Linking supervisor support to innovation implementation behavior via commitment

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate how perceived supervisor support (PSS) affects employees' innovation implementation behavior (IIB), the psychological mechanisms of this relationship, and the role of perceived coworker support (PCS).Design/methodology/approachUsing a three-phase survey, data were collected from 307 employees of a state-owned coal company located in the central region of China. The study tests the hypotheses by using hierarchical regression analyses. The mediating effects and the moderated mediating effects are further examined by using bias-corrected bootstrapping methods.FindingsAffective commitment (AC) fully mediates the positive relationship between PSS and IIB, and this mediating effect can be moderated by PCS.Practical implicationsCompanies should foster supportive supervisors and colleagues by investing in appropriate training programs. In addition, managers should emphasize the psychological changes of employees and provide more supportive feelings for them.Originality/valueThe study explicitly tests the entire causal chain implied by organizational support theory in predicting IIB. It specifies the different role of two similar support constructs (i.e. supervisor support and coworker support) in affecting employees' attitudes and behaviors.

How Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi Influence Employee Innovative Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model

“…Employees’ IB is a multistage process, which includes the generation, dissemination within the enterprise and final realization of innovative ideas. 4 In previous management practices, many enterprise managers screened employees with creative personality, 5 created an organizational innovative climate, 6 and provided policies, capitals, incentive measures and equipment to stimulate employees’ innovative vitality, but the results were minimal. Even if employees’ innovative passion was stimulated, it is a difficult problem for enterprise managers to effectively maintain employees’ innovative momentum and implement IB.…”

“…Strong OC will make employees believe and accept the organization’s goals and values, and are willing to help the organization achieve its goals in novel ways 4 and stimulate employees’ innovation. Based on the principle of reciprocity, it will also encourage employees to adopt innovative ways to obtain more performance to repay leaders or organizations.…”

Unveiling the role of risk‐taking in innovation: antecedents and effects

“…Innovation-supportive organizations are organizations that can act rapidly and flexibly and are open to changes (Claver et al, 1998). Firms can support innovation processes in many ways, such as: sustaining managerial encouragement and individual or team activities (Amabile and Pratt, 2016;Yang et al, 2020); providing prizes and recognition to reward well-done activities, positive results, and goals achieved, but also to encourage risk-taking propensity and creative thinking (Martins and Terblanche, 2003;O'Cass and Viet Ngo, 2007); allowing some degree of tolerance toward mistakes (Manso, 2017); leveraging managerial research orientation (Van de Wal et al, 2020); and providing appropriate remuneration systems to stimulate risk-taking and encourage the development of innovative ideas (Kanama and Nishikawa, 2017;Mao and Zhang, 2018). These premises lead us to the following hypothesis:…”

“…Innovation support from the organization encourages an increased willingness to engage in activities 96 R&D Management 52, 1, 2022 with an uncertain outcome. Support structures and activities also have a more direct effect on the promotion of innovation efforts, stimulating the development of social relations enhancing employees' commitment toward the innovation activity (Dato-on et al, 2018;Schubert and Tavassoli, 2020;Yang et al, 2020) stimulating them to take risks. This leads us to the following hypothesis:…”

The role of image expectations in linking organizational climate and innovative work behaviour

“…Eva et al, 2019;Anderson et al, 2004Anderson et al, , 2014De Jong and Den Hartog, 2008) the majority of the research assesses IWB with single measures encompassing the different stages (e.g. Yang et al, 2020;Bos-Nehles and Veenendaal, 2019;Saeed et al, 2019).…”