Definitions of central terms

Several concepts are significant for the research and need to be clarified. Concepts can vary depending on the frame of reference and therefore it is essential to define the exact meaning of this study. Following are the concepts presented.

Human resource development (HRD) is often understood as a combination of structured and unstructured learning and performance-based activities (Simmonds & Pedersen 2006, 122).

These two fields: learning and performance are the driving forces in HRD. Watkins (1995) explains HRD to work to enhance individual's and group's learning ability and to promote a continuous learning culture in an organization. Swanson & Arnold (1996) expresses that human resource development must aim at achieving specific performance improvements through per-sonnel training and development and organization development. Hamlin & Stewart (2011) gathered 24 different definitions of HRD. These categorized the core purposes of HRD as "im-proving individual or group effectiveness and performance"; "im"im-proving organizational effec-tiveness and performance"; "developing knowledge, skills, and competencies"; and "enhancing human potential and personal growth".

Induction is a part of HRD and human resource management process. Induction means all the actions that newcomers need in learning new tasks and integrating into working community and organizational culture. An introduction can be done with an induction or orientation pro-gram which is formed by a human resource specialist. (Österberg 2014, 115.) Induction can also be the process of putting the new employee to work and allowing him or her to adjust to the organization as soon as possible. It is also seen as the first opportunity to introduce the organization's cultural norms, work ethics, and values to the new employee. (Arachchige 2014, 7.)

Innovation has been studied frequently and in increasing amounts because it is a crucial process of organizations well-being (Roffe 1999). Both researchers and practitioners have noticed the importance. Innovation has many definitions. Fagerberg & Verspagen (2009) studied innova-tion field and meninnova-tioned that there are around seven thousand scholars that identify themselves with studying innovation. The concept of innovation is therefore fragmented and should be defined well by the theoretical base it is used. Gurteen (1998) sees innovation as a part of a

process where knowledge is progressed and transformed into business value. To innovate, peo-ple must have the skill and the experience, but even more importantly they need to have the right attitude and motivation. Existing and new knowledge needs to be combined and devel-oped. Pérez-Luno & Cambra (2013) mention newness as a central element of determining in-novation. However, even the concept of newness is not clarified enough when considering the scope of newness (new to the company vs. new to the world) and therefore whether innovation is radical or incremental. Ahmed (1998) describes innovation as a pervasive attitude which allows business to create the future when seeing beyond the present. He also presents innova-tion as the engine of change. In many cases, innovainnova-tion is the key driver when succeeding in change.

Innovation culture is based on an organizational culture that strives to be innovative. Organi-zation culture determines both financial performance and sustained innovativeness. Innovation culture differs from one organization to another, and therefore they are organization-specific.

Innovations typically do not happen by a change. Innovativeness needs a systematic and disci-plined approach. (Dobrowski et al. 2007, 190, 200.) Dobni (2008, 540-544) divides innovation culture into four dimensions which are an intention for innovation, infrastructure for innovation, innovation influence and innovation implementation. These multi-dimensional approaches in-dicate that innovativeness is a combination of several connected activities under a common thread - a culture. Culture in organizations is about profoundly rooted and often subconscious values and beliefs that employees share. These essential elements of culture influence innova-tion through socializainnova-tion and assumpinnova-tions, and through values and beliefs that guide behavior.

In innovation culture a behavior like creativity, freedom, teamwork, etc. that idealizes innova-tion is valued.

1.3. Research background

Studying the background of these research topics gives a better base for forming the frame of reference. Therefore, in this chapter the central themes of induction and innovation are expli-cated in their right structures related to this study.

Induction is a part of Human Resource Development, later called HRD. Induction has not been much studied, but many studies relate to HRD. Therefore, the link to HRD should be clarified.

Traditionally, HRD has been divided by academics into performance and learning. (Sambrook

2004, 612.) Learning used to be associated with training but nowadays it is also understood as learning from experience and self-directed learning. Learning can also be something else than a classroom activity. The new understandings of learning have changed the way line managers need to look at education because it needs to be integrated into work rather than a separate activity. (Simmonds & Pedersen 2006, 125-126.) Most common type of training in organiza-tions is reported being new employee induction. Developing newcomers into productive mem-bers of an organization is a significant task of Human Resource developers. (Holton 1996, 233.) Induction has been studied merely focused on this intention.

The process how to welcome new employees is one of the most common research directions alongside researching different orientation programs (e.g., Connelly 2005; Fleenor 2007; Hen-dricks & Louw-Potgieter 2012). The relationship between induction and innovativeness is a scarce approach, and therefore this study can bring some new influence to the framework. In-duction phase is affected by several perspectives which are found in different theoretical stud-ies. Some most important ones are highlighted in this research, and these are organizational socialization and empowering leadership. The concept of organizational socialization refers to the ways newcomers are socialized with the culture by converting beliefs and attitudes to com-mit to the organization. This integration with an organization is enabled by a proper socializa-tion plan or a program. Newcomers are vulnerable in their early phase at an organizasocializa-tion.

(Sharma 1998 73-74.) Therefore, organizational socialization is considered as one of the critical elements of induction phase in this study.

Empowering leadership was chosen as the other essential element of induction in this study because leadership plays a significant role in employee engagement. Effective leaders motivate performance, build confidence and inspire belief in an organization. Employees, and mostly new employees, look to leaders for guidance. Therefore, the way they communicate and act sends a message from an organizational level. Honest communication creates loyalty and cor-porate pride which can influence a long time in newcomers’ mind. (Wiley 2010, 47-48.) Leader or direct superior of a newcomer can impact in multiple ways of new employee experience in an organization. The position of authority needs to be taken seriously when managing easily manipulated newcomers.

The research background of the other theme, innovation is versatile. Innovation commonly re-fers to profit and therefore the motivation to study it has been there for decades. Innovation

management research is a wide and growing field. Crossan & Adaydin (2010) recognizes that innovation is not a coherent field of study and there is not a clear base for it. There can be studies from all kinds of different fields' directions. The importance of innovation is clear for researchers and practitioners, but innovation research is still fragmented and not fully tested in all areas. Fragmentation gives innovation an abstract vision of how to study it and how to suc-cessfully develop it. Innovation has been studied for example related to culture, teaching and learning, collectivity and how to be continuously innovative. (e.g. Montonen & Eriksson 2013;

Ellström 2010; Hargadon & Bechky 2006; Steiber & Alänge 2013; Stempfle 2011). Also, dif-ferent innovation directions and contexts have been studied (Zheng et al. 2010). During last decade innovation barriers have risen interest, and there are beginning to be quite many re-searchers on this topic. (e.g. Davis 2011, Loewe & Diminiquini 2006; Narang & Turrell, 2007;

Walter 2012).

2. PREVIOUS LITERATURE