Both scientists and practitioners emphasize the importance of innovative work behaviour (IWB) of individual employees for organizational success, but the measurement of IWB is still at an evolutionary stage. This article is concerned with developed a measure of IWB with four potential dimensions: the exploration, generation, championing and implementation of ideas. From a pilot survey among 81 research professionals and their supervisors, we derived an initial version of ten items. Next, analysis of validity drew on survey data from 703 matched dyads of knowledge workers and their supervisors in 94 knowledge intensive services firms. It included confirmatory factor analyses and hierarchical multilevel regressions to test hypothesized relationships of IWB with related constructs, including participative leadership, external work contacts and innovative output. These analyses demonstrated sufficient reliability and criterion validity. Evidence for the distinctiveness of the four dimensions was, however, weak, suggesting that IWB is one-dimensional. We conclude that further research on this issue is merited.

This study sets out to test the assumption that concepts of leadership differ as a function of cultural differences in Europe and to identify dimensions which describe differences in leadership concepts across European countries. Middle‐level managers (N = 6052) from 22 European countries rated 112 questionnaire items containing descriptions of leadership traits and behaviours. For each attribute respondents rated how well it fits their concept of an outstanding business leader. The findings support the assumption that leadership concepts are culturally endorsed. Specifically, clusters of European countries which share similar cultural values according to prior cross‐cultural research (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985), also share similar leadership concepts. The leadership prototypicality dimensions found are highly correlated with cultural dimensions reported in a comprehensive cross‐cultural study of contemporary Europe (Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996). The ordering of countries on the leadership dimensions is considered a useful tool with which to model differences between leadership concepts of different cultural origin in Europe. Practical implications for cross‐cultural management, both in European and non‐European settings, are discussed.

No abstract

PurposeResearch in strategic human resource management (HRM) has focused mainly on the effects of HRM practices or systems on organizational effectiveness. However, institutional theory argues that besides being financially successful, organizations also need legitimacy to survive. Owing to the tension between competitive and institutional pressures, organizations balance between the degree of conformity and the degree of differentiation from competitors regarding HRM. The purpose of this paper is to address how institutional pressures help shape HRM.Design/methodology/approachUsing the concepts of leeway, human agency and strategic choice, differences in three types of institutional fit are highlighted: innovative, conformist and deviant. A comparative case study approach is used in order to illustrate the framework, using document analysis and 43 interviews in three organizations in The Netherlands.FindingsThis paper shows how balancing competitive and institutional pressures in organizations affects HRM. The cases illustrate the proposed theoretical framework, showing leeway, human agency, strategic choice and the nature of institutional fit. The organizations each illustrate a type of institutional fit. Moreover, not the institutional context itself, but the organization's response seems to make a difference for the nature of institutional fit.Originality/valueWhile previous studies focus on the effects of HRM on organizational effectiveness, this paper examines how the balance between competitive and institutional pressures affects HRM and aims to show that institutional fit can contribute to strategic HRM by providing insight in this more balanced goal setting of organizations.

When investing in corporate social responsibility (CSR), managers may strive for a win-win scenario where all stakeholders end up better off, but they may not always be able to avoid trading off stakeholders' interests. To provide guidance to managers who have to make tradeoffs, this study used a vignette-based experiment to explore stakeholders' intention to associate with a firm (i.e., buy from or become an employee) that trades off CSR directed at the stakeholders' own group (self-directed CSR) and CSR directed at another stakeholder group (other-directed CSR). Results show that stakeholders were not systematically more attracted to a firm that favors their own group over another stakeholder group. Specifically, stakeholders' other-orientation moderated their reaction to tradeoffs: stakeholders higher on other-orientation were willing to forego some material benefits to associate with a firm that treated suppliers in developing countries significantly better than its competitors, whereas stakeholders lower on other-orientation were more attracted to a firm favoring their own stakeholder group. Other-orientation also moderated reactions to tradeoffs involving the environment, although high CSR directed at the environment did not compensate for low self-directed CSR even for stakeholders higher on other-orientation. Second, the vignette study showed that trust mediated the relationship between tradeoffs and stakeholders' reactions. The study contributes first and foremost to the burgeoning literature on CSR tradeoffs and to the multimotive approach to CSR, which claims that other motives can drive stakeholders' reactions to CSR in addition to self-interest. First, it provides further evidence that studying CSR tradeoffs is important to understand both (prospective) employees' and customers' reactions to CSR-related activities. Second, it identifies other-orientation as a motive-related individual difference that explains heterogeneity in stakeholders' reactions to CSR. These findings suggest several avenues for future research for organizational psychologists interested in organizational justice. Third, it investigates trust as a mediating mechanism. Fourth, it reveals differences in stakeholders' reactions depending on which other stakeholder group is involved in the tradeoff. For practice, the findings suggest that tradeoffs are important because they influence which stakeholders are attracted to the firm.