by: azim harun
TRANSCRIPT
By: Azim Harun
Project paper Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration at the Putra Business School
1
It is the means by which the entrepreneur eithercreates new wealth-producing resources or endowsexisting resources with enhanced potential forcreating wealth. (Drucker, 2002)*
Innovation is considered as a determining factor oforganizational growth and superior businessperformances (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009)**
2
*Drucker, P. F. (2002, August) The discipline of innovation. Retrieve from Harvard Business Review:https://hbr.org/2002/08/the-discipline-of-innovation
**Gumusluoglu, L. Ilsev, A. 2009.Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation,Journal of Business Research , 62: 461–473
As private sector is seen to be more efficient, there hasbeen urges from top leaders globally insisting thatGovernment Agencies should run like businesses(Harvey, 2012)*
Stem from the notion public sector is incapable of suchinnovation because of the absence of competitiveforces, lack of incentives for employees, and excessivered tape (Sahni, Wessel & Christensen, 2013)**
3
*Harvey, J.T. (2012, October 5) Why government should not be run like business. Retrieve from Forbes:https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/10/05/government-vs-business/#267f41c92a54
**Sahni, N.R., Wessel, M. & Christensen, C.M. (2013). Unleashing breakthrough innovation in government.Stanford Soc. Innovation Rev. 11 (3), 27–31.
Innovation has traditionally been studied in theprivate sector. There exist a gap in the literature forInnovation in Public Sector (Bugge & Bloch, 2016)*
Public Sector do not operate in a market frameworkthus not driven but profit-making motives (Bloch &Bugge, 2013)**
*Bugge, M. M. & Bloch C. W. (2016) Between bricolage and breakthroughs—framing the many faces ofpublic sector innovation. Public Money Manage. 36 (4), 281–288
4
**Bloch, C. W. & Bugge, M. M. (2013) Public sector innovation – From theory to measurement. StructuralChange and Economic Dynamics. 27, 133 - 145
Private - Penetrate markets (ability) and ProfitMotive (motivation) (Christensen, Anthony & Roth,2004)*
Public Sector does not enter or exit market throughincorporating and declaring bankruptcy. Profit doesnot serve as the primary motivation. (Sahni, Wessel& Christensen, 2013)**
*Christensen C. M., Anthony S.D. & Roth E.A. (2004). Seeing what’s next: Using the theories of innovation to predict industry change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
5
**Sahni, N.R., Wessel, M. & Christensen, C.M. (2013). Unleashing breakthrough innovation in government.Stanford Soc. Innovation Rev. 11 (3), 27–31.
Gap in the literature with regards toinnovation in the public sector.
Inadequate theories particularly in factorsthat contributes towards innovation
Theories that are not generalizable betweenpublic sector and private sector as well ascultural context
understanding of what factors that couldincrease innovation efforts in the civil service
6
Innovation implementation among Malaysian civil servants in their working environment;
The validity of the five (5) conditions that promotes innovation as proposed by Sahni et al. (2013) and Dermircioglu & Audretsh (2017) in the civil service with in a Malaysian context;
the cross cultural impact on the five (5) factors for innovation survey and results.
7
ABILITY TO EXPERIMENT
ABILITY CHANGE INFRASTUCTURE
FEEDBACK LOOP
INCENTIVES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
BUDGET CONSTRAINTS
Ability
Motivation
INNOVATION IN PUBLIC SECTOR
IV
DV
8
*Based on framework suggested by Sahni et al (2013) adopted by Dermircioglu& Audretsh (2017)
Ability to experiment Ability to sunset outdated infrastructure Existence of feedback loops Existence of incentives for product or service
improvement Existence of budget constraints for end users
Sahni, N.R., Wessel, M. & Christensen, C.M. (2013). Unleashing breakthrough innovation in government.Stanford Soc. Innovation Rev. 11 (3), 27–31.
9
Hypothesis (i): There is a positive relationship between ability to experiment and innovation in the Malaysian public sector
Hypothesis (ii): There is a positive relationship between giving feedback and innovation in the Malaysian public sector
Hypothesis (iii): There is a positive relationship between incentive for improvement and innovation efforts in the Malaysian public sector;
Hypothesis (iv): There is a positive relationship between
budget allocation and innovation.
10
11
Methodology Adapted method
Research Design Quantitative
Target Respondents1.6 million Malaysian
Civil Servants
Sampling Size 384*
Sampling Techniques Non-probability
Time Horizons Cross Sectional
Data Collection Methods Questionnaire
* Using a Sample size calculator (https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm), for the populationmentioned above with a confidence level of 95%
12
Constructs No. of Items
Innovation 1
Experimentation 3
Responding to Low Performers 3
Feedback 4
Motivation to Improve Performance 3
Budget Constraint 2
Respondent information 5
TOTAL No. OF ITEMS 21
No. Item Group Frequency Percentage
1 Gender Male
Female
10
21
32.25
67.75
31 100.00
2 Age 21 – 30
31 – 40
18
13
58.06
41.94
31 100.00
3 Designation 29 – 40
41 – 44
48 – 54
2
19
10
6.45
61.29
32.26
31 100.00
13
Pilot Test Descriptive Statistic
ConstructNumber of
Items
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Experimentation 3 0.812
Responding to Low Performers 3 0.877
Feedback 4 0.794
Motivation to Improve Performance 3 0.832
Budget Constraint 2 0.851
14
*Internal reliability was established as each construct scored more than 0.70 which is the designated cutoff as suggested by Nunnally (1978)
No.
No. of Respondents 363
Incomplete Response (27)
Outliers (15)
Total 321
15
1%
41%
37%
19%
2%
Age
20 years old andbelow
21 years old - 30years old
31 years old - 40years old
41 years old - 50years old
19
70
193
39
Highest Qualification
PMR/SPM/ STPM orEquivalent
Diploma orequivalent
Bachelor's Degree orequivalent
Post GraduateDegree or equivalent
10%
25%
43%
21%
1%
Designation
Grade 11 - 28
Grade 29 - 40
Grade 41 - 44
Grade 48 - 54
JUSA and Above
Items Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
IN1 4.5296 0.666 -1.546 2.788
EX1 4.5078 0.662 -1.395 2.245
EX2 4.2897 0.680 -1.034 2.001
EX3 4.6604 0.565 -1.547 1.985
LP1 4.3364 0.684 -1.133 2.145
LP2 4.2741 0.671 -1.011 2.132
LP3 4.3364 0.627 -0.704 0.991
FB1 4.4891 0.681 -1.457 2.547
FB2 4.1371 0.693 -0.981 2.028
FB3 4.5296 0.581 -0.790 -0.362
FB4 3.8037 0.751 -0.595 1.087
MO1 4.2710 0.701 -0.979 1.528
MO2 4.2118 0.670 -0.840 1.632
MO3 4.5545 0.611 -1.205 1.209
BC1 4.7290 0.498 -1.629 1.771
BC2 4.7944 0.462 -2.194 4.166
16
Descriptive statistics, Skewness and Kurtosis test
According to Kline (2005), the acceptable value for a data is considered as normal when theabsolute value of the score is less than 3 in data skewness test and less than 10 in kurtosis.
ConstructNumber of
Items
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Experimentation 3 0.839
Responding to Low Performers 3 0.924
Feedback 4 0.808
Motivation to Improve Performance 3 0.844
Budget Constraint 2 0.889
17
*Internal reliability was established as each construct scored more than 0.70 which is the designated cutoff as suggested by Nunnally (1978)
CRONBACH’S ALPHA SCORES FOR EACH CONSTRUCT
18
INNOVATION
• Innovation are intangible• Minimum Innovation in operations• Different perception in defining innovation
Grade Mean
11 - 28 4.21
29 - 40 4.42
41 - 44 4.66
48 - 54 4.57
JUSA and above 5.00
Grade Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 ∑ Mean
11 - 28 4.12 4.00 4.42 4.18
29 - 40 4.43 4.30 4.66 4.46
41 - 44 4.53 4.33 4.64 4.50
48 - 54 4.71 4.31 4.81 4.61
JUSA and above 5.00 4.75 5.00 4.92
19
EXPERIMENTATION
• Leading a unit• Experimentation on policy and ideas
20
RESPONDING TO LOW PERFORMERS
• Defensive response• Recipient of feedback
Grade Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 ∑ Mean
11 - 28 4.15 4.06 4.24 4.15
29 - 40 4.30 4.27 4.35 4.31
41 - 44 4.33 4.28 4.36 4.32
48 - 54 4.44 4.34 4.28 4.35
JUSA and above 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
21
FEEDBACK
• lower grade officers are at the receiving end of either being given recognition or reprima
Grade Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 ∑ Mean
11 - 28 4.21 3.94 4.24 3.73 4.03
29 - 40 4.52 4.14 4.54 3.75 4.24
41 - 44 4.48 4.14 4.55 3.79 4.24
48 - 54 4.59 4.19 4.60 3.93 4.33
JUSA and above 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.00 4.56
22
MOTIVATION TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE
• the trend exert certain anomaly
Grade Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 ∑ Mean
11 - 28 4.06 4.00 4.27 4.11
29 - 40 4.28 4.24 4.58 4.37
41 - 44 4.22 4.15 4.56 4.31
48 - 54 4.44 4.38 4.62 4.48
JUSA and above 4.75 4.75 5.00 4.83
23
BUDGET CONSTRAINTS
• Lowest mean score is attained by the highest grade• Top management sees that either there is no reduction in their
agencies budget or the reduction does not affect theimplementation of activities and program
Grade Item 1 Item 2 ∑ Mean
11 - 28 4.58 4.70 4.64
29 - 40 4.63 4.67 4.65
41 - 44 4.82 4.88 4.85
48 - 54 4.74 4.84 4.79
JUSA and above 4.75 4.25 4.50
Harun (2018)Dermircioglu &
Audretsh (2017)
Ability to Experiment 0.144* 0.402**
Responding to Low
Performers0.109
0098**
Providing Feedback 0.141* 0.063*
Motivation to Improve
Performance0.170*
0.170**
Budget Constraints 0.201* 0.012
24
Note: * p < 0.05; **p<0.01
There exist a relationship between the independent variable and the dependentvariable of this study as the results shows that the correlation is significant at 0.05except for Responding to Low Performance.
Study is based on a single model Limited number of literature pertaining the
subject matter Convenient sampling Other factors influence on Innovation such
as Leadership
25
ABILITY TO EXPERIMENT
FEEDBACK LOOP
INCENTIVES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
BUDGET CONSTRAINTS
Ability
Motivation
INNOVATION IN PUBLIC SECTOR
IV
DV
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP S
TY
LE
S (M
V)
26
Research Implications Validates the finding by previous researchers The model transcends cultural context
Practical Implications Promote innovative behaviour
27
28
1. Research Design Quantitative research design
2. Population of the study Malaysia has more than 1.6 milli0n civil servants in the country. The majority
of these civil servants are federal officers which constitute 80% of thepopulation, semi government officer in second at 10% and the remaining10% are officers under states appointment.
3. Sample size Using a Sample size calculator (https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm),
for the population mentioned above with a confidence level of 95% , therequired number of respondents would be 384 .
Based on the same breakdown 308 will be from the federal government, 38from semi government officers and 38 from state appointed officers.
4. Sampling technique Non-probability sampling (Convenient Sampling)
5. Data collection Survey method. Will be conducted in one month at Government Agencies as well as through
emails and google forms.
6. Measurement scales Nominal Scale (Gender, Service Info ) Ordinal Scale (Age, education level, Rank, Agency Size ) Interval Scale (Main concepts in this study)
7. Pilot testing There will be no pilot testing as the survey questions will adapted from
studies by Sahni et al (2013) and Dermircioglu & Audretsh (2017) –Innovation in Public Sector as well as Semuel, Siangian & Octavia (2016) and Gehani (2013) – Leadership and innovation
8. Statistical Analysis Reliability test Descriptive statistics Multiple regression and Mediating Analysis
Variables Sample Items References
Ability to Experiment
Please rate the following statement based on: “1-Strongly disagree” to “5-Strongly agree”. E.g:1: “I have a choice in deciding how I do my work."2: “Employees are provided with enough time and resources to try new ideas."3: “My workplace provides opportunities to increase knowledge and experience.”
Sahni et al; Dermircioglu & Audretsh (2017)
Feedback Loop Please rate the following statement based on: “1-Strongly disagree” to “5-Strongly agree”. E.g:1: “My supervisor appropriately deals with employees that perform poorly." 2: “My agency deals with underperformance effectively." 3: “I receive adequate feedback on my performance to enable me to deliver required results."4: “My supervisor provides me with regular and constructive feedback."
Sahni et al; Dermircioglu & Audretsh (2017)
Variables Sample Items References
Incentive for Improvement
Please rate the following statement based on: “1-Strongly disagree” to “5-Strongly agree”. E.g:1: “My agency motivates me to help it achieve its objectives."2: “My agency inspires me to do the best in my job."
Sahni et al; Dermircioglu & Audretsh (2017)
Budget Constraint
Do you experience discrimination on the following aspects, Please rate from “1- Not at all” to “5- Very much”. E.g:1: “Overall, over the last five years or more, how has the work at your current classification level changed in relation to your size of budget?"
5 item scale of Hanassab (2006)
Variables Sample Items References
Leadership Style
Please rate the following statement based on: “1-Strongly disagree” to “5-Strongly agree”. E.g:1: “I retain the final decision making authority.”2: “My team members and vote whenever a major decision has to be made.”3: “I ask for ideas and input on upcoming plans and projects.”
Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997
Government led initiatives Government Transformation Program National Blue Ocean Strategy Unit Inovasi Khas (UNIK) Agensi Inovasi Malaysia
Malaysia still considered lacking in innovation dueto obsolete policies in the government (OECD,2016)
35
Government of Malaysia is the biggest employer inthe country with more than 1.7 million personnel.
If there exist strong leadership at multiple levels ofmanagement that propagate innovation in wouldincrease efficiency and people’s satisfaction towardsthe government.
36
Much research focuses on the Philanthropic andNoble intrinsic factors that contributes towardsinnovation in the Public Sector (Sahin et al, 2013;Dermircioglu & Audretsh, 2017; Bugge & Bloch,2013)
37
• Based on the self-determination theory perspective and based on Albury (2011) that encouraging experiment would promote innovation.
Ability to Experiment
• Constructive feedback enables intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Harackiewicz, 1979; Ryan and Deci, 2000), increases the need for competence ( Weibel, 2007), which results in higher performance and innovation.
Feedback Loop
• Studies found that organizational members will be more innovative if organizations motivate employees to improve organizational performance by creating motivation to improve performance and establishing trust (Makri et al., 2006, 1061).
Incentives for Improvement
• Resource scarcity is generally considered to impact innovative activity. (Farazmand, 1999; Kettl, 2005; Pollitt, 2010)
Budget Constraint
• Examination of the relation between leadership and innovation is pertinent as leaders positively influence outcomes of innovation processes (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Howell & Avolio, 1993)
Leadership Styles
THANK YOU
40