Towards an HRM Model predicting Organizational Performance

by Enhancing Innovative Work Behavior:

A Study among Dutch SMEs in the Province of Limburg.

Jol M.M. Stoffers, MSc, MBA

A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

of the degree of Master of Philosophy (MPhil)

awarded by the Maastricht School of Management (MSM),

the Netherlands (February 2010).

2

February 2010,

Jol M.M. Stoffers, MSc, MBA

www.jolstoffers.com

Towards an HRM Model predicting Organizational Performance by Enhancing Innovative Work

Behavior: A Study among Dutch SMEs in the Province of Limburg.

Zuyd University (School of People & Business Management) has contributed financially to the

realization of this research proposal.

Supervisor:

Prof. Beatrice I.J.M. van der Heijden, PhD

Director of Research and Doctoral Programs

Head of the Department Organizational Behavior/Human Resource Management

Maastricht School of Management

Full professor of Strategic HRM at the Open University of the Netherlands

Affiliated with the University of Twente, Department HRM

Reader: Prof. G.W.J. Heling, PhD

3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 04

Abstract 05

1. Introduction 06

2. Theoretical Background 08

2.1 Organizational Performance 08

2.2 Innovative Work Behavior 08

2.3 Employability 09

2.4 Leader-Member Exchange 10

2.5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior 10

2.6 Perceptions of Organizational Politics 11

2.7 Research Questions and Hypotheses 13

3. Method 16

3.1. Sample and Procedures 16

3.2. Measures 17

4. Conclusions 20

5. Practical Implications 21

References 23

Biographical notes 29

Appendix 1:

Stoffers, J.M.M., & Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2009). Towards an

HRM Model predicting Organizational Performance by Enhancing

Innovative Work Behaviour: A Study among Dutch SMEs in the

Province of Limburg. Business Leadership Review, 6(4), 1-13.

Appendix 2: Questionnaire Employee

Appendix 3: Questionnaire Supervisor

4

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Beatrice van der

Heijden, PhD. Without her inspiration, supporting remarks and valuable comments, I would not

have been able to acquire a deeper insight into this research and especially into the design of the

research.

I would also like to extend many thanks to all of the professors and staff members of MSM for

their constant support.

Moreover, I would like to thank my dear collegues Trui ten Kampe and Kees Vreugdenhil, for

always believing in my work and for supporting me in any way possible. It is such a pleasure to

work with you both!

And last but not least, my beloved wife Claudia and my daughters Amber & Jasmijn, you provide

me with a basis that allows me to focus entirely at my work and challanges.

I am utterly convinced that by enhancing innovative work behavior, Human Resource

Management can contribute to organizational performance. The collaboration with the Province

of Limburg and the Employers’ Association SME Limburg makes that this research will really

become applicable and that it has the ability to contribute to the SMEs in Limburg.

5

Abstract

This study portrays a model aimed to investigate the relationships between employability,

leader-member exchange, organizational citizenship behavior, innovative work behavior, and

objective- and perceived organizational performance. It also includes the moderating effect of

organizational politics upon these relationships. This manuscript reports the study design that

will be operationalized in Dutch Small & Medium- sized Enterprises (SMEs) that are active in

various branches in the province of Limburg.

I envisage that this research project is important to management practice because it is believed

that by stimulating and investing in employability, in the quality of the relationship between

employees and supervisors, and in the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior,

innovative work behavior and improved organizational performance may be achieved.

Moreover, an awareness of how organizational politics has an impact on work outcomes is

critical to all parties involved in the business community.

6

1. Introduction

Successful organizations find it absolutely essential to launch new product features, offer better

services, and provide more efficient and effective internal processes. This is because product,

service, and process innovation require organizations to incorporate the alterations made to

markets, technology, and competition (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996). According to Katz (1964:

132), “an organization that depends solely upon its blueprints of prescribed behavior, is a very

fragile social system”. In order to be able to improve production processes and to develop new

products, innovation is vital and is supposed to contribute to proper organizational

performance. Organizations can only meet the demands of their customers when their

employees are innovative (Amabile, 1998). Moreover, in order to achieve a continuous flow of

innovation, employees need to be both willing and able to innovate (De Jong & Den Hartog,

1997). They must have adequate competences and the quality of their relationship with

supervisors is assumed to be related to innovative behavior and subsequently applied for the

benefit of the organization. It is also thought that employees should be eager to contribute in a

more effective way, even more than their formal role or job description prescribes.

Because of the impact globalization has had on the world’s economy, SMEs in predominantly

regional economies, such as, for instance, Limburg, a province in the South of the Netherlands,

ought subsequently also focus on innovation. Moreover, it is desirable that employees in such

organizations possess sufficient and even higher-level competences (Provincie Limburg

Taskforce Versnellingsagenda [Province of Limburg Taskforce Acceleration Agenda], 2008).

SMEs are usually keen to innovate (UEAPME, 2006).

Organizational politics is an important phenomenon because of the potential consequences and

effect they can have on work outcomes. Theoretical literature suggests that politics often

interfere with regular organizational processes, and may harm performance on individual and

organizational levels (Vigoda-Gadot, 2003). Politics might also have an impact on employability,

the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor, organizational citizenship

behavior and on innovative work behavior. As a result, politics could have implications for the

level of organizational performance.

This study aims to investigate the relationships between employability, leader-member

exchange, organizational citizenship behavior (independents), innovative work behavior

(mediator), and objective- and perceived organizational performance (dependents). It will also

investigate the moderating effect of organizational politics upon these relationships.

7

As such, this research project will address issues which have yet to be resolved in existing

literature. This refers specifically to the relationships between employability, LMX (leader-

member exchange), OCB (organizational citizenship behavior), innovative work behavior,

organizational politics and objective- and perceived organizational performance. Organizational

politics is a widespread phenomenon in all organizations and according to Pfeffer (1992)

researchers and practitioners should give the issue much more attention and empirical

examination. Moreover, a special focus of this study is the investigation of these relationships in

SMEs for little is known about the science and practice of Human Resources (HR) in these

organizations (Huselid, 2003).

It is believed that by stimulating and investing in employability, in the quality of the

relationships between employees and supervisors and in the antecedents of organizational

citizenship behavior, innovative work behavior and improved organizational performance can

be achieved. The awareness of how organizational politics has an impact on work outcomes is

therefore critical to professional practitioners. The research findings may provide scholars with

an example of the mediating effect of innovative work behavior on the relationship between

employability, LMX, OCB and organizational performance. Moreover, the moderating effect of

organizational politics on these relationships can be observed and recorded.

8

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Organizational Performance

Significant investments in employees make organizations more flexible and effective.

Organizations should strive to achieve a kind of optimal ‘fit’ between people, technology, work,

and information. Such practices can increase employees’ abilities, commitment and motivation

and can positively affect firm performance (Huselid, 1995). Delaney and Huselid (1996) stated

that employee participation and empowerment as well as extensive employee training, and

related HRM practices can improve organizational performance. This also has a positive effect

on innovation, e.g., the introduction of new products and services (Guthrie, Liu, Flood, &

MacCurtain, 2008).

Organizational performance can be measured by using a set of objective performance indicators,

such as profit per employee, productivity (sales) per employee and return on sales (ROS). This

measurement of objective organizational performance is based on Huselid (1995) and Van Loo

and De Grip (2003). Organizational performance also can be measured by using Delaney and

Huselid’s (1996) scale of perceptions of organizational performance (a subjective measure).

There are two variables: the respondents’ perceptions of their firm’s performance relative to

that of similar organizations, and the respondents’ perceptions of their firm’s performance

relative to product market competitors.

2.2 Innovative Work Behavior

Several theories have revealed that innovation is an indispensable factor in achieving improved

performance. Marketing theories illustrate that organizations which focus on speed of

innovation gain a larger market share, thus allowing them to create higher income and higher

profitability. Studies conducted on strategic theory underline that organizations which decide to

introduce an innovation, ahead of others, are in a position in which they can create ‘isolation

mechanisms’ because knowledge of the implemented innovation cannot be obtained by

competitors, these mechanisms guard profit margins, allowing essential benefits to be gained.

Highly-qualified staff members who possess competencies, resources, and technologies are

needed in order to adopt the innovation, since their qualities will make an external imitation

more difficult and may permit firms to sustain their competitive advantages (Lengnick-Hall,

1992; Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988). As a consequence, a positive link exists between

innovation and organizational performance (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbeck, 1973) or between the

different aspects of innovation (e.g., innovation design or speed, flexibility) and performance

(Calantone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002).

9

The more valuable, imperfectly imitable and rare innovations (e.g., technological) are, the higher

the performance will be (Irwin, Hoffman, & Lamont, 1998). Technological organizations with

greater innovation will attain a better response from the environment, obtaining the necessary

capabilities to increase performance and to consolidate a sustainable competitive advantage

more easily (Zaltman et al., 1973; Bommer & Jalajas, 2004). Innovative projects and activities

which are not stimulating will have a negative effect on productivity and performance (Lööf &

Heshmati, 2002).

Based on West and Farr (1989) and West (1989), innovative work behavior can be defined as

“the intentional creation, introduction and application of new ideas within a work role, group or

organization, in order to benefit role performance, the group, or the organization” (Janssen,

2000: 288). Janssen (2000) also claimed that innovative work behavior can be linked to the

stages of the innovation process (idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization).

Moreover, individual innovative behavior is not only creative behavior, but also includes the

adequate promotion and implementation of creative ideas (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, &

Herron, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).

2.3 Employability

An organization's skill to innovate depends on its intellectual capital and how it uses its

knowledge resources. Part of this intellectual capital consists of human capital, which in turn,

reflects the general skills, expertise, and knowledge levels possessed by the employees within

the organization (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005).

Each individual employee should possess the skills, expertise and knowledge needed in order to

interact and communicate with stakeholders within and outside the organization. In order for

this interaction to take place, knowledge and skills are not only momentarily of importance, but

they are also important in the future when employees are assimilating new professional

expertise in adjoining areas (Van der Heijden, 2005). In case workers have a high amount of

employability, their work behavior will serve as an asset to the organization’s innovation.

Employability can be defined as “the continuously fulfilling, acquiring or creating work through

the optimal use of competences” (Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2003: 4). Van der Heijde

and Van der Heijden (2003) have conceptualized employability at the individual level. The five

dimensions of employability are occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, personal

flexibility, corporate sense, and balance. “Occupational expertise is defined as domain-related

knowledge and skills. Anticipation and optimisation is defined as preparing for and adapting to

future changes in a personal and creative manner, and striving for the best possible results.

10

Personal flexibility is defined as the capacity to adapt easily to all kinds of changes in the internal

and external labour market that do not pertain to one’s immediate job domain. Corporate sense

is defined as the participation and performance in different work groups, such as organisations,

teams, occupational communities, and other networks, and involves sharing responsibilities,

knowledge, experiences, feelings, credits, failures, goals, etc. Balance is defined as compromising

between opposing employers’ interests as well as one’s own opposing work, career, and private

interests (employee) and between employers’ and employees’ interests (Van der Heijden, 2005:

26). Using a competence-based approach to employability Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden

(2003: 6) have defined competence as “the behavioral result of conceptions, personal

capabilities, and motivational, personality, and attitudinal factors”.

2.4 Leader-Member Exchange

The quality of the relationship has an important bearing on performance, job satisfaction, work

commitment and other organizational variables (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), and it is related to

innovativeness (Graen & Scandura, 1987) as well. Leaders and subordinates are involved during

a role development process in which the amount of decision latitude, influence, and autonomy

that is awarded to the subordinate is established (Graen & Cashman, 1975).

The LMX measure incorporates the evolution of leader-follower relationships over time. It can

be used as a diagnostic instrument which measures the followers’ levels of satisfaction with

their leader, and reveals the differences in how the relationship between leader and follower are

perceived. The theory addresses a facet of leadership not represented in other theories about

leadership, namely, the awareness that a single leader may develop different types of

relationships with different followers. Hence, the LMX theory emphasizes the individual

relationship between a leader and a follower, and the way it develops over time into a

relationship between ‘hired hand’ (out-group) or ‘cadre’ (in-group). Previous research has found

evidence that the theorized characteristics of mutual trust (anticipation of deepening trust with

the other), respect (mutual respect for the capabilities of the other), and obligation (expectation

that interacting obligation will grow over time), capture the essence of the relationships

between leaders and subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995).

2.5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Innovative work behavior is important for shielding an organization in an ever-changing

environment. Organizations will become more reliant on workforce who is eager to contribute

effective organizational performance, not considering of their formal role requirements.

11

Employee behaviors like citizenship behaviors become more essential and even crucial for

organization’s endurance. According to Organ (1988: 4), “organizational citizenship behaviors

(OCBs) are behavior(s)of a discretionary nature that are not part of employees’ formal [role]

requirements, but nevertheless promote the effective functioning of the organization”.

Organizational effectiveness is expected when employees are proactive and generous to the

organization (Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). Organ (1988) has identified five major

types of OCBs:

-Altruism: discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping a specific other person with an

organizationally relevant task or problem.

-Conscientiousness: discretionary behaviors on the part of the employee that go well beyond the

minimum role requirements of the organization, in the areas of attendance, obeying rules and

regulations, taking breaks, and so forth.

-Sportsmanship: willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without

complaining-to “avoid complaining, petty grievances, railing against real or imagined slights, and

making federal cases out of small potatoes” (Organ, 1988: 11).

-Courtesy: discretionary behavior on the part of an individual aimed at preventing work-related

problems with others from occurring.

-Civic Virtue: behavior on the part of an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly

participates in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the company.

Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) stated that OCBs make important contributions to the variance

in organizational effectiveness, although helping behavior tends to have more systematic effects

than either sportsmanship or civic virtue.

Organizational citizenship behaviors are voluntary acts in their nature, these behaviors are a

matter of personnel choice (Organ, 1988), so most research focused on the individual

characteristics of OCB. But as individuals are a part of a group, department or a company we

cannot think the behaviors without the context they are come out. Podsakoff, Scott, Paine and

Bachrach (2000) identified the contextual factors for OCB as employee characteristics, task

characteristics, organizational characteristics and leadership characteristics. Janssen and Huang

(2008) stated that individual differentiation is a significant characteristic for employees to

generate creative ideas that contribute to the team innovation processes.

One of the themes of OCB Podsakoff et al. (2000) identified was that individual initiative are

voluntary acts of creativity and innovation designed to improve one’s task or the organization’s

performance persisting with extra enthusiasm and effort to accomplish one’s job.

12

2.6 Perceptions of Organizational Politics

Perceptions of organizational politics might serve as a central dimension that employees use in

sense-making within organizational life (Parker, Dipboye, & Jackson, 1995). Perception of

organizational politics is a multi-dimensional, subjective and context-specific psychological

phenomenon. It consists of how employees perceive the ‘general political behavior’ of others

within the organization, how the inaction of other members of an organization is perceived by

an individual as ‘going along to get ahead’, and how ‘pay and promotions’ are perceived in order

to be politically applied by others (Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989; Kacmar & Ferris, 1991). Ferris et

al. (1989) developed a conceptualization of organizational politics in which the individual’s

perception of events is interpreted as his or her view of reality, which thereby propels his or her

cognitive and behavioral responses. They define such politics as “a social influence process in

which behavior is strategically designed to maximize short-term or long-term self-interest,

which is either consistent with or at the expense of others’ interests” (Ferris et al., 1989: 145).

(Parker et al., 1995) noted that employees who perceived a higher level of organizational politics

also viewed that the organization is less innovative. However, the items of organizational politics

were based on the POPs (Perceptions of Organizational Politics) scale but they were exactly the

same as the original scale items.

The innovation process itself has been characterized as political (Kanter, 1984) and more

specifically, it has been noted that in order to acquire support for innovations, political activities

such as alliances and power bases need to be formed (Anderson & King, 1993). Innovation is a

social process and in essence political because the power elites in organizations must be

convinced to support the particular innovation (Kelley, 1976). On the one hand, organizational

politics can hinder innovation efforts (Frost & Egri, 1991; Kanter, 1984), while on the other

hand, the political behavior of an employee is necessary for successful innovation (Hislop,

Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2000).

Previous research has not connected the concepts of Employability, LMX, OCB, Innovative Work

Behavior, Organizational Politics, and Organizational Performance. However, it is believed that

by stimulating and investing in employability, in the quality of the relationship between

employees and supervisors and in the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior, both

innovative work behavior, and improved organizational performance can be achieved.

13

2.7 Research Questions and Hypotheses

On the basis of previous research that has been outlined above, the following research questions

and hypotheses have been formulated:

Research Question 1:

What is the relationship between employability and (objective & perceived) organizational

performance, and does innovative work behavior mediate this relationship?

What is the relationship between LMX and (objective & perceived) organizational performance,

and does innovative work behavior mediate this relationship?

What is the relationship between OCB and (objective & perceived) organizational performance,

and does innovative work behavior mediate this relationship?

Hypotheses:

(1a) Employability is positively associated with (objective & perceived) organizational

performance.

(1b) LMX is positively associated with (objective & perceived) organizational performance.

(1c) OCB is positively associated with (objective & perceived) organizational performance.

(1d) Innovative work behavior mediates the relationship between employability and (objective

& perceived) organizational performance.

(1e) Innovative work behavior mediates the relationship between LMX and (objective &

perceived) organizational performance.

(1f) Innovative work behavior mediates the relationship between OCB and (objective &

perceived) organizational performance.

Research Question 2:

Do organizational politics moderate the relationship between employability and innovative

work behavior?

Do organizational politics moderate the relationship between LMX and innovative work

behavior?

Do organizational politics moderate the relationship between OCB and innovative work

behavior?

Hypotheses:

(2a) Employability is positively related to innovative work behavior.

(2b) LMX is positively related to innovative work behavior.

14

(2c) OCB is positively related to innovative work behavior.

(2d) Organizational politics moderate the relationship between employability and innovative

work behavior. More specifically, a higher score for perceived organizational politics decreases

the strength of the positive relationship between employability and innovative work behavior.

(2e) Organizational politics moderate the relationship between LMX and innovative work

behavior. More specifically, a higher score for perceived organizational politics decreases the

strength of the positive relationship between LMX and innovative work behavior.

(2f) Organizational politics moderate the relationship between OCB and innovative work

behavior. More specifically, a higher score for perceived organizational politics decreases the

strength of the positive relationship between OCB and innovative work behavior.

Research Question 3:

Do organizational politics moderate the relationship between innovative work behavior and

(objective & perceived) organizational performance?

Hypotheses:

(3a) Innovative work behavior has a positive impact on (objective & perceived) organizational

performance.

(3b) Organizational politics moderate the relationship between innovative work behavior and

(objective & perceived) organizational performance. More specifically, a higher score for

perceived organizational politics decreases the strength of the positive relationship between

innovative work behavior and (objective & perceived) organizational performance.

15

The theoretical model for conceptualizing these hypotheses have been summarized and are

shown in Figure 1.

Specific Branch wherein the SME operates (Contextual Factor)

Figure 1: Towards an HRM Model predicting Organizational Performance by Enhancing

Innovative Work Behavior: A Study among Dutch SMEs in the Province of Limburg.

INDEPENDENTS Employability -Occupational Expertise -Anticipation & Optimization -Personal Flexibility -Corporate Sense -Balance LMX (Leader-Member Exchange) -Respect -Trust -Obligation OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behaviors) -Altruism -Conscientiousness -Sportsmanship -Courtesy -Civic Virtue

MEDIATOR Innovative Work Behavior -Idea Generation -Idea Promotion -Idea Realization

DEPENDENTS Objective Organizational Performance -Profit per employee -Return on sales (ROS) -Productivity per employee Perceived Organizational Performance -Perceived organizational performance -Perceived market performance

MODERATOR

Organizational Politics

-General Political Behavior -Go Along to Get Ahead -Pay and Promotion Policies

16

3. Method

3.1. Sample and Procedures

The hypotheses in this study will be tested by using a quantitative deductive approach. It is

appropriate to use survey methodology for this type of research as it measures attitudes and

rates behaviors (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Survey methodology gives more control over the

research process as it makes use of a questionnaire in which these data can be standardized,

allowing for easy comparison (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003).

The respondents are employees and supervisors of SMEs who work in the province of Limburg

in the Netherlands. For SMEs the definition used by the European Union has been adopted:

“Companies that employ fewer than 250 employees”. The employees hold numerous types of

jobs at mainly middle and higher occupational levels within SMEs and in various branches (not

just a single particular industry) in the province of Limburg, the Netherlands. To prevent a

common-method bias in this study, it is important to obtain data on the independent and

dependent variables from respectively different sets of respondents (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,

& Podsakoff, 2003). The data on employability, leader-member exchange and organizational

citizenship behavior (independents) will be obtained by the employees themselves. The data on

organizational politics (moderator) also will be obtained by the employees. The data for

innovative work behavior (mediator), and for objective and perceived organizational

performance (dependents) will be obtained by their immediate supervisors and by senior

managers.

Sampling criteria comprise a representation of the SMEs in Limburg, the Netherlands, their

various branches, and the importance of employability and innovative work behavior to the

company. Companies in this study will be identified through personal contacts of the researcher

and his students. Thus, the sample strategy will be a convenient sample of companies that fit the

criteria. In this research, on-line questionnaires will be used for the employee version as well as

the supervisor version. Employees will receive a feedback report about their employability.

Because innovation is a key indicator of organizational performance within SMEs, important

stakeholders such as the province of Limburg and the Employers’ Association SME Limburg are

involved in conducting and participating in the follow-up process and implementation of the

research outcomes.

17

3.2. Measures

The concept of employability will be measured using the thoroughly validated five-dimension

scale of employability developed by Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006). This scale is a

competence-based conceptualization of employability. The five dimensions of employability are

occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, personal flexibility, corporate sense, and

balance. Examples are: “I consider myself competent to provide information on my work in a

way that is comprehensible” (occupational expertise), “I consciously devote attention to

applying my newly acquired knowledge and skills” (anticipation and optimization), “I adapt to

developments within my organization” (personal flexibility), “I share my experience and

knowledge with others” (corporate sense), “I achieve a balance in alternating between reaching

my own career goals and supporting my colleagues” (balance).

The characteristics will be measured by means of five lists of items ranging in length from seven

to fifteen. For the measurement of employability, in total 47 items will be used, and all items will

be scored using six-point rating scales. The response format ranges from, for instance, “not at

all” to “to a considerable degree”, and “never” to “very often”, depending upon wording of the

item.

The quality of the supervisor-employee relationship will be measured by using Graen, Novak

and Sommerkamp’s (1982) LMX instrument. The supervisor-employee relationship will be

assessed by the seven-item version of the LMX instrument. Six items assess the leader-member

relationship on the three dimensions (trust, respect and obligation), and one global item

addressing the quality of the relationship: “how would you characterize your working

relationship with your leader”. Examples are: “regardless of how much formal authority he/she

has built into his/her position, what are the chances that your leader would use his/her power

to help you solve problems in your work?” (trust), “do you know where you stand with your

leader…do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do?” (respect), “I have

enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were

not present to do so” (obligation). The items will be scored on a five-point scale.

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990, as cited in Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie,

2006) developed on the basis of five dimensions (altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship,

courtesy, civic virtue) of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors a 24 item questionnaire. Examples

are: “I help others who have heavy workloads” (altruism), “I believe in giving an honest day’s

work for an honest day’s pay” (conscientiousness), “I consume a lot of time complaining about

18

trivial matters (R)” (sportsmanship), “I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers”

(courtesy), “I attend meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered important” (civic

virtue). Seven-point Likert scales ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly agree”.

The concept of innovative work behavior will be measured by using the measurement scale

developed by Janssen (2003). In Janssen’s nine-item scale, three items refer to idea generation,

three items refer to idea promotion, and three items refer to idea realization. Examples are: “this

worker creates new ideas for improvements” (idea generation), ”this worker mobilizes support

for innovative ideas” (idea promotion), “this worker transforms innovative ideas into useful

applications” (idea realization). The items will be scored using a seven-point rating scale. The

response format ranges from “never” to “always”.

Perceptions of organizational politics will be measured by using Kacmar and Carlson’s (1997)

measurement instrument. There are 15 items (general political behavior, go along to get ahead,

pay and promotion policies) examples are: “one group always gets their way” (general political

behavior), “promotions go to top performers (R)” (go along to get ahead), “pay and promotion

policies are not politically applied (R)” (pay and promotion policies). The items will be scored on

a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Objective organizational performance will be measured by using three questions concerning

respondents’ organizational performance over the past year (number of full-time equivalents,

sales and profit of the SME). Indicators like “profit per employee”, “productivity (sales) per

employee” and “return on sales” (ROS, profit related to sales) can be identified. These indicators

are based on the work of Huselid (1995) and Van Loo and De Grip (2003).

Perceived organizational performance will be measured by using Delaney and Huselid’s (1996)

two scales on perceptions of organizational performance which comprises two variables. The

first variable consists of seven items assessing respondents’ perceptions of their firm’s

performance over the past three years relative to that of similar organizations (perceived

organizational performance). The second variable consists of four items concerning

respondents’ perceptions of their firm’s performance over the past three years relative to

product market competitors (perceived market performance). Examples are: “how would you

compare the organization’s performance over the past 3 years to that of other organizations that

do the same kind of work, what about the quality of products, services, or programs?” (perceived

19

organizational performance), “compared to other organizations that do the same kind of work,

how would you compare organization’s performance over the last 3 years in terms of growth in

sales?” (perceived market performance). Each of the variables will be measured using a four-

point rating scale ranging from 1 (worse) to 4 (much better).

Some concepts and scales have been originally constructed in English. In order to employ these

concepts and scales so that the employees and supervisors of the SMEs in Limburg will be able

to respond to them accurately and with full comprehension, they had to be translated into Dutch.

The translation-back translation methodology has been used in order to guarantee high

linguistic qualities (Hambleton, 1994). For sake of clarity the procedure will be explained as

regards its subsequent steps. The scales of perceptions of organizational politics, objective

organizational performance and perceived organizational performance were subsequently

translated into Dutch by translator A and then back-translated into English by translator B.

Afterwards, a dialogue took place between translator A and translator B to ensure that these

scales accurately reflected the original content and meaning of the questions posed. The set of

Dutch translated scales are to be pre-tested by using a sample of employees and managers in

SMEs in Limburg in order to ensure that the questions will be understood. The scale of

organizational citizenship behavior was the translated and back translated version used by De

Clercq, Fontaine and Anseel (2008).

20

4. Conclusions

The next phase of this research is collecting data together with the data collection team which

consists of HRM students who are in the final phase of their Bachelor study. After gathering

approximately 800 data sets (employees/ their immediate supervisor / senior managers), the

data analysis by the researcher can start.

The concepts of employability, LMX, OCB, innovative work behavior, organizational politics and

objective- and perceived organizational performance appear to be an important and promising

set of variables. The relationships between these model variables can lead to interesting

conclusions and practical recommendations for SMEs in Limburg, on the question of how to

achieve innovative work behavior and improved organizational performance.

21

5. Practical Implications

Over 99% of the companies in the Netherlands are SMEs (Van der Veen, 2006). Through

innovation, SMEs greatly contribute to economic growth and employment (Van der Veen, 2006).

In 2007, the European Commission launched the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework

Program (CIP). Its key issues are specifically aimed at SMEs, that is to say, aimed at a better

understanding of how they are able to improve competences, and on their ability to be

competitive and innovate (European Commission 2007).

The results obtained from this research study may also provide a sound basis for making an

analysis concerning employability and innovative work behavior practices in SMEs. Based upon

the analysis that will take place within the framework of this research, we, together with

consultants, professionals, and HRM students, will actively advise clear-cut interventions and

facilitate the process at the participating SMEs in Limburg. Although the analysis itself will have

a ‘solid’ scientific base, it is precisely the combination of consultants, professionals, and students

that focuses on those practically applicable interventions that are in touch with the language and

experience of the SME entrepreneur.

Before SME entrepreneurs are prepared to invest significantly in employability, promising

leadership practices and other antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior, they need

access to best practices, preferably based upon empirical proof in a similar business. The

circulation and assimilation of the concerned knowledge is also envisaged to be an important

practical implication of this research. The researcher and his students can provide SME

entrepreneurs with essential information and interventions based on best practice.

In this research I also aim to identify which dimensions of employability, which factors of LMX

and types of OCBs are decisive for innovative work behavior and organizational performance.

Furthermore, I will investigate which stage of innovative work behavior (and competences

needed for this stage) is (are) decisive for organizational performance. By doing so, I can provide

SMEs with purposeful intervention strategies.

After analysing the extent of individual employability, management and employees of SMEs

should subsequently should focus upon antecedents of employability, career-enhancing

activities on an individual-, job- and organizational level (Van der Heijden, 2005). Attention for

enhancement (by stimulating and investing in employability, in the quality of the relationships

between supervisor and subordinate, and the antecedents of organizational citizenship

22

behavior) of innovative work behavior is expected to contribute to organizational performance,

and to increased competitiveness of the specific branch. Ideally, the outcomes will lead to

branch-specific recommendations aimed at sustainability at every level, the individual

employees, and the companies. By itself, interventions already evolve employee attention and

reinforced activities. Improving dialogue between supervisor and subordinate, based upon the

analysis of employability, can strengthen the psychological contract and contribute to a

sustainable work relationship (Van der Heijden, 2005).

23

References

Amabile, T. M. (1998, Spring). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 77–87.

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work

environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

Anderson, N. & King, N. (1993). Innovation in Organizations. In: Cooper, C.L., & Robertson, I.T.

(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 1-34.

Bommer, M., & Jalajas, D.S. (2004). Innovation sources of large and small technology-based

Firms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(1) 13-18.

Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, T.S., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability,

and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524.

De Clercq, S., Fontaine, J.R.J., & Anseel, F. (2008). In Search of a Comprehensive Value Model for

Assessing Supplementary Person-Organization Fit. The Journal of Psychology, 142(3), 277-

302

Delaney, J.T., & Huselid, M.A. (1996). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on

Perceptions of Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (4), 949–

969.

De Jong, J.P.J., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative behavior.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.

Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations:

overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39( 5),

1120-1153.

European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized enterprises (2006). European Innovation

Policy: Take SMEs on Board too. Brussels: UEAPME.

24

European Commission (2007). The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP).

Brussels: European Commission, Enterprise and Industry.

Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in Organizations. In Giacalone, R.A. &

Rosenfeld, P. (Eds.), Impression Management in the organization, 143-170. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawerence Erlbaum.

Frost, P.J., & Egri, C.P. (1991). The Political Process of Innovation. In: Staw, B.M., (Eds.), Research

in Organizational Behaviour, 13, 229-295.

Graen, G.B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A

developmental approach. In: J. Hunt & L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers, 309-357. Kent,

OH: Kent State University Press.

Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L.L. Cummings

& B.M. Staw (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior, 9, 175-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of

leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level

multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Graen, G.B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effect of leader-member exchange and job

design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 109-131.

Guthrie, J. P., Liu, W., Flood, P. C., & MacCurtain, S. (2008). High performance work systems,

workforce productivity, and innovation: A comparison of MNCs and indigenous firms (LInK

Working Paper Series 04-08). Retrieved September 6, 2009, from

http://link.dcu.ie/wp0408.pdf.

Hambleton, R.K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: Aprogress

report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment (Bulletin of the International Test

Commission), 10(3), 229-244.

25

Hislop, D., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2000). Networks, Knowledge and Power:

Decision making, politics and the process of innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic

Management, 12(3), 399-411.

Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3),

635-672.

Huselid, M.A. (2003), Editor's note: Special issue on small and medium-sized enterprises: A call

for more research. Human Resource Management, 42(4), 297.

Irwin, J.G., Hoffman, J.J., & Lamont, B.T. (1998). The effect of the acquisition of technological

innovations on organizational performance: a resource-based view. Journal of Engineering

& Technology Management, 15(1), 25-54.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work

behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 73(1), 287-302.

Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative Behaviour and Job Involvement at the Price of Conflict and Less

Satisfactory Relations with Co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 76(3), 347-364.

Janssen, O., & Huang, X. (2008). Us and Me: Team Identification and Individual Differentiation as

Complementary Drivers of Team Members’ Citizenship and Creative Behaviors. Journal of

Management, 34(1), 69-88.

Kacmar, M., & Carlson, C. (1997) Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): A

multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23(5), 627-658.

Kacmar, M.K.M., & Ferris, G.R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPs):

Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1),

193-205.

26

Kanter, R.M. (1984). The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American

Corporation, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Katz, D. (1964), The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131-

133.

Kelley, G. (1976). Seducing the Elites: The Politics of Decision Making and Innovation in

Organizational Networks. Academy of Management Review, 1(3), 66-74.

Lieberman, M., & Montgomery, D. (1988). First mover advantages. Strategic Management

Journal, 9(1), 41-58.

Lengnick-Hall, C.A. (1992). Innovation and competitive advantage: what we know and what we

need to learn. Journal of Management, 18(2), 399-429.

Lööf, H., & Heshmati, A. (2002). Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: a firm-level

innovation study. International Journal of Production Economics, 76(1), 61-85.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research. CA: Sage Publications.

Organ, D.W. (1988a). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington

MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its

nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Parker, C.P., Dipboye, R.L., & Jackson, S.L. (1995). Perceptions of Organizational Politics: An

Investigation of Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Management, 21(5), 891-912.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Management With Power. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader

behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.

27

Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on

organizational performance: a review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance,

10(2), 133-151.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship

behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for

future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common methods bias in

behavioral research, A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal

of applied psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Provincie Limburg, Taskforce Versnellingsagenda [Province of Limburg, Taskforce Acceleration

Agenda], (2008). Versnellingsagenda 2008-2011 [Acceleration agenda 2008-2011].

Maastricht: Province of Limburg.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow:

Pearson Education.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M.A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of

innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.

Van der Heijde, C.M., & Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2003). The development and psychometric

evaluation of a multidimensional measurement instrument of employability. Proceedings of

the 3rd International Conference organized by the Dutch HRM Network ‘Innovating HRM?

(105)’, 7 and 8 November 2003 Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.

Van der Heijde, C.M., & Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2006). A competence-based and

multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human Resource

Management, 45(3), 449-476.

28

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2005). “No one has ever promised you a rose garden” On shared

responsibility and employability enhancing strategies throughout careers. Inaugural address

delivered in abridged form on the occasion of the public acceptance of the professorship in

Strategic HRM, in particular aimed at the dynamics of individuals’ career development at

the Open University of the Netherlands. Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.

Van der Veen, G. (2006). Kennis en Economie 2006, onderzoek en innovatie in Nederland.

[Knowledge and Economie, research and innovation in the Netherlands] Voorburg/Heerlen:

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., & Dienesch, R.M. (1994). Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,

37(4), 765-802.

Van Loo, J., & De Grip, A. (2003). Loont het investeren in personeel? [Are investments made in

employees profitable? ] Maastricht: Researchcentrum voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt,

Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Universiteit Maastricht.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2003). Developments in Organizational Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Publishing.

West, M.A. (1989). Innovation amongst health care professionals. Social Behaviour, 4(3), 173-

184.

West, M.A., & Farr, J.L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior,

4(1), 15–30.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.

Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbeck, J. (1973). Innovations and Organizations. Wiley, New York,

NY.

29

Biographical notes

Jol M.M. Stoffers is senior lecturer and researcher in HRM and business administration at the

Zuyd University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. He is also program manager of the

executive master degree of Leadership in Change (MLC). He holds a MSc degree in Work and

Organizational Psychology, with a specialization in the field of Human Resource Management

from the Open University of the Netherlands; and an executive MBA degree awarded by the

University of Maastricht. For fifteen years he worked as a manager and human resource

consultant in the insurance and recruiting industry. He is currently a (part-time) doctoral

student at the Maastricht School of Management.

E-mail: j.stoffers@hszuyd.nl

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42