nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

01.09.2015

Envisioning, Planning and Innovating: A Closer Investigation of Proactive Goal Generation, Innovative Work Behaviour and Boundary Conditions

verfasst von: Francesco Montani, Carlo Odoardi, Adalgisa Battistelli

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Building on goal-regulation theory, we examine a) whether the regulatory elements of proactive goal generation, namely envisioning and planning, can sequentially stimulate individual innovative work behaviour, with planning acting as a mediator in the envisioning–innovation relationship and b) whether the link between envisioning and planning can be strengthened by the joint contributions of psychological empowerment and team support for innovation (TSI).

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data were collected from 268 employees of five Italian companies.

Findings

Hierarchical linear modelling analyses indicated that planning was positively predicted by envisioning, and partially mediated its effect on innovative work behaviour. In addition, employees who were highly involved in envisioning activities reported the highest levels of planning when both psychological empowerment and TSI were high.

Implications

The results of this research indicate that an effective means by which managers and practitioners can increase employees’ innovative efforts is by encouraging their involvement in proactive goal setting and goal planning activities. Additionally, our findings highlight the importance of creating an innovation-supportive team environment and nurturing individual psychological empowerment to increase the odds that employees will translate their envisioned proactive goals into effective action plans

Originality/Value

This is the first study to assess the envisioning–planning mechanism in relation to innovation, thus advancing our understanding of how individual and contextual conditions can amplify the effects of envisioning on planning activities.

Nächster Artikel Coaches and Clients in Action: A Sequential Analysis of Interpersonal Coach and Client Behavior

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Although envisioning and the idea generation component of innovative work behaviour are conceptually distinct constructs, empirically they are nonetheless highly interrelated. Indeed, the items of the envisioning scale are similar in content to those of the idea generation subscale of innovative work behaviour, and the Pearson correlation between the two measures was considerably large in our study: r = .48, p < .01. Accordingly, it was meaningful to examine whether the envisioning–planning-innovative work behaviour mediating relationship would be still significant after removing the three idea generation items from the innovative work behaviour scale. Results effectively indicated that, when omitting the idea generation items, innovative behaviour was significantly positively associated with both envisioning (γ = .17, p < .05) and planning (γ = .35, p < .01). Additionally, the effect of envisioning on innovative work behaviour was significantly partially mediated by planning (indirect effect = .20; 95 % CI .11, .30). Taken together, these findings suggest that the idea generation items, despite being related to the envisioning items, did not significantly affect the relationships of envisioning and planning to innovative work behaviour.

Note that Preacher et al. (2010) suggest testing multilevel mediation with multilevel structural equation modelling, rather than through the standard multilevel modelling procedure (which was used in the present study). Indeed, the latter procedure does not completely separate between-group and within-group effects without introducing bias. Therefore, we replicated the mediation analyses by applying the multilevel structural equation modelling technique (Preacher et al. 2011). Results effectively paralleled those obtained through the traditional multilevel modelling procedure, indicating that a) envisioning was significantly positively related to planning (γ = .56, p < .01) and innovative work behaviour (γ = .25, p < .01); b) planning was significantly positively related to innovative work behaviour (γ = .26, p < .01); and c) planning significantly partially mediated the relationship between envisioning and innovative work behaviour (indirect effect = .15; 95 %, CI .06, .23).

However, when the cross-level three-way interaction term was included in equations, the cross-level two-way interactions became significant: γ₇₁ = 2.11, p < .01, for the envisioning X aggregate TSI interaction term; γ₉₁ = 2.48, p < .01, and for psychological empowerment X aggregate TSI. A subsequent simple slope test indicated that planning was highest when aggregate TSI was high and when either envisioning or psychological empowerment was high.

We further replicated analyses using group-mean centering, in order to test for the cross-level interactive effects, as separated from between-group interaction (Hofmann and Gavin 1998). Indeed, group-mean centering allows an accurate estimation of within-group slopes and minimizes the possibility of spurious cross-level interaction (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Culpepper, 2013). Results confirmed the hypothesized cross-level three-way interaction effect of envisioning, psychological empowerment, and aggregate TSI on planning (γ = -.61, p < .01). Additionally, a test of slope differences indicated that the simple slope for high psychological empowerment-high TSI was significantly different from two out of the three alternative conditions: 1) high psychological empowerment-low TSI (t = 2.72, p < .05); and 2) low psychological empowerment-low TSI (t = 3.25, p < .01). Conversely, the difference between the combination of high psychological empowerment and high TSI and the combination of low psychological empowerment and high TSI was significant only at the .07 level (t = -1.88, p < .07). Overall, these results were generally consistent with those obtained from analyses with grand-mean centered predictors.”

Simple slopes: high psychological empowerment-high aggregate TSI: 1.20, p < .01; high psychological empowerment-low aggregate TSI: -.12, p < .01; low psychological empowerment-high aggregate TSI: 1.49, p < .01; low psychological empowerment-low TSI: -.32, p < .01.

Achtziger, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2010). Motivation and volition in the course of action. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (2nd ed., pp. 275–299). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499821.012.

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39, 1490–1528. doi:10.1177/0149206313478188.CrossRef

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8.CrossRef

Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80, 52–61.PubMed

Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3%3C235::AID-JOB837%3E3.3.CO;2-3.CrossRef

Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. The Academy of Management Journal, 34, 251–280. doi:10.2307/256442.CrossRef

Ashforth, B. E. (1990). The organizationally induced helplessness syndrome: A preliminary model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 7, 30–36. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.1990.tb00532.x.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002.CrossRef

Battistelli, A., & Boudrias, J. S. (2012). Favoriser le comportement innovatif au travail à travers la génération proactive des objectifs : Le rôle modérateur de l’habilitation au travail et de la sécurité participative [Promoting innovative work behaviour through proactive goal generation: The moderating role of psychological empowerment and participative safety]. Paper presented at the XVII Congrès de l’AIPTLF, Lyon.

Battistelli, A., Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., & Vandenberghe, C. (2013a). Mindsets of commitment and motivation: Interrelationships and contribution to work outcomes. The Journal of Psychology, 147, 17–48. doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.668146.PubMedCrossRef

Battistelli, A., Montani, F., & Odoardi, C. (2013b). The impact of feedback from job and task autonomy in the relationship between dispositional resistance to change and innovative work behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 26–41. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.616653.CrossRef

Baughman, W. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1995). Process analytic models of creative capacities: Operations involved in the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 37–62.CrossRef

Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12170-019.

Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 134–150. doi:10.1037/a0024368.PubMedCrossRef

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence and reliability. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 5–18. doi:10.1002/per.481.CrossRef

Brandstätter, V., Heimbeck, D., Malzacher, J. T., & Frese, M. (2003). Goals need implementation intentions: The model of action phases tested in the applied setting of continuing education. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 37–59. doi:10.1080/13594320344000011.CrossRef

Brandstätter, V., Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 946–960. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.5.946.PubMedCrossRef

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005.

Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 75–90. doi:10.1108/01437720610652853.CrossRef

Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Campbel-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative systems: multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1018–1027. doi:10.1037/a0032663.PubMedCrossRef

Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591–607. doi:10.2307/30040651.CrossRef

Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and de-motivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 541–547. doi:10.1037/a0021886.PubMedCrossRef

Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 187–199. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1602&3_4.CrossRef

Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., & Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: The insulating role of creative ability. Group and Organization Management, 34, 330–357. doi:10.1177/1059601108329811.CrossRef

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917.PubMedCrossRef

De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2012). The emotive roots of creativity: Basic and applied issues on affect and motivation. In M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 217–240). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.CrossRef

Diefendorff, J. M., & Lord, R. G. (2004). The volitional and strategic effects of planning on task performance and goal commitment. Human Performance, 16, 365–387. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1604_3.CrossRef

Durham, C. C., Locke, E. A., Poon, J. M. L., & McLeod, P. L. (2000). Effects of group goals and time pressure on group efficacy, information-seeking strategy, and performance. Human Performance, 13, 115–138. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1302_1.CrossRef

Eisenbeiss, S., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446. doi:10.1037/a0012716.PubMedCrossRef

Eschleman, K. J., Madsen, J., Alarcon, G., & Barelka, A. (2014). Benefiting from creative activity: The positive relationships between creative activity, recovery experiences, and performance-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. doi:10.1111/joop.12064.

Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–233. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.83.2.218.CrossRef

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative (PI): An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Frese, M., Krause, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Tonje Luneng, S., Heers, C., Unger, J., & Friedrich, C. (2007). Business owners’ action planning and its relationship to business success in three African countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1481–1408.

Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2012). Bridge building within the province of proactivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1053–1070. doi:10.1002/job.1780.CrossRef

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616. doi:10.5465/AMR.1985.4279045.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 141–185. doi:10.1080/14792779343000059.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 287–312). New York: Guilford.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.54.7.493.CrossRef

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bayer, U. (1999). Deliberative versus implemental mindsets in the control of action. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 403–422). New York: Guilford.

Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Feedback specificity, information processing, and transfer of training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 253–267. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.001.CrossRef

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002.CrossRef

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. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085.CrossRef

Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 90–105. doi:10.1037/a0018556.

Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102, 284–304. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.102.2.284.PubMedCrossRef

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.44.3.513.PubMedCrossRef

Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80077-4.CrossRef

Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467–511). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Holman, D., Totterdell, P., Axtell, C., Stride, C., Port, R., Svensson, R., et al. (2012). Job design and the employee innovation process: The mediating role of learning strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 177–191. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9242-5.CrossRef

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. doi:10.1037/a0015978.PubMedCrossRef

Hunter, S. T., Cassidy, S. E., & Ligon, G. S. (2012). Planning for innovation: A process-oriented perspective. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 515–545). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.CrossRef

Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 490–509. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00033-7.CrossRef

James, L. R., Hartman, E. A., Stebbins, M. W., & Jones, A. P. (1977). An examination of the relationships between psychological climate and VIE model for work motivation. Personnel Psychology, 30, 229–254.CrossRef

James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739–751. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.74.5.739.CrossRef

James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The role of condition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 40–84). San Francisco; CA: Jossey-Bass.

James, L. A., & Sells, S. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and empirical research. In D. Magnussen (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 275–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-rewards fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302. doi:10.1348/096317900167038.CrossRef

Janssen, O., & ven der Vegt, G. S. (2011). Positivity bias in employees’ self-ratings of performance relative to supervisor ratings: The roles of performance type, performance-approach goal orientation, and perceived influence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 524–552. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2010.485736.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29, 440–458. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.13670969.

Kanter, E. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169–211. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7506-9749-1.50010-7.

Kessler, E., & Chakrabart, A. (1999). Speeding up the pace of new product development. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 231–257. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(98)00048-4.CrossRef

Kivimäki, M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A short version of the team climate inventory: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 241–246. doi:10.1348/096317999166644.CrossRef

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 885–896. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.84.6.885.PubMedCrossRef

Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101–121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Lam, C. K., Huang, X., & Janssen, O. (2010). Contextualizing emotional exhaustion and positive emotional display: The signaling effects of supervisors’ emotional exhaustion and service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 368–376. doi:10.1037/a0017869.PubMedCrossRef

Latham, G. P., Winters, D., & Locke, E. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49–63. doi:10.1002/job.4030150106.CrossRef

Leung, K., Huang, K.-L., Su, C.-H., & Lu, L. (2011). Curvilinear relationships between role stress and innovative performance: Moderating effects of perceived support for innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 741–758. doi:10.1348/096317910X520421.CrossRef

Liao, H. (2007). Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance in customer-perceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 475–489. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.475.PubMedCrossRef

Locke, E. A. (2000). Motivation, cognition, and action: An analysis of studies of task goals and knowledge. Applied Psychology: An international Review, 49, 408–429. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00023.CrossRef

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.705.PubMedCrossRef

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2012). New developments in goal setting and task performance. New York, NY: Routledge.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x.CrossRef

Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and the group performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97–120. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.04.004.CrossRef

Martínez-Ros, E., & Labeaga, J. M. (2009). Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities. European Management Review, 6, 64–75. doi:10.1057/emr.2009.4.CrossRef

Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Committed but closed-minded: When making a specific plan for a goal hinders success. Social Cognition, 30, 37–55. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.37.CrossRef

Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 153–180. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00052.CrossRef

Moneta, G. B., Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., & Kramer, S. J. (2010). Multirater assessment of creative contributions to team projects in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 150–176. doi:10.1080/13594320902815312.CrossRef

Mumford, M. D., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Hunter, S. T. (2008). Planning for innovation: A multi-level perspective. In M. D. Mumford, S. T. Hunter, & K. E. Bedell (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. VII, pp. 107–154). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S1475-9144(07)00005-7.

Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. IV, pp. 11–74). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S1475-9144(05)04001-4.

Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). Performance in planning: Processes, requirements, and errors. Review of General Psychology, 5, 213–240. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.5.3.213.CrossRef

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). A comparison of self-ratings and non-self-report measures of employee creativity. Human Relations, 0, 1–27. doi:10.1177/0018726712446015.

Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. (2010). Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 744–751. doi:10.1037/a0018804.CrossRef

Nohari, K., & Gulatti, S. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 799–825. doi:10.2307/256998.

Oettingen, G., Bulgarella, C., Henderson, M., & Gollwitzer, P. (2004). The self-regulation of goal pursuit. In R. Wright, J. Greenberg, & S. Brehm (Eds.), Motivational analysis of social behaviour: Building on Jack Brehm’s contributions to psychology (pp. 225–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2000). Motivational and volitional processes in action initiation: A field study of the role of implementation intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 780–797. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02823.x.CrossRef

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.74.1.157.

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856. doi:10.1177/0149206310363732.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.PubMedCrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.

Potočnik, K., & Anderson, N. (2012). Assessing innovation: A 360-degree appraisal study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 497–509. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12012.CrossRef

Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 53–66. doi:10.1080/10400410701841955.CrossRef

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437:.CrossRef

Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 161–182. doi:10.1080/10705511.2011.557329.CrossRef

Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233. doi:10.1037/a0020141.PubMedCrossRef

Raudenbush, S. W. (1989). “Centering” predictors in multilevel analysis: Choices and consequences. Multilevel Modeling Newsletter, 1, 10–12.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: an evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

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, 150–163. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.83.2.150.PubMedCrossRef

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981–1003. doi:10.1037/a0022676.PubMedCrossRef

Seijts, G. H., & Crim., D. (2009). The combined effects of goal type and cognitive ability on performance. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 343–352. doi: 10.1007/s11031-009-9143-3.

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2001). The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291–302. doi:10.1002/job.70.CrossRef

Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.76.2.179.CrossRef

Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483–503. doi:10.2307/256689.CrossRef

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. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004.CrossRef

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. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007.CrossRef

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. doi:10.2307/256865.CrossRef

Sun, L.-Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.005.CrossRef

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2010). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 277–293. doi:10.1037/a0020952.CrossRef

Van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. Ph., Taris, T. W., van der Flier, H., & Blonk, R. W. B. (2005). Bridging the gap between intentions and behavior: implementation intentions, action control, and procrastination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 238–256. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.10.003.

Vancouver, J. B., & Day, D. V. (2005). Industrial and organisation research on self-regulation: From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 155–185. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00202.x.CrossRef

Vancouver, J. B., More, K. M., & Yoder, R. J. (2008). Self-efficacy and resource allocation: Support for a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 35–47. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.35.PubMedCrossRef

Vinarski-Peretz, H., Binyamin, G., & Carmeli, A. (2011). Subjective relational experiences and employee innovative behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 290–304. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.005.CrossRef

Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2007). How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 295–302. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.001.CrossRef

West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Chichester: Wiley.

West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.81.6.680.CrossRef

West, M. A., Borril, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A., & Haward, B. (2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 393–410. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00044-4.CrossRef

Williams, L. J., Cote, J., & Buckley, M. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462–468. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.74.3.462.CrossRef

Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social-cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361–384. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4279067.

Wood, R. E., Whelan, J., Sojo, V., & Wong, M. (2012). Goals, goal orientations, strategies and performance. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 90–114). New York: Routledge.

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. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995.CrossRef

Zhang, X. A., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2010). Linking Transformational Leadership and Team Performance: A Conflict Management Approach. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1586–1611. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00974.x.CrossRef

Titel: Envisioning, Planning and Innovating: A Closer Investigation of Proactive Goal Generation, Innovative Work Behaviour and Boundary Conditions
verfasst von: Francesco Montani
Carlo Odoardi
Adalgisa Battistelli
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9371-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Design/Methodology/Approach

Findings

Implications

Originality/Value

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

Examining the Outcomes of Having a Calling: Does Context Matter?

The Impact of Method, Motivation, and Empathy on Diversity Training Effectiveness

Erratum to: The Impact of Method, Motivation, and Empathy on Diversity Training Effectiveness

Trait Resilience Fosters Adaptive Coping When Control Opportunities are High: Implications for the Motivating Potential of Active Work

Coaches and Clients in Action: A Sequential Analysis of Interpersonal Coach and Client Behavior

Interviewee Selection Test and Evaluator Assessments of General Mental Ability, Emotional Intelligence and Extraversion: Relationships with Structured Behavioral and Situational Interview Performance

Premium Partner