Department of Business
INDUCTION TO INNOVATION CULTURE Case Study of Facilitating New Employee Innovativeness
Master’s thesis, Innovation Management Jasmine Hatanmaa (268455) February 17, 2018
ABSTRACT
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Master’s Program in Innovation Management
HATANMAA, JASMINE A. J.: Induction to Innovation Culture: Case Study of Facilitating New Employee Innovativeness. Perehdytyksestä innovaatikulttuuriin. Tapaustutkimus uuden työntekijän innovatiivisuuden helpottamiseksi.
Master’s Thesis: pages 87 and 1 appendix (3 pages) Supervisor: Professor Hanna Lehtimäki
February 2018
Key concepts: Induction, socialization, empowering leadership, innovation, innovation culture, innovation barriers
The purpose of this research was to learn how induction phase facilitates the innovation poten- tial in a company, and how possible innovation and creativity barriers could be avoided. Crea- tivity and innovations have been a rising trend in companies, but real innovation culture is difficult to achieve. Therefore, this study concentrates on learning how to overcome innovation barriers and how to facilitate newcomers' innovativeness, who usually have higher barriers to innovate due to fear of failure and lack of knowledge.
Innovation culture should be visible at the very start of working. Therefore, induction is the first step where innovativeness should be involved. Two methods were highlighted in increas- ing creativity possibilities when exploring induction process. These were socialization and em- powering leadership. Learning the induction methods that facilitate innovativeness, the inno- vation and creativity barriers needed to be also recognized and studied. These learnings from induction and innovation barriers constructed the study's theoretical framework. Theoretical framework shows the paths a newcomer faces trying to integrate into innovation culture.
The empirical research utilized qualitative case study research in one case company. Case study research methods were participatory observation from five months' timeframe, theme inter- views, and documents. The observation was done during author's traineeship in Human Re- source department. The data was analyzed by using abductive reasoning research in the quali- tative content analysis because in this theoretical study framework helps to explain empirical findings.
Empirical research revealed case company's barriers to innovativeness and the issues needing development. The study had newcomers' viewpoint because they are not yet accustomed to the company's habits and therefore have innovation potential. On the other hand, newcomers are insecure and usually reserved from innovating. Newcomers need safe and sometimes faceless ways of participating ideating. Therefore, this research needed to concentrate on innovativeness that is accessible for all. The study shows that innovativeness facilitation needs both socializa- tion and empowering leadership as well as strategical lining to increase innovation potential.
Some practical recommendations are given based on the empirical results and theoretical dis- cussion.
TIIVISTELMÄ
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Kauppatieteiden laitos
Innovaatiojohtaminen
HATANMAA, JASMINE A. J.: Perehdytyksestä innovaatikulttuuriin. Tapaustutkimus uuden työntekijän innovatiivisuuden helpottamiseksi. Induction to Innovation Culture: Case Study of Facilitating New Employee Innovativeness.
Pro Gradu -tutkielma: 87 sivua. 1 liite (3 sivua) Tutkielman ohjaaja: Professori Hanna Lehtimäki Helmikuu 2018
Avainsanat: Perehdytys, sosialisaatio, voimaannuttava johtaminen, innovaatiot, innovaatiokult- tuuri, innovaatioesteet
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on tutkia, kuinka innovatiivisuutta voidaan helpottaa pereh- dytyksestä alkaen, ja kuinka innovaatio- ja luovuusesteitä voitaisiin välttää. Luovuus ja inno- vointi ovat olleet nouseva trendi yrityksissä, mutta todellinen innovaatiokulttuuri on vaikea saa- vuttaa. Tämän takia tässä tutkimuksessa keskitytään selvittämään, kuinka innovaatioesteitä voi- daan välttää ja kuinka uusien työntekijöiden innovatiivisuutta voidaan helpottaa, koska heillä on yleensä korkeampi kynnys innovoida epäonnistumisen ja tiedonpuutteen takia.
Innovaatiokulttuurin tulisi olla näkyvää heti työn alkamisesta. Tämän vuoksi perehdytys on ensimmäinen askel innovatiivisuuteen osallistamisessa. Perehdytysprosessia tutkittaessa kaksi suuntausta nousi esiin luovuuden edistämiseksi. Nämä olivat sosialisointi ja voimaannuttava johtaminen. Innovatiivisuutta helpottavien perehdytysmetodien lisäksi innovaatio- ja luovuu- sesteet tuli myös tunnistaa ja tutkia. Nämä opit perehdytyksestä ja innovaatioesteistä muodos- tivat työn teoreettisen viitekehyksen. Teoreettinen viitekehys esittelee uuden työntekijän vai- heet yrityksen innovaatiokulttuuriin sisään pääsemiseksi.
Empiirisessä tutkimuksessa käytettiin laadullista tapaustutkimusta yhdellä yrityksellä. Metodit, joita tapaustutkimuksessa käytettiin, olivat osallistuva havainnoiminen viiden kuukauden ajalta, teemahaastattelut sekä dokumentit. Havainnointi tapahtui tutkimuksen tekijän henkilös- töhallintaosaston harjoittelukauden aikana. Aineistoa analysoitiin abduktiivisella päättelymal- lilla laadullisella sisällönanalyysillä, koska tässä tutkimuksessa teoreettinen viitekehys auttaa empiiristen löydösten tulkinnassa.
Empiirinen tutkimus paljasti innovatiivisuuden esteet ja kehityskohteet kohdeyrityksessä. Tut- kimuksessa käytettiin uuden työntekijän perspektiiviä, koska he eivät ole vielä yrityksen tapoi- hin tottuneita, joten heillä on innovaatiopotentiaalia. Toisaalta uudet työntekijät ovat epävar- moja ja yleensä innovoinnista pidättyväisiä. He tarvitsevat turvallisen ja joskus myös kasvotto- man ideointitavan. Siksi tässä tutkimuksessa täytyi keskittyä kaikille sopivaan innovointita- paan. Tutkimus osoittaa, että innovointia voidaan helpottaa sosialisointia, voimaannuttavaa joh- tamista sekä strategiaa kehittämällä. Tutkimus antaa käytännön suosituksia empiirisiin tulok- siin ja teoreettiseen keskusteluun pohjaten.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 4
1.1. Research objectives and research questions ... 5
1.2. Definitions of central terms ... 7
2. PREVIOUS LITERATURE ... 11
2.1. New employee induction ... 11
2.2. Creativity and innovation ... 17
2.3. Innovation Culture as a base for inspiring new employees ... 19
2.4. Creativity and Innovation barriers influencing newcomers ... 23
2.5. Theoretical framework ... 31
3. METHODOLOGY ... 34
3.1. Methodological approach ... 34
3.2. Data collection methods ... 35
3.3. Data analysis ... 39
3.4. Ethics, validity and reliability ... 41
4. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS... 44
4.1. Case context ... 44
4.2. Induction methods in the case company ... 45
4.3. Innovation ... 51
4.4. Barriers to case company’s innovation potential ... 55
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ... 69
5.1. Summary of the research... 69
5.2. The key contributions of this study ... 72
5.3. Evaluation of the study, future study and managerial implications ... 75
REFERENCES ... 78
APPENDICES ... 87
1. INTRODUCTION
Creativity and innovations are nowadays increasingly crucial in companies. If a company relies on the products or services it already has and does not innovate, rivals will eventually go ahead.
Jamrog & Bear (2006) state that innovations are going to be extremely important in the future.
Only creativity and innovativeness will make a company continuously sustainable. Ideas de- velop from people's thoughts, and therefore innovations are born from humans. The topic of innovation culture is interesting because it combines innovation with people. Also, the reason why it is crucial to study innovation culture is to find out what the methods of creating more innovative atmosphere are, and how to accomplish innovation culture.
Innovations needs open mind and an encouraging working atmosphere. However, the question is to know how innovativeness could be nourished in an organization. Of course, some famous companies, like Google, are known for their innovations and open atmosphere. But how it is done within the company is often unclear. The organization culture needs to be unique. The people need to be unique. Still, can a regular company have such a good innovation culture? It is hard to achieve, at least for an old and stiff organization, but it can be manageable. It is easier to achieve when starting a new company and building the processes and hiring the right people who fit the open and innovative atmosphere. Innovation is also about the right time and open- ness for new ideas. The setting needs to be potential. With strict schedules and forced atmos- phere, usually nothing good evolves. Even successful ideas can occur when having different people, different ideas and relaxed get-togethers where people learn to know each other in a company. (Catmull, 2008.)
The entrance of new employees is an important but often neglected phase in supporting inno- vativeness in a company. This phase is called induction, and it is about welcoming a new worker to a company and learning work tasks. (Österberg 2014, 116.) When newcomers arrive at an organization, they usually have much to give and enthusiasm about the new situation. New employees are in a unique position because they are not yet accustomed to the organization's habits and can, therefore, notice something new and significant which could develop the com- pany. (Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle 2004, 365.) New employees are often seen as the method of gaining fresh ideas. However, this is not entirely straightforward because there are no guar- antees that this "fresh blood" will contribute to anything innovative or creative to the company.
Facilitating newcomers' creativity is not as simple as it seems. (Harris, Li, Boswell, Zhang &
Xie 2014, 567-568.)
Innovation culture is something that does not occur by chance. It needs management commit- ment, clear strategy, and a right attitude. In this Master's Thesis research, induction and inno- vation culture is studied in a case company of retail industry. Induction phase makes a crucial first impression on the organization, and it defines the role a newcomer should take in the com- pany. Creativeness should be visible straight away for creating an innovative atmosphere. De- veloping innovation culture is the reason why it is essential for a company to know how to be creative and how to nurture it, how to innovate and what are the barriers against these actions.
Therefore, in addition to studying induction and innovation culture, also creativity and innova- tion barriers are crucial to acknowledge to overcome and to help newcomers learn to use crea- tiveness in the company.
The purpose of this research is not to try and find new models to innovate, which can change very often but to find out how new employees could efficiently exploit their knowledge and ideas. Newcomers are anxious and insecure, and therefore barriers to innovate are emphasized.
By recognizing these barriers and introducing innovation culture already in the induction phase could enhance newcomers’ innovation potential.
1.1. Research objectives and research questions
Different innovation acceleration methods are being studied and rise steadily. The ways to in- novate change according to these trends but the core of innovation is always the same behind these models. Therefore, this research studied case company's means of induction and innova- tion as well as the barriers to innovation. Developing company's innovation potential is not necessarily based on a studied innovation model but by acknowledging the company's faults and organizational barriers that effect on innovativeness.
Researching these barriers gives the opportunity to find the situations how a newcomer could join into innovation culture if facilitated correctly. Therefore, the primary research objective is to study newcomer's potential barriers to innovation. The scope of the study is to learn how
induction phase facilitates the innovation potential so that innovation barriers do not inhibit innovativeness.
The main research question of the study is:
1. How does induction phase facilitate the innovation potential in a company?
This research question is addressed by, first, identifying elements of induction, and second de- scribing dimensions of innovativeness. Finally, barriers to innovate by newcomers are dis- cussed. The preliminary information of case company’s induction and innovation processes lay the foundation needed for the main research question. The research question will be answered in 5. Discussion and conclusions -chapter as the collected information will be put together.
The research is done by interviewing newcomer's induction related personnel. The relevant personnel include supervisor, Human Resource Manager, induction co-worker and a newcomer who has been working less than six months, which is the general timeframe of being treated as a newcomer according to Stone (2002). Human Resources defines the method of induction, but supervisors execute it together with this company's unique induction co-worker. Together these form the frame of induction which needs to be acknowledged when studying newcomer's ex- perience. The research author's traineeship gives an overview of induction as the position was under Human Resources. All the data was collected during this traineeship period which lasted five months.
The research results cannot be generalized because every company and organizational culture is unique. However, the results can be exploited when considering the barriers newcomers could face when working in a new company and trying to innovate. The results can show the way to overcome these obstacles which can be used by Human Resources and superiors when devel- oping and implementing induction phase. This study also contributes the previous studies by adding the newcomer's viewpoint in overcoming barriers to innovate, which are more demand- ing than with employees who have been accustomed to the organization's ways of working for a long time.
1.2. 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"; "improving 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 mentioned 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, innovation 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 socialization and assumptions, 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 organization.
(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 2.1. New employee induction
Induction is a challenging research area because the term varies a lot. It can be called introduc- tory briefing, orientation, induction, training, and introduction. The concentration in this re- search is on the term induction because induction is a more long-term orientation phase and means all the actions that involve in getting a new employee feel a part of the organization.
This period might even take several months in an organization. (Österberg 2014, 115.) Induc- tion is included at the start of every employment or if the work changes inside the organization.
Already in the workplace safety law, there are many employer obligations to arrange an induc- tion phase. (Finnish work safety law 3§, 14§, 16§.) In induction program, two kinds of infor- mation are required: general information about newcomers' work routines, and a review of or- ganization's history and strategy and how newcomers are expected to contribute to developing the company. Induction programs can be formed as formal training programs or informal ori- entation by coworkers and supervisors or a combination of these two. (Hendricks & Louw- Potgieter 2012, 1-2.)
Induction is a part of human resource process. This process consists of different phases what can be identified in a company from the start of the need for a new employee and to the end of the employment relationship. Induction can be seen in the same phase of recruitment because it is naturally the next step in choosing the new employee. The whole human resource process can be seen in figure 1 below. (Viitala 2007, 61-62.)
Figure 1. Human resource process. (Viitala 2007, 61, 85, 131, 169, 211.)
Employees are entering and exiting jobs more frequently than 50 years ago, which is due to the changing nature of employment in the last couple of decades. This change has led to the massive
reduction of lifetime jobs. The risen problem is how to keep organizational integrity when em- ployees are always changing. A proper induction program for new employees is one highly practical solution for the challenge. (Arachchige 2014, 7-8.)
Ideally, induction should vary between one to two weeks, and it should be at the beginning of the work. Special orientation days can also be within the first months of working period when more common organization related information is given. Induction program which contains information about required paperwork, direct reports and conditions of employment is recom- mended to give to the employee before the actual starting date. (Hendricks & Louw-Potgieter 2012, 3.)
Induction should always start with welcoming the person to the company as well as a general discussion about the induction program and some small-talk to get to know each other. In the discussion, the timetable of orientation should be mentioned and when some independent ef- forts are expected. The job description is explained and the person's role in fulfilling the organ- ization's vision and strategy. Usually, newcomers first observe the work done by an experienced worker. Then the positions change and the newcomer does the job while a skilled worker ob- serves. After some time, the newcomer gets more confident about the work to do it inde- pendently. This method gives a feeling of safety to the newcomer when there is enough time to learn and observe before having the responsibility of doing the work alone. (Österberg 2014, 116.)
A new employee might have a significant discrepancy when joining new organization com- pared with previous organization's culture or his/her home. The intense feelings of fear and distress can occur in this situation which can lead to a culture shock. This condition can be prevented by giving the newcomer opportunities and time to discuss doubts and having a clear and informative induction program. (Arachchige 2014, 9.)
According to Dunn & Jasinski (2009), 50% to 60% of new hires quit their job within the first seven months of hiring. The costs of this can be massive because new employee hiring and training costs become high as well as the turnover is high. When employees change all the time the risk of losing knowledgeable workers increases, and therefore know-how and productivity can decrease.
Especially the retail industry is labor-intensive with significant employee costs. The retail sec- tor has unusually high labor turnover both in full-time and part-time employees. Retail busi- nesses usually have a high number of students and temporary contracts which increase training and labor costs. Retail positions are rather fast to learn and easy to change which make them vulnerable to employee satisfaction issues and competitors job offers. Organizational commit- ment is therefore critical in the industry and by developing this human resource-based compet- itive advantage can lead to decreased personnel costs. Organizational commitment is described as the degree of involvement in the company. It also positively effects on work effort, job per- formance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. (Tang, Liu, Oh & Weitz 2014, 62.)
2.1.1. Socialization
Socialization, besides from training is also significant in developing new employees. The first few months are critical in a new organization environment for both new employee and em- ployer. The newcomer learns the frames of his or her new position and becomes a member of the organization through socialization processes. Socialization process is the transition from organization outsider to insider. This period is also considered crucial when a psychological contract is shaping and stabilizing. (Holton 1996, 234; Harris et al. 2014, 568; Delobbe, Cooper- Thomas & De Hoe 2016, 845-846.) Rousseau (1990) defined psychological contract as the individual's perception of the obligations which are formed by the employees' and employers' exchange relationship.
Sharma (1998) describes socialization process to start from the recruitment. This pre-entry stage includes the first information the company gives to a recruit. The method of newcomer's trans- fer from organizational outsider to an insider is a learning process which has been studied by socialization research. On the encounter stage newcomers rely on the organizational and insider clues to combine first impression expectations with this new reality, gain social information, tasks and a sense of appropriate behavior. This state has a high anxiety and uncertainty level, which if continued extensively, might lead to decreased commitment, subpar performance, and reduced role clarity. Ineffective socialization processes can also lead to increased turnover.
Therefore, organizational interest in newcomers' effective socialization should be high. (Harris et al. 2014, 570; Holton 1996, 235.)
Socialization is a proactive learning process where information is sought. Supervisors, co- workers and different key people from the organization are involved in this process. The re- sponsibility of the socialization of newcomers is often given to a person or a group. It goes on formally or informally. Any socialization process needs to keep in mind to help employees to adjust, make employees satisfied, bring about commitment, reduce anxiety and to remove real- ity-shock. (Holton 1996, 235; Sharma 1998, 77.)
Newcomers searching information more frequently had higher performance and job satisfaction as well as lower intentions to leave. However, newcomers varied the type of information sought, sources they used and information-seeking tactics when they started in organizations. (Holton 1996, 235.) Previous studies have recognized some general socialization tactics for the use of newcomers. These tactics involve mostly relationship-building with other employees or infor- mation-seeking. Tang et al. (2014) have identified three employee socialization tactics: 1) ob- servation (observing the wanted behavior from experienced role models); 2) inquiry (direct questions for coworkers or supervisors about hesitations); and 3) networking (relationship building with coworkers and supervisors).
One of the primary ways of learning is observation. By imitating others performance and ob- serving their doings, a newcomer can learn more efficiently new work skills and the norms of the organization. Improvement is also quicker when there is a possibility to compare their work with a more experienced one. Also, organization values can be learned by observing co-work- er's behavior. Observation is the most commonly used from socialization tactics. Observation, as well as inquiry, are both information-seeking behaviors. An inquiry is active information seeking whereas observation is more passive. Inquiry refers to direct questions to another per- son. It allows a newcomer to ask more specific information and has an opportunity to clarify issues. However, constant inquiries might not be well tolerated by co-workers and supervisors.
Networking is a relationship-building tactic which helps to create a system of information, sup- port, and contacts through the company and nurturing professional and personal links. Net- working can be a useful tool for new employees to obtain an understanding of their job and social context and gain support and social influence. However, because of the method of rela- tionship building, more time and effort is required from newcomer compared with inquiry and observation. (Tang et al. 2014, 63-64.)
New worker learns most of the knowledge for the new job in the induction. That is why it is a very crucial stage. It also effects on the socialization of the new employee. (Haldin-Hergard 2000, 361; Virtainlahti 2009, 130–132.) Socialization is one of the best ways to obtain silent knowledge. Silent knowledge is usually seen as something that organization already has and which needs to be transferred to new employees to function properly. The means how this can be done most efficiently have been discussed several times. Virtainlahti (2009, 185-186) states that if silent knowledge cannot be transferred a sufficient amount during induction, then the new worker will use much time to achieve all the knowledge and skills which the former worker had. However, silent knowledge can be hard to recognize because it is usually such a natural part of behavior and mindset that it becomes apparent. Most of the people find it hard to com- municate information that is obvious. These kinds of issues are where new employees have the opportunity to influence. Newcomers in addition to filling required staffing positions have the potential to give fresh viewpoints, deviate constructively from the status quo, interfere with possible inertia among workers, diversify the existing knowledge base and increase the variety and quantity of creative ideas. (Harris et al. 2014, 570.)
2.1.2. Empowering leadership
Functional relationships between newcomers and superiors can lead to new employees' greater satisfaction and commitment because they can obtain critical information about the company.
They are usually less stressed and intended to leave. Superiors are also considered essential role models. Notably, the first five days are critical in predicting the later relationship between a superior and an employee. Therefore, a positive relationship needs to be established quickly.
(Holton 1996, 241-241.)
Zhang & Bartol (2010) state that according to previous research empowering leadership in- creases employee creativity. However, the stress incurred by newcomers from anxiety and un- certainty can stifle newcomers' unique expressions. Stress might make autonomy and power sharing, which are the focus of empowered leadership, to lead to the feelings of anxiety and uncertainty and result in a deleterious effect on creativity. However, some researchers argue that unpleasant and stressful situations might generate creative ideas. (Harris et al. 2014, 568.)
Empowering leadership highlights the significance of work, provides participation in decision making, removes bureaucratic constraints and conveys the confidence of high performance.
These behaviors are also in common with creativity. The definition is closely related to job autonomy which Hackman & Oldham (1980) have recognized as one out of the core character- istics involved with any job (Slåtten, Svensson & Sværi 2011). When giving a newcomer straight away possibilities to, e.g., participate in decision making, it gives him or her a more profound feeling of participation and commonality which increases commitment and job satis- faction. (Zhang & Bartol 2010, 3; Vecchio, Justin & Pearce 2010, 530.)
For creativity to occur in organizations and for new employees to acknowledge the possibility of it, a superior or a manager needs to promote and support it. They should also be interested in the workers' ideas and be ready to take actions to support them. Empowering leadership linked with creativity is according to Zhang & Bartol (2010) based on psychological empow- erment, creative process engagement, and intrinsic motivation. Psychological empowerment positively effects on intrinsic motivation which contributes to employee creativity. Intrinsic motivation has been researched to be a good indication of creativity because it is human's own desire to do something and not based on rewards or compensations. The difference between what a person can do and a person will do because of intrinsic motivation.
Psychological empowerment is defined as a mental state in four cognitions: competence, mean- ing, self-determination and impact. Competence is a person's belief of performing tasks suc- cessfully, meaning refers to a sense of feeling that one's work is essential, self-determination indicates to freedom to choose how to do jobs and impact as one’s beliefs of making a difference by own work. Engaging in creative activities is also critical when promoting employee creativ- ity. Creative process engagement is increased when an employee thinks that his or her job tasks are meaningful and important. Creative process includes 1) problem identification, 2) infor- mation searching and 3) idea generation. (Zhang & Bartol 2010, 109-112.)
Organizations can help to facilitate empowering leadership behavior by training leaders on how to allow and encourage employee self-direction and autonomy, even with the employees just joining the organization. For managers, it is crucial to establish trust in a very early state with new employees to create an environment that feels creative and allowing for the newcomer. Of course, not all newcomers' ideas are useful, but it is essential for them to feel safe when ex- pressing their unique ideas and visions to ensure their continued commitment to the creative
process. If there is lack of trust, personalized socialization endeavors might be compromised.
Therefore, rewarding leader behaviors for relational and not just task-oriented way can be val- uable. (Harris et al. 2014, 597.)
2.2. Creativity and innovation
To understand how innovations form it is crucial to know the base of creativity and innovation and the way they differentiate. Guerteen (1998) states creativity as divergent thinking whereas innovation is convergent thinking. Creativity does not exclusively mean someone who has done something that is evaluated by people to be creative, for example, a painter's piece. Nowadays being creative is acknowledged as a possibility for everyone, only by different means for all.
Some are creative in some areas, others in other. Some are creative in all areas, some just in a limited amount. The overall definition gives possibilities for everyone to be or to learn creativ- ity. (Davis 2011, 115). Creativity is needed in a comprehensive level within an organization (Guerteen 1998, 7).
Guerteen (1998) mentioned that new ideas form in a thought-play of the mind. He says that the typical way of increasing creativity is to use brainstorming sessions, but it should not be the only method, or a lot of potentials is lost. On the contrary, people should make a play of every interaction in our lives – to make them about learning and creativity. In cooperation with others, there is always the opportunity to influence, learn and make things happen.
Individual creativity is formed from expertise, creativity skills, and task motivation. Expertise refers to the knowledge one has obtained by that time. Creativity skills are mainly depending on cognitive abilities, personal characteristics and intellectual independence. Task motivation is divided into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is seen a better creativity developer. It is based on enthusiasm about the work itself and being self-driven rather than based on external rewards. (Walter 2012, 643.)
Creativity is a process of generating useful and new ideas whereas innovation is defined as thriving the implementation of those ideas (Walter 2012, 642). Ellström (2010) identifies inno- vation as a specific change that evolves to something better and novel than what is known before. It is, however, difficult to draw a line between imitation and innovation. In many cases,
imitation leads to innovation which wouldn't have been noticed without copying. Usually, in- novations are not something entirely new but combinations of already used elements in a new context.
Several different innovation types can be acknowledged. There are many ways to type them, but Solatie & Mäkeläinen (2013, 30-37) divide innovations into the following seven kinds which describe the versatile possibilities that innovations hold. Product and service innovations are the most common ones which mean enhancing existing products or services. Technological innovations mean the ability to create new technology or to edit technologies others have de- veloped. Design innovations are designing innovations and the product usability easing inno- vations. Products that diversify with their design are easier to notice and to remember. Market- ing innovations are marketing oriented differentiations from competitors. In many cases, mar- keting innovations go hand in hand with other innovations like design innovations. Brand in- novations are also considered under this innovation type. Distribution innovations are about developing new supply chains with creativity. Process and cultural innovations mean a new way in organization's internal or external process development. Usually, process innovations decrease production costs, increase productivity or job satisfaction. Cultural innovations are also of this type which means organization culture and company structure creative renewals.
Strategy innovations refer to all of those means that create added value for customers. Strategy innovations usually go hand in hand with other innovation types. Despite these forms, it is the most important to notice that innovations should be developed from all business areas and their combination is the most successful.
Figure 2. Innovation types (Solatie & Mäkeläinen 2013, 30-37).
Lack of innovation strategy is one major problem with innovation improvement efforts. A strat- egy is not more than a commitment to aim for a specific, ambitious goal by committing to a set of coherent policies or behaviors. Good strategy clarifies objectives and priorities, help to focus on them, and unite diverse groups within the organization. Without this kind of an innovation strategy, innovation improvement efforts rarely have any thorough impact as they are only seen as separate tools of the best practices. These practices can even be outstanding and appreciated, but when the coherence of the strategy lacks, then these are only seen as separate means without any common and overall goals - not as an innovation strategy. (Pisano 2015, 4.)
2.3. Innovation Culture as a base for inspiring new employees
In a cultural context, organizational culture influences innovation significantly. It can stimulate a better innovative behavior among employees. Right organization culture can lead organiza- tion members to accept and foster innovation as a fundamental value for the company and make them feel involved in the business. More specifically, adhocracy cultures develop an innovation orientation. The dimension implies to a dynamic, creative organization and entrepreneurial at- mosphere where risk-taking is common. An organization can subsequently improve its innova- tive capacity by supporting creativity and innovation through activities, generated values, pol- icies, and procedures. Through socialization, individuals learn how appreciated innovative and
creative behavior are in the organization. (Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle 2011, 56-64.)
An organization is always connected to people, and environment and therefore the connection to the environment can be seen as a process that is shaping in mutual adaptations. Successful organizations are usually more flexible and faster adapting to the environment. Leaders have the core responsibility to open interfaces to exchange resources and innovation with the envi- ronment. Therefore, leadership development is seen crucial in innovation culture creation. In- novative companies need particularly good information flow between environment, organiza- tion, and employees. Breakthrough discoveries are often made by outsiders or new employees who have a different perspective and can apply ideas that are learned elsewhere. Mixing expe- riences is the reason why leaders should involve various fields of expertise in problem-solving.
Involving customers can also have a valuable outcome. Open networks inside and out of the organization are nowadays crucial which requires a high degree of openness. When considering the macro perspective of an organization, leaders should highlight organization's vision, values and engagement rules. Innovation culture's key characteristics can be summarized in the com- bination of three aspects. These are 1. Direction: Who are we and where are we going, 2. Guid- ing principles: What do we value, and 3. Relationships: How do we work together? (Stempfle 2011, 121-123, 127.)
Figure 3. Characteristics of an innovation culture (Stempfle 2011 ,121).
Learning and understanding the values and atmosphere of the organization can be difficult for new employees. Narratives can help with a deeper understanding. Anecdotes are usually excit- ing and hearing backgrounds and stories that happened build the commitment and trust between the company and a newcomer. Bartel and Garud (2009) mentioned that organizational memory (learning from experiences) is the key to sustaining innovations. Building up from previous knowledge and experiences show what works and what will not. Denham and Kaberon (2012) had an example about Robin Hood who was the catalyst for innovation at his time. These kinds of narratives are useful in learning because they increase the ability to memorize and the matter is usually more understandable when putting in a context. Therefore, for example, organiza- tional values in narratives affect people and employees. Narratives change our emotions, so the learning and memorizing is overall.
Sharing ideas and problems with management is vital to ensure the company's success in the future. Building an organizational learning culture is essential when wanting to be an innovative organization. Transparency is the key to coherent learning and idea generation. Adapting these elements an organization can solve problems more sufficiently and follow the global trends to succeed and benefit from the knowledge they have already in the house. (Ellström 2010.) Idea or problem-solving events are also useful, where implicit learning is gained from informal get- togethers when employees drop everything else and concentrate on a specific task or problem.
In this way, an organization can find different outcomes to problems when they let various departments to try and solve them instead of the usual ones. It is also beneficial for new em- ployees as they can concentrate on only one task which helps the learning development. Birkin- shaw and Dearlove (2008) mention that if wanting to avoid the usual results, innovation process needs to be nurtured. It kills the innovation when you say that we have the answer.
Organization's value is created on both tangible (e.g., raw material, facilities, equipment) and intangible (e.g., knowledge, culture, and communication) elements. Nowadays quality is more appreciated than quantity which leads from digital transformation as knowledge and infor- mation have become the key elements for business growth leaving industrial society in the background. Aiming for better quality is why intangibles are getting more popular and appre- ciated in organizations. (Carmeli & Tishler 2004, 1259.) Luoma-Aho et al. (2012) studied in- tangibles for organizational innovation, and they acknowledged that when striving for an inno- vative culture both explicit and implicit organizational culture must be fostered. Intangibles are
attractive assets because they need to be nurtured in a specific way to keep them in an organi- zation. Having local authority with a strong organizational culture is likely to perform better than counterparts lacking some of these as motivated employees are a critical asset of compet- itive advantage. An organization which is appreciated and wanted as a workplace uses intangi- bles wisely or even imaginatively. (Carmeli & Tishler 2004, 1271-1272.)
Individual employees can innovate and be creative, but tasks and projects are easier to do with a group or a team. Although, the team needs to be coherent and motivated about the work to have the benefits of multiple people. Everyone does not need to know everything about the matter, but it is essential to be able to ask for help. Also by reading others behavior, help-giving can be automatic when noticing that someone is not quite there yet. In newcomers' situation, this is especially crucial when there might be assumptions that the new person knows more than he/she does. Hargadon and Bechky (2006) emphasize collectiveness in innovation. New ideas often come based on old ones, and it can be challenging to say which is innovation and which imitation. Forming groups and teams can be quite tricky because when seeking the perfect com- bination there needs to be the variation of people, but when people are too different working together gets challenging.
Zheng, Khoury, and Grobmeier (2010) highlighted that when leading innovative teams, utiliz- ing both internal and external aspects of leadership practices is essential so that the team can concentrate only on its task. To be the most innovative Catmull (2008) states that freedom to communicate with anyone is essential. Innovative culture needs to go down to the roots of an organization. The culture needs to be open and acceptable to benefit the most. Catmull also points out that creative and intellectual people are the key to great ideas. When you are familiar with the current issues and aware of the best technologies available, it is easier to innovate.
Familiarity can be problematic in newcomers' situation when the needed knowledge is probably still lacking. Therefore, help-giving and clear concentrated tasks are crucial. By allowing new- comers to make mistakes and not judging the maybe sometimes strange suggestions help the innovativeness evolve. When having an open atmosphere, creative people and inspiring leaders an innovation culture is possible for everyone. This kind of a workplace is good for the em- ployees because it nurtures the well-being and development of a human being.
2.4. Creativity and Innovation barriers influencing newcomers
Innovations are nowadays seen as a new currency of competition. However, only a few com- panies are genuinely innovative, most innovations are found by a change. Studies of under- standing successful innovations have increased during last decades (Anderson et al. 2004; Ver- hees & Meulenberg 2004; ref. Hueske, Endrikat & Guenther 2014, 1.) Although, the key to success is minimizing factors disrupting innovations. The ability to learn from failures is argued to motivate even more than success which is critical to progress. (Hueske et al. 2014, 2.) These barriers to innovate are challenging to overcome and even harder is to manage successful and sustainable innovation processes. Businesses need a change in mindset to do so. Innovative companies confront problems in a different way than non-innovators. They are willing to accept risks and do not let ideas be put down by gravity. Gravity in this context refers to an invisible mindset that pulls down ideas as well as blocks new ideas. (Narang & Turrell, 2007, 33.)
Barriers can be individual behavior and perceptions, organizational factors, or external issues (Hueske et al. 2014). Creativity and innovation barriers differentiate from each other as the concepts do. As creativity is being about generating the ideas, the creativity barriers are also more on the mental side. When innovation is being about implementing the ideas; the innova- tion barriers are more on the physical side. The concept needs to be taken into account to un- derstand the effect of these barriers. Both sides, creativity, and innovation are linked to each other. There is no innovation without creativity. Therefore, the barriers are evaluated together because in many cases found factors cannot be separated from each other (e.g., project budget limitations could decrease employees' intrinsic motivation, when the budget is a physical barrier and decrease of motivation mental). (Walter 2012, 645.) Especially for new employees' mental barriers can be even more powerful than physical.
There are versatile researchers that have studied innovation and creativity barriers with slightly different categories. Having an overall view of the critical barriers two types of research are used and combined in this study. The theoretical base for this research's' innovation and crea- tivity barriers come from Davis (2011) and Loewe & Dominiquini (2006). Davis (2011) has divided creativity barriers into six categories of barriers which are learning and habit, rules and traditions, perceptual barriers, cultural barriers, emotional barriers, and resource barriers.
Loewe & Dominiquini (2006) presents four innovation barriers in their study which are leader- ship and organization, culture and values, people and skills, and processes and tools. To inte- grate these two theories, some categories needed to be combined as shown in the following figure. It leads to the remaining groups to be the main ones in this research which are: learning and habit, leadership and organization, cultural barriers, emotional barriers and resource barri- ers.
Figure 4. Creativity and innovation barriers (Davis 2011; Loewe & Dominiquini 2006).
Perceptual barriers categorize under learning and habit because those are habitual ways of com- prehending and seeing things. Leadership and organization get subcategories from rules and traditions which includes bureaucratic structures and status hierarchy and therefore is linked to the organization, and from processes and tools which are the actual ways to work in an organi- zation. Cultural barriers have a clear link to culture and values. Emotional barriers stay as is.
Resource barriers include people and skills and therefore this category was put under this theme.
In next section, the main barrier categories found from the two previous types of research are shortly presented. Under these main categories also findings from other innovation or creativity barrier researches related to these themes were gathered.
2.4.1. Learning and habit
Learning changes relatively permanently the capacity for behavior that results from experience or practice. Learning cannot be directly observed but its products - behaviors - are. Therefore, performance and the change of it is the demonstration of learning. Acquisition of knowledge leads to initial learning of skill as the developed new skill is the goal of education. (Blain &
McClure 2002, 101.) Work, learning, and performance are linked to each other. Learning at workplace occurs in a specific organizational context by acquiring and assimilating a combined cluster of skills, knowledge, values, and feelings that is an outcome when individuals and teams change their behavior and refocus. Workplace learning also occurs formally, informally and incidentally within organizations. Informal and incidental learning is highly self-directed, and the control is on individual learning. (Simmonds & Pedersen 2006, 127.) For a new employee, learning is especially crucial during induction process as there are multiple new skills or knowledge to be learned. Therefore, learning barriers need to be noticed.
The traditional way of teaching and the standard communication habit of ideas and concepts are one way to limit mindset. The most significant mistake is to think that it is possible to transpose our knowledge from one to another by using traditional teaching and explanations.
Children learn most effectively through play, repetition, and experience – and with adults, there is no difference. Forcing someone to learn, to be more creative or to make them do things in assumed disciplined ways, can lead to opposite results. There are as many learners as there are people in the world. As soon as the mind's free play of thinking is constrained by goals, rewards, and punishments, creativity is suppressed, and interest is lost. Knowledge is like an organism because it evolves all the time and it is not absolute. Though, people have a bad habit of avoid- ing facts they do not like. If something does not seem good, it is easier to be silent about it and concentrate on better things. However, we should not delude ourselves by making it OK, but to acknowledge the facts as they are and try to understand the meaning behind them. (Gurteen 1998, 8-9, 11.)
Learning is affected by habit and perceptual barriers. Habit is one of the most powerful and obvious barriers to creative thinking. Habits are integrated into our ways of doing, behaving, speaking, thinking and responding at a very early stage. We are learned how is appropriate to react and ‘correct' ways of doing things. Routines and patterns of behavior are eliminating cre- ativity because in that way the behavior is automatic, not evaluated. In years, it becomes diffi- cult to change the habits and see things differently which leads to perceptual barriers as a result of lifetime learning. When perceiving things is accustomed familiarly, it is difficult to see what are the other meanings or possibilities for them. For different people, perceptual sets are formed differently, with our unique experiences, habits, and values. It helps people to make quick de- cisions rather than seeing all the different alternatives. Perceptual blocks are also the reason why people live in their own ‘bubbles' rather than seeing the whole picture and truth. (Davis
2011, 115-117.) Perceptual blocks are one of the reasons why new employees can find different answers to problems versus employees who have been working for years in the company. Peo- ple coming from outside of the company are open-minded for all solutions and not fixed to the organizations way of doing.
2.4.2. Leadership and organization
Lack of management support and commitment to innovation may constitute a significant bar- rier. If management spends too little time on innovation and growth issues, it is no use to wait for anything from employees. The typical approach is to demand innovations but giving no tools or processes to do so. The other end is to suffocate most of the emerging ideas by imple- menting rigorous procedures rather than nourishing promising ideas into good ones. Excessive paperwork or bureaucracy can lead to the fear of submitting new ideas. Allowing divergence and exploration in the front end helps to ensure that the novel ideas are not a replicate of what has been done already. With proper guidance and tools, anyone can be a part of idea generation and innovation. Empowered teams and individuals can stretch innovation pipeline to new di- rections. Therefore, also synthesizing individual ideas into more prominent platforms prior evaluating the ideas to further development gives the opportunity to learn about the broader possibilities at hand. When tools to work with are provided, the follow-through should not be insufficient. New employees are usually too insecure to push their ideas forward which leaves the responsibility to supervisors. Resources are wasted when innovations are not followed through because novel ideas are typically left unused. Leadership should not expect payoffs unrealistically soon which is not unusual in organizations. Innovations need more than leader- ship, but that is where it needs to starts. Without leadership, innovation attempts are doomed to fail. (Loewe & Dominiquini 2006, 25-26.)
An organization consists of individuals. Therefore, innovation barriers effect on the individu- al's' abilities and attitudes within an organization. Individuals also work in groups, which im- portance for creativity has been acknowledged, and the teams are embedded within the organ- izational level. Groups are a safe place for a newcomer to evaluate others behavior and working habits. (Hueske et al. 2014, 6-7.) This indicates that leadership and organization is the authority that affects and shapes on how to think and what is acceptable. The authority and hierarchical order can decelerate development when conservative colleagues and cultural norms of seniority give the higher status of elder workers. This can lead to the feeling of inferiority for a new
employee which can decrease motivation. The size of the organization is also recognized as a problem when there are too many stakeholders to please or too many people to include the idea development to be smooth. An organization can also be too big to change. (Walter 2012, 646.)
Rules and traditions are essential for effective functioning and are the base for cultural differ- entiation. On the other hand, rules and traditions can also be restrictive, inhibitive or prohibitive.
When employees have strict ways of doing things, it is seen as the only way. Top-heavy bu- reaucratic structures give limited flexibility to new ideas which makes it useless to create any- thing new. Also, status hierarchy puts a lower-status person in a narrow position as decision- making meetings, and flexible working methods are usually out of range. Having the mentality of "boss is always right" can lead to a problematic situation where new ideas are insignificant.
This affects newcomers primarily as they still search for their place in the organization. If in- novation is not implemented in a company's strategy, new ideas rarely evolve, especially when employees are expected to work in a certain way. Rules and traditions are easy to get stuck on when everything is new. Those are the first things to show that one knows and obeys when integrating into a new organization. The positive side is that when innovation is accepted in a formally structured company, the efficient working model can speed up the process. (Davis 2011, 116).
2.4.3. Cultural barriers
The importance of organizational culture is too often minimized when considering innovation.
Organizational culture refers to the value systems and norms that are shared among employees in an organization. Culture is the base of what is acceptable and what is not. Conformity pres- sures, expectations, and social influence are generated from social and institutional norms.
These are also called cultural barriers. The effect is that people fear to be different and shape themselves to the way they think others expect them to behave. Especially newcomers easily imitate the way other workers are working or behaving. This leads to a loss of individuality and creativity. Children are known to be very creative. However, there are three developmental drops in the way to adulthood that have been documented in creativity test scores. The first one is at the beginning of kindergarten when regimentation and conformity become usual. The other, larger, decrease occurs at fourth grade. Fortunately, this one has been decreased by cre- ative teaching. Both of these drops in creativity are social/cultural phenomena. The last drop is studied to be in seventh grade, and the influence rises from adolescent conformity. At this time,
youth learn that mistakes are wrong and being right is good. Being different needs to have a good reason or it is judged. (Davis 2011, 117; Loewe & Diminiquini 2006, 28; Rivera-Vazquez, Ortiz-Fournie & Flores 2009, 258.)
These cultural barriers to creativity rise from all different sources: home, country, friends, school, and companies. Organizations develop processes, routines, and paradigms to gain effi- ciency and manage uncertainty. These methods are often fixated on the organization's way of doing, and it becomes difficult to change them even when the methods are outdated and inef- fective. Fixation can, therefore, be seen not only as an individual tendency but also a general organizational phenomenon. (Stempfle 2011, 116.)
Cultural barriers can disperse knowledge-sharing which is the base of innovation. Communi- cating ideas and knowledge transfer need an open and relaxed atmosphere where trust is com- mon. Culture also includes common cultures, vocabulary, meeting times and places, frames of reference, status, etc. that effect on the way an organization is characterized. (Rivera-Vazquez et al. 2006, 259-260.) Hofstede (1983) argue that specific cultural dimensions facilitate the ability to change and others inhibit change. Societies and cultures more eager to change are characterized by low power distance, individualism, and low uncertainty avoidance. Hofstede presented these four cultural dimensions which occur differently in every society and are mostly independent of each other. These are individualism versus collectivism, power distance, mas- culinity versus femininity and uncertainty avoidance.
The first dimension individualism versus collectivism reflects the relationship between an indi- vidual and colleagues. Collectivistic perspective gives more advantage to a newcomer as em- ployees co-operate, help each other and yields for better results than individually. It is safer to start in a group than alone. Power distance is a dimension that relates to how society deals with inequality. No culture is entirely equal. Cultures high in power distance usually have more top- down knowledge flow than others. Low power distance brings down the gap between employee and superior. This way workers with lower position or new employees are not afraid to show ideas. It also helps the cooperation between shareholders and business partners. (Hofstede 1983, 43-46.)
Uncertainty avoidance refers to the fact that future can never be known beforehand. This is seen in the ability to take risks. Low uncertainty correlates to lack of rules and regulations in
the organization as risks are easily taken and still feeling secure. Masculinity versus femininity divides the sexes in cultures. Masculine societies are more eager on showing off, achieving something visible, making money, etc. Feminine communities on the other hand are associated with feminine side: putting relationships before money, caring about the quality of life, helping others, etc. Feminine cultures refer to an environment where employees feel secure and com- fortable to share knowledge and ideas with colleagues. These are more accepting even for new employees who have no status than in masculine cultures. (Hofstede 1983, 43-46; Rivera- Vazquez et al. 2006, 259-260.)
Especially in global organizations knowing cultural dimensions is vital because many cultural barriers can be explained through these four aspects. And by identifying them the easier it is to develop the way of working into more open and innovative culture which also helps newcomers to feel appreciated. Culture is the base of behavior, and therefore it is crucial to understand to develop it.
2.4.4. Emotional barriers
Emotional barriers make people ‘freeze', which influences thinking. Emotional blocks are usu- ally anger, anxiety, fear, hate, and love. Some blocks are temporarily caused by problems, or by pressures and worries. Chronic sources of anxiety and insecurity like fear of criticism, fear of failure, or fear of rejection are more permanent emotional blocks. These can be the result of overall organizational atmosphere or from specific work relationships between individuals.
New employees are common to have emotional barriers when they are still unfamiliar with their work and the work environment. Especially feelings of anxiety and fear are not unusual when everything is new. These feelings can be avoided when there is a person who is responsible for the newcomers learning and starting in the company. One way to overcome emotional blocks is to use two-step creative problem-solving approach by asking first what the problem is and then asking what to do about it. (Davis 2011, 117.)
From these emotional barriers, fear is an especially known block of creativity. In western cul- ture, it is hard enough to try to overcome this barrier, but for other cultures, it is even worse.
The fear of doing wrong, losing face or failing can be insuperable for a newcomer. This is also one reason why punishments and rewards do not work well. Fear of punishment puts people down. Everyone has their perception of how things are, and by speaking it – the truth of our
own – should be the way to talk. Not fearing it because there is no one right answer. (Gurteen 1998, 10.) Fear of failure is common in companies, and that can be seen as a fundamental cultural flaw. In these kinds of organizations failure is not an option and unsuccessful risk takers are stigmatized. A necessary part of innovation is to have a "safe zone" where mistakes can be made and accepted. Without it, a company remains trapped in its status quo and fear will pre- vent ideas to be implemented. (Loewe & Diminiquini 2006, 28.)
When appreciating, and understanding employees' feelings, it is possible to affect them in an organization and lead to positive outcomes. When emotions are correctly aligned, then they make working more efficient, and the working community can make changes more easily. If feelings are well noticed in a change situation, it can also add the commitment for the employee towards the company. (Shipton & Silliance, 2012).
2.4.5. Resource barriers
Resource barriers can be shortages of people, time, money, and information for creative think- ing or implementation. From these, Walter mentions money and information the most important affecting creativity. Strictly limited project budgets can reduce indistinct motivation whereas creativity also decreases. Also, knowledge and comprehension of the company and its activities are a barrier as the "whole picture" is shattered. (Davis 2011, 117; Walter 2012, 645.) In many cases one resource barrier effects on others also. If there is a shortage of people schedules are more easily postponed which can lead to costs to rise above budget and overall efficiency de- creases. Another problem is that shortcuts are more eagerly made when the time is running out.
Only the necessary level of standards is met, nothing above to improve quality.
The creativity of employees needs to be harnessed in an organization when wanting to build a sustainable innovation competence. Involving many employees in innovating have better inno- vation results than companies involving only a few people. Restricting innovation to a few areas or departments in a company weakens the outcome. Diversity matters, not just quantity. Often innovation is viewed as the task of domain R&D only. But also, people in other domains as sales, manufacturing, human resources, etc. can be creative if given an opportunity. This kind of cross-functional co-operation enables an organization both to discover new talents in the company and to enhance the quantity and quality of its innovation initiatives. (Loewe &
Diminiquini 2006, 27.) Socialization is one of the key ways to integrate a newcomer to the
