Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2000) 73 265ndash285 Printed in Great BritainOacute 2000 The British Psychological Society

Shop oor innovation Facilitating thesuggestion and implementation of ideas

C M Axtell D J Holman K L Unsworth T D Wall andP E Waterson

Institute of Work Psychology University of SheY eld UK

E Harrington

AMAP (Institute for Automotive and Manufacturing Advanced Practice) Tyne amp Wear UK

Despite increasing recognition of the importance of fostering innovation amongshop oor employees little empirical research has been conducted on the topicMoreover within work psychology studies have tended to focus on thegeneration of ideas (creativity) rather than on their implementation This studyexamines the impact of individual perceptions of individual group and organiz-ational factors on both elements of innovation It was found that the suggestionof ideas was more highly related to individual (personal and job) characteristicsthan the group and organizational characteristics whereas the implementation ofideas was more strongly predicted by group and organizational characteristics Asexpected interactions were found between the number of suggestions made andgroup and organizational characteristics demonstrating how successful implemen-tation of new ideas requires both their formulation in the rst place and anappropriately supportive environment Analysis to explore which factors have thegreatest impact on the innovation process was also conducted The practicaltheoretical and methodological implications of the study are discussed

In describing the philosophy adopted by Rover (UK) John Towers the ManagingDirector put it this way lsquoEveryone now has two jobs First to build the car secondto nd ways of doing the job betterrsquo (Caulkin 1993) In so doing he succinctlycaptured a view that many practitioners and academics now endorse that the abilityof organizations to foster develop and use the innovative potential of theirshop oor employees is integral to their success (Amabile 1988 Oldham ampCummings 1996 Shalley 1995 Wolfe 1994) This perspective is a key element ofmany modern initiatives such as total quality management continuous improve-ment schemes and organizational learning (McLoughlin amp Harris 1997) It is alsore ected in the increasing interest being shown in such notions as organizational

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr Carolyn Axtell Institute of Work Psychology University ofSheYeld SheYeld S10 2TN UK (e-mail cmaxtellsheYeldacuk)

265

citizenship behaviour (Organ 1997) proactivity (Bateman amp Crant 1993) personalinitiative (Frese Kring Soose amp Zempel 1996) and role orientations (ParkerWall amp Jackson 1997b)

Despite the emphasis on fostering innovation empirical research on the topichas been limited There is of course a large literature on creativity in general (egDavis 1989 Martindale 1989) and an increasing literature on innovation at work(eg King amp Anderson 1995 West amp Farr 1990) but very little speci cally onshop oor employees As Oldham and Cummings (1996) state lsquolittle is known aboutthe conditions that promote the creative performance of individual employees inorganizationsrsquo (p 607) Moreover the focus has tended to be on factors thatin uence the suggestion of individual ideas (ie creativity) rather than theirimplementation both of which are components of innovation (Amabile 1988Oldham amp Cummings 1996 Unsworth 1999) This has meant that little attentionhas been given to the possibility that the factors that promote the suggestion ofideas may diVer from those that encourage their implementation or that thesuggestion of ideas interacts with other factors to predict implementationKnowledge of which factors aVect each stage of the innovation process and howsuch factors interact is important both theoretically and for those concerned topromote innovation at work The aim of this paper is to explore these issuesempirically speci cally focusing on individual shop oor innovation

Perspective on innovation

These are two aspects to the approach to innovation taken for the purposes ofthis paper The rst concerns the components of innovation Innovation maybe de ned as a process that involves the generation adoption implementationand incorporation of new ideas practices or artifacts within organizations (Vande Ven Angle amp Poole 1989) As such it is a broader and more complexconcept than that of creativity which generally only refers to the generation ofnew ideas Although evidence indicates that innovation is a complex iterativeprocess and several diVerent perspectives on innovation exist as implied earliermost approaches identify two key elements The rst is an lsquoawarenessrsquo of theinnovation or suggestion phase and the second is an implementation phase(Amabile 1988 Staw 1990 Unsworth 1999 Unsworth amp West 1998 Wolfe1994) We follow this conceptualization by distinguishing between suggestionsand their implementation

The second aspect concerns the scope or focus of innovation Clearly this canrange from the development of radical new ideas that revolutionize practices orproducts across the whole organization to much smaller-scale innovations In thepopular literature it is the former which capture the imagination with radicalinnovations in products (eg the development of the telephone the television orthe microchip) or processes (eg telephone banking) being emphasized Thesehowever are relatively rare developments In keeping with our emphasis onfostering innovation among shop oor employees within organizations we areconcerned here with the suggestion and implementation of smaller-scale but much

266 C M Axtell et al

more common ideas mainly related to improvements in work processes This isbecause lower level employees are much more likely to be able to contribute in thisdomain than to come up with radical new ideas It is also makes research moretractable since there is suYcient data with which to work

Determinants of innovation

It has been proposed that individual characteristics intrinsic job factors groupfactors relationships at work and organizational factors all have an impact onindividual innovation (West amp Farr 1989) We use this general framework as aguide In the absence of a coherent theory specifying the more particular factors tobe covered in examining innovation in shop oor work we take an eclecticapproach That is we focus on a range of relevant factors that are likely to beappropriate given the context of shop oor jobs (and literature on work organiz-ation) and which are also consistent with previous innovation research Some suchfactors are consistent with the motivation and job design interventions proposed byFarr (1990) such as job scope challenge feedback and eYcacy although we alsoidentify complementary group and organizational factors Our aim is to con rmand extend the literature within this area

Research on creativity has been concerned with identifying individual levelfactors encompassing personal and job characteristics that promote suggestionmaking Traditionally the focus has been on such variables as job competenceintrinsic task motivation creativity relevant skills and creative personality (Amabileamp Gryskiewicz 1989 Oldham amp Cummings 1996 Unsworth amp West 1998) Insome senses these are somewhat tautological (particularly creativity relevant skillsand creative personality) Recent research however has put the spotlight on twoother variables which logically encompass the traditional ones namely self-eYcacyand role orientation Self-eYcacy has also been proposed as having an impact onthe level of individual role innovation (Farr amp Ford 1990) as it can have a strongin uence on human behaviour particularly that related to change (eg Bandura1982) For instance if employees feel con dent at performing a range of proactivetasks which require the use of their initiative then they are more likely to besuccessful at performing those tasks (Parker 1998) It can further be argued thatemployee role orientations will be important Individual accountability is one aspectof an employeersquos orientation towards the task that is considered important forpromoting innovation (Anderson amp West 1998) As such employees are morelikely to make suggestions when they feel higher levels of concern and ownershipof the problems confronting them in the workplace (Parker et al 1997b) Morrisonand Phelps (1999) have also shown that lsquofelt responsibilityrsquo is positively related toemployees taking charge of workplace change Conversely those with a narrowpassive lsquothatrsquos not my jobrsquo orientation are unlikely to come up with new ideas asthey are more likely to feel that it is someone elsersquos job to do so

The inclusion of intrinsic task motivation among determinants of suggestionmaking draws attention to the potential relevance of job characteristics since these

Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of id eas 267

are closely implicated as determinants of motivation (eg Hackman amp Oldham1980) For instance Herzberg (1966) suggested that enhanced work would lead toemployees knowing more seeing more relationships in what they know and beingmore creative Similarly Farr (1990) suggests that in comparison to simpli ed workenriched jobs are more challenging and require more thinking which in turn shouldpromote innovation The few studies following this line of inquiry generallycon rm the existence of a relationship between job characteristics and suggestionmaking For example Hatcher Ross and Collins (1989) found that job complexity(a measure of autonomy variety and feedback derived from the Job DiagnosticSurvey (Hackman amp Oldham 1975)) was positively correlated with the number ofsuggestions made Oldham and Cummings (1996) who also used a measure of jobcomplexity based on the Job Diagnostic Survey discovered a signi cant positivecorrelation with supervisor ratings of employee creativity and found that jobcomplexity interacted with creative personal characteristics to predict suggestionmaking Overall studies on job characteristics suggest that when employees engagein a wide variety of tasks and have high levels of control then they are more likelyto make suggestions on how to improve their work (see Scott amp Bruce 1994 foran exception) Thus at the individual level we consider that job factors (autonomychallenge variety) self-eYcacy and ownership of work-related problems will havean impact on innovation

Investigation of group characteristics has generally demonstrated that groupinnovation increases when members feel that new ideas are encouraged andexpected (ie support for innovation) and when they feel safe enough toparticipate in decision making and voice their ideas openly (ie participative safety)(Anderson amp West 1998) From the work design literature it might also beexpected that team job characteristics may in uence the level of team innovationFor example innovation may be more likely when team members have a wide rangeof responsibilities and have more control over the execution of their tasks as thisfosters the competence upon which the con dence to innovate depends (Parkeret al 1997b) Although much research on group characteristics has focused ongroup innovation group level factors are also likely to have an impact on individualinnovation (West amp Farr 1989)

Considering wider organizational factors most research has focused on theeVects of leadership or management style on innovation Although no clear picturehas emerged with diVerent styles being deemed eVective in diVerent contexts andat diVerent stages of the innovation process there is a fairly strong consensus thata participative or collaborative leadership style is more generally conducive toinnovation (Anderson amp King 1993 Manz Barstein Hostager amp Shapiro 1989)Indeed participation in decision making is likely to increase the ownership thatemployees feel for the outcomes of decisions made and thus they are more likelyto propose new and improved ways of ful lling these outcomes (West 1990)Feedback and recognition have been associated with individual innovation (King1990) and might also be considered important aspects of management style Thuswhen considering group and organizational factors it is likely that group climatefactors group work design participation in decision making and leadership styleswill have an impact on individual innovation


While recent research on innovation has provided a number of interesting ndings it also has several limitations of which four are especially important Firstmost studies of innovation have tended to measure either idea suggestionscreativity (Amabile amp Gryskiewicz 1989 Oldham amp Cummings 1996) or ideaimplementation (Bunce amp West 1994 Damanpour 1991) but rarely both at thesame time Moreover some studies have collapsed the suggestion an implemen-tation of ideas into one measure (eg Scott amp Bruce 1994) The problem thisposes is that if the factors that in uence suggestion making diVer from those thatin uence idea implementation this will not be evident Yet there is good reasonto believe that the two aspects of innovation will have a diVerent aetiology Thisis because as innovation is a social process the implementation of ideas is heavilyreliant on the involvement of others (Van de Ven et al 1989) For example whilea person can be creative and generate new ideas alone the implementation ofideas typically depends upon the approval support and resources of others Thisapplies equally to cases where individuals make an innovation to their own workThis is because unless that individual is essentially independent changes in his orher work role will aVect others and will therefore be subject to anothersrsquoapproval As Blumberg and Pringle (1982) noted even when people have the willand capacity to perform the opportunity to act (provided by factors that areexternal to the individual) is still required Group and organizational factors mighttherefore have more in uence on the implementation of ideas than individuallevel characteristics In contrast (and consistent with much of the literature oncreativity) individual level characteristics are likely to have more in uence on thesuggestion of ideas than group and organizational characteristics This is becausethe suggestion of new ideas is more dependent upon an individualrsquos creativityself-con dence job knowledge ownership of problems and job demands Thisdoes not imply that group and organizational factors play no role in facilitatingthe suggestion of ideas as a participative environment is likely to encourage suchactivity Rather it is expected that group and organizational characteristics willhave a stronger in uence on the implementation of ideas than on the suggestionof ideas

The second limitation of previous research is that apart from a few notableexceptions (eg Oldham amp Cummings 1996 Scott amp Bruce 1994) studies tend notto include a wide range of individual group and organizational characteristics aspotential predictors of innovation Thus they have been unable to address thequestion of relative contribution of diVerent classes of factor to innovation

Third studies including job characteristic measures have tended to use single-item measures single measures or composite measures For example both Hatcheret al (1989) and Oldham and Cummings (1996) used a composite measure of jobcharacteristics (job complexity) Aggregating the score in this way precluded themfrom examining the possibility that the job characteristics covered (eg variety asdistinct from autonomy) might relate diVerently to innovation So even where thedistinction between suggestions and implementation is made there is no oppor-tunity to examine the relative contributions of diVerent variables to each of thesecomponents of innovation There is a clear need to use multiple and separatemeasures of job characteristics


Finally most studies of innovation in organizational psychology have focused onprofessional scienti c technical and managerial staV (Anderson amp King 1993)They have not examined innovation amongst shop oor employees in any greatdetail

The present study seeks to address these limitations It is designed to investigatethe diVerential relationship between diVerent aspects of the innovation processperceptions of individual factors and the wider group and organizational charac-teristics In particular it is expected that individual characteristics will be morepositively related to the suggestion of ideas than individual perceptions of groupand organizational characteristics The only exception to this will be those groupand organizational characteristics that explicitly support the suggestion of new ideas(eg participation in decision making) Another expectation is that individualperceptions of group and organizational characteristics will be more positivelyrelated to the implementation of ideas than individual level characteristicsTherefore the rst two hypotheses are

Hypothesis 1 There will be a stronger relationship between individual levelcharacteristics and suggestion making than between individual perceptions of groupor organizational factors and suggestion making

Hypothesis 2 There will be a stronger relationship between individual perceptions ofgroup and organizational factors and idea implementation than between individuallevel characterstics and idea implementation

A third hypothesis follows from the above Clearly as suggestions are a prerequisiteof implementation the more suggestions that are made the greater the likelihood ofimplementation However since making a suggestion is not suYcient to ensureimplementation and other factors are deemed necessary to provide the opportunityto put suggestions into practice it is to be expected that there will be an interactionbetween the two More speci cally following the logic of Blumberg and Pringle(1982) that situational factors provide the opportunity for successful performancethe implementation of ideas will be a joint function of the suggestion of ideas andof the presence of appropriate group and organizational level conditions ratherthan of individual level factors Thus

Hypothesis 3 The implementation of ideas will be a function of the interactionbetween the number of suggestions made and individual perceptions of group andorganizational factors with the number of suggestions positively associated withimplementation given appropriate group or organizational conditions (eg manage-ment support) but unrelated to implementation where group or organizationalconditions are not appropriate

In addition to the above an exploratory research question can be posed Althoughthe hypotheses explore the diVerential eVect of certain categories of factors onsuggestions and implementations and the interaction of suggestions with group ororganizational factors there remains a question of which of these factors has the


greatest impact For instance which individual level variables have the greatestimpact on suggestions Which main eVects or interactions have the greatest impacton the implementation of ideas An exploratory research question is therefore asfollows

Question Which of the variables related to suggestions and implementations havethe greatest unique contribution

Method

Research setting participants and procedure

The participants were 148 machine operators within a beverages manufacturer in the north ofEngland The organization was in the process of developing team-working in which employees wouldbe encouraged to participate in decision making and suggest and implement changes to the way thingswere done in their work area Most participants (96) were involved in running the machines thatpackaged the diVerent types of beverage The remainder operated processing or blending machineryThe above sample consisted of the same lsquooperatorrsquo grade (no team leaders were included) Thepercentage of female participants was 76 the average age of the sample was 36 years and the averagelength of service was 6 years The measures of present interest were administered as part of a largersurvey within the organization Participation in the survey was voluntary and employees were invitedto complete questionnaires in sessions facilitated by the researchers during normal working hoursGuarantees of con dentiality were given to employees during brie ng sessions held prior to the onsetof the study The overall response rate was 98

Measures

Innovation variables Two measures were used for the dependent variables and were based on a measureof lsquochanges implementedrsquo (Borrill et al 1998) The measure of suggestions was a 6-item scale that askedthe extent to which the respondent had proposed changes to various aspects of work namely (1) newtargets or objectives (2) new working methods or techniques (3) new methods to achieve worktargets (4) new information or recording systems (5) new products or product improvements and (6)other aspects of their work The measure of implementations covered the same aspects of work as above(also 6 items) but asked about the extent to which suggestions had been implemented Both measuresshowed good levels of internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos a = 87 and 89 respectively) and werefactorially distinct from one another showing item loadings above 59 for suggestions and above 71for implementation under a two-factor solution

A small study was undertaken to validate the measure On the assumption that individual employeesuggestion and implementation behaviour should be evident to others team leaders were asked to rateselected subordinates on both scales Sixteen respondents were rated by seven team leaders Thecorrelation between the team leadersrsquo ratings and the respondentsrsquo self-rating was 62 ( plt 001) forthe suggestions scale and 42 ( plt 06) for the implementations scale Given the small sample thissuggests a reasonable degree of validity for the self-ratings bearing in mind also that team leaders donot necessarily have a more accurate view of their subordinatesrsquo behaviour than subordinates do ofthemselves

Ind ividual level variables The background variables measured include age gender and length of serviceConsistent with earlier arguments that self-eYcacy and a concern for work problems are associatedwith making suggestions the following measures were used In order to assess self-eYcacy a measureof role bread th self-eY cacy was used (Parker 1998) This is a 7-item scale designed to measure individualcon dence in performing broader and more proactive activities that extend beyond prescribedtechnical requirements of the job itself eg lsquoHow con dent would you feel designing new proceduresfor your work arearsquo This is a particularly appropriate measure to use with shop oor samples due to


its general applicability to a range of proactive tasks that such employees might undertake Answersare given on a 5-point response scale running from lsquonot at all con dentrsquo to lsquovery con dentrsquo ( a = 92in this study) Employee role orientations were measured using a scale of production ownership (Parkeret al 1997b) which considers the extent to which employees feel ownership of their work and aconcern for its problems as opposed to having a lsquothatrsquos not my jobrsquo orientation It comprises 11 itemsall of which start with the question lsquoTo what extent would these events be of personal concern toyoursquo Example items are lsquoif your team was not hitting its production targetsrsquo lsquoif there was a lack ofwell-trained people in your teamrsquo Answers are on a 5-point scale ranging from lsquoto no extent (of noconcern to me)rsquo to lsquoto a very large extent (most certainly of concern to me)rsquo Again internalconsistency was high ( a = 93)

Consistent with the ndings from previous research that people who engage in a variety of tasksand have high levels of control and challenge are more likely to make suggestions the following threejob characteristics were included Two were derived from previous research (Jackson Wall Martin ampDavids 1993) The rstmdashindividual method controlmdashassesses general control over methods of working(consisting of 5 items including lsquoCan you decide how to go about getting your job donersquo) Thesecondmdashproblem-solving d emandmdashconsiders the level of problem solving challenge at work (consistingof 5 items including lsquoAre you required to deal with problems which are diYcult to solversquo) A thirdmeasure that of machine maintenance was used to assess a speci c form of autonomy of particularrelevance to this environment the extent to which employees deal with machine problems and engagein maintenance This measure was used because a prime way of allowing shop oor employees somecontrol over their work is through greater involvement in the maintenance and upkeep of themachinery they operate The measure consisted of 15 items (eg lsquoDo you carry out your own routinemaintenancersquo lsquoAre you able to prevent machine problems from arisingrsquo) All three of these measuresare answered on 5-point response scales running from lsquonot at allrsquo to lsquoa great dealrsquo The internalconsistencies ( a ) were 78 83 and 86 respectively

Ind ividual perceptions of group and organizational level variables Two key aspects of team climate weremeasured using scales adapted from the Team Climate Inventory (Anderson amp West 1998) namelyparticipative safety and support for innovation both of which have been used in previous innovationresearch Participative safety (12 items) is indicative of a non-judgmental climate where all groupmembers feel able to interact freely and propose new ideas Support for innovation (8 items) refers to anexpectation and practical support of attempts to introduce new ideas (West 1990) An example ofparticipative safety is lsquoThere are real attempts to share information throughout the teamrsquo an exampleof support for innovation is lsquoTeam members provide practical support for new ideas and theirapplicationrsquo Items for both measures have 5-point response scales running from lsquostrongly agreersquo tolsquostrongly disagreersquo The internal reliability ( a ) was 92 in both cases

Consistent with the notion that variety and control at the group level will encourage individualinnovation several other measures were used Team method control (a 6-item measure adapted from thatof individual method control (as described above Jackson et al 1993)) refers to the control that theteam has over its own work an example item being lsquoCan your team decide how to go about gettingits work donersquo ( a = 83) Team role bread th consisted of 25-items that cover several responsibilitiestypically carried out by supervisors and which are outside the remit of narrowly de ned team rolesIt is more appropriate to ask this at a group level as usually in shop oor work it is the team ratherthan individual who are responsible such a range of tasks For example items include lsquoTo what extentdo you and other members of your team get involved in allocating jobs amongst yourselvesrsquo and inlsquotraining other peoplersquo ( a = 86) The latter three measures are answered on a 5-point response scalerunning from lsquonot at allrsquo to lsquoa great dealrsquo

To investigate the impact of support from managers the following measures were used Managementsupport (based on a measure used by Parker Jackson Sprigg amp Whybrow 1998) consisted of 10 itemsmostly relating to collaboration participation task facilitation and feedback eg lsquoDoes managementdiscuss and solve problems with yoursquo lsquoDoes management give you the help you need to workeVectivelyrsquo lsquoDoes management praise you for doing a good jobrsquo and lsquoDoes management clearlycommunicate what is expected of yoursquo ( a = 92) Team lead er support was based on the above measureof management style and consisted of 7 items that ask about the extent to which support is receivedfrom onersquos team leader eg lsquoDoes your team leader discuss and solve problems with yoursquo ( a = 92)


Participation ( a = 74) is a measure of the degree to which employees perceive they have an in uencewithin their team and the organization It consists of 5 items eg lsquoCan you in uence what goals andtargets are set for your teamrsquo and lsquoCan you in uence decisions about the long-term plans anddirection for [your organization]rsquo (Parker Chmiel amp Wall 1997a) These three measures areanswered on a 5-point response scale ranging from lsquonot at allrsquo to lsquoa great dealrsquo

Results

Zero-order correlations and means of all the variables in this study are shown inTable 1 A point of interest is that suggestions and implementations are positivelycorrelated (r = 54 p lt 001) This is to be expected since implementation can onlyoccur given suggestion However it is a factor to take into account in the analysesin order to ensure that the eVects of variables on implementations are notconfounded with their eVects on suggestions More generally although there aresome relatively high correlations between some pairs of variables (eg for individualmethod control and team method control r = 62 p lt 001) the variables aresuYciently distinct to enable them to be used separately None shares more than40 of the variance with any other and most much less It is important tonote that the measures of group and organizational variables are all individuallevel perceptions of those group and organizational factors rather than scoresaggregated to the group level

Relationship of ind ividual and perceptions of grouporganizational variables with suggestionsand implementations

The rst two hypotheses predict that individual level characteristics will be morestrongly associated with making suggestions than will individual perceptions ofgroup or organizational variables whereas the reverse will be the case with regardto the implementation of suggestions The extent to which the ndings supportthese hypotheses can be considered by examining the zero-order correlationsbetween the diVerent classes of variable and the two outcome measures Given therelationship between suggestions and implementations noted above however it isalso desirable to conduct analyses which partial out the eVect of one outcomemeasure from the other For example it is important to ensure that any relationshipbetween work factors and the implementation measure is not simply an artifact ofthe relationship of those factors with suggestions The results of the relevantanalyses are shown in Table 2

Considering rst the zero-order correlations the pattern of ndings clearlysupports the hypotheses with 11 of the 12 relationships conforming to predictionRole breadth self-eYcacy for example is more strongly correlated with suggestionsthan with implementations as are the other individual level variables of productionownership problem-solving demand and machine maintenance Conversely all thegroup and organizational variables are more strongly associated with implemen-tations than with suggestions The only exception to the predicted pattern is forthe individual level variable of method control which is as strongly related toimplementations as to suggestions Participation as expected is equally stronglyrelated to both outcomes


Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


The pattern is even more evident from the results of the partial correlationsLeaving aside the one exception noted above (individual method control) allthe partial correlations for the individual level variables with suggestions (holdingimplementations constant) are larger than those for implementations (hold-ing suggestions constant) Moreover three of the four partial correlations withsuggestions are statistically signi cant (at p lt 01) whereas none of those forimplementations is For the group and organizational variables in contrast thereverse pattern is evident None is as strongly associated with suggestions (holdingimplementations constant) as it is with implementations (holding suggestionsconstant) and (except for participation as predicted) none of the relationships withsuggestions is statistically signi cant whereas all bar one of the relationshipswith implementations are

In summary the individual level variables of role breadth self-eYcacy produc-tion ownership and machine maintenance are related to suggestions made but notimplementations whereas team leader support team method control team role

Table 2 The relationship of predictor variables with outcomes zero-order and partialcorrelations

Predictor variables

Zero-ordercorrelationsuggestions

Zero-ordercorrelation

implementation

Partialcorrelationsuggestions

(controlling forimplementation)

Partialcorrelation

implementation(controlling for

suggestions)

Background variablesAge 2 20 2 25 2 10 2 15Gender 2 12 03 17 11Length of service 2 06 2 12 2 00 2 13

Individualjob variablesRole breadth self-eYcacy 40 29 31 09Production ownership 25 07 25 2 07Individual method control 32 31 15 20Problem-solving demand 21 12 15 03Machine maintenance 36 22 28 04

Grouporganizational variablesTeam leader support 2 04 12 2 15 18Team method control 31 35 15 23Team role breadth 20 28 04 22Participative safety 16 19 05 14Support for innovation 25 32 09 23Participation 44 45 26 28Management support 12 26 2 02 23

plt05 plt01 plt001Note Zero-order correlations N=between 139 and 147 partial correlations N=between 132 and 137


breadth support for innovation and management support are related to implemen-tations rather than suggestions

The joint eVect of suggestions and group and organizational variables on implementations

In order to test the third hypothesis that group and organizational variablesprovide the opportunity for suggestions to be turned into implementations a seriesof moderated regressions were conducted In all analyses background factors ofage gender and length of service were entered as step 1 followed by suggestionsas step 2 This was followed at step 3 by the group or organizational variable ofinterest and nally at step 4 by the appropriate cross-product term(suggestions 3 grouporganizational variable) The test for the interaction eVect isbased on the additional variance accounted for by the cross-product term In orderto allow the nature of any interaction eVects found to be plotted all predictorvariables were standardized (converted to z scores) prior to calculating thecross-product terms and conducting the regression analyses

The results of the moderated regression analyses are shown in Table 3 Forreasons of parsimony only those regressions that showed signi cant interactions

Table 3 Results of moderated regression analyses for interactions eVects

Analysis Predictor variables F R2 Adj 2 R2 D R2

All regressions Step 1 Background variables 267 06 04 06Step 2 Suggestions 1532 33 31 27

Regression 1 Step 3 Individual method control 1288 35 32 01Step 4 Suggestions 3 individual method

control 1176 37 34 02Regression 2 Step 3 Team leader support 1397 36 34 02

Step 4 Suggestions 3 team leader support 1435 42 39 05Regression 3 Step 3 Team method control 1324 35 32 02

Step 4 Suggestions 3 team methodcontrol 1416 41 38 06

Regression 4 Step 3 Team role breadth 1364 36 33 02Step 4 Suggestions 3 team role breadth 1396 41 38 05

Regression 5 Step 3 Support for innovation 1410 37 34 03Step 4 Suggestions 3 support for

innovation 1354 40 37 04Regression 6 Step 3 Participation 1581 39 37 06

Step 4 Suggestions 3 participation 1441 41 39 02Regression 7 Step 3 Management support 1408 37 34 03

Step 4 Suggestions 3 managementsupport 158 44 41 07

plt05 plt01 plt001Note Regression N=127df step 1=3123 step 2=4122 step 3=5121 step 4=6120Background variables controlled for were age gender (coded 0 1) and length of service (in months)


are included For the same reasons only one set of ndings is presented for theeVects of background variables and suggestions as these are the same for allanalyses

The results of the moderated regressions show that background factorscollectively have a minor eVect on implementations (accounting for 6 of thevariance p lt 05) and as known on the basis of the zero-order correlations themeasure of suggestions is strongly related to that of implementations The key ndings however are those relating to the interaction term entered on step 4 This nal step is statistically signi cant (shown by a signi cant change in R2 D R2) forthe interaction of suggestions with team leader support ( D R2 = p lt 01) teammethod control ( D R2 = p lt 001) team role breadth ( D R2 = p lt 01) support forinnovation ( D R2 = plt 05) participation ( D R2 = p lt 05) and management support( D R2 = p lt 001) These represent all of the group and individual variables measuredexcept participative safety (which as shown in Table 2 did not relate toimplementations when suggestions were partialled out) Conversely with the one(minor) exception of individual method control none of the individual levelvariables interact with suggestions to predict implementations

Our hypothesis however does not simply predict that there should be aninteraction between suggestions and group or organizational variables in accountingfor implementations but speci es a particular form of interaction The predictionis of an ordinal interaction with suggestions having little or no relationship withimplementations where group and organizational factors (eg management sup-port) are low but having an increasing positive eVect as they become higher Wethus examined the forms of the interaction eVects found by plotting them from thebeta weights for the standardized predictor variables and interaction termsUnstandardized scores for the dependent variable (implementations) were retainedto show more clearly the impact of the predictors on scale scores All theinteractions obtained were of the form predicted thus for reasons of parsimonyonly one example is shown

The interactions can be described as follows under conditions of low manage-ment support the number of suggestions employees report making has little impacton the number implemented (which is low) where management support is highhowever the number of suggestions made is much more strongly associated withthe number implemented (Fig 1) The pattern is the same for those under con-ditions of high or low team leader support team method control team rolebreadth support for motivation and participation (and individual method control)In short if employees make a lot of suggestions then the opportunity for them tobe translated into implementations is greater when there are higher levels of thesesupports

The strongest pred ictors of suggestions and implementations

In order to examine which of a number of related variables have the greatest impacton suggestions and implementations independent of the others stepwise regres-sions were conducted This form of regression allows variables to be drawn into theregression model based on their relationship with the dependent variable and other


variables already in the model Thus the variable that has the strongest relationshipwith the dependent variable is entered rst followed by the variable with thenext strongest partial correlation etc until no additional signi cant variance isaccounted for by including any other variable This method will also check thestatus of variables already in the model to examine whether they should be removed(ie if they still t the criteria for inclusion) Such a method is suitable forexploratory analysis

For reasons of parsimony only those factors which achieved signi cance levelsgreater than p lt 05 in the partial correlations were included in the stepwiseanalyses Background variables were controlled for using forced entry on the rststep As before implementations were held constant by including this factor as apredictor of suggestions (to ensure that the eVects of variables on suggestions arenot confounded with their eVects on implementations) Suggestions were also heldconstant by including them as a predictor of implementations

This procedure resulted in only a few of the potential independent variablesbeing drawn into the regression model during the analysis The strongest predictorsof suggestions were role breadth self-eYcacy and the level of machine maintenance( p lt 01 and p lt 05 respectively) Thus employees who have more autonomousand broader roles and who are more con dent in performing activities outside thetechnical core of their work are most likely to make suggestions With regard tothe implementation of ideas the strongest predictors were support for innovationand the amount of participation in decision making ( p lt 01 and p lt 05 respect-ively) Thus conditions where employees are allowed and encouraged to developnew ideas and participate in decisions are most likely to facilitate the actualimplementation of ideas

Figure 1 Implementation as a function of suggestions and management support Key MSup =management support Lo = low Hi = high


In order to test the relative impact of the interaction eVects on the implemen-tation of ideas several moderated regressions were conducted using the aboverationale The single most important interaction (management support 3suggestions) was entered into the model along with the main eVect of managementsupport background variables and suggestions (together accounting for 44 of thevariance) Each of the other interaction eVects (and associated main eVect) werethen added to this model in turn to establish whether they accounted for anyadditional variance So for example background variables and suggestions wereentered rst followed by management support and the interaction term manage-ment support 3 suggestions Next the main eVect of participation and theinteraction term participation 3 suggestions were added to see if they accountedfor any additional variance This procedure was then repeated with a diVerent maineVect and interaction term added to the management support regression Noadditional variance was accounted for by the other interaction terms Thusalthough the interaction eVects found earlier may play some role in the implemen-tation of ideas the interaction between suggestions and management support canaccount for the many others found

Overall taking the main eVects and interactions together the most parsimoniousexplanation is that as long as employees make enough suggestions then the keyconditions for implementation are in particular supportive management but alsoemployee participation in decision making and team support for innovation

Summary and discussion

The focus of this paper has been on the characteristics that facilitate two keyaspects of the innovation process namely the suggestion of ideas and theimplementation of ideas The general framework which suggested that individualjob group relationship and organizational factors all have an impact on individualinnovation (West amp Farr 1989) has been upheld but diVerent parts of it areimportant at diVerent stages of the innovation process As predicted (Hypothesis 1)it was found that the variables most strongly associated with the making ofsuggestions were at the individual and job level rather than at the group ororganizational level Thus those who were more con dent across a wide rangeof work areas (greater role breadth self-eYcacy) had more autonomy (in the formof machine maintenance) and expressed greater concern for work issues (produc-tion ownership) were those who reported making most suggestions Furtheranalyses revealed that of these the strongest facilitators were role breadthself-eYcacy and machine maintenance The nding for role breadth self-eYcacy isconsistent with Farr and Fordrsquos (1990) notion that eYcacy is an important predictorof role innovation It is also consistent with the idea that role breadth self-eYcacyrefers to con dence in performing a proactive range of tasks that involve employeeinitiative (Parker 1998) It is interesting to note that one form of autonomy(machine maintenance) had a stronger relationship with suggestions than the other(general control over methods of working) It could be argued that machinemaintenance is a more skilled form of autonomy that enables employees to acquire


greater technical or domain relevant skills and as a result they are more likely tosuggest new ways of doing things (eg Amabile 1988 Farr amp Ford 1990 Herzberg1966)

As predicted (Hypothesis 2) it was found that the factors most stronglyassociated with the implementation of suggestions were group and organizationalrather than the individual or job factors That is to say those individuals whoexperienced greater team leader support higher team method greater diversity ofteam responsibilities (team role breadth) more support for innovation and higherlevels of participation and support from management were those who reportedthat more of their suggestions are put into practice This is consistent with thenotion that the implementation of ideas is reliant on the involvement of others(Van de Ven et al 1989) Further analysis revealed that the strongest facilitatorswere team support for innovation and participation in decision making This isdiVerent to the ndings of Bunce and West (1995) who discovered that individ-ual factors were more highly related than the group ones to the implementationof individual ideas However this may be due to the fact that the impact ofsuggestions were not partialled out and so the results could be confounded by therelationship between individual variables and suggestions (Unsworth 1999) Onefurther explanation may be the diVerent contexts that the studies were conductedin and the diVerent respondents involved (health care professionals vs manufac-turing shop oor) Professionals arguably have more autonomy and freedom tobreak away from the organizational norms and do things their own way thanshop oor employees do Thus it may be that individual factors have more impacton whether professional employeesrsquo ideas are successfully implemented or notwhereas shop oor employees may be more reliant on the group or organizationalcontext in order to get their ideas implemented

Despite the general support for Hypotheses 1 and 2 there were some anomaliesThe fact that participation in decision making was related to both the suggestionand implementation of ideas was expected For instance it could be argued thatemployees are less likely to make suggestions if they are not allowed any in uenceand in order to implement suggestions the participation of individuals and teams isrequired However further analysis revealed that participation had its greatest eVectat the implementation stage of innovation Individual method control related bothto suggestions and implementations rather than to suggestions alone Controlappears to act rather like participation and has an in uence at both stages of theinnovation process perhaps because individuals with control over their method ofworking have some control over whether to implement a suggestion or not (ifit does not aVect others) Individual perceptions of the group level variableparticipative safety was associated with neither the suggestion nor implementationof ideas (as shown by partial correlations) There were however zero-ordercorrelations between participative safety and both the outcome variables This isconsistent with Bunce and West (1995) who found correlations between partici-pative safety and individual innovation However the fact that the same relation-ship was not found in the partial correlations indicates the confounding nature ofthe relationship and the importance of separating out (and isolating) the eVectsof these two aspects of innovation


The thesis that group and organizational characteristics provide the opportuni-ties for suggestions to be implemented (Hypothesis 3) was generally supportedEmployees who made the most suggestions were more likely to report they hadtheir ideas implemented if they experienced one or more of the followingconditions high management or team leader support a broad range of teamresponsibilities control over their methods of working (individually or as a team)participation in decision making and a team environment supportive of innovationHowever when such conditions are absent then the extent of suggestions has littlerelationship with the reported rate of implementation This clearly makes sensesince if employees contribute a lot of suggestions the opportunity for them to betranslated into practice is greater when there are higher levels of these supportsThis is consistent with Blumberg and Pringle (1982) that aspects external to theindividual provide the opportunity for individual performance Further analysis todetermine which of the moderator factors was the most important showed that theinteraction between management support and suggestions had the primary eVectand could account for the other interactions found Thus the implication is thatsupport from management is a prime area of the organizational context to considerwhen trying to increase the implementation of employee ideas

An obvious limitation of this study is that it is cross-sectional and based onself-report data It follows that common method variance halo eVects and otherforms of response bias present a potential source of invalidity to substantiveinterpretation It should be recognized however that whilst such biases can causeself-ratings of individual job group and organizational characteristics to beassociated with the self-reported outcomes (and each other) they would act againstdiVerential eVects of the kind hypothesized A tendency to respond positively ornegatively for example would result in associations among all the variables butnot in individual and job characteristics being related to suggestion making butgroup and organizational characteristics being related to suggestion implemen-tation nor to the moderator eVects found Only demand characteristics of a verysophisticated kind would artifactually create such eVects and as the measures usedin the present study were part of a larger questionnaire it is hard to conceive ofsuch demands being evident to respondents Another related issue is that of thedirection of causality For instance it may be that employee perceptions ofmanagement support are due to the extent to which they have had suggestionsimplemented rather than vice versa Certainly it is possible that some sort offeedback loop exists where greater management support leads to ideas beingimplemented which in turn improves perceptions of management support Ofcourse a longitudinal design coupled with the use of independent measures of thevariables (if that were feasible) would be desirable and would help to tease outissues of causality However the direction of relationships we have hypothesizedare consistent with theory on innovation (eg Amabile 1988 West amp Farr 1989)Another limitation is that the study took place on only one relatively small sampleof shop oor employees and so generalizability to other shop oor employees (orother types of employee) has to be questioned Moreover the type of innovationstudied here is small-scale and non-radical in nature Anecdotal evidence frommembers of the organization con rms this as the sort of ideas that were being


implemented were job rotation on a particular line modi cation of quality controlrecording sheets the timing of quality checks and the location of raw materials forease of access As such the results may be very diVerent for employees involved inmore radical innovations

There are practical and theoretical implications of the results With regard topractice this study suggests that individual level factors involving having thecon dence (self-eYcacy) and the opportunity to take a wider more skilled andmore autonomous role at work (such as machine maintenance) are important tothe suggestion stage of innovation This implies that those wishing to promotesuggestions should focus on such factors which may be further developed bytraining in skills such as critical thinking as well as education and communicationabout the wider organization and other activities beyond the technical core ofemployee jobs Reward structures that recognize employees when they makesuggestions and get them implemented are also likely to help In addition changingroles so that employees have more responsibility for production issues shouldfacilitate their ownership of production and therefore the likelihood that they willsuggest improvements (Parker et al 1997b)

The ndings also imply that in order to get ideas implemented there needs to bea supportive group and organizational environment ie management supportparticipation in decision making and team support for innovation Other areas tofocus on are improving support from the team leader creating more broadlyde ned roles for teams and allowing teams to have control over the methods usedIndeed these individual group and organizational characteristics may be enhancedthrough introducing eVective and well-managed practices such as total qualitymanagement schemes and continuous improvement schemes The introduction ofsuch schemes can provide a springboard towards broader company wide initiativesof empowerment and team-working (Cordery 1996) in which employee innovationis crucial Given the possibility of a feedback loop the implementation of previousideas is also likely to be important in motivating employees to become involved insuch activities in the future

Theoretically a key implication is that it is important to distinguish between thesuggestion of ideas and their implementation when considering innovation (seeUnsworth 1999 Unsworth amp West 1998) Given that diVerent work factors areassociated with the diVerent aspects of innovation and that suggestion makinginteracts with group and organizational factors to account for implementationfailure to make such a distinction would confound research ndings Correspond-ingly it is important to distinguish among job and other characteristics since as wehave found they may have diVerent eVects at these two phases of innovation

References

Amabile T M (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In B M Staw amp L LCummings (Eds) Research in organizational behavior (Vol 10 pp 123ndash167) Greenwich CT JAIPress

Amabile T M amp Gryskiewicz S S (1989) The creative environment scales Work environmentinventory Creative Research Journal 2 231ndash253


Anderson N R amp King N (1993) Innovation in organizations In C L Cooper amp I T Robertson(Eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol 8 pp 1ndash33) Chichester Wiley

Anderson N R amp West M A (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation Developmentand validation of the team climate inventory Journal of Organizational Behavior 19 235ndash258

Bandura A (1982) Self-eYcacy mechanism in human agency American Pscyhologist 37 122ndash147Bateman T S amp Crant J M (1993) The proactive component of organizational behavior A

measure and correlates Journal of Organizational Behavior 14 103ndash118Blumberg M amp Pringle C (1982) The missing opportunity in organisational research Some

implications for a theory of work performance Acad emy of Management Review 7 560ndash569Borrill C S Wall T D West M A Hardy G E Shapiro D A Haynes C E Stride C B

Woods D amp Carter A J (1998) Stress among staV in NHS trusts Final report for the NationalHealth Executive August 1998 SheYeld Institute of Work Psychology

Bunce D amp West M A (1994) Changing work environments Innovative coping responses tooccupational stress Work and Stress 8 319ndash331

Bunce D amp West M A (1995) Self perceptions and perceptions of group climate as predictors ofindividual innovation at work Applied Psychology An International Review 44 199ndash215

Caulkin S (1993) British rms resurrected by courtesy of Japan The Guard ian 8 May 24Cordery J L (1996) Autonomous workgroups and quality circles In M A West (Ed) Handbook of

work group psychology (pp 225ndash246) Chichester WileyDamanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of eVects of determinants and

moderators Acad emy of Management Jornal 34 555ndash590Davis G A (1989) Testing for creative potential Contemporary Educational Psychology 14 257ndash274Farr J L (1990) Facilitating individual role innovation In M A West amp J L Farr (Eds) Innovation

and creativity at work Psychological and organizational strategies (pp 207ndash230) Chichester WileyFarr J L amp Ford C M (1990) Individual innovation In M A West amp J L Farr (Eds) Innovation

and creativity at work Psychological and organizational strategies Chichester WileyFrese M Kring W Soose A amp Zempel J (1996) Personal initiative at work DiVerences between

East and West Germany Acad emy of Management Journal 34 297ndash334Hackman J R amp Oldham G R (1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey Journal of Applied

Psychology 60 159ndash170Hackman J R amp Oldham G R (1980) Work red esign Reading Addison-WesleyHatcher L Ross T L amp Collins D (1989) Prosocial behavior job complexity and suggestion

contribution under gainsharing plans Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 25 231ndash248Herzberg F (1966) Work and the nature of man New York HarperJackson P R Wall T D Martin R amp Davids K (1993) New measures of job control cognitive

demand and production responsibility Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 78 753ndash762King N (1990) Innovation at work The research literature In M A West amp J L Farr (Eds)

Innovation and creativity at work Psychological and organizational strategies (pp 15ndash59) Chichester WileyKing N amp Anderson N (1995) Innovation and change in organizations London RoutledgeManz C C Barstein D T Hostager T J amp Shapiro G L (1989) Leadership and innovation A

longitudinal process view In A Van de Ven H L Angle amp M S Poole (Eds) Research on themanagement of innovation The Minnesota stud ies (pp 81ndash100) New York Harper amp Row

Martindale C (1989) Personality situation and creativity In J A Glover R R Ronning amp C RReynolds (Eds) Handbook of creativity (pp 211ndash232) New York Plenum

McLoughlin I amp Harris M (1997) Innovation organizational change and technology London ThompsonBusiness Press

Morrison E W amp Phelps C C (1999) Taking charge at work Extrarole eVorts to initiate workplacechange Acad emy of Management Journal 42 403ndash419

Mumford M D amp Gustafson S B (1988) Creative syndrome Integration application andinnovation Psychological Bulletin 103 27ndash43

Oldham G R amp Cummings A (1996) Employee creativity Personal and contextual factors at workAcad emy of Management Journal 39 607ndash634

Organ D W (1997) Organizational citizenship behavior Itrsquos construct clean-up time HumanPerformance 10 85ndash97


Parker S K (1998) Enhancing role breadth self-eYcacy The role of job enrichment and otherorganizational interventions Journal of Applied Psychology 83 835ndash852

Parker S K Chmiel N amp Wall T (1997a) Work characteristics and employee well-being within acontext of strategic downsizing Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2 289ndash303

Parker S K Jackson P R Sprigg C amp Whybrow A (1998) Organizational interventions to reduce theimpact of poor work d esign Norwich HSE Books HMSO

Parker S K Wall T D amp Jackson P R (1997b) lsquoThatrsquos not my jobrsquo Developing exible employeework orientations Acad emy of Management Journal 40 899ndash929

Scott S G amp Bruce R A (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior A path model of individualinnovation in the workplace Acad emy of Management Journal 37 580ndash607

Shalley C E (1995) EVects of coaction expected evaluation and goal setting on creativity andproductivity Acad emy of Management Journal 38 483ndash503

Staw B M (1984) Organizational behaviour A review and reformulation of the eldrsquos outcomevariables Annual Review of Psychology 35 627ndash666

Unsworth K L (1999) Employee innovation An exploratory test of a two-factor med iated mod el IWP Memonumber 201 SheYeld Institute of Work Psychology

Unsworth K amp West M A (1998 July) Employee innovation Generation implementation orboth In International Work Psychology Conference University of SheYeld Institute of WorkPsychology

Van de Ven A H Angle H L amp Poole M S (Eds) (1989) Research on the management of innovationThe Minnesota studies New York Harper amp Row

West M A (1990) The social psychology of innovation in groups In M A West amp J L Farr (Eds)Innovation and creativity at work Psychological and organizational strategies (pp 4ndash36) Chichester Wiley

West M A amp Farr J L (1989) Innovation at work Psychological perspectives Social Behaviour 415ndash30

West M A amp Farr J L (1990) Innovation and creativity at work Chichester WileyWolfe R A (1994) Organizational innovation Review critique and suggested research directions

Journal of Management Stud ies 31 405ndash431

Received 3 June 1999 revised version received 6 December 1999


citizenship behaviour (Organ 1997) proactivity (Bateman amp Crant 1993) personalinitiative (Frese Kring Soose amp Zempel 1996) and role orientations (ParkerWall amp Jackson 1997b)

Despite the emphasis on fostering innovation empirical research on the topichas been limited There is of course a large literature on creativity in general (egDavis 1989 Martindale 1989) and an increasing literature on innovation at work(eg King amp Anderson 1995 West amp Farr 1990) but very little speci cally onshop oor employees As Oldham and Cummings (1996) state lsquolittle is known aboutthe conditions that promote the creative performance of individual employees inorganizationsrsquo (p 607) Moreover the focus has tended to be on factors thatin uence the suggestion of individual ideas (ie creativity) rather than theirimplementation both of which are components of innovation (Amabile 1988Oldham amp Cummings 1996 Unsworth 1999) This has meant that little attentionhas been given to the possibility that the factors that promote the suggestion ofideas may diVer from those that encourage their implementation or that thesuggestion of ideas interacts with other factors to predict implementationKnowledge of which factors aVect each stage of the innovation process and howsuch factors interact is important both theoretically and for those concerned topromote innovation at work The aim of this paper is to explore these issuesempirically speci cally focusing on individual shop oor innovation

Perspective on innovation

These are two aspects to the approach to innovation taken for the purposes ofthis paper The rst concerns the components of innovation Innovation maybe de ned as a process that involves the generation adoption implementationand incorporation of new ideas practices or artifacts within organizations (Vande Ven Angle amp Poole 1989) As such it is a broader and more complexconcept than that of creativity which generally only refers to the generation ofnew ideas Although evidence indicates that innovation is a complex iterativeprocess and several diVerent perspectives on innovation exist as implied earliermost approaches identify two key elements The rst is an lsquoawarenessrsquo of theinnovation or suggestion phase and the second is an implementation phase(Amabile 1988 Staw 1990 Unsworth 1999 Unsworth amp West 1998 Wolfe1994) We follow this conceptualization by distinguishing between suggestionsand their implementation

The second aspect concerns the scope or focus of innovation Clearly this canrange from the development of radical new ideas that revolutionize practices orproducts across the whole organization to much smaller-scale innovations In thepopular literature it is the former which capture the imagination with radicalinnovations in products (eg the development of the telephone the television orthe microchip) or processes (eg telephone banking) being emphasized Thesehowever are relatively rare developments In keeping with our emphasis onfostering innovation among shop oor employees within organizations we areconcerned here with the suggestion and implementation of smaller-scale but much


























Method



Measures












Results






Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References






































































Method



Measures












Results






Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References
































































Method



Measures












Results






Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References




























































Method



Measures












Results






Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References
























































Method



Measures












Results






Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References
















































Method



Measures












Results






Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References





















































Results






Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References















































Results






Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References














































Tab

le1

Mea

nss

tand

ard

devi

atio

nsan

dco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

stud

yva

riabl

es

MSD

12

34

56

78

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

22

37

3

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

05

3

22

7

4R

ole

brea

dth

self

-eY

cacy

220

85

21

70

12

05

5P

rodu

ctio

now

ners

hip

331

87

19

23

5

13

41

6

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

62

17

20

42

07

34

2

6

7P

robl

em-s

olvi

ngde

man

d2

607

30

22

08

04

18

29

2

9

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

30

12

31

0

91

51

82

13

8

9T

eam

lead

ersu

ppor

t3

201

10

92

18

10

04

23

2

6

22

1

910

T

eam

met

hod

cont

rol

241

90

21

80

02

08

37

1

66

2

25

1

811

T

eam

role

brea

dth

170

33

21

92

2

21

62

9

14

45

2

7

14

12

Par

ticip

ativ

esa

fety

332

72

20

52

05

03

15

14

25

2

5

15

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

40

72

18

09

26

1

93

2

25

2

2

14

Par

ticip

atio

n1

806

82

04

21

50

23

4

23

3

9

26

3

6

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

06

21

12

00

17

31

3

8

11

14

16

Sugg

estio

ns1

506

22

20

21

22

06

40

2

5

32

2

13

6

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

32

25

0

32

12

29

0

73

1

12

22

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7


Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References














































Tab

le1

Con

tinue

d

MSD

910

1112

1314

1516

1A

ge36

97

2G

ende

r0

234

23

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

e(y

ears

)8

038

04

Rol

ebr

eadt

hse

lf-e

Yca

cy2

208

55

Pro

duct

ion

owne

rshi

p3

318

76

Indi

vidu

alm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

648

67

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

dem

and

260

73

8M

achi

nem

aint

enan

ce3

226

39

Tea

mle

ader

supp

ort

320

11

10

Tea

mm

etho

dco

ntro

l2

419

02

9

11

Tea

mro

lebr

eadt

h1

703

32

9

51

12

P

artic

ipat

ive

safe

ty3

327

23

1

29

3

6

13

Supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n3

047

43

7

34

3

6

81

14

P

artic

ipat

ion

180

68

08

40

2

7

14

21

15

Man

agem

ent

supp

ort

260

85

49

2

12

9

19

35

1

616

Su

gges

tions

150

62

20

43

1

20

16

25

4

4

12

17

Impl

emen

tatio

ns1

426

31

23

5

28

1

93

2

45

2

6

54

plt

05

plt

01

p

lt0

01

Not

eZ

ero-

orde

rco

rrel

atio

nsN

=be

twee

n13

9an

d14

7





Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References

















































Predictor variables



implementation



Partialcorrelation


suggestions)




















































References




























































































References










































































References



































































References






























































References

























































References





















































References


















































References








































































































Documents

Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas