Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

Numerous narrative reviews related to innovation in work organizations have been published, yet very few quantitative reviews have been conducted. The present meta-analysis investigates the relationships between four predictor types (individual differences, motivation, job characteristics, and contextual influences) and individual-level workplace innovation. Results indicated that individual factors, characteristics of the job, and factors of the environment were moderately associated with phases of the innovation process. Implications for future research opportunities are discussed. Keywords:Innovation, meta-analysis, personality, climate, motivation, leadership Meta-Analysis of Individual Innovation 4Predictors of Individual-Level Innovation at Work: A Meta-AnalysisThe importance of innovation for organizational success has been increasingly noted in the conceptual and empirical literature of the organizational sciences (e.g., Agars, Kaufman, & Locke, 2008; Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004;West, 2002). In response to the emergence of innovation as a critical factor in creating and maintaining organizational competitiveness, a wide array of individual, job, and environmental factors have been examined in relation to employee innovation. Although numerous narrative reviews of work-related innovation have been published (e.g., Egan, 2005;Mumford, 2003;Patterson, 2002;Shalley & Gilson, 2004;Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004;Zhou & Shalley, 2003), little attention has been given to quantitative reviews. Baas, DeDreu, and Nijstad (2008) conducted a meta-analysis on mood and creativity; however, the majority of the included studies were laboratory experiments with student participants. With the exception of one meta-analysis of organizational level innovation (Damanpour, 1991), a second examining personality and creativity for artists and scientists

When innovation requirements empower individual innovation: the role of job complexity

“…It stimulates creative thinking and idea generation (Scott and Bruce, 1994;Yuan and Woodman, 2010) to solve complex problems (Oldham and Cummings, 1996). Meta-analysis shows that job complexity generates individual innovation (Hammond et al, 2011). Research shows that employees that perceive job complexity see it as their job to implement new ideas (Ohly et al, 2006) and to engage in individual innovation (Hammond et al, 2011;Scott and Bruce, 1994).…”

“…This is wrong: it is the innovation requirements and job complexity that specifically explain individual innovation at work (Hammond et al, 2011). Moreover, the interplay of job characteristics and intrinsic motivation would affect individual innovation (Anderson et al, 2014;Hammond et al, 2011;Unsworth and Parker, 2003). This study examines this interplay by studying innovation requirements, job complexity, and psychological empowerment.…”

“…Repeatedly, it has been shown that innovation requirements affect individual innovation (Farr and Tran, 2008;Shalley et al, 2004;Hammond et al, 2011). High-innovation requirements imply a broad orientation on multiple aspects of work (Scott and Bruce, 1994;Yuan and Woodman, 2010).…”

“…Following job characteristics theory (Hackman and Oldham, 1980), broad job requirements would foster a motivational mechanism which explains the effect on work outcomes. There is some empirical support for this motivational mechanism for creativity (Anderson et al, 2014), but there is a lack of research about psychological mechanisms that explain effects of the work environment on individual innovation (Hammond et al, 2011;Unsworth and Parker, 2003;Anderson et al, 2014). In this study, we address this lack by using psychological empowerment (Seibert et al, 2011;Spreitzer, 2007;Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) to explain the relationship between broad job requirements and individual innovation.…”

“…"When subordinates perform complex tasks […] they have the opportunity to test their efficacy" (Conger and Kanungo, 1988, p. 479). Innovation scholars (Hammond et al, 2011;Unsworth and Parker, 2003;Anderson et al, 2014;Woodman et al, 1993) call for models that study how the job context and motivation are working in concert to enable individual innovation. In essence, we extend the model of innovation requirements, psychological empowerment and individual innovation by identifying a key boundary condition of this presumed causal sequence; namely, we test that psychological empowerment specifically drives individual innovation in complex jobs.…”