معادله نوآوری: درک ارتباط بین انسجام تیمی، انگیزه و ذهنیت تفکر طراحی در تقویت عملکرد نوآورانه کارکنان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی - کمی

نویسندگان

1 گرایش کسب و کار جدید، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 گروه کارآفرینی سازمانی، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 گروه کارآفرینی کسب و کار جدید، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

4 گروه توسعه کارآفرینی، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

10.22059/jed.2023.360821.654213

چکیده

هدف: این مطالعه نقش پویایی تیم، انگیزه کارکنان و کاربرد ذهنیت تفکر طراحی در پرورش نوآوری را در یک محیط کسب و کار در حال تکامل، بررسی می‌کند زیرا نوآوری برای حفظ رقابت مولفه ای بسیار مهم تلقی می‌شود و تقویت آن به طور مداوم چالش های مهمی را در ساختار تیمی متنوع و پیچیده ایجاد می کند. هدف نهایی پژوهش، بررسی تأثیر انسجام تیمی، انگیزه کارکنان و ذهنیت تفکر طراحی بر عملکرد نوآورانه می‌باشد.

روش تحقیق: داده ها از طریق نظرسنجی از 283 کارمند از مشاغل مختلف نوآورانه جمع آوری شد. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها از آمار توصیفی و مدل سازی معادلات ساختاری (SEM) استفاده شد.

یافته‌ها: در حالی که بین انگیزه کارکنان و عملکرد نوآورانه همبستگی مستقیم وجود نداشت، یک رابطه مثبت معنادار بین انسجام تیم و عملکرد نوآورانه شناسایی شد، که ذهنیت تفکر طراحی به طور موثر این روابط را میانجی‌گری می‌کند. بنابراین ذهنیت تفکر طراحی به عنوان یک عامل مهم در افزایش عملکرد نوآورانه تلقی شد.

نتیجه‌گیری: این تحقیق بر اهمیت پرورش ذهنیت تفکر طراحی، در ترکیب با انسجام تیمی و انگیزه کارکنان، برای افزایش عملکرد نوآورانه در سازمان‌ها تأکید می‌کند. این بینش‌ها برای سازمان‌هایی که به دنبال پرورش فرهنگ پایدار نوآوری هستند، حیاتی هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Innovation Equation: Understanding the Connection between Team Cohesion, Motivation, and Design Thinking Mindset in Boosting Employee's Innovative Performance

نویسندگان [English]

  • Setareh Shiralian 1
  • Faraz Ghodratizadeh 2
  • Kambiz Talebi 3
  • Ehsan Chitsaz 4
1 M.Sc. Graduate Student, Department of New Business Creation, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 M.Sc. Graduate Student, Department of Corporate Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor, Department of New Business Creation Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Entrepreneurship Development, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Objective: This study examined the relationships among team cohesion, employee motivation, and innovative behavior, focusing on the mediating role of a design thinking mindset. The intent was to understand dynamics driving innovation within organizations and identify future research directions considering various mediating factors in different organizational environments.

Methodology: Data was gathered through a survey of 283 employees from various innovation-focused businesses. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The interplay among team cohesion, employee motivation, innovative behavior, and the design thinking mindset as a potential mediator, was examined using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) aided by Partial Least Squares (SMART PLS).

Results: While no statistically significant direct correlation between employee motivation and innovative behavior was found, a strong positive relationship was discovered between team cohesion and innovative behavior. Importantly, a design thinking mindset was identified as a significant mediator in these relationships, enhancing the influence of team cohesion and motivation on innovation.

Conclusion: The study highlighted the importance of nurturing a design thinking mindset within organizations. When combined with team cohesion and employee motivation, it amplifies innovative behavior. These findings have significant implications for organizations aiming to foster a robust culture of innovation amidst growing competitive pressures. Future research should further explore potential mediating factors impacting innovative behavior across various organizational contexts.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Design Thinking
  • Design Thinking Mindset
  • Employee'
  • s Innovative Behavior
  • Motivation
  • Team Cohesion
Anderson, G. L. (2016). Introduction. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.3102/00346543024004268, 24(4), 268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543024004268
 
Anom, S. P., & Gustomo, A. (2023). The Role of Employees’ Innovative Work in Mediation of  The Influence of Transformational Leadership on Performance Improvement. Journal of World Science, 2(5), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.58344/JWS.V2I1.213
 
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989
 
Bertin, C. (2020). Driving factors for symbiotic collaborations between startups and large firms in open innovation ecosystems. 435 p. https://theses.hal.science/tel-04129670
Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2016). Building Project Capabilities: From Exploratory to Exploitative Learning. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1177/0170840604048002, 25(9), 1601–1621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604048002
 
Brady, T., Davies, A., & Nightingale, P. (2012). Dealing with uncertainty in complex projects: revisiting Klein and Meckling. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 718–736. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371211269022/FULL/PDF
Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F., & Abrell, T. (2016). Design thinking as mindset, process, and toolbox: Experiences from research and teaching at the university of St.Gallen. In Design Thinking for Innovation: Research and Practice (pp. 3–21). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_1
 
Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5248069_Design_Thinking
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1596/1020-797X_12_1_29
 
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Source: Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. http://www.jstor.orgURL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511637Accessed:11/04/200809:41
Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: A meta-analytic test of theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 809–830. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0027652
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12153
Carnovale, S., Rogers, D. S., & Yeniyurt, S. (2019). Broadening the perspective of supply chain finance: The performance impacts of network power and cohesion. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(2), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PURSUP.2018.07.007
 
Carron, A. V. (2016). Cohesiveness in Sport Groups: Interpretations ani Considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1123/JSP.4.2.123
 
Casey-Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-2370.2008.00239.X
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
        https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DESTUD.2011.07.006
 
Efeoglu, A., Møller, C., Sérié, M., & Boer, H. (2013). Design Thinking: Characteristics and Promises (pp. 241–256). Continuous Innovation Network. https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/design-thinking-characteristics-and-promises
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
 
Glen, R., Suciu, C., & Baughn, C. (2014). The need for design thinking in business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(4), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2012.0308
Gruber, M., De Leon, N., George, G., & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by Design. Https://Doi.Org/10.5465/Amj.2015.4001, 58(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2015.4001
 
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks. Sage, 165.
Hassi L., & Laaksi M. (2011). Design thinking-a popular but vague concept.
Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (2010). Creative thinking ability: Domain generality and specificity. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.503535
 
Huang, C. C. (2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11), 786–797.
 
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.
 
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159587
 
Jaskyte, K., & Liedtka, J. (2022). Design thinking for innovation: Practices and intermediate outcomes. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21498
 
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023
Jong, J. de. (2006). Individual Innovation: The Connection Between Leadership and Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior. Scales Research Reports. https://ideas.repec.org/p/eim/papers/r200604.html
Jung, R. E., Mead, B. S., Carrasco, J., & Flores, R. A. (2013). The structure of creative cognition in the human brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, JUN. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00330
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative Confidence, Crown Business.
Li, Z. (2023). Mechanism of Transformational Leadership on Team Performance and Recommended Interventions on AI-Lab. International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 12. https://doi.org/10.53615/2232-5697.12.39-52
 
Liedtka, J. (2013). Innovative ways companies are using design thinking. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-01-2014-0004
Liedtka, J., Ogilvie, T., & Brozenske, R. (2019). The designing for growth field book : a step-by-step project guide. http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-designing-for-growth-field-book/9780231187893
Mach, M. (2015). Team Performance in Cross Cultural Project Teams: The Moderated Mediation role of Consensus, Heterogeneity, Faultlines and Trust.
Martin, R., & Martin, R. L. (2009). The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Press. https://books.google.ge/books?id=CvpAgm8dQQkC
Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Group Cohesiveness and Productivity: A Closer Look. Human Relations, 42(9), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678904200902
 
Nakata, C., & Hwang, J. (2020). Design thinking for innovation: Composition, consequence, and contingency. Journal of Business Research, 118, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.038
 
Pezeshki, C. (2015). Understanding Engineering Relational and Knowledge Structures for Facilitation of Collaboration and Global Development. ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Proceedings (IMECE), 11. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2014-38640
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Examining Reasons for Acting in Two Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
 
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1985). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being Self-Determination Theory.
Salas, E., Vessey, W. B., & Estrada, A. (2015). Team Cohesion: Advances in Psychological Theory, Methods and Practice. 17. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1534-0856201517
 
Tan, A. B. C., van Dun, D. H., & Wilderom, C. (2023). Lean innovation training and transformational leadership for employee creative role identity and innovative work behavior in a public service organization. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2022-0126/FULL/PDF
Thompson, R., & Barclay, D. W. (1995). The partial least squares approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313137896
Tziner, A., & Vardi, Y. (1982). Effects of command style and group cohesiveness on the performance effectiveness of self-selected tank crews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 769–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.6.769
 
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., De Witte, S., De Witte, H., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The ‘why’ and ‘why not’ of job search behaviour: their relation to searching, unemployment experience, and well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/EJSP.202
 
Zamani-Farahani, H., & Musa, G. (2012). The relationship between Islamic religiosity and residents’ perceptions of socio-cultural impacts of tourism in Iran: Case studies of Sare’in and Masooleh. Tourism Management, 33(4), 802–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2011.09.003