Design/methodology/approach – The stud’s participants were employees and their supervisors, working In six organizations In Israel. Data were collected through structured surveys administered to the employees and their supervisors. A total of 1 75 matched questionnaires were returned. Path analysis, using AMOS program, was conducted to assess the research model. Findings – The results indicate that the three-dimensional scale of self- leadership skills is positively associated with both self and supervisor ratings of innovative behaviors.
The findings also show that income and job tenure are significantly related to innovative behaviors at work. Practical implications – Organizations that seek ways in which to foster Innovative behaviors in their employees, need to recognize the Importance of building up self-leaders who can successfully meet the required expectations and standards of innovative behavior. Originality/value – This research suggests ways for organizations to enhance their Innovativeness through employees who possess high self-leadership skills and receive appropriate extrinsic rewards for their leadership skills and Innovative behaviors.
Keywords Innovation, Shared leadership, Leadership, Employee behavior, Israel Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction up until now, leadership scholars and practitioners have mainly focused on the person heading the team or organization, and her or his relationship with followers. This approach emphasizes a vertical influence-related process (I. E. Top-down) in which subordinates are controlled, influenced and managed by a single Individual leader. Over many decades, this was the prevalent paradigm in the leadership field (Pearce and Conger, 2003, p. 1).
Fusion, 1991; Kessler and Charitable, 1996). Individuals’ innovative behaviors in the workplace are the foundation of any high-performance organization; and thus, “the study of what motivates or enables individual innovative behavior is critical” (Scott and Bruce, 1994, p. 580). In this study, we focus on the self-leadership skills that affect innovative behaviors at work. We suggest an avenue that goes beyond variables such as organizational climate and environment (e. G. Amiable et al. , 1996), personality attributes, and especially leadership issues (e. . Style and expectations, and influence tactics) (see Amiable and Corkscrewing, 1989; Muffed et al. , 2002; Scott and Bruce, 1994; Tierney et al. , 1999), which are frequently referred to in creativity and innovation research. Specifically, we attempt to contribute to an emerging research on informal leadership, which has thus far received insufficient attention. This concept focuses on the skills that the person possesses and can be developed at work. These skills may have a role in contributing to the employee’s innovative behavior.
In addition, we also examine the importance of the employee’s educational level (Muffed and Gustafson, 1988), Job tenure (reflects the experience, knowledge and expertise an employee possesses) and income (reflects extrinsic motivation) for innovative behavior at work. Finally, we used both supervisor-rated and self-rated scales to measure individual innovative behaviors at work. The article is structured as follows. Section 2 focuses on the key constructs in this study – innovative behavior and self-leadership skills, and develops the rationale for the research model and hypotheses.
Section 3 provides the method-research population and measurements. The results are presented in Section 4, followed by a discussion, limitations and future research in the last section. 2. Theory and hypotheses 2. 1 Self- leadership skills Self-leadership skills are a construct that has generated considerable research efforts over the past decade (e. G. Mans, 1992; Mans and Neck, AY; Mans Ana Sims, 2 ) sell-learners Is an Innocence-relate process tongue which individuals (and working groups) navigate, motivate and lead themselves towards achieving desired behaviors and outcomes (Mans, 1992).
Its roots can be traced back to theories on self-influence, which emphasize concepts of self- aviation (Carver and Scarier, 1981; Canker, 1970), self-control (Mahoney and Runoff, 1978) and self-management (Mandarins and Weinberg, 1982; Lutheran and Davis, 1979; Mans and Sims, 1980). As a broader construct, self-leadership encompasses a set of three complementary cognitive and behavioral strategies, which impact subsequent outcomes. These are: (1) behavior-focused strategies; (2) natural reward strategies; and (3) constructive thought pattern strategies.
Behavior-focused strategies are directed towards enhancing the self-consciousness and the management of essential, sometimes unpleasant, behaviors (Mans, 1992; Mans and Neck, 1999). These strategies include self-observation, self-goal setting, self-motivation, positive self-feedback and reward, and self-coaching. Self- observation enables an individual to identify specific behaviors that need to be changed, enhanced or terminated (Mans and Neck, 1999; Mans and Sims, 1980; Mahoney and Runoff, 1978).
Setting challenging goals guides and motivates an individual to accomplish tasks (Locke and Lateran, 1990). Compared to self-criticism, self-reward, whether real or abstract, as well as positive self-corrective feedback, have positive effects on employee motivation. Finally, fostering those desired behaviors prior to their actual execution would enable an employee to avoid mistakes and correct them as they occur (Mans, 1992; Mans and Neck, 1999; Mans and Sims, 1980). Natural reward strategies focus on the positive experience associated with a task and the process through which it is achieved.
The work itself is valuable, rewarding and motivating (Burnham, 1990; Broom, 1964) as they find aspects in the assigned work valuable, rewarding and motivating. Individuals should view work practices as pleasant, rewarding and enjoyable, because such an approach augments sense of capability, competency and self-control, which eventually increases performance (Mans, 1986, 1992; Mans and Neck, 1999). Constructive thought pattern strategies refer to those thought patterns that are constructive in nature. Thought patterns are integrative and repetitive.
Individuals can adapt constructive or destructive thought patterns, which affect their emotional and behavioral state and reactions (Mans, 1992; Neck and Mans, 1992). For instance, individuals may alter their thought patterns to focus on potentially available opportunities in times of difficulties, rather than thinking about the difficulties as obstacles. These individuals use optimistic thought patterns to create opportunities so that they can better cope with difficulties that may impede them from attaining their desired ends.
The nature of an individual’s thought pattern affects her or his behaviors and outcomes (Neck and Mans, 1992). Salesman (1991) argued that individuals tend to develop either optimistic or pessimistic thoughts. When a problem occurs, the optimist views it as a challenge and strives to solve it, while the pessimist believes that this problem will endure and be disruptive or create conflict. Non-constructive thoughts are viewed as eying dysfunctional. Burns (1980) argued that an individual should cope with such dysfunctional thoughts, which are derived from predispositions shaped by stressful Ana problematic events (Burns, 1 II/ 1).
Minus, Monolinguals snouts transform their dysfunctional thoughts into functional ones through a self-assessment process that would enable the substitution of non-rational beliefs with more rational ones. In addition, self-talk, which is defined as what we say to ourselves rather secretly (Ellis, 1962), may facilitate self-influence and direct self-efficacy (Prussia et al. 1998). Employees can alter their negative self-talk into a more positive type of self-talk, which may result, for example, in more generally positive thoughts and behaviors, even during times of change and difficulty.
Finally, evidence shows that mental imagery of positive moves and performance enhances the likelihood that an individual will perform more successfully (see Drinkers et al. , 1994). Mental imagery refers to a process by which individuals can symbolically make and experience virtual behaviors, which are similar to real ones. Individuals who use mental imagery are able to experience the outcomes of their behavior prior to their appearance in real life and; thus, strengthen their confidence in their abilities (Prussia et al. , 1998) and enhance their subsequent performance (Mans and Neck, 1999). 2. Employee’s innovative behavior Research and practitioners alike often talk about “creativity’ and “innovation” interchangeably (Scott and Bruce, 1994). Though related, these constructs offer some distinct emphases. Creativity has received many definitions in the literature. A common link for most of them is the generation of new or novel ideas that are useful. Amiable (1983), Muffed and Gustafson (1988), for instance, refer to creativity as the generation of novel and useful ideas. In addition, when using the term “creativity’, researchers often refer to something that has been done for the first time (Woodman et al. , 1993).
Innovation emphasizes a more complex process (see Janssen et al. , 2004). It refers to an activity whose aim is to develop, carry, react to, and modify ideas (Van De Even, 1986). Similarly, others have emphasized that innovation has to do not only with the intentional act of generating new ideas, but also with the introduction ND application of new ideas, all aimed at improving organizational performance Nonsense et al. , 2004; Canter, 1988; West and Afar, 1989; Scott and Bruce, 1994). As such, individual innovation in the workplace has been conceived as complex behavior consisting of a three-stage process (Scott and Bruce, 1994).
In the first stage of innovative behavior, an individual recognizes a problem and comes up with new solutions and ideas, either novel or adopted. Next, an individual seeks ways to promote her or his solutions and ideas, and build legitimacy and support both inside and outside the organization. In the final stage of the innovation process, an individual, who exhibits innovative behavior, realizes the idea or solution by producing a prototype or model of the innovation that can be experienced, applied and used within a work role, a group, or the organization as a whole (Canter, 1988).
Based on ten above literature, Innovative Demeanor Is talent nerve as a multiple-stage process in which an individual recognizes a problem for which she or he generates new (novel or adopted) ideas and solutions, works to promote and build support for them, and produces an applicable prototype or model for the use and benefit of the organization or parts within it. 2. 3 Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior A growing body of evidence shows a positive connection between self-leadership and work outcome.
Despite this evidence, the relationship between self-leadership and innovative behavior needs further investigation. To the best of our knowledge, only Philae and Young (2003) specifically talked about creative self-leadership, which refers to a reflective internal process by which an individual consciously and constructively navigates her or his thoughts and intentions towards the creation of desired changes, improvements and innovations.
Creative self-leadership involves three strategies: (1) renewed cognitive construction of assumptions, beliefs, perceptions and ways of thinking; (2) creative mental imagery that is manifested by dilemmas involving creative behaviors; and (3) creative self-talk involving internal dialog and feedback that enhance an individual’s ability to achieve desired ends (Philae and Young, 2003). 78 Philae and Young (2003) found a significant relationship between creative self- leadership and creativity. However, as Philae acknowledges, this is only an initial effort that requires further examination.
Innovation in the workplace – recognizing robbers, generating new ideas and solutions, promoting and building coalitions of supporters, and producing productive applicable models (Scott and Bruce, 1994) – is a complex process that often entails difficulties, obstacles and frustration. Not only does the innovative individual face a demanding situation in which substantial efforts are required to complete all stages of the innovation process, she or he may also face resistance regarding their efforts and actions.
This is because people tend to embrace stability and resist the insecurity and uncertainty that is correspondent with the changes the innovation process entails. Recent studies report the importance of organizational fairness and Justice (see Janssen, 2004; Tipper, 2001) in reducing stress in employees facing new circumstances. Self-leadership is a process through which employees motivate and navigate themselves to attain desired behaviors and ends.
Although individuals are motivated to accomplish tasks, not everyone is capable of displaying innovative behavior, because of the absence of self- navigation, a key element in the concept of self-leadership (Lethal and Locke, 1991). People who possess good self-leadership qualities know how to achieve high levels of elf-direction and self-motivation (Houghton et al. , 2003; Mans, 1986; Mans and Neck, 1999). During this process, people learn to lead themselves. For instance, constructive thought patterns become essential during the first stage of the innovation process – recognizing a problem and generating new ideas and solutions.
Unlike dysfunctional thought patterns, through constructive thoughts an individual is able to tackle a problem and suggest solutions more effectively. In addition, the three self-leadership categories are supposed to enhance self-efficacy, which in turn results in higher ordinance levels (Houghton et al. , 2003; Prussia et al. , 1 B) Sell-telltale raters to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce desired results (Bandeau, 1997, p. 3).
It is not about the number of skills that one has, but rather refers to an individual’s beliefs about what she or he can do with what she or he has under a variety of circumstances (Bandeau, 1997). Prussia et al. (1998) found that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between self-leadership and performance outcomes, including creative performance. Self-leadership is about people who learn to lead themselves and others. In the innovation process, it is clear that self-leadership skills are critical for displaying innovative behaviors.
However, the innovative process also entails the leading of others. For instance, the second stage of the innovation process is concerned with the individual’s effort and ability to promote her or his new solutions and ideas, as well as the creation of legitimacy and support both inside and outside the organization. To this end, individuals with high levels of self-leadership can lead others to support their new ideas and solutions. Recently, Howell (2005) provided a similar explanation regarding the importance of innovative behaviors of individuals in the work place.
She indicated that the success of innovative ideas is based upon “champions”: “individuals who informally emerge to promote the idea with conviction, persistence, and energy, and willingly risk their position and reputation to ensure the innovation’s success” (p. 108). She found key differences between effective champions and ineffective ones in their personal characteristics and behaviors. In essence, champions are likely to use self-leadership strategies in the innovation process (e. . Leading key stakeholders to support their ideas; showing confidence, enthusiasm and persistence). L] On the basis of this rationale, we suggest the following hypotheses: HI a. There is a positive relationship between self-leadership skills and supervisors’ ratings of her/his employee’s innovative behavior at work. HI b. There is a positive relationship between self- leadership skills and employee self- assessment of her/his innovative behavior at work. We also examine other factors that were found to influence innovative behavior at work. These variables are income and tenure in the current Job.
Income reflects extrinsic motivation. In a recent interview that Amiable (2005) gave to The Harvard Gazette, she indicated that an analysis of over 12,000 electronic diaries submitted by workers in seven companies revealed that money does not foster creativity, noting that people doing creative, innovative work do not focus daily on salary or a potential bonus. Tenure in the current Job (I. E. Job tenure) serves here as a proxy of expertise, which is another component of Ambler’s (1996, 1997) theory of individual creativity expertise.
People, who work for a longer period in their current Job, are likely to evolve skills that are relevant and specific to the domain, thereby, tackling problems in a more focused and relevant way. To summarize, this study suggests that people Walt Nell sell-learners skills will context netter performance, even I T tense control variables have been accounted for. This is because self-leaders know how to navigate and manage themselves in a relatively wide variety of circumstances. Hence, the following hypothesis is suggested: H2o.
Self-leadership skills will have a significant positive influence on innovative behaviors (as assessed by the direct supervisor), after the effects of the control variables (income and Job tenure) have been accounted for. Hub. Self-leadership skills will have a significant positive influence on innovative behaviors (as assessed by the employee), after the effects of the control variables (income and Job tenure) have been accounted for. The overall research model is presented in Figure 1. In this figure, the ovals represent latent variables, whereas the boxes represent their indicators.
Innovative behavior is affected by one latent variable representing self-leadership skills, and two observed variables representing Job income and tenure. 3. Method 3. 1 Respondents and data collection The respondents for this study were randomly drawn from six organizations in Israel. The participants in this study were employees working in two public sector organizations (a governmental agency and an educational institution) and four for- profit organizations (finance, construction, computer, and a consulting firm).
We were guided by two main criteria in selecting this particular population. First, from our conversations with the senior executives of these organizations, we learned that they value innovativeness at work. From the preliminary interviews with these 1 Figure 1 . The research model organization leaders (CEO and/or HARM), we also learned that they view innovative behaviors as being a key element in their organization’s viability and growth. Seeking ways to foster innovativeness in their organizations, their leaders were willing to collaborate with us on this research.
Moreover, choosing employees, who work for organizations from various diverse industries, increases the generalization of the study results. A pilot study was first conducted among 100 employees from one organization, which views creativity as a core element of its system. The pilot study was conducted in an attempt to verify the reliability and validity of the research measures, which are all based on well-established literature as described below.
In accordance with the common wisdom of wording and translation (Brisling, 1986), the measures were translated into Hebrew, and retranslated back into English by three professional copy editors. The results of the pilot study showed high clarity and reliability (Cockroach’s alphas were all above 0. 70) regarding the research measures. The sample of the pilot study was not incorporated in the present study. To increase the response rate and ensure the participants complete confidentiality, one of the authors personally administered structured questionnaires and collected them on sleet.
IOW structured quaternaries were millstream; one survey was millstream to the employees and the other to their direct supervisors. Data about the measures – self-leadership skills, self-rated innovative behavior, Job tenure, age, education, and income – were obtained by the survey directed at the employees. Data about the employees’ innovative behavior at work (supervisor ratings of employees’ innovative behavior) were obtained through the survey directed at their supervisors. There was a time lag of at least two weeks between the two surveys.