C H APT E R 3

3.0

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Several authors have published research paper towards highlighting factors that
contributes to challenges affecting organizational and company changes when adopting
creativity and innovation or subjects relating to the introduction of creativity and
innovation into an organization. (e.g. Mostafa, 2005) (Martins &Terblanche, 2003)
(Politis, 2005) (Martens, 2011) (Elina Riivari et al, 2012) (William Keogh Gary Evans,
1998) (David Eaton et al, 2006) (Samuel Mafabi et al, 2015) (Elspeth McFadzean,
1998) (Christine Andriopoulos, 2001) (Ian Barclay Patricia Lunt, 1990) (Om P.
Kharbanda et al, 1991) (Pervaiz K Ahmad, 1998) (Jon-Arild et al, 2001) (Siu Loon
Hoe, 2011)
However no publication were identified for research that are carried-out to investigate
into problems and challenges faced by a government department for introducing a new
policy in particularly the innovation policy.
Increasing global competition, coupled with rapidly changing technology and
shortening of product life cycle, has made organization and companies more vulnerable
to failure than at any time in the past. Therefore, it has become utmost important of
organization to address the issue of creativity wrote Mr. Mostafa (Mostafa, 2005) in his
research paper for the Factors Affecting Organizational Creativity and Innovativeness
in Egypt.
Companies innovation aspiration are high, but only a minority are out performing their
peers and mastering the portfolio-management activities that are critical to success,
according to McKinseys latest survey which was publish in a monthly McKinsey
digital article dated November 2015 on innovation :Managing the Innovation Portfolio
to win

In an official Australian government publication in 2015 Industry Innovation and

Competitiveness An Action Plan for a Stronger Australia in the key note message the
Prime Minister of Australia Hon Tony Abbott MP said This agenda is an integral step
along the path of economic growth and prosperity. He also mentioned that the
industry innovation and competitiveness agenda is to foster and improve Australias
competitiveness, which is essential in building a stronger economy for all Australian
Creativity may be the most important tool in a managers arsenal. Without creativity,
the firm become predictable. The predictable firm may be at a competitive
disadvantage. Creativity goes further than creative managers seeking new solutions to
product problems. Creativity can lead to new and better solutions to business and
customer problems. Thus creativity may be the key to market success and improved
operating efficiencies said Herbig and Jacobs (1996)
Two outstanding factors emphasised by Pervaiz K Ahmad (1998) which highlighted a
Culture and climate for innovation and E.C Martins F Terblanche, (2003) Building
organization culture that stimulate creativity and innovation gave a good insight into
the problems and factors faced in an organization when such new policy were
introduced. The changing of mind set requires careful planning and strategies.
It is interesting to note from Pervaiz K Ahmad, (1998) when he mentioned a few factors
that hinders the smooth flow of the introduction of creativity in an organization. One of
the main factors is that innovation leads to risk. And this is hard to manage from the
view of the staff as well and from the managers. The second factor that he mentioned
was the lip service given by the management. There isnt any real in-put from the top
management and this causes the failure of the new program
However, he put up an interesting point, he said in order for a company to be successful
in creating a culture of creativity and innovation; it has to be carried out in a holistic
manner a spiritual force within a company. Nevertheless he also cautioned that
innovation is inevitable for the survival of a company, but simply deciding that the
organization has to be innovative is not sufficient. That decision must be backed by
actions that create an environment in which people are so comfortable with innovation
that they have created.

He also explained the ugly side of creating a culture. He said to examine culture
isolation is a mistake, and to simply identify one type of culture and propose it as the
panacea to an organizations lack of innovation is to compound that mistake.
In his research he has found the importance of the soft side. He said, in attempting to
build an enduring company, it is vitally important to understand the key role of the soft
side of the organization in innovation.
He also stressed that building a culture of innovation it is more important than creating
more innovative products. This is what most companies dont see. This is how he puts it
Are you simply focusing on your product portfolio or are you focused on building a
culture that cannot be copied? Are you busy building a narrow base of products, or are
you experimenting with creating innovativeness? Without doubt the most innovative
companies of the future will be dominated by those that do not simply focus energies
upon product and technical innovation, but those who have managed to build enduring
environments of human communities striving towards innovation through the creation
of appropriate culture and climate. This will be the energy of renewal and the drive to a
successful future.
Martins and Terblanche, (2003) a Management Consultant and a Senior Lecturer in the
University of South Africa in Pretoria has jointly completed a research paper on
Building Organisational Culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. They have
discovered that some determinants have great influence over certain individual and
some over a group.
Martins and Terblanche, (2003) emphasizes that the determinants are strategy, structure,
support mechanisms, behaviour that encourages innovation and open communication.
This fact is an important element for this research paper. By understanding the
determinants has a great influence over the staff in a company, there is a lot to learn
from this paper when this paper has gone into the research stage and analysation in
Chapter 4 and 5.
This paper will be able to compare the various types of determinant used in JKR that
are effective and those that are less effective. The results of the research will be of great
important to the interested parties whom are responsible to plan similar tonic into their

organization. The finding will also be of great platform for future researcher in this
area, in-particularly about the effectiveness of various types of determinants
There are a few papers sighted on the types of determinants to build a culture of
creativity in an organization. But the one brought forward by Martins and Terblanche,
(2003) is simple to understand and it brings a lot of business sense. According to them,
the dimensions of culture encompass of the following:-

Mission and vision (determines personnels understanding of vision, mission and

values of organization and how these can be transformed into measurable
individual and team goals and objectives)

External environment (determines the degree of focus on external and internal

customers and also employees perception of the effectiveness of community
involvement)

Means to achieve objectives (determines the way in which organizational structure

and support mechanisms contributes to the effectiveness of the organization)

Image of the organization (focuses on the organization to the outside world and
whether it is a sought-after employer)

Management processes (focuses on the way in which management process take

place in an organization. It includes, aspect such as decision making, formulating
goals, innovation processes, control processes and communication)

Employee needs and objectives (focuses on the integration of employees needs

and objectives with those of the organization as perceived by employee /
personnel)

Interpersonal relationship (focuses on the relationship between managers and

personnel and on the management of conflict)

Leadership (focuses on specific areas that strengthen leadership, as perceived by

personnel)

Creating a new culture in an organization is not as simple as cut and copy. This was
emphasizes by Kharbanda et al, (1991). In his paper Company Culture Its Role in an
Industrial Society he was spotted as saying Many industrialised nations now seek to

emulate the Japanese style of management, but it is not possible to copy or acquire
Japans culture heritage.
Having a culture for creativity is important in order for innovation to take place in an
organization. According to a research paper Enhancing creative thinking within
organization written by Elspeth McFadzean,(1998) from the Themes UK, she puts it
very simply The use of group creative problem solving will only be effective,
however, if the organization, itself, has a creative culture.
Nevertheless, it is also interesting to note that other than creativity and innovation, there
are other factors that could contribute towards the success of creating a creative climate
in an organisation. This was mentioned in a research paper Creative climate and
organisational resilience: the mediation role of innovation written by Samuel Mafabi
et al, (2015) River State University of Science and Technology, Nigeria.
The research investigates on the mediation role of innovation between creative climate
and organisational resilience. That research paper concluded as follows; Overall, the
study found that innovation has a limited mediation influence on the organization
resilience because the creative climate also has a direct contribution towards
organization resilience.
Furthermore, that study recognises the power of innovation in the relationship between
creative climates as an antecedent to criterion variables such as organisational
resilience. The recognition of innovation is based on the fact that innovation contributes
higher percentage of variance explained in organisational resilience as compared to
creative climate. Because innovation and creative climate did not explain all the
variance in organisational resilience, there are other predictor variable of organisational
resilience.
Nonetheless, the paper did not provide or suggest what sort of other predictors that
could possibly be used.
It is also interesting to note that for those companies who have taken steps to instil a
creative culture, it is not a total lost game. In another study by David Eaton et al, (2006)
University of Salford, UK An evaluation of stimulants and impediments to
innovation within PFI/PPP projects reported that it has found out that innovation is
largely unrealized. But along the process for those companies that have already have a

creative environment it has helped and improve project quality, reduce cost and
improve delivery time by minimising risks.
Scientifically, there are much evident to show that innovation increases due to the
increase in participation of the staff in a culture environment. In a report written by
Pervaiz K Ahmad, (1998) he said Generally it can be said that innovation is enhanced
by organic structures rather than mechanistic. Innovation is increased by the use of
highly participative structures and culture
It is good to learn that having a good creative culture in a company could breed organic
innovations created by home grown innovator within that company. But on the hindside, it is prudent to take note that there is an ugly side of such success. In the paper
Pervaiz K Ahmad, (1998) has cautioned that When change is forced, those persons
attracted by old organisation may leave because they no longer match the newly
accepted cognitive style. Among other things, this culture-cognitive style match
suggests that organizational supportive of creativity will be effective only to the extent
that the potential and current organisational members know of and prefer these
conditions.
To have a good understanding of where and what are the hindrances, road block and
bottle neck during the implementation of such innovation policy at JKR, this paper look
at the issues that are affecting the civil servant, in-particularly the Manager and Staff.
On item 2.15 in chapter 2, we have discussed about training and seminars that the
Training and Innovation Division has organized and provided to the civil servants at
JKR. However, it is good to learn that such training intended to boast employee
creativity should be directed not only at employee but also at their managers. This is the
finding of Scott Williams, (2001) in his research paper Increase employees
creativity by training their manager. William is an Assistant Professor at the Wright
State University in Ohio USA.
In his paper he said he has discovered that there are 2 primary ways in which
management practice affect subordinates creativity: creating a work context and
evaluating creative performance. Creating a work context that is supportive of
creativity covers a broad range of concerns from issue of organisation structure to
choices regarding how much autonomy is given to subordinates. The evaluation of

creative performance, though a much narrower category of managerial practices, is

every bit as important to fostering subordinates creativity.
In conclusion he said as organisation recognizes the growing importance of creativity
and creative problem solving, training interventions should be directed to teaching
manager Managerial Practices that Enhance Subordinates Creativity (MPESC).
Research shows that creativity can be taught. Furthermore, recent research indicates
that a management practice largely determines employees creativity. Hence, training
intended to boast employee creativity should be directed only not at employees but also
at their managers.
The managers play a vital role in instilling the fuel and motivation for his staff to be
successful. This was the finding of Kai Engel et al, (2015) in their research How to
build the permanently innovative company. They asked what organisational structure
support innovation? And in their finding they wrote There is no single correct
structure. Best Innovators are pragmatists that find rigor in their processes and design
an organisation that supports them.
However, certain theme repeats. Best Innovators all build direct links between
innovation initiative and C-level executives. If organisational culture is shaped by what
is prized, then commitment to innovation is shaped by be behaviour of senior leaders. If
leaders dont spend time cherishing their innovators, they will not channel the
companys energy in the right direction.
In a survey carried out by Siu Loon Hoe, (2011) for his research Measuring an
organisations innovation climate from a group of CEO to staff in Singapore, he
discovered that for an innovation climate to take place in an organisation a few factors
must take place first. One of them is; strong leaders with clear mandate to champion
innovation are needed.
In the research carried-out by Tudor Rickards and Brain Freedman, (1979) A Reappraisal of Creativity Techniques in Industrial Training they mentioned that sending
the manager for a One-day seminar or 3 Days training and workshop is not good
enough. It does not work for its intend. Education for staff to learn new knowledge and
acquire new skills should be carried in a holistic manner.

He concluded by saying, In practical terms the management training director will have
to accept that creativity is not easily introduced in the popular one-day contribution
currently found in industrial courses. Nor will attendance on similar length external
workshops lead to significant change. More promising strength seems to be for the
course designer to work closely with the prospective tutors to design creative-problemsolving modules bearing in mind the importance of learning that will go on after the
course, using the action planning approach to initiate this process.
Conversely, things can also go wrong and become fatal if the designer change course
and turn such evolution into satisfaction rather than for the best for the organization. In
a paper by Wim Pullen, (2001) he warned that Confrontation with problem we always
try those problem-solving strategies that worked out fine in the past on similar
occasions, or we implement pragmatic variations. When these do not seem effective,
we turn to promising strategies that seem to work at the lowest cost,
In this approach we rarely strive for the best. In other words, evolution tuned us for
satisfaction and not for the best. When you consider that designer design for the best
that could lead to a tragic illusion
Therefore we should be aware of the importance of the role of a manager and leader in
a company. If the manager is well informed and has enough knowledge in the area of
creativity and innovation, then he is in a better position to push his subordinates to
achieve success.
Lets also look at the importance and role of staff in respect to their views and attitude
towards a new policy when it is introduced in an organisation especially when the
management has planned for the company to instil a culture of creativity and
innovation. In a research paper written by Ian Barclay and Patricia Lunt, (1990) The
Role of Management: Introducing and Operating New Manufacturing Technology
they discovered that there is a culture gap between those who can accept new changes
and those who cant.
This posed a problem, but that paper did not suggest how to overcome it.
It is important to note that 70% of change program fails. In according to a monthly
digital article published by McKinsey in July 2015 Changing Change Management it
states that Report tells us that most change effort failed. Yet change methodologies are

stuck in a pre-digital era. and Change management as it is traditionally applied is out

dated. We know, for example, that 70 percent of change program failed to achieve their
goals, largely due to their employee resistance and lack of management support.
Ian Roffe, (1999) in his research paper Innovation and creativity in organisations: a
review of the implications for training and development he said that individual wants
acknowledgment, recognitions, power and money. These are the few factors that will
drive a person to strive for excellence.
In another paper Measuring the performance of innovation at workplace written by
Stan Kaczmarczyk and Judy Murtough, (2002) he said, what we need are tools and
models that will help to measure their impact on human capital development so that the
best investment decision can be made investment focused on primarily people and not
building.
Training is an important part of change process. If an organisation which is to
implement a new policy then the manager and staff need to learn the necessary new
knowledge and new skills for such change to take place. However, according to Wim
Pullen, (2001) in his research Flexibility in the workplace: Instrumental or creativity?
he found something interesting. He said Consultant (business consultant) hired to
support the government projects seem to have a mono-discipline approach. And such
training does not work. Again he is also in agreement with Tudor Rickards and Brain
Freedman, (1979) that a holistic approach in training for staff and manager are more
effective.
Changing mind set is a difficult thing to do, especially when the management in an
organisation wants to instil a culture of creativity. So, one method use to lure staff to
part-take and strive for excellence is to put an incentive scheme. Usually rewards in
kinds and monetary are used as a carrot to extract the best out of them. A few research
papers have been spotted discussing this topic.
According to Don McNab and Time Crawley, (1982) in their research paper
Introducing a Work Measured Incentive Schemes: Practical Application for Change
Strategies they said that the key to success is to have an incentive scheme that include
the participation from people of all level and at all stage including the involvement of
the top management.

This is in agreement with Patricia Milne, (2007) when she mentioned the same thing in
her research paper Motivation, Incentives and organisational culture. She said an
incentive program must be an intrinsic part of the organisation.
However, she also mentioned that incentive for individual is good. But it can be
problematic when it comes to giving incentive for team based (group).
Not everyone agrees that an incentive scheme works. According to M. White and A.
Ghobadian, (1985) in his research paper The Responsiveness of an incentive Payment
Scheme. they found no evidence to justify that incentive payment scheme has
contributed significantly to total productivity.

Written by,
Bugs Tan
3rd March 2016