Individual connectedness in innovation networks: On the role of individual motivation - Essay Example

? Critique of research paper “Individual connectedness in innovation networks: On the role of individual motivation” written by Rick Aalbersa, Wilfred Dolfsmab, Otto Koppiusb Introduction In this essay, the researcher has selected to critique the paper named as “Individual connectedness in innovation networks: On the role of individual motivation” written by Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013). Key focus of the paper would be to critique the quantitative methods used in the research paper and understand the research setting used by mentioned scholars. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) pointed out that their research topic is not new and previous research scholars like Foss (2007), Jackson et al (2006) and others already conducted research on role of knowledge transfer in encouraging innovation within organization. Therefore, Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) never tried to juggle between knowledge management and its impact on innovation rather the scholars opened the discussion about the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of a particular individual to knowledge network connectedness within organizational setting. Kalish and Robins (2006) also found that an insignificant amount of research is available on role of individual psychological differences in directing the knowledge transfer process in context to organizational network perspective. Due to such gap in literature, research work of Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) can be considered as the seminal effort to find the direction of working of human motivation to their connectedness towards organizational knowledge transfer cycle. Aim of the research of Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) was to investigate the motivation pathway that might be used to explain connectedness of internal stakeholders in knowledge sharing and knowledge management cycle within organization. Aim of the research paper was also to highlight structural relationship pattern between human psychology and organizational knowledge transfer. To critique the research paper in the question, one has to understand the theoretical background used in the paper. Theory To keep the length of this paper within specified word limit, the critique has only considered the primary theoretical postulates used by Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) to present their arguments. They used the theory of psychological construct combined with extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to check nature of connectedness of individual in organizational knowledge transfer network (Kankanhalli, Tan and Wei, 2005). Even the research paper used the concepts of inter-unit full knowledge transfer within organization (Nerkar and Paruchuri, 2005). According to these theories individual’s motivation to get connected in knowledge network within organization is getting affected by internal and external events. Burt (2004) was also promoter of the concept that innovation within organization can be directed by the psychological motivation driven connectedness of organizational individual. In previous context, Tsang (2002) used the concept of intrinsic motivation of individual to accept knowledge as the key driver for achieving innovation within organizational context while Perez-Nordtvedt et al. (2008) found that extrinsic motivators like rewards, financial incentives or recognition in the workplace can create psychological drive for individual to involve in knowledge transfer cycle. Lin (2007) used both the concepts of extrinsic or intrinsic motivation in order to explain connectedness of individual in innovation networks or knowledge sharing cycle within organization. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) used the motivation theory to develop two propositions such as 1- influence of individual connectedness and motivation on knowledge transfer within organizational setting and 2- role of extrinsic motivation in directing organizational members to develop inter-unit ties in order to facilitate innovative knowledge transfer. In some contexts, the research paper considered social network model proposed by Teigland and Wasko (2009) and Makela and Brewster (2009) to synchronize the concepts of intrinsic motivation such as competence, self-determination, curiosity, task involvement etc and extrinsic motivation in order to highlight their influence on knowledge sharing. Apart from the mentioned research works, Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) used concepts like psychological bonding, cognitive sciences in order to pen down their arguments but in this essay, only major ones are being covered. Quantitative Methods and Analysis Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) depicted two hypotheses as central research questions in the paper and means of addressing the topic research question. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) used following propositions or hypotheses to conduct the research; “The degree, to which an individual is well-connected within the full innovative knowledge transfer network, is positively influenced by their intrinsic motivation” (Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb, 2013, p. 627). “The number of inter-unit ties an individual holds in the full innovative knowledge transfer network is positively influenced by their extrinsic motivation” (Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb, 2013, p. 627). The whole research paper was designed by Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) to test the above mentioned hypothesis and reach a definitive conclusion. These two questions were designed in context to motivational theories proposed by various research scholars. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) selected two separate companies (namely Alpha Company and Beta Company) belong to two different industries as sample organizations. Data are being collected from full network of individuals working in these two organizations. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) found that most of workers perceive transfer of innovative knowledge as additional activity and very small segment of total workers out of actually involve in knowledge sharing process. Using research model of Dholakia, Bagozzi and Klein Pearo (2004) helped Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) to identify small network data as robust representation of entire population. As Alpha Company, one European electronics and engineering conglomerate has been selected in the sampling process while as Beta Company, one of the renowned European financial service provider had been selected (Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb, 2013). These researchers used unit membership to sort out employees who are actually involved in the knowledge transfer process while access to these employees information was gathered through several interviews with director of business development in Alpha Company and Beta Company. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) used Snowball sampling technique to select respondents because at the initial stage of the research, they did not get proper idea of exact population size. Semi structured interview was used to collect data from employees and managers working in Alpha and Beta Company. More than two rounds of Snowball sampling techniques complemented with repeated interviewing and survey were used to reach the final sample size. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) sent invitation e-mail to companies to participate in the survey process and employees are being also requested to participate in online survey in order to reduce time duration in survey process. Native languages are being used to formulate questions and ensure common understanding of the research theme among respondents. Costenbader and Valente (2003) stated that individual connectedness is characterized function of centrality or individual closeness within organization. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) selected Individual Connectedness as first dependent variable while numbers of inter-unit ties as the second dependent variable. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation are being selected as independent variable. Work Preference Inventory (WPI) was used as the indicator for measuring the gap between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) used 12 propositions to address extrinsic and intrinsic variables (6 for each variable) and on the basis of these propositions, 7 point Likert scales based 12 close ended questionnaire were designed. Control variables like unit membership, gender, tenure (in months) and frequency of ties/individual were used as control variables. Arguments of Buechel and Buskens (2012) were taken into account in order to select the control variables. For example, unit membership and gender were used to control group affiliation effects (Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb, 2013). Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007) stated that researchers should use the Cronbach’s Alpha test in order to check reliability and validity of the questionnaire and also Alpha value can be used to check the internal correlation between variables. In such context, following Cronbach’s Alpha test value can be used to test reliability of the questionnaire. Table 1: Cronbach’s Alfa (?) Value Cronbach’s Alfa (?) Reliability ? ? 0.9 Excellent 0.9 >? ? 0.8 Very Good 0.8 >? ? 0.7 Good 0.7 > ? ?0.55 Moderate 0.55 >? Poor (Source: Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007) According to Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013), Cronbach alpha value for intrinsic motivation questionnaire was .62 while .58 for extrinsic motivation. Comparing the value with above table, it can be said that reliability and validity of the questionnaire was moderate. Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) used descriptive statistics backed by mean, standard deviation, kurtosis and skewness to analyze data separately for Alpha and Beta Company. Correlation analysis was also used to determine degree of relationship between variables. Normality of response distribution was tested by the scholars in the research paper while ordinary least square (OLS) regression was used as the key statistical process to check relationship between dependent and independent variables. Regression analysis was done with respect to both transformed and non-transformed scores in order to identify significant statistical relationship between variables. Another important aspect is that Homoscedasticity was also being determined with the help of scatter plot diagrams and consistency spreads. Multiple Linear Regression model was also being selected in order to combine multiple independent variables in the same analysis panel. According to the result of regression analysis, F-test value for ?R2= 4.645 (at 0.05 significance level) and such result is showing that relationship between intrinsic motivation and individual connectedness is statistically significant. On the other hand, regression coefficient was found as ? 0.278 at p-value < 0.05. Sign of the ? coefficient altered for Beta Company as against alpha company. Therefore, Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) failed to find effect of intrinsic motivation for Beta Company. Same kind of result was found for extrinsic motivation variable and regression analysis shown that effect extrinsic motivation on inter-unit ties was statistically significant (?= ?.419, p < .01). However, Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) failed to find any significant relationship between extrinsic motivations on inter-unit ties in case of Beta Company. Due to divergence of result for both the companies, researchers failed to accept any of the two above mentioned hypothesis. From practical point of view, findings of Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) are unusual. Common expectation is that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of individuals might predict their involvement in knowledge transfer network but Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) failed to find any significance of such common belief. From kurtosis and skewness value of the analysis, researchers failed to find any proportional relationship between inter-unit ties and long tenure at a company but common belief is that bonding of employee with organizational environment increases with increase of their tenure in the organization. Conclusion Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) got divergent research findings which might not synchronize with common belief and arguments of previous research scholars. They also found that extrinsic or intrinsic motivation of people might not affect their position in the knowledge network while most of the previous researchers found relationship between individual connectedness in organizational setting and extrinsic or intrinsic motivation. Such discrepancy in findings has the ability to raise interest of future researchers to check the validity of theories regarding human motivation in organizational setting. From practical viewpoint, the findings of the study can be used by managers in the companies as the guideline for connecting employees to knowledge network in order to achieve innovation. According to research findings of Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013), innovation policy of organizations should focus more on using individual skill level of employees rather than wasting resources to develop connectedness between employees and knowledge sharing network (Zollo and Winter, 2002). Limitations of the study can be summarized in the following manner: Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) failed to provide evidences to justify discrepancy or causality in the study. Conceptual framework used by scholars is not comprehensive in nature and failed to include pertinent variables like corporate culture, corporate reward system which might affect formation of innovative knowledge network within organization. Although, research paper of Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013) has very little scope of improvement but if got the chance, author of this study would use logistic regression instead of multiple linear regressions in order to address non parametric nature of variables. Using corporate reward system as extrinsic motivator would also increase robustness of this research paper of Aalbersa, Dolfsmab and Koppiusb (2013). Reference List Aalbersa, R., Dolfsmab, W. and Koppiusb, O., 2013. Individual connectedness in innovation networks: On the role of individual motivation. Research Policy, 42, pp. 624– 634. Buechel, B. and Buskens, V., 2012. The dynamics of closeness and betweenness. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, forthcoming. Burt, R. S., 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110 (2), pp. 349–399. Costenbader, E. and Valente, T. W., 2003. The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Social Networks, 25, pp. 283–307. Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P. and Klein Pearo, L., 2004. A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, pp. 241–263. Foss, N. J., 2007. The emerging knowledge governance approach: Challenges and characteristics. Organization, 14, pp. 29–52. Jackson, S. E., Chuang, C. H., Harden, E. E. and Jiang, Y., 2006. Toward developing human resource management systems for knowledge-intensive teamwork. Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, pp. 17–70. Kalish, Y. and Robins, G. L., 2006. Psychological predispositions and network structure: The relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social Networks, 28, pp. 56–84. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y. and Wei, K. K., 2005. Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29, pp. 113–143. Lin, H., 2007. Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33, pp. 135–149. Makela, K. and Brewster, C., 2009. Interunit interaction contexts, interpersonal social capital and the differing levels of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management, 48, pp. 591–613. Nerkar, A. and Paruchuri, S., 2005. Evolution of RandD capabilities: Role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51, pp. 771–785. Perez-Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B., Datta, D. K. and Rasheed, A., 2008. Effectiveness and efficiency of cross-border knowledge transfer: An empirical examination. Journal of Management Studies, 45, pp. 714–744. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., 2007. Research methods for business students. 4th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Teigland, R. and Wasko, M., 2009. Knowledge transfer in MNCs: Examining how intrinsic motivations and knowledge sourcing impact individual centrality and performance. Journal of International Management, 15, pp. 15–31. Tsang, E., 2002. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy: Learning-by-doing and learning myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp. 835–854. Zollo, M. and Winter, S. G., 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organizational Science, 13 (3), pp. 339–351. Read More