International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 6, Issue 8 (August 2019), Pages: 111-118

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: A study of factors that affect the self-practice of employees for the development of innovation capability of the Thai automotive industry

 Author(s): Poramet Eamurai 1, *, Napaporn Khantanapha 1, Rapeepun Piriyakul 2

 Affiliation(s):

 1Graduate School of Business Administration, Southeast Asia University, Bangkok, Thailand
 2Faculty of Science, Ramkhamhaeng University, Bangkok, Thailand

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4458-0337

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.08.015

 Abstract:

This research aims to obtain a research model of factors that affect the self-practice of employees and to know the factors that affect the self-practice of employees for the development of innovation capability of the Thai automotive industry. The study was conducted by reviewing related literature and theories and holding a small group meeting with experts in the automotive industry to review the research model and factors obtained from this study. This research is only part of the main research that we are currently studying. The results from this research have led to the research model. According to the research results, the factors that affect the self-practice of employees can be divided into two types: 1) Intrinsic factors that consist of (1) Reward motivation, (2) Recognition, and (3) Career Path, and 2) Extrinsic factors that consist of (1) Organizational culture, (2) Transformational leadership, (3) Good workplace atmosphere, (4) Objective and key results (OKRs), and (5) Divergent thinking. The results obtained from this research will be used to additionally expand the development of a conceptual framework in order to study the population, collect data, and extend the results of the next research. 

 © 2019 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Self-practice, Innovation capability, Automotive industry

 Article History: Received 23 March 2019, Received in revised form 20 June 2019, Accepted 22 June 2019

 Acknowledgement:

No Acknowledgement.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest:  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Eamurai P, Khantanapha N, and Piriyakul R (2019). A study of factors that affect the self-practice of employees for the development of innovation capability of the Thai automotive industry. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(8): 111-118

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1

 Tables

 Table 1

----------------------------------------------

 References (40) 

  1. Addis DR, Pan L, Musicaro R, and Schacter DL (2016). Divergent thinking and constructing episodic simulations. Memory, 24(1): 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.985591   [Google Scholar] PMid:25483132 PMCid:PMC4458228
  2. Alegre J and Chiva R (2013). Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of organizational learning capability and innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(4): 491-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12005   [Google Scholar]
  3. Avlonitis GJ, Kouremenos A, and Tzokas N (1994). Assessing the innovativeness of organizations and its antecedents: Project Innovstrat. European Journal of Marketing, 28(11): 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569410075812   [Google Scholar]
  4. Baron RA (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 328-340. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193166   [Google Scholar]
  5. Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Brookfield S (1993). Self-directed learning, political clarity, and the critical practice of adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 43(4): 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713693043004002   [Google Scholar]
  7. Cameron J, Banko KM, and Pierce WD (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24(1): 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392017   [Google Scholar] PMid:22478353 PMCid:PMC2731358
  8. Cerasoli CP, Nicklin JM, and Ford MT (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4): 980-1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661   [Google Scholar] PMid:24491020
  9. Chen S, Boucher HC, and Tapias MP (2006). The relational self-revealed: Integrative conceptualization and implications for interpersonal life. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2): 151-179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.151   [Google Scholar] PMid:16536640
  10. Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553   [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis MA (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1): 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001   [Google Scholar]
  12. Denison DR and Mishra AK (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2): 204-223. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204   [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldsmith RE and Foxall GR (2003). The measurement of innovativeness. In: Shavinina LV (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation: 321–330. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044198-6/50022-X   [Google Scholar]
  14. Hurley RF, Hult GTM, and Knight GA (2005). Innovativeness and capacity to innovate in a complexity of firm-level relationships: A response to Woodside (2004). Industrial Marketing Management, 34(3): 281-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.07.006   [Google Scholar]
  15. Jonassen D, Cernusca D, and Ionas G (2007). Constructivism and instructional design: The emergence of the learning sciences and design research. In: Reiser RA and Dempsey JV (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology: 45-52. Pearson Education, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Kehr HM (2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives, and perceived abilities: The compensatory model of work motivation and volition. Academy of Management Review, 29(3): 479-499. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.13670963   [Google Scholar]
  17. Lane PJ, Koka BR, and Pathak S (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 833-863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527456   [Google Scholar]
  18. Massa S and Testa S (2004). Innovation or imitation? Benchmarking: A knowledge-management process to innovate services. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(6): 610-620. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770410566519   [Google Scholar]
  19. Mello FS (2016). The definitive guide to OKRs: How objectives and key-results can help your company build a culture of excellence and achievement. Qulture Rocks, Inc., San Francisco, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Michaels E, Handfield-Jones H, and Axelrod B (2001). The war for talent. Harvard Business School, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Minbaeva D, Pedersen T, Björkman I, Fey CF, and Park HJ (2003). MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6): 586-599. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400056   [Google Scholar]
  22. Niven PR and Lamorte B (2016). Objectives and key results: Driving focus, alignment, and engagement with OKRs. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119255543   [Google Scholar]
  23. Nybakk E, Crespell P, Hansen E, and Lunnan A (2009). Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(2): 608-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.040   [Google Scholar]
  24. OIE (2015). Industrial economic status report for 2017 and outlook for 2018. Office of Industrial Economics, Bangkok, Thailand.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Raziq A and Maulabakhsh R (2015). Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23: 717-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00524-9   [Google Scholar]
  26. Ryan RM and Deci EL (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1): 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68   [Google Scholar] PMid:11392867
  27. Salunke G (2015). Work environment and its effect on job satisfaction in cooperative sugar factories in Maharashtra, India. Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in Management and Technology, 4(5): 21-31.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Sarode AP and Shirsath M (2014). The factors affecting employee work environment and it’s relation with employee productivity. International Journal of Science and Research, 3(11): 2735-2737.   [Google Scholar]
  29. Schein EH (1992). The role of the CEO in the management of change: The case of information technology, Sloan school of management. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  30. Siriwongs P (2015). Developing students’ learning ability by dint of self-directed learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197: 2074–2079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.577   [Google Scholar]
  31. Stefanie LB, Diane RE, Andrew BA, and David F (2014). Self-directed learning: A tool for lifelong learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1): 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475313494010   [Google Scholar]
  32. TAI (2017). Thailand automotive industry master plan 2017-2021. Thailand Automotive Institute, Bangkok, Thailand.
  33. Todd M and Douglas B (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5): 464-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454304   [Google Scholar] PMid:26168504
  34. Toffel MW (2016). Enhancing the practical relevance of research. Production and Operations Management, 25(9): 1493-1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12558   [Google Scholar]
  35. Torrance EP (1998). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual: Figural (streamlined) forms A and B. Scholastic Testing Service Inc., Bensenville, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  36. Tsai MT and Tsai CL (2010). Innovation capability and performance in Taiwanese science parks: Exploring the moderating effects of industrial clusters fabric. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 2(4): 80-103.   [Google Scholar]
  37. Wallach MA and Kogan N (2010). Modes of thinking in your children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. Holt Rinerhart and Winston, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  38. Wutthirong P (2015). Innovation management: Resource, learning organization and innovation. Chulapress, Bangkok, Thailand.   [Google Scholar]
  39. Yukl G and Lepsinger R (2005). Why integrating the leading and managing roles is essential for organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 4(34): 361-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.08.004   [Google Scholar]
  40. Zahra SA and George G (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 185-203. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6587995   [Google Scholar]