Affective Commitment, Participative Leadership, and Employee Innovation: A Multilevel Investigation

Abstract

Organizations have increasingly recognized that employee innovation-defined as the intentional generation, promotion, and implementation of new and useful ideas aimed at benefiting role performance, the group, or the organization (West & Farr, 1990)-is a critical resource for ensuring effectiveness, growth, and continuous development in rapidly changing and uncertain environments (Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, & Zhao, 2011). Employee innovation entails in-role and extra-role components (Poto nik & Anderson, 2016) because it can either be part of the prescribed work tasks or go beyond formal role descriptions (West, 2002). Considering the significance of employee innovation, a vast body of research has identified a range of affective and motivational drivers that can have energizing effects on employees' engagement in innovative endeavors, such as positive affect, intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, and psychological empowerment (for a recent review, see Anderson, Poto nik, & Zhou, 2014). Theories and research on organizational commitment have emphasized affective commitment as a critical motivational force binding individuals to effective courses of action that sustain the organization and its goals (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Solinger, Van Olffen, & Roe, 2008). However, prior empirical research has yielded contradictory findings on the relationship between affective commitment and employee innovation (Vinarski-Peretz, Binyamin, & Carmeli, 2011), with some studies finding positive effects and others reporting non-significant effects (e.g., Thompson & Heron, 2006). These premises thus underscore the importance of further research to illuminate how organizations can ensure that highly committed employees are motivated and enabled to perform innovatively in the workplace. To address this issue, our study aims to test a multilevel moderation model in which participative leadership acts as a key team-level h t t p s : / / j o u r n a l s. c o p m a d r i d. o rg / j wo p

Constructive Leadership and Employee Innovative Behaviors: A Serial Mediation Model

“…This finding is also consistent with the reciprocity norm in social exchange theory. Further, our results support the empirical findings of very recent leadership studies on employee outcomes, such as inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior [34], paternalistic leadership on innovative behavior [35], leadership on commitment and innovative work behavior [33], and team-level participative leadership on employee innovation [53]. Two recent studies have also indicated the significant effects of transformational leadership on innovation in the public sector of three different countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain) [76] and leader inclusiveness on work-unit performance in hospitals [77].…”

“…Study has actually discovered that comprehensive leadership has a significant impact on employee innovation [34]. More recently, employee commitment has been discovered to be an antecedent of SIB in companies [53].…”

“…Therefore, an exploration of the influences of CL is a major contribution of the research. Although the potential significance of SIB remains obvious, the empirical literature investigating the antecedents of SIB in the hospitality industry has been decidedly equivocal [33][34][35]53,75]. In other words, generic employee outcome variables have been explored in greater detail, but employee service-related outcomes have scarcely been discussed in the hospitality literature [6,22,23].…”

<p>Impact of Entrepreneurial Leadership on Innovative Work Behavior: Examining Mediation and Moderation Mechanisms</p>

“…The sample frame of the study consists of manufacturing, processing, designing, engineering, marketing, and product development departments as researchers have suggested that employees' innovative work behavior is pertinent to these departments. [147][148][149] Data was collected over the two periods of time so as to minimize the effects of common method bias. 150,151 Both of the surveys were properly coded so that they could be matched and supervisorsubordinate dyads could be formed.…”

Apply the systematic risk management—AS/NZS 4360:2004 to operate the project of preoperative evaluation

“…[13,14] A very prominent management style demonstrated that it could improve motivation through participatory leadership style. [15][16][17][18] And a project manager could use power or different leadership styles to inspire his team. Fourthly, we valued the art of team management.…”