IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0204089.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Christian P Theurer
  • Andranik Tumasjan
  • Isabell M Welpe

Abstract

In environments experiencing fast technological change in which innovative performance is expected, work design research has found that the degree of autonomy positively predicts behavioral and attitudinal work outcomes. Because extant work design research has tended to examine the direct and mediating effects of autonomy on work outcomes such as job satisfaction, examinations of more situational elements and the degree to which the organizational context strengthens or weakens this relationship has been neglected. This study, therefore, takes a context-contingent perspective to investigate the degree to which psychological climate dimensions such as supervisor support, organizational structure and organizational innovation moderate the effects of autonomy (work scheduling autonomy, work methods autonomy, decision-making autonomy) on employee perceived innovative work behavior (IWB). Using a conjoint experiment based on 9,440 assessments nested within 1,180 employees, it was found that all autonomy dimensions had a significant direct effect on employee perceived IWB. Contrary to the Hypotheses, the multi-level analysis did not reveal any moderating effect of the climate dimensions on the relationship between autonomy and employee IWB. This study provides a context-contingent view for the features of work design and gives a more detailed analysis of autonomy, which has previously been seen primarily as a unidimensional construct.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0204089
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204089
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204089&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0204089?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brundin, Ethel & Patzelt, Holger & Shepherd, Dean A., 2008. "Managers' emotional displays and employees' willingness to act entrepreneurially," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 221-243, March.
    2. David S. Evans & Linda S. Leighton, 1995. "Retrospective Bias in the Displaced Worker Surveys," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30(2), pages 386-396.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Zacharakis, Andrew L. & Meyer, G. Dale, 1998. "A lack of insight: do venture capitalists really understand their own decision process?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 57-76, January.
    5. Ostroff, Cheri, 1993. "The Effects of Climate and Personal Influences on Individual Behavior and Attitudes in Organizations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 56-90, October.
    6. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, January.
    7. Dilek Zamantili Nayir & Ulrich Tamm & Serdar S. Durmusoglu, 2014. "How Formalization Hinders Different Firm Innovativeness Types: Opening the Black Box with Evidence from a Service Industry," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(05), pages 1-22.
    8. Holger Patzelt & Dean A. Shepherd, 2008. "The Decision to Persist with Underperforming Alliances: The Role of Trust and Control," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(7), pages 1217-1243, November.
    9. Holger Patzelt & Dean A. Shepherd, 2009. "Strategic Entrepreneurship at Universities: Academic Entrepreneurs’ Assessment of Policy Programs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 319-340, January.
    10. Baum, Matthias & Kabst, Rüdiger, 2013. "How to attract applicants in the Atlantic versus the Asia-Pacific region? A cross-national analysis on China, India, Germany, and Hungary," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 175-185.
    11. Dean A. Shepherd & Andrew Zacharakis, 1999. "Conjoint analysis: A new methodological approach for researching the decision policies of venture capitalists," Venture Capital, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 197-217, July.
    12. Uy, Marilyn A. & Foo, Maw-Der & Ilies, Remus, 2015. "Perceived progress variability and entrepreneurial effort intensity: The moderating role of venture goal commitment," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 375-389.
    13. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    14. David M. Brock, 2003. "Autonomy of Individuals and Organizations: Towards a Strategy Research Agenda," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 2(1), pages 57-73, April.
    15. Kim Wüllenweber & Daniel Beimborn & Tim Weitzel & Wolfgang König, 2008. "The impact of process standardization on business process outsourcing success," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 211-224, April.
    16. G.T. Lumpkin & Claudia C. Cogliser & Dawn R. Schneider, 2009. "Understanding and Measuring Autonomy: An Entrepreneurial Orientation Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 47-69, January.
    17. Melissa Mazmanian & Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2013. "The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1357, October.
    18. Dean A. Shepherd, 1999. "Venture Capitalists' Assessment of New Venture Survival," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(5), pages 621-632, May.
    19. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ali Bai & Morteza Vahedian, 2023. "Beyond the Screen: Safeguarding Mental Health in the Digital Workplace Through Organizational Commitment and Ethical Environment," Papers 2311.02422, arXiv.org.
    2. Maximilian Trommer & Hildegard Schaeper & Gregor Fabian, 2021. "KWReq—a new instrument for measuring knowledge work requirements of higher education graduates," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 55(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Hanan S. AlEssa & Christopher M. Durugbo, 2022. "Understanding innovative work behaviour of women in service firms," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(4), pages 825-862, December.
    4. Hanan S. AlEssa & Christopher M. Durugbo, 2022. "Systematic review of innovative work behavior concepts and contributions," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 1171-1208, December.
    5. Anthony C Waddimba & David C Mohr & Howard B Beckman & Mark M Meterko, 2020. "Physicians’ perceptions of autonomy support during transition to value-based reimbursement: A multi-center psychometric evaluation of six-item and three-item measures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-29, April.
    6. Florence Nande & Marie-Laure Weber & Stéphanie Bouchet, 2022. "Exploring success conditions for innovative performance through Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): does job autonomy matter?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1257-1277, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erik Monsen & Holger Patzelt & Todd Saxton, 2010. "Beyond Simple Utility: Incentive Design and Trade–Offs for Corporate Employee–Entrepreneurs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 34(1), pages 105-130, January.
    2. Hanisch, David N. & Rau, Sabine B., 2014. "Application of metric conjoint analysis in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 72-84.
    3. Petty, Jeffrey S. & Gruber, Marc, 2011. ""In pursuit of the real deal": A longitudinal study of VC decision making," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 172-188, March.
    4. Dawson, Alexandra, 2011. "Private equity investment decisions in family firms: The role of human resources and agency costs," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 189-199, March.
    5. Daniel V. Holland & Dean A. Shepherd, 2013. "Deciding to Persist: Adversity, Values, and Entrepreneurs’ Decision Policies," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 37(2), pages 331-358, March.
    6. Shepherd, Dean A. & Zacharakis, Andrew, 2002. "Venture capitalists' expertise: A call for research into decision aids and cognitive feedback," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, January.
    7. Simon J. D. Schillebeeckx & Sankalp Chaturvedi & Gerard George & Zella King, 2016. "What do i want? The effects of individual aspiration and relational capability on collaboration preferences," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1493-1506, July.
    8. Anne Domurath & Holger Patzelt, 2016. "Entrepreneurs’ Assessments of Early International Entry: The Role of Foreign Social Ties, Venture Absorptive Capacity, and Generalized Trust in Others," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 40(5), pages 1149-1177, September.
    9. Hoenig, Daniel & Henkel, Joachim, 2015. "Quality signals? The role of patents, alliances, and team experience in venture capital financing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1049-1064.
    10. Carpentier, Cécile & Suret, Jean-Marc, 2015. "Angel group members' decision process and rejection criteria: A longitudinal analysis," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 808-821.
    11. Kourosh Shafi, 2021. "Investors’ evaluation criteria in equity crowdfunding," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 3-37, January.
    12. Evan Douglas & Jason Fitzsimmons, 2013. "Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial intentions: distinct constructs with different antecedents," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 115-132, June.
    13. DeTienne, Dawn R. & Shepherd, Dean A. & De Castro, Julio O., 2008. "The fallacy of "only the strong survive": The effects of extrinsic motivation on the persistence decisions for under-performing firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 528-546, September.
    14. Paul R. Steffens & Clinton S. Weeks & Per Davidsson & Lauren Isaak, 2014. "Shouting from the Ivory Tower: A Marketing Approach to Improve Communication of Academic Research to Entrepreneurs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(2), pages 399-426, March.
    15. Will Drover & Matthew S. Wood & G. Tyge Payne, 2014. "The Effects of Perceived Control on Venture Capitalist Investment Decisions: A Configurational Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(4), pages 833-861, July.
    16. Judith Behrens & Holger Patzelt, 2016. "Corporate Entrepreneurship Managers’ Project Terminations: Integrating Portfolio–Level, Individual–Level, and Firm–Level Effects," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 40(4), pages 815-842, July.
    17. Kwarteng Michael Adu & Pilík Michal & Juřičková Eva, 2018. "Beyond cost saving. Other factor consideration in online purchases of used electronic goods: a conjoint analysis approach," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 13(3), pages 1051-1063, September.
    18. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    19. Schweizer, Lars & Patzelt, Holger, 2012. "Employee commitment in the post-acquisition integration process: The effect of integration speed and leadership," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 298-310.
    20. Patzelt, Holger & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, Dodo & Fischer, Heiko T., 2009. "Upper echelons and portfolio strategies of venture capital firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 558-572, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0204089. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.