Table 1
Items, sources and factor analysis of innovation capacity.
| Items (‘Do you agree with the following assertions: the teams in your unit…’) | Items taken from or inspired by | Component 1 Entrepreneurial capacity [56.87%] | Component 2 Connection capacity [11.91%] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Have critical reflections on their routines | Bontis, Crossan, & Hulland (2002), Gieske, van Meerkerk, & van Buuren (2018), Hildén et al. (2014) | 0.699 | 0.357 |
| Are able to innovate despite the constraints of their usual mission | Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson (2003), De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman (2004), Gieske et al. (2018) | 0.861 | 0.253 |
| Propose ideas which imply risks | Brown and Osborne (2013), Flemig, Osborne, and Kinder (2016), Townsend (2013) | 0.809 | 0.241 |
| Are easy with uncertainty | Brown & Osborne, (2013), Flemig, Osborne, & Kinder (2016), Townsend (2013) | 0.805 | 0.167 |
| Encourage each other to innovate | Fernandez & Moldogaziev (2013), Lewis et al. (2018) | 0.870 | 0.152 |
| Rely on innovation leaders from every hierarchical level | Fernandez & Moldogaziev (2013), Lewis et al. (2018) | 0.699 | 0.181 |
| Easily adapt to technological changes | Lember et al. (2018) | 0.708 | 0.436 |
| Build and maintain sustainable relations with other organizations | Gieske et al. (2018), Hildén et al. (2014), Van Meerkerk & Edelenbos (2014) | 0.135 | 0.869 |
| Build and maintain sustainable relations with other services from the same organization | Gieske et al. (2018), Hildén et al. (2014), Van Meerkerk & Edelenbos (2014) | 0.238 | 0.858 |
| Get informed about new technologies | Lember et al. (2018) | 0.471 | 0.533 |
Table 2
Hybridity as per sector of activity.
| Sector | Hybridity index | Clustering | N | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justice and security | 1 | State logic | 38 | State logic + |
| Foreign affairs, diplomacy and defence | 1 | State logic | ||
| Spatial planning and environment | 1.44 | State logic | ||
| Agriculture and forest policies | 1.44 | State logic | ||
| Road infrastructure, construction and transport | 1.67 | State logic | ||
| Employment policy | 1.78 | Not clustered | 58 | |
| Early childhood and youth policy | 1.89 | Not clustered | ||
| Health and social policies | 2.56 | Not clustered | ||
| Education and research | 2.67 | Hybrid | 51 | Market logic + |
| Cultural policies | 2.78 | Hybrid | ||
| Energy | 2.89 | Hybrid | ||
| Economic policy | 2.89 | Hybrid | ||
| Sport | 3.22 | Hybrid |
Table 3
Differences between state logic and hybrid organizations regarding innovation output and innovation capacity.
| State logic organizations (obs = 38) | Hybrid organizations (obs = 51) | t-Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | s.d. | Mean | s.d. | ||
| Innovation output (0 to 1) | |||||
| Innovation rate (n = 89) | 0.84 | –0.37 | 0.96 | –0.196 | 0.078 |
| Innovation radicality (n = 73) | 0.11 | –0.315 | 0.27 | –0.447 | 0.079 |
| Innovation capacity (1 to 4) | |||||
| One block concept (n = 89) | 2.56 | –0.669 | 2.83 | –0.501 | .032* |
| Multidimensional concept – entrepreneurial dimension (n = 89) | 2.38 | –0.682 | 2.76 | –0.584 | .006* |
| Multidimensional concept – connection dimension (n = 89) | 2.95 | –0.77 | 2.98 | –0.517 | 0.819 |
[i] Note: Unpaired t-test indicates statistical difference between means: *p > 0.05.