Barriers to Organizational Innovation

The relationship between a public sector organization’s financial potential for development and constraints are triggered by complexity (Torvinen & Jansson, 2023) and organizational justice (Simmers & McMurray, 2019). As the complexity of an organizational innovation process increases, so do the challenges faced by the workforce during its implementation (Torugsa & Arundel, 2016). Public sector employees find it more challenging to bring intricate innovations to fruition than simpler ones (Torugsa & Arundel, 2016). Despite their complexity, these innovations often hold more value. To promote a culture of complex innovation, Torugsa and Arundel (2016) and Moussa (2021a) propose: enhancing management capabilities, recognizing and navigating innovation sources to overcome barriers, and creating an environment that motivates organizational employees to innovate. Several bureaucracies still rely on outdated organizational models that prioritize traditional communication and control over new inventive models that foster commitment and improved intra-organization communication (Moussa, 2021b). Golembiewski and Vigoda (2000) noted that innovation potential frequently becomes suppressed in these conventional bureaucratic settings, making them less efficient. While public sector organizations might hesitate to highlight failed innovations, fearing perceptions of waste and inefficiency, scrutinizing such failures may provide valuable insights for future endeavors. Eggers and Singh (2009) claimed that the Australian political framework is constructed on the premise that the opposition may outperform the existing government, making it attractive to highlight governmental shortcomings. While senior politicians might value innovative proposals, they are less likely to be acted upon if they challenge established policies. 

In addition, the Australian Public Service (APS) faces barriers associated with its accountability measures and legislative principles. The way rules are interpreted in the public sector may often hinder innovative approaches and practices. One public servant noted that “I shouldn’t have to sidestep my IT security or blatantly ignore departmental policies to innovate...instead, they should outline the risks and assist in addressing them” (Management Advisory Committee 2010, p. 34). Similar hindrances and challenges occur in other levels of government (Newnham, 2018).

Understanding Notions of Leadership

Various methodologies and frameworks are adopted by researchers to study the relationship between leadership and innovation. Leaders are instrumental in fostering innovation, especially when they are open to risk and endorse innovative initiatives. For example, transformational leadership has a positive relationship with an employee’s creativity and in turn organizational innovation (Nguyen, Hooi & Avvari, 2023), as does design leadership (Muenjohn & McMurray, 2017). The ethos of an organization is significantly shaped by its leaders, especially those at departmental levels. Their actions, priorities, and rewards often indicate the emphasis they place on innovation. In large organizations, such as the APS, decision-making often hinges on collective consensus (Management Advisory Committee, 2010). 

It is vital for leadership to ensure that the ideas and concerns of employees are acknowledged and expressed in decisions. Furthermore, leaders should exhibit determination and drive change, even against resistance to change, when required. 

Desirable leadership traits include being passionate, pragmatic, and tenacious. It is argued that public servants possessing these traits are naturally inclined towards innovation. Emphasizing persistence can motivate others to modify their behaviors and perspectives in favor of innovation. However, challenges, such as unfulfilled expectations or resistance to change, may arise (Roberts, 2015). Sharing success stories, underscoring the significance of innovation, and fostering connections between innovators catalyze innovative endeavors in the public sector (Roberts, 2015). Consequently, governmental organizations should demonstrate flexibility in their policies and champion innovation to build an innovation culture. Furthermore, the endorsement of an innovative idea necessitates decision-makers to discern its worth, which can help overcome potential barriers. Therefore, the influence of departmental leaders is crucial in shaping an organization’s culture and its impact on innovation processes and practices. For example, this is evidenced in organizational HR functions such as an employee’s salary, training and development, performance appraisal, and remuneration, which influences an employee’s innovation and productivity (AlDhaheri et al., 2023). 

Organizations’ Climates for Promoting Innovation      

A plethora of factors exist that hinder an organization’s ability to promote a culture of innovation. One of the pressing challenges for decision-makers is how to establish systems and processes that spur both creativity and innovation. It is imperative to nurture an environment that champions the innovative tendencies and capabilities of employees. An employee’s behavior is positively linked to organizational innovation climate factors such as trust and openness, including support for ideas (Alblooshi et al., 2023). When employees resonate positively with their organization’s climate, they tend to deliver better performance, which in turn impacts on the organization’s culture. Consequently, leaders expect these employees to exhibit creative and innovative behavior (Tan, Smyrnios & Xiong, 2014). Studies related to organizational climate have evolved, moving from a broad overview to a more specific exploration of its various facets, such as a focus on safety (Flin et al., 2000), service orientation (De Jong, De Ruyter & Lemmink, 2004), proactivity (Baer & Frese, 2003), or innovation (Hunter, Bedell & Mumford, 2007). 

Depending on their core objectives, organizations may exhibit multiple internal climates. For instance, an organization might harbor a service-oriented climate in its service sector, an innovative climate in its R&D, and an overarching ethos centered around organizational citizenship and behavior (Schneider, Gunnarson & Niles-Jolly, 1994). Further, various frameworks have been proposed to evaluate the diverse aspects that influence innovation and creativity (Amabile et al., 1996; Ekvall, 1996; Isaken et al., 2001). Scholars such as Zhang, Xi and Xu (2001), Moussa, McMurray and Muenjohn (2018) and Newnham (2018) have confirmed the positive impact of a conducive organizational climate on innovation in the public sector. Weintraub and McKee (2019) emphasized the necessity for organizations to shape a climate that not only stimulates innovation and progress but also harnesses the full potential of its workforce. 

Policy Recommendations 

• The propensity of public sector organizations to embrace innovation affects policy formulation. Delving into innovation across different levels (e.g., individual, organizational, climate, and team levels) and policy development in Australia may deepen our understanding of the nuances of innovation within the public sector. 
• The APS, State Governments and Local Governments are undergoing significant changes in their approach to policy development and preparing its workforce for the evolving work environment. Therefore, it is vital for public officials and decision-makers to consistently pinpoint the optimal traits and behaviors that nurture an innovative culture. 

Implications for Practitioners 

• Administrators and decision-makers must recognize the myriad challenges, limitations, and barriers when promoting innovation in the public sector. Agents of governmental change should devise novel strategies to tackle problems and foster ongoing enhancement in state public sector initiatives. This is achieved by engaging in effective communication, ensuring mutual understanding, and collaboratively addressing opposition with stakeholders. 
• The determinants of innovation are often reliant on the perceptions of individual organizational employees. Given these are self-reported, they lack objectivity, suggesting potential biases in the findings/conclusions. Practitioners may collaborate with Academic Institutes in building measures to assess innovation activities. If available locally, participating in public sector industry innovation recognition programs allows an external evaluation of an organization’s innovation across a range of criteria. 
• An examination of distinct organizational impediments to innovation in the Australian public sector across four levels of innovation reveals that while specific barriers influence innovation at the individual level, they do not significantly impact innovation at the organizational, climate, and team levels. However, organizational culture is found to be significant at the State Government level, impacting all four levels of innovation.
• Practitioners should acknowledge the substantial influence of human resources development (HRD) interventions and strategies on spurring innovation within public sector organizations. 

Mahmoud Moussa is Lecturer in Human Resource Management, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University, Australia. Leonie Newnham is Senior Lecturer

at the Business & Hospitality Vertical, Torrens University, Australia. Adela J McMurray is Dean (Research), College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University, Australia. Nuttawuth Muenjohn is Senior Lecturer in Leadership Studies, Higher Degree by Research Delegated Authority (HDR DA) and Program Director: PhD (Management) & MBus (Management), School of Management, College of Business and Law, RMIT University, Australia.

References

AlDhaheri, H, Hilmi, MF, Abudaqa, A, Alzahmi, RA & Ahmed, G 2023, ‘The relationship between HRM practices, innovation, and employee productivity in UAE public sector: a structural equation modelling approach’, International Journal of Process  Management and Benchmarking, 13(2), pp.157-176.

Alblooshi, M, Shamsuzzaman, M, Karim, A, Haridy, S, Shamsuzzoha, A & Badar, MA, 2023,  ‘Development of a framework for utilising Lean Six Sigma’s intangible impacts in creating organisational innovation climate’, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 14(2), pp.397-428.

Amabile, TM, Conti, R, Coon, H, Lazenby, J & Herron, M 1996, ‘Assessing the work environment for creativity’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), pp. 1154– 1184.

Baer, M & Frese, M 2003, ‘Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance’, Journal of Organisational Behavior, 24(1), pp. 45– 68.

Chapman, M 2006, ‘Building an innovative organization: consistent business and technology integration’, Strategy and Leadership, 34(4), pp. 32– 38.

De Jong, A, De Ruyter, K & Lemmink, J 2004, ‘Antecedents and consequences of the service climate in boundary- spanning self- managing service teams’, Journal of Marketing, 68, pp. 18– 34.

Eggers, WD & Singh, SK 2009, The public innovator’s playbook: Nurturing bold ideas in government. Cambridge MA: Ash Institute, Harvard Kennedy School. Deloitte Research.

Ekvall, G 1996, ‘Organizational climate for creativity and innovation’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), pp. 105– 124.

Flin, R, Mearns, K, O’Connor, P & Bryden, R 2000, ‘Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features’, Safety Science, 34(1– 3), pp. 177– 192.

Golembiewski, RT & Vigoda, E 2000, ‘Organizational innovation and the science craft of management’, In MA. Rahim, RT. Golembiewski & KD. Mackenzie (Eds.), Current Topics in Management, vol. 5. (pp. 263– 280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Houtgraaf, G, Kruyen, PM & Van Thiel, S, 2023, ‘Public sector creativity as the origin of public sector innovation: A taxonomy and future research agenda’,  PublicAdministration, 101(2), pp.539-556.

Hunter, ST, Bedell, KE & Mumford, MD 2007, ‘Climate for creativity: A quantitative review’, Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), pp. 69– 90.

Isaksen, SG, Lauer, KJ, Ekvall, G & Britz, A 2001, ‘Perceptions of the best and worst climates for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire’, Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), pp. 171– 184.

Management Advisory Committee 2010 Empowering change: Fostering innovation in the Australian public service, Commonwealth of Australia, ACT.

Moussa, M 2021a, ‘Examining and reviewing innovation strategies in Australian public sector organisations’, In A. McMurray, N. Muenjohn & C. Weerakoon (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Workplace Innovation (pp. 317– 333). Cham, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Moussa, M 2021b, ‘Barriers on innovation in Australian public sector organisations’, In A. McMurray, N. Muenjohn & C. Weerakoon (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Workplace Innovation (pp. 179– 196). Cham, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Moussa, M, McMurray, A & Muenjohn, N 2018, ‘Innovation in public sector organisations’, Cogent Business and Management, 5(1). DOI: 10.1080/ 23311975. 2018.1475047.

Muenjohn, N & McMurray, A 2017, ‘Design leadership, work values ethic and workplace innovation: An investigation of SMEs in Thailand and Vietnam’, Asia Pacific Business Review, 23, 192-204.

Newnham, L 2018, ‘The relationship between workplace innovation and organisational culture: A case study of a Victorian public sector organisation, School of Management, College of Business, Melbourne, RMIT University, Doctor of Philosophy : 432. 

Nguyen, NT, Hooi, LW & Avvari, MV 2023, ‘Leadership styles and organisational innovation in Vietnam: Does employee creativity matter?’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 72(2), pp.331-360.

Roberts, A 2015, Innovation behaviours for the public service- Alpha version, Australian

Public Sector Innovation Network. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20160328172803/http://innovation.govspace.gov.au/2015/11/16/innovation-behaviours-for-the-public-service-alpha-version/comment-page-1/.  

Simmers, C & McMurray, A 2019, ‘Organisational justice and managing workplace innovation: How important are formal procedures?’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), 1950026. 

Schneider, B, Gunnarson, SK, Niles-Jolly, K 1994, ‘Creating the climate and culture of success’, Organizational Dynamics, 23(1), pp. 17– 29.

Tan, CSL, Smyrnios, KX & Xiong, L 2014, ‘What drives learning orientation in fast growth SMEs?’ International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 20(4), pp. 324– 350.

Torugsa, NA & Arundel, A 2016, ‘Complexity of innovation in the public sector: A workgroup- level analysis of related factors and outcomes’, Public Management Review, 18(3), pp. 392– 416. Torvinen, H & Jansson, K 2023, ‘Public health care innovation lab tackling the barriers of public sector innovation’, Public Management Review, 25(8), pp.1539-1561.

Weintraub, P & McKee, M 2019, ‘Leadership for innovation in healthcare: An exploration’, International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 8(3), pp. 138– 144.

Zhang, Y, Xi, W & Xu, FZ 2021, ‘Determinants of employee innovation: An open innovation perspective’, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2021.1934933.