Explaining the Innovative Culture and Activities of State Agencies

In this article we examine the innovative culture and activity of 121 Norwegian and Flemish state agencies, based on an analysis of survey data. We examine variations in innovative culture and activity from a structural-instrumental perspective, a cultural-institutional perspective, a task-related perspective and an environmental-institutional perspective. We use regression analyses to reveal the effect of managerial autonomy, result control, agency size, agency age, organizational performance culture, individual incentive culture, service delivery tasks, source of income and geographical location on innovative culture and activity. The main findings are that the level of innovation is fairly high in state agencies. Secondly, an organizational culture oriented towards organizational performance and individual incentives has a significant impact on both innovative culture and activity. Having service delivery as a main task and a large budget also makes a difference. Although NPM doctrine assumes that managerial autonomy and result-oriented control will enhance innovative culture and activity, we found no direct effect of these variables when we controlled for other variables. Result-oriented control does, however, have an indirect effect on innovative activity.

[1]  R. Shiller.  Crisis and Innovation , 2010, The Journal of Portfolio Management.

[2]  Morten Balle Hansen.  Brugerinnovation og strategisk ledelse i den offentlige sektor , 2010 .

[3]  Paul G. Roness,et al.  Autonomy and Control of State Agencies: Comparing States and Agencies , 2010 .

[4]  S. Borins,et al.  Innovations in Government: Research, Recognition, and Replication , 2009 .

[5]  S. Kim,et al.  An empirical analysis of innovativeness in government: findings and implications: , 2009 .

[6]  Louise Brown,et al.  Innovation in Public Sector Services: Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Management , 2009 .

[7]  E. Vigoda-Gadot.  Building Strong Nations: Improving Governability and Public Management , 2008 .

[8]  P. Windrum.  Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Public Services , 2008 .

[9]  G. Bouckaert,et al.  Pressure, Legitimacy, and Innovative Behavior by Public Organizations , 2007 .

[10]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  Digital Era Governance , 2006 .

[11]  A. Massey.  AGENCIES: HOW GOVERNMENTS DO THINGS THROUGH SEMI-AUTONOMOUS ORGANISATIONS - Edited by Christopher Pollitt, Colin Talbot, Janice Caulfield and Amanda Smullen , 2006 .

[12]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  Achieving innovation in central government organisations , 2006 .

[13]  J. Fagerberg,et al.  The Oxford handbook of innovation , 2006 .

[14]  Julia Black,et al.  What is Regulatory Innovation , 2005 .

[15]  K. Verhoest.  Effects of Autonomy, Performance Contracting, and Competition on the Performance of a Public Agency: A Case Study , 2005 .

[16]  Kutsal Yesilkagit.  Bureaucratic Autonomy, Organizational Culture, and Habituation , 2004 .

[17]  B. Peters,et al.  The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review , 2004 .

[18]  S. Borins,et al.  Leadership and innovation in the public sector , 2002 .

[19]  R. Bhagat.  Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations , 2002 .

[20]  S. Borins,et al.  Encouraging innovation in the public sector , 2001 .

[21]  G. Hofstede.  Culture′s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations , 2001 .

[22]  Mustafa Tepeci,et al.  THE EFFECT OF PERSONAL VALUES, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, AND PERSON- ORGANIZATION FIT ON INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY , 2001 .

[23]  G. Vinten.  Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis , 2000 .

[24]  S. Osborne.  Voluntary Organizations and Innovation in Public Services , 1998 .

[25]  A. Halachmi,et al.  Inter and Intra Government Arrangements for Productivity: An Agency Approach , 1997 .

[26]  John C. Narver,et al.  Market Orientation and the Learning Organization , 1995 .

[27]  R. Wolfe.  ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION: REVIEW, CRITIQUE AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH DIRECTIONS* , 1994 .

[28]  F. Damanpour.  Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis Of Effects Of Determinants and Moderators , 1991 .

[29]  C. Hood.  A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS , 1991 .

[30]  James F. Wilson,et al.  Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It , 1990 .

[31]  F. Damanpour,et al.  Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag." , 1984 .

[32]  C. Hardy.  Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems , 1983 .

[33]  Frank M. Hull,et al.  Organizing for Innovation: Beyond Burns and Stalker's Organic Type , 1982 .

[34]  J. Kimberly,et al.  Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. , 1981, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[35]  Richard S. Hillman,et al.  Bureaucracy and innovation , 1970 .

[36]  C. R. Henson.  Conclusion , 1969 .

[37]  Bertram M. Gross,et al.  The Managing of Organizations. , 1966 .

[38]  J. Cockcroft.  The process of technological innovation , 1965 .

[39]  Victor Bekkers,et al.  Innovation in the Public Sector , 2011 .

[40]  Paul G. Roness,et al.  Autonomy and Control of State Agencies , 2010 .

[41]  B. Peters,et al.  The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations , 2010 .

[42]  John Halligan,et al.  Post-NPM Responses to Disaggregation Through Coordinating Horizontally and Integrating Governance , 2010 .

[43]  Per Lægreid,et al.  Governance of Public Sector Organizations , 2010 .

[44]  Tom Christensen,et al.  Increased Complexity in Public Organizations — the Challenges of Combining NPM and Post-NPM , 2010 .

[45]  C. Pollitt.  Ministries and Agencies: Steering, Meddling, Neglect and Dependency , 2005 .

[46]  C. Pollitt,et al.  Agencies: How Governments Do Things Through Semi-Autonomous Organizations , 2004 .

[47]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis , 2004 .

[48]  George A. Krause,et al.  Agency Risk Propensities Involving the Demand for Bureaucratic Discretion , 2003 .

[49]  G. Bouckaert,et al.  What is available and what is missing in the study of quangos , 2003 .

[50]  M. Egeberg.  How Bureaucratic Structure Matters: An Organizational Perspective , 2003 .

[51]  C. Pollitt,et al.  Unbundled Government:A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos & contractualisation , 2003 .

[52]  George A. Krause,et al.  Politics, Policy, and Organizations: Frontiers in the Scientific Study of Bureaucracy , 2003 .

[53]  M. Jong,et al.  Families of Nations and Institutional Transplantation , 2002 .

[54]  Daniel Carpenter,et al.  The forging of bureaucratic autonomy : reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928 , 2001 .

[55]  Daniel Carpenter,et al.  The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Networks, Reputations and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862- 1928 , 2001 .

[56]  H. G. Frederickson,et al.  Public Management Reform and Innovation , 1999 .

[57]  S. Borins.  Innovating with Integrity: How Local Heroes Are Transforming American Government , 1998 .

[58]  Nicholas S. Vonortas.  The Process of Technological Innovation , 1997 .

[59]  P. Light.  Creating Government that Encourages Innovation , 1994 .

[60]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Explanations in Political Science , 1991 .

[61]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics , 1989 .

[62]  J. L. Pierce,et al.  Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation , 1977 .

[63]  J. Laurenson.  Leadership in administration. , 1965, The New Zealand nursing journal. Kai tiaki.