Ronayne (Barry) Thesis Final Draft

Research Thesis MBS IEB 2013

Research Thesis for the

Masters of Business Studies: Innovation in European Business

“Investigating the Relationship between Organisation Culture

and the Adoption of Innovation” Name: Barry Ronayne Date: 20th November 2013 Supervisor: Kobus Smit


© Utrecht University of Applied Sciences 2

Abstract This paper seeks to determine the relationship between organisational culture and the adoption of innovation. This relationship is detailed through the investigation of one firm, based in Ireland. This paper looked at the relationship at a high level to identify the areas of organisational culture that had the strongest and weakest correlation with adoption of innovation, and followed this by investigating in more detail the relationships between innovation adoption and three specific elements of organisational culture: Strategy, Relationships, and Leadership. This paper contributes two primary areas of interest: a detailed review of existing literature in relation to this area; and extensive analysis of the results found from the investigations into the relationship between organisational culture and innovation adoption in one organisation. An overview of the literature indicates that both organisational culture and innovation have been extensively researched over the years, and there are many different definitions and models available to explain these concepts. Studies investigating the relationship between the two, however, have only begun to be conducted in earnest in recent years. The literature presents several different models for measuring the culture of the organisation. This paper focuses primarily on an organisational culture model developed recently known as the X Model (Smit et al, 2008). The framework developed by Tan & Teo (2001), which investigated relationships between innovation adoption and organisational culture was also identified, along with other innovation adoption models. Furthermore, this framework, along with the X Model, was used to develop a survey, which investigated both organisational culture and innovation adoption within the organisation identified above. The results of the investigation provide an overview of the culture present within the organisation, as well as the organisations willingness to innovate, through descriptive statistics. The findings also include bivariate analysis of the elements of organisational culture against innovation elements, in order to determine the relationships present between them. Specifically the relationships between innovation adoption and three elements of organisational culture were analysed in depth: Strategy, Relationships, and Leadership. These results were discussed in order to interpret the relationships that are seen to exist. Finally, the limitations of this research and recommendations for future research are discussed. It was found that the strategy and relationship elements had the strongest relationship with an organisation’s adoption of innovation, while leadership had the weakest correlation. Upon further investigation, it was found that when all members of an organisation were informed of long-term strategic goals of an organisation, and when employee’s talents were encouraged through training and development, the attitude towards innovation was much greater than it would be otherwise. It was also found that strong leadership leads to a reduction in perceived behavioural controls, while simultaneously increasing the confidence in subjective norms of an organisation.



Acknowledgements I would firstly like to thank my thesis supervisor, Kobus Smit, for his tireless efforts both with me personally, and with the entirety of the MBS IEB class. His support, teaching, understanding and availability were beyond reproach for the duration of the programme. I am very grateful for the help and direction he has given me, and without his efforts this thesis would not have been possible. Thank you also to the organisation that allowed me to conduct my research. You granted me more access than I expected, and gave me a deep understanding of, not only your industry, but of the nature of innovation in practice. Without the participation of the staff at all levels of the organisation, I could not have completed this project. Thank you for your time and insight. To the lecturers in University College Cork, ISC School of Management Paris, and Hogeschool Utrecht, thank you for all your work throughout the 15 months of this Innovation in European Business masters programme. You gave me the tools necessary to undertake this thesis, and your knowledge has been invaluable. Finally, to my classmates, thank you all for making these last 15 months so enjoyable. We would not have survived this master’s programme without everyone helping out, both with college work and with encouraging frequent breaks from college work! Thank you.



Table of Contents 1 Introduction & background ............................................................................... 6

2 Literature Review .............................................................................................. 8 Organisational Culture .................................................................................................... 8 Definition ............................................................................................................................ 8 Organisational Culture Models .......................................................................................... 9

Innovation and Innovation Adoption ............................................................................ 13 Definition .......................................................................................................................... 13 Innovation Adoption Models ........................................................................................... 14 Innovation Value Chain .................................................................................................... 19

Organisational Culture and Adoption of Innovation ...................................................... 20 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 22

3 Research design & method ............................................................................. 23 Research Design ........................................................................................................... 23 The X-‐Model Framework .................................................................................................. 23 Tan & Teo Research Framework (Tan & Teo 2000) .......................................................... 24 The Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey ......................................................... 24

Research Method ......................................................................................................... 25 Data Sample ................................................................................................................. 25 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 25 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 25 Limitations of the Research Method ............................................................................. 26 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 27

4 Findings and Discussion .................................................................................. 28 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 28 Descriptive Statistics .................................................................................................... 28 Organisational Culture: Leadership .................................................................................. 29 Organisational Culture: Strategy ...................................................................................... 30 Organisational Culture: Adaptability ................................................................................ 31 Organisational Culture: Co-‐Ordination ............................................................................. 32 Organisational Culture: Relationships .............................................................................. 33 Innovation Adoption ........................................................................................................ 34

Cross Tabulation Tables ................................................................................................ 35 Pearson’s R Correlation ................................................................................................ 36 Strategy and the Adoption of Innovation ......................................................................... 37 Relationships and the Adoption of Innovation ................................................................ 38 Leadership and the Adoption of Innovation .................................................................... 39

Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 40

5 Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................. 41 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 41 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 41 What is the relationship between Strategy and Innovation Adoption? ........................... 41 What is the relationship between Relationships and Innovation Adoption? ................... 42 What is the relationship between Leadership and Innovation Adoption? ...................... 42

Limitations and Recommendations ............................................................................... 43 In Practice .................................................................................................................... 43

6 References ...................................................................................................... 45

7 Appendices ..................................................................................................... 48



List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Schein’s (1984) Organisational Culture Model ........................................................... 9 Figure 2: Hofstede and Bond’s (1984) Organisational Culture Model ..................................... 10 Figure 3: Hofstede’s (1991) “onion” model of Organisational Culture ..................................... 11 Figure 4: Cameron & Quinn’s (1999) Competing Values Framework ..................................... 11 Figure 5: The X-Model (Smit et al 2008) ................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Rogers (1995) Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Multi-step Flow Theory) ................ 15 Figure 7: Roger’s (1995) Categories of Innovativeness .......................................................... 15 Figure 8: Phonkaew’s (2001) conceptual model of innovation adoption ................................. 16 Figure 9: Tan & Teo’s (2001) relationship between Organisational Culture and Innovation. .. 18 Figure 10: Hansen and Birkinshaw’s (2007) Innovation Value Chain ..................................... 19 Figure 11: Tuan & Venkatesh’s (2010) dimensions of organisational culture that influence technological innovation .......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 12: Kong-Seng & Yusof’s (2011) Conceptual model of organisational culture and innovation. ............................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 13: Pearson’s R Coefficient: A graphical representation. ............................................. 26 Figure 14: Pie Chart detailing the roles of respondents. ......................................................... 28 Figure 15: Leadership Sub Element responses. ..................................................................... 29 Figure 16: Strategy Sub Element responses. .......................................................................... 30 Figure 17: Adaptability Sub Element responses. ..................................................................... 31 Figure 18: Co-Ordination Sub Element responses. ................................................................. 32 Figure 19: Relationships Sub Element responses. .................................................................. 33 Figure 20: Innovation Adoption Sub Element responses. ....................................................... 34 Figure 21: Frequency charts of Leadership and Innovation Adoption, Leadership and Role. . 48 Figure 22: Frequency charts of Strategy and Innovation Adoption, Strategy and Role. .......... 48 Figure 23: Frequency charts of Adaptability and Innovation Adoption, Adaptability and Role.48 Figure 24: Frequency charts of Co-Ordination and Innovation Adoption, Co-Ordination and Role. ........................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 25: Frequency charts of Relationships and Innovation Adoption, Relationships and Role. ........................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 26: Frequency chart of Role and Innovation Adoption. ................................................ 49 Table 1: Smit et al’s (2008) sub elements of organisational culture. ....................................... 13 Table 2: Coding Manual for Data Analysis .............................................................................. 26 Table 3: Cross-Tabulation of Organisational Culture elements and Innovation Adoption ....... 35 Table 4: Correlation between Organisational Culture elements and Innovation Adoption ...... 36 Table 5: Detailed correlation between Strategy and Innovation Adoption ............................... 37 Table 6: Detailed correlation between Relationships and Innovation Adoption ....................... 38 Table 7: Detailed correlation between Leadership and Innovation Adoption .......................... 39 Table 8: Correlation between Role, Organisational Culture Elements, and Innovation Adoption ................................................................................................................................................. 50 Table 9: Detailed correlation between Strategy and Innovation Adoption ............................... 52 Table 10: Detailed correlation between Relationships and Innovation Adoption ..................... 53 Table 11: Detailed correlation between Leadership and Innovation Adoption. ....................... 54



1 Introduction & background

Organisational Culture has been a rich well of knowledge for researchers over the years, with a large variety in the definitions applied to it. What is clear from all the different definitions is that culture is a “critical factor in the success of any organisation” (Tuan & Venkatesh, 2010). Organisational Culture is an inherently tacit element to an organisation, in that there are no tangible, measurable outputs of the culture. The culture of an organisation is the ‘values, beliefs and hidden assumptions that organisational members have in common’ (Valencia et al, 2010). Essentially, Organisational Culture is best described as ‘the way we do things around here’ (Dasanayaka, 2009). It is clear that Organisational Culture is a very important element to any organisation, as it underlines the decisions made by an organisation, and drives the acceptance of change and development. With this in mind, Organisational Culture is a key element of this paper. Innovation is an important area for organisations in the current climate. It is important to note the difference between invention and innovation, where invention is the ‘creation and establishment of something new’ while innovation occurs when ‘the new idea, product or process is put into action’ (Yusof & Abidin, 2011). This indicates that innovation is a process that can be applied to reap the maximum benefits of creativity. Many different models of innovation have been designed in an attempt to improve innovation adoption within organisations. These models focus primarily on ‘structural explanations of innovation, failing to acknowledge the role of the human factor in the process of innovation’ (Jaskyte, 2004), and in research to date the ‘most consistent theme running through the innovation literature is that the empirical findings are inconsistent’ (Jaskyte, 2004). The research done to date paints an incomplete picture of the factors that influence innovation. Sarros et al (2008) wrote, “Organisational Culture has been conceptualised as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and organisational innovation”. Several researchers were noted by Tuan & Venkatesh (2010) as having argued that “organisational culture appears to have an influence on the degree to which innovation are stimulated in an organisation”. Furthermore, Tuan & Venkatesh (2010) felt that the “mismatches between current organisational culture and the demands of innovation may lead to a clash situation”. There has been a surge in research in recent years in the area of organisational culture, and there has also been extensive studies carried out on the influencing factors for innovation within an organisation. Recent research, such as Jaskyte (2004) and Dasanayaka (2009), has tended towards looking at the relationship between organisational culture and innovation in an attempt to find a link between the two. There has not, however, been much research into the relationship between these two areas, and the “influence of organisational culture on organisational innovativeness remains at a level of theory” (Jaskyte, 2004). This paper seeks to add to this research by investigating the relationships between Organisational Culture and Innovation that exist in an established organisation. In order to bridge the gap between these two elements, the research question presented by this paper is: “What is the relationship between Organisational Culture and Innovation Adoption?” At a deeper level, this paper proposes a series of questions to provide a greater understanding of this relationship. These sub questions are:

1. What is the relationship between Strategy and Innovation Adoption? 2. What is the relationship between Relationships and Innovation Adoption? 3. What is the relationship between Leadership and Innovation Adoption?

These questions seek to investigate the relationship between Organisational Culture and Innovation Adoption at a deeper level, by focusing on three disparate elements. Leadership focuses on the ability of the management and corporate levels of the organisation to inspire



their employees. Strategy relates to the clarity and sophistication of the message of the company and its goals. The relationships element is concerned with how the employees interact with each other, and how secure they feel in their environment. By looking at these three disparate elements, it is possible to develop an overview of the relationship between organisational culture and the adoption of innovation within the organisation. The research was conducted by interviewing members of staff of an Irish organisation. The organisation is based in Carlow and is a market leader in the business security industry. Founded in 2003, the company’s model since its inception has been to replace security in a classical sense (security guards and alarm systems, which act as a response measure) to a technology driven solution, where the goal is to prevent security breaches rather than reacting to breaches as they occur. The company markets itself as a high-end business solution, rather than a security solution, and operates using a “Software As A Service” model. The company’s technology, interactive security technology that allows technicians to call out warnings to perpetrators, distinguished the firm in a crowded but conservative industry. Clients do not pay for the installation of the technology, but they pay a subscription fee to the organisation for its services. The organisation currently has 250 clients worldwide, and boasts a response time of 30 seconds compared to the industry standard 90-second response time. The organisation has a dedicated internal Research and Development department, as well as an Innovation Director who oversaw the development of the “hub” headquarters in Carlow, where all operations are centralised. The company has identified false positives as the largest problem they currently face, and the R&D team are focusing on solving this problem at present. Schein (1984) determined that there must be a group that “owns” a culture in order for a culture to exist. As a result, it was necessary to determine the data sample being investigated in this research. The data sample consisted of the employees of this large, multinational security-monitoring firm, based in Ireland. This firm has proven to be highly innovative, introducing disruptive innovations into a stagnant industry. The data sample investigated employees at three different levels within the organisation: operations, middle management, and executives. This paper is organised into five chapters. This first chapter serves to introduce the topic and core theories, and to pose the key research questions that drove the research. The second chapter seeks to provide a detailed review of the literature regarding organisation culture and innovation. The literature review is therefore separated into three sections: the first section introduces the concept of organisational culture, and identifies key organisational culture models; the second section looks at innovation, innovation adoption and the innovation value chain, and again introduces some key innovation adoption models identified in literature; finally, the third section will look at the relationship between these two areas. The third chapter identifies the research methods applied and the design and data collection methods used. The fourth chapter presents the findings and discusses the results. The paper concludes with the fifth chapter, which provides a summary of the project details and findings, as well as identifying areas for future research, and any limitations of this paper. The fifth chapter also contains some recommendations for practical application of the findings.



2 Literature Review

The aim of this literature review is to outline and describe the works conducted by experts and academics in the fields of organisational culture and innovation. This literature review will seek to provide an in depth analysis of each topic as separate concepts, before conducting a combined study linking the two concepts together. In this way, the literature review will provide context and background to this research.

Organisational Culture

Definition

Over the years, there have been countless definitions of organisational culture presented, although Kong-Seng & Yusof (2011) argue that there is ‘non-existent consensus to each reflection different phenomena.’ These definitions have varied greatly, from Sarros, Cooper & Santora’s (2008) high concept definition of Organisational Culture as ‘a mediator between transformational leadership and organisation’, to Tuan & Venkatesh (2010) who described the function of organisational culture as “internal integration and co-ordination’. The definitions of organisational culture also vary in breadth, though none are any less valid than any other. For example, Kong-Seng & Yusof (2011) describe organisational culture as ‘the way we get things done’. A longer definition, presented by Schein (1984), describes it as ‘the pattern of given assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaption and internal integration, that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems’. This definition specifically references the employees of an organisation as being integral to the culture, as they decide which lessons are worth passing on. Throughout each variance of the definition of organisational culture, there appears to be a consensus that organisational culture is the ‘values, beliefs, and hidden assumptions that organisational members have in common’ (Valencia et al 2010). Similarly, Sarros, Cooper & Santora (2008) identified organisational culture as ‘the deep structure of organisations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs and assumptions held by organisational members’. Lim (1995) says that ‘culture refers to a relatively stable set of beliefs, values and behaviours commonly held by a society’, while Dasanayaka (2009) describes it as ‘the way things are done in an organisation’. Throughout each definition of organisational culture, it is clear that the culture ‘appears to be a critical factor in the success of any organisation’ (Tuan & Venkatesh 2010). Alexe (2008) stated that ‘only the strong, adaptable and the creative survive’ and as such, the definition we use to best understand culture by will have a significant impact in our examinations of the cultures affect on an organisations ability to innovate. In order to best encapsulate the multiple nuances inherent in the diverse definitions proffered by different authorities, this paper will use the short hand definition for organisational culture ‘The way we do things around here’ (Martin 2006), which has been used as an “umbrella” definition by many different experts in the field.



Organisational Culture Models

Given the large number of definitions of organisational culture offered by experts, it is no surprise that there are several organisational culture models in use. The literature review will give an overview of some of the prevailing models in use, followed by the description of a new model, presented by Smit et al (2008), known as the X Model. The X Model is the model that was used to conduct the research for this paper. Schein (1984) proposed an organisation culture model that consists of three sections, which can be seen in the Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Schein’s (1984) Organisational Culture Model

As can be seen from Figure 1, above, Schein’s (1984) model has three separate sections, or levels. The first level, artefacts, comprises company practices and behaviours such as; procedures, reward systems, technology, office layout, dress code, public documents, and any stories that are told within companies to ‘illustrate and exemplify the way things are done’ (Schein 1984). The second level, espoused values, includes explicit statements of corporate values, whether this is expressed officially through the senior management or through a peer-to-peer system. This section also contains personal and private values that are held within in a firm. The third and final section, shared tacit assumptions, consists of the typically unconscious underlying assumptions within a firm. These assumptions ‘determine how group members perceive, think and feel’ (Schein 1984). This third level is the most difficult to investigate, but Schein is of the opinion that it is the most influential level, as it forms the basis on which all other values and beliefs are based. While Schein (1984) developed a model based on different levels within a corporate culture, Hofstede (1980) developed one of the most well known organisational culture models, designed to locate the areas in which culture differed, and accurately reflect this. The model can be seen on the next page, in Figure 2:

Three levels for understanding and identifying corporate culture

Visible organisational Strategies, goals and Beliefs and Values structures and processes philosophies

Ar#facts) Espoused)Values)

Shared)Tacit)Assump#ons)



Figure 2: Hofstede and Bond’s (1984) Organisational Culture Model

As can be seen in Figure 2, above, there are five dimensions identified, four of which were as a result of the research of Hofstede (1980). Hofstede & Bond (1984) identified a fifth dimension, long-term orientation. These dimensions are discussed in more detail below:

1. Power Distance: This refers to how influence and control is distributed throughout a culture.

2. Uncertainty Avoidance: This dimension reflects a culture’s ‘tolerance of ambiguity and acceptance of risk’ (Hofstede 1980).

3. Individualism and Collectivism: The individualism/collectivism dimension measures the integration of the culture, whether the staff maintains a close working relationship or stay relatively isolated.

4. Masculinity/Femininity: The masculinity/femininity dimension measures whether the values of a culture are predominantly assertive or nurturing.

5. Long-term Orientation: Hofstede & Bond (1984) identified this dimension, originally named the Confucian dynamism dimension, which describes a cultures value system as either short or long term. Cultures with short-term values tend to have respect for tradition and reciprocity, while long-term values indicate that a culture is persistent and orders its relationships by status, rather than tradition.

Hofstede (1991) further contributed to the organisational culture models with the creation of the ‘onion’ model. Hofstede (1991) holds that organisational culture exists across four different levels, layered together, as seen in Figure 3, on the next page:

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance

Individualism and

CollecYvism Masculinity / Femininity

Long-‐ term OrientaYon



Figure 3: Hofstede’s (1991) “onion” model of Organisational Culture

As seen in Figure 3, above, at the outer layers of Hosftede’s (1991) ‘onion’ exist symbols, heroes, and rituals, the practices of the culture. At the core of the model lie the inherent values of a culture, the basic assumptions upon which cultural values are built. Hofstede (1991) argues that, while the outer layers may change, develop, and some times disappear, the values will remain stable at the core of the culture. This shares a similarity with the model presented by Schein (1991). A third model worth considering is the Competing Values Framework, which was developed by Cameron & Quinn (1986, 1999). See Figure 4 below for more information:

Figure 4: Cameron & Quinn’s (1999) Competing Values Framework

As can be seen Figure 4, above, Cameron & Quinn (1999) explain that there are two dimensions that can be used to measure the culture of an organisation. The first dimension focuses on a range varying from flexibility and discretion to stability and control. It is a measure of how versatile an organisation is, and how durable it is. The second dimension focuses on an organisations’ internal versus external focus, integration versus differentiation, and unity versus rivalry. These two dimensions represent competing assumptions, and form



four distinct quadrants, each representing unique characteristics of organisational culture. The four quadrants are:

• Adhocracy o Cultures based in the adhocracy quadrant tend to be flexible and stand out

from the market. These organisations are normally innovative and entrepreneurial cultures.

• Market o Companies in the market quadrant tend to be stable, as well as competitive,

with large market share. • Hierarchy

o Hierarchal cultures are very stable organisations, with a formalised and structured internal system.

• Clan o Cultures in the Clan quadrant are often family-style organisations, with a

strong sense of participation. They are internally focused but flexible. For the purposes of this assignment, a relatively new model was used as the theoretical model of organisational culture, the X-Model (Smit et al 2008). Smit et al (2008) proposed that Organisational Culture manifests in three ways, where each of the three domains dynamically interact and influence each other. These three domains are:

• Hidden Domains • Visible Domains • Results Domains

Smit et al (2008) primarily focused on the visible domain of organisational culture when conducting their study, as the hidden domain refers to tacit beliefs of the culture and this is very difficult to investigate, as discussed by Schein (1984). Smit et al (2008) lists five elements of the visual domain of organisational culture:

• Leadership • Strategy • Adaptability • Coordination • Relationships

Using this information, Smit et al (2008) derived the X model of organisational culture, which can be seen in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5: The X-Model (Smit et al 2008)



As can be seen in Figure 5, the hidden forces domain, combined with the five elements of the visible domain, yield the performance indicators of the results domain, and by measuring the elements of the visual domain, Smit et al (2008) could accurately describe the culture of an organisation. In order to correctly measure the five elements of the visual domain, they were broken down into sub elements, which highlight specific factors that influence each element. See Table 1 below for the sub-elements identified by Smit et al (2008):

Leadership Strategy Adaptability Coordination Relationships Energy Demonstration Energy Transference

Vision Integrity Candour Action Style

Direction Creation Objective Setting

Engagement Communicating Meaning

Alignment

Client Focus Creating Change

Organisational Learning Innovation and Creativity

Flexibility

Organisational Structure Processes & Systems

Positional Power Performance Management Communication Management

Team Orientation Cooperation

Diversity Talent Management

Values

Table 1: Smit et al’s (2008) sub elements of organisational culture.

As can be seen in Table 1, above, there are a total of 27 sub elements that comprise the visual domain of the X Model of organisational culture (Smit et al, 2008). These 27 elements allow for a great degree of insight to be derived when investigating the culture of an organisation using the X Model.

Innovation and Innovation Adoption

Definition

Innovation can occur in many forms, and as such there are specific definitions for its occurrence in specific situations. A recurring theme through each definition, however, refers to innovation as ‘an idea, product or process that is new to the firm’ (Yusof & Abidin 2011). An invention is considered an innovation ‘only if the new idea, product or process is put into action’ (Yusof & Abidin 2011) and the ‘the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organisation of sales, processes or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, group, organisation, or wider society’ (Tuan & Venkatesh 2010). Put simply, innovation is the ‘process of developing and implementing a new idea’ (Van de Ven & Angle 1989). A key thought process is that innovation ‘doesn’t mean to think creative, but to turn creative ideas into something valuable for the organisation and its customers, to bring value’ (Alexe 2008). It is important to note that invention (or creativity) and innovation is not the same thing. Erwin & Krakauer (2004) define invention as ‘the creation and establishment of something new’, while innovation can be defined as ‘inventions that become economically successful and earn profits’ (Erwin & Krakauer 2004). According to Enos (1962), ‘Innovation is the combination of many different activities’, of which invention is a possible, although not mandatory, part. Invention can serve as the starting point, but ‘as the innovation proceeds the original conception may be altered to make it more amenable to commercial realities’ (Enos 1962). Innovation can occur within a firm in many different ways. Kong-Seng & Yusof (2011) wrote that ‘innovation can be realised in two forms, either it’s being generated or it’s being adopted’. Innovation adoption is about ‘adopting ideas from other competitors’ (Kong-Seng & Yusof 2011), and it is much more predictable and planned than innovation generation. While it is much more risky, innovation generation has extra benefits as it ‘brings out hidden knowledge and information’ (Kong-Seng & Yusof 2011). This is comparable to incremental innovation, which ‘has the basis of an applied idea, practice or method which represents an absolute



novelty in proportion to the analysed firm … This idea, practice or method was previously adopted within other firms which belong to their respective industry’ (Alexe 2008). This method has low investments and risks, according to Alexe (2008), as it ‘brings small changes every time, through accumulation, in time, it can lead to great changes’ On the other hand, the generation of innovation is about ‘introducing a new product or service ahead of other competitors’ (Kong-Seng & Yusof 2011), and it is disorderly and unpredictable by nature. Innovation generation is similar to radical innovation, which ‘brings substantial changes with an advanced level of investments and risks, and offers opportunities to some new producers to enter on the market’ (Alexe 2008). Alexe (2008) states that ‘enterprises had regular to aim radical innovation in order to survive on long term [sic]’, but this type of innovation is difficult to achieve and even more difficult to sustain. When a radical innovation occurs, sometimes it complete transforms the industry and the way in which business is conducted. Christensen (1997) classed this rare type of radical innovation as disruptive innovation. Disruptive innovations are usually the result of new sciences and/or technology being introduced to the market, which greatly increases the potential of existing products. As well as the above methods of innovation, there are also different types of innovation. Product innovation is the most well known form of innovation. It refers to ‘the novelty or distinctiveness of products … in relation to the degree of change from the previous consumer behaviour trend, the characteristics of the product which is unique and original and the benefits of the new product’ (Yusof & Abidin 2011). Marketing innovation, as defined by Schubert (2009) as the ‘implementation of new marketing methods involving significant changes in product design or packaging, product placement, product promotion or pricing’. Yusof and Abidin (2011) defined market innovativeness as ‘new methods, usually in terms of marketing strategies adopted by a firm, by which to penetrate new markets’. Process Innovation refers to new or improved method for production or the delivery of the output of an organisation, and it ‘helps an organisation to accomplish its objectives efficiently though new methods or systems of doing work’ (Yusof & Abidin 2011). Finally, Organisational Innovation is the ‘implementation of a new organisational method in the firm’s business practices, workplace organisation or external relations’ (Schubert 2009). These four types of innovation cover the areas in which a company can develop or implement new ideas, using any of the methods discussed above. Phonkaew (2001) argues that innovation exists within an organisation in two stages, initiation and implementation. Innovation Adoption is considered to be the early stages of the innovation process, while diffusion of innovation is viewed as the later stages (DiMaggio & Powell 1983). There exist specific types of innovation adoption; new product, new process, or new technology adoption (Phonkaew 2001), but for the in order to correctly define innovation adoption, the ‘focus is on the organisation’s propensity or possibility to develop any innovation that may encompass a broad range of degree and content’ (Phonkaew 2001).

Innovation Adoption Models

In this section, a number of innovation adoption models will be investigated in order to develop a deeper understanding of the concept. Rogers (1995) developed the Diffusions of Innovations Theory (or the Multi-step flow theory), which researches the ‘conditions that increase or decrease the likelihood that a new idea, product, or practice will be adopted by members of a given culture’ (Rogers 1995). Rogers (1995) argued that innovation consists of four stages: invention, diffusion through communication within the organisation, time, and consequences. The information flows through the networks, and the nature of these networks, and the roles that leaders play within



them, have a great effect on the likelihood of the innovation being adopted. The conceptual model of this framework for the innovation can be seen below in Figure 6:

Figure 6: Rogers (1995) Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Multi-step Flow Theory)

As seen in Figure 6, above, the decision of whether to adopt or reject an innovation is dependent on the information present, how the information travels between the communication sources, and the personal characteristics of the leaders. Through further research into this topic, Rogers (1995) identified five classes of innovation adopters, based on the idea that some people naturally more predisposed to adaption than others. The percentage of the population that fall into each of these categories follow a standard deviation curve, which can be seen in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Roger’s (1995) Categories of Innovativeness



As seen in Figure 7, on the previous page, Rogers (1995) identifies 5 types of innovation adopters:

• Innovators (2.5%): Innovators are brave people, who pioneer new ideas. • Early Adopters (13.5%): Early Adopters are often respected members of their

organisation, who are willing to try out new ideas but in a controlled environment. • Early Majority (34%): The early majority are more accepting of change than average,

once it has been introduced. • Late Majority (34%): The late majority are often sceptical, who will use new products

or ideas only when the majority has accepted the change. • Laggards (16%): Laggards are reticent to change, only adapting when the new idea

has become mainstream. The characteristics of innovation adopters are important to understand because an organisation’s characteristics will affect the rate of innovation adoption over time. Different groups will accept an innovation for different reasons, and their expectations will differ as well. While innovators, and to a lesser extent early adopters, will embrace new innovations quickly, together they account for only 16% of the population. It is the mainstream adopters (early and late majority), who account for 68% of the population, who will determine whether an innovation will ultimately be adopted or rejected, and they will require a different support structure in order to accept the change. Phonkaew (2001) proposed an alternative conceptual framework for innovation adoption, which was based on two different theories: structural contingency and resource dependence perspectives using the assumption of strategic choice theory. Phonkaew (2001) explains innovation adoption as ‘the interactions between environment and strategic choice of the organisation via strategies to control the resource dependence condition’. The core development of this research was to identify how an organisation can strategically manage and influence it’s environment. The model developed by Phonkaew (2001) can be seen in Figure 8, below:

Figure 8: Phonkaew’s (2001) conceptual model of innovation adoption

Propensity for Innovation Adoption : Integration of StructuralContingency and Resource Dependence Perspectives

ABAC Journal Vol. 21 No.1 (January - April, 2001)

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND DEFINITIONS

Conceptual Model of Innovation Adoption

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

H1 (+)

H6 (+)

H4 (+) H2 (+)

H5 (+)

H3 (+)

The conceptual model is anomological network of the constructsto be used and displays thehypothesized relationships predicted toexist among the components of eachconstruct. Those important constructsof the model are as follow: independentvariables consist of organizational

environment, strategic choice, resourcedependence strategy to controlenvironment, and organizationstructure; while the dependent variableis innovation adoption.

The model displays three relevantvariables that may influence innovation

EnvironmentalConditions- Munificence- Dynamism- Complexity

Resource DependenceStrategies toControl Environment- Low control strategy (Compliance)- Moderate control strategy (Internal Adjustment)- High control strategy (Business Alliance)

Organization Structure

- Complexity- Formalization- Centralization

InnovationAdoption

StrategicChoice



As seen in the framework outlined in Figure 8 above, Phonkaew’s (2001) model has one dependent variable: innovation adoption. Innovation adoption is measured using two indicators: first mover predisposition, and the competitive equity building (Phonkaew 2001). The higher these indicators, the higher predisposition to innovation adoption an organisation has. This variable is dependent because it is affect by the three remaining independent variables:

• Resource Dependence Strategy o This is measured using managerial responses in dealing with resource

dependence conditions. All data is categorised into one of three levels (low, moderate, or high control strategy) in order to determine the effect of this variable on Innovation Adoption.

• Organisation Structure o Organisation Structure is measured using the structural dimensions of

complexity, formalization, and centralisation (Hage and Aikens 1970). • Environment

o Environment is measured using Dess and Beard’s (1984) environmental dimensions of munificence, dynamism, and complexity (Phonkaew 2001).

In this model, the environment is only measured as having either a direct or indirect relationship with innovation adoption, rather than having this relationship as the focus of the framework. This does not address the requirements of this assignment, which seeks to compare the culture of an organisation with its ability to adopt innovation, so a different model is required. In contrast to the models discussed above, Tan & Teo’s (2000) research was one of the few papers to investigate the factors that influence innovation adoption in an organisation. By developing a theoretical framework based on the theory of planned behaviour and the diffusion of innovation theory, based on the models discussed above by Rogers (1995), Tan and Teo (2001) identified the attitudinal, social, and perceived behavioural control factors that influenced the adoption of Internet banking in Singapore. As discussed previously, innovation adoption can be split into three distinct categories; new product, new process, or new technology adoption (Phonkaew 2001), and Tan & Teo (2001) focused on the adoption of new technology in this research, which suggested that the likelihood of a person embracing new technology (in this case, Internet banking) was dependent on three factors; attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control, which were central to the Tan & Teo (2001) model, as seen in Figure 10 on the next page:



Figure 9: Tan & Teo’s (2001) relationship between Organisational Culture and Innovation.

As can be seen in Figure 10, above, the three factors, which influence the adoption of Internet banking, are:

• Attitude: An individual’s positive or negative feelings about performing a target behaviour, which is related to behavioural intention because people form intentions to perform behaviours toward which they have positive effect (Tan & Teo 2000).

• Subjective Norms: This refers to the person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behaviour in question (Tan & Teo 2000)

• Perceived Behavioural Control: This refers to the factors that may impede the performance of the behaviour (Tan and Teo 2001). This factor consists of two components: self-efficacy (an individual’s self-confidence in their ability to perform a behaviour) and facilitating conditions (the availability of resources needed to engage in the behaviour).

In developing this model, Tan and Teo (2000) developed on the decomposed theory of planned behaviour (Taylor and Todd 1995) since it was found to have superior predictive power compared to the traditional model. Taylor and Todd (1995) held that there are five perceived attributes that can be used to measured attitude toward innovation:

• Relative advantage of an innovation; • Compatibility of an innovation with existing infrastructure; • Complexity of an innovation; • Trialability of an innovation; and • Observability of an innovation.

Tan and Teo (2000) used four of these attributes to develop their model, ignoring observability as a factor due to the inherent privacy required for Internet banking.

Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8

Attitude! Relative Advantage! Compatibility

- Values- Internet experience- Banking needs

! Complexity! Trialability! Risk

Subjective Norms

PerceivedBehavioral Control

! Self-efficacy! Facilitating Conditions

- Availability of Government Support

- Availability of Technology Support

Intention toUse Internet

BankingServices

Usage ofInternetBankingServices




Subjective Norms






BankingServices





Subjective Norms






BankingServices


Internet banking. In the context of the framework, intention to adopt Internet

banking services is thus the dependent variable, while the independent variables

comprise attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Figure 1

shows the research framework for the adoption of Internet banking services.

Figure 1. Framework for the Adoption of Internet Banking

ATTITUDE Attitude is defined as an individual’s positive or negative feelings (evaluative

affect) about performing a target behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). It is related

to behavioral intention because people form intentions to perform behaviors toward

which they have positive affect. The attitude-behavioral relationship is fundamental

to TRA, TAM, and related models presented by Triandis (1977) and Bagozzi (1981).



Innovation Value Chain

Despite the large amount of research conducted by numerous experts regarding what innovation is and how to be innovative, it is still the case that many companies, of all sizes, are still incapable of being innovative. Even when following the principles outlined in the literature, companies often fail when it comes to innovation. The problem is that this research is derived from studies of specific companies, organisations or industries, and the conclusions that are drawn are generalised so that they can be theoretically applied to any industry. Hansen & Birkinshaw (2007), believed that this was the cause of companies failing in their attempts to innovate, and said:

‘Strategic counsel, however, is based on the assumption that all organisations face the same obstacles in developing new products,

services, or lines of business. In reality, innovation challenges differ from firm to firm, and otherwise commonly followed advice can be wasteful,

even harmful, if applied to the wrong situations’. Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) posited that companies can’t simply ‘import the latest fads in innovation to cure what ails them’, but rather managers need to view their innovation efforts as an end-to-end process, identify their unique strengths and weaknesses, and ‘tailor innovation best practices as appropriate to address the deficiencies’. In order to do this, Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) presented the Innovation Value Chain. The Innovation Value Chain is a comprehensive framework, which was derived from the findings of five large research projects on innovation, conducted within the previous decade. The framework breaks innovation down into three phases, and consists of six critical activities, which are performed across these phases. The Innovation Value Chain can be seen in Figure 9 below:

Figure 10: Hansen and Birkinshaw’s (2007) Innovation Value Chain



Idea Generation: Idea Generation is the start of any innovative process, a good idea. Good ideas can come from three different sources, each one a critical activity of the Innovation Value Chain. In-House generation involves companies looking ‘first inside their own functional groups or business units for creative sparks’ (Hansen & Birkinshaw 2007). Conversely, External generation involves generating ideas from knowledge that exists outside of the company, or even the industry. This knowledge can come from customers, competitors, universities, investors, suppliers, or even independent entrepreneurs. Finally, Cross-Pollination involves collaboration between different units within the company, or possible the collaboration between in house research and external ideas in order to generate ideas. If an organisation is Idea Poor (weak at idea generation), they can take steps to improve this by building external networks to leverage new knowledge, or by building internal cross-unit networks to encourage cross-pollination. Idea Conversion: Idea Conversion involves developing an idea into an invention, through selection of an idea and the development of that idea. In order to develop ideas successfully, companies need to have the correct commercial and development skills at hand, either internally or through a partner. A company also needs access to the funding necessary to develop these products. Before development can begin, however, organisations must choose which ideas to pursue, by screening the ideas generated for the ideas best suited to the company, or the ideas with the most market potential. This is a very important step, because ‘New concepts won’t prosper without strong screening and funding mechanisms. Instead, they’ll just create bottlenecks and headaches across the organisation’ (Hansen & Birkinshaw 2007). Companies that are Conversion Poor can develop these activities by developing safe havens for new ideas, which protect the idea from the bureaucracy inherent in an organisation, and granting the development team a certain amount of autonomy. Similarly, a company can develop multi-channel funding, allowing a specific percentage of the budget to be assigned to developing new ideas as a matter of course, rather than requiring the budget to be altered to fund the development of a new idea if and when it is generated. Idea Diffusion: Once an idea has been converted to a marketable product/service, it still needs to the support of relevant stakeholders, both within the organisation and customers, in order to become economically viable and a true innovation. This can be a particularly difficult task, and far from an automatic process, especially within large firms. A company that is Diversion Poor can improve this activity through the appointment of an idea evangelist to act as a catalyst for the idea. And idea evangelist is someone who ‘preaches the good word about an emerging product or business’ (Hansen & Birkinshaw 2007), and leverages their personal networks to raise awareness of the idea. This is just one catalyst that can be used to generate successful idea diffusion. Across these 6 “links”, companies will be strong in some areas, and weak in others. If the Innovation Value Chain is correctly utilised, however, Hansen & Birkinshaw (2007) are of the belief that ‘overtime, a weak link in the innovation value chain will become a strong one’.

Organisational Culture and Adoption of Innovation

Surprisingly, while there has been research done to reveal that organisational culture can act as a driver or barrier to innovation (Valencia et al 2010), there has been little research done into the relationship between organisational culture and the adoption of innovation within an organisation. This literature review will analyse the models of Tuan & Venkatesh (2010) and Kong-Seng & Yusof (2011), both of which have been developed within the last three years. Sarros et al’s (2008) discussion on the relationship between leadership and innovative cultures will also be analysed. Tuan & Venkatesh (2010) conducted ‘empirically grounded theory research on the impact of organisational culture on technological innovation adoption in 8 private hospitals in Vietnam’ (Tuan & Venkatesh 2010). The model developed highlights the dimensions of organisational culture that are involved in technical innovation adoption, and can be seen on the next page:



Figure 11: Tuan & Venkatesh’s (2010) dimensions of organisational culture that influence technological innovation

As can be seen in Figure 11, above, Tuan & Venkatesh (2010) identified four dimensions that affect technological innovation. The research also indicated that the way these dimensions operate in a culture directly influence the adoption of innovation, either positively or negatively.

• Cause Vision: This dimension refers to an organisation having a set of strategic goals, or a mission statement, which is clear and concise to members of staff at all levels. Successfully innovative organisations allow ‘personnel great freedom within the context of the goals’ (Tuan & Venkatesh 2010). Covey (1993) argued that the origin of innovation lies in a shared vision and mission, and Tuan & Venkatesh’s (2010) research affirmed this argument.

• Organisational Structure Compound: Organisational culture has an influence on the organisational structure and operational systems in an organisation (Armstrong 1995). Tuan & Venkatesh (2010) are of the opinion that the structure of an organisation highlights certain values that have an influence on the adoption of innovation within an organisation. In a structure that supports innovation, values such as flexibility, freedom, and cooperative teamwork will all promote innovation adoption. Structure that emphasise values such as rigidity, control, predictability, stability, and order (such as a hierarchical structure) will hinder innovation adoption (Tuan & Venkatesh).

• Support mechanisms: Support mechanisms need to be in place in order to create an environment that will promote innovation. Rewards, recognition, and the availability of resources (such as time, information technology, and innovative people) are all mechanisms that can promote innovation within a culture.

• Innovation Stimulators: Taking risks and experimenting are type of behaviours that are associated with innovation, but if there is an assumption within a culture that risk taking is acceptable only if it does not harm the organisation, personnel will not be willing to take risks and innovate. By creating an atmosphere in which mistakes are accepted and considered learning curves, and by assigning the responsibility of monitoring and measuring risk taking to specific personnel, an organisation can stimulate an innovative culture (Tuan & Venkatesh 2010).

Like Tuan & Venkatesh (2010), Valencia et al (2010) proposed that there is a positive relationship between adhocracy and product innovation, and there are numerous studies that indicate a correlation between organisational culture and innovation adoption. Kong-Seng & Yusof (2011), however, felt that further research was required to determine which culture within (in the instance of the Valencia et al study) adhocracy has a significant effect on innovation. Kong-Seng & Yusof (2011) proposed the model seen on the next page:

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 3, No. 3; July 2010

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 153

Table 1. Overview of the sample

Hospital code Number of employees Level of technology Performance H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8

164 262 115 328 197 131 280 175

H M L H M L M H

M H L H M M H M

Key: H = High, M = Medium, L = Low

Figure 1. Defining innovation

Figure 2. Influence of organizational culture on technological innovation

DIMENSIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE THAT INFLUENCE TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

CAUSE VISION

-Vision and mission

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE COMPOUND

-Flexibility -Freedom: -Autonomy -Empowerment -Decision making -Cooperative teams and group interaction -Open communication

SUPPORT

MECHANISMS

-Rewards and recognition

-Availability of resources:

-Time

-Information

technology

-Creative people

-Support for change

INNOVATION

STIMULATORS

-Mistake handling

-Idea generating

-Continuous learning

culture

-Risk taking

-Competitiveness

-Conflict handling

TECHNOLOGICAL

INNOVATION



Figure 12: Kong-Seng & Yusof’s (2011) Conceptual model of organisational culture and innovation.

As can be seen in the figure above, the proposed model has 12 distinct dimensions that affect innovation. However, ‘due to conflicting views from previous studies, in order to stand firm on the dimensions of culture that foster and/or hinder innovation adoption and/or innovation generation in the architectural firms, these dimensions are yet to be explored in detail’ (Kong-Seng & Yusof 2011). While both models discussed above are concerned with the relationship between organisational culture and innovation, Sarros et al (2008) looked specifically at the relationship between leadership and innovative climates. It was found in that organisational culture is an important determinant of climate for innovation (Sarros et al, 2008), specifically two of the six identified leadership factors: Articulates Vision and Provides Individual Support, which were positively related to climate for organisational innovation (Sarros et al, 2008). It was argued that while a leader with vision creates a culture of change that facilitates the adoption of innovation, at an individual level this vision did not always have a positive influence, something which requires further examination in the future (Sarros et al, 2008).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be seen that there are many disparate definitions of organisational culture and innovation that have been put forward by academics over the years. In this literatures review, many different models of organisational culture were identified. This literature review also studied an organisations ability to innovate, and which areas of an organisation’s culture can either support or hinders its capacity to innovate. Furthermore, the existence of a relationship between organisational culture and the adoption of innovation was researched. For the research undertaken as part of this paper, the X Model (Smit et al, 2008) was used as the definition of Organisational Culture. The framework developed by Tan & Teo (2000) was used to investigate the relationship between organisational culture and the adoption of innovation. Finally, Hansen and Birkinshaw’s (2007) Innovation Value Chain model was also used as a framework. These three models formed the basis of the questionnaire developed, which will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. The next section will detail the research design and method used to collect the data for this assignment.

devoted to his or her job whereas a low-challenge indicates a

lack of dedication to his or her current situation [41]. Freedom

refers to the extent which a member within an organization

engages himself or herself in the organization in aspects like

making decisions, conducting open discussions and forming

contacts [41]. The ninth dimension is the idea support and this

refers to how novel ideas and attempts are treated by the upper

management team and across the members of an organization

[41]. Playfulness and humour represent the atmosphere of the

working environment and social relationship among the

members of the organization; it deals with spontaneity and

energy where the opposite would be boredom and discourage

[41]. Risk taking refers to the way uncertainty and unknown

outcome are handled by the organization [41], [53]. The last

dimension is the idea time, which refers to the time allocated

for defining and introducing the new ideas [41].

III. PROPOSED MODEL: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND INNOVATION

ADOPTION/GENERATION

Studies have suggested that organizational culture

significantly determines the generation and adoption of

innovation [24], [60], [59]. For instance, a study done in

Spanish organizations shows that there is a positive relation

between adhocracy and product innovation [31]. Despite this,

the study has mentioned nothing about which culture within

adhocracy that significantly affects innovation. Another study

that works in the Malaysian context also proves that the

organization that favors decision making (freedom), support

mechanism (encourage creative and novel ideas), and

continuous learning (learning and development) have a

positive impact towards innovation especially when relating to

the technology, process and administrative aspects [68].

Nonetheless, the study does not justify whether the innovation

is being adopted or being generated. In between organization

with a learning behavior and a creative climate, learning

behavior has been reported to have greater influence towards

innovation [25]. In the context of the construction industry, the

culture that emphasizes teamwork (collectivism) and

performance orientation are perceptible [52]. A recent study

also shows that performance orientation, humanitarian,

assertiveness and future orientation are significantly related to

organizational innovation in the public-listed housing

developers, although the finding has shown no relationship

between innovation and the remaining dimensions of cultures

(power distance, uncertainty avoidance,

individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/feminity) [10].

These findings show inconsistent results to previous scholars

when collectivism (teamwork) is recognized as important to

creativity and innovation [67], and risk tolerance (uncertainty

avoidance) should be embedded within an innovative

organization [24]. On top of that, conflicts occur when a study

exhibits that control orientation contributes towards greater

performance [15]. In contrast, several scholars defend that

control orientation and centralization can most likely hinder

creativity and innovation [24], [22]. However, there is an

empirical study showing that either control orientation or

decentralization significantly affects innovation, as it has been

put forth that control orientation or most likely addressed as

hierarchical cultures promote innovation adoption whereas

decentralization or adhocracy cultures confront innovation

generation [30]. To add, somehow the result also shows that

control orientation is significantly associated with innovation

generation in Spanish manufacturing firms [30]. Therefore,

this has proven that different cultures eventually affect

organization in different ways [19]. In consequence, the

present research proposes a model of organizational culture

and innovation adoption/generation which include twelve

dimensions in Fig. 1. However, due to the conflicting views

from previous studies, in order to stand firm on the dimensions

of culture that foster and/or hinder innovation adoption or/and

innovation generation in the architectural firms, these

dimensions are yet to be explored in detail.

Fig. 1 Proposed model of organizational cultures affect on

innovation-adoption and/or innovation-generation

IV. CONCLUSION

It is a necessity to differentiate the innovation’s approach,

between adoption and generation, especially when sustainable

innovation development has been the major aim within the

construction industry. The reason lies in different innovation

approaches that might contribute to different business

performances and advantages, therefore, they also require

different environments and organizational cultures as to

support and foster the adoption or/and generation of

innovation. Within the architectural setting, design is the main

focus and the generation of novel idea is significantly

important in this particular aspect of architecture. However,

the existing studies within the construction context have been

pretty limited. Therefore this paper attempts to conceptualize

the relationships between organizational culture and

innovation generation and/or adoption. By doing so, it is

hoped that we can better understand the organizational

cultures that foster and hinder the adoption or generation of

innovation, so that specific, innovative cultures can be

developed to perfectly suit the innovation generation or

innovation adoption intended.

REFERENCES

[1] Gann, D. and A. Salter, “Innovation in project-based, service enhanced

firms: The construction of complex products and systems,” Research

Policy, Vol. 29, no. 7-8, pp. 955-972, 2000.

[2] Ball, M., “Chasing a snail: innovation and house building firms'

strategies,” Housing Studies, Vol. 14, no. 1, pp .9-22, 1999.

Innovation

A) Innovation-adoption

B) Innovation-generation

Proposed organizational cultures

1)Power distance

2)Masculinity-feminity

3)Individualism-collectivism

4)Strategy

5)Mistake handling

6)Continuous learning culture

7)Challenge

8)Freedom

9)Idea support

10)Playfulness/Humour

11)Risk taking

12)Idea time

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 58 2011

271



3 Research design & method

Research Design

In order to collect and analyse the data successfully, a framework was derived which focused on the priority issues being researched. The data was collected using a diagnostic tool, constructed specifically for this investigation, named The Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey. This questionnaire was built by combining the frameworks of three different research tools:

• The X Model Framework (Smit et al 2008) • Tan & Teo Research Framework (Tan & Teo 2000)

The Innovation Value Chain was not included as part of the data collection for this particular paper, and as a result will not be covered in the research design & method chapter. Each of the two remaining frameworks will be discussed in more detail below.

The X-Model Framework

The X-Model Framework, developed by Smit et al (2008), was derived as a synthesis of existing models, to tie all aspects of Organisational Culture into one model. Smit et al (2008) are of the opinion that organisational culture can be described by five core elements, and their sub elements. These are:

• Leadership o Energy demonstration o Energy transference o Vision o Integrity o Candour o Action o Style o Direction Creation

• Strategy o Direction Creation o Objective Setting o Engagement o Communicating Meaning o Alignment

• Adaptability o Client Focus o Creating Change o Organisational Learning o Innovation and Creativity o Flexibility

• Coordination o Organisational Structure o Process and Systems o Positional Power o Performance Management o Communication Management

• Relationships o Team Work o Partnerships o Diversity Management o Talent Management o Organisational Values



For the purposes of this investigation, the X-Model was used as the framework for data collection and analysis, integrating each of the five elements of the X-Model into a question each on the Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey.

Tan & Teo Research Framework (Tan & Teo 2000)

The Tan & Teo Research Framework was originally derived by Tan & Teo (2000) to identify and investigate the attitudinal, social and perceived behavioural control factors that would influence the adoption of internet banking in Singapore. This framework is based on the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1985) and the innovations theory (Rogers 1983). This framework was utilized in the context of this investigation to determine the factors that influence the adoption of innovation (new technologies, services, processes, or products). The framework developed by Tan & Teo, and used in the Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey, identified the following three factors that have the greatest influence on the adoption of innovation:

• Attitude to Innovation o The relative advantage of innovation and risk taking within an organisation

• Subjective Norms o Customers and Competitors

• Perceived Behavioural Control o Self-efficacy and facilitating conditions, such as knowledge

generation/adoption

The Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey

The diagnostic tool used for this study was the Organisational Culture and Innovation Study. It was developed exclusively for the purposes of this study, using the frameworks described previously. The framework was divided into two parts, one part mandatory and one part optional. For the purposes of this study, only the mandatory part of the survey was completed, which shall be explained in more detail. Part 1 of the survey focused predominantly on the culture prevalent in the organisation. It consisted of seven questions, and each question had between five and thirteen sub sections to be filled out by the subject. Question 1 determined the subject’s role within the company; either at operational, middle management, or senior management level. Questions two through six were concerned with the organisational culture of the company as perceived by the subject. Each question dealt with a different element derived from the X-Model framework (Smit et al 2008): leadership, strategy, adaptability, coordination, and relationships. Question seven was focused on innovation, of which the first six sub questions were concerned with the Innovation Value Chain (Hansen & Birkinshaw 2007). These questions determined the areas in which the organisation excelled, and which areas could be further strengthened, based on the phases of the Innovation Value Chain: Idea Generation, Idea Conversion, and Idea Diffusion. The remaining questions identified a company’s willingness to innovate, or their adoption of innovation. These questions were derived from the Tan & Teo Research Framework and it’s main factors for determining innovation: attitude to innovation, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural self-control. The questions were structured in the form of a statement, to which the user could assign a level of agreement to: strongly disagree, disagree, unsure, agree, or strongly agree. Part 2 of the survey focused on an organisations intention to innovate, and their level of innovation in the previous three years. Part 2 of the survey was not used for this research paper.



Research Method

Research can be undertaken using two separate methods: qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative research involves working with a small sample pool to receive in depth analysis of the relevant hypotheses. For high-level analysis, or for analysis involving large firms, a quantitative approach tends to be preferred. The quantitative research method involves taking a sample from a large pool of subjects, and using this data to verify the accuracy of hypotheses. For this investigation, a quantitative research approach was undertaken, distributing the Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey to the firm in question. The stages that were undertaken for this research included:

• Preparation o Research background theory o Develop hypotheses o Design concept measures o Select sites o Select respondent(s)

• Data collection o Administering the Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey o Processing the collected data

• Data Analysis o Univariate analysis using Excel software o Bivariate analysis using SPSS software

• Reporting o Completion of research project

Data Sample

The data sample used to conduct this research consisted of an international small to medium sized enterprise (SME), working within the security and technology industries. For this research, the data sample was confined to the employees based in the company’s headquarters, which is in County Carlow in the Republic of Ireland. The firm operates world wide, but operates remotely from its Irish base. The company has been in operation since 2003, and in that time has become a market leader in business security. The Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey was sent out to each of the 40 members of staff employed by the company, encompassing operational, middle management, and senior management levels.

Data Collection

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the SME was given a link to the survey, which was hosted on an online database, and this link was distributed to all staff within the organisation through the CEO. Completed surveys were stored on the same database for later analysis. As seen in the table below, of the 40 individuals sent the survey, there were a total of 36 respondents, yielding a response rate of 90%. Of the 36 respondents, 29 were fully completed, while 7 were incomplete. That is a completion rate of 81% of respondents, and 72.5% of total number of people contacted.

Data Analysis

In order to accurately analyse the data, the data first needed to be ‘coded’. Codes are labels, which assign units of meaning to descriptive data, allowing calculations to be performed. For this investigation, each question, and sub question, was assigned a unique identifier. The response to that question, the response was assigned a unit of measurement. For Question



1, the users role in the company, operational level was assigned 1, middle management was assigned 2, and senior management/executive assigned 3. For all other questions, the response was assigned a value between 1 and 5, where 1 equated to Strongly Disagree, and 5 equated to Strongly Agree.

Strongly Disagree 1 Operational 1 Disagree 2 Middle Management 2 Unsure 3 Senior Management 3 Agree 4

Strongly Agree 5 Table 2: Coding Manual for Data Analysis

Upon completion of the coding, further analysis was conducted using the Excel and SPSS software packages, which were used to find correlations and relationships, along with any other interesting patterns in the data. The Excel software was used to undertake univariate analysis, which involved analysing one variable at a time, and producing descriptive statistics. These descriptive statistics were visualised using bar charts, frequency tables, and pie charts. The SPSS software was used to conduct bivariate analysis, which performed analysis on two variables simultaneously to highlight any relationship between the two. Two types of bivariate analysis were conducted, cross tabulation tables and correlation using Pearson’s R Coefficient (r). Cross Tabulation tables are used to highlight the frequency at which two disparate pieces of data occur together, for example how many people at operational level agreed strongly that their immediate supervisor is enthusiastic about their job. This determines whether or not a relationship exists between two variables. Pearson’s R Coefficient measures the strength of that relationship. The R Coefficient, varies between 0 and 1, and can indicate a relationship varying from a perfect correlation to no correlation at all. The coefficient can also be either positive or negative, indicating either a direct or an inverse relationship respectively. This is shown in more detail in Figure 13, below:

Figure 13: Pearson’s R Coefficient: A graphical representation.

The goal of this analysis was to find relationships between each of the five elements of Organisational Culture and the Adoption of Innovation. As such, the average response of each question was found for every respondent, to allow for each element to be looked at as a whole.

Limitations of the Research Method

There are some limitations to this research that need to be addressed. It is important to take into account that some external factors may have influenced some individuals responding to the survey. There are several reoccurring factors, highlighted in previous literature on this type of research, which may influence an individual’s response to a question. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Problem of meaning: respondents may vary in their interpretation of the question. • Social desirability effect: respondents may answer in ways that they consider to be

consistent with their perception of desired response. • Question threat: respondents may not answer honestly if they perceive the question

to be threatening. • Gap between stated and actual behaviour: how respondents say they behave and

how they actually behave may not be consistent. As well as these potential issues, there is an issue with disinterest. In conducting this research, the data was collected remotely, without the author present to collect data manually. As a result, there were cases where a respondent skipped a question, or answered in an obvious pattern, rather than answering the questions honestly.

Perfect'Relationship Perfect'RelationshipPearsons'R'Coefficient 21 0 1

Inverse'Relationship Direct'Relationship

No'relationship

No'relationship



This research did not extend to include the second part of The Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey. As a result, the data collected was quantitative in nature only, with no qualitative data collected to give a greater insight into the relationship between innovation and organisational culture. This research was also undertaken with just the Irish base of one company. By expanding the data sample to include members of staff worldwide, or by expanding the sample to include competitors for comparison, a more accurate result can be found from the Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey. In future, a qualitative approach to data collection in collaboration with quantitative data, as well as a larger data sample, would yield a deeper understanding of the correlations between organisational culture and innovation.

Conclusions

This chapter has explained in detail the research methodology underlining this investigation, as well as the design and approach taken to data collection and analysis. Through each section, all necessary elements of the research were identified and explained. These sections were:

• The research design; o The X Model of Organisational Culture (Smit et al 2008) o Tan and Teo Research Framework (Tan & Teo 2000) o The Innovation Value Chain (Hansen & Birkinshaw 2007) o The Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey

• The research method; • The data sample; • The data collection; • Data analysis; and • The limitations that affected the research.

The next chapter will present the findings derived from the data analysis, discussed here. The next chapter will discuss these findings in detail, highlighting and interpreting areas of interest.



4 Findings and Discussion

Introduction

In the previous chapter, the research methodology and design were discussed in detail. The method of data collection, and the origin of the data, was discussed. Also discussed was the method of data analysis. In this section, the analysed data will be discussed. These results will be interpreted and any interesting correlations will be highlighted. This discussion will be separated into three sections. The first section will concentrate on descriptive statistics, developed using univariate analysis. This will consist of frequency tables and related charts. The second section will highlight and discuss bivariate analysis using cross tabulation tables. The third and final section will discuss correlation of areas using further bivariate analysis, in this case using Pearson’s R correlation tables.

Descriptive Statistics

This section will focus on the univariate analysis of the data, using predominantly frequency tables and bar charts. As discussed previously, the elements being examined are the five elements of organisational culture: leadership, strategy, adaptability, co-ordination, and relationships. As well as these five elements, the adoption of innovation by the organisation, and the organisations innovation value chain, will also be examined. The bar charts in this section will show the results of the survey for each element of organisational culture, as well as the adoption of innovation. The data has been arranged so that responses of 4 or higher (Agree or Agree Strongly) are shown as one column, and a second column showing the number of respondents who answered between 1 and 3. This is done for every section questioned for each element. Each section within an element is displayed on the horizontal axis, and the number of responses is shown on the vertical axis. 36 members of the organisation completed the survey. Of those 36, two participants did not divulge their role within the company. The pie chart below details the respondents’ position in the organisation.

Figure 14: Pie Chart detailing the roles of respondents.

As can be seen in the pie chart, 59% of the respondents (20 people) were employed in an operational role. There were 10 respondents in a middle management role (29%), and four respondents at executive level (12%).

OperaYons

59%

Middle Management

29%

ExecuYve

12%

Roles



The following bar charts detail the number of respondents that either agreed or disagreed with the questions in the survey. The responses for each aspect have been separated into different bar charts. The dark columns on each graph show the number or respondents who either agreed or agreed strongly with the question. The light column shows the number of respondents who disagreed or disagreed strongly with the question, or who were unsure. The horizontal axis details the different sections questioned within each element, while the vertical axis shows the number of responses. Each column has the number of responses printed with it to ensure clarity of data. This format is held across all descriptive statistic bar charts, unless stated otherwise.

Organisational Culture: Leadership

The graph below shows the responses from The Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey related to leadership.

Figure 15: Leadership Sub Element responses.

As can be seen in Figure 15, above, the response was very positive within all seven sections of the Leadership element. At least 80% (25 out of a possibly 31 responses) agreed to the presence of all seven sections. Of the seven sections, the strongest agreement was action, followed by integrity. Energy demonstration, energy transference, and candour all had a response of 90%, while vision and style were the lowest percentage of agreements, with 83% and 80%, respectively. From this it is clear that leadership is very prevalent within this organisation, across all sections. The lowest response rate in Figure 15 is that of style, while action has the highest response rate. It can be interpreted from this data that the drive of a leader to deliver results is more important in an organisational culture than the leader’s ability to adapt their style to suit different people and situations.

28 28 26

29 28 30

25

3 3 5

2 3 1

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Leadership

Answers of 4 or 5

Answers Less than 4



Organisational Culture: Strategy

The graph below shows the responses with regard to the strategy element of Organisational Culture.

Figure 16: Strategy Sub Element responses.

As can be seen in Figure 16, there are a much wider variety of responses in the strategy element than was apparent within leadership. 100% of respondents agreed that there was a clear correlation between their job and the vision and strategic direction of the company. Similarly, a large number of respondents agreed that there was a clear vision and long-term strategies in place in the company, which was clearly defined, and that this vision has been converted into concrete objectives. Only 37.5% of respondents agreed that they were consulted in the formulation of organisational strategies. This is to be expected, however, when 59% of the respondents are employed at an operational level. Upon further analysis of the data, it is apparent that 31.25% of respondents answered that they were unsure, while only one respondent strongly disagreed with this statement (“I am consulted when organisational strategies are formulated”). This shows that, while the agreement with engagement is low, this is not necessarily an indication of a low level of engagement within the organisation, but rather an indication of the responsibilities of the respondents.

29 27

12

27

32

3 5

20

5

0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Strategy

Answers of 4 or 5

Answers Less than 4



Organisational Culture: Adaptability

Below is the graph detailing the results of the adaptability element of Organisational Culture.

Figure 17: Adaptability Sub Element responses.

It can be seen in Figure 17 that 90% of respondents agreed that each individual within a team takes personal responsibility in responding to the needs of the customers (client focus). Similarly, there was an 87% agreement amongst respondents that policies and regulations within the organisation were applied to create opportunities, rather than barriers (flexibility). Conversely, approximately 30% of respondents felt that there were not constant opportunities to learn new things and share, nor was there much drive from within the team to seek new opportunities change. Despite this, 80% of respondents agreed that their team are constantly looking for new ways to deliver services to customers. This data indicates that, while the organisation seeks to adapt its skills and services to best suit the needs of each individual customer, within the organisation itself there is not a large emphasis on learning and developing their current practices and services.

28

21 20

25 27

3

9 10 6

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Adaptability

Answers of 4 or 5

Answers Less than 4



Organisational Culture: Co-Ordination

The following graph details the results of the co-ordination element of Organisational Culture.

Figure 18: Co-Ordination Sub Element responses.

As can be seen in the above graph, there is a high level of agreement throughout all respondents that co-ordination within the organisation is high (between 76.7% and 93.3% agreement). Both communication management and organisational culture received the lowest rate of agreement, with 77% of respondents agreeing that the organisations structure makes it easy to coordinate work among us (organisational structure), and the way in which people communicate in the organisation encourages participation and mutual understanding (communication management). Conversely, there were 93% of respondents in agreement that the systems and processes in place ensure that the customers receive good service. This indicates that the current structure within the organisational culture is weighted towards improving the experience of the customer, rather than that of the employees. 86% and 90% of respondents agreed that their immediate supervisor uses their position to coordinate service delivery (positional power) and that individual performance objectives are aligned to the goals of the organisation (performance management), respectively. The positional power supports the culture of ensuring customer satisfaction, while the high agreement with communication management confirms the findings within the strategy element, where 100% of respondents agreed that the alignment of personal and organisational goals are clearly linked.

23

28 26 27

23

7

2 4 3

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Co-‐OrdinaQon

Answers of 4 or 5

Answers Less than 4



Organisational Culture: Relationships

The graph in Figure 19 shows the responses for the relationships element of Organisational Culture.

Figure 19: Relationships Sub Element responses.

As can be seen in Figure 19, there is a very positive response to the relationships element of Organisational Culture. 100% of respondents agreed that they were treated equally regardless of any unique differences (diversity management). The majority of respondents also agreed that there is a strong culture of co-operation within the firm (teamwork, partnerships), and that the values of the organisation are in line with people personal values, and are embraced by individuals. 30% of respondents felt that their talents were not being developed through development and training (talent management). This is in line with earlier findings within the adaptability element, where 30% of respondents felt that there were not enough opportunities to learn new skills.

28 24

30

20

29

2 6

0

10

1 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RelaQonships

Answers of 4 or 5

Answers Less than 4



Innovation Adoption

The following graph details the results of the Innovation Adoption section of The Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey.

Figure 20: Innovation Adoption Sub Element responses.

It can be seen in Figure 20, above, that the organisation is not averse to taking risks. 83.3% of respondents agreed that the organisation innovates at a faster rate than competitors, while 86.6% disagreed that the organisation “plays it safe”. 43.3% of respondents indicated that the organisations innovation was not driven by competition, while 90% indicated that the organisation is expected to innovate by its customers. Approximately 90% of respondents agreed that the organisation has the right knowledge and resources to innovate, and that the organisation is good at innovating. Finally, 100% of respondents agreed that innovating allows the organisation to create advantages for itself.

30

3

25 27

17

27 27 28

0

26

5 3

13

3 3 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

InnovaQon AdopQon

Answers of 4 or 5

Answers Less than 4



Cross Tabulation Tables

To analyse the effect of each element of organisational culture against innovation adoption, it was necessary to average the answers of each respondent. By calculating the average across each sub element, the response of each respondent could be determined for each Element: leadership; strategy; adaptability; co-ordination; and relationships, as well Innovation Adoption. The average of each element was compared to Innovation Adoption using Cross Tabulation Tables. Table 3 below shows the Cross Tabulation.

Table 3: Cross-Tabulation of Organisational Culture elements and Innovation Adoption

As can be seen in Table 3, above, there was no instance where respondents disagreed with both an element of Organisational Culture and Innovation Adoption. It can be seen that there is a large number of respondents who agreed with the statements made about each of the five elements of Organisational Culture and Innovation Adoption. It can be interpreted from this data that there is a relationship between each of the Organisation al Culture elements and Innovation Adoption.

3 4 53 0 2 0 24 1 10 2 135 0 13 1 14

1 25 3 293 1 3 0 44 0 17 2 195 0 6 1 7

1 26 3 303 0 5 0 54 1 11 1 135 0 10 2 12

1 26 3 303 0 4 0 44 1 16 2 195 0 6 1 7

1 26 3 303 0 2 0 24 1 17 1 195 0 7 2 9

1 26 3 30

Coordination

Relationships

Total

Innovation1Adoption Total

Total

Total

Total

Total

Leadership

Strategy

Adaptability



Pearson’s R Correlation

In order to investigate the depth of the relationship between organisational culture and adoption of innovation, the values were correlated using Pearson’s R Correlation method. Each element of organisational culture was taken as a whole, in the same way as for the Cross-Tabulation previously, and correlated against innovation adoption. The results of this correlation can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4: Correlation between Organisational Culture elements and Innovation Adoption

From the correlation tables in Table 4 above, it can be seen that strategy and relationships have the highest correlation with Innovation Adoption, with a Pearson Correlation value of 0.28 and 0.255, respectively. Leadership and Innovation Adoption have almost no correlation to each other, and significantly less of a correlation than any of the other elements of Organisational Culture, with a Correlation value of 0.026. Adaptability had a correlation of 0.199, while co-ordination had a correlation of 0.124. The role of the respondent had a very small negative correlation with Innovation Adoption of -0.019, which indicates that those in middle or upper management are very slightly more likely to adopt innovations. In order to develop a greater understanding of the relationship between Organisational Culture and the Adoption of Innovation, it is necessary to investigate these results more thoroughly. Both strategy and relationship elements of organisational culture had a strong correlation with Innovation Adoption and were therefore investigated more thoroughly. Similarly, as the weakest correlation, leadership was also investigated. By investigating the correlations at both extremes of the spectrum (strongest and weakest relationships), it is possible to create an overview of the key relationships between Organisational Culture and the Adoption of Innovation.

Leadership Innovation/Adoption Strategy Innovation/AdoptionLeadership 1 0.026 Strategy 1 0.28

Innovation/Adoption 0.026 1 Innovation3Adoption 0.28 1Adaptability Innovation/Adoption Coordination Innovation/Adoption

Adaptability 1 0.199 Coordination 1 0.124Innovation/Adoption 0.199 1 Innovation3Adoption 0.124 1

Relationships Innovation/Adoption Role Innovation/AdoptionRelationships 1 0.255 Role 1 =0.019

Innovation/Adoption 0.255 1 Innovation3Adoption =0.019 1

Pearson/R/Correlation



Strategy and the Adoption of Innovation

In order to better understand the strongly correlated relationship between strategy and the adoption of innovation, it is necessary to go into greater detail. This can be seen in Table 5 below, where each sub element of strategy is correlated against the three sub elements of Innovation Adoption.

Table 5: Detailed correlation between Strategy and Innovation Adoption

As can be seen in Table 5 above, the correlation between strategy and Innovation Adoption is quite strong in a number of areas. Direction creation (0.6), communicating meaning (0.597), and alignment (0.565) are all strongly correlated with an organisations attitude to innovation. There is almost no correlation between the engagement of an employee and their attitude to innovation, however. This indicates that a clear message and direction within an organisation fosters innovation, while the level of strategic consultation has little effect on an employee’s ability to adopt innovations. Perceived behavioural control is also strongly correlated with communicating meaning (0.552), direction creation (0.491), and alignment (0.437). This indicates, similarly to with attitude to innovation above, that the more clearly defined an organisations vision is, the most confidence exists within the organisation that the necessary knowledge and resources are available to innovate. The subjective norms element of an organisation’s adoption of innovation is not very strongly correlated to the organisations strategy. The engagement of an employee has the strongest correlation with subjective norms, with a value of 0.208, and within Subjective Norms it is the relationship that the employee feels exists with the client that has the highest correlation (see Table 9, in the appendices). The other sections of the strategy element are not strongly correlated to subjective norms however, and in most cases the correlation is inverse. Table 5 indicates that the strategy of an organisation, and how clearly this strategy is conveyed within an organisation, has a high correlation with the organisations attitude to innovation, and the confidence in it’s ability to innovate.

Attitude'to'Innovation

Subjective'Norms

Perceived'Behavioural'Control

Direction'Creation 0.6 >0.041 0.491Objective'Setting 0.365 >0.021 0.196Engagement 0.012 0.208 0.1

Communicating'Meaning 0.597 0.059 0.552Alignment 0.565 >0.042 0.437

Strategy(and(Innovation(Adoption



Relationships and the Adoption of Innovation

After strategy, the relationships element of the organisational culture was found to have the highest correlation with Innovation Adoption. A detailed correlation between the two can be found in Table 6.

Table 6: Detailed correlation between Relationships and Innovation Adoption

It can be seen in Table 6, above, that there is a consistent correlation between all sections of relationships and the adoption of innovation. Talent management has a strong correlation with both an organisation’s attitude to innovation (0.466), and the perceived behavioural controls of the organisation (0.511). There is also an inverse correlation between talent management and subjective norms (-0.101). This indicates that identifying and developing the respective talents of employees on a regular basis will positively impact the organisations attitude to innovation, and its perceived behavioural control. It will inversely affect the subjective norms of a company, however. When this is investigated in more detail (see Table 10, in the appendix), it can be seen that the correlation between talent management and the competition element of subjective norms are strongly inversely correlated. This indicates that when talent is correctly managed and developed, the perceived threat of competition is reduced. Diversity management has a similarly strong correlation with attitude to innovation (0.318), subjective norms (0.277), and perceived behavioural control (0.459). This indicates that when an employee feels secure and confident in a job, with little fear of discrimination, they are more likely to accept the risks that are associated with innovation adoption. The partnerships section of relationships is strongly correlated with all three areas of innovation adoption, with a correlation of 0.422, 0.237, and 0.459 for an organisation’s attitude to innovation, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control, respectively. Teamwork is similarly strongly correlated with innovation adoption, specifically with attitude towards innovation (0.206) and perceived behavioural control (0.313). There is an inverse relationship between teamwork and subjective norms, of -0.028. This is quite a low correlation, indicating that teamwork does not affect the subjective norms of an organisation to a large extent. Similar to the results found investigating the correlation between strategy and innovation adoption, there is not a strong correlation between relationships and subjective norms. Both partnerships (0.237) and diversity management (0.277) have a relatively strong correlation, but the correlation is much smaller than either section’s relationship to the other elements of innovation adoption. Subjective norms are a measure of the company’s relationship with external stakeholders, customers and competitors specifically, and the relationships within the company do not greatly influence these relationships.

Attitude'to'Innovation

Subjective'Norms

Perceived'Behavioural'Control

Team'Work 0.206 A0.028 0.313Partnerships 0.422 0.237 0.427

Diversity'Management 0.318 0.277 0.459Talent'Management 0.466 A0.101 0.511Organisational'Values 0.203 0.046 0.324

Relationships,and,Innovation,Adoption



Leadership and the Adoption of Innovation

Leadership was the element of organisational culture least correlated with the adoption of innovation, and a detailed correlation between all sub elements of both leadership and innovation adoption can be seen below in Table 7.

Leadership and Innovation Adoption

Attitude to Innovation

Subjective Norms

Perceived Behavioural Control

Energy Demonstration -‐0.122 0.259 -‐0.229

Energy Transference -‐0.199 0.043 -‐0.248

Vision 0.149 0.291 -‐0.015

Integrity 0.049 0.244 -‐0.100

Candour 0.058 0.129 0.256

Action 0.014 0.206 -‐0.056

Style 0.054 0.321 -‐0.053

Table 7: Detailed correlation between Leadership and Innovation Adoption

As can be seen in Table 7, there are a large variety of different strengths of correlation between leadership and innovation adoption. Energy transference has an inverse relationship with both an organisations attitude to innovation (-0.199) and perceived behavioural control (-0.248), while having a negligible correlation with subjective norms (0.043). This indicates that, although an immediate supervisor can positively inspire hard work from an employee, this hard work has a negative impact on the employee’s adoption of innovation. Candour has one of the strongest correlations with innovation adoption, specifically with perceived behavioural control (0.256). This indicates that if an employee is confident in their supervisor’s ability to make difficult decisions, then this impacts positively on the perceived control over the innovation process due to having the right resources (in this case, people) to innovate. Interestingly, unlike the correlations seen between innovation adoption and both strategy and relationships, the relationship between each section of leadership and subjective norms is relatively strong. Every section, with the exception of energy transference (0.043), has a direct correlation with subjective norms greater than 0.1. Energy transference is the only section of leadership that is directly related to the workload of an employee (“My immediate supervisor positively inspires me to work hard”), each of the other six sections relate to the perception of the immediate supervisor. This indicates that the subjective norms of an organisation are shaped by an individual’s perception of their supervisors, rather than their peers or the strategic goals of a company.



Conclusions

There were a number of informative findings detailed in this chapter. The chapter detailed the descriptive statistics of each of the central elements within the scope of this investigation. Following this, the bivariate analysis (cross tabulation and correlation tables) was then discussed in detail to give a deeper insight into the relationship between organisational culture and the adoption of innovation. Deeper analysis was performed in specific areas of interest in order to specify relationships of key importance between the variables that were examined. It was found that strategy had the highest correlation with innovation adoption, followed by relationships. Leadership was the element of organisational culture with the weakest correlation to innovation adoption. When investigated more thoroughly, it was found that, although leadership had the lowest correlation with innovation adoption, there was a high correlation between each of the sub elements of leadership and subjective norms, much higher than was found with either strategy or relationships sub elements. The relationship between strategy and both attitude to innovation and perceived behavioural controls was quite high in comparison, and the same result was found with relationships. This indicated that subjective norms are not a very influential factor of innovation adoption. In the next chapter, the paper will summarise the project and recommend actions for future research.



5 Conclusion and Recommendations

Introduction

In this chapter, the core research questions posed at the start of the paper will be addressed using the findings of the last chapter. The paper will then outline the limitations of this research, and make recommendations for future study. Finally, this chapter will recommend some practical applications of these findings.

Conclusion

As outlined in the introduction to the paper, the research question posed was: “What is the relationship between Organisational Culture and Innovation Adoption?” This question was researched by means of The Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey. This survey consisted of a series of questions to determine the strength of the constituent elements of Organisational Culture (Leadership, Adaptability, Strategy, Coordination, and Relationships) and the elements of Innovation Adoption (Attitude to Innovation, Subjective Norms, and Perceived Behavioural Control). The survey was distributed to the 40 staff members of an international security monitoring company, based in County Carlow, Ireland. Of the 40 staff members, 36 completed and returned the survey, and the results were analysed using descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis. At a high level, the five elements of organisational culture were correlated against Innovation Adoption, in order to determine which areas of organisational culture had the greatest influence on the adoption of innovation. The results of the data did not show a strong correlation between the organisational culture sub elements and innovation adoption, with strategy (0.28) and relationships (0.255) the two strongest correlations, and leadership (0.026) the weakest. It was clear from the research that this is a very complex question, which proves very difficult to succinctly answer. To paper has hence sought to answer the more detailed questions posed, which are as follows:

1. What is the relationship between Strategy and Innovation Adoption? 2. What is the relationship between Relationships and Innovation Adoption? 3. What is the relationship between Leadership and Innovation Adoption?

By answering these questions, the core question regarding the relationship between Organisational Culture and the Adoption of Innovation can be analysed in more depth. This conclusion will answer each question individually.

What is the relationship between Strategy and Innovation Adoption?

When the relationship between Strategy and Innovation Adoption was investigated in more detail, it became clear that the strategy of the firm had a large effect on the attitude to innovation within a firm. Specifically, when members of the organisation felt that the organisation was clear on the vision and the long term strategies for future success then their attitude to innovation is much more positive. Similarly, when this vision is communicated in a clear and easily understandable manner, it also greatly influences the organisations attitude to innovation. These factors greatly influence not only the organisation’s attitude to innovation, but also it’s perceived behavioural controls. This indicates that a strong vision and strategy gives people confidence in the firm’s ability to innovate, and the resources available to it. Conversely, if the organisation lacks a clear strategy, then there will be resistance to



innovation due to lack of confidence. This result conforms to the findings of Sarros et al (2008), who determined that vision was a very strong influence on innovation adoption. Interestingly, despite having a strong correlation with both attitude to innovation and perceived behavioural controls, there is little correlation between strategy and subjective norms (the external factors, such as competitors and customers, that cause innovation within an organisation). The only element of strategy that has a relatively strong correlation with subjective norms is the engagement, which defines whether or not the respondent is consulted on the formulation of strategies. However, 62% of respondents indicated that they were not consulted during the formulation of strategies. Given that a large percentage of the data sample was either at middle management or executive level, this correlation may not be indicative of the relationship at the operational level, where strategic decisions would rarely be discussed.

What is the relationship between Relationships and Innovation Adoption?

Similar to the correlation between strategy and innovation adoption, the relationships within an organisational culture had strong correlations with both the attitude to innovation and perceived behavioural controls. In particular, the development of talent within an organisation had a very high influence on these elements, indicating that constant development of staff will encourage them to accept new challenges. Talent management has an inverse relationship with subjective norms, which indicates that as talent is developed the belief in external influencing factors is diminished. Teamwork and partnerships are also shown to have a strong link with innovation adoption. Teamwork refers to interaction within a group, while partnerships refer to people from different groups, with different skill sets, working together to improve service delivery. This cross functional, knowledge sharing environment is a key component of innovation, and has strong correlations with both attitude to innovation and perceived behavioural control.

What is the relationship between Leadership and Innovation Adoption?

With a correlation of only 0.026, Leadership was found to have the lowest correlation with the adoption of innovation. This was contrary to expectations, as previous literature had found leadership to be one of the most influential elements of organisational culture on innovation (Sarros et al, 2008 & Kelleher, 1992). However, Sarros et al (2008) found that vision was the aspect with the most influence on innovation adoption, which was seen in the positive results of strategy, above. These findings indicate that the vision necessary to influence innovation adoption does not necessarily come from an employee’s direct supervisor or leader, but can be considered an overall strategic goal of an organisation. As the element with the weakest correlation with innovation adoption, when researched in more detail leadership was shown to have some strong influencing factors on innovation. Interestingly, unlike the previous two elements, leadership had a consistently strong correlation with the subjective norms. In particular, the style of leadership (i.e. ‘my immediate supervisor can adapt his/her leadership style to different people and situations’) had the highest correlation with subjective norms, followed by the enthusiasm of the leader and the trust placed in them by employees. This indicates that the perceived abilities of the leader in an organisation will influence the expectations of the organisations performance by its customers. Leadership has in inverse correlation with perceived behavioural controls, specifically with regard to energy demonstration and energy transference. This indicates that a “hands-on” leader will reduce the perceived control that the organisation has. This implies that a strong leader is needed to steer a company in an innovative direction, but is not a direct influence on



innovation adoption. The employee’s understanding of their role and importance to the organisation, and knowledge of the long-term strategies of the company influence innovation adoption, more so than the strengths of their immediate supervisors. However, the enthusiasm and implicit trust of a leader will indirectly influence many areas of an organisational culture.

Limitations and Recommendations

It is necessary to acknowledge the limitations of this paper. This paper focused on one organisation in particular, which had a small number of employees. This data may not be representative of a larger organisation, where there is a more defined separation between operational level and middle management, for example. The use of a larger data set, across an industry rather than within a firm, as well as interviewing larger organisations, would yield a more varied response and allow for a greater depth of analysis to be undertaken. This paper focused on innovation adoption, but did not investigate the relationships with the innovation value chain. This extra dimension may yield new insights. The method of data analysis undertaken does not indicate the causality of the relationships found. Indeed, it is not known from these results whether organisational culture affects innovation or if it is the opposite, and innovation adoption influences the culture in an organisation. The use of a longitudinal design would help to strengthen the causal relationships. Part 2 of the Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey, which sought details of innovative developments and monetary benefits as a result, was not used in the data collection of this paper. In order to get a more complete overview of the innovation of a company in future, this section should also be used. It is recommended that, in future research, to use a larger data set in order to determine a benchmark for comparison. This research focused on the results of one organisation, and while the analysis yielded interesting results, this paper does not indicate if this firm operates differently from other firms in the industry. This could be an interesting area to study in future. The relationship between leadership and innovation adoption yielded contradicting results, where the leadership element had little effect on innovation adoption as a whole, but had a relatively strong correlation with the subjective norms. That leadership is not a strong factor of organisational culture in effecting innovation adoption is a surprising and interesting result, which contradicts the findings of previous research (Sarros et al, 2008). Due to this, further research in to this area would be recommended in order to further determine the relationship between innovation adoption and leadership.

In Practice

In terms of practical applications of the findings of this paper, an area of note is that the more informed and integrated an organisation is, the more receptive it will be to innovation. By keeping all members of staff informed of strategic goals, both short term and long term, there will be a better understanding of the reasons for implementing innovations and less resistance to this change. It is also worth noting that leadership has an inverse relationship with perceived behavioural controls, and that a charismatic and energetic leader can reduce the confidence in an organisation’s ability to innovate, rather then strengthen it. Simultaneously, leadership is strongly correlated to subjective norms, and this needs to be kept in mind also. There is a thin line that must be managed in order to leverage leadership to increase the adoption of innovation in an organisation.



The relationships that are fostered within an organisation are an important consideration for the organisation going forward. The findings of this paper indicate that the relationships that exist between employees play a large role in both the perceived behavioural controls and the attitude to innovation that exist within the company. If there is a strong community in an organisation, employees are more likely to accept the inherent risks of innovation. By fostering and developing these relationships, the organisation can ensure that employees are more open to change in the future. In order to take advantage of these findings, there are several recommendations for an organisation to consider in practice. Firstly, increasing the transparency of the firm, to ensure that staff at all levels have a clear understanding of the strategic goals of the company, will ensure that employee’s confidence in the company is high, as is their acceptance of innovation. Employees are more likely to be responsive to change and innovation if they feel like they are a part of a team. In order to develop these relationships, an organisation can introduce informal staff gatherings, to encourage interaction between employees on a social level. Informal gatherings do not have to be limited to social interactions outside of work hours; an informal meeting between staff members to generate new ideas and discuss strategy can greatly improve staff relationships, and create new ideas for the company going forward. An organisation can also introduce job rotation, which will give staff training in disparate areas and develop cross-functional relationships within the firm. The findings in this paper indicate that a strong leader can inhibit innovation by reducing the perceived behavioural controls of a staff member. Despite this, a strong leader is an integral part of any successful organisation; there is a delicate balance to be kept in order to increase the adoption of innovation within a firm. By increasing the autonomy of an employee on a project, the organisation can keep the positive benefits of leadership while simultaneously increasing the responsibility and confidence of each employee. It is important to note that in the two elements of organisational culture most strongly correlated with innovation adoption (Strategy and Relationships), there was not a strong emphasis on subjective norms in these relationships. Conversely, while there was a strong relationship between leadership and organisational culture, this did not greatly affect the correlation between leadership and innovation adoption as a whole. This implies that internal factors, rather than external ones, play a larger part in the organisations ability to adopt innovations. In practice, an organisation should focus more on internal research and development, as well as training staff and fostering relationships, rather than focusing on matching competitors.



6 References

Ajzen, I. “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior,” in Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann (eds.), New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp.11-39. Alexe, Cătălin-George (2008), What is an Innovative Culture and How Can we Build it? U.P.B Sci. Bull., Series D, Vol. 70, No. 1., www.scientificbulletin.upb.ro/rev_docs_arhiva/full91408.pdf Cameron, K & Quinn, Robert E (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Reading MA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Cameron, K.S., and R.E. Quinn. 1988. “Organisational Paradox and Transformation.” In Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organisation and Management, ed. R.E. Quinn and K.S. Cameron, 1–18. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Christensen, Clayton M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Covey, S.R. (1993), Innovation at four levels, Executive Excellence, Vol. 10, No. 9, 3 – 5. Dasanayaka, S.W.S.B, (2009), Implications of Organisational Culture on Innovation: An Explanatory Micro Study of Sri Lankan Gift and Decorative-ware Sector Firms, www.merit.unu.edu/MEIDE/papers/2009/1234932173_SD.pdf Dess, G.G. & Beard, D.W. (1984), Dimensions of Organisational Task Environment, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52 - 73.

DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organisational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48, 147 - 160

Enos, John L. (1962), Invention and Innovation in the Petroleum Refining Industry, http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2124, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 299 – 322 http://www.nber.org/books/univ62-1, UMI.

Erwin Douglas H. and Krakauer David C. (2004), Insights into Innovation, Science 304, 1117, http://c4.discovery.wisc.edu/resources/PAPERPDFS/ErwinScience2004.pdf

Hage, J. & Aiken, M. (1970), Social Change in Complex Organisations, New York, Random House.

Hansen, Morten T. & Birkinshaw, Julian (2007), The Innovation Value Chain, Harvard Business Review, June 207, 121 – 130, www. http://hbr.org/2007/06/the-innovation-value-chain/ar/1

Hofstede (1984) Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural Consequences: International Differences in Work Values. Sage, Beverly Hills.

Hofstede (1990). Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring Organisational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 286-316.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill



Hofstede, G. (1997). Culture and Organisations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its importance for Survival. McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth. Organisational Dynamics, 16(4): 5- 21.

Hurley RF & GTM Hult (1998). Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organisational Learning: An integration and empirical examination, Journal of Marketing, 62 (3),

42-54. Hurley, R. F. and Hult, T. (1998), "Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organisational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, No. 3, 42-54.

Jaaskyte, Kristina PhD & Dressler, William W. PhD (2005), Organisational Culture and Innovation in Nonprofit Human Service Organisations, Administration in Social work, 29:2, 23 – 41 http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J147v29n02_03 Kelleher, R.,1992. 'Transformational Leadership and the Performance of Research and Development Project Groups ‘Journal of Management, Vol. 18.

Kong-Seng, Lai and Yusof, Nor’Aini (2011), Organisational Culture and Innovation Adoption/Generation: A Proposed Model, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v58/v58-57.pdf

Martin (2002) Martin, J. (2002). Organisational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organisations: Three Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Phonkaew, Sasithorn (2001), Propensity for Innovation Adoption: Integration of Structural Contingency and Resource Dependence Perspectives, ABAC Journal, Vol. 21 No.1, January to April 2001, http://www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/2001/jan01/article_3.pdf

Rogers, Everett M (1995), Diffusion of Innovations (4th edition), Simon and Schuster, The Free Press, New York.

Sarros, James C., Cooper, Brian K., and Santori, Joseph C. (2008), Building a Climate for Innovation Through Transformational Leadership and Organisational Culture, Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, Volume 15 Number 2, November 2008, 145-158, www.jlo.sagepub.com/content/15/2/145.abstract

Schein (1985a) Schein, E.H. (1985). Organisational Culture and Leadership. Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Schein, E.H. (1985a). How Culture Forms, Develops and Changes. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey Bass. pp. 17-43.

Schubert, T. 2009, 'Marketing and Organisational Innovations in entrepreneurial Innovation Processes and their relation to Market Structure and Firm Characteristics. Druid Publishing Denmark.

Smit, J., Ludik, J., & Forster, S. (2008). Organisational culture in the South African context: The x model. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 7(10), 73-85.

Tan, M., & Teo, T. (2000). Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking. Journal of the Association for Information Sciences, 1, 1-42.



Taylor, S. & Todd, P.A. (1995a), Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experiences, MIS Quarterly (19:3), 561 – 570.

Taylor, S. & Todd, P.A. (1995a), Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models, Information Systems Research (6:2), June 1995a, 144 – 176.

Tidd, Joe and Bessant, John (2009), Developing and organisational culture that facilitates radical innovation in a mature small to medium sized company: Emergent findings (Working paper series) February 2004, www.wileyeurope.com/college/tidd

Tuan, Luu Trong and Venkatesh, Sundar (2010), Organisational Culture and Technological Innovation Adoption in Private Hospitals, International Business Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/view/5614/6864

Valencia, Julia C. Naranjo, Raquel Sanz Valle, Daniel Jiménez Jiménez, (2010), Organisational Culture as determinant of product innovation, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13 Iss: 4 pp.466 – 480 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601061011086294 Van de Ven, A. H., & Angle, H. L. (1989). An introduction to the Minnesota innovation research program. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, &M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation (pp. 3-30). New York: Harper & Row.

Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L., & Poole, M. S. (1989). Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. New York: Harper & Row.

Yusof, Nor Aini and Abidin, Nazirah Zainul (2011), Does Organisational Culture Influence the Innovativeness of Public-Listed Housing Developers, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Does+organisational+culture+influence+the+innovativeness+of...-a0284685138



7 Appendices

Figure 21: Frequency charts of Leadership and Innovation Adoption, Leadership and Role.

Figure 22: Frequency charts of Strategy and Innovation Adoption, Strategy and Role.

Figure 23: Frequency charts of Adaptability and Innovation Adoption, Adaptability and Role.



Figure 24: Frequency charts of Co-Ordination and Innovation Adoption, Co-Ordination and Role.

Figure 25: Frequency charts of Relationships and Innovation Adoption, Relationships and Role.

Figure 26: Frequency chart of Role and Innovation Adoption.


Table 8: Correlation between Role, Organisational Culture Elements, and Innovation Adoption

Role

LEAD

ERSH

IPST

RATE

GYAD

APTIB

ILITY

COOR

DINA

TION

RELA

TIONS

HIPS

INNO

VATIO

N AD

OPTIO

NPe

arson

Corr

elatio

n1

.177

.033

.015

.071

.195

-.019

Sig. (2

-taile

d).35

8.86

1.93

7.72

0.31

9.92

4N

3429

3029

2828

28Pe

arson

Corr

elatio

n.17

71

.177

.528**

.254

.109

.026

Sig. (2

-taile

d).35

8.34

1.00

3.18

4.57

4.89

2N

2931

3130

2929

29Pe

arson

Corr

elatio

n.03

3.17

71

.609**

.533**

.529**

.280

Sig. (2

-taile

d).86

1.34

1.00

0.00

2.00

3.13

4N

3031

3231

3030

30Pe

arson

Corr

elatio

n.01

5.52

8**.60

9**1

.569**

.531**

.199

Sig. (2

-taile

d).93

7.00

3.00

0.00

1.00

3.29

2N

2930

3131

3030

30Pe

arson

Corr

elatio

n.07

1.25

4.53

3**.56

9**1

.529**

.124

Sig. (2

-taile

d).72

0.18

4.00

2.00

1.00

3.51

3N

2829

3030

3030

30Pe

arson

Corr

elatio

n.19

5.10

9.52

9**.53

1**.52

9**1

.255

Sig. (2

-taile

d).31

9.57

4.00

3.00

3.00

3.17

4N

2829

3030

3030

30Pe

arson

Corr

elatio

n-.0

19.02

6.28

0.19

9.12

4.25

51

Sig. (2

-taile

d).92

4.89

2.13

4.29

2.51

3.17

4N

2829

3030

3030

30

COOR

DINA

TION

RELA

TIONS

HIPS

INNO

VATIO

N AD

OPTIO

N

**. C

orrela

tion i

s sign

ifican

t at th

e 0.01

leve

l (2-ta

iled).

Role

LEAD

ERSH

IP

STRA

TEGY

ADAP

TIBILI

TY

Correlations



Rel

ativ

e A

dvan

tage

of

Inno

vatio

nR

isk

Taki

ng:

Pla

ying

it S

afe

Ris

k Ta

king

: Fa

ster

In

nova

tion

Cus

tom

ers

Com

petit

ors

Sel

f E

ffica

cy

Faci

litat

ing

Con

ditio

ns:

Kno

wle

dge

Faci

litat

ing

Con

ditio

ns:

Res

ourc

esP

ears

on C

orre

latio

n,6

06**

-.047

.181

-.015

-.166

,422

*,4

23*

.354

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).0

00.8

10.3

40.9

35.3

80.0

20.0

20.0

55

N30

2930

3030

3030

30P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.0

78.2

71.0

00-.1

28.0

73.0

96.1

42.1

83

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).6

81.1

551.

000

.501

.701

.615

.453

.333

N30

2930

3030

3030

30P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n-.0

93.1

63-.0

08.2

28.1

66.1

11.1

00.3

53

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).6

25.3

99.9

67.2

26.3

80.5

61.5

99.0

55

N30

2930

3030

3030

30P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.3

20.0

49,3

93*

.114

-.060

,480

**,5

35**

,450

*

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).0

84.8

00.0

32.5

47.7

54.0

07.0

02.0

12

N30

2930

3030

3030

30P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n,6

21**

0.00

0,3

95*

.092

-.076

,439

*,4

47*

.301

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).0

001.

000

.031

.628

.688

.015

.013

.106

N30

2930

3030

3030

30

Dire

ctio

n C

reat

ion

Obj

ectiv

e S

ettin

g

Eng

agem

ent

Com

mun

icat

ing

Mea

ning

Alig

nmen

t

Str

ateg

y an

d In

nova

tion

Ado

ptio

n



Table 9: Detailed correlation between Strategy and Innovation Adoption

Rel

ativ

e A

dvan

tage

of

Inno

vatio

nR

isk

Taki

ng:

Pla

ying

it S

afe

Ris

k Ta

king

: Fa

ster

In

nova

tion

Cus

tom

ers

Com

petit

ors

Sel

f E

ffica

cy

Faci

litat

ing

Con

ditio

ns:

Kno

wle

dge

Faci

litat

ing

Con

ditio

ns:

Res

ourc

esP

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.1

53.0

42.2

74.0

42-.2

19.2

37.3

18.1

64

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).4

19.8

29.1

44.8

27.2

45.2

07.0

87.3

86

N30

2930

3030

3030

30P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.2

50.3

30.1

32,4

88**

.088

.313

,395

*,5

26**

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).1

82.0

80.4

87.0

06.6

43.0

92.0

31.0

03

N30

2930

3030

3030

30P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.2

080.

000

.327

.218

.058

.316

,393

*,4

04*

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).2

701.

000

.078

.247

.760

.089

.032

.027

N30

2930

3030

3030

30P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.1

81.2

41,3

64*

.238

-.319

.336

,519

**,4

51*

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).3

40.2

08.0

48.2

05.0

86.0

69.0

03.0

12

N30

2930

3030

3030

30P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.0

48.1

81.3

03.1

78-.0

09.2

73.3

52.3

47

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).7

99.3

48.1

04.3

47.9

62.1

45.0

56.0

60N

3029

3030

3030

3030

Team

Wor

k

Par

tner

ship

s

Div

ersi

ty M

anag

emen

t

Tale

nt M

anag

emen

t

Org

aniz

atio

nal V

alue

s

Rel

atio

nshi

ps a

nd In

nova

tion

Ado

ptio

n



Table 10: Detailed correlation between Relationships and Innovation Adoption



Table 11: Detailed correlation between Leadership and Innovation Adoption.

Rel

ativ

e A

dvan

tage

of

Inno

vatio

nR

isk

Taki

ng:

Pla

ying

it S

afe

Ris

k Ta

king

: Fa

ster

In

nova

tion

Cus

tom

ers

Com

petit

ors

Sel

f E

ffica

cy

Faci

litat

ing

Con

ditio

ns:

Kno

wle

dge

Faci

litat

ing

Con

ditio

ns:

Res

ourc

esP

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.1

78-.3

56-.1

95-.1

24.2

49-.1

22-.2

52-.3

27

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).3

55.0

63.3

10.5

21.1

93.5

30.1

87.0

83

N29

2829

2929

2929

29P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.1

93-,4

95**

-.220

-.282

.105

-.060

-.273

-.158

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).3

16.0

07.2

52.1

38.5

86.7

59.1

53.4

12

N29

2829

2929

2929

29P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.0

39-.1

09.0

75-.0

50.3

12.1

75-.0

06-.0

63

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).8

40.5

82.7

01.7

97.1

00.3

63.9

75.7

47

N29

2829

2929

2929

29P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.2

61-.3

05-.1

16-.1

32.2

12-.0

16-.1

36-.2

01

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).1

71.1

15.5

48.4

95.2

69.9

36.4

82.2

95

N29

2829

2929

2929

29P

ears

on C

orre

latio

n.0

98-.2

20,4

17*

.278

-.062

,393

*.3

54.0

78

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).6

12.2

60.0

24.1

44.7

51.0

35.0

59.6

88N

2928

2929

2929

2929

Pea

rson

Cor

rela

tion

-.033

-.101

-.075

-.009

.097

.021

-.091

-.146

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).8

67.6

08.7

00.9

64.6

16.9

14.6

39.4

50N

2928

2929

2929

2929

Pea

rson

Cor

rela

tion

-.198

.066

-.043

-.034

.345

-.067

-.044

-.220

Sig

. (2-

taile

d).3

04.7

39.8

23.8

60.0

67.7

30.8

23.2

51N

2928

2929

2929

2929

Can

dour

Act

ion

Sty

le

Lead

ersh

ip a

nd In

nova

tion

Ado

ptio

n

Ene

rgy

Dem

onst

ratio

n

Ene

rgy

Tran

sfer

ence

Vis

ion

Inte

grity



24 January 2013 Utrecht University of Applied Science Padualaan 101 3584 CH Utrecht Netherlands Tel: +31 88 481 6473 www.hu.nl [email protected]

To whom it may concern

REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH PROJECT Dear Sir/Madam, Please accept hereby a request to participate in the research project Organisational Culture and Innovation in European Business. What is the aim of the research? The aim of the project is to study the factors that may relate to and possibly influence innovation in organisations. Who is doing the research? The research was conceived and is being led by Utrecht University of Applied Science in the Netherlands under the leadership of the undersigned. Data collection and analysis will be conducted by Barry Ronayne. Barry Ronayne is a research student studying for the Master in Business Studies: Innovation in European Business (MBS-IEB). This Master is offered in partnership at three institutions namely Cork University College (Ireland), Utrecht University of Applied Science (Netherlands), and ISC School of Management (France). What is going to happen? The research student has been asked to collect data in your organisation using a questionnaire and also by doing some interviews with people in your organisation. The questionnaire is attached. The data that is collected will be combined with data collected by other research students and then analysed. Research students will each write a thesis about their findings. The aim is also to write some research papers for scientific publications such as conferences and journals. The rights of participating organisations and individuals Please note that we take the rights of participating organisations and individuals very seriously.



Participating organisations and/or individuals remain anonymous unless they have given specific permission for their names to be published in reports of this study. In addition any data that is collected, analysed and reported on during the study is also regarded as anonymous. This means that no link will be made between the data (or any processed data) and the source of the data in any publications that may follow on this study unless the source of the data has given specific permission in this regard. In the attached form you have to option to indicate whether your organisation’s name may be published in publications related to this research or not. In principle we assume that individuals do not want their names published and therefore we will not do so unless specifically requested. What you and your organisation can do to help.

1. In the first place we need to know if your organisation will, or will not, participate in the research. Please indicate your decision by filling out and signing the attached form. The completed and signed form can be scanned and e-mailed to [email protected], or a hard copy can be sent by postal mail to the contact details at the top of this letter.

2. Then we would like to ask that you give Rory Mahony access to people in your organisation to conduct the research.

3. It would also really help if you assist the researcher as far as possible by for instance providing contact details of people in your organisation and informing them about the project.

What your organisation can get out of this. If the student manages to collect enough data and conducts the research properly, then the report that will be written should contain useful information as well as recommendations regarding organisational culture and innovation in your organisation. As a small token of gratitude for participating you will therefore receive a copy of this report. We hope that you will positively consider our request and see your way forward in supporting this exciting research project. Kind regards, ___________________________________ Dr Kobus Smit Associate Professor Faculty of Economics & Management Utrecht University of Applied Science



CONSENT FORM REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH PROJECT:

Organisational Culture and Innovation in European Business 2013 UTRECHT UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCE

The request to participate is (tick appropriate box):

! Approved

! Not approved

The organisation wishes to remain anonymous in publications related to this research project (tick

appropriate box):

! Yes ! No

Organisation details: Name of organisation: NETWATCH

Address: Curam House

Athy Road

Carlow

Website: www.netwatchsystem.com

David Walsh, CEO of Netwatch. ___________________________________________ Signature of representative on behalf of the organisation Details organisational representative Full names David Walsh

E-mail address [email protected]

Phone number NA

Details mentor/supervisor of intern: Full names NA

E-mail address NA

Phone number NA



Organisational Culture and Innovation Survey 2013 Part 1

The purpose of this project is to investigate the culture of organisations as well as their intention to innovate. The results will be used for two purposes namely for students to gather data for their master thesis and for publication in scientific journals, The research is conducted by students of the Master of Business Studies (Innovation in European Business) under the guidance of Dr Kobus Smit from the Utrecht University of Applied Science, Netherlands. The master diploma is awarded and partially delivered by Cork University College in partnership with Utrecht University of Applied Science (Netherlands) and ISC Paris School of Management (France). Instructions:

1. The survey consists of several sections. 2. Please read the instructions on each page carefully. 3. In most cases a statement is offered. You have to indicate to what extent you agree or disagree

with each statement. The options are: Disagree Strongly, Disagree, Unsure, Agree, Agree Strongly

4. When responding to the statements, don't think too long. Rather respond quickly, this usually provides more accurate and honest responses.

5. Also try to think of your experience in your immediate work environment and the people around you.

6. Occasionally the questionnaire refers to customers; keep in mind that this refers to the customers you serve, whether they are internal customers (such as other people/teams/units within your organisation) or external customers (the public).

7. Do bear in mind that the process is absolutely confidential (i.e. no individual viewpoints will be revealed).

Ethical issues: Respondents have the choice to participate or not participate in this study. It will be assumed that respondents who complete the survey do that of their own free will. This survey is anonymous. The record kept of survey responses does not contain any identifying information about respondents unless specifically asked for. In addition the responses of each individual



For Office Use

participant remain confidential. This means that responses from all participants are combined for analysis and individual responses are not published in any reports and will not be revealed to anyone outside of the research project team.

Data captured? (tick box when captured)

Respondent Nr (same as number in data sheet):



1. Organisational Culture (B)

1.1. Please select your level in the organisation from the list: * Please choose only one of the following:

Senior Management Middle Management Operations

2. Organisational Culture (L) Please indicate how strongly you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements:

Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure Agree

Agree Strongly

2.1. My immediate supervisor is enthusiastic about his/her job.

2.2. My immediate supervisor positively inspires me to work hard

2.3. My immediate supervisor helps us to understand where we fit into the organisation.

2.4. My immediate supervisor is a person of integrity and I trust him/her.

2.5. My immediate supervisor makes tough decisions when necessary.

2.6. My immediate supervisor has a strong drive to deliver results.

2.7. My immediate supervisor can adapt his/her leadership style to different people and situations.

3. Organisational Culture (S) Please indicate how strongly you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements:


Agree Strongly

3.1. My organisation is clear on what our long-term strategies should be in order to ensure our future success.

3.2. My organisation has converted its strategies into concrete objectives.

3.3. I am consulted when organisational strategies are formulated.

3.4. My organisation communicates its vision in such a way that everyone understands its meaning.

3.5. I understand how my job is linked to strategic direction of my organisation.



4. Organisational Culture (A) Please indicate how strongly you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements:


Agree Strongly

4.1. In my team each individual takes personal responsibility in responding to the needs of customers.

4.2. In my team we constantly seek new opportunities for change so that we can improve our service delivery.

4.3. In my team we constantly share new things we learn with others.

4.4. In my team we are constantly looking for new ways of delivering services to our customers.

4.5. My organisation applies policies, rules and regulations to create opportunities rather than barriers.

5. Organisational Culture (C) Please indicate how strongly you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements:


Agree Strongly

5.1. My organisation's structure makes it easy to coordinate work amongst us (i.e. structured in a way that gets work done).

5.2. The work processes we use in my organisation ensure that our customers receive good service.

5.3. My immediate supervisor uses his/her position to co-ordinate/ensure service delivery.

5.4. My own performance objectives are aligned to my organisation's goals.

5.5. The way in which people communicate in my organisation encourages participation.



6. Organisational Culture (R) Please indicate how strongly you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements:


Agree Strongly

6.1. People in my team willingly co-operate with each other in order to get work done.

6.2. People from different teams continuously build partnerships to help improve service delivery.

6.3. In my team we are treated equally regardless of our unique differences (e.g. race gender, language, age, religious beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, academic qualification, etc.).

6.4. In my team our talents (i.e. knowledge, skills and experiences) are constantly developed through development and training.

6.5. In my team we embrace the organisation’s values.



7. Innovation (I) To innovate means to introduce something new. This may include many things for instance new ideas, new ways of doing things, a new structure for the organisation, new products, new equipment, new services, new processes, new ways to reach clients, and so forth. Please indicate how strongly you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements:


Agree Strongly

7.1. People in my team are good at creating new ideas on their own.

7.2. We are good at creating new ideas by working across the organisation.

7.3. We source many new ideas from outside our own organisation.

7.4. We are good at choosing the right new ideas for our organisation.

7.5. We are good at funding new ideas.

7.6. We are good at turning new ideas into viable products, businesses, and best practices.

7.7. Are we good at spreading new ideas across our organisation.

7.8. Using the latest innovations would benefit my organisation.

7.9. Using the latest innovations does not present any risk to my organisation.

7.10. Customers expect from my organisation to use the latest innovations.

7.11. The market is so competitive that we have to keep using the latest innovations.

7.12. We always use the latest innovations in this organisation.

7.13. My organisation has the necessary resources (e.g. time, money, people) to keep using the latest innovations.

Thank you very much for participating!

Ronayne (Barry) Thesis Final Draft

Documents

Transcript of Ronayne (Barry) Thesis Final Draft