The main purpose in this report is to examine what is broadly considered as essential for being
innovative at work based on the literature overview above. Central to the definition of innovativeness in this report is that the worker actively seeks new knowledge and utilizes this new knowledge. This is based on the previous research emphasizing learning-by-doing, taking new knowledge into use and learning organisations.
When examining innovativeness, the respondents’ learning activities and strategies are examined. We consider that the worker has an innovative work profile if the respondent’s job
- to a large extent involves keeping up to date with new products or services, and
- to a large extent involves learning-by-doing from the tasks he/she performs; and if the respondent - to a large extent likes to get to the bottom of difficult things, and
- relates it to what he/she already knows when coming across something new or likes to figure out how different ideas fit together, and
- is quite frequently confronted with complex problems at work.
Another way to describe this worker is that he/she is an innovative strategic learner at work.
We will examine how frequently the worker characterized as being an innovative strategic learner occurs in four selected countries (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway), and which factors promote the probability of being such a worker. Of particular interest when examining this is the occurrence of discretionary work forms such as flexibility and autonomy, and the work profiles of the worker, such as being brokering, independent, sharing work-related information etc., as well as the workers’ level of educational, skills and occupation. In addition, a control is made for industrial sector and weekly work hours as well as demographic variables. The situation in the four countries will be compared as well as those factors within the four countries respectively that have the greatest impact on innovativeness and which will possibly contribute to an explanation of country differences.
2 Measurement of innovativeness
In our strategy for defining innovative workers, we emphasize their orientations, for example their learning strategies, combined with information on what they actually do at work. The purpose is not to achieve an absolute measure of how many persons who can be characterized as performing
innovatively at work. This proportion will vary by how many criteria are used and the strictness of the criteria. The purpose here is to reach a meaningful definition that can be used for comparisons between groups of workers and countries.
People learn and get new ideas from many sources and in many ways. One way is through keeping up to date with new products and services, which, according to previous research (see Chapter 1) is important for being innovative at work. One of the questions in the PIAAC survey covers the issue (how often) ‘keeping up to date with new products and services’. Another active way of learning is when the job involves learning-by-doing from the tasks performed by the individual. As also described in Chapter 1, learning by doing is a central feature of innovativeness. Learning-by-doing from the tasks one performs is also examined in the PIAAC survey and is among the questions that will be analysed below.
The response categories for both these variables are: 1 Never; 2 Less than once a month: 3 Less than once a week but at least once a month; 4 At least once a week but not every day; and 5 Every day.
The mean proportion with value 4 or 5 on these two variables is shown in Table 2.1 (rows A and B), and the proportion with 4 and 5 on both these variables is shown in row G.
To acquire further evidence enabling us to ‘circle in’ innovative persons, we use additional information on whether the respondents actively seek and use new knowledge, and the extent to which they solve complex problems at work. Concerning whether the respondents actively seek and use new
knowledge we employ a set of questions in the PIAAC questionnaire which deal with learning strategies, i.e. how the respondents assessed the way they dealt with problems and tasks they encounter. The response to such questions contributes to revealing the extent to which the respondent is an active and innovative learner. The respondents were presented with various statements and were asked to what extent they thought that these statements applied to them. The statements were:
A. When I hear or read about new ideas, I try to relate them to real life situations to which they might apply
B. I like learning new things
C. When I come across something new, I try to relate it to what I already know D. I like to get to the bottom of difficult things
E. I like to figure out how different ideas fit together
F. If I don’t understand something I look for additional information to make it clearer.
The response categories for all the items are: 1 Not at all; 2 Very little; 3 To some extent; 4 To a large extent; 5 To a very large extent.
We have selected three of the items covering learning strategies: items C, D, and E. These items correlated most, but are still complementary. Item C refers to being a strategic learner as well as to competency; D refers to being curious as well as thorough and deliberate; E refers to being creative and curious. Table 2.1 shows the mean proportion with values 4 or 5 on the different learning strategies (rows C, D and E) as well as a construct where the response to these three variables is merged (row H). We consider these learning strategies as particularly relevant when it comes to being innovative at work, especially when used in combination with the two first-mentioned variables
‘keeping up to date’ (which also relates to strategic learning) and ‘learning by doing’.
A construct merging the G (referring to the first two variables, A and B), and H (learning strategies), is shown in row I.
Table 2.1. Mean distribution on dependent variables. Per cent.
The four countries The 18 other countries
A: Keeping Up to Date 41.7 39.9
B: Learning By Doing 58.1 56.9
Learning strategies
C: When I come across something new, I try to relate it to what
I already know 74.0 57.8
D: I like to get to the bottom of difficult things 64.4 54.8
E. I like to figure out how different ideas fit together 51.2 50.2
F: Solving complex problems 57.7 57.7
Constructed variables
G: A + B Innovative learning 30.3 31.1
H: High C + D or High D+E (strategic learner) 57.8 49.1
I: G + H: Innovative strategic learner 20.5 19.6
J: I + F: Innovative strategic and problem-solving learner 15.4 14.8
Row F refers to ‘solving complex problems at work’. Here, we use information based on the question in the PIAAC survey: ‘How often are you usually confronted with more complex problems that take at least 30 minutes to find a good solution? (The 30 minutes only refers to the time needed to THINK of a solution, not the time needed to carry it out.).’ The response categories were: 1 Never, 2 Less than once a month: 3 Less than once a week but at least once a month; 4 At least once a week but not every day; and 5 Every day. The question contains several dimensions which the respondents have to figure out simultaneously (for example ‘how often usually’; ‘at least 30 minutes’, as well as the
distinction between ‘thinking’ and ‘carrying out’), and this may make the response somewhat uncertain and ambiguous. Further, very able persons (who perhaps usually do not need long time to figure out a solution) and less able people may react differently to the question. This indicates that the response to this question should not have too much influence on the dependent variable(s).
According to the literature (not at least the literature on learning-by-doing), solving complex problems is a central feature of innovativeness. Thus, this question should not be overlooked. People who answer that they only occasionally (response categories 1 and 2) solve complex problems should not be regarded as being ‘innovative learners at work’. It should also be mentioned that the correlation between education level and solving complex problems is higher when including the response categories 3, 4 and 5 than if only categories 4 and 5 are included. Being innovative may also involve
frequently solving simple problems. It should also be mentioned that the underlying data shows that among those who are included in row J, 93 per cent solve simple problems every day or at least once a week, compared with 70 per cent of the others (not included in row J), and 66 per cent solve simple problems every day, versus 37 per cent of those who are not included in row J.
Thus, our solution is that those who quite frequently solve complex (response categories 3, 4 and 5) is coded as ‘yes, solving complex problems’ in row F. In row J (Table 2.1), the variable I is merged with F (solving complex problems). When including the condition about solving complex problems, the percentage being an innovative strategic learner is reduced from 20.5 per cent in row I to 15 per cent in row J.
All estimates refer to employed persons. The variable in row J is the main dependent variable in this report, and the persons who fit all the criteria in row J will here be labelled ‘innovative strategic learners at work’, or sometimes the shorter term ‘innovative learner’. These persons keep themselves updated, they are curious, they are able to learn something new from the work they do, they use previous knowledge strategically, they like to get into bottom of difficult things, and in addition, they quite frequently solve complex problems at work. We find it reasonable to label a person who scores high such aspects as an ‘innovative strategic learner’.
Table 2.1 shows that many people may be classified according to one of the selected criteria, but only 15 per cent applies to all criteria (row J).15 The table shows mean values for the four countries taken together, as well as for the remaining 18 countries in the PIAAC data base, taken together. The different dependent variables will be further examined in Chapter 4 in regression analyses for the four countries to see which factors are significant for increased/decreased probability to possess these features of innovativeness.
Except for the learning strategies, the mean share for the four-countries group does not differ from the mean of the 18-countries group. There is a broad variation between the countries within the groups.
The variation between countries in the percent ‘innovative, strategic learner’ (row J) is commented below and shown in Figure 2.1.