The impact of an accelerated digitalization on innovation and creativity
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The impact of an accelerated digitalization on
innovation and creativity
- Investigating the effects of an accelerated digitalization due to
the outbreak of COVID-19 on individuals’innovative and
creative working abilities.
THESIS WITHIN: Business and Administration
NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15 ETCS
PROGRAMME OF STUDY: Bachelor program International Management
AUTHORS: Elsa Jacobsson and Alva Hildell
TUTOR: Jasna Pocek
JÖNKÖPING May 2021
Bachelor thesis in business administration
Title: The impact of an accelerated digitalization on innovation and creativity: An
Exploratory Study of the impact of an accelerated digitalization due to COVID-19 on
individuals’ innovative and creative working abilities.
Authors: Elsa Jacobsson and Alva Hildell Eriksson
Tutor: Jasna Pocek
Date: 2021-05-23
Key terms: Digitalization, Accelerated Digitalization, COVID-19, Drivers of
Creativity, Drivers of Innovation, Working Abilities.
Abstract
Background: Due to the spread of COVID-19, there has been an acceleration in the
digitalization which has impacted the working life of many individuals. People have
been forced to work remotely and on a daily basis use more advanced digital tools,
resulting in an enormous change in the work environment. These major changes in the
work environments have affected people working in product and service development
firms in various ways. With the main existing literature focusing on the organizational
level, a gap in literature was identified on how an accelerated digitalization impacts the
individuals working in companies.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate how the accelerated digitalization
due to COVID-19 has impacted people working in service or product development
firms in regard to their innovative and creative working abilities.
Method: A qualitative method with an inductive approach was conducted using semi-
structured interviews with ten relevant participants who are working in product or
service development firms across Sweden.
Conclusion: The findings suggests that individuals working in product or service
developing firms have slightly similar drivers of both innovation and creativity. The
analyzation of the findings conveyed that an accelerated digitalization seemed to have a
more positive impact on both workers’ attitude towards digitalization and innovative
and creative working abilities. Whereas an accelerated digitalization due to COVID-19,
was established to have a more negative effect on creativity but not on innovation.
Moreover, the findings are synchronized into a framework portraying in detail how the
innovative and creative abilities of individuals working in product and/or service
developing firms have been impacted by an accelerated digitalization due to COVID-19,
and how the key elements has been affected.
i
Acknowledgements
Firstly, the authors would like to express a huge gratitude to their tutor Jasna Pocek for
her persistent and honest encouragement, inputs and belief in the authors along the way.
The work would not have been the same without the guidance from the tutor.
Secondly, the authors would like to thank all the participants in the interviews for giving
us the opportunity to interview them, even during this hard time considering the
circumstances. The foundation of this thesis would not have been the same without the
participants.
Lastly, the authors would like to thank all the lecturers for their effort in making this
possible during this hard time. We have appreciated all workshops and lecturers on this
subject since it has been highly helpful throughout this process.
Elsa Jacobsson Alva Hildell Eriksson
May 23, 2021 Alva Hildell Eriksson
ii
Table of content
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION ............................................................................................................... 4
1.5 DELIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.6 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 5
2 FRAME OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 7
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW METHOD ................................................................................................. 7
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 INNOVATION .................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION IN ORGANIZATIONS ........................................................................... 9
2.2.3 DRIVERS OF INNOVATION ...................................................................................................10
Internal Drivers of Innovation ............................................................................................................... 10
External Drivers of Innovation............................................................................................................... 11
2.2.4 THEORY OF INDIVIDUAL DRIVERS OF INNOVATION .....................................................................12
2.2.5 CREATIVITY .....................................................................................................................13
Drivers of creativity............................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.6 DIGITALIZATION ...............................................................................................................16
3 METHODOLOGY & METHOD ......................................................................................................19
3.1 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ......................................................................................................19
3.1.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................20
3.1.3 RESEARCH APPROACH ........................................................................................................21
3.2 METHOD ................................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.1 PRIMARY DATA ................................................................................................................21
Selected Sample .................................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 SAMPLING APPROACH .......................................................................................................23
3.2.3 INTERVIEW GUIDE .............................................................................................................24
3.2.4 DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................................................24
3.3 ETHICS..................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.1 ANONYMITY & CONFIDENTIALITY .........................................................................................26
3.3.2 CREDIBILITY .....................................................................................................................26
3.3.3 TRANSFERABILITY..............................................................................................................27
3.3.4 DEPENDABILITY ................................................................................................................28
iii
3.3.5 CONFIRMABILITY ..............................................................................................................29
4 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS .................................................................................................................30
4.1 DRIVERS OF CREATIVITY ......................................................................................................... 31
4.2 DRIVERS OF INNOVATION....................................................................................................... 33
4.3 ATTITUDES TOWARDS ACCELERATED DIGITALIZATION .......................................................... 35
4.4 WORKING ABILITIES ................................................................................................................ 37
4.5 THE FUTURE OF DIGITALIZATION ........................................................................................... 39
5 ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................42
5.1 DRIVERS OF CREATIVITY ......................................................................................................... 43
5.2 DRIVERS OF INNOVATION....................................................................................................... 44
5.3 ATTITUDES OF ACCELERATED DIGITALIZATION ...................................................................... 45
5.4 WORKING ABILITIES ................................................................................................................ 47
5.5 FUTURE OF DIGITALIZATION................................................................................................... 48
5.6 FINAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 49
6 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................51
7 DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................53
7.1 CONTRIBUTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 53
7.2 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................... 54
7.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 55
7.4 FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................. 56
8 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................57
9 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................69
9.1 INTERVIEW GUIDE .................................................................................................................. 69
9.2 CONSENT FORM ..................................................................................................................... 71
9.3 ADDITIONAL QUOTES ............................................................................................................. 73
iv1 Introduction
This chapter gives the reader a detailed background and problem discussion of the accelerated
digitalization, followed by the purpose of this study. Further, the introduction is concluded with the
research questions which this study aims to answer. Lastly, the key delimitations and essential definitions
are provided in order for the reader to understand the concepts throughout this study.
1.1 Background
With the ongoing pandemic spreading around the world breaking out in January 2020
(WHO, 2021), named COVID-19, the demand and use of technology has never been as
excessive as it is today (McKinsey, 2020). Precisely, the COVID-19 pandemic has
accelerated the world’s digitalization by an average of 6 years (Twilio, 2020). Since this
is a relatively new phenomenon, Annika Steiber (2012) argues that future research
should investigate the individuals’ ability to adapt to a rapid change in technology and
society, leaving a clear research gap within this area. This is further supported by
Anderson et al. (2014) who argues that there is a need of investigation in explaining
how environmental factors can affect and facilitate individuals’ innovation and
creativity within organizations. The increased digitalization has impacted businesses
and individuals in their way of operating in multiple ways (Rachinger et al., 2019).
Furthermore, individuals along with businesses has been required to adapt, develop and
find new strategies in the new business environment in order to stay competitive
(McKinsey, 2020).
As for all countries, the work sector in Sweden has been dramatically affected by the
current pandemic (Swedish work environment authority, 2020). Many people have been
recommended to work from home in order to decrease the spread of the COVID-19
virus. Following the Swedish guidelines of social distancing (WHO, 2021), individuals
are challenged with major changes in normal work practices and processes, for example
working remotely ("Coronavirus: How the world of work may change forever", 2021).
Furthermore, this has changed individuals’ business environments, strategies and social
encounters (WHO, 2021). According to research by McKinsey (2020), the customers
and individuals have moved drastically towards online channels where the companies
have adapted and responded. For example, some CEO’s have now already made an
1announcement that they will let their employees work from home even post the
pandemic, including for example Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook (Kelly,
2020). On top of that, the digitalization has influenced individuals’ flexibility and
relationship with customers and organizations’ business models (Rachinger et al.,
2019). Along with this, it has put pressure on businesses and individuals to be able to
follow the rapid digitalization in order to explore the new given business opportunities
and to stay competitive and innovative (Rachinger et al., 2019).
The pandemic has forced businesses to find new ways to survive and alternative ways
for strategic paths, which in term impacts the working processes and abilities of
individuals (Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020). Additionally, COVID-19 has also affected
innovation by opening up for different business opportunities to endure the crisis
(Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020).
1.2 Problem Discussion
Due to the acceleration of digitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals’
business environment, strategies and social encounters has rapidly changed (WHO,
2021). Paulus & Dzindolet (2008) argues that innovation cannot occur without people
working in companies and that their innovation process is strongly influenced by the
current social context. Sweden is a trade-oriented country and therefore expertise and
innovation are a high focus from the individual itself (The Swedish Ministry of
Enterprise, Energy and Communications, 2015). As the outbreak of COVID-19 has
transformed the work environment across thousands of companies, this leaves questions
regarding how it has affected the people working in product and service development
firms. Moreover, since the pandemic is a relatively new phenomenon and still an
ongoing process breaking out in the beginning of 2020 (WHO, 2021), the impact it has
on the Swedish workforce and individuals themselves cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, the increase in digitalization has affected individuals’ ways of operating,
societal changes and freedom (United Nations, 2021). Paulus & Dzindolet (2008)
argues that too much freedom may harm the individual since they feel overwhelmed by
their options. Paulus & Dzindolet (2008) further states that it might be especially true
2for people who are working in product and service development companies since the
physical and social interaction plays an essential part in the innovation and creativity
process. Thus, due to the social distancing and increased use of technology, issues and
concerns arises concerning the impacts these factors might have on individuals working
in companies. Currently, most existing research in terms of innovation and creativity
focuses on the impact it has on an organizational level (Oldham & Cummings, 1996 &
Yaan, 2005). However, there is a need to further investigate how individuals’
perceptions and certain working abilities are affected by a rapid accelerated
digitalization (Cai et al., 2020). Given the large number of individuals that COVID-19
has impacted, this study aims to find how major societal and technology changes affects
individuals’ working abilities in terms of innovation and creativity.
1.3 Purpose
In the view of the problem discussion, the purpose of this study is to explore the impact
of an accelerated digitalization, mainly due to the outbreak of COVID-19, on the
innovative and creative abilities of people working in product and service developing
companies in Sweden. Moreover, existing research contributes mainly to knowledge
concerning the impact of innovation on an organizational and business model level
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Yaan, 2005). Therefore, the aim of this research is to fill
this gap and develop a theory that will contribute to the understanding of how an
accelerated digitalization impacts people working in companies in terms of their
innovation and creativity abilities.
This is of importance since the rise of digitalization has forced individuals to work,
communicate and develop new strategies much differently (WHO, 2021). Thus,
questioning the ability of people working in companies to still contribute to the Swedish
workforce to the same extent as prior COVID-19. This research will contribute to a
better understanding of how digitalization impacts the innovation and creativity abilities
of people working in companies within the sector of established, product and service
developing firms in Sweden. This in order to understand how established firms could in
the future utilize an accelerated digitalization to keep its employees as innovative and
creative as possible. According to Baporikar (2015), innovation has become one of the
3most important areas in any business as it is required in order for a company to stay
competitive in todays’ society. If the objective of firms is to achieve innovation in order
to gain competitive advantage, one need to fully comprehend the primary factors
driving and affecting it (Kammerlander et al., 2015; De Clercq & Belausteguigoitia,
2015). Therefore, this research will investigate the phenomenon further in order to see
how a major involuntary change in the society, increasing digitalization and changing
business environment, can impact crucial aspects of individuals’ working abilities.
Furthermore, the drivers of innovation and creativity will be examined of people
working in product and service developing firms in order to evaluate their similarities
and differences. In addition to this, their varying characteristics will also be observed
and considered in order to discover the potential influence they may or may not have.
Previous research has suggested that innovation is found to be nurtured by certain
individuals’ characteristics (Standing et al., 2016), whereas creativity in almost all
research is suggested to stimulate innovation (Amabile et al., 1996). Thus, the role of
both innovation and creativity, even during time of crisis, has been seen to play an
important role for individuals and businesses to succeed (Andrew et al., 2009). There
are research concerning the impact of increased technology on organizations and
business models, as well as how this leads to an innovative company (Caputo et al.,
2021). Although, there is currently little research conducted concerning the impact on
the innovation and creativity abilities of individuals working in companies (Oldham &
Cummings; 1996 & Yaan, 2005). Therefore, to which extent a changing environment
impacts these individual working abilities is still unexplored, leaving a clear research
gap to be further investigated.
1.4 Research Question
In align with the purpose of the research combined with the investigated problem
through the literature review, the authors have constructed two research questions which
the study will aim to answer. Thus, creating two separate research questions will clarify
the understanding of the investigated topic and in that way make it easier for the reader
to follow. The two research questions this study intend to answer are:
4RQ 1: How is the current digitalization impacting people working in companies in
terms of innovation and creativity?
RQ 2: How is COVID-19 impacting people working in companies in terms of innovation
and creativity?
1.5 Delimitations
The delimitations of this research includes areas such as the choice of participants,
geographical scope and time frame. Therefore, after reflecting and evaluating what to
include within this scope of the research, the major important factors to consider were
found to be budget, overall time and geographical aspects. Since the research is
conducted in Sweden over a time period of less than five months, the authors decided to
narrow down the geographical area to individuals working in companies located in
Sweden. This in order for the authors to be able to conduct the interviews in a efficient
and effective manner, due to the current circumstances of COVID-19. Furthermore, to
conduct this research the authors chose to focus on the perspective and abilities of
individuals working in product or service development firms, excluding the perspectives
of the companies as well as their overall objectives or motivations. Even though this is a
significant aspect, it was chosen to be left out of this research since the aim is to
particularly explore the impact on individuals’ work abilities.
1.6 Definitions
Established product/service development firms: An established firm is described as
an organization which has been in the market for a long time and is recognizable of the
public ("Established firm definition | Reverso", 2021). According to ("What Is Product
Development?", 2021) a product/service development firm is an organization which
brings a new product or idea to the market following by the product’s entire building
process.
Digitalization: “Digitalization is the use of digital technologies to change a business
model and provide new revenue and value-producing opportunities; it is the process of
5moving to a digital business” ("Definition of Digitalization - Gartner Information
Technology Glossary", 2021)
Covid-19: “The coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic is the defining global health crisis of
our time and the greatest challenge we have faced since world war two”. The virus has
now spread to every continent around the globe ("Coronavirus disease COVID-19
pandemic | UNDP", 2021).
62 Frame of References
The frame of reference starts with the literature review method which describes how the relevant literature
were collected. The purpose of this part is to introduce the reader to existing literature and theories
conducted by other researchers in relation to the purpose of this study. In this section, the authors explore
previously evaluated literature in order for the reader to gain a better understanding of the key drivers of
innovation and creativity and how they are linked together as well as how they are linked to technology.
Other relevant literature about innovation, creativity, digitalization, and product/service developing firms
are also be provided.
2.1 Literature review method
The collection of information and data is required to carry out any type of research
(Fink, 2014). A systematic approach was used to conduct the literature review as it
ensured a credible data analysis and generated results that are more transparent and
precise in its process (Booth et al., 2016). A systematic approach utilizes existing and
normalized methods to determine and critically evaluate relevant research (Fink, 2014).
The approach involves a critical way of searching for studies and research related to the
chosen topic, giving the reader a clear and detail understanding of what was done to
identify and select relevant literature (Cooper et al., 2018). Additionally, using a
systematic approach decreases the chances of bias in the review process and allows the
authors to work more efficiently (Booth et al., 2016).
A literature review is described as when previous research and literature is collected and
summarized from existing studies and articles relevant to the chosen topic (Knopf,
2006). The literature and studies used in a literature review are retrieved from
publications, journals and appropriate databases which are generally located using
proper academic platforms (Knopf, 2006). In this research, most literature was gathered
from publications such as peer-reviewed articles, journals and books using databases
such as Google Schoolar, JU Primo and Research Gate. In addition to this, some
references found in peer-reviewed articles were used to correctly reference to the
original publisher of certain theories. When selecting journals and articles they were
first compared to the ABS-list in order to achieve as high quality and reliability as
possible. Existing literature is substantial for this research as it contributed with
7significant knowledge when formulating the interview questions, including general
guidance for the interviews as well as which areas to go more in-depth (Knopf, 2006).
Some of the keywords used when searching for literature relevant to this research were
innovation, drivers of innovation, innovation in organizations, product/service
development firms, creativity, drivers of creativity, technology, digitalization and digital
transformation. Around 97 articles were reviewed as a result of this research.
Reviewing previous literature relevant to the topic of this thesis provided the authors
with necessary information and a more detailed understanding of the chosen topic.
2.2 Literature review
2.2.1 Innovation
The term innovation can be defined as “the generation, acceptance, and implementation
of new ideas, processes, products, or services'' (Thompson, 1965). Today, there are
multiple definitions of innovation as it is a huge topic that has been viewed from a
various number of different perspectives in previous literature (Schumpeter, 1939; De
Brentani, 2001 & Baporikra, 2015). Whilst each definition has a unique perspective and
meaning, this makes them applicable in different contexts. Schumpeter (1939), being
one of the first economist to explore the theory of innovation, described innovation as
the “process of industrial mutation, that incessantly revolutionizes the economic
structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new
one”. In later years, Amabile (1996) further defined innovation as a “successful
implementation of creative ideas within an organization”.
To clarify the concept of innovation in regard to this research paper, the term will be
interpreted as “the innovation occurring in the processes of making or delivering
products and services, including intangibles” (Baporikra, 2015). This suggests that
innovation in organizations can occur within the product and/or service development
process as well, and not only be referred to as the development of new ideas and
products itself. Moreover, innovation in organizations may be seen as a contribution to
businesses’ overall performance (De Brentani, 2001). De Brentani (2001) states that
product development is needed for organizations and its performance since it generates
stronger market positions and encourages a company to stay competitive in a
8competitive market. This is further supported by Kammerlander et al., (2015) and De
Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, (2015) who explains that organizations need innovation due
to constant changes in market trends, globalization, new technologies and product
diversity. Corresponding to Baregheh et al. (2009) who emphasizes the importance of
innovation due to “dynamics of the business environment such as technology and
market shifts”. This does to some extent follow the path of Schumpeter (1934) who in
earlier years concluded that if a business or an individual aims to make any sort of
profit, innovation is necessary. Consequently, innovation was argued to be a necessary
driver of competitiveness (Porter & Stern, 1999).
Innovation within businesses was further explored and identified to be a primary
mechanism for individuals to survive and elevate in a competitive society (Brouwer,
1991). It has even been argued that if innovation does not exist, it is close to impossible
for companies to succeed (Schumpeter, 1942). Moreover, changes and transformations
within an economy was suggested to be the essential elements for innovation as well as
organizational endurance (Schumpeter, 1942). In recent years, individual’s ability to
efficiently manage the flow of specialized expertise and knowledge has been seen to
impact the level of innovation (McCraw & Audretsch, 2008). This is further suggested
due to todays’ highly competitive global business environment where individuals
working in companies have the capability for higher-level competence and learning
(Carayannis & Ziemnowicz, 2007). In contrast to this, innovation has also been
identified to be the destruction of existing structures and arrangements (Schumpeter,
1942). Thus, putting emphasizes on the fact that innovation influence every economic
level in a society and if not handled effectively it can instead create deprivation
(Schumpeter, 1942).
2.2.2 Individual Innovation in organizations
One common theme among several of the definitions of innovation include that they
incorporate a description of an individual’s capability to generate new ideas and their
ability to follow up on them (Souitaris, 2002). This goes in line with Tidd et al. (1997)
definition of innovation, describing it as “a process of turning opportunities into
practical use”. Whereas individual innovation refers individual’s ability to implement
9and exploit creative, new ideas, procedures and products (Pratoom & Savatsomboon,
2012). Innovation in organizations can be found on three different levels in a company
within management teams, departments and individuals (Baporikra, 2015). Each level is
influenced by a selection of different factors, where innovation of individuals has been
found to be greatly impacted by the social context (Amabile, 1983).
Individual innovation has been found to be the foundation for high performance in
organizations as it nurtures success in the long term and improves a businesses’ overall
competitiveness (Carmeli et al., 2006; Schilling, 2008; Smith, 2002). According to
research by Heye (2006), Schilling (2008) and Diliello & Houghton (2006), individual
innovation is the result of creativity and self-leadership of individuals. Suggesting that
both creativity and self-leadership play important roles in achieving individual
innovation (Diliello & Houghton, 2006; Amabile, 2000). In contrast to this, Kalyar
(2011) found evidence that self-leadership does not directly influence innovation. In
addition to this, Anderson et al. (2004) argues that creativity alone does not develop or
sufficiently encourage innovation. Thus, individuals need to obtain a certain level of
self-control that allows them to thrive and succeed when faced with the challenges of
creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Further supported by Cremeli et al. (2006) who
determined the inner power to be self-leadership and therefore is an essential quality for
individuals to obtain in order to achieve individual innovation.
2.2.3 Drivers of Innovation
Over the last decades, a various number of factors which encourage and drive
individuals and organizations to innovate has been identified by researchers (Khali,
2000). In order to provide a better understanding of what drives innovation, the drivers
of innovation can be divided into internal and external driving forces (Chen et al.,
2013).
Internal Drivers of Innovation
Internal driving forces can be defined as the factors reflecting the characteristics of
companies and the decisions made by firms, including internal business objectives such
as the individuals working in companies (Chen, 2013). These internal driving forces in
terms of innovation can include an organisations’ choice to stay competitive in
10international markets, hire remarkably skilled workers or simply the nature of business
innovation (Chen et al., 2013).
Furthermore, individual characteristics play a significant role in a worker’s ability to
innovate within a business (Standing et al. 2016). A workforce with strong management
skills has been identified to be one of the main internal drivers for successful
innovation. This includes innovation at the frontier level of new technology
development and the adoption of existing technology, since both requires individuals to
develop and adapt to new complex digital techniques (Nelson & Phelps, 1966).
Other internal factors that have been found to foster a company’s innovation process
includes technology strategy, teamwork, management and delegation (Major & Cordey-
hayes, 2000; Kaufmann & Tödtling, 2002). This was partly questioned in a study which
discovered that teamwork is not regarded as significantly important for large firms
when directly examining the drivers of innovation (Koc & Ceylan, 2005; Damanpour &
Gopalakrishnan, 1998; Linton, 2000).
According to Lindberg (1992) and Linton (2000), in order for an innovation process to
succeed, the involvement of workers from different internal functional areas are
required. Meaning that innovation is somewhat driven by the combination of ideas from
various departments since it provides different perspectives. This is consistent with
Green & Aiman-Smith (2004) who discovered that large-scale developments become
more successful when a group of individuals can extend themselves into a variety of
perspectives within the organization.
External Drivers of Innovation
External driving forces are those external factors that are beyond the control of
managers, shaping the general business environments which companies operate in and
ultimately promotes innovation (Chen et al., 2017). This includes external factors such
as market competition, technology development, consumer demand or government
interventions (Chen et al., 2017). The external environment that an organisation
operates in has been seen to have a significant impact on innovation. Thus, individual’s
ability to innovate is sensitive to the quality of the business environment they are
11operating in. In addition to this, the constant improvement of new technology strongly
encourages enterprises to reach successful innovations. With the development of new
technology, individuals along with organisations are able to quicker adapt and
understand broader areas, such as unknown changes in consumers demand (Chen et al.,
2017). Furthermore, Billing (2020) argues that innovative firms are more adaptable to
external threats and crisis, such as COVID-19.
In addition to this, according to Van Knippenberg et al. (2004), innovation in theory is
generally facilitated by being exposed to diverse perspectives. Specifically, as
individuals integrate and unite diverse perspectives, they increase the ability and
knowledge to generate new ideas and bring on a higher level of elaboration of task-
relevant information (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Thus, this can be identified as an
external driver of innovation since it involves new perspectives or inspirations of
individuals outside of the organization, for example their market competitors.
2.2.4 Theory of individual drivers of innovation
Figure 1: Combined model of individual innovation within organizations
Furthermore, Standing et al. (2016) has explored innovation further by conducting a
model based on previous literature on individual innovation within organizations
12(Figure1). This model integrates previously discussed research on drivers for innovation
by combining various perspectives by recognized authors.
In line with Da Silvia & Davis (2011) and other researchers, Standing et al., (2016)
states that individuals’ characteristics play a key role in the ability to innovate (Figure
1). These certain characteristics includes personality traits, fearless of failure,
preferences towards collaboration and network, confidence and self-reflection (Standing
et al., 2016). Moreover, Cerinšek & Dolinšek (2009) suggests that the underlying
characteristics influencing individual’s ability to innovate includes flexibility,
ambitiousness and curiosity. Cerinšek & Dolinšek (2009) further argues that personality
traits can be explored as elements that gives purpose and directions for each and every
individual.
Moreover, to contribute to individuals’ innovation capabilities within organizations, the
integration between coworkers, managers and the working environment plays an
essential role (Standing et al., 2016). This can be challenging due to the fact that several
components need to be taken into consideration and managed in an effective way in
order to encourage innovation (Standing et al., 2016).
Major & Cordey-hayes (2000) and Kaufmann & Tödtling (2002) along with Van
Knippenberg et al., (2004) suggested that teamwork tend to encourage innovation,
which is clearly integrated and developed upon in the model (Figure 1)(Standing et al.,
2016). Standing et al., (2016) found that in order for innovation to flourish within
teams, the access to technology, knowledge and education must be given by the
organization.
2.2.5 Creativity
In long-standing research, Guilford (1959) defined creativity broadly as problem
solving containing four basic steps: problem recognition, idea generation, idea
evaluation and solution validation. This was later developed by researchers who
explored four key factors into the concept of creativity. Thus, four key factors which are
critical within the success of efforts to nurture creativity in individuals working in
companies (Rhodes 1961 & Barron 1969). Rhodes (1961) referred to these as the 4Ps;
13person, process, press, and product. Firstly, person defined as the individual
characteristics, process as the cognitive style, press as the business environment in
which creativity occur, and lastly product as the result or solution (Rhodes 1961).
In addition to the early research on creativity (Guilford, 1959; Rhodes, 1961; Barron,
1969), Amabile (1983) presented one of the first analysis of the social context of
creativity. Different from previous research, Amabile (1983) published a model of
creativity where she integrated the social context and determined motivation as one of
the major factors within creativity (Amabile, 1983).
In addition to this, certain qualities of individuals have been widely recognized to
promote creativity (Amabile, 1996 & Guilford 1959). Some among these qualities are
curiosity, self-motivation, social skills, risk-orientation, flexibility and commitment
(Guliford, 1959). Sternberg et al. (1996) stated that “creativity is as much an attitude
toward life as a matter of ability”, suggesting that individual’s attitude plays an
important role in the actual ability to be creative (Sternberg et al., 1996). This is
proposed as adults’ creative potential is constantly suppressed by the high-level
intellectual society (Sternberg et al., 1996). In line with a previous research (Amabile &
Gryskiewicz, 1987), stating that certain qualities of environments promote creativity.
Some of those environmental qualities include freedom, good project management,
sufficient resources, recognition, encouragement, various organizational characteristics,
and challenge (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989).
Drivers of creativity
In later years, extensive research on creativity has been conducted elaborating on these
early suggestions, including both research exploring the concept of creativity but also
what drivers it (Amar & Januj 2008). In order to gain a better understanding of which
factors influences and drives creativity, Amabile (1996) generated a further developed
componential model (Figure 2).
14Figure 2: Componential model of drivers of creativity (Amabile 1996)
The model (Figure 2) includes four essential factors impacting creativity: thinking
skills, expertise, motivations, and environment (Amabile, 1996). Emphasizing the
importance of the business environment as it has a large effect on creativity. Thus, it
impacts not only creativity itself but also the three prime components generating
creativity: expertise, creative thinking skills and task motivation. Examining these
different drivers of creativity can be significant for individuals and businesses in order
to raise consciousness and stay innovative (Amabile, 1996). These are important aspects
for any organization in order to keep up with competitiveness in a tough market.
In addition to this, creativity has been identified to be encouraged and inspired by the
concept of brainstorming (Paulus & Brown, 2007). Brainstorming is defined as “a
cognitive activity” (Paulus & Brown, 2007) in which individuals “generate ideas by
using their long-term memory” for relevant topics or issues to connect to the problem
being investigated (Paulus & Brown, 2007). In addition to this, brainstorming has been
found to some extent drive creativity in group work.
To conclude, the drivers of creativity are found to be several. One driver that can be
seen to impact all levels of organizations including individuals, business models and
strategies is the environment in which they operate in (Amabile, 1996). Moreover, a
working environment which supports brainstorming and individuals’ opinions has been
seen to encourage creativity (Paulus & Brown, 2007). In addition to this, certain
expertise, personal characteristics, and level of motivation has been identified as
15individual drivers of creativity (Guliford, 1959). Where level of motivation can be
influenced by personal interest and ambition, but also other external factors such as
competitors or changes in the environment.
2.2.6 Digitalization
Vallo et al. (2020) describes digitalization as ”technical, organizational, and social
changes occasioned by the ongoing integration of digital technologies into professional
and private life.” Whereas Parviainen et al. (2017) defines digitalization as the process
of changing existing products or services into digital new forms. Moreover, Parviainen
et al. (2017) states that digitalization can be seen as the major trend effecting changes in
the society and business environment, both in the long term and short term. On top of
this, Martinez (2019) argues that along with the present digital era, various challenges
and opportunities occurs which causes an increase in the need to implement digital
solutions into businesses.
According to Parviainen et al. (2017) digitalization can be referred to as a change in
various levels within the organization. These steps include the process level,
organizational level, business level and society level. The impact of these steps on the
way of operating and habits for individuals are major, for instance operational processes
and the implementation of digital capabilities that are based on collaborations and
interaction between workers (Parviainen et al., 2017).
Furthermore, collaboration has always been a necessary part of human
life. However, with the new digital era, including internet and the use of mobile device,
this has brought a new layer of opportunities and challenges on this matter (Riemer et
al., 2019). On top of this, to be able to collaborate online without the physical contact is
not effortless since it requires new and more complex competences from
every individual (Riemer et al., 2019). Riemer et al. (2019) further argues that along
with digitalization, there are more pressure on individual’s ability for activities and
projects, where the pressure on individual’s innovation process has become stronger in
terms of developing new digital gatherings.
16However, due to the increase in the digital networks and digitalization, the strength of
competition around the world has increased during the last years (Ignat, 2017). Ignat
(2017) further argues that for some companies, it is hard keep their competitive
advantage due to the rapid expansion of digitalization and networking. Therefore, the
economic results for organizations are highly depending on individuals’ innovation
capability. To conclude, the innovative abilities of people who are working in
companies are not only an important factor for organizations to succeed, but also
essential for the business (Ignat, 2017).
According to previous research (Oldham & Da Silva, 2015), digitalization and the use
of technologies provides individuals with access to new information and knowledge.
Therefore, digitalization has been seen to have a positive effect on individuals’
creativity abilities through the diversity and variety of sources provided as well as the
simplified access to it (Oldham & Da Silva, 2015). On the other hand, Oldham & Da
Silva (2015) also suggests that digitalization and the use of technology can produce an
overload of information for individuals which instead can lead to a decrease in the
creative process. Furthermore, Waldfogel (2021) argues that the changes in
digitalization and technology have decreased the need for physical investments into new
products. This in terms enables workers to bring new products to the market developed
from individuals’ creative side and projects (Waldfogel, 2021).
Agostini et al. (2019) argues that digital technologies can spread ideas faster which has
resulted in employees becoming more aware and focused on the innovation, creativity
and communicative aspect within an organization. Thus, requiring improvements,
higher competences and new learnings from the individuals. Therefore, digitalization
and the impact on people working in companies requires professional development in
the early stage of the digitalization process in order to succeed (Agostini et al., 2019). In
line with this, the effect of digitalization requires the people working in companies to be
able to find a good working solution in order to cooperate, establish social connections
and communicate in the digital area (Agostini et al., 2019). However, Manyika et al.
(2015) argues that individuals and companies that uses digital tools and take advantage
of the digitalization is automatically increasing their operational efficiency, innovation
capabilities and a higher productivity in the workforce.
17To conclude, in order for the authors to answer the research question, a literature review
based on the concept of innovation and creativity along with the drivers for people
working in companies in terms of innovation and creativity was needed to be addressed.
Furthermore, in order to answer the research question based on the accelerated
digitalization, a literature review including previous research concerning digitalization
and the effect of digitalization on individuals was also required. However, previous
research was found to be mainly focusing on the impact on innovation and creativity
upon an organizational level (Oldham & Cummings, 1996 and Yaan, 2005). There has
also been previous research concerning the effects of an increased use of technology
and and the effect on firms’ business models (Caputo et al., 2021). Additionally,
COVID-19 is a relatively new phenomenon and an ongoing process, which leaves a
clear gap for the authors to fill due to that it has not yet been possible to make any long-
term predictions of the outcomes from the pandemic. Therefore, there is currently
limited research concerning the effect on people working in companies and their
working abilities.
183 Methodology & Method
The following section will describe the selection of methodology and method of the conducted research.
This includes explaining the chosen methodological philosophy, design and approach, followed by the
appropriate data collection and analysis. To conclude this section, the fundamental principles of the
research quality and ethics will be presented and clarified.
3.1 Methodology
3.1.1 Research Philosophy
In general, the research philosophies determine the research design of a study (Collis &
Hussey, 2014). A research philosophy refers to a system of beliefs and assumptions
regarding how data and knowledge about a certain topic is collected and analysed
(Collis & Hussey, 2014). These certain types of beliefs held by the authors tend to lead
to the establishment of a particular paradigm (Creswell, 1994). Thus, the two most
commonly used paradigms for research philosophy are positivism and interpretivism
(Collis & Hussey, 2014). Positivism is a philosophy with a rather objective and
scientific worldview, in contrast to interpretivism which views the world in more
subjective and constructivist way (Collis & Hussey, 2014).
To determine which of the two is more suitable for this research, it is essential to
explore the philosophical assumptions that lay the foundation of the paradigms:
epistemology, ontology or axiological values (Bryman, 2008). Considerably, this
research can be primarily based on an interpretivism philosophy as it is a qualitative
research with an inductive approach (Collis & Hussey, 2014). In addition to this, this
research is interpretivism as it takes a subjectivism stand since the researchers believes
that knowledge is based on the perception and perspectives of the interviewees (Collis
& Hussey, 2014). Following this philosophy, the authors are aware that the results of
the study are biased (Saunders et al., 2007). Moreover, with the aim of the study being
to explore the impact of an accelerated digitalization through workers’ perceptions and
connections to the topic, an interpretivist philosophy was most appropriate. Thus, it
allowed the authors to explore the participants’ various perspectives of accelerated
digitalization in relation to the purpose and problem of the research (Saunders et al.,
2007).
193.1.2 Research Design
For this study, a clear research design is essential to answer the research question. The
research design signifies the overall strategy of the study, including the rational and
logical way chosen to effectively address the research problem (De Vaus, 2001). In
order to closely examine workers within the product and service developing industry, a
qualitative research approach was chosen. In contrast to a quantitative research which
collects and analyzes numerical data (Babbie & Earl, 2010), a qualitative research
approach is more suitable to examine complex phenomenon and their primary causes
(Creswell, 1994). The approach is more descriptive which allowed the researchers to
analyze processes, meanings and understandings gained from the interviewees’
responses (Creswell, 1994). In addition to this, it enabled the authors to use these
responses to generate a more detailed and in-depth understanding of underlying
motivations and drivers (Creswell, 1994).
Moreover, an exploratory research design was chosen for this study. An exploratory
study is suitable due to that the existing literature on the subject is limited. According to
Saunders et al. (2009), an exploratory study is a valuable approach when the author
aims to find explanations of an unexplored and undefined phenomena along with
outcomes of a problem. However, in order to conduct an exploratory approach, there are
ways of collecting data and methods that need to be considered. These specific methods
include research of existing literature and conducting interviews from focus groups or
interviewees that are seen as experts in the exploring subject (Saunders et al., 2009). An
exploratory study is considered to be obliging when conducting a qualitative research
method which the authors is pursuing to complete (Saunders et al., 2009). Moreover,
when conducting an exploratory study, the authors must be aware that the direction of
the result might be different and new insights about the subject may occur (Saunders et
al., 2009).
In addition to this, the research design was inspired by the grounded theory. According
to Saunders et al., (2009) a grounded theory design is helpful when the authors aim to
explain patterns and build a theory based upon an unexplored phenomenon (Saunders et
al., 2009). In this study, the conducted theory is explored through data gathered from
various observations from the interviews. This was done in order to develop a theory for
20future research to see how the accelerated digitalization due to COVID-19 has impacted
people working in companies in terms of their innovation and creativity abilities.
3.1.3 Research Approach
In this research, an inductive approach was chosen for analysis of the qualitative data.
An inductive approach aims at developing a theory, which was more applicable than
carrying out a deductive approach that aims to test an already existing theory (Perry &
Jensen, 2001). An inductive research approach was chosen as it is used to explain a
certain phenomenon by searching for themes and patterns from observations (Bernard,
2011). One of the purposes of using an inductive approach is to identify clear
connections between the research intentions and the findings from the explored data
(Thomas, 2006). In regard to this research paper, an inductive approach enabled the
authors to begin with detailed observations of how COVID-19 and an increased
digitalization has impacted workers and move towards more abstract generalizations
and ideas concerning the subject (Neuman, 2003). Furthermore, since the aim of this
study is to explore how an accelerated digitalization impacts individuals working in
companies, using an inductive research approach will be beneficial due to its flexibility
and ability to build a framework (Lodico et al., 2010). Moreover, it will generate the
possibility for the authors to provide meaning and understanding from a set of
observations, and in that order identify patterns and themes in order to provide a theory
(Saunders et al., 2012).
3.2 Method
3.2.1 Primary Data
To collect the primary data for this research, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with a total of ten participants (see table 1). Semi-structured interviews can be described
as the process of having a list of unsolved questions and observations where the authors
may change the interview questions from interview to interview (Saunders et al., 2009).
Semi-structured interviews were chosen as it allowed the researchers to prepare open
questions in advance, with guidance from the literature review in order to help monitor
the conversation in the right direction (Saunders et al., 2009). Moreover, it gave the
authors the possibility to control the process and keep the respondents in line with the
subject (Bernard, 1988). At the same time as it gave the participants time to open up and
21You can also read
