Information and Communication Technology Adoption,Administrative Discretion,and Innovative Mindsets in Public Organizations

Abstract

This article examines how information and communication technology (ICT) adoption and administrative discretion are associated with the innovative mindsets of public employees in South Korea. Employing moderated multiple regression analysis, the authors examined secondary survey data on South Korean public employees’ perceptions collected by the Korea Institute of Public Administration in 2021. The findings support a direct and positive impact of ICT adoption and administrative discretion on the innovative mindsets of public employees. Moreover, the results highlight the moderating influence of (perceptual) administrative discretion on the relationship between ICT adoption and innovative mindsets of public employees. The authors discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the findings and contributions of this study.

Keywords

innovative mindsets information and communication technology adoption administrative discretion moderated regression analysis South Korea

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aberbach

J. D.

Rockman

B. A.

(1988). Mandates or mandarins? Control and discretion in the modern administrative state. Public Administration Review, 48(2), 606–612. https://doi.org/10.2307/975761

Anderson

Potočnik

Zhou

(2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128

Azar

Ciabuschi

(2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness. International Business Review, 26(2), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.002

Borins

(2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 498–507. http://www.jstor.org/stable/977433

Carbonara

(2005). Information and communication technology and geographical clusters: Opportunities and spread. Technovation, 25(3), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(03)00095-6

Carroll

D. A.

Yeo

(2024). What can reform street-level bureaucrats’ Unwarranted discretionary behaviors? Principles? Principals? Or Both? The American Review of Public Administration, 54(3), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231213093

Cho

Faerman

S. R.

(2010). An integrative approach to empowerment: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Public Management Review, 12(1), 33–51.

Chun

S. A.

Shulman

Sandoval

Hovy

(2010). Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030902798610

Cooper

Eva

Fazlelahi

F. Z.

Newman

Lee

Obschonka

(2020). Addressing common method variance and endogeneity in vocational behavior research: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 121, 103472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103472

10.

Cordella

Tempini

(2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005

11.

Dahlström

Lapuente

Teorell

(2012). Public administration around the world. In Holmberg

Rothstein

(Eds.), Good government: The relevance of political science (pp. 40–67). Edward Elgar Publishing.

12.

Damanpour

(1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590. https://doi.org/10.5465/256406

13.

Damanpour

Aravind

(2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00233.x

14.

Damanpour

Schneider

(2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup031

15.

Damanpour

Walker

R. M.

Avellaneda

C. N.

(2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00814.x

16.

Demircioglu

M. A.

(2021). Sources of innovation, autonomy, and employee job satisfaction in public organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(1), 155–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1820350

17.

Demircioglu

M. A.

Hameduddin

Knox

(2023). Innovative work behaviors and networking across government. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(1), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211017654

18.

Denison

D. R.

Haaland

Goelzer

(2004). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness: Is Asia different from the rest of the world? Organizational Dynamics, 33(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2003.11.008

19.

De Vries

Bekkers

Tummers

. (2016). Innovation in the public Sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209

20.

Donbesuur

Ampong

G. O. A.

Owusu-Yirenkyi

Chu

(2020). Technological innovation, organizational innovation and international performance of SMEs: The moderating role of domestic institutional environment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120252

21.

Dong

J. Q.

Yang

C.-H.

(2019). Information technology and innovation outcomes: Is knowledge recombination the missing link? European Journal of Information Systems, 28(6), 612–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2019.1627489

22.

Dyer

J. H.

Gregersen

H. B.

Christensen

C. M.

(2009). The innovator’s DNA. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 60–67.

23.

Elenkov

D. S.

Manev

I. M.

(2005). Top management leadership and influence on innovation: The role of sociocultural context. Journal of Management, 31(3), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272151

24.

Evans

Rauch

J. E.

(1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 748–765.

25.

Eveleens

(2010). Innovation management: A literature review of innovation process models and their implications. Science, 800(2010), 900–916.

26.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

MacCallum

R. C.

Strahan

E. J.

(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

27.

Gieske

van Meerkerk

van Buuren

(2019). The impact of innovation and optimization on public sector performance: Testing the contribution of connective, ambidextrous, and learning capabilities. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(2), 432–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1470014

28.

Gressgård

L. J.

Amundsen

Merethe Aasen

Hansen

(2014). Use of information and communication technology to support employee-driven innovation in organizations: A knowledge management perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(4), 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2014-0013

29.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

30.

Hill

H. C.

(2003). Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats’ resources for reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpart/mug024

31.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2). McGraw Hill.

32.

Hult

G. T. M.

Hurley

R. F.

Knight

G. A.

(2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015

33.

Hurley

R. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Knight

G. A.

(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

34.

Hussain

Xuetong

Maqbool

Hussain

Shahnawaz

(2022). The influence of government support, organizational innovativeness and community participation in renewable energy project success: A case of Pakistan. Energy, 239, 122172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122172

35.

Jaeger

P. T.

Bertot

J. C.

(2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.003

36.

Jung

C. S.

Lee

(2016). Organizational climate, leadership, organization size, and aspiration for innovation in government agencies. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(4), 757–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137764

37.

Kahn

K. B.

(2018). Understanding innovation. Business Horizons, 61(3), 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011

38.

Kim

(2009). Testing the structure of public service motivation in Korea: A research note. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 839–851. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup019

39.

Kim

S. E.

Lee

J. W.

(2009). The impact of management capacity on government innovation in Korea: An empirical study. International Public Management Journal, 12(3), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490903103334

40.

Knol

Van Linge

(2009). Innovative behaviour: The effect of structural and psychological empowerment on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(2), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04876.x

41.

Kousina

Voudouris

(2023). The ambidextrous leadership-innovative work behaviour relationship in the public sector: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1478–1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13650

42.

Lapuente

Suzuki

(2020). Politicization, bureaucratic legalism, and innovative attitudes in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 454–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13175

43.

Lee-Geiller

Lee

(2022). How does digital governance contribute to effective crisis management? A case study of Korea’s response to COVID-19. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(4), 860–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2054434

44.

Lipsky

(2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniversary ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.

45.

Marchiori

D. M.

Rodrigues

R. G.

Popadiuk

Mainardes

E. W.

(2022). The relationship between human capital, information technology capability, innovativeness and organizational performance: An integrated approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 177, 121526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121526

46.

Merenda

P. F.

(1997). A guide to the proper use of factor analysis in the conduct and reporting of research: Pitfalls to avoid. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30(3), 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.1997.12068936

47.

Miao

Newman

Schwarz

Cooper

(2018). How leadership and public service motivation enhance innovative behavior. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12839

48.

Moon

M. J.

(2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00196

49.

Naor

Linderman

Schroeder

(2010). The globalization of operations in Eastern and Western countries: Unpacking the relationship between national and organizational culture and its impact on manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28(3), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.11.001

50.

Nielsen

M. M.

Jordanoski

(2020). Digital transformation, governance and coordination models: A comparative study of Australia, Denmark and the Republic of Korea. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 285–293). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3396956.3396987

51.

Nisbett

R. E.

Peng

Choi

Norenzayan

(2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291

52.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 367–373.

53.

Quintane

Mitch Casselman

Sebastian Reiche

Nylund

P. A.

(2011). Innovation as a knowledge-based outcome. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 928–947. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111179299

54.

Radaelli

C. M.

Meuwese

A. C.

(2010). Hard questions, hard solutions: Proceduralisation through impact assessment in the EU. West European Politics, 33(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380903354189

55.

Reddick

C. G.

Abdelsalam

H. M.

Elkadi

(2011). The influence of E-Government on administrative discretion: The case of local governments in Egypt. Public Administration and Development, 31(5), 390–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.615

56.

Reddick

C. G.

Turner

(2012). Channel choice and public service delivery in Canada: Comparing e-government to traditional service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.03.005

57.

Reis

Santo

P. E.

Melão

(2019). Artificial intelligence in government services: A systematic literature review. In Rocha

Adeli

Reis

Costanzo

(Eds.), New knowledge in information systems and technologies. WorldCIST’19 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 930, pp. 241–252). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16181-1_23

58.

Ritz

Brewer

G. A.

Neumann

(2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 414–426. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12505

59.

Rogers

E. M.

(1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press.

60.

Silberman

B. S.

(1993). Cages of reason: The rise of the rational state in France, Japan, the United States, and Great Britain. University of Chicago Press.

61.

Smith

K. W.

Sasaki

M. S.

(1979). Decreasing multicollinearity: A method for models with multiplicative functions. Sociological Methods & Research, 8(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912417900800102

62.

Spector

P. E.

Brannick

M. T.

(2010). Common method issues: An introduction to the feature topic in organizational research methods. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 403–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110366303

63.

Suseno

Standing

Gengatharen

Nguyen

(2020). Innovative work behaviour in the public sector: The roles of task characteristics, social support, and proactivity. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12378

64.

Suzuki

Demircioglu

M. A.

(2019). The association between administrative characteristics and national level innovative activity: Findings from a cross-national study. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(4), 755–782.

65.

Torres

Pina

Acerete

(2005). E-government developments on delivering public services among EU cities. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.02.004

66.

Tran

A. C.

Luu

T. T.

Trinh

N. K.

Nguyen

X. N.

(2023). How do normative public values promote service innovative behavior in public organizations: The roles of felt responsibility for change and responsible leadership. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(5), 1207–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2241453

67.

Tummers

Bekkers

(2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841978

68.

United Nations. (2020). United Nations e-government survey 2020. https://doi.org/10.18356/8bdf045f-en

69.

Van der Meer

F. M.

Dojkstra

G. S. A

. (2011). Civil service systems in Western Europe: Variations and similarities. In Van der Meer

F. M.

(Ed.), Civil service systems in Western Europe (pp. 271–286). Edward Elgar Publishing.

70.

Van der Meer

F. M.

Steen

Wille

. (2007). Western European civil service systems: A comparative analysis. In Raadschelders

Toonen

Van der Meer

F. M.

(Eds.), The civil service in the 21st century: Comparative perspectives (pp. 34–49). Palgrave Macmillan.

71.

Van der Wal

Demircioglu

M. A

. (2020). More ethical, more innovative? The effects of ethical culture and ethical leadership on realized innovation. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12423

72.

Vial

(2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003

73.

Wang

A. C.

Cheng

B. S.

(2010). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.634

74.

West

D. M.

(2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00343.x

75.

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2023). Global innovation index 2023: Innovation in the face of uncertainty. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.48220

76.

Yang

S. B.

Torneo

A. R.

(2016). Government performance management and evaluation in South Korea: History and current practices. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1108767

77.

Yeo

Jeon

S. H.

(2021). Smart principles and smart principals: Smart mechanism to enhance street-level accountability. Public Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.37808/paq.45.2.2

78.

Yun

(2020). Early innovation adoption: effects of performance-based motivation and organizational characteristics. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(4), 790–817.

79.

Zacka

(2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. Harvard university press.

80.

Zhong

C. B.

Magee

J. C.

Maddux

W. W.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2006). Power, culture, and action: Considerations in the expression and enactment of power in East Asian and Western societies. In Chen

Y.-R.

Mannix

E. A.

Ann

Neale Wageman

(Eds.), National culture and groups (Vol. 9, pp. 53–73). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

81.

Zhu

Dong

S. X.

Kraemer

K. L.

(2006). Innovation diffusion in global contexts: Determinants of post-adoption digital transformation of European companies. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(6), 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000650