. Age 48 .3042 7 .18242 - .049 _

3. Tenure Team 7 .1341 3 .04175 - .261** .179* _

4. Tenure Organization 9 .8780 2 .76456 - .319** .395** .537** _

5. Radical Creativity 2 .8977 .88180 .217* - .030 - .063 - .137 _

6. Incremental Creativity 3 .2614 .68781 .276** - .182* - .033 - .153 .601** _

7. Innovative Team Climate 3 .3743 .79176 .107 - .024 - .083 - .186* .087 - .005 _

8. Networking Ability 4 .1882 .92574 .187* - .144 - .065 .007 .205* .320** .212* _

9. Radical Implementation 2 .4005 .90340 .165 - .144 .097 - .034 .385** .267* .360** .280** _ 10. Incremental

Implementation 2 .4588 .77611 .132 - .140 .091 - .037 .160 .192* .254* .483** .701**

Table 2: Results of Stepwise Regression Analysis for radical implementation Entry β Final β Step 1: Control variables

1. Education ,147 .081

2. Age -,133 -.185 **

3. Tenure team ,162 .159 *

4. Tenure organization ,010 .091

5. Incremental Creativity .215 ** .001

R

,118

F 2,869 **

Step 2: Main effects

6. Radical Creativity ,338 *** .342 **

7. TCI ,319 ** .307 **

8. Networking Ability ,116 .136

R

(adj) ,328

F 6,355 **

Step3: Two-way interactions

9. Radical Creativity* TCI ,109 .109

10. Radical Creativity* Networking Ability ,038 .038

R

,340

F 5,258 **

Note; All dependent variables are standardized.

* p<0,10 * p<0,05**, N=113

Table 3: Results of Stepwise Regression Analysis for incremental implementation Entry β Final β Step 1: Control variables

1. Education ,135 ,017

2. Age -,159 -,121

3. Tenure Team ,163 ,104

4. Tenure Organization ,001 ,139

5. Radical Creativity ,142 -,043

R

,078

F 1,882 *

Step 2: Main effects

6. Incremental Creativity ,245 ,272 **

7. TCI ,505 *** ,513 **

8. Networking Ability -,017 ,134

R

,338

F 6.631 **

Step3: Two-way interactions

9. Incremental Creativity* TCI ,098 ,098

10. Incremental Creativity* Networking Ability ,233 ** ,233 **

R

,377

F 6,183 **

Note; All dependent variables are standardized.

* p<0,10 * p<0,05**, N=113

Figure 2: two-way interaction effect of Incremental Creativity and Networking ability on Incremental Implementation.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Do the factors innovative team climate and networking ability serve as meaningful addition to the individual motivation and ability to implement their ideas? In this article, my goal was to explore how valuable interactions for individual innovation could be promoted wherein the quality of the individual innovation process could be enhanced. An innovative team climate and networking ability were expected to promote the individual innovation process separately.

Three hypotheses were formulated, by which the expectations about the relations between the different variables were described, referring to earlier researches and formulated theories. Additionally, some expectations of the difference between incremental and radical creativity were formulated without hypotheses, but have been measured. Within the current sample for which data is gathered, the hypotheses and additional expectations are tested. The results of the data analysis as described above will be concluded referring to the hypotheses, in the paragraphs below.

Firstly, the conclusions concerning the results will be made. Secondly, conclusions concerning the additional expectations will be made. Thirdly, the limitations of the current research will be defined.

On the following of this, some implications for further research are given. At the end, some implications

for organizational practices are given.

Conclusions concerning the results

The first hypothesis stated that creativity leads to implementation. The results support the first hypothesis, which means that individuals are in some extent able and motivated to implement their creative ideas. These results demonstrate that the individual innovation process is something to keep in mind when researching organizational innovation. Individuals that generate ideas can implement them as well and thus can function as a driving force in organizations.

The second hypothesis stated that an innovative team climate moderated the effect of creativity to implementation. The two-term interaction was not convincingly enough affecting implementation to be significant. However, an innovative team climate had a great direct effect on implementation, both for the radical and incremental part, which means that an innovative team climate is associated with innovativeness, as was depicted by Anderson and West (1998), but in another way as proposed in the current study. That an innovative team climate interacts with creativity on team level is shown in earlier research (i.e. Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2011). Successful working teams, wherein the innovative team climate is experienced as high, generate more innovations together. That individual innovation is only affected directly by an innovative team climate in the current research, can be declared with the effects in teams during innovation. The climate aspects promote individual idea implementation directly through more resources available and quality in the team.

That the effect is not moderating the process, may be declared by that a lot of ideas of individuals are too critical reflected. With this, an innovative team climate promotes innovation but is critical at the same time. This conclusion is satisfying, referring to the quality of the innovation process, but diminishes the opportunity to empower individuals with an innovative team climate. To enhance the individual motivation an capability to implement ideas, the factors of an innovative team climate should be more beneficial for individual performances, instead of only team performances.

The third hypothesis stated that networking ability enhanced the positive effect from creativity to implementation. This effect remained to exist for the incremental part of the main effect. Networking ability is relevant during the implementation of incremental ideas.

The nonrelevancy of networking ability for radical idea implementation may be declared by the

fact that the current study focused solely on networks within the organization. A ‘dense’ network with

contacts outside the organization may provide to a greater extent in unique resources, diverse feedback

and social knowledge more than a network only throughout the organization. Implied by theories about

different characteristics of networks (i.e. Funk, R.J, 2014 but Obstfeld, 2005 as well) studies among

network structures focused on the importance of external networks during innovation.

Conclusions concerning the difference in radical and incremental creativity

Referring to the additional expectations, a difference between radical and incremental creativity is observed. The mean scores of radical creativity are lower than the mean scores on incremental creativity.

The differences are smaller between the mean scores of implementation which can be caused by a compensation of the main effect between those variables; a stronger effect is observed from radical creativity to radical implementation. With this observation can be stated that individuals develop in greater extent incremental ideas, but that the radical ideas, generated by individuals, are more implemented. These results are interesting and do lead to new insights referring to the cited literature about radical and incremental creativity (Madjar, 2011). The declaration may lay in the fact that radical ideas are generated by persons who are more intrinsically motivated to implement the idea. In spite of the fact that individuals who develop creative ideas want to implement it anyhow, radical ideas seem to be developed more by intrinsically motivated employees (Madjar & Gilson, 2011) wherein they are more tenacious during the implementation.

The observed direct effect of team climate for innovation was greater for incremental ideas than for radical ideas. This confirms the expectation about the difference in relevancy of an innovative team climate. Incremental ideas seem to benefit more for implementation of an innovative team climate than radical ideas do.

Limitations

Some suggestions for the hypothesized effects are made in the above paragraphs by referring to the results. However, the non-significant effects are one of the most striking limitations by formulating these conclusions. Some limitations to this study are outlined.

Measure of innovation. The great direct effect can also be explained by the measure of implementation. The implementation of ideas contained out of three items measuring to which extent ideas of individuals are (1) chosen to be further developed, (2) used for practical applications and (3) worked successful in practice. With this measure of implementation is the end of the process measured, which means that an innovative climate affects the quality of the end of the process. Following the theory, an innovative team climate promotes the individual ability and motivation to implement ideas mostly because it promotes practical actions concerning idea implementation. Overcome reluctance and refine the ide idea might be more important at early stages of innovation (Madjar, 2011).

Limitations to the data gathering. Even though the expectation that a great sample size was hard

to reach within an organization where a lot of employees are losing their jobs and simultaneously have a

tendency to be critical to changes, and are requested weekly to fill in questionnaires, efforts have been

made for reaching a higher response. These actions generally have not been successful which might have three reasons. Firstly, investing in discussions with management has led to a marginally higher interest within working teams for the questionnaire. Secondly, it would have been more relevant to invest this time in more conversations with employees at the coffee corners. Thirdly, the time between the discussions with management teams and the ultimate data gathering should have been shorter.

Only self perception. The constructs are measured with self-perceptions of employees. The constructs of creativity, implementation and networking ability would have been of a better quality of different raters declared the construct. In addition, the size of effects can be greater with different constructs rated by only individuals.

Implications for further research

Following the conclusions and the limitations of the current study, some implications for further research can be made.

Data gathering. To conduct a research successfully in an organization, which is subject of reconstitution, it might be more feasible to gather data with personal interviews, rather than by an online questionnaire. With personal contact during the data gathering, the topic of research can be marked more extensively which shifts the focus from personal concerns to the topic of research. In addition, if employees are critical to organizational changes during data gathering, it might be important to invest in the opinion about the value of the current research. The concerns about the research subject is something I have tried to discuss with management teams before the data gathering, so managers could influence the perceptions of employees about the questionnaire. However, this tactic might require too much time for a researcher to take advantage of.

Innovative team climate. The construct of an innovative team climate has shown to generate effects in practice, which implies that the four factors of this climate together have a unique role in organizations. In spite of the fact that several studies have identified effects between the four different factors of the construct, these effects are not captured within the construct of an innovative team climate.

The current construct of an innovative team climate suggests rather, that the more the four factors are

dominant in a team, the more it stimulates idea implementation. The first implication is that a

specification of the effects of the four factors separately on idea implementation would be beneficial for

identifying this construct. The second implication for this construct is their factors of influence need to be

reanalyzed on the process from creativity to implementation. Since the stages of innovation have been

identified in organizational science and showed to differ significantly from each other, this has

consequences for an innovative team climate. With those two implications, the influential factors in the current article can be defined in a more sophisticated way.

Motivation. Following the theory, motivation of individuals to implement their ideas is an important requirement during the individual implementation process and is present mostly when individuals have generated an idea. This requirement is mentioned as a driving force during the individual innovation process in the current research, but can be defined as a moderator as well. Following these theories, motivation can function as a mediating moderator on the individual innovation process and at the other hand, to be a relevant factor interacting with networking ability. Hence, motivation is an interesting factor to measure, additional in the current model.

Practical implications

With the current study I showed that individuals are able to implement their ideas by their own.

This ability empowers individuals within their job and makes them reflect about their role in the organization or society, wherein it is of great importance for both individuals and organizations. To promote these individual processes in practice, it must be remarked that team level outcomes do not have to diminish with the promotion of individual innovation. Empowering individuals, with fior instance a hig innovative team climate, will enhance the individual contribution to a team. With this, outcomes on team level are a result of greater diversity of contributions, meanings and input of individuals. Additionally, interactions outside the team are relevant for ‘nonradical’ ideas as well. This implicates that networking activities of employees fosters general performance of the organization.

To reach a capable workforce for innovation is a process on itself, which is subject of changes and subjectivity. The processes of implementing these stimulating factors into organizational practice can be started today and thereby activate employees to conduct action concerning their ideas. Despite of the fact that this structural and cultural change towards an innovative organization never stops and will always be modified, the efforts can be taken each day.

Footnotes

¹In this article the terms creativity and idea generation are considered equivalent and will be used

interchangeably.

APPENDIX 1: REFERENCE LIST

Anderson, N. R. & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235-258.

Axtell, C., Holman, D. & Wall, T. (2006). Promoting innovation: a change study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 509-516.

Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: the implementation of creative ideas in organizations.

Academy ofManagement Journal, 5, 1102-1119.

Bharadwaj, S. & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 424–434

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189-1207.

Burningham , C. & West. M. A. (1996). Individual climate and group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Research, 26, 106-117.

Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovators dilemma. New York: HarperCollins Publishers

Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O. & Parker, G. (2002). Implicating trust in the innovative process.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 409-422.

Eissenbeiss, S. A. , Knippenberg, D., van, Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438-1446.

Hamner, D., Hall, A.C., Timmons, J. C., Boeltzig, H. & Fesko, S. (2008). Agents of change in the disability field: bridge-builders who make a difference. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 30- 42

Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity: 272-296. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications, fourth edition.

Funk, R.J. (2014). Making the most of where you are: geography, networks and innovation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 193-222.

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: pitfall in multilevel research. Acadamy of Management Review, 10, 601- 616.

Hulsheger, U.R., Anderson, N., Salgado, J.F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a

comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94, 1128-1145.

James, L. R., Joyce, W.F. & Slocum. (1988). Comment: organizations do not cognize. Acadamy of Management Review, 13, 129-132.

Janssen, O., Vliet, van de, E. & West, M. (2004). The Bright and Dark Sides of Individual and Group Innovation: Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 129-145.

Janssen, O. & Yperen, van, N. W. (2004). Employees’goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368- 384.

Lievens, A., & Moenaert, R. (2000). Project team communication in financial service innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 733-766.

Magadley, W. & Birdi, K. (2012). Two sides of the innovation coin? An empirical investigation of the relative correlates of idea generation and idea implementation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 1-29.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 281-282.

Monge, P.R., Cozzens, M. D. (1992). Communication and motivational predictors of the dynamics of organizational innovation. Organization Science, 3, 250-274.

Oldham , G. R. & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work.

Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2011). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: the role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684-708.

Shalley, C. E. , Zhou, J. & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933-958.

Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: the role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684-708.

Subramaniam, M. & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 450-463.

Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L. & Klein, S. R., (1997). Influences of organizational climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 31, 27-41.

Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Behavior. 26, 289- 297.

Ven, van de, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32:

590-607.

West, M. A. (2002). Ideas are ten a penny. It’s implementation not idea generation that counts.

International Association of Applied Psychology, 51, 411-424.

West, M. A. & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: psychological perspectives. Social Behaviour, 4,

15-30.