Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:16:49.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No longer take a tree for the forest: A cross-level learning-related perspective on individual innovative behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2015

Fu Yang ,
Jing Qian ,
Le Tang  and
Lihua Zhang
Fu Yang*
Affiliation:
School of Business Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China
Jing Qian
Affiliation:
Business School, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
Le Tang
Affiliation:
School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Lihua Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using trait activation theory as a framework, this study developed and tested a cross-level model of individual innovative behavior. Data from a sample of 334 employees within 75 work teams were used to examine the hypothesized model. Results showed that employee learning goal orientation was positively related to innovative behavior only when the team structure was more organic. Additionally, the relationship between employee learning goal orientation and innovative behavior would be strongest when both the team structure was more organic and team mean learning goal orientation was higher.

Keywords

team structureteam learning goal orientation compositionlearning goal orientationinnovative behaviortrait activation theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , May 2016 , pp. 291 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586–612.Google Scholar
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organizational structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305.Google Scholar
Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). Trickle-down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 678–689.Google Scholar
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Education Psychology, 80, 260–267.Google Scholar
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.Google Scholar
Aryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. (2008). Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review, 4, 393–411.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33, 825–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bommer, W. H., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2007). Does prevalence mitigate relevance? The moderating effect of group-level OCB on employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1481–1494.Google Scholar
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 863–873.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Burns, T. G., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London, England: Tavistock Institute.Google Scholar
Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2011). Non-technical innovation: Organizational memory and learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sustained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 1294–1304.Google Scholar
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.Google Scholar
Clegg, S., & Hardy, C. (1996). Organizations, organization and organizing. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 1–28). London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
Damanpour, F., 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, 650–675.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.Google Scholar
Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006). When organizational climate is unambiguous, it is also strong. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 351–364.Google Scholar
Dierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, J. K. (2012). Members matter in team training: Multilevel and longitudinal relationships between goal orientation, self-regulation, and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 65, 661–703.Google Scholar
Dimotakis, N., Davison, R. B., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2012). Team structure and regulatory focus: The impact of regulatory fit on team dynamic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 421–434.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dragoni, L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Better understanding work unit goal orientation: Its emergence and impact under different types of work unit structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1032–1048.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.Google Scholar
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765–778.Google Scholar
Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Zhu, J., & Lee, D. R. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 827–851.Google Scholar
Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R., & Griffith-Hughson, T. L. (1988). Groups and productivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell, & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organizations: New perspectives from industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 295–327). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Harrison, M. M., Neff, N. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of individual creativity and innovation. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas.Google Scholar
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 624–641.Google Scholar
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). Across-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280–293.Google Scholar
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader–member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170–178.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42–63.Google Scholar
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ellis, A. P. J., Humphrey, S. E., Garza, A. S., & Ilgen, D. R. (2011). Asymmetry in structural adaptation: The differential impact of centralizing versus decentralizing team decision-making structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ilgen, D. R., Sheppard, L., et al (2002). Structural contingency theory and individual differences: Examination of external and internal person–team fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 599–606.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M. (2003). Emerging trends and needs in personality research and practice: Beyond main effects. In M. R. Barrick, & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 289–325). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. J., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309.Google Scholar
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302.Google Scholar
Janssen, O. (2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 201–215.Google Scholar
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 129–145.Google Scholar
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368–384.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359–394.Google Scholar
Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1572–1580.Google Scholar
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1286–1298.Google Scholar
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. NewYork, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 885–900.Google Scholar
LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153–1167.Google Scholar
Meadows, I. S. G. (1980). Organic structure and innovation in small work groups. Human Relations, 33, 369–382.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2006). Against the flow: Reaping the rewards of management innovation. European Business Forum, (27), 24–29.Google Scholar
Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2014). The role of external involvement in the creation of management innovations. Organization Studies, 35, 1287–1312.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 27–43.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Whetzel, D. L., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1997). Thinking creatively at work: Organizational influences on creative problem-solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 7–17.Google Scholar
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194–208.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622–648.Google Scholar
Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609–623.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.Google Scholar
Porter, C. O. L. H. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 811–818.Google Scholar
Porter, C. O. L. H. (2008). A multilevel, multiconceptualization perspective of goal orientation in teams. In V. I. Sessa, & M. London (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving, and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 149–173). New York, NY: Erlbaum/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity in work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–151.Google Scholar
Roberson, Q. M., & Williamson, I. O. (2012). Justice in self-managing teams: The role of social networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 685–701.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. A., Ogunfowora, B., & Bourdage, J. S. (2012). No person is an island: The effects of group characteristics on individual trait expression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 925–945.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Tests of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 15–163.Google Scholar
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. Journal of Management, 23, 189–209.Google Scholar
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 4–13.Google Scholar
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 393–412.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. P. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60, 967–993.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148.Google Scholar
Tracey, J. B., & Tews, M. (2005). Construct validity of a general training climate scale. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 353–374.Google Scholar
Vaccaro, I. G. (2010). Management innovation: Studies on the role of internal change agents. Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM).Google Scholar
Vaccaro, I. G., Volberda, H. W., & Van Den Bosch, F. A. J. (2012). Management innovation in action: The case of self-managing teams. In T. S. Pitsis, A. Simpson, & E. Dehlin (Eds.), Handbook of organizational and managerial innovation (pp. 138–162). Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590–607.Google Scholar
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 995–1015.Google Scholar
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640.Google Scholar
Van Yperen, N. W., & Janssen, O. (2002). Feeling fatigued and dissatisfied or feeling fatigued but satisfied? Employees’ goal orientations and their responses to high job demands. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1161–1171.Google Scholar
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4, 15–30.Google Scholar
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West, & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 405–431.Google Scholar
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 323–342.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 111–130.Google Scholar
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 413–422.Google Scholar