Paper presented at the 27th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Melbourne, Australia July 11th-16th, 2010

1. Innovative behaviour of individuals and its support:
The views from seven European and Asian cultures
Martin Lukeš1
Ute Stephan2
Ivan Nový1
Hana Lorencová1
1 Prague University of Economics
2 Catholic University Leuven
ICAP Congress, Melbourne, July 15, 2010

2. Study Aims
 To develop theoretical model of innovation at work
consisting of innovative behaviour, innovation outputs,
and factors supporting innovative behaviour.
 To cross-culturally validate Innovative Behaviour
Inventory and Innovation Support Inventory (Lukes,
Stephan & Cernikova, 2009) in Eurasian cultures.
 To get qualitative views on the topic from managers in
different countries who are responsible for continuous
improvement in their companies.

3. Innovation process & innovative behavior
 Innovation: process of new idea creation or adoption
and a subsequent effort to develop it into a new
product, service, process or business model with an
expected added value for a potential user
 Innovative behavior at work
– idea generation (e.g. Unsworth, 2001; Amabile et al., 1996)
– idea search (e.g. Kelley et al. 2009)
– idea communication (e.g. Binnewies et al., 2007)
– implementation starting activities (e.g. Baer & Frese, 2003)
– involving others (e.g. Howell et al., 2005)
– overcoming obstacles (e.g. Howell et al., 2005)

4. Innovation support
 Climate perceptions are effective predictors of creativity and
innovation performance (Hunter, Bedell & Mumford, 2007)
 Managerial support (e.g. Scott & Bruce, 1994)
 Organizational support (Hunter, Bedell & Mumford, 2007)
 National culture support
– national culture influences organizational cultures (e.g. Fischer, 2009)
– effective leadership styles (House et al., 2004) and championing
behaviors are culture-bound (Shane & Venkataraman, 1995)

5. Theoretical model

6. Study 1: Sample & Data gathering
 Based on previous study (Lukes, Stephan & Cernikova,
2009) in Czech subsidiaries of international companies
that showed sufficient criterion, factorial, convergent
and discriminant validity
 Representative samples of adult (self-)employed
population (total N = 2744 adults) in the Czech Rep.,
Germany, Italy, and Switzerland
 Phone interviews focused on different aspects of
innovative behavior and factors influencing it
 35 items in 10 scales
 Measures cross-culturally equivalent (configural, metric
and scalar invariance)

7. Model confirmation for CH, DE, IT, CZ
 Structural equation modelling (AMOS 17, Arbuckle, 2008)
good model fit
TLI =.944, NFI=.936,
GFI=.947, AGFI=.938,
RMR=.050, CFI =.949,
RMSEA =.036, χ2 =2507.06,
df =539

8. Comparison of culture scale means
Cz p D p It p
Work-related innovative behavior
Idea generation .21*** <.001 .22*** <.001 .19*** <.001
Idea search .06 .182 .09* .024 .12** .007
Communicating ideas .08 .075 .16*** <.001 .03 .517
Implementation starting activities .10 .116 .11* .045 -.50*** <.001
Involving others .10 .051 .22*** <.001 .19*** <.001
Overcoming obstacles .10* .029 .08* .037 .01 .841
Innovation outputs
Innovation outputs .19*** <.001 .30*** <.001 -.09 .053
Support for innovative behaviour
Managerial support (employee-perceived) .19** .005 .37*** <.001 .32*** <.001
Organizational support .14* .024 .21*** <.001 .33*** <.001
Cultural perception of innovative behavior -.09* .016 .09** .005 -.27*** <.001
Notes:
Mean Differences in Innovation Scales (Estimates based on final Scalar Invariance Models)
Switzerland as ‘reference culture’,
Italicized values – scale means lower compared to Switzerland, i.e. higher innovation behavior compared to Switzerland
Significant differences in all scales

9. Main conclusions of Study 1
 Cross-culturally approved measure of innovative behavior and its
support
 Swiss are the most innovative culture and Germans the least
innovative culture (Italy and the Czech Republic standing in
between)
 National culture plays a significant role in influencing innovative
behavior
– 1) thanks to differences between national cultures
– 2) cultural perceptions influence perception of organizational support and it
influences perception of managerial support that influences innovative behavior
 ... but is only one of significant factors; age, employment status,
occupation, education, technological development of a firm play a
role in influencing innovative behavior as well as intellectual
property issues etc.

10. Study 2: Measurement equivalence for IND, CHN, RUS
188 questionnaires from the international automotive company
subsidiaries in Russia, China and India; employees with previous
experience in implementing new ideas (N=61 for Russia, N=50 for
China, N=77 for India)
Model Fit Comparison RMSEA CFI ΔCFI TLI ΔTLI Chi²(df) ΔChi²(Δdf)
European Countries vs. Eurasian Transition Countries
- .029 .937 - .931 - 3710.64 -
1 Configural (1080)
2 Full metric: 1st-order 1 vs. 2 .028 .937 -.000 .932 .001 3756.82 46.17 (25)
factor loadings (1105)
3 Full scalar: item 2. vs. 3 .029 .934 -.003 .930 -.002 3916.37 159.55
intercepts (1130) (25)
4 Full metric: 2nd-order 3 vs. 4 .029 .934 -.000 .930 -.000 3922.23 5.87 (5)
factor loadings (1135)
5 Full scalar: 4 vs. 5 .029 .932 -.002 .929 -.001 4005.43 83.19 (5)
intercepts of 1st- (1140)
order factors
6 Structural 5 vs. 6 .029 .932 -.000 .929 -.000 4019.05 13.63 (4)
relations/model (1144)

11. Study 3: Management interviews
 50 interviews with managers (half of them CEO/GM) in 34 German-, Italian- and
Swiss-based companies operating in the Czech Rep.
 11 management interviews from the international automotive company subsidiaries in
Russia, China and India
 Culture plays a significant role in influencing innovative behaviour
– Czech way - improvisation, flexibility, and trial and error do-it-yourself approach
– German way - systematic with detailed planning, large documentation, and a try to
maximally reduce uncertainty
– Swiss way - similar to German - systematic, conservative and earnest, but less
bureaucratic
– Italian way - personal and emotional, high level of creativity and importance of
networking
– Indian way - importance of nonmonetary appreciation and non-linear work
approach, the role of castes
– Chinese way - hardworking approach and stronger monetary focus
– Russian way - relative passivity and dependence on manager's decisions
 Specifics of national cultures are mirrored in organizational cultures with these national
backgrounds

12. Recommendations for companies
 Reward innovative behavior of employees: (symbolic) incentive
bonus for suggesting a meaningful idea + interesting bonus
dependent on the economic effect (culture specific – CZ, RU, CHN
vs. DE, IN)
 Exchange of information between individual companies and
countries, including benchmarking and best practices' exchange
 International teams suitable for complex and time-consuming
innovations
– Preconditions: language knowledge, clear goal, time for team integration, respect to the
culture specific ways to handle innovations
 Internal communication should cover all employees, but
emphasize the role of managers, first-line employees and
specialists developing new products and services
 Line employees perceive organizational support through the
support from their direct superior, managers should be trained
and motivated to support innovative ideas

13. Conclusions
 Developed and validated efficient holistic measures:
Innovative Behavior Inventory and Innovation
Support Inventory
 The process is measurable and applicable for
different innovation types, occupational groups and
cultures.
 Improved understanding of multi-faceted innovation
process, individual behavior in it and the influencing
factors, especially culture.

14. Thank you for your attention
Martin Lukeš
University of Economics
Dept. of Managerial Psychology and Sociology
W. Churchill Sq. 4
130 67 Prague 3
tel.: +420 224 098 632
fax: +420 224 098 303
lukesm@vse.cz

15. Work-related innovative behavior scales
Idea generation
 3 items, e.g. When something does not function well at work, I try to find new solution.
Idea search
 3 items, e.g. I try to get new ideas from colleagues or business partners.
Communicating ideas
 4 items, e.g. I try to show my colleagues positive sides of new ideas.
Implementation starting activities
 3 items, e.g. I develop suitable plans and schedules for the implementation of new
ideas.
Involving others
 3 items, e.g. When I have a new idea, I look for people who are able to push it through.
Overcoming obstacles
 4 items, e.g. I usually do not finish until I accomplish the goal.
Innovation outputs
 3 items, e.g. I was often successful at work in implementing my ideas and putting them
in practice.

16. Innovation support scales
Managerial support
 5 items, e.g. My manager supports me in implementing good ideas as
soon as possible.
Organizational support
 3 items, e.g. The way of remuneration in our organization motivates
employees to suggest new things and procedures.
Cultural support
 4 items, e.g. Most people in [country name] come up with new, original
ideas at work.

17. Cross-cultural equivalence
Model Comparison RMSEA CFI ΔCFI TLI ΔTLI Chi²(df) ΔChi²(Δdf)
Czech
1 Configural - .029 .940 - .933 - 3493.43 (1080) -
st
2 Full metric: 1 -order factor loadings 1 vs. 2 .029 .938 -.002 .933 .000 3597.66 (1105)) 104.23 (25)
3 Full scalar: item intercepts 2 vs. 3 .032 .920 -.018 .915 -.018 4343.458 (1130) 745.90 (25)
3.1 Partial scalar: item i. m5 and j5 free 2 vs. 3.1 .030 .930 -.008 .926 -.007 3930.60 (1127) 332.95 (22)
nd
4 Full metric: 2 -order factor loadings 3.1 vs. 4 .030 .930 -.000 .926 -.000 3946.33 (1132) 15.73 (5)
st
5 Full scalar: 1 -order factors intercepts 4 vs. 5 .031 .928 -.002 .924 -.002 4020.28 (1137) 73.95 (5)
6 Structural model 5 vs. 6 .031 .928 -.000 .925 .001 4029.13 (1141) 8.85 (4)
German
1 Configural - .030 .933 - .927 - 3739.67 (1080) -
2 Full metric: 1st-order factor loadings 1 vs. 2 .030 .932 -.001 .927 -.000 3815.53 (1105) 75.86 (25)
3. Full scalar: item intercepts 2 vs. 3 .032 .924 -.008 .920 -.007 4166.61 (1130) 351.07 (25)
4. Full metric: 2nd-order factor loadings 3 vs. 4 .032 .924 -.000 .920 -.000 4185.68 (1135) 19.07 (5)
st
5 Full scalar: 1 -order factors intercepts 4 vs. 5 .032 .923 -.001 .920 -.000 4204.41 (1140) 18.73 (5)
6 Structural model 5 vs. 6 .032 .923 -.000 .920 -.000 4215.03 (1144) 10.61 (4)
Italian
1 Configural - .031 .929 - .921 - 3961.24 (1080) -
2 Full metric: 1st-order factor loadings 1 vs. 2 .031 .927 -.002 .922 +.001 4036.92 (1105) 75.680 (25)
3. Full scalar: item intercepts 2 vs. 3 .033 .920 -.007 .915 -.007 4374.52 (1130) 337.61 (25)
4. Full metric: 2nd-order factor loadings 3 vs. 4 .033 .919 -.001 .915 -.000 4391.47 (1135) 16.95 (5)
st
5 Full scalar: 1 -order factors intercepts 4 vs. 5 .033 .916 -.003 .912 -.003 4540.58 (1140) 149.11 (5)
6 Structural model 5 vs. 6 .033 .916 -.000 .912 -.000 4550.42 (1144) 9.84 (4)
Swiss
1 Configural - .030 .934 - .928 - 3685.83 (1080) -
2 Full metric: 1st-order factor loadings 1 vs. 2 .030 .933 -.001 .928 -.000 3743.69 (1105) 57.87 (25)
3. Full scalar: item intercepts 2 vs. 3 .031 .928 -.005 .924 -.004 4000.78 (1130) 257.09 (25)
4. Full metric: 2nd-order factor loadings 3 vs. 4 .031 .927 -.001 .924 -.000 4018.72 (1135) 17.93 (5)
st
5 Full scalar: 1 -order factors intercepts 4 vs. 5 .031 .927 -.009 .924 -.000 4033.19 (1140) 14.47 (5)
6 Structural model 5 vs. 6 .031 .927 -.000 .924 -.000 4042.57 (1144) 9.38 (4)