Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Brigita Janiunaite et al.
organizations (Mean = 4,5; SD = 0,54). The employees <strong>of</strong> business organizations do not support this
statement or are neutral towards it (Mean = 3,12; SD = 1,25). Innovations need top management
support and various techniques can be used to create fertile environments for innovations. But top
management must be aware <strong>of</strong> and committed to being leaders and create avenues for <strong>the</strong> nontraditional
types <strong>of</strong> idea management and leadership necessary to encourage innovations. In this
sense, <strong>the</strong> responses may be treated in two ways. On <strong>the</strong> one hand, maybe not sufficient attention <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> management is paid to organizational learning. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, it may be that innovations are
encouraged by innovation champions, those who have <strong>the</strong> functions <strong>of</strong> learning facilitators in <strong>the</strong>
organization, ra<strong>the</strong>r than its management. The statement ‘We share our experience with o<strong>the</strong>r
organizations in order to be engaged in learning’ is also characterised by statistically significant
differences <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> responses from non-governmental organizations and o<strong>the</strong>r organizations (F=4,63;
p=0,019). The employees <strong>of</strong> non-governmental non-pr<strong>of</strong>it organizations are quite unanimous in
pointing out that <strong>the</strong>y share experience with o<strong>the</strong>r organizations (Mean = 4,33; SD = 0,51), whereas
<strong>the</strong> respondents from business (Mean = 2,68; SD = 1,19) and public sector (Mean = 3; SD = 1,3) are
<strong>of</strong> a different opinion. This kind <strong>of</strong> response, in particular from business organizations, may be
logically explained, as business organizations function in a very competitive environment; <strong>the</strong>refore,
<strong>the</strong> culture <strong>of</strong> collaboration with o<strong>the</strong>r organizations is not part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. The responses to <strong>the</strong> third
item with a statistically significant difference (F = 4,022; p = 0,030), ‘The employees are encouraged
to acquire multi-skills through rotation <strong>of</strong> tasks...’, show a variance in <strong>the</strong> opinions <strong>of</strong> employees from
<strong>the</strong> public sector and business organizations. The employees in business organizations do not
support this statement (Mean = 2,43; SD = 1,41), whereas those employed in <strong>the</strong> organizations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
public sector point out that <strong>the</strong> employees in <strong>the</strong>ir organizations are encouraged to develop multi-skills
by task rotation (Mean = 4,12; SD = 2,03). Innovations necessitate collaboration across various
organizational boundaries. Organizations need to consider <strong>the</strong> practice <strong>of</strong> boundary spanning with
regard to two aspects: how organization can structure and sustain <strong>the</strong> practice <strong>of</strong> boundary spanning;
and how <strong>the</strong>y can keep boundary roles (both boundary spanners and boundary objects) efficient and
effective. For example, <strong>the</strong>re are lead teams for each project, and collaboration across <strong>the</strong> vertical
silos is encouraged within <strong>the</strong> lead team (Dombrowski et al., 2007). In this sense, rotation <strong>of</strong>
employee functions takes place and thus relevant skills are developed, which leads to successful
innovation.
Figure 5: ‘Employees’ individual and collective learning’
The fifth factor is on employees’ individual and collective learning.
The variables in this factor have high factor loadings and correlation: from 0,86 to 0,79. This confirms
that <strong>the</strong> statements in <strong>the</strong> factor reflect <strong>the</strong> dimension identified. The total mean <strong>of</strong> responses in this
factor is very high, from 4 to 4,53, whereas standard deviation is from 0, 68 to 0, 9. This shows that
<strong>the</strong> support to <strong>the</strong> items in this factor is high and coherent.
260