The Nature and Incidence of Workgroup Innovation in the Australian Public Sector: Evidence from the Australian 2011 State of the Service Survey

Abstract

Using data from a nationally representative survey of all Australian Government employees, we explore the nature of innovation implemented at the workgroup level and assess the multidimensionality of the workgroup's 'most significant innovation' (MSI). Of the 10222 survey respondents, 48% reported at least one innovation implemented by their workgroup, with an innovation more commonly reported with an increase in the respondent's age, seniority, and service experience; among men and university graduates. The results reveal that 54% of the reported MSIs incorporate between two and five dimensions of innovation types (policy, service, service delivery, administrative/organizational, and conceptual), and most of these dimensions reinforce each other. Different dimensions of the MSI draw on different sources of ideas (with senior leaders having the broadest impact), face different 'revealed' barriers, require different levels of workplace creativity, and produce different beneficial effects. Our findings help strengthen an understanding of the influencing factors and the effects of multidimensional public sector innovations.

Innovative work behaviour in the public sector: The roles of task characteristics, social support, and proactivity

“…The Australian public sector has adopted the New Public Management model (Johnston, ), adopting initiatives from private sector practices such as formal performance management, training requirements, cost cutting, and downsizing. The study of IWB is thus important as such behaviour is particularly needed in public sector services to improve its service delivery performance (de Vries et al., ; Torugsa & Arundel, ). As little is known about how public sector organisations can enhance innovative behaviour of employees, the focus on the perspective of work‐related and individual factors that could facilitate public sector employees’ IWB is important (Bos‐Nehles et al., ).…”

Influence and Complementarity of Follow-on Managerial Innovations within a Public Organization

“…Nevertheless, empirical data and studies on the complementarity of innovations remain rare (Damanpour, 2014). This integrative approach (Dubouloz, 2013) or evolutionary perspective (Torugsa & Arundel, 2015) is advocated by, among others, Roberts & Amit (2003) and Damanpour (2010Damanpour ( , 2014. It argues that innovations are neither mutually exclusive nor neutral relative to each other but, on the contrary, are linked by relations of mutual influence and therefore interdependent.…”

“…It argues that innovations are neither mutually exclusive nor neutral relative to each other but, on the contrary, are linked by relations of mutual influence and therefore interdependent. The adoption of one type of innovation can facilitate or influence the adoption of other types of innovations (Torugsa & Arundel, 2015). Even though these studies do not specifically address public managerial innovations, they nevertheless enable to postulate two types of links between innovations 5 .…”

Reinventing the Wheel? Public Sector Innovation in the Age of Governance

“…Previous studies on innovation have focused on the organizational level of analysis (Moore and Hartley ) and this statement is also true for both of the books. However, innovation can be studied at the individual and group level as well (Demircioglu , ; Torugsa and Arundel , ). In other words, although these edited volumes adequately address the topics of organization theory, structure, strategy, and design, they overlook the role of organizational behavior in innovation (except Andersen and Van Mart's chapters).…”