Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 752–757
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Innovation at the workplace: Do professional competencies matter?☆
Luis E. Vila a,⁎, Pedro J. Pérez b,1, Vicente Coll-Serrano a,2
a Department of Applied Economics, University of Valencia, Avda. Dels Tarongers, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spainb Department of Economic Analysis, University of Valencia, Avda. Dels Tarongers, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
☆ Comments by Jose-Ginés Mora (Institute of EducatioKingdom) and Francisco Marco-Serrano (AORS MIoEE's,draft were helpful in revising this paper. The authors alontions and errors that may relate to this study and this pap⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 963828617.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.E. Vila), [email protected] (V. Coll-Serrano).
1 Tel.: +34 963828246.2 Tel.: +34 963828640.
0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.039
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 1 April 2013Received in revised form 1 October 2013Accepted 1 November 2013Available online 19 December 2013
Keywords:Professional competencesInnovationGraduatesHigher educationProbability models
This paper analyzes individuals' propensity to innovate in professional environments, by focusing on the specificcompetency profile of individuals who play a role in the incorporation of product, technological, and knowledgeinnovations at work. The analysis draws on economic and managerial literature on innovation, innovativebehavior, and competencies to gain a better understanding of the relationships between the process ofcompetency development and innovative behavior in working environments. Using data from REFLEX, aEuropean survey on the transition from higher education to labor markets, the empirical component ofthis study estimates discrete response models to explain the propensity of individuals to innovate atwork. The models take the responses to a set of 19 questionnaire items as the basis for determining individuals'competency profiles, while also incorporating firm, working environment, and personal characteristics. Theestimation results provide evidence of significant marginal effects of specific competencies on the probabilitythat individuals act as innovators at the workplace. Competencies such as alertness to new opportunities, abilityto present products, ideas or reports, ability tomobilize the capacities of others, ability to comeupwith new ideasand solutions, and ability to use computers and the Internet appear to have strongermarginal effects on the like-lihood of innovating and, consequently, emerge as key competencies in explaining the propensity of individualsto become innovators in their working environments.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Productive innovation is the process of applying novel ideas andnew knowledge to increase efficiency in the production of goods andservices (Lucas, 2009). Innovation is a crucial concept in explaining indi-vidual and business success and, ultimately, the growth of economies,because the early application of contextually new ideas—either techno-logical or organizational—to economic activity helps secure competitiveadvantages for individuals, organizations, industries, regions, and coun-tries in an increasingly globalized anduncertain economic environment.The main driving force behind the productivity gains and increases inliving standards in developed countries over the past three decades isthe innovation process. The improvement in productive efficiency,quantifiable in aggregate terms as total factor productivity (TFP) gains,is predominantly a result of continuously applying new technologies
n, University of London, UnitedUnited Kingdom) on an earliere are responsible for all limita-er.
[email protected] (P.J. Pérez),
ghts reserved.
and more efficient modes to organize production. Consequently, ex-tending and deepening economic analysis aiming at better understand-ing innovation processes is a worthy pursuit. This approach meansanalyzing the procedures that result in the generation of new knowl-edge and studying themechanisms throughwhich this new knowledgespreads and aids productive, market-oriented activities.
Innovative activities boost productivity increases, thus creating in-centives for individuals and firms to promote innovative actions. Inturn, productive innovation at the individual and firm levels explainsproductivity gains at the aggregate economic level for industries,regions, or countries. The economic growth and development that pro-ductive innovation at the aggregate level brings then spreads to rewardthe innovative efforts of individuals and firms through financial com-pensation and the attainment of other personal and corporate objec-tives. In turn, individuals seeking higher returns have good reason tobe willing to innovate at their workplaces; that is, to take part in the de-velopment of the sequence of activities leading to the incorporation ofnew ideas and knowledge within their firm or organization. According-ly, firms and other organizations thatwant to succeed in the knowledgeeconomy are willing to create working environments that enhanceinnovative performance of employees. At either the organization orindividual level, the sequence of activities leading to the incorporationof productive innovation includes the detection of the innovationopportunity, the proposal of new ideas and their evaluation, and, ulti-mately, the adoption and implementation of at least one new idea inthe productive process. Accordingly, to perform well in one or more
753L.E. Vila et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 752–757
steps of this process, individuals need to have the necessary competen-cies. Thus, managers willing to foster innovation within their organiza-tions should focus not only on creating the right organizational climate,but also on recruiting and promoting employees with high levels of thespecific competencies that increase the probability of contributing to in-novation activities at work.
The competencies necessary for innovation are those that allow indi-viduals to take an active role in at least one activity that channels novelideas into productivity gains. Therefore, innovation competencies areabilities that allow individuals to perceive opportunities for change,bring new ideas to the work environment, compare the potentialvalue of new and old ideas, and, finally, adopt new ideas by reallocatingthe resources under their command. The following questions then arise:who are the innovators and what specific competencies do they have?Schultz's (1975) disequilibrium argument suggests that better educatedindividuals are more productive when dealing with changing economicconditions because they have developed a greater capacity to evaluatethe relevant economic environment and undertake the actions thatwould result in competitive advantages for themselves, and theirfirms or organizations. This specific capacity does not only apply to en-trepreneurs or those working on R&D activities. A number of workingindividuals are likely to become innovators by creating new knowledgein the performance of their daily tasks and responsibilities, or using newknowledge that comes from other people in other jobs.
Within this conceptual framework, the purpose of this study is to ex-plore some of the elements leading to diverse types of innovative be-havior in the workplace and some of the elements emerging from thelabor market status associated with those behaviors, using a large sam-ple of young graduates from Spanish higher education institutions.
This analysis focuses on the differences between the competenciesof individuals who innovate at work and those who do not, by control-ling other educational, occupational, and socio-biographical differencesbetween the two groups. The estimation results provide evidence of sig-nificant marginal effects of specific competencies, all else being equal,on the individual's probability of acting as an innovator at the work-place. The results suggest that the employees playing a role in the intro-duction of product, knowledge, or technological innovation at work dodiffer in their equipment of competencies.
The structure of this article is as follows. The next section considersthe relevant literature and sets out the hypotheses of this study.Section 3 presents the data set and establishes a criterion for identifyingindividuals who innovate at the workplace. Section 4 describes theeconometric models that allow the estimation of the effects of com-petency profiles on the propensity to innovate, and describes themain results. Finally, Section 5 concludes with a summary of thefindings and a discussion of the managerial implications resultingfrom the analysis.
2. Research background and hypotheses
Research on the determinants of innovation at the workplace isexpanding considerably in the wake of West and Farr's (1990) opera-tional definition of innovation as the deliberate introduction and appli-cation of new ideas, processes, products, or procedures designed to yieldsignificant benefits for the production agent that adopts this newknowledge. Empirical research on workplace innovation makes head-way over the last two decades, mainly through the identification of anumber of factors that consistently appear to promote or limit varioustypes of innovative outcomes at the corporate level, such as product,market, process, and technological innovation. Anderson, De Dreu, andNijstad (2004), King and Anderson (2002), West (2002), and more re-cently Belloc (2012), among others, provide comprehensive overviewsof the literature on the determinants of innovation performance atthe organization level. Summarizing, the main findings from the em-pirical literature illustrate that innovation performance at the corpo-rate level appears to depend on the combination of three types of
factors: organizational factors, work group factors, and individualfactors. Organizational factors shaping innovation include the structureand size of the organization, organizational strategy, the resourcesavailable, and the predominant organizational culture. Work group ele-ments influencing innovation include team structure and team climate,traits of the team members, team processes, and decision-making ap-proaches, as well as the most prevalent leadership style. Finally, awide variety of individual factors appear to promote or limit corporateinnovation, including a number of personality traits, sources, andtypes of individual motivation, indicators of employees' cognitive abili-ty, as well as observable job characteristics.
Empirical research on the impacts of individual factors on innovationperformance often focuses on the functions of managers and managercharacteristics on corporate innovation. Miron, Erez, and Naveth(2004) research shows that individuals have the ability to be both crea-tive and attentive to detail, and that being innovative does not necessar-ily compete with efficiency, although creative people need to take theinitiative. Damanpour and Schneider (2009) findings suggest thatbothmanager characteristics and type of innovation influence the adop-tion of innovation. They fail, however, to find significant effects of man-ager characteristics on the relationship between the type of innovationand innovation adoption. Chen and Huang (2009) results indicate thatstrategic human resources practices positively relate to knowledgemanagement capacity, which, in turn, has a positive effect on innovationperformance. The findings provide evidence that knowledge manage-ment capacitymediates the relation between strategic human resourcespractices and corporate innovation performance.
Though prior research looks into the impacts of some individualfactors on corporate innovation performance, the literature shedshardly any light on the competency profile of individuals whoshow a high propensity for involvement in activities that lead to di-verse innovation outcomes at the firm level. Consequently, the un-derstanding of innovation processes at the organization level needsto broaden, to encompass the effects of diverse individual capabili-ties on the willingness of employees—not only managers—to usenovel ideas and knowledge to generate diverse types of innovationin working environments.
Accordingly, this study examines the differences between the com-petency profiles of higher education graduates who innovate and thecompetency profiles of those who do not innovate at work. The analysisidentifies a number of specific competencies that have stronger positivemarginal effects on the propensity of individuals to partake in work ac-tivities leading to product, methodology, and technological innovation.
Within this conceptual framework, the following research hypothe-ses crystalize.
H1. The propensity of individuals to take part in innovative activities atthe workplace depends, all else being equal, on their personal compe-tency portfolio.
H2. Employees taking part in diverse types of innovation at work havedifferent competency profiles.
H3. Individuals' propensity to innovate also depends on their positionwithin the organization, and on key organizational characteristics suchas the firm's orientation.
To test the hypotheses, the analysis specifies and estimates a seriesof nested binary responsemodels for a sample of higher education grad-uates with 5 years' work experience. The next two sections describe indetail the characteristics of the sample, and the implementation ofeconometric models to test the research hypotheses.
3. Data and variables
The data under study come from the REFLEX project, a graduate sur-vey conducted in 2005, across 14 countries, incorporating the responses
Table 2Personal traits and educational variables.
Product Techa Knowb Innovators Non-innovators
Male 41% 44% 39% 40% 33%Age (years) 30.6 30.7 30.5 30.5 30.4With children 11% 11% 11% 11% 8%
Field of studyEducation 11% 13% 12% 12% 12%Humanities 7% 7% 8% 8% 9%Social sciences 10% 8% 9% 9% 11%Economics and business 16% 15% 17% 18% 25%Law 5% 5% 5% 5% 6%Technical 27% 30% 25% 25% 17%Health 12% 11% 12% 11% 10%Experimental science 12% 12% 12% 12% 10%Field of study relevant toyour work
86% 87% 88% 86% 74%
Note:a Technological innovation,b Knowledge innovation.
754 L.E. Vila et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 752–757
of more than 40,000 individuals who graduated from higher educationinstitutions 5 years previously. REFLEX includes questions about thegraduates' higher education, transition from education to work, earliercareer stages, and current professional situation, including questionsabout participation in activities related to three types of innovation(product or services; technology, tools or instruments; knowledge ormethods). REFLEX also includes a section on individual competencies,part of which asks respondents to rate their competency level for a listof 19 competencies. To analyze the relationships between innovationat the workplace and individual competencies, organization orientationand job contents, the empirical research uses information correspond-ing to the 5474 Spanish individuals who responded to the REFLEXquestionnaire.
The first questions that arise are: who innovates at the workplaceand howmany people innovate at the work place? In the REFLEX ques-tionnaire, graduates provide data (using a Likert scale from 1, very low,to 5, very high) about the extent of innovation in their organizations interms of three types of innovation outcomes (product or services; tech-nology, tools or instruments; knowledge ormethods) andwhether theyplay a role in introducing these innovations (Paul, 2011). Individualswho report that they play a role in a given type of innovation process re-ceive a classification as innovators for the corresponding type of innova-tion. Likewise, if the respondents assign the extent of innovation in theirorganization a 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale, then the organization re-ceives a classification as a highly innovative organization for the corre-sponding type of innovation.
Adding up the three types of innovation in the questionnaire(Table 1), 60% of people report that they participate in innovative activ-ities at work in at least one of the three types of innovation, confirmingthe importance of higher education graduates (HEGs) in organizations'innovation processes. Furthermore, knowledge/method innovation isthe most common form of innovation among people in the sample(52%). The proportions of those participating in the other two types ofinnovation are markedly smaller: products/services (38%) and technol-ogy/tools/instruments (36%).
Table 2 summarizes the main characteristics and differences be-tween innovators and non-innovators with regard to their personaland educational characteristics.
Table 2 shows that men are more likely to partake in innovativeactivities than women (40% vs. 33%). Regarding field of study, inno-vators and non-innovators only differ in two fields: economics andbusiness, and technical studies. In the group of innovators, 25% ofpeople have technical degrees, compared to only 17% of non-innovators. The converse is true for economics and business degrees.The quality of the match between studies and job position is higheramong innovators: 86% of innovators declare that their study fieldis the most appropriate for their current job, compared to 74% ofnon-innovators.
The main research hypothesis (H1) is that the competency profilesof individuals determine their likelihood of acting as innovators at theworkplace, all else been equal. The competencies and skills of individ-uals are the result of a lifelong professional and informal learning pro-cess, with a substantial number of competencies coming from highereducation studies (Vila, Pérez, & Morillas, 2012). REFLEX includes a sec-tion on individual competencies, where respondents answer the
Table 1Percentage of individuals who innovate by type of innovation.
Innovators Non-innovators
N % N %
Product 1491 38% 2479 62%Technological 1416 36% 2554 64%Knowledge 2083 52% 1887 48%Any type 2390 60% 1580 40%
question, “How do you rate your own competency level?” for a list of19 competencies. The answers form a self-assessedmeasure of the com-position of the graduates' human capital, in terms of competencies, atthe time of the interview.
Table 3 shows the average levels of the 19 competencies for innova-tors and non-innovators. Individuals who report that they play an inno-vative role at work also report higher average levels in all 19competencies in the REFLEX questionnaire, relative to those who donot innovate.
For all competencies, innovators score more highly than non-innovators. The maximum difference between innovators andnon-innovators is in the competency Ability to present product,ideas or reports, with innovators scoring 12% higher than their non-innovator counterparts. Conversely, the minimum difference (2%) isfor the competency Using time efficiently. Competencies solely to dowith the innovation process, such as Alertness to new opportunities orAbility to come upwith new ideas, are among thosewith the greatest dif-ferences in favor of innovators. Significant differences in competencylevels among innovators in products, technology, and knowledge are,however, absent.
Table 4 shows that the chances of an individual carrying out innova-tive activities at theworkplace depend to a large extent on the organiza-tion. In the sample, 72% of people who work in innovative-orientedfirms, in at least one of the three types of innovation, report that theyplay a role in the innovation process, whereas this percentage is muchlower (45%) for thosewhowork in organizationswithout an innovationorientation.
Regarding the scope of the organizations' operations (local–regionalvs. national–international), the percentage of firms with a national–in-ternational scope is similar among all groups of individuals (approxi-mately 53%). In contrast, a higher percentage of non-innovators workfor public organizations and organizations with more employees.Thus, in general: the larger the organization, the lower the percentageof innovators on the payroll.
The last column in Table 4 reveals noticeable differences between in-novators andnon-innovators regarding their occupations and job remit:81% of innovators have an occupation that is appropriate for their levelof education, compared to only 61% of individuals not engaging in inno-vation processes. Additionally, innovators have higher degrees of re-sponsibility than non-innovators in areas that are relevant forinnovation, such as setting goals, deciding how to perform their jobs,and the extent of damage to their organization due to potential mis-takes. In contrast, the differences between innovators and non-innovators regarding the degree of supervision and monitoring oftheir work activities are smaller.
Table 3Self-rated competency levels.
Types of innovators
Product Techa Knowb Innovators Non-innovators
Present products, ideas, or reports 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.4Write and speak in a foreign language 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.6Analytical thinking 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.7Alertness to new opportunities 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.4Come up with new ideas and solutions 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.0Mobilize the capacities of others 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5Knowledge of other fields 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.1Assert your authority 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.5Negotiate effectively 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.3Write reports, memos or documents 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.2Question your own and others' ideas 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.0Coordinate activities 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.2Perform well under pressure 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.2Use computers and the Internet 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.3Make your meaning clear to others 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.3Rapidly acquire new knowledge 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.6Mastery of your own field 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.1Use time efficiently 5.6 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.4Work productively with others 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.6
Note:a Technological innovation,b Knowledge innovation.
755L.E. Vila et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 752–757
4. Models, results, and discussion
To disentangle the effects of individual competency portfolios on in-dividual innovation performance, graduates' own levels of competen-cies enter as explanatory variables in three binary response models. Inthese models, the dependent variables are the probabilities of actingas innovator in product, technology, or knowledge. Analysis of each ofthe three types of innovation takes place via two nested specifications(M1 and M2). M1 only includes explanatory variables related to the in-dividual: self-reported competency level in the 19 professional compe-tencies, and the personal and educational characteristics in Table 2 (age,gender, family situation using a dummy to differentiate between grad-uates with and without children, study field, and quality of the matchbetween area of study and job). M2 includes all the regressors in M1,and adds the organizational and job remit variables in Table 4 as explan-atory variables. The estimation results for product, technological, andknowledge innovation considering the M1 and M2 specifications ap-pear in Table 5. Goodness-of-fit measures show that M2 specificationsprovide, in general, a better explanation than M1 specifications.
The coefficient estimates using the method of maximum likelihoodshow the magnitude and direction of the changes in the probability of
Table 4Organization characteristics and job contents.
Product
Organization characteristicsHighly innovative (in the same type of innovation) 58%Highly innovative in at least one type of innovation 77%Scope of operations (national or international) 54%Public or private non-profit 33%More than 50 employees 61%
Job contentsOccupation appropriate for HEGs 83%Major change in your work tasks (1 = yes) 49%Setting goals for the organization (1–5) 2.9Setting goals for your own work (1–5) 4.1Deciding how you do your own job (1–5) 4.4How closely your performance is monitored 3.3Damage to the organization if you make a major mistake 3.8
Note: (a) Technological innovation, (b) Knowledge innovation.
innovative behavior when the levels of the explanatory variableschange marginally. The results show, first, that not all competencieshave a significant marginal effect on the probability of graduates inno-vating at the workplace. Indeed, only a few of the 19 competencies arestatistically significantly able to explain the probability of being an inno-vator. Additionally, the effects of some competencies that are significantin M1 vanish in M2, which controls for firms' orientation and jobcontents.
Regarding personal and educational variables, a noticeable result isthat some variables that are significant in all three M1 specifications,such as gender and field of study, lose their significance for sometypes of innovation but remain important for otherswhen organization-al and job characteristic come into play. In M2, men have a higher prob-ability than women of acting as innovators in product or technology,whereas gender differences are non-existent for knowledge innovation.Moreover, individuals who graduate from technical and experimentalscience programshave higher probabilities of acting as technological in-novators, whereas study field does not significantly affect the probabil-ities for the other two types of innovation. These results support H1;that is, the propensity of individuals to take part in innovative activitiesat the workplace depends on their personal competency profile.
Techb Knowb Innovators Non-innovators
57% 56%75% 73% 72% 45%52% 52% 54% 53%36% 37% 35% 41%59% 61% 62% 72%
84% 83% 81% 61%48% 48% 48% 40%
2.8 2.7 2. 7 1.94.1 4.0 4.0 3.34.4 4.4 4.4 3.93.2 3.3 3.3 3.13.8 3.7 3.7 3.4
Table 5Estimated models.
Product Techa Knowb Product Techa Knowb
M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2
Mastery of your own field −0.04 0.01 −0.05 −0.04 0.01 −0.05Knowledge of other fields −0.00 0.02 0.04 −0.03 0.00 0.01Analytical thinking 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05Rapidly acquire new knowledge −0.02 −0.02 −0.03 0.02 −0.01 −0.02Negotiate effectively 0.04 −0.01 −0.02 0.02 −0.04 −0.05Perform well under pressure −0.01 −0.04 −0.02 −0.01 −0.04 −0.02Alertness to new opportunities 0.08⁎⁎ 0.05 0.04 0.06* 0.04 0.03Coordinate activities 0.02 0.01 0.02 −0.02 −0.03 −0.02Use time efficiently −0.01 −0.03 −0.03 −0.01 −0.03 −0.04Work productively with others −0.04 −0.10*** −0.06* −0.04 −0.10*** −0.05Mobilize the capacities of others 0.06⁎ 0.12*** 0.10*** 0.03 0.12*** 0.10⁎⁎⁎
Make your meaning clear to others −0.02 −0.03 −0.03 0.00 −0.02 −0.01Assert your authority −0.00 −0.01 0.03 −0.02 −0.03 0.01Use computers and the Internet −0.02 0.06* −0.03 −0.01 0.06* −0.02Come up with new ideas and solutions 0.08⁎ 0.11** 0.11** 0.05 0.08* 0.08⁎
Question your own and others' ideas 0.02⁎⁎ −0.04 0.00 0.03 −0.04 0.01Present products. ideas or reports 0.10⁎ 0.04 0.06* 0.080* 0.02 0.03Write reports. memos or documents 0.01 −0.02 0.06* 0.00 −0.03 0.05Write and speak in a foreign language −0.02 0.01 0.01 −0.03 0.01 0.01Men 0.14⁎ 0.19** 0.05 0.129* 0.19** 0.07Age −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 0.00 −0.02 −0.01Children 0.18 0.19 0.21* 0.11 0.13 0.16Field of study relevant to your work 0.25⁎⁎ 0.34*** 0.52*** −0.01 0.14 0.23⁎⁎
Education (ref. economics and business) 0.19 0.49*** 0.40*** 0.03 0.36** 0.19Humanities 0.22 0.31* 0.39*** 0.10 0.24 0.24Social science 0.08 0.07 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.07Law 0.02 0.04 −0.11 −0.03 0.06 −0.14Technical 0.26⁎⁎ 0.56*** 0.24** 0.11 0.49*** 0.06Health 0.21⁎ 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.06 0.06Experimental science 0.21⁎ 0.34*** 0.26* 0.13 0.27* 0.11Highly innovative organization 0.01 −0.05 −0.04 0.01 0.45⁎⁎⁎
International or national organization 0.02 0.04 −0.03 0.00 0.05Public or private non-profit 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.04Organization size (N50) −0.02 −0.03 0.02 −0.01 −0.31⁎⁎⁎
Occupation appropriate for HEGs −0.01 −0.02 0.02 −0.04 0.24Major changes in your work tasks (1 = yes) −0.04 −0.02 −0.01 −0.04 0.09Setting goals for the organization (1–5) 0.05 0.04 0.056* 0.04 0.15⁎⁎⁎
Setting goals for your own work (1–5) 0.01 0.02 −0.02 −0.03 0.12⁎⁎⁎
Deciding how you do your own job (1–5) −0.03 −0.03 −0.01 −0.03 0.11⁎⁎⁎
How closely your performance is monitored (1-5) −0.10*** −0.057* −0.04 −0.10*** 0.02Damage to the organization if you make a major mistake 0.12*** 0.10*** 0.03 0.12*** 0.04Constant −1.83⁎⁎⁎ −1.36⁎⁎⁎ −1.28⁎⁎ −2.53⁎⁎⁎ −1.59⁎⁎⁎ −2.00⁎⁎⁎
N 2426 2426 2426 2426 2426 2426K 31 31 31 42 42 42Log likelihood −1515 −1457 −1546 −1367 −1333 −1396Pseudo R2 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.22
Note: *p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.a Technological innovation,b Knowledge innovation.
756 L.E. Vila et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 752–757
Focusing on the effects of individual capabilities, Table 5 also revealsthat innovative behavior in each type of innovation requires a differentcombination of competencies when applying appropriate controls fororganization and job contents. Two specific competencies, Present prod-ucts, ideas or reports and Alertness to new opportunities, significantly in-crease the probability of being involved in product innovation, whilefor innovation in knowledge, the relevant competencies are Mobilizethe capacities of others and Come upwith new ideas and solutions. Regard-ing technological innovation, the competencies with the strongest ef-fects are the same as those for knowledge innovation (Mobilize thecapacities of others and Come up with new ideas and solutions) togetherwith the competency Use computers and the Internet, which also exertsa significant positive influence. The latter result suggests that informa-tion and communication technologies are becoming crucial forexplaining technological innovation in the new economy, which mightexplain why some fields of study exert a significant influence on thistype of innovation. Therefore, these results confirm H2; that is, em-ployees taking part in diverse types of innovation atwork have differentcompetency profiles.
Regarding the variables related to organizations and jobs, the prob-ability of becoming an innovator has a positive relationwith the innova-tive character of the organization and with some characteristics of thejob. On the one hand, individuals with more power to set objectivesand freedom to choose how to perform their jobs have greater chancesof becoming innovators. On the other hand, the size of the organizationhas a negative marginal impact on the probability to innovate at an in-dividual level. The results confirm both H3 and some of the findings inthe literature: regardless of the type of innovation considered, theinnovative climate of the organization is a key factor for fostering in-dividual involvement in innovative activities. Moreover, the size ofthe organization reduces the probability of an individual acting asan innovator, while the scope of the firm's operations or the public/private nature of the firm does not have a significant influence on in-dividual innovation.
At the same time, keeping all competency levels constant, the prob-ability of individual innovative behavior depends on the contents andconditions of the current job and perceptions of the quality of thematch between the supply of competencies from individuals and the
757L.E. Vila et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 752–757
requirements of jobs and positions. For the three types of innovation,the probability of being an innovator increases when graduates have arole in setting goals for the organization and for their own work, andwhen they have more freedom to decide how to perform their jobs.
In summary, organizational and job-related variables generally havea similar influence on the three types of innovation; in contrast, the in-fluence of individual competencies differs substantially for the threetypes of innovation. In particular, the competency profiles that increasethe probability of being an innovator vary according to the type ofinnovation.
5. Conclusions and implications
Individuals' competency profile appears to be a key factor inexplaining their involvement in the application of new knowledge toproductive activities, along with their job contents and the orientationof thefirms theywork for. Regarding the effects of individual competen-cies on innovation, the main finding suggests that only a few specificcompetencies have a significant marginal influence on the individual'sprobability of participating in innovate activities at the workplace.Moreover, the specific competencies that increase the probability of in-novating at work are different for the three types of innovation out-come, even after applying appropriate controls for job and firmcharacteristics. In particular, the key competencies that increase theprobability of innovation in products or services are the ability to Presentproducts, ideas or reports and the Alertness to new opportunities. To in-crease the probability of knowledge innovation, the relevant competen-cies are the abilities toMobilize the capacities of others and Come up withnew ideas and solutions. The probability of playing a role in technologicalinnovation at work increases with the same two competencies neces-sary for knowledge innovation plus the ability to Use computers andthe Internet. Consequently, the appropriate endowment of skills andcompetencies for an individual to become an innovator in the work-place differs depending on the target type of innovation outcome. Indi-viduals willing to become product innovators should try to developtheir competencies specifically to Present products, ideas or reports andshow Alertness to new opportunities. People willing to become knowl-edge innovators would need to develop their specific abilities to Mobi-lize the capacities of others and to Come up with new ideas and solutions,while those willing to innovate regarding technology also need tofocus on the development of the competency Use computers and theInternet. Accordingly, firms willing to foster their corporate capabilityfor product innovation, knowledge innovation, or technological innova-tion should focus on recruiting or promoting employees who are strongin the appropriate competencies, as well as on helping employees al-ready on the payroll raise their levels of such competencies, thereby en-couraging an increase in propensity to contribute to innovativeactivities.
Additionally, the results confirm the findings from previous researchabout the influence of organizational characteristics as well as jobcontents on the propensity of individuals to innovate. In particular,working in organizations with a clear orientation toward innovationincreases the probability of acting as an innovator, while the size ofthe organization has a negative impact on this probability.Moreover, re-garding the individual's position inside the work organization, the ca-pacity to set objectives and the freedom to choose how to do the jobalso increase the probability of becoming an innovator.
The main implication of the analysis for managerial practice isthat, to foster the innovative orientation of organizations, managersmust pay close attention to both organizational structures and, cru-cially, employee development of specific competencies, particularlyin recruitment processes and in the assignment of tasks and respon-sibilities within the firm. Moreover, firms can influence and shapethe skills, attitudes, and behavior of individuals to do their work,and thus promote workplace innovation, by means of appropriatehuman resources management. Human capital has become a keyproduction factor as workplaces become increasingly complex.Thus, workers would increasingly expect to fulfill their potentialfor innovation at work, and to develop and challenge their profes-sional capabilities. Individual participation in innovative activitiesis becoming a crucial element in firms' strategies to attract and retainhuman talent to foster success in business.
References
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. D. W., & Nijstad, B.A. (2004). The routinization of innovation re-search: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.
Belloc, F. (2012). Corporate governance and innovation: A survey. Journal of EconomicSurveys, 26(5), 835–864.
Chen, C. -J., & Huang, J. -W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovationperformance. The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal ofBusiness Research, 62, 104–114.
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovationadoption in public organizations: assessing the role of managers. Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 19(3), 495–522.
King, N., & Anderson, N. (2002).Managing innovation and change: A critical guide for orga-nizations. London: Thompson.
Lucas, R. E. (2009). Ideas and growth. Economica, 76(301), 1–19.Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveth, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values
that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement eachother? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199.
Paul, J. -J. (2011). Graduates in the knowledge and innovation society. In J. Allen, & R. vander Velden (Eds.), The flexible professional in the knowledge society. New challenges forhigher education. London: Springer.
Schultz, T. W. (1975). The value of the ability to deal with disequilibria. Journal ofEconomic Literature, 13(3), 827–846.
Vila, L. E., Pérez, P. J., &Morillas, F. G. (2012). Higher education and the development of com-petencies for innovation in the workplace. Management Decision, 50(9), 1634–1648.
West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of crea-tivity and innovation implementation within groups. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 51, 355–386.
West, M.A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. InM.A.West, & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovationand creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester: Wiley.
