CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW, AND THEORETICAL AND
2.3 Public Service Innovation
2.3.3 Theoretical Underpinnings of Public Service Innovation
Public service innovation-based theoretical literature is so far limited (Mulgan
& Albury, 2003). Most of the research is not based on empirical inquiries. Koch and Hauknes (2005) said perfectly that “though there is a scarcity of literature on innovation in public services the insights derived from other stands of theory may be relevant and help shape thinking about the public service innovation”.
The research on innovation specifically developed in the 1960s with manufacturing-related studies (Hollanders 1965; Myers & Marquis 1969). Economic development by Joseph Schumpeter is the foundation of innovation research (Fagerberg, 2005). In 2013 the innovation research has examined public services (Djellal, Gallaouj, & Miles, 2013). Undoubtedly innovation study is multi- dimensional with different discipline (Ettlie, 1984), including the subjects like economics, technology, sociology, organizational studies and management and business (Damanpour 1997, Fagerberg 2005, King 1990).
A significant number of studies have focused on creativity for the organizational innovation process (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Amabile et al., 1996). Problem identifying, gathering information, evaluation, and generation of an idea—these sorts of creative practices help to solve the problem of the organization with innovation (Mumford et al. 2012). Some specific aspects have been studied in innovation research such as ‘idea generation’ (Litchfield, 2008; Shalley, 2004) and
‘leadership style’ (Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Gummings & Oldham, 1996). A shortage of research in the field of transformational leadership and public service innovation is visible. Transformational leadership enhances creativity. This chapter identifies the relationship, current thinking, and influences of organizational culture and transformational leadership and public service innovation with the theoretical developments related to these.
2.3.3.1 Componential Model of Amabile (1988)
The organizational innovation model of Amabile (1988) describes the innovation process stages that explain different steps - “The innovation literature of the 1980s had still not presented an account or theory of service innovation consistent with practice, and thus Amabile’s (1988) model of organizational innovation is influenced by studies of industrial innovation, where the product tended towards a state of standardization” (Utterback & Abernathy, 1978). In his model Amabile (1988) identifies organizational innovation by way of “the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization” (Amabile, 1988, p. 126). Here he discusses ideas in terms of processes, new products, or services within an organization and ideas for new procedures and policies of the organization (Amabile, 1988).
There are some limitations to this model. For example, this model does not describe the influence of all of the factors of the innovation process; it ignores the external factors (e.g. government regulations), and this model describes only the target idea but is not clear what will happen if several ideas come together (Amabile, 1988).
2.3.3.2 The Organizational Innovation Model of West (1990)
Michael West’s model of organizational innovation considers the innovation process as a cycle. There are four phases of this cycle: recognition, initiation, implementation, and stabilization. The four phases are described below:
1) Recognition: At this stage performance gaps are identified and in response, ideation happens, and the value of external innovation is recognized here.
2) Initiation: This stage proposes innovation to the work groups of organizations and to adjust the innovation idea to the organization and this may lead to rejection of the innovative ideas.
3) Implementation: Here the innovation taken by the organization or the group and its effects are observed keenly in the work procedures, processes or practices. At this stage, also it is proposed that innovation may be abandoned.
4) Stabilization: This is the last stage of West’s model. In this stage, the innovation becomes consistent with the system, but the failure of stabilizing the innovation may reject the whole project or further modification and recognition of the innovation may be recommended. Therefore, the cycle of the innovation process begins again. West (1990, p. 324).
2.3.3.3 SCARF Model of David Rock
The two main themes of the SCARF model are the following: “within a framework that captures the common factors that can activate a reward or threat response in social situations. This model can be applied also tested in any situation where people collaborate in groups, including all types of workplace, educational environments, family settings and general social events” (Rock, 2008).
The concept of the SCARF model, based on neuroscience research, describes five basic social experiences of humans. Those five areas are status, certainty, authority, relatedness, and fairness. The study shows that the capacity to make decisions and collaborate with others substantially is affected by social threats and at the same time enhanced by rewards. It has been proved that when a person feels threatened, his “stress hormones” affect his creativity and productivity.
The objective of this model identifies how basic human social interactions work; thus, the threats can be minimized and rewards can be maximized.
This is how people can be motivated by working on their specific response against the domain of social interactions. Therefore, this model helps a leader to influence the behavior of the people. Clear understanding of how each domain drives a member in a team can also help the leader and the team function more effectively and productively.
This model incorporates all of the perception of the employees, and of the manager and the organization. Thus, this model can be applied in every situation where people are collaborating and working in the same group.