i ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, WORKER AUTONOMY AND EMPLOYEE INNOVATIVENESS THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL INDUSTRIAL/ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE YUORPOR MARIA JOHANA (10327736) JULY, 2013 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii DECLARATION I, Yuorpor Maria Johana, author of this thesis do hereby declare that, this work has never been submitted in whole or part for the award of any degree or diploma in this university or elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge, this thesis contains no previously published or written materials by another apart from the references and quotations from articles and books that have been duly acknowledged, the entire book herein presented is a presentation of my objective research, conducted under the supervision of Dr. R. Akuamoah-Boateng and Dr. B. Amponsah, both of the Psychology Department of the University of Ghana, during the 2010/2011 academic year. Sign:………………………………………. Yuorpor Maria Johana (Student) Date:……………………………………….. This work has been submitted for examination with our approval as supervisors. Sign:……………………………………………… Dr. R. Akuamoah-Boateng (Principal Supervisor) Date:…………………………………….. Sign:……………………………………………… Dr. B. Amponsah (Co- Supervisor) Date:……………………………………. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iii DEDICATION I dedicate this piece of work to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Yuorpor, Mr. and Mrs. Kuudamnuru and my siblings Angela, Adeline, Pacencia Maria and Joseph. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It is a great joy to have completed this journey with its attendant failures and successes. I am most grateful to God for His mercies, favour and steadfast love granted me and who saw me through all the joyful and stormy moments of my life as a student of this university. My heartfelt thanks go to Dr. R. Akuamoah-Boateng and Dr. B. Amponsah, my supervisors and lecturers for your priceless assistance which has greatly helped in my work. I would not have made it without your constructive criticisms and positive interventions To the management and employees of all the ten organizations who allowed me to conduct this study in your organizations, I say thank you for time and help in providing me with the necessary information required for my study. I also acknowledge the invaluable contributions of Eric, Stephen and Mawusi who guided me immensely in my work. To Khalique, Fred, Elias, Felicia, all my friends, and my fellow course mates, thanks for any contribution given. I say thank you for being wonderful and I appreciate any form of assistance given me. God richly bless you. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TITLE PAGE ………………………………………………………………………………. i DECLARATION AND APPROVAL……………………………………………………… ii DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………… iv TBABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………. v-viii LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………. ix LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….. x ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………. xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 .1 Background to the Study……………………………………………………………… 1 1.1.2 Organizational Culture……..………………………………………………………….. 3 1.1.3 Employee Innovativeness………………………………………................................... 8 1.1.4. Worker Autonomy as a Moderator of the Organizational Culture-Employee Innovativeness Relationship……………………………………………………….. 11 1.1.5 Worker Autonomy ……………………………………………………………………. 12 1.2 Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………… 15 1.3 Objectives of the Study ………………………………………………………………. 18 1.4 Significance of the Research………………………………………………………. 19 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 21 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK………………………………………………………. 21 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vi 2.1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 21 2.1.2 Organizational Support Theory ………………………………………………………. 21 2.1.3 The Competing Values Framework ………………………………………………….. 26 2.1.4 Stages of Innovation ………………………………………………………………….. 32 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES………………..…………………………….......... 33 2.1.1 Introduction 33 2.2.2 Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Innovativeness………... 34 2.2.3 Relationship between Worker Autonomy and Employee Innovativeness..………….... 42 2.2.4 Worker Autonomy as a Moderator on the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Innovativeness………………………………………………. 46 2.3 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………. 47 2.4 Statement of Hypotheses………………………………………………………………… 48 2.5 Operational Definitions of Terms ……………………………………………………… 50 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………... 52 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 52 3.2 Population…………………………………………………………………………… 52 3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Technique ……………………………………………. 53 3.4 Research Design…………………………………………………………………….. 57 3.5 Instruments/Measures.……………………………………………………………….. 58 3.6 Pilot Study…………………………………………………………………………… 63 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii 3.7 Main Study/Data Collection Procedure………………………………………………. 64 3.8 Ethical Considerations………………………………………………………………. 66 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS….…………………………………………………….. 68 4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 68 4.2 Descriptive Analysis…………………………………………………………………. 68 4.3 Test of Hypotheses …………………………………………………………………… 69 4.4 Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………… 77 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION……………………………………………………… 78 5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 78 5.1.1 Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Innovativeness……… 80 5.1.2 The Relationship between Worker Autonomy and Employee Innovativeness…….. 83 5.1.3 The Relationship between Innovative, Competitive, Bureaucratic, and Community Cultures and Employee Innovativeness……………………………………………………... 86 5.1.4 Worker Autonomy as a Moderator on the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Innovativeness………………………………………………………. 90 5.2 Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………………. 91 5.3 Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………………………. 92 5.4 Contributions of the Study ……………………………………………………………… 93 5.5. Implications for Practitioners…………………………………………………………. 94 5.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….. 96 REFERENCES 97 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh viii APPENDICES 115 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Demographic characteristics for Respondents……………………………………….. 55 Table 2: Mean, Standard deviation, Normality test and reliability values of study variables.... 69 Table 3: Pearson Correlation of the Relationship between Study Variables ………………… 70 Table 4: Pearson Correlation of the Relationship between Subcultures, Innovativeness and Worker Autonomy…………………………………………………………………………… 71 Table 5: Hierarchical Multiple Regression of the Moderation Effect of Worker Autonomy on the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Innovation …………………………… 73 Table 6: Hierarchical Multiple Regression of the Relationship between Subcultures and Employee Innovation …………………….…………………………………………………… 75 Table 7 Standard Multiple Regression of the influence of organizational Culture and Worker Autonomy on Employee Innovativeness.................................................................................... 76 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Summary of hypothesized relationships between the Independent, Moderator and dependent variable in this study (the model of the study…………….. 49 FIGURE.2: Summary of observed relationships between variables investigated …… 79 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xi ABSTRACT This study aimed at investigating how organizational culture directly and indirectly (via worker autonomy) affects employees’ innovative behavior. Data for this study was collected from 165 employees, working in the service sector (banks, insurance companies and media) in Ghana. All participants were made to respond to questionnaires on organizational culture, worker autonomy and employee innovative behavior. Four hypotheses were tested using correlation and regression analysis. The results support the direct link between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior. Also, innovative culture accounts for more variance in employee innovative behavior than competitive, bureaucratic and community cultures. The relationship between worker autonomy and employee innovative behavior was also supported. The moderation effect of worker autonomy on the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior was however not supported. The practical implication of these findings and recommendations for future research in the area of organizational culture, worker autonomy and employee innovative behavior were discussed. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1.1. Background of the study It can generally be agreed that, organizations in recent times have had a multitude of change programs in attempts to transform organizational structures and processes, in order to enhance effectiveness, productivity and competitiveness. Modern management approaches aimed at improving all stages of production and service provision is now the order of the day and innovation is at the center of many initiatives (Frans & Meulenberg, 2004). A successful innovation is usually born from ideas that find their way into organizations and are accepted by the market. Some innovations could be responses to market needs and opportunities, while others are responses to internal needs, which remain within the organization, in the form of administrative changes and new business systems (Crespell & Hansen, 2008). Work has become more knowledge-based and less rigidly defined and employees can help to improve performance through their ability to generate new ideas and use them as building blocks, for new and better products, services and work processes (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2008). Many practitioners and academics support the view that, individuals often play a key role in helping to attain organizational success (Amabile, 1988; Smith, 2002; Unsworth & Parker, 2003). Employees represent the backbone of organizations, and therefore behaviors demonstrated by them at the workplace can have serious effects on the success or failure of organizations (Mathias, 2006). Individual employees, alone or together in groups, are the source of creative ideas and subsequent innovations (Scott & Bruce, 1994). However, it is important to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2 understand that, the organizational culture in which individuals function is crucial for innovation in organizations (Van der Panne, Van Beers & Kleinknecht, 2003). Organizational culture is critical for encouraging positive workplace behaviors such as commitment, trust, turnover intentions, and employee innovativeness to mention a few (e.g., Carmeli, 2005; Plange, 2006). Indeed, there are features of organizational culture that can either inhibit or enable innovativeness (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Every organization has its own missions and goals and to attain these, it adopts unique modes and methods of operations. In the process of achieving the corporate mission, employees internalize organizational values and norms to give meaningful expressions to their day to day activities. Thus, all the members of an organization come to adopt and share values, beliefs, norms, attitudes, and ways of doing things which are unique to the organization. These values, beliefs, and norms of organizations which influence employees’ ways of doing things are referred to as the culture of the organizations. Businesses today are functioning in highly competitive and rapidly changing environments. This makes their ability to innovate crucial to long-term survival. Understanding how their culture either supports or hinders the process of innovation is critical if they wish to stay competitive in today’s demanding market.It is evident that several new companies are springing up in the Ghanaian economy at a very fast rate with already existing ones establishing more branches. These new companies, in a bid to survive in competitive job markets, need some strategies such as the exhibition of innovative behavior on the part of employees, which needs to be encouraged by the organizations’ culture. This study is therefore designed to investigate how organizational culture can influence innovative behavior among Ghanaian workers given that, there is tight competition in the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3 market place and in order to survive, organizations need to live a kind of life appropriate for the current trends. In addition, the study goes further to explore the types of organizational culture that exist in Ghanaian organizations and how they influence innovative behavior. Due to the fact that other factors could be responsible for the relationship that might exist between organizational culture and employee innovativeness, worker autonomy is studied as a moderator of this relationship. It is possible that, perhaps given some level of autonomy to decide when, how and where employees should work, employees might be in a better position to exhibit innovative behavior. This study also considers the influence of worker autonomy on employee innovativeness. 1.1.2. Organizational Culture In the process of people working together to accomplish goals, groups develop into organizations. As goals become more specific and longer-term, and work more specialized, organizations become both more formal and institutionalized. Organizations then tend to take on a life of their own and widely held beliefs, values, and practices develop, differentiating them from other organizations, and often affecting their success or failure. In the early 1980’s, management scholars began attempting to describe these belief systems, which are referred to as organization or corporate cultures. Organizational culture has emerged as one of the dominant themes in management studies for about some decades now. Although researchers have made theoretical and methodological advances in determining the development of cultural values in organizations, there has been less progress comparing cultural effects on employee behavior across organizations (Lund, 2003). Scholars often appeal to organizational culture to look at the slice of organizations life represented by a particular organization,organizations study culture because of the insight University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4 organizational culture studies can offer for practice, organization research and social sciences at large. Organizational culture is a concept involving complex organizational phenomena and attempts to define it has adopted a number of different approaches thus it is widely acknowledged as a difficult concept to define (Alvesson & Berg, 1992; Moran & Volkwein, 1992; Schein, 1985; Van Maanen, 1978). It has received much attention in management literature in the last decade due to its potential effects on work related outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, leadership styles, and employee innovativeness. Research by Deal and Kennedy (1982) gave impetus to organizational culture research with the revelation that, the values and philosophy of an organization which basically define the culture of that organization guide employees’ behaviors in the organization toward the achievement of greater success. This implies that, positive workplace behaviors such as innovativeness can be influenced by the culture of an organization, in that; culture enhances the exhibition of such behavior. According to Vanderpost, deConing, and Smith (1998), culture is to the organization, what personality is to the individual. It is a hidden but unifying force that provides meaning and direction. It is also a system of shared meaning or system of beliefs and values that ultimately shapes employees’ behavior. Culture is also the structure and control system to generate behavioral standards. The culture of an organization is an important component in the field of organizational behavior, particularly in trying to better understand the context of organizations and the people within them. It can therefore be deduced that, the culture of an organization defines the organization and should direct the behavior of all employees in the organization towards the achievement of corporate mission. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 Also, researchers assert that, the culture of an organization mediates the actions and thinking of its members and that, culture helps people or employees to collectively make sense of events, objects, and situations in the organizational environment (Morgan, 1997). By extension, the culture of an organization has the potential to influence employee innovativeness. In addition, research indicates that, an employee becomes innovative when the organization emphasizes innovativeness (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). The culture of an organization can affect every aspect of the organization including the people working within it. Thus if the culture of the organization supports the notion that employees be innovative, it will perhaps not be a difficult task to accomplish. Furthermore, according to Schein (1985), and Kilmann, Saxton and Serpa (1985), culture should have different levels: shared assumptions, values, and norms (over attitudes and behaviors) arranged from abstract to concrete and from deep to superficial. Trice and Beyer (1984) have also connected culture with environment, seeing organizational culture as a collective response to uncertainty and chaos. Despite its numerous definitions, many would agree that organizational culture can be referred to as a set of values, beliefs and behavior patterns that form the core identity of any organization, and helps in shaping employees’ behavior (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Deshpande & Farley, 1999; Jones, 1983; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Pheysey, 1993). Organizational culture tends to be shaped by the founders’ values, the industry and business environment, the national culture, and the senior leader’s vision and behavior. According to Schein (1992), organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 internal integration.Organizational culture, in this study however is defined as the pattern of shared values and beliefs that help individuals understand organizations functions and thus provide them with norms of behavior in the organizations functions (Deshpande & Webster, 1989). The pervasiveness of organizational culture requires management to recognize the underlying dimensions of their organizational culture and its impact on employee and work related variables. Some empirical studies have examined some of these relationships, for example, the organizational culture-employee link among college graduates in accounting firms (Sheridan, 1992), the effects of organizational culture on employees in merger process in banking firms (Buono, Bowditch & Lewis, 1985), effects of organizational culture on managerial credibility (Koberg & Chusmir, 1987), effects of organizational culture on motivation and other variable like customer orientation and innovativeness to business performance (Deshpande, Farley, & Webster, 1993). Empirical studies have also linked organizational culture with individual-level attitudes, such as job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and organizational commitment, to mention but a few. These studies have been conducted in diverse organizational and country settings, among a variety of occupational groups. Many of these studies utilize typologies of cultures, such as Wallach’s (1983) distinction between group, developmental, rational, and hierarchical cultures, and Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, and Sanders (1990) measurement of six cultural practices (results versus process orientation, job versus employee orientation, professional versus parochial, closed versus open system, right versus lose control, and pragmatic versus normative). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7 The present study however uses the typologies of culture based on Campbell and Freeman’s (1991) framework of organizational culture which is made up of community culture, innovative culture, competitive culture, and bureaucratic culture. These typologies of organizational culture are used in the present study based on the fact that, the researcher is interested in how innovative culture would influence innovative behavior, since there is great competition in the market place among organizations and innovation is on display in many organizations. This typology of organizational culture is however the only typology of organizational culture, that the researcher has come across, with the subculture of innovation. In order to contribute to a deeper understanding of the construct of organizational culture in general and particularly in Ghana, the present study focuses on examining the relationship that exists between the construct and some employee-related outcome, specifically employee innovative behavior. More importantly, a possible factor that can have an influence on, or moderate this relationship is also explored. Specifically, the influence of the amount of autonomy enjoyed by the worker is examined. However, this study examines organizational culture according to the typologies of organizational culture developed by Campbell and Freeman (1991), as already mentioned above. These typologies were adapted and used by Deshpande et al. (1993). 1.1.3. Employee Innovativeness Innovation has received more attention recently as one of the core processes that every organization must nurture in order to retain its viability. To sustain competitive advantage, companies need to institutionalize the innovation process; they need to create an internal environment where creative thinking is central to their values, assumptions and actions.Innovation is important for every organization as it can yield positive business University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 outcomes, such as new products for the marketplace, efficiency, or quality improvement to existing systems and processes. Many practitioners and academics endorse the view that, individual innovation helps to attain organizational success (Amabile, 1988; Smith, 2002; Unsworth & Parker, 2003). Individual innovation is central to several well-known management principles, including total quality management (Ehigie & Akpan, 2004), continuous improvement schemes (Boer & Gieskes, 1998) and organizational learning (Senge, 1990), which in one way or the other are related to organization performance, success and efficiency. Employee innovation in recent times is receiving more and more attention from both organizations and the organizational sciences. Employee innovativeness can be defined as the generation, suggestion and implementation of organizationally-oriented ideas (e.g., Forehand, 1963, Kanter, 1983; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Van de Ven, 1986). The generation is at the individual level, and has often been studied as creativity, while implementation may occur at all levels including individual, team and organizational levels. Changing societal demographics, recent technological developments, increasing globalization, and international business competiveness have brought organizations to the realization that, some amount of creativity and innovation is needed in organizations for survival. Similarly, economic and technological developments have resulted in an increasingly competitive business environment, which in many cases leads to escalating demands on individuals and organizations to live up to expectation. According to Scottand Bruce (1994) individual innovation was thought to be influenced by co-workers and leaders and was more recently identified as a multistage process between University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 these agents and organizational components such as culture and climate. Bass (1998), Kotter (1990) and Schein (1992) support the notion that, the survival of organizations depends upon the change and the responsiveness of a culture as influenced by effective leadership. It is evident that, many organizations in recent times compete through innovation. When most employees understand and support the organization’s expectations, less time is spent explaining, instructing, and building consensus before trying something innovative. Organizational culture is undoubtedly a critical issue in this highly competitive era where a lot of organizations produce similar goods and services. Innovation plays a critical role in the increasingly competitive business environment in which firms operate.In addition, it can be argued that, in the current economic environment, there is perhaps some evidence of the importance of innovation and the single most important condition for transforming a crisis into an opportunity might be through innovation. However, current evidence indicates that organizations need to understand how to promote and encourage innovative working within organizations and this could be achieved through its culture. The competition in the banking, insurance and media sectors of the Ghanaian economy is evident in the number of new banks, insurance companies, and media houses springing up in the country, and the opening of new branches by the existing ones. The competition is also evident in the kind of services offered by some of them. For example, some banks allow potential customers to open cashless accounts. As a result of the competition, several banks have had to extend their banking hours and others have introduced weekend banking where customers can have banking services especially on Saturdays. Some even require some of their employees to report for work on Sundays. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 In the insurance sector, as a result of the societal and business-related changes, some insurance products, especially those from the Life Businesses, have been so ingeniously fashioned to mimic day-to-day banking or other forms of investment in the financial sector such that itis difficult to resist their appeal. Yet, other insurance companies give loans to their customers, as well as organize occasions like funerals for their customers, in order to keep them. In view of all this competition, it is important to know which kind of organizational culture supports employee innovation, so as to be able to come up with new innovations to meet customer demands. Innovation is critical for organizational long-term prosperity, particularly in dynamic markets (Balkin, Markaman, & Gmez-Meja, 2000; Lyon & Ferrier, 2002; Utterback, 1994; Wolfe,, 1994). In view of today’s economic climate, increasing global competition and rapidly changing organizations, an organization’s ability to innovate is regarded as a key factor for success and often for mere ongoing survival (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Whilst the notion that firms need to innovate dates back to the early 1930s (Schumpeter, 1934), governments and organizations are now acutely aware that firms face the challenge of developing new products, systems and processes on a systematic basis. 1.1.5. Worker Autonomy as a Moderator of the Organizational Culture-Employee Innovativeness Relationship As indicated by researchers (e.g., Amabile, 1998; Crespell & Hansen, 2008; Laakso, Huhtala & Parzwfall, 2007), organizational culture supports innovativeness. Most of the studies that have been used to describe organizational culture and innovativeness have primarily examined a direct relationship between organizational culture and innovative behavior. The examination of primarily direct consequences however limits our ability to completely University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 11 understand and deal with the outcome. In respect of this, the current study, in a bid to provide a better understanding of how to deal with innovative behavior as discussed above, this study sought to investigate the moderated consequences of organizational culture and employee innovative behavior. Employee innovativeness is a work-related behavior which may be as a result of several factors in an organization, apart from its culture. For instance, perceived influence and supervisors’ supportiveness have been found to enhance or inhibit innovative behavior (Janssen, 2005). It is against this background that, the current research looks at the influence of worker autonomy on innovative behavior, as well as its moderating role in the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness. A moderator or a moderating variable is a qualitative or quantitative variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In the present study, worker autonomy is hypothesized to moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior. 1.1.6. Worker Autonomy Autonomy is related to granting and allowing freedom to employees for determining the means by which to achieve a goal (Amabile, 1998), not necessarily autonomy for selecting what goals to go after. Individuals who stand out in their ability to perform creative acts often value independence and autonomy. An environment of freedom and autonomy is more likely to tap into the intrinsic motivation of its employees, which has been found to be a key factor in promoting innovation among employees in organizations. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 12 Also, higher levels of autonomy on the job have been shown to increase job satisfaction, and in some cases, motivation to perform the job. New organizational structures, such as flatter organizations, have resulted in increased autonomy at lower levels. Additionally, many companies now make use of autonomous work teams. Autonomy in the workplace can have benefits for employees, teams, managers, and the company as a whole. In recent times, newer and more organic structures rely on autonomy, empowerment, and participation to succeed. Employee autonomy is believed to have minimized some of the relational barriers between superiors and subordinates. Therefore, autonomy may improve workplace functions through the ideas and suggestions of employees (innovative behavior), and foster relationships with a greater degree of trust between management and employees. In a study among German middle managers, Krause (2004) investigated whether leaders can influence the innovation process by granting their subordinates freedom and autonomy. She found that granting freedom and autonomy was positively related to various types of innovative behavior, including the generation, testing, and implementation of ideas. Again, in an early study among NASA scientists, Andrews and Farris (1967) concluded that providing subordinates with more freedom to explore, discuss and challenge ideas was associated with higher innovation performance. Other studies carried out in different contexts point in a similar direction, these studies include work by West and Wallace (1992) in primary care teams and by Frischer (1993) in product development department. Also, worker autonomy has received considerable attention in the context of job characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Sims, Szilagyi & Keller, 1976). Loher, Noe, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13 Moeller and Fitzgerald (1985) have meta-analyzed the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction, and found autonomy to be more highly related to job satisfaction than any of the other job characteristics. Intrinsic motivation of employees has however been found to be a key factor in promoting innovation in organizations (Amabile, 1998).However, increased autonomy in the organization also may create disparity among units through different work practices and rules. In the worst case, increased autonomy may allow some employees to engage in unethical behavior. Thus, a certain amount of oversight is necessary in organizations to prevent wrongdoing that may go unnoticed when there are high levels of autonomy. When given autonomy, workers may believe that they have authority somewhat equal to that of their direct supervisor. This may cause them to resent the extra responsibility or feel that their pay should be increased. A related concern is that managers may feel marginalized when employee autonomy increases, particularly when there is a change to a traditional work environment. Mangers may feel that by giving employees autonomy, they no long contribute as much to the organization or that their jobs may be at stake. Thus, some caution must be taken when it comes to giving some level of autonomy to workers. Notwithstanding, worker autonomy generally is a positive attribute for employees, managers, teams, and organizations as a whole. Employees typically desire autonomy, and its introduction can increase motivation and satisfaction which are precedents of innovative behavior. However, because too much autonomy can have organizational drawbacks, care should be taken when increasing it. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 14 Autonomy among front-line employees and immediate supervisors could be said to be non- existent in some companies in Ghana. This can be attributed to the fact that the Ghanaian culture has respect and reverence for the elderly in society and younger ones are not given the opportunity to express themselves or make suggestions about issues in the presence of superiors. And it is evident that some aspects of a nation’s culture, whereby the elderly control issues whereas juniors only obey and take orders from superiors, perhaps can influence workplace culture. In the case of autonomy therefore, junior staff may not be given the opportunity to be autonomous. This research therefore investigates worker autonomy as a moderator on the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness as well as its influence on employee innovative behavior. Following from the above, the role of organizational culture, worker autonomy and employee innovativeness are found to be very relevant in every organization. The culture of organizations and the amount of autonomy employees possess, have an effect on the way employees behave at work, including their ability to innovate. Organizational culture and worker autonomy therefore may have an influence on employee innovative behavior which in turn affects the overall performance of organizations. 1.2. Statement of Problem In contemporary times, the organizational environment has become very competitive with some organizations now surviving because of the ability of its employees to develop products that attract consumers or customers. The ability of an individual to develop something unique has a bearing on innovation. According to research, an organizational environment that encourages innovation will have an innovative workforce (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). This University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 15 research is designed to investigate how organizational culture influence employee innovativeness. Researches in organizational culture have investigated the influence of organizational culture on leadership styles, job satisfaction, effectiveness, and performance but little has been done regarding the influence of organizational culture on innovation, despite the importance of innovation in contemporary businesses and organizations (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). The few researches in this area are exploratory. By their nature and design, exploratory studies cannot make inferences to a larger population. They make associations of different variables but associations are not proof of causality. Previous researches also used small sample sizes and most were case studies interested in specific organizations or sectors (Crespell & Hansen, 2008; Laakso, Huhtala & Parzwfall, 2007). In addition, earlier researches in this area used both qualitative and quantitative methods in collecting data. The current study however utilized the quantitative method of data collection, a cross-section of organizations (banking, insurance, and media sectors) in Ghana, and a larger sample size as recommended by earlier studies (Crespell & Hansen, 2008; Laakso, Huhtala & Parzwfall, 2007). Besides, in the past, supervision was encouraged in organizations with experienced employees regarded as mentors who take new employees through the job. There is however, a change in the status quo where organizations now require employees who can work with no supervision or with minimum supervision. In essence, workers who are autonomous are free from immediate supervision and hence are considered to be sufficiently capable and reliable to carry out their work alone. Thus, employees who are autonomous are deemed to be competent and for that matter such people can be innovative. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 A few past researchers have attempted to investigate the consequences of organizational culture in order to understand its outcomes and to develop suitable strategies for dealing with them (e.g., Lund, 2003; Plange, 2006). However, most of these studies were done mostly in western and European countries (that share key characteristics in terms of industrial structures and cultural individualism as opposed to collectivism) except a few (e.g., Plange, 2006). Taking into account the cultural differences between Western and developing countries such as Ghana, findings in those countries may not be entirely applicable in Ghana. Since it is assumed that national culture has an impact upon organizational culture (Hofstede, 1980), this study therefore seeks to find out how applicable these finding from the Western cultures are to Ghanaian culture. Businesses today are functioning in highly competitive and rapidly changing environments. This makes their ability to innovate crucial to long-term survival. Understanding how their culture either supports or hinders the process of innovation is critical if they wish to stay competitive in today’s demanding market, thus the need for this study. Also, the changing societal demographics, recent technological developments, increasing globalization, and international business competiveness have brought organizations to the realization that, some amount of creativity and innovation is needed in organizations for survival. Similarly, economic and technological developments have resulted in an increasingly competitive business environment, which in many cases lead to escalating demands on individuals and organizations to live up to expectation. It is evident that several new companies are springing up in the Ghanaian economy at a very fast rate with already existing ones establishing more branches. These new companies, in a University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17 bid to survive in competitive job markets need some strategies such as the exhibition of innovative behavior on the of part employees, which needs to be encouraged by the organizations’ culture. In summary, this study is therefore designed to investigate the following questions among Ghanaian workers given that there is competition in the market place and in order to survive, organizations need to live a kind of life appropriate for the current trends. Does organizational culture have a relationship with employee innovative behavior in the present competitive organizational environment? Can worker autonomy moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness as mentioned above? What amount of the subcultures of innovative, competitive, bureaucratic, and community cultures, will account for more variance in the innovative behavior of employees? 1.3. Objectives of the Study The purpose of this research project is to investigate the influence of organizational culture and worker autonomy on employee innovativeness. Specifically the research seeks to find out the following: 1. To examine the relationship between organizational culture as a whole on employee innovativeness. 2. To determine the moderating role of worker autonomy on the relationship between organizational culture and innovation. 3. To investigate the amount of variance explained for each component of organizational culture (innovative, competitive, bureaucratic, and community) on employee innovativeness. 4. To ascertain the relationship between worker autonomy and employee innovativeness. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 18 1.4. Significance of the Study The present study examines the influence of organizational culture and worker autonomy on employee innovativeness. The outcome of this study will be useful to managers and entrepreneurs in several ways. In the first place, the result of this study will inform managers and human resource specialists of the role of culture on employee innovativeness. Specifically, it will help leaders in organizations obtain knowledge about the effects of organizational cultures that will either encourage or inhibit innovative behaviors of employees. Multiple changes in the external environments are forcing organizations to search for new and more effective ways of service delivery. As innovation becomes critical to survival of some organizations, it is important that managers know how to shape and influence the work environment to make it conducive for creativity and innovation. An understanding of the factors affecting an organization’s capacity to innovate is central for succeeding in such efforts. With respect to theoretical implications, the study will also provide benchmark data and add to existing literature on organizational culture especially in Ghana since there is a scarcity of literature and data in the area of organizational culture in Ghana. Results from this study will also make it possible for cross-cultural comparison of the findings from organizational culture research. The outcome of this study will add to existing University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 19 theory in organizational culture especially from the Ghanaian perspective. The findings of this research could trigger more research interest where future researchers will explore into. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1.1. Introduction There are quite several theoriesthat have contributed to our understanding of organizational culture and worker autonomy, and how they operate in organizational settings to enhance desired outcomes like employee innovativeness in the organization. Specifically, Organizational Support Theory (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986; University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore, 1995) offers an explanation about the mechanisms through which an organization’s culture can enhance or motivate innovative behavior among employees to achieve organizational goals. The Organizational Support Theory is discussed in the context of the present study to help explain the relationship among organizational culture, worker autonomy, and employee innovative behavior. 2.1.2. Organizational Support Theory There is widespread agreement in the literature that innovative behavior among employees is enhanced by the perceived support enjoyed from an organization (Janssen, 2005). Organizational Support Theory (OST) was developed around the ideas that, organizations concerns are important reasons for employees’ commitments to organizations. Eisenberger and other researchers firstly advance the concept of Organizational Support Theory (OST) in 1986. Organizational support theory (Eisenbergeret al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore, 1995) holds that in order to meet socio-emotional needs and to assess the benefits of increased work effort, employees form a general perception concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. Such perceived organizational support (POS) would increase employees’ felt obligation to help the organization reach its objectives, their commitment to the organization, and their expectation that improved performance would be rewarded. Performance can be said to be related to success and many authors (Amabile, 1998; Smith, 2002; Unsworth & Parker, 2003; Van de Ven, 1986), have found that individual innovation helps to attain organizational success.Thus, behavioral outcomes of POS could include increase in role and extra-role performance; enhanced by innovative behavior and worker autonomy, and decrease in stress and withdrawal behaviors like absenteeism and turnover. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 21 POS is assumed to be a global belief that employees form concerning their valuation by the organization. Based on the experience of personally relevant organizational policies and procedures, the receipt of resources, and interactions with agents of the organization, an employee would distil the organization’s general orientation toward her. Research on perceived organizational support began with the observation that if managers are concerned with their employees’ commitment to the organization, employees are focused on the organization’s commitment to them. For employees, the organization serves as an important source of socio emotional resources, such as respect and caring, and tangible benefits, such as wages and medical benefits as well as give conducive environment for the promotion of certain behaviors like innovativeness. Being regarded highly by an organization, helps employees to meet needs for approval, esteem, and affiliation, thus the willingness to perform to the best of their ability. Positive valuation by the organization also provides an indication that increased effort will be noted and rewarded. Employees therefore take an active interest in the regard with which they are held by their employer. Rhoades and Eisenberger’s (2002) meta-analysis covered some 70 POS studies carried out through 1999, and over 250 studies have been performed since. The meta-analysis found clear and consistent relationships of POS with its predicted antecedents and consequences. Results of the study indicated that three general categories of favorable treatment received by employees (fairness of treatment, supervisors support, and rewards and job conditions) are positively related to POS, which, in turn, is associated with outcomes favored by employees)e.g., increased job satisfaction; which is associated with innovative behavior, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 22 positive mood, and reduced stress) and the organizations (e.g., increased affective commitment and performance; enhanced by innovative behavior and worker autonomy). According to OST, the development of POS is encouraged by employees’ tendency to assign the organization humanlike characteristics (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Levinson (1965) suggested that employees tend to attribute the actions of organizational representatives to the intent of the organization rather than solely to the personal motives of its representatives. This personification of the organization, suggested by Levinson, is abetted by the organization’s legal, moral, and financial responsibility for the actions of its agents; by rules, norms, and policies that provide continuity and prescribe role behaviors; and by the power the organization exerts over individual employees, evident in an organizations culture. Thus, to some degree, employees think of their relationship with the organization in terms similar to a relationship between themselves and a more powerful individual which can enhance their behavior. OST maintains that, employees use attribution processes similar to those used in interpersonal relationships to infer how they are valued by the organization. Gouldner (1960) asserts that, favorable treatment would convey positive regard to the extent that the individual receiving the treatment consider the act to be discretionary. From this perspective, an employee would infer higher regard from favorable treatment if the treatment appeared discretionary like increasing an employee’s autonomy, rather than the result of such external constraints as government regulations, union contracts, or competitive wages paid by alternative employers (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore & Shore, 1995). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 23 Thus, the organization’s direction is important for determining the extent to which different treatments most impact POS. This suggests that organizations should not automatically conclude that, well-treated employees will have high POS. Favorable treatments that organizations provide to employees must be perceived as voluntary if they are to influence feeling of support. Consequently, if an organization effectively conveys favorable treatment as discretionary, innovative behavior will be enhanced. Correspondingly, unfavorable treatment that is perceived to be beyond the organization’s control will have a less negative effect on POS, thus hindrance of exhibition of innovative behavior. Researchers reporting positive relationships of POS with affective commitment and performance have often assumed employees’ felt obligation to be an underlying process. However, only recently has felt obligation been directly assessed as a mediator of POS- outcome relationships. Consistent with organizational support theory, Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch and Rhoades (2001) reported that, felt obligation mediated the relationships of POS with affective commitment, in-role performance, and extra-role performance which have been found to be related to success. Performance has however been found to be enhanced by employee innovative behavior and worker autonomy. To the extent that the POS-felt obligation association is due to the norm of reciprocity, the strength of this association should be influenced by employees’ acceptance of the reciprocity norm as a basis for employee-employer relationships. Employee Exchange Ideology refers to employees’ belief that it is appropriate and useful to base their concern with the organization’s welfare and their work effort on how favorably they have been treated by the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Employees with a high exchange ideology showed stronger relationships of POS with felt obligation to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2001) and extra-role performance (Ladd, 1997; Witt, 1991). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 24 In short, the perceptions of employees about the kind of support they obtain from their organization may subsequently influence employees’ behaviors at the workplace to perform certain activities such as being innovative. In the context of the present study, organizational culture which includes innovative culture, competitive culture, bureaucratic culture and community culture can be considered very instrumental in providing employees with autonomy which will lead to innovative behavior among employees, which is related to performance. That is, the positive effect of organizational culture on innovative behavior will be stronger when employees perceive their organization as being supportive of such behavior. 2.1.3. The Competing Values Framework Researchers have proposed different themes to explain how different types of culture, which may exist in organizations, can influence some employee-related behavior (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Hofstede, 1980; Hatch, 2003; Kets De Vries & Miller, 1986; Peter & Waterman 1982; Wallach, 1983). However, the Competing Values Framework is one of the most extensively used in several empirical studies in organizational culture (Deshpande et al., 1993; Igo & Skitmore, 2006; Lau & Ngo, 2004; Obenchain & Johnson, 2004; Stock, McFadden & Gowen, 2007), hence, theoretically, the explanation of organizational culture in this study draws on Campbell and Freeman’s (1991) model of organizational culture; the Competing Values Framework (CVF) THE CVF comprises the clan culture, adhocracy culture, hierarchy culture, and market culture. This framework integrated the works of several researchers (Jung, 1923; Mitroff & Kilmann, 1975; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Smircich, 1983; Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983), among others. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 25 Based on this framework, Deshpande et al. (1993) asserted that, organizational culture can be reviewed under two dimensional continua. Along the continuum from organic to mechanistic process, the framework describes whether an organization stresses flexibility and spontaneity (organic), or individuality or control, stability, and order (mechanistic) the other continuum includes internal maintenance (smoothing, activities, and integration) or external positioning (competition and environmental differentiation). Based on these two dimensions, Deshpande et al. (1993) classify organizational cultures into four categories; the market culture, clan culture, hierarchical culture, and the ad hocracy culture. These labels of culture were used by Deshpande et al. (1993) in their study of organizations in Japan in connection with their culture and innovativeness and were however altered to the labels of competitive, community, bureaucratic, and innovative cultures respectively since these were considered more accurate by practitioners and theoretically justifiable by Ogbonna and Harris (2000) in their research. These labels are similar or consistent with the suggestions of a number of organizational theorists (for example, Campbell & Freeman, 1991; Mintzberg, 1979; Quinn, 1988). The present study therefore employs the labels used by Ogbonna and Harris (2000) and hereafter used as such.The four subcultures are defined based on four sets of attributes: the dominant characteristics or values within the culture, the dominant style of leadership, the bases for bonding or coupling, and the strategic emphasis present in the organization. Competitive culture emphasizes a goal-oriented enterprise, led by a hard driver or producer. This culture is held together by an emphasis on task and goal accomplishment and it emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. It also encourages a strong sense of independence and individuality. It became popular in the late 1960s as a result of increased University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 26 competition. The key features in this culture are that, it is externally oriented, results-based (bottom line), competitive, and highly productive. It is a market-driven culture and it places the highest priority on customer value and effectiveness through responsiveness to environment. Organizational effectiveness is measured with productivity achieved by market mechanism. This culture was based largely on the work of Ouchi (1977). It is oriented toward the external environment instead of internal affairs. It is focused on transactions with external constituencies including suppliers, customers, contractors, licenses, unions, regulators and so forth. The market operates primarily through economic market mechanisms, mainly monetary exchange. That is, the major focus of market is to conduct transactions (exchanges, sales, contracts) with other constituencies to create competitive advantage. Profitability, bottom line results, strength in market niches, stretch targets and secure customer bases are primary objectives of the organization. The major task of management is to drive the organization toward productivity, results and profits. It is assumed that a clear purpose and an aggressive strategy lead to productivity and profitability (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Community culture is characterized by a personal environment with a mentor, facilitator, or parent-figure being the leader. This kind of culture emphasizes the importance of human resources, mentoring, loyalty, and tradition. Employees within this kind of culture exhibit a strong sense of pride in fraternity and interdependence. It was born in Japan in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Typical characteristics of community-type firms are teamwork, employee involvement programs and corporate commitment to employee. It emphasizes internal maintenance in terms of commitment, cohesiveness, and morale. Cohesiveness and personal satisfaction are crucial in attaining organizational goals. It is called a community culture because of its similarity to a family-type organization. Some basic assumptions in a community culture are that the environment can best be managed through teamwork and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 27 employee development, customers are best thought of as partners, the organization is in the business of developing a humane work environment and the major task of management is to empower employees and facilitate their participation, commitment and loyalty (Argyris, 1964; Likert, 1970; McGregor, 1960). The organization emphasizes the long-term benefit of individual development with high cohesion and morale being important. Success is defined in terms of internal climate and concern of people (Cameron & Quinn. 1999). Bureaucratic culture stresses a formalized, structured organization. Leaders in bureaucratic cultures are believed to be coordinators or organizers. Employees here are held together by formal rules and policies and they emphasize stability. Bureaucracy and bureaucratic culture was first believed to be coordinators or organizers. Employees here are held together by formal rules and policies and they emphasize stability. Bureaucracy and bureaucratic culture was first observed and written by Webber (1947) and developed in Germany in the late 19th century. He considered bureaucracy as the ideal type of such formal organizations which are efficient, rational and honest. This culture was characteristic of Europe in the 1800s. It has key features like rules-orientation, rigid structures and procedures, impersonal relationships and uniformity. It is more oriented toward stability, predictability, and smooth operations. Organizational effectiveness is accomplished when clearly stated goals are met. Weber (1947) proposed seven characteristics that have become known as the classical attributes of bureaucracy (rules, specialization, meritocracy, hierarchy, separate ownership, impersonality and accountability). They were adopted widely in organizations whose major challenge was to generate efficient, reliable, smooth-flowing, predictable output. Maintaining a smooth- running organization is important. The long-term concerns of the organization are stability, predictability and efficiency. Formal rules and policies hold the organization together. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 28 Innovative cultures emphasize a dynamic and entrepreneurial environment. They are led by entrepreneurs or innovators and employees found in these cultures are committed to innovation and development. This stresses growth and acquisition of new resources and there is emphasis on innovation, entrepreneurship, flexibility and growth. This type of culture is typical of the information age. It is fast to adapt and individualistic in nature. A major goal of an innovative culture is to foster adaptability, flexibility and creativity where uncertainty, ambiguity and/or information-overload are typical. An important challenge of these organizations is to produce innovative products and services and to adapt quickly to new opportunities. Unlike community or bureaucratic cultures, innovative cultures do not have centralized power or authority relationships. Instead, power flows from individual to individual or from task team to task team depending on what problem is being addressed at the time. In community culture, there is a high emphasis on individuality, risk taking and anticipating the future becomes involved with production, clients, research and development, to mention but a few (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) According to Deshpande et al. (1993) in Lund (1993), the bureaucratic, innovative, competitive, and community cultures are dominant ones rather than mutually exclusive ones. Conceivably, most firms can and do have elements of several types of cultures. It thus follows that identifying a typology of cultures also makes it possible to determine if organizations are dominated by one type or have attributes of several types. Earlier researches assert that, not all organizations fit perfectly into these four different types of organizational culture. One reason is simply that organizations may have a blend of cultures operating at the same time. Another reason is that organizations tend to change over University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 29 time and may be in transition. In this research organizational culture is classified into bureaucratic, innovative, competitive, and community cultures. It is expected that flexibility-oriented cultures, (innovative and community cultures) favor innovative behavior, while stability-oriented (bureaucratic and competitive cultures) hinder it. This is due to the fact that flexibility, lack of formality and organic structures employ a proactive strategic orientation, since autonomy and freedom encourage creativity, which is key for developing pioneer innovations. On the other hand, the existence of rules and regulations (i.e. formalization of activities), excessive authority and poor participation of members (i.e. centralization) limit the capacity of members to assume the risks of innovation (Child, 1973). Therefore, there are unfavorable conditions for finding new managerial opportunities. Bureaucratic control is exercised through the use of rules and procedures, as well as hierarchies of authority. Efficient- bureaucratic firms achieve efficiency by “playing it safe” and striving for certainty in their internal operations (Covin & Slevin, 1989). From this, it can be concluded that a flexibility- oriented culture favors innovation while a stability-oriented culture does not. Literature suggests that externally oriented cultures (competitive and innovative cultures) are associated with innovation orientation, while internally oriented cultures (community and bureaucratic) are not associated with innovation. Lukas and Farrel (2000) point out that competitive culture enables a business to anticipate changing market conditions and respond to market requirements. In the same way, Kimberly and Evanisko (1981) and Detert, Schroader and Mauriel (2000) suggest that, outwardly oriented businesses usually have a University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 30 variety of mechanisms to increase their chances of obtaining information about their business environment and that firm will favor the generation of innovation within the business. To sum it up, if firms emphasize external orientation as opposed to internal, it will obtain breakthrough innovations. With deduction from the above discussion, it can be said that, the types of organizational culture in the Cameron and Quinn (1999) model which most favors innovation orientation is the innovative culture since its most characteristic values are flexibility, creativity and external orientation. Bureaucratic culture can be said to be characterized by stability and internal orientation, thus will not support innovative behavior. To maintain competitive advantage, companies need to nurture a relationship with their workers. Brewer (1993) suggests that bureaucratic working environment often results in negative employee commitment whereas supportive working environment results in greater employee commitment and involvement. 2.1.4. Stages of Innovation Innovation literature typically distinguishes three separate stages of innovation: generation stage, promotion stage and realization stage (Kanter, 1988). This study views innovative behavior in terms of accomplishing all three stages. There are several ways to classify innovation. Typically, a distinction has been made in accordance with the initial focus, i.e. whether the innovation is technical or administrative in its nature. Technical innovations occur in the primary work activity of the organization and its examples include a new product or a service, or a change in the production or delivery. Administrative innovation in turn occurs in the social system of the organization, which included procedures and organizational structures concerned e.g. with communication between people. This research takes into account both characteristics of innovation, technical and administrative innovations. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 31 Another distinction often made is that between product and process innovation (Abou-Zeid & Chen, 2004; Totterdel, Leach, Birdi, Clegg & Wall, 2002). Product innovation includes new products and new services, and often covers those innovations that can be described as technical whereas process innovation in turn refers to new elements introduced into an organization’s production or service operations to produce or render a service. Again both terms are applied in the current research since by virtue of the goods and services being provided to customers by organizations as the names employed are different, so both technical and service innovative processes are used. Successful organizations have been found in research to adopt the two types of innovation simultaneously (Damanpour & Gopalakrishman, 2001). In fact, often the two types of innovation are interdependent and correlated. REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES 2.2.1. Introduction The main argument in this study is that, based on the Organizational Support Theory, there is a relationship among worker autonomy, organizational culture, and employee innovative behavior and that worker autonomy moderates the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness. In view of this, this section reviews some studies that have been conducted in the area of organizational culture, worker autonomy and employee innovativeness. This section reviews studies that establish a relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior as well as other relevant studies to the current study. Studies that provide conceptual and empirical evidence to support the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 32 argument that worker autonomy influences the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness are reviewed. 2.2.2. Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Innovativeness Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Waterson and Harrington (2000) suggest that, innovation is a complex, iterative process, and that although numerous approaches exist, there are two main stages. The first stage is the awareness of suggestion phase and then the implementing phase. It is widely reported in literature that, the first stage of suggestion phase is usually at the individual level, whilst the implementation phase involves more of the organization as a whole. It can therefore be said that, the innovative process considers both the individual employee, and the whole organization, specifically, its cultures ability to implement suggestions by employees. In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, organizational must exploit their ability to nurture innovation in order to survive and prosper (e.g. Danneels, 2002; Subramaniam &Youndt, 2005). As noted by Porter (1990), prosperity is created, not inherited and competitiveness depends on the capacity of industry to innovate and upgrade. The capacity of industries to innovate depends on both organizational culture and employees. It is important to understand that the organizational culture in which an individual functions is necessary for innovative behavior (McLean, 2005), as research suggests that an appropriate organizational culture is crucial to an organization’s ability to innovate (Van der Panne, Van Beers & Kleinknecht, 2003). Indeed, there are features of organizational culture that can either inhibit or enable innovativeness (Amabile, 1998). Furthermore, for innovative behavior to be encouraged, the organization must first demonstrate that they value innovative shared University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 33 values, system and beliefs (innovative culture) (Dobni, 2008). If employees perceive the organization to value such behavior, they will strive to be innovative. Various research works have been conclusive as to the key role of culture in innovation (Ahmed, 1998; Higgins & McAllaster, 2002; Jamrog, Vickers & Bear, 2006; Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2002; Lau & Ngo, 2004; Mumford, 2000). The main reason is that, culture can stimulate innovative behavior among the members of an organization since it can lead them to accept innovation as a basic value of the organization and can foster commitment to it (Hartmann, 2006). According to Tesluk, Faar and Klein (1997), the basic elements of culture have a twofold effect on innovation-from the perspectives of socialization and of co- ordination. Through socialization, individuals can know whether creative and innovative behaviors are part of the path the business treads. At the same time, the business can, through activities, policies and procedures, generate values, which support creativity and innovation, and its innovative capacity will subsequently improve. The exhibition of innovative behavior somehow depends on whether the organization develops a supportive culture; such a culture is required to support innovative behavior. A good organizational culture can impact positively on organizational functions; however, a poor organizational culture can have the opposite effect and severely reduce the effectiveness of the organization (Mumford, 2000). It is important that employees are rewarded for innovative behavior encouraging employees to continually seek knowledge to aid the development of innovative solutions. For the purpose of this dissertation the importance of organizational culture and its impact upon the innovative behavior of employees will be examined. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 34 Surprisingly, given the importance of creativity and innovation in organizations, there has been relatively little empirical work done in the area of organizational culture and creativity and innovation (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Research conducted by McLean (2005) involving a search of the electronic catalogs of several major university libraries, a number of journal indexes, and Google.com shows that what had been written on the topic innovation has appeared in the popular press and in books written for practitioners, with little apparent empirical evidence to back up the content of those books. The first scholarly article on the topic was written by Burns and Stalker (1961), who compared electronics firms with more established industrial enterprises and made the distinction between mechanistic and organic forms or organizations. The findings led to the conclusion that organic organizations (innovative and competitive cultures) are formed to deal with unpredictability and volatility in an organization’s environment. Compared with a mechanistic organization (bureaucratic and community cultures), an organic organization facilitated creativity and innovation. However, the conclusion of Burns and Stalker’s (1961) article was challenged when Kimberly (1981) found that, centralized decision making, characteristic of bureaucratic culture, may enhance an organization’s ability to implement innovations, particularly in a more stable environment and also lead to freeing up time for employees to focus on more creative/innovative endeavors. Does that imply that a bureaucratic culture may enhance employee innovativeness? Angle (1989) also asserted in support of Burns and Stalkers (1961) findings that, an organic organization (innovative and competitive cultures), as opposed to a mechanistic one, enables University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 35 greater organizational innovation in environments of dynamic change. Times have changed; technology is growing, globalization has taken over, and competition in the marketplace has grown tight. Will organic organizations still meet the demands of the customer and if they do how will they contribute to the promotion of employee innovative behavior? In attempts to answer these questions, the present study sought to find if innovative culture accounted for more variance in employee innovation than the other subcultures (competitive, bureaucratic and community), in these present times. More recently, Ogbonna and Harris (2000) analyzed the relationship between organizational culture and performance by including the leadership style as a third variable in the model. They used a sample of 1000 units from the Financial Analysis Made easy database of registered British companies. For organizational culture they used measures such as: competitive culture, innovative culture, bureaucratic culture and community culture. The results showed that all four measures of organizational culture were associated in some way with corporate performance. More specifically, innovative and competitive cultures had a direct effect on performance and accounted for approximately 25% of the variance in organizational performance. Both competitive and innovative cultures were externally oriented in line with the assumption that organizational culture must be adaptable to external environment for a sustained competitive advantage. The bureaucratic and community cultures, which were internally oriented, were not directly related to performance. This study was extended in 2002 when the authors analyzed the link between market orientation, organizational culture, strategic human resource management and organizational performance. The same measures as in the previous study were used for organizational culture. As in the previous study, competitive and innovative cultures were found to have a University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 36 significant effect on performance while community and bureaucratic cultures were not related to performance. It is assumed that organizational culture is directly related to performance but the study conducted by Ogbonna and Harris (2000, 2002) shows the opposite: the only variable that had a purely direct effect on performance was innovative culture while the competitive culture had both a direct and indirect effect. Moreover measures of bureaucratic and community culture had a purely indirect effect on performance. In a study conducted in UK involving multi-industry firms, researchers sampled 342 executives firms for the purpose of investigating the relationship among the variables: leadership style, organizational culture and performance. It was found that, innovative culture (β=0.22, p<.05), and competitive culture related significantly with performance. Also, a significant relationship was reported between innovative culture and participative leadership style (β=.16, p<.05) as well as instrumental leadership style (β=-.13, p<.05). Finally, competitive culture related significantly with participative leadership style (β=.18, p<.05) and instrumental leadership style (β=-.11, p<.05) (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). Janssen (2005), administered a questionnaire survey among 170 employees from a non- management division of a Dutch company in the energy industry, in a bid to find out the moderated effect of organizational culture on the relationship between perceived supervisors support and employee innovative behavior. Analysis showed that, influence was positively related to innovative behavior (β=0.52, t=3.34, p<.001) when employees perceived their supervisors as supportive of employee innovation. Supervisors perceived as non-supportive appeared to neutralize the relationship between influence and innovative behavior (β=0.11, t=0.86, ns). Thus, supervisor supportiveness University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 37 moderated the relationship between employees’ perceived influence in the workplace and their levels of innovativeness. The results suggested that when supervisors are perceived as being supportive of employee innovation, employees feel encouraged to use their influence to carry out innovative activities at work, whereas supervisors perceived as not being supportive inhibited them from doing so. Deducing from the above discussion that a significant relationship was reported between innovative culture and participative leadership style (β=.16, p<.05) as well as instrumental leadership style (β=-.13, p<.05), and competitive culture related significantly with participative leadership style (β=.18, p<.05) and instrumental leadership style (β=-.11, p<.05) (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000) and that a positive relationship was established between supervisor support and innovative behavior (β=0.52, t=3.34, p<.001), it is hypothesized that innovative culture will account for more variance in employee innovativeness than the other subcultures; competitive, bureaucratic and community cultures. In a study examining direct and indirect relationships between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior, McLean (2005), argues that while variable such as personality, motivation and expertise are related to creativity at the individual level and group-level, environmental factors such as organizational culture in turn influence these. In his view, innovativeness operates much more at the group and organizational level. As a synthesis of his literature review, McLean (2005) lists culture-related ways to support innovativeness. These are organizational encouragement, including encouragement of risk- taking, which is evident in innovative culture, idea generation, supportive evaluation of ideas, collaborative idea flow and participative decision making; supervisory encouragement; work group encouragement; freedom and autonomy and resources, in terms of time and money. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 38 In a study where questionnaires were mailed to a sample of 1,800 marketing professionals in a cross-section of organizations in the USA examining the impact of organizational culture types on job satisfaction in a survey of marketing professionals, results indicated that job satisfaction levels varied across corporate cultural typology. Job satisfaction was positively related to community and innovative cultures and negatively related to competitive and bureaucratic cultures. However, all the organizations sampled possessed attributes of several of the cultures, meaning, no organization was characterized by only one type of culture (Lund, 2003). Research however shows that job satisfaction is a precedent for the exhibition of innovative behavior (Amabile, 1998), thus deducing from the above discussion, it can be speculated that organizational culture, and more specifically the innovative culture will better enhance employee innovative behavior. In another study by Crespell and Hansen (2008), on work climate and innovativeness in a small wood products industry in the United States, results suggested that a balanced culture, with a combination of all four types of culture (community, competitive, innovative, and bureaucratic cultures) is conducive for innovation. In other words, there was no dominant culture, but a combination of the four types. These results were strongly supported by the data collected on site (survey plus interviews) and were consistent with previous work that suggests most successful firms are those having a balanced mix of all types of cultures (Cameron & Quinn, 1998). According to these authors, this balanced culture is described as friendly and encouraging (community), entrepreneurial (innovative), results oriented (competitive), with strong leadership and clear procedures (bureaucracy). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 39 This was an exploratory study; it gives a single snapshot look at a single organization that provides only plausible explanations for the observed linkage between causal explanations for the observed relations between major study variables. It could be that cultural consensus around certain values reduced the effect of organizational culture on employee innovativeness. Also, only thirty-nine (39) respondents were used. The present study looks at different organizations and a larger sample size, as was recommended in the study by Crespell and Hansen (2008), to substantiate their findings. From the above studies, it is therefore hypothesized in this study that, organizational culture will have a significant positive relationship with employee innovativeness, meaning that when employees perceive their organizational culture to be in support of innovative behavior, they will exhibit innovative behavior. Odom, Boxx and Dunn (1990), investigated the relationship between organizational culture and three elements of employees behavior, work-group cohesion, commitment and job satisfaction, they found that bureaucratic nature of work environment neither improves nor distracts an employee’s commitment and satisfaction. They also found that employees’ attitude and behavior are enhanced by an organizational culture that exhibit innovative characteristics. They suggested that removing bureaucratic barriers may only somewhat lead to creating commitment and satisfaction, significant improvement will occur only when positive action is taken to increase supportive and innovative dimensions. From the studies discussed above, it perhaps is an undeniable fact that, organizational culture influences and drives behavior in organizations. It is culture that creates the parameters for what behavior is desirable and will be encouraged and what behavior is unacceptable and will be reprimanded. In summary, the studies above make cases for the association between University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 40 organizational culture and some employee related behaviors like organizational commitment, job satisfaction, withdrawal intentions and especially, employee innovative behavior leading to improved effectiveness and performance in organizations. 2.2.3. Relationship between Worker Autonomy and Employee Innovativeness. Autonomy is related to granting and allowing freedom to employees for determining the means by which to achieve a goal (Amabile, 1996), not necessarily autonomy for selecting what goals to go after. Individuals who stand out in their ability to perform creative acts often value independence and autonomy. An environment of freedom and autonomy is more likely to tap into the intrinsic motivation of its employees, which has a key factor in promoting innovation in organizations. The major factor identified in the literature that impedes creative performance is control (Amabile, 1998; Angle, 1989; Oldham and Cummings, 1996). It could be control in decision making, control of decision making, control of information flow, or even perceived control in the form of reward systems that put too much emphasis on increasing extrinsic motivation. The primary reason for this is that control negatively affects intrinsic motivation. According to Amabile (1998), expertise and creativity skills must be accompanied by intrinsic motivation to produce highly creative behavior. However, this notion may not be as straightforward as it appears. Kimberly (1981) found that in stable and predictable environments, some degree of formalization and centralization of decision making might actually increase an organization’s ability to implement innovations. In a study designed to investigate job tenure as a moderator of the relationship between work autonomy and job satisfaction in which 76 production workers made up of 56 males and 20 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 41 females were involved, it was found that, the interaction term involving tenure and scheduling autonomy was a significant predictor of both satisfaction with work on the present job and satisfaction with supervision. In addition, the interaction term involving criteria autonomy and tenure was a significant predictor of satisfaction with work on the present job and satisfaction with the job in general (Denton & Kleiman, 2001). In a survey involving 210 factory workers from different levels of organizational hierarchy in which the researchers examined the relationship between power bases and autonomy, it was found that power bases related significantly with autonomy. Specifically, a significant relationship was reported between reward power (r=.37); referent power (r=.21); legitimate power (r=.19); and expert power (r=.16) and autonomy. The sample comprised employees from three different ethnic groups namely: Chinese, Malay, and India (Lian & Tui, 2008). Spreitzer (1995) notes that much of the recent research on self-determination (autonomy) has made use of a three-item measure, and she suggests that a “more encompassing” measure of self-determination should be used in future research. The present study attempts to address these recommendations by employing Breaugh’s multi-faceted measure of work autonomy (Breaugh, 1985). Spreitzer (1995) found positive correlations between a global measure of empowerment of subordinate and superior assessments of innovative behavior. Empowerment and autonomy to some extent involves allowing employees to use their own discretion at the workplace. This freedom might lead employees to find out new ways of doing things their own way, perhaps leading to innovative behavior. In a study among German middle manager, Krause (2004) investigated whether leaders can influence the innovation process by granting their subordinates freedom and autonomy. She University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 42 found that granting freedom and autonomy was positively related to implementation of ideas. In an early study among NASA scientists, Andrews and Farris (1967) concluded that providing subordinates with more freedom to explore, discuss and challenge ideas was associated with higher innovation performance. There is consistent empirical support for a positive linkage between delegation and both idea generation and application behavior. Various studies relate support for innovation to individual innovation (both to idea generation and application behavior). Oldham and Cummings (1996) examined the influence of personal and contextual factors at work on employee creativity and found that a supportive supervisory style is one of the drivers of excellent creative performance. Krause (2004) focused on influence-based leadership, defined as changes in the behavior of a person due to the actions or presence of another person. A leader’s support for innovative efforts was a predictor of idea generation and implementation efforts of middle managers. Basu and Green (1997) also studied leader-members dyads in a manufacturing plant and demonstrated that employees are more likely to deviate from the ordinary, engage in unconventional behavior, and implement innovative ideas if they are sure that they will not be penalized for it. Organizations in contemporary times require employees who can work with minimum supervision, and this recent development in organization calls for autonomy in the workplace. Despite numerous research findings linking autonomy or empowerment to organizational commitment (e.g.., Kraimer, Seibert, & Liden, 1999), there has been little research to examine how autonomy influence innovation which is considered vital for the success of an organization (Amabile, 1997). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 43 Following this, the present study examines the relationship between worker autonomy and employee innovativeness. This study acknowledges that, an employee can be innovative when he or she is autonomous because an employee who is autonomous has control over work schedules, criteria, and methods or procedures necessary to properly execute a task in the organization. Blake and Mouton (1994) suggested that, subordinates should be given greater power in decision making if they are exceptionally skill; the superiors should exercise power in decision making in terms of crises or when subordinates lack skills and abilities. Work autonomy is valued to the extent that is within the capability of the participant. Moreover, satisfaction with supervision has a more general meaning which includes factors other than quality and amount of supervision. Thus is can be concluded that all other factors being equal, increased autonomy when accorded within the decision making capabilities of subordinates is accompanied by greater satisfaction with supervision, and a higher ability to innovate. However, the research in the area of empowerment/autonomy has suffered from some limitations. For example, Spreitzer (1995b) looked at behavioral outcomes of empowerment but did not examine attitudinal outcomes. Kraimer et al. (1999) did look at attitudinal outcomes (i.e., organizational commitment) but did not examine job satisfaction, which is the most widely studied job attitude (Spector, 1997). 2.2.4. Worker Autonomy as a Moderator on the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Innovativeness University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 44 Research suggests that, employees who enjoy greater autonomy at work will be encouraged to exhibit innovative behaviors (Amabile et al. 1996). In addition, employees who enjoy less flexibility at work are less likely to report high innovative behaviors, because more control over managing work does not give room for creativity on the part of employees. In view of the above it is plausible to speculate that worker autonomy interacts with organizational culture to affect employee innovative behavior. From the literature on organizational culture and innovation (Amabile, 1998), there is evidence that autonomy is associated with innovativeness, whilst control leads to lower creativity levels or inhibits innovativeness. By extension, autonomy in decision making concerning procedures, methods, and criteria should translate into greater employee ability to innovate. In Bailyn’s (1993) research of a team of product development engineers at Xerox (a manufacture of photocopiers and other office equipment, with), the interference by supervisors among other things led to high stress and low productivity. A redesign of the work such that supervisors were not allowed to intervene in the work thereby increasing the autonomy and control of development engineers over their productive work led to major increase in productivity. Literature and other recent researches, therefore, suggest that employees who enjoy greater autonomy at work will exhibit some levels of innovative behavior. In view of the above it is plausible to posit that worker autonomy interacts with organizational culture to affect employee innovative behavior. Put differently, it is plausible to suggest that worker autonomy moderates the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness. 2.3. Summary University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 45 Literature on organizational culture suggests that, it prevails in several aspects of organizational life and also that this phenomenon has some effects on employees work behaviors. Researches conducted have identified antecedents and effects of organizational culture in organizations and among employees but further research still needs to be conducted, by incorporating new variables (e.g., worker autonomy) in order to enhance a better understanding of this phenomenon which is an integral part of the very lives of people. Thus, this study offers an addition by integrating worker autonomy as a moderator in the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior to find out how the relationship is affected by the moderator. Researches in organizational culture have investigated the influence of organizational culture on leadership styles, job satisfaction, effectiveness, and performance but little has been done regarding the influence of organizational culture on innovation, despite the importance of innovation in contemporary businesses and organizations (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). The few researches in this area are exploratory. By their nature and design, exploratory studies cannot make inferences to a larger population. They only make association of variables. Associations are however not proof of causality. Previous researches also used small sample sizes and most were case studies interested in specific organizations or sectors (e.g., Laakso, Huhtala & Parzwfall, 2007). Also, earlier researches in this area used both qualitative and quantitative methods in collecting data. The current study however utilizes the quantitative method of data collection, a cross-section or organizations (banking, insurance, and media sectors) in Ghana, and a larger sample size as recommended by Crespell & Hansen (2008). 2.4. Statement of Hypotheses University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 46 1. There will be a significant positive relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness, such that employees who perceive organizational culture to be supportive will exhibit innovative behavior. 2. Worker autonomy will moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness such that employees who are high on autonomy will be more innovative than those who are low on autonomy. 3. Innovative culture will account for more variance in employee innovation than the other subcultures (competitive, bureaucratic, and community cultures). 4. There will be a significant positive relationship between worker autonomy and employee innovativeness. IV MV DV Figure 1 : Summary of hypothesized Relationships between the Independent, Moderator and Dependent variable in this Study (The Model of the Study). Figure 1. Summarizes the relationship between the variables examined in the present study. Specifically, the relationship between organizational culture as a whole and the various subcultures on innovativeness was examined. It was expected that, a significant positive relationship would exist between organizational and employee innovative. In addition, it was ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE Community Culture Competitive Culture Innovative Culture WORKER AUTONOMY Bureaucratic Culture EMPLOYEE INNOVATIVENESS University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 47 expected that, innovative culture would account for more variance in innovativeness than the other subcultures. Also, it was expected that, worker autonomy will be positively related to employee innovativeness. The relationship between worker autonomy and employee innovativeness was also investigated. In addition, worker autonomy was examined as a moderator of the relationship between culture as a whole and employee innovativeness. It is expected that the degree of worker autonomy would strengthen, weaken or change the direction of the linear relationship between culture and innovativeness. Thus, the study examined the moderating role of worker autonomy on the relationship between culture and innovativeness. 2.5. Operational Definition of Terms For the purposes of this study, the following terms have been defined as follows; • Organizational Culture: the pattern of shared values and beliefs that help individuals understand organizations functions and thus provide them with norms for behaviors in the organizations (Deshpande & Webster, 1989). • Bureaucracy Culture: a culture that is orderly, uniform with rules and regulations. It is rules-oriented and has rigid structures and procedures. • Competitive Culture: a culture that is competitive and goal oriented. It is externally oriented, results-based (bottom line), competitive, and high on productivity. • Community Culture: a culture that tends to be cohesive, participatory, teamwork and has a sense of family. • Innovative Culture: a culture that tends to be risk-taking and opportunistic, stressing creativity more that training. It is fast to adapt and individualistic in nature. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 48 • Worker Autonomy: The degree to which a worker is allowed to exercise control over the methods used to perform work activities, the scheduling of those activities, and the standards used to judge performance (Breaugh. 1985). • Employee Innovative Behavior: the ability of an employee to deliberately create, promote and realize novel ideas on task, group or organizational level, that is useful for the group or organization (West & Farr, 1990). CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 49 3.1. Introduction This study investigated the influence of organizational culture and worker autonomy on employee innovativeness. Under this section, the description of the target population, sample, sampling techniques, and research design used in the research are discussed. The chapter describes the instruments used for data collection and the scoring of the data, how the questionnaires in the study were piloted and psychometric properties of the scales used reported. Finally, it describes the data collection procedures in the study. 3.2. Population Accra is the most populated city in Ghana, with many inhabitants from different parts of the country working in various organizations. Due to this diverse nature of employees in firms in the Accra Metropolis, it was prudent to select a sample from this population. This study used service oriented organizations in the Greater Accra Metropolis. Also, the Greater Accra Metropolis was appropriate for this research because most of the service oriented organizations are concentrated in Accra more than in the other regions in Ghana. The banking sector, insurance sector, and the media (print, media, and television) were specifically the service-oriented organizations used for the study. These organizations were chosen as the population of interest in view of the fact that, they are vibrant on the job market and capture a large populace of Ghanaian organizations. Also, these companies are among the top-performers in their respective sectors and are assumed to face a lot of competition and uncertainty from their environment. Cascio and Aguinis (2005) state that the changing nature of organizations’ environment, global competition and the effect of new technology have given rise to a change in organizational structure. Organizations faced with competition are transforming their culture to suit the current trends and giving employees some autonomy so University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 50 as to take some creative decisions. Thus, much work in these sectors need some kind of innovation. Ten different organizations consisting of four (4) banks, four (4) insurance companies and two (2) media houses were used in this study. These companies include both private and public organizations. The participants for the study were spread in different organizations with varying employee strength. As suggested by Hofstede et al. (1990), instead of one corporation in many countries, we should study many different organizations in one and the same country. To obtain a better reliability and validity of the data, the study uses a sample from different sectors on one hand and samples from different organizations on the other. 3.3. Sample Size and Sampling Technique Sampling in this study was done in two stages, the first stage involved selecting the organizations appropriate for the study, and the second stage involved selecting the study participants within the selected organizations. The non-probability sampling techniques were used in selecting the organizations and participants. In the first place, the organizations used in this study were conveniently selected. This approach is cost effective and can produce large samples relatively quickly. In view of this, those organizations which gave their consent to partake in the research were used. Again, organizations where approval could be easily acquired were selected. Four banks, of which two were private and the other two public, four insurance companies, two private and the other two public, and finally one public media house as well as one private media house were selected for this study. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 51 Again, convenience sampling technique was utilized in selecting participants for the study, since this was a more practicable technique to use. Ideally, the simple randomization technique is appropriate to give the populace an equal chance of being selected. However, not all employees were willing to partake in the study, thus employees who consented to take part in the study and had tenure of at least six months in the organization were used. This was to make sure that at least the employees have acquired some knowledge about how things are done in the organization (organizational culture). To collect data for this study, questionnaires were administered by hand to the selected service oriented organizations. A total number of two hundred and fifty (250) questionnaires were distributed to employees who consented to take part in the research from the selected organizations. This number was used to ensure that, if there was a low response rate, the required sample size for the study of at least sixty-six (66) participants would still be achieved. This sample comprised employees of different demographic background such as employees of different sex, job grade, tenure and sector. Out of total number of questionnaires administered, one hundred and ninety-three (N=193) were completed and returned. However, out of the questionnaires that were returned, only one hundred and sixty- five (165) were used in the analysis, resulting in a response rate of 85.5%. Twenty-eight (28) questionnaires were excluded from the data analysis. For an answered questionnaire to be meaningful and useful for data analysis, all the sections were supposed to be filled. These twenty-eight (28) respondents however left significant portions of the questionnaires blank. The decision to eliminate these questionnaires was deemed appropriate since those sections left blank involved the main variables in the study. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 52 The total number of one hundred and sixty-five (165) responses for the study is adequate for regression analysis because as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), for regression analysis, the sample size (N) should be N>50+8M, where M is the number of predictors (independent variables). In this study there are two predictors, thus the sample size based on their recommendation should be greater than 66 [i.e., 50+8(2) =66]. Stevens (1996) also recommends that for social science research, about 15 respondents per predictor are needed for a reliable equation. This puts the minimum sample size according to Stevens’ recommendation at thirty (30), since there are two predictors in this research. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in table 1 below. Table 1 below represents a summary of respondent’s demographic information. Out of the 165 participants in the study, 57.6% were males and 42.4% females, while in terms of sector, 55.8 and 44.2% of them were from private and public sector respectively. Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Demographic Variables N Percentages (%) Sex Male 95 57.6 Female 70 42.4 Age Between 20 and 24 years 40 24.2 Between 25 and 30 years 49 29.7 Between 31 and 34 years 31 18.8 Between 35 and 40 years 20 12.1 Between 41 and 45 years 10 6.1 46 years and above 15 9.1 Job grade Management level 55 33.4 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 53 Below management level 110 66.7 Tenure Below 2 years 58 35.2 Between 3 and 5 years 51 30.9 Above 6 years 56 33.9 Education Postgraduate 21 12.7 First (University) degree 105 63.6 Diploma 8 4.8 Polytechnic 20 12.1 A' level 4 2.4 O' level 3 1.8 SHS 4 2.4 Type of organization Media 42 25.4 Insurance 73 44.2 Bank 50 30.3 Sector of Organization Public 73 44.2 Private 92 55.8 Total Number of Respondents (N=165) As shown in Table 1, 57.6 percent of the participants were males with 42.4 percent being female. Specifically, 24.2 percent of participants were aged between 20 and 24 years, 29.7% were also between the ages of 25 and 30 , the age ranges between 31 and 34 had a percentage of 18.8, 12.1% for the age from35 to 40 years, 6.1 percent were between 41 and 45 years and 9.1 percent were 46 years and above. In terms of organizational position, only 33.4 percent were within the managerial job grade level while 66.7 percent were within the non- managerial level. Analysis of organizational tenure indicates that, 35.2 percent have been in the organization for 2years and below, while 33.9 percent have served the organization for 6years and above. It was also observed that, 30.9 percent have served the organization between 3 and 5years now. In terms of level of education, the majority (63.6%) have first degree with 12.7 percent having master’s degree. Also, 12.1 percent indicated that they have polytechnic qualification. Other qualifications mentioned were, diploma (4.8%), A’ level University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 54 (2.4%), O’ level (1.8%) and SHS (2.4%). Three different categories of organizations were involved in the study. 44.2 percent of the participants were drawn from insurance companies, 30.3 percent from banks and 25.4 percent from media related organizations. The majority of respondents were drawn from the private sector (55.8%) while 44.2 percent came from the public sector. 3.4. Research Design In attempts to explore the relationships between variables (organizational culture, employee innovativeness, and worker autonomy), predictive correlational design was used for the study. A cross-sectional survey design was used because participants were drawn from varying backgrounds, different organizations, job grades, departments, experience, age, tenure, sex, etc. at one point in time. The study also investigates the moderation effect of worker autonomy using multiple regression analysis. Also, the study made use of questionnaires as the main tool for data collection. Questionnaires were used to gather data on the variables in the study. Specifically, data was gathered on the following variables; organizational culture (main independent variable), worker autonomy (moderating variable), and employee innovative behavior (dependent variable). 3.5. Instruments/ Measures The main instrument for data collection in this research was a set of questionnaires which were categorized into four main sections; A, B, C and D. Questionnaires and surveys are probably the most widely used research tools within the social sciences (Breakwell, Hammond & Fife-Schaw, 1995). Questionnaires are limited by the fact that respondents must University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 55 be able to read the questions and respond to them. They are however still appropriate for this research because, surveys are available for researchers to collect original data, directly observing, analyzing and describing a large population (Babbie, 2004). In addition, surveys are also good at measuring behaviors, attitudes and orientations (Newell, 1993) such as employee innovative behavior. Their low cost, minimal resource requirements and potentially large sample-capturing abilities make them an attractive research method for academics and practitioners. Questionnaires do not require as much effort from the questioner as verbal or telephone surveys, and often they have standardized answers that make it simple to compile data. Section A gathered data on organizational culture; Section B gathered data on worker autonomy; Section C collected data on employee innovative behavior; and Section D finally investigated the demographic variables of respondents such as sex, age, tenure, job grade, sector, and level of education. The various sections are described below: Section A: Organizational Culture Organizational culture was measured using the scale developed by Deshpande et al. (1993). This scale is largely based on the earlier work of Campbell and Freeman (1991) and Quinn (1988). It was used by Ogbonna and Harris (2000) in their study on the relationship between leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. The original instrument is a 16-item scale which consists of four items each for innovative culture, competitive culture, bureaucratic culture, and community culture, in that order. The original scale was however expanded to twenty-four items (24) by the researcher, since some University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 56 of the original items were too long and consisted of more than a single item. Consequently, items 5, 6, 8, and 9 were reworded and expanded into two items each. For example, the item “ The glue which holds this company together places an emphasis on tasks and goal accomplishment and production orientation is shared” was split into, “ The glue which holds this company together places an emphasis on tasks and goal accomplishment” and “Service/production orientation is shared in my company”, and “This Company emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Measurable goals are important” was slit into, “This Company emphasizes competitive actions and achievement” and “Measurable goals are important in my company”. Also, the original construct on organizational culture was initially used in a product-oriented organizations, thus items that contained the words “production” and “products” were change to “service” since the current study used service oriented organizations. Thus after the expansion, innovative culture had six (6) items, competitive culture had seven (7) items, bureaucratic culture has six (6) items, and finally, community culture had five (5) items to its credit. Responses were scored from 1 to 7 (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Moderately Disagree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Moderately Agree, and 7 = Strongly Agree). Scoring pattern was through simple addition, thus, the scores ranged from a minimum of sixteen (16) to a maximum of one hundred and sixty-eighttwelve (168). A higher score means a high perceived support for such a culture in an organization whilst a low score indicates the perceived non supportiveness of such a culture. The cronbach alpha coefficient values for this scale in Ogbonna and Harris (2000) research were, 0.77for competitive culture, 0.76 for innovative culture, 0.70 for community culture, and 0.67 bureaucratic culture. In this research however, the cronbach α for the whole construct was 0.84 for the subcultures, the alpha values were, 0.61 for competitive culture, 0.81 for innovative culture, 0.75 for community culture, and 0.57 for bureaucratic culture. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 57 Section B: Worker Autonomy Worker autonomy was measured using work autonomy scale developed by Breaugh (1989), the scale measures three facets of autonomy; work method, work scheduling and work criteria autonomy. Each dimension is measured with three items, using a 7-point scale ranging from “to the lowest degree” (1) to “to the highest degree” (7). The nine item scale asks respondents to indicate either “to the lowest degree”or “to the highest degree” how they feel they have control over their jobs as indicated in the items. Sample items on the scale include, “I am allowed to decide what services are to be rendered”, “I have control over the scheduling of my work”, and “I am able to modify what I am supposed to accomplish”. In a study of 9,421 employees among major functional work departments, the mean scores found by Breaugh (1985) were method 5.35 (s.d=1.35), scheduling 4.36 (s.d.=1.60), criteria 4.3 (s.d.=1.41), and mean score for the whole questionnaire was 4.67 (s.d.=1.45). Breaugh (1989) found reliability coefficients (alpha) of method autonomy 0.91, scheduling 0.85, criteria 0.78, and 0.85 for the whole construct. Due to the high mean inter-correlations among the three facets of autonomy, Breaugh records that the scale may also be collapsed to give a global measure of autonomy. This study used the collapsed scale to give a global measure of worker autonomy. For the nine (9) item scale, the global scores range from nine (9) to sixty- three (63) for a respondent. Given this direction of scoring, higher scores depict higher levels of worker autonomy while lower scores reflect lower levels of worker autonomy. The cronbach α for the collapsed construct of worker autonomy in this study is 0.56. Section C: Employee Innovative Behavior University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 58 Measurement items for employee innovative behavior were adapted from the work of George and Zhou (2001). This variable was assessed with 13 items. The responses ranged from 1= ‘To the lowest degree’ to 7= ‘To the highest degree’. This scale has an alpha value of 0.97. based on the number of items used in this study, the minimum and maximum scores ranged between thirteen (13) and ninety-one (91) respectively with low scores indicating that the respondent possesses a low innovative behavior and higher scores indicated a higher degree of innovativeness. This scale was utilized by Ishak (2005), in his research on “Promoting employees’ Innovativeness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior through Superior- Subordinate Relationship in the Workplace”. In his research, the scale was measure from immediate supervisors’ point of view. In this study however, the measurement of the scale was done from the perspectives of the employees’ themselves. Sample items on the scale read, “I am a good source for creative opinions”, and “I always come up with creative solutions to problems” among others. The cronbach α for the construct is 0.70. Section D: Personal Data In an effort to ensure that the research results are not subject to alternative explanations, some control measures were instituted statistically in this research. The personal data section consists of items which investigated respondents’ demographic characteristics such as sex, age, sector of work, job grade, education level and tenure. Here respondents were required to tick characteristics that described them and provide information where applicable. Demographic variables such as age, sex, tenure, sector, job grade, and educational level served as control variables in this study because of their previously documented association with some employee behavior such as employee withdrawal behavior. Employee’s gender, age, tenure in organization, job status and income were found to be important predictors of employee’s withdrawal behaviors, creativity, and employee innovative behavior (Mobley, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 59 1982). Results in a research by Carmeli (2005), examining the relationship between organizational culture and withdrawal interventions and behavior among social workers in the Israeli health care system, indicated a significant relationship between employees age and turnover intentions from the occupation (r=0.18, p<0.05). Also, it is expected that tenure and position, and level of education will predict employee innovativeness such that those with more tenure, high position and high levels of education will report higher levels of innovative behavior, as indicated in research (Aryee & Chen, 2000). Demographic information also enables the researcher to give some description of the sample used. 3.6. Pilot Study According to Baker (1994), a pilot study is the pre-testing or “trying out” of a particular research instrument. Teijlingen van, Rennie, Hundley and Graham (2001) also assert that, one of the advantages of conducting a pilot study is that, it might give advance warning about where the main research project could fail, where research protocols may not be followed, or whether proposed methods or instruments are inappropriate or too complicated. A pilot study can reveal deficiencies in the design of a proposed experiment or procedure and these can then be addressed before time and resources are expended on large scale studies. However, Polit, Beck and Hungler (2001) conceptualize pilot studies to be feasibility studies which are small scale versions or trial runs, done in preparation for a major study. In view of the aforementioned reasons, an initial pilot test was conducted before the main data collection. Pilot study helps to establish the procedures and parameters, clarify instructions, determine the appropriate levels of the independent variable, and also determine University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 60 the reliability and validity of the variables. A pilot study was also conducted to assess the appropriateness of the various measures on a Ghanaian population so as to address any cross- cultural validity of the measures if the need be since all the scales were used in the western parts of the world with different cultural perspectives. The scales that were piloted included: organizational culture, worker autonomy, and innovative behavior. In pre-testing these scales, two organizations were used: one public and the other private. These organizations were conveniently sampled and used for this scale study. Fifteen (15) participants each from the two institutions were used. The sample included males, females and employees of different job grades and tenure were involved in this study. In all participants did not express difficulty in responding to the items on all the scales though some respondents reported that, some items on the organizational culture scale were thought to contain too many variables. Reliability analysis also produced acceptable values for all the scales and the reliability analysis (Cronbach’s α) of the data obtained yielded the following results. A Cronbach alpha value of 0.70 was observed for the organizational culture as a whole construct, while the subcultures of competitive culture, innovative culture, community culture, and bureaucratic culture recorded Cronbach alpha values of 0.86, 0.66, 0.61 and 0.67 respectively. The scale on worker autonomy yielded a Cronbach alpha value of 0.70, while innovative behavior, (α=.75). 3.7. Main Study/ Data Collection Procedure In order to ensure a satisfactory response rate to the survey, the following steps were adopted in the study: Firstly, a verbal pre-survey consent was sought from the Human Resource University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 61 Department of the selected organizations to announce the intention of using their organization for the study and ask for their assistance and cooperation. Introductory letters were then obtained from the Department of Psychology, University of Ghana and sent to the selected organizations that consented to take part in the study, purposely to seek formal consent to use their organization for the study. After permission had been granted, the researcher sought to identity prospective participants who could and would answer the questionnaires. After prospective participants had been identified as being suitable for the study, their permission was sought to participate in the study and those who consented were given the self-report questionnaires to respond to. Participants were drawn from different ranks and sections of the organizations. The questionnaires were on organizational culture, employee innovative behavior, and worker autonomy. There was also a section for demographic data. The questionnaires contained clear details on how to fill them correctly. Notwithstanding, the researcher elaborated more on the instructions before handing over the questionnaires to the respondents. Though the explanation of the objectives of the research to participants may influence the responses of the participants, it is necessary because, researchers have to be honest (Babbie, 1998). All respondents were required to complete questionnaires on organizational culture, worker autonomy, innovative behavior and demographic data. To assure respondents of confidentiality, envelops were provided and attached to questionnaires so that each respondent would put and seal the completed questionnaires before submitting them. Respondents were told not to write their names anywhere on the questionnaire or envelops that they were provided with since that information was not needed. In anticipation that the workers may be busy at the time the researcher gets to their University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 62 organization, participants were given about a week to respond to the questionnaires after which the researcher went back for them. The time needed to respond fully to a questionnaire was however about ten to fifteen minutes. The duration for the data collection was about seven (7) weeks. Data collection started in the first week of January 2011 and ended in the third week of February, 2011. After data had been collected, it was then scored and coded for statistical analysis. 3.8. Ethical Considerations It is possible that, although a research study is feasible on practical grounds (the design is sound, the research question is specific and appropriate methods are available for its investigation), it remains unacceptable due to its ethical implications. It is important that a researcher investigates these implications prior to embarking on a research work.Moreover, organizational research must take into consideration the ethical conduct of the research and this process must start at the research planning stage through the recruitment and selection of research participants. It also includes ethical considerations during the conduct and reporting of the research (Aguinis & Henle, 2002). In the American Psychological Association (APA, 2002) Ethical Code, certain ethical considerations are to be considered when psychologists are building their professional and scientific work. It is therefore deemed necessary to go in accordance with these ethical principles governing the use of human participants for research purpose. The Ethical Code as stipulated by APA is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. The main purpose of the Ethical Code is the welfare and protection of individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of students, members, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 63 All the ethical principles stipulated by the APA’s Ethical Code were taken into consideration in this research. First of all, in every organization used in this research, permission was sought from the human resource department and their assistance sought in administering the questionnaire where necessary. Also, the purpose of the study was explained to participants, both in words and in writing and their consent was sought. Specific instructions regarding the purpose of the study and voluntary participation in the research were clearly spelt out on the questionnaire. Also, it was explained to participants that there was no foreseen risk, discomfort or adverse effect should they participate or decline to participate in the research. Also, nobody was induced to participate in the study. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity of responses, participants were instructed not to write their names on the questionnaires or mark the questionnaire in ways that would reveal their identity. In addition, each participant was given an envelope into which he or she will put and seal the completed questionnaire before returning it. Finally, contacts (email addresses and phone numbers) were made available to participants on the questionnaire so that participants could contact the researcher in case they wanted to ask question(s) or clarify any issues pertaining to the research. However, no such contacts were received by the researcher CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 4.1. Introduction University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 64 This chapter presents the results of the computation of means, standard deviation, reliability test and normality test, as well as the test of the hypotheses. The objective of data analysis in this chapter is to establish the reliable and valid empirical results that explain the influence of organizational culture and worker autonomy on employee innovativeness as well as the impact of worker autonomy, on the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness. To test the hypotheses in this study, the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0 was employed to facilitate the analysis. The analyses were in two parts. The first part involved the descriptive analysis while the second part involved test of hypotheses in the study. 4.2. Descriptive Analysis An analysis involving computation of means, standard deviation, reliability test, and normality test involving the study variables was done before the main test of hypotheses. In accordance with a major assumption underlying regression analysis that, at least the dependent variable must follow the normal curve, normality test using skewness and kurtosis analysis was used to determine normality in the study. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), a variable is normal when, the value for skewness and kurtosis range between ±1. Besides the dependent variable (i.e., innovative behavior), normality of the independent variables such as organizational culture and worker autonomy were also established. Normality test using the values of skewness and kurtosis found all the variables to be normally distributed. In addition, reliability analysis was conducted using Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The result found all the values to be above the threshold of 0.70 reported as appropriate for psychometric analysis. (Nunnally, 1978), except the value for University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 65 worker autonomy (α=0.56). In the pilot study, however, an alpha value of 0.84 was recorded for worker autonomy. Table 2 below presents summarized results of the study variables. Table 2: Mean, Standard Deviation, Normality test and Reliability values of Study Variables Variables M SD Skewness Kurtosis Alpha Min. Max. Org. culture 118.980 20.741 0.280 0.17 0.84 31.00 163.00 Worker 36.909 13.336 0.080 0.03 0.56 11.00 63.00 Autonomy Innovative 68.134 14.347 0.14 0.04 0.70 19.00 91.00 Behavior Total Number Of Responses (N=165) 4.3. Test of Hypotheses Four hypotheses were proposed and tested in this study. Multiple regression analysis was used to test hypotheses 2 and 3 while Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to determine the relationships proposed in hypothesis 1 and 4. Below are the hypotheses examined in the study. 1. There will be a significant positive relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness. 2. Worker autonomy will moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness such that employee who are high on autonomy will be more innovative than those who are low on autonomy. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 66 3. Innovative culture will account for more variance in employee innovation than the other subcultures (competitive culture, bureaucratic culture, and community cultures). 4. There will be a significant positive relationship between worker autonomy and employee innovativeness. Table 3: Pearson Correlation of the Relationship between Study Variables Variables 1 2 3 Culture _ Autonomy .211** Innovativeness .254** .256* _ **p < .01; *p < .05, N = 165 As shown in Table 3, hypothesis 1 which stated that, “there will be a significant positive relationship between organizational culture and employee innovation” was supported (r=.254, p<0.01). This means that, the organizational culture was perceived as supportive of employee innovativeness. Also, the study examined the hypothesis that, “there will be a significant positive relationship between worker autonomy and employee innovativeness”. The result obtained showed that, the relationship between worker autonomy and innovative behavior was significant (r=.256, p<0.05). This means that, increase in worker autonomy significantly result in increase in employee innovativeness and vice versa. Table 4: Pearson Correlation of the Relationship between Subcultures, Innovativeness and Worker Autonomy 1 2 3 4 5 6 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 67 Innovative culture - Competitive culture .646** Bureaucratic culture .486** .423** Community culture .627** .528** .597** Autonomy .269** .127 .129 .147 Innovativeness .235** .168* .185* .243** .256** - **p < .01; *p < .05, N = 131 As shown in Table 4, innovative culture correlated significantly with employee innovativeness (r=.235, p<0.01). This implies that, culture that supports innovation resulted in increased employee innovativeness and vice versa. Similarly, innovative culture was found to relate significantly with worker autonomy (r=.269, p<0.05). This shows that, cultures that encourage innovation also encouraged autonomy and vice versa. Competitive culture correlated significantly with employee innovativeness (r=.168, p<0.01). This implies that, cultures that encourage competition also encourage innovativeness and vice versa. However, competitive culture did not relate significantly with worker autonomy (r=.127, p>0.05). Further, a significant positive correlation was found between bureaucratic culture and employee innovativeness (r=.168, p<0.05). This means that, increase in levels of bureaucratic culture was associated with increased levels of employee innovativeness and vice versa. No significant correlation was found between bureaucratic culture and worker autonomy (r=.129, p>0.05). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 68 Finally, community culture correlated significantly with employee innovativeness (r=.243, p<.01). This implies that, high level of community culture was associated with increased levels of employee innovativeness and vice versa. However, community culture did not relate significantly with worker autonomy (r=.147, p>0.05). Hypothesis 2: Worker autonomy will moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness such that employees who are high on autonomy will be more innovative than those who are low on autonomy. Moderation analysis was used to test hypothesis 2. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), moderation occurs when the relationship between two variables depends on a third variable called moderator variable. Moderation analysis is done using hierarchical regression tests for the significance of the increment in criterion variance explained by the interaction term beyond the variance accounted for by the main effects variable. Cohen and Cohen (1983) suggested that, the following steps should be followed in test of moderation: • Step 1: Enter control variables in step one • Step 2: The independent and moderator variables should be entered in the second step in a specified order. Specifically, the independent variable should be entered first before the moderator variable. • Step 3: The interaction term (i.e. independent variable X moderator variable) should be entered in the third step. The interaction should be centered in order to reduce the effect of multicollinearity (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In centering, the mean value of the variable is subtracted from the individual University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 69 score of the variable (i.e. Independent variable – Mean), (i.e. Moderator – Mean). This procedure was employed to test hypothesis 2. Below in Table 5is a summary of the results: Table 5: Hierarchical Multiple Regression of the Moderation Effect of Worker Autonomy on the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Innovation Model B SEβ β Step 1: Constant 47.318 6.217 Culture 0.172 0.051 0.254** Step 2: Constant 42.964 6.289 Culture 0.142 0.051 0.209** Autonomy 0.215 0.077 0.211** Step 3: Constant 22.077 14.404 Culture 0.304 0.113 0.449** Autonomy x Culture -.005 0.003 - 0.705 R2 = .065, .107, and .121 respectively; ΔR2 =.065, .043, and .014 for step 1, 2, & 3 respectively **p < .01 As shown in Table 5 above, the prediction that, “worker autonomy will moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee such that, employees who are high on autonomy will be more innovative than those who are low on autonomy” was not supported in this study (β=-.705, p>0.05).This means that, the level of autonomy of employees did not significantly moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovation.Thus, hypothesis 2 was not supported by the results of the present study. The R2 =.121 indicates that together, culture and the interaction term (autonomy x culture) accounted for 12.1 percent of the variance in employee innovativeness. However, interactive term alone accounted for just 1.4 percent of the variance (∆R2=0.014). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 70 Hypothesis 3: Innovative culture will account for more variance in employee innovation than bureaucratic, competitive and community culture. To test this, hierarchical multiple regression method was used. The results are presented in Table 6 below Table 6: Hierarchical Multiple Regression of the Relationship between Subcultures and Employee Innovativeness Model B SEβ β Step 1: Constant 51.944 5.276 Innovative culture .457 .148 .235** Step 2: Constant 51.159 5.963 Innovative culture .421 .195 .216* Competitive culture .070 .244 .029 Step 3: Constant 49.260 6.242 Innovative culture .356 .205 .183 Competitive culture .028 .247 .012 Bureaucratic culture .174 .169 .091 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 71 Step 4: Constant 47.774 6.338 Innovative culture .259 .218 .133 Competitive culture -.021 .250 -.083 Bureaucratic culture .077 .185 .040 Community culture .382 .300 .140 R2 = .055, .056, .062, & .071 for step 1, 2, 3, & 4 respectively; ΔR2 = .055, .000, .006, & .009 for step 1, 2, 3, & 4 respectively,**p < .01; *p < .05 Hypothesis 3 which stated that, “innovative culture will account for more variance in employee innovation more than the other subcultures” was supported in this study. This means that, cultures that support innovation results in employee innovation than cultures that emphasize competition, community and bureaucracy. Specifically, innovative culture accounted for 5.5% of the variance in employee innovation (β=.235, p<.01). Innovative and competitive culture accounted for 5.6% of the variance in innovative behavior. It was also observed that, competitive culture alone did not account for any variance in innovative behavior (∆R2=.000). Additionally, innovative, competitive and bureaucratic cultures accounted for 6.2% of the variance in innovativeness. It was also clear from the results that, bureaucratic culture alone accounted for 0.1% of the variance in innovative behavior ((∆R2=.006). Together, all the four culture dimensions, namely; innovative, competitive, bureaucratic and community cultures accounted for 7.1 percent of the variance in innovative behavior. Community culture alone accounted for 0.1% of the variance in innovative behavior. However, competitive, bureaucratic, and community culture did not account for any significant variance in innovative behavior. Hence, hypothesis 3 was confirmed. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 72 The study also examined the extent to which organizational culture and worker autonomy predicted employee innovativeness. To test this, standard multiple regression method was used. The results are presented in Table 7 below: Table 7: Standard Multiple Regression of the Influence of Organizational Culture and Worker Autonomy on Employee Innovativeness Model B SEβ β Step 1: Constant 42.964 6.289 Culture .142 .051 .209** Autonomy .215 .211 .211** R2 = .107; ΔR2 = .107, **p < .01; *p < .05 As shown in the Table 7, the overall model of the relationship between culture, autonomy and innovativeness was significant [F (2, 162)=9.734, P<.05]. Together, culture and autonomy accounted for 10.7% of the variance in employee innovation and this variance was significant in predicting employee innovation. 4.4. Summary of Findings In summary, four (4) hypotheses were examined in this study. From the results of the study, some interesting findings were revealed. Though one of the hypotheses was not supported, the other three were supported. Hypotheses 1, 3, and 4 were supported; however hypothesis 2 was not supported. The following findings were consistent with the prediction in the study; • There was a significant positive relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness (hypothesis 1). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 73 • Innovative culture accounted for more variance in employee innovativeness than the other subcultures (competitive, bureaucratic, and community cultures) (Hypothesis 3). • A significant positive relationship was found between worker autonomy and employee innovativeness (hypothesis 4). But the following prediction was not consistent with findings in the study; • Worker autonomy will moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness (hypothesis 2). CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 5.1. Introduction The study examined the influence of organizational culture and worker autonomy on employee innovativeness, as well as the moderating role of worker autonomy on the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness. In order to achieve the main purpose of the study, the influence of organizational culture on employee innovativeness was first investigated. In addition, the moderating role of worker autonomy on the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior was also examined. Finally, the study examined the significance of worker autonomy on employee innovative behavior. Results from the study found a significant positive relationship between organizational culture as a whole (i.e. innovative, community and bureaucratic cultures) and employee innovativeness. Also, a positive significant relationship was found between worker autonomy and employee innovativeness. Furthermore, the prediction that innovative culture will University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 74 account for more variance in employees’ innovative behavior, more than competitive, bureaucratic, and community cultures was supported. However, the proposition that worker autonomy will moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness was not supported. A further analysis found a significant relationship between innovative culture and innovative behavior (r=0.205). Based on the results of the study, the proposed conceptual model was revised and is presented in Figure 2. Independent Variables Dependent Variable (r=.254) (β=.235) (r=.256) FIGURE 2: Summary of observed relationships between variables investigated In discussing these findings, the main findings, that is, the significant positive relationships between organizational culture and employee innovativeness and also between worker autonomy and employee innovative behavior will be addressed first by looking at how these Organizational Culture Innovative Culture Employee Innovativeness Worker Autonomy University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 75 findings related to literature and findings obtained in earlier studies. This is followed by a discussion of the moderation hypothesis and a discussion of the limitations of the present study, recommendations for future research, implications for practice and concluding remarks. 5.1.1. Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Innovativeness The prediction that organizational culture will have a positive significant relationship with employee innovativeness in the present study observed a statistically positive significant relationship between culture as a whole and employee innovativeness (refer to Table 3). This finding suggests that perceived supportive organizational culture resulted in employee innovative behavior. The findings of the present study are consistent with previous findings from other related studies, mostly conducted in the Western countries, and yet contradict others. For instance, Crespell and Hansen (2008), conducted a study on work climate and innovativeness in a small wood products industry in the United States and results suggested that a balanced culture, with a combination of all four types of culture (community, competitive, innovative, and bureaucratic cultures) is conducive for innovation. These results were strongly supported by the data collected on site (survey plus interviews) and were consistent with previous work that suggests most successful firms are those having a balanced mix of all types of cultures (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). According to these authors, this balanced culture is described as friendly and encouraging (community), entrepreneurial (innovative), results oriented (competitive), with strong leadership and clear procedures University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 76 (bureaucracy). Their study thus established a relationship between organizational culture and innovation. Furthermore, Laakso, Parzfall and Huhtala (2007) also examined the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior and they found out that, employee innovative behavior depends on organizational culture and organizational climate. They drew this conclusion using a sample of twenty-three respondents of private entrepreneurs in five Finnish wood companies. The similarities of the previous studies to the present perhaps is that, the cultures of the organizations used in these various studies have attitudes that make it attractive and easy for people in the various organizations to take initiative to solve problems and become innovative. The findings of the present study could hint at the fact that, organizational culture encourages employees to show innovative behavior and maybe motivates them as well. Also, competition in the various organizations increases as the years go by and this compels organizations to come up with strategies and programs which perhaps include creating an enabling environment (organizational culture) for employees to be innovative. Thus, perhaps globalization and competition has made organizations shape their cultures so that employees will become innovative for competitive advantage. However, this finding is inconsistent with earlier findings. For instance, a study on the direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on innovative behavior by Poppendick (2009), involving thirty-nine (39) employees of a multinational high-technology group, specialized in the photo sensor technology in the Netherlands indicated that the expected significant correlation between transformational leadership and innovative behavior could not University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 77 be confirmed (rs = .11, ns). Results of the regression analysis revealed that transformational leadership had no significant positive effects on employees’ innovative behavior (β=-.05, ns). Leaders are considered the gatekeepers in the innovation process and have a significant impact on organizations culture. They play a decisive role in fostering and nurturing innovation within organizations. important leader behaviors include encouragement of risk- taking, an open style of communication, participative and collaborative style, giving autonomy and freedom, support for innovation (verbal and enacted), constructive feedback, and being optimistic about the future. All these characteristics are however imbedded in organizational culture that supports innovation, thus, organizational culture and leadership both have similar behavior patterns which encourage innovative behavior. It can therefore be deduced that, the findings in the study by Poppendick (2009), is inconsistent with the finding of the present study whereby organizational culture is positively related to innovative behavior. Also, Howell and Avolio (1992) state that, some charismatic leaders control and manipulate their followers’ (i.e. employees) behavior to forward their own personal interest. That in turn does not give leeway to creative thinking, thence deterring employees from innovative behavior. This therefore could possibly mean that the cultures of the organizations used in the present study did not encourage employee innovative behavior. The likely reasons for the discrepancies in the results between the reviewed studies and the present study are that, the cultures of the organizations used in the earlier studies have attitudes that make it unattractive and difficult for people to take initiative to solve problems and become innovative. Another reason could be that the organizations used in the previous University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 78 studies did not have any competitors as at the time of the study; therefore, leaders did not see the need to create an environment for innovative behavior so as to be at an advantage. 5.1.2. The Relationship between Worker Autonomy and Employee Innovativeness To test the fourth hypothesis that there will be a significant positive relationship between worker autonomy and employee innovativeness, the correlation analysis was used. A number of studies have identified an array of variables that correlated with and presumed to be antecedents or causal determinants of innovative behavior. Amabile (1998) presumes the antecedents of innovative behavior to include motivation, job satisfaction, organizational climate, and support among others. One work-related experience that has been found to have an effect or influence on employee innovative behavior is worker autonomy. The correlation analysis found a significant positive relationship between worker autonomy and innovative behavior in the present study (r=.092, p<0.05). This means that an increase in autonomy at work was associated with an increase in innovative behavior and vice versa. Following from the above, it is reasonable to say that it is possible that when employees are given autonomy, they will be able to be innovative because if the culture of the organization encourages such behaviors, some amount of autonomy would result in innovation. Additional analysis conducted involving the subcultures especially innovative culture and autonomy was also found significant (r=.269, p<.01). This confirms the fact that, when an employee had autonomy at the work place it was perhaps a guarantee for innovative behavior. It can be posited therefore that, autonomy and innovative culture will interact to predict innovative behavior also. As a form of employee involvement in decision-making, delegation describes a category of leader behavior that entails assignment of new responsibilities to subordinates and additional University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 79 authority to carry them out (Yukl, 1998) or a supervisor’s empowerment of a subordinate to take responsibility for certain activities (Bass, 1998). Delegation can be said to be similar in construct to worker autonomy. The finding of the present study is consistent with the findings of a study on delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating process in china by Chen and Aryee (2005). Results of the regression analysis showed that delegation was related to the work outcome of innovative behavior (β=.20, p<.01). Janssen (2005)administered a questionnaire survey among 170 employees from a non- management division of a Dutch company in the energy industry, in a bid to find out the moderated effect of organizational culture on the relationship between perceived supervisors support and employee innovative behavior. Analyses showed that, influence was positively related to innovative behavior (β=0.52, t=3.34, p<.001) when employees perceived their supervisors as supportive of employee innovation. Influence in her study referred to the perception about the amount of influence employees had on the work they did. Influence can then be said to be related to worker autonomy. Thus these findings are consistent with the findings from the current study. A possible explanation for the consistencies in these findings involves employee reactions to goals and performance feedback. Goals and performance of feedback are often used in place of rules to coordinate and control behavior in organizations (Mintzberg, 1979). Efforts to control employees this way may constrain behavior and prevent employees from trying innovative solutions to problems. Empowerment and autonomy to some extent involves allowing employees to use their own discretion at the workplace. This freedom might lead employees to find out new ways of doing things their own way, perhaps leading to innovative University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 80 behavior. This kind of empowerment and autonomy perhaps is given to employees as seen in the results and this led to innovative behavior in the Ghanaian setting. Though in the Ghanaian culture there is respect and reverence for the elderly or people in position/authority such that in the work setting it will be difficult for a junior staff to take decisions on his own or even give an advice on an issue, the results of this study shows that in this particular aspect of the Ghanaian culture might be changing. Employees are given the opportunity to operate and be as innovative as possible, whether they are in the management brackets or below management in organizations. Blake and Mouton (1964) also suggest that, subordinates should be given greater power in decision making if they are exceptionally skilled; the superiors should exercise power in decision making in times of crises or when subordinates lack skills and abilities. Work autonomy is valued to the extent that it is within the capability of the participant. Moreover, satisfaction with supervision has a more general meaning which includes factors other than quality and amount of supervision. Thus it can be concluded that all other factors being equal, increased autonomy when accorded within the decision making capabilities of subordinates is accompanied by greater satisfaction with supervision, and a higher ability to innovate. The major factor identified in the literature that impedes creative performance is control (Amabile, 1998; Angle, 1989; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). It could be control in decision making, control of information flow, or even perceived control in the form of reward systems that put too much emphasis on increasing extrinsic motivation. The primary reason for this is that control negatively affects intrinsic motivation. According to Amabile (1998), expertise and creativity skills must be accompanies by intrinsic motivation to produce highly creative behavior. Perhaps this kind of control does not exist in the Ghanaian organizations used in the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 81 present study, thus perhaps the level of autonomy needed by employees to be innovative was given to them. Basu and Green (1997) also studied leader-members dyads in a manufacturing plant and demonstrated that employees are more likely to deviate from the ordinary, engage in unconventional behavior, and implement innovative ideas if they are sure that they will not be penalized for it. This however is inconsistent with the present study. In a study looking at Empowering Public Employees to Innovate by Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2009), findings indicated the practice of empowering frontline employees by providing information about goals and performance, this empowerment practice fails to have an effect on the degree to which employees feel encouraged to innovate (p=0.478). This can be said to be inconsistent with the findings in the present study since empowerment and worker autonomy are similar in construct. 5.1.3. The Relationship between Innovative, Competitive, Bureaucratic, and Community Cultures and Employee Innovativeness The present study found innovative culture as a significant predictor of innovative behavior (β=.205, p<.01) (see Table 5). This means that, cultures that encourage innovation result in innovative behavior. The study also sought to investigate the extent to which the various subcultures of innovative, competitive, bureaucratic and community cultures account for a variance in employee innovation. Specifically, the prediction that innovative culture will account for more variance in employee innovative behavior than competitive culture accounted for 5.5% of the variance in innovative behavior while competitive, bureaucratic and community culture did not account for any significant variance in innovative behavior. This means that cultures that encourage innovation create the appropriate workplace setting University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 82 for employees to engage in such behaviors. This finding corroborates prior literature on the effects of innovative culture on employee innovative behavior (e.g., Burns & Stalker, 1961; Ogbonna & Harris 2000, 2002). The finding on the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior by Burns and Stalker (1961), led to the conclusion that organic organizations which demonstrated clearly innovative and competitive cultures, form to deal with unpredictability and volatility in an organization’s environment, compared with a mechanistic organization, which clearly exhibited bureaucratic and community cultures, an organic organization facilitated greater creativity and innovation. They compared electronics firms with more established industrial enterprises and made the distinction between mechanistic and organic forms of organizations. Angle (1989) also asserted in support of Burns and Stalkers (1961) findings that, an organic organization (innovative and competitive cultures), as opposed to a mechanistic one, enables greater organizational innovation in environments of dynamic change. Times have changed, technology is growing, globalization has taken over, and competition in the marketplace has grown tight, yet innovative culture in this study still supports the view that innovative culture encourages innovative behavior more than the other subcultures. In a study examining the innovative behavior of employees within a small to medium sized enterprise by Anzam (2009), results indicated that, the more an organization values an innovative culture the greater the innovative behavior of their employees (F=3.588, R2=22.3%, p<.05). Therefore, the results suggest that the innovative culture of the organization is positively and significantly associated with the innovative behavior of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 83 employees. What this means is that culture can support innovative behavior in a number of ways including encouragement to be creative: having no negative effect when employers are creative, an effective reward system and the allocation of time and resources (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). This means that, the stronger and more developed an organization’s culture is toward supporting the innovative behavior of employees, the greater will be the individual’s innovative behavior. Ogbonna and Harris (2000) analyzed the relationship among organizational culture, leadership style and performance. They used a sample of 1000 units from the Financial Analysis Made Easy database of registered British companies. The results showed innovative and competitive cultures had a direct effect on performance and accounted for approximately 25% of the variance in organizational performance. It was found that, innovative culture (β=0.22, p<.05), related significantly with performance. Also, a significant relationship was reported between innovative culture and participative leadership style (β=.16, p<.05) as well as instrumental leadership style (β=-.13, p<.05). This study was extended in 2002 when the authors analyzed the link between market orientation, organizational culture, strategic human resource management and organizational performance. Innovative cultures were found to have a significant effect on performance. The only variable that had a purely direct effect on performance was innovative culture. It is however worth noting that, success and performance, not forgetting the survival of organizations are consequences of innovative behavior among other things. Thus the findings of Ogbonna and Harris (2000, 2002) go on to confirm the findings in this study that innovative culture will account for more variance in employee innovative behavior as well as significantly predict innovative behaviors. Employees would display more innovative behavior under innovative cultures rather than competitive, bureaucratic and community cultures. It might be assumed that especially University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 84 employees, who do not feel the pressure of engaging in leader dependent behavior but perceive a climate that is supporting their innovativeness engage in innovative behavior. Another explanation could be that the innovative climate works as a compensation for leadership. The innovative climate is also defined by resources as time, personnel and financial support an employee perceives (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). However, Kimberly (1981) found that in stable and predictable environments, some degree of formalization and centralization of decision making might actually increase an organization’s ability to implement innovations. This assertion by Kimberly (1981) is nonetheless inconsistent with the findings in the present study. Perhaps due to the changing market, consumer demands and high competition, organizations cannot afford to lose time of production through the process of formalization and centralization, thus innovative culture is more prevalent in organizations. Also, in present times the environment and business market has been found to be unstable and unpredictable thus the discrepancy in the findings. 5.1.4. Worker Autonomy as a Moderator on the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Innovativeness Another objective of this research was to assess if the variable worker autonomy has a moderating effect on the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior. Specifically, it was hypothesized that, worker autonomy will moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovativeness; such that the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 85 positive effects of organizational culture on employee innovativeness will be stronger for workers with high levels of autonomy. This prediction was not supported by the results in the present study (β=-.705, p<0.05). This suggests that, worker autonomy did not contribute significantly in strengthening or weakening the relationship between organizational culture and innovative behavior. Thus, the amount of autonomy enjoyed by employees did not have any significant effect on culture-innovative behavior relationship. The result obtained is in agreement with Amabile’s (1998) findings. In her research on the ability of autonomy to either enhance or inhibit employee innovative behavior, it was observed that worker autonomy did not strengthen, weaken or change the direction of the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior (Amabile, 1998). Though the present result is in consonance with earlier ones like Amabile (1998), the outcome could be because organizations used in the present study do not provide the needed amount of autonomy to moderate the relationship between organizational culture and worker autonomy. Perhaps employees were given the needed autonomy, yet they did not use it for the purpose it was given. It is worth noting that in recent times some organizations are interested in working in teams rather than giving employees’ autonomy. This is another plausible reason for the results obtained in the current study. Also, a total number of one hundred and sixty-five (165) respondents were used in the present study. Perhaps a larger number of respondents would have provided an adequate power to detect the moderator effect. 5.2. Limitations of the Study University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 86 The present research like any other study is not without limitation. The study utilized scales developed in Western cultures to test the variables in the study. The researcher conducted a pilot test to localize the scales by checking for ambiguity and clarity of the items on the scale. The result of the pilot test showed that participants understood the items. However, scales developed in Western cultures typically reflect the culture and belief systems of the people which are quite different from collectivistic cultures such as Ghana. Thus, it is possible that participants’ interpretation of the items based on their belief system could have affected the responses they gave and hence the results of the study. The design used in the study did not help in determining the long term effect of the independent variables on the dependent. Considering the nature of the study (an academic research) with a limited time frame, the survey design used was appropriate as it ensured that the results of the study were obtained on time. The long term effect of the variables could be examined in other studies using longitudinal designs. Common method variance is another limitation that the present study faced in terms of the respondents answering questionnaires on their own innovativeness. This was however the most appropriate method to use since it was difficult locating other people to assess the innovativeness of respondents. 5.3. Recommendations for Future Research It is recommended that this study should be replicated using other sector organizations in order to determine the extent to which organizational culture and worker autonomy affects employee innovative behavior in those organizations. Moreover, if possible, participants from varying backgrounds should be used so that findings can be compared across occupations. It University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 87 is suggested that, more organizational subcultures, worker autonomy and innovative behavior research be conducted in the Ghanaian setting to help us gain a better understanding of these constructs in Ghana. Taking into account the limitation encountered by using self-report surveys, it is advisable to provide an experimental situation preventing subtle communication, causing respondents to alter their answers to conform to expectations or otherwise. Future research could also explore the use of completing questionnaires on the internet (online surveys) to help ameliorate the problem of moving from one organization to another collecting completed questionnaire which is sometimes time consuming. Time factor and scope of work did not allow for all of the above mentioned research designs to be researched into. Online surveys could be helpful since most organizations in recent times work mostly through the internet. Respondents might find it easier and less stressful to use this method. Also a larger sample size could be used in subsequent studies so as to provide a greater power to detect moderation effect. 5.4. Contribution of the Study The results obtained in the present study have contributed significantly to literature in the area of organizational culture and innovative behaviors in organizations. In particular, the study observed a significant positive relationship between organizational culture and innovative behavior, as well as between innovative culture and innovative behavior. This attests to the fact that, when the culture of an organization encourages innovative behaviors, employees would engage in such behaviors and vice versa. This shows that organizations need to create cultures that encourage innovation especially now that competition has reached a high point in the media, insurance, and banking industries used in this study. Innovative University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 88 behaviors would result in the development of new products and ways of attracting and handling customers that would differentiate the organization from their competitors. This result thus, has broadened existing literature in the area of organizational culture, innovative culture and innovative behavior and most importantly with a result from a collectivist culture. It was also observed in the present study that, worker autonomy had a significantly positive relationship with innovative behavior. This means that, the amount of autonomy enjoyed by the worker did contribute in terms of exhibiting innovative behavior. Thus, there is the need for organizations to encourage worker autonomy because of the support it has received from the present study and also from previous findings in the organizational culture literature (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989).Though in the Ghanaian culture there is respect and reverence for the elderly or people in position/authority such that in the work setting it will be difficult for a junior staff to take decisions on his own or even give an advice on an issue, the results of this study shows that in this particular aspect of the Ghanaian culture might be changing. Employees are given room to operate, whether they are in the management brackets or below management. Again, regarding the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior, the results from the present study was in consonance with most findings obtained by past researchers. Specifically, this study found a directly significant positive relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior, as in previous studies. Worker autonomy however did not moderate the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior, contrary to the positive prediction in this study. Hence, worker autonomy did not strengthen or change the direction of the organizational culture- innovative behavior relationship. This is an addition to literature in organizational culture University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 89 from a collectivist culture. Perhaps the Ghanaian culture of respect for authority makes Ghanaians employees afraid to taking decisions in work related issues on their own thus the autonomy which might be given them at the work place is not maximized. 5.5. Implications for Practitioners Findings from the study have both theoretical and practical/managerial implications. Theoretically, findings of this study add on to the literature on organizational culture and employee innovative behavior in Ghana. Since there is scarcity of literature on employee innovative behavior in Ghana, findings of the study provide benchmark data which can be used for future research. The results obtained from this study suggest that, the outcome of the study is relevant to management and leaders in organizations. For instance, the study found that organizational culture as a whole had a significantly positive relationship with innovative behavior and innovative culture to account for more variance in employee innovativeness than competitive, bureaucratic and community cultures. This means that by promoting organizational culture as a whole and innovative culture in particular in organizations, innovative behavior would be enhanced which is essential for the growth, profitability, and even survival of any organization. Thus, management of organizations should consider creating a workplace climate that will encourage innovative behavior. For instance, organizational environment that is characterized by risk-taking, autonomy, and encouragement tends to promote individual employee innovativeness as well as providing some amount of autonomy to workers. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 90 Findings reported in this study are important because they expand our understanding of innovative behavior. This knowledge should be especially relevant to managers in organizations with dynamic environments where change and new ideas are essential for organizational adaptation, innovation, survival, and success (Howard, 1998). For instance, the relationships between the organizational culture, worker autonomy culture and innovative behavior suggest staffing interventions. When an organization values employee innovativeness, the culture of the organization to some extent should give grounds for the exhibition of such behavior (e.g., innovative culture). 5.6. Conclusion In conclusion, the focus of the present study was to investigate the influence of organizational culture and worker autonomy on employee innovative behavior. The moderating role of worker autonomy on the relationship between organizational culture and employee innovative behavior was also explored. The proposed moderation effect was however not observed, from the findings obtained in the study. The results provided empirical evidence that organizational culture significantly predict employee innovative behavior. Furthermore, worker autonomy had a significantly positive relationship with employee innovative behavior. In addition to that, innovative culture accounted for more variance in employees’ innovative behavior more than the other subcultures of competitive, bureaucratic and community cultures. These findings suggest organizational culture as a whole and innovative culture in particular cannot be discounted as far as employee innovative behavior is concerned. Worker autonomy University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 91 has also been found to be a necessary ingredient for innovative behavior in employees. It will therefore be useful if future studies focus on investigating the viability of worker autonomy in Ghana as the current study sought to do as well as the type of organizational culture that enhances innovative behavior among employees. REFERENCES Abou-Zeid, E., & Chen, Q. (2004). The effectiveness of innovation: knowledge of management approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3): 261-274. Aguinis, H. & Henle, C. A. (2002).Ethics in Research.In S.G.Rogelberg (Ed), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management,1, 30-43. Alvesson, M. & Berg, P. O. (1992).Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism. Berlin: walter de Gruyter. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity.Harvard Business Review, 76, 77-89. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 92 Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do. California Management Review, 40(1): 39-58. 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. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.In B. M. Stew & L. L. Cummings (Eds.).Research in organizational behavior (pp. 123-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI. American Psychological Association.(2002). Ethical Principles of psychologists and code of conduct.American Psychologist, 57, 1597-1611. Andrews, F. M., & Farris, F. (1967).Supervisory practices and innovation in scientific teams.Personnel Psychology, 20, 497-575. Angle, H. L. (1989). Psychology and Organizational Innovation. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies (pp. 135-170). New York: Harper & Row. Anzam, E. (2009). The innovative behavior of employees within a small to medium sized enterprise: a Social Capital Perspective. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2): 108-119. Aryee, S. & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59(7): 793-801. Aryris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 93 Axtell, C. M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T., Waterson, P., & Harringyon, E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3): 265-286. Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research. (10thEd.). USA: Thompson and Wadsworth. Babbie, E. (1998). Surveys research methods. (2nd Ed.). California: Wadsworth Publishing. Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Men, Women and Time in the New Corporate World. New York: The Free Press. Baker, T. L. (1994). Doing Social research (2th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. Balkin, D. B., Markaman, G. D. & Gmez-Meja, L. R. (2000). Is CEO Pay in High technology Firms Relate to Innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1118-1129) Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader- Member Exchange and Transformational Leadership: An Empirical Examination of Innovation Behaviors in Leader- Member Dyads. Journal of Applied of Applied Social Psychology, 477-499. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S., (1964).The Managerial Grid.Houston , Texas: Gulf Publishing Co. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 94 Boer, H., & Gieskes, J. (1998).Continuous Improvement – From idea to Reality.Twente University Press, Enschede. Breakwell, G.M., Hammond, S., & Fife-Schaw, C. (1995). Research methods in Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. Buono, A., Bowditch, & Lewis, J. (1985).When cultures collide: the anatomy of a Merger.Human Relations, 38, 477-500. Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38, 551- 570. Breaugh, J. A. (1989). The work autonomy scales: Additional validity evidence. Human Relations, 42, 1033-1056. Brewer, A. (1993). Managing for Employee Commitment. Sydney: Longman. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961).The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R. E. (1999).Diagnosing and Changing Organizational culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Campbell. J. P., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural Congruence, Strength and Type: Relationships to Effectiveness.In Woodman, R. W.andPassmore, W. A. (Eds.). Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5.Greenwich , CT: JAI Press. Carmeli, A. (2005). Exploring determinants of job involvement: an empirical test among senior executives.International Journal of Manpower,26(5): 457-472. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 95 Cascio, W. Aguinis, H. (2005).Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management (6th Ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey. Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2005). Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating process on China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 216-242. Child, J. (1973). Predicting and understanding organizational structure.Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 168-85. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.(2nd Ed.).Hillsdales, NJ: Erlbaum. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989).Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.Strategic Management Journal, 10(1): 75-87. Crespell, P., & Hansen, E. (2008).Managing for innovation: insights into a successful company.(Innovation in forest product industry).Forest Products Journal. Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies,38(2): 45- 66. De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Innovative work behavior: Measurement and validation. EIM Business and Policy Research.Working paper, pp3-23. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cultures, Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 10095-10121. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 96 Denton, D. W., & Kleiman, L. S. (2001). Job Tenure as a Moderator of Relationship Between Autonomy and Satisfaction. Applied H. R. M. Research,6(2): 105-114. Deshpande, R., & Webster, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: defining the research agenda of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 53(1): 3-15. Deshpande, R., Farley, J.U., & Webster, F. E. (1993). Corporate Culture, customer Orientation and Innovation in Japanese Firms: A Quafrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57, 23-7. Despande, R., & Farley, J. (1999). Executive insights: corporate culture and market orientation: comparing Indian and Japanese firms. Journal of International Marketing.7(4): 111-127. Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, F. E. (2000). A Framework for Linking Culture and Improvement Initiatives in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 850-863 Dobni, B. (2008). Measuring innovation culture in organizations, the development of a generalized innovation culture construct using exploratory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management,11(4): 539-559. Ehigie, B. O., & Akpan, R.C. (2004).Roles of perceived leadership styles and rewards in the practice of total quality management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(1): 24-40. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., &Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 24-40. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 97 Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3): 500-507. Fernandez, D. E., & Moldogaziev, W. (2009). Empowering Public Employees to Innovate. A paper presented at the 10th National Public Management Research Conference, Hosted by Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, October, 2009. Frans, V., & Meulenberg, M. (2004).Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation, and performance in small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2): 134-154. Frischer, J. (1993).Empowering management in new product development units. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10,393-401. Forehand, G. A. (1963). Assessments of innovative behavior: partial criteria for the assessment of executive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(3): 206- 213. George, J. M. & Zhou, J. (2001).When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513-524. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16,250-279. Hartmann, A. (2006). The role of organizational Culture in motivating innovative behavior in construction firms. Construction innovation, 6(3): 159-172. Hatch, M. J. (2003).Organization Theory. Modern, symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford: university Press. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 98 Higgins, J., & McAllaster, C. (2002). Want innovation? Then use cultural artifacts that support it. Organizational Dynamics,31, 74-84. Hobfoll, S. E. (19891). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist,44, 513-524. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. & Sanders, G. (1990).Measuring organizational culture: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases.Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 286-316. Howard, L. W. (1998). Validating the competing Values Model as a Representation of Organizational Cultures. Human Relations, 38, 477-500. Howell, J., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation. The Academy of Management Executive, 43-54. Igo, T., & Skitmore, M. (2006).Diagnosing the organizational culture of an Australian engineering consultancy using the competing values framework. Construction Innovation, 6, 121-39. Ishak, N. A. (2005). Promoting Employees’ Innovativeness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior through Superior-Subordinate Relationship in the Workplace. Research and Practice in Human Resource management,13(2): 1630 Jamrog, J., Vickers, M., & Bear, D. (2006). Building and Sustaining a Culture that supports Innovation. Human Resource Planning, 29(3): 9-19. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 99 Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,78, 573-579. Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (2002).Cultures that support Product-innovation Processes. Academy of management Executive, 16(3): 42-54. Jones, G. (1983). Transactional costs, property rights, and organizational culture: our exchange perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 454-456. Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London. Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.)Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kets De Vries, M., & Miller, D. (1986).Personality, culture and organization. Academy of Management Review, 11, 266-279. Kilmann, R. H. Saxton, M. J., &Serpa, R. (1985).Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture. Jossey-Bass, San Fran cisco, CA. Kimberly, J. R. (1981). Managerial innovation.In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Hand book of organizational design. Oxford University Press. Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. (1981). Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of technological and Administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 689-713. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 100 Koberg, C. & Chusmir, L. (1987). Organizational Culture relationships with creativity and other job related variables. Journal of Business research,15(5): 397-409. Kotter, J. P. & Heskett, J.L. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: The Free Press, New York, NY. Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, The Free Press, New York, NY. Kraimer, M. L. Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement,59,127-142. Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: an empirical investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1): 79-102. Laakso, A., Huhtala, H., & Parzefall, M. R. (2007). Supporting innovativeness through organizational culture – a study of three Finish entrepreneur communities. The Conference of Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Ladd, D. (1997). Do two dimensions of OCBs have different correlates? Unpublished Master’s thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayatte, India. Lau, C. M. & Ngo, H. Y.(2004). The HR system, organizational culture, and product Innovation. International Business Review, 13 (6): 685-703. Levinson, H. (1985). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 101 Lian, L. K. & Tui, L. G. (2008).The Exercise of Social Power, Work Autonomy and Satisfaction with Supervision in Malaysian Industrial Settings. International Business Research, 1, 53-65. Likert, R. (1970). The Human Organization. New York: Macmillan. Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985).A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289. Lukas, B., & Farrell, O. C. (2000).The effect of market orientation on product innovation. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 28 (2): 239-248. Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 18(3), 219-236. Lyon, D., & Ferrier, W. (2002).Enhancing Performance with Product-market Innovation: The Influence of the Top Management Team. Journal of Managerial Issue14, 452-469. Martin,K., & Terblanche, C. (2003).Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1): 64-74. Mathias, J.(2006). Organizational Culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, C.A: McGraw-Hill. McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York McGraw-Hill. McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources,7(2): 226-246. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 102 Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mitroff, I. I., & Kilmann, R.H. (1975). Stories managers tell: A new tool for organizational problem solving. Management Review, 64, 18-28. Mobley, W.H. (1982). Employee turnover: consequences, and control. Addison-Wesley. Moran, E.T., & Volkwein, J. F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organizational climate. Human Relations, 45(1): 19-47. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organizations, London: Sage. Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3): 313-351. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1): 27-43. Newell, R. (1993). Questionnaires in N. Gilbert (Eds.), Research in Social life (pp.94-115). London: Sage Publications. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Obenchain, A., & Johnson, W. (2004). Product and process innovation in service organizations: the influence of organizations. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 9(3): 91-113. Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., & Dunn, M. G. (1990). Organizational culture, commitment, satisfaction and cohesion. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14(2): 151-17. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 103 Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. (2002). Managing Organizational culture: Insights from the hospitality industry. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(1): 22-53. Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4): 766-788. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3): 607-655. Ouchi, W. G. (1977). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1): 95-113. Peter, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982).In Search of Excellence, New York: Harper and Raw, Row. Plange, A. (2006). The influence of organizational culture and leadership behaviors on organizational commitment.An Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Ghana, Psychology Department Ghana. Pheysey, D. C. (1993).Organizational Cultures: Types and Transformations, London: Routledge. Polit, D. F., Beck,C. T., & Hungler, B. P.(2001). Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization (5th Ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Poppendick, P. (2009). Direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on innovation behavior.Bachelor thesis in work and Organizational Psychology, University of Twente, Netherlands. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 104 Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantages of nation. London, UK: Macmillian Press, pp. 368-92. Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond Rational Management. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Quinn, R. E., & J. Rohrbaugh. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Valves Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science, 29(3): 363-377. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87(4): 698-714. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Schumpeter J. A. (1934).Theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Shalley, C. E. & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1): 33-53. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a part model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580-607. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 105 Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of Management Journal,35, 1036-1056. Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995).Perceived organizational support and organizational justice.In Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds.).Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace (pp. 149- 154). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A., & Keller, R. (1976). The Measurement of Job Characteristics, Academy of Management Journal, 19,195-212. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 339-358. Smith, G. P. (2002). The new leader: bringing creativity and innovation to the workplace. Chart Your Course, Conyers, Georgia. Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1442- 1465. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995b). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology,23,601-629. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd Ed.).Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harper Collins. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 106 Stock, G., McFadden, K., &Gownen, C. (2007).Organization culture, critical success factors, and the reduction of hospital errors. International Journal Production Economics, 106, 368-392. 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. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001).Using multivariate statistics (4th Ed.).Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Teijlingen van, E., & Rennie, A. M., Hundley, V., & Graham, W. (2001). The importance of conducing and reporting pilot studies: the example of the Scottish Births Survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing,34, 289-295. Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L, & Klein, S. A. (1997).Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1): 27-41. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M.(1984). Studying organizational culture through rites and ceremonials. Academy of management review, 9, 653-694. Totterdel, P., Leach, D., Birdi, K., C., & Wall, T. (2002). An Investigation of the Contents and Consequences of Major Organization Innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 3(2): 119-225. Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press. Unsworth, K. L., & Parker, S. (2003). Proactivity and Innovation: Promoting a New Workforce for the New Workplace. In D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 107 Sparrow, & A. Howard, The New Workplace: A Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Working Practices (S. 175-196). John Wiley & Sons. Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590-607. Van der Panne, G., Van Beers, C., & Kleinknecht, A. (2003). Success and failure of innovation: A literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management,7(3): 309-338. Vanderpost, W. Z., de Coning, T. J., & Smith, E. V. (1998). The Relationship between Organizational Culture and Financial Performance: Some South African evidence. South African Journal of Business Management,29(1): 30-41. Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. Organizational Dynamics, 7(1): 18-36. Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: the cultural match. Training and Development Journal, 37(2): 29-36. Weber, M. (1947).The Theory of Social and Economic Reform.(Henderson and Parsons, translators). New York: Free Press. West, M. A. & Farr, J.L. (1990). Innovation in health care systems. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 303-15. Wilkins, A. L., & W. G. Ouchi. (1983). Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship between Culture and Organization Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(9): 468-481. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 108 Witt, L. A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes, organizational citizenship behaviors relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1490-1501. Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational Innovation: Review, critique and Suggested Research Directions. The Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405-431. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. APPENDICES APPENDIX I: SAMPLE OF RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE Dear Potential Survey Participant, You are invited to complete the attached questionnaire regarding your opinions, attitudes, and behaviors about your work. This survey is being conducted by Maria Johana Yuorpor, in an attempt to better understand some organizational behavior and cultures in Ghanaian firms. This study is in partial fulfillment of the requirement for a Master of Philosophy degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from the University of Ghana, Legon. Your participation is completely voluntary; hence choosing not to participate will have no adverse consequences for you concerning your relationship with your organization. The confidentiality of you answers is most definitely assured! All completed surveys will be collected personally by me. I will be the only person who will view your responses to this survey. Please put the answered questionnaires in the envelope provided. Seal it and don not write your name on the questionnaire or the envelope. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 109 In case of questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 0244993215, 0279323265 or email: anjniejamy@yahoo.com. Also, a summary of results will be available upon request. Return of the questionnaire will be considered your consent to participate. INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete the following survey by marking your response to each of the questions in the appropriate section of the questionnaire, with a pen or pencil. For the response to be meaningful and useful, all questions must be answered. Thanks for your cooperation and time!! SECTION A With respect to your own views about the kind of culture (beliefs, values, and assumptions) at your workplace, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling one of the seven alternatives beside each statement using the scale below. Strongly Moderately Disagree Neither agree Agree Moderately Strongly Disagre Disagree nor disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 110 1. My company emphasizes growth and acquiring new resources. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The readiness to meet new challenges is important in my company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. My company places a high priority on company dynamism and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 employees’ entrepreneurial willingness to take risks. 4. The glue which holds my company together is that of commitment to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. There is an emphasis on being first in this company. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. In my company the best managers are considered to be entrepreneurs, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 innovators or risk takers. 7. The glue which holds this company together place an emphasis on tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and goal accomplishment. 8. Service/production orientation is shared in my company. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. My company emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Measurable goals are important in my company. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. In this company the best managers are considered to be producers, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 technicians or hard-drivers. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 111 12. My company places a high priority on product/service orientation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. The major concern is with getting the job done. People aren’t very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 personally involved. 14. The glue which holds this company together is formal rules and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 policies. 15. Maintaining a smooth-running company is important here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. My company is highly formalized and structured. Established 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Procedures generally govern what people do. 17. The best managers are considered to be co-cordinators, organizers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or administrators. 18. My company emphasizes permanence and stability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Efficient, smooth operations are important in my company. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 112 20. My company places a high priority on commitment, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 loyalty andtradition. 21. The glue which holds this company together is personal. It is like an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extended family. 22. This company emphasizes human resources. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. High cohesion and morale in the firm important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. In my company the best managers are considered to be mentors, sages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (wise or experienced people) or fathers/mothers figures. SECTION B University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 113 Using the scale below, please indicate how much choice you have over the following by circling the appropriate response; To the lowest To a lower To a low Uncertain To a high To a higher To the highest degree degree degree degree degree degree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. I am allowed to decided what services are to be rendered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I am able to choose the procedure to utilize. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I am free to choose the method to use in carrying out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I have control over the scheduling of my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I have some control over the sequencing of my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. My job is such that I can decide when to do particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Work activities 7. My job allows me to emphasize some aspects of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 job and play down others. 8. I am able to modify what I am supposed to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I have some control over what I am supposed to accomplish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SECTION C University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 114 You are kindly required to rate how often you engage in the following behaviors at the workplace using the given scale. To the lowest To a lower To a low Uncertain To a high To a higher To the highest Degree degree degree degree degree degree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. I am a good source for creative opinions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I always come up with creative solutions to problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I suggest suitable plans and schedules for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Implementation of new ideas. 4. I suggest new ways to increase quality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I give new ideas that can be used to improve performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I often have new and innovative ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I suggest new ways of performing tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I am an innovative person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I promote and champion ideas to others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I always seek new process, techniques, procedures, service or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 technological ideas. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 115 11. I suggest to my supervisor’s new ways to achieve goals/objectives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I show creativity when given opportunity to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. I am not afraid to take risks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SECTION D Please respond to the following information that relate to your circumstances. Please tick (√) those that apply to you. All information will be kept confidential. 1. SEX: Male ( ) Female ( ) II. Age……………… 111. Sector IV. Job Description…………………. V. Job Grade Junior Staff ( ) Officer ( ) Supervisor ( ) Assistant Manager ( ) Manager ( ) Others (specify)………………………. VIII. Type of organization Bank/Financial institution ( ) Insurance Company ( ) Media ( ) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 116 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh