Assigment Leaders_ Perceptions of Innovation Processes in Public Sector Org

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Innovation is essential for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector

organizations (PSOs; Wipulanusat et al., 2018). Although most PSOs are free from generating

profit similar to commercial enterprises, PSOs still need to innovate while adapting to changing

requirements by taking advantage of technologies for the effective and efficient delivery of

services to their citizenry (Wipulanusat et al., 2018). Innovation can be creative or novel

resolutions to problems and demands, including new services, new organizational structures, and

improved processes (Currie et al., 2008; Wipulanusat et al., 2018).

Despite the significance that innovation has for organizations, innovation has experienced

research material is analyzed, a description of the problem and purpose for the study, a research

question, an introduction to the conceptual framework, and the nature of the study. This chapter

also includes definitions of specific terms, the assumptions on which this study is based, the scope

of the study and limitations, the significance of the research as it applies to knowledge

development, applications, and social change. These subjects will be described and conclude with

a summary and transition to Chapter 2.

Background of the Study

The research focused on innovation has received significant academic attention for more

than 50 years, which has mostly focused on the private sector (Demircioglu & Audretsch, 2017).

It has only been during the past 20 years that researchers have recognized the significant position

held by the public sector. The public sector can represent between 20% and 34% of a developed

sector. But the difference between the public and private sectors is that the public sector exists

based on collected fees and tax revenue. In contrast, the private sector operates based on the

existence of profit. Additionally, the public sector’s leadership change potential is associated with

an election cycle that does not exist similarly in the private sector. Further, workplace motivation

for innovation differs between the public and private sectors, as the public sector lacks the award

mechanism more frequently available in the private sector (Wipulanusat et al., 2018). The private

sector can provide financial rewards to workers; the public sector relies on other factors

associated with leadership methods (e.g., transformational leadership). Leadership is the most

critical predictor of successful innovation (Wipulanusat et al., 2017).

Public sector workers play a significant role in delivering services, government success,

2018b). The public sector needs innovation to provide a constant flow of new and useful

government services and products (Shereif, 2019).

Innovation is necessary for improving service delivery by PSOs and the survival of the

organization (Arundel et al., 2019). PSOs have failed to fulfill their stakeholders’ expectations for

higher efficiency and service due to a lack of successful innovations (Moussa et al., 2018b).

However, there is little incentive in the public sector to innovate as there is little to gain, and there

is significant loss potential leading to an aversion of risk by leaders (Torugsa & Arundel, 2017).

Although several approaches may be considered when assessing reasons for the lack of PSI

results, there needs to be additional research on this issue from the perspective of relationships.

Additional research is necessary on the relationships of innovation and ambidextrous culture

innovation fail, it fuels constituent resentment, negative response from the media, opposition

criticism, and voters’ lack of confidence. Overcoming risk requires a positive attitude of

2018).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore skills public sector

leaders need to foster innovation. The explanation derives from an extensive literature review and

in-depth interviews obtaining views from mid-level leaders of a PSO. I intended to understand

how leaders perceive leadership for innovation and ambidextrous culture for innovation

relationships and how relationship perceptions affect innovations. Their perceptions were

assessed to understand leader relationship perceptions of relationships affecting innovation

development and acceptance. Interviews were conducted by telephone due to COVID-19. This

interaction of three complex factors of motivation, social, and the challenge of implementation.

According to Glor, motivation is relevant to both workers and leaders and includes intrinsic and

active, buy-in, pro-active, necessary, transformational, and continuous change. These patterns are

described more fully in Chapter 2.

The choice of the research method was a qualitative single case study (Hancock &

Algozzine, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Yin, 2018), as it provided the opportunity to explore

the leadership group’s perceptions about innovation processes in the public sector’s natural setting

and contextualized by the research participants’ experiences (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). A case study

is an empirical approach facilitating contemporary real-world information (Yin, 2018). Within the

case study design, a PSO was my focus that included several embedded units. This research

included 15–20 PSO non-executive, mid-level leaders as they are positioned within their

known to me. Participants met the following requirements: mid-level, non-executive leaders

currently or recently employed by a PSO having a minimum of 5 years of supervisory or

of evidence triangulation method (Yin, 2018).

Ambidextrous culture for innovation: Ambidextrous culture for innovation includes both

shared organizational norms and basic values (Wipulanusat et al., 2018). Shared organizational

norms and basic values are used to establish innovative practices, procedures, policies, and

structures in the work environment for a balance of exploration and exploitation (Benner &

Tushman, 2003).

leadership for innovation has a vital role in building processes, structures, and a climate for

innovation while motivating workers (Chan et al., 2014).

Mid-level leader: For this study, a mid-level leader is a federal employee of the pay

grades GS-13, GS-14, or GS-15 identified by the U.S. OPM (https://www.opm.gov/policy-

dataoversight/classification-qualifications/).

Public sector organization (PSO): A PSO is an organization that belongs to a government

(Glor, 2008).

Methodological assumptions are used in qualitative research to identify information that

may not be verifiable. Assumptions are information essential for framing research as the premise

links abstractions to observed phenomena given social, historical, political, and cultural

assumptions (Wolgemuth et al., 2017). Assumptions are out of the researcher’s control, but they

employment. I assumed that each research participant voluntarily participated in this research

project and was interested in innovation within their organization. The research pool participants

had previous experience considering how to manage innovation tasks, whether top-down or

questions from similar observation points.

Scope and Delimitations

Delimitations are the boundaries of research (Hancock & Algozzine, 2017). The scope

and delimitations for this research were attributed to the research design and methodology. The

within their work units. Other views exist regarding leaders’ perceptions of relationships affecting

innovation in PSOs outside the scope of this research. However, the intent was to develop a rich

and a deep understanding of the research participants’ observations and experiences to determine

the importance of relationships affecting innovation in the PSO (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The

results of this study may not be fully transferable to other PSO organizations. There are many

forms of PSOs with different missions, capabilities, operating environments, and goals. The

findings from this research may not be applicable to these organizations.

This research’s limitations are that the findings may not be transferable to other contexts

and may not represent all PSOs in the United States. The research was limited to federal midlevel

studying the PSO managerial perspectives on the relationship effects using PSO innovation theory

developed by Glor in 2008, which suggests that motivation, organization culture, and challenge to

implementation affect managerial perceptions. This study could improve the understanding of

managerial perceptions regarding innovation, which can then improve innovation development

for government service delivery. The study also contributes to reducing the gap in academic

literature assessing the factors affecting PSO managerial perceptions of relationships affecting

innovation processes.

Significance to Theory

This study adds to the growing body of knowledge for understanding innovation in PSOs.

PSO leaders are crucial to organizations as they hold a position to affect outcomes.

workplace innovation (Wipulanusat et al., 2018). This study adds insight on the leadership for

innovation and ambidextrous culture for innovation relationship, recognizing the value of PSO

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Oslo Manual. Most

research on PSI has focused on services; however, public sector polity deserves equal research

attention (Sorenson, 2017).

The need for more research on PSI is supported by the continued criticism of innovation

in the public sector for not having achieved the desired successes (Arundel et al., 2019; Moussa et

al., 2018b). Significant PSO costs are incurred while providing services to respective populations,

and innovation is needed to address societal challenges, including climate change, demographic

and a positive influence on environmental and social renewal. Bekkers et al. discovered that there

is a growing disconnection between governments and society. Specialization, differentiation, and

fragmentation for this ever-increasing difference have led to a one-dimensional view of complex

problems and needs.

The need for innovation within PSOs was evident in all reviewed literature. The common

need was that it is necessary to provide the affected populations with needed resources and

services. The authors differed in their approaches to the PSO innovation study, reflecting

innovations created from within the organizations. He referred to these innovations as bottom-up

development as these developments were part of official designs and developed by mid-level

managers and lower-level workers when provided the latitude to think about possible

improvement.

Wipulanusat et al. (2018) used a quantitative structured equation model for assessing data

to study the influence on two climates for innovation constructs, those being leadership and

organizational culture. The authors’ selection for this design was to support research for

Contributing to the need for innovation in PSOs are the financial pressures placed on PSOs. The

authors have provided research on the continuing need for innovation research specific to the

public sector. The need for PSI research is related to this study as it provides a foundational issue

and justification. .

al. was that the relationship between creativity and innovation is often assumed to be the same.

innovation association’s strength. The first level being the individual, the second is the team, and

the third is the firm level. Sarooghi et al. found that several other attributes affect the creativity

and innovation relationship in addition to the element queried, with those being firm size, type of

industry, and innovation type. Sarooghi et al. noted that their research design might influence the

creativity and innovation relationship results explained by their innovation processes, which vary

significantly across empirical contexts and research designs, resulting in tension. Sarooghi et al.

further described that the transformation of creative ideas into innovations represented by new

meaningful work, organizational vision, autonomy, slack resources, supervisory support,

deliberation, diversity, and organizational willingness to take risks.

Wang and Zhu (2011) conducted a quantitative study of creativity and leadership from a

transformational leadership approach. The authors’ focused on understanding the influence

observed by transformational leadership and their effects on creativity. While conducting their

research, Wang and Zhu noted that researchers do not fully understand the relationship between

transformational leadership and creativity. They observed that leadership, and specifically,

longitudinal study included one quantitative study and two qualitative studies that recognized the

fundamental link between creativity and innovation being key to an organization’s ability to

achieve goals. Amabile et al. described how organizations create workers and creative teams on

individual innovation potential. Leadership and multi-levels of leader behavior need to facilitate

an environment that supports workers’ potential to be creative and support innovation. Amabile et

al. noted three organizational creativity theories, componential theory, interactionist theory, and

multiple social domains theory. The componential theory was found by Amabile et al. to align

Understanding PSI

Researchers in this section describes the need for innovation in PSOs, requiring a

consistent or uniform understanding of PSI. Bekkers, Edelbos, and Steijn (2011) first described

and policy concepts.

transformational leadership, leader-member exchange theory, empowering leadership, and

authentic leadership.

Currie et al. (2008) approached PSI by viewing it through an entrepreneurial lens. Currie

et al. proposed a new definition for public sector entrepreneurship extending beyond existing

literature. Public sector entrepreneurship encompasses three distinct focuses, those being

stakeholder, entrepreneur, and political. The authors provided that public-sector entrepreneurship

public-sector entrepreneur differs from the private sector. The three previously identified aspects

of stakeholder, entrepreneur, and political must all work in concert, which differs from the private

sector.

PSI, according to Brown and Osborne (2005), is a radical discontinuity of the past. Brown

and Osborne found no less than 23 definitions describing innovation within the field of

management. Definitions of innovation have changed over time, reflecting the thought of many

noted management researchers. Given the numerous definitions for innovation and the breadth of

view, Brown and Osborne identified four features common to most of the 23 innovation

definitions. The first feature was newness, which refers to the first time or first use of the new

knowledge. The second feature is referred to as a relationship to an invention, where Brown and

transformation to a procedure or a product. The fourth feature Brown and Osborne described as

the most significant is the extent to which it involves changes or discontinuity related to

transformation. The authors further identified four categories for innovation: first, process;

second, product or service; third, governance; and fourth, conceptual.

explorative and exploitive concerns researched by Rosing et al. (2011). Gunzel-Jensen et al. found

that transformational leadership and empowering leadership had a positive relationship with PSI,

reflecting an association with explorative innovation. Gunzel-Jensen et al. did not identify or

provide additional information on exploitive innovation as they had previously provided on the

explorative transformation-empowerment dyad.

Borins (2002) approached the subject of PSI and leadership from a different point of

view. Rather than focusing on leadership approaches such as transformational, transactional, or

empowering, Borins focused on where in the organizational structure innovations were identified

and developed. Through case studies and quantitative analysis, Borins explored the relationship

between leadership and innovation. In his study, Borins considered three questions on innovation

via two views, bottom-up and top-down. Taking this approach to research permitted him to obtain

observations from both vantage points. Borins found that bottom-up innovation was challenging

as it required leaders to advocate for the idea and advance it through the organization. Bottom-up

innovations can be challenging to institute depending on the organization's structure and

adherence to bureaucratic processes. Top-down innovations are less problematic to initiate as,

according to Borins, higher levels of organizational leadership with formal authority direct the

and are likely to be placed on a formal advancement path.

are possible when social psychological constructs, including leadership for innovation and

ambidextrous culture for innovation, are present. Wipulanusat et al. found that leaders’ role is

important for creating work environments where creativity and innovation are encouraged,

resulting in workplace innovation in federal departments.

PSO Organizational Culture and Innovation Relationship

Glor (2002) described the organizational factors needed for creating innovative

environments. Glor described the organizational culture as a social structure where the motivation

problem, the problem must first be identified. With issues identified, the organization’s leaders

and subordinates need to comprehend how solutions are identified. This process, according to

Sarooghi, described creativity. Creativity is followed by others who represent either internal or

(2019) supported Sarooghi et al. view by noting that the terms innovation and creativity have

been used interchangeably by researchers. However, creativity and innovation are two different

parts and separated and sequential. Sherief portended that creativity is the initial stage for a new

and useful idea. The initial stage ends, according to Sherief, when the idea is turned into

something and becomes an innovation. Therefore, researchers themselves have determined that

creativity and innovation, although linked, are two separate functions.

considers the basis for the issue and supports the development of alternative solutions. According

to Moussa et al., PSOs need to create and maintain organizational cultures that encourage and

support creativity and innovation. Shereif (2019) noted that organizational culture or climate is

viewed as a set of tools guiding staff behavior. These tools, according to Shereif, included values

change is an innovation or simply a modification to an existing device or process. Moussa et al.

(2018b) determined that for PSOs to achieve organizational cultures and climates supporting

creativity and innovation, a systems approach for innovation capacity is needed.

Moussa, McMurray, and Muenjohn (2018c) found that a common understanding of PSI is

non-existent. However, PSI does share some common characteristics with business innovation.

Moussa et al. (2018c) found that PSI shares common traits with processes, services, products, and

methods to advance quality and efficiency.

always changing. Within their research, Rosing et al. described an ambidextrous leadership

condition where two complementary leadership approaches are necessary. These two conditions

support either explorative or exploitive innovation methods. According to March (1991), the

explorative process is connected with experimentation and risk-taking, while exploitation is

connected with reduced variance, adherence to rules, and risk avoidance. Jansen et al. associated

both explorative and exploitive as innovative approaches. Jansen et al.’s findings agree with

March and Rosing et al.’s description of explorative and exploitive innovation. The research

requiring development for successful PSI development and implementation is not consistent.

Sarooghi et al. (2015) considered three factors for their quantitative study assessing the cultural

dimensions for collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance. Sarooghi et al. found that

collectivism has little influence on the creativity- innovation relationship. This differed from the

focused on two specific aspects of culture or climate, those being initiative and psychological

safety. Glor (2001b) also identified Baer and Freses’s factors with similar terminology as key to

influencing innovation in PSOs.

According to Glor (2001b), PSOs providing cultures supporting innovation requires three

elements, those being motivation, exterior culture, and challenge to innovate. According to Glor,

motivation research is a concept encouraging behavior change within a workspace for

empowerment addressing unconscious, conscious, and proactive relationships. Glor’s description

organizational structure is a set of operating conditions. Moussa et al. (2018a) elaborated on the

culture and innovation relationship by noting that innovation lacks consistent measurement

criteria. Although the information provided by all researchers confirms the organizational culture

and innovation relationship, there is a lack of common understanding as to the degree the

relationship exists. This information places in context likely results from research regarding the

leadership for innovation and the ambidextrous culture for innovation relationships affecting

innovation.

PSI Theories

depict how innovation is adopted and spread over time. Roger’s theory identified five categories

of innovation adoption frequently represented using a bell curve. Rogers’s categories include the

and public sector relationships to describe how leader perspectives affect innovation in PSOs.

PSI Theory

Schumpeter (1942) first offered his innovation theory in 1942. Schumpeter described

innovation as having one or more of five characteristics: a new product or species, a new

informed that Schumpeter’s theory on innovation is described in the context of economics and

previous products are set aside to bring forward new processes or products. Schumpeter’s theory

focused on private sector organizations requiring the generation of profit for their survival. PSOs

usually operate on budgets funded via levies and taxes and do not generate profit. However, both

public and private organizations may innovate according to De Vries et al. (2016), which they

believe makes Schumpeter’s theory useful to PSOs to meet their profit goals delivery of services.

interaction of motivation, organizational culture, and implementation. Glor continued by noting

found during a Google search for innovation research articles that 1.4% of innovation research

innovate, the innovation process, and innovation initiatives likely to succeed. However, Gow

noted that there continued to exist differences among PSI researchers as to what constitutes a true

innovation. The issue is that the innovation spectrum includes a group asserting that lesser

improvements be considered an innovation. In contrast, another group advocates that innovation

is reflective of those processes or things having a significant impact. Bloch and Bugge (2013) also

recognized the argument and rationalized it as an absence of a common understanding of

innovation capacity measurement.

Workplace Leadership

Climates for Initiative

Baer and Frese (2003) described climates for initiative as requiring a work environment

and organizational culture where workers recognize problems and proactively identify each and

begin corrective measures. Baer and Frese provided a list of seven descriptions for initiative. Baer

2. workers search for solutions

3. workers seeking to become actively involved in problems

4. workers take the initiative

5. workers seek opportunities quickly to attain goals

6. workers do more than asked

7. workers are good at developing new ideas

Baer and Frese (2003) continued by noting that a climate for initiative is necessary for