the direct and indirect influence of

(1)

THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFLUENCE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, PERCEIVED

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT, AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON PUBLIC SERVICE INNOVATION OUTCOMES: A STUDY OF THE INNOVATION

TEAMS IN FIELD ADMINISTRATION OF BANGLADESH

Mst. Shumshunnahar

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Development Administration)

School of Public Administration

National Institute of Development Administration

2021

(2)

THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFLUENCE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, PERCEIVED

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT, AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON PUBLIC SERVICE INNOVATION OUTCOMES: A STUDY OF THE INNOVATION

TEAMS IN FIELD ADMINISTRATION OF BANGLADESH Mst. Shumshunnahar

School of Public Administration

Major Advisor (Associate Professor Kasemsarn Chotchakornpant, Ph.D.)

The Examining Committee Approved This Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Development Administration).

Committee Chairperson (Professor Voradej Chandarasorn, Ph.D.)

Committee (Associate Professor Kasemsarn Chotchakornpant, Ph.D.)

Committee (Associate Professor Nuttakrit Powintara, Ph.D.)

Dean (Associate Professor Ploy Suebvises, Ph.D.)

_____/_____/_____

(3)

ABST RACT

ABSTRACT

Title of Dissertation THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFLUENCE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP,

PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT, AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON PUBLIC SERVICE INNOVATION OUTCOMES: A STUDY OF THE INNOVATION TEAMS IN FIELD ADMINISTRATION OF BANGLADESH

Author Mst. Shumshunnahar

Degree Doctor of Philosophy (Development Administration)

Year 2021

Public organizations are facing the challenge of delivering services with growing demands of the masses. In order to control these challenges, innovation and the creative abilities of public organizations, specifically team level innovation through transformational leadership and preceived organizational support, are a must.The purpose of this study is to assess the direct influence of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support on public service innovation outcomes as well as their indirect influence through moderator perceived organizational culture and mediating factor creativity. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were followed for this study. Other than a survey through a structured questionnaire, data were collected from eight in-depth interviews of chief innovation officers and two FGDs with the service recipients. Questionnaires were distributed among 500 innovation team members at the district and upazila level adminstration and 372 questionnaires were received with no missing data yielding a response rate of 74.4%. Before the full-phased data collection, a pretest of 50 potential respondents was carried out. The item-objective congruence (IOC) index was used for the content validity with a panel of four experts. Nine hyptheses were tested statistically and a detailed data analysis was carried out employing path analysis. Further, in order to re-ensure the results, a full-phased multiple regression analysis was done. All of the objectives of this study were obtained using the nine testing hypotheses. Path analysis was used as the main technique to test the predictability of the independent variables of trasformational leadership and perceived

(4)

iv

organizational support in relation to the dependent variable, public service innovation outcomes.The results showed that both transformational leadership and perceived organizational support had a positive and significant influence on public service innovation outcomes. It was also revealed that transformational leadership and perceived organizational support had a strong significant positive relation with creativity, and when using perceived organizational culture as a moderator, the relation became even stronger. Finally, the results revealed that creativity mediates the relationship of transformational leadership and public service innovation outcomes and also the relationship of perceived organizational support and public service innovation outcomes. According to the model fit of the path analysis R² coefficient of creativity, perceived organizational culture, and public service innovation outcomes, it was 0.652, 0.555 and 0.546 respectively, which revealed that the factors explained more than 50% of the total variance. The findings for the quantitative data were also validated by the qualitative findings. Lastly, the study summarizes a set of recommendations for policy planners as well as future researchers in this area.

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillah, beginning with the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful, who deserves all the praise and gratitude. I would like to express my deepest and heart-felt appreciation to my advisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kasemsarn Chotchakornpant in the Graduate School of Public Administration, National Institute of Development Administration, for his inspiring support and intellectual guidance throughout the dissertation project. His insightful guidance made it possible for me to complete my dissertation. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to the defense committee members, Professor Dr. Voradej Chandarasorn, and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nuttakrit Powintara, for enriching my thesis with their valuable advice also for being an important part of this journey. I am thankful to Professor Ponlapat Buracom, former program director of the inter-Ph.D. program in development administration, for his endless support and also for selecting me for a full NIDA scholarship. I am also indebted to Professor Dr. Anchana NaRanong for her guidance for the development and improvement of the research proposal during the dissertation seminar class. I also wish to give my heartfelt gratitude and thanks to all of the professors of GSPA and guest lecturers for sharing their valuable knowledge during the coursework. I am indebted to Professor Dr. Mobasser Monem, Dept. of Public Administration, University of Dhaka, and Dr. Sanwar Jahan Bhuiyan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh, for their expert opinions regarding the content validity of the questionnaires and for supporting and encouraging me to continue and obtain the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Development Administration.

I am also deeply indebted to my senior colleague and researcher Dr. Mohoshin Ali for his support and cooperation, and to Humaira Jahan Jalsha bhabi for inspiring me from the very beginning of this journey. Their moral support and advice in conducting my study also made this possible. I am also thankful to Mr. Manwar Hossein Malla, Hasanuzzaman Tushar, Rashidul Islam Shaikh, Shamima Akter, Dil Afroz Naher, Farhana Arzoo, Farhana Firoz, and Md. Zohurul Islam. Without these people, this study would not have been possible. I also convey my deep sense of gratitude to my friends and fellow classmates Ton Han Duong, Thalinee Sangkachan Jiu, Ploy Polynarphas, Seh-young Kim, Thanhthuy Nguyen Nam who are studying at NIDA, Bangkok for their friendliness and cordial support. Thanks to all of the officials in the international Ph.D.

(6)

vi

program, GSPA, NIDA, for extending their heartiest cooperation and support. In particular, the debt I owe to Ms. Orapin, Ms Aom, and Mr. Bush for being so supportive to me is endless. It is also my pleasure to express my deep gratitude and thanks to Vuong Nhat Bui King for his continuous and meticulous support. I am extremely humbled to the survey respondents, interviewees, and FGD participants of my study and those that cordially assisted me, and gave their opinions during the data collection period of my field work and completion of this research, which was to a great extent attributable to their help. Moreover, I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to the Comilla University authority for their support and for letting me study abroad.

I am also thankful to my loving sisters Shamim Ara Mukta, Suraia Khanam Panna, Samia Alam Ratna, and only brother Salehuddin Manik, and to my sister-in-laws for their selfless prayers and cares. Most pointedly, I would like to acknowledge with heart-rendering gratitude my parents-in-law, the late Wahiduzzaman Chowdhury and Monowara Chowdhury, for their eternal but spiritual guidance to me. I know that mere expression of thanks does not suffice to convey the profound support and great patience of my beloved husband A.K.M. Moniruzzaman and my sweetest daughter Mahnaj Sadaf Maha and son Choudhury Md.Mustahsan Mugdho. Without their loving care and supporting favors, this journey would not have been possible, nor is it possible to compensate them for their sacrifices in any way. Finally, I owe a debt to my father Md.

Shafiqul Alam, and my mother, Mrs. Saleha Begum, for their sacrifice, the pain they took to nurture and educate me, and I would like to dedicate the mortarboard and gown- hood of my Ph.D. degree to them.

Mst. Shumshunnahar February 2022

(7)

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In the rapidly changing, globalized technology and knowledge-based public service management system, innovation is domineering to keep pace (Hollanders et al., 2013). It is remarkable that innovation is becoming faster each day and the change in public service is slower than in the private service. In order to cope with the changes in the existing globalization system, the public service delivery in the government sector has to deal with some challenges to become more responsible and responsive to the citizen's needs and wishes (Nusair, Ababneh, & Bae, 2012), especially in developing countries where this is more challenging. These challenges insist that organizations take a new leadership approach that visibly boosts and adopts innovation by offering a suitable organization culture (Nusair, Ababneh, & Bae, 2012) that supports innovation. Consequently, the vital factor that will help organizations carry these burdens and meet the challenges is having innovative abilities (Andriopoulos & Lowe, 2000). More specifically, to meet the growing demand of the people for improved, faster, and proper public services, personnel committed to innovation are needed (Hollanders et al., 2013). Stated by (Andriopoulos & Lowe 2000) “Innovation is decisive organizational outcomes that stem not only from overall firm strategy and access to resources but, more fundamentally, from the minds of the individual employees who alone or with others, carry out the works of the organization every day” (Andriopoulos & Lowe, 2000). Amabile (2004) mentioned that “personnel will produce inventive, artistic and advantageous ideas throughout their everyday work depends not only on their own characteristics but also on the work milieu that they perceive around them” (Amabile et al., 2004)

Innovation is not self-producing or self-sustaining (Tahrima & Jaegal, 2012).

Efficacious innovation entails leadership for launching organizational capacity to

(19)

generate ideas and to confirm prompt effective services (Tahrima & Jaegal, 2012).

Amabile stated that “innovation is the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization” (Amabile, 1988). The initial point for innovation is the creative ability and attitude of the organization’s team and that of the individuals. In the literature on inducing the innovation of employees, one of the vigorous forces is leadership (Amabile, 1988; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988;

Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Further, leadership with transformational style have an extra effect in inspiring, stimulating, and endorsing innovation in the organization (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Ogbonna and Harris (2000) found that a solid, strong, and compact linkage between innovative culture and the transformational leadership approach is an interpreter of organizational performance (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). The study of leadership styles and organizational innovation represents transformational style as the most influencing style of leadership in innovation (Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1998). The transformational style of leadership can increase the capacities of the employee's performance (Bass, 1995), and the performance of a transformational leader is consistent with the component of innovation (Elkins & Keller, 2003).

Eisenberger, Huntington, and Hutchinson (1986) identified POS (Perceived Organizational Support) as a worker’s acknowledgement where the institute values commitment and takes responsibility for their employees’ success. Organizational support is the faith that support can bring positive outcomes in terms of conduct, behavior, and execution (Eisenberger and Rhoades, 2002). According to Arshadi (2011) - the organizational support theory claims that positive outcomes will be obtained if there are obligational relationships between employees and the organization.

In order to patronize public service innovation, organizational culture is an important factor (Mokhber, Vakilbashi & Teknologi, 2011). In the long run, competitive and performance-oriented organizational culture is acknowledged to drive innovation in organizations and to help to create a smooth relationship between organizational innovation and transformational leadership (Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008). Wendell (1990) puts into words that “organizational culture is well-defined as values, beliefs, assumptions, myths, norms, and goals that are widely accepted in

(20)

organizations” (Wendell, 1990). Organizations and groups have their own culture.

Richard (1988) stated that organizational culture is the combination of vital norms that organizational members mutually believe in (Richard, 1988). It is like one’s personality, which stretches a mean to the organization and it is the core alliance in controlling their members to perform their actions (Nham et al., 2014). Martin (2000) recognized and adjusted the magnitudes of organizational culture by including approaches, commitment, confident affiliation, and actions that inspire creativity, the working atmosphere, client introductions, and managerial support that stimulate organizational innovation (Martins & Martins, 2002). Papers (2011), characterized organizational culture as follows: “Organizational culture is as a scheme of assumptions, values, norms, and attitudes manifested through symbols which the members in an organization have developed and adopted through mutual experience and which help them determine the meaning of the world around them and how to behave in it” (Papers, 2011). Therefore organizational culture is the lens through which the reverie of a leader within an organization is established and cares about building the required environment for organizations being innovative (James et al., 2008).

The actual positive association between organizational culture and organizational innovation has been proved by several researchers (Nham et al., 2014).

Most of the successful effective organizations have the strength of patronizing innovation within their existing organizational culture, and it lies at the center of organizational innovation (Tushman, 1997). Organizational culture influences the degree of inventive attitudes that will be stimulated, maintained, and implemented (Kenny & Reedy, 2007). The culture of supportive inventiveness inspires creative paths of illustrating problems to find out solutions (Abidin, 2011). The organizational culture and leadership styles are broadly expected to be allied with the change process (Kotter, 1996; Schein, 2004). Yukl (2013), emphasized that “certain leadership behaviors may influence innovation through compliance as part of the organizational culture” (Yukl, 2013). On the basis of all the above studies, it can be summarized that innovation in an organization and organizational culture have an association where culture is an ancestor and also an important aspect of organizational innovation and public service innovation.

(21)

Reviewing rigorously, transformational leadership and organizational culture, there are significant research studies that has been done separately measuring the level of influences of transformational leadership on public service innovation and that also show the influence of perceived factors of organizational culture on public service innovation; however, there are very few studies that have tested the level of influence of both transformational leadership style and factors of perceived organizational support on public service innovation (Jung et al., 2003; Kahai, Avolio, & Sosik, 2017;

Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Sosik et al., 1998). The adoption of transformational leadership and the perceived factors of organizational culture as foremost variables have yet to be surveyed. Sarros et al. (2008) explained the circumstances perfectly: “There has been little empirical analysis of the theoretical relationships among the key components that influence such change strategy, including transformational leadership, perceived organizational support, organizational culture, and organizational innovation” Sarros et al. (2008). It is also mentionable that studies have been carried out showing the impact of organizational culture on public service innovation on the basis of the factors of national culture rather organizational culture.

In order to receive benefits from the immense increase in globalization, developing countries such as Bangladesh have no other options to improve services and innovation proficiencies. Therefore, the Bangladesh government has already introduced innovation with various innovative mechanisms and strategies in order to advance economic performance, to encourage technological infrastructure, to develop and trigger human capital, and to strengthen innovation strategies and abilities in the context of changing the current modern environment.

The Bangladesh government is under massive pressure to fulfill the demands of its citizens and to cope up with the growing difficulties and changing world, specifically regarding the global context. The present democratic government of Bangladesh has the declaration “Vision 2021” and the motive to establish Bangladesh as a resourceful, modern, and digitalized country by 2021. Understanding this situation very intensely, the government of Bangladesh instituted several initiatives to promote innovations and citizen-centric service delivery systems. Specifically the A2I (access to information ) program under the PMO (prime ministers office), the

(22)

governance innovation unit in the PMO, the performance improvement project (PIP) and the individual action plan (IAP) of the Ministry of Public Administration (MOPA), the introduction of KAIZEN model through the TQM project of BPATC under the MOPA, the introduction of a citizen charter, one-stop service, the enactment of the Right to Information Act (RIA) in 2009, and the establishment of the union information service center (UISC) are some mentionable ventures in this area. As one of the programs momentum to digitalize Bangladesh under vision 2021, A2I has achieved significant performance along with the GIU (Governance Innovation Unit) in the PM office (2012). Innovation officers have been appointed in the ministries, divisions, departments, districts, upazilas for facilitating innovation initiatives. The cabinet division issued a circular in 2010 to form a work improvement team (WIT) in all ministries, divisions, departments, and field administrations. A total of approximately 5,730 innovation officers (IOs), including chief innovation officers (CIOs), were appointed in ministries, departments, and directorates in field administrations, exploring innovation and improving public services.

It is important to stimulate support and carefully nurture the spirit of creativity and innovation (Tahrima & Jaegal, 2012). For efficient innovation management, the innovation officers individually and collectively require specific knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes. It is imperative to assess and analyze the capacity of the innovation officers of public service in Bangladesh for further greater initiatives.

However, studies on public service innovation in Bangladesh are somewhat limited and there is no research measuring the direct or indirect influence of transformational leadership (TL) and perceived organizational support (POS), and also there is a lack of literature on perceived organizational culture (POC) as a mediator among the relationships of TL, POS and creativity regarding public service innovation outcomes.

Therefore, the current study has a strong backing and logical background to investigate this area.

1.2 Problem Statement

Transformational leadership, perceived organizational support, organizational culture, and public service innovation are all interesting topics among practitioners

(23)

and scholars. Transformational leadership and perceived organizational support, and perceived organizational culture, play a vital role in public service innovation in terms of competitive advantages. Scholars have raised questions whether transformational leadership and organizational support in combination boost innovation, more specifically on public service innovation, but the answer is still undiscovered. The area of influence of specific leadership style and organizational support on public service innovation has not yet been well studied. Further, the results of the research are not same, so this supports further empirical studies to observe the level of influence. It is commonly acknowledged that transformational leadership and organizational support can ensure innovation in the public sector very specifically in the service delivery system.

Research done in Bangladesh has mostly focused on the private sector. A very few studies till now have contributed to the area of how transformational leadership style and organizational support influence followers’ innovative thinking, attitudes and behavior in terms of Bangladesh’s public service innovation area. This study will examine the influence of practicing transformational leadership, which is characterized by idealized influence (II), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS) and individualized consideration (IC), by the top managers (chief innovation officers) and perceived organizational support factors which are characterized by team cohesion, rewards and recognition, technological support, and replication scope by the public sector of Bangladesh. Additionally, the influence of perceived organizational culture on transformational leadership and perceived organizational support has also been measured by this study where perceived organizational culture is a moderator along with creativity, where creativity is a mediating factor of both the relationship of transformational leadership - public service innovation outcomes and perceived organizational support - public service innovation outcomes.

From this study, the findings and implications will be discussed for future research and some exclusive recommendations will be suggested for the Bangladesh government to stimulate and nurture the innovation process and strategies that will help to formulate the future innovation policy of Bangladesh.

(24)

1.3 Objectives of the Research

Public service innovation is not an automatic process; rather, it requires deliberate interventions in the organization. Among the important predictors, the influence of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support are two basic forms of predictors that contribute directly and indirectly to expediting the process, as well as the results of public service innovation. Further, perceived organizational culture also has an influence as a moderator on public service innovation outcomes. The team’s creativity behavior also has an influence as a mediator of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support for public service innovation outcomes. The general quests of the study are to assess both the direct and indirect influence of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support on public service innovation outcomes at the field level administration of Bangladesh.

The specific objectives of the study are as follows:

1) To assess the direct influence of transformational leadership (TL) and perceived organizational support (POS) on public service innovation outcomes (PSIO) in the field administration of Bangladesh.

2) To assess the indirect influences of transformational leadership (TL) and perceived organizational support (POS) on creativity of innovation teams, which ultimately leads to the level of the outcome of public service innovation in the field administration of Bangladesh.

3) To assess the influence of transformational leadership (TL) and perceived organizational support (POS) on perceived organizational culture (POC).

4) To assess the influence of perceived organizational culture (POC) as a moderator of transformational leadershipn (TL) and perceived organizational support (POS) on Creativity (CR).

5) To assess the influence of creativity as a mediator of both transformational leadership (TL) and perceived organizational support (POS) on public service innovation outcomes (PSIO).

6) To evaluate the essential policy issues that contribute to public service innovation management in the public organizations of Bangladesh.

(25)

1.4 Research Questions

The study assumes that there are indirect and also direct influence of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support on public service innovation in the field administration of Bangladesh. Furthermore, perceived organizational culture also has a positve or negatiive influence on public service innovation. The study thus indends to investigate whether perceived organizational cultural factors have an influence as moderating factors of transformational leadership (TL) and perceived organizational support (POS), and creativity, and thus on public service innovation outcomes. Therefore the general purpose of this research is to explore the level of influence of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support on public service innovation outcomes. In addition, the current study investigates the influence of perceived organizational culture as a moderating factor and creativity as a mediating factor on public service innovation outcomes.

Following the relevant in-depth literature review, the current study has conducted its research in The People’s Republic of Bangladesh in order to provide answers to the questions below:

1) Are there any direct influence of tansformational leadership (TL) on public service innovation outcomes? If yes, to what extent do those factors influence public service innovation outcomes?

2) Are there any direct influences of perceived organizational support on public service innovation outcomes? If yes, to what extent do those factors influence public service innovation outcomes?

3) Are there any influences of transformational leadership on creativity? If yes, to what extent do those factors influence creativity?

4) Are there any influences of perceived organizational support on creativity?

If yes, to what extent do those factors influence creativity?

5) Are there any influences of transformational leadership on perceived organizational culture? If yes, to what extent do they influence perceived organizational culture?

(26)

6) Are there any influences of perceived organizational support (POS) on perceived organizational culture (POC)? If yes, to what extent does this influence perceived organizational culture?

7) Are there any influences of perceived organizational culture on creativity as a moderating factor of transformational leadership? If yes, to what extent do those factors influence creativity?

8) Are there any influences of perceived organizational culture on creativity as a moderating factor of perceived organizational support? If yes, to what extent do those factors influence creativity?

9) Are there any influences of creativity as the mediating factor of transformational leadership (TL) and perceived organizational support (POS) on public service innovation outcomes? If yes, to what extent do those factors influence public service innovation outcomes?

10) What are the managerial issues that contribute to overall public service innovation management in the public service innovation of Bangladesh?

1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study

The current study has included public service innovation teams as the units of analysis. The researcher has conducted a survey of the innovation team members of 64 innovation teams in 64 districts and 492 upazilas of the country. This study also interviewed the chief innovation officers (CIOs), who are considered the innovation team leader and whose decisions can influence the implementation of the innovation strategies, policies, or plans of the team.

The attention, of this research is to examine the level of the influences of the transformational leader and the perceived organizational support on creativity that has an impact on public service innovation outcomes, along with the influence of perceived organizational culture as a mediator. It is important to highlight the huge volume of taken plans and programs of the Bangladesh government. From the central administration to the grassroots level, local administration is under innovative programs. It is worth mentioning that the size of the administrative system in Bangladesh is really large and it was not possible to cover the whole area of public

(27)

service innovation of the country for this current study. The study area selection and respondents have been chosen very carefully under the consideration of limited time and resources.

1.6 The Significance of the Study

The significance of the current study hinges on its involvement and huge contribution to the theory and its implication and the strength of the methodology of this study. In the public administration and development administration literature, research has been conveyed insufficiently in showing the influence of transfomational leadership (Wart, 2003) and perceived organizational support and organizational culture on creativity, and creativity on public service innovation outcomes. There is also a strong demand for the need for more research on how transformational leaders (Fernandez, 2008) and perceived organizational support boost creativity and innovation and the adaptability of innovation, which affects public service innovation outcomes as well as public organizations. The researcher has examined the level of influences of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support on public service innovation outcomes, besides the moderating role of perceived organizational culture that measures how much influence moderator factors have on creativity. From a theoretical viewpoint, this research will develop and deliver perceptions on the influences among transformational leaders and public service innovation outcomes and at the same time perceiving organizational support and culture . Finally, the researcher has looked at the influence of both transformational leadership and perceived organizational support and culture on public service innovation outcomes. The above-mentioned research areas, specifically the relations of the variables, are yet to be studied in a public sector organization, especially in a developing country such as, Bangladesh. The strong positive association among TL, POS, and creativity and public service innovation is imperative for the sustainable, effective, and continuous development of innovation. Transformational leadership is branded and inspire heavily through various measures that promote employees (Sosik et al., 2012). Those sort of leaders have the ability to generate an appropriate working environment, set principles and models, and head toward a revolutionary culture.

(28)

They are able to create a collective vision and hence increase innovations (Northouse, 2016). Therefore it is suitable to offer an improved understanding of the influences of transformational leaders on public service innovation outcomes and to determine procedures that may help leaders encourage innovation events among teams and organizations. Another important aspect is the influence of the factors of perceived organizational culture on public service innovation outcomes. Perceived organizational culture is well known as an important issue in furthering innovation (Hislop, 2013). Thus, the factors of organizational culture among the innovation team members can also foster innovation. By enriching the theoretical relationships, this study will contribute strongly to the literature on transformational leadership, perceived organizational support and perceived organizational culture, and public service innovation outcomes.

Although from the previous literature investigated it has come to light that transformational leadership (Mailam, 2004) and perceived organizational support have an impact on organizations as well as teams, and perceived organizational culture (Hofstede, 2011) has an immense impact on their relationship, it is not clear how and what level they affect public service innovation outcomes. Thus by investigating these matters, the researcher has attempted to summarise exclusive literature reviews. Additionally, this research has examined some of the individual influences that transformational leadership exercises and has tried to limit which behaviors among idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration have the major impact on public service innovation outcomes.

From a methodological viewpoint, the research attempts to observe the effect of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support on creativity and creativity on innovation in Bangladesh public service innovation outcomes following a mixed-methods approach, which is a chronological descriptive design strategy.

Creswell (2011) defined a mixed-methods as follows: “The Mixed Method approach can give a stronger indication for conclusions over convergence and justification of results and helps the researcher to answer research questions that cannot be answered by quantitative or qualitative approach separately” (Creswell, John, & Clark, 2011).

(29)

The strategy of mixed-methods is based on the foundation of two phases:

quantitative and qualitative. In the first phase, which is a quantitative phase, this study has employed a self-administered (self-reported) questionnaire for the data collection from the members of the innovation teams in order to survey both the direct and indirect level of influence of transformational leadership on public service innovation outcomes and perceived organizational support on public service innovation outcomes. The drive of the philosophy of pragmatism is testing theory (Bryman, 2012) and thus the pragmatism philosophy was used during this phase. In the 2^nd phase, the qualitative method was applied in order to enlighten the unforeseen outputs from the quantitative part concerning the level of influence of transformational leadership on public service innovation outcomes, as well as perceived organizational support on creativity and creativity on public service innovation outcomes through collecting and analysing data from interviews with the Chief Innovation Officers (CIOs) that were addressed as team leaders. Thus this stage followed the philosophy of interpretivism. This philosophy helped to translate and clarify the unanswered quantitative questions. Therefore, the current study was able to establish a milestone for the methodological approach that was employed to trail the level of the influence of transformational leadership and organizational support on creativity and creativity on public service innovation outcomes and also in other same categorized studies.

Finally, from the practical standpoint, this research will benefit the leaders of Bangladesh and also the policy formulators of Bangladesh public service innovation by giving them ideas, thoughts, and concepts that will exhort public service innovation actions of the organization.

1.7 Brief Definitions of the Key Terms and Concepts

The same terms sometimes express a different meaning in different situations and times in social science research. The key terms and concepts that have been used in this present study also have some specific senses and meanings. In the following section, the major terms, constructs, and concepts employed in the current study are defined briefly.

(30)

1.7.1 Innovation

According to the OECD (2005), “an innovation is the application of a new or mentionable noticeable upgraded product which is goods or services or processes or a new marketing procedure or a new organizational system in business practice, workplace organization, and external relations” (OCDE, 2005)

1.7.2 Public Service Innovation (PSI)

Service innovations are usually created for service products, new productions or delivery systems, new organizational structures, new market behaviors or new approaches and business models (Fuglsang & Sundbo, 2016).

1.7.3 Innovation Team

The cabinet division of The People's Republic of Bangladesh issued a circular in 2010 (Gazetted April 8, 2013) to form a work improvement team (WIT) in all ministries, divisions, departments, and field administrations. It was an initial step to improve the delivery of quality public services. Subsequently, in April 2013 the cabinet division declared a circular transforming WIT as Innovation Teams (IT) and the head of the WIT as Chief Innovation Officer (CIO).

1.7.4 Public Service Innovation Outcomes (PSIO)

Public service innovation outcome is the performance with the three variables of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. According to the UNDP PME Handbook, when developing a rich picture it is important to consider what it looks like in terms of the relevant evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the initiative (UNDP, 2011).

1) Relevence:

It is vital to be ensured that the national target should remain pertinent and relevant at the field level. The local level allies and distribution agencies should continue to follow the priority basis of the national targets (OECD, 2006). When the innovated online and simplified services of the organization aligned with the cabinet guidelines, need based and targeted service the recipient’s wants.

(31)

2) Effectiveness:

The degree to which the program or initiative has achieved tangible results (Șandor, 2018), the effectiveness criteria apply primarily to the outcome level.

Effectiveness assesses the contribution of UNDP’s work, i.e. its use of inputs to conduct activities and deliver outputs, for the achievement of outcomes, as defined in the results framework. In short, this is when the results of innovated online and simplified service are achieved as intended and recipients will receive benefits with satisfaction.

3) Efficiency:

Efficiency will be measured by the term TCV, which is the acronym of three words representing three indicators of delivering services: time, cost, and number of visits for citizens to access government services. Time considers waiting time, travel time, and service processing time. Costs are in terms of travel costs, the application of assistance service charges, communication costs, including internet and mobile bills, and the government representative’s time. Similarly, the visit breakdown includes the visit costs for visitors’ applications, follow-up visits, status update checking visits, and a final visit for taking delivery of the services.

4) Reduced Time:

When the innovated service process simplification scheme reduces time for decision-making, e-nothi (e-filing) and online service delivery reduces extra time and ensures hassle-free services and also reduces response time in public offices.

5) Reduced Costs:

When innovated online, simplified services make an impact in reducing delivery costs, there is rent seeking and no need to pay extra money for receiving innovated, simplified services.

6) Reduced Visits:

When there are innovated online application, service status by sending an SMS reduces unnecessary visits and even no visits to public offices.

1.7.5 Transformational Leadership (TL)

Transformational leadership is a leadership style where the leader enhances the eagerness of the supporters to go beyond the self-interests of organizational

(32)

interest, and through knotting vision and mission for the organization as a whole, these leaders increase the followers’ responsiveness to ensure target outcomes and flourish followers’ expectations about their own performance (Chang, 2010; Claver et al., 1998; Denti & Hemlin, 2012; Noruzy, Azhdari et al., 2013; Spangler & Woycke, 2018)

1) Idealized Influence (II):

This is when a transformational leader preaches about the values and ideals and encourages creativity and also demonstrates strong conviction about creativity and moral and ethical actions to be a role model in front of the team members.

2) Inspirational Motivation (IM):

This is when a transformational leader envisions future directions and encourages being creative, motivates a higher level of creativity, and creates a sense of urgency for realizing a shared mission to be creative and to try to develop professional zeal for being persistent in achieving intended creativity.

3) Intellectual Stimulation (IS):

This is stimulation to unlock team members’ creativity and innovative ideas, encouraging to explore new ways of doing jobs, helping to prepare the team members get ready to challenge the status quo, and embracing change initiatives. It is suggested to think “outside the box” and to make the members ready to accept and respect the diverse perspectives of other members.

4) Individualized Considerations (IC):

This offers the team members a supportive relationship, helping to keep lines of line communication open and recognizing personally the unique creative contributions of each member. Mentors’ potential followers needed for successful completion of creative assignments and unique capabilities and competences of creativity individually.

1.7.6 Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

POS is the perception of how an employee is treated by his or her organization. This effects the organizational impressions about employees’ well-being and contributions (Eisenberger et al., 2001).

(33)

1) Team Cohesion:

This is when team members are free to exchange new information and allowing for discussion and debates on creative ideas, and where employees are empathized to train and help weak members, learning from one another and mutually accountable for being creative.

2) Rewards and Recognition:

This is when the organization recognizes creative contributions and outstanding performance in innovation and considers this contribution for the promotion and other awards.

3) Technological Support:

This is when the organization provides a computer, laptop, i-pad facilities, wi-fi, internet, e-resources, and also imparts sufficient training on the latest ICT technology and the organization grants sufficient budget for all of this support.

4) Replication Scope:

This is when the organization is ready to replicate novel ideas without creating barriers and to make arrangements for showcasing, scaling up and institutionalize all innovations.

1.7.7 Perceived Organizational Culture (POC)

An organization should have its own cultural interpretation and comprehension within a given environment, no matter what its size and nature is. The most widely believed definition of organizational culture has given by Sun (2009):

“deeply rooted values and beliefs which are shared by the personnel of an organization” (Sun, 2009). Among the six dimensions of Hofstede’s model, the three modified dimensions of result orientation, employee orientation, and pragmatism are considered as perceived organizational culture.

1) Result Orientation:

When the innovation target is clear, the common goal of the team is well shared by the members, who are committed to achieving annual innovation targets and are concerned about the innovation outcomes of the innovation team.

(34)

2) Employee Orientation:

The organization takes responsibility for the well-being of its employees, looks after problems, creates a balance between tasks and personal matters, and arranges recreational facilities for the team members.

3) Pragmatism:

The identity of the team members is determined by professionalism, and the organization values the needs and priority of the service recipients, and is flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the service recipients, devising service innovation on the basis of the needs of the service recipients, with hassle-free public services for the service recipients; and the organization reforms and reviews the existing rules for encouraging service innovation, where mistakes and errors are tolerated by the organization for encouraging innovation.

1.7.8 Creativity (CR)

This is when individual and organizational members are working toward some processes or working procedures or ideas that present creativity in a social system (Woodman et al., 1993). Creativity is defined by Amabile as “the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain” (Amabile et al., 1996, p. 1155). For the current study, creativity is measured by problem sensitivity, fluency of ideas, flexibility of thoughts, originality, and by imagination.

1) Problem Sensitivity:

This refers to sensitivity regarding subtle gaps, anomalies, contradictions, paradoxes, and so forth, which represent opportunities for creative problem solving.

2) Fluency of Ideas:

This is the capacity to generate associated ideas along the same line of thought.

3) Flexibility of Thoughts:

This is the ability to develop diverse possibilities or ideas across different lines of thought.

4) Originality:

(35)

Seeing potential solutions or ideas that others do not even consider or arrive at.

5) Imagination:

This is visualizing something that is not yet apparent or real to the senses.

1.7.9 Field Administration

In the current study, the researcher defines field administration for both the district level administration and upazila level administration of Bangladesh. Below they are mentioned clearly.

1) Upazila

The administrative structure of Bangladesh consists of 8 divisions, 64 districts, 492 Upazilas, and 4554 union parishads (As of 19 December, 2019). The upazilas are at the sub-district level local administration in Bangladesh and it is the second lowest tier. Formerly the Upazila was known as Thana but in 1982 thanas were re-termed as Upazilas. The Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) is the executive head of the Upazila.

2) District

The district level administration is the second highest administrative unit of Bangladesh; it is the local government body at the district level. There are 64 districts in Bangladesh (As of 19 December, 2019). The deputy commissioner, most commonly and popularly abbreviated to DC, is the executive head of the district administration.

(36)

LITERATURE REVIEW, AND THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Introduction

Discussion about public service innovation and its approaches will be widened in the current chapter. The chapter will also discuss transformational leadership and its four dimensions, the four dimensions of the concept of perceived organizational support, and perceived organizational culture with its three dimensions. The transformational leadership and perceived organizational support concepts will be discussed and concluded concerning how their four dimensions are interrelated and interact with creativity; and how perceived organizational culture moderates the relationship of TL as well as POS with creativity and influences public service innovation outcomes in the context of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency will also be discussed. Finally, the research gaps will be discussed with related literature and how to close the gaps with the current study determinations, which will be summarized.

2.2 Innovation

The term “innovation” is sometimes understood as change, design, invention, and creativity, and it also has been used in different disciplines, including economics, sociology, engineering, business, and so on (O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2008). The word

‘innovation’ comes from the word ‘Nova’, which means ‘new’ and is a Latin word.

Innovation also means ‘novelty’ and ‘renewal’ (Tang & Werner, 2017). Generally, the term ‘innovation’ introduces new products or things in a new way. Schumpeter (1942), the founder and father of modern innovation theory, has well-defined innovation well: “a method of creative destruction where combinations of new and

(37)

existing resources are achieved” (Schumpeter, 1942). A clarification for innovation was delivered by Luecke and Katz (2003) and according to them, “innovation is materialization, combination and/or synthesis of existing knowledge to get a new valuable and important product, process or service” (Luecke & Katz, 2003). Rogers and Barnett define innovation as follows: “An innovation is an idea, practice or object perceived as new by an individual, it matters little…whether or not an idea is objectively new as measured by the lapse of time since its first use or discovery…if an idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation” (Rogers, 1971).

Generally, innovation has been intellectualized as the combination of both productions of creative thoughts and ideas and the application of those ideas (Zhou &

Shalley, 2008; Amabile, 1996; Farr & West, 1990). Anderson et al. (2014, p. 1298) have given their clear statement of innovation as “the process, outcomes and products which challenges to develop and introduce new and improved ways of doing things is an innovation” (Anderson et al., 2014, p. 1298). They also clarify that “the creativity stage of this procedure denotes to idea generation and innovation indicates the following stage of applying those ideas towards better procedures, practices, and products. Innovation may happen at any level of individual, work team, organization or more than one of these levels or may be combined all these levels together”

(Anderson et al., 2014, p. 1298).

Innovation is the process, outcomes, and products which challenge to develop and introduce new and improved ways of doing things (Anderson et al., 2014).

Innovation includes 1. Service Innovation; 2. Technological Process Innovation; and 3. Administrative Process Innovation (Edquist et al., 2001). Lars and Victor Bekkers (L.G) Tummers, Hanna De Vries declared that most definitions of innovation followed that of Roggers, 2003, who explains “Innovation as an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 1971)

2.2.1 Innovation Types

Louise Brown and Stephen Osborne used term innovation as both for the innovation process and also as innovation outcomes. Moore and Hartley (2008) opined that “As the definition of innovation is pretty wide, forms of innovations are

(38)

mostly specified.” After a rigorous systematic review, Lars and Victor Bekkers (L.G) Tummers, Hanna De Vries have determined the innovation of six categories and they are-process innovation by Walker in 2014, administrative process innovation by Meeus and Edquist in 2006, technological process innovation by Edquist et al., 2001, product or service innovation by Damanpour and Schneider in 2009, governance innovation by Moore and Hartley in 2008, Conceptual innovation by Bekkers et al.

(2011).

Many conceptual typologies of innovation have been introduced by innovation scholars. On the basis of the organization, and the focus and outcomes of innovation, Zaltman et al. (1973) recognized twenty kinds of innovation. Another group of scholars differentiated product innovation and process innovation and this was categorized in 1978 by Utterback and Abernathy and also in 1990 by Kotab and Murray. Another typology is technology and administration based. Birkinshaw et al.

(2008) mentioned that, Product innovation can be divided into two categories: goods and services, and process innovation can be categorized into two areas: organizational and technological. Following the discussion, innovations are three types; service innovation, technological process innovation, and administrative process innovation (Meeus & Edquist 2006, p. 24). Then Hamel (2006) distinguished process innovation into two types: innovation in operational processes, which is related to customer services, and innovations in management processes, dealing with a plan, managing projects, and assessment of personnel (Damanpour, 2009). Nasution and Mavondo (2008) defined innovation on the basis of three categories: process innovation, product innovation, and administrative innovation.

The different types of innovations are discussed below:

2.2.1.1 Service Innovation

Windrum and Koch (2008) defined service innovation as “the introduction of a new service product or the improved version of the existing service product. This includes the changes in the design of services and in the features of service products.” According to Barras (1986), “A product as a good or service offered to the client or customer is service innovation.” Product and service are market-oriented and these are presented to the buyer or clients as organizational outputs (Gopalkrishnan & Damanpour, 2001). The features of service innovation are