|
|
|
| The Triggering Mechanism of Knowledge Employees′ Bootleg Innovation Behavior |
| Zhang Yunchao1,Tu Xingyong2 |
| （1.Center for Industry and Innovation Research,Zhengzhou University of Light Industry,Zhengzhou 450002,China；2.School of Management, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000,China） |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The bootleg innovation that breaks organizational rules for a reasonable purpose is of great benefit to the realization of individual value of employees and future innovation activities, and has attracted more and more academic attention. Bootleg innovation reflects the realization of the innovation behavior that the individual carries out independently and secretly. The concept of bootleg innovation relates to the broader work of proactive creativity, emphasizing not only the importance of individual initiative in the creative process and creative bias, but also the fact that individuals often deviate from formal job requirements in pursuit of creativity. Bootleg gives individuals more freedom to explore uncharted territory and gain a greater exploration advantage than their non-deviant colleagues. This advantage ultimately translates into outstanding personal ability to develop innovation and create value for the organization. As the external complex environment and uncertainty become increasingly intense, bootleg innovation is placed in an important position. The problem of how to start and what the key antecedents and driving mechanisms aremust be answered to fit the needs of national strategy,and it is the driving force and focus of sustainable development of enterprises in the specific historical period of a new round of global competition, and the main source and core proposition for organizations to achieve innovation at present.#br#This paper constructs a conditional process model based on the theory of job characteristics and expectancy-value theory, aiming to explain the internal mechanism and constraints of perceived job complexity on employee bootleg innovation. The research object of this paper is knowledge-based enterprise employees. The criteria for selecting research personnel are based on the following two considerations. (1) The working time is not less than one year to ensure that knowledge-based employees have the opportunity to achieve deviant innovation. In other words, enterprises provide opportunities and experimental fields for knowledge-based employees to deviant innovation in a sense. (2) The pertinence of the survey and variables should be subtly connected. A constrained nonlinear model and other methods were used to analyze the data of 318 employee questionnaires.#br#The research findings show that firstly perceived job complexity has a positive effect on employee bootleg innovation, self-reflection plays a partially mediating role in the relationship between perceived job complexity and bootleg innovation. Secondly self-expectations for creativity plays a moderating role in the impact of perceived job complexity on knowledge workers′ bootleg innovation, namely, the stronger the self-innovation expectation is, the stronger the positive effect of perceived job complexity on knowledge workers′ bootleg innovation is. In addition to this, self-innovation expectation moderates the relationship between perceived job complexity and self-reflection, and moderates the relationship between self-reflection and bootleg innovation. All the hypotheses in this paper are supported.#br#This paper attempts to respond and answer the following questions in an exploratory way. How does perceived job complexity affect knowledge workers′ bootleg innovation based on the job characteristics theory? What is the mediating effect of self-reflection on the relationship between job complexity and bootleg innovation? The total effect regulation model was used to explain and expose the situational regulation effect of self-innovation expectation. The research conclusion deepens the cognition of the internal mechanism of perceived job complexity affecting employee bootleg innovation and enriches the research on the scope of situational effectiveness of self-innovation expectation, provides new ideas and practical enlightenment for employees effectively drive their bootleg innovation from the perspective of self-reflection. In conclusion, this paper uses constrained nonlinear model to deeply explore the internal mechanism and constraint conditions of the effect of perceived job complexity on knowledge workers′ bootleg innovation, enriching the research of job complexity and employee bootleg innovation, and promoting subsequent related research.#br#
|
|
Received: 25 September 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] AUGSD RFER P.Bootlegging and path dependency[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(1):1-11.[2] CRISCUOLO P, SALTER A,TER W, et al. Going underground: bootlegging and individual innovative performance[J]. Organization Science, 2014, 25(5):1287-1305.[3] GLOBOCNIK D, SALOMO S. Do formal management practices impact the emergence of bootlegging behavior[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2014, 32(4):505-521.[4] O′CONNOR G C, MCDERMOTT C M.The human side of radical innovation[J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2004, 21(1-2):11-30.[5] SHALLEY C E, GILSON L L, BLUM T C. Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2009, 52(3):489-505.[6] GOLDEN T D, GAJENDRAN R S.Unpacking the role of a telecommuter′s job in their performance: examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social support[J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2018, 34(1):55-69.[7] JOO B K, LIM T. The effects of organizational learning culture, perceived job complexity, and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation[J]. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2009, 16(1):48-60.[8] OLDHAM G R, HACKMAN J R. Not what it was and not what it will be: the future of job design research[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2010, 31(2-3):463-479.[9] CHAE H, CHOI J N. Contextualizing the effects of job complexity on creativity and task performance: extending job design theory with social and contextual contingencies[J]. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,2018, 91(2):316-339.[10] GRANT A M, PARKER S K. Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and proactive perspectives[J]. The Academy of Management Annals, 2009, 3(1): 317-375.[11] HACKMAN J R, OLDHAM G R. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16(5):250-279.[12] MAINERT J, NIEPEL C, MURPHY K R, et al. The incremental contribution of complex problem-solving skills to the prediction of job level, job complexity, and salary[J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2019, 34(6): 825-845.[13] 赵西萍, 孔芳. 科研人员自我效能感与三维绩效：工作复杂性的调节作用[J]. 软科学, 2011, 25(2):108-111.[14] 赵新宇, 尚玉钒, 李瑜佳. 基于高校科研团队的领导语言框架、工作复杂性、认知评价与创造力关系研究[J]. 管理学报, 2016, 13(5):671-679.[15] KULIKOWSKI K, ORZECHOWSKI J.Working memory and fluid intelligence as predictors of work engagement-testing preliminary models[J]. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2019, 33:596-616.[16] 尚玉钒, 李磊.领导行为示范、工作复杂性、工作调节焦点与创造力[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2015,36(6):149-160.[17] HUMPHREY S E, NAHRGANG J D, MORGESON F P. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, 92(5):1332-1356.[18] SHALLEY C E, GILSON L L, BLUM T C. Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance[J].The Academy of Management Journal, 2009, 52(3):489-505.[19] BECTON J B, CARR J C, MOSSHOLDER K W, et al. Differential effects of task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and job complexity on voluntary turnover[J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2017, 32(4):495-508.[20] LIU W. Effects of positive mood and job complexity on employee creativity and performance[J]. Social Behavior & Personality an International Journal, 2016, 44(5):865-880.[21] GOLDEN T D, GAJENDRAN R S. Unpacking the role of a telecommuter′s job in their performance: examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social support[J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2019, 34(1):55-69.[22] 赵斌, 刘桂霞, 宇卫昕, 等. 差错管理氛围、工作复杂性对员工创新行为影响的跨层次研究[J]. 预测, 2017,36(5):15-23.[23] LI J, BURCH T C, LEE T W. Intra-individual variability in job complexity over time: examining the effect of job complexity trajectory on employee job strain[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2017, 38(5):671-691.[24] GRANT A M, FRANKLIN J, LANGFORD P. The self-reflection and insight scale:a new measure of private self-consciousness[J]. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 2002, 30(8): 821-835.[25] DEWEY J. Experience and education[M]. New York: Coller, 1938.[26] NESBIT P L. The role of self-reflection, emotional management of feedback, and self-regulation processes in self-directed leadership development[J]. Human Resource Development Review, 2012, 11(2):203-226.[27] CARNABUCI G, DIóSZEGI B. Social networks, cognitive style, and innovative performance: a contingency perspective[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(3):881-905.[28] HAO N, KU Y, LIU M, et al. Reflection enhances creativity: beneficial effects of idea evaluation on idea generation[J]. Brain and Cognition, 2016, 103(3):30-37.[29] VERHAEGHEN P, JOORMAN J, KHAN R. Why we sing the blues: the relation between self-reflective rumination, mood, and creativity[J]. Emotion, 2005, 5(2):226-232.[30] HONG Y C, CHOI I. Assessing reflective thinking in solving design problems: the development of a questionnaire[J]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2015, 46(4):848-863.[31] DONALD A SCH?N. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action[M]. New York: Basic Books, 1983.[32] BAER M, OLDHAM G R, CUMMINGS A. Rewarding creativity: when does it really matter[J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 2003, 14(4-5):569-586.[33] SWELLER J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design[J]. Learning & Instruction, 1994, 4(4): 295-312.[34] CARMELI A, SCHAUBROECK J. The influence of leaders′ and other referents′ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work[J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 2007, 18(1):35-48.[35] CARMELI R K. Alive and creating: the mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2009, 30(6):785-804.[36] VAN DEN BROECK A, VANSTEENKISTE M, LENS W, et al.Unemployed individuals′ work values and job flexibility: an explanation from expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory[J]. Applied Psychology, 2010, 59(2):296-317.[37] MCNATT D B, JUDGE T A. Boundary conditions of the galatea effect: a field experiment and constructive replication[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2004, 47(4):550-565.[38] QU R, JANSSEN O, SHI K. Leader-member exchange and follower creativity: the moderating roles of leader and follower expectations for creativity[J]. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2015, 28(4):603-626.[39] BINYAMIN G.Do leader expectations shape employee service performance: enhancing self-expectations and internalization in employee role identity[J]. Journal of Management & Organization, 2020,26(4):536-554.[40] SHIN Y, KIM M, LEE S H.Reflection toward creativity: team reflexivity as a linking mechanism between team goal orientation and team creative performance[J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2016, 32(6):655-671. |
|
|
|
