Innovative work behaviour in knowledge-intensive public sector organizations: the case of supervisors in the Netherlands fire services

Abstract

Studying innovative employee behaviours within knowledgeintensive public sector organizations (KIPSOs) might seem an odd thing to do given the lack of competitive pressures, the limited identification of the costs and benefits of innovative ideas and the lack of opportunities to incentivize employees financially. Nevertheless, KIPSOs require innovations to ensure long-term survival. To help achieve this goal, this paper explores the role of supervisors in supporting innovative work behaviour (IWB) by considering the unique challenges of KIPSOs and the conditions and characteristics of IWB in this context. Based on our rich qualitative data of a single case study in the Netherlands Fire Services, we demonstrate the ability of public-sector supervisors to engage employees in innovative behaviours. On the downside, implementation failures and a lack of radical innovation projects seem to be the result of loosely coupled bottom-up and top-down innovation projects and decentralization in the KIPSO which requires situational leadership that emphasizes networking activities and lobbying with public managers.

HRM and innovative work behaviour: a systematic literature review

“…There is evidence that implementing innovative ideas is a complex process that requires the involvement of various stakeholders and needs to be supported in different ways than the generation of innovative ideas (e.g. Bos-Nehles et al, 2017).…”

Intellectual stimulation and team creative climate in a professional service firm

“…PSF employees often operate as consultants to customers working in a broad range of industrial sectors with a wide range of requirements. It has been argued that PSFs therefore need leaders that promote autonomy, decentralization, and informality to be successful (Afsar et al, 2017;Bos-Nehles et al, 2017;Millar et al, 2017), although which leadership behaviours facilitate this remains only weakly understood. Therefore, we suggest that leaders that use intellectually stimulating leadership behavior will have an impact on employee's team autonomy and intrinsic motivation, which may affect their creative climate.…”

“…Second, we contribute a novel perspective to recent discussions of the management of knowledge workers (Bergström et al, 2009;Bos-Nehles et al, 2017;Boxall et al, 2014;Cäker and Siverbo, 2014;Millar et al, 2017;Thompson and Heron, 2005) by testing a mediation model. Our contribution underlines how leadership behavior shape leaders' central mediating role on creative climate.…”

“…Moreover, Barrett (2005) emphasizes that knowledge workers are often autonomy-seeking and identify more with their profession than with specific companies, thereby weakening identification and potentially commitment. Several researchers argue therefore that intellectual stimulating leaders must find an optimal balance between autonomy and structure (Bos-Nehles et al, 2017;Millar et al, 2017). Optimality appears likely to be contextually specific; ours is of one PSF, typical of a significant sub-set of knowledge-based organisations.…”

The dynamic nature of HRM implementation: a structuration perspective

“…Lately, this has embodied research into the implementation of HRM (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008;Ostroff & Bowen, 2016;Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007;Wright & Nishii, 2013), which entails broadly the transition process during which HRM policies and practices develop from an idea or goal, into an institutionalised, functioning organisational instrument. We have observed three main foci in the academic study of HRM implementation; even though these are not always termed as such: (i) HRM system strength (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;Farndale & Kelliher, 2013;Sanders & Yang, 2016), (ii) intended, actual and perceived HRM (Bondarouk, Bos-Nehles, & Hesselink, 2016;Bos-Nehles, Bondarouk, & Labrenz, 2017;Khilji & Wang, 2006;Makhecha, Srinivasan, Prabhu, & Mukherji, 2016;Nishii et al, 2008;Piening, Baluch, & Ridder, 2014;Wright & Nishii, 2013), (iii) roles of line managers in implementing HRM (Bos- Nehles, Bondarouk, & Nijenhuis, 2017;Gilbert, De Winne, & Sels, 2011;Op de Beeck, Wynen, & Hondeghem, 2016;Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007;Trullen, Stirpe, Bonache, & Valverde, 2016;Vermeeren, 2014).…”