Organisational Effectiveness
Organisational Effectiveness
Organisational Effectiveness
1, 01-24
Companies
Fatima Ashraf and Muhammad Asif Khan, Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of
Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Organizational Effectiveness
Organizational Innovation
Organizational Climate
Organizational
Innovation
Environment
Innovative
Organizational
innovation propensity
effectiveness
Leadership innovation
climate
propensity
Personal innovation
propensity
Hypotheses
Method
Sample
Convenient sampling technique was used to collect data and total of 230
questionnaires were distributed among full time employees working at
three cellular companies in Islamabad and received 164 usable replies;
the response rate was thus 71.3%. Men were 80% (n = 131) and women
20% (n = 33) of the total sample. Of the study sample, the average age
was 30-39 years (M = 2.37, SD = .6). With respect to job tenure, 13.6%
(n = 22) of respondents had less than 5 years, while 47.4% (n = 78) had
5-10 years, 30.7% (n = 50) had 10-20
8 ASHRAF AND KHAN
years, and 8.3% (n = 14) had less than 5 years of job tenure. As
regards designation level of respondents, 48.3% (n = 79) worked as
low-level managers, 44.4% (n = 73) worked as middle level, while
7.3% (n = 12) worked as high level managers. With regard to
education level, 41% (n = 67) of the respondents were graduates,
44% (n = 72) had a master’s degree, while 15% (n = 25) had a post-
master’s degree.
Measures
All scales were used in their original English form and specific items
pertaining to constructs used in the study were selected. Responses
on scales were measured on a 5-point Likert type scale where scoring
categories range from 1 representing strongly disagree to 5
representing strongly agree. Details of the instruments for this study
are deliberated as follows:
Procedure
Results
Table 1
2.
OI
9
1.71
1.80
.74*
-
3.
EIP
3
1.88
0.80
.56*
.76*
-
4.
LIP
3
1.78
0.78
.51*
.56*
.73*
-
5.
PIP
3
1.69
0.97
.45*
.43*
.51*
.40*
-
6.
OOE
39
2.23
0.88
.54*
.61*
.45*
.35*
.46*
*
Innovation Propensity; OOE = Overall Organizational Effectiveness. p < 0.01.
Construct Validity
This first order factor model with three indicators showed a good fit
(X2 = 26.32, df = 16, p = 0.054, RMSEA = 0.053, CFI = 0.984, NNI =
0.775, SRMR = 0.046, AGFI = 0.933). Loadings of the second-order
organizational innovation factor on the first-order factors were
significant and varied between 0.45 (environment innovation
propensity), 0.61 (leadership innovation propensity), and 0.77
(personal innovation propensity). For innovative climate, a single
first-order factor model was specified using the odd number of items
as indicators – a procedure known as parceling that has been
recommended by Little, Cunningham, Sahar, and Widaman (2002) to
enhance the distribution property of indicators. This first-order factor
model with five indicators proved a reasonably good fit (X2 = 24.56,
df = 13, p = 0.058, RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.977, NNI = 0.875,
SRMR = 0.036, AGFI = 0.913).
Regression Analysis
Table 2
Predictors
R2
F
Stand. β
t
Model 1
(constant)
.34
85.0*
6.0*
Model 2
.587
9.22*
(constant)
.33
25.94*
3.5*
.202
2.9*
.455
6.6*
.091
1.4*
*p < .000.
Table 3
Model
R2
F
Stand. β
t
1 (constant)
.37*
95.0*
7.32*
.609
9.7*
2 (constant)
.34*
85.0*
6.0*
.587
9.22*
3 (constant)
.37*
43.0*
5.0*
Innovation
.028
6.8*
Climate
.904
6.9*
*p < 0.000.
ORGANIZATION INNOVATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
13
Thus, the second condition for mediation is also met. For the third
regression equation, R2 is 0.374 (F = 43, p < .000). Examination of
regression coefficients reveals that innovation β weight is reduced
from 0.647 in the second equation to 0.604 in the third equation. In
this way, the indirect effect of the predictor on the criterion is reduced
when the hypothesized mediator is also entered, indicating partial
mediation. Also, the change in R2 in the third equation is .03 which
shows that organizational climate brings an additional 3% change in
the organizational innovation – organizational effectiveness
relationship. Mediation effect is thus established and the research
hypothesis is confirmed. Yet, contrary to expectation the effect size
(Cohen, 1988) is found to be small.
Discussion
examined whether organizational
The present study empirically innovation predicted organizational
effectiveness and also investigated
14 ASHRAF AND KHAN
At employee level, results of this study concur with past research that
demonstrates that employee personal characteristics influence innovation
implementation (Choi & Price, 2005). However, this study concluded
employees’ personal innovation propensity to be the least significant
among the three innovation dimensions in predicting organizational
effectiveness. This certainly poses a challenge for those concerned with
human resource development and policy making. Employees must be
inspired on a personal level as their actions and motivation directly
impact innovation (Bates & Khasawneh, 2005).
ORGANIZATION INNOVATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
15
Managerial Implications
The present study is not without potential limitations, however. For one,
the cross-section design of the study limits concluding causality in the
model. Hence, our findings should be interpreted keeping in view the
cross-section nature of this study. A longitudinal study would better
address the mediating role of innovative climate in the innovation-
effectiveness relationship. Moreover, on a conceptual level, this research
utilizes data acquired at the individual level only. Literature points out
that innovation operates at various levels in the organization (Amabile, et
al., 1996) and to attain innovation the call for innovation must be
founded at all organizational levels (Nacinovic et al., 2009). A more
complete model should include gauging
ORGANIZATION INNOVATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
17
Finally, the sample size in this study may limit the generalizability of the
study’s findings to other settings and industries. Albeit, this may not be a
true limitation since only in an innovation-intensive industry can
innovation be expected to boost organizational effectiveness. For more
certainty, the sample size may be increased and results of this study must
be tested in other industries and settings.
Future Research
Conclusion
innovation vision and provides assurance for new idea generation and
risk.
References
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1154-1185.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components
of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 72, 441-462.
Baccarani, C. (2005). What do you think creativity is and where can we find
it? Asian Journal of Quality, 6(2), 90-104.
Bhuiyan, N., Gerwin, D., & Thomson, V. (2004). Simulation for the new
product development process for performance. Management Science, 50(12),
1690-1703.
ORGANIZATION INNOVATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
19
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New
York: Academic Press.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
New Delhi: Sage Publication.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004) . Moderator and mediator
effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 51(1), 115-134.
Hu, L., Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Ismail, A. I., Belli, R. F., Sohn, W., & Toussaint, L. (2002). Internal
consistency and reliability of a questionnaire assessing organizational
innovation in two schools of dentistry. Journal of Dental Education, 66(4),
469-476.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8.5: User’s reference guide
Kazama, S., Foster, J., Hebl, M., West, M., & Dawson, J. (2002). Impacting
climate for innovation: Can CEOs make a difference? Paper presented at the
17th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
Meyer, P. J., & Allen, J. N. (1984). Testing the side bet theory of
organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N.
(1989) . Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of
the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152-156.
Nacinovic, I., Galetic, L., & Cavlek, N. (2009). Corporate culture and
innovation: Implications for reward systems. Proceedings of World Academy
of Science, Engineering and Technology, 41, 397-402.
Parry, K.W. (2003). Leadership, culture and performance: The case of the
New Zealand public sector. Journal of Change Management, 4, 376-99.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R.,
Mailtis, S., Robionson, D. L., & Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the
organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity
and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379-408.
Paulsen, N., Maldonado, D., Callan, V. J., & Ayoko, O. (2009). Charismatic
leadership, change and innovation in an R&D organization. Journal of
Organization Change Management, 22(5), 511-523.
Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H.
W. (2012). Management Innovation and Leadership: The Moderating
Role of Organizational Size. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 28-
51.
Zhang, J., & Liu, Y. (2010). Organizational climate and its effects on
organizational variables: An empirical study. International Journal of
Psychological Studies, 2(2), 189-201.