Proactivity and Innovation: Promoting a New Workforce for the New Workplace

Unsworth, Kerrie; Parker, Sharon K.

doi:10.1002/9780470713365.ch10

Cited by 129 publications

(192 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

165

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The above reasoning is in accordance with the interactionist perspective on individual innovation (Hammond et al, 2011;Unsworth and Parker, 2003) which proposes that individual differences and contextual differences interactively combine in promoting individual innovation. We hypothesize:…”

Section: Job Complexity As a Moderatorsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…Individual innovation encompasses generating and promoting creative ideas, and implementing innovations within the work setting ( Janssen, 2005;Scott and Bruce, 1994;Unsworth and Parker, 2003;Yuan and Woodman, 2010). The extent to which this individual innovation is required depends on the job (Farr and Tran, 2008;Shalley et al, 2004).…”

Section: Innovation Requirements and Individual Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is wrong: it is the innovation requirements and job complexity that specifically explain individual innovation at work (Hammond et al, 2011). Moreover, the interplay of job characteristics and intrinsic motivation would affect individual innovation (Anderson et al, 2014;Hammond et al, 2011;Unsworth and Parker, 2003). This study examines this interplay by studying innovation requirements, job complexity, and psychological empowerment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following job characteristics theory (Hackman and Oldham, 1980), broad job requirements would foster a motivational mechanism which explains the effect on work outcomes. There is some empirical support for this motivational mechanism for creativity (Anderson et al, 2014), but there is a lack of research about psychological mechanisms that explain effects of the work environment on individual innovation (Hammond et al, 2011;Unsworth and Parker, 2003;Anderson et al, 2014). In this study, we address this lack by using psychological empowerment (Seibert et al, 2011;Spreitzer, 2007;Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) to explain the relationship between broad job requirements and individual innovation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"When subordinates perform complex tasks […] they have the opportunity to test their efficacy" (Conger and Kanungo, 1988, p. 479). Innovation scholars (Hammond et al, 2011;Unsworth and Parker, 2003;Anderson et al, 2014;Woodman et al, 1993) call for models that study how the job context and motivation are working in concert to enable individual innovation. In essence, we extend the model of innovation requirements, psychological empowerment and individual innovation by identifying a key boundary condition of this presumed causal sequence; namely, we test that psychological empowerment specifically drives individual innovation in complex jobs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

When innovation requirements empower individual innovation: the role of job complexity

Audenaert

Vanderstraeten

Buyens

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the field’s understanding of how to raise individual innovation. Specifically, the authors aim to contribute to an understanding of the interplay of job characteristics and intrinsic motivation for individual innovation. Design/methodology/approach The study uses time-lagged survey data of a public service organization in Belgium. The analyses are based on more than 80 jobs and more than 1,000 employees. Hierarchical linear modeling was adopted to test cross-level hypotheses. Findings Innovation requirements influence individual innovation efforts by psychologically empowering employees, but the extent to which psychological empowerment translates into individual innovation depends on job complexity. Originality/value A more nuanced understanding is developed of when innovation requirements empower individual innovation, by acknowledging the role of job complexity in this relationship. The current findings contribute to a multilevel integrative understanding of the interplay of the job context and intrinsic motivation.

show abstract

Section: Job Complexity As a Moderatorsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Innovation Requirements and Individual Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

When innovation requirements empower individual innovation: the role of job complexity

Audenaert

Vanderstraeten

Buyens

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bridge building within the province of proactivity

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The research questions posed in this study highlight the importance of valuing proactivity in both prompting an individual to engage in proactive behavior and encouraging the expression of that behavior. We integrate a variety of constructs from the proactivity literature to gain a deeper understanding of proactive behavior as it relates to proactive motivation and supervisory performance evaluations. First, we draw upon self‐determination theory, expectancy–value theory, and the recent integration of the proactive motivation literature to hypothesize that proactive behavior is predicted by the interaction of “can do” and “reason to” proactive motivational states. Second, on the basis of performance theory, we hypothesize that the relationship between proactive behavior and performance depends upon the extent to which the supervisor values proactivity. Specifically, we argue that supervisors with proactive personalities are more likely to value and reward subordinate proactive behavior than passive supervisors. Results provide support for both of our hypotheses. Interestingly, results show that proactive behavior did not result in negative consequences but rather that there was a cost (i.e., lower performance rating) for not taking charge for employees with proactive supervisors. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryResearchers have claimed that routinization hinders creativity. However, empirical evidence for this assumption is sparse. In this study, we argue that routinization may be beneficial for creativity and related behavior due to available resources that can be used to develop new ideas while working. We examine the relationship between routinization and four work character istics (job control, job complexity, time pressure, and supervisor support) on the one hand and a range of creative and proactive behaviors on the other hand in a randomly selected sample of 278 employees of a German high tech company. Regression analyses reveal that in addition to work characteristics, routinization is generally positively related to creative and proactive behaviors. Ways to enhance routinization and thereby creative and proactive behaviors are discussed.

show abstract

Proactivity and Innovation: Promoting a New Workforce for the New Workplace

Cited by 129 publications

References 104 publications

When innovation requirements empower individual innovation: the role of job complexity

When innovation requirements empower individual innovation: the role of job complexity

Bridge building within the province of proactivity

Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About