Innovation is key for sci-tech innovation companies to achieve breakthroughs in new technologies and products, thereby gaining a competitive advantage. However, employees in such enterprises face the paradox of innovation motivation source: when they firmly believe in the value of their innovative ideas to the company, they may choose to avoid or disregard superiors' rejections, leading to creative deviance. Given the high complexity and high value characteristics of creative deviance, many scholars have begun to explore the driving mechanisms behind such behaviors. However, existing research on the mechanisms influencing creative deviance has been conducted based on traditional linear perspectives while not paying enough attention to the particularities of creative deviance behavior. This results in a lack of systematic and holistic understanding of the mechanisms behind the emergence of creative deviance. Creative deviance possesses both the illegality of the act and the legitimacy of its intended purpose, embodying a paradoxical nature due to the persistent yet opposing elements of righteous goals and deviant actions. This characteristic determines that creative deviance is a complex behavior, not driven by a single factor but resulting from the synergistic interplay of multiple factors. Therefore, the driving mechanism of creative deviance should be explored from a complexity perspective.
Drawing on the AMO framework, this study explores the different configurations that stimulate employee creative deviance by incorporating ability, motivation and opportunity multi-level factors from an integrative perspective.Specifically, it incorporates creativity, innovation self-efficacy, constructive responsibility perception, performance pressure,leader's idea rejection, and the dynamics of playfulness into the integrated research model. The analysis is carried out using the method of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to integrate factors at the ability, motivation and opportunity levels to find the configurations that stimulate employee creative deviance.
The samples derived from tech-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises in regions such as Henan, Beijing, and Guangzhou involve employees who are frequently involved in innovation activities within their companies. The survey was conducted through a combination of online and offline methods, ultimately collecting a total of 368 valid responses. Then the fsQCA method is used to carry out configuration analysis and explore the collective effect of different influence factors on employee creative deviance. The research identifies four equivalent configurations that drive employee creative deviance behavior, which can be categorized into three types: motivation inspiration driven by creativity, efficacy-led opportunity empowerment and motivation-driven efficacy enhancement. The combination of innovation self-efficacy and leaders' idea rejection emerges as a significant factor in fostering creative deviance. Furthermore, constructive responsibility perception and performance pressure are found to have a substitutive effect in the configurational paths driving creative deviance. Employee creative deviance displays distinct traits, aligning with either pro-organizational or personal self-interests, based on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. This finding contradicts the conventional wisdom in prior research, which posits that 'creative deviance is inherently spontaneous'. It suggests that deviant innovation could either be a spontaneous expression of loyalty, reflecting pro-organizational sentiments, or a rebellious response to institutional norms driven by work pressures.
This study contributes both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, it explores the driving paths of creative deviance from a configurational perspective, enriching the factors that influence creative deviance and broadening the research viewpoints on this behavior. By emphasizing the need for a holistic and systematic investigation into this complex behavior, the study deepens the understanding of the nature and influencing factors of creative deviance. Furthermore, this study uncovers various pathways that lead to the emergence of creative deviance, enhancing the comprehension of its formation mechanisms. Practically, the findings of this study assist organizations and managers in gaining a deeper understanding of the nature and formation mechanisms of creative deviance, enabling a correct recognition of its positive utility and patterns. It encourages the creation of an organizational climate that can stimulate innovative actions among potential innovators, guides and manages employee creative deviance to maximize positive outcomes, and empowers the organization for future growth and high-quality development.
[1] 罗瑾琏, 唐慧洁, 李树文, 等. 科创企业创新悖论及其应对效应研究[J]. 管理世界, 2021,37(3):105-122.
[2] LIN B, MAINEMELIS C, KARK R. Leaders' responses to creative deviance: differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance[J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 2016,27(4):537-556.
[3] MAINEMELIS C, SAKELLARIOU E. Creativity and the arts of disguise: switching between formal and informal channels in the evolution of creative projects[J]. Organization Science, 2023,34(1):380-403.
[4] 刘伟鹏, 贾建锋, 杨付. 越轨创新:研究评述与展望[J]. 外国经济与管理, 2024,46(4):102-118.
[5] GLOBOCNIK D, PENA HAUFLER B, SALOMO S. Organizational antecedents to bootlegging and consequences for the newness of the innovation portfolio[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2022,39(5):717-745.
[6] 蒋瑜洁, 徐永恒. 何为越轨创新:文献综述与研究展望[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2023,40(5):150-160.
[7] 王弘钰, 崔智淞, 邹纯龙, 等. 忠诚还是叛逆?中国组织情境下的员工越轨创新行为[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019,27(6):975-989.
[8] YANG N, CHEN H, FRANK WANG X. Paradoxical leadership behavior and employee creative deviance: the role of paradox mindset and leader-member exchange[J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2024,39(3):697-713.
[9] 王永伟, 刘雨展, 王嘉豪, 等. 领导—员工创造力评价匹配对越轨创新的影响机制研究[J]. 管理学报, 2023,20(8):1169-1179.
[10] BLUMBERG M, PRINGLE C D. The missing opportunity in organizational research: some implications for a theory of work performance[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1982,7(4):560-569.
[11] 杨刚, 宋建敏, 纪谱华. 员工创造力与越轨创新:心理特权和道德推脱视角[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2019,36(7):115-122.
[12] APPELBAUM E. Manufacturing advantage: why high-performance work systems pay off[M]. New York:Cornell University Press, 2000.
[13] 王弘钰, 寇先柳. 差错管理氛围对员工越轨创新的影响:一个有调节的中介效应模型[J]. 技术经济, 2023,42(1):53-63.
[14] 周燕, 钱慧池. 工作嵌入对知识型员工越轨创新行为的影响——建设性责任知觉与角色宽度自我效能的链式中介作用[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2021,38(16):142-150.
[15] 门贺, 赵慧军, 段旭. 绩效考核对员工越轨创新的影响——一个被调节的中介模型[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2021,38(10):151-160.
[16] 谢鹏, 韦叶, 马璐. 领导创意拒绝一定有损员工创新吗——越轨创新与证明目标取向的作用[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2023,40(18):132-141.
[17] AKGUN A E, KESKIN H, BYRNE J. The moderating role of environmental dynamism between firm emotional capability and performance[J]. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2008,21(2):230-252.
[18] 李树文, 姚柱, 张显春. 员工越轨创新实现路径与边界:游戏动态性的触发作用[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2019,36(23):147-152.
[19] ZHOU J, GEORGE J M. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2001,44(4):682-696.
[20] 屠兴勇, 刘雷洁, 彭娅娅, 等. 批判创造思维如何影响根本性创新行为——被中介的调节效应模型[J]. 管理评论, 2021,33(8):78-89.
[21] 黄玮, 项国鹏, 杜运周, 等. 越轨创新与个体创新绩效的关系研究——地位和创造力的联合调节作用[J]. 南开管理评论, 2017,20(1):143-154.
[22] 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.
[23] LIANG J, FARH C I, FARH J. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: a two-wave examination[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2012,55(1):71-92.
[24] BABALOLA M T, MAWRITZ M B, GREENBAUM R L, et al. Whatever it takes: how and when supervisor bottom-line mentality motivates employee contributions in the workplace[J]. Journal of Management, 2021,47(5):1134-1154.
[25] ZHU Y, AKHTAR S. Leader trait learning goal orientation and employee voice behavior: the mediating role of managerial openness and the moderating role of felt obligation[J]. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2019,30(20):2876-2900.
[26] MITCHELL M S, BAER M D, AMBROSE M L, et al. Cheating under pressure: a self-protection model of workplace cheating behavior[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2018,103(1):54-73.
[27] KUNDI Y M, SARDAR S, BADAR K. Linking performance pressure to employee work engagement: the moderating role of emotional stability[J]. Personnel Review, 2022,51(3):841-860.
[28] MAI K M, WELSH D T, WANG F, et al. Supporting creativity or creative unethicality? empowering leadership and the role of performance pressure[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2022,179(1):111-131.
[29] NG T W, SHAO Y, KOOPMANN J, et al. The effects of idea rejection on creative self-efficacy and idea generation: intention to remain and perceived innovation importance as moderators[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2022,43(1):146-163.
[30] KIM Y J, KIM J. Does negative feedback benefit (or harm) recipient creativity? the role of the direction of feedback flow[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2020,63(2):584-612.
[31] 曹元坤, 罗元大. 领导创意拒绝对员工越轨创新的影响:基于情绪ABC理论的双路径模型[J]. 商业经济与管理, 2023,43(6):78-88.
[32] DECI E L, RYAN R M. Self-determination theory[J]. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2012,1(20):416-436.
[33] ERNE M, KASE R, KERLAVAJ M. Idea championing as a missing link between idea generation and team innovation implementation: a situated emergence approach[J]. European Management Journal, 2024,42(2):233-244.
[34] CRISCUOLO P, SALTER A, TER WAL A L. Going underground: bootlegging and individual innovative performance[J]. Organization Science, 2014,25(5):1287-1305.
WeChat Service Account
WeChat Official Account
WeCom Customer Service