self leadership and employee innovative behavor …€¦ · comprises of self-talk and mental...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1725 [email protected]

International Journal of Management (IJM) Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2020, pp. 1725-1739, Article ID: IJM_11_08_153

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=8

ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510

DOI: 10.34218/IJM.11.8.2020.153

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

SELF LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE

INNOVATIVE BEHAVOR AMONG TELECOM

INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES

Roqaiya Qaiser

M. Phil Scholar, Department of Leadership and Management Studies (LMS),

National Defence University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Shazia Hassan*

Assistant Professor, (LMS), National Defence University,

Islamabad, Pakistan

Wajeeha Ghias

Lecturer, (LMS), National Defence University,

Islamabad, Pakistan

IFFAT RASOOL

Assistant Professor, Department Management Sciences,

University of Wah,Wah Cantt,Pakistan

Corresponding Author: *

ABSTRACT

The study aims to study the impact of self-leadership (SL) on different stages of

employee innovative work behavior (EIWB) in the industry of telecom in Pakistan. The

study also inspects the overall impact of Self Leadership on the total E1WB. Based on

the hypothesis it was proposed that EWIB is affected by Self leadership in a positive

manner. In order to test this hypothesis, a self-administered questionnaire was used to

do a quantitative research and a total of 205 responses were collected from employees

from a company in Telecom sector. Based on the results from the regression and

correlation analysis, it was suggested that there was a significant impact of self-

leadership on all the three stages of employee innovative work behavior. In addition to

that, the overall impact on of self-leadership on EIWB was also very prominent. It was

concluded from the results of this study that, self-leadership is a powerful tool of

motivation and it helps the employees to portray innovative work behavior at each stage

of EIWB i.e. idea promotion, idea generation and idea realization.

Keywords: Self leadership, Employee innovative work behavior, Idea generation, Idea

promotion, Idea realization, Telecom

Roqaiya Qaiser, Shazia Hassan, Wajeeha Ghias and Iffat Rasool


Cite this Article: Roqaiya Qaiser, Shazia Hassan, Wajeeha Ghias and Iffat Rasool, Self-

Leadership and Employee Innovative Behavor Among Telecom Industry Employees,

International Journal of Management, 11(8), 2020, pp. 1725-1739.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=8

1. INTRODUCTION

Alteration in primary guidelines, worldwide competition and technological advancements has

made it tremendously complicated for business enterprise to struggle in today’s world of

business efficaciously. Consequently, at present, innovation on continues basis is critical cause

for organizational continued existence in market-oriented economies. As a consequence,

associations are increasingly further involved in exploring all those aspects that enhance the

innovative behavior of employee at work (EIWB) (Bruce & Scott, 1994, Agarwal, 2014). This

is basically correct for telecommunication industry because the fast speed expansion of telecom

services can be enlighten by quite a number of factors, which include advancements in

marketplace liberalization, technology, privatization and innovation. However, innovation is

not always a novel and fresh thought while studying literature any longer; though, an incredibly

little part of the literature emphases on the component of organizational structures that pointers

innovation in the organization (Chandler, Lyon, & Keller, 2000). According to Boer & During,

2001, the process of innovation can be as incremental, synthetic and discontinuous. Many of

the individual and organizational factors have been considered as essential factors of innovative

behavior of an employee at work. (e.g., Janssen, van de Vliert, 2004; Mumford and Licuanan

2004). A lot of researchers (Shahzad, Xiu G et al, 2017) explore flexibility and organizational

culture as the basic factors of innovative work behavior.

In 2007 De Jong divided these activities in two stages: the initiation and the implementation.

Obviously thinking about new ideas and instrument is first step to improve the products,

processes and to deal with organizational issues. The outcomes of this phase are the base for

the second phase. Once an idea is produced, the phase of initiation jumps into the phase of

implementation. This phase involves the implementation and practical application of the new

idea. Once the new idea is implemented, the phase of implementation includes developing,

testing, modifying, and commercializing the idea (King & Anderson, 2002). Other than that a

number of studies and researches pay attention to how diverse leadership types effect on

innovative behavior of an employee at work (e.g,Kahai, Sosik,&Avolio 2003; Tseng&Tsai,

2010).

The most important reason of studying leadership as a corresponded to employee innovative

work behavior is that despite the fact that literature improved much but nevertheless many work

has to be done relating to the leadership. The practitioners and scholars of leadership have

generally focused on the individual leading the organization or team, and his or her affiliation

with people who follow leaders. An emergent approach of the scholars proposes that the

leadership is a movement that can be shared and disseminated organization or group members.

This open an new strain of considering informal leadership in organizations wherein

employees are authorize to make decision regarding their own duties and task at work and put

in force to them. According to Freeman (2004) the set of proper & good strategies to get

improvements in personal abilities is self-leadership. Relatively, self-leadership is a new

approach. Thus, a little significant research and scientific theory is available on individual

change. Mainly, the sample for this study was collected from Pakistan telecommunication

industry employee. Because more than the last few decades, in many of countries the

telecommunications industry have been growing fastly. Technological improvement and

advancement in telecommunications have decreased communications expenditure and

facilitated the globalization of markets and production. Pakistani telecoms must work towards

Self-Leadership and Employee Innovative Behavor Among Telecom Industry Employees


creating new value chains based on a demanding user whose expectations will increase with

each passing day. According to the Deputy CEO of Zong (CM Pak) in a report said that,

“Innovation will have to be the key strategic pillar; this has been lacking in previous years

and will continue to make a vital difference and to make performance breakthroughs.”

Based on literature review, it identified that innovation is a continuous process for an

organization to prosper and progressive, which is very difficult without internal motivation and

development on the employees. That’s shows the importance of innovation for Pakistan

telecommunication sectors. Even though the impact of different varieties of management on

innovative effort activities has been alternate in past, but, there is very few work if one nearly

the connection among self-leadership and employee innovative behavior at work in preceding

investigation studies which is a novel occurrence of leadership. Specifically, we strive to make

contributions to an emerging study on self leadership, which has so far gained insufficient

interest. So, this research finds out how employee work innovative behavior with its three stages

can be accomplished in Pakistan Telecom sector by using Self leadership. Present research

progresses the body of knowledge by choosing exclusive arrangement of the variables which

enhance a new model in the perspective of self leadership, employee innovative work behavior,

and organizational culture. This particular research focuses on how self leadership impact on

new dimensions of employee innovative work behavior in telecom business of Pakistan. The

key objectives of the research were to investigate and check empirically the relationship of Self

leadership and EWIB with its dimensions. It also investigates how dimensions of self leadership

impacts on employee innovative work behavior under the dimensions of Idea generation, Idea

promotion, Idea realization.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Self Leadership

Leadership has always been a comprehensively wider topic of concern for most of the

researchers in the area of organizational culture. For many decades researchers are working in

this field to identify new models theories and the instruments of measurement. The results have

been quite remarkable. Over 50 billion dollars have been spent per year for leadership

development since 2000 that shows the importance of organizational behavior studies

(McCallum&Connell, 2009). A lot of curiosity in discovering the social aspect of leadership

has been noted in the recent studies (Balkundi &Kilduff, 2006; Uhl- Bien, 2006). However, in

another way, unfortunately, the complexity of inner leadership and motivation of an individual

has been undermined and ignored at the same time.

The practitioners and scholars of leadership have generally focused on the individual

leading the organization or team, and his or her affiliation with employee following them. This

approach give emphasis to an influence related vertical procedure i.e. top-down, in which single

individual leader managed, controlled and influenced the subordinates and employees. Over

several years, this was the accepted standard within the leadership area. A developing approach

of the scholars proposes that leadership is a movement that can be shared and disseminated

organization or group members. This started a novel strains of considering informal type of

leadership in organizations in which employees are authorize and ordered to

formulate decision regarding their own duties and task at work and put in force to them.

The process in which one influences his/herself to develop a self-motivation and direction

for a better and enhanced performance is called self-leadership. This managerial feature has

been developed initially from the literature of social learning (Bandura, 1969; Cautela 1969;

Goldfried and Merbaum, 1973) .Basically, in organizational literature, the focus is always on

self-management (Andrasik and Heimberg, 1982; Manz and Sims, 1980). The skills of self-



leadership are a model that has had produced a handsome amount of research efforts more than

the past several years (e.g. Manz, 1992; Manz and Neck, 1999; Manz and Sims, 2001).

Generically it is a procedure, relatively influenced, during which the personals either

individually or in groups navigate, motivate themselves or move forward for achievement of

excellent outcomes and behavior (Manz, 1992). The roots can be traced to theoretical

background which focuses the concept of self-navigation (Carver and Scheier, 1981; Kanfer,

1970), self-management (Andrasik and Heimberg, 1982; Manz and Sims, 1980) and self-

control (Mahoney and Arnkoff, 1978).

The attribute of Self-leadership is conceptualized as a process in which oneself is leaded or

influenced in through a meaningful control in thoughts and desires (Manz and Neck, 1991).

This also includes the involvement and utilization of a specific strategic cognition which

comprises of self-talk and mental imagery. The idea of self-leadership focuses on a specific

aspect of the broader process of self-leadership (Manz, 1983, 1992) and enhances prospectively

in the organizational literature including Weick’s (1979) ‘future perfect thinking’ and the

analysis of affect in organizations (e.g. Sims and Gioia, 1986). To establish and maintain an

effective participative system the education of self-leadership skills is necessary. The base to

this system is the learning that involves helping people to develop self-thinking. A recently

proposed framework Self-Leadership (S-L) is totally based on the concept that thinking process

is controlled by oneself. This S-L proposition is extension of self-leadership introduced by

Manz (1983, 1986, 1992). S-L is a process used to build the self-direction and motivation in

oneself for a better performance. Primarily this concept has been developed from the SLT

literature especially Bandura, 1977, 1986. Research in self-control done previously by Bandura,

1969; Mahoney & Arnkoff 1978) is quite useful for a better understanding. On the other hand,

in literature based on organizational approach, the primary and base focus is made on self-

management (Andrasik & Heimberg, 1982, Sims & Manz, 1980). Self-Leadership(S-L) is so

considered as an effective process for enhancement of self-direction and motivation for a better

and improved performance of employees (Manz 1986, Manz and Neck 2004). On a broader

construct, self-leadership consists of a set of three corresponding and interrelated behavioral

and cognitive strategies, which impact subsequent outcomes. These are: Behavior Focused

Strategies (BFS), Natural Reward Strategies (NRS) and Constructive Thought Pattern

Strategies (CTPS).

2.2. Employee Innovative Work Behavior

Innovation has been defined by researchers and practitioners in a variety of ways. Some have

looked at it from the value perspective; others too have sought to explain it based on its degree

of newness or novelty. Yet still, some have defined it from the viewpoint of their disciplines.

For example, Porter (1990: 780) defines it as a differently new way of undertaking some task

in commercialization” The implicit assumption underlying this definition is that innovation is

valuable only when it adds economic value to a firm. Thus, it narrowly focuses on product and

service innovation. This definition appears problematic since innovation may not always be

valuable to a firm (Kimberly, 1981). However, using newness to equate innovation raises a

challenge since an innovation that is new in a firm may not necessarily be new to another

organization (Van de Ven, 1986).

Another same and most famous concept of innovation is given by West and Farr (1990: 9).

According to these guys an intentional but significant and comparatively new introduction and

implementation of organization of ideas, steps, products and or procedures that can make a

difference in market is called innovation. This definition is adopted for this study because it has

a number of features that fits the current study’s context. West and Farr (1990) explained the

innovative work behaviors as the behaviors of employees’ focused at the introduction and



implementation of ideas, the generation, production procedures and processes. The appropriate

unit of acceptance should be new that can advantage for the respective unit of adoption up-to a

significant level. Later on, Agarwal defined the term in 2014 as an important ingredient for any

organization to reach the level of success and to survive comprehensively. Due to this

importance of innovative work behaviors and considering it as an important factor in the

development of performance in any organization, Damanpour [1987, p-675] claimed that

innovative work behavior has been a most important subject of study for practitioners and

researchers for years. Another approach is linking the innovative behavior with the tough

competition in between different organizations. The organizations keep on looking for new

levels in innovative behaviors in order to stay updated and to compete with the market (Tsai &

Tseng, in 2010). Abraham Carmeli in 2006 refined the definition of innovative behavior quite

differently. According to Abraham, it is a multi-stage process which motivates an individual to

think for new ideas and solutions to the problems. It works in promoting and building support

to the problems. It helps in developing a prototypical model to benefit the organization in a

significant manner. Consequently, researchers have conceptualized individual’s innovative

work behavior1 as a complex behavior encompassing both employee creative behavior and

implementation behavior (sees e.g. Janssen, 2000, de Jong and den Hartog, 2010; Scott and

Bruce, 1994; Yuan and Woodman, 2010). This study follows Yuan and Woodman’s (2010:

324) and defines innovative work behavior as “an employee’s deliberate introduction of new

thoughts, processes, products, and procedures to her or his work task, or organization.” In other

words, innovative work behavior entails an employee’s conscious generation and use of

novelties, either developed in the organization or adopted from external sources, to enhance

their work activities or organizational processes in general. Examples of such behaviors include

finding solutions to problems, convincing people to support new ideas, finding new approaches

to doing work and searching for new methods and technologies.

One can conclude that innovative work behavior is not just a single element; it is compound

phenomena inside out. It consists of a set of behaviors, Scott & Bruce 1994. Finding new

opportunities and generating new ideas from these opportunities for producing more useful

results is an important aspect this phenomena. Once an idea is generated, its promotion is

required to make people aware of the main features and benefits of this idea, de_Jong & den-

Hartog 2010. Finally, application makes the supported idea really happen. It includes

developing, testing, modifying, and commercializing the idea. This study mainly concentrates

on different three major stages of employee innovative behavior at work as follows: Idea

generation, Idea promotion, Idea realization.

2.3. Self Leadership and Employee Innovative Work Behavior

A encouraging and positive connection between Self-leadership (SL) and the outcome of effort

is normally witnessed by a growing body of evidence. Besides this, a further investigation is

also required to analyze the relationship between the above mentioned steps i.e. self-leadership

and the outcome. Phelan & Young in 2003 discussed selectively the creativeness of self-

leadership and referred it to a reflective internal process of human being through which the

individual (male/female) controls the thoughts, navigates the intentions and molds them in the

direction of desired results, changes, innovations and improvements.

According to Phelan & Young in 2003, although this process is a basic & initial effort which

needs further investigations still it has significant relationship in between creativity and self-

leadership. Recognition of problems, thinking of about new ideas, their promotions and

enhancement of coalition of the agreeing individuals and production of productive, effective

and applicable ideas is the main requirement for innovation in the workplace (Scott & Bruce

1994). This process of innovation in workplace is a wide and complex phenomenon that may



encounters sometimes a large number of difficulties consequently uprising obstacles and

frustration amongst the individuals. An effective effort is always required as well as boldness

and courage is required to deal with the demanding situations. Further the individual may

encounter some resistive forces in their actions because people definitely like the stability and

resist and feel unsafe in case of un-certainty that may occur during the innovation process.

Recently some studies have unveiled the importance of organizational audit, justice and

fairness (Janssern 2004; Tepper 2001) in order to reduce the stress element faced by the

employees while working in new innovated circumstances. Only those who know the self-

leadership fully will be able to perform well and they are supposed to achieve the motivation,

inspiration and self-direction (Houghton et al. 2003, Manz 1986, Manz & Neck 1999). This

method enables the individuals how to lead, how to move forward with motivation and the will

of achievement. Consequently the constructive thought patters turn into mandatory through the

initial phase. Finally, the individual is capable enough to deal with a problem and to think, build

& recommend new and more effective solutions for solving the very problem.

The innovation process and self-leadership is all about the improvisation of self-skills and

capabilities of individuals to tackle the new problems and thus, thinking of new solutions and

ideas. Self-leadership is, frankly speaking, a process that encourages as well as enables the

individuals for a transition of their ideas, thinking and beliefs towards the achievement of

desired goals. Though all, are motivated enough by the process of self-leadership still all are

not capable for the desired achievements, that for sure a natural dilemma. (Latham & Locke

1991). Consequently, the reason of this research is to explore whether or not the self-leadership

has an impact on the employee innovative work behavior.

2.4. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

The conceptual framework is generated from the discussion above in the literature review. The

Fig 1 & Fig 2 describes the relationship between the variable which is provided by the

hypothesis.

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

Figure 2 Conceptual Framework



2.5. Hypotheses

H1. Self-leadership has positive and direct impact on idea generation stage of EIWB.

H2. Self-leadership has positive and direct impact on idea promotion stage of EIWB.

H3. Self-leadership has positive and direct impact on idea realization stage of EIWB.

H4. Self-leadership has positive and direct impact on overall EIWB.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In 2003 Collis and hussy stated that, research design can be defined as a plan which can be used

to conduct a research. The quantitative method is used for this particular research to determining

how self-leadership effect employee work innovative behavior of an individual in an

organization

3.1. Sampling frame & Target Population

The employees of telecommunication companies of Pakistan are the target population of this

research as respondents. There are many companies operating in a telecom sector of Pakistan.

The researcher selected the top most five companies of telecommunication industry and their

franchises. In this research study sampling frame had its focus on telecommunication industry

only. The area selected for this particular research is Rawalpindi and Islamabad. The target

audiences are those who are involve in contribution of organization performance and their

innovative ability effected by self-leadership. Basically they are the employee of the

telecommunication organization.

3.2. Sampling Technique

There are usually two types of sampling i.e. probability and non-probability sampling. In this

research, study will be cross-sectional, non contrived (non experimental) and one industry

study. The sampling technique used in this research is non probability convenience sampling

for data collection. The main reason for using this technique is due to limitation of accessibility

and most important to get the worthy responses from the responded who are willing to give the

response on time of the questionnaire.

3.3. Sample Size

In a multivariate research, the sample size should be at least 10 times or more than the number

of variables in the study. (Roscose, 1975). Approximately 300 questionnaires were distributed.

At last making so many requests and hard persuasions, 229 responses were received in both

hard copy and Google forms with a response rate of 76.36%. Few questionnaire in which

question were not answered, falsely replied or missing are incomplete filling of survey

instruments. These 24 responses were discarded. Thus 205 responses were found correct and

complete and used in final study. The data collected were genuine and reliable and the sample

was not duplicated and neither the respondents were given any opportunity to give multiple

response.

3.4. Research Instrument

The questionnaire is most common tool used for gathering and recording the information from

a respondent’s attitude, behavior or opinion about a specific issue. The questionnaire design for

this research study consists of two parts. Part 1 consist of demographic information about the

respondents includes age, gender, qualification, city residence, profession, organization etc.

Part II consist 52 questions based on the variables used in the research. In part II there are 2

sections one is for self-leadership (IV). Self-leadership is measured by using RSLQ i.e. revised



self-leadership questionnaire. The RSLQ is developed by Jeffery D. Houghton and Christopher

P. Neck by constructing the previous version of self-leadership questionnaire of Anderson and

Prussia, 1997, Cox 1993. Questionnaire consists of 35 self-leadership questions. The RSLQ

dimensions are Natural rewards, Behavior focused strategy and Constructive thoughts with the

alpha 0.91 (Cox 1993). The second is for employee work innovative behavior (DV). The

questionnaire consists of 17 question of employee work innovative behavior with three

dimensions. i.e idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization. Questionnaire is adopt

from Jeroen de Jong and Deanne den Hartog 2010 paper, encouraged by Janssen (2000),

Kleysen and Street (2001) and Scott and Bruce (1994) with the reported alpha .94.

3.5. Data Collection techniques

The two types of data were collected in this research i.e. primary and secondary. In this research

study, the method used for collecting primary data is the questionnaire survey method as the

main source of collecting direct information from the employees. The hard copies of the

questionnaire were distributed to the employees of telecommunication industry and

questionnaires were also distributed to the number of organization via Google forms. The

questionnaires are filled by various department employees of different job position,

qualification and age. Such a kind of data collection method was chosen to be used because of

its simplicity, reliability, involvement of direct responses which were easy to achieve by the

help of multiple choice question. Primary data were collected with help of survey questionnaire

which were distributed among the telecommunication companies and their franchises in

Rawalpindi and Islamabad. The lists of organizations are as follow,

PTCL

Ufone

Telenore

Warid/Jazz

Zong

Through a number of relevant journal articles, publications, magazine articles and

newspaper articles secondary data was obtained.

3.6. Pilot testing

The researcher must investigate the satisfactory level of reliability and validity for the

measurement model before moving on the testing for a relationship of variable of whole data

(Larcker and Fornell, 1981). The research did pilot testing to check the validity and reliability

of the questionnaire on a small size of responses. It is done because of various reasons i.e. to

detect error and weakness in questionnaire, to check validity and reliability of the question and

whether the questions in the survey are understandable to the respondent or not. The researcher

for pilot testing purpose sent 75 questionnaires via Google form by sending link through emails

to the five telecommunication companies requesting them to response within a month. After a

month 55responses were collected which shows a response rate of 73.33%.

The researcher used SPSS software to use for the analysis purpose. Cronbach’s alpha of the

whole instrument was 0.93. The Cronbach’s alpha for SL and EWIB is 0.890 and 0.885

respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha of each variable and their dimensions are above 0.7 which

is an acceptable value. This indicates that the scale used in the survey questionnaire is good,

sufficient and appropriate for the main study.

4. DATA ANALYSIS



The questionnaires distributed to the telecommunication employee were total 300 through

Google Forms or by mailing hard copies. Out of which only 229 questionnaires were returned,

24 were discarded because of false statements and partially filled. 205 questionnaires were used

in the final study. From the responses some demographic information is collected. 59% male

and 41% female responded to the questionnaire. Different managerial level employees were

approached i.e. Executive, Middle and operational level. The age bracket is 20 years to 50 above

years of the respondent were targeted.

4.1. Descriptive analysis

The detail of descriptive analysis is shown in the table 1. The 5-point likert scale was used in

the questionnaire. The maximum and minimum value of the scales specifies that the entire data

were normally distributed. The values of Skewness are in an acceptable range i.e. +1 to -1 and

the mean value of data measured was also appropriate. The kurtosis value is also in acceptable

range i.e. +3 to -3.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation

Skewness Kurtosis

Self-leadership 205 1 5 2.39 .598 0.252

0.779

0.842

0.483

0.941

2.361

.977

.746

.009

1.437

Idea generation 205 1 5 2.28 .708

Idea promotion 205 1 5 2.22 .839

Idea realization 205 1 5 2.35 .853

Total EWIB 205 1 5 2.28 .685

4.2. Reliability Assessment

The values of Cronbach’s Alpha for one independent variable and one dependent variable i.e

Self Leadership (SL) and Employee Work Innovative Behavior (EWIB) are in Table 2.The

reliability coefficient value of whole instrument was .934 and of all variable and other

dimensions was above 0.70 which is in an acceptable range for the exploratory study. The

reliability result indicates that the questionnaire or instrument used in research is appropriate

for further statistical analyses and it also signified that there is no requirement of exclusion of

any item.

Table 2 Cronbach Alpha

4.3. Correlation Analysis

In the research for investigating the relationship between two quantative variables, person

correlation analysis is used. Coefficient of Pearson correlation (r) is determined of strength of

relationship between the two variables. In table 3, Based on the Pearson correlation results r =

0.645, Sig= 0.00, there is a strongly positive relationship between two variables i.e. Self-

Leadership and Employee work innovative behavior. The relationship between the self-

leadership and dimensions of EWIB are also positive and significant i.e. idea generation (r=

.614, Sig=0.00, n= 205), idea promotion (r= 5.47, Sig= 0.00, n= 205), idea realization (r= 5.19,

Variable Number of items Cronbach’s Alpha

Whole Questionnaire 52 .934

Variable

Self Leadership 35 .881

EWIB 17 .878



Sig= 0.00, n= 206). It means that if the self-leadership of an individual or employee increased

the innovative ability with respect to his/her work would also increase.

Table 3: Correlations

SL EWIB IG IP IR

SL Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

EWIB Pearson Correlation .645** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

IG Pearson Correlation .614** .932** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

IP Pearson Correlation .547** .872** .716** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

IR

Pearson Correlation .519** .816** .611** .658** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 205 205 205 205 205

**. Correlation is significant at the p<0.01 level (2-tailed).

4.4. Regression Analysis

In this research for testing the developed hypothesis simple regression statistical method was

used. It investigates the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Before

jumping on the regression analysis for the prediction of total number of variance in the

dependent variable over the change in the independent variable, few important assumptions

were tested. The tested assumptions are Normality, Outliers, Independence of Observations,

Homoscedasticity and Multicolinearity. After doing all the test simple linear regression analysis

was done. The table 4 shows all the results of the regression analysis for testing hypothesis H1,

H2, H3 and H4. The result shows that model for all regression is Sig = .000.

Table 4 Model Summary for Regression Analysis

Model R Adjusted R

Square

b SE β F t p

Dependent

Variables:

EWIB

.645

.414

.740

.061

.645

144.827

12.034

0.000

Idea generation

.614

.374

.

727

.066

.614

122.741

11.079

0.000

Idea promotion

.547

.295

.768

.082

.547

86.551

9.303

0.000

Idea realization

.519

.266

.741

.086

.519

74.988

8.660

0.000

Note: S.E= standard error, b= un-standardized coefficients, β= beta (standardized

coefficients),

p= significant level.

Table 4 demonstrates that the how much variation is in the dependent variable due to

independent variable. Independent variable Self leadership causes variation in the dependent

variable i.e. Employee work innovative behavior. They are significant in terms of having impact

on work innovative behavior of an employee and its dimensions with respect to the self-

leadership in an organization. The result of the model SL and EWIB is R2= .645 and adjusted



R2= .414. The result of the model SL and idea generation is R2= .614 and adjusted R2= .374.

The result of the model SL and idea promotion is R2= .547 and adjusted R2= .295. The result

of the model SL and idea realization is R2= .519 and adjusted R2= .266. The beta value from

the table shows the variation in the dependent variable due to independent variable.

Figure 3 Test of Normality Assumptions

Figure 4 Normal P-P plot

The EWIB has over all variation of 64.5%, idea generation has variation of 61.4%, idea

promotion has 54.7% and idea realization has variation of 51.9% due to Self-Leadership. This

explains strong, positive and significant results for the all of the hypothesis of the research. The

homoscedasticity assumption was examined with the help of histrogram Figure and by normal

P-P plot. It was found that the figures meet the assumptions point.

4.5. Discussion of Result



This research is conducted to find out the Self leadership has an impact on Employee Work

Innovative Behavior and its demission. The data was collected through questionnaire. The

internal reliability of the questionnaire was test by doing pilot testing by the help of Cronbach’s

alpha. The survey questionnaire was termed as reliable because the value of Cronbach’s Alpha

fell within the acceptable range for all the variables. A lot of responses were collected from web

based survey because of its ability to reduce the risk of incomplete submission of responses and

these responses were valid and reliable. Data were collected from the telecommunication

companies in the twin cities Islamabad and Rawalpindi of Pakistan i.e. PTCL, Ufone, Telenore,

Jazz/warid, Zong. Most of the responses were collected from the PTCL employees who are at

middle management level and fell in the age bracket of 20-50 above mentioned in the research

methodology.

The descriptive analysis table demonstrates that the data was normally distributed as all the

value of Skewness fell within the range of +1 to -1. On the bases of correlation analysis the

relationship of the Self leadership the independent variable and the dependent variable i.e.

Employee work innovative behavior and its dimensions has a positive strong correlation within

telecommunication industry of Pakistan. This means that if one variable increased the other will

also be increased, if one decreased the other will also decreased. It shows that they have the

positive directional association with respect to each other.

All the assumptions were tested through test and graphs and the result of assumptions were

being met before moving to the regression analysis. Regression analysis shows that the

independent variables Self leadership has significant relationship with dependent variable work

innovative behavior with respect to the employee of Telecommunication Industry in twin cities

of Pakistan i.e. Islamabad and Rawalpindi. From the regression analysis, First hypothesis was

the Self leadership has direct and positive effect on idea generation. The result shows that the

self leadership has significant and positive correlation impact on idea generation, so the H1 is

accepted. Second hypothesis was the Self leadership has direct and positive effect on idea

promotion. The result shows that the self leadership has significant and positive correlation

impact on idea generation, so the H2 is not rejected. The Third hypothesis was the Self

leadership has direct and positive effect on idea realization. The result shows that the self

leadership has significant and positive correlation impact on idea generation, so the H3 is not

rejected. The fourth and last hypothesis was the Self leadership has direct and positive impact

on overall EWIB. The beta of the independent variable Self leadership is 0.645 with the

significance level (P- value) less than 0.05, so it is significant. Based on the result hypothesis 4

is accepted. This means from the result if the self leadership of an individual employee of the

organization is positive and increasing with respect to behavior focused strategies, natural

rewards and cognitive thoughts then the innovative behavior of an employee towards his /her

work would also increase.

In literature Neck and Manz in 1996 suggests that the employee have to trained to develop

and adopt their skill of self leadership so that they can improve the work innovation and

performance by giving good outcome. This research shows that self leaders give comparatively

high innovation in the organization. The present study demonstrate that the Pakistani

telecommunication industry employees shows that they do self leadership and that’s why they

as a result illustrate innovativeness at work for the organization.

5. CONCLUSION

This study investigates the impact of Self Leadership on Employee Work Innovative Behavior

with the moderating role of Organizational Culture in the Telecommunication Industry of the

twin cities of Pakistan. The data collected with respect to the telecommunication organization

of Islamabad and Rawalpindi is done by the extensive literature review. The total population is



taken as N=300 and simple random sampling are used as a sampling technique. All survey

questionnaires were filled by employees of every department of telecom sector. Both male and

female population employed in the telecom organization with in the age bracket of 20-50 with

the error cushion of 1%. Both primary and secondary data was used in this research. Five

different organizations with their franchise were targeted and the questionnaires were

distributed on the basis of personal reference as well as by sending email of Google forms to

the concern person. First the pilot study was done to check the reliability and validity of the

questionnaire then the actual data was collected. Validity and reliability of whole data was

checked which was in an acceptable range i.e. above 0.7. Then correlation and regression

analysis was done. For all the test and analysis SPSS 16 version was used.

The study explores that the connection between the independent variable Self Leadership

and dependent variable Employee Work Innovative Behavior is positive strong with respect to

the work in the organization. After that regression analysis was done for testing hypothesis 1.

The results show and explain that there is a significant association between the independent

variable Self Leadership and independent variable Employee Work Innovative Behavior.

Based on the results we can conclude that the employee innovation will have to be the key

strategic pillar; this has been lacking in previous years and will continue to make a vital

difference in 2018 for the telecommunication industry of Pakistan. Robust and innovative

solutions for employee can serve as new areas of growth for telecommunication industry giants.

The telecommunication industry can play a key role in self-leadership and should focus on

creating innovative solutions for this type of consumer. Solving customer needs and the creation

of the new and supportive cultural mind-set should increase the self-leadership and innovation

in employees at work and it became a key focus for telecommunication industry of Pakistan.

5.1. Practical and Managerial Implications

The findings from this research propose many implications for organizational executive, middle

and operational level employees, specifically for organizations operating in Pakistan and HR

practitioners. The organizations which develop and encourage self leadership in the employee

and are supportive towards improving employee innovative behavior at work play a vital role

in creating a professional environment. Employees high on ethical dimensions, inclusive,

caring, empowering clear and understandable vision are capable to boost a healthy and

professional interaction with their colleagues.

It can be said that the root to an employee’s motivation is promoting his ‘Self leadership’

because improved self development increases their engagement in work which leads to

advanced innovations. To accomplish highest level of innovative goals, employees always have

to set a professional attitude towards work. Therefore, in the current situation where businesses

are so competitive, only the self confidence can help organizations grow in order to get a

competitive advantage. It may also assist in achieving organizational advanced servicing and

manufacturing goals by supporting a positive and effective culture of organization in

technology driven and general standard organizations specifically. Hence, it is the need of the

hour for organization to train their employees to represent better and higher self leadership

behavior within themselves. This may eventually lead to enhanced level of innovation and

employees productiveness. It is expected that the current research findings will help the telecom

industry to introduce professional and managerial attitude which should ultimately bring benefit

to the organization. The outcome of this study is also beneficial for the ‘Industrial Association’

if they take influence and prepare beneficial programs for their employees.



5.2 Limitations

There is no research which is free from limitations so a lot number of important limitations are

identified here:

The researcher could not access to all employees’ databases of the

telecommunication organization because of limited access in the company. Hence,

only those employees has been approached and requested to complete the

questionnaire, which has been willing to answer to this request.

The sample size taken in the research is not enough to show the exact and practical

image of the organization operating in Pakistan. Therefore sample size of the study

is small.

Furthermore, this research was cross-sectional study, so the sample data was

gathered in one short period of time.

The data was collected only by questionnaire. This study was limited to Pakistani

industry employee’s sample of twin cities.

5.3. Future Recommendations

A few recommendations for future research are given here:

A qualitative and longitudinal study can be done in order to understand the idea of

self-leadership, employee innovative behavior in further details.

Future researcher can also focus on applying the same combination of variables in

some other industry or business beside telecommunication industry.

The data of this study can also be collected by interviews.

To enlarge the external validity of the study, the future researchers can use larger

size of sample more than existing respondents in their studies, by including other

employees who could not become the part of this research.

Employee innovative behavior and self leadership can be examined by means of

incorporating of a number of moderating or mediating variables, for instance

organizational culture, social capital and performance.

Finally, the existing study was done on Pakistan industry; hence, it can also be done

on other under developing countries or for other nation of the world specifically

those countries which are promoting innovation in organization to become

developed nation.

REFERENCE

[1] Agarwal, (2014) "Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement",

Personnel Review , Vol. 43 Issue: 1, pp.41-73,

[2] Andrasik, F. and Heimberg, J.S. (1982), “Self-management procedures”, in Frederikson, L.W.

(Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior Management, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 219-47.

[3] Balkundi, P., & Kilduff, M. (2006). The ties that lead: A social network approach to

leadership. The leadership quarterly, 17(4), 419-439.

[4] Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. Goslin (Ed.),

Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213-262). Chicago: Rand McNally.

[5] Boer, H., & During, W. E. (2001). Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product,

process and organisational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1-

3), 83-107.

[6] Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior

at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75-90.



[7] Chandler, G. N., Keller, C.,&Lyon, D. W.(2000). Unraveling the determinants and

consequences of an inn ovation-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship: Theory

and Practice, 25(1), 59.

[8] Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovation:

Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13, 675–688

[9] DeJong, J. P.,& DenHartog, D. N. (2007).Howleaders influence employees’ innovative

behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1 (1), 41–64.

[10] E. Freeman, Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Howard, 2004. Evaluation: A systematic approach.

[11] Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work

behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.

[12] Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and

group innovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 129-

145.

[13] Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and

rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context.

The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 499–524.

[14] Mahoney, M. and Arnkoff, D. (1978), “Cognitive and self-control therapies”, in Garfield, S. and

Bergin, A.E. (Eds), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Therapy Change, Wiley, New York.

[15] Manz, C.C. (1992), Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence,

Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[16] Manz, C.C. and Neck, C.P. (1999), Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for

Personal Excellence, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[17] Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (2001), The New Superleadership: Leading Others to Lead

Themselves, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San-Francisco, CA.

[18] McCallum, S., & O'Connell, D. (2009). Social capital and leadership development: Building

stronger leadership through enhanced relational skills. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 30(2), 152-166.

[19] Mumford, M. D., & Licuanan, B. (2004). Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and

directions. The leadership quarterly, 15(1), 163-171.

[20] Phelan, S. and Young, A.M. (2003), “Understanding creativity in the workplace: an examination

of individual styles and training in relation to creative confidence and creative self-leadership”,

Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 266-81.

[21] Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral sciences [by] John T.

Roscoe.

[22] Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of

individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

[23] Shahzad, F., Xiu, G., & Shahbaz, M. (2017). Organizational culture and innovation performance

in Pakistan's software industry. Technology in Society, 51, 66-73

[24] Tsai, C. T.,& Tseng,W. W.(2010).Aresearch agenda of transformational leadership and

innovative behavior for the hospitality industry:An integrated multilevel model. Annual

international council on hotels restaurants and institutional education conferencePuerto Rico,

USA.

[25] West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). In M.A. West, & J.L. Farr (Eds.), lnnovation and creativity

at work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies Chichester: John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

[26] Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of

performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–

342

self leadership and employee innovative behavor …€¦ · comprises of self-talk and mental...

Documents