Innovative Work Behaviour as Determinant of Process Innovation: An Empirical Analysis

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 27 - 35, 01.11.2023

Tuğba Özel , Ali Ekber Akgün

Öz

The purpose of this paper is to study empirically the relationships between innovative work be-haviour and process innovation. The paper hypothesis was created in the light of the literature. That hypothesis is validated using the Partial Least Squares, by Smart PLS statistical program, data collected by the survey method from the 62 firms located in technoparks in Istanbul. The findings revealed that innovative work behaviour is considered to be one of the key factors in both increasing and inhibiting process innovation. The findings supported our hypothesis. There is significant and positive relationships between innovative work behaviour and process inno-vation. This research presents findings that firms should support innovative work behaviour in order to increase process innovation. This paper jointly examines as an empirically in the same model the little-researched links between innovative work behaviour and process innovation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Innovative work behaviour, process innovation, technopark, Türkiye.

Süreç Yeniliğinin Belirleyicisi Olarak Yenilikçi İş Davranışı: Ampirik Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı, yenilikçi iş davranışı ve süreç yeniliği arasındaki ilişkileri ampirik olarak incelemektir. Bu makalenin hipotezi literatür incelemesi ışığında oluşturulmuştur. Bu hipotez, Smart PLS istatistik programıyla, İstanbul'daki teknoparklarda yer alan 62 firmadan anket yönte-miyle toplanan verilerin, Kısmi En Küçük Kareler metodu kullanılarak analiz edilmesiyle doğru-lanmıştır. Bulgular, yenilikçi iş davranışının süreç yeniliğini hem artıran hem de engelleyen kilit faktörlerden biri olarak saptanmıştır. Bulgular, hipotezimizi desteklemiştir. Yenilikçi iş davranışı ile süreç yeniliği arasında anlamlı ve olumlu ilişkiler saptanmıştır. Bu araştırma, firmaların süreç yeniliğini artırmak için yenilikçi iş davranışını desteklemesi gerektiğine dair bulgular sunmakta-dır. Bu makale, yenilikçi iş davranışı ve süreç yeniliği arasında, daha önce gözden kaçırılarak az araştırılmış bağlantıları aynı model içinde ampirik olarak birlikte incelemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yenilikçi iş davranışı, süreç yeniliği, teknopark, Türkiye.

Kaynakça

• References
• Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2009). Organizational emotional capability, product and process innovation and firm performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 26(3), 103–130.
• Becker, J. M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 359–394.
• Bos-Nehles, A., Renkema, M., & Janssen, M. (2017). HRM and innovative work behaviour: a systematic literature review. Personnel Review, 46(7), 12281253.
• Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R. M. (2003). The role of existing knowledge in new product innovativeness and performance. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 385–419.
• Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
• Chirumalla, K. (2021). Building digitally-enabled process innovation in the process industries: A dynamic capabilities approach. Technovation, 105, Article 102256.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Hillsdale). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Cumming, B. S. (1998). Innovation overview and future challenges. European journal of innovation management, 1(1), 2129.
• De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36.
• Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business Press.
• Dost, M., Badir, Y. F., Sambasivan, M., & Umrani, W. A. (2020). Open-and-closed process innovation generation and adoption: Analyzing the effects of sources of knowledge. Technology in Society, 62, Article 101309.
• Eriksson, T. (2014). Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(1), 65–82.
• Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1351–1374.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
• Frishammar, J., Kurkkio, M., Abrahamsson, L., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of firms process innovation capability: A literature review and a conceptual framework. In, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 519–529.
• Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.
• Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 616–632.
• Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
• Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
• Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.
• Karlsson, M., & Magnusson, M. (2019). The systems approach to innovation management. The Routledge Companion to Innovation Management. In (pp. 73–90). Taylor & Francis.
• Korzilius, H., Bücker, J. J. L. E., & Beerlage, S. (2017). Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 56, 13–24.
• McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational Culture’s Influence on Creativity and Innovation: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 226–246.
• Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human Resource Development International, 15(1), 43–59.
• Mumford, M. D., Whetzel, D. L., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1997). Thinking creatively at work: Organization influences on creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 7–17.
• Nieves, J., Quintana, A., & Osorio, J. (2014). Knowledge-based resources and innovation in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 38, 65–73.
• Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory: Second edition. Applied Psychological Measurement, 701.
• Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of innovative work behaviour: Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142–150.
• Robertson, P. L., Casali, G. L., & Jacobson, D. (2012). Managing open incremental process innovation: Absorptive capacity and distributed learning. Research Policy, 41(5), 822–832.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1941). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the capitalist process. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 104(2), 177.
• Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovatıve behavior: A path model of individual innovatıon in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.
• Taghipour, A., & Dezfuli, Z. K. (2013). Innovative behaviors: Mediate mechanism of job attitudes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 1617–1621.
• Teece, D. J.. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
• Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organizational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303313.
• Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(Suppl 10), 991–995.
• Wu, C., de Jong, J. P. J., Raasch, C., & Poldervaart, S. (2020). Work process-related lead userness as an antecedent of innovative behavior and user innovation in organizations. Research Policy, 49(6), Article 103986.
• Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342.
• Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.