Exploring the Differences in Innovative Work Behavior and Workforce Agility Between Korean and Indonesian Employees: A Cross-cultural Study in a South Korea FDI Company
Abstract
The expansion of South Korean foreign direct investment companies in Indonesia has led to the possibility of cultural challenges arising among workers in multinational corporations. Additionally, there are notable differences in the innovation and agility indexes of Indonesia and South Korea in 2022. These disparities in performance may perpetuate stereotypes that suggest that innovation and agility are unique qualities exhibited by employees from each respective country. The objective of this study is to investigate whether there exist variations in the innovative work behavior and workforce agility of Indonesian and South Korean employees who work in the same organization as part of cross-cultural research. The theoretical framework for this research is Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, specifically the dimensions of long-term orientation and Stereotype Threat Theory, which are used to explain the phenomenon. This study used a quantitative approach and had 30 participants who worked at a South Korean FDI company. The participants were chosen through convenience sampling. The research tools included the innovative work behavior scale and the workforce agility scale. Data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U-Test and descriptive analysis. Based on the research findings, it appears that employees from different cultural backgrounds working in the same organization do not exhibit significant differences in terms of their innovative work behavior and workforce agility. This was observed in a case study conducted at a South Korean FDI company located in East Java.
Keywords: Indonesia, innovative work behavior, South Korea, workforce agility
References
[1] Indonesia KLNR. Kolaborasi hebat Indonesia dan Korea untuk mengembangkan persahabatan yang lebih erat dan kemitraan yang lebih kuat melalui kerja sama sektor keuangan. KemluRI. 2023.
[2] Korzilius H, Bücker JJLE, Beerlage S. Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations [Internet]. 2017;56:13–24.
[3] Adams D, Velarde JM. Leadership in a culturally diverse environment: Perspectives from international school leaders in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education [Internet]. 2021;41(2):323–335.
[4] Dutta S, Lanvin B, Rivera León L, Wunsch-Vincent S. Global innovation index 2022: What is the future of innovation-driven growth? WIPO. 2022. 2003–2005 p.
[5] US News (usnews.com). US news and world report, 2023 most adaptable and responsive countries. 2023.
[6] Jihae L. Available from: https://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/policies/view.2022
[7] Swab RG, Javadian G, Gupta VK, Pierce CA. Stereotype threat theory in organizational research: Constructive analysis and future research agenda. Group and Organization Management. 2022;47:530–570.
[8] Chun D, Zhang Z, Cohen E, Florea L, Genc OF. Long-term orientation and the passage of time: Is it time to revisit Hofstede’s cultural dimensions? International Journal of Cross Cultural Management. 2021;21(2):353–371.
[9] Insights H. Country comparsion 2023 [Internet]. Available from: https://www.hofstedeinsights. com/country-comparsion
[10] Taras V, Kirkman BL, Steel P. Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010;95(3):405–439.
[11] Onne J. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness nd innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2000;287–302.
[12] De Jong J, Den Hartog D. Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2010;19(1):23–36.
[13] de Jong JPJ, Parker SK, Wennekers S, Wu C. Corporate entrepreneurship at the individual level: Measurement and determinants. EIM Research Reports. 2011;(March):1–27.
[14] Messmann G, Mulder RH. Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human Resource Development International. 2012;15(1):43–59.
[15] Pusparini ES, Aryasa KB. Entering the global market: The role of work autonomy and individual global mindset as antecedents of innovative work behavior in defining employee task performance. The South East Asian Journal of Management. 2021;15(1):97–111.
[16] Shanker R, Bhanugopan R, van der Heijden BIJM, Farrell M. Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior [Internet]. 2017;100:67–77.
[17] Battistelli A, Montani F, Odoardi C, Vandenberghe C, Picci P. Employees’ concerns about change and commitment to change among Italian organizations: Themoderating role of innovative work behavior. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2014;25(7):951–978.
[18] AlEssa HS, Durugbo CM. Systematic review of innovative work behavior concepts and contributions [Internet]. Management Review Quarterly. 2022;72:1171–1208.
[19] Zuraik A, Kelly L, Dyck LR. Individual innovative work behaviour: Effects of personality, team leadership and climate in the us context. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2020;24(5).
[20] Malibari MA, Bajaba S. Entrepreneurial leadership and employees’ innovative behavior: A sequential mediation analysis of innovation climate and employees’ intellectual agility. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. 2022;7(4):100255.
[21] Alavi S, Abd. Wahab D, Muhamad N, Arbab Shirani B. Organic structure and organisational learning as the main antecedents of workforce agility. International Journal of Production Research. 2014;52(21):6273–6295.
[22] Sherehiy B, Karwowski W. The relationship between work organization and workforce agility in small manufacturing enterprises. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics [Internet]. 2014;44(3):466–473.
[23] Abou-AL-Ross SA, Shatali MDJ. The impact of workforce agility on organizational development agility in the INGOs working in the Gaza strip. International Journal Of Business & Management Studies [Internet]. 2022;03(06):36–52.
[24] Petermann MKH, Zacher H. Workforce agility: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13(March).
[25] Zheng W, Shen R, Zhong W, Lu J. CEO values, firm long-term orientation, and firm innovation: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Management and Organization Review. 2020;16(1).
[26] Lin Y, Shi W, Prescott JE, Yang H. In the eye of the beholder: Top managers’ long-term orientation, industry context, and decision-making processes. Journal of Management. 2019;45(8):3114–3145.
[27] Das KP, Mukhopadhyay S, Suar D. Enablers of workforce agility, firm performance, and corporate reputation. Asia Pacific Management Review [Internet]. 2023;28(1):33–44.
[28] Sugiyono. Metode penelitian kuantitatif kualitatif dan R&D. 2019. p. 444.
[29] Muduli A. Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: An empirical study. Management Research Review. 2016;39(12):1567–1586.
[30] Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. CA, USA: SAGE Publications; 2018. p. 418.
[31] Etikariena A. Perbedaan perilaku kerja inovatif berdasarkan karakteristik individu karyawan. J Psikol. 2019;17(2):107.
[32] Khan I. The role of organizational justice and culture in relationships between leadership styles performance. Gomal University; 2018.
[33] De Jong JPJ, Den Hartog DN. How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2007;10(1):41–64.
[34] Taras V, Steel P, Kirkman BL. Does country equate with culture? Beyond geography in the search for cultural boundaries. Management International Review. 2016;56(4):455–487.
[35] Muduli A. Workforce agility: A review of literature. IUP Journal of Management Research [Internet]. 2013;12(3):55–65.
[36] Pennington CR, Heim D, Levy AR, Larkin DT. Twenty years of stereotype threat research: A review of psychological mediators. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):1–25. DOI