RPA in supply chain management
Shashireddy896
Sample1.pdf
Abstract
Nowadays, companies have to stimulate rapid development of ideas which help them to
improve its services, products and processes. Therefore, they need to foster a culture of
continuous improvement and innovation by encouraging employees to deliver better
results.
The purpose of this dissertation is to explore how organisations can build a culture of
innovation. In doing so, this study addressed two research questions: what organisational
practices influence innovation and how innovative behaviour is stimulated or inhibited. To
answer these question different determinants proposed by the guide framework were tested
on a Mexican company using questionnaires and interviews which employees responded.
It was found that the all determinants proposed by the guide model were considered by to
influence respondents to be more innovative. Indeed, factors such as trust, open
communication, support from manager, reward and recognition and team-work were found
to be strongly important for them. Furthermore, results show that this company support
innovation by giving employees flexibility, open communication, trust and the opportunity
to work in teams. Additionally, it was found that other determinants that stimulate
innovation such as freedom, empowerment, risk taking and decision making depend mainly
on every department and its manager´s attitudes toward innovation.
On the other hand, results show that determinants such as conflict handling, mistake
handling, and reward and recognition could inhibit innovation in this company. Moreover,
although factors such as availability or resources and shared organisational mission and
vision are not fully implemented in order to support innovation, these do not stop
employees from being innovative.
Finally, it was concluded that in order to build a culture of innovation, managerial attitude
toward this objective it is pivotal. Moreover that is the managers´ responsibilities to design
the appropriate culture that encourage innovation either in one department or in the
company as a whole.
K1044943 Page 1
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................Introduc5on 5
...............................................................................................................Research Background 5
.................................................................................................................Research Objec5ves 6
..................................................................................................................Research Ques5ons 6
..............................................................................................................Disserta5on Structure 7
................................................................................................................................Literature Review 8
..............................................................................................................Organisa5onal Culture 8
................................................................................Sources of Organisa5onal Culture 13
.............................................Difference between Organisa5onal Climate and Culture 13
...............................................................................................................................Innova5on 14
.............................................................................................Crea5vity and Innova5on 15
.............................................................................................Dimensions of Innova5on 16
...................................................................................................Sources of Innova5on 18
............................................................................................The Process of Innova5on 18
.....................................................................Linking Organisa5onal Culture with Innova5on 19
...........................................................................The Role of Leadership in Innova5on 19
..............................................The Role of Knowledge Sharing and Trust in Innova5on 20
.................................................The Role of Mo5va5on and Sa5sfac5on in Innova5on 21
.........................................................................Learning Organisa5on and Innova5on 23
.............................Linking Organisa5onal Culture and Innova5on through different Models 24
................................................ScoS & Bruce Model: Individual Innova5ve Behaviour 24
..................................................................................Mar5ns and Terblanche´s Model 27
............................................................................Sarros, Cooper and Santora´s Model 29
............................................................................................................................Conclusions 31
....................................................................................................................................Methodology 33
............................................................................................................................Introduc5on 34
...............................................................................................................Research Philosophy 34
........................................................................................................Methodologies Available 36
.............................................................................................................Methodology Chosen 38
K1044943 Page 2
........................................................................................................Data Collec5on Methods 39
..........................................................................................................Primary Research 39
........................................................................................Research Design and Data Analysis 40
...................................................................................................Ques5onnaire Design 40
..................................................................................................Conduc5ng Interviews 42
..........................................................................................................................Data Analysis 43
........................................................................................Limita5ons of the Research Design 44
......................................................................................................................Reliability 44
...........................................................................................................Generaliza5bility 44
..........................................................................................................................Validity 45
.........................................................................................................Other Limita5ons 45
............................................................................................................................Conclusions 45
.........................................................................................................................Results and Findings 46
..................................................................................................................Business Overview 46
............................................................................................................On-‐line survey Results 47
................................................................................................Data Base Construc5on 47
.........................................................................................Data Displayed and Analysis 50
...................................................................................................................Interviews Results 58
............................................................................................................................Conclusions 59
....................................................................................................................Analysis and Discussion 60
.............................................................What organisa5onal prac5ces influence innova5on? 61
.............................How innova5ve behaviour is supported or inhibited in the organisa5on? 64
..............................................................................................................................Limita5ons 68
.................................................................................Recommenda5ons for Future Research 69
............................................................................................................................Conclusions 69
.......................................................................................................................................Conclusions 70
........................................................................................................................................References 75
K1044943 Page 3
List of Figures
Figure 1: Levels of Culture and their Interaction ................................................................... 9
Figure 2: The Cultural Web .................................................................................................. 10
Figure 3: Scott and Bruce´s Model for Innovative Behavior ............................................... 23
Figure 4: Scott and Bruce´s Final Determinants for Innovative Behavior ........................... 24
Figure 5: Martins and Terblanche´s Model (Influence of Organisational Culture on
Creativity and Innovation ..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 6: Theoretical Foundation for the Formulations of Questions .................................. 37
List of Tables
Table 1: The Cultural Components ....................................................................................... 11
Table 2: Comparison of the Different Models for Innovation .............................................. 29
Table 3: Assumptions of the Paradigms................................................................................ 32
Table 4: Methodologies Available ........................................................................................ 33
Table 5: Conditions to Select a Research Method ................................................................ 34
Table 6: Interview Flow ........................................................................................................ 39
Table 7: Results for Research Question 1 ............................................................................. 43
Table 8: Results for Research Question 2 ............................................................................. 44
Table 9: Interviews Summary ............................................................................................... 57
Table 11: Research Propositions ........................................................................................... 71
K1044943 Page 4
1.0. Introduction
1.0.1. Research Background
The rapid changing and competitive business environment influence the way companies
react in order to meet market requirements and to have competitive advantage (Hill, 2011).
Similarly, these require that companies stimulate rapid development of ideas which help
improve its services, products and processes (Shen et al., 2009).
According to Hill and Hill (2011), innovation is the way to improve something that already
exists. Usually, when talking about improving operations it is assumed that the optimisation
of administrative and operational processes, lay-out, production, enhancement of
manufacturing capabilities, quality assurance and maintenance of equipment are the most
important forms of improvements a company can accomplish (Yee et al., 2007). However,
the most important factor seems to have been forgotten: employees and their effect on
organisational effectiveness (Yee et al., 2007).
In order to make improvements happen, it is necessary to start with an innovative idea that
is generated by a person. Therefore, human resources play an important role in operations
management; they will allow generating ideas and accomplishing continuous improvements
that cannot be achieved without their participation (de Menezes et al., 2010).
Hill (2005) highlights the importance to foster a culture of continuous improvement and
innovation by encouraging employees to deliver better results every day. Nevertheless, in
pursuit of this objective, different factors need to be taken under consideration in order to
reach this outcome. Innovation should not be considered on its own but rather as an
interaction of different elements (Shen et al., 2009). Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan
(1998) point out that although many researchers have aimed to identify what are the causes
of organisational innovation it is still not clear what managerial acts and processes foster
innovation. Moreover many operational journals, books and approaches such as Total
Quality Management emphasise the importance of involving people in order to improve
operations (Hill, 2005; Kobayashi, 1990 & de Menezes et al, 2009) however some
K1044943 Page 5
significant elements are found to be not included. Furthermore some of these studies follow
the innovation process suggested by innovation books and studies (Conway & Steward,
2009) such as preparation, generation, incubation, insights and evaluation of employee’s
ideas. Nevertheless they do not reveal how and what managerial processes and
organisational culture and climate help to encourage and motivate employees to create and
share their proposals.
1.0.2. Research Objectives
The aim of this dissertation is to analyse how organisations can build a culture of
innovation that leads employees to improve their work. In doing so, this study will draw
upon factors deemed important by theorist and empirical studies. Therefore, the literature
review will cover firstly aspects such as organisational culture, innovation, leadership,
knowledge sharing, trust, motivation, satisfaction and learning organisation. Secondly, three
models will be analysed, which explain how organisation can build a culture of innovation;
from these models, Martins and Terblanche´s model is chosen to guide this study.
Therefore, determinants covered in this model such as strategy, structure, support
mechanism, behaviour that encourages innovation and communication will be the focus of
this research.
Moreover, this research is conducted through a single case study in a financial institution
located in Mexico. Thus, the factors mentioned in the guide model will be analysed using
questionnaires and interviews in order to capture employees’ opinions in regard to this
company.
1.0.3. Research Questions
In order to answer the main research question of how to build a culture of innovation, two
research questions have been addressed in this dissertation:
1. - What organisational practices influence innovation?
2. - How innovative behaviour is stimulated or inhibited in the organisation?
K1044943 Page 6
1.0.4. Dissertation Structure
This dissertation is composed by the following chapters which are explained briefly next:
Chapter 1: This chapter present the research background for the selected topic and the aims
of the research.
Chapter 2: This chapter explores theories and academic thinking related to organisational
culture, innovation and their linkage.
Chapter 3: This chapter presents the methodology selected to conduct this research and also
explain the methods used to collect and analyse primary data according. Research questions
are also set in this chapter.
Chapter 4: This chapter presents the results obtained through the collection of primary data
in the application of the research methods discussed in chapter 3. It also introduces the
business under study.
Chapter 5: This chapter answers the research questions set in chapter three by discussing
and analysing the empirical results obtained from the primary research. It also presents the
limitations encountered when conducting the research along with recommendations for
further studies.
Chapter 6: This chapter summarise the main point obtained from the research.
K1044943 Page 7
2.0. Literature Review
This chapter will explore current and past academic thinking, theories and debates
surrounding organisational culture and innovation. Furthermore, it will enable a better
understanding of the factors which encompass both organisational culture and innovation
and how they are related one to each other to demonstrate how organisations cultivate
innovation.
Four different models are examined which aim to explain the linkage between culture and
innovation. From these, Martins and Terblanche´s model which they titled “Influence of
Organisational Culture on Creativity and Innovation” (2003) was chosen as a guide for this
dissertation to fit with the above aim.
2.0.1. Organisational Culture
Many studies have been carried out in order to understand what organisational culture is.
Some authors agree that culture is the primary determinant that leads to organisational
change and consequently a key in improving organisation’s performance (Martins &
Terblanche, 2003; Lemon & Sahota, 2004). As a result, a variety of definitions have been
found in the literature which attempt to clarify organisational culture concept.
McLean and Marshall (1993) in Mullins (2008:464) define organisational culture as: “The
collection of traditions, values, policies, beliefs and attributes that constitute a pervasive
context for everything we do and think in an organisation”. Similarly Burnes (2004:170)
argues that the most accepted definition is the one given by Eldridge and Crombie (1974)
who state that organisational culture refers to the “unique configuration of norms, values,
K1044943 Page 8
beliefs, ways of behaving and so on, that characterise the manner in which groups and
individuals combine to get things done”.
Therefore, it is most commonly agreed that organisational culture is the set of norms,
beliefs, values, attitudes and assumptions held in an organisation. These will shape the
behaviour, way of thinking to solve problems, socialisation and assumptions in the
organisation (Ahmed, 1998).
In attempting to categorize the cultural components that form an organisational culture,
Brown (1995) have identified elements such as artifacts; language; behaviours; norms;
heroes; symbols; beliefs; values and attitudes; ethical codes; history and basic assumptions.
Similarly, Schein (2004) recognises different levels of culture which go from the deepest to
the most superficial manifestation called artifacts.
Figure 1: Levels of Culture and their Interac8on
Source: Schein (2004:26) Organisational Change and Leadership
K1044943 Page 9
Johnson (1992), on the other hand, encompasses these components in what he called the
“cultural web”. In this model, cultural elements are interrelated with each other and they
revolve around the paradigm of beliefs and values held in the organisation. These elements
are the way beliefs and values are manifested in the organisation. Furthermore, the
“paradigm” represents the core “tacit assumptions” that are perceived commonly by the
organisation´s members.
Figure 2: The Cultural Web
Source: Johnson, G. (1992:224) Strategic Change and the Management Process
In order to understand an organisational culture it is important to have a clear picture of its
components, what they include and how they are manifested, so that they can be recognised
and examined (Martin, 2002; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). However, sometimes it might
K1044943 Page 10
be difficult to differentiate these components (Brown, 1998). Table 1 below will summarise
and describe these components:
K1044943 Page 11
Table 1: The Cultural Components
K1044943 Page 12
2.0.1.1.Sources of Organisational Culture
The sources from which organisational culture is derived, according to Brown, comes from
three sources:
1. National culture: national culture has a great influence on organisational culture since
an organisation for being part of and interact with certain environment adopt patrons of
behaviours. Hofstede & Hofstede (2005) found out that core values and organisational
beliefs have their roots in national culture.
2. Leadership is considered to be another principle origin and driver of organisational
culture (Sarros et al., 2008); organisational culture will therefore emerge according to
management behaviour, vision, style and personality (Schein, 2004). Managers will
transmit their own values, beliefs, norms, mission, vision and objectives to their
organisation. Moreover, Sarros et al. (2008) highlight that most studies agree that
leaders shape organisational culture instead of being part of it. However, the opposite
believe highlights that leaders are part of the culture not the creators of culture (Sarros et
al., 2008).
3. The type of business has a direct impact on organisational culture since it will dictate
the nature of the activities that need to be executed and the environment in where the
business will operate (Brown, 1998). Moreover, Gordon (1985) cited in Brown (1998),
points out that business in slow changing environment develop a culture of stability and
security for employees. On the other hand, organisations in rapid, changing and dynamic
environments, their organisational culture is more likely to be competitive, ambitious
and adaptive.
2.0.1.2.Difference between Organisational Climate and Culture
K1044943 Page 13
Climate and culture are two different concepts that have been given similar definitions.
This has resulting in a manipulation of the concepts depending on every author’s
interpretation. However, both concepts study the understanding of the social environment
of organisations (Denison, 1996). By trying to have a better understanding of these two
concepts Denison highlights that climate is part of organisational culture and therefore
needs to be studied parallel to it.
Sarros et al. (2008) argue that the difference between culture and climate is that the former
is about the meaning of everything that is done in the organisation, based on shared values,
beliefs and norms whereas the latter is the way in which employees perceive the work
environment according to observable and temporal practices and processes (Ahmed, 1998);
thus, organisational culture determines organisational climate (Sarros et al., 2008).
Additionally Scheider et al. (1996) in Ahmned (1998:31) consider climate to be determined
by four aspects that take place in an organisation. These are:
Interpersonal relationships comparing the level of trust and competitiveness.
Level of Hierarchy is related to the centralisation of decision- making, team work.
To what extent employees find their work challenging and interesting.
Existence of support and rewards.
Hence, these practices will influence how employees perceive the organisation´s
environment and depending on their feelings about it, they will feel comfortable to improve
or give results in their jobs. Therefore, culture and climate have been linked to
organisational innovation.
The next section will try to give a better insight of innovation in the organisation and its
importance for organisations.
2.0.2. Innovation
K1044943 Page 14
Organisations are concerned about innovation since many studies have found that it is a key
factor to survive and compete in today´s rapidly changing business environment (Scott &
Bruce, 1994; Sarros et al., 2008). Therefore, organisations that support innovation are
believed to drive value creation (Ahmed, 1998). Nevertheless, Singuaw et al. (2006)
recognise that the importance of innovation is not the outcome but the innovation per se;
the success lies in the ability of a company to be oriented constantly to build capabilities
which will produce those innovations. Therefore, the value of innovation to encourage
human resources to improve operations is significant since it can be argued that their
integration leads to productivity by establishing tangible and intangible assets and
consequently improving financial performance (de Menezes et al., 2010). In addition, Shen
et al. (2009) argues that innovation is a system where different factors need to interact in
order to generate innovation; thus innovation cannot be viewed in isolation.
Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan (1998) point out different views that consider innovation
either as an outcome or as a process. Innovation as an outcome is seen as a result of the
interaction of different organisational factors and conditions. On the other hand, innovation
as a process aims to understand innovation as an organisational activity that emerges and
can be developed in order to be used as a daily routine. These two views are important to
consider since they will dictate what actions need to be taken in order to promote
innovation.
2.0.2.1.Creativity and Innovation
Creativity and innovation are two concepts that are sometimes used interchangeably (Scott
& Bruce, 1994). Therefore, it is noteworthy what each of these two concepts refers to.
Firstly, creativity happens when a person generates a useful idea that has never been
expressed or proposed by another person (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988 in Bruce & Scott,
1994). Innovation, on the other hand, is not just generating an idea but also the acceptance
and implementation of it (Conway & Steward, 2009). Thus, creativity is nothing without
innovation and vice versa (McLean, 2005).
K1044943 Page 15
Furthermore, creativity happens at an individual level, where factors such as motivation,
individual perceptions and other personal characteristics influence the creation of ideas.
Innovation concerns more about the interaction of people in the organisation and the
environment around them (MacLean, 2005). From these findings, this study will use the
term innovation to encompass creativity.
Nevertheless, Scott and Bruce (1994) point out that innovation refers also to the use of
products or processes which are not created in the organisation. Innovation is also about
making use of other organisations ́ products or processes for the improvement of the own
organisation´s performance. Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan (1998) refer to this as
adopting innovation. This statement is supported by Hill and Hill (2011:411) who specify
that, “innovation involves changing something established by introducing a new method,
idea, business model, service or product,” without caring if is generated or adopted, with
the only purpose of increasing organisational effectiveness (Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan,
1998).
Although the focus of this paper is to understand how employees can generate more ideas,
the adopted innovation also requires the awareness of someone inside the organisation,
someone who will propose to adopt an innovation. Moreover, it is also required that
managers support the implementation of the innovation. Thus, in both senses the need to
encourage employees to either generate of being aware of innovations is crucial.
2.0.2.2.Dimensions of Innovation
The study of innovation is broad, hence a number of subtheories have resulted in
distinguishing several dimensions of innovations (Damanpour, 1991):
Types of innovation
According to Govindarajan and Trimble (2005) four types of innovations exist referred to
as continuous process improvement, process revolutions, product or service innovation and
strategic innovation. Their difference lies in the size of change they generate along with
K1044943 Page 16
time and expense to take in implementing them. Furthermore, Tidd et al. (2005) make a
clearer division of the types of innovation as:
Product innovation refers to improving actual products and/or services in the
company.
Process innovation refers to innovations made in the processes that are used to
produce products and services.
Position innovation refers to innovations related to market position of a service or
product by changing the context or the customer´s perceptions of that service or
product.
Paradigm innovation refers to the change in the way of thinking about an
organisation´s product, service or process.
Supporting this view, Conway and Steward (2009) argue that innovation can be achieved in
product, services, processes, organisations and its administration, delivery of products and
services, marketing, business models and institutions. Therefore, innovation is used to
improve a number of different elements of an organisation.
Degree of Change
Innovation can be divided into two forms depending on the grade of change the innovation
produces (Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 1998; Singuaw et al., 2006)). These two forms
are incremental and radical. Incremental innovation makes big improvements and
development in products and services creating a better outcome. On the other hand,
incremental innovation has less impact on products, services or processes as they provide
small changes to them (Conway &Steward, 2009). Although incremental innovation seems
to be less significant, its importance lies in the cumulative benefits it will be delivered over
time. Thus, it will eventually have a large impact in the organisation (Tidd et al., 2005;
Singuaw et al., 2006).
Rate and Speed of Innovation
K1044943 Page 17
Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan (1998) argue that the rate and speed of an innovation
adoption is important when a company seeks to keep up with competitors and minimize the
gap that separates the organisation from major competitors or from a desired performance
objective. Furthermore, they define rate as how often innovations are conceived or adopted
in the organisation whereas speed is the time an organisation takes to generate or adopt it.
Regardless the type and the source of the innovation it, it is imperative to understand what
factors influence employees to come up with such changes.
2.0.2.3.Sources of Innovation
Similarly to organisational culture, innovation comes primarily from three sources which
are imitative, acquisitive and incubative (Damanpour &Gopalakrishnan, 1998). Imitative is
when a firm imitates or copies an innovation introduced first by another company;
acquisitive refers to when a company acquires the innovation by purchasing it from another
firm. Finally, incubative is about an organisation willingness to develop its own original
innovation.
2.0.2.4.The Process of Innovation
Van de van (1986) in Jashapara (2005:174) defines the process of innovation as “the
development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in
transactions with others within an institutional context”. Furthermore, Conway and
Steward (2009) argue that the process of innovation encompasses the following stages: idea
generation, screening idea, concept development and testing. Although these processes can
be followed by any organisation, Ahmed (1998) argues that the majority of ideas do not go
further than the first stage. Additionally, the second stage represents a barrier for most ideas
due to organisation´s inconsistencies or incompatibilities to with these ideas.
Consequently it is critical to create the correct working environment in order to put this
process into practice (Hill, 2005) since the commitment of managers and the involvement
of employees to achieve it is pivotal. Furthermore, an organisational culture that supports
K1044943 Page 18
innovation has been stated to be the principal contributor for many innovative oriented
organisations (Ahmed, 1998; Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Flynn & Chatman in Tushman
and Anderson, 2004; Sarros et al., 2008). Therefore, these studies recognise the linkage
between organisational culture and innovation including the benefits they have over
organisational performance.
Because of this, the next section will look at various models from the literature which
attempt to understand what factors of the organisational culture affect and support
employees to generate, and most importantly, to share their ideas which can be the first step
to work improvement.
2.0.3. Linking Organisational Culture with Innovation
The link between organisational culture and innovation addresses the importance that
culture has on work performance through employee´s ideas for improvements and
innovation (De Menezes et al., 2010).
This linkage, is due to the fact that organisational culture is composed of different elements
which have an impact on innovation, either as an inhibitor or as an enhancer (Ahmed, 1998;
Schroeder & Mauriel, 2000). Nevertheless, creating the ideal culture and climate to
encourage building a culture of constant improvement is not a straight-forward answer. It
involves a set of managerial processes which help to foster the cements of innovation so
that, this culture and climate drives employees to increased performance and to create value
(Ahmed, 1998).
In revising the literature, some organisational culture elements were identified to have an
effect on innovative behaviour. These elements are leadership, motivation, trust, knowledge
sharing and learning organisation.
2.0.3.1.The Role of Leadership in Innovation
K1044943 Page 19
A culture of innovation and improvement requires managerial attitudes and commitment
toward that objective. Schein (2004:290) highlights that leaders “create and embed
culture”, influencing either positively or negatively the climate and capacity for innovation
(Sarros et al., 2008). Schein explains this statement by pointing out that all businesses are
built and directed by their founders or top managers, who have a common objective. In
order to reach that objective, processes, practices, and systems are set up by founders and
managers, creating the environment which employees will feel to be either supportive or
not.
Furthermore, leaders are the people who will dictate the strategy, opportunities, resources
space and time for innovation (Schein, 2004). In addition, Martins and Terblanche (2003)
argue that is a leader´s task to articulate and let employees know about the strategy of the
organisation so they can act according to it. This is considered to promote innovation
(Sarros et al, 2008).
Contrary to these findings, other views suggest that leaders are part of the culture, not the
ones that create it (Dukerich, 1995 in Sarros et al., 2008). Additionally, some authors
suggest that culture for innovation can be measure not only in regard to leadership but also
in relation to other factors concerning the organisation´s internal and external environment
(Martins & Terblanche, 2003). However, most of these factors are set by leaders. Therefore,
the starting point to build a culture of innovation is that leaders must be truly committed by
supporting and motivating employees to perform better, helping them identify their goals
and conducting them towards the achievement of those goals (Sarros et al., 2008).
2.0.3.2.The Role of Knowledge Sharing and Trust in Innovation
Knowledge sharing is the exchange of either tacit or explicit knowledge between people
(Lee et al., 2010). Whereas explicit knowledge takes the form of numbers and formulas
which are easy to share, tacit knowledge is difficult to articulate and to express (Nonaka,
1991). Nonaka argues that the basis of innovation lies in the success of making an
individual´s tacit knowledge available to others. People are continuously generating ideas;
however, they are not valuable until they are shared and exploited it for the company´s
K1044943 Page 20
benefits (Jashapara, 2004; Dovey, 2009). Consequently, in order to convert individual
knowledge into organisational knowledge the sharing, transmission and communication
between people it is critical (Hislop, 2004).
Accordingly, Nonaka (1991) suggests four ways of creating knowledge in organisations,
these are via:
1. Socialisation, is passing and converting tacit knowledge from one person to another
through observation and imitation;
2. Combination, is the share of explicit knowledge thus this form of sharing does not
increase the organisation´s knowledge because it can be taken as an interchange of data
and information;
3. Articulation converts tacit to explicit knowledge making it available for others;
4. Internalisation refers to convert explicit into tacit knowledge for the benefit of one
person broadening his or her knowledge.
Nevertheless, organisational climate and culture are two factors which affect knowledge
sharing in a company (Hislop, 2005). Consequently, it represents a challenge for managers
to support, persuade, motivate and convince employees to share their knowledge.
In order to cultivate the climate for knowledge sharing different managerial practices need
to be put in practices such as incentives, mentoring, training, and time among staff (Von
Krough, 1999, in Jashapara, 2005). Another key component of successful knowledge
sharing within a team or an organisation is trust (Janowicz & Noorderhaven, 2002).
Managers should build organisational relationships based on trust since without it the flow
of communication and knowledge is unlikely (Jones, 1990). This is because if employees
do not rely on the company and/or the leaders to respect and recognize an idea, he or she
will not be willing to share it. Thus, building a trusting relationship should be based on an
expectation of reciprocity and mutual benefit (Dovey, 2009).
2.0.3.3.The Role of Motivation and Satisfaction in Innovation
K1044943 Page 21
Motivation and satisfaction are other aspects related to pursuing constant improvements.
The lack motivation might drive employees to neither generate nor share their ideas (Yee et
al., 2008). Additionally, employee satisfaction is an important determinant for operational
performance because it represents the employees´ commitment to realising their job (Yee et
al., 2008).
Job satisfaction, according to Hill (2005), is concerned with attitudes, interests in the job,
and with the loyalty and commitment an employee holds. On the other hand, motivation is
about the employees´ desire to perform their job well. Additionally, Hays and Hill
(2000:340) defines motivation “as the desire to achieve some goal”. Therefore, motivation
and satisfaction will determinate the employees´ job performance and consequently to what
extent they will help to achieve the corporate objectives (Hays & Hill, 2000).
Litwing and Stringer (1961) in Jashapara (2004) underline the impact of organisational
climate on individual motivation. Likewise, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, Scheider et
al. (1996) in Ahmned (1998:31) suggests different dimensions to create the appropriate
climate to keep employees motivated. These are related to:
The quality of interpersonal relationships of employees;
The level of hierarchy in the organisation;
To what extent the employee´s work is interesting and finally;
If there exist support and rewards.
Furthermore, Hill (2005) suggests that in order to keep people motivated and committed to
their job aspects related to job design, job enlargement, job rotation, job enrichment and
working schedules must be revised and changed periodically. Thus, it is recommended that
a job design must be challenging, interesting, and finally that it offer the option for flexible
working times. Moreover, Hill (2005) points out that employee involvement can be
achieved through suggestion schemes, improvement groups and self-managed teams. He
argues that these practices will enhance employee commitment to the company.
K1044943 Page 22
Hays and Hill (2000) argue that employees performance increases along with employee
motivation and a means of motivate people is giving feedback regularly. Consequently,
employees can feel that their work is important and that they are contributing to achieve the
organisation´s objectives.
In addition to feedback, goal setting is another way to motivate employees. This claim is
backed up by a major study carried on by Latham and Locke (1979). They conclude that
managers and supervisors who set reachable and challenging goals to employees have as a
result an improvement in performance and subsequently employees´ motivation.
2.0.3.4.Learning Organisation and Innovation
Nowadays, owning an open attitude toward constant learning is necessary for companies
due to changes in business environment because of globalisation and competition. In order
for a company to build a culture of innovation, it is pivotal that it is able to adopt an open
learning attitude which drives it to create and extend successfully its knowledge and skills
(Jones, 1996). Moreover, the ability to change the way of thinking and learning in a
constant basis is what defines the learning organisation (Jashapara, 2005).
Pedler et al. (1997) in Hislop (2005) considers a learning organisation as an organisation
which facilitates the learning of all its members resulting in transformation of them and
their environment. Additionally, Hislop highlights the importance of a learning organisation
emphasising contingency theory since an organisation is always interacting with internal
and external environments. Thus, it is necessary to adapt and change continually.
To be a learning organisation it is necessary to have the correct behaviour which facilitates
it. Honey (1991) in Jashapara (2005) points out that this behaviour should be open to:
asking questions, suggesting ideas, exploring alternatives, experimenting and learning from
experience, admitting mistakes, analysing what it has been learned and taking
responsibility from the outcome. Therefore, it can be argued that learning organisation
refers to the company which has a free and open way of learning, does not punish for
mistakes and practices honest feedback.
K1044943 Page 23
Additionally, Jones (1990) suggests that in order to become a learning organisation,
managerial involvement and commitment is necessary. This is because managers are able to
make structural changes and to take decisions about training and programmes which help
employees’ to develop skills and attitudes to learn. Additionally, give time for employees to
express themselves, make suggestion and share ideas, not being judgemental, is a
characteristic of a learning organisation.
On the other hand, Hays and Hill (2000) find that employees have to have a clear
understanding of the corporate objectives and goals in order to become a learning
organisation. An organisation´s efforts must be directed to one agreed direction.
2.0.4. Linking Organisational Culture and Innovation through different Models
Several models, which aim to explain how innovation results from organisational culture
practices, have been proposed and tested by different authors. Nevertheless, from the broad
resources available, three of these models were selected in order to help guide our study.
2.0.4.1.Scott & Bruce Model: Individual Innovative Behaviour
The model tested by Scott and Bruce (1994) focuses on individual innovation. It suggests
that individual innovation is affected by particular employee climate perceptions that
results from the relationship among leadership, work group relationships and individual
attributes of problem solving style of each employee. Additionally the authors claim that
the type of task is an important moderator in individual innovation since mechanical and
routine jobs create less favourable conditions for a climate for innovation.
K1044943 Page 24
Figure 3: ScoA and Bruce´s Model for Innova8ve Behavior
Source: Scott & Bruce (1994:583) ´Determinants of Innovative Behaviour: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace´, Academy of Management Journal.
Nevertheless, the final conclusions point out that mainly the quality of the relationship
between employee and supervisor affects individual innovation through support and
recognition, trust, respect, sympathy and autonomy of decision making. Additionally, it was
also found beneficial if a supervisor expected an employee to be innovative, since this will
act as a motivator for that employee. However, this last finding is more likely to be positive
related to innovation in technical jobs rather than administrative and consequently this is
the only variable (role expectation) moderated by task type.
This model argues that the amount of resources directed to innovation do not affect
individual behaviour. In addition to this, the quality of the relationship among work group
K1044943 Page 25
members was not found to affect innovative behaviour. Finally, findings highlighted that
employees do not have to have special attributes to be innovative; however those that are
very systemic, find it more difficult to cope with generating innovative solutions and ideas.
From this conclusion we can conclude the following:
Figure 4: ScoA and Bruce´s Final Determinants for Innova8ve Behavior
Adapted from Scott & Bruce (1994:583) ´Determinants of Innovative Behaviour: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace´, Academy of Management Journal.
Some of the advantages of this model are that it provides tested relationship between the
proposed variables and innovation, deeming important the leadership factor. Additionally,
its focus on individual perception rather than organisational innovation can be either an
advantage or a disadvantage, since other factors of organisational culture were not
mentioned. Furthermore, because the model was tested on a business purely focused on
R&D of products, some of its conclusions could not be valid for other type of
organisations. Moreover it contradicts other findings about the influence that teamwork has
on innovative behaviour (Flynn &Chatman year in Tushman & Anderson, 2004).
K1044943 Page 26
2.0.4.2.Martins and Terblanche´s Model
Martins and Terblanche (2003) propose a model that, according to them, synthesis
important studies about organisational culture´s attributes that influence creativity and
innovation. The model suggests that different dimensions that describe organisational
culture, influence creativity and innovation through five determinants of the culture
namely:
Strategy: a clear strategy is composed of a mission and vision that address innovation. This
will be favourable for employees since it will act as a guide in their work towards the
achievement of that strategy. Therefore, a clear and shared purpose which promotes
innovation needs to be assumed by all organisational members.
Structure: the structure proposed in this model that will help to encourage innovation, is a
flat structure where members work in an environment which is flexible with their jobs, free
to take decisions, risks and responsibilities and emphasises cooperation, trust and respect in
teams.
Support Mechanisms: this is to provide reward, recognition and opportunities to employees
who not only create and give solutions but also take risks and experiment with their ideas.
Additionally, organisations should offer resources, time, technology and information to
facilitate the creation of solutions and the space to consider employees´ proposals.
Behaviour that encourages innovation: refers to attitudes towards employees who generate
or propose ideas. Therefore, tolerance for mistakes and conflicts, learning from mistakes,
mistake handling, appreciation for opportunities, risk taking, positive criticism and
consideration and fair evaluation of ideas are considered to encourage innovation.
Communication among managers, employees, teams and departments will permit the flow
of ideas and propositions for improvements. However, this will happen only where
managers cultivate relationships based on trust and opened communication.
K1044943 Page 27
Martins and Terblanche claim that this model offers a “holistic approach” and this is one of
its advantages, since it covers most of the determinants that other studies have found
important. However, the model has not proved its validity through empirical research,
which in turn can be viewed as an important drawback.
Figure 5: Mar8ns and Terblanche´s Model (Influence of Organisa8onal Culture on Crea8vity and Innova8on
Crea8vity and Innova8on
Determinants of Organisa8onal Culture that Influence Crea8vity and Innova8on
Dimensions to Describe Organisa8onal Culture
Strategic vision and mission Customer Focus (external environment) Means to achieve objec8ve
K1044943 Page 28
Source: Martins & Terblanche (2003:70) ´Building Organisational Culture that Stimulates Creativity and Innovation´, European Journal of Innovation Management.
2.0.4.3.Sarros, Cooper and Santora´s Model
The model proposed by Sarros, Cooper and Santora (2008) is based on the belief that
leaders create organisational culture. This model suggests that transformational leadership
has a direct impact on the climate for innovation. Thus, a relationship between leadership
and climate for innovation is proposed and moreover the extent to which this relationship is
moderated by an organisational culture that is competitive and performance-oriented.
Therefore, the model tests six factors of transformational leadership and their power on
organisational culture and climate for innovation. The factors are: articulating a vision,
providing appropriate role model, fostering acceptance of goals, setting high performance
expectations, providing individual support and providing intellectual stimulation. The
hypothesised model is presented in figure 6.
This model highlights the importance of leadership as the creator of the climate for
innovation and additionally it supports Scott & Bruce´s model for innovative behaviour. It
is noteworthy that Sarros et al. used measures developed by Scott & Bruce to evaluate
climate for innovation. However, in this case, the source of information relied on manager’s
perceptions and beliefs about the influence of leadership on innovation. Therefore, one
disadvantage could be that employee´s perceptions are not reflected in this model despite
the fact that the model focuses just on the effects of leadership for employee´s innovation.
Examining these relationships, results support other studies (Scott and Bruce, 1994 and
Martins & Terblanche, 2003) about the importance of articulating a clear vision which
engage employees to the company´s goals and objectives. Furthermore, a positive influence
setting high performance expectation and providing individual support have an effect on
building a climate for organisational innovation. Thus the model can be summarized in
figure 7.
K1044943 Page 29
Figure 6: Structural model of the relationship among transformational leadership, organisational culture, and climate for organisational innovation.
Source: Sarros, J., Cooper, B. and Santora, J. (2008:153) ´Building a Climate for Innovation through Transformational Leadership and Organisational Culture´, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies.
Figure 7: Final findings of the relationship of transformational leadership, organisational culture, and climate for organisational innovation.
K1044943 Page 30
2.0.5. Conclusions
The models examined before discuss what factors and determinants of organisational
culture influence innovation. Interestingly, although they used different approaches, they
agree on most of the determinants that have an either positive or negative effect on
innovation. The table below summarises the models and its determinants:
K1044943 Page 31
Table 2: Comparison of the Different Models for Innova8on
As stated earlier a culture of innovation and improvement requires a positive managerial
attitude and commitment toward that objective. Since the objective of this study is
primarily to understand cultural norms attitudes and believes that impact employees to
become more innovative the lack of focus on individual determinants in Damanpour model
is not helpful for our purpose.
K1044943 Page 32
The models proposed by Sarros et al. (2008) and Scott and Bruce (1994) support the
statement that leaders “create and embed culture” (Schein 2004, pp 290), influencing either
positively or negatively the climate and capacity for innovation (Sarros et al., 2008). This is
because innovation is considered to be the result of supportive and encouraging
organisations. Contrary to these views, Martins and Terblanche´s model suggests that
leaders are part of the culture. Additionally, it suggests that culture for innovation can be
measure not only in regard to leadership but also in relation to customer focus, vision and
mission, management processes, work relationships and fit of employee’s needs and
objectives with the organisation. However, most of these dimensions are set by leaders and
top managers.
According to these findings, Martins and Terblanche´s model is selected to guide our study
since it fits more with the scope and objective of this paper.
3.0. Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to look into the possible methodologies this dissertation can
adopt and, based on them, select the most adequate to meet the main research question. Due
K1044943 Page 33
to the fact that the purpose of the research is the understanding of a social phenomenon, it
was felt that the most appropriate methodology was a case study. Finally, primary data was
collected through the application of questionnaires and interviews which provided
information to answer the research questions.
3.0.1. Introduction
This dissertation aim to answer our main research question, how to build a culture of
innovation in organisations. In pursuit of an answer, this study will seek to validate
concepts and frameworks addressed in the literature review about what are the factors that
help to build this culture. Moreover, what affects and motivates employees to generate and
share their ideas which can be used for the company´s benefit. Based on this, the main
research question can be broken down into the following research questions:
What organisational practices influence innovation?
How innovative behaviour is stimulated/supported or inhibited in the organisation?
Therefore, this chapter is comprised by the following sections:
Identification of the research philosophy
Methodologies available
Justification of the chosen methodology
Data collection methods used
Research Design and Data Analysis
Limitations
3.0.2. Research Philosophy
The research philosophy or research paradigm “is a philosophical framework that guides
how scientific research should be conducted” (Collis & Hussey, 2009:57). Orlikowki and
K1044943 Page 34
Baroudi (year, in Myers, 2009) suggest three paradigms: positivism, interpretivism and
critical. However, Myers (2009:37) argues that positivism and interpretivism paradigms
“are fairly well known in most business and management disciplines”. This statement
supports Collis and Hussey (2009) view, which recognise positivist and interpretivism as
the main paradigms that provide research guidance.
Therefore, positivism paradigm conducts studies through an empirical and logical research
in where social phenomena can be measured, validated and proved. This is because it deals
with precise, objective and rigorous methods of analysis (Collis & Hussey, 2009). On the
other hand, interpretivism paradigm provides a framework of study in order to understand
human behaviour according to the interpretation of the researcher who interacts with the
phenomenon under investigation (Collis & Hussey, 2009). These paradigms differ
essentially given the assumptions that the study implicates. The assumptions of the two
main paradigms are:
Table 3: Assump8ons of the Paradigms
Source: Creswell (1994) in Collis & Hussey, 2009:58
From answering the above assumptions questions, the most suitable paradigm in this
dissertation is the interpretivism since this type of paradigm concerns with the
K1044943 Page 35
understanding of human behaviour. Thus, reality is subjective and it will be investigated
and understood from the researcher point of view. Additionally, because an interpretivism
feature seeks to employ existing theories to describe and find deeper reasons about why and
how the phenomena being researched (Collis & Hussey, 2009).
3.0.3. Methodologies Available
The types of methodologies available under interpretivism approach are: action research,
case study, ethnography, grounded theory and participative enquiry (Myers, 2009; Collis &
Hussey, 2009). Additionally, Yin (2009) points out other research methods to study social
science such as experiments, surveys and history. The table 4 presents a brief description of
all these methodologies in order to have knowledge of each of them and consequently to
select the most adequate to conduct this dissertation.
K1044943 Page 36
Table 4: Methodologies Available
Furthermore, Yin (2009) argues that every research method can adopt either a descriptive,
exploratory or explanatory purpose:
Exploratory research aims to develop hypothesis and/or propositions for further
inquiry, contributing with new insight to the topic being researched since there is a
lack of knowledge and/or theories in that subject (Collis & Hussey, 2009; Yin,
2009).
K1044943 Page 37
Descriptive research seeks to describe the characteristics of certain phenomenon.
This type of research uses quantitative techniques to present results on the study
(Collis & Hussey, 2009).
Explanatory research focuses not only on describing a phenomenon but also on
analysing and explaining why and how of its occurrence using existing theory
(Collis & Hussey, 2009). Hence, it “aims to understand phenomena by discovering
and measuring casual relations among them” (Collis & Hussey, 2009:6).
However, Yin (2009) highlights that the selection of a research method depends on three
conditions presented in table 4:
Table 5: Condi8ons to Select a Research Method
Source: Yin (2009:8)
Thus, these three conditions will help to identify the most suitable research method;
however, it is noteworthy to mention that these methods are not mutually exclusive (Yin,
2009), this means that it is possible to use two methods within a study.
3.0.4. Methodology Chosen
From the methodologies explored, it was felt that a case study is the most suitable
methodology to guide this dissertation. Different statements support this choice: firstly,
K1044943 Page 38
since this research focuses on a single company, Collis and Hussey (2009) point out that
case study focuses on a single group, organisation, process or individual in order to obtain
depth knowledge and understanding about them. Secondly, since the research topic and
research questions are related to the understanding of social phenomena, Yin (2009) states
that the aim of case studies is to explore and to understand social and real life events.
Thirdly, also based on the research questions, Yin (2009) argues that “how” and why”
questions are more likely to use case studies as main methodology. Finally the choice of a
single case study is because “they are appropriate when we want to use it for testing an
established theory” (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005:120) as is the case of this study.
According to the purpose of the research, a single case study which is explanatory and
descriptive was adopted; descriptive given that this research seeks to describe current
practices in the organisation being researched. Furthermore, explanatory since this
approach leads to answer “how” and why” research questions (Yin, 2009). Additionally,
because an explanatory design enables to understand and analyze from theories addressed
in the literature review what is happening to consequently make suggestions and
recommendations for change (Collis & Hussey, 2009).
Moreover, in order to understand our main research topic this dissertation looked at a single
case study in a Mexican Company. Information provided by the company was analysed
based on past theories and studies attempting to test the main framework, to finally draw
conclusion about what factors influence building a culture of innovation in this
organisation.
3.0.5. Data Collection Methods
3.0.5.1.Primary Research
Different methods for collecting data can be employed when using case study as a
methodology. For instance, Yin (2009) suggests that case study can use several methods
and source of evidence to acquire either quantitative or qualitative data such as documents,
K1044943 Page 39
archival records, direct observation, participant observation and physical artifacts. Equally,
Eisenhardt (1989:534) considers that case study usually “combine data collection methods
such as archive searching, interviews, questionnaires and observations”.
As explanatory research uses both quantitative and qualitative data collection (Yin, 2009)
this dissertation adopted both for being complementary one to each other and not mutually
exclusive (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005). Additionally because these methods helped to
collect evidence that was relevant and likely to answer the research questions. Collis and
Hussey (2009) refer to the use of more than one method to guide one study as
“methodological triangulation”. Therefore the methods selected were:
Questionnaires- According to Collis and Hussey (2009) questionnaires can be used
to identify particular attitudes, opinions and organisational. Additionally, they can
provide the opportunity to test the relationship of the factors determining innovation
proposed by the research guide framework presented in the literature review.
Interviews- an interview “is the main source of information in case study” (Yin,
2009: 11). It offers the opportunity to find out what a person think or feel about a
determined subject in depth (Collis & Hussey, 2009). Hence, an interview is a mean
to obtain greater understanding and information about the respondents’ point of
view regarding innovation in the company.
3.0.6. Research Design and Data Analysis
3.0.6.1.Questionnaire Design
An on-line questionnaire was elaborated following the survey method. Members of the
company were invited to participate with the objective to identify the main factors that
according to them, influence innovative behaviour. In this case, employees responded
voluntarily. Moreover the sample size is not relevant in this study since “the aim of the
research is not to generalize to the population but to gain insights from the cases in the
sample (Ghauri & Gronhaug 2005:155). Thus the application of the questionnaires on
employees provided the opportunity to obtain specific data helping to meet not only the
descriptive purpose of this study but also giving the researcher the opportunity to examine
K1044943 Page 40
relationships between variables and particularly relationships between variables in cause-
affect relationships suggested by Martin and Terblanche (2003) model.
Figure 6: Theore8cal Founda8on for the Formula8ons of Ques8ons
Thus, the design of the questionnaire is explained next:
K1044943 Page 41
Introduction and explanation of the research: This first part of the questionnaire will
explain the reason for the application of the questionnaire. Furthermore it will specify that
the information given by the respondent is confidential.
In order to maintained the anonymities of the respondents as well as the company
confidentiality, it was agreed that questionnaires did not asked for personal information,
Part A of the Questionnaire: this part of the questionnaire would help to respond the
research question: what organisational practices influence innovation; indeed this part aim
to identify the level of importance of the determinants for innovation presented in the
model of Martin and Terblanche.
Part B of the Questionnaire: Part C of the questionnaire seeks to understand how the
respondents perceive the organisation as either supportive or not for innovation. Thus, it
will answer the research question: How innovation is stimulated or inhibited in the
organisation?
In order to obtain the information required in the research, the Factor Structure of the
Climate for Innovation Measure developed by Scott and Bruce (1998:593) was used and
adapted for this research. However other elements were added to measure variables showed
in our main model, such as vision and mission, mistake handling, conflict handling and
team-work. Appendix 1 shows a layout of the on-line survey. Furthermore the on-line
survey was accessed in the following link:
hSps://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_38eTHmmCYpX0R6c
3.0.6.2.Conducting Interviews
Interviews were conducted with a number of employees; these interviews provided the
opportunity to go into greater depth about employees´ attitude, perceptions and opinion
about culture of innovation. The interviews followed a structured design; questions were
prepared before the interview including open and closed-ended questions which helped
clarify form the results obtained in the on-line survey. Furthermore, closed-ended question
gave the opportunity to collect factual data which is easy to analyse. On the other hand
K1044943 Page 42
open questions give the opportunity to explore in more detail the interviewee´s opinion
with the chance of clarifying or amplify anytime is required (Collis & Hussey, 2009).
As a general overview, the table below presents the questions addressed in every interview;
however, other questions were also used.
Table 6: Interview Design
3.0.7. Data Analysis
Analysing qualitative data means that data need to be interpreted and translated by the
researcher presenting his/her understanding. Van Maanen (1979) in Ghauri and Gronhaug,
(2005:202) refers to this in the following statement:
“The label qualitative methods have no precise meaning in any of the social sciences. It is
at best an umbrella term covering an array of interpretative techniques which seek to
K1044943 Page 43
describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not frequency,
of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world.”
From this view, results given by questionnaires were analysed using data displays which,
according to Miles and Huberman (1994) in Collis and Hussey (2009:171), can ¨present
information systematically, so the user can draw valid conclusions and take needed action”.
Therefore, the results are firstly showed in a database to consequently present the
information in charts and graphs. Interviews on the other hand, were analysed relying on
the researcher´s interpretation. Furthermore, these results make reference to the guide
framework, looking for consistencies and/or discrepancies against it. Yin (2009:136) refers
to this logic as “pattern matching where an empirically based pattern is compared with a
predicted one”, the framework.
In addition to this, Collis and Hussey (2009) suggest that in order to understand the real
meaning of a case study it is necessary to follow four processes which are: comprehending,
synthesising, theorising and re-contextualising.
3.0.8. Limitations of the Research Design
The limitations of the research fall under three judging criteria that must be addressed in
this section: reliability, validity and generalizatibility (Collis & Hussey, 2009).
3.0.8.1.Reliability
Reliability refers to the arriving of the same findings if the research were conducted again
by another researcher (Yin, 2009). However, Collis and Hussey (2009:64) argue that “under
an interpretative paradigm, reliability is of little importance”; conversely the importance
lies under the fact that a second researcher can explain and understand the observations and
interpretations made by the first researcher. Thus Yin (2009) suggests that the
documentation of all procedures as well as keeping record of all evidence will help to face
the reliability issue.
3.0.8.2.Generalizatibility
K1044943 Page 44
This term refers to what extent the findings from one study can be applied to other cases
(Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005). Given that this study uses a single case study, it is important to
explain that “case studies rely on analytical generalization” (Yin, 2009:43). This is clearer
state by Normann (1970) in Collis & Hussey (2009:65) “it is possible to generalise from
very few cases, or even a single case, if your analysis has captured the interaction and
characteristics of the phenomena you are studying”. Therefore, this single-case study can be
generalized to others studies in regard to the research questions.
3.0.8.3.Validity
“Validity is the extent to which the research findings accurately reflect the phenomena
under study” (Collis & Hussey, 2009:65). Yin (2009) considers that the use of multiple
source of evidence as well as analysing results following pattern matching can help to meet
internal validity in case studies. Therefore this study as explained earlier used qualitative
and quantitative methods and also, adopted the analytic pattern matching with the main
guide framework.
3.0.8.4.Other Limitations
Other limitations were encountered when carrying out the research. Firstly, the fact that the
company is based in another country refrained from accessing into the company´s site
which impeded the collection of data through observation
Secondly, interviews were held by telephone. However, Collis and Hussey (2009) point out
that telephone interviews are a valuable method of collecting data saving cost and time.
Finally, as an on-line survey was used to gather employee’s opinions, there is a possibility
that responses were unrepresentative.
3.0.9. Conclusions
This chapter referred to the methodologies and data collections methods available for
conducting this dissertation. Taken into account the research questions, the study adopted a
single case study, gathering evidence from questionnaires as well as relevant interviews.
K1044943 Page 45
Both selections were supported by statements made by different authors. Additionally, an
overview of how results will be presented and analyzed in the next chapter, were also
addressed.
4.0. Results and Findings
This chapter will present the results obtained through the collection of primary data in the
application of the research methods discussed in the last chapter. Results of the
questionnaires along with the interviews are shown using data base constructions and data
displays diagrams presenting the findings in a summarised formats.
4.0.1. Business Overview
The organisation under study is a company based in Mexico which is part of a global
financial group with presence in most of the important cities around the world. Its branch
located in Mexico City, offers banking products and services in corporate finance and
capital and money markets. The company started its operations officially in 1995 after
having just a representative office in the city for 6 years.
From being part of a recognized global group, the company has to follow certain practices
which come from the headquarters in Europe; additionally some decisions are taking from
the regional office located in New York. Employees’ benefits in all branches include profit
sharing, based on an annual evaluation and medical coverage.
The company still reflects the national culture; dress code is business casual, informal
communication, open-space offices, modern installations and special parking for top
managers, are some of its characteristics. Other aspects such as working hours vary from
departments but generally employees describe them as flexible.
At present the number of permanent employees is 74 after having being reduced from 100
in 2009 because of the global economic crisis. Because of the type of business, the level of
K1044943 Page 46
sensitive information employees can access is regarded as highly valuable and confidential.
The company operates with two business units called front office. Additionally, other
support areas help to comply with both internal and external regulations. The organisation
chart is shown in Appendix 2
4.0.2. On-line survey Results
Members of the company were invited to participate and take an on-line survey with the
purpose of knowing their opinion about the research questions: what organisational
practices influence innovation and how innovative behaviour is stimulated or inhibited in
the organisation. The total of employees who answered the survey represents the 42%
percent of the permanent staff without including top managers, middle managers. The
results obtained in the survey are shown next.
4.0.2.1.Data Base Construction
The data base below presents the empirical results obtained through the application of the
on-line survey; it is split in two parts which shows accordingly, the two questions addressed
in the survey. Table 6 contains the results for question number 1, in which respondents were
asked to rate the level of importance of some characteristics in order to be more innovative.
Table 7 will introduce results for question number two; however, in order to have a better
understanding of the data, responses for statements that fall into the same category, are
group together.
K1044943 Page 47
Table 7: Results for Research Ques8on 1
K1044943 Page 48
Table 8: Results for Research Ques8on 2
K1044943 Page 49
4.0.2.2.Data Displayed and Analysis
This section will describe and summarise with the help of graphs, the results of the survey
helping to have a clearer picture of the tendency of the answers provided for the company´s
employees.
K1044943 Page 50
Q1: How important are the following characteristics for you in order to improve/ be more
innovative in your daily work?
In this question respondents were asked to rate the level of importance of some
characteristics that, according to Martins and Terblanche’s model, support innovative
behaviour. The graph (below) shows clearly that none of the respondents considered
unimportant these characteristics. However, some of them were found to be more important
such as “trust”, “open communication”, “support from manager”, “reward and recognition”
and “team-work”. On the other hand, “continuous learning culture” and “shared mission
and vision” appeared not to be so important to more number of employees.
Q2: Please rate the strength of your agreement with each of the following statements regarding the current practices carried out in your organisation.
In question number two, respondents were asked to rate the level of their agreement with
several statements about how current practices are carried out in the company. The values
given were from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Results for these statements are presented using several graphs and charts, grouping them
into five categories; strategy, support mechanism, behaviour that encourages innovation and
communication. These categories refer to the determinants of organisational culture that
influence creativity and innovation, according to Martins and Terblanche (2003).
Strategy
Shared Vision and Mission and Purposefulness
The graph (1) below provides us with an overview of how well the organisation´s strategy
is passed through employees. At first glance, it is seen that the majority of respondents are
aware of how their job contributes to the organisation´s objectives. Similarly, they believe
K1044943 Page 51
that managers ensure mission and vision are understood in the company; however slightly
more than 21% of the respondents in this statement, do not have a clear opinion about it.
Structure
Flexibility
The chart (2) below provides us with an overview of how flexible the organization is
perceived by the respondents. According to this chart, almost 80% of employees perceive
the company as flexible whereas less than 10% think it is inflexible. However, 14% of the
respondents do not see it either as flexible or inflexible.
Freedom
The graph (3) below provides us with an overview of the level of freedom respondents
believe to have in the company. In both categories, more than half of the respondents
agreed with the statements; however, more respondents considered having more freedom to
act within guidelines than freedom to act creatively. Furthermore, disagreement with both
statements does not reach more than 6% together.
As freedom is manifested in autonomy, empowerment and decision making, charts 4 and 5,
further below, help to look in more detail into the level of freedom respondents have in
their workplace.
K1044943 Page 52
Chart 4 (on the left) show results for the statement: Around here, people are allowed to try
to solve the same problems in different ways; 69% of the respondents agreed with the
statement whilst 18% reflected disagreement. Likewise, chart 5 (on the right) shows results
for the reversed coded statement: The main function of members is to follow orders which
come down through channels. Nearly half of the respondents did not agree with it, meaning
that this percentage of respondents believed to have autonomy and decision making in their
work. However, a significant percentage (35%) also believes the opposite, whereas 17%
were not sure about it.
Team-work
Charts 5 provide us with an overview of results for the reverse coded statement “Members
in this organisation tend to work individually”. According to the results, 57% of the
respondents disagreed with this statement whereas slightly more than half corroborated it.
Chart 6 (on the right), presents results for the level agreement with the statement: “The
team members in my department support each other”. At first glance, it can be seen that a
significant number of respondents rated their department as supportive; on the other hand,
some respondents thought the opposite, although this number was not significant in
comparison with the level of agreement.
Support Mechanisms
Reward and Recognition
The graph 7 (below) shows information about respondents’ opinions for three statements
measuring reward and recognition inside the company. From the graph, we can see that the
K1044943 Page 53
first two bars show the same trend, meaning that just slightly more than 40% of the
respondents believe the company offers an encouraging reward system and also public
recognition for innovation. Interestingly, as first as second statements showed 30% and
26% of disagreement respectively.
On the other hand, third statement, which measure opportunities to grow openly, showed a
different trend. Third bar illustrate us with these results, where it can be seen that a higher
percentage of respondents believe to have opportunities to grow in the company.
Additionally more than 17% of the respondents strongly agreed with this view.
Availability of Resources
The graph 8 (below) provides an overview of respondents´ opinion about the availability of
resources such as time, economic funding and availability of personnel in the organisation.
First, results for the statement: “There are adequate resources devoted to innovation”
produced a general insight about the availability of resources in the organisation. From the
graph, it can be seen that 61% do not have a certain opinion whilst 31% agreed with the
statement.
Second bar presents outcome for the statement: “This organisation gives me free time to
pursue creative ideas during the workday¨; results pointed out that 56% of the respondents
do not think they have free time for this specific objective. On the other hand, just 18% of
them agreed with the statement; however, a significant percentage neither agreed nor
disagreed with it.
Finally, the last two reverse coded statements concern to lack of funding and personnel
shortages. Results for the statement “Lack of funding to implement employees´ ideas is a
problem” showed that 44% of the respondents are unsure about this issue; nevertheless,
35% expressed disagreement against a 21% of agreement.
K1044943 Page 54
The last bar corresponds to the statement “Personnel shortages inhibit improvements”;
respondents who did not share this view accumulated 61%. Conversely, 22% of the
respondents hold an opposite opinion.
Behaviour that Encourages Innovation
Mistake handling
Mistake handling was measured with two statements regarding the opportunity to discuss
failures and the punishment of mistakes in the organisation. Chart 9 and 10 below will
illustrate us with the results.
Chart 9 (on the left), provides us with an overview of the results for the statement “This
organisation gives me the opportunity to discuss failures”. At first glance, we can see that
the level of support of this statement reached 83% against just a 4% of disagreement.
Chart 10 (on the right) shows results for the reverse coded statement “This organisation
punishes members who make mistakes”; more than half of the respondents expressed
agreement with the statement. Moreover, 31% did not hold a precise opinion, leaving just a
17% of disagreement.
Support for Change/Continuous learning culture
K1044943 Page 55
The graph 11 (below) provides an overview of the results for 6 statements (first four are
reverse coded) concerning the level of support for change and continuous learning culture
in the company
Bar number one shows results for the statement “This place seems to be more concerned
with the status quo than with change”; the percentage of disagreement with this statement
reached 74% whereas percentage of agreement was just 9% of the respondents.
Second bar illustrate us with results for the statement: “The best way to get along in this
organisation is to think the way the rest of the group does”; 70% of the respondents
disagree with the item whilst 21% of them agreed with it.
Third column refers to the statement “People are expected to deal with problems in the
same way”; results demonstrate that 61% of respondents did not hold a certain belief about
this statement. On the other hand, 26% and 13% of the respondents rated it as disagree and
agree respectively.
The last reverse coded statement “In this organisation, we tend to stick to tried and true
ways” threw results which support it with more than 65% whereas just 4% disagreed with
it.
Finally the last two columns present results for the statements “This organisation is open
and responsive to change” and “Assistance in developing new ideas is readily
available”;results for both present the same trend, which no less than 70% of the
respondents supported each item in comparison to just 9% of disagreement.
Risk taking, Conflict Handling and Competitiveness
The graph 12 (below) contains results for four statements which provide an overview of
respondents’ perceptions about risk taking, conflict handling and competitiveness. First
K1044943 Page 56
column corresponds to the statement “I am allowed to take risks regarding my job” in
which the percentage of support reached 61% whereas 22% of the respondents rated as
disagree.
Second and third column show results for the management of conflict handling in where the
statement “Disagreements between groups are well managed in this organisation” appears
to attain 57% of support while 26% respondents think the opposite. On the other hand the
reverse coded statement: “This organisation tends to hold preferences regarding certain
people” placed in the third column shows that more than 50% of the respondents share this
opinion. Moreover a significant 35% did not make a decision in regard to this statement.
Finally, results for the fourth statement “A person can´t do things that are too different
without provoking anger” resulted with a 65% of respondents´ disagreement. However,
13% support for this item was reached.
Communication
Open Communication and Trust
The graph 13 (below) show results for the category communication, which is formed of
trust and open communication; therefore, first two bars (from up to down) refer to
acceptance of feedback and open communication in the organisation; the trend for both
statements appears to behave similarly, with no less than 60% of support and 9% of
disagreement in each statement. Furthermore percentage of respondents who did not hold a
clear opinion reached 30% and 26% respectively.
Trust is point out in third and fourth columns; third column shows results for the statement:
“I feel my suggestions are valued in this company” in which 61% of the respondents agreed
with it whereas a moderate 22% hold an opposite opinion. Additionally, 17% neither agreed
nor disagreed with the statement.
K1044943 Page 57
Fourth column correspond to measures for the statement: “The people in charge around
here usually get credit for others’ ideas”. Results demonstrate that 61% of the respondents
do not have this belief, although a significant 26% backed it up.
4.0.3. Interviews Results
Interviews were held by telephone following a structured flow set by the researcher;
therefore, time management was important in order to obtain the information which could
contribute to gain a better understanding of the employees’ point of views.
As a general overview, the table below presents the questions addressed in every interview;
however, other questions were also used. Therefore, the following table presents a summary
of the key points found in these interviews.
K1044943 Page 58
Table 9: Interviews Summary
4.0.4. Conclusions
This chapter has presented the results and findings gathered through primary research
methods such as survey and interviews. In presenting these results, base constructions and
data displays were used which helped summarise and provide clarity to the results
described. Furthermore, an overview of the company was also presented in order to clarify
the context of the research.
K1044943 Page 59
5.0. Analysis and Discussion
This section will answer the research questions set in chapter four of this study; followed
by a discussion and analysis of the empirical results found in the primary research in order
to prove our guide model of how to build a culture of innovation by Martin and Terblanche
(2003). Moreover, only the most important and influencing results will be mentioned and
referred to the literature review. Additionally, the subject of this study has been biased
K1044943 Page 60
towards one Mexican company which provides financial services; therefore, the data
acquired involves employees´ perceptions and point of views about this company.
As an overview, we can say that this study has proven the importance of the determinants
for innovation pointed out by Martin and Terblanche along with some practices, mainly
those who come from managers which help employees be innovative. Therefore, these
practices are those which this company need to develop for their own benefit. Indeed, the
results shown in this dissertation will be used for this specific purpose only.
5.0.1. What organisational practices in[luence innovation?
This question can be answered with question number one from the questionnaire, which
highlights the importance of the characteristics for innovative behaviour proposed by
Martin and Terblanche (2003). Additionally, responses from interviews add more insight to
this discussion.
Thus, following the results, it was found that all the fourteen determinants suggested in our
guide model, influence at some extent employees’ innovative behaviour. Interestingly,
factors such as “open communication”, “support from manager”, “trust”, “reward &
recognition” and “teamwork”; were rated as strongly important by more number of
respondents.
Accordingly, these are strong factors that influence innovative behaviour in the company.
Furthermore, “support from manager” plays a key role in innovation; when employees feel
supported by their supervisor, this would affect the quality of their relationship through a
better communication based on trust and respect. I therefore forward my first proposition:
P1. Managerial support has a positive and significant impact on creating innovative
behaviour.
This argument can be supported by our literature review, which underlines that high levels
of support improves the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor,
having also an effect on trust and respect between them (Scott & Bruce, 1994).
K1044943 Page 61
“Open communication” was also found to influence innovation. In this case, as this
company employs a small number of people, easy access to members, top managers, teams
and departments was considered to facilitate team-work and communication among them.
“It is relatively easy to implement new ideas because we are not many employees;
consequently, this facilitates the contact and agreement with other members involved in one
project” (Contreras, 2011). I therefore forward my second proposition:
P2. Open communication has a positive and significant impact on creating innovative
behaviour.
Furthermore, results also showed that “reward and recognition” could influence innovative
behaviour on employees. The literature review points out that, providing this kind of
support to employees who create solutions and generate ideas, would motivate other
members to do so (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Therefore, employees are more likely to
be stimulated to improve their work if the company, as a way of noticing their efforts,
offers employees some kind of “reward and recognition”.
On the other hand, “continuous learning culture” was a factor that was rated as neither
important nor unimportant; however, this frequency was not significant. A continuous
learning culture is strongly related to other determinants such as “freedom”, “mistake
handling” and “conflict handling”, which were rated as important factors for innovation in
this study. Thus, this relationship is explained next: when managers enhance employees’
capabilities by motivating them to make their own choices and decision, this is a reflection
of freedom. Consequently, having freedom and support to act, employees can take risk
regarding their own tasks. However, if any failure is committed, it is important not to take it
as a mistake, but as a way of learning. Additionally, other aspects already mentioned such
as trust, communication and support are important to achieve a continuous learning culture.
Therefore, I forward my third proposition:
P3. Continuous learning culture has a positive and significant impact on creating
innovative behaviour.
K1044943 Page 62
Supporting this statement, our literature review underlines that in a continuous learning
culture members are free to experiment and learn from experiences, not being punished for
mistakes and take failures as a learning outcome (Honey, 1991 in Jashapara, 2005).
Furthermore, “shared organisational mission and vision” is agreed to be an important
determinant for innovation, since it is a guide that leads to reaching the company’s
objectives (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Nevertheless, according to results in this study,
“shared organisational mission and vision” was the factor that had the highest frequency of
respondents who believed that this determinant was not important or unimportant. An
explanation for this could be that these respondents (30%) did not relate this factor to
innovation. Moreover, they could think that knowing the company´s mission and vision
cannot affect the way to improve a process; however, this is only a speculation.
Therefore, it is possible to say this study confirms arguments regarding the importance of
the determinants for innovation exposed in Martins and Terblanche´s model (2003).
Nevertheless, another factor mentioned in the interviews was “necessity”. Interestingly, the
“necessity to do your job in less time is what sometimes drives you to come up with an idea
to improve your work” (Paz, 2011). Based on these findings, I forward the fourth
proposition:
P4: The necessity to accomplish the job has a positive and significant impact on creating
innovative behaviour.
According to this statement, the literature review highlights that job satisfaction concerns
with employees´ commitment to realising their job (Yee et al., 2008) while motivation is
about the desire to perform well (Hill, 2005). Therefore, the necessity to do a task in less
time could be related to both, job satisfaction and motivation. Job satisfaction because
feeling committed to meeting performance standards employees would look for new ways
to improve on processes and tasks. Additionally, employees could also feel motivated by
the desire to achieve personal objectives.
K1044943 Page 63
5.0.2. How innovative behaviour is supported or inhibited in the organisation?
This research question can be answered with question number two in the questionnaire
which measures the degree of support for innovation in the organisation. Therefore, this
discussion will analyse five main categories which encompass the determinants for
innovation suggested in Martins and Terblanche´s model. These categories are: “strategy”,
“structure”, “support for change”, “behaviour that encourages innovation” and “open
communication”.
This study shows that the company has been successful in communicating its objective and
vision to employees. Respondents considered knowing how their job contributes in
achieving these objectives. The literature review mentions the importance of sharing and
articulating clearly the company’s mission and vision (Sarros, et al., 2008; Martins &
Terblanche, 2003).Therefore, this could lead to thinking that all members understand the
company’s mission and vision; however, to know the mission and vision is different from
understanding them. Indeed, from results in question number one, some of the respondents
seem not to be aware of the importance of the company´s strategy.
Nevertheless, different objectives are set depending on each department and its manager;
while some of them encourage innovation by asking members to develop ideas, solutions
and processes, some others think this is unnecessary. Therefore, it is uncertain that the
company, as a whole, holds a strategy that strongly supports innovation. Based on this, I
forward my fifth proposition.
P5: Alignment between organisational and departmental mission and vision towards a
strategy that supports innovation, stimulate innovative behaviour in organisations.
The literature review underlines that a structure which promotes innovation should have a
flat structure, where members work in an environment where there is flexibility, freedom
and cooperative and respectful teams (Martins and Terblanche, 2003). Therefore, these
results show firstly, that most employees see the company as “flexible”; from the
interviews, respondents revealed that the fact that there is flexibility in processes, policies,
K1044943 Page 64
working hours along with an informal structure, makes employees perceive the company as
flexible. According to this, I forward my sixth proposition:
P6: Flexibility in processes, policies, working hours and structure is positively related to
stimulating innovative behaviour in organisations.
Furthermore, the degree of freedom in the company was also rated as favourable for
innovation. Even though this was not a full agreement among respondents, it was found
that some departments were more likely to encourage employees to create new solutions
and improve processes by giving them freedom and support. On the other hand, employees
didn’t feel motivated to innovate and suggest ideas from departments were managers did
not allow them to make decisions. As stated by Cifuentes (20011) “The Company does not
motivate me to be innovative because my manager takes all the decisions and he does not
listen to my point of views”.
P7: The degree of freedom an employee is given is positively related to stimulating
innovative behaviour in organisations.
Additionally, team-work also supports a structure which promotes innovation. Mclean
(2005) points out that innovation concerns more about the interaction of people in the
organisation and the environment around them. Therefore, based on this research, this
company encourages employees to build team-working as the open plan office facilitates
open communication and accessibility to other departments. Thus, it can be said that team-
work supports innovation by encouraging members to transmit and share ideas, work
together toward the same objective while allowing a continuous learning culture. Moreover,
the degree of support inside departments was positively rated. Similarly, team-work is a
determinant that also promotes competitiveness, leading employees to learning, improving
and succeeding continuously. Conversely, in team-works where members are in constant
fight to gain attention and recognition, could lead to a negative workplace environment.
Hence, I forward the eighth proposition:
P8: Team-work is positively related to stimulating innovative behaviour in organisations.
K1044943 Page 65
Support mechanisms such as reward, recognition and availability of resources are discussed
next. Firstly, respondents had a divided opinion regarding rewards and recognition in the
company. The reward system is made up of an annual reward based on employees’ annual
performance. However, based on the survey and interviews employees would be more
satisfied and motivated if the company offers them additional benefits. Not only economic
rewards were mentioned, but also incentives such as activities for integration and
socialisation among staff. Indeed, the effect that rewards have on innovation could drive
employees to make an extra effort in their jobs.
The literature review emphasises the importance of support mechanism to create the
environment that influence employees to improve and give better results (Scheider et al., in
Ahmed 1998). Additionally, companies should reward and recognise employees who not
only create and give solutions but also employees who take risks, experiment and generate
ideas (Martins and Terblanche, 2003).
In regard to recognition of innovative employees, this seems to be practiced in the
company. Likewise, employees see the organisation as a place where they can grow openly.
Therefore, both public recognition and professional growth stimulate employees to work
for a purpose that leads to a continuous improvement. Moreover, recognitions through
professional growth makes employees keep interested in their jobs since this could be drive
employees to achieve their targets. This statement is supported by Hill (2005), who
specifies that in order to keep people motivated and committed to their job, this must be
challenging and interesting. Moreover, setting higher but reachable and challenging goals
also works as a motivator for employees (Latham & Locke, 1979, Sarros et al., 2008).
Based on these findings, I forward the next proposition:
P9: Reward and recognition is positively related to stimulating innovative behaviour in
organisations.
Concerning the “availability of resources”, the survey indicates that not many resources
such as time and funding are available for innovation. However, regardless the availability
of free time, employees look for continues improvements in order to do their job in less
K1044943 Page 66
time. Alternatively, the survey also points out that personnel shortages are not considered to
affect innovation. Indeed, personnel shortages could be a driver for continuous
improvements in this company since some interviewees considered that because of
personnel shortages, every employee should improve their work by their own initiative.
Based on these findings I forward the next proposition:
P10: Availability of Resources neither inhibit nor support innovative behaviour in
organisations.
Some authors agree that “availability of resources” is not a factor for innovation (Scott &
Bruce, 1994). However, other theories stress that time, personnel and technology are
drivers for creativity (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Unfortunately, it is difficult to say that
“availability of resources” in this company has an effect on innovation.
Based on this paper, employees could be motivated to innovate and share ideas through a
define programme, suggestion scheme or ideas room. This could be supported by Hill´s
statement (2005) that a good way to involve employees to achieve improvements in the
organisation can be through suggestions schemes (Hill, 2005). By this means, employees’
ideas can go further than the idea generation stage (Ahmed, 1998). Consequently, the next
proposition is:
P11: Employees involvement through define programs, suggestion schemes or ideas room
stimulate innovative behaviour in organisations.
Different ways of behaviour encourages innovation. Nevertheless, this could differ
depending on every employee, department and its manager. For instance, the way mistakes
are handled is one of this behaviour. According to results, mistakes are tolerated at some
extent in the company; this is because even though they can be discussed, employees can
also be punished for making it. Furthermore, conflict handling is another way of behaviour
that encourages innovation. Results for “conflict handling” indicate that the 57% of
respondents believe that disagreements between groups are well managed, while 26% of
them thought the opposite. However, respondents feel that even though conflict handling is
K1044943 Page 67
well managed, preferences for certain people exist in this company; therefore, this could
misbalance the conflict handing in some of the departments. I therefore propose the
following:
P12: Punishment of mistakes inhibits innovative behaviour in organisations.
P13: Holding preferences for people inhibit innovative behaviour in organisations.
Following results, communication between members, managers and departments was
favourably rated. This results from the fact that the company has an informal structure and
also informal communication among staff which makes managers and top managers more
accessible. Furthermore, as communication would not happen without trust, results also
show that respondents have trust to share their ideas without the fear to be judged or
criticise by others. Consequently, employees feel that with trust and respect feedback is
more likely to be accepted in a positive way. I therefore forward the last propositions:
P14: The degree of trust employees have to share ideas in the organisation is positively
related to the level of communication and consequently;
P15: Informal and open communication among staff supports innovative behaviour in
organisations.
This statement is supported by our literature review which emphasises that trust and
communication among managers, employees, teams and departments will permit the flow
of ideas (Martins and Terblanche, 2003).
5.0.3. Limitations
Conducting this study had some limitations. Firstly, the fact that only one company was
analysed limited the findings for this study. Secondly, as the company studied is based in
other country, this limited the collection of data through other methods such as observation.
Thirdly, as Yin (2009) highlights that the collection of data trough multiple methods
increase the validity of case studies; however, since the application of questionnaire used a
survey online service there is a possibility that respondents were unrepresentative from the
K1044943 Page 68
sample since they might have had a particular interest in some of the research. Finally, time
and language were also other limitations. It was difficult to collect and clarify data because
of the time difference and distance. Although eight interviews were conducted via
telephone, the limited time detained from clarification of some responses; however, Collis
and Hussey (2009) point out that telephone interviews are a valuable method of collecting
data for saving cost and time. In addition to this, information from the interviews had to be
translated it from Spanish into English consequently, there were some cases of
misinterpretation of terms that led to contradictions in this study.
5.0.4. Recommendations for Future Research
As this study cannot confirm that all determinants proposed in our main model have an
impact in all organisations, further research recommendations include a multiple case study
in which a comparison of the determinants that drives to innovation in small and big
companies would be interesting since it could broaden perspectives of innovative behaviour
in different scenarios.
Other recommendations for future research would be in regard to factors influencing
innovation on a multinational firm with branches different countries in order to consider the
strength of national culture against the strength of a company´s culture.
5.0.5. Conclusions
From answering these two research questions, this study contributes with 15 propositions
which support in great part Martins and Terblanche´s model for innovative behaviour, with
the exception of the “availability of resources” factor. Indeed, all determinants were found
to be important for innovation according to employees in this study.
Moreover, the company studied carries out some of these practices which influence
positively innovation and drive employees to constant improvements. Practices such as
flexibility, informal structure, trust, open communication and team work are among some
of these practices. Nevertheless, from the results and interviews it can be said that many of
the determinants for innovation are supported or inhibited by managers in each department.
K1044943 Page 69
This supports other authors´ studies such as Sarros et al., (2008) and Schein (2004) which
emphasise that managers are responsible for creating the climate and culture for innovation.
6.0. Conclusions
The purpose of this dissertation was to analyse how organisations can build a culture of
innovation. By trying to answer this question, two research questions were developed in
order to prove Martins and Terblanche´s model. These are: what organisational practices
influence innovation and how innovative behaviour is supported in the organisation under
study. These research questions were answered according to employees’ perceptions.
This study has found that employees in this company considered important at some extent
all the determinants proposed in the guide model. Indeed factors such as “trust”, “open
communication”, “support from manager”, “reward and recognition“ and “team-work”
were found to be strongly important for innovation. On the other hand, “shared
organisational mission and vision” was the only determinant that was considered to be
neither unimportant nor important for more number of employees.
Furthermore, different ways of supporting and also inhibiting innovation are carried out in
the company. This study proved that “flexibility”, “team work”, “open communication” and
“trust” drives employees to deliver better outcomes in their work. Additionally, other
actions such as “freedom”, “empowerment”, “risk taking” and “decision making”, also
stimulate employees’ innovative behaviour. However, these actions depend mainly on every
department and its manager´s attitudes toward innovation. Moreover, it was found that in
departments were managers offered this support employees were more likely suggest ideas
and improve their work.
K1044943 Page 70
Furthermore, conflict handling and mistake handling are well managed at some extent. In
regard to mistakes, these can be discussed, but depending on their repercussions, these
could also be punished. Furthermore, the existence of preferences in the company might
affect the conflict handling according to the research.
On the other hand, results showed that offering more economic and non-economic rewards
could motivate more the staff in the company. Moreover, contrary to the guide model,
availability of resources such as time, people and funding were not found to have an impact
on innovative behaviour, perhaps for the type of tasks and the type of organisation. Indeed,
these findings support other author’s opinions which considered that supply resources do
not affect innovative behaviour (Scott & Bruce, 1998). Nevertheless, other kind of facilities
apart from these should be available for innovation so that employees can suggest and share
opinions and ideas at any time. It was also found that a “shared mission and vision” is
articulated in the company. However it is uncertain that the company, as a whole, holds a
strategy that strongly supports innovation. Table 9 summarises the main points for both of
the research questions.
K1044943 Page 71
From these conclusions, the following propositions were forwarded:
K1044943 Page 72
Table 11: Research Proposi8ons
Nevertheless, this research supports in great part the set of factors proposed in the guide
model. Even though factors such as availability or resources, rewards and shared
organisational mission and vision are not fully implemented in order to support innovation;
however, this do not stop employees from being innovative. Additionally, it is concluded
that in order to build a culture of innovation, managerial attitude toward this objective it is
pivotal. Moreover that is the managers´ responsibilities to design the appropriate culture
that encourage innovation either in one department or in the company as a whole.
K1044943 Page 73
Furthermore, conducting this study had some limitations. These include not only the
limitation of finding because just one company was analysed, but also the fact that that this
company is based in other country made difficult the collections of data. Nevertheless, the
collection of data through two questionnaires and interviews ensured validity; however,
there is a possibility that the sample were unrepresentative since respondents they might
have had a particular interest the research.
Other limitations regarding language and time were also encountered in conducting this
study; there was difficulty to collect and clarify the data because of the time difference and
distance. Additionally information from the interviews had to be translating it from Spanish
into English and these could lead to some misinterpretations. Moreover, although 8
interviews were conducted, via telephone, the limited time detained from clarification of
some responses.
Further research recommendations include a multiple case study in which a comparison of
the determinants that drives to innovation in small and big companies would be interesting.
This kind of research could broaden perspectives of innovative behaviour in different
scenarios as this study cannot confirm that all determinants proposed in our main model
have an impact in all organisations. Additional recommendations include a study regarding
factors influencing innovation on multinational firms with branches in different countries.
K1044943 Page 74
7.0. References
Ahmed, P. (1998) ‘Culture and climate for innovation’ European Journal of Innovation Management, 1 (1) pp. 30-43
Blois, K.J. (1999) ‘Trust in business to business relationships: an evaluation of its status’, Journal of Management Studies, 36(2), pp. 197-215.
Brown, A. (1998) Organisational Culture. 2nd edn. London: Financial Times, Pitman Publishing.
Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change. 4th edn. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Carnall, C. (2007) Managing Change in Organizations. 5th edn. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2009) Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate & postgraduate students. 2nd edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Conway, S. and Steward, F. (2009) Managing and Shaping Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Damanpour, F. (1991) ´Organizational innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators´, Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), pp. 555-590.
Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan (1998) ´Theories of organisational structure and innovation adoption: the role of environmental change´, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 15, pp. 1-24.
De Menezes, L., Wood, S. and Gelade, G. (2010) ´The integration of human resource and operation management practices and its link with performance: a longitudinal latent class study´, Journal of Operations Management 28 pp. 455-471.
Deter, J., Schroeder, R. and Mauriel, J. (2000) ´A Framework for Linking Culture and Improvement Initiatives in Organizations´, The Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), pp. 850-863.
De Wit, B. and Meyer, R. (2004) Strategy: Process, Content, Context. 3rd edn. London: Thomson Learning.
K1044943 Page 75
Dovey, K. (2009) ´The role of trust in innovation´, The Learning Organisation, 16 (4), pp. 311-325.
Frambach, R. And Schilewaert, N. (2002) ´Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research´, Journal of Business Research, 55, pp. 163-176.
Fisher, C. (2007) Researching and Writing a Dissertation: A Guidebook for Business Students. 2nd edn. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Fugate, B., Stank, T. And Mentzea, J. (2009) ´Linking Improved Knowledge Management to Operational and Organizational Performance´, Journal of Operations Management, 27 pp. 247-264.
Ghauri, P. And Gronhaug, K. (2005) Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide. 3rd edn. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Gillham, B. (2000) Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum.
Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2005) 10 Rules for strategic innovators, from idea to execution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hatch, M. and Ann L. Cunliffe (2006) Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives.2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hays, J. and Hill, A. (2000) ´A preliminary investigation of the relationships between employee motivation/vision, service learning, and perceived service quality ´, Journal of Operations Management 19 pp. 335-349.
Hill, A. and Hill, T. (2011) Essential Operation Management. Palgrave McMillan: London
Hill, T. (2005) Operations Management. 2nd edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hislop, D. (2005) Knowledge Management in Organisations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G. (2005) Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jankowicz, A.D. (2005) Business Research Projects. 4th edn. London: Thomson Learning
Jashapara, A. (2004) Knowledge Management: An Integrated Approach. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
K1044943 Page 76
Johnson, G. (1992) Strategic Change and the Management Process. 3rd edn. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.
Jones, S. (1996) Developing a Learning Culture: Empowering People to Deliver Quality, Innovation and Long-term Success. London: McGraw-Hill.
Kitchell, S. (1995) ´Corporate Culture, Environmental Adaptation, and Innovation Adoption: A Qualitative/Quantitative Approach´, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (3) pp. 195-205.
Kobayashi, I. (1990) 20 Keys to Workplace Improvement. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Latham, G. And Locke, E. (1979) ´Goal Setting- A Motivational Technique that Works´, Organizational Dynamics, 8 (2), pp. 68-80.
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L. and Wearing, A. (2010) ´Leadership and trust: their effect on knowledge sharing and team performance´, Management Learning 41 (4) pp. 473-491.
Lemon, M. and Sahota, P. (2004) ´Organizational Culture as a Knowledge repository for increased innovative Capacity´, Technovation, 24 pp. 483-498.
Martin, J. (2002) Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain. Thousand Oaks, Calif., London: Sage
Martins, E. and Terblanche, F. (2003) ´Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation´, European Journal of Innovation Management 6 (1) pp. 64-74
McLean, L. (2005) ´Organizational Culture´s Influence on Creativity and Innovation: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Human Resource Development´, Academy of human Resource Development 7 pp. 226-246.
Mullins, L. (2008) Essentials of Organisational Behavior. 2nd edn. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Myers, M. (2009) Qualitative Research in Business & Management. London: Sage Publications.
Nonaka, I. (2007) ‘The knowledge-Creating Company’ Harvard Business Review, 85 (7/8) pp. 162-171.
Robbins, S. And Judge, T. (2009) Organizational Behaviour. 13th edn. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall
K1044943 Page 77
Rudestam, K. and Newton, R. (2007) Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guido to Content and Process. 3rd edn. London: Sage.
Sarros, J., Cooper, B. and Santora, J. (2008) ´Building a Climate for Innovation Through Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture´, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15 (2) pp. 145-158.
Schein, E. (2004) Organizational Change and Leadership. 3rd edn. San Francisco: Wiley.
Scott, S. and Bruce, R. (1994) ´Determinant of Innovative Behaviour: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace´, Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3) pp. 580-607
Seers, Anson, Petty, M M, and Cashman, James F. (1995). ‘Team-member exchange under team and traditional management’, Group and Organization Management, 20(1), 18.
Shen, H., Wang, L., Xu, Q., Li, Y. and Liu, X. (2009) ´Toward a framework of innovation management in logistics firms: a systems perspective´, Systems Research and Behavioural Science 26, pp. 297-309.
Singuaw, J., Simpson, P. And Enz, C. (2006) ´Conceptualizing innovation Orientation: A Framework for Study and Integration of Innovation Research´, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 23, pp. 556-574.
Senior, B. and Swailes, S. (2010) Organizational Change. 4th edn. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. 3rd edn. Chichester: Wiley.
Tushman, M. and Anderson, P. (2004) Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yee, R., Yeung, A. and Cheng, E. (2008) ´The impact of employee satisfaction on quality and profitability in high-contact service industries´, Journal of Operations Management 26, pp. 651-668.
Yin, R. (2009) Case Study research: Design and Methods. 4th edn. London: Sage
K1044943 Page 78
K1044943 Page 79
