Description
Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Studies of leadership have produced theories involving traits
Research Reports On Creativity, Self-Leadership And Individual Innovation
Masood Nawaz Kalyar
?
Abstract
Individual innovativeness provides an organization basis for high performance, improves firm's competitiveness and fosters long-term success. This area is of greater interest for entrepreneurs because individual level innovation is linked with firm-level innovation. However, research in this area is still at nascent stage in South Asia, particularly in Pakistan. This study developed and tested a model of individual innovation and its antecedent factors; creativity and selfleadership. Data were collected from 180 respondents from 10 producer firms in Pakistan; the response rate remained 72%. Regression analysis was run to test the hypotheses. Results showed that creativity and self-leadership are important predictors of individual innovation; proving positive direct relationships.
Key Words: Individual innovation, Creativity, Selfleadership, Pakistan
at individual level (Shavinina & Seeratan, 2003) or creativity, exploitation and implementation of new and useful products and procedures (Baumgartner; Pratoom & Savatsomboon, 2010) by individuals. Innovation is very important, especially for companies that produce technology-driven products, with the risk of technological obsolescence (Brown & Karagozoglu, 1993) and in environments characterized by competitive intensity, technological and market dynamism (Kessler & Chakrabarti, 1996). Organizations around the globe are encountering a joint challenge that is the need to improve the performance to capitalize on rapid change, and to establish or recapture competitive advantage (Basadur & Gelade, 2006) to ensure their survival, profitability and successful running in dynamic competitive environment. Innovativeness of firms and organizations depends on internal factors such as the firm's innovative capability, size and structure, learning orientation and strategic orientation and external factors such as network of partners, external communication and the industrial environment (Oskarsson, 2003) in which the company is located. Innovation is a complex process and it arises from linkages between multiple sources (Schilling, 2008) rather from a single and individual source. When employees produce new, novel and useful products or procedures, they are basically providing the organization with options. Employees innovation allows an organization to choose from a broader array of products or procedures for development and later implementation (Cummings & Oldham, 1997). Most existing research into innovation has focused at the firm level and few studies have directly tested the intermediate processes through which individual and contextual factors affect individual innovation (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Yuan, 2005), research in this area in Asia Pacific is still in nascent stage (Lu, at Tsang, & Peng, 2008; Pratoom & Savatsomboon, . 2010). The lack of research in this area confines
INTRODUCTION
Innovation capabilities in individuals at workplace are significant characteristics that help an organization to establish competitive advantages in strategic competition and in ever changing environment (Kanter, 1983; West & Farr, 1990). Individual Innovation provides an organization foundation for high performance (Carmeli, Meitar, & Weisberg, 2006; Janssen, Van de Vliert, & West, 2004). It also enables an organization to improve its competitiveness (Schilling, 2008) and promote long-term success (Smith, 2002). Innovation has been defined as the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization (Amabile, 2000; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Individual innovation is defined as innovation
?
20
Creativity, Self-leadership and Individual Innovation understanding of exactly how and why individual differences and contextual factors are affecting individual innovation (Bunce & West, 1995; Pratoom & Savatsomboon, 2010). No evident could be found regarding research work in this area in South Asia region particularly in context of Pakistan. The practical innovation among Pakistani firms and innovators is therefore an important mechanism for developing, improving and sustaining the competitive advantage for not only ensuring firm's survival but also firm's success and capturing market share. These are individuals whose innovation and creativity provides foundation for high-performance (Carmeli, et al., 2006; Janssen, et al., 2004) and firm's competitiveness (Schilling, 2008). In short, individual innovation appears at individual level and mainly responsible for generation of new, novel and useful ideas. Moreover, individual innovation belongs to a general construct of high abilities including creativity (Shavinina & Seeratan, 2003). Several scholars suggested that creativity (Amabile, 2000; Heye, 2006; Schilling, 2008) and self-leadership (DiLiello & Houghton, 2006) are important antecedents of individual innovation. Creative theorists have argued that individual's creativity is an important antecedent and precondition for innovation (Heye, 2006; Schilling, 2008). The higher ability of individuals to generate new, novel and useful ideas is more likely to create his/her own innovation (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), which in turn contributes to group and organizational innovation. Creativity alone is not sufficient for developing an innovation (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004). Individuals must also have a certain level of inner force that enables them facing the challenges in creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). This internal force comes from self-leadership which is the skill that fosters individual innovation (Carmeli, et al., 2006). Self-leadership is a primary factor that participates and facilitates creativity and individual innovation (DiLiello & Houghton, 2006; Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Neck &Houghton, 2006). Previous literature also proposed that individual creativity (McLean, 2005) and self-leadership (D'Intino, Goldsby, Houghton, & Neck, 2007) can be increased in the risk taking supported culture. It was suggested that high congruence between a creative person and culture may result in high level of innovative performance (Amabile, 2000; Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004). The relationships among above variables have been theoretically suggested (Pratoom &Savatsomboon, 2010). On the basis of above discussion, the following hypothesized conceptual model is developed to analyze the correlation and effect of individual and group level factors on innovation of Pakistani producers group members.
Y = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + e
Where, Y = Dependent Variable i.e. Individual Innovation X1 = Predictor 1 i.e. Creativity X2 = Predictor 2 i.e. Self-leadership b0 = Intercept b1, b2 = Slopes e = Error term
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Creativity Creativity is an individual and cultural phenomenon that allows us to transform possibilities into reality (Tan, 2007), the individual's ability and capacity to create and develop new, novel and useful ideas about firm's products, practices, services or procedure (Mumford, 2003; Shalley & Gilson, 2004) is also creativity. When the ideas generated in creativity are successfully implemented, it becomes innovation. Creative theorists have argued that individual's creativity is an important antecedent and precondition for innovation. Creativity has been suggested as important and key antecedent factor for individual innovation (Heye, 2006; Schilling, 2008). An individual group member having higher ability to generate new, novel and useful ideas is more likely to create own innovation
21
The Journal of Commerce ISSN: 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN (Woodman, et al., 1993), which in turn leadership's conceptualization as a determinant contributes to group and organizational of innovation, self-leadership is expected to have innovation. On theoretical grounds, it is inferred direct effect on innovation of group members that ability to create and developing new and (Pratoom & Savatsomboon, 2010). Creativity alone useful ideas increases the likelihood of creating is not sufficient for developing an innovation innovation. Creativity requires absolute novelty of (Anderson, et al., 2004). Individuals must also the idea whereas innovation only requires relative have a definite level of internal force that pushes novelty of the idea to the unit of adoption them to proceed in facing the challenges in creative (Woodman, et al., 1993). Therefore, adopting a work (Shalley &Gilson, 2004). Self-leadership is new policy from another organization to the necessary in those organizations that need current organization would be innovative but not continuous innovation (Pearce & Manz, 2005). creative. The definition of creativity also includes an When employees are encouraged to lead essential requirement for the idea or product to be themselves in defining problems, solving problems, useful. Theory suggests positive relationship making decision, and identifying opportunities and between creativity and innovation. challenges both now and in the future, their creativity is encouraged. On the other hand, if Hypothesis 1: Creativity positively affects employees are not encouraged to lead individual innovation in an organization. themselves in critical situations, then creativity is not encouraged (Pearce & Manz, 2005). Self-leadership Self-leadership is defined as a process of influencing or leading oneself through the use of specific sets of behavioral and cognitive strategies (Neck & Manz, 2004). Behavioral strategies include encouraging the positive, desirable behaviors that lead to successful outcomes, while suppressing the negative, undesirable behaviors that lead to an unsuccessful outcome (Neck & Houghton, 2006). Cognitive strategies comprise of creating feelings of self-determination and development of constructive thoughts such as positive self- talk (Neck & Houghton, 2006). Self-leadership theorists have proposed that creativity and innovation are the anticipated outcomes of individual self-leadership (DiLiello & Houghton, 2006; Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Neck & Houghton, 2006). However, research on the relationship between self-leadership, creativity, and innovation is still at the nascent stage. An additional research is needed to further clarify the relationship between self-leadership, creativity, and innovation (Neck & Houghton, 2006; Pratoom & Savatsomboon, 2010). Furthermore, it is evident that the self- leadership skill is a significant antecedent factor that positively affects innovative behavior (Carmeli, et al., 2006). Hence, given selfHypothesis 2: Self-leadership positively affects individual innovation.
METHODOLOGY
Data collection and sample The research study involved the analysis of a survey questionnaire consisting of statements relating to the creativity, self-leadership and innovation. All the survey items were measured on five-point likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) except innovation which was measured on yes (1) or no (0) response. Survey questionnaires were distributed among ten randomly selected manufacturing organizations through post and emails, both in public and private sector, in various areas of Pakistan. The response rate remained 72% (n=180). Overall, 169 respondents (93.9%) were men and 11 respondents (6.1%) were women. The age of the respondents ranged from 22 to 58 years (mean=34.07). Fifty eight (32.2%) had an education of graduation level, 122 respondents (67.8%) had an education at master level or higher. The respondents had group tenure ranging from 1 to 30 years (mean=8.79).
22
Creativity, Self-leadership and Individual Innovation Measures Creativity A five-point likert scale survey instrument was used to measure groups' knowledge management ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and was adapted from the employee creative behavior scale developed and validated by Rice (2006). All the dimensions were explored by using exploratory factor analysis. Factor loading of the items ranged from 0.65 to 0.77. Alpha value for the construct was 0.81; higher score indicated higher level of creativity. Self-leadership A five-point likert scale survey instrument was used to measure groups' knowledge management ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and was adapted from the self-leadership questionnaire developed and validated by Houghton and Neck (2002). All the dimensions were explored by using exploratory factor analysis. Factor loading of the items ranged from 0.69 to 0.84. Alpha value for the construct was 0.80; higher score on this construct indicated greater self- leadership. Individual innovation This scale contained six items to measure innovation among group members and was adapted from the innovation output scale (Ju, Li, & Lee, 2006; Vermeulen, O'Shaughnessy, & de Jong, 2003). The scale contained six items, measuring product and work process innovation in the past three years. All the dimensions were explored by using exploratory factor analysis. Factor loading of the items ranged from 0.55 to 0.69. Alpha value for the construct was 0.62, higher score on this construct indicated greater innovation. Control variables To strengthen the internal validity of the study, gender, age, and tenure were treated as control variables. Respondents provided the information of gender, age, and tenure through self-report when completing the survey instrument. Significant contribution to the variance in the dependent variable was found by these control variables in examining the relationship between self-leadership skills and innovation at work (Carmeli, et al., 2006) and exploring the individual innovation and creativity (Baer, Oldham, & Cummings, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994). A correlation analysis and regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses.
FINDINGS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the research variables. As theoretically suggested, individual innovation and its antecedents were found significantly correlated. Individual innovation measure was significantly and positively related to the creativity (r = 0.442, p
Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Studies of leadership have produced theories involving traits
Research Reports On Creativity, Self-Leadership And Individual Innovation
Masood Nawaz Kalyar
?
Abstract
Individual innovativeness provides an organization basis for high performance, improves firm's competitiveness and fosters long-term success. This area is of greater interest for entrepreneurs because individual level innovation is linked with firm-level innovation. However, research in this area is still at nascent stage in South Asia, particularly in Pakistan. This study developed and tested a model of individual innovation and its antecedent factors; creativity and selfleadership. Data were collected from 180 respondents from 10 producer firms in Pakistan; the response rate remained 72%. Regression analysis was run to test the hypotheses. Results showed that creativity and self-leadership are important predictors of individual innovation; proving positive direct relationships.
Key Words: Individual innovation, Creativity, Selfleadership, Pakistan
at individual level (Shavinina & Seeratan, 2003) or creativity, exploitation and implementation of new and useful products and procedures (Baumgartner; Pratoom & Savatsomboon, 2010) by individuals. Innovation is very important, especially for companies that produce technology-driven products, with the risk of technological obsolescence (Brown & Karagozoglu, 1993) and in environments characterized by competitive intensity, technological and market dynamism (Kessler & Chakrabarti, 1996). Organizations around the globe are encountering a joint challenge that is the need to improve the performance to capitalize on rapid change, and to establish or recapture competitive advantage (Basadur & Gelade, 2006) to ensure their survival, profitability and successful running in dynamic competitive environment. Innovativeness of firms and organizations depends on internal factors such as the firm's innovative capability, size and structure, learning orientation and strategic orientation and external factors such as network of partners, external communication and the industrial environment (Oskarsson, 2003) in which the company is located. Innovation is a complex process and it arises from linkages between multiple sources (Schilling, 2008) rather from a single and individual source. When employees produce new, novel and useful products or procedures, they are basically providing the organization with options. Employees innovation allows an organization to choose from a broader array of products or procedures for development and later implementation (Cummings & Oldham, 1997). Most existing research into innovation has focused at the firm level and few studies have directly tested the intermediate processes through which individual and contextual factors affect individual innovation (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Yuan, 2005), research in this area in Asia Pacific is still in nascent stage (Lu, at Tsang, & Peng, 2008; Pratoom & Savatsomboon, . 2010). The lack of research in this area confines
INTRODUCTION
Innovation capabilities in individuals at workplace are significant characteristics that help an organization to establish competitive advantages in strategic competition and in ever changing environment (Kanter, 1983; West & Farr, 1990). Individual Innovation provides an organization foundation for high performance (Carmeli, Meitar, & Weisberg, 2006; Janssen, Van de Vliert, & West, 2004). It also enables an organization to improve its competitiveness (Schilling, 2008) and promote long-term success (Smith, 2002). Innovation has been defined as the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization (Amabile, 2000; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Individual innovation is defined as innovation
?
20
Creativity, Self-leadership and Individual Innovation understanding of exactly how and why individual differences and contextual factors are affecting individual innovation (Bunce & West, 1995; Pratoom & Savatsomboon, 2010). No evident could be found regarding research work in this area in South Asia region particularly in context of Pakistan. The practical innovation among Pakistani firms and innovators is therefore an important mechanism for developing, improving and sustaining the competitive advantage for not only ensuring firm's survival but also firm's success and capturing market share. These are individuals whose innovation and creativity provides foundation for high-performance (Carmeli, et al., 2006; Janssen, et al., 2004) and firm's competitiveness (Schilling, 2008). In short, individual innovation appears at individual level and mainly responsible for generation of new, novel and useful ideas. Moreover, individual innovation belongs to a general construct of high abilities including creativity (Shavinina & Seeratan, 2003). Several scholars suggested that creativity (Amabile, 2000; Heye, 2006; Schilling, 2008) and self-leadership (DiLiello & Houghton, 2006) are important antecedents of individual innovation. Creative theorists have argued that individual's creativity is an important antecedent and precondition for innovation (Heye, 2006; Schilling, 2008). The higher ability of individuals to generate new, novel and useful ideas is more likely to create his/her own innovation (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), which in turn contributes to group and organizational innovation. Creativity alone is not sufficient for developing an innovation (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004). Individuals must also have a certain level of inner force that enables them facing the challenges in creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). This internal force comes from self-leadership which is the skill that fosters individual innovation (Carmeli, et al., 2006). Self-leadership is a primary factor that participates and facilitates creativity and individual innovation (DiLiello & Houghton, 2006; Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Neck &Houghton, 2006). Previous literature also proposed that individual creativity (McLean, 2005) and self-leadership (D'Intino, Goldsby, Houghton, & Neck, 2007) can be increased in the risk taking supported culture. It was suggested that high congruence between a creative person and culture may result in high level of innovative performance (Amabile, 2000; Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004). The relationships among above variables have been theoretically suggested (Pratoom &Savatsomboon, 2010). On the basis of above discussion, the following hypothesized conceptual model is developed to analyze the correlation and effect of individual and group level factors on innovation of Pakistani producers group members.
Y = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + e
Where, Y = Dependent Variable i.e. Individual Innovation X1 = Predictor 1 i.e. Creativity X2 = Predictor 2 i.e. Self-leadership b0 = Intercept b1, b2 = Slopes e = Error term
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Creativity Creativity is an individual and cultural phenomenon that allows us to transform possibilities into reality (Tan, 2007), the individual's ability and capacity to create and develop new, novel and useful ideas about firm's products, practices, services or procedure (Mumford, 2003; Shalley & Gilson, 2004) is also creativity. When the ideas generated in creativity are successfully implemented, it becomes innovation. Creative theorists have argued that individual's creativity is an important antecedent and precondition for innovation. Creativity has been suggested as important and key antecedent factor for individual innovation (Heye, 2006; Schilling, 2008). An individual group member having higher ability to generate new, novel and useful ideas is more likely to create own innovation
21
The Journal of Commerce ISSN: 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN (Woodman, et al., 1993), which in turn leadership's conceptualization as a determinant contributes to group and organizational of innovation, self-leadership is expected to have innovation. On theoretical grounds, it is inferred direct effect on innovation of group members that ability to create and developing new and (Pratoom & Savatsomboon, 2010). Creativity alone useful ideas increases the likelihood of creating is not sufficient for developing an innovation innovation. Creativity requires absolute novelty of (Anderson, et al., 2004). Individuals must also the idea whereas innovation only requires relative have a definite level of internal force that pushes novelty of the idea to the unit of adoption them to proceed in facing the challenges in creative (Woodman, et al., 1993). Therefore, adopting a work (Shalley &Gilson, 2004). Self-leadership is new policy from another organization to the necessary in those organizations that need current organization would be innovative but not continuous innovation (Pearce & Manz, 2005). creative. The definition of creativity also includes an When employees are encouraged to lead essential requirement for the idea or product to be themselves in defining problems, solving problems, useful. Theory suggests positive relationship making decision, and identifying opportunities and between creativity and innovation. challenges both now and in the future, their creativity is encouraged. On the other hand, if Hypothesis 1: Creativity positively affects employees are not encouraged to lead individual innovation in an organization. themselves in critical situations, then creativity is not encouraged (Pearce & Manz, 2005). Self-leadership Self-leadership is defined as a process of influencing or leading oneself through the use of specific sets of behavioral and cognitive strategies (Neck & Manz, 2004). Behavioral strategies include encouraging the positive, desirable behaviors that lead to successful outcomes, while suppressing the negative, undesirable behaviors that lead to an unsuccessful outcome (Neck & Houghton, 2006). Cognitive strategies comprise of creating feelings of self-determination and development of constructive thoughts such as positive self- talk (Neck & Houghton, 2006). Self-leadership theorists have proposed that creativity and innovation are the anticipated outcomes of individual self-leadership (DiLiello & Houghton, 2006; Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Neck & Houghton, 2006). However, research on the relationship between self-leadership, creativity, and innovation is still at the nascent stage. An additional research is needed to further clarify the relationship between self-leadership, creativity, and innovation (Neck & Houghton, 2006; Pratoom & Savatsomboon, 2010). Furthermore, it is evident that the self- leadership skill is a significant antecedent factor that positively affects innovative behavior (Carmeli, et al., 2006). Hence, given selfHypothesis 2: Self-leadership positively affects individual innovation.
METHODOLOGY
Data collection and sample The research study involved the analysis of a survey questionnaire consisting of statements relating to the creativity, self-leadership and innovation. All the survey items were measured on five-point likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) except innovation which was measured on yes (1) or no (0) response. Survey questionnaires were distributed among ten randomly selected manufacturing organizations through post and emails, both in public and private sector, in various areas of Pakistan. The response rate remained 72% (n=180). Overall, 169 respondents (93.9%) were men and 11 respondents (6.1%) were women. The age of the respondents ranged from 22 to 58 years (mean=34.07). Fifty eight (32.2%) had an education of graduation level, 122 respondents (67.8%) had an education at master level or higher. The respondents had group tenure ranging from 1 to 30 years (mean=8.79).
22
Creativity, Self-leadership and Individual Innovation Measures Creativity A five-point likert scale survey instrument was used to measure groups' knowledge management ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and was adapted from the employee creative behavior scale developed and validated by Rice (2006). All the dimensions were explored by using exploratory factor analysis. Factor loading of the items ranged from 0.65 to 0.77. Alpha value for the construct was 0.81; higher score indicated higher level of creativity. Self-leadership A five-point likert scale survey instrument was used to measure groups' knowledge management ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and was adapted from the self-leadership questionnaire developed and validated by Houghton and Neck (2002). All the dimensions were explored by using exploratory factor analysis. Factor loading of the items ranged from 0.69 to 0.84. Alpha value for the construct was 0.80; higher score on this construct indicated greater self- leadership. Individual innovation This scale contained six items to measure innovation among group members and was adapted from the innovation output scale (Ju, Li, & Lee, 2006; Vermeulen, O'Shaughnessy, & de Jong, 2003). The scale contained six items, measuring product and work process innovation in the past three years. All the dimensions were explored by using exploratory factor analysis. Factor loading of the items ranged from 0.55 to 0.69. Alpha value for the construct was 0.62, higher score on this construct indicated greater innovation. Control variables To strengthen the internal validity of the study, gender, age, and tenure were treated as control variables. Respondents provided the information of gender, age, and tenure through self-report when completing the survey instrument. Significant contribution to the variance in the dependent variable was found by these control variables in examining the relationship between self-leadership skills and innovation at work (Carmeli, et al., 2006) and exploring the individual innovation and creativity (Baer, Oldham, & Cummings, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994). A correlation analysis and regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses.
FINDINGS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the research variables. As theoretically suggested, individual innovation and its antecedents were found significantly correlated. Individual innovation measure was significantly and positively related to the creativity (r = 0.442, p