Olivia's research is about engaging frontline workers to innovate, particularly when innovating is not part of the job. Frontline workers are well-equipped to innovate (e.g., identifying and solving problems, generating and implementing ideas). Capturing their innovative input is critical for improving organizational functioning and performance. Especially as volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity become more prevalent in our world, anyone's voice can be mission-critical. However, for frontline workers whose job tends to focus on efficient production and delivery of goods and services, innovation is often not a priority.
Olivia's research is about engaging frontline workers to innovate, particularly when innovating is not part of the job. Frontline workers are well-equipped to innovate (e.g., identifying and solving problems, generating and implementing ideas). Capturing their innovative input is critical for improving organizational functioning and performance. Especially as volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity become more prevalent in our world, anyone's voice can be mission-critical. However, for frontline workers whose job tends to focus on efficient production and delivery of goods and services, innovation is often not a priority.
In her dissertation, Olivia examines how managers can use distributed innovation processes, such as crowdsourcing and innovation contests, to motivate and activate extra-role innovative behaviors. How do people react to being invited to participate in idea generation and selection when such activities are not part of day-to-day tasks? How does broadening the locus of innovation impact existing relationships and practices? Do people innovate more when technology and platforms that facilitate distributed innovation are introduced? These questions drive Olivia's research agenda.
Olivia uses myriad research methods, such as field experiments, surveys, interviews, and observations, because the complexities of organizational life requires flexible approaches. She partners with organizations to collect original data from the field to explore the social contexts of people and processes. To date, Olivia has collaborated with academic hospitals, community health centers, and NASA to design, implement, measure, and analyze the impact of distributed innovation processes.
In-between graduate studies, Olivia worked at Abt Associates, where she researched impacts of federal payment and delivery system reform, including the Oncology Care Model (OCM), Medicare Care Choices Model (MCCM), and Medicaid Innovation Accelerator Program (IAP), for clients like Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). She holds a BS in Economics from the Wharton School of Business and a BA in International Studies from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania.
What might motivate employees to participate in internal crowdsourcing, a peer-based approach to innovation? Should organizations use incentives that are congruent with their established hierarchical structures, or should they use incentives that are aligned with the aspirational, peer-based approach to innovation? We partnered with NASA for a qualitative study and a field experiment (N=7,455) to understand the effectiveness of different incentives that may motivate its workforce to participate in crowdsourcing. First, we show that concerns about the legitimacy of peer-based innovation disincentivize employees to participate. Second, we find that managerial recognition, the incentive that is congruent with the established hierarchy, significantly increases engagement. It does so by alleviating legitimacy concerns and by offering managerial attention. Peer recognition, which is congruent with the aspirational, peer-based approach to innovation, is not found to have a significant overall effect. However, workers who are otherwise less visible were positively motivated by it. Our research provides guidance for hierarchical organizations that are seeking greater employee engagement in peer-based innovation, and it adds insights on motivational channels to the literature on organizational innovation.
Andrea Blasco, Olivia S. Jung, Karim R. Lakhani and Michael Menietti
Understanding why employees go the extra mile at work is a key problem for many organizations. We conduct a field experiment at a medical organization to study motivations for employees to submit project proposals for organizational improvement. In total, we analyze 1,237 employees, 118 proposals, and quality evaluations for more than 12,000 evaluator-proposal pairs. The analysis shows that solicitations offering a personal reward for top submissions boost participation rates without affecting submission quality. We show that this is due to workers partially internalizing the positive effects of their submissions on the other individuals in the workplace. We also find that offering employees project funding to implement their own proposals potentially backfires, undermining participation. And solicitations emphasizing mission-oriented goals, like improving patient care, are sensitive to the solicited person’s gender, with women responding more than men. These results shed light on the factors that drive employees’ engagement in organizational tasks, beyond regular duties, and provide insights on how to design incentives to foster contributions to public goods inside organizations.
Background: Frontline staff are well positioned to conceive improvement opportunities based on first-hand knowledge of what works and does not work. The innovation contest may be a relevant and useful vehicle to elicit staff ideas. However, the success of the contest likely depends on perceived organizational support for learning; when staff believe that support for learning-oriented culture, practices, and leadership is low, they may be less willing or able to share ideas. Purpose: We examined how staff perception of organizational support for learning affected contest participation, which comprised ideation and evaluation of submitted ideas. Methodology/Approach: The contest held in a hospital cardiac center invited all clinicians and support staff (n = 1,400) to participate. We used the 27-item Learning Organization Survey to measure staff perception of learning-oriented environment, practices and processes, and leadership. Results: Seventy-two frontline staff submitted 138 ideas addressing wide-ranging issues including patient experience, cost of care, workflow, utilization, and access. Two hundred forty-five participated in evaluation. Supportive learning environment predicted participation in ideation and idea evaluation. Perceptions of insufficient experimentation with new ways of working also predicted participation. Conclusion: The contest enabled frontline staff to share input and assess input shared by other staff. Our findings indicate that the contest may serve as a fruitful outlet through which frontline staff can share and learn new ideas, especially for those who feel safe to speak up and believe that new ideas are not tested frequently enough. Practice Implications: The contest’s potential to decentralize innovation may be greater under stronger learning orientation. A highly visible intervention, like the innovation contest, has both benefits and risks. Our findings suggest benefits such as increased engagement with work and community as well as risks such as discontent that could arise if staff suggestions are not acted upon or if there is no desired change after the contest.
