WHAT MOTIVATES EMPLOYEES TOWARDS INNOVATIVE WORK PERFORMANCE – THE ROLE OF EXPLORATIVE AND EXPLOITATIVE BEHAVIOURS
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 16, 2019 ALBERT DREIJER S3523675 Salverderweg 42 8801 PT Franeker tel.: +31(0)6-41810818 e-mail: a.r.dreijer.1@student.rug.nl Supervisor prof. dr. O. Janssen University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
e-mail: o.janssen@rug.nl
2 Abstract
This study examined the indirect effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on innovative work performance through explorative and exploitative behaviours. In addition, the moderator effect of exploitative behaviour was applied on the relationship between explorative
behaviour and innovative work performance, such that explorative behaviour has a more strongly effect on innovative work performance when exploitative behaviour is high rather than low. The hypothesized mediating and moderating effects were examined with the resampling bootstrap process macro method of Hayes (2018). No support was found for the indirect effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on innovative work performance through the mediating variables of explorative and exploitative behaviour. Furthermore, adding exploitative behaviour as a moderator in order to investigate whether the relationship of explorative behaviour on innovative work performance is enhanced by its effect was not supported. However, the current study found new findings of the possible negative effect of exploitative behaviour on innovative work performance.
Keywords:
3 Introduction
Fast developing technologies and increasing global competition emphasize the critical role of employee innovation in the prosperity of organizations. The organization's aptitude to continuously adapt services, products, and work processes is ought to be an important matter. It is therefore important that employees are able and willing to innovate since employees that are unable and unwilling to innovate could possibly mean that organizations fail to realize an uninterrupted flow of innovations (Janssen, 2000). The understanding of the importance of individual acts do not limit to the literature on innovation (e.g. Van de Ven, 1986; Janssen, 2000), but also stretched to various management principles, such as corporate
entrepreneurship (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999) and total quality management (McLoughlin & Harris, 1997). Past research has studied individual innovation in terms of outputs and
personality characteristics. But individual innovation has also been conceptualized as a set of discretionary behaviours (e.g. Scott & Bruce,1994). In this study, we also focus on this behavioural performance approach.
Innovative work performance can be described, in accordance with previous research, as: ‘the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption designed to
4 the beginning of the innovation process (West, 2002). Thus, innovative work performance captures both the generation and realization of creative ideas.
Motivation has been one of the most important fundamental components in predicting employee creative and innovative performance (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994; De Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011; Rego, Sousa, Marques, & Cunha, 2012a). According to Pinder (2011), motivation can either be described as intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic
motivation, however, has always been favoured as more superior to extrinsic motivation in predicting employee innovation. This is because innovative work performance is derived from popular creativity literature and with it also the influential view of intrinsic motivation (Frese, Teng, & Wijnen, 1999; West, 1987, 2002). However, scholars stressed out the importance that individual innovation is not merely a straightforward process. Anderson, De Dreu, and
Nijstad, (2004), urged the need for a model to better comprehend the relationship between motivational orientation and innovative work performance and possible explaining
antecedents.
5 found to be highest whenever individuals are motivated by both sources of motivation (up to a certain point).
However, the question still remains to what degree individuals exhibit innovative performance and with it the related motivational orientation that explains why individuals behave in a certain way. The literature on innovative work performance recognized the critical role of generating, promoting and realizing ideas in order to transform them into concrete innovations (Shalley et al., 2004), and recent research has shown that creativity can benefit from extrinsic sources of motivation (Gong et al., 2017; Cerasoli et al., 2014; Barry & Fang, 2015). We also know that intrinsic motivation primarily promotes a process focus and that extrinsic motivation primarily prompts an outcome focus (Abuhamdeh &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Amabile, 1993, 1997; Grant, 2008; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). The extent to which individuals exercise innovative ideas and activities in response to
motivational orientation may be driven by other work contextual behaviours. We, therefore, argue that intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations might lead to innovative work performance through motivating different behaviours that are relevant for different aspects of innovative work performance.
According to Crossan et al., (1999); Nooteboom, (2000); Zollo and Winter, (2002), exploration refers to the degree that individuals develop new knowledge, skills, and
6 have a positive contribution on innovative performance, but may especially have on the first stage of the innovative work performance construct, the generation of potential new ideas. In contrast, more strongly extrinsically motivated individuals will engage in exploitative
activities, such as avoiding errors and failures, standardized work processes, and building on existing knowledge, which may all contribute positively to the second stage of the innovative work performance construct, the realization of prior generated ideas.
In testing the relationships above, we make several contributions to the existing literature. First, we examine the relationship between extrinsic motivation and exploitative behaviour, as such, we expand current literature by showing that extrinsic motivation has beneficial effects on individuals innovative performance, through exploitative behaviour. Second, we advance research from this perspective by signifying the importance of
exploitative behaviour by proposing that both behaviours, explorative and exploitative, are needed and thus also require both types of motivational orientation in order to successfully utilize and maximize innovative performance at the individual level. Third, this study will provide new insights for practitioners to promote innovative work performance. Practitioners will be able to motivate employees accordingly towards explorative and exploitative
7 Theory and Hypotheses
Innovative Work Performance
Past literature distinguishes the definition of innovative work performance, it is
frequently seen as a multistage construct that can be divided into several dimensions (Janssen, 2003; Park et al., 2013; Xerri & Brunetto, 2013; Prieto & Perez-Santana 2014). The
innovative work performance construct is therefore broader than creativity (King &
Anderson, 2002). West and Farr (1990), define innovating work behaviour as the intentional creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within a specific work-related role, group or organization, in order to benefit role, group or organization performance (West & Farr, 1990: 9). Innovative work performance does therefore not merely consist of the generation of potential and useful ideas but also the implementation of ideas.
The innovative work performance construct shares similarities with creativity. Amabile, (1988), describes creativity as the creation of useful ideas regarding products, processes, procedures, and services. There are however some differences. Unlike creativity, innovative work performance has an explicit intent to provide potential value. It has some kind of benefit for the organization or individual, this can be short or long term, be it direct or indirect (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). West (2002), argues that creativity is a critical component of innovative work performance and is most evident to manifest at the beginning of the innovative process. This because new ideas are often
8 Scott and Bruce (1994), perceived innovative work performance as a complex
behaviour consisting of different dimensions. Innovation at individual level begins with idea generation, this refers to the process of creating useful ideas (Amabile et al., 1996; Kanter, 1988; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). Drucker (1985) argues that instigation of the generation of new ideas are often new emerging trends, discontinuities, incongruities, and work-related problems. The next stage consists of idea promotion among colleagues. That is to say, whenever an employee produced a potential new idea, the employee has to engage in activities that generate potential allies that support the new idea. This can be done through friends, sponsors, and backers, or to build a powerful coalition of supporters (Galbraith, 1982; Kanter, 1983, 1988). Realization of the idea by introducing a prototype that can be used within a team, unit or organization is part of the last stage of the innovation process (Kanter, 1988). Smaller and simple innovations can often be completed by the individual, while more complex innovation may require teamwork that is supported by a wide variety of knowledge, skills, and competencies (Kanter, 1988). Kleysen and Street (2001) argue that the realization of innovation succeeds whenever innovation is part of everyday work processes and include testing and modifying newly developed products, procedures or services (West & Farr, 1990; Van de Ven, 1986; Kanter, 1988).
The Relationship between Intrinsic Motivation and Explorative Behaviour
Explorative behaviours have generally been defined as a set of activities in which the individual searches and acquires information to facilitate decision-making (Jordaan, 1963; Stumpf, Colarelli, & Hartman, 1983). This set of explorative activities consists of searching for new procedures, designs, systems, and norms (Crossan et al., 1999; Nooteboom, 2000; Zollo and Winter (2002), but also includes risk-taking, play, flexibility, discovery, and
9 activities could possibly help employees innovate and adopt a long-term orientation and reshape decisions and existing beliefs (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Ghemawat & Ricart I Costa, 1993; Rivkin & Siggelkow, 2003).
Although most theorists and practitioners endorse the utility of explorative behaviour (e.g. Jordaan, 1963; Super, 1957), there is empirical evidence that suggests that not all individuals explore to the same degree (e.g. Jordaan & Heyde, 1979; Stumpf et al., 1983). While some studies focused on the propositions that derive from cognitive theories of
motivation (e.g. Vroom 1964, Lazear 2000), other research has examined the role of external reinforcers in sustaining explorative behaviour (Fisher, Reardon, & Burck, 1976; Krumboltz & Thoresen, 1964). To conclude, the research seems to imply that individuals explore primarily because they seek to fulfil external expectations or attain a desired goal. However, some of the findings above have not been consistently supportive and thereby suggesting that other motivational orientations could be associated with explorative behaviour. One
potentially interesting theory was discussed by Jordaan (1963), who suggested that aspects of explorative behaviour may be elicited and sustained, to some degree, to maintain optimal arousal, this theory has later been developed into the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Gagne & Deci, 2005). Following this conceptualization, explorative behaviour can be viewed as the emerging state of one individual to desire novel settings and seek out new information and may primarily manifest of intrinsic sources of motivation.
Intrinsic motivation is often characterized as ‘doing something for its own well-being’ or ‘taking actions due to own personal beliefs to do so (e.g. when a child plays football for no other reason than because he or she enjoys it and wants to). One of the most dominant
10 values that have been internalized, meaning that individuals engage in own self-selected goals and act on these goals for their own enjoyment (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Individuals that are intrinsically motivated are more proactive in developing and generating plans and strategies that contribute to goal-directed action. (Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Maier, 1999; Read & Miller, 1989). These strategies for being creative, exploring
opportunities, gathering knowledge and coming up with alternatives are so that individuals are generating novel ideas that could be possibly used in their job (Shalley, 1991; Shalley & Koseoglu,2013). Moreover, intrinsic orientated individuals generally possess higher levels of cognitively flexible, curiosity and engage in more risk-taking, which all contribute to the advancement and discovery of creative ideas (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Grant & Berry, 2011). Furthermore, intrinsic motivation fuels employees to seek creative self-expression, novelty, unique knowledge, active involvement, and challenge individuals, just for the own pleasure in doing so (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Amabile, 1993; Amabile et al., 1994; Malka & Chatman, 2003). These behaviours liberate thought from conventional constraints and allow for unconstrained forms of experimentation by rearranging existing ideas and structures. These unconventional and unconstrained forms of behaviour, that are generated by intrinsic sources of motivation, can lead to behaviour that challenges the status quo by
exploring new and novel ideas. Consequently, attaining these personal goals will satisfy and be enjoyable for individuals, who embrace an intrinsic motivational orientation to guide individual’s active pursuit of expressing, developing and generating novel and creative ideas about products, services, or processes at work.
From this perspective, intrinsic sources of motivation provide the underlying
11 individuals desire their own course of action, which often manifests itself by individuals engaging in curiosity- and explorative activities.
Hypothesis 1a: Intrinsic motivational orientation is positively associated with explorative behaviour
The Relationship between Extrinsic Motivation and Exploitative Behaviour
12 Extrinsically orientated individuals are motivated to the degree that an individual believes the instrumental incentive will lead towards more valuable things or goods (Vroom, 1964). Extrinsically motivated individuals tend to view work as a means to an end and are driven by for example the rewards or recognition that one can achieve (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Malka & Chatman, 2003). This makes extrinsic orientated individuals more outcome focused, and less process focused (Abuhamdeh &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Amabile, 1993; Grant, 2008). This outcome-focused orientation that extrinsic orientated individuals have could be useful in exploiting work-related activities, since extrinsically motivated individuals desire rewards and recognition, individuals with an extrinsic motivational orientation embrace more strongly outcome related needs because achieving it not only satisfies their extrinsic desire but also leads them to instrumentally important incentives for personal goals that they desire (Greene, 2011).
Moreover, there is empirical evidence suggesting that extrinsically orientated incentives work. Probably one of the most dominant is a study by Lazear (2000), who acknowledge the importance of extrinsically rewarding the performance of employees after switching to a high-powered incentive. Workers were able to use existing processes in order to maximize outcomes, which also resulted in fulfilling important instrumental goals for individuals. In addition, the effects of extrinsic motivation have been confirmed in the field (e.g., Shearer 2004; Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014), and lab (e.g., Anderhub et al., 2002), which show that individuals show better performance whenever extrinsic orientated
13 employee’s managers (Amabile, 1993). From this perspective, we argue that whenever
individuals are more strongly orientated by extrinsic sources of motivation, they engage more in exploitative behaviour to complete work-related tasks, due to this leading in attaining extrinsic rewards and cognition, and therefore satisfying outcome related needs.
Hypothesis 1b: Extrinsic motivational orientation is positively associated with exploitative behaviour
The Role of Explorative and Exploitative Behaviors in Innovative Work Performance One of the more enduring ideas is that the organizations' success not merely depends on its ability to exploring new competencies. Organizations also have to use existing
14 have shown that organizations that engage in experimental activities and seek for new
knowledge increase their possibility to become successful due to their greater capacity to innovate. Therefore, we propose that whenever individuals engage in explorative behaviour and engage in activities as experimentation, risk-taking and search for new knowledge, are likely to have a positive effect in generating novel ideas and recombining knowledge. Following this perspective, the following hypothesis was posed:
Hypothesis 2a: Explorative behaviour is positively associated with innovative work performance.
15 may contribute to increased innovative performance since small adaptations are made that improve products, services, and work processes. Research done by O’Reilly and Tushman (1996), shows that innovative performance increases whenever small improvements in existing products and operations are made. Moreover, research done by Zacher et al., (2014); Gibson and Birkinshaw, (2004); He and Wong, (2004), show consistently high levels of innovation whenever organizations, teams or individuals engage in exploitative behaviour. Hence, exploitative behaviour may enhance innovative performance by means by relying on tried-and-proven methods and developing mastery of complex tasks that diminishes failures and errors and, thus, can lead to increases innovative performance since small adaptations are made that increase output quality and quantity. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
formulated:
Hypothesis 2b: Exploitative behaviour is positively associated with innovative work performance.
16 is done at the organizational or team level. Nonetheless, the combination of exploration and exploitation is linked consistently with a high level of innovation (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; He & Wong, 2004; Zacher et al., 2014). Consequently, business units can use both behaviours by creating multiple divisions or functions. For example, organizations can create two teams, the first one for exploration while the second one focusses on exploitation.
Individuals are however mostly focused on either exploration or exploitation. The individual dimensions of exploration and exploitation can therefore still be explored further.
Based on previous research by Zacher et al., (2014), which successfully captured the interaction between explorative and exploitative behaviour at the individual level, we assume the following: we expect that interaction exists between employee explorative and
exploitative behaviour and therefore predicts innovative work performance in such a way that innovative work performance is highest whenever individuals engage in both explorative and exploitative behaviours. Thus, exploitative behaviour amplifies the relationship between exploitative behaviour and innovative work performance in a way that explorative behaviours will provide for creating and developing new skills and competencies while exploitative behaviour will pertain the utilization and realization of these newly discovered skills in abilities in order to fully capture the benefits. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: Exploitative behaviour moderates the relationship between an individual’s explorative behaviour and innovative work performance such that the positive relationship is stronger when exploitative behaviour and explorative behaviour are high.
Explorative and Exploitative Behavior as Mediators
Considering the above-made arguments, we also propose that explorative and
17 innovative work performance. We base our proposition from the existing models of individual efficacy (Zacher et al., 2014; Wong, 2004; Gong et al., 2017; Cerasoli et al., 2014: Gerhart & Fang, 2015), which show that extrinsic motivation can have beneficial effects on top of intrinsic motivation, and therefore a stronger positive relationship on innovation than intrinsic motivation solely. Following the perspective of these models and extending the models, we argue that intrinsic motivation lays the foundation for explorative behaviour, which in turn enables individuals to engage in explorative behaviour that enhances especially the idea generation dimension of the innovative work performance construct. In addition, we argue that extrinsic motivation lays the foundation for exploitative behaviour, which in turn enables individuals to engage in exploitative behaviour that enhances especially the idea promotion and idea realization dimensions of the innovative work performance construct. In other words, the individual motivational orientation relates to innovative work performance through the pursuit of exploitative and explorative behaviours. We, therefore, posit that:
Hypothesis 4: Explorative and exploitative behaviours will mediate the indirect relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation with innovative work performance.
H4
H1a+ H2a+
H3+ H2b+ H1b+
18 Method
Design and Participants
One hundred and twenty-seven respondents participated in the study. We assured all the participants that responses would be kept strictly confidential and participation was voluntary. The current study collected data from employees working in different industries and organizations. The questionnaire was a composition of different topics and used by two students using their own research topic. Therefore, there were items in the questionnaire included beyond those needed for this study. The questionnaires were published in Dutch and English. Of the sample, respondents were predominantly female (64%) with an average age of 31 years (SD = 11.47) and with a range of 1 to 66 years. Regarding education, 7% had a high school degree, 17% a college or associate degree, 46.5% a bachelor’s degree, and 29% a master’s or higher. The average organizational tenure was 5.2 years (SD = 12.1) with a range of <1 year to 35 years. The one hundred and twenty-seven participants provided self-reports of motivational orientation, explorative and exploitative behaviours, and innovative
performance. Measures
19 Explorative and exploitative behaviours. This was assessed by the ten items scale developed by Kostopolous (2011). Originally this scale was developed to measure explorative and exploitative behaviour in a team setting. The scale was therefore transformed to the individual level. Two items were removed from the scale that assessed exploitation, since keeping these items resulted in an insufficient Cronbach’s Alpha (.51) The items removed are; (1) I recombine existing knowledge for accomplishing work; (2) I improved and refine existing knowledge and expertise during work projects. Examples of the final items included are: I systematically search for new possibilities in my work (exploration); I offer new ideas and solutions to complicated problems (I am inventive) (exploration); I improved and refine existing knowledge and expertise during work projects (exploitation). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ (1) to ‘always’ (5). Cronbach’s Alpha of the explorative items was .69 and Cronbach’s Alpha of exploitative items resulted in .79. Combined Cronbach’s Alpha resulted in .76.
20 format was based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ (1) to ‘always’ (5). For the items pertaining to generation of ideas, Cronbach’s Alpha was .84, implementation of ideas .82 and the realization of ideas .81. Idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization were conceived, on the recommendation of Janssen (2000), to create an overall scale of innovative work performance. Cronbach’s Alpha was .91
Control variables. The current study controlled for educational level, gender, age, and tenure. Previous literature showed significant results for education level and job tenure on innovative work performance (Dorenbosch, Engen & Verhagen, 2005; Kim, 2014). Moreover, previous research reveals that higher educated individuals engage more in innovative acts than lower educated individuals (Dorenbosch et al., 2005; de Spiegelaere, Gyes & van
Hootegem, 2012). In addition, a critical feature of innovation is the ability to solve problems. Janssen, (2000) argues that higher educated individuals are often more skilled in problem-solving than lower educated individuals. We also incorporated age (in years) and gender (1 = female, 2 = male) in the current study to check for the existence of spurious correlation. Although, past research (e.g. Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Janssen, 2000; Kim, 2014), did not find any significant results of gender and age on innovative performance.
Statistical analysis
After importing all questionnaires in SPSS, data were inspected for correctness and completeness. The data were checked for outliers, missing values, and errors. We enabled the ‘exclude cases listwise’ option to consistently work on the variables with completed
information. Subsequently, we assessed reliability and validity of the scales and thereafter we examined for multicollinearity by using Pearson correlation analysis.
We applied the resampling bootstrap process macro of Hayes (2018) in order to investigate the mediating effect in the study. We used the simple mediation model to
21 explorative and exploitative behaviour. And with an additional mediation model, we tested if extrinsic motivation, through exploitative and explorative behaviour, would have an indirect effect on innovative work performance. We used the simple mediation model number four of Hayes (2018) macro tool and included both mediators in the analysis. In addition, the
moderation effect of exploitative behaviour was tested on the relationship between explorative and innovative work performance. The interactive effect was investigated under model one of Hayes (2018) macro tool in SPSS.
Results
Table 1 provides bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics for all study variables. Results show no significant correlation between intrinsic motivation and explorative
23 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations
24 Hypotheses testing
Table 2 depicts the results of the indirect effect of intrinsic motivation on innovative work performance, through explorative and exploitative behaviour. And, with an additional mediation model, we tested if extrinsic motivation, through exploitative and explorative behaviour, would have an indirect effect on innovative work behaviour. We used the simple mediation model number four of Hayes (2018) macro tool and include both mediators in the analysis. Results show that the effect of intrinsic motivation on explorative behaviour is not significant (β = .06, SE = .08, p = .441). Hypothesis 1a expected that intrinsic motivation would be positively related to explorative behaviour in a way that employees who are more strongly intrinsically motivated would engage in more explorative activities. Consequently, hypothesis 1a was not confirmed. Next, we tested hypothesis 1b, which states that extrinsic motivation would be positively related to exploitative behaviour in a way that employees who are more strongly extrinsically motivated would engage in more exploitative activities.
Results show that extrinsic motivation has no significant relationship with exploitative behavior (β = -.11, SE = .07, p = .131). Thus, we found no support for hypothesis 1b. Furthermore, we tested hypothesis 2a, which states that explorative behaviour is positively associated with innovative work performance. We proposed that individuals who engage in explorative behaviour would have a positive effect on innovative work
25 behaviour does therefore not only positive relate to idea generation, but also extends to idea promotion and idea realization. Thus, hypothesis 2a was confirmed. In contrast, the most striking result was that exploitative behaviour shows a marginally significant negative effect on innovative work performance (β = -.22, SE = .12, p = .087). We proposed under hypothesis 2b that exploitative behaviour would be positively related to innovative work performance since, individuals who engage in exploitative behaviour are committed to refinement, efficiency, and execution and thus completing prior generated ideas which result in the realization of innovation. Thus, the finding presents different outcomes and suggests that exploitative behaviour has a negative impact on individual innovative work behaviour. Consequently, hypothesis 2b was not confirmed. Additional analysis shows (table 4) that exploitative behaviour has no significant effect on idea generation (β = -.21, SE = .13, p = .119), idea promotion (β = -.22, SE = .13, p = .109) or idea realization (β = -.17, SE = .14, p = .231), however all effects are negative.
26 Table 2. Result of the mediating effect of explorative and exploitative behaviour between intrinsic motivation and IWP
Notes. N = 127. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01. LL= lower limit; CI= confidence interval; UL= upper limit; number of bootstrap: 5000
Antecedents
Explorative behaviour Exploitative
behaviour
IWP
Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE P Coeff. SE p
Gender .109 .70 .128 -.00 .14 .983 .19 .11 .328 Age -.00 .00 .408 .00 .00 .813 -.00 -.00 .328 Intrinsic motivation .06 .08 .441 .07 .17 .679 .34 .14 .016* Extrinsic motivation -.11 .07 .131 -.21 .15 .162 .16 .12 .171 Exploitative behaviour - - - - - - -.22 .12 .087+ Explorative behaviour - - - - - - .65 .13 .000** Explorative behaviour X exploitative behaviour -.05 .15 .741 R²=.02 R²=.02 R²=.34 F = 1.3342, p = .2611 F =.6942, p = .597 F = 100962, p = .000 Coeff. SE LL 95% CI UL 95% CI Bootstrap results of the indirect effect
Explorative behaviour .084 .11 -.1188 .3204
Exploitative behaviour -.016 .05 -.1280 .0871
Table 3. Result of the mediating effect of explorative and exploitative behaviour between extrinsic motivation and IWP
Notes. N = 127. LL= lower limit; CI= confidence interval; UL= upper limit; number of bootstrap: 5000
Lastly, our fourth and final hypothesis, which states that innovative work performance will be highest whenever individuals engage in explorative and exploitative behaviours was tested with an interaction. The moderation effect of exploitative behaviour was tested on the relationship between exploration and innovative work performance. The interactive effect was investigated under model 1 of Hayes (2018) macro tool in SPSS. The results in table 2
indicate that there is no significant interaction effect (β = -.05, LLCI = -3566, ULCI = .2543). Thus, the findings suggest that exploitative behaviour insignificantly moderates the
relationship between explorative behaviour and individual innovative performance. To conclude, we found no support for our fourth and final hypothesis. Results did not change without controlling for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, or age and gender, excluding these from our analysis did not alter the pattern or conclusions.
Coeff. SE LL 95% CI UL 95% CI Bootstrap results of the indirect effect
Explorative behaviour -.14 .09 -.3259 .3204
Exploitative behaviour -.04 .04 -.0266 .1413
Table 4. Result of the mediating effect of explorative and exploitative behavior between extrinsic motivation and idea generation, implementation and realization
Notes. N = 127. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01. LL= lower limit; CI= confidence interval; UL= upper limit; number of bootstrap: 5000 Antecedents
Idea generation Idea promotion Idea realization
Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Conclusion and Discussion
In this study, we examined whether intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations were positively related with explorative and exploitative behaviour which in their turn
enhance innovative work performance. Building on early work done by Jordaan (1963) which later evolved in the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 1985), we hypothesized that the degree to which individuals respond innovatively to intrinsic motivation is driven by their explorative behaviour. Intrinsic motivation would, through explorative behaviours, be especially valuable for the generation of innovative ideas. Based on early work done by Vroom (1964), we expected that extrinsic motivation would increase an individual’s innovative work performance through exploitative behaviours, which would be especially valuable for the promotion and realization of innovative ideas. Thus, both behaviours would require different motivational orientation in order to maximize individual innovative
performance.
Summary of Main Findings
We found that extrinsic motivation has no relationship with exploitative behaviour, and that intrinsic motivation has no relationship with exploitative behaviour. Thus, we found no conclusive support for the claim that exploitative and explorative behaviours mediate the relationship between intrinsic or extrinsic motivation and innovative work performance. We did find however a positive relationship between explorative behaviour and innovative work performance. This outcome suggests that being cognitive flexible, engage in risk-taking and experimentation does play a role in an employees’ innovative performance at work.
30 and idea realization). Least, intrinsic motivation seems to have a positive effect on innovative work performance, especially on idea realization and idea generation dimensions. Extrinsic motivation has a positive effect on the idea realization dimension.
Theoretical Implications
Surprisingly, the analysis showed that intrinsic motivation does not influence
explorative behaviour. In addition, the analysis also showed that extrinsic motivation does not influence exploitative behaviour. These are unexpected effects since we expected that more strongly intrinsically motivated individuals would engage in more explorative activities. This result is in contrast with the literature, which repeatedly showed that intrinsically motivated individuals engage in more curious, risk-taking and cognitive flexible behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Grant & Berry, 2011; Rego, Sousa, Marques, & Cunha, 2012b; Zhou, 2003). Also, we expected that employees who are more strongly extrinsically motivated would engage in more exploitative related activities, since extrinsic motivation primarily promotes an outcome-orientated focus (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Amabile, 1993, 1997; Grant, 2008; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004).
Next, the current study showed that employees who engage in explorative behaviour have a positive contribution to innovative work performance, as expected. In fact, while we assumed that explorative behaviour would have especially a positive effect on the idea
generation dimension of the innovative work performance construct, the analysis showed that explorative behaviour has a strong positive effect on all dimensions (idea generation,
31 beneficial for individual innovative work performance. While previous research done by Zacher et al., (2011); Kostopoulos and Bozionelos, (2011), did report a less strong
relationship between exploitative behaviour and innovative work performance, opposed to explorative behaviour and innovative work performance. To our knowledge, our study is the first to report these possible negative effects of exploitative behaviour on innovative work performance. It could be that individuals who engage in explorative behaviour may see themselves as being innovative and that the unique contribution of exploitative behaviour on innovative work performance turns negative whenever employees engage in innovative activities because employees may focus too much on variance reducing activities (e.g. avoiding risks and failures) and therefore they will be less likely to perceive themselves as high in innovative performance as they would while exploring new (radical) ideas. According to Mumford and Gustafson, (1988) individuals are more likely to see radical breakthroughs and major discoveries linked to the definition of innovation. This finding provides the
literature with an additional insight that the unique contribution of exploitative behaviour does not always have a beneficial outcome on innovative work performance.
We further found, inconsistent with our fourth hypothesis, that individual innovative performance is not affected when employees engage in both explorative and exploitative behaviours. We hypothesized that employee exploitative behaviour should amplify the positive relationship between explorative behaviour and innovative work performance. The notion was that employees who engage in exploitative activities, such as making use
standardizes work procedures, avoiding risks and having an outcome-focused goal, increases the probability that novel ideas, that are generated by explorative activities, such as
32 that explorative and exploitative behaviours constitute two different sources (one being
positive, the other negative) of innovative work performance. A possible explanation may be that individuals that take on both exploitative and explorative activities could possibly lead to conflict within the individual. For instance, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) argue that individuals need information on how to use newly discovered knowledge. This allows individuals to use this new knowledge in an efficient and productive manner. More experienced employees, with a breath of prior knowledge, may thus be better prepared to deal with both explorative and exploitative activities. Engaging in both explorative and exploitative behaviours requires individuals to engage in paradoxical thinking, managing contradictions, and fulfilling multiple roles (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Smith & Tushman, 2005; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). In addition, individuals who focus primarily on explorative activities and creativity also differ in personality, from individuals who empathize more strongly on exploitative activities or implementation (Amabile, 1996). Moreover, Gupa et al., (2006) argue that it can be hard for individuals to excel at both explorative and exploitative behaviours simultaneously. Our study supports that the role of explorative and exploitative behaviours is complex in nature and that further research is needed to fully understand this dynamic relationship.
We also examined if intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation affects employee innovative performance. We proposed that the extent to which employees respond
innovatively to intrinsic or extrinsic motivation is mediated through explorative and exploitative behaviours. Intrinsic motivation would lay the foundation for explorative behaviour, which would be especially beneficial for the idea generation dimension of the innovative work performance construct. While extrinsic motivation would lay the foundation for exploitative behaviour, which would be particularly beneficial for the idea promotion and idea realization dimensions of the innovative work performance construct. Thus, we
33 innovative performance through the pursuit of explorative and exploitative behaviours.
Unfortunately, there is no conclusive support found for the claim that the explorative and exploitative behaviours mediate the relationship between intrinsic or extrinsic motivation and innovative work performance. This may indicate that explorative and exploitative behaviours may not be as important for employee innovative performance as predicted. Another
explanation could be the lack of statistical power. Results might be different if we had more respondents from different industries, countries and ages, as it would increase the
representativeness and generalisability of the results. Lastly, it may also be that experimental studies are needed to capture this dynamic relationship.
The current study intended to increase our understanding of why individuals engage in innovative work performance. However, it is rather surprising that very limited studies have focused on a more refined conceptualization that differentiates the three dimensions of innovative work performance. Behavioural measures are still in evolution, despite a rather considerable amount of research that has been done in the past decade (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2008). Most research focused on the use of self-reports to be the sole source of
innovations (e.g. Bunce and West 1995; Spreitzer 1995; Basu and Green 1997). Research that do use independent sources to determine employees’ innovative performance (e.g. Janssen, 2000; Kleysen & Street, 2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994) have mostly combined the measures into one single dimension or used only one dimension of the construct. This ‘one dimension’ approach fails to recognize that individual innovation also initiates different psychological processes and behaviours (Anderson et al., 2004; Janssen et al., 2004). Moreover, the theory explicitly acknowledges that innovative work performance consists of multiple dimensions. We take the existing literature one step forward by providing evidence for multiple
34 Lastly, the study also demonstrated that men show more innovative performance than women, particular on the idea generation dimension of the innovative performance construct. A possible explanation can be found in Ford’s (1996) theory of creative action, which states that evoking creativity is difficult because of individuals’ resort to familiar behavioural actions. It makes sense that the dominance of the masculine stereotype makes men more likely to take risks and to be more confident about their ideas than women (Walton & Kemmelmeier, 2012). Men are therefore also more likely to engage in unrestricted
behaviours, like taking risks or experimenting with new ways of working. Additionally, men are more likely to promote radical innovation since that is expected of them and failing would be less damaging to men than to woman (Millward & Freeman, 2010). It may also be partly explained by the type of contract. Woman in the Netherlands are more often employed in part-time jobs as opposed to men (SCP, 2018). This could mean that woman have fewer concrete opportunities to engage in innovative activities. Our findings provide the extant literature with an additional understanding under which conditions men and women deal with innovation.
Limitations and Future Directions
35 indeed criticize self-reports measurement of creativity and innovation (Nemeth & Ormiston, 2007; Silva, Reiter-Palmon, Wigert & Kaufman, 2012; Runco & Smith, 1992), arguing that employees are not able to evaluate their own creativity and innovation well. Research done by Dunning and Kruger (2003) confirms that individuals are not always able to assess their own performance and that employees often fail to recognize their own incompetence and therefore rate themselves higher than actual performance measured. Thus, we stress the fact that our findings may not generalize to more objective measures of innovative performance and only apply to self-reported innovative performance. Future research should, therefore, focus on supervisor ratings and peer ratings.
The second limitation has to do with the use of sectional data. Using cross-sectional data makes it challenging to establish the causal relationship among the used variables since the correlation evidence found may not reflect causality as proposed. For instance, it could also be argued that it is more intuitive that innovative performance influences explorative behaviour in employees and not vice versa. Since more strongly innovative individuals are more likely to exhibit explorative behaviour and engage in explorative activities. We recommend that future studies use longitudinal or experimental designs. Such designs can help to examine the direction of relationships and would further assist in the creation of a more accurate understanding of how, why, and when explorative and exploitative behaviour contribute to innovative work performance.
Another potential problem of collecting single source data is common method variance. The current study might be confronted with this problem since all variables were obtained from the same source, which may have resulted in artificially inflated correlations among variables. We still do not know how far the subjective perception of the individual will respond to the actual objective situations in work context (Boonzaier et al., 2001; van
36 desirable way. Employees may see themselves more favourable, despite their true feelings or behaviour in the given situation. This can lead to spurious effects among the research
variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). Therefore, it is suggested that future research should employ more complex study designs and collect intrinsic, extrinsic, explorative and exploitative, as well as innovation data from different, and multiple sources. For example, researchers could obtain supervisor or peer ratings as well as objective
innovation measures in addition to the self-report measures.
Lastly, the current study used Kostopoulos and Bozionelos’ (2004) scale of explorative and exploitative behaviour, which was originally used to determine team
performance instead of true innovative performance. The current study transformed this scale from team to individual level and translated it from English to Dutch. It could be that
therefore initial Cronbach Alpha was low and that only after removing two of the five items Cronbach’s Alpha was acceptable. However, future research could replicate the current study with another scale for exploitative and explorative behaviour. For example, future studies could use Zacher et al’., (2011) scale of explorative and exploitative behaviour on the
proposed relationships. This scale is based on previous work done by Mom et al., (2007) and successfully captured the relationship between explorative and exploitative behaviour and individual innovate performance in the past.
Practical implications
Next to the studying of linkages among various literature sources that enrich our perspective of possible determinants and mechanism that may cause individuals to exhibit innovative work performance. The current study also has implications for practice. For instance, the current study confirms the utility of intrinsic motivation on innovative work performance. Organizations could, therefore, choose to hire intrinsically motivated
37 For example, organizations can endorse the utility of job enrichment since it contributes as a motivation for employees to innovate (Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Ramamoorthy, Flood, Slattery & Sardessai, 2005; de Spiegelaere et al., 2012). Furthermore, the present findings suggest that explorative behaviour remains a salient contributor for employees’ innovative performance. Especially on idea generation and idea promotion dimensions. Organizations should, therefore, spur employees to engage in explorative activities such as experimenting with new ways of working, risk-taking and cognitive flexible work practices in order to stimulate innovative performance.
Conclusion
To sum up, by further exploiting the established literature stream on the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations on individual innovative performance through explorative and exploitative behaviours, our study makes an interesting contribution to
38 References
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2009. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the competitive context: An examination of person–situation interactions. Journal of personality, 77, 1615-1635.
Abstein, A., & Spieth, P. 2014. Exploring HRM meta-features that foster employees’ innovative work behavior in times of increasing work-life conflict. Creativity and innovation management. 23, 211-225.
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
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 187–209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39, 1154-1184. Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. 1994. The Work Preference
Inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66, 950.
Amabile, T. M. 1993. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human resource management review, 3, 185-201.
39 Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Maier, G. W. 1999. The pursuit of personal
goals. Action & self-development, 169-196.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2003. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 552.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 140, 980.
Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. 2009. Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance – the mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research. 62, 104-114.
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J.-L. 2011. Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 541–557.
Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., & Veillette, A. 2009. Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: The insulating role of creative ability. Group & Organization Management, 34, 330-357.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35, 128-152.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. 1999. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of management review, 24, 522-537.
De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Selfregulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 811–831.
40 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. The general causality orientations scale: Self-
determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134. De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2008. Innovative work behavior: Measurement and
validation. EIM Business and Policy Research, 8(1), 1-27.
Dorenbosch, L. W., Van Engen, M. L., & Verhagen, M. 2005. On-the-job innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creativity and innovation management, 14, 129-141.
Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. London: Heinemann.
Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. 2003. Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–87. Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. 2009. Product development and learning in project
teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of product innovation management, 26, 123-138.
Farr, J. & Ford, C. 1990, Individual innovation, in: West, M. & Farr, J. (Ed.),Managing Innovation, Sage, London.
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. 2000. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of management review, 25, 154-177.
Fisher, T. J., Reardon, R. C., & Burck, H. D. 1976. Increasing information-seeking behavior with a model-reinforced videotape. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 234. Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. D. 1999. Helping to improve suggestion systems:
Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1139-1155.
41 Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. 2015. Pay, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, performance, and creativity in the workplace: Revisiting long-held beliefs. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 2015
Ghemawat, P., & Ricart Costa, J. E. I. 1993. The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic management journal, 14, 59-73.
Gong, Y., Wu, J., Song, L. J., & Zhang, Z. 2017. Dual tuning in creative processes: Joint contributions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 829.
Gibson, C.B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226. Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of others is the mother of invention:
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73–96.
Grant, A. M. 2008. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of applied
psychology, 93, 48.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49, 693-706.
Greene, R. J. 2018. Rewarding performance: Guiding principles; custom strategies. Routledge.
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15, 481-494.
42 598
Hoopes, D. G., & Postrel, S. 1999. Shared knowledge, “glitches,” and product development performance. Strategic management journal, 20, 837-865.
Holmqvist, M. 2004. Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization science, 15, 70-81.
Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort–reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302. 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
Janssen, O. 2003. Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 347–364.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. 1971. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning Press.
Jordaan, J. P. 1963. Exploratory behavior: The formation of self and occupational concepts. In D. E. Super (Ed.), Career development: Self-concept theory (pp. 42-78). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Jordaan, J. P., & Heyde, M. B. 1979. Vocational maturity during the high school years. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kanter, R. 1983. The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
43 Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior.Behavioral Science, 9,
131–133.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology for organizations. New York: Wiley. Kazanjian, R. K., Drazin, R., & Glynn, M. A. 2000. Creativity and technological learning:
the roles of organization architecture and crisis in large-scale projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17, 273-298.
King N. & Anderson N. 2002, Managing innovation and change: a critical guide for organizations, Thomson, London.
Kim, H. 2014. Transformational leadership, organizational clan culture, organizational affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: a case of South Korea's public sector. Public Organization Review, 14, 397-417.
Kleysen, R.F. & C.T. Street. 2001. Towards a Multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 284-296
Krumboltz, J. D., & Thoresen, C. E. 1964. The effect of behavioral counseling in group and individual settings on information-seeking behavior. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 11, 324.
Lazear, E. P. 2000. Performance pay and productivity. American Economic Review, 90, 1346-1361.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal, 14, 95-112.
Millward, L. J, & Freeman, H. 2002. Role Expectations as Constraints to Innovation: The Case of Female Managers, Creativity Research Journal, 14, 93-109
Malka, A., & Chatman, J. A. 2003. Intrinsic and extrinsic work orientations as moderators of the effect of annual income on subjective well-being: A longitudinal
44 March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
science, 2, 71-87.
McLoughlin, I. & M. Harris 1997. Innovation, organizational change and technology. London: Thompson.
McGrath, R. G. 2001. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of management journal, 44, 118-131.
Mellström, C., & Johannesson, M. 2008. Crowding out in blood donation: was Titmuss right?. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6, 845-863.
Menguc, B., & Auh, S. 2006. Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 34, 63-73.
Miller, K. D., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. J. 2006. Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March's exploration-exploitation model. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 709-722.
Mom, T.J.M., van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. 2007. Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 910–931. Molina-Castillo, F. J., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., & Munuera-Aleman, J. L. 2011. Product competence exploitation and exploration strategies: The impact on new product performance through quality and innovativeness. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40, 1172-1182.
Mumford, M.D. 2003, 'Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research', Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107-120.
45 Nooteboom, B. 2000. Learning by interaction: absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and
governance. Journal of management and governance, 4, 69-92.
Oldham, G.R., & A. Cummings 1996, Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D.W. and Konovsky, M. 1989 Cognitive versus Affective Determinants of
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164. Park, Y. K., Song, J. H., Yoon, S. W., & Kim, J. 2013. Learning organization and
innovative behavior. European Journal of Training and Development. 38, 75-94. Pinder, W. C. C. 2011. Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Prieto, M. P., & Perez-Santana, M. P. 2014. Managing innovative work behavior: the role of human resource practices. Personnel Review. 43, 184-208.
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. 2005. Determinants of
innovative work behaviour: Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and innovation management, 14, 142-150.
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. 1989. Inter-personalism: Toward a goal-based theory of persons in relationships. Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 413-472) Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. E. 2012a. Optimism predicting
employees’ creativity: The mediating role of positive affect and the positivity ratio. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 244–270.
46 Rich, B. L. 2006. Job engagement: Construct validation and relationships with job
satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).
Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. 2003. Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49, 290-311. Runco, M. A., & Smith, W. R. 1992. Interpersonal and intrapersonal evaluations of creative
ideas. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 295-302.
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.
Shalley, C. E., & Koseoglu, G. 2013. Goals and creativity.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. 2004. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The leadership quarterly, 15, 33-53.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. 2000. Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of management journal, 43, 215-223.
Shalley, C. E. 1991. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied psychology, 76, 179.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 11-27.
47 with self-report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 19.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top
management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16, 522-536.
Soosay, C. A., Hyland, P. W., & Ferrer, M. 2008. Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for continuous innovation. Supply chain management: An international journal, 13, 160-169.
Stumpf, S. A., Colarelli, S. M., & Hartman, K. 1983. Development of the Career Exploration Survey (CES). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 191-226. Super, D. E. 1957. The psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Row.
Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. 2006. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 723-740. Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing
evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38, 8-29. Van de Ven, A. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management
Science. 32. 590-607.
Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.). 2000. Research on the
management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. 2008. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 147-164.
48 Walton, A. P., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2012. Creativity in its social context: The interplay of
organizational norms, situational threat, and gender. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 208-219.
Welbourne, T.M., Johnson, D.E., & Erez, A. 1998. The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540–555.
West, M.A. 1987, 'A measure of role innovation at work', British Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 83- 85.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. 1990. Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 3–13). Chichester: Wiley
West, M.A. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 51, 355-387.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of management review, 18, 293-321.
Xerri, M. J., & Brunetto, Y. 2013. Fostering innovative behaviour: the importance of employee commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 24, 3163-3177.
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.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. 1996. Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39. 836-866.
49 self‐reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation
behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50, 24-46.
Zhou, J. 1998. Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261–276.
Zhou, J. 2000. 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.
Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. 2014. Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1, 333-359. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic
