英语论文网

the idea is implemented (King and Anderson, 2002).
Many studies focus mainly on the creative or idea generation stage of innovation (Mumford, 2000; McAdam and McClelland, 2002). However, innovation also includes the implementation of ideas. Here, we define innovative behaviour as behaviour directed towards the initiation and application (within a work role, group or organization) of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures (Farr and Ford, 1990). Thus, defined, innovative behaviour can be seen as a multi-dimensional, overarching construct that captures all behaviours through which employees can contribute to the innovation process. In the current paper, our focus is on two core innovative behaviours that reflect the two-stage process: idea generation and application behaviour. These behaviours were dealt with previously as key steps in the process of individual innovation (Axtell et al., 2000; Krause, 2004; Dorenbosch et al.,2005).
To initiate innovations employees can generate ideas by engaging in behaviours to explore opportunities, identify performance gaps or produce solutions for problems. Opportunities to generate ideas lie in incongruities and discontinuities – things that do not fit expected patterns, such as problems in existing working methods, unfulfilled needs of customers, or indications that trends may be changing. In the implementation phase employees can play a valuable role in the innovation process by demonstrating application-oriented behaviour. For example, employees with a strong personal commitment to a particular idea may be able to persuade others of its value. Employees can also invest considerable effort in developing, testing and commercialising an idea. Innovative behaviour is closely related to employee creativity. The demarcation between the two is blurred, as some researchers have proposed models of creativity that also pay attention to the implementation of creative ideas. For example, Basadur (2004) distinguishes between problem finding, problem conceptualisation, problem solving, and solution implementation. In line with this, in a review of creativity research, Mumford (2003) recommends that future work should investigate “late cycle” skills, i.e. the implementation of creative ideas. He recognizes that real-world performance – the expression, shaping and execution of ideas – represents “another important component of creative work” (p. 116), and considers the investigation of implementing ideas to be an important emerging issue.
Other authors have identified and discussed differences between innovative behaviour and creativity. Unlike creativity, innovative behaviour is intended to produce some kind of benefit. Innovative behaviour has a clearer applied component since it is expected to result in innovative output. However, it cannot be said that it comprises application only as innovative behaviours encompass employees’behaviours directed at the production of novel products, services and/or work processes (West and Farr, 1990; Scott and Bruce, 1994). In that sense, creativity can be seen as a part of innovative behaviour that is most evident in the first phase of the innovation process, where problems or performance gaps are recognized and ideas are generated in response to a perceived need for innovation (West, 2002). West (2002) also suggests that the distinction between creativity and innovative behaviour is one of emphasis rather than substance. Thus, we have used both