|M.Sc Student||Miron-Spektor Ella|
|Subject||Competeing vs. Complementary Individual Characteristics and|
Cultural Values that Lead to Innovation,
Qaulity and Efficiency Performances
|Department||Department of Industrial Engineering and Management||Supervisors||PROFESSOR EMERITUS Miriam Erez|
|PROF. Eitan Naveh|
It is unclear whether the same personal and contextual characteristics that enhance innovation could also contribute to quality and efficiency. Designing innovative products reflect not only individual creativity, but also an organizational culture that values innovation; producing flawless products reflects a person’s adherence to rules, but also a culture that promotes order, and attention to detail; fast delivering of products becomes possible in a culture that endorses a strong outcome- orientation, with highly conscientious employees. This study aimed at: a) identifying the personal characteristics that influence innovation, quality, and efficiency, and testing their differential effects on these three performance outcomes, b) examining whether there is a trade-off relationships between these personal characteristics, c) testing for person X situation interaction effects of individual and cultural characteristics on the three performance outcomes.
Three hundreds fourty-nine engineers and technicians in 21 units of a large R&D company participated in the study, responding to questionnaires that assessed personal and cultural characteristics. Performance appraisals were obtained from their unit managers. Using HLM models significant person X situation interactions were found: creativity with innovative culture enhanced innovative performance; conformity with a culture of attention to detail affected quality, and conscientiousness with an outcome-oriented culture increased efficiency. Creativity inhibited quality performance and attention to detail inhibited efficiency performance. Although the three personal characteristics of creativity, conformity, and attention to detail appeared as three separate factors, they differentially affected performance outcomes, and sometime contradicted each other in their effects. The implications of these findings to the understanding of innovation, quality and efficiency are further discussed.