1 UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School
EMPLOYEE-DRIVEN INNOVATION IN EXPERT ORGANIZATION:
towards equal workplace for innovation Case: Big Four firm, Finland
Master's thesis, Innovation Management Samuli Juntunen (274829)
June 07, 2021
2 ABSTRACT
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Master's Program in Innovation Management
JUNTUNEN, SAMULI: EMPLOYEE-DRIVEN INNOVATION IN EXPERT ORGANIZA- TION: towards equal workplace for innovation Case: Big Four firm, Finland
Master's Thesis: 102 pages and 1 appendix (2 pages) Supervisor: Senior Lecturer Esa Hiltunen
June 2021
Key concepts: Innovation management, participatory innovation, employee-driven innovation, organizational learning
The study's purpose was to yield new knowledge and enhance our understanding of employee- driven innovation (EDI). The study's interest was on how employee's innovative capabilities are re- alized in an expert organization. The capabilities included the learning process, factors, and values that either supported or hindered employee participation.
The study took a more abductive approach and subjectivist view to EDI by using appropriate meth- odologies such as narrative techniques. Through an intensive case study strategy that used semi- structured interviews, narrative techniques, and qualitative content analysis, the study found in- depth knowledge of how employees think, feel, and behave regarding employee-driven innovations in the case context.
The findings show that the EDI process can be official or unofficial, which has its unique benefits and challenges. These innovation processes also had aspects of organizational learning. The factors supporting or hindering an organization's EDI process were classified into five categories: leader- ship, job design, culture/group, individual factors, and tools. The study found that certain leader be- haviors such as forming a high-quality relationship between leader and follower positively affected the emergence of EDIs. The study also found that experts were mainly autonomous in their job, which supported participation in EDI activities. However, employees also had little time to be inno- vative, which created issues for participation. Finally, the case firm's culture had qualities that sup- ported EDIs. However, the study found that collaborating in a group affected the EDI process nega- tively in some cases.
When examining individual factors, the study was able to find aspects such as personality, hobbies, and individual learning that supported EDIs. The study also shows the uniqueness of the expert's knowledge. The study argues that experts can combine different knowledge modes, which should increase the success of EDIs. Finally, the study showed that the different views of value regarding EDI could create cognitive frames that can either support or act as a barrier for a specific type of EDIs. This study also provides theoretical and practical implications for supporting EDI in organi- zations and paths for future studies.
3 TIIVISTELMÄ
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Kauppatieteiden laitos
Innovaatiojohtaminen
JUNTUNEN, SAMULI: TYÖNTEKIJÄLÄHTÖINEN INNOVAATIO ASIANTUNTIJA- ORGANISAATIOSSA: kohti yhdenvertaista työpaikkaa innovoida tapaus: Big Four yritys, Suomi.
Pro gradu -tutkielma, 102 sivua ja 1 liite (2 sivua) Tutkielman ohjaaja: Yliopistolehtori Esa Hiltunen Kesäkuu 2021
Avainsanat: Innovaatiojohtaminen, osallistava innovaatiotoiminta, työntekijälähtöinen inno- vaatio, oppiminen
Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena oli tuottaa uutta tietoa ja parantaa ymmärrystämme työntekijälähtöisistä innovaatioista. Tutkimuksen kiinnostus kohdistui siihen, miten työntekijöiden innovaatiokyvyt toteu- tuvat asiantuntijaorganisaatiossa. Näihin kykyihin sisältyi oppimisprosessi, arvot ja vaikuttavat teki- jät, jotka joko tukivat tai estivät työntekijöiden osallistumista.
Tutkimuksessa otettiin työntekijälähtöisiin innovaatioihin abduktiivisempi lähestymistapa ja subjek- tiivinen näkemys käyttämällä asiaan sopivia metodologioita, kuten kerrontatekniikoita. Tutkimuk- sessa käytettiin intensiivistä tapaustutkimusstrategiaa, jossa käytettiin osittain jäsenneltyjä haastatte- luja, kerrontatekniikoita ja laadullista sisältöanalyysiä. Näiden metodologien avulla tutkimuksessa löydettiin perusteellista tieto siitä, miten kohdeorganisaation työntekijät ajattelevat, tuntevat ja käyt- täytyvät työntekijöiden osallistamiseen liittyen.
Tulokset osoittavat, että työntekijälähtöinen innovaatioprosessi voi olla joko virallinen tai epäviralli- nen ja näillä prosesseilla on omat ainutlaatuiset edut ja haasteet. Innovaatioprosesseissa oli myös ha- vaittavissa työpaikalla oppimista. Organisaation työntekijälähtöisiä innovaatioita tukevat tai estävät tekijät jaettiin viiteen luokkaan: johtajuus, työnkuva, kulttuuri/ryhmä, yksilölliset tekijät ja työkalut.
Tutkimuksessa todettiin, että tietyt johtajien käyttäytymismuodot, kuten laadukkaan esimies-alais- suhteen luominen, vaikuttivat positiivisesti työntekijälähtöisten innovaatioiden syntymiseen. Tutki- muksessa havaittiin myös, että asiantuntijat olivat yleensä itsenäisiä työssään, mikä tuki osallistu- mista. Työntekijöillä oli kuitenkin vähän aikaa olla innovatiivisia, mikä loi haasteita osallistumiselle.
Lopuksi kohdeyrityksen kulttuurissa oli havaittavissa piirteitä, jotka tukivat työntekijälähtöisiä inno- vaatioita. Tutkimuksessa havaittiin kuitenkin, että joissakin tapauksissa yhteistyö ryhmässä vaikutti negatiivisesti työntekijälähtöisten innovaatioiden prosessiin.
Yksilöllisiä tekijöitä tutkittaessa tutkimus pystyi löytämään aspekteja, kuten persoonallisuus, harras- tukset ja yksilöllinen oppiminen, jotka tukivat osallistumista. Tutkimus osoittaa myös asiantuntijoi- den tiedon ainutlaatuisuuden. Tutkimuksessa väitetään, että asiantuntijat voivat yhdistää erilaisia tie- tomuotoja, minkä pitäisi lisätä työntekijälähtöisten innovaatioiden menestystä. Lopuksi tutkimus osoitti, että erilaiset arvonäkymät työntekijälähtöisistä innovaatioista voivat luoda kognitiivisia ke- hyksiä, jotka voivat joko tukea tietyn tyyppisiä osallistumista tai toimia sen esteinä. Tämä tutkimus tarjoaa myös teoreettisia ja käytännön ehdotuksia työntekijälähtöisten innovaatioiden tukemiseen or- ganisaatioissa ja mahdollisuuksia tulevaisuuden tutkimussuunnille.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank my thesis supervisor, Esa Hiltunen, for his encouragement and guid- ance throughout the writing process of this thesis.
I would also like to thank the case company and research participants who made this study pos- sible.
Finally, I must express my gratitude to my friends, colleagues, and family for their support throughout my studies and writing this thesis.
Samuli Juntunen
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ... 1
ABSTRACT ... 2
TIIVISTELMÄ ... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 5
1. INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.1 Employee-driven innovation in organizations ... 7
1.2 Purpose of the study ... 8
1.3 Structure of the thesis ... 10
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 10
2.1 Employee-driven innovations... 11
2.2 Employee-driven innovations: a learning perspective ... 13
2.3 The value of employee-driven innovations ... 16
2.4 Driving forces and barriers for employee-driven innovations ... 17
2.4.1 Leadership ... 18
2.4.2 Job design ... 20
2.4.3 Culture and group ... 21
2.4.4 Individual factors ... 22
2.4.5 Tools for EDI ... 24
2.5 Challenges to employee-driven innovations ... 26
2.6 Summary of the theoretical background ... 28
3. METHODOLOGY... 29
3.1 Empirical framework ... 29
3.1.1 Conducting an intensive case study and description of the case ... 29
3.1.2 Using interviews as a data collection method ... 30
3.1.3 Narrative research and techniques ... 32
3.2 Quality and validity of the data ... 34
3.3 Research ethics ... 36
3.4 Analysis of narratives ... 36
4. NARRATIVES OF EMPLOYEE-DRIVEN INNOVATIONS ... 37
4.1 Story of lead designer ... 37
4.2 Story of the head of development & innovations ... 42
4.3 Story of the head of regional office ... 48
4.4 Story of assistant at the regional office ... 53
6
4.5 Story of a junior expert at the regional office ... 59
4.6 Story of senior expert ... 62
5. RESULTS OF THE STUDY ... 72
5.1 Learning and innovation with ICT-tools ... 73
5.2 Value ... 77
5.3 Leadership ... 78
5.4 Job design ... 81
5.5 Culture and group ... 84
5.6 Individual factors ... 85
5.7 Challenges and opportunities ... 87
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ... 88
6.1 Summary of the research ... 88
6.2 Key results of the study and implications ... 89
6.3 Evaluation of the study with key contributions ... 94
6.4 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 95
REFERENCES... 97
APPENDIX ... 101
7 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Employee-driven innovation in organizations
Employee-driven innovation (EDI) is still a relatively new concept that has gained popularity among researchers and practitioners in the past two decades. However, even though the concept of employee-driven innovation is relatively fresh, the underlying idea of employees innovating has been present for some time. 3M's Post-it Notes (Introduced in 1977) or Sony's Walkman (Intro- duced in 1979) are examples of employee-driven innovations. Employees may have innovated if there have been organizations where to innovate. However, perhaps at some point in time, the focus has shifted to promote presumably more useful or convenient sources of innovation such as special- ized R&D teams. In that sense, we can maybe see employee-driven innovation as a forgotten source of innovations.
The popularity of innovations, in general, has seemingly increased. Managers often rank innovation as one of their top strategic priorities (BCG 2010). It is almost common knowledge that innovations increase the firm's competitive advantage. Innovations have also been shown to increase company growth rate (PwC 2013) and employee loyalty (B&C 2013). An organization's innovativeness does not seem to have a ceiling or diminishing returns, so it is not surprising that managers try utilizing every source of it. This is also supported by the perception that 91 percent of employees want to be innovative (Accenture 2019). According to Lorenz & Valeyre (2005), it is common in Nordic coun- tries to adopt more advanced forms of work organizations that support innovation through em- ployee autonomy and involvement.
Furthermore, 76 percent of leaders say that they invest in improving employee's innovation capabil- ities. However, only 42 percent of employees globally, and surprisingly, 34 percent of employees in Finland agree with that statement (Accenture 2019). It would seem that the current management ac- tivities on bolstering the employee-driven innovations are not felt by all the employees or do not ef- fectively promote innovation among employees. In addition, there are other intra-organizational factors besides leadership that affect employee's innovation capabilities, such as organizational job design or individual factors that often get little attention from an organization's change agents.
8 1.2 Purpose of the study
The previous literature on EDI has focused almost exclusively on the barrier and supporting factors for employee-driven innovation activities. This study adds to that literature and takes a more subjec- tivist view on employee-driven innovations through a unique research design that uses qualitative methods such as narrative techniques. As a result, this study takes a more profound and comprehen- sive view on EDIs than before on individual meaning-making and how an employee feels, thinks, and behaves about EDIs. To achieve this, we must take an expansive view of the elements that af- fect a firm's innovation capabilities, such as workplace learning, value, affecting factors, and chal- lenges. By doing this, we could find reasons why some employees are willing or reluctant to partici- pate in EDI activities. Also, the case itself creates a unique context where the phenomenon of em- ployee-driven innovations is less studied.
The main research question is:
“How employee's innovative capabilities are realized in an expert organization?”
Employee innovation capabilities include processes, structures, and outcomes that employee-driven innovations generate. To focus on these three dimensions, I will form the following sub-questions:
1) “What are the employee-driven innovation processes in a case firm?”
2) “What are the factors that affect employee-driven innovations from a learning perspective?”
3) “What type of value employee-driven innovations generate?”
The first sub-question aims to find the current processes in a case firm that use employees' ideas, develop them, and implement them. Second sub-questions study factors that promote or hinder em- ployee innovation and learning. The third sub-question examines the value that employee-driven innovation creates.
The study's primary purpose is to yield new knowledge and enhance our understanding of em- ployee-driven innovations in an expert-type organization. In addition, the study aims to contribute to the field of innovation management through new findings and managerial implications. Through employee-driven innovations, employees have better possibilities to influence the organizations around them, improve leadership and their work. The secondary purpose goal is to influence how
9
ordinary employee's innovations are appreciated in every organization. Innovations should belong to everyone in the organization, and everyone should have an equal chance to participate in innova- tion activities. Therefore, the organization's goal should involve everyone in the innovation process and use everyone's unique knowledge and creativity. This will require close examination of how various members currently see innovation processes that either promote or hinder employee innova- tions. All these aspects are valuable information for practitioners who wish to sharpen the firm's competitive edge using innovation management.
The essential academic research that this study draws from relates to the process of employee- driven innovation (Haapasaari et al. 2018, Hiltunen & Henttonen 2015, Høyrup 2012, Smith 2016, Kesting 2010) and, more specifically, the learning approach on employee-driven innovations (Billet 2004, Ellström 2001 & 2010, Høyrup 2010, Jensen et al. 2007). There is also a large body of re- search about affecting factors of employee-driven innovations (Aaltonen & Hytti 2014, Amundsen et al. 2014, Axtell 2000, Bäcksctröm & Lindberg 2018, Egan 2005, Hiltunen & Henttonen 2016, Jarle Gressgård et al. 2014, Kurz et al. 2018, Maqbool et al. 2018, Smith 2008,) some research about the value of employee-driven innovations (Amundsen et al. 2014, Enehaug 2017, Høyrup 2010) and innovation challenges (Aaltonen & Hytti 2014, Amundsen et al. 2014, Chung et al. 2019, Hiltunen & Henttonen 2016).
Employee-driven innovation is a context-bound phenomenon. There are no guidelines on how it should be conducted; in that way, every organization must find its way to cherish it—understanding the innovation process better. For example, finding how innovations unveil and how they are imple- mented can offer general insight and evaluate the current state of the organization's innovation ac- tivities—outlining the intra-organizational factors that either support or hinder the emergence of employee-driven innovations can help managers to find means to develop and further promote the emergence and implementation of employee-driven innovations. In addition, understanding what type of value employee-driven innovations produce and how to measure innovation outcomes effec- tively creates some structure and purpose for the whole innovation process. However, outcomes can be subjective and may also need qualitative measures.
The case organization in the study is an internationally operating consulting firm, commonly called the Big Four firm, with over 200 000 employees worldwide and over a thousand employees in Fin- land. Case organization's employees are experts and specialists in the field of auditing, tax&legal, and various other advisory services. Consulting companies often provide services and expertise in
10
a variety of disciplines and industries. Thus, its operations differ from traditional industries. Con- sulting firm's most valuable asset is employee knowledge and expertise that is used as merchan- dise for customers. In this context, it is necessary and exciting to get an insight into EDI in such organizations. The principles of employee-driven innovations such as utilizing employee's unique and profound knowledge are probably well understood and even utilized in such an organization.
There might already be an abundance of structures, systems, and even personnel in a place whose sole purpose is to promote innovations and collect them from the firm's employees.
1.3 Structure of the thesis
The thesis starts with a theoretical background that explains the most crucial concepts for this study.
I have not derived from the underlying theories or left out literature that might not have substantial implications but still might be relevant to the concepts of employee-driven innovations. The meth- odology focuses on the case study approach, using interviews as a data collection method, narrative techniques, and qualitative content analysis. I will justify why an intensive case study is the most suitable approach for examining employee-driven innovation in a case organization and why inter- views are the most appropriate method to collect the required data required to my research ques- tions. I will also discuss the quality of the data, such as validity issues and research ethics. Next, from the data, I form six narratives using narrative techniques. These narratives will be analyzed, and results displayed by using qualitative content analysis. The last part of the thesis will be a dis- cussion and conclusions summarizing the research, the main results, and answering research ques- tions. The thesis will end with key theoretical and practical contributions and suggestions for future research.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The theoretical framework starts from innovation management, which acts as an umbrella term for the rest of the concepts. Employee participation includes multiple other means of participating and involving employees in innovation activities such as open innovation or co-creation that are not covered in this study. However, this thesis focuses solely on employee-driven innovations with a learning perspective. Employee-driven innovations are either carried or brought down by the affect- ing factors. The study also examines opportunities and challenges related to the EDIs brought up in
11
the study. Finally, expert organization circles all the theories and define the context.
Figure 1. The theoretical framework of the study
2.1 Employee-driven innovations
To understand what is meant by employee-driven innovations, we can break the term into two con- cepts: employee and innovation. By employees, we refer to all organizational members that work for the organization, whether they are blue-collar workers, managers, or external consultants. Inno- vation typically means something new and valuable to the organization. Finally, the dynamic be- tween the two is that various employees drive these innovations by themselves or collectively.
Employee-driven innovation differs from management approaches like total quality management and lean production, including employee participation by introducing even more freedom for em- ployees to create new solutions (Voxted 2018, 476). "Focus on employee-driven innovation could be said to emphasize a humanistic and social approach to innovation" (Høyrup 2010, 148).
12
The driving force behind employee-driven innovations is that it emphasizes the role of ordinary em- ployees in the innovation process. Employee-driven innovation suggests that shop-floor employees and management, and other innovation professionals can contribute to the innovation (Hiltunen &
Henttonen 2016, 3). In addition, a resource-based view on employee-driven innovation suggests that human resources are crucial for innovation and the competitive advantage of the company (Aal- tonen & Hytti 2014, 160).
Smith et al. (2008) use the term "hidden creativity" to describe ordinary employees' innovative ca- pabilities left unexploited in most firms where the responsibility to innovate is left to specialized teams or entrepreneurs. Furthermore, this "hidden creativity" can be made visible and exploited to benefit the firm and its employees. (Smith et al. 2008, 2.)
Amundsen et al. (2014) take a more systematic view on employee-driven innovation as an organiza- tional strategy that gives employees a more influential role regarding innovations. However, this does not exclude the role of leadership and management since they also have a role to play in inno- vation. Also, employee-driven innovation has similar implications to open-innovation that also con- siders external networks such as competitors, suppliers, and third-parties role in the innovation pro- cess. (Amundsen et al. 2014, 25.)
To get a more holistic understanding of the process of employee-driven innovations in an organiza- tional setting, we must first include all the necessary actors in the study ranging from the shop floor workers to management. According to Smith et al. (2008), employee-driven innovations emerge from ordinary employees, shop floor workers, and managers alike without constraints of existing departments and professions. Second, we need to establish what classifies EDI how to evaluate its newness and value. This study views employee-driven innovations as both process and result. The employee-driven innovation process can be understood as a learning process and new ideas.
This study adopts Høyrup's (2012) following definition of EDI: "Employee-driven innovation refers to the generation and implementation of new ideas, products, and processes including the everyday remaking of jobs and organizational practices – originating from the interaction of employees, who are not assigned to this task" (Høyrup 2012, 8).
One condition for innovation to be called employee-driven is that it originates from the employee level instead of from the top of the organizations, such as from the CEO. However, these upper
13
management actors are still crucial for employee-driven innovation to be successful since they are the ones that often have different types of knowledge in contrast to the employees, make the deci- sion on implementation, and allocate necessary resources. So, the whole EDI process involves bot- tom-up and top-down activities. However, the roles and dynamics between employees and manag- ers probably differ significantly in different contexts. For example, in some cases, employees may have enough power to implement ideas themselves, or managers are the ones who start the em- ployee-driven innovation process through participative activities, such as organizing workshops.
(Høyrup 2012, 9–10; ref. Teglborg 2010a.)
What makes the phenomenon of employee-driven innovation so different from more common or- ganizational innovation is that it emphasizes all the employees as a source of innovation instead of having one group of employees with innovation responsibility. Often in large organizations, innova- tion activities are specified to the R&D team or smaller organizations to entrepreneurs. (Smith et al.
2008, 2.)
Høyrup (2010) explains the main characteristic of employee-driven innovations. First, employee- driven innovation is non-R&D innovation. Employees in specialized R&D are also the firm's em- ployees. However, employee-driven innovation emphasizes the role of ordinary employees that are not assigned to be creative or innovate. Second, employee-driven innovation is often non-techno- logical innovation since innovations are directed to make changes in organizational processes, and the source of innovation is employees rather than a technological change. Third, employee-driven innovation includes high-involvement activities that invite all employees to be creative and innovate without excluding anyone. (Høyrup, 2010, 146–147.)
Amundsen et al.'s (2014) study suggests that there are no best practices for employee-driven inno- vation. Instead, employee-driven innovations can emerge, be practiced in numerous ways, and have different results.
2.2 Employee-driven innovations: a learning perspective
To better understand the process of employee-driven innovation, we can connect it to another well- known organizational phenomenon called organizational learning. According to Høyrup (2012), employee-driven innovation and learning are closely connected and cannot be separated. Today,
14
innovations are an activity of learning and knowledge creation in organizations (Ellström 2010, 27).
Learning is a process in which individuals expand their capacity, such as knowledge and skills, through experience and social interaction. Workplace learning is learning in an organizational con- text and is embedded in the production process and social interaction in a workplace setting.
(Høyrup 2010, 150.)
Learning is often a collective and social process. In the workplace, we are exposed to social situa- tions where we willingly participate and ache to belong to the social group and become members of the organization by developing necessary skills. We experience new things and share a vision to- ward a common goal. (Høyrup 2010, 150; ref. Lave & Wenger 1991.) "Workplaces are learning en- vironments that are negotiated and constructed by individuals, albeit mediated by what is afforded and regulated by the workplace, as well as the cultural norms and practices being exercised through the work practice" (Billet 2004, 321).
In a modern organization, all the employees are considered highly skilled and possess various knowledge. Knowledge is scattered in various parts of the organization and is considered a valuable resource. Employees possess exclusive and deep knowledge of their work processes that managers often lack. On top of that, employees work every day in close contact with the firm's customers and gather relevant external knowledge for the firm by observing customer behavior. (Kesting & Ulhøi 2010, 73.)
Several different learning activities can be observed in a workplace, such as mentoring, collective learning through sharing experiences, learning from errors, reflection, and improvisation (Høyrup 2010, 150–151). Furthermore, all learning in a workplace can be considered innovative since it en- tails change (Høyrup 2010, 151; ref. Fenwick 2003). "Innovation process comprises a process through which employees come to learn and actively remake – reconstruct – their occupational practices" (Høyrup 2012,17). This view is closely linked to the incremental view on innovation. In- cremental innovation consists of already well-known components such as current work practices. It builds on top of them by doing new but relatively small adjustments or improvements to the way practice is carried out. Thus, employee-driven innovations are more common to be incremental in contrast to radical innovations that profoundly impact the whole system and are entirely free of past ways of doing things. (Kesting & Ulhøi 2010, 69.)
Learning itself is a rather complex phenomenon. Many best-selling books are focusing on how
15
firms can become learning organizations. To make things uncluttered, we need to consider learning types that are most relevant and essential to employee-driven innovations in this study. Ellström (2010) has studied the process of practice-based innovations, which have many touchpoints with employee-driven innovations. One of them is that innovations often originate from employees' eve- ryday work practices. Two types of learning are prevalent in employee innovation processes: devel- opmental and adaptive learning. (Ellström 2010, 32.) The learning approach to employee-driven in- novations allows us to see innovative activities as an informal or emerging phenomenon in employ- ee's everyday work. This view is beneficial for the firms since innovation activities may not require structure and resources such as time. The innovation process is complex and multifaced. The inno- vation process can be current, emergent, spontaneous, informal, and unplanned. Innovation initia- tives can start from quick improvisation by a single employee or be officially planned test-and-trial type where multiple choices are weighted. (Høyrup 2012, 16.)
Høyrup (2010) elaborates that innovative learning (a.k.a developmental learning) starts the innova- tion process through ideation, while adaptive learning is connected to the innovation implementa- tion or commercialization phase. An individual's adaptive learning involves mastering activities to the extent that executing them requires little to no cognitive effort. Doing this allows the individual to shift attention and time from routine tasks to more creative ones related to innovative learning.
Thus, we can say that adaptive learning is required and necessary for developmental learning and the emergence of employee-driven innovations. Furthermore, adaptive learning supports corporate unity and harmony when developmental learning entails breaking the routine actions and even cre- ating a conflict in the workplace. (Høyrup 2012, 29; Ellström 2010.) The cyclical process of devel- opmental learning and adaptive learning is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Practice-based innovation as a cyclical process of learning (Ellström 2010, 32).
16
Furthermore, employee's work processes can be differentiated into explicit and implicit dimensions.
“The explicit dimension concerns how the work process is formally codified, prescribed, and orga- nized (e.g. in written instructions). The implicit dimension concerns how the work process is per- ceived by different actors, co-ordinated and performed in practice.” (Ellström 2010, 30.) Similar to explicit and implicit work process dimensions, Jensen et al. (2007) have studied tension between two ideals modes of learning and innovation: STI (Science, Technology, and Innovation) and DUI (Doing, Using, and Interacting). The STI mode refers to how firms use explicit science knowledge or know-why in their innovative activities. This type of knowledge has traditionally resided in R&D teams which often use scientific understanding and technology in their functions. On the other hand, the DUI mode uses implicit knowledge or know-how, which is often acquired every day when an employee faces a challenge and tries to find solutions. Also, this problem-solving process often re- quires interacting with other employees and departments in the workplace. (Jensen et al. 2007, 682–
684.)
Firms with high DUI-mode learning increase the probability of successful innovations. Also, firms with a solid STI mode were more innovative in general. However, firms who are involved in STI- mode activities often use DUI-mode as well. Firms that used both learning modes and treated them as complementary in their strategy were the most successful at innovations. (Jensen et al. 2007, 685-690.)
The more traditional way to see the innovation process is to separate it into three parts: idea genera- tion, evaluation, and implementation. The same steps are implicitly part of the learning approach of EDIs as well. However, innovations do not move from an idea to straight-up practical variation. Be- fore that, even a seemingly good idea requires an evaluation from various stakeholders within the organizations, such as colleagues and managers, and often requires their approval to be imple- mented. This phase can be challenging since the individual often has to show the future value of in- novation. In some cases, innovation can even be harmful to some stakeholders, so it is unlikely that they will support it. (Hiltunen & Henttonen 2016, 3.)
2.3 The value of employee-driven innovations
Høyrup (2010) argues that innovation can be inner-directed or outer-directed. Inner-directed means
17
that innovation is focused on socialization inside the organization, and innovations are changes in culture management. Outer-directed refers to an overall business model that determines an organi- zation's place in a marketplace; innovations can affect a company's strategy in the market. (Høyrup 2010, 145.) Amundsen et al. (2014) found that organizations profited most from the EDI practices integrated as part of everyday work routines and were not voluntarily in nature or imposed on top of pre-existing conditions work tasks.
Amundsen et al. (2014) discuss the implications and value that employee-driven innovations create for organizations. Employee-driven innovations may have direct effects such as product quality, in- creased productivity, or indirect relation to social economics and other aspects of the business.
However, most EDI measures regarding value creation are qualitative. Amundsen et al. (2014) fur- ther reason that this is due to the complexity of the employee-driven innovation phenomenon that makes value results hard to measure in quantitative terms. Most researchers connect the value of employee-driven innovation to the competitive advantage and market performance of the firm based on EPOC study (1997) or increased work-wellbeing through employee motivation and job satisfac- tion but also increased quality of work and decrease in sickness absence (Amundsen et al. 2014, 26;
ref. Axtell et al. 2000; Smith et al. 2008, Black & Lynch 2004; Kelley 2010).
A study by Enehaug (2017) shows that the employee-driven innovation process supported the re- sponsible autonomy of employees, which in turn increased productivity and improved the work en- vironment. They were able to capture the whole innovation process from ideation to implementa- tion. Responsible autonomy means that employees are individually and collectively responsible for meeting specific work-related demands. (Enehaug 2017, 85.)
2.4 Driving forces and barriers for employee-driven innovations
Voxted (2018) says that the central issue in employee-driven innovation research is how employee's knowledge and ideas can be made visible and how these innovations bring value to the organization through implementation.
Smith et al. (2008) have done a deductive study where they mapped from previous literature the factors that affect employee-driven innovations. As a result, they recognized four factors that have been noticed to enable employee-driven innovations significantly: leader support, autonomy,
18
collaboration, and organizational norms (Smith et al. 2008, 3; ref. Amabile et al. 2004, Mumford et al. 2002, Clegg et al. 2002). Aaltonen & Hytti (2014) emphasize the importance of organizational resources to promote or hinder employee-driven innovations, like level of freedom and autonomy, rewards, organizational culture, management support, collaboration, trust, empathy, time, and pro- cesses for ideation (Aaltonen & Hytti 2014, 160).
In this section, I will focus on intra-organizational and subjective factors that affect employee- driven innovation behavior. Kurz et al. (2018) have developed a model that categories these factors into four areas of interest: job, leadership, organizational factors, and group level. I will also discuss the individual factors since individual characteristics have been an essential determinant for em- ployee-driven innovation behavior (Kurz et al. 2018, 406).
2.4.1 Leadership
Amundsen et al. (2014) stress the critical role of working management that interacts with employ- ees daily. These managers should be responsible for capturing ideas and suggestions for improve- ment and motivating employees to be creative, question current routines, offer guidance, and use external knowledge sources (Amundsen et al. 2014, 32).
Amambile et al. (2004) suggest that leader support behavior should include relationship-oriented actions. These actions include "leader behaviors such as planning and setting goals appropriately;
serving as a good work model; supporting the workgroup within the organization; communicating and interacting well with the workgroup; valuing individual contributions to the project; providing constructive feedback; showing confidence in the workgroup; and being open to new ideas are posi- tively related to creativity among" (Smith et al. 2008, 3–4).
Leader-member exchange (LMX) leadership type should increase employee's innovative behavior.
In short, the leader-member exchange theory focuses on the relationship between employees and leaders. Moreover, this relationship works two ways and can be split into high- and low-quality re- lationship types, where the former is characterized formal relationship and the latter impersonal.
(Kurz et al. 2018, 403; ref. Uhl-Bien 1995.) High-quality relations promote trust, respect, and com- mitment between employees and managers. As a result, employees are rewarded with more auton- omy, influence, and support. (Kurz et al. 2018; ref. Basu & Green 1997; Scott & Bruce 1994; Yuan
19
& Woodman 2010.)
High-quality relations between leader and subordinate are often more impersonal and characterized by mutual trust, liking, and respect. While low-quality relationships between leader and subordinate are more formal, based on pure economic exchanges, and do not exist outside the work setting. Fur- ther, members with a high-quality relationship with a leader tend to get more benefits from the rela- tionships. These benefits can be intangible such as friendship and support, but also tangible such as more responsibility in work tasks and inside knowledge. Furthermore, employees will return these benefits to a leader with behaviors such as loyalty and increased work effort. (Martinaityte & Sacra- mento 2013, 977.)
Martinaityte & Sacramento (2013) found that members with a high-quality LMX are more likely to turn their creativity into performance, such as increased sales. They also found that organizational factors such as organizational strategy, lack of creativity training, short-term results orientation, and organizational rules influenced how a salesperson's creativity turned into increased performance.
(Martinaityte & Sacramento 2013, 986–989.)
Voxted (2018) has mainly focused on the managerial tasks that support the employee-driven inno- vation implementation phase in manufacturing production. He found that the division of labor, tech- nology, and work tasks affects how much time and opportunity employees have to innovate. Fur- thermore, he conducted action research that revealed five factors that were most crucial for em- ployee participation and idea implementation. These five factors were: clear vision, management support, formal organization, recording and translating, acceptance of inequality. (Voxted, 2018, 472–473.)
First, visioning includes setting more loose objectives and giving employees greater autonomy to contribute to these visions. Second, management participates actively in all phases of the innovation process, motivating employees and showing trust in management's commitment to employee-driven innovations. Third, formal organizing refers to an organization having a clear plan that includes the schedule, participants, and persons responsible for innovation implementation. Fourth, the organiza- tion needs to have systems and personnel to capture employee ideas and move them forward to- wards implementation. The fourth factor relates to how employee's tacit knowledge is made into the organization's explicit knowledge. Voxted (2018) observed that translating employee ideas and thoughts to a professional language that management could understand made employees more
20
confident that their ideas would be taken more seriously. The fifth factor considers equal participa- tion and involvement among employees in an employee-driven process. Voxted (2018) noticed that an individual's diligence and commitment are just as necessary as other factors for innovation im- plementation. Even though the fundamental thought of employee-driven innovation is to invite all employees to innovate, not all employees feel the same motivation to participate. (Voxted 2018, 473–476.)
Regarding organizational norms, managers should have an attitude for the change, which will aid in creating an organizational climate that favors innovative behavior (Smith et al. 2008, 8; ref. Dama- pour 1991). "Norms such as willingness to take a risk; rewards of innovative thinkers; resource al- location for explorative projects; and strategic intent pointing to radical innovations are typically norms that are found in organizations characterized as innovative" (Smith et al. 2008, 8).
Leader support is a crucial factor for knowledge workers such as experts and consultants (Smith et al. 2008; ref. Wuthnow & Shrum 1983). Highly skilled and educated workers who are expected to think analytically must often work according to the specific guidelines that define the work. In that case, being innovative and suggesting new ideas includes a risk of harmful exposure if an idea is met with indifference by management. (Smith et al. 2008, 3).
2.4.2 Job design
Kurz et al.'s (2018) study show that job design that promotes autonomy and innovativeness is most crucial for innovative employee behavior. When innovativeness is part of the job requirement, inno- vativeness becomes part of the employee's everyday work and part of their behavior in a workplace without carrying extra or voluntary work (Kurz et al. 2018; ref. Katz 1964; Organ 1988; Yuan and Woodman 2010).
Haapasaari et al. (2018) argue that employees can take power to implement an idea. Power becomes an apparent factor, especially in the middle way of the innovation process when an employee must persuade colleagues and managers about the benefit of an idea. Then, the organization has to decide if innovation can or should be implemented. Power comes in many forms, but we can divide it into two archetypes: formal and informal. Formal power lies within the hierarchical system of an organi- zation, and it is easy to observe. Formal power is embedded into an organization's decision-making
21
routines. Often, the CEO has the most power from where it pours down to the rest of the manage- ment and maybe a little bit to employees. Informal power is harder to observe, but It enables the possibility that some individuals can make decisions or influence others even though they do not have formal power provided by, e.g., tile or position. These people can be ordinary employees re- spected and thus listened to by the management, whether it is because of their charisma or good re- lations colleagues or good tenure record or years of service in the company. (Haapasaari et al. 2018, 208.)
Also, there different type of power relations, which comprise "power to," "power over," and "re- sistance to power" (Haapasaari et al. 2018; ref. Hardy and Clegg 1996). For example, even if an employee has autonomy and power to innovate and decide on innovations they want to implement ("power to"), they still must get necessary resources for implementation that are often behind mana- gerial decisions ("power over"). Also, some employees might resist decision-making altogether or are hesitant to implement innovations ("resistance to power"), but they could also use this power to promote and commit to the implementation. (Haapasaari et al. 2018, 209–210.)
In their study of growth-oriented medium-sized bakery, Aaltonen & Hytti (2014) focused more on the barriers of employee-driven innovations. First, they found that barriers to employee-driven inno- vations are very context-bound. For example, in a specific industry or firm operating procedures might not leave room for innovative activities such as interacting and sharing ideas with other em- ployees. Second, past events such as a strike might decrease trust between employees and manage- ment and thus hinder employee-driven innovation. Third, some social practices such as power dis- tance between employees and managers are still strong and apparent in an organization's decision- making. Also, some traditions may hinder employee's innovative capacity, such as division of labor and communities of practice that are hard to break. (Aaltonen & Hytti 2014, 165-–167.)
2.4.3 Culture and group
The factor of collaboration as a driver for employee-driven innovation rests on the assumption that
"social influences resulting from group interaction are important forerunners to creativity" (Smith et al. 2008, 6; ref. Perry-Smith & Shalley 2003). When employees share their ideas with other em- ployees, they are exposed to more ideas than those who do ideation alone (Smith et al. 2008, 6; ref.
Paulus & Yang 2000). Previous studies show that significant learning and innovation was generated
22
in informal work groups called Communities of Practice (CoP). Employees in these groups share similar interests, values, and norms outside organizational boundaries such as department lines.
(Smith et al. 2008, 7; ref. Brown & Duguid 1991.)
At the organizational level, Kurz et al. (2018) measured two types of subcultures: problem-solving and error culture. Their results show a positive and significant relationship between the two subcul- tures and innovative behavior. In a problem-solving culture, employees are seen as independent problem solvers that continually improve their work. Error culture refers to the tolerance of mis- takes and trying out new things without fear of adverse reaction. (Kurz et al. 2008, 402.) At the group level, autonomous employees have an increased feeling of ownership for problem- solving, and a more comprehensive range of knowledge and skills help employees performing their tasks. Furthermore, tightly defined job descriptions, in addition to low autonomy, create narrowed innovation perspectives. However, some studies also indicate that too much autonomy can be coun- terproductive. For example, giving an individual or a team too much autonomy might isolate them from the rest of the organization so that they do not work towards the same goals. (Smith et al.
2008; ref. Madsen & Ulhoi 2005.) Kurz et al. (2018) had similar findings. They noticed that func- tional diversity, the participation of employees from all hierarchies through the availability of a broader knowledge base, increased ordinary employee's innovative behavior (Kurz et al. 2018, 416).
Amundsen et al. (2014) observed nine common cultural characteristics that supported the emer- gence of employee-driven innovations: commitment, cooperative orientation, pride, trust, tolerance, feeling of security, development orientation, openness, and autonomy (Amundsen et al. 2014, 29).
Cultural changes are complicated but often necessary for employee-driven innovations. Culture change towards EDI practices might create feelings of frustration, anger, and insecurity among em- ployees before the benefits of increased employee participation and involvement can be felt.
(Amundsen et al. 2014, 31.)
2.4.4 Individual factors
Kurz et al. (2018) found that personal factors related to openness and experience (Kurz et al. 2018;
ref. Egan 2005; Feist 1998; George and Zhou 2001; Hammond et al. 2011; McCrae 1987; McCrae
23
and Costa 1997) and role breadth self-efficacy (Kurz et al. 2018; ref. Axtell et al. 2000; Parker 1998) were crucial to support individual employees innovative behavior.
Egan (2005) did a literature review of individual factors that influence individual creativity in a workplace. He identified three sub-areas associated with individual creativity: general personality, big five personalities, and self-perception. Many qualities make a person generally creative such as attraction to complexity, broad interests, intuition, aesthetic sensitivity, and toleration of ambiguity.
(Egan 2005, 165; ref. Martindale 1989.) Furthermore, adjectives most often used to describe crea- tive individual were capable, clever, confident, egotistical, humorous, informal, individualistic, in- sightful, intelligent, interests wide, inventive, original, reflective, resourceful, self-confident, sexy, snobbish, and unconventional. Moreover, adjectives to describe non-creative individuals were cau- tious, commonplace, conservative, conventional, dissatisfied, honest, narrow interests, mannerly, sincere, submissive, suspicious, and phony. (Egan 2005, 165.)
The big five personality factor framework is a well-popularized model to measure an individual's personality traits. The five factors measured in a model are openness, conscientiousness, extraver- sion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Previous studies have found that especially conscientiousness and openness were most associated with creativity (Egan 2005, 166; ref. Costa and McCrae 1995;
Carson et al. 2003; Peterson & Carson 2000). Self-perception means individuals view of him/her- self as a creative person. This creative role identity was forecasted by creative expectations from coworkers, self-views of creative behavior, and exposure to favorable country culture. Similar to self-perception, self-efficacy refers to employee's beliefs that they can be creative as employees.
(Egan 2005, 167.) Finally, role breadth refers to employee role orientation, such as individual ac- countability. This means that employees have felt the responsibility of workplace change instead of giving that role to other such as management. (Axtell et al. 2000, 267.)
Maqbool et al. (2018) have studied how positive flow, employee silence, and time pressure affects employee's innovative work behavior. Employee silence negatively affects employees' innovation behavior and means that employees do not hide information and knowledge on purpose. Instead, they avoid communicating their thoughts, information, and problems that they have found for dif- ferent reasons. (Maqbool et al. 2018, 127; ref. Morrison 2014; Morrison & Milliken 2000; Pinder &
Harlos 2001.) Employee silence can be a result of many things, such as lack of knowledge
(Maqbool et al. 2018, 127; ref. Morrison 2014), fear of anxiety and work burdens (Maqbool et al.
2018, 127; ref. Van Dyne et al. 2003) and fear of information perceived in a negative light by the
24
recipient (Maqbool et al. 2018, 127; ref. Detert et al. 2010).
Positive flow can comprise of three elements: absorption, work enjoyment, and intrinsic work moti- vation (Maqbool et al. 2018, 128; ref. Bakker, 2008). Absorption refers to a phenomenon where an employee is so immersed in their task that they forgot everything else, such as time flow (Maqbool et al. 2018, 128; ref. Csikszentmihalyi 1991). Work enjoyment means that employees see the posi- tive sides of work and get pleasure from working (Maqbool et al. 2018, 128; ref. Bakker 2005, 2008; Csikszentmihalyi 1997b). Finally, intrinsic motivators are why individuals want to do the job, such as satisfaction and enjoyment (Maqbool et al. 2018, 128; ref. Bakker 2008).
Time pressure refers to the individuals' level of stress caused by work-related time constraints such as deadlines (Maqbool et al. 2018, 128; ref. Kelly and Karau 1999; Pepinsky et al. 1960). Maqbool et al. (2018) found that time pressure negatively affected employee's innovative behavior. To avoid this, "managers need to design job descriptions in a manner that fosters the intrinsic motivations of employees." (Maqbool et al. 2018, 138.)
Furthermore, "firms can also overcome employee silence by counteracting an unfavorable reward system, role stress, and job insecurity. Lastly, managers should be aware of the double-edge effect generated by time pressure. Specifically, putting too much pressure on employees can decrease the overall creative returns of individuals and teams if these are immersed in a positive flow."
(Maqbool et al. 2018, 138.)
2.4.5 Tools for EDI
Manual tools (lists, newsletter, etc.), e-tools (intranet, social-media etc.), and tailored processes (systems and routines for idea capturing and discussion) in addition to the formal and informal meetings contribute to the employee-driven practices (Amundsen et al. 2014, 30). Jarle Gressgård et al. (2014) argue that these digital tools must be incorporated into employees' everyday work effi- ciently. If this is not done correctly, the innovation tool may harm the organization's innovation ac- tivities if existing processes and structures do not support it (Bäcksctröm & Lindberg 2018, 527).
Jarle Gressgård et al. (2014) have studied how ICT-based tools affect employee-driven innovations.
They found that ICT-based tools are beneficial to support employee-driven innovation but alone cannot support EDI culture in organizations. People and supporting structures are also necessary for
25
innovative behavior. Zack (1999) says that ICT-based tools can even act as a hindrance to innova- tion. Among other supportive factors, ICT-based tools should involve employees not only in idea generation but the development and exploitation phase as well (Jarle Gressgård et al. 2014, 639).
Jarle Gressgård et al. (2014) also noticed that gatekeeping roles among employees could facilitate learning. Knowledge is often vast and complex, requiring refinement by an expert to make it more relevant and understandable for employees who are not as familiar with the subject. However, or- ganizations should also promote discussion on the matter through voice-giving technologies instead of representing one viewpoint on the subject, which will aid in disseminating knowledge. Employ- ees should use these systems regularly and be integrated into a work routine. They also note that these systems should have long-term goals for usage. For example, key performance indicators or other usage goals can be used to commit and involve managers in all organizational levels. (Jarle Gressgård et al. 2014, 641).
Employee expectations regarding how ideas are processed in the system must also be met. Employ- ees must be shown that submitted ideas are evaluated and processed accordingly. This will arouse confidence in employees that they can develop an organization. Employees should also be informed about the organization's performance and market conditions, which combine their internal
knowledge with relevant external knowledge. (Jarle Gressgård et al. 2014, 643.)
Jarle Gressgård et al. (2014) make an interesting remark about the relationship between autonomy and structure that idea management tools bring. For example, ICT-based tools can make the innova- tion process more structured for some employees and bring limitations to their current opportunities to develop their work processes (Jarle Gressgård et al. 2014, 644). Thus, ICT-based tools should not impose structures, such as how employees work (Jarle Gressgård et al. 2014; ref. McAfee 2006).
Bäcksctröm & Lindberg (2018) have studied how a firm uses a web-based tool to facilitate the EDI process. Their focus is on the behavioral and structural implications of using digitally enhanced bot- tom-up innovation processes. The digitals tools can significantly aid in collecting ideas, develop and implement them at all organization levels. Traditional suggestion boxes are rare in modern or- ganizations and are replaced by digital idea management systems. (Bäcksctröm & Lindberg 2018, 527; ref. cf. Beretta et al. 2017; El-Ella et al. 2013; Sandström & Björk 2010.)
Bäcksctröm & Lindberg (2018) found three implications that separated a high-performing office
26
from a low-performing office. First, managers promoted web-based tools regularly during local and informal meetings. Second, all ideas and activities on an innovation platform were considered valu- able. Third, instead of client focus, the employee side, such as well-being, was emphasized more.
The manager was found to be an essential medium to all the implications. Especially changing the innovation frame from client focus to employee focus was found to be important manager activity.
In a high-performing office, top management's client focus was not seen as a constraining factor af- ter local managers changed the innovation discourse to more employee-focused. (Bäcksctröm &
Lindberg 2018, 535.)
2.5 Challenges to employee-driven innovations
Amundsen et al. (2014) found that a significant challenge for innovation was a balance between op- erational efficiency and innovation activities. This finding is in line with a resource-based view on employee-driven innovation. Thus, an organization must decide how it allocates its limited re- sources, such as time.
An increasing number of innovation failures in contrast to the successful innovations might cause innovation targeted helplessness (employees perceived inability to control innovation implementa- tion activities) and innovation fatigue (absolute avoidance of all innovation activities by employees) among employees that discourage them from innovating or implementing any new innovations.
Also, even after a series of seemingly successful innovations, employees may become helpless if the implementation is considered a never-ending goal to improve work that can never be achieved.
So, both perceived intensity and failure of previous innovations affect employee's innovation-tar- geted helplessness and innovation fatigue, which will affect employee's innovation behavior nega- tively. (Chung et al. 2019, 1131-1133.) Furthermore, Chung et al. (2019) warn that if such fatigue and helplessness are not dealt with within the organization, employees' emotional and cognitive re- sources might be drained, resulting in employee burnout.
To avoid the above scenarios, Chung et al. (2019) suggest five practical implications. First, adding time lag between innovation and give employees a break, especially after a radical innovation im- plementation. Second, better communication between management and employees about the mean- ing and importance of innovation to the organization might motivate employees more towards the implementation. Third, highlighting internal factors resulting from successful innovation and
27
external factors to unsuccessful ones might mitigate perceived helplessness. Fourth, organizations should learn from past failed innovations and emphasize stories of successful innovations to in- crease employee confidence and commitment. Fifth, when introducing further innovations, man- agement should evaluate past successful innovations and explain why further improvement is needed to increase employee's acceptance towards innovation. (Chung et al. 2019, 1144–1145).
Hiltunen & Henttonen (2016) stresses the importance of including all the necessary organization members from colleagues to the management in the innovation process. Successful innovation de- pends on an individual's ability to invite and persuade other organization members to support inno- vation initiatives and convince management to implement them (Hiltunen & Henttonen 2016, 3).
Management may not support the implementation of innovation because it is not in line with the firm's strategy, or it may not just fit the overall organizational perspective. However, employees of- ten do not have this type of general knowledge about the company's markets and strategy (Kesting
& Ulhøi 2010, 73).
Hiltunen & Henttonen (2016) also found that innovation discourses have two repertoires: individual and realistic. Individual repertoire focuses on an individual's view on objective organizational fac- tors and self-image regarding innovation. Realistic repertoires refer to the constraints caused in a workplace called frames, which can be regarded as cultural norms that individuals must act to avoid adverse effects of innovation such as conflict. (Hiltunen & Henttonen 2016, 6–7.) Bäcksctröm &
Lindberg (2018) also made interesting remark regarding innovation discourses. They found that es- pecially management often emphasized the client in innovation discourse focus while the discourse of engaging employees was secondary (Bäcksctröm & Lindberg 2018, 530).
When Bäcksctröm & Lindberg (2018) did interviews in a low-performing office (fewer submitted ideas), employees reported that they did not have enough time to be innovative. Another issue re- lated to the management's client focus was that innovation frames that dictated what type of innova- tions employees are expected to submit appeared to impede employee involvement. Ideas that do not meet the frames of innovation set up by social context or managements do not make it to the in- novation platform. (Bäcksctröm & Lindberg 2018, 532.)
28 2.6 Summary of the theoretical background
I started the theoretical background by examining previous studies about employee-driven innova- tions and studies that connected EDI to workplace learning. Then we moved studies that discuss what type of value EDIs produce. After that, we explored factors that have been found affecting the EDI process in organizations. These factors were distributed into five categories: leadership, job de- sign, group & culture, individual factors, and tools. In the last part of the theoretical background, we investigated studies related challenge of EDIs. The main concepts and relevant previous literature with their primary discussion points are summarized in table 1. below.
Table 1. Summary of the main concepts and previous research for the study.
Main concepts Relevant previous research
Learning and innovation Employee-driven innovation as a learning process (Høyrup 2010, 2012) Developmental & adaptive learning (Ellström 2010)
DUI & STI knowledge (Jensen et al. 2007)
Value Quantitative and qualitative value (Amundsen et al. 2014) Increased productivity (Enehaug 2017)
Leadership LMX Leadership and EDI (Kurz et al. 2018)
LMX to support creativity and increase performance (Martinaityte & Sac- ramento 2013)
Leader support (Smith et al. 2008)
The role of working management (Amundsen et al. 2014) Job design Autonomous and innovative job design (Kurz et al. 2018)
Autonomy (Smith et al. 2008)
Power in EDIs (Haapasaari et al. 2019)
Culture and group Collaboration & organizational norm (Smith et al. 2008) Problem-solving and error culture (Kurz et al. 2018) Cultural characteristics (Amundsen et al. 2014)
Individual factors Personal factors related to openness and experience (Kurz et al. 2018) Individual factors (Egan 2005)
Role breadth (Axtell 2000)
Positive flow, employee silence, and time pressure (Maqbool et al. 2018) Tools ICT-based tools to support innovation and learning (Jarle Gressgård et al.
2014, Bäcksctröm & Lindberg 2018) Challenges
Resource-based view on EDIs (Aaltonen & Hytti 2014)
Innovation targeted helplessness and fatigue (Chung et al. 2019) EDI discourses (Hiltunen & Henttonen 2016)
29 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Empirical framework
3.1.1 Conducting an intensive case study and description of the case
To answer my research question, I will adopt a qualitative case study approach and do a single ex- tensive case study. Farquhar (2012) explains that the case study approach is particularly suitable for investing in a complex phenomenon in-depth in a specific context. These characteristics are suitable for my research inquiry about employee-driven innovation, which can also be described as a multi- faced and context-bound phenomenon.
An intensive single case study aims not to produce generalizable knowledge but see the case as unique (Erikkson & Kovalainen 2016, 136). This is particularly suitable for interpretivism philoso- phy that sees our world as an individual's interpretation. One characteristic of a single case study is that our interest is in individual cases connected to the environment (Hirsjärvi et al. 2009, 135). In my case, an individual is an employee, and the environment is the organization where the employee works.
Rashid et al. (2019) describe that a case study is well suited for abductive logic and studying busi- ness networks or organizations formed by a network of employees. Case study research questions often start with "How," which hints that research is interested in describing real-life phenomena.
Case studies can present business problems in an understandable way that many practitioners can relate to (Erikkson & Kovalainen 2016, 131). The intensive case study should also create a story worth hearing about (Erikkson & Kovalainen 2016, 135; ref. Dryer & Wilkins 1991).
Case studies are an excellent way to get a holistic, context-bound, and in-depth knowledge about the phenomenon and, at the same time, leave room for complexity and diversity related to the re- search design. In addition, case studies can present business problems in an understandable way that many practitioners can relate to. (Erikkson & Kovalainen 2016, 131.)
A case study can be considered more valid if it is based on several sources of empirical data and analysis (Erikkson & Kovalainen 2016, 138). As a data collection method, I intend to use semi- structured theme interviews as a primary data source. The benefits of interviews, among other
30
things, include emphasizing humans as a subjective and active party, putting one's answers into a larger context, and getting an in-depth understanding of multifaceted phenomena (Hirsijärvi &
Hurme 2015, 35). Regarding the field observations, intensive case study research draws on qualita- tive and ethnographic research traditions, emphasizing the interpretation and understanding of the case and the elaboration of cultural meanings and the sense-making process in specific contexts (Erikkson & Kovalainen 2016, 134). During the study, I will most likely do light-weighted field ob- servations during interviews to better understand the organization's routines.
The case organization is one of the largest expert organizations in the world, which are commonly called the Big Four firms. The case firm employs hundreds of thousands worldwide and has over a dozen employees in Finland. The firm's branch in Finland is an independent firm with several re- gional offices across the country; the main office is in Helsinki. The firm has three main service lines: audit & insurance, tax&legal, and advisory services. Inside these service lines are multiple other service niches. For example, advisory services include business consulting but also IT con- sulting. The firm's employees could be considered white-collar workers who are highly specialized experts such as auditors, lawyers, and designers. As a large firm with multiple different depart- ments, the firm has many employees in different hierarchies. For example, I interviewed employees with a junior rank, senior manager, and partner.
3.1.2 Using interviews as a data collection method
"…interview leads to a different conceptualization of knowledge as a story told upon returning home – the sum of the traveler's experience. The story may also be told back to the people among whom the interviewer traveled and be modified so that the experience ultimately transforms the traveler." (Qu & Dumay 2011, 240.)
Hirsjärvi & Hurme (2015) argue that interviewing is closely connected to anthropology, where hu- man behavior is at the center of our focus. Organizations are social systems that consist of various individuals, and employee-driven innovation is a phenomenon that people inside the organizations create and is greatly affected by people practicing it. The model of employee-driven innovation is an organic social construct. It differs from one organization to another, and people interpret and un- derstand it differently. Employee-driven innovations are best understood by viewing how employ- ees conduct their everyday work and learning.
31
Qu & Dumay (2011) say that there are no best practices for interviewing; there is no single format or wording of questions that will always be effective. Instead, the context of the interview and sub- jective factors of interviewee and interviewer will always create a unique setting for the interview.
The researcher must make their own choices regarding which research guidelines and recommenda- tions to follow. (Qu & Dumay 2011, 247.) The most apparent difference between research inter- views is structuring, in other words, how fixed questions are and to what extent the interviewer di- rects the situation. Interviews can be classified into semi-structured and unstructured interviews.
(Hirsjärvi & Hurme 2015, 43.) The following section will focus more on semi-structured interviews that I will use as a primary data collection method.
Qu & Dumay (2011) point out a crucial aspect of semi-structured interviewing is "utilizing an eth- nographic approach to questioning, researchers can learn about organizational culture from different individuals' points of view thus bringing into the open an often-hidden environment" (Qu & Dumay 2011, 246). This is particularly important in my research since organizational culture could be one factor that heavily affects employee-driven innovations.
Semi-structured interviews require thorough preparation, and some previous experience will come in handy (Erikkson & Kovalainen 2016, 93). An interviewer should let the interviewee speak freely and as long as possible to get desired in-depth responses. Open-ended and neutral questions might help to achieve this purpose. However, complex and challenging questions too early in the inter- view might stun the interviewee from responding, so starting with simple questions and then mov- ing to more complex issues is advisable. (Erikkson & Kovalainen 2016, 94–96.)
The questions in the semi-structured interview are often guided by identified themes that direct con- versation towards topics and issues that the researcher wants to learn. The interview might bring some structure that keeps the interview situation on track and yields knowledge relevant to research.
Semi-structured interviews are popular because they are flexible, accessible, intelligible, and capa- ble of revealing crucial and hidden features of social behavior. The localist tries to see the world from the participant's perspective using semi-structured interviews. (Qu & Dumay 2011, 246-247.) To answer my research questions, I did six interviews. The interview frame is included in appendix 1. of this report. The focus on interviews was not capturing all the information but just how the par- ticular individual thinks, feels, and behaves about employee-driven innovations. Interviews lasted
