A Study of Innovative Behavior

In High Technology Product Development Organizations

Mark Anthony Robben

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781317944331
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

First published in 1999. This study integrated several streams of research on the antecedents of innovation to test a model of individual innovative behavior in a high technology product development organization. The world we live in today is a globally competitive environment of rapidly changing technologies. Organizations must harness the innovative potential of their employees to create better and novel ways to solve old and new problems or risk becoming extinct. Innovative organizations can gain a competitive advantage over their less innovative competition through better products, faster product development times, and lower priced products.The research sample used in this study contained Product Engineers, Application Engineers, Lab Technicians, and Product Designers in an Engineering Department responsible for the development of high technology products. Various survey instruments were used to measure individual problem solving style, leader-member exchange, role expectation, and work climate. The Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) inventory, which is used in many countries, was used to evaluate problem solving style. The KAI score is the summation of the three sub-factors, sufficiency versus proliferation of originality, preference for efficiency, and rule/group conformity. In previous use of the KAI in the general population respondents scored consistently high or low in each of the three KAI sub-groups. In this study, innovative people in the high technology product development organization did not follow this general population trend. Unlike previous KAI studies the innovative people indicated a preference for efficiency. This makes intuitive sense in that to be innovative in a complex high technology environment an individual must have a preference toward efficiency to keep the complex information organized. As the complexity of information required in a high technology product development organization increases so must the complexity of innovative people increase.(D.B.A. dissertation, 1998; revised with new preface and index)

CHAPTER 1
Introduction

BACKGROUND

Today, we live in a globally competitive world of rapidly changing technologies. Those organizations that are unable to come up with better and novel ways to solve old and new problems may soon become extinct. Organizations that are successful in bringing out the innovative potential of their personnel will gain a competitive advantage over their less innovative competitors in this rapidly changing environment by generating new and innovative products.

Innovation plays a major role in the long term survival of organizations (Ancona & Caldwell, 1987). According to Wren, D. A. (1994), Peter Drucker views organizations as being in a constant state of creation, growth, stagnation, and decline and it is an organization’s ability to innovate that keeps it from failing. Innovative organizations also respond more readily to change than adaptive organizations (Foxall, Gordon & Payne, Adrain, 1989). Innovation is a subset of a construct of organizational change. Organizational change can include innovation, but not all organizational change is innovation (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).

Managing for innovation must be different from the managing of ongoing, established operations where the desire or expectation of change is to a much smaller degree. The less structured process of innovation is at odds with the more structured administrative process of increased efficiency in established operations. Structures and practices that work well in established operations tend to be at odds with the innovative process (Kanter, 1988).

The innovation process tends to have four distinctive characteristics. The characteristics are similar for technological or administrative and for products, processes or systems (Kanter, 1988). The first characteristic given by Kanter is that the innovation process is uncertain. The timing of an innovation or the opportunity to innovate can be unpredictable. Innovations often involve unknown territory so accurately forecasting results or forecasts is difficult. Quinn (1979) wrote that “Progress on a new innovation … comes in spurts among unforeseen delays and setbacks … in the essential chaos of development.” Innovative results are highly uncertain and actual cost are often unanticipated (Kanter, 1988).

The second characteristic given by Kanter is that the innovation process is knowledge-intensive. The innovation process relies on individual human intelligence and creativity and involves “interactive learning” (Quinn, 1985). New knowledge and new experiences are generated quickly in a short amount of time. The learning curve is steep during the innovative process. Turnover during the innovative process can be devastating because knowledge and experience can be lost before it is transferred to others in the organization (Kanter, 1988).

The third characteristic given by Kanter is that the innovation process is controversial. Innovative ideas often involve alternative solutions to problems and those with vested interest in one particular solution may feel threatened. The individual being threatened by innovation could be anyone from a manager of a department that would be down sized, to a salesman that may lose commissions on current products. The major cause for the failure of corporate New Venture Departments is “political” problems (Fast, 1979).

The fourth characteristic given by Kanter is that the innovation process crosses boundaries. The success of most innovative ideas involve several departments because one department does not have all that is necessary to make the innovative idea a success. Many innovative ideas are interdisciplinary or interfunctional and require the combination of existing departments or boundaries. New innovations may require that other departments in an organization change their behavior to support the new innovation. The new innovation may require that other departments generate other innovative ideas to support the primary innovation (Kanter, 1988).

Innovation is a process that is uncertain, fragile, political, and imperialistic. Innovation is most likely to thrive in an organization that allows flexibility, quick action and intensive care, coalition formation, and connectedness (Kanter, 1988). There must be flexibility in the organization structure and individual job descriptions to allow individuals to “do what it takes” to move innovative ideas forward.

There are several kinds of innovations. Product innovations are more likely to occur in organizations that are new to the market and process innovations are more likely to occur in established organizations. It is also found that product innovations are more common in the early stages of a product and process innovations are more likely to take place in later stages of a product (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978). It is also found that technological innovations are more likely when resources are abundant and administrative innovations are more likely when resources are scarce (Kimberly, 1981). Incremental change type innovations are more likely in organizations that are more rigid and centralized while more revolutionary innovations are more likely in organizations that are less rigid and decentralized (Cohn & Turyn, 1984).

Researchers exploring innovation have recognized that the generation of ideas is only one stage of a multistage process. Kanter (1988) listed four major innovation tasks, which correspond to the stages of the innovation process. The tasks listed by Kanter (1988) are:

(a) idea generation and activation of the drivers of the innovation (the “entrepreneurs” or “innovators”);

(b) coalition building and acquisition of the power necessary to move the idea into reality;

(c) idea realization and innovation production, turning the idea into a model—a product or plan or prototype that can be used;

(d) transfer or diffusion, the spreading of the model—the commercialization of the product, the adoption of the idea.

Individuals can be involved in various combinations of the innovation stages at the same time, since innovation is characterized by discontinuous activities rather than discrete, sequential stages (Schroeder, Van de Ven, Scudder, & Polley, 1989). The various stages of the innovation process require different activities and different individual behaviors for each stage (Scott & Bruce, 1994).

The first task in the innovation process begins with idea generation and innovation activation. An innovative individual starts the innovative process with problem recognition and the generation of ideas or solutions, either novel or adopted that depart from the organization’s established routines or systems (Kanter, 1988). The innovative idea will not survive unless someone recognizes the potential of the idea and exerts the energy necessary to raise the idea over the threshold of consciousness. The goal of innovation management is to get individuals to come up with innovative ideas and then get individuals to appreciate and pay attention to new ideas, needs and opportunities (Kanter, 1988).

The second task in the innovation process is coalition building. Previous studies of the innovation process have shown the importance of backers and supporters in high places, to the success of innovation (Quinn, 1979; Maidique, 1980). An innovative individual or group of individuals must seek sponsorship for the innovative idea to gain support. It is important that upper management be sold on the innovative idea to insure the resources required for proper development are allocated.

The third task in the innovation process is idea realization and innovation production. This task involves putting together a working team to transform the innovative idea into a working and tangible object that can be handed off to others (Kanter, 1988). Through an innovative individual “a prototype or model of the innovation is produced that can be touched or experienced, that can now be diffused, mass-produced, turned to productive use, or institutionalized” (Kanter, 1988).

The third task in the innovation process is transfer and diffusion. In this process the innovative idea will be transferred to those who will use the innovative idea in ongoing organizational practice and projects (Kanter, 1988). An innovative individual must insure that the innovative idea is transferred properly and another innovative individual must take the innovative idea and implement into current practices or projects. The four tasks, each with different activities, require individuals with innovative behavior to carry them out (Scott & Bruce, 1994).

PURPOSE OF STUDY

The purpose of this research was to study the determinants of individual innovative behavior in a high technology product development organization. There has been limited attention given to innovation at the individual level (West & Fair, 1989). Scott and Bruce (1994) made a study that integrated several independent streams of research on the antecedents of creativity, innovation, and organizational climate in a research and development organization. This research extends the Scott and Bruce study (1994) from a research and development environment to a high technology organization responsible for product development.

High technology product development organizations are under continuous pressure to generate new products that will sell at a profit. This means the products must get to the market quickly, be better than the competition, and be sold at an acceptable cost. These pressures are different from strictly research and development organizations where the pace can be much slower. The determinants of individual innovative behavior in the quick pace high technology product development organizations may be quite different from research and development organizations. This research investigates determinants of individual innovative behavior in a high technology product development organization and compares these results with other research, such as the Scott and Bruce (1994) study, in a research and development organization.

This research investigated the relationship between several factors known to influence individual innovative behavior in research and development organizations in a high technology organization involved in product development. Previous research has indicated a positive relationship between individual innovative behavior and several factors. These factors are problem solving style, leadership, leader expectations and perception of the work climate. Established questionnaires was used to measure individual problem solving style, leadership, leader expectations, and perception of work climate. The level of individual innovative behavior was measured using methods established by Scott and Bruce (1994). Structural equation modeling was used to quantify and establish relationships between the factors and individual innovative behavior.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The foundation of innovation is ideas and it is the individual people in an organization who “develop, carry, react to, and modify ideas” (Van de Ven, 1986). Innovative behavior has a central role in the long-term survival of organizations (Anacona & Caldwell, 1987). The study of what promotes individual innovative behavior in organizations is critical for a better understanding of how organizations can manage the level of innovative behavior in their organizations (Scott & Bruce, 1994).

Management can have a positive impact on individual innovative behavior in their organizations. A thorough knowledge of the relationships between individual innovative behavior and those factors known to influence individual innovative behavior is crucial. This research investigated the factors known to influence innovative behavior in a research and development organization in a high technology product development organization. The results of this research can be used to better understand the influence of problem solving style, leadership, leader expectations, and positive perception of work climate on individual innovative behavior in high technology product development organizations.

High technology product development organizations can use the information generated from this research to better manage the level of innovative behavior in their organization. The level of individual innovative behavior in a particular group can be managed by controlling factors that are known to influence individual innovative behavior. One of the possibilities is to modify the problem solving style make-up of a group by removing and/or adding members with preferred problem solving style. The adaptive versus innovative level of problem solving style for a product development group can be adjusted to optimal levels once the best level is understood.

Information gained from this research can help management to understand the relationship between the quality of leadership and innovative behavior. With this new information, management can better organize leadership training to improve innovative behavior in their organizations. This research also investigated the relationship between individual innovative behavior and individual perceptions of the work climate. A better understanding of the relationship between individual innovative behavior and individual perception of work climate can be used by management to improve work climate such that individual innovative behavior is increased.

The information generated from this research can be used by high technology product development organizations to increase innovative behavior. Organizations that are able to manage the level of individual innovative behavior in various work groups within their organization will more effectively utilize their innovative talent and increase innovative idea generation within their organization.

THEORY/ASPECT OF THEORY BEING TESTED

This research brings together several theories related to individual innovative behavior. In previous studies these theories were found to have an influence on individual innovative behavior in organizations. In this research four theories were used to define and measure independent variables expected to influence individual innovative behavior. Kirton’s (1976) Adaption-Innovation theory is used to define and measure individual problem solving style. The theory developed by Graen and Cashman (1975) and Graen, Novak and Scandura (1987) on leader-member exchange is used to define and measure the quality of the leader-member exchange between supervisors and subordinates. Role expectation theory is based on an article by Livingston, (1969) titled “Pygmalion in Management.” The theory for work climate and innovative behavior was taken largely from the work by Siegel and Kaemmerer, (1978) and Abey and Dickerson, (1983).

Kirton’s (1976) Adaption-Innovation theory places individuals on a continuum of problem solving style ranging from highly adaptive to highly innovative. Adaptors seek to solve problems within established organizational guidelines while innovators seek to solve problems in new and different ways (Kirton, 1984). Kirton’s adaption-innovation theory is supported by a Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) inventory (Kirton, 1994). The KAI inventory has 32 questions scored with a value of one to five. The score can be further broken down into the three factors of sufficiency versus proliferation of originality (SO), reliability and efficiency (E), and rule/group conformity (R) (Kirton, 1994). The research by Scott and Bruce (1994) indicated that problem solving style has an influence on individual innovative behavior in a research and development organization.

Leader-Member exchange theory is based on the dyadic relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate (Garaen & Cashman, 1975; Graen, Novak & Scandura, 1987). High leader-member exchange members have a high degree of job latitude while low leader-member exchange members have a low degree of job latitude (Dansereauy, Graen & Haga, 1975). The quality of the relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate is related to innovativeness according to leader-member exchange theory (Graen & Scandura, 1987). The research by Scott and Bruce (1994) also indicated that the quality of the leader-member exchange has an influence on individual innovative behavior in a research and development organization.

Expectations that supervisors have...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Tables and Figures
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Review of Literature
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Analysis and Presentation of Findings
• Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index