The Antecedents of Innovative Work Behavior: The Roles of Self-Monitoring

  • Received October 12, 2017;
    Accepted December 5, 2017;
    Published December 25, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Jovi Sulistiawan
    ORCID , Nuri Herachwati , Silvia Dwi Permatasari , Zainiyah Alfirdaus
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(4-1).2017.10
  • Article Info
    Volume 15 2017, Issue #4, pp. 263-270
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    4 articles
  • 1243 Views
  • 268 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

In this study, the authors examined why employees engage in innovative behavior even though innovation is a risky behavior. Employees tend to engage in innovative behavior since they expect positive image gains. Besides, employees tend to avoid innovative behavior because it forfeits their image inside organization (expected image risks). Furthermore, the willingness to engage in innovative behavior depends on individual differences. Therefore, the authors tried to examine the role of individual differences, drawing from self-monitoring theory. The surprising findings were the quality of relationship between employees and their peers did not affect employee image risk and self-monitoring did not moderate the relationship between expected image gain and innovative work behavior.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Regression results predicting expected image gains
    • Table 2. Regression results predicting expected image risks
    • Table 3. Regression result predicting innovative work behavior
    • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 10, 123-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    • Eisenberger, R. R., Huntington, S., Hutchison, & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
    • Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-Monitoring: Appraisal and Reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530-555.
    • Getz, I., & Robinson, A. C. (2003). Innovate or Die: Is that a Fact? Creativity & Innovation Management, 12(3), 130.
    • Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand- McNally.
    • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
    • Jing-zhou, P., Xiao-xue, Z., & Xia-qing, Z. (2007). The role of leadership between the employees and the organization: a bridge or a ravine? – an empirical study from China. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 4.
    • Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 10, 169- 211. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    • Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of self-monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1349-1364.
    • Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2004). Leadership (2nd ed.). United States of America: South- Western.
    • Oh, I., Charlier, S. D., Mount, M. K., & Berry, C. M. (2002). The two faces of high self-monitors: Chameleonic moderating effects of self monitoring on the relationships between personality traits and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
    • Rhoades, L., & Esienberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698-714.
    • Sarooghi, H., Libaers, D., & Burkemper, A. (2015). Examining the relationship between creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural and environmental factors. Journal of Business Venturing.
    • Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model in individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580- 607.
    • Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: a new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118-135.
    • Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
    • West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4, 15-30.
    • Yuan, W., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323- 342.
Related Articles

  • A multidimensional approach in examining the role of self-efficacy on innovative work behavior: Evidence from the creative industry

    Zulkifli Musannip Efendi SiregarORCID Researcher ID, Yudi Nur SupriadiORCID , Agus Setyo Pranowo , Ende , Nova Jayanti Harahap doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(2).2022.48
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 20, 2022         Issue #2         pp. 588-597 Views: 730 Downloads: 234 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Innovative work behavior is a significant factor for business success, including in the creative industry. This paper aims to explore the effect of self-efficacy on the innovative work behavior of employees in the creative industry sector. This study uses a quantitative research approach. It was conducted on small and medium enterprises in the creative industry sector in Labuhanbatu and South Labuhanbatu regencies, Indonesia. The participants in this study were employees and managers in the creative industry. The sampling technique is non-probability sampling. A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed, and 216 questionnaires were returned. Therefore, the samples in this study were 216 respondents. After the data were collected, they were processed by the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) method, which uses a multidimensional approach to testing the hypothesis. The results revealed that innovative work behavior was influenced by self-efficacy. Based on the results of the multidimensional analysis, it was shown that the most influential dimension in measuring innovative work behavior was the idea champion. In addition, the strength dimension dominantly influenced self-efficacy as the most influential dimension. The originality/value of this paper is that the analysis using multidimensional analysis shows that self-efficacy can predict innovative work behavior. The SMEs in the creative industry are suggested to give support to enhance their capability to improve employee self-efficacy and innovative work behavior.

  • How to improve employee performance based on transglobal leadership?

    Nilawati FiernaningsihORCID Researcher ID, Pudji HerijantoORCID , Shinta Maharani TrivenaORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(3).2022.32
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 20, 2022         Issue #3         pp. 400-410 Views: 562 Downloads: 137 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Competence in vocational education refers to knowledge, skills, and innovative work behavior. Therefore, innovative work behavior needs to be applied by lecturers at vocational institutions. Moreover, transglobal leadership is highly required in vocational higher education institutes because it can boost lecturers’ performance. This study aims to examine transglobal leadership styles to improve employee performance supported by work engagement and innovative work behavior. The study population included 1,494 lecturers from vocational state universities in East Java, Indonesia. The sample was 316 vocational lecturers determined by the Slovin formula. The data were processed through the SmartPLS software and analyzed using the SEM approach. The test results show that transglobal leadership positively affects work engagement with a t-statistic value of 4.240. In addition, transglobal leadership positively affects innovative work behavior with a t-statistic value of 2.015. Next, work engagement positively affects innovative work behavior with a t-statistic value of 2.009. Finally, innovative work behavior positively affects employee performance with a t-statistic value of 10.244. In conclusion, this paper enlarges the relevant literature devoted to the effect of work engagement, transglobal leadership, and innovative work behavior impact on employee performance.

  • Innovative work behavior and self-efficacy: Does entrepreneurial leadership impact MSME business performance?

    Aniek RumijatiORCID Researcher ID, Arif Rahman HakimORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.21(4).2023.24
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 21, 2023         Issue #4         pp. 304-315 Views: 530 Downloads: 129 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The current business performance of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) must be able to innovate in business strategies in a competitive era. MSMEs are at the forefront of contributing to Indonesia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and have a considerable role in the Indonesian economy. The study aimed to assess factors contributing to the business performance of MSMEs in Sidoarjo Regency, Indonesia. The total population was 277 MSME owners; using the purposive sampling technique with the Slovin formula, 144 respondents were obtained with an error rate of 5%. Data analysis used SEM-PLS with SmartPLS-3 software. The findings show that entrepreneurial leadership directly affects business performance and innovative work behavior, and innovative work behavior affects business performance. Then, entrepreneurial leadership influences business performance through innovative work behavior. Interestingly, there is no moderating effect of self-efficacy on the effect of entrepreneurial leadership on business performance. MSMEs need to have innovative work behavior to improve their business performance by applying entrepreneurial leadership to increase innovation in business strategies to compete and survive in a competitive era.

Download Preview
Close
Problems and Perspectives in Management
Problems and Perspectives in Management