THE EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCES OF …journal-archieves26.webs.com/169-180.pdf · Innovation Behavior in the organization in the Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

169

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

THE EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL

EMPOWERMENT ON EMPLOYEE INNOVATION BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ORGANIZATION OF KHORASAN RAZAVI

1) Supervisor: Dr.Masuod Taheri lari: Faculty Management, Member of Scientific Mission of Islamic Azad

University of Mashhad unit (Faculty of Accountancy & Management)

University Address: Mashhad - Qhasim Abad - Emameyeh Square - Next to Mother Square - Islamic Azad

University, Faculty of Accountancy & Management - Third Floor - Professors Room.

2) Advisor: Dr.Gholam Abbas Shekari

University Address: Mashhad - Qhasim Abad - Emameyeh Square - Next to Mother Square - Islamic Azad

University, Faculty of Accountancy & Management - Third Floor - Professors Room.

3) The Corresponding author is Mohammad Safizadeh: Master of Public Administration of Islamic Azad

University of Mashhad, Faculty of Accountancy & Management, and Tendency :Human resource Management.

The Article is extracted from the thesis.

Dr.Masuod Taheri lari

PhD in Public Administration, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

Dr.Gholam Abbas Shekari

PhD in Public Administration, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

Mohammad safizadeh

M.A. Student of Public Administration, Human Resource Management, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract:

Background: Importance of human capital as a competitive advantage to organizations is to the extent that human

capital has becoming into most important component for organizations. Empowerment of individuals in order to

provide an innovative has a vital role in moving the organization towards excellence. Experts suggest that today’s,

sometimes, up to 60% incomes and 90% of profits in large and leading organizations are result of these innovations.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the influences of Psychological Empowerment on Employee

Innovation Behavior in the organization in the Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi (Mashhad

branches).

Method: A descriptive and survey methods, co relational design was used. A sample of 235 registered employee

from the Social Security Organization of KhorasanRazavi (Mashhad branches) completed an survey that included

questions related to individual demographics, items related to Psychological Empowerment Survey of

Spreitzer&Quinn(2001)which consisted of four sections: feeling of Competency, feeling of Self-determination,

feeling of Impact and feeling of Meaning that had a reliability coefficient (0.8811) and items related to employee

innovation behavior scale of Amo(2005) which consisted of three Sections: idea generation, idea promotion, and

idea realization that had a reliability coefficient (0.8958). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson’s r

Correlations, Regression Analysis, ANOVA analyses, and Friedman's chi square test and SPSS software (package of

Spss / pc + + ver16) and Lisrel to determine if there was a relationship and influence between Psychological

Empowerment and employee innovation behaviors.

Finding: Results indicated a positive correlation between Psychological Empowerment and employee innovation

behaviors (r=0.498, p<0.000), Psychological Empowerment and idea generation (r=0.479, p<0.000), Psychological

Empowerment and idea promotion (r=0.417, p<0.000), Psychological Empowerment and idea realization (r=0.421,

p<0.000).Also, the results showed that employee's Innovation Behavior is predictable by Psychological

Empowerment (F=26,463; p=, 000).

Keywords: Psychological Empowerment, Employee Innovation Behavior, Idea Generation, Idea Promotion, Idea

Realization, Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi .

ijcrb.webs.com



170

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

1. Introduction

Since the 1980s, simultaneous with the rapid technological changes in the workplace and corporate downsizing

organizational theorists and researches have been exploring the concept of worker empowerment and its outcomes.

They suggest that for workers to successfully initiate and sustain their own learning in the workplace, they must have

a sense of personal control over their learning and learning goals. From a broader perspective, this type of perceived

control is an example of what is known is the literature as” Psychological Empowerment”. Empowerment enables an

employees to develop psychological and physical skills that would benefit the organization (Brancato,

2003).Empowerment enables employees to utilize knowledge and skills to respond to complexities facing the

professions future. Now that organizations have recognized the value of employee’s knowledge, they are

encouraging and often requiring, employees to engage in continues learning to keep current or to advance their

careers.

Innovation is important to organizational growth and the ability to provide innovative solutions to pressing problems

(Knol & van Linge, 2008).Attracting and retaining high performing employees is more likely when organization

support them in implementing creative, innovative ideas (Faugier, 2005). Spritzer (1995) suggests that the

consequences of Psychological Empowerment are effectiveness and innovative behavior .Empowerment and

innovation are necessary for the evolution of practice and organizational success. As competition increases in the

marketplace, innovative ideas and creativity of workers have become a highly valued resource (Kotter &

Schlesinger, 2008), and Learning about the employees who have higher levels of innovation behavior within an

organization is important.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the influences of Psychological Empowerment on Employee

Innovation Behavior.

2. A Review on Theoretical Literature

2.1. Psychological Empowerment

Psychological Empowerment focuses on the individual’s self-efficacy and on shared power in the organizational

structure and decision-making processes (Morrison, Jones, and Fuller, 1997). Conger and Kanungo (1988) define

Psychological Empowerment as a motivational process. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) developed a broader concept

and developed the Cognitive Model of Empowerment. They identified empowerment as a type of motivation,

referring to it as intrinsic Task motivation with a set of task assessments (choice, competence, impact, and meaning)

that Produces motivation. To spritzer, empowerment is an interaction of person and situation. Empowerment reflects

the ongoing ebb and flow of one’s perceptions about the co variation among the self (an agent), behavior and

outcomes (spritzer, 1997, p.50).Spritzer model of Psychological Empowerment, shown in figure 1, emphasizing the

four “task assessment “(1990) of (meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact). What Thomas and

Velthouse called “task assessment” Spreitzer called “cognitions”, equating them to cognitive empowerments Spritzer

focused on one aspect of the Thomas and Velthouse model. Spreitzer noted it is individual’s self- perception of

empowerment, rather than other perceptions (spritzer, 1999, p.49).

Spritzer defined the cognitions as follows:

Meaning was described as “the value of a work goal or propose, judge in relation to an individual’s own ideals or

standards “(p.40).

Competence was equated with self efficacy, and described as “an individual’s belief in his or her capability to

perform activities wills skill“(p.40).

Self-determination was described as “an individual’s sense of having choice in imitating and regulating action

“(p.41).

Impact was described as” the degree to which an individual can influence strategic, administrative or operating

outcomes in the organization or larger environment“(p.43).

ijcrb.webs.com



171

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

Figure 1: Spritzer model of Psychological Empowerment (1995)

2.2. Employee Innovation Behavior

The term innovation has become a buzz word over the last decade. Everyone exalts the importance of innovation, yet

few know what it means to be innovative (Weberg, 2009). “innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived

as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers ,2003, p. 12).Innovation occurs when the ideas are

implemented within a unit or organization (Amabile, 1996). Innovation researchers have similarly suggested that

idea generation alone can be considered creativity, in contrast to innovation which has an inherent application

element, and thus includes both idea generation and implementation (Amabile, 1996).Innovation scholars have

similarly developed a substantial base of research knowledge over the past several decades (Anderson et al, 2004),

including the individual, group or team, and organizational factors which facilitate or inhibit innovation. At the

individual level, a number of motivational (Amabile & Conti, 1999), job design (Waterson, & Harrington, 2000),

personality (George & Zhou, 2001), cognitive ability (Kirton, 1976), and affective (Zhou & George, 2002)

dimensions have been found to facilitate innovation (Anderson et al., 2004; West, 2002).One way to learn about the

individual is to examine the innovation behavior of the person. Employee innovation behavior has been examined in

a few studies, Studies have been conducted by Amo (2005a, 2005b, 2006a, & 2006b), Janssen (2000, 2001, 2003, &

2005) and Knol and van Linge (2008) in relation to employee innovation behavior. Amo (2006) defines innovation

behavior as behavior from an employee towards developing new products, developing new markets, or improving

business routines in their employing organization. Janssen (2000) defines innovative work behavior as encompassing

idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization (Figure2). Innovative initiatives are widely claimed to

contribute to organizational effectiveness (Amabile, 1996; Janssen, 2003; Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994).

Figure 2: Janssen model of employee innovation behavior (2003)

ijcrb.webs.com



172

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

3. Theoretical framework of the Research

Figure 3 shows the research model for this study.

Figure 3: Theoretical framework of the Research

4. Research Objectives

The proposed study was non-experimental. It did not involve manipulation of the treatment, a control group, an

intervention. The following research objectives were asked:

4.1. Main objectives:

1) The explore of the influence of Psychological Empowerment on Employee Innovation Behavior of

Employees in the Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi

2- To identify and ranking of four dimension of psychological empowerment on Innovation Behavior of Employees.

5. Research Questions

The research questions for this study were:

5.1 Main Questions

1. Does an employee's Innovation Behavior is predictable by Psychological Empowerment?

2. What is the most significant Psychological Empowerment factors that Predicts employee's Innovation Behavior?

5.2 sub- Questions

3. Is there a significant difference in the viewpoint of employees about the influence of Psychological

Empowerment on the Innovative Behaviors of Employees in Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi?

4. Is there a significant difference in the viewpoint of employees about Existence Innovative Behaviors of

Employees in Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi?

5. Is there a significant difference in the viewpoint of employees about the degree of importance of each four

dimension of psychological empowerment that predicts the Innovative Behaviors of Employees in Social

Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi?

6. How is the ranking of Psychological Empowerment in Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi?

Psychological

Empowerment

idea generation

idea promotion

idea realization

Employee Innovation

Behavior

Employee Innovation

Behavior

Employee Innovation

Behavior

Meaning

Competence

Self-determination

Impact

ijcrb.webs.com



173

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

6. Research methods:

6.1 Design A descriptive, quantitative, co relational design was used. A descriptive design allowed for more understanding

about how employees perceive their work environment in relation to innovation. Psychological Empowerment is the

independent variable and the model is based on spreitzer model of Psychological Empowerment and Employee

innovation behavior is the outcome measure (dependent variable) for this study. Employee innovation behavior

reflects the stages of idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization (Janssen, 2003).

6.2 Sample

The Population consist of 600 non management employee .The researcher obtained the data for the study from a

sample of the 235 employees in Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi who were selected by Morgan’s.

Formula and through Stratified sampling method.

235)5.01(5.096.105.0600

)5.01(5.096.160022

2

n

6.3. Instrumentation The instruments used in this study were previously developed by other researchers. Spreitzer , G. M. & Quinn, R. E.

(2001) Likert scale Psychological Empowerment Instrument (PEI) was used to collect quantitative data on

employee’s empowerment and the employee innovation behavior scale was developed by Amo (2005) and was used

to learn more about innovation behavior. The instrument was developed based on the literature and research

conducted on corporate innovation and employee involvement. It was a 5-item instrument which used a 5-point scale

with 1=very little to 5=very large. In addition to the Amo scale, the Janssen Innovative Behavior scale was used to

measure innovation behavior in this study. The scale by Janssen is a 9-item scale on individual innovation behavior.

The scale has three items related to idea generation, three items related to idea implementation, and three items

related to idea realization. The instrument has been used in four separate studies by Janssen (2000; 2001; 2003;

2005) and had acceptable Cronbach’s alpha.

6.4 Validity and reliability

The content validity of the questionnaire was established by a panel of experts prior to initiation of this study.

Experts included authors of the initial instrument, PhD faculty, and at least one employee innovator. And Cronbach's

alpha coefficients were used for to determine the reliability of the instrument the results are presented in Table 1.

Cronbach's alpha coefficient Variable Row

0/8811 Psychological Empowerment 1

0/8958 Employee Innovation 2

Table 1: Cronbach’s alpha

6.5. Data Analysis method

In the study, several statistical methods, including Descriptive Statistics (Means and standard deviations were

obtained for all interval level data. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables, such as

education level. All scales were assessed for reliability by calculating Cronbach’s alpha scores), Pearson Product

Moment Correlation,

)1(..

)1(..22

2

pptdN

pptNn

ijcrb.webs.com



174

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

Regression Analysis, One-way Analysis of Variance (One-way ANOVA) were used to analyze the collected data.

The data was analyzed by the Statistical analysis software SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Version

16.0 and Lisrel software.

7. Finding

7.1 Sample Demographics

Of the 235 respondents, they were primarily male (66.5%) with only one female respondent (32.8%).

Only 0.9 of these employees did not provide answers to the questions. Data for educational level showed that 38.3

percent of the respondents had a possessing below a Bachelor’s degree, 50.2 percent had a Bachelor’s degree

while11.1 percent of the respondents had an undergraduate degree. Only 0.4 of these employees did not provide

answers to the questions. The number of years the sampled has worked in their current position was as follows: 5

years or less (6.8%), 5-10 years (20.9%), 10-15 years (25.1%), and over 15 years (45.5%). Only 1.7 of these

employees did not provide answers to the questions and Data for age was as follows: 20-30 years of age or less

(13.6%), 30-40 years of age (40%), 40-50 years of age (44.3%), and over 50 years of age (0%). Only 2.1 of these

employees did not provide answers to the questions.

7.2 Descriptive statistics

Maximum Minimum SD Mean Variable Row

7 3/88 0/728 5/35 Psychological Empowerment 1

7 4

0/703 6/05 Competence 1-1

7

3

0/916 5/58 Meaning 2-1

7 2/33 0/920 4/77 Self-determination 3-1

7 1 1/377 4/78 Impact 4-1

6/92 3/33 0/797 5/43 Employee Innovation 2

7 3 0/767 5/86 idea generation 1-2

7 2/25 0/965 5/51 idea promotion 2-2

7 2/5 1 4/94 idea realization 3-2

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of variables

7.3. Research. Hypotheses Testing and Presentation of Finding

1. Does an employee's Innovation Behavior is predictable by Psychological Empowerment?

In this study, Pearson's correlation was used to analyze the relationship between the dependent Variables and

independent variables (based on the questions). According to results, all Psychological Empowerment types had a

significant relationship with variables of employee's Innovation Behavior. As can be seen in Table 3, there is a direct

relationship between the

subscale of Psychological Empowerment and employee's Innovation Behavior(r=0. 498; p < 0.05). Also, multiple

regressions were used to investigate the role of each four dimension of psychological empowerment (Competence,

ijcrb.webs.com



175

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

Meaning, Self-determination and Impact) in the prediction of employee's Innovation Behavior. The results are

shown in Tables 4, 5 and 6.even after controlling for this two variables positive relationship between PE And the

results of the ANOVA shown in Table 3 indicated that the Employee Innovation were significantly affected by

Psychological Empowerment in the organization and employee's Innovation Behavior is predictable by

Psychological Empowerment (F=26,463; p=, 000).thus, there is suport for S1.

Results The correlation coefficient The level of significance Variable

significant 0. 498 0.000 PE And Employee Innovation

significant 0. 479 0.000 PE And idea generation

significant 0. 417 0.000 PE And idea promotion

significant 0. 421 0.000 PE And idea realization

significant 0. 447 0.000 Competence And Employee Innovation

significant 0. 393 0.000 Competence And idea generation

significant 0. 413 0.000 Competence idea promotion

significant 0. 368 0.000 Competence And idea realization

significant 0. 497 0.000 Meaning And Employee Innovation

significant 0. 513 0.000 Meaning And idea generation

significant 0. 435 0.000 Meaning idea promotion

significant 0. 375 0.000 Meaning And idea realization

significant 0. 351 0.000 Self-determination And Employee

Innovation

significant 0. 251 0.000 Self-determination And idea generation

significant 0. 318 0.000 Self-determination idea promotion

significant 0. 34 0.000 Self-determination And idea realization

significant 0. 152 0. 02 Impact And Employee Innovation

significant 0. 222 0. 001 Impact And idea generation

significant 0. 138 0. 034 Impact idea promotion

no

significant

0. 059 0. 365 Impact And idea realization

Table 3: Psychological Empowerment and employee's Innovation Behavior Variables Q 1 Correlation Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 ,561a ,315 ,303 7,98763

a. Predictors: (Constant), Meaning, Self-determination, Impact Competence

Table 4: Psychological Empowerment Variables and employee's Innovation Behavior Q 1 model Summary

ijcrb.webs.com



176

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 6753,679 4 1688,420 26,463 ,000a

Residual 14674,508 230 63,802

Total 21428,187 234

a. Predictors: (Constant), Meaning, Self-determination, Impact Competence

b. Dependent Variable: Employee Innovation

Table 5: Psychological Empowerment Variables and employee's Innovation Behavior Q 1 ANOVA Summary

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 28,972 4,757

6,090 ,000

Competence ,678 ,241 ,199 2,808 ,005

Self-determination ,403 ,152 ,174 2,648 ,009

Meaning 1,335 ,248 ,383 5,374 ,000

Impact -,579 ,223 -,167 -2,599 ,010

a. Dependent Variable: Employee Innovation

Table 6. Psychological Empowerment Variables and employee's Innovation Behavior Q 1 Regression Summary

2. What is the most significant Psychological Empowerment factors that Predicts employee's Innovation Behavior?

The results of Regression Analysis to examine the role of each of the four Psychological Empowerment in Employee

Innovation Behavior showed in Table (6). Standardized Coefficients Beta for Psychological Empowerment

dimensions Is as follows. Competence :( Coefficients Beta=,199; p=,005) is Significant .

Self-determination: (Coefficients Beta=, 174; p=, 009) is Significant. Meaning :( Coefficients Beta=,383; p=,000) is

Significant . Impact :( Coefficients Beta-,167; p=,010) is Significant . As can be seen in Table 1, the correlation

coefficient between Competence and Employee Innovation behavior equal to (r=0. 447; p = 0.000).

And Meaning and Employee Innovation(r=0.497; p = 0.000) and Self-determination and Employee Innovation(r=0.

351; p = 0.000) and Impact and Employee Innovation(r=0. 152; p = 0.02). Thus, According to beta weights and

correlation coefficient between Variables, the Meaning have an important role and correlation with Employee

Innovation Behavior, followed by Competence, Self-determination, and Impact.

3. Is there a significant difference in the viewpoint of employees about the influence of Psychological Empowerment

on the Innovative Behaviors of Employees in Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi?

Since, variables in this study are normal, ANOVA test was used to analyze difference between the viewpoints of

employees about the influence of Psychological Empowerment on the Innovative Behaviors of Employees. As can

be seen in Table 7, because, in all cases the significance level is higher of 0/05.thus; there is no significant difference

between the viewpoints of employees about the influence of Psychological Empowerment on the Innovative

Behaviors of Employees.

ijcrb.webs.com



177

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

Significance level Statistics Significant level of

variance

homogeneity test

Variable

0/966 0/191 0/679 Psychological

Empowerment

0/825 0/434 0/929 Meaning

0/908 0/308 0/724 Competence

0/981 0/145 0/639 Self-determination

0/96 0/206 0/993 Impact

Table 7: A comparative analysis of variance

4. Is there a significant difference in the viewpoint of employees about Existence Innovative Behaviors of Employees

in Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi?

Since, variables in this study are normal, ANOVA test was used to analyze difference between the views of

employees about Existence of Innovative Behaviors of Employees. As can be seen in Table 8, because, in all cases

the significance level is higher of 0/05.thus; there is no significant difference between the views of employees about

Existence of Innovative Behaviors of Employees in Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi.

Significance level Statistics Significant level of variance

homogeneity test

Variable

0/926 0/277 0/913 Employee Innovation

0/963 0/198 0/998 idea generation

0/825 0/433 0/561 idea promotion

0/979 0/153 0/999 idea realization

Table 8: The results of a comparative analysis of employee’s perspectives on innovative behavior and it dimensions

for each branch

5. Is there a significant difference in the viewpoint of employees about the degree of importance of each four

dimension of psychological empowerment that predicts the Innovative Behaviors of Employees in Social Security

Organization of Khorasan Razavi?

Friedman non-parametric test was used to analyze viewpoint of employees about the degree of importance of each

four dimension of psychological empowerment that predicts the Innovative Behaviors of Employees in Social

Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi.

Null hypothesis: There is no priority between the four dimension of psychological empowerment

suppose hypothesis: There is a priority between the four dimension of psychological empowerment

As can be seen from the table9, because the level significant in Friedman test is 0/000. We conclude that, zero

hypotheses are rejected, and one hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is a priority between four dimensions of

psychological empowerment in the viewpoint of employees In Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi.

ijcrb.webs.com



178

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

Value

Statistics Row

361/413 Friedman Test 1

4 Degrees of freedom 2

0/000 Significant

3

Table 9: The results of Friedman test for the Priorities in dimensions of psychological empowerment

6. How is the ranking of Psychological Empowerment in Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi?

As can be seen in Table 10, the mean ranks and rank the priority in dimensions of psychological empowerment is As

follows: Competence has a the most priority, followed by Meaning, Self-determination, Impact.

Priority

mean ranks Factors

1 4/32

Competence

2 3/47

Meaning

3 2/13

Self-determination

4 2/09 Impact

Table10: The mean ranks and rank the priority in dimensions of psychological empowerment

8. Result

The following conclusions were drawn from the ten questions in this study:

1) Regarding the correlation between PE and Employee Innovation Variables, the results indicated that there was a

correlation between PE and Employee Innovation. The results showed that only the Impact were not positively

correlated to idea realization(r = 0/059; p = 0.000).The interpretation of these results can be stated that, When

employee are strong in all four factors of psychological empowerment ,they are Motivated to move towards idea

generation and promotion ,However, To what extent generated and promoted idea are practical, Is a function of

Level of preparing the necessary infrastructure (I.e.: all of the content and structural factors, such as the following:

culture, environment, technology, formality, hierarchy, career-oriented, etc).

2) Regarding the most significant employee's Psychological Empowerment factor that impact Employee Innovation

Behavior, the results showed that employee meaning was the employee Psychological Empowerment factor which

had the most significant impact on Innovation Behavior, followed by employee's Competence and employee's Self-

determination and Impact.

3) Regarding which there is a significant difference between the viewpoints of employees about the influence of

Psychological Empowerment on the Innovative Behaviors of Employees, The results showed that there is no

significant difference between the viewpoints of employees.

4) Regarding which there is a significant difference between the views of employees about Existence of Innovative

Behaviors of Employees, The results showed that there is no significant difference between the viewpoints of

employees.

ijcrb.webs.com



179

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

5) Regarding which there is a significant difference between the viewpoints of employees about The degree of

importance of each four dimension of psychological empowerment that Predicts the Innovative Behaviors of

Employees, The results showed that there is no significant difference between the viewpoint of employees.

6) Regarding which Psychological Empowerment factors could be most priority in viewpoint of employees In Social

Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi. The results showed that Competence has a most priority, followed by

Meaning, Self-determination, and Impact.

9. Practical Implications

This research offers some interesting practical insights for both employees and managers.

The current results showed that self- perception of empowerment, (i.e. meaning, competence, self-determination, and

impact) is necessary for Innovation Behavior from employees. Employees who are motivated to produce good work

also need to be knowledgeable of their job processes and confident in their abilities. Therefore, when organizations

desire Innovation output, any efforts to instill motivation should be coupled with experiences that enhance

Employees’ knowledge of their jobs. The current results suggest that the most relevant ways to ensure high levels of

employee Innovation are to make sure employees are educated in organizational processes, employees are motivated

to perform, and, for less Innovation individuals, that Innovation is perceived as a requirement on the job. In addition,

motivation may be fostered by ensuring employees are sufficiently trained, by implementing programs that

encourage Innovation, and by making sure employees are not experiencing excessive job demands. Therefore,

Managers must help mitigate negative forces by increasing their knowledge of cognitive heuristics, developing

greater self-awareness of potential influences on their evaluation and selection of ideas, and thus ultimately reducing

their own biases toward novel ideas. In fact, to engage in innovative behavior, employees need management support,

resources, a supportive work environment, and knowledge about innovation. Spreitzer, (1997) found that each of the

individual dimensions of empowerment was related to behaviors conducive to managerial effectiveness (Spreitzer,

1997). Meaning results in high commitment and concentration of energy (Kanter, 1983). Competence results in

effort and persistence in challenging situations, coping and high goal expectations and high performance. Impact is

associated with an absence of withdrawal from difficult situations and high-performance (Ashforth, 1991).Self-

determination results in learning, interest in activity, and resilience in the face of adversity. Each of these dimensions

could be incorporated into training program objectives, even if secondary to more prominent objectives. Social

Security Organization management of Khorasan Razavi could work to enhance a sense of meaning and competence

in job coaching strategies and performance evaluations to examine job fit and training needs. The Social Security

organization should ensure that team members understand that everyone is responsible for playing an active role in

recognizing meaningful contributions and should regularly evaluate its recognition system. The organization should

recognize employees so that individuals receive recognition consistent with their personal definition of meaning and

development at every stage of their professional career. Impact should be fostered by allowing employee

involvement in a number of possible areas such as strategic goal setting, shared governance, committees, and needs

assessments, change initiatives, process studies and rotating team leadership. And, finally to encourage innovation

behavior and increased empowerment an organization must develop a shared vision and strategic direction among all

employees and to create a climate of openness and trust.

ijcrb.webs.com



180

DECEMBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 8

References

[1]. 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.

[2]. Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999, December). Changes in the work environment for creativity during

downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630-640.

[3]. Amo, B. W. (2005a). Organizational strategy, individual personality, and innovation behavior. Journal of

Enterprising Culture, 13(1), 7-20.

[4]. Amo, B. W. (2005b). The influence from corporate entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship on white-collar

workers' employee innovation behavior. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 132-146.

[5]. Amo, B. W. (2006a). Employee innovation behavior in health care: The influence from management and

colleagues. International Council of Nurses, 53, 231-237.

[6]. Amo, B.W. (2006b). What motivates knowledge workers to involve themselves in employee innovation

behavior? International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 1-17.

[7]. Anderson, N. De Dreu, C. K. W. Nijstad , B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A

constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal Creativity, and the Arts, Vole 5(1), 81-89.

[8]. Ashforth, B.E. & Lee, R.T. (1991). Work-unit structure and processes and job-related Stressors as predictor are

of managerial burn-out. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1831-1847.

[9].Brancato V. (2003). Enhancing psychological empowerment for nurses. Pennsylvania Nurse, 58(4), 10.

[10]. Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. The

Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

[11]. Faugier, J. (2005). Developing a new generation of nurse entrepreneurs. Art & Science, 19(30), 49-53.

[12]. 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.

[13]. George, J.M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The

role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 687–697.

[14]. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302.

[15]. Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands,

and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039-1050.

[16]. Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behavior and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory

relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 347-364.

[17]. Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee

innovative behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 573-579.

[18]. Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for

innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169-211.

[19].Kanter, R.M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation (2nd Ed.). New York: Basic Books.

[20]. Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology,

61,622-629.

[21]. Kotter, J. and Schlesinger, L. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review. 130-138.

[22]. Knol, J., & van Linge, R. (2008). Innovative behavior: the effect of structural and psychological empowerment

on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(2), 359-370.

[23]. Morrison, R. S., Jones, L. & Fuller, B. (1997). The relationship between leadership style and Empowerment on

job satisfaction of nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 27(5), 27-34.

[24]. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th Ed.). New York: Free Press.

[25]. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual

innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

[26]. Spreitzer, G.M. & Quinn, R.E. (2001). A company of leaders: Five disciplines for unleashing the power in your

workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[27]. Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C., & Quinn. R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of psychological

empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40-49.526.

[28]. Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. & Nason, S.W. (1997) A dimensional Analysis of the Relationship between

psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and Strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-704.

[29]. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and

validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

[30]. Waterson,E & Harrington, (2000),Shop floor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of

ideas, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Volumepages 265–285, September 2000.

[31]. Weberg, D. (2009). Innovation in healthcare: A concept analysis. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 33(3),

227-237.

[32]. Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An

“Interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.

Documents

THE EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCES OF …journal-archieves26.webs.com/169-180.pdf · Innovation Behavior in the organization in the Social Security Organization of Khorasan Razavi