Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas PDF

Preview

Summary

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2000), 73, 265–285 Printed in Great Britain 265 Ó 2000 The British Psychological Society Shopoor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas C. M. Axtell*, D. J. Holman, K. L. Unsworth, T. D. Wall and P. E. Waterson Inst...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas Carolyn Axtell, Toby Wall Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

Cite this paper

Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Shopfloor innovat ion: Facilit at ing t he suggest ion and implement at ion of ideas.(St at ist ical Da… Kerrie Unswort h Fut ure work design research and pract ice: Towards an elaborat ed model of work design Toby Wall Well-being and occupat ional healt h in t he 21st cent ury workplace Cary Cooper

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2000), 73, 265–285

Printed in Great Britain

265

Ó 2000 The British Psychological Society

Shopoor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas C. M. Axtell*, D. J. Holman, K. L. Unsworth, T. D. Wall and P. E. Waterson Institute of Work Psychology, University of SheY eld , UK

E. Harrington AMAP (Institute for Automotive and Manufacturing Ad vanced Practice), Tyne & Wear, UK

Despite increasing recognition of the importance of fostering innovation among shopoor employees, little empirical research has been conducted on the topic. Moreover, within work psychology, studies have tended to focus on the generation of ideas (creativity) rather than on their implementation. This study examines the impact of individual perceptions of individual, group and organizational factors on both elements of innovation. It was found that the suggestion of ideas was more highly related to individual (personal and job) characteristics than the group and organizational characteristics; whereas the implementation of ideas was more strongly predicted by group and organizational characteristics. As expected, interactions were found between the number of suggestions made and group and organizational characteristics, demonstrating how successful implementation of new ideas requires both their formulation in the Žrst place and an appropriately supportive environment. Analysis to explore which factors have the greatest impact on the innovation process was also conducted. The practical, theoretical and methodological implications of the study are discussed.

In describing the philosophy adopted by Rover (UK), John Towers, the Managing Director, put it this way: ‘Everyone now has two jobs. First to build the car, second to Žnd ways of doing the job better’ (Caulkin, 1993). In so doing he succinctly captured a view that many practitioners and academics now endorse, that the ability of organizations to foster, develop and use the innovative potential of their shopoor employees is integral to their success (Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1995; Wolfe, 1994). This perspective is a key element of many modern initiatives, such as total quality management, continuous improvement schemes and organizational learning (McLoughlin & Harris, 1997). It is also reected in the increasing interest being shown in such notions as organizational *Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr Carolyn Axtell, Institute of Work Psychology, University of SheYeld, SheYeld S10 2TN, UK (e-mail: [email protected]).

266

C. M. Axtell et al.

citizenship behaviour (Organ, 1997), proactivity (Bateman & Crant, 1993), personal initiative (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996), and role orientations (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997b). Despite the emphasis on fostering innovation, empirical research on the topic has been limited. There is, of course, a large literature on creativity in general (e.g. Davis, 1989; Martindale, 1989); and an increasing literature on innovation at work (e.g. King & Anderson, 1995; West & Farr, 1990), but very little speciŽcally on shopoor employees. As Oldham and Cummings (1996) state: ‘little is known about the conditions that promote the creative performance of individual employees in organizations’ (p. 607). Moreover, the focus has tended to be on factors that inuence the suggestion of individual ideas (i.e. creativity) rather than their implementation, both of which are components of innovation (Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Unsworth, 1999). This has meant that little attention has been given to the possibility that the factors that promote the suggestion of ideas may diV er from those that encourage their implementation, or that the suggestion of ideas interacts with other factors to predict implementation. Knowledge of which factors aV ect each stage of the innovation process, and how such factors interact, is important both theoretically and for those concerned to promote innovation at work. The aim of this paper is to explore these issues empirically, speciŽcally focusing on individual, shopoor innovation.

Perspective on innovation These are two aspects to the approach to innovation taken for the purposes of this paper. The Žrst concerns the components of innovation. Innovation may be deŽned as a process that involves the generation, adoption, implementation and incorporation of new ideas, practices or artifacts within organizations (Van de Ven, Angle, & Poole, 1989). As such, it is a broader and more complex concept than that of creativity, which generally only refers to the generation of new ideas. Although evidence indicates that innovation is a complex, iterative process, and several diV erent perspectives on innovation exist, as implied earlier, most approaches identify two key elements. The Žrst is an ‘awareness’ of the innovation, or suggestion, phase; and the second is an implementation phase (Amabile, 1988; Staw, 1990; Unsworth, 1999; Unsworth & West, 1998; Wolfe, 1994). We follow this conceptualization by distinguishing between suggestions and their implementation. The second aspect concerns the scope, or focus, of innovation. Clearly, this can range from the development of radical new ideas that revolutionize practices or products across the whole organization, to much smaller-scale innovations. In the popular literature it is the former which capture the imagination, with radical innovations in products (e.g. the development of the telephone, the television, or the microchip) or processes (e.g. telephone banking) being emphasized. These, however, are relatively rare developments. In keeping with our emphasis on fostering innovation among shopoor employees within organizations, we are concerned here with the suggestion and implementation of smaller-scale, but much

Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas

267

more common, ideas mainly related to improvements in work processes. This is because lower level employees are much more likely to be able to contribute in this domain than to come up with radical new ideas. It is also makes research more tractable since there is suYcient data with which to work.

Determinants of innovation It has been proposed that individual characteristics, intrinsic job factors, group factors, relationships at work, and organizational factors all have an impact on individual innovation (West & Farr, 1989). We use this general framework as a guide. In the absence of a coherent theory specifying the more particular factors to be covered in examining innovation in shopoor work, we take an eclectic approach. That is we focus on a range of relevant factors that are likely to be appropriate given the context of shopoor jobs (and literature on work organization) and which are also consistent with previous innovation research. Some such factors are consistent with the motivation and job design interventions proposed by Farr (1990), such as job scope, challenge, feedback and eYcacy, although we also identify complementary group and organizational factors. Our aim is to conŽrm and extend the literature within this area. Research on creativity has been concerned with identifying individual level factors, encompassing personal and job characteristics that promote suggestion making. Traditionally the focus has been on such variables as job competence, intrinsic task motivation, creativity relevant skills and creative personality (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Unsworth & West, 1998). In some senses these are somewhat tautological (particularly creativity relevant skills and creative personality). Recent research, however, has put the spotlight on two other variables which logically encompass the traditional ones, namely self-eYcacy and role orientation. Self-eYcacy has also been proposed as having an impact on the level of individual role innovation (Farr & Ford, 1990) as it can have a strong inuence on human behaviour, particularly that related to change (e.g. Bandura, 1982). For instance, if employees feel conŽdent at performing a range of proactive tasks which require the use of their initiative, then they are more likely to be successful at performing those tasks (Parker, 1998). It can further be argued that employee role orientations will be important. Individual accountability is one aspect of an employee’s orientation towards the task that is considered important for promoting innovation (Anderson & West, 1998). As such, employees are more likely to make suggestions when they feel higher levels of concern and ownership of the problems confronting them in the workplace (Parker et al., 1997b). Morrison and Phelps (1999) have also shown that ‘felt responsibility’ is positively related to employees taking charge of workplace change. Conversely, those with a narrow, passive, ‘that’s not my job’ orientation are unlikely to come up with new ideas as they are more likely to feel that it is someone else’s job to do so. The inclusion of intrinsic task motivation among determinants of suggestion making draws attention to the potential relevance of job characteristics since these

268

C. M. Axtell et al.

are closely implicated as determinants of motivation (e.g. Hackman & Oldham, 1980). For instance, Herzberg (1966) suggested that enhanced work would lead to employees knowing more, seeing more relationships in what they know and being more creative. Similarly Farr (1990) suggests that in comparison to simpliŽed work, enriched jobs are more challenging and require more thinking, which in turn should promote innovation. The few studies following this line of inquiry generally conŽrm the existence of a relationship between job characteristics and suggestion making. For example, Hatcher, Ross and Collins (1989) found that job complexity (a measure of autonomy, variety and feedback derived from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975)) was positively correlated with the number of suggestions made. Oldham and Cummings (1996), who also used a measure of job complexity based on the Job Diagnostic Survey, discovered a signiŽcant positive correlation with supervisor ratings of employee creativity, and found that job complexity interacted with creative personal characteristics to predict suggestion making. Overall, studies on job characteristics suggest that when employees engage in a wide variety of tasks and have high levels of control then they are more likely to make suggestions on how to improve their work (see Scott & Bruce, 1994, for an exception). Thus, at the individual level we consider that job factors (autonomy, challenge, variety), self-eYcacy and ownership of work-related problems will have an impact on innovation. Investigation of group characteristics has generally demonstrated that group innovation increases when members feel that new ideas are encouraged and expected (i.e. support for innovation), and when they feel safe enough to participate in decision making and voice their ideas openly (i.e. participative safety) (Anderson & West, 1998). From the work design literature it might also be expected that team job characteristics may inuence the level of team innovation. For example, innovation may be more likely when team members have a wide range of responsibilities and have more control over the execution of their tasks, as this fosters the competence upon which the conŽdence to innovate depends (Parker et al., 1997b). Although much research on group characteristics has focused on group innovation, group level factors are also likely to have an impact on individual innovation (West & Farr, 1989). Considering wider organizational factors, most research has focused on the eV ects of leadership or management style on innovation. Although no clear picture has emerged, with diV erent styles being deemed eV ective in diV erent contexts and at diV erent stages of the innovation process, there is a fairly strong consensus that a participative or collaborative leadership style is more generally conducive to innovation (Anderson & King, 1993; Manz, Barstein, Hostager, & Shapiro, 1989). Indeed, participation in decision making is likely to increase the ownership that employees feel for the outcomes of decisions made, and thus they are more likely to propose new and improved ways of fulŽlling these outcomes (West, 1990). Feedback and recognition have been associated with individual innovation (King, 1990) and might also be considered important aspects of management style. Thus, when considering group and organizational factors, it is likely that group climate factors, group work design, participation in decision making and leadership styles will have an impact on individual innovation.

Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas

269

While recent research on innovation has provided a number of interesting Žndings, it also has several limitations, of which four are especially important. First, most studies of innovation have tended to measure either idea suggestions/ creativity (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Oldham & Cummings, 1996) or idea implementation (Bunce & West, 1994; Damanpour, 1991) but rarely both at the same time. Moreover, some studies have collapsed the suggestion an implementation of ideas into one measure (e.g. Scott & Bruce, 1994). The problem this poses is that, if the factors that inuence suggestion making diV er from those that inuence idea implementation, this will not be evident. Yet there is good reason to believe that the two aspects of innovation will have a diV erent aetiology. This is because, as innovation is a social process, the implementation of ideas is heavily reliant on the involvement of others (Van de Ven et al., 1989). For example, while a person can be creative and generate new ideas alone, the implementation of ideas typically depends upon the approval, support and resources of others. This applies equally to cases where individuals make an innovation to their own work. This is because, unless that individual is essentially independent, changes in his or her work role will a V ect others, and will therefore be subject to anothers’ approval. As Blumberg and Pringle (1982) noted, even when people have the will and capacity to perform, the opportunity to act (provided by factors that are external to the individual) is still required. Group and organizational factors might therefore have more inuence on the implementation of ideas than individual level characteristics. In contrast (and consistent with much of the literature on creativity) individual level characteristics are likely to have more inuence on the suggestion of ideas than group and organizational characteristics. This is because the suggestion of new ideas is more dependent upon an individual’s creativity, self-conŽdence, job knowledge, ownership of problems, and job demands. This does not imply that group and organizational factors play no role in facilitating the suggestion of ideas, as a participative environment is likely to encourage such activity. Rather, it is expected that group and organizational characteristics will have a stronger inuence on the implementation of ideas than on the suggestion of ideas. The second limitation of previous research is that, apart from a few notable exceptions (e.g. Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994), studies tend not to include a wide range of individual, group and organizational characteristics as potential predictors of innovation. Thus they have been unable to address the question of relative contribution of diV erent classes of factor to innovation. Third, studies including job characteristic measures have tended to use singleitem measures, single measures, or composite measures. For example, both Hatcher et al. (1989) and Oldham and Cummings (1996) used a composite measure of job characteristics (job complexity). Aggregating the score in this way precluded them from examining the possibility that the job characteristics covered (e.g. variety as distinct from autonomy) might relate diV erently to innovation. So, even where the distinction between suggestions and implementation is made, there is no opportunity to examine the relative contributions of diV erent variables to each of these components of innovation. There is a clear need to use multiple and separate measures of job characteristics.

270

C. M. Axtell et al.

Finally, most studies of innovation in organizational psychology have focused on professional, scientiŽc, technical and managerial staV (Anderson & King, 1993). They have not examined innovation amongst shopoor employees in any great detail. The present study seeks to address these limitations. It is designed to investigate the diV erential relationship between diV erent aspects of the innovation process, perceptions of individual factors and the wider group and organizational characteristics. In particular, it is expected that individual characteristics will be more positively related to the suggestion of ideas than individual perceptions of group and organizational characteristics. The only exception to this will be those group and organizational characteristics that explicitly support the suggestion of new ideas (e.g. participation in decision making). Another expectation is that individual perceptions of group and organizational characteristics will be more positively related to the implementation of ideas than individual level characteristics. Therefore, the Žrst two hypotheses are: Hypothesis 1. There will be a stronger relationship between individual level characteristics and suggestion making than between individual perceptions of group or organizational factors and suggestion making. Hypothesis 2. There will be a stronger relationship between individual perceptions of group and organizational factors and idea implementation than between individual level characterstics and idea implementation. A third hypothesis follows from the above. Clearly, as suggestions are a prerequisite of implementation, the more suggestions that are made the greater the likelihood of implementation. However, since making a suggestion is not suYcient to ensure implementation, and other factors are deemed necessary to provide the opportunity to put suggestions into practice, it is to be expected that there will be an interaction between the two. More speciŽcally, following the logic of Blumberg and Pringle (1982), that situational factors provide the opportunity for successful performance, the implementation of ideas will be a joint function of the suggestion of ideas and of the presence of appropriate group and organizational level conditions rather than of individual level factors. Thus: Hypothesis 3. The implementation of ideas will be a function of the interaction between the number of suggestions made and individual perceptions of group and organizational factors, with the number of suggestions positively associated with implementation given appropriate group or organizational conditions (e.g. management support), but unrelated to implementation where group or organizational conditions are not appropriate. In addition to the above, an exploratory research question can be posed. Although the hypotheses explore the diV erential eV ect of certain categories of factors on suggestions and implementations, and the interacti...