A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Employee ...

A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Employee

Innovative Work Behaviour

by

Zheng-Yi Edward Liu

A Thesis Submitted to the

Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Major International Human Resource Development

Advisor Chih-Chien Steven Lai PhD

Tsan-Ying Stanley Lin PhD

National Taiwan Normal University

Taipei Taiwan

January 2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many people have contributed for this thesis

First and foremost I am immensely indebted to my thesis advisors Professor Chih-Chien Lai

(賴志樫) and Professor Tsan-Ying Lin (林燦螢) for their excellent guidance inspiration

insightful discussions exceptional dedication and sustained encouragement One could not

wish for better supervision

A very special thank is owed to Professor Ta-Wei Lee (李大偉) for his careful reading and

valuable suggestions included in this thesis inspired and challenged me

I would like to express my sincerely gratitude to Professor Lung-Sheng Lee (李隆盛) and

Professor Kuen-Yi Lin (林坤誼) who gave me invaluable opportunities to accumulate

research experience I am thankful to Professor Cheng-Hui Wang (王正慧) who inspired my

dedication to research methods I would also like to thank Professor Shir-Tau Tsai (蔡錫濤)

for his ideas discussions and feedback

Thank you Pei-Ling Hsieh (謝佩伶) Pei-Wen Kao (高珮文) and Yuan-Ching Chen (陳遠晴)

for the sustained support in helping me alleviate the burden of administrative affairs

therefore I can focus entirely on the study

I would also like to thank all of the anonymous participants who graciously donated their

time to this study

This thesis would not have been written without the unconditional support from my family

Zheng-Yi Edward Liu January 2014

This page was intentionally left blank

I

ABSTRACT

Departing from the emphasis on individualized phenomenon of creative behaviour in prior

innovation research this study developed a multilevel model of employee innovative work

behaviour that incorporates employee-level influences of accessed social capital intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation and firm-level influences of organisational climate for innovation The

analyses of the multilevel data collected from 922 Taiwanese working adults in 36 business

firms across various industries indicated that both employee- and firm-level factors are

associated positively with innovative work behaviour and that on average the relationship

between employeesrsquo extrinsic motivational orientations and innovative work behaviours is

more likely to be stronger when they perceive high supportive climates for innovation This

study may lead to a better understanding as regards how to motivate and support employees

engaged in innovation-related activities in their jobs Theoretical and managerial implications

were discussed

Keywords innovative work behaviour accessed social capital work motivation

organisational climate for innovation hierarchical linear modeling

II


III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABSTRACT I

TABLE OF CONTENTS III

LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES VII

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

Research Background 1

Significance of the Study 4

Research Purpose 5

Research Questions 5

Delimitations 5

Definition of Key Terms 6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 9

Innovative Work Behaviour 9

Accessed Social Capital 17

Work Motivation 21

Organisational Climate for Innovation 27

Hypothesis Development 36

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 43

Research Framework 43

Research Procedures 46

Measures 48

Data Collection 49

Data Analysis Methods 53

IV

Data Analysis Procedures 58

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 59

Psychometric Characteristics of the Measures 59

Hypothesis Tests 68

Summary of Analysis Results 84

Discussion of Research Findings 86

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 93

Conclusions 93

Theoretical and Managerial Implications 97

Limitations and Future Research 100

Final Considerations 101

REFERENCES 103

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 120

APPENDIX B SPSS SCRIPTS FOR COMPUTING RWG 124

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table 21 Psychometric Comparison for the Measures of Innovative Work Behaviour 16

Table 22 Conceptual Definitions and Dimensions of Organisational Climate for Innovation

32

Table 23 Psychometric Comparison of the Measures of Organisational Climate for

Innovation 35

Table 31 The Hypotheses 44

Table 41 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Innovative Work Behaviour Scale 61

Table 42 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Intrinsic Motivation Scale 62

Table 43 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Extrinsic Motivation Scale 63

Table 44 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Organisational Climate for Innovation

Scale 65

Table 45 The Goodness-of-fit Comparison between First-order and Second-order

Measurement Models of Organisational Climate for Innovation Scale 66

Table 46 The Second-order Factor Loadings and the Correlation between the First-order

Factors 67

Table 47 Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations 69

Table 48 The Null Model for Testing the Between-company Variance in Innovative Work

Behaviour 70

Table 49 The Test Results for the Between-company Variance in Innovative Work

Behaviour 71

Table 410 The Random Coefficient Regression Model for Testing the Main Effects of

Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation and Accessed Social Capital on


VI

Table 411 The Test Results for The Main Effects of Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic

Motivation and Accessed Social Capital on Innovative Work Behaviour 75

Table 412The Mean-as-outcome Model Incorporating with the Main Effects of

Employee-level Predictors for Testing the Cross-level Effect of Organisational

Climate for Innovation on Innovative Work Behavior 77

Table 413The Test Results for the Cross-level Effects of Organisational Climate for

Innovation on Innovative Work Behaviour 79

Table 414 The Full Model for Testing the Cross-level Moderating of Organisational

Climate for Innovation on the Relationships between Intrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic Motivation and Innovative Work Behaviour 81

Table 415 The Test Results for the Cross-level Moderating Effects of Organisational



Table 416 Summary of Analysis Results 85

VII

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 21 Psychological Process of Motivation Drives Needs and Behaviors 22

Figure 22 An Interactionist Model for Organizational Creativity 37

Figure 31 Hypothesized Multilevel Model of Innovative Work Behaviour 43

Figure 32 Research Procedures 47

Figure 41 Cross-Level Moderating Effect of Organisational Climate for Innovation on the

Relationship between Extrinsic Motivation and Innovative Work Behaviour 82

VIII


1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter is divided into six sections Section one provides the background

information as regards the inception of this study Section two describes the significance of

this study derived from an inspection of the overview of research background Section three

presents the purposes of this study as per the research gap located and discussed at the end of

section one Section four illustrates the delimitations of this study Finally section five

provides the definition of key terms

Research Background

Innovation plays a critical role in todayrsquos business environment where market

leadership often hinges on product innovation as well as creative marketing strategies (Barrett

Balloun amp Weinstein 2012) Nurturing and inspiring creativity in employees such that ideas

can applied creatively has thus gradually become an indispensable managerial practice both

in the field of human resource development (HRD) and that of human resource management

(HRM) (McLean 2005) However while creativity on the part of individuals is a starting

point for innovation (Amabile 1996) no innovation can be actualized in the absence of

various employee innovative work behaviours since any creative idea if not implemented is

but a castle in the air Therefore it is of pivotal importance to fully understand the factors that

influence employees innovative work behaviour which is the primary motivation of the

study

Social capital may play a critical role on employeersquos engagement of innovation activities

such as the generation of new and useful ideas (Burt 2000 Nahapiet amp Ghoshal 1998)

Although the positive contribution of social capital on innovation has gradually received

much attention (Calantone Cavusgil amp Zhao 2002 Casanueva amp Gallego 2010 Hult

Hurley amp Knight 2004) employeersquos accessed social capital in the correlative relationship

with their innovative work behaviour has not been given the attention it needs Drawing on

2

social resources theory Lin (2002) noted that peoplersquos accessed social capital as capability of

social capital that is the quantity and diversity of social relations refers to their social

relations as the value resources embedded in social networks that can be borrowed and

employed to facilitate their purposive actions From a viewpoint of common sense peoplersquos

social capital viewed as social credential can be used to facilitate their actions (Lin 2002)

therefore it is reasonable to argue that employees who possess more acquaintances showing

better occupational diversity may have better social capital to enhance their innovativeness

due to their having a greater chance of acquiring more diverse useful thoughts and ideas if

compared with those lacking of social capital with such quantity and quality Therefore it is

of great significance to investigate whether social capital is related to innovative work

behaviour which is the second motivation of the study

In addition how to inspire motivate and support employeesrsquo innovative behaviours has

always been a major issue both from the dimension of theory and practice (Scott amp Bruce

1994) Not only has employee work motivation always been a haunting problem for business

leaders and managers but it has been the easiest and most straightforward way to influence

employeesrsquo work-related behaviours in the workplace (Amabile 1993) To date the majority

of studies have almost unexceptionally focused on innovation at the level of individuals in

organisations (Woodman Sawyer amp Griffin 1993 Sternberg amp Lubart 1999) discussing the

relationship innovative work behaviour and individual characteristics such as personality

traits abilities and cognitive styles (Williams amp Yang 1999) Yet only few attempts have

been made to establish a direct relationship between work motivation as employeersquos basic

motivational orientation and innovative work behaviour However because work motivation

not only is a temporary situation-specific state influenced by the social environment of

organisation but also is a relatively stable trait (Amabile 1993) reflecting employeersquos basic

motivational orientation that can be viewed as a substrate on which reactions to particular

higher-level contextual conditions (Woodman et al 1993) it is of great significance to

3

acquire more in-depth understanding on whether employeersquos motivational orientation in the

correlative relationship with innovative work behaviour does exist in hierarchically structured

organisations after considering meaningful organisational-level factors (eg innovation

climate) which is the third motivation of the study

Furthermore the social environment of organisation such as organisational climate for

innovation may influence the level as well as the frequency of creative behaviours (Amabile

Conti Coon Lazenby amp Herron 1996) specifically companyrsquos support or negligence in

regard to the policies practices and procedures of innovation may facilitate or inhibit

employeersquos innovative work behaviours (Amabile et al 1996 Hofmann 1997 Kanter 1988

Klein amp Sorra 1996 Lin amp Liu 2010 Scott amp Bruce 1994 Tsai amp Kao 2004) Because

individualrsquos behaviour is the outcome of complicated person-situation interaction (Woodman

et al 1993) where not merely individualrsquos characteristics but also social environment can

influence his or her behaviours (Lewin 1951) it is advisable that the impact of the climate

for innovation on innovative work behaviour be taken into account which is the fourth

motivation of the study

The last but not the least is that although understanding why and when employees are

willing to take the initiative in innovation-related activities and to demonstrate innovative

behaviours is critical in situations where companies intend to motivate and support such

behaviours prior research focusing mainly on employee innovative work behaviours at the

individual-level or deeming it as a personality-trait-related phenomenon may resulted in

limited understanding of the complicated manners such as that whether individual-level

factor of motivational orientation and organisational-level factor of innovation climate may

exercise interactive influences on innovative work behaviour as individual outcome variable

Hence in an attempt to bridge the gap in this scope of knowledge it is necessary to conduct a

multilevel research to discuss the relationships between innovative work behaviour accessed

social capital work motivation and organisational climate for innovation

4

Significance of the Study

This study may contribute to the existing innovation research in several aspects Perhaps

the primary contribution of this study might be that it gave an attempt to establish a direct

relationship between accessed social capital and innovative work behaviour which has thus

far been relatively little research into this issue In addition although previous innovation

research has examined the relationship between work motivation and creativity to date there

is but little research conducted to investigate whether work motivation as employeesrsquo basic

motivational orientations to influence innovative work behaviours Therefore the second

contribution of this study was enhancing the understanding of the relationship between

motivational orientation and innovative work behaviour as is distinct from the dominant

emphasis in prior research on individualrsquos personality traits and creativity From a view of

motivation prior research has shown that individual-level work motivation as well as

perceived organisational climate for innovation are positively correlated with innovative

work behaviour (Amabile et al 1996 Tsai amp Kao 2004) this study in contrast proposed

that the climate for innovation at the firm level would be more likely to serve as an enhancing

condition that moderates the extent to which motivational orientation influences innovative

work behaviour after considering the influences of accessed social capital Hence the third

contribution of this study was demonstrating a multilevel model of innovative work

behaviour which may better serve to understand whether accessed social capital motivational

orientation and organisational climate for innovation can exert positive influences on

innovative work behaviour To conclude this study with its implications for theory and

practice may lead to a better understanding as to how to motivate and support employees

with jobs that apply andor call for innovation to a certain extent

5

Research Purpose

Based on the research background and motivation this study drawing on multilevel

theoretical perspective aims to investigate the relationships between accessed social capital

work motivation organisational climate for innovation and innovative work behaviour and

to derive related theoretical and managerial implications

Research Questions

According to the research purposes derived from the background and motivation of the

study three research questions needed to be answered include

1 Whether the employee-level factors of accessed social capital and work motivation

are related to innovative work behaviour

2 Whether the firm-level factor of organisational climate for innovation exerts a

contextual effect on employee innovative work behaviour


cross-level moderating effect on the relationship between work motivation and

innovative work behaviour

Delimitations

Based on the concern that innovation is critical in todayrsquos business environment where

accessed social capital work motivation and organisational climate for innovation may play

indispensable roles and that all organisational innovations are actualized through employeesrsquo

various innovative work behaviours the foci of this study are on the relationships between

accessed social capital work motivation organisational climate for innovation and


6

Definition of Key Terms

Four main constructs investigated in this study include employee innovative work

behaviour accessed social capital work motivation and organisational climate for innovation

as described below


This construct is conceptualized as a cluster of employee innovative work behaviours

directed towards the exploration the generation the championing and the realization of new

and useful concepts ideas procedures processes products services either within a work

role a group or an organisation (De Jong amp Den Hartog 2010 Dorenbosch et al 2005

Kleysen amp Street 2001 Krause 2004) In this study this construct is expressed in terms that

reflect employeesrsquo psychological propensity of demonstrating innovative behaviour

Accessed Social Capital

This construct defined as employeersquos capability of social capital refers to the quantity

and diversity of social relations as value resources embedded in social networks that can be

borrowed and utilized to fulfill onersquos expressive or instrumental objectives (Bourdieu 1986

Coleman 1990 Lin 2002 Putnam 1995 Portes 1998)

Work Motivation

This construct refers to an employeersquos psychologically energetic forces that can

determine his or her direction intensity and persistence of work-related behaviour towards

attaining organisational goals (Latham amp Pinder 2005 Leonard Beauvais amp Scholl 1999)

Theoretically work motivation is divided into two major types of motivational orientation

namely intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Amabile 1993)

Intrinsic motivation

This construct refers to that an employeersquos motivation to engage in specific work

activities is primarily for the sheer enjoyment and challenge of the work per se because he or

she considers work itself as interesting or fun (Amabile 1993)

7

Extrinsic motivation

This construct refers to that an employeersquos motivation to perform specific work activities

is primarily for the desired or promised rewards such as recognition because he or she

considers the efforts paid will result in certain external returns (Amabile 1993)

Organisational Climate for Innovation

This construct refers to a facet-specific climate wherein various types of support for

innovation activities to a greater or lesser extent are provided in an organisation (Amabile et

al 1996 Anderson amp West 1998 Chiou Chen amp Lin 2009 Isaksen amp Ekvall 2010) In

this study the construct is expressed in terms that reflect employeesrsquo psychologically

meaningful perceptions of organisational settings for innovation (Scott amp Bruce 1994)

8

9

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is divided into five sections The first four sections discuss the literature

regarding innovative work behaviour (section one) accessed social capital (section two)

work motivation (section three) and organisational climate for innovation (section four)

Section five illustrates the reasoning of the hypothesized relationships between the variables

Further details are provided in the following paragraphs



Innovative work behaviour (IWB) is an extended concept of innovation regarding to the

use of creative ideas A review of literature indicates that although the two concepts namely

innovation and creativity often used interchangeably in scholastic research (McLean 2005

Scott amp Bruce 1994) are in actuality somewhat different in their attributes and are sometimes

thought to be interactive with each other (Amabile 1993 Hunter Bedell amp Mumford 2007

Ng amp Feldman 2012 Shalley Zhou amp Oldham 2004 West amp Farr 1990) creativity

viewed as an initial point for the innovation process only constitutes a necessary but not

sufficient condition in terms of individual innovation (Amabile 1996 p1)

The construct of IWB refers to a cluster of behaviours associated with different stages of

innovation process (De Jong amp Den Hartog 2010 Janssen 2000 Krause 2004 Scott amp

Bruce 1994) The theoretical foundation of aforementioned viewpoint was derived from the

activity-stage model of innovation (Zaltman Duncan amp Holbek 1973) which focuses mainly

on the actual activities carried out for creating new products service or work procedures by

breaking down the innovation process into a number of distinct activities

Several scholars however indicated that innovation should be a non-linear continuous

happening (Ruttan 2001 Pavitt 2005 Van de Ven Andrew Polley Garud amp Venkataraman

1999) hence the activity-stage model often viewed as being too simplistic in terms of

10

describing innovation activities seemed not without its flaws (Anderson et al 2004) Despite

such dispute Kanter (1988) noted that those activity-stage-based models of innovation should

still be applicable for analytical purposes and suggested that innovation-related behaviours

can be better understood through an examination for the major phases of innovation process

(p172) Because each distinct phase of innovation process not only captures but also reflects

its corresponding behaviours regarding innovation innovative behaviours therefore in other

words are embedded into many correlated but different phases of innovation process

Kanter (1988) considered that innovation in the workplace begins with the activation of

employees to sense or seize a new opportunity and therefore proposed a four-stage

framework of innovation process comprising the activities of idea generation coalition

building idea realization and transformation The framework illustrates that employeesrsquo

innovation begins with their recognition of opportunity (eg the problems arising in their

jobs) and afterwards they create a new way to response the problems During the next stage

employees try to search potential allies and seek for their supports In the final stage of

transformation employees ultimately produce ldquoa prototype or model of the innovationrdquo

(p191) namely the commercialization of products

Similarly Scott and Bruce (1994) drawing on Kanterrsquos (1988) work of the stages of

innovation process defined innovation as ldquoa multistage process with different activities and

different behaviours necessary at each stagerdquo (p582) They proposed a two-stage framework

of innovation process to conceptualize and operationalize IWB The framework presents two

major types of innovation-related activity namely idea generation and idea implementation

However although the framework captures most Kanterrsquos thoughts the stage of recognizing

opportunity of innovation seemed to be ignored

A review of literature indicated that there seems no general consensus on what the stages

of individual innovation consists of nonetheless recent studies on capturing the formations of

IWB revealed four crucial dimensions that is the exploration of innovation opportunity idea

11

generation idea championing and idea implementationrealization (De Jong amp Den Hartog

2010 Dorenbosch et al 2005 Kleysen amp Street 2001 Krause 2004)

The exploration of innovation opportunity which regards as the antecedent condition of

idea generation refers to the discovering of the problems occurred in jobs (De Jong amp Den

Hartog 2010) The exploratory activity which aims to shorten the extent of the mismatches

between actual and desired performance is regarded to be associated with various innovative

behaviours including paying attention to opportunity sources gathering information about

opportunities and wondering how things can be improved (De Jong amp Den Hartog 2010

Kleysen amp Street 2001)

Idea generation is considered as another important dimension of IWB which refers to

the behaviours related to generating new conceptsideas for the later purposive improvement

actions to cope with the problems occurred in jobs (Ford 1996 Kleysen amp Street 2001) Idea

championing denotes the behaviours associated with persuading and influencing the key

figures of organisations to support new and useful ideas (Anderson amp King 1993 Dougherty

amp Hardy 1996 Maute amp Locander 1994 Shane 1994) The behaviours regarding idea

championing are often viewed as being essential and critical for innovation because although

new ideas may appear to fit performance gaps it may be uncertain that whether the ideas can

generate economic benefits and a certain degree of resistance can be expected (De Jong amp

Den Hartog 2010)

Finally idea implementation refers to transforming new ideas into reality (Farr amp Ford

1990 Glynn 1996 West amp Farr 1990) Any proposed creative idea if not implemented is

but a castle in the air The behaviours in relation to this phase include developing and testing

a new work procedure and commercializing a new product or service (De Jong amp Den

Hartog 2010 Kanter 1988)

In summary according to the review of literature this study considers IWB as a cluster

of employeersquos behaviour directed towards the exploration generation championing and

12

realization of new and useful concepts ideas procedures processes products and services

within a work role group or organisation

Measures of Innovative Work Behaviour

Although a growing number of theoretical and empirical studies are now available to

shed important light on IWB dimensions (De Jong amp Den Hartog 2010 Dorenbosch et al

2005 Glynn 1996 Kanter 1988 Kleysen amp Street 2001 Ng amp Feldman 2012 Scott amp

Bruce 1994 Woodman et al 1993) the measures of IWB are still in evolution A review of

literature indicated that only a few empirical studies regarding individual innovation were

conducted through multi-dimensional measures for assessing IWB (De Jong amp Den Hartog

2010 Dorenbosch et al 2005 Kleysen amp Street 2001 Krause 2004) in contrast most

studies tend to view IWB as one-dimensional construct (Basu amp Green 1997 Chen 2006

Janssen 2000 Scott amp Bruce 1994 Spreitzer 1995) For the purpose of instrument selection

this study performed a review of the psychometric properties for several major IWB

measures The review was conducted by classifying major related literature into two

categories namely one-dimensional and multi-dimensional IWB measures

One-dimensional IWB measure

Scott and Bruce (1994) drawing on Kanterrsquos (1988) thoughts of multistage process of

innovation developed a 6-item one-dimensional IWB scale through in-depth interviews with

the managers of an RampD facility The scale captured four types of IWB namely idea

generation (eg ldquocreates creative ideasrdquo) coalition building (eg ldquopromotes and champions

ideas to othersrdquo) idea championing (eg ldquosearches out new technologies processes

techniques andor product ideasrdquo) and idea realization (eg ldquodevelops adequate plans and

schedules for the implementation of new ideasrdquo) (p607) The reason why IWB viewed as

single-dimensional construct was that ldquoindividuals can be expected to be involved in any

combination of these behaviours at any one timerdquo (p582) The data employed to assess IWB

was collected from the respondents working as engineers scientists and technicians in a

13

large centralized RampD facility of a major US industrial corporation The criterion validity

was obtained by showing a positive correlation between respondentrsquos number of innovation

disclosures and the IWB scale (r = 33 p lt 001) The internal consistency of the scale was

reported being acceptable (Cronbachrsquos = 89) (p590)

Janssen (2000) also drawing on Kanterrsquos (1988) work defined IWB in the workplace as

complex innovation activities consisting of three behavioural aspects namely idea generation

(eg ldquocreating new ideas for improvementsrdquo) idea promotion (eg ldquomobilizing support for

innovative ideas) rdquo and idea realization (eg ldquotransforming innovative ideas into useful

applicationsrdquo) (p292) The 9-item one-dimensional IWB scale was derived from Scott and

Brucersquos (1994) IWB measure The data used to develop the scale was collected from

non-management employees within a Dutch manufacturer in the food sector Because the

results of the construct validity for the scale assessed through a correlation analysis indicated

that the intercorrelations between the three aspects of innovative behaviour were relatively

high such as idea generation and idea realization (r = 84) the three dimensions were

combined additively to create an overall scale (Cronbachrsquos = 95) (p292)

Chen (2006) defined employeersquos innovation as multistage activities represented by a

cluster of behaviours regarding the exploration the generation the championing and the

implementation of new and useful ideas Her 9-item modified IWB scale was derived from

Scott and Brucersquos (1994) IWB scale and was developed using the subjects from Taiwanese

in-group members from various industries such as communication biotechnology high

technology and computer and peripheral The scale used for assessing the extent to which

employees demonstrate innovative behaviour captured four major behavioural aspects of

innovation activity including idea exploration (eg searches out new technologies processes

techniques andor product ideas) idea generation (eg generates new work methods or

ideas) idea championing (eg promotes ideas to the key men in organisation) and idea

implementation (eg implements new ideas to improve work procedure product technique

14

and service) (p114) The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results for the construct validity

of the scale was confirmed by showing that the fit indexes fell within in an acceptable range

(p46) The internal consistency of the scale reported using Cronbachrsquos coefficient was 93

Multi-dimensional IWB measures

Krause (2004) who defined innovation as all intentional results of action bringing about

perceived changes within the organisation considered IWB as two-dimensional construct

comprising two major behavioural aspects of innovation namely the generation and testing

of ideas and the implementation of ideas The 9-item two-dimensional IWB scale that was

developed based on the sample of middle managers who came from various German

organisations includes the items such as ldquoduring the process of innovation I invested time and

energy to find better variantsrdquo (generating and testing ideas) and ldquothe result of the innovation

process is that I used the innovation myselfrdquo (implementing ideas) (p90) The internal

consistency of the scale was reported at Cronbachrsquos = 78 for the subscale of generation and

testing of ideas and at Cronbachrsquos = 81 for another subscale (p89)

Kleysen and Street (2001) who performed an extensive review of literature regarding

innovation research proposed that IWB was a multi-dimensional construct which can include

five behavioural dimensions of innovation namely opportunity exploration generativity

formative investigations championing and application The sample items included ldquopay

attention to non-routine issues in your work department organisation or the market placerdquo

(opportunity exploration) ldquogenerates ideas or solutions to address problemrdquo (generativity)

ldquoexperiment with new ideas and solutionsrdquo (formative investigation) ldquotake the risk to support

new ideasrdquo (championing) and ldquoimplement changes that seem to be beneficialrdquo (application)

(p293) The data used to develop this 14-item IWB scale was collected from the employees

in different organisations from various industries such as highway transportation software

consulting and equipment leasing Although the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results

indicated that the theoretical factor structure was represented well by the 14 items the CFA

15

results showed inadequate fit indexes (p290) The internal consistency of the scales was

acceptable (Cronbachrsquos s between 72 and 89) (p291)

In summary considering the quality of psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural

appropriateness of the measures (Switzer Wisniewski Dew amp Schultz 1999 p400) Chenrsquos

(2006) 9-item IWB scale is considered relatively appropriate for the study Table 21 presents

the results of psychometric comparison for IWB measures

16

Table 21

Psychometric Comparison for the Measures of Innovative Work Behaviour

Reliabilitya

Validity Dimension Size of

sample

Number

of items Year Author

Content Criterion Construct IEc IG

d IC

e IR

f

89 times times times times 172 6 1994 Scott and Bruce

95 times times times times 170 9 2000 Janssen

97 times times times times times 225 14 2001 Kleysen and Street

(78 81)b times times times times 339 8 2004 Krause

93 times times times times times 512 9 2006 Chen

Note a Cronbachrsquos

b (generation and testing of ideas implementation)

c idea exploration

d idea generation

e idea championing

f idea

realization

17


Social Capital

The theoretical foundation of social capital was derived from the theory of capital that

can be traced to Karl Marx who viewed capital as part of surplus value captured by capitalists

and generated from the process of commodities production and exchange From the

perspective of economics the notion of capital in Marxian view refers to the investment of

expected returns in the marketplace (eg economics politics labour or community) (Lin

2002) In other words capital is resources that can be invested and mobolized to produce

profits or to facilitate action From the perspective of sociology social capital refers to the

resources embedded in social networks that can be invested to acquire desired returns in a

specific marketplace (Bourdieu 1986 Coleman 1990 Portes 1998 Putnam 1995) Stated

simply social capital is valuable resources captured through social relations in social

networks (Lin 2002) A review of literature indicated three major theoretical approaches to

conceptualize social capital namely weak tie theory (Granovetter 1973) structural holes

theory (Burt 1992) and social resources theory (Lin Ensel amp Vaughn 1981) which were

discussed as follows

Social Capital Theory

Granovetter (1973) drawing on Homanrsquos insights of social exchange theory and

homophily principle indicated that homogeneous and heterogeneous social circles (ie social

cliques) can be distinguished through denser and more reciprocally interconnected partners

According to Granovetter (1973) the ties among members of a social circle are more likely to

be strong (ie strong ties) because the members of a social circle tend to have homophilous

characteristics such as similar education background living style and the ways of doing

things and also because such homophilous similarities can also extend to information as

valuable resources the information possessed by those members is more likely to be quickly

shared and exchanged by the members of a social circle (Granovetter 1973 1974) Despite

18

the advantage of strong ties the strength of weak ties suggests that an individual is more

likely to have better social capital through the interaction with some other heterogeneous

social circles because he or she can reach wider diverse resources However the

aforementioned proposition of the strength of weak ties should be premised on the

assumption that heterogeneous resources are beneficial to individualsrsquo purposive actions

Burtrsquos (1992) structural holes theory focusing mainly on the pattern of relations indicates

that the position occupied by an individual in social network would be more important than

the strength of his or her relations (ie the strength of ties) A structural hole refers to the

network location (ie a node) between two individuals who are not connected with each other

In Burtrsquos view an individual would be more likely to be more advantageous if he or she was

connected to other members who are themselves unconnected with each other in their social

networks (Burtrsquos 1992 1997) Like weak tie theory structural holes theory indicates the

importance of heterogeneous resources However structural holes theory focuses more on the

pattern of network structure rather than the strength of ties per se therefore regardless of the

strength of relations individuals who occupy the nodes linking unconnected members in their

social networks are considered to have better social capital and thus would have better

returns such as information and some other desired resources

The third theoretical approach to conceptualize social capital is social resources theory

(Lin et al 1981 Lin 2002) Social resources theory is premised on the assumption that ldquoall

actors will take actions to promote their self-interests by maintaining and gaining value

resources if such opportunities are availablerdquo (Lin 2002 p31) From the view of promoting

self-interests an individualrsquos motive to take actions for acquiring or maintaining value

resources initiates either his or her expressive action or instrumental action or both (Lin

2002) Thus social resources theory suggests that it may not the weak ties itself that conveys

advantage but the ties are more likely to reach someone with the desired value resources

required for an individual to facilitate his or her expressive or instrumental actions In Linrsquos

19

view social capital is not individualrsquos possessed goods but the resources embedded in social

network that can be borrowed and employed through direct or indirect relations


Lin (2002) drawing on social resources theory proposed two types of social capital

namely accessed social capital (ASC) and mobilized social capital (MSC) (p83) ASC refers

to peoplersquos total quantity of social relation that can be acquired through their various channels

while MSC refers to the social relations which are particularly selected from ASC to help

achieve peoplersquos purposive actions whereby MSC can be viewed as a subset of ASC In

addition ASC centers mainly on the scale of social relations in a social network whereas

MSC emphasizes on the strength of contact status and of the types of the relationship

between contact and actor on actorrsquos purposive actions

In summary the notion of social capital refers to the social relations as value resources

embedded in social networks that can be borrowed and employed to fulfill onersquos expressive

or instrumental objectives The following section discusses the measure of ASC due to the

focus of this study on the relationship between the quantity and diversity of social relations

and IWB

Measure of Accessed Social Capital

A review of social capital literature indicated two major approaches commonly used to

measure ASC name generators (Fischer amp Shavit 1995) and position generators (Lin amp

Dumin 1986) Name generators aims to understand peoplersquos network structure that is the

characteristics of their social resources (Burt 1984) which is conducted by the analyses of

qualitative data collected from research subjects who self-report the information including

gender education and occupation of their friends or specific contacts Although this method

was considered as being advantageous to understand peoplersquos egocentric networks (Lin Chen

amp Fu 2010) it may be difficult to examine the validity of the results (Marsden 2005)

Another method position generators focuses on the quality and quantity of peoplersquos

20

social capital This method drawing on social resources theory is premised on the assumption

that the occupational locations in the structure of a society are primary carriers of social

capital which are loaded with major social resources (Lin et al 2010) Hence because

different occupations carry different social resources those people whose acquaintances

present better occupational diversity are considered as possessing better social capital

Therefore whether an individual know the acquaintances of particular occupations reflects

that whether he or she can contact with those particular social locations (ie occupations) and

the social resources of those locations through his or her social ties (Lin 1999) The method

of position generators was indicated as validated and reliable research instrument for

measuring social capital (van der Gaag Snijders amp Flap 2008)

According to Lin et al (2010) the measurement of ASC by using position generators

consists of four major operational points First a researcher designs a questionnaire listing

ten to twenty representative occupations across all hierarchies of a society Each occupation

has its corresponding score of occupational prestige Next the respondents are asked to

answer the question do you have any acquaintance that has the following occupations

Third according to respondentsrsquo answers three indicators are constructed namely upper

reachability heterogeneity and extensity The first indicator aims to understand the best

resources accessed specifically it refers to the uppermost occupation that a respondent can

reach through his or her social ties The second indicator heterogeneity refers to the range of

occupations whose resources reachable through social ties The third indicator extensity

indicates the sum of the number of occupations reachable which reflects the diversity of

occupations and their embedded social resources Finally the three indicators are used to

create a composite variable as the construct of ASC by computing the factor score through

exploratory factor analysis

21

Work Motivation

The topic of work motivation theoretically and practically plays a central role both in the

fields of management and organisational behaviour (Amabile 1993 Grant 2008 Porter

Bigley amp Steers 2003 Steers Mowday amp Shapiro 2004) Academic researchers dedicating

in the development of useful and valuable theories of effective management practice view

work motivation as a fundamental building block (Latham amp Pinder 2005) In addition

leaders and managers in organisations often view work motivation as an integral part of the

performance equation at all levels because motivated employees tend to exert more efforts in

their jobs turning out better work performance (Pinder 1998 Steers et al 2004) In this

section the study first investigates the concepts of motivation and work motivation During

the next phase two major types of work motivation as motivational orientation namely

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are discussed Finally the measures for assessing

employeersquos motivational orientation are reviewed

Motivation

The term of motivation derived from the Latin word movere for movement means ldquoto

moverdquo (Steers et al 2004 p379) therefore ldquoto be motivated means to be moved to do

somethingrdquo (Ryan amp Deci 2000 p54) Despite having over than one hundred definitions

(Rainey 2000) the concept of motivation refers to individualrsquos psychological processes

derived from his or her physical andor psychological drives which produce the needs for

acquiring incentives to reduce the imbalances or deficiencies (Barsade amp Gibson 2007

Latham amp Pinder 2005 McShane amp Glinow 2010 Pinder 1988 Sewards amp Sewards 2002)

In this view motivation which can be regarded as internal mechanisms within a person

(Kleinginna amp Kleinginna 1981) emphasizes on individualrsquos perceived factors (eg safety

social and esteem) and on internal psychological processes in determining her or his aroused

motivation caused by particular physical or psychological deficienciesimbalances Figure 21

presents the psychological process of motivation

22

Work Motivation

The concept of motivation to be introduced into workplace (ie work motivation) refers

to employeersquos psychologically energetic forces which can determine her or his direction

intensity and persistence of work-related behaviour towards attaining organisational goals

(Dessler 2004 Latham amp Pinder 2005 Leonard et al 1999 McShane amp Glinow 2010

Pinder 1998 Robbins amp Judge 2009) Indeed direction intensity and persistence are the

three major elements of work motivation which establish a standing point of motivation

research－what factors and approaches can channel (direction) energize (intensity) and

sustain (persistence) employeesrsquo work-related behaviours in their jobs (Kanfer amp Ackerman

2004 Latham amp Pinder 2005 Locke amp Latham 2004 Mitchell 1997 Ryan amp Deci 2000

Steers et al 2004)

The first element direction concerns that whether employees efforts can be channeled

into organisational benefits (Kanfer amp Ackerman 1989 Kanfer 1991 Leonard et al 1999)

which is related to the directing aspect of work motivation (eg organisational goals)

(Robbins amp Judge 2009) and the functional implication for employees (eg employeersquos

engagement) (McShane amp Glinow 2010) implying that the nature of motivation in the

workplace is purposive and goal-oriented

The second element intensity stressing the arousal and maintenance aspects of work

motivation (eg money challenge and achievement) refers to that how hard employees try

Drives

(Prime movers)

Decisions and

Behaviors

Needs

(Second movers)

eg a drive from

feeling loneliness

eg a need for

building relationship

eg to make friends

with someone

Figure 21 Psychological Process of Motivation Drives Needs and Behaviors

23

to obtain work goals indicating the importance of energizing the extent of employeersquos job

involvement to exert enough efforts in their jobs (McShane amp Glinow 2010)

The third element persistence which is associated with how long employees can

maintain their efforts in their jobs refers to that motivation at work is an ongoing process that

is sustaining employeersquos work-related behaviour over time is essential until employees reach

their work goals (Kanfer 1991 Seo Barrett amp Bartunek 2004)

Because motivation refers to a set of psychological processes directed towards achieving

particular goals work motivation was considered not as being behavioural-oriented but

emotional- or cognitive-based (McShane amp Glinow 2010 Robbins amp Judge 2009) Despite

having the same drives people would have different emotional responses which may result in

different behaviours The case in point could be that employees who ldquofeelrdquo motivated are

more likely to be effectively productive (Delaney amp Huselid 1996 Grant amp Sumanth 2009)

creative (Amabile 1993) and to be willing to make long-term efforts in their jobs (Grant

2008 Robbins amp Judge 2009 in contrast employees who ldquofeelrdquo unmotivated are more

likely to spend little efforts on their duties (Amabile 1993 Colbert Mount Witt Harter amp

Barrick 2004)

In summary work motivation indicates the underlying reasons moving employees to

perform their work How to motivate employees consists of three primary missions that is

channeling energizing and sustaining employeesrsquo efforts in their jobs From an academic

perspective the development and richness of work motivation theories were based mainly on

the three key elements namely direction intensity and persistence Finally employeesrsquo work

motivation may fluctuate depending on their perceptions and social environment (Amabile

1993)

24

Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Motivation

Although the theory of work motivation is still evolving many scholars have noted that

work motivation can be categorized into two types namely intrinsic motivation (IM) and

extrinsic motivation (EM) (Amabile 1993 Amabile et al 1994 Davis Bagozzi amp Warshaw

1992 Dysvik amp Kuvaas 2012 Lepper Corpus amp Iyengar 2005 Ryan amp Deci 2000

Tremblay Blanchard Taylor Pelletier amp Villeneuve 2009)

From the perspective of cognitive psychology IM refers to that a personrsquos motivation to

engage in work is primarily for the sheer enjoyment challenge pleasure of the work per se

because he or she is aware that the work itself is interesting or fun In this case the work

itself serves as the major incentive of work motivation By contrast EM refers to that a

personrsquos motivation to perform work is primarily for the desired or the promised rewards

such as pay promotion the avoidance of punishment and so forth because he or she is

aware that the efforts may result in certain external returns In this case the work itself is

viewed as an instrument (Amabile 1993 Davis et al 1992 Grant 2008 Haivas et al 2012

Leonard et al 1999 Lepper et al 2005 Ryan amp Deci 2000) In sum IM is associated with

the enjoyment from the work itself whereas EM is related to the perceived usefulness from

the work

Although EM is often viewed as the opposite side of IM which may undermine IM

(Deci amp Ryan 2000) Amabile (1993) argued that EM can be compatible with IM when

extrinsic motivators (eg positive feedback) do not lead individuals to feel being controlled

or constrained by external forces Amabile (1993) further noted that motivation not only is a

temporary situation-specific state influenced by social environment but also is a relatively

stable trait viewed as a substrate on which reactions to particular environmental conditions

reflecting onersquos basic motivational orientation

According to Amabilersquos (1993) Motivational Synergy Model first although EM and IM

can complement each other EM is more likely to contribute to IM when work environment

25

demonstrates reasonable emphases on extrinsic motivators which are supportive of intrinsic

involvement Furthermore EM is more likely to combine with IM successfully when the

initial level of IM is high enough Third although the extrinsic motivators which are positive

for enhancing individualrsquos competence or autonomy can combine synergistically with IM the

non-synergic extrinsic motivators that may cause individuals feel controlled or constrained by

external forces are considered as being less beneficial to IM In addition the degree to which

intrinsic or extrinsic motivators can match peoplersquos basic motivational orientation can decide

the extent of their job satisfaction Finally the extent of peoplersquos motivational orientation can

influence their work performance

To conclude a school of scholars claims that there may have a competitive relationship

between IM and EM for example when peoplersquos personality traits or environmental

situations makes them feel intrinsically motivated the impact from extrinsic motivation may

be weakened (Deci amp Ryan 1985 Kohn 1996 Lepper Keavney amp Drake 1996 Ryan amp

Deci 1996) By contrast another school claims that there may have a complementary

relationship or an independent relationship between IM and EM suggesting that EM may not

negatively confound IM and that extrinsic motivators such as the money may produce

either positive or negative effects on peoplersquos work motivation (Amabile 1993 Amabile et

al 1994 Cameron 2001 Cameron Banko amp Pierce 2001 Cameron amp Pierce 1994)

Measures of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

As highlighted in motivation literature IM and EM are two major classifications of

motivational orientation Assessing employeersquos motivational orientation aims to understand

his or her work preference (Amabile 1993 Amabile et al 1994) Work preference refers to

individualrsquos motivational orientation which can be measured through individual differences

in the degree to which employees perceive themselves intrinsically andor extrinsically

motivated towards their tasks or work-related behaviours (Amabile et al 1994 Gilbert Sohi

amp McEachern 2008) This study drawing on Amabilersquos (1993) perspective of work

26

motivation as motivational orientation towards work adopts Work Preference Inventory (WPI

Amabile et al 1994) as the research instrument for assessing employeersquos work preference

The study reviews and discusses WPI as follows

The instrument of WPI consists of two primary scales labeled as Intrinsic Motivation

(IM) and Extrinsic Motivation (EM) The IM scale was subdivided into two secondary scales

namely Challenge (5 items eg ldquocuriosity is the driving force behind mush of what I dordquo)

and Enjoyment (10 items eg ldquowhat matters most to me is enjoying what I dordquo) (p956)

Anchored in theoretical foundation of motivation the IM scale captures five elements of

motivation including self-determination competence task involvement curiosity and

interests The EM scale was also subdivided into two secondary scales including Outward (10

items eg ldquoI have to feel that Irsquom earning something for what I dordquo) and Compensation (5

items eg ldquoIrsquom strongly motivated by the money I can earnrdquo) (p956) which captures five

elements namely competition concerns evaluation concerns recognition concerns a focus

on money and other tangible incentives

The data used to develop WPI was collected across a period of 8 years Two groups of

sample were surveyed including undergraduate students and working adults The internal

consistency for the primary scales was acceptable for both students (Cronbachrsquos s = 79 for

IM and = 78 for EM) and adults (75 for IM and 70 for EM) The short-term test-retest

reliabilities across a period of six months for both student (84 for IM and 94 for EM) and

adults (89 for IM and 80 for EM) were satisfactory The longer term stability (up to 4 years)

of WPI scales was quite strong indicating intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations

could be understood as relatively stable individual characteristics The factorial validity was

obtained by showing that stronger four-factor modelrsquos fit indexes for both students and adults

(pp957-959)

27


The research in organisational climate for innovation (OCI) has received considerable

attention over the past few decades A growing number of theoretical and empirical studies

are now available to shed important light on the connotation determinants outcomes and

measures of OCI (Amabile et al 1996 Anderson amp West 1998 Hunter et al 2007 Isaksen

amp Ekvall 2010 West amp Anderson 1996 Woodman et al 1993) A review of literature

indicated that the construct of organisational climate has suffered from conflicting definitions

and inconsistencies in operationalization (McLean 2005 Patterson et al 2005) In addition

methodological issues regarding how to measure organisational climate have been widely

discussed such as the representativeness of sample and the unit of analysis (Anderson amp

West 1998 Glick 1985 Hellriegel amp Slocum 1978 Mathisen amp Einarsen 2004) In this

section the study investigates the connotation of organisational climate followed by the

conceptual and operational definitions as well as the dimensions of OCI In addition the

study performs a review of OCI measures

Organisational Climate

The theoretical rationale of organisational climate was considered being derived from

Lewinrsquos (1951) thoughts of the relationship between individuals and their social environment

(Denison 1996) that individualrsquos behaviour is the function of the people and their

psychological environment implying that the social environment may impact on individualsrsquo

behaviour

Although there are various ways to conceptualize and operationalize organisational

climate the dominant perspective namely shared perceptions approach (Patterson et al

2005) defined organisational climate as ldquoshared perceptions of organisational events

practices and procedures and the kinds of behaviours that are rewarded supported and

expected in a settingrdquo (Schneider 1990 p384) Such shared perceptions are primarily

descriptive rather than affective or evaluative (Patterson et al 2005) Hence organisational

28

climate reflecting the aspect of social environment in organisations thus can be represented as

a number of perceptual variables describing the interactions between employees and their

organisational environments (Amabile et al 1996 Glick 1985)

A review of organisational climate literature indicated that the two terms namely

organisational climate and organisational culture are similar but different concepts and

sometimes both terms are used interchangeably (Denison 1996 Glick 1985 McLean 2005)

Organisational culture refers to the relatively stable aspects which are deeply embedded in

organisations because culture is associated with the underlying assumptions beliefs and

values held by organisational members By contrast organisational climate anchored in

organisationrsquos value system portrays organisational environment in relatively static terms

therefore organisational climate was considered as being relatively temporary social

environment which is perceived by organisational members (Denison 1996 Schein 2004

Schneider 2000)

From the perspectives of epistemology and methodology organisational culture which is

considered as being conceptualized and idiographic is based on sociological anthropological

discipline and on symbolic interactionist roots of culture in contrast organisational climate

which is derived from social psychology is primarily comparative and nomothetic (Denison

1996 p625 Glick 1985)

The approaches to measure organisational climate can be classified into two major

categories generalized climate approach and facet-specific climate approach (Anderson amp

West 1998 Patterson et al 2005) Generalized climate approach normally introducing a

class of organisational variables such as value leadership style communication and so forth

is more advantageous on the provision of an overall snapshot for organisational functioning

(Ashkanasy Wilderom amp Peterson 2000) whereas facet-specific approach providing a

number of perceptual variables tied to specific interests (eg innovation) contributes more

precise and targeted information for use in specific areas (Ashkanasy et al 2000 Rousseau

29

1988) such as the improvement of customer satisfaction (Schneider 1990) company safety

(Hofmann amp Stetzer 1996) and innovation (Klein amp Sorra 1996)

However although generalized climate approach captures a global perception of work

environment it may contain unnecessary dimensions for a study seeking particular interests

Glick (1985) drawing on the law of Occamrsquos razor suggested to limit the numbers of climate

dimensions by following the research interest Similarly Schneider White and Paul (1998)

argued that work settings have different climates such as safety service production security

and innovation hence organisational climate should have a focus tied to something interest

and that the dimensions of climate will differ depending on the purpose of the research and

the criterion of interest From a methodological perspective Switzer et al (1999)

recommended that using a facet-specific measure may be adequate if it is not desirable to

make normative comparisons

To summarize organisational climate can be understood as the surface manifestation of

organisational culture reflecting the characteristics of organisationrsquos culture values (Patterson

et al 2005) Moreover organisational climate represents employeesrsquo perceptions of

organisational polices practices procedures and patterns of interactions and behaviours

(Schneider 2000) which supports various work outcomes such as safety behaviours as well

as safety compliance (Hofmann amp Stetzer 1996 Neal Griffin amp Hart 2000) service quality

(Schneider White amp Paul 1998) and innovative behaviour (Amabile et al 1996 Klein amp

Sorra 1996 Scott amp Bruce 1994 West amp Anderson 1996)


Although there is a general consensus on what the essential knowledge basis of the field

consists of there may have considerable disagreement among researchers about the

dimensions of OCI Amabile et al (1996) drawing on contextual theories of organisational

creativity defined OCI as social environment which can influence both the level and the

frequency of creative behaviour They proposed a model of the work environment for

30

creativity and thereafter developed an instrument KEYS for assessing individualrsquos

perceptions of the work environment for creativity The KEYS consists of eight dimensions

which are divided into two major factors namely stimulant factors (ie organisational

encouragement supervisory encouragement work group supports sufficient resources

challenging work and freedom) and obstacle factors (ie organisational impediments and

workload pressure) (p1159) The stimulant factors are those incentives which may facilitate

employeersquos creativity such as an organisational culture that encourages creativity the

freedom in deciding what work to do or how to do it an access of appropriate resources

including funds materials information and so forth in contrast the obstacle factors are the

disincentives which may inhibit employeersquos creativity such as harsh criticism of new ideas

an avoidance of taking risks unrealistic expectation for productivity and having many

political problems in an organisation (p1166)

In addition Ekvall (1996) seeing organisational climate as intervening variable defined

OCI as organisational realities which may influence organisational processes such as learning

motivation and decision-making and may have effects on innovation productivity job

satisfaction and so forth Ekvall (1996) developed Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ) for

measuring organisational environment that may impede or stimulate creativity and innovation

The CCQ captures eleven dimensions namely challenge freedom idea support

trustopenness dynamismliveliness playfulnesshumor debates conflicts risk taking and

idea time (Isaksen amp Ekvall 2010 p76) The dimension of conflicts is regarded as an

obstacle factor negatively associated with creativity and innovation for example a high

degree of conflict may result in employees dislike each other and slander good ideas By

contrast the rest of nine dimensions are viewed as stimulant factors which are beneficial to

creativity and innovation such as a relaxed atmosphere a strong level of trust and a

reasonable time for developing new ideas (p75)

31

Chiou Chen and Lin (2009) defined OCI as environmental factors which may facilitate

or inhibit employeesrsquo creativity in their organisations They drawing on previous seminal

works related to creative climate research (Amabile 1995 Hunter et al 2005 Shalley Zhou

amp Oldham 2004) designed Creative Organisational Climate Inventory (COCI) for measuring

the extent to which organisations support creativityinnovation The COCI includes six

stimulant factors namely value job style resource teamwork leadership learning and

environment The first dimension vision refers to organisational value and culture that

encourages creative thinking learning with errors and initiative Job style concerns the

degree to which employees have freedom to perform their jobs Resource is related to

providing employees sufficient aids on equipment information and professional assistance

Teamwork describes that whether the work group members have consistent job goals as well

as smooth communication Leadership is associated with supervisorsrsquo supports on innovation

and delegation Learning is connected with the continuous development of human resources

Finally environment is in relation to physical work conditions which can promote creativity

such as rapport atmosphere satisfactory work space and so forth (p78)

To summarize although multiple types of climate can be distinguished (eg climate for

service climate for safety climate for innovation) this study which aims to investigate that

whether social environment in organisations influences employee innovative work behaviour

focuses on the climate of innovation Accordingly the study adopting the perspective of

facet-specific climate considers OCI as employeesrsquo shared perceptions regarding various

practices processes and procedures of innovation which may facilitate or inhibit their

initiation and intentional introduction of new and useful ideas Table 22 presents the

conceptual definitions of OCI

32

Table 22

Conceptual Definitions and Dimensions of Organisational Climate for Innovation

Definitions Factors

Year Author Stimulant Obstacle

The social environment which can

influence both the level and the frequency

of creative behaviour

Organisational Encouragement

Supervisory Encouragement

Work Group Supports

Sufficient Resources

Challenging Work Freedom

Organisational impediments

Workload pressure 1996 Amabile et al

The organisational realities which may

influence organisational processes such as

decision-making learning and motivation

and may have effects on innovation

productivity job satisfaction and so forth

Challenge Freedom Idea

Support TrustOpenness

DynamismLiveliness

PlayfulnessHumor Debates

Risk Taking Idea Time

Conflicts 1996 Ekvall

Individualsrsquo shared perceptions of the

value of innovation demonstrated in their

work groups

Vision Participative Safety

Support for Innovation Task

Orientation Interaction

Frequency

1998 Anderson amp West

The environmental factors which may

facilitate or inhibit employeesrsquo creativity in

their organisations

Value Job Style Resource

Teamwork Leadership

Learning Environment

2009 Chiou et al

33

Measures of Organisational Climate for Innovation

Despite numerous instruments available for measuring OCI only a few showed a

sounded theoretical basis and good psychometric properties (Mathisen amp Einarsen 2004

p136 Patterson et al 2005 p379) Reviewing four instruments for assessing creative

environments of organisation Mathisen amp Einarsen (2004) indicated that only two scales

demonstrate scientific quality namely KEYS Assessing the Climate for Creativity (Amabile

et al 1996) and Team Climate Inventory (TCI Anderson amp West 1998)

Because Mathisen amp Einarsenrsquos (2004) study already provided sufficient and detailed

information for the two instruments to be used for the conclusion of this subsection the

following review of OCI measure focuses on Creative Organisational Climate Inventory

(COCI Chiou et al 2009) an research instrument developed based on Taiwanese cultural

background for assessing creativity climate The COCI aims to assess the extent to which

organisations support creativityinnovation Drawing on the perspective of organisational

social psychology Chiou et al (2009) adopted a qualitative approach to collect descriptive

data which focused mainly on the environmental factors that may facilitate or inhibit

employeersquos creativity

The COCI comprises seven categoriesfactors which includes of 35 items namely

Value (6 items eg our company values human capital and encourages creative thinking)

Job Style (4 items eg the job allows me to make my own decisions the work goals and

schedules) Resource (4 items I have sufficient equipment to do my work) Teamwork (5

items eg my colleagues and team members share consistent work goals) Leadership (5

items my supervisor can respect and support the innovations on my job) Learning (6 items

training is important in my company) and Environment (5 items I can freely decorate my

work environment) (p84)

The factorial validity was confirmed by showing that the first-order oblique model in

which all factors were specified as intercorrelated has stronger fit indexes than the first-order

34

orthogonal model (p82) In addition a higher-order latent factor named as organisational

creative climate was considered available The COCI showed that the seven subscales

possessed acceptable composite reliability (CR ranging between 82 and 92) and average

variance extracted (AVE ranging between 47 and 68) The Cronbachrsquos coefficient alphas

ranged between 82 and 92 for all the subscales with an overall reliability of 96 (p83)

To conclude all the three instruments KEYS TCI and COCI are firmly anchored in

creativity or innovation theories showing adequate internal consistency yet two of them (ie

TCI and COCI) were not test-retested The content criterion and construct validity of the

three instruments were empirically confirmed through confirmatory factor analyses

Considering the cross-cultural appropriateness of research instrument and the questionnaire

length (number of items) (Switzer et al 1999 p400) COCI would be relatively appropriate

than KEYS and TCI for this study Table 23 presents the results of psychometric comparison

for the three instruments

35

Table 23

Psychometric Comparison of the Measures of Organisational Climate for Innovation

Measure

Reliability Validity

Samplec Factor

Number

of Items Internal consistencya Test-retest Content Criterion Construct

KEYS 84 86 times times times 3708d 8 66

TCI (94 89 92 92 84)b Not reported times times times 917

e 5 38

COCI 96 Not reported times times times 1338f 7 35

Note KEYS = KEYS Assessing the Climate for Creativity (Amabile et al 1996) TCI = Team Climate Inventory (Anderson amp West

1998) COCI = Creative Organisational Climate Inventory (Chiou et al 2009) a = Cronbachrsquos

b = (Vision Participative Safety Support for

Innovation Task Orientation Interaction Frequency) c = confirmatory data

d = American working adults from 26 various companies

e = British

working adults from 121various teams f = Taiwanese working adults from 6 various industries

36

Hypothesis Development

This study drawing on multilevel theoretical perspective aims to investigate the

relationships between accessed social capital (ASC) work motivation (ie IM and EM)

organisational climate for innovation (OCI) and innovative work behaviour (IWB) Although

only a few attempts were made to theorize individual innovation in complex social settings

Woodman et alrsquos (1993) interactionist model of creative behaviour could be a starting point

as the theoretical basis for this study to establish the hypotheses because it not only captures

Lewinrsquos (1951) thoughts that behaviour is determined by people and social environment but

also points out the hierarchical nature of organisational phenomena (Hofmann 1997) Figure

22 presents the model

As shown in Figure 22 the model depicts three distinct hierarchies of creativity where

individual-level creativity which is central in this study was viewed as a function of

numerous factors including antecedent conditions (A) cognitive styleabilities (CS)

personality (P) knowledge (K) intrinsic motivation (IM) social influences (SI) and

contextual influences (CI) Among all theoretical relationships proposed in the model two of

them correlate with the main interest of this study namely the direct effect of IM on creative

behaviour (B) and the moderating effect of contextual influences (CI) on the relationship

between IM and creative behaviour

A review of literature indicated that although an increasing number of studies have

suggested that IM and CI (eg innovation climate) may have direct impacts on individualrsquos

creativityinnovativeness (Amabile 1996 Glynn 1996 Lin amp Liu 2012 Shin amp Zhou

2003) comparatively little research attempts to establish direct relationships between IM CI

and IWB (except for the following works eg Amabile 1985 Scott amp Bruce 1994 Tsai amp

Kao 2004 Tsai 2008)

37

Figure 22 An Interactionist Model for Organizational Creativity Retrieved from ldquoToward A Theory of

Organizational Creativityrdquo by R W Woodman J E Sawyer amp R W Griffin 1993 Academy of Management

Review18(2) p295 Copyright 1993by The Academy of Management Issues

38

The Relationship between Work Motivation and Innovative Work

Behaviour

Work motivation as noted previously was categorized into two major types of

motivational orientations namely intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM)

Although employeersquos work motivation may be diverse and complicated the extent to which

employees are willing to engage in particular work activities can be understood from two

aspects namely employeersquos perceptions for the activities and the reasons for engaging in it

(Amabile 1993) Some employees may actively participate in an activity primarily for the

sheer enjoyment challenge and pleasure of the activity itself (ie IM) because they consider

the activity is interesting or fun By contrast some employees may engage in the same

activity but primarily for the desired or promised rewards (ie EM) in situations where they

expect their efforts can result in external returns

In the context of innovation for example some employees may devote themselves to

explore new and useful ideas because they can acquire intrinsic motivators (eg enjoyment

or challenge) from the activity of idea generation which can match their basic motivational

orientation (ie IM) whereas the same employees may not be willing to communicate or

negotiate with others for selling if they are generated their new ideas because the activity of

idea championing may not be able to provide them intrinsic motivators

However the same employees may change their mind to engage in innovation activates

in situations where their company put a reasonable emphasis on extrinsic motivators to

encourage their initiative on innovation (eg incentives for innovation) In addition the more

common situation could be that when the company has set a group of indicators to measure

employeersquos innovation performance (eg the number of inventions) in such circumstance

employees may decide to engage in innovation activities because they were forced to do so

or they were afraid of getting undesired consequences (eg a poor performance ranking) In

the case those employees were externally propelled into the action (ie EM)

39

Although employeersquos reasons to participate in work activities may be diverse both

intrinsically or extrinsically motivated employees are likely to engage in the same work

activity such as innovation Accordingly this study posits that employees with a high degree

of perceived intrinsic motivational orientation are more likely to exhibit a strong innovative

work behavioural propensity Similarly the same theory applies to those who are

extrinsically motivated Stated formally

Hypothesis 1 Intrinsic motivation is positively related to innovative work behaviour

(Employees with a higher orientation to intrinsic motivation are more

likely to exhibit stronger propensities of innovative work behaviour)

Hypothesis 2 Extrinsic motivation is positively related to innovative work behaviour

(Employees with a higher orientation to extrinsic motivation are more


The Relationship between Accessed Social Capital and Innovative Work

Behaviour

Accessed social capital (ASC) refers to a personrsquos social relational diversity and quantity

as the capability of social capital that can be acquired through various channels Many

empirical studies have confirmed the positive effect of social network formation on

individual or organisational innovation performance (Ahuja 2000 Moran 2005) and the

extent of engaging in innovation activities (Obstfeld 2005) and that a positive relationship

between the quality of interpersonal relationship and the number of generating new

knowledge or ideas (De Long amp Fahey 2000 McFadyen amp Cannella 2004 Smith Collins

amp Clark 2005) However although many scholars believe that social capital influences

innovation and can contribute to creativity improvement and knowledge creation (Burt 2000

Calantone Cavusgil amp Zhao 2002 Hult Hurley amp Knight 2004 Lin 2001 Nahapiet amp

Ghoshal 1998) to date there have been few attempts to establish a direct relationship

between employeersquos IWB and ASC as the diversity and quantity of social ties

40

From a standpoint of daily life experience an employeersquos ASC refers to his or her social

credential (Lin 2002) that is helpful to facilitate his or her purposive actions Although this

argument sounds like common sense that employees who possess more acquaintances (ie

the quantity of social relations) with better occupational heterogeneity (ie the diversity of

social relations) may have better social connection to facilitate their actions on innovation

there seems no empirical evidence to support this claim The underlying assumption of

aforesaid argument is that employees are more likely to acquire more and diverse ideas

thoughts and experiences to enhance their innovation capability such as the frequency of

idea generation through formal and informal interactions with many various acquaintances

Accordingly this study proposed the following hypothesis

Hypothesis 3 Accessed social capital is positively related to innovative work

behaviour (Employees with more diverse acquaintances are more likely

to exhibit stronger propensities of innovative work behaviour)

The Relationship between Organisational Climate for Innovation and


Organisational climate for innovation refers to a facet-specific climate wherein various

types of support for innovation activities to a greater or lesser extent are provided in an

organisation Scott and Bruce (1994) established a path model of individual innovative

behaviour found that although innovative behaviour was positively related to support for

innovation a sub-dimension of psychological climate for innovation resource supply an

another dimension of innovation climate was negatively related to innovative behaviour

Lin and Liu (2010) adopting hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) found that only five

KEYS dimensions were positively related to employeersquos perceived innovation indicating that

innovation climate exerted an contextual effect on innovative behaviour however three

dimensions freedom organisational impediments and workload did not related to perceived

innovation behaviour In addition Chenrsquos (2006) multilevel analysis results indicated that the

41

innovation climate at the team level was positively related to individual-level IWB

suggesting that the mean perceived innovation climate may exert contextual effects on

employeersquos innovative work behavioural propensity

Because organisational climate for innovation can be understood as the surface

manifestation of organisational culture (Schneider 1990) which reflects employeesrsquo shared

perceptions of organisational behavioural patterns that support particular activities (West amp

Anderson 1996) it is expected that on average employeesrsquo innovative work behavioural

propensities are more likely stronger in a situation where they perceive high innovation

climates (Scott amp Bruce 1994 Amabile et al 1996) Stated formally

Hypothesis 4 Organisational climate for innovation is positively related to innovative

work behaviour (On average employees are more likely to exhibit

stronger propensities of innovative work behaviour when they perceive

a higher extent of supportive climates for innovation)

The Moderating Role of Organisational Climate for Innovation on the

Relationship between Work Motivation and Innovative Work Behaviour

From an interactionist perspective because individualrsquos behaviour was considered as the

function (outcome) of the people (individual characteristics) and their social environment

(social influences) (Lewin 1951) it was suggested that the interaction between individual

and contextual factors should not be ignored when a researcher aims to understand a specific

individual behaviour (Montes Moreno amp Fernandez 2003 Schneider 1981)

It is not surprisingly that different companyrsquos formation of innovation climate as its

unique contextual settings may vary Some companies provide stimulant factors of innovation

such as relaxation and playfulness atmospheres to increase employeersquos extent of participating

in innovation activities (eg exploring new ideas in a confortable psychological

environment) By contrast employees may feel more extrinsically motivated in performing

innovation activities when their companies provide extrinsic motivators such as monetary

42

incentives as reward aspect of innovation

Because the degree of employeesrsquo IM and EM may be influenced by their companiesrsquo

polices practices procedures of innovation-related activity it is reasonable to argue that on

average the extent to which employeesrsquo IM and EM contributing to their propensities of

innovative work behaviour would be stronger when they perceive supportive climates for

innovation Accordingly this study proposed the following hypotheses

Hypothesis 5 Organisational climate for innovation positively moderates the

relationship between intrinsic motivation and innovative work

behaviour (On average when employees perceive a higher degree of

supportive climates for innovation the extent to which employeesrsquo

intrinsic motivational orientations contribute to their propensities of

innovative work behaviour is more likely stronger)


relationship between extrinsic motivation and innovative work



extrinsic motivational orientations contribute to their propensities of


43

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This study undertaken by means of quantitative research methods developed a multilevel

model of employee innovative work behaviour Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to confirm the factorial validity and

construct reliability of the constructs Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to

conduct multilevel analyses for verifying the hypotheses This chapter includes six sections

namely research framework research procedures data collection measures data analysis

methods and data analysis procedures

Research Framework

Figure 31 shows the hypothesized multilevel model of innovative work behaviour as

research framework of this study

Employee level

Firm level

Figure 31 Hypothesized Multilevel Model of Innovative Work Behaviour


for Innovation (OCI)

Intrinsic

Motivation (IM)

Extrinsic

Motivation (EM)

Innovative Work

Behaviour (IWB)

H1

H2

H4

H5

H6

Accessed Social

Capital (ASC)

H3

Work Motivation

(WM)

44

As shown in Table 31 Hypotheses 1 2 and 3 (H1 H2 and H3) were proposed to

examine that whether the employee-level factors of intrinsic motivation (IM) extrinsic

motivation (EM) and accessed social capital (ASC) can influence innovative work behaviour

(IWB) Hypotheses 4 5 and 6 (H4 H5 and H6) were proposed to examine that whether the

firm-level factor of organisational climate for innovation (OCI) exerts a contextual effect on

IWB and that whether OCI exerts cross-level moderating effects on the hypothesized

relationships of IM－IWB and EM－IWB

Table 31

The Hypotheses

Hypotheses Content

H1 Intrinsic motivation is positively related to innovative work behaviour



H2 Extrinsic motivation is positively related to innovative work behaviour



H3 Accessed social capital is positively related to innovative work behaviour

(Employees with more diverse acquaintances are more likely to exhibit

stronger propensities of innovative work behaviour)

H4 Organisational climate for innovation is positively related to innovative


stronger propensities of innovative work behaviour when they perceive a

higher extent of supportive climates for innovation)

(continued)

45

Table 31 (continued)

Hypotheses Content

H5 Organisational climate for innovation positively moderates the

relationship between intrinsic motivation and innovative work behaviour

(On average when employees perceive a higher degree of supportive

climates for innovation the extent to which employeesrsquo intrinsic

motivational orientations contribute to their propensities of innovative

work behaviour is more likely stronger)


relationship between extrinsic motivation and innovative work behaviour


climates for innovation the extent to which employeesrsquo extrinsic



46

Research Procedures

As shown in Figure 32 the research procedures comprising thirteen steps divided into 3

major stages are illustrated as follows

Preparation

The researcher first performed an extensive review of innovation literature focusing on

individualrsquos innovation of organisation to acquire in-deep understanding on the topic of

employee innovative work behaviour The knowledge known of the topic was systematically

sorted out to identify research gap and to clarify problematic consciousness After reviewing

the literature the hypothesized relationships between the variables were developed followed

by the construction of research framework The strategies and methods of data collection and

data analysis were evaluated and selected based on the needs of responding the research

questions and purpose

Implementation

This stage comprises two major procedures of data collection and data analyses The

collection of data was performed twice The returned questionnaires that featured a clear

response orientation andor an excessive number of omitted responses were eliminated The

pilot study data first collected was used to conduct EFA for examining the appropriateness of

the factor loadings for questionnaire items The modified scales created based on the EFA

results were used to collect the formal study data that further employed to conduct CFA and

to test the hypotheses

Completion

After the data was analyzed the analysis results were discussed and concluded The

theoretical and managerial implications were discussed based on the research findings The

limitations of the study and future research directions were elucidated

47

Figure 32 Research Procedures

Identification of Problematic Consciousness

Establishment of Hypothetical Framework

Research Design

Data Collection

Proposal Meeting

Research Motivation

Reviews of Literature

Data Analyses

Reviews of Response Set

Data Coding

Conclusions and Implications

Final Defense

End of Thesis Project

Preparation

Implementation

Completion

Results and Discussion

48

Measures

The corresponding sources of the information for specific measures are described below

The texts of items for all scales are provided in Appendix A


This study measured employeersquos innovative work behavioural propensity with a 6-item

modified IWB scale adapted from Chenrsquos (2006) Innovative Behaviour Scale This 6-item

single-dimensional measure captures various behaviours regarding four major types of

innovation activities namely the idea exploration idea generation idea championing and

idea realization Employees were instructed to select the response that most reflected their

personal experiences or behaviours related to innovation on a 5-point Likert-type scale with

scale anchors ranging from ldquoneverrdquo (1) to ldquoalwaysrdquo (5) High scores indicated strong IWB

propensity The intraclass measure ICC (1) of 71 provided the preliminary information of

the appropriateness for conducting multilevel analyses


This study measured employeersquos quantity and diversity of acquaintances as capability of

social relations with Hwangrsquos (2011) measure of position generators This measure listed 22

occupations with its corresponding scores of socioeconomic status that were based on

Ganzeboom amp Treimanrsquos (1996) Standard International Occupational Scale (SIOPS) (Hwang

2011) Employees were instructed to tick occupations with the question that do you have any

acquaintance that has the following occupations High scores indicated strong capability of

social relations In addition the correlation analysis results indicated that of the three

indicators suggested by Lin (2001) upper reachability was found to be correlated highly with

heterogeneity (r = 71 p lt01) and extensity (r = 75 p lt01) where heterogeneity was

associated with extensity (r = 59 p lt01) Given the possibility of multicollinearity ASC is

constructed using the indicators of heterogeneity and extensity in this study

49

Work Motivation

This study measured employeersquos work motivation as intrinsic and extrinsic motivational

orientation with a 13-item modified scale (ie 7-item IM subscale and 6-item EM subscale)

adapted from Chioursquos (2000) 26-item four-dimensional measure which was derived from

Amabile et alrsquos (1994) Employees were instructed to rate how accurately each item

described them as they generally were on a 5-point Likert-type scale with scale anchors

ranging from ldquostrongly agreerdquo (1) to ldquostrongly disagreerdquo (5) High IM scores indicated strong

intrinsic motivational orientation


This study measured organisational climate for innovation with an 18-item shortened

version (Chiou 2011) of Chiou et alrsquos (2009) 35-item Creativity Organisational Climate

Inventory This measure consists of 6 sub-scales namely Value (3 items) Jobstyle (3 items)

Teamwork (3 items) Leadership (3 items) Learning (3 items) and Environment (3 items)

Employees were instructed to rate on the basis of their personal observation the extent to

which their companies support innovation regarding the described conditions on a 5-point

Likert-type scale with scale anchors ranging from ldquostrongly agreerdquo (1) to ldquostrongly disagreerdquo

(5) High scores indicated strong innovation climate The interrater and intraclass measures

(median rWG 99 and ICC2 = 95) justified aggregation across raters (Bliese Halverson amp

Schriesheim 2002 LeBreton amp Senter 2008)

Data Collection

Sampling

The data collected from Taiwanese working adults in business firms across various

industries was based on the method of convenience sampling The present study adopts the

sampling strategy because the researcher anticipated that the theoretical and empirical

linkages between behavioural propensity social relations motivational orientation and

perceived climate would remain robust although in the case of not considering the factor of

50

industry Numerous studies regarding innovative work behaviour (IWB) conducted in a

context of various industries (Chen 2006 Dorenbosch et al 2005 Kleysen amp Street 2001

Krause 2004 Scott amp Bruce 1994 Tsai 2008 Tsai amp Kao 2004) showed that employeersquos

IWB propensity was significantly related to certain individualrsquos characteristics (eg

motivation) and social environment (eg the climate for innovation) though they had

different conclusions Therefore the theoretical pattern of the relationships between

employeersquos personal characteristics psychological conditions of social environment and

behavioural propensity may empirically exist in various industrial departments In addition

from the perspectives of social psychology and interactionism individualrsquos behaviour was

viewed as the function of peoplersquos characteristics and social environment which has been a

general consensus in the field of behavioural research therefore the attempts of establishing

the relationships between the variables studied should be theoretically acceptable in the

heterogeneous contextual background of industry

Procedures

The data used to conduct pilot and formal study were collected using online surveys

Ninety prizes of gift voucher worth approximately $10 in value per each were provided to

enhance response rate for the collection of formal study data The researcherrsquos acquaintances

as organisational contacts sent the inquiry letters by means of emails to their colleagues for

exploring their willingness of participating in this survey Participants who replied the emails

with consent to participate in the survey received a link of web page created by the researcher

and distributed through the participantrsquos corresponding organisational contacts

The web page first shows an informed consent form ensuring the confidentiality of the

information followed by the instructions of how to participate in the survey During the next

phase participants were asked to complete the questionnaire items for assessing their

accessed social capital (ASC) followed by the items for IWB intrinsic motivation (IM)

extrinsic motivation (EM) organisational climate for innovation (OCI) and demographic

51

characteristics Participantrsquos each set of response answer was automatically directed and

saved into its respective database by the online survey system

Each participantrsquos database was expected to have only one set of the answer otherwise

the database was manually deleted by the researcher The links of online survey questionnaire

were coded according to employeersquos organisation hence the returned online questionnaires

can be differentiated and retrieved according to the catalog of organisation An organisational

data with the returned questionnaires less than 2 apparently distinct departments was

excluded to ensure the representativeness of within organisational consensus on OCI The

researcher is the only one person allowed to access into the databases

The pilot study data collected from mid-June through mid-August 2013 and the formal

study data collected from mid-September through mid-December 2013 were independent

from each other There were no missing data

Participants

The pilot study participants were 346 employees from 13 companies across 6 industries

including high-tech banking retail software traditional manufacturing and information

43 percent of the participants were women and 813 of the participants possessed a

bachelorrsquos or masterrsquos degree The formal study participants were 922 employees from 36

companies ranging in size from 81 to 1500 A total of 1129 questionnaires were distributed

of which 978 were returned and 56 that featured a clear response set andor an excessive

number of omitted responses were eliminated achieving a valid return rate of 8167 Of

these valid questionnaires 581 were completed by female employees (6301) and 716 were

completed by the employees with a bachelorrsquos or masterrsquos degree (7766) 346 of

participants were from high-tech industry and others were from general service (172)

financial service (126) traditional manufacturing (131) banking (91) information

(74) retail (31) and software (29)

52

Common Method Variance

Common method variance (CMV) occurs in situations where two or more variables are

assessed with the same method which may inflate or deflate the observed relationships

among constructs (Cote amp Buckley 1988 Spector amp Brannick 2010) leading to both Type I

and Type II errors This study might fall a victim to the potential threats of CMV because all

the variables were measured by self-report assessment format This study adopted six prior

remedies to alleviate the negative effects of CMV (Peng Kao amp Lin 2006 Podsakoff et al

2003 Tourangeau Rips amp Rasinski 2000) namely

1 The question items for measuring intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were

intermixed with one another in random order

2 The variable of OCI was constructed by aggregating individual employee scores to

a firm-level construct (ie mean OCI) as is also a necessary step in the conduction

of hypothesis tests in this study

3 The order of the variables presented in the questionnaire was arranged in such a

way that ASC (independent variable) was shown first followed by IWB (dependent

variable) IM and EM (independent variables) and OCI (independent variable as a

moderator)

4 The names of the variables were not revealed in the questionnaire so as to reduce

psychological interference on the part of participants

5 Surveys were allowed to be done anonymously

A Harman single-factor test was performed to examine the severity of CMV The results

of unrotated factor analysis of the items included in all the questionnaire subscales showed 15

distinct extracted factors with variance ranging between 124 and 263 accounted for 3612

of the total cumulative variance explained Because the first principal component (with factor

loadings ranging between 41 and 76) were not the general factor for all independent and

dependent variables the CMV in this study was not severe

53

Data Analysis Methods

The study was undertaken by means of quantitative research methods A questionnaire

survey was conducted to collect quantitative data validate measures and test the research

hypotheses The corresponding statistical methods and techniques used to perform data

analyses are described as follows

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

The descriptive statistics performed using SPSS version 21 for Windows was used to

capture and describe the demographic characteristics of the sample In addition correlation

analyses were used to investigate the direction and strength among the variables

Confirmatory factor analysis

The method of structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to perform confirmatory

factor analyses (CFA) for testing the factorial validity and construct reliability of the

constructs by examine the relations among observed variables (ie questionnaire items) and

latent variables (ie the factors of the constructs) The CFA conducted using LISREL 851

statistical software (Joumlreskog amp Soumlrbom 2001) was based on the covariance structure

analyses where one item per construct was fixed to 10 and a simple structure was

maintained The factorial validity was confirmed by showing that the fit indexes fell within

an acceptable range (eg normed chi-square lt 3 GFI (goodness-of-fit index) gt 90 NFI

(normed fit index) gt 90 NNFI (non-normed fit index) gt 90 RMSEA (root mean square

error of approximation) lt 05 and SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) lt 08)

(Bentler 1980 Browne amp Cudeck 1993 Carmines amp McIver 1981 Hu amp Bentler 1999)

The tests of construct reliability were performed to examine the extent to which latent

variables can explain the proportional variance of its corresponding observed variables

(Fornell amp Larcker 1981) The values of composite reliability (CR or c)1 were computed

1 119862119877 = 120588119888 =

(sum120582119894)2

[(sum120582119894)2+sumΘ119894119894)]

where (sum 120582119894)2 is the squared sum of standardized factor loadings

54

and used to confirm construct reliability (Raine-Eudy 2000) The tests of convergent ability

were performed by computing average variance extracted (AVE or v)2 which was aimed to

explain the extent to which latent variables can be effectively estimated by observed variables

(Hair Black Babin Anderson amp Tatham 2006) The Cronbachrsquos alphas of the measures

were also reported

Multilevel analysis

This study used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to conduct multilevel analyses for

hypothesis verification Statistical software of HLM version 608 was used to perform the

analyses (Raudenbush Bryk amp Congdon 2009) HLM provides theoretical conceptual and

statistical mechanism for investigating organisational phenomena (Hofmann 1997) HLM

rationale and related issues comprising intraclass correlation aggregation estimating effects

explanatory power and model fit are illustrated in the following paragraphs

Hierarchical linear modeling

The statistical methodology and techniques of HLM was developed primarily based on

the needs of analyzing hierarchical data structures (Raudenbush amp Bryk 2002) From a

theoretical perspective because all organisational phenomena are hierarchically embedded in

a higher-level context (Kozlowski amp Klein 2000) it is advisable that the researchers take a

meso perspective to investigate and discuss multilevel phenomena (House Rousseau amp

Thomas-Hunt 1995) In addition from the perspective of statistical methodology because

the phenomena are multilevel the data is clustered it has been noted that the statistical

techniques of ordinary least square (OLS) such as regression analysis andor analysis of

variance (ANOVA) may not be relatively appropriate methods for analyzing clustered data

sumΘ119894119894 is the sum of indicator measurement errors

2 119860119881119864 = 120588119907 = sum120582119894

2

(sum120582119894 2+sumΘ119894119894)

where sum120582119894 2 is the sum of squared standardized factor loadings

55

due to the assumption of the methods that the observations are independent3 (Luke 2004)

The statistical decision may be too liberal (Type I errors) or too conservative (Type II errors)

if the aforesaid theoretical and methodological concerns were ignored (Bliese amp Hanges

2004) The main idea to describe HLM was that it partitioned the variance of individual-level

outcomes into level 1 (eg employee-level) and level 2 (eg team-level) components and

then regressed the level 1 variance component onto individual-level predictors and the level

2 variance component onto organisation-level predictors Because HLM was allowed to

integrate individual- and higher-level data into a multilevel model to be analyzed HLM can

better serve to observe and investigate organisational multilevel phenomena In addition

HLM introduced macro-level (ie higher-level) error terms in regression models to capture

the intraclass correlations of nested relationships by estimating the variance of macro-level

error terms therefore the statistical results of tests would be more realistic when drawing

conclusions related to the influences of phenomena at different levels

Intraclass correlation

Intraclass correlation describes the relative degree of within-group and between-group

variance Intraclass correlation coefficient ICC (1)4 is often used to capture the similarity

and or non-independency of observations by examining the extent to which the total variance

of outcome variables can be explained by the between-group variance (Blises amp Hanges

2004) In other words the measurement of ICC (1) aims to investigate the extent to which the

3 The observations are assumed to be independent or non-interdependent in situations where the analyses are

conducted using ordinary least square (OLS) techniques The assumption would be violated in various degrees

when the data is clustered In an organisational context because employees are nested in departments that are

nested in the company the survey responses collected from the employees from a same organisation may be

dependent due to the inherently hierarchical nature of organisations For example employee Arsquos and Brsquos testing

scores of IWB propensity may be correlated if they perceive the identical innovation climate (ie the same

higher-level contextual factor) which influences their IWB propensities

4 119868119862119862(1) = 120588 =

12059100

12059100+1205902 where 12059100 is the between-group variance

1205902 is the within-group variance

56

individualsmembers are dependent within a particular group or a context (Hox 2002) It has

been noted that the hypothesis verification should be undertaken using multilevel analysis

strategies and methods in situations where the value of ICC (1) is high which implies that the

assumption of independent observations may be violated in a large degree (Hoffman 1997

Luke 2004) According to Cohen (1988) the effect of group membership should not be

ignored when the value of ICC (1) ranges between 059 and 138

Aggregation and contextual variable

Aggregation is related to the conceptualisation and measurement of macro-level variable

namely contextual variable (eg innovation climate of organisation) This kind of variable

reflects particular characteristics of organisational social environment (eg the behavioural

patterns of innovation) which can produce corresponding atmosphere that may exert

contextual influences on organisational members In other word therefore the members of an

organisation may experience homogeneous shared psychological perceptionpsychological

climate (James amp Jones 1974) From the perspective of multilevel analysis contextual

influences can be understood as net effect of a contextual variable after controlling the same

variable at the level of individual (Pedhazur 1997) In this study although the construct of

OCI was measured based on employeesrsquo psychological perceptions of organisational settings

for innovation this construct is centered on its inherent meaning of organisational Whether

the contextual variable of OCI can be constructed by aggregating individual employee scores

to a firm-level construct remains to be confirmed An assessment of within-group agreement

thus was performed to confirm that whether the data justified the aggregation of firm-level

construct of OCI (Glick 1985) The interrater agreement index rWG

5(James Demacee amp

5 119908 = (

2

2 )

( 2

2 )+

2

2

where

119908 is the within-group agreement coefficient for ratersrsquo mean scores based on J items

57

Wolf 1984) was calculated to examine the appropriateness of conducting the aggregation

The intraclass correlation coefficient ICC (2)6 a measure for testing the stability of group

means was used to assess the reliability of company means of OCI (Kozlowski amp Klein

2000) Appendix B provides the SPSS scripts for computing rWG

Estimation of fixed and random effects

The situation in which an employee-level variable can significantly predict IWB was

determined by that the t tests results for the firm-level parameters (ie γs) were statistically

significant In addition the chi-square tests were used to investigate the significance of

within- and between-company variance by examining the estimates of σ2

and τ A significant

chi-square test result of the between-company variance in the intercept (ie τ00) indicated that

different intercepts of IWB across companies may exist implying that the grand-mean IWB

may be influenced by certain predictors at the level of firm

Explanatory power and model fit

The explanatory power of the model that was gained after adding one or some predictors

was presented using pseudo R2 value

7 8 (Snijders amp Bosker 1999) a statistic which is based

on the proportional variance reduction of employee-level or firm-level error terms due to

predictors added in the model Furthermore the deviance index which is defined as -2 times the

log-likelihood of a maximum-likelihood (-2LL) estimate was used to assess the overall model

fit Generally the better a model fits the smaller the deviance value The chi-square tests

were used to examine the deviance change between the models

2 is the mean of the observed variances of the J items

120590 2 is the expected variance of a hypothesized null distribution

6 119868119862119862 ( ) =

where is the between-group mean square

119908 is the between-group mean square

7 119877119871 2 =

120590 1198731199061198971198972 120590 119868119899119905119890119903

2

120590 1198731199061198971198972 where 120590 119873119906119897119897

2 is the within-group variance of previous model

120590 1198681198991199051198901199032 is the within-group variance of current model

8 11987711987122 =

120591 00119873119906119897119897 120591 00119868119899119905119890119903

120591 00119873119906119897119897 where 120591 00119873119906119897119897 is the between-group variance of previous model

120591 00119868119899119905119890119903 is the between -group variance of current model

58

Data Analysis Procedures

This study first conducted EFA and CFA to examine the appropriateness of the factor

loadings for all questionnaire items and to confirm the factorial validity and the construct

reliability of the measures Second this study performed descriptive statistics and correlation

analyses to capture the demographic characteristics of the variables and the direction and

strength among variables The between-company difference of employeersquos IWB among

companies namely how much variance in the outcome variable of IWB lies between

companies was tested using one-way ANOVA with random effects (ie the null model)

(Raudenbush amp Bryk 2002) A random coefficient regression model was used to test the

direct effects of ASC IM and EM on IWB (Hypotheses 1 2 and 3) Similar to traditional

regression analysis the three employee-level variables were assigned as predictors of IWB

Unlike regression analysis the three variables now were group-mean-centered The

contextual effect of OCI on IWB (Hypothesis 4) was tested using a mean-as-outcome model

The individual employee scores of OCI were aggregated to a firm-level construct of OCI

representing each organisationrsquos OCI mean The mean IWB as employee-level outcome was

regressed onto the mean OCI as firm-level predictor after controlling ASC IM and EM A

full model was established to test the cross-level interaction effects of OCI on the

relationships of IM－IWB and EM－IWB (Hypotheses 5 and 6) All the hypothesized

relationships were included in the full model The employee-level slopes of IM and EM now

were outcome variables regressed onto the mean OCI

59

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is divided into four sections Section one presents the information regarding

the validity and reliability of the measures Section two reports the HLM analysis results of

hypothesis verification Section three summarizes the results The final section conducts the

discussion of the results

Psychometric Characteristics of the Measures

This study conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) to examine and confirm the appropriateness of the factor loadings for questionnaire

items the factorial validity the construct reliability and the convergent reliability of the

measures The EFA performed using Varimax procedure was based on principal-components

factor analyses The extractions were followed by an oblique rotation to determine the extent

to which the factors were orthogonal The CFA was conducted based on covariance structure

analyses where the first observed variable of a latent variable was fixed to 100 and a simple

structure was maintained The factorial validity was confirmed by showing that the

goodness-of-fit indexes fell within an acceptable range The construct reliability was

confirmed by demonstrating acceptable values of composite reliability (CR) c The

convergent reliability was presented by showing average variance extracted (AVE) v

Analysis results were illustrated as follows

Innovative Work behaviour

This variable aims to assess employeersquos IWB propensity The pilot study data was

collected using Chenrsquos (2006) 9-item measure The analysis results of sampling adequacy for

the IWB pre-test data (n = 346) showed that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was 87

(χ2

(36)= 304425 p lt 001) indicating the suitability of the data for exploratory investigations

An initial EFA yielded two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 The total variance of

60

the two-factor solution accounted for 5238 where the first factor extracted accounted for

4392 A review of factor loadings for the 9 items ranging from 23 to 87 indicated 3 items

with poor factor loadings namely item number 3 (23) 4 (37) and 8 (42) A further EFA

was conducted without the 3 items yielded a single factor solution with factor loadings

ranging between 58 and 88 A modified 6-item IWB scale with total variance accounting for

4915 therefore was created to collect formal study data

Table 41 presents the CFA results based on formal study data (n = 922) for the IWB

scale Standardized factor loadings R2 values CR and AVE as total variance explained were

reported The first-order oblique IWB measurement model without offending estimate

exhibited significant factor loadings for the 6 items ranging between 50 and 87 (p lt001)

with no significant standard error or negative error variance Although the reliability of

individual item should be further enhanced such as item number 1 (R2 = 25) in overall the

quality of the items was acceptable (R2

gt5) (Tabachnica amp Fidell 2006)

In addition the CFA results showed strong fit indexes of the model (χ2(6) = 2122 p

lt 001 χ2df = 354 NFI = 99 NNFI = 98 GFI = 99 RMSEA = 056 and SRMR = 021)

As shown in Table 42 the CR of the scale was satisfactory (c = 85) (Bagozzi amp Yi 1988)

The convergent reliability of the construct was also acceptable (v = 50) (Hair et al 2006)

The Cronbachrsquos coefficient alpha for the scale was 851

61

Table 41

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Innovative Work Behaviour Scale

Factor Item noa λ (SEm) t value R

2 c v

IWBb

1 50 (03) 1458

25

85 50

2 87 (03) 2787

77

5 69 (03) 2155

48

6 62 (03) 1782

38

7 76 (03) 2413

57

9 75 (03) 2246

56

Note a = Item numbers were based on the original scale

b = innovative work behaviour SEm

= standard error of measurement λ = standardized factor loadings c = composite reliability

v = average variance extracted n = 922

p lt 001

Work Motivation

This variable aims to assess employeersquos intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientation

The pilot study data was collected using Chioursquos (2000) 26-item four-dimensional measure

The EFA and CFA analysis results for IM and EM scales were illustrated in the following

paragraph

Intrinsic Motivation

The analysis results of pre-test data showed a KMO value of 79 for the IM scale (χ2

(78) =

306990 p lt 001) Three crucial factors were extracted from 13 IM items with eigenvalues

greater than 1 The cumulative variance explained by the three factors was 4232 where the

first factor accounted for 2707 and the second factor accounted for 1004 After each

questionnaire item was considered and 6 items that possess low factor loadings were

eliminated (ie the item number 5 (23) 20 (34) 23 (26) 30 (34) 8 (39) and 9 (19)) 7

62

items with factor loadings ranging between 47 and 81 were retained The total variance

explained of 7 items accounted for 3895

As shown in Table 42 the CFA results for IM scale indicated that all parameter

estimates of factor loadings ranging between 45 and 81 were significant (p lt001) The

chi-square test result of the t-value for the first-order oblique IM measurement model was

significant (χ2

(9) = 2405 p lt 001) The normed chi-square value (χ2df = 267)

goodness-of-fit indices and alternative indices (NFI = 99 NNFI = 97 GFI = 99 RMSEA

= 045 and SRMR = 025) all indicated that the model was acceptable The CR and AVE

were 82 and 41 The Cronbachrsquos coefficient alpha of the scale was 806 indicating

acceptable internal consistency

Table 42

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Intrinsic Motivation Scale


2 c v

IMb

7 52 (02) 1537

27

82 41

11 47 (03) 1362

22

17 52 (03) 1321

17

27 45 (02) 1236

20

3 81 (03) 2443

65

13 77 (03) 2256

59

26 81 (02) 2562

64


b = intrinsic motivation

c = extrinsic

motivation SEm = standard error of measurement λ = standardized factor loadings c =

composite reliability v = average variance extracted n = 922

p lt 001

63

Extrinsic Motivation

The analysis results first indicated the adequacy for conducting EFA (KMO = 71 χ2

(78)

= 209249 p lt 001) Four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted from 13

EM items The total variance explained of the four-factor solution accounted for 4018 A

further EFA yielded a 6-item single-factor solution with factor loadings ranging between 51

and 67 after the 7 items that possess poor factor loadings were eliminated (ie item number

1 (25) 2 (27) 6 (28) 12 (34) 16 (31) 19 (26) and 22 (24)) The cumulative variance

explained by the 6 items was 3336

As shown in Table 43 the CFA results for EM scale indicated that all parameter


first-order oblique EM model showed strong fit indexes (χ2

(6) = 2271 p lt 001 χ2df = 379

NFI = 98 NNFI = 97 GFI = 99 RMSEA = 058 and SRMR = 025) indicating that the

model was acceptable The CR and AVE of EM scale were 77 and 36 The Cronbachrsquos

coefficient alpha for the scale was 746 indicating acceptable internal consistency

Table 43

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Extrinsic Motivation Scale


2 c v

EMb

15 58 (03) 1496

34

77 36

18 52 (03) 1397

27

21 62 (03) 1517

38

24 64 (02) 1826

41

25 54 (03) 1514

29

29 69 (03) 1891

48

Note n = 922 a = Item numbers were based on the original scale

b = extrinsic motivation

SEm = standard error of measurement λ = standardized factor loadings c = composite

reliability v = average variance extracted

p lt 001

64


This firm-level variable aims to assess the extent to which employeesrsquo companies

support innovation which is based on employeesrsquo psychologically meaningful perceptions of

organisational settings for innovation As shown in Table 44 the results of high-order

confirmatory factor analysis (HCFA) for OCI scale indicated that all parameter estimates of

factor loadings ranging between 61 and 92 were significant (p lt 001) The chi-square test

result of the t-value for the model was significant (χ2

(120) = 64964 p lt 001) The

goodness-of-fit indices and alternative indices (GFI = 92 NFI = 92 NNFI = 91 RMSEA

= 076 and SRMR = 053) indicated that the model was acceptable

The CR values ranged between 64 and 83 exceeding 60 implying that the 6 subscales

were considered reliable The AVE for 6 first-order latent variables exceeded 50 indicating

that the 6 subscales possessed adequate convergent reliability The Cronbachrsquos αs for the 6

subscales were 85 (Value) 74 (Jobstyle) 85 (Teamwork) 88 (Leadership) 84 (Learning)

and 85 (Environment) and that for an overall OCI scale was 93 indicating satisfactory

internal consistency

In addition as shown in Table 45 the HCFA results indicated that the second-order

OCI measurement model showed stronger goodness-of-fit indexes than the first-order oblique

OCI model (χ2

(120) = 113973 p lt 001 GFI = 87 NFI = 87 NNFI = 85 RMSEA = 097

and SRMR = 055)

65

Table 44

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Organisational Climate for Innovation Scale


2 c v

Value

1 80 (－)b (－)

b 65

85 65 2 78 (03) 2332

61

3 84 (03) 2497

70

Jobstyle

4 61 (－) (－) 37

75 50 5 78 (04) 1578

61

6 72 (04) 1552

51

Teamwork

7 82 (－) (－) 67

84 65 8 86 (03) 2615

74

9 72 (02) 2273

53

Leadership

10 85 (－) (－) 72

88 71 11 85 (03) 2899

72

12 84 (02) 2889

70

Learning

13 78 (－) (－) 60

85 66 14 73 (04) 1686

54

15 92 (03) 2267

84

Environment

16 69 (－) (－) 48

82 60 17 79 (03) 2671

62

18 84 (04) 1901

71


b = The SEm and t values were not

reported because the path coefficients for the first observed variables of latent variables were

set to 100 SEm = standard error of measurement λ = standardized factor loadings c =

composite reliability v = average variance extracted

n = 922

p lt 001

66

Table 45

The Goodness-of-fit Comparison between First-order and Second-order Measurement

Models of Organisational Climate for Innovation Scale

GFIsa χ

2(df) χ

2df GFI NFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR

First-order

oblique model 113973 (120) 950 87 87 85 097 055

Second-order

model 64964 (120) 541 92 92 91 076 053

Note a GFIs = goodness-of-fit indexes

As shown in Table 46 the correlation coefficients for the six factors in the OCI scale

ranged between 36 and 72 (p lt 001) and did not differ significantly indicating that the

correlation coefficients may be influenced by an identical second-order factor In addition

the factor loadings for the second-order factor and six OCI factors were high and ranged

between 71 and 85 (p lt 001) indicating that the six factors were closely related

67

Table 46

The Second-order Factor Loadings and the Correlation between the First-order Factors

Factora

Organisational

Climate for

Innovation

Correlation coefficients of the first-order factors

1 2 3 4 5

1 VL 76b

2 JS 77 59 c

3 TW 78 56

50

4 LD 85 58

69

68

5 LN 71 72

36

55

55

6 EN 83 49

64

59

64

60

Note a VL = value JS = Jobstyle TW = teamwork LD = leadership LN = learning EN =

environment b = factor loadings

c = correlation coefficients

n = 922

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

Finally the appropriateness of aggregating individual employee scores to a firm-level

construct of OCI was confirmed by the median rWG values of 99 (SD = 004) which was

calculated using a uniform null distribution (James Demaree amp Wolf 1984) indicating very

strong within-company agreement (LeBreton amp Senter 2008) on the perceptions of OCI The

ICC (2) value of 95 suggested that on average employees possessed high consensus on OCI

of their companies (Bliese Halverson amp Schriesheim 2002) According to the results of

interrater reliability and intraclass correlation tests the combination of individual employeersquos

responses into a single measure of firm-level OCI therefor was supported

68

Hypothesis Tests

This section presents the information of descriptive statistics and the analysis results of

bivariate correlation followed by the illustration of model establishment and the results of

hypothesis verification Further details are provided in the following paragraph

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analyses

Table 47 presents the means standard deviations correlation coefficients for the

variables and the reliabilities of the measures used in this study The bivariate correlation

matrix shows that all independent variables (ie IM EM ASC and OCI) were significantly

and positively correlated with IWB

Of all the employee-level variables IM was more strongly related to IWB (r = 51 p

lt 01) followed by ASC (r = 33 p lt 01) and EM (r = 22 p lt 01) Employeersquos perceived

OCI was also positively related to IWB (r = 27 p lt 01) These findings provided initial

evidence that supports the hypotheses 2 3 and 4

In addition although the results showed that ASC was positively correlated with its

three dimensions namely upper reachability (r = 75 p lt 01) heterogeneity (r = 79 p

lt 01) and extensity (r = 73 p lt 01) indicating that the three dimensions may reflect the

construct of ASC upper reachability was found to be correlated highly with heterogeneity (r

= 71 p lt01) and extensity (r = 75 p lt01) where heterogeneity was associated with

extensity (r = 59 p lt01) Given the possibility of multicollinearity the score of ASC was

computed only using the indicators of heterogeneity and extensity in the study

69

Table 47

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Measuresa Min Max M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Tenure 08 21 1012 750

2 Education 1 5 307 76 -38

3 IWB 183 5 345 63 -03 -13

4 IM 243 416 366 51 -03 -11

51

5 EM 183 431 367 51 -09

-01 22

15

6 ASC 291 183 0 1 -01 -05 33

13

-06

7 UR 52 85 7743 678 -17

-24

26

20

-03 75

8 HG 1 17 865 333 -05 -07 33

16

-03 79

71

9 ES 0 69 5356 1222 -00 -03 22

11

-06 73

75

59

10 OCI 209 497 338 57 -14

-01 27

40

-27

14

12

19

13

Note a IWB = innovative work behaviour IM = intrinsic motivation EM = extrinsic motivation ASC = accessed social capital UR = upper

reachability HG = heterogeneity ES = extensity OCI = organisational climate for innovation

n = 922

p lt 01

Two-tailed tests

70

Random Effects of Innovative Work Behaviour

Table 48 presents the null model established to investigate the between-company

variance in the mean IWB The employee-level model of Equation 41 predicted the mean

IWB in each company with just one parameter of the intercept namely β0j The firm-level

model of Equation 42 shows that each companyrsquos mean IWB β0j is represented as a function

of the grand-mean IWB in the companies γ00 plus a random error of u0j The mixed model of

Equation 43 was yielded by substituting Equation 42 into Equation 41 The one-way

ANOVA with random effects was used to capture the proportion of variance in IWB resided

between companies by examining the firm-level residual variance of the intercept (ie τ00)

and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ie ICC(1))

Table 48

The Null Model for Testing the Between-company Variance in Innovative Work Behaviour

Employee-level Model

IWBij = β0j + rij [41]

where

rij is the random effect associated with employeei nested in companyj

Variance (rij) = σ2 = within-company variance in IWB

Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [42]

where

γ00 is the grand-mean IWB across the companies

u0j is the random effect associated with companyj

Variance (u0j) = τ00 = between-company variance in IWB

Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + u0j + rij [43]

As shown in Table 49 HLM analysis results for the null model indicated that the

coefficient of grand-mean IWB with fixed effect γ00 was 346 (p lt 001) The results of

71

variance components analyses showed a τ00 of 12 (χ2

(35) = 39182 p lt 001) and a σ 2 of 29

which further yielded an ICC (1) of 29 indicating that about 29 of the variance in IWB

was between companies and about 71 was within companies These results indicated that

significant variance does exist among companies in the mean IWB propensity

In addition according to Cohen (1988) the influence of group membership should be

taken into account in a situation where the value of ICC (1) ranges between 059 and 138

which implies that a certain proportion of total variance in the outcome variable can be

explained by the groups or by the differences between the groups Considering the multilevel

data structure studied and the ICC (1) value of 29 the precondition of conducting multilevel

analyses to verify the hypotheses therefore was supported

Table 49

The Test Results for the Between-company Variance in Innovative Work Behavioura

The Null Model (M0)

Variable

Fixed effects Random effects

Estimateb se t Estimate χ

2 σ

Intercept γ00 346

06 5782 τ00 12

39182 29

Model deviancec 155891

Note a n = 36 at the firm level

b γ00 with robust standard errors

c Deviance is defined as -2 times

the log-likelihood of a maximum-likelihood which is a measure of model fit

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

72

Main Effects of Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation and Accessed

Social Capital on Innovative Work Behaviour (Hypotheses 1 2 and 3)

Table 410 presents the random coefficient regression model established to test the

Hypotheses 1 2 and 3 The employee-level model of Equation 44 indicated that the IWB

was regressed on IM EM and ASC after controlling for education and current tenure Each

companyrsquos distribution of IWB was characterized by six parameters the employee-level

intercept of IWB β0j and the slopes β1j-5j for the relationships between the employee-level

predictors (ie education current tenure IM EM and ASC) and IWB The firm-level model

comprising Equations 45 to 410 indicated that the intercept and the slopes were estimated by

the parameters of γ00-50 and u0j-5j The mixed model of Equation 411 was yielded by

substituting Equation 45 to 410 into Equation 44

73

Table 410

The Random Coefficient Regression Model for Testing the Main Effects of Intrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic Motivation and Accessed Social Capital on Innovative Work Behaviour


IWBij = β0j + β1j(Eduij) +β2j(Cur_tenij) + β3j(IMij) + β4j(EMij) + β5j(ASCij) + rij [44]

where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [45]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j

is the mean of the IWB intercepts across companies

are the mean predictor－IWB regression slopes across companies

is the random effect to the intercept of IWB associated with companyj

are the random effects to the slopes associated with companyj

Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + γ10Eduij + γ20Cur_tenij + γ30IMij + γ40EMij + γ50ASCij + u0j + u1jEduij +

u2jCur_tenij + u3jIMij + u4jEMij + u5jASCij + rij [411]

74

Table 411 presents the analysis results for the random coefficient regression model Of

the two control variables only education was significantly but negatively related to IWB (γ10

= -07 p lt 05) In addition the results showed that IM was more significantly related to IWB

(γ30 = 41 p lt 001) followed by ASC (γ50 = 25 p lt 01) and EM (γ40 = 31 p lt 05)

Therefore the findings supported Hypotheses 1 2 and 3 The pseudo R2

within-company for the

model was 91 indicating that in overall adding IM EM ASC and the two control variables

as employee-level predictors of IWB reduced the within-company variance by 91 In other

words the predictors account for about 91 of the employee-level variance in the IWB

Furthermore the chi-square test for the firm-level residual variance of the intercept β0j

was significant (τ00 = 19 p lt 001) indicating that the significant difference among

companies in their IWB not only was influenced by the employee-level predictors but also

probably influenced by certain firm-level factors whereby the study further investigated that

whether OCI can exerts a cross-level effect on IWB (ie Hypothesis 4)

Besides the results of components variance analyses indicated that the chi-square tests

for the firm-level residual variance of the IM and EM slopes (ie β3j and β4j) were significant

with the τ values of 37 (p lt 001) and 53 (p lt 001) implying that the significant difference

of IM and EM slopes may be influenced by firm-level predictors whereby the study further

investigated that whether OCI can exerts cross-level moderating effects on the slopes (ie

Hypotheses 5 and 6)

Finally the analysis result of a parallel model comparison indicated that a chi-square test

of the change in the deviance statistic from null model (M0) to random coefficient regression

model (M1) confirmed that the inclusion of employee-level predictors significantly improved

the overall model fit (Δ-2LL = 154831 Δdf = 20 p lt 001)

75

Table 411

The Test Results for the Main Effects of Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation and

Accessed Social Capital on Innovative Work Behavioura

The Random Coefficient Regression Model (M1)

Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 344

08 4074 τ00 185

42374

025

Education γ10 -07 02 -260 τ11 018

29246

Tenure γ20 -03 07 -035 τ22 164

36671

Intrinsic motivation γ30 -41

11 368 τ33 373

24087

Extrinsic motivation γ40 -31 13 238 τ44 528

11832

Accessed social capital γ50 -25

08 296 τ55 194

30704

pseudo R2

within-companyc 91

Model devianced 1061

Note a n = 922 at the employee level n = 36 at the firm level

b γs with robust standard errors

c R

2 was calculated based on the proportional reduction of within-company variance in the

IWB d Deviance is defined as -2 times the log-likelihood of a maximum-likelihood which is a

measure of model fit All the predictors were group-mean-centered in theses analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

76

Cross-level Effects of Organisational Climate for Innovation on Innovative

Work Behaviour (Hypothesis 4)

This hypothesis seeking to understand why some companies have higher means of IWB

propensity than others was aimed to investigate that whether the firm-level predictor of OCI

has positive relation with the outcome variable of IWB specifically whether the mean IWB

of each company can be predicted by OCI after controlling for the employee-level predictors

Table 412 presents the mean-as-outcome model incorporating with the main effects of

employee-level predictors for testing Hypotheses 5 The employee-level model remains the

same as in Equation 44 whereas the firm-level predictor of OCI was now added into

Equation 45 to formulate Equation 411 indicating each companyrsquos mean IWB now to be

predicted by the mean OCI of the company The mixed model of Equation 412 was yielded

by substituting Equation 46 to 411into Equation 44

77

Table 412

The Mean-as-Outcome Model Incorporating with the Main Effects of Employee-level

Predictors for Testing the Cross-level Effect of Organisational Climate for Innovation on

Innovative Work Behavior



where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j


is the fixed effect of the mean OCI on β0j


is the conditional residual β0j － γ00 － γ01(OCIj)


Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + γ10Eduij + γ20Cur_tenij + γ30IMij + γ40EMij + γ50ASCij + u0j +

u1jEduij + u2jCur_tenij + u3jIMij + u4jEMij + u5jASCij + rij [412]

78

As shown in Table 413 the HLM results for the model (M2) indicated that OCI was

significantly and positively related to IWB (γ01= 47 p lt 001) supporting Hypothesis 4 In

addition all employee-level predictors except for tenure were significantly related to IWB

with γs ranging between -06 and 41 The conditional between-company variance (τ00) in the

intercept of IWB β0j was reduced 002 from 185 (M1) to 183 (M2) The pseudo

R2

between-company was 011 indicating that adding OCI as the firm-level predictor of mean IWB

reduced the between-company variance by 11 In other words OCI accounts for about 1

of the firm-level variance in the IWB The chi-square test result for the firm-level residual

variance in the intercept of IWB remains significant (τ00 = 18 p lt 001) indicating that there

may have certain firm-level factors to explain the significant difference among companies in

their IWB after adding the firm-level predictor of OCI Finally a chi-square test of the

change in the deviance statistic from random coefficient regression model (M1) to

mean-as-outcome model (M2) confirmed that including OCI as firm-level predictor

significantly improved the overall model fit (Δ-2LL = 2326 Δdf = 1 p lt 001)

79

Table 413

The Test Results for the Cross-level Effects of Organisational Climate for Innovation on

Innovative Work Behavioura

The Mean-as-outcome Model (M2)

Variable Fixed effects Random effects


2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4364 τ00 183

40304

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -254 τ11 016

24456

Tenure γ20 -03 08 -034 τ22 162

36608


11 375 τ33 379

24423


11480


08 314 τ55 191

31575

Firm-level

Organisational climate

for innovation

γ01 47

13 341

pseudo R2

between-companyc 011

Model devianced 747


b γs with robust standard

errors c R

2 was calculated based on the proportional reduction of conditional

between-company variance in β0j d Deviance is defined as -2 times the log-likelihood of a

maximum-likelihood which is a measure of model fit All the predictors were

group-mean-centered in theses analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

80

Cross-level Moderating Effects of Organisational Climate for Innovation

on the Relationships between Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation

and Innovative Work Behaviour (Hypothesis 5 and 6)

The Hypotheses aim to seek that whether in some companies the correlations between

IM and IWB and EM and IWB are stronger than in others due to OCI specifically does OCI

exerts cross-level moderating effects on such relationships Table 414 presents the full model

created to test the Hypotheses 5 and 6 incorporating the main effects of employee-level

predictors and the cross-level effect of OCI on IWB The employee-level model remains the

same as in Equation 44 whereas the OCI as the firm-level predictor for the slopes of

IM-IWB and EM-IWB was now added into Equation 48 and 49 to form Equation 413 and

414 indicating that the slopes were now predicted by OCI The mixed model of Equation

415 was yielded by substituting all firm-level equations into Equation 44

81

Table 414

The Full Model for Testing the Cross-level Moderating of Organisational Climate for

Innovation on the Relationships between Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation and




where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j

β3j = γ30 + γ02(OCIj) + u3j

β4j = γ40 + γ03(OCIj) + u4j

β5j = γ50 + u5j

[47]

[413]

[414]

[410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

γ02-03

u0j

u1j-5j




are the fixed effects of mean OCI on β3j and β4j


are the random effects to the slopes associated with companyj where u3j-4j are the

conditional residuals β3j － γ30 － γ02(OCIj) and β4j － γ40 － γ03(OCIj)

Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + γ10Eduij + γ20Cur_tenij + γ30IMij + γ31(OCIj) + γ40EMij +

γ41(OCIj) + γ50ASCij + u0j + u1jEduij + u2jCur_tenij + u3jIMij + u4jEMij + u5jASCij + rij

[415]

82

As shown in Table 415 the HLM analysis results for the full model (M3) indicated that

OCI exerted a positive moderating effect on the relationship between EM and IWB (γ44 = 50

p lt 05) However OCI did not significantly predict the IM－IWB slopes (γ33 = 25 ns)

Therefore Hypothesis 6 was verified whereas Hypothesis 5 was rejected Figure 41

graphically depicts the significant interaction finding The interaction plot revealed that the

positive relationship between EM and IWB was stronger when the OCI was higher

In addition the residual variance of IM-IWB slopes τ33 was 41 (M3) which compared

to the unconditional variance of 38 (M2) implies an increment of 03 (R2

between-company for IM

slopes = 078) indicating that the significant variation in the IM-IWB slopes remains

unexplained after adding the firm-level predictor of OCI The residual variance of EM－IWB

slopes τ44 was reduced 05 from 55 (M2) to 50 (M3) indicating that about 9 of the

residual variance in the EM-IWB slopes was explained by OCI (R2

between-company for EM slopes

= 091) The chi-square test result for the change in the deviance statistic from

mean-as-outcome model (M2) to full model (M3) confirmed that the inclusion of OCI


Figure 41 Cross-level Moderating Effect of Organisational Climate for Innovation on

the Relationship between Extrinsic Motivation and Innovative Work Behaviour

Innovative

Work Behaviour


High OCI

Low OCI

83

Table 415

The Test Results for the Cross-level Moderating Effects of Organisational Climate for



The Full Model (M3)



2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4065 τ00 189

40834

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -222 τ11 016

24082

Tenure γ20 -02 08 -032 τ22 162

36588


11 357 τ33 407

28434

Extrinsic motivation γ40 -35

12 282 τ44 499

20837


08 307 τ55 194

308

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 -38

13 301

γ33 -25 28 89

γ44 -50 24 210

pseudo R2

between-companyc for IM slopes

for EM slopes

-08

-09

Model devianced 636



c R

2 value was calculated based on the proportional reduction of the residual variance in the

IM and EM slopes d Deviance is defined as -2 times the log-likelihood of a maximum-likelihood

which is a measure of model fit All the predictors were group-mean-centered in theses

analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

84

Summary of Analysis Results

Table 416 presents the summary of analysis results for hypothesis verification The

results of employee-level research indicates that IM EM and ASC are significantly

correlated with employee IWB propensity (Hypotheses 1 2 and 3 respectively) The results

of firm-level research show that on average the mean OCI is positively associated with the

mean IWB propensity (Hypothesis 4) and that on average the relationship between EM and

IWB is stronger in a situation where the mean OCI is higher (Hypothesis 6) However the

results demonstrate that on average the mean OCI is uncorrelated with the relationship

between IM and IWB (Hypothesis 5) In sum of all the hypotheses only Hypothesis 5 is

rejected Next section conducts the discussion of the results

85

Table 416

Summary of Analysis Resultsa


b EPS = employee-level predictors

c γs with robust standard errors

d Difference

compared to previous model e The better a model fits the smaller the deviance value

f Chi-square tests were used to examine the change in

different modelrsquos deviance statistic for parallel comparison of model fit g All the predictors were group-mean-centered in these analyses

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001 Two-tailed tests

Variableg

Models and Relationships

Hypotheses

M0 M1 M2 M3

YIWB XEPS

b rarr YIWB XEPS rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YIWB

XEPS rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YEM-IWB

XOCI rarr YIM-IWB

Estimatesc Accepted Rejected

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 (τ00) 346 (12) 344 (19) 347 (18) 347 (19)

Education γ10 (τ11) -07 (02) -06 (02) -06 (02)

Tenure γ20 (τ22) -03 (16) -03 (16) -02 (16)

Intrinsic motivation γ30 (τ33) 41 (37) 41 (38) 40 (41) H1 times

Extrinsic motivation γ40 (τ44) 31 (53) 33 (55) 35 (50) H2 times

Accessed social capital γ50 (τ55) 25 (19) 26 (19) 25 (19) H3 times

Firm-level

Organisational climate for

innovation

γ01 (τ00) 47 (18) 38 (19) H4 times

γ33 (τ33) 25 (41) H5 times γ44 (τ44) 50 (50) H6 times

σwithin-company 29 025 025 025

pseudo R2

within-companyd 91

between-companyd 011 -08 for IM slopes

-09 for EM slopes

Model Deviancee f

155891 1061 747 636

86

Discussion of Research Findings

This section divided into two parts discusses the results of hypothesis verification The

first part elucidates the interpretations regarding the verification results of employee-level

hypotheses that are corroborated in this study as accessed social capital (ASC) intrinsic

motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM) are correlated positively with innovative

work behaviour (IWB) The second part discusses the results of firm-level hypotheses where

the positive contextual effect of organisational climate for innovation (OCI) on IWB and the

positive cross-level moderating effect of OCI on the relationship between EM and IWB are

corroborated in the study The lack of correlation between OCI and the relationship of IM and

EM is discussed

Employee-level research

Employee-level research consists of three hypotheses Hypotheses 1 and 2 assert that

both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated employees are more likely to demonstrate

stronger IWB propensities Hypothesis 3 predicts that employees with many heterogeneous

acquaintances (ie ASC) are more likely to show stronger IWB propensities

The relationship between intrinsic motivation extrinsic motivation and innovative

work behaviour

Hypotheses 1 and 2 are corroborated in this study as both IM and EM are associated

positively with IWB propensity More specifically employees with a higher orientation to

intrinsic or extrinsic motivation are more likely to exhibit stronger IWB propensities The

results could be interpreted based on Amabilersquos (1993) theory of work motivation which

elucidates that employeesrsquo intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations are considered part

of their stable personality traits reflects their primary motivational orientation as work

preference and can be used to explain and predict their behaviours

The positive relationship between IM and IWB may the result of that when employees

perform innovation activities because they consider the activities challenging (eg

87

implementing new ideas) or interesting (eg generating new ideas)9 and gain intrinsic

motivators such as joy to match their intrinsic motivational orientations when performing

the activities they exhibit stronger IWB propensities In other words if the main reason why

employees demonstrate innovative behaviours is because of the challenge or enjoyment

provided by the behaviours itself employees are more likely to show stronger IWB

propensities

Similarly the same theory applies to the positive relationship between EM and IWB

namely when employees undertake innovation activities because they consider the activities

as instruments for obtaining desired external rewards to match their extrinsic motivational

orientations they demonstrate stronger IWB propensities Therefore if the main reason why

employees demonstrate innovative behaviours is because of the recognition10

that is resulted

from the behaviours employees are more likely to exhibit strong IWB propensities

In sum the results are consistent with the interactionist framework of creative behaviour

(Woodman et al 1993) where the model illustrates that IM may influence creative behaviours

and the theory of motivational synergy (Amabile 1993) which elucidates that certain types of

extrinsic motivators can be viewed as synergistically extrinsic motivators such as recognition

that allow increasing employeersquos autonomy and involvement in intrinsically interesting tasks

such as generating ideas

The relationship between accessed social capital and innovative work behaviour

The result shows that ASC is correlated positively with IWB More specifically

employees with more heterogeneous acquaintances are more likely to exhibit strong IWB

propensities The theoretical foundations that explain why ASC has an impact on IWB

propensity could be based on the social resources theory of social capital (Lin 2002) and the

9 The modified IM scale used in this study was adapted from Work Preference Inventory (WPI Amabile et al

1994) which includes 4 items of Challenge subscale and 3 items of Enjoyment subscale The interpretations for

the result of positive relationship between IM and IWB are based on the two constructs measured in the study 10

The modified EM scale includes 6 items of Outward subscale retrieved from WPI The interpretations for the

result of positive relationship between EM and IWB are based on the construct

88

theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 1991 Ajzen amp Madden 1986)

According to social resources theory social capital is the value resources embedded in

social network that can be borrowed through direct or indirect social ties and can be utilized

to facilitate peoplersquos actions andor behaviours within a social structure (Coleman 1990 Lin

2002) From the perspective of our daily life it is too often that we intentionally or

unintentionally obtain creative elements (ie value resources of innovation) from our various

acquaintances (ie accessed social capital) Those creative elements including but not

limited to novel thoughts the knowledge beyond our fields of expertise or valuable

experiences are further used in generating new andor useful ideas to solve our concerned

problems (Lin 2002) Considering the utility of social capital therefore the result could be

interpreted as that employees with many heterogeneous acquaintances may have better

chances to acquire or contact many andor diverse new andor useful ideas as value social

resources of innovation which further increase their capabilitiescompetencies of performing

innovation activities that are actualized through various innovative behaviours (Coleman

1990) Consequently employees are more likely to demonstrate stronger IWB propensities

because of the capabilities strengthened

Additionally the TPB indicates that peoplersquos behaviours toward particular activities are

driven by their behavioural intentions which are determined by three factors namely attitude

subjective norm and perceived behavioural control where perceived behavioural control is

defined as peoplersquos perceptions of their needed resources andor opportunities to perform a

given behaviour (Ajzen 1991) Drawing on the TPB another interpretation of the result

could be that employees with many heterogeneous acquaintances may feel able to perform

innovative behaviours when they consider their various acquaintances as needed social

resources andor opportunities of performing innovation activities Accordingly employees

are more likely to show stronger IWB propensities because of having needed resources

In sum this study provides two theoretical cues to explain the result but do not preclude

89

the possibility that other mechanism linking ASC and IWB can be in place Future research is

obviously required

Firm-level research

Firm-level research comprises three hypotheses that are corroborated in this study

except Hypothesis 5 (ie the positive moderating effect of OCI on the relationship between

IM and IWB) Hypothesis 4 elucidates that OCI is positively related to IWB Hypothesis 5

posits that on average employeesrsquo perceptions of supportive climates for innovation are

associated with their IWB propensities Hypothesis 6 predicts that on average the

relationship between EM and IWB is stronger when the extent of supportive climate for

innovation is higher

The contextual influence of organisational climate for innovation on innovative

work behaviour

The result shows that the OCI means are correlated with the means of IWB propensity

More specifically that is on average employees are more likely to exhibit stronger IWB

propensities when they perceive a higher extent of supportive climates for innovation

An interpretation for the result according to psychological climate theory (James amp

Sells 1981) could be that employees respond organisational expectations for innovative

behaviours (Ashkanasy et al 2000) (eg employees are encouraged to think creatively) by

regulating their behaviours and formulating expectancies and instrumentalities (James

Hartman Stebbins amp Jones 1977) to realize the expectations (Bandura 1988)

The result is consistent with not only the theoretical perspectives of that creative

situation as the sum total of socialcontextual influences on creative behaviour can influence

both the level and the frequency of employeesrsquo creative behaviours (Amabile et al 1996

Woodman et al 1993) but also the empirical findings regarding the relationship between

innovativecreative behaviour and innovation climate at the level of individual (Scott amp

Bruce 1993) and that at the level of hierarchy (Chen 2006 Lin amp Liu 2010)

90

Like previous empirical findings this study found a positively direct relationship

between OCI and IWB propensity Unlike previous empirical findings that were mostly

conducted at the level of individual indicated perceived climates for innovation to be

associated with IWB propensity this research provides supportive evidence of that a

companyrsquos overall level of OCI is associated with employeesrsquo overall performance on IWB

propensity of that company The compatibility of the results is all more impressive because

these studies complement each other

The cross-level contextual influence of organisational climate for innovation on the


The result shows that the OCI means are correlated with the means of the relationship

between EM and IWB among companies indicating that there is a tendency for companies of

higher OCI to have greater input-output relationship between EM and IWB than do

companies with lower OCI Hence on average when extrinsically motivated employees

perceive high supportive climate for innovation they show stronger IWB propensities The

results may lead to several interpretations

First the managerial perspective of Signaling Theory (Connelly Certo Ireland amp

Reutzel 2011) illustrates that an organisational climate can be viewed as the signal which

conveys managersrsquo andor leadersrsquo (signalers) intentions (signals) to the employees (signal

receivers) about their work behaviours or performance outcomes Extending this rationale

therefore a supportive climate for innovation conveys the management peoplersquos behavioural

expectations of innovation to the employees In addition as noted previously extrinsically

motivated employees undertake innovation activities when they consider that performing

innovative behaviours can obtain recognition Therefore the result could be interpreted as

that the employees are more likely to be extrinsically motivated and thereby show stronger

IWB propensities when they perceive that the climates for innovation signal that exhibiting

innovative behaviours will lead them to get recognition

91

Similarly Expectancy-valence Theory (Vroom 1964) elucidates that employees will be

motivated to participate in specific activities and perform corresponding behaviours if they

believe that the behaviours will lead to valued outcomes Also according to organisational

climate theory a climate for a specific activity not only reflect employeesrsquo beliefs regarding

the activity but also inform the kinds of behaviours that are rewarded and expected in an

organisational setting (Schneider 1990) Taken together therefore extrinsically motivated

employees are more likely to exhibit stronger innovative behaviours when a climate for

innovation informs them to be rewarded with recognition by showing innovative behaviours

Additionally Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Homans 1958 Blau 1964) posits that

every interaction among people can be understood as a form of reciprocal exchange of

rewards Although the SET focuses mainly on the individualrsquos face-to-face social interactions

recent studies have attempted to conceptualize the relationship between an organisation and

its members as a kind of social exchange relationship (Aryee amp Chay 2001 Neal amp Griffin

2006) According to the SET the reciprocal rewards can be divided into two categories the

intrinsic rewards similar as intrinsic motivators are those things to be found pleasurable in

and of themselves (eg enjoyment and challenge) and the extrinsic rewards similar as

extrinsic motivators are detachable from the association in which they are acquired (eg

recognition) Taken together the result could be interpreted as that when employees consider

that they can obtain (receiving) recognition from the organisations they are more likely to be

extrinsically motivated and thereby to exhibit stronger IWB propensities (giving)

Finally drawing on the TPB (Ajzen 1991) the result could be interpreted as that

employees are more likely to be extrinsically motivated to exhibit stronger IWB propensities

when they view the supportive innovation climates as resources andor opportunities to

obtain recognition

In sum the result is consistent with the theoretical foundations of Lewinian field theory

(Lewinrsquos 1951) and the theory of motivational synergy (Amabilersquos 1993)

92



The result shows that the means of the relationship between IM and OCI are not

associated with the OCI means which goes against the theory Theoretically intrinsically

motivated employees tend to chooseparticipate in the tasksactivities which provide intrinsic

motivators (eg challenge and enjoyment) that can match their basic intrinsic motivational

orientations (Amabile 1993 Amabile et al 1994) and in addition employees are more

likely to be intrinsically motivated when they perceive supportive climates for innovation

(Woodman et al 1993 Amabile 1997) The result thus should be treated circumspectly

One possible explanation might be that the innovation activities play a more important

role than the situational context does in terms of motivating employees to perform innovative

behaviours In other words the reason why intrinsically motivated employees decide to

perform innovative behaviours is primarily because of the intrinsic motivators provided by

the innovative work activities itself not the organisational supports on innovation

Although the result of the relationship between OCI and IM－IWB does not accord with

related theories of innovative behaviour at the level of individual it does not imply that

employee-level factors do not interact with firm-level factors Future work will hopefully

clarify this concern

93

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This thesis presented a hierarchical model to explain the phenomenon of employee

innovative work behaviour The theoretical foundations and the hypotheses were explored in

chapter two and the empirical hypotheses derived tested in chapter four The conclusion

summarizes the empirical results discussed This chapter is divided into four sections Section

one presents the conclusions of this study Section two discusses the theoretical and

managerial implications of the results Section three illustrates the limitations of this study

and the suggestions for future research Final considers are elucidated in section four

Conclusions

The general conclusion is that accessed social capital (ASC) work motivation (WM)

and organisational climate for innovation (OCI) are strongly associated with the propensity

innovative work behaviour (IWB) and that OCI moderates the relationship between EM and

IWB As mentioned throughout the theory ASC WM and OCI are critical factors for

enhancing employeesrsquo IWB propensities which is corroborated in this study as the three

factors have clear effects on employeersquos willingness to exhibit innovative behaviours The

results show that in all organisations studied employees with many heterogeneous

acquaintances and higher orientations to the motivation of challenge enjoyment and

recognition are more likely to exhibit stronger innovative behaviours and that employees

tend to show stronger propensities of innovative behaviours when they perceive a higher

degree of supportive climates for innovation where extrinsically motivated employees are

more likely to demonstrate stronger propensities of innovative behaviour when the supportive

climates for innovation are higher

94

Empirical evidence for hypotheses and answers to the research questions

The thesis is motivated by four research questions with appropriate hypotheses for each

research questions advanced and tested in chapter two and four The questions hypotheses

and results that support or do not the hypotheses are presented

The first research question elucidates that whether the employee-level factors of

accessed social capital and work motivation are related to innovative work behaviour

The corresponding hypotheses are H1 H2 and H3

H1 Intrinsic motivation is positively related to innovative work behaviour (Employees

with a higher orientation to intrinsic motivation are more likely to exhibit stronger

propensities of innovative work behaviour)

This hypothesis was verified The result shows that employeersquos intrinsic motivational

orientations are associated with their IWB propensities More precisely employees are more

likely to demonstrate strong IWB propensity when they consider innovation activities

challenging andor interesting

H2 Extrinsic motivation is positively related to innovative work behaviour (Employees

with a higher orientation to extrinsic motivation are more likely to exhibit stronger


This hypothesis was verified The result shows that employeersquos extrinsic motivational

orientations are correlated with their IWB propensities Employees are more likely to exhibit

strong IWB propensity when they consider innovation activities as instruments for obtaining

recognition


(Employees with more diverse acquaintances are more likely to exhibit stronger


This hypothesis was verified The result shows that employeersquos accessed social capital is

95

related to their IWB propensities More specifically employees with more heterogeneous

acquaintances are more likely to exhibit strong IWB propensities

The second research question elucidates that whether the firm-level factor of

organisational climate for innovation exerts a contextual effect on employee innovative work

behaviour

The corresponding hypothesis is H5

H4 Organisational climate for innovation is positively related to innovative work

behaviour (On average employees are more likely to exhibit stronger propensities

of innovative work behaviour when they perceive a higher extent of supportive

climates for innovation)

This hypothesis was verified The result shows that employeesrsquo perceptions of

organisational climate for innovation are correlated with their IWB propensities Employees

are more likely to exhibit strong IWB propensities when they perceived supportive climates

for innovation

The third research question elucidates that whether the firm-level factor of

organisational climate for innovation exerts a cross-level moderating effect on the

relationship between work motivation and innovative work behaviour

The corresponding hypotheses are H5 and H6

H5 Organisational climate for innovation positively moderates the relationship

between intrinsic motivation and innovative work behaviour (On average when

employees perceive a higher degree of supportive climates for innovation the

extent to which employeesrsquo intrinsic motivational orientations contribute to their

propensities of innovative work behaviour is more likely stronger)

This hypothesis was rejected The result shows that the consensual perceptions of the

climates for innovation are uncorrelated with the mean relationships between employeesrsquo

96

extrinsic motivational orientations and their IWB propensities


between extrinsic motivation and innovative work behaviour (On average when


extent to which employeesrsquo extrinsic motivational orientations contribute to their


This hypothesis was verified The result shows that there is a tendency for companies of

high climates for innovation to have greater input-output relationships between employeesrsquo

extrinsic motivational orientations and their IWB propensities than do companies with low

climates for innovation More precisely extrinsically motivated employees among companies

are more likely to have stronger IWB propensities when they perceived supportive climates

for innovation

97

Theoretical and Managerial Implications

This study makes several theoretical contributions to the innovation social capital and

psychological climate for innovation literatures Based on the research conclusions the

corresponding theoretical and managerial implications were discussed as follows

Theoretical Implications

Accessed social capital and innovative work behaviour

The study provides an exploratory finding regarding the capability of employeersquos social

relations (ie ASC) correlates positively with employeersquos propensity of innovative work

behaviour Although the formation of social network and the quality of within-company

interpersonal relationship associated positively with the extent of engaging in innovation

activities (Obstfeld 2005) and the number of generating new ideas (De Long amp Fahey 2000

McFadyen amp Cannella 2004 Smith et al 2005) respectively whether the quantity and

diversity of social relations affects IWB propensity has rarely been studied The result

expands the factors influencing employee innovative work behaviour However given the

exploratory nature of the result any interpretations provided based on this preliminary

finding should be treated circumspectly

Hierarchical linear model of employee innovative work behaviour

In addition the study not only theoretically developed the hierarchical model of

employee innovative work behaviour by integrating the research on social capital work

motivation and psychological climate for innovation but also empirically showed the

cross-level moderating role of the climate for innovation on the relationship between

recognition motivational orientation and innovative work behaviour in all organisations

studied Although partial research findings of this multilevel study are in accordance with the

results of the previous studies which have tested the direct effects of IM EM and OCI on

IWB at the level of individual (Amabile et al 1996 Tsai amp Kao 2004 Scott amp Bruce 1994)

98

the research findings of previous and current studies however complement each other the

compatibility of the results is all the more impressive

Motivational heterogeneity incorporating with supportive climate for innovation

Perhaps the most important implication of the research findings is that this study

empirically demonstrates that work motivation as individual differences in challenge

enjoyment and recognition orientation of motivation and the contextual factor of supportive

climate for innovation play indispensable roles at the different levels in helping employees

inspire their propensities of innovative work behaviour where recognition orientation as

synergistically extrinsic motivator (Amabile 1993) may be likely to combine successfully

with supportive climate for innovation to enhance employeersquos propensity of innovative

behaviour

Managerial Implications


The research finding of the positive relationship between ASC and IWB provides an

important managerial implication that managers should assist employees in building more

and diverse social relational networks to enhance IWB propensity Although there may have

some difficulties in helping employees connect with external social relations considering the

utility of weak ties (ie heterogeneous social ties) managers can expand and maintain

employeesrsquo internal social ties by creating rapport interpersonal relationships between

employees among departments of an organisation

Work motivation and innovative work behaviour

In addition the research findings concerning the positive relationship between IM EM

and IWB suggest that perhaps managers would not face a dilemma in selecting prospective

employee candidates by considering their orientations to intrinsic or extrinsic motivation

managers however should inspire employeesrsquo orientations to challenge enjoyment andor

recognition motivation in order to creating high frequency and level of innovative behaviour

99

Several ways can be used First managers can increase employeesrsquo beliefs by clearly

explaining that demonstrating innovative behaviours will result in their valued outcomes

such as recognition In addition managers can provide examples of other employees whose

showing innovative behaviours have resulted in their expected valued outcomes Third

managers can also increase the expected value of performing innovative behaviour such as

individualized public recognition Finally mangers should utilize positive leadership to

transfer employeesrsquo motivation into their jobs

Organisational climate for innovation and innovative work behaviour

The research finding shows that the average level on supportive OCI of an organisation

is associated positively with the average performance on employeersquos IWB propensity of that

organisation Therefore from an organisational perspective managers and leaders should

dedicate in building high-level supportive climates for innovation thereby a higher level

average performance of employeersquos IWB propensity could be reasonably expected Given

that innovation plays a critical role in todayrsquos business environment managers and leaders

could increase organisational competitiveness by enhancing employeesrsquo IWB propensities

through high-level supportive climates for innovation

Organisational climate for innovation interacting with work motivation

The last but not the least is that the result indicates a supportive climate for innovation at

the level of organisation is more likely to interact positively with recognition orientation at

the level of employee This finding elucidates that the recognition as an important element of

behavioural patterns for innovation should be taken into account when managers intend to

establish the climates for innovation because extrinsically motivated employees may view the

recognition as desired rewards valued outcomes and resources andor opportunities for

participating in innovation activities More specifically managers should convey behavioural

expectations through the climates which signal that exhibiting innovative behaviours will

lead to obtaining recognition

100

Consequently employees with many heterogeneous acquaintances and a higher degree

of the orientations to challenge enjoyment and recognition motivation are more likely to

show stronger IWB propensities Employees who tend to be motivated by recognition are

more likely to show stronger IWB propensities when they perceive supportive climates for

innovation rewarding them with recognition

Limitations and Future Research

Although this study endeavoured to perfect the research design it still had the following

limitations First the dependent variable in this study was the propensity of innovative work

behaviour which is a subjective indicator Therefore whether the findings of this study can

be applied to situations with an objective IWB indicator remains to be investigated Because

the possibility that an objective innovative work behaviour indicator is distorted by human

judgement is relatively low whether the factors of ASC IM EM and OCI still possess

predictive power for an objective IWB indicator requires further discussion This study

suggests that future researchers include both objective and subjective indicators in their

studies to address this concern

Additionally the data studied did not include observations in each and every industry

thus whether the findings and suggestions provided by this study can be applied to other

populations in other industries requires further discussion Given the exploratory nature of the

finding that ASC correlates to IWB this study suggests that future researchers undertake

small-scale research using quantitative and qualitative methods to address the issue that

whether different occupational categories (different social resources) correlate with IWB

propensity in various degrees

Despite these limitations the results of this study expand the factors that influence

innovative behaviour and enhance the current understanding of the relationships between



101

Final Considerations

Clearly more studies are required to extend the findings of this research by considering

a broader set of motivational orientations (eg ego orientation introjected orientation and

integrative orientation) How occupational diversity influence IWB propensity remains an

interesting issue Researchers should also extend the findings regarding ASC and IWB

102


103

REFERENCES

Ahuja G (2000) Collaboration networks structural holes and innovation A longitudinal

study Administrative Science Quarterly 45(3) 425-455 Retrieved from

httpwwwtue-tmorgINAMAssignment1ahujapdf

Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes 50(2) 179-211 Retrieved form

httpxayimgcomkqgroups78997509701520272nameOct+19+Cited+231+Manag

e+THE+THEORY+OF+PLANNED+BEHAVIORpdf

Ajzen I amp Madden T J (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behavior Attitudes intentions

and perceived behavioral control Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22

453-474 doidxdoiorg1010160022-1031(86)90045-4

Amabile T M (1993) Motivational synergy toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation in the workplace Human Resource Management Review 3(3)

185-201 doi1010161053-4822(93)90012-S

Amabile T M amp Gryskiewicz N D (1989) The creative environment scales Work

environment inventory Creativity Research Journal 2(4) 231-253 doi

10108010400418909534321

Amabile T M Burnside R M amp Gryskiewciz SS (1999) Userrsquos manual for KEYS

assessing the climate for creativity A survey from the Center for Creative Leadership

Greensboro N C Center for Creative Leadership

Amabile T M Conti R Coon H Lazenby J amp Herron M (1996) Assessing the work

environment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39(5) 1154-1184 doi

102307256995

Amabile T M Hill K G Hennessey B A Tighe E M (1994) The work preference

inventory assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 66(5) 950-967 doi 1010370022-3514665

Anderson N R amp West M A (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation

Development and validation of the team climate inventory Journal of Organizational

Behavior 19(3) 235-258 doi

101002(SICI)1099-1379(199805)193lt235AID-JOB837gt30CO2-C

Anderson N amp King N (1993) Innovation in organizations In CL Cooper amp IT

Robertson (Eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp

1-34) Chichester John Wiley

104

Anderson N de Drew Carsten K W amp Nijstad B A (2004) The routinization of

innovation research A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science Journal

of Organizational Behavior 25(2) 147-173 doi 101002job236

Aryee S amp Chay YW (2001) Workplace justice citizenship behavior and turnover

intentions in a union context examining the mediating role of perceived union support

and union instrumentality Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1) 154-160

doi 1010370021-9010861154

Ashkanasy N M Wilderom Celeste PM amp Peterson M F (2000) Handbook of

Organizational Culture and Change Sage Publications

Bagozzi R P amp Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1) 74-97 doi101177009207038801600107

Bandura A (1988) Organizational applications of social cognitive theory Australian

Journal of Management 13(2) 275-302 doi101177031289628801300210

Barrett H Balloun J amp Weinstein A (2012) Creative Climate A critical success factor

for 21st century organizations International Journal of Business Innovation and

Research 6(2) 202-219 doi101504IJBIR2012045637

Barsade S G amp Gibson D E (2007) Why does affect matter in organizations Academy of

Management Perspectives 21(1) 36ndash57 doi 105465AMP200724286163

Basu R amp Green S G (1997) Leader-Member Exchange and Transformational Behaviors

in Leader-Member Dyads Leadership An Empirical Examination of Innovative Journal

of Applied Social Psychology 27(6) 477-499 doi 101111j1559-18161997tb00643x

Bentler P M (1980) Multivariate analysis with latent variables Causal modeling Annual

Review of Psychology 31 419-456 doi 101146annurevps31020180002223

Blau P M (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life NY John Wiley and Sons

Bliese P D amp Hanges P J (2004) Being both too liberal and too conservative The perils

of treating grouped data as though they were independent Organizational Research

Methods 7(4) 400-417 doi1011771094428104268542

Bliese P D Halverson R R amp Schriesheim C A (2002) Benchmarking multilevel

methods in leadership The articles the model and the data set The Leadership

Quarterly 13(1) 3-14 doi dxdoiorg101016S1048-9843(01)00101-1

Bourdieu P (1986) The Forms of Capital In J G Richardson (Eds) Handbook of Theory

and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp 241-258) NY Greenwood Press

105

Browne M W amp Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit In K A

Bollen amp J S Long (Eds) Testing structural equation models (pp 136-162) Newbury

Park CA Sage

Burt R S (2000) The network structure of social capital Research in Organizational

Behavior 22 345-423 Retrieved from

httpwwwbebrufledusitesdefaultfilesThe20Network20Structure20of20Soci

al20Capitalpdf

Calantone R J Cavusgil S T amp Zhao Y (2002) Learning orientation firm innovation

capability and firm performance Industrial Marketing Management 31 331-361

doi101016S0019-8501(01)00203-6

Cameron J (2001) Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation－A limited

phenomenon Comment on Deci Koestner and Ryan (2001) Review of Educational

Research 71(1) 29-42 doi10310200346543071001029

Cameron J amp Pierce W D (1994) Reinforcement reward and intrinsic motivation A

meta-analysis Review of Educational Research 64(3) 363-423

doi10310200346543064003363

Cameron J Banko KM amp Pierce WD (2001) Pervasive negative effects of rewards on

intrinsic motivation the myth continues The Behavior Analyst 24(1) 1-44 Retrieved

from httpwwwbehaviororgresources331pdf

Carmines E G amp McIver J P (1981) Analyzing models with observable variables In G

W Bohrnstedt amp E F Borgatta (Eds) Social measurement Current issues (pp65-115)

Beverly Hills CA Sage

Carol Yeh-Yun Lin Feng-Chuan Liu (2012) A cross-level analysis of organizational

creativity climate and perceived innovation The mediating effect of work motivation

European Journal of Innovation Management 15(1) 55-76 doi

10110814601061211192834

Casanueva C amp Gallego A (2010) Social capital and individual innovativeness in

university research networks Network Analysis Application in Innovation Studies 12(1)

105-117 doi 105172impp121105

Chen S L (2006) A Multilevel Analysis of Innovation Behavior and Innovation

Performance Perspective of Resource Based Theory (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved

from

httpetdlibnsysuedutwETD-dbETD-searchgetfileURN=etd-0831106-142534ampfile

name=etd-0831106-142534pdf

106

Chi-Tung Tsai amp Chuan-Feng Kao (2004) The Relationships among Motivational

Orientations Climate for Organizational Innovation and Employee Innovative Behavior

A test of Amabilersquos Motivational Synergy Model Journal of Management 21(5)

571-592 Retrieved from

http20368252388080cdocument_libraryget_filep_l_id=12065ampfolderId=26903

ampname=DLFE-624pdf

Chi-Tung Tsai (2008) Intrinsic Motivation and Employee Creativity Tests of Amabilersquos

Three-Way Interaction Effect and Shinrsquos Mediation Effect Journal of Management

25(5) 549-575 Retrieved form httpjommanagementorgtwcatalogviewaspxid=50

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences Hillsdale NJ

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Colbert A E Mount M K Harter J K Witt L A amp Barrick M R (2004) Interactive

effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace

deviance Journal of Applied Psychology 89(4) 599-609 doi

1010370021-9010894599

Coleman J S (1990) Foundations of social theory Cambridge Harvard University Press

Connelly B L Certo S T Ireland R D amp Reutzel C R (2011) Signaling Theory A

Review and Assessment Journal of Management 37(1) 39-67

doi1011770149206310388419

Cote J A amp Buckley M R (1988) Measurement error and theory testing in consumer

research An illustration of the importance of construct validation Journal of Consumer

Research 14(4) 579-582 doi 101086209137

Cummings L L (1965) Organizational climates for creativity Academy of Management

Journal 8(3) 220-227 doi 102307254790

Davis F D Bagozzi R P amp Warshaw P R (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to

user computers in the workplace Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22(14)

1111-1132 doi 101111j1559-18161992tb00945x

De Jong J amp Den Hartog D (2010) Measuring innovative work behaviour Creativity amp

Innovation Management 19(1) 23-36 doi 101111j1467-8691201000547x

De Long D W amp Fahey L (2000) Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management

Academy of Management Executive 14(4) 113-127 doi105465AME20003979820

Deci E L amp Ryan R M (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior New York Plenum

107

Deci E L amp Ryan R M (2000) The what and why of goal pursuits Human needs and the

self-determination of behavior Psychological Inquiry 11(4) 227-268 doi

101207S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci E L amp Ryan R W (1980) The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivation

processes In Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 13 pp

39-80) New York Academic Press

Deci E L Koestner R amp Ryan R M (1999a) A meta-analytic review of experiments

examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation Psychological Bulletin

125(6) 627-668 doi 1010370033-29091256627

Delaney J T amp Huselid M A (1996) The impact of human resource management

practices on perceptions of organizational performance Academy of Management

Journal 39(4) 949-969 doi 102307256718

Denison DR (1996) What is the Difference between Organizational Culture and

Organizational Climate A Nativersquos Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars

Academy of Management Review 21(3) 619-654 doi105465AMR19969702100310

Dessler G (2004) Management Principles and Practices for Tomorrowrsquos Leaders Upper

Saddle River NJ Pearson Prentice Hall

DeVellis R F (2003) Scale development theory and applications Thousand Oaks CA

Sage

Dorenbosch L van Engen M L amp Verhagen M (2005) On-the-job innovation The

impact of job design and human resource management through production

ownership Creativity amp Innovation Management 14(2) 129-141 doi

101111j1476-8691200500333x

Dougherty D amp Hardy C (1996) Sustained product innovation in large mature

organizations Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems Academy of

Management Journal 39(5) 1120-1153 doi 102307256994

Dysvik A amp Kuvaas B (2012) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as predictors of work

effort the moderating role of achievement goals British Journal of Social Psychology

52(3) 412-430 doi 101111j2044-8309201102090x

Ekvall G (1996) Organizational climate for creativity and innovation European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology 5(1) 105-123 doi 10108013594329608414845

Farr J L amp Ford C M (1990) Individual innovation In M A West amp J L Farr (Eds)

Innovation and creativity at work (pp63-80) New York John Wiley amp Sons

108

Fischer C S amp Shavit Y (1995) National differences in network density Israel and the

United States Social Networks 17(2) 129-145 doi

dxdoiorg1010160378-8733(94)00251-5

Ford C M (1996) A theory of individual creative action in multiple social

domains Academy of Management Review 21(4) 1112-1142 doi

105465AMR19969704071865

Fornell C R amp Larcker D F (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error Journal of Marketing Research 18(1)


httpfaculty-gsbstanfordedularckerPDF620Unobservable20Variablespdf

Ganzeboom H B G amp Treiman D J (1996) Internationally Comparable Measures of

Occupational Status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations

Social Science Research 25(3) 201-239 doi dxdoiorg101006ssre19960010

Gilbert R G Sohi R S amp McEachern A G (2008) Measuring work preferences A

multidimensional tool to enhance career self-management Career Development

International 13(1) 56-78 doi 10110813620430810849542

Glick W H (1985) Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological

climate Pitfalls in multilevel research Academy of Management Review 10(3) 601-616

doi 105465AMR19854279045

Glynn M A (1996) Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and

organizational intelligences to innovation Academy of Management Review 21(4)

1081-1111 doi 105465AMR19969704071864

Granovetter M S (1992) Problems of explanation in economic sociology In N Nohria amp R

Eccles (Eds) Networks and organizations Structures form and action (25-26) Boston

Harvard Business School Press

Grant A M (2008) Does Intrinsic Motivation Fuel the Prosocial Fire Motivational Synergy

in Predicting Persistence Performance and Productivity Journal of Applied Psychology

93(1) 48-58 doi 1010370021-901093148

Grant A M amp Sumanth J J (2009) Mission possible The performance of prosocially

motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness Journal of Applied

Psychology 94(4) 927-944 doi 101037a0014391

Hair J Black W Babin B Anderson R amp Tatham R (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis

Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River New Jersey

109

Haivas S M Hofmans J amp Pepermans R (2012) What motivates you doesnt motivate

me Individual differences in the needs satisfaction-motivation relationship of Romanian

volunteers Applied Psychology An International Review doi

101111j1464-0597201200525x

Hawjeng Chiou Yen-Jen Chen amp Pi-Fang Lin (2009) Development of Creative

Organizational Climate Inventory and Validation Study Psychological Testing 56(1)

69-97 Retrieved from http140136247242~nutr2027hawjeng09apdf

Hellriegel D amp Slocum Jr J W (1974) Organizational climate Measures research and

contingencies Academy of Management Journal 17(2) 255-280 doi 102307254979

Hofmann D A (1997) An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear

models Journal of Management 23(6) 723-744 doi101177014920639702300602

Hofmann D A amp Stetzer A (1996) A cross-level investigation of factors influencing

unsafe behaviors and accidents Personnel Psychology 49(2) 307-339

doi 101111j1744-65701996tb01802x

Homans G C (1958) Social Behavior as Exchange The American Journal of Sociology

63(6) 597-606 doi httppersonalstevensedu~rchenreadingsexchangepdf

House R Rousseau DM amp Thomas-Hunt M (1995) The meso paradigm A framework

for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior In L L Cummings amp B

M Staw (Eds) Research in organizational behavior (Vol 17 pp 71-114) Greenwich

CT JAI Press

Hox J J (2002) Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hu L T amp Bentler M W (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis Conventional criteria versus new alternatives Structural Equation Modeling

6(1) 1-55 doi 10108010705519909540118

Hult GTM Hurley RF amp Knight GA (2004) Innovativeness Its antecedents and

impact on business performance Industrial Marketing Management 33(5) 429-438 doi

101016jindmarman200308015

Hunter ST Bedell KE amp Mumford MD (2007) Climate for creativity A quantitative

review Creativity Research Journal 19(1) 69-90 doi 10108010400410701277597

110

Hwang Y J (2011) The effect of the accessed social capital measurements on current

occupational status work type income and class identification Survey

ResearchminusMethod and Application 26 81-122 Retrieved from

http140109171170downloadphpfilename=131_aa39d710pdfampdir=paperamptitle=

E6AA94E6A188E4B88BE8BC89

Insel P M amp Moos R H (1975) Work environment scale Palo Alto CA Consulting

Psychologists Press

Isaksen S G amp Ekvall G (2010) Managing for innovation The two faces of tension

within creative climates Creativity and Innovation Management 19(2) 73-88

doi 101111j1467-8691201000558x

James L R amp Jones A P (1974) Organizational climate A review of theory and research

Psychological Bulletin 81(12) 1096-1112 doi 101037h0037511

James L R amp Sells S B (1981) Psychological climate theoretical perspectives and

empirical research In D Magnusson (Eds) Toward a psychology of situations An

interactional perspective (pp 275-292) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

James L R Demacee R G amp Wolf G (1984) Estimating within groupsinterrater

reliability with and without response bias Journal of Applied Psychology 69(1) 85-98

doi 1010370021-901069185

James L R Hartman A Stebbins M W amp Jones A P (1977) Relationship between

psychological climate and a VIE model for work motivation Personnel Psychology

30(2) 229-254 doi 101111j1744-65701977tb02091x

Janssen O (2000) Job demands perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work

behaviour Journal of Occupational amp Organizational Psychology 73(3) 287-302 doi

101348096317900167038

Joumlreskog K amp Soumlrbom D (2001) The Student Edition of LISREL 851 for Windows

Lincolnwood IL Scientific Software International Inc

Kanfer R (1991) Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology In M D

Dunnette amp L M Hough (Eds) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology

(pp 75-170) Palo Alto CA Consulting Psychologists Press

Kanfer R amp Ackerman P L (1989) Motivation and cognitive abilities An

integrativeaptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition Journal of

Applied Psychology 74(4) 657-690 doi 1010370021-9010744657

111

Kanter RM (1988) When a thousand flowers bloom structural collective and social

conditions for innovation in organization Research in Organizational behavior 10


httpcontentknowledgeplexorgksg-teststreamsksg110520Scanning20Project20

07-12-10Kanter20Rosabeth20Moss20-20Whena20Thousand20Flowers2

0Bloom20-20Structural20collective20and20social20conditions20for20i

nnovation20in20organizationsPDF

Kenny D A amp Judd C M (1986) Consequences of violating the independence assumption

in analysis of variance Psychological Bulletin 99(3) 422-431

doi 1010370033-2909993422

Kirton M (1976) Adaptors and innovators A description and measure Journal of Applied

Psychology 61(5) 622-629 doi 1010370021-9010615622

Klein K J amp Sorra J S (1996) The challenge of innovation implementation Academy of

Management Review 21(4) 1055-1080 doi 105465AMR19969704071863

Kleinginna P R amp Kleinginna A M (1981) A categorized list of emotion definitions with

suggestions for a consensual definition Motivation and Emotion 5(4) 345-379 doi

101007BF00992553

Kleysen RF amp Street CT (2001) Towards a multi-dimensional measure of individual

innovative behavior Journal of Intellectual Capital 2(3) 284-296 doi

101108EUM0000000005660

Kohn A (1996) By all available means Cameron and Pierces defense of extrinsic

motivators Review of Educational Research 66(1) 1-4

doi10310200346543066001001

Kozlowski S W J amp Klein K J (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in

organizations Contextual temporal and emergent processes In K J Klein amp S W J

Kozlowski (Eds) Multilevel theory research and methods in organizations

Foundations extensions and new directions (pp 3-90) San Francisco CA Jossey Bass

Krause D E (2004) Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to

innovate and of innovation-related behaviors An empirical investigation Leadership

Quarterly 15(1) 79 doi 101016jleaqua200312006

Latham G P amp Pinder C C (2005) Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of

the twenty-first century Annual Review of Psychology 56(1) 485-516 doi

101146annurevpsych55090902142105

112

LeBreton J M amp Senter J L (2008) Answers to twenty questions about interrater

reliability and interrater agreement Organizational Research Methods 11(4) 815-852

doi1011771094428106296642

Leonard N H Beauvais L L amp Scholl R W (1999) Work motivation The incorporation

of self-concept-based processes Human Relations 52(8) 969-998

doi101177001872679905200801

Lepper M R amp Henderlong J (2000) Turning play into work and work into play 25 years

of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation In C Sansone amp J M Harackiewicz

(Eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation The search for optimal motivation and

performance (pp 257-307) San Diego CA US Academic Press

doi 101016B978-012619070-050032-5

Lepper M R Corpus J H amp Iyengar S S (2005) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational

orientations in the classroom Age differences and academic correlates Journal of

Educational Psychology 97(2) 184-196 doi 1010370022-0663972184

Lepper MR Keavney M amp Drake M (1996) Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards

A commentary on Cameron and Pierces meta-analysis Review of Educational Research

66(1) 5-32 doi10310200346543066001005

Lewin K (1951) Field Theory in Social Science London Harper amp Row

Lin N (1999) Building a Network Theory of Social Capital Connections 22(1) 28-51

Retrieved from httpwwwinsnaorgPDFKeynote1999pdf

Lin N (2002) Social capital A theory of social structure and action Cambridge MA

Cambridge University Press

Lin N amp Dumin M (1986) Access to occupations through social ties Soc Networks 8(4)

365-385 doi 1010160378-8733(86)90003-1

Lin N Chen C J amp Fu Y C (2010) Patterns and Effects of Social Relations A

Comparison of Taiwan the United States and China Taiwanese Journal of Sociology

45 117-162 Retrieved from

httpwwwiossinicaedutwiospeoplepersonalfuycE7A4BEE69C83E9

979CE4BF82E79A84E9A19EE59E8BE5928CE6

9588E68789pdf

113

Lin N Ensel W M amp Vaughn J C (1981) Social Resources and Strength of Ties

Structural Factors in Occupational Status Attainment American Sociological Review

46(4) 393-405 Retrieved from

httpwwwjstororgdiscover1023072095260uid=3739216ampuid=2134ampuid=2ampuid=

70ampuid=4ampsid=21103268691393

Locke E A (1991) The motivation sequence the motivation hub and motivation core

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2) 288-299

doi 1010160749-5978(91)90023-M

Locke E A amp Latham G P (2004) What should we do about motivation theory Six

recommendations for the twenty-first century Academy of Management Review 29(3)

388-403 doi 105465AMR200413670974

Luke DA (2004) Multilevel modeling Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Marsden P (2005) Recent Developments in Network Measurement In P J Carrington J

Scott amp S Wasserman (Eds) Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis (pp

8-30) New York Cambridge University Press

Mathisen G E amp Einarsen S (2004) A review of instruments assessing creative and

innovative environments within organizations Creativity Research Journal 16(1)

119-140 doi 101207s15326934crj1601_12

Maute M F amp Locander W B (1994) Innovations as a socio-political process an

empirical analysis of influence behavior among new product managers Journal of

Business Research 30(2) 161-174 doi 1010160148-2963(94)90035-3

McFadyen M A amp Cannella Jr A A (2004) Social capital and knowledge creation

Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships Academy of


McLean L D (2005) Organizational Culturersquos Influence on Creativity and Innovation A

Review of the Literature and Implications for Human Resource Development Advances

in Developing Human Resources 7(2) 226-246 doi1011771523422305274528

McShane S L amp Von Glinow M A (2010) Organizational Behavior Emerging

Knowledge and Practice for the Real World NY McGraw-HillIrwin

Mitchell T (1997) Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts In L L

Cummings amp B M Staw (Eds) Research in organizational behavior (Vol 19 pp

57-149) Greenwich CT JAI Press

114

Montes F J L A R Moreno amp L M M Fernandez (2003) Assessing the

Organizational Climate and Contractual Relationship for Perceptions of Support for

Innovation International Journal of Manpower 25(2) 167-180 doi

10110801437720410535972

Moran P (2005) Structural vs relational embeddedness Social capital and managerial

performance Strategic Management Journal 26(12) 1129-1151 doi 101002smj486

Nahaphiet J amp Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital intellectual capital and the organizational

advantage Academy of Management Review 23(2) 242-266 doi 102307259373

Neal A amp Griffin M A (2006) A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate

safety motivation safety behavior and accidents at the individual and group levels

Journal of Applied Psychology 91(4) 946-953 doi 1010370021-9010914946

Neal A Griffin M A amp Hart P M (2000) The impact of organizational climate on safety

climate and individual behavior Safety Science 34 99-109 Retrieved from

httpaccelwasquarespacecomstoragejournal-articlesmarksafetyimp20of20org

20clim20on20safetypdf

Ng TWH amp Feldman DC Age and innovation-related behavior The joint moderating

effects of supervisor undermining and proactive personality Journal of Organizational

Behavior 34(5) 583-606 doi 101002job1802

Obstfeld D (2005) Social networks the tertius iungens orientation and involvement in

innovation Administrative Science Quarterly 50(1) 100-130

doi102189asqu2005501100

Patterson M G West M A Shackleton V J Dawson J F Lawthom R Maitlis S

Robinson D L amp Wallace A M (2005) Validating the organizational climate measure

Links to managerial practices productivity and innovation Journal of Organizational

Behavior 26(4) 379-408 doi 101002job312

Pavitt K (2005) The process of innovation In J Fagerberg DC Mowery amp RR Nelson

(Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp86-114) UK Oxford University Press

Pedhazur E J (1997) Multiple regression in behavior research Explanation and prediction

Forth Worth TA Harcourt

Pedhazur E J (1997) Multiple regression in behavioral research Explanation and

prediction (3rd ed) New York Holt Rinehart and Winston

115

Pierce WD Cameron J Banko KM amp So S (2003) Positive effects of rewards and

performance standards on intrinsic motivation Psychological Record 53(4) 561-579

Retrieved from httpopensiuclibsiueducgiviewcontentcgiarticle=1498ampcontext=tpr

Pinder CC (1998) Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior Upper Saddle River NJ

Prentice Hall

Podsakfoff PM MacKenzie SB Lee JY amp Podsakoff NP (2003) Common Method

Biases in Behavioral Research A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended

Remedies Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5) 879-903 Retrieved from

httppsychcoloradoedu~willcuttpdfsPodsakoff_2003pdf

Porter L W Bigley G A Steers R M (2003) Motivation and Work Behaviour Edition

New York McGraw-Hill

Portes A (1998) Social capital Its origins and application in modern sociology Annual

Review of Sociology 24(1) 1-24 doi 101146annurevsoc2411

Putnam R D (1995) Bowling alone Americarsquos declining social capital Journal of

Democracy 6(1) 65-78 Retrieved from

httparchiverealtororgsitesdefaultfilesBowlingAlonepdf

Raine-Eudy R (2000) Using Structural Equation Modeling to Test for

differential reliability and validity An empirical demonstration Structural Equation

Modeling 7(1) 124-141 doi 101207S15328007SEM0701_07

Rainey H G (2000) Work Motivation In R T Colembiewiski (Ed) Handbook of

organizational behavior (pp 19-42) New York Marcel Dekker Inc

Raudenbush S W amp Bryk A S (2002) Hierarchical linear models Applications and data

analysis methods Newbury Park Sage Publications

Raudenbush S W Bryk A S Cheong Y F Congdon R amp Du Toit M (2011) HLM 7

Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling Lincolnwood IL Scientific Software

International

Robbins S P amp Judge T A (2009) Organizational Behavior Upper Saddle River NJ

Pearson Prentice Hall

Rousseau D (1985) Issues of level in organizational research Multilevel and cross-level

perspectives In L L Cummings amp B M Staw (Eds) Research in organizational

behavior (Vol 7 pp 1-37) Greenwich CT JAI Press

116

Rousseau D M (1988) The construction of climate in organizational research In C L

Cooper amp I T Robertson (Eds) International review of industrial and organizational

psychology (Vol 3 pp 139-158) New York Wiley

Ruttan V W (2001) Technology Growth and Development An Induced Innovation

Perspective New York Oxford University Press

Ryan R M amp Deci E L (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations Classic definitions and

new directions Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1) 54-67 doi

101006ceps19991020

Ryan RM amp Deci EL (1996) When paradigms clash Comments on Cameron and

Peircersquos claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation Review of

Educational Research 66(1) 33-38 doi10310200346543066001033

Schein E M (2004) Organizational culture and leadership CA Jossy-Bass

Schneider B (1990) The climate for service an application of the climate construct In B

Schneider (Ed) Organizational climate and culture (pp 383-412) San Francisco CA

Jossey-Bass

Schneider B (2000) The psychological life of organizations In N M Ashkanasy C P M

Wilderon amp M F Peterson (Eds) Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp

xviindashxxi) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Schneider B White S S amp Paul M C (1998) Linking service climate and customer

perceptions of service quality Test of a causal model Journal of Applied

Psychology 83(2) 150-163 Retrieved from

httpmresgmuedupmwikiuploadsMainSchneider1998pdf

Schroeder R Van de Ven A Scudder G amp Polley D (1989) The development of

innovation ideas In A Van de Ven H Angle amp M Poole (Eds) Research on the

management of innovation The Minnesota studies (pp107-134) New York Harper amp

Row

Scott S G amp Bruce R A (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior A path model of

individual innovation in the workplace Academy of Management Journal 37(3)

580-607 doi 102307256701

Seo M Barrett L F amp Bartunek J M (2004) The role of affective experience in work

motivation Academy of Management Review 29(3) 423-439 doi

105465AMR200413670972

117

Sewards T V amp Sewards M A (2002) On the neural correlates of object recognition

awareness relationship to computational activities and activities mediating perceptual

awareness Consciousness and Cognition 11(1) 51-77 doi101006ccog20010518

Shalley C E Zhou J amp Oldham G R (2004) The effects of personal and contextual

characteristics on creativity Where should we go from here Journal of

Management 30(6) 933-958 doi 101016jjm200406007

Shane SA (1994) Are champions different from non-champions Journal of Business

Venturing 9(5) 397-421 doi dxdoiorg1010160883-9026(94)90014-0

Shin S amp Zhou J (2003) Transformational leadership conservation and creativity

Evidence from Korea Academy of Management Journal 46(6) 703-714

doi10230730040662

Smith K G Collins C J amp Clark K D (2005) Existing knowledge knowledge creation

capability and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms Academy

of Management Journal 48(2) 346-357 doi105465AMJ200516928421

Snijders TAB amp Bosker RJ (1994) Modeled Variance in Two-Level Models

Sociological Methods amp Research 22(3) 342-363 doi1011770049124194022003004

Spector P E amp Brannick M T (2010) Common method issues An introduction to the

feature topic in Organizational Research Methods Organizational Research Methods

13(3) 403-406 doi1011771094428110366303

Spreitzer G M (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace Dimensions

measurement and validation Academy of Management Journal 38(5) 1442-1465 doi

102307256865

Steers RM Mowday R T Shapiro D L The future of work motivation theory Academy

of Management Review 29(3) 379-387 doi 105465AMR200413670978

Sternberg R J amp Lubart T I (1995) Defying the crowd- Cultivating creativity in a culture

of conformity New York The Free Press

Switzer G E Wisniewski S R Belle S H Dew M A amp Schultz R (1999) Selecting

developing and evaluating research instruments Social Psychiatry amp Psychiatric

Epidemiology 34(8) 399-409 doi101007s001270050161

118

T K Peng Y T Kao amp Cheng-Chen Lin (2006) Common Method Variance in

Management Research Its Nature Effects Detection and Remedies Journal of

Management 23(1) 77-98 Retrieved from

httppsynccuedutwdownloadphpfilename=36_54bc5638pdfampdir=newsamptitle=E7

A094E8A88EE69C83E99984E6AA94

Tabachnica B G amp Fidell L S (2006) Using Multivariate Statistics Needham Heights

MA Allyn and Bacon

Tourangeau R Rips LJ amp Rasinski K (2000) The Psychology of Survey Response

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Tseng H amp Liu F (2011) Assessing the climate for creativity (KEYS) Confirmatory

factor analysis and psychometric examination of a Taiwan version International Journal

of Selection amp Assessment 19(4) 438-441 doi 101111j1468-2389201100572x

Van de Ven A Andrew H Polley DE Garud R amp Venkataraman S (1999) The

innovation journey New York Oxford University Press

van der Gaag M Snijders T A B amp Flap H (2008) Position Generator measures and

their relationship to other social capital measures In N Lin amp B Erickson (Eds) Social

capital an international research program (pp 25ndash48) Oxford Oxford University

Press

Vroom V H (1964) Work and motivation San Francisco CA Jossey-Bass

West M A (1990) The social psychology of innovation in groups In M A West amp J L

Farr (Eds) Innovation and Creativity at Work Psychological and Organizational

Strategies (pp 4-36) Wiley Chichester

West M A amp Anderson N R (1996) Innovation in top management teams Journal of


West MA amp Farr JL (1990) Innovation at work In MA West amp JL Farr (Eds)

Innovation and creativity at work Psychological and Organisational Strategies (pp


Wiersma U J (1992) The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation A

meta-analysis Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 65(2) 101-114

DOI 101111j2044-83251992tb00488x

Williams W M amp Yang L T (1999) Organizational creativity In R J Sternberg (Ed)

Handbook of creativity (pp 373-391) Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

119

Woodman R W Sawyer J E amp Griffin R W (1993) Toward a theory of organizational

creativity Academy of Management Review 18(2) 293-321 doi

105465AMR19933997517

Zaltman G Duncan R amp Holbek J (1973) Innovations and organizations New York

John Wiley

120

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE

敬愛的企業先進

您好謝謝您協助我們進行「創新工作行為」的研究您的意見十分寶貴懇請

您撥冗幫忙填寫本問卷採不具名的方式進行內容絕對保密並僅供學術研究之用

敬請您放心地填答

由衷感謝您百忙之中給予協助並再一次謹致上最深的謝意

敬祝身體健康財源廣進

下列是一些關於您個人的基本描述請在方框內「」或在底線處「填寫」即可

性別 1 男 2 女

婚姻狀況 1 已婚 2 未婚 3 其它

教育程度 1 博士 2 碩士 3 大學 4專科 5高中職

年齡 1 25以下 2 26－30 3 31－35 4 36－40 5 41－50 6 50以上

您的職務性質主管人員非主管人員

您的工作性質生產品管行銷業務人資總務財務會計研發相關

資訊軟體系統行政法務商品企劃

其他__________________________ (請填寫)

公司所在產業高科技業資訊產業軟體產業法律服務銀行業零售業

金融服務業一般服務業一般製造業

其他__________________________ (請填寫)

您在貴公司的年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)

您的工作總年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)

國立臺灣師範大學國際人力資源發展研究所

指導教授賴志樫博士

林燦螢博士

研究生劉烝伊敬上

E-mail doctorcylgmailcom

121

下列是 22種常見的「工作職業」請問在您「熟識」的人當中有

沒有從事下列工作的人如果有請在「有認識」的欄位打勾

有認識

1 人資 (事) 主管helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

2 大公司行政助理helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

3 大企業老闆helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

4 工廠作業員helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

5 中學老師helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

6 生產部門經理helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

7 作家helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

8 褓母helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

9 律師helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

10 美髮 (容) 師helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

11 計程車司機helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

12 立法委員helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

13 大學老師helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

14 清潔工helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

15 搬運工helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

16 會計師helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

17 農夫helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

18 電腦程式設計師helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

19 櫃臺接待helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

20 警察helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

21 警衛 (保全) 人員helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

22 護士helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 有

122

下列是一些關於創新活動的描述

請「圈選」最符合您實際經驗的一個數字

從

不

很

少

偶

而經

常

總

是

1 我會尋求技術產品服務或工作程序改善的機會hellip 1 2 3 4 5

2 我會嘗試各種新的方法或新的構想helliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

3 我會說服別人關於新方法或新構想的重要性helliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

4 我會推動新的做法使這方法有機會在公司內執行 1 2 3 4 5

5 我會將新構想應用到工作中以改善工作程序產

品技術或服務helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

6 我會去影響組織決策者對創新的重視helliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

下列是一些關於工作偏好的描述

請「圈選」最符合您實際感受的一個選項

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通

同

意

非

常

同

意

1 愈困難的問題我愈樂於嘗試解決它helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

2 我喜歡獨立思考解決疑難helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

3 我做許多事都是受好奇心的驅使helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

4 我很在乎別人對我的觀點怎麼反應helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

5 我比較稱心如意之時是當我能自我設定目標的時候helliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

6 我認為表現得很好但無人知曉的話是沒有什麼意義的 1 2 3 4 5

7 我喜歡做程序步驟十分明確的工作helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

8 對我而言能夠享有自我表達的方式是很重要的helliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

9 能贏得他人的肯定是推動我去努力的主要動力helliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

10 我樂於鑽研那些對我來說是全新的問題helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

11 無論做什麼我總希望有所報酬或報償helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

12 我樂於嘗試解決複雜的問題helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

13 我希望旁人發現我在工作上會有多麼出色helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

123

下列是一些關於工作環境的描述


非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通同

意

非

常

同

意

1 我們公司重視人力資產鼓勵創新思考helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

2 我們公司下情上達意見交流溝通順暢helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

3 我們公司能夠提供誘因鼓勵創新的構想helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

4 當我有需要我可以不受干擾地獨立工作helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

5 我的工作內容有我可以自由發揮與揮灑的空間helliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

6 我可以自由的設定我的工作目標與進度helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

7 我的工作夥伴與團隊成員具有良好的共識helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

8 我的工作夥伴與團隊成員能夠相互支持與協助 helliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

9 我的工作夥伴能以溝通協調來化解問題與衝突helliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

10 我的主管能夠尊重與支持我在工作上的創意helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

11 我的主管擁有良好的溝通協調能力helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

12 我的主管能夠信任部屬適當的授權helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

13 我的公司提供充分的進修機會鼓勵參與學習活動helliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

14 人員的教育訓練是我們公司的重要工作helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

15 我的公司重視資訊蒐集與新知的獲得與交流helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

16 我的工作空間氣氛和諧良好令人心情愉快helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

17 我有一個舒適自由令我感到滿意的工作空間helliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

18 我的工作環境可以使我更有創意的靈感與啟發helliphelliphelliphelliphellip 1 2 3 4 5

辛苦了再次感謝您的協助填寫

請將本問卷交給聯絡人祝您事業順利

124

APPENDIX B SPSS SCRIPTS FOR COMPUTING RWG

AGGREGATE

OUTFILE=CUsersdoctorcylDesktopThesis ProjectRwg_aggsav

BREAK=Company

OCI_1=SD(OCI_1)

OCI_2=SD(OCI_2)

OCI_3=SD(OCI_3)

OCI_4=SD(OCI_4)

OCI_5=SD(OCI_5)

OCI_6=SD(OCI_6)

OCI_7=SD(OCI_7)

OCI_8=SD(OCI_8)

OCI_9=SD(OCI_9)

OCI_10=SD(OCI_10)

OCI_11=SD(OCI_11)

OCI_12=SD(OCI_12)

OCI_13=SD(OCI_13)

OCI_14=SD(OCI_14)

OCI_15=SD(OCI_15)

OCI_16=SD(OCI_16)

OCI_17=SD(OCI_17)

OCI_18=SD(OCI_18)

N_BREAK=N

GET FILE=CUsersdoctorcylDesktopThesis ProjectRwg_aggsav

Compute var1=OCI_1OCI_1












(continue)

125

(continue)







Execute

Compute abcd=mean(OCI_1 OCI_2 OCI_3 OCI_4 OCI_5 OCI_6 OCI_7 OCI_8

OCI_9 OCI_10 OCI_11 OCI_12 OCI_13 OCI_14 OCI_15 OCI_16 OCI_17

OCI_18)

Compute scale=5

Compute dim_num=18

Compute s2=abcd

Execute

Compute Qeq=(scalescale-1)12

Execute

Compute Rwg_OCI=(dim_num(1-(s2Qeq)))(dim_num(1-(s2Qeq))+(s2Qeq))

Execute

Note a BREAK=Company = the categorical variable of company

b Compute scale=5 = a 5-point scale

c Compute dim_num=18 = 18 items

126


127


128


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many people have contributed for this thesis

First and foremost I am immensely indebted to my thesis advisors Professor Chih-Chien Lai

(賴志樫) and Professor Tsan-Ying Lin (林燦螢) for their excellent guidance inspiration

insightful discussions exceptional dedication and sustained encouragement One could not

wish for better supervision

A very special thank is owed to Professor Ta-Wei Lee (李大偉) for his careful reading and

valuable suggestions included in this thesis inspired and challenged me

I would like to express my sincerely gratitude to Professor Lung-Sheng Lee (李隆盛) and

Professor Kuen-Yi Lin (林坤誼) who gave me invaluable opportunities to accumulate

research experience I am thankful to Professor Cheng-Hui Wang (王正慧) who inspired my

dedication to research methods I would also like to thank Professor Shir-Tau Tsai (蔡錫濤)

for his ideas discussions and feedback

Thank you Pei-Ling Hsieh (謝佩伶) Pei-Wen Kao (高珮文) and Yuan-Ching Chen (陳遠晴)

for the sustained support in helping me alleviate the burden of administrative affairs

therefore I can focus entirely on the study

I would also like to thank all of the anonymous participants who graciously donated their

time to this study

This thesis would not have been written without the unconditional support from my family

Zheng-Yi Edward Liu January 2014


I

ABSTRACT












were discussed



II


III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABSTRACT I


LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES VII




Research Purpose 5


Delimitations 5





Work Motivation 21






Measures 48

Data Collection 49


IV




Hypothesis Tests 68




Conclusions 93




REFERENCES 103



V

LIST OF TABLES



32


Innovation 35






Scale 65




Factors 67



Behaviour 70


Behaviour 71




VI















VII

LIST OF FIGURES







VIII


1








Research Background











study







2



























3



























4
























5

Research Purpose





Research Questions










Delimitations







6




as described below













Work Motivation










7











8

9


























10



























11



















Den Hartog 2010)








12



























13



























14



























15







16

Table 21


Reliabilitya


sample

Number



d IC

e IR

f








c idea exploration

d idea generation

e idea championing

f idea

realization

17


Social Capital

























18



























19
















and IWB











20

























21

Work Motivation













Motivation













22

Work Motivation










Steers et al 2004)









Drives

(Prime movers)

Decisions and

Behaviors

Needs

(Second movers)

eg a drive from

feeling loneliness

eg a need for


eg to make friends

with someone


23
















Barrick 2004)







1993)

24

















the work










25



























26
























(pp957-959)

27




















behaviour







28













Schneider 2000)





1996 p625 Glick 1985)









29



























30


























31
























32

Table 22


Definitions Factors







Work Group Supports












DynamismLiveliness






work groups




Frequency




their organisations


Teamwork Leadership


2009 Chiou et al

33



























34














35

Table 23


Measure


Samplec Factor

Number




e 5 38







e = British


36
























Kao 2004 Tsai 2008)

37




38


Behaviour

























39














Behaviour













40



























41



























42



















43









Research Framework



Employee level

Firm level




Intrinsic

Motivation (IM)

Extrinsic

Motivation (EM)

Innovative Work

Behaviour (IWB)

H1

H2

H4

H5

H6

Accessed Social

Capital (ASC)

H3

Work Motivation

(WM)

44








Table 31

The Hypotheses

Hypotheses Content














(continued)

45


Hypotheses Content













46

Research Procedures



Preparation









Implementation








Completion




47




Research Design

Data Collection

Proposal Meeting

Research Motivation


Data Analyses


Data Coding


Final Defense


Preparation

Implementation

Completion


48

Measures

























49

Work Motivation



















Data Collection

Sampling






50














Procedures













51













Participants













52

















moderator)










53

























1 119862119877 = 120588119888 =

(sum120582119894)2

[(sum120582119894)2+sumΘ119894119894)]


54





were also reported

Multilevel analysis


















2 119860119881119864 = 120588119907 = sum120582119894

2

(sum120582119894 2+sumΘ119894119894)


55



























4 119868119862119862(1) = 120588 =

12059100



56























5(James Demacee amp

5 119908 = (

2

2 )

( 2

2 )+

2

2

where


57

























6 119868119862119862 ( ) =



7 119877119871 2 =

120590 1198731199061198971198972 120590 119868119899119905119890119903

2

120590 1198731199061198971198972 where 120590 119873119906119897119897



8 11987711987122 =

120591 00119873119906119897119897 120591 00119868119899119905119890119903



58





















59























(χ2



60




















61

Table 41



2 c v

IWBb

1 50 (03) 1458

25

85 50

2 87 (03) 2787

77

5 69 (03) 2155

48

6 62 (03) 1782

38

7 76 (03) 2413

57

9 75 (03) 2246

56





p lt 001

Work Motivation




paragraph



(78) =






62






significant (χ2






Table 42



2 c v

IMb

7 52 (02) 1537

27

82 41

11 47 (03) 1362

22

17 52 (03) 1321

17

27 45 (02) 1236

20

3 81 (03) 2443

65

13 77 (03) 2256

59

26 81 (02) 2562

64



c = extrinsic



p lt 001

63



(78)










(6) = 2271 p lt 001 χ2df = 379




Table 43



2 c v

EMb

15 58 (03) 1496

34

77 36

18 52 (03) 1397

27

21 62 (03) 1517

38

24 64 (02) 1826

41

25 54 (03) 1514

29

29 69 (03) 1891

48





p lt 001

64








(120) = 64964 p lt 001) The











OCI model (χ2


and SRMR = 055)

65

Table 44



2 c v

Value

1 80 (－)b (－)

b 65

85 65 2 78 (03) 2332

61

3 84 (03) 2497

70

Jobstyle

4 61 (－) (－) 37

75 50 5 78 (04) 1578

61

6 72 (04) 1552

51

Teamwork

7 82 (－) (－) 67

84 65 8 86 (03) 2615

74

9 72 (02) 2273

53

Leadership

10 85 (－) (－) 72

88 71 11 85 (03) 2899

72

12 84 (02) 2889

70

Learning

13 78 (－) (－) 60

85 66 14 73 (04) 1686

54

15 92 (03) 2267

84

Environment

16 69 (－) (－) 48

82 60 17 79 (03) 2671

62

18 84 (04) 1901

71






n = 922

p lt 001

66

Table 45



GFIsa χ

2(df) χ


First-order

oblique model 113973 (120) 950 87 87 85 097 055

Second-order

model 64964 (120) 541 92 92 91 076 053







67

Table 46


Factora

Organisational

Climate for

Innovation


1 2 3 4 5

1 VL 76b

2 JS 77 59 c

3 TW 78 56

50

4 LD 85 58

69

68

5 LN 71 72

36

55

55

6 EN 83 49

64

59

64

60




n = 922

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests









68

Hypothesis Tests




















69

Table 47



1 Tenure 08 21 1012 750

2 Education 1 5 307 76 -38

3 IWB 183 5 345 63 -03 -13

4 IM 243 416 366 51 -03 -11

51

5 EM 183 431 367 51 -09

-01 22

15

6 ASC 291 183 0 1 -01 -05 33

13

-06

7 UR 52 85 7743 678 -17

-24

26

20

-03 75

8 HG 1 17 865 333 -05 -07 33

16

-03 79

71

9 ES 0 69 5356 1222 -00 -03 22

11

-06 73

75

59

10 OCI 209 497 338 57 -14

-01 27

40

-27

14

12

19

13



n = 922

p lt 01

Two-tailed tests

70











Table 48




where



Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [42]

where




Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + u0j + rij [43]



71


(35) = 39182 p lt 001) and a σ 2 of 29










Table 49


The Null Model (M0)

Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 346

06 5782 τ00 12

39182 29






p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

72












73

Table 410





where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [45]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j





Mixed Model



74




















Hypotheses 5 and 6)





75

Table 411




Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 344

08 4074 τ00 185

42374

025

Education γ10 -07 02 -260 τ11 018

29246

Tenure γ20 -03 07 -035 τ22 164

36671


11 368 τ33 373

24087


11832


08 296 τ55 194

30704

pseudo R2

within-companyc 91




c R




p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

76













77

Table 412






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j






Mixed Model



78






R2










79

Table 413






2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4364 τ00 183

40304

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -254 τ11 016

24456

Tenure γ20 -03 08 -034 τ22 162

36608


11 375 τ33 379

24423


11480


08 314 τ55 191

31575

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 47

13 341

pseudo R2


Model devianced 747



errors c R





p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

80













81

Table 414






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j

β3j = γ30 + γ02(OCIj) + u3j

β4j = γ40 + γ03(OCIj) + u4j

β5j = γ50 + u5j

[47]

[413]

[414]

[410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

γ02-03

u0j

u1j-5j








Mixed Model



[415]

82




















Innovative

Work Behaviour


High OCI

Low OCI

83

Table 415




The Full Model (M3)



2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4065 τ00 189

40834

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -222 τ11 016

24082

Tenure γ20 -02 08 -032 τ22 162

36588


11 357 τ33 407

28434


12 282 τ44 499

20837


08 307 τ55 194

308

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 -38

13 301

γ33 -25 28 89

γ44 -50 24 210

pseudo R2


for EM slopes

-08

-09

Model devianced 636



c R




analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

84











85

Table 416





d Difference





Variableg


Hypotheses

M0 M1 M2 M3

YIWB XEPS


XOCI rarr YIWB

XEPS rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YEM-IWB

XOCI rarr YIM-IWB


Employee-level

Intercept γ00 (τ00) 346 (12) 344 (19) 347 (18) 347 (19)

Education γ10 (τ11) -07 (02) -06 (02) -06 (02)

Tenure γ20 (τ22) -03 (16) -03 (16) -02 (16)




Firm-level


innovation

γ01 (τ00) 47 (18) 38 (19) H4 times



pseudo R2

within-companyd 91


-09 for EM slopes

Model Deviancee f

155891 1061 747 636

86










EM is discussed







work behaviour










87






propensities






that is resulted


















88



























89


obviously required

Firm-level research









work behaviour















90



























91
























obtain recognition



92



















93









Conclusions














94





















recognition





95





behaviour









for innovation












96












for innovation

97


























98











behaviour
















99



























100



























101






102


103

REFERENCES










453-474 doidxdoiorg1010160022-1031(86)90045-4



185-201 doi1010161053-4822(93)90012-S



10108010400418909534321






102307256995











104







doi 1010370021-9010861154




















Methods 7(4) 400-417 doi1011771094428104268542






105



Park CA Sage




al20Capitalpdf



doi101016S0019-8501(01)00203-6



Research 71(1) 29-42 doi10310200346543071001029



doi10310200346543064003363










10110814601061211192834



105-117 doi 105172impp121105



from


name=etd-0831106-142534pdf

106






ampname=DLFE-624pdf









1010370021-9010894599




doi1011770149206310388419



Research 14(4) 579-582 doi 101086209137


Journal 8(3) 220-227 doi 102307254790



1111-1132 doi 101111j1559-18161992tb00945x







107



101207S15327965PLI1104_01






125(6) 627-668 doi 1010370033-29091256627



Journal 39(4) 949-969 doi 102307256718







Sage




101111j1476-8691200500333x






52(3) 412-430 doi 101111j2044-8309201102090x





108



dxdoiorg1010160378-8733(94)00251-5



105465AMR19969704071865













doi 105465AMR19854279045



1081-1111 doi 105465AMR19969704071864






93(1) 48-58 doi 1010370021-901093148



Psychology 94(4) 927-944 doi 101037a0014391



109




101111j1464-0597201200525x










doi 101111j1744-65701996tb01802x






CT JAI Press




6(1) 1-55 doi 10108010705519909540118






110







Psychologists Press



doi 101111j1467-8691201000558x








doi 1010370021-901069185



30(2) 229-254 doi 101111j1744-65701977tb02091x



101348096317900167038









111










doi 1010370033-2909993422


Psychology 61(5) 622-629 doi 1010370021-9010615622





101007BF00992553



101108EUM0000000005660



doi10310200346543066001001










101146annurevpsych55090902142105

112



doi1011771094428106296642



doi101177001872679905200801





doi 101016B978-012619070-050032-5






66(1) 5-32 doi10310200346543066001005







365-385 doi 1010160378-8733(86)90003-1






9588E68789pdf

113





70ampuid=4ampsid=21103268691393



doi 1010160749-5978(91)90023-M



388-403 doi 105465AMR200413670974







119-140 doi 101207s15326934crj1601_12















114




10110801437720410535972














Behavior 34(5) 583-606 doi 101002job1802



doi102189asqu2005501100




Behavior 26(4) 379-408 doi 101002job312







115





Prentice Hall





















International






116








101006ceps19991020







Jossey-Bass











Row



580-607 doi 102307256701



105465AMR200413670972

117











doi10230730040662








13(3) 403-406 doi1011771094428110366303



102307256865








118





A094E8A88EE69C83E99984E6AA94


MA Allyn and Bacon











Press












DOI 101111j2044-83251992tb00488x



119



105465AMR19933997517


John Wiley

120









性別 1 男 2 女



年齡 1 25以下 2 26－30 3 31－35 4 36－40 5 41－50 6 50以上




其他__________________________ (請填寫)



其他__________________________ (請填寫)

您在貴公司的年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)

您的工作總年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)



林燦螢博士



121



有認識























122



從

不

很

少

偶

而經

常

總

是










非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通

同

意

非

常

同

意














123



非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通同

意

非

常

同

意





















124


AGGREGATE


BREAK=Company

OCI_1=SD(OCI_1)

OCI_2=SD(OCI_2)

OCI_3=SD(OCI_3)

OCI_4=SD(OCI_4)

OCI_5=SD(OCI_5)

OCI_6=SD(OCI_6)

OCI_7=SD(OCI_7)

OCI_8=SD(OCI_8)

OCI_9=SD(OCI_9)

OCI_10=SD(OCI_10)

OCI_11=SD(OCI_11)

OCI_12=SD(OCI_12)

OCI_13=SD(OCI_13)

OCI_14=SD(OCI_14)

OCI_15=SD(OCI_15)

OCI_16=SD(OCI_16)

OCI_17=SD(OCI_17)

OCI_18=SD(OCI_18)

N_BREAK=N














(continue)

125

(continue)







Execute



OCI_18)

Compute scale=5

Compute dim_num=18

Compute s2=abcd

Execute


Execute


Execute




126


127


128



I

ABSTRACT












were discussed



II


III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABSTRACT I


LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES VII




Research Purpose 5


Delimitations 5





Work Motivation 21






Measures 48

Data Collection 49


IV




Hypothesis Tests 68




Conclusions 93




REFERENCES 103



V

LIST OF TABLES



32


Innovation 35






Scale 65




Factors 67



Behaviour 70


Behaviour 71




VI















VII

LIST OF FIGURES







VIII


1








Research Background











study







2



























3



























4
























5

Research Purpose





Research Questions










Delimitations







6




as described below













Work Motivation










7











8

9


























10



























11



















Den Hartog 2010)








12



























13



























14



























15







16

Table 21


Reliabilitya


sample

Number



d IC

e IR

f








c idea exploration

d idea generation

e idea championing

f idea

realization

17


Social Capital

























18



























19
















and IWB











20

























21

Work Motivation













Motivation













22

Work Motivation










Steers et al 2004)









Drives

(Prime movers)

Decisions and

Behaviors

Needs

(Second movers)

eg a drive from

feeling loneliness

eg a need for


eg to make friends

with someone


23
















Barrick 2004)







1993)

24

















the work










25



























26
























(pp957-959)

27




















behaviour







28













Schneider 2000)





1996 p625 Glick 1985)









29



























30


























31
























32

Table 22


Definitions Factors







Work Group Supports












DynamismLiveliness






work groups




Frequency




their organisations


Teamwork Leadership


2009 Chiou et al

33



























34














35

Table 23


Measure


Samplec Factor

Number




e 5 38







e = British


36
























Kao 2004 Tsai 2008)

37




38


Behaviour

























39














Behaviour













40



























41



























42



















43









Research Framework



Employee level

Firm level




Intrinsic

Motivation (IM)

Extrinsic

Motivation (EM)

Innovative Work

Behaviour (IWB)

H1

H2

H4

H5

H6

Accessed Social

Capital (ASC)

H3

Work Motivation

(WM)

44








Table 31

The Hypotheses

Hypotheses Content














(continued)

45


Hypotheses Content













46

Research Procedures



Preparation









Implementation








Completion




47




Research Design

Data Collection

Proposal Meeting

Research Motivation


Data Analyses


Data Coding


Final Defense


Preparation

Implementation

Completion


48

Measures

























49

Work Motivation



















Data Collection

Sampling






50














Procedures













51













Participants













52

















moderator)










53

























1 119862119877 = 120588119888 =

(sum120582119894)2

[(sum120582119894)2+sumΘ119894119894)]


54





were also reported

Multilevel analysis


















2 119860119881119864 = 120588119907 = sum120582119894

2

(sum120582119894 2+sumΘ119894119894)


55



























4 119868119862119862(1) = 120588 =

12059100



56























5(James Demacee amp

5 119908 = (

2

2 )

( 2

2 )+

2

2

where


57

























6 119868119862119862 ( ) =



7 119877119871 2 =

120590 1198731199061198971198972 120590 119868119899119905119890119903

2

120590 1198731199061198971198972 where 120590 119873119906119897119897



8 11987711987122 =

120591 00119873119906119897119897 120591 00119868119899119905119890119903



58





















59























(χ2



60




















61

Table 41



2 c v

IWBb

1 50 (03) 1458

25

85 50

2 87 (03) 2787

77

5 69 (03) 2155

48

6 62 (03) 1782

38

7 76 (03) 2413

57

9 75 (03) 2246

56





p lt 001

Work Motivation




paragraph



(78) =






62






significant (χ2






Table 42



2 c v

IMb

7 52 (02) 1537

27

82 41

11 47 (03) 1362

22

17 52 (03) 1321

17

27 45 (02) 1236

20

3 81 (03) 2443

65

13 77 (03) 2256

59

26 81 (02) 2562

64



c = extrinsic



p lt 001

63



(78)










(6) = 2271 p lt 001 χ2df = 379




Table 43



2 c v

EMb

15 58 (03) 1496

34

77 36

18 52 (03) 1397

27

21 62 (03) 1517

38

24 64 (02) 1826

41

25 54 (03) 1514

29

29 69 (03) 1891

48





p lt 001

64








(120) = 64964 p lt 001) The











OCI model (χ2


and SRMR = 055)

65

Table 44



2 c v

Value

1 80 (－)b (－)

b 65

85 65 2 78 (03) 2332

61

3 84 (03) 2497

70

Jobstyle

4 61 (－) (－) 37

75 50 5 78 (04) 1578

61

6 72 (04) 1552

51

Teamwork

7 82 (－) (－) 67

84 65 8 86 (03) 2615

74

9 72 (02) 2273

53

Leadership

10 85 (－) (－) 72

88 71 11 85 (03) 2899

72

12 84 (02) 2889

70

Learning

13 78 (－) (－) 60

85 66 14 73 (04) 1686

54

15 92 (03) 2267

84

Environment

16 69 (－) (－) 48

82 60 17 79 (03) 2671

62

18 84 (04) 1901

71






n = 922

p lt 001

66

Table 45



GFIsa χ

2(df) χ


First-order

oblique model 113973 (120) 950 87 87 85 097 055

Second-order

model 64964 (120) 541 92 92 91 076 053







67

Table 46


Factora

Organisational

Climate for

Innovation


1 2 3 4 5

1 VL 76b

2 JS 77 59 c

3 TW 78 56

50

4 LD 85 58

69

68

5 LN 71 72

36

55

55

6 EN 83 49

64

59

64

60




n = 922

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests









68

Hypothesis Tests




















69

Table 47



1 Tenure 08 21 1012 750

2 Education 1 5 307 76 -38

3 IWB 183 5 345 63 -03 -13

4 IM 243 416 366 51 -03 -11

51

5 EM 183 431 367 51 -09

-01 22

15

6 ASC 291 183 0 1 -01 -05 33

13

-06

7 UR 52 85 7743 678 -17

-24

26

20

-03 75

8 HG 1 17 865 333 -05 -07 33

16

-03 79

71

9 ES 0 69 5356 1222 -00 -03 22

11

-06 73

75

59

10 OCI 209 497 338 57 -14

-01 27

40

-27

14

12

19

13



n = 922

p lt 01

Two-tailed tests

70











Table 48




where



Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [42]

where




Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + u0j + rij [43]



71


(35) = 39182 p lt 001) and a σ 2 of 29










Table 49


The Null Model (M0)

Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 346

06 5782 τ00 12

39182 29






p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

72












73

Table 410





where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [45]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j





Mixed Model



74




















Hypotheses 5 and 6)





75

Table 411




Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 344

08 4074 τ00 185

42374

025

Education γ10 -07 02 -260 τ11 018

29246

Tenure γ20 -03 07 -035 τ22 164

36671


11 368 τ33 373

24087


11832


08 296 τ55 194

30704

pseudo R2

within-companyc 91




c R




p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

76













77

Table 412






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j






Mixed Model



78






R2










79

Table 413






2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4364 τ00 183

40304

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -254 τ11 016

24456

Tenure γ20 -03 08 -034 τ22 162

36608


11 375 τ33 379

24423


11480


08 314 τ55 191

31575

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 47

13 341

pseudo R2


Model devianced 747



errors c R





p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

80













81

Table 414






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j

β3j = γ30 + γ02(OCIj) + u3j

β4j = γ40 + γ03(OCIj) + u4j

β5j = γ50 + u5j

[47]

[413]

[414]

[410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

γ02-03

u0j

u1j-5j








Mixed Model



[415]

82




















Innovative

Work Behaviour


High OCI

Low OCI

83

Table 415




The Full Model (M3)



2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4065 τ00 189

40834

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -222 τ11 016

24082

Tenure γ20 -02 08 -032 τ22 162

36588


11 357 τ33 407

28434


12 282 τ44 499

20837


08 307 τ55 194

308

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 -38

13 301

γ33 -25 28 89

γ44 -50 24 210

pseudo R2


for EM slopes

-08

-09

Model devianced 636



c R




analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

84











85

Table 416





d Difference





Variableg


Hypotheses

M0 M1 M2 M3

YIWB XEPS


XOCI rarr YIWB

XEPS rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YEM-IWB

XOCI rarr YIM-IWB


Employee-level

Intercept γ00 (τ00) 346 (12) 344 (19) 347 (18) 347 (19)

Education γ10 (τ11) -07 (02) -06 (02) -06 (02)

Tenure γ20 (τ22) -03 (16) -03 (16) -02 (16)




Firm-level


innovation

γ01 (τ00) 47 (18) 38 (19) H4 times



pseudo R2

within-companyd 91


-09 for EM slopes

Model Deviancee f

155891 1061 747 636

86










EM is discussed







work behaviour










87






propensities






that is resulted


















88



























89


obviously required

Firm-level research









work behaviour















90



























91
























obtain recognition



92



















93









Conclusions














94





















recognition





95





behaviour









for innovation












96












for innovation

97


























98











behaviour
















99



























100



























101






102


103

REFERENCES










453-474 doidxdoiorg1010160022-1031(86)90045-4



185-201 doi1010161053-4822(93)90012-S



10108010400418909534321






102307256995











104







doi 1010370021-9010861154




















Methods 7(4) 400-417 doi1011771094428104268542






105



Park CA Sage




al20Capitalpdf



doi101016S0019-8501(01)00203-6



Research 71(1) 29-42 doi10310200346543071001029



doi10310200346543064003363










10110814601061211192834



105-117 doi 105172impp121105



from


name=etd-0831106-142534pdf

106






ampname=DLFE-624pdf









1010370021-9010894599




doi1011770149206310388419



Research 14(4) 579-582 doi 101086209137


Journal 8(3) 220-227 doi 102307254790



1111-1132 doi 101111j1559-18161992tb00945x







107



101207S15327965PLI1104_01






125(6) 627-668 doi 1010370033-29091256627



Journal 39(4) 949-969 doi 102307256718







Sage




101111j1476-8691200500333x






52(3) 412-430 doi 101111j2044-8309201102090x





108



dxdoiorg1010160378-8733(94)00251-5



105465AMR19969704071865













doi 105465AMR19854279045



1081-1111 doi 105465AMR19969704071864






93(1) 48-58 doi 1010370021-901093148



Psychology 94(4) 927-944 doi 101037a0014391



109




101111j1464-0597201200525x










doi 101111j1744-65701996tb01802x






CT JAI Press




6(1) 1-55 doi 10108010705519909540118






110







Psychologists Press



doi 101111j1467-8691201000558x








doi 1010370021-901069185



30(2) 229-254 doi 101111j1744-65701977tb02091x



101348096317900167038









111










doi 1010370033-2909993422


Psychology 61(5) 622-629 doi 1010370021-9010615622





101007BF00992553



101108EUM0000000005660



doi10310200346543066001001










101146annurevpsych55090902142105

112



doi1011771094428106296642



doi101177001872679905200801





doi 101016B978-012619070-050032-5






66(1) 5-32 doi10310200346543066001005







365-385 doi 1010160378-8733(86)90003-1






9588E68789pdf

113





70ampuid=4ampsid=21103268691393



doi 1010160749-5978(91)90023-M



388-403 doi 105465AMR200413670974







119-140 doi 101207s15326934crj1601_12















114




10110801437720410535972














Behavior 34(5) 583-606 doi 101002job1802



doi102189asqu2005501100




Behavior 26(4) 379-408 doi 101002job312







115





Prentice Hall





















International






116








101006ceps19991020







Jossey-Bass











Row



580-607 doi 102307256701



105465AMR200413670972

117











doi10230730040662








13(3) 403-406 doi1011771094428110366303



102307256865








118





A094E8A88EE69C83E99984E6AA94


MA Allyn and Bacon











Press












DOI 101111j2044-83251992tb00488x



119



105465AMR19933997517


John Wiley

120









性別 1 男 2 女



年齡 1 25以下 2 26－30 3 31－35 4 36－40 5 41－50 6 50以上




其他__________________________ (請填寫)



其他__________________________ (請填寫)

您在貴公司的年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)

您的工作總年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)



林燦螢博士



121



有認識























122



從

不

很

少

偶

而經

常

總

是










非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通

同

意

非

常

同

意














123



非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通同

意

非

常

同

意





















124


AGGREGATE


BREAK=Company

OCI_1=SD(OCI_1)

OCI_2=SD(OCI_2)

OCI_3=SD(OCI_3)

OCI_4=SD(OCI_4)

OCI_5=SD(OCI_5)

OCI_6=SD(OCI_6)

OCI_7=SD(OCI_7)

OCI_8=SD(OCI_8)

OCI_9=SD(OCI_9)

OCI_10=SD(OCI_10)

OCI_11=SD(OCI_11)

OCI_12=SD(OCI_12)

OCI_13=SD(OCI_13)

OCI_14=SD(OCI_14)

OCI_15=SD(OCI_15)

OCI_16=SD(OCI_16)

OCI_17=SD(OCI_17)

OCI_18=SD(OCI_18)

N_BREAK=N














(continue)

125

(continue)







Execute



OCI_18)

Compute scale=5

Compute dim_num=18

Compute s2=abcd

Execute


Execute


Execute




126


127


128


II


III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABSTRACT I


LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES VII




Research Purpose 5


Delimitations 5





Work Motivation 21






Measures 48

Data Collection 49


IV




Hypothesis Tests 68




Conclusions 93




REFERENCES 103



V

LIST OF TABLES



32


Innovation 35






Scale 65




Factors 67



Behaviour 70


Behaviour 71




VI















VII

LIST OF FIGURES







VIII


1








Research Background











study







2



























3



























4
























5

Research Purpose





Research Questions










Delimitations







6




as described below













Work Motivation










7











8

9


























10



























11



















Den Hartog 2010)








12



























13



























14



























15







16

Table 21


Reliabilitya


sample

Number



d IC

e IR

f








c idea exploration

d idea generation

e idea championing

f idea

realization

17


Social Capital

























18



























19
















and IWB











20

























21

Work Motivation













Motivation













22

Work Motivation










Steers et al 2004)









Drives

(Prime movers)

Decisions and

Behaviors

Needs

(Second movers)

eg a drive from

feeling loneliness

eg a need for


eg to make friends

with someone


23
















Barrick 2004)







1993)

24

















the work










25



























26
























(pp957-959)

27




















behaviour







28













Schneider 2000)





1996 p625 Glick 1985)









29



























30


























31
























32

Table 22


Definitions Factors







Work Group Supports












DynamismLiveliness






work groups




Frequency




their organisations


Teamwork Leadership


2009 Chiou et al

33



























34














35

Table 23


Measure


Samplec Factor

Number




e 5 38







e = British


36
























Kao 2004 Tsai 2008)

37




38


Behaviour

























39














Behaviour













40



























41



























42



















43









Research Framework



Employee level

Firm level




Intrinsic

Motivation (IM)

Extrinsic

Motivation (EM)

Innovative Work

Behaviour (IWB)

H1

H2

H4

H5

H6

Accessed Social

Capital (ASC)

H3

Work Motivation

(WM)

44








Table 31

The Hypotheses

Hypotheses Content














(continued)

45


Hypotheses Content













46

Research Procedures



Preparation









Implementation








Completion




47




Research Design

Data Collection

Proposal Meeting

Research Motivation


Data Analyses


Data Coding


Final Defense


Preparation

Implementation

Completion


48

Measures

























49

Work Motivation



















Data Collection

Sampling






50














Procedures













51













Participants













52

















moderator)










53

























1 119862119877 = 120588119888 =

(sum120582119894)2

[(sum120582119894)2+sumΘ119894119894)]


54





were also reported

Multilevel analysis


















2 119860119881119864 = 120588119907 = sum120582119894

2

(sum120582119894 2+sumΘ119894119894)


55



























4 119868119862119862(1) = 120588 =

12059100



56























5(James Demacee amp

5 119908 = (

2

2 )

( 2

2 )+

2

2

where


57

























6 119868119862119862 ( ) =



7 119877119871 2 =

120590 1198731199061198971198972 120590 119868119899119905119890119903

2

120590 1198731199061198971198972 where 120590 119873119906119897119897



8 11987711987122 =

120591 00119873119906119897119897 120591 00119868119899119905119890119903



58





















59























(χ2



60




















61

Table 41



2 c v

IWBb

1 50 (03) 1458

25

85 50

2 87 (03) 2787

77

5 69 (03) 2155

48

6 62 (03) 1782

38

7 76 (03) 2413

57

9 75 (03) 2246

56





p lt 001

Work Motivation




paragraph



(78) =






62






significant (χ2






Table 42



2 c v

IMb

7 52 (02) 1537

27

82 41

11 47 (03) 1362

22

17 52 (03) 1321

17

27 45 (02) 1236

20

3 81 (03) 2443

65

13 77 (03) 2256

59

26 81 (02) 2562

64



c = extrinsic



p lt 001

63



(78)










(6) = 2271 p lt 001 χ2df = 379




Table 43



2 c v

EMb

15 58 (03) 1496

34

77 36

18 52 (03) 1397

27

21 62 (03) 1517

38

24 64 (02) 1826

41

25 54 (03) 1514

29

29 69 (03) 1891

48





p lt 001

64








(120) = 64964 p lt 001) The











OCI model (χ2


and SRMR = 055)

65

Table 44



2 c v

Value

1 80 (－)b (－)

b 65

85 65 2 78 (03) 2332

61

3 84 (03) 2497

70

Jobstyle

4 61 (－) (－) 37

75 50 5 78 (04) 1578

61

6 72 (04) 1552

51

Teamwork

7 82 (－) (－) 67

84 65 8 86 (03) 2615

74

9 72 (02) 2273

53

Leadership

10 85 (－) (－) 72

88 71 11 85 (03) 2899

72

12 84 (02) 2889

70

Learning

13 78 (－) (－) 60

85 66 14 73 (04) 1686

54

15 92 (03) 2267

84

Environment

16 69 (－) (－) 48

82 60 17 79 (03) 2671

62

18 84 (04) 1901

71






n = 922

p lt 001

66

Table 45



GFIsa χ

2(df) χ


First-order

oblique model 113973 (120) 950 87 87 85 097 055

Second-order

model 64964 (120) 541 92 92 91 076 053







67

Table 46


Factora

Organisational

Climate for

Innovation


1 2 3 4 5

1 VL 76b

2 JS 77 59 c

3 TW 78 56

50

4 LD 85 58

69

68

5 LN 71 72

36

55

55

6 EN 83 49

64

59

64

60




n = 922

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests









68

Hypothesis Tests




















69

Table 47



1 Tenure 08 21 1012 750

2 Education 1 5 307 76 -38

3 IWB 183 5 345 63 -03 -13

4 IM 243 416 366 51 -03 -11

51

5 EM 183 431 367 51 -09

-01 22

15

6 ASC 291 183 0 1 -01 -05 33

13

-06

7 UR 52 85 7743 678 -17

-24

26

20

-03 75

8 HG 1 17 865 333 -05 -07 33

16

-03 79

71

9 ES 0 69 5356 1222 -00 -03 22

11

-06 73

75

59

10 OCI 209 497 338 57 -14

-01 27

40

-27

14

12

19

13



n = 922

p lt 01

Two-tailed tests

70











Table 48




where



Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [42]

where




Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + u0j + rij [43]



71


(35) = 39182 p lt 001) and a σ 2 of 29










Table 49


The Null Model (M0)

Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 346

06 5782 τ00 12

39182 29






p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

72












73

Table 410





where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [45]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j





Mixed Model



74




















Hypotheses 5 and 6)





75

Table 411




Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 344

08 4074 τ00 185

42374

025

Education γ10 -07 02 -260 τ11 018

29246

Tenure γ20 -03 07 -035 τ22 164

36671


11 368 τ33 373

24087


11832


08 296 τ55 194

30704

pseudo R2

within-companyc 91




c R




p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

76













77

Table 412






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j






Mixed Model



78






R2










79

Table 413






2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4364 τ00 183

40304

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -254 τ11 016

24456

Tenure γ20 -03 08 -034 τ22 162

36608


11 375 τ33 379

24423


11480


08 314 τ55 191

31575

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 47

13 341

pseudo R2


Model devianced 747



errors c R





p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

80













81

Table 414






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j

β3j = γ30 + γ02(OCIj) + u3j

β4j = γ40 + γ03(OCIj) + u4j

β5j = γ50 + u5j

[47]

[413]

[414]

[410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

γ02-03

u0j

u1j-5j








Mixed Model



[415]

82




















Innovative

Work Behaviour


High OCI

Low OCI

83

Table 415




The Full Model (M3)



2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4065 τ00 189

40834

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -222 τ11 016

24082

Tenure γ20 -02 08 -032 τ22 162

36588


11 357 τ33 407

28434


12 282 τ44 499

20837


08 307 τ55 194

308

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 -38

13 301

γ33 -25 28 89

γ44 -50 24 210

pseudo R2


for EM slopes

-08

-09

Model devianced 636



c R




analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

84











85

Table 416





d Difference





Variableg


Hypotheses

M0 M1 M2 M3

YIWB XEPS


XOCI rarr YIWB

XEPS rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YEM-IWB

XOCI rarr YIM-IWB


Employee-level

Intercept γ00 (τ00) 346 (12) 344 (19) 347 (18) 347 (19)

Education γ10 (τ11) -07 (02) -06 (02) -06 (02)

Tenure γ20 (τ22) -03 (16) -03 (16) -02 (16)




Firm-level


innovation

γ01 (τ00) 47 (18) 38 (19) H4 times



pseudo R2

within-companyd 91


-09 for EM slopes

Model Deviancee f

155891 1061 747 636

86










EM is discussed







work behaviour










87






propensities






that is resulted


















88



























89


obviously required

Firm-level research









work behaviour















90



























91
























obtain recognition



92



















93









Conclusions














94





















recognition





95





behaviour









for innovation












96












for innovation

97


























98











behaviour
















99



























100



























101






102


103

REFERENCES










453-474 doidxdoiorg1010160022-1031(86)90045-4



185-201 doi1010161053-4822(93)90012-S



10108010400418909534321






102307256995











104







doi 1010370021-9010861154




















Methods 7(4) 400-417 doi1011771094428104268542






105



Park CA Sage




al20Capitalpdf



doi101016S0019-8501(01)00203-6



Research 71(1) 29-42 doi10310200346543071001029



doi10310200346543064003363










10110814601061211192834



105-117 doi 105172impp121105



from


name=etd-0831106-142534pdf

106






ampname=DLFE-624pdf









1010370021-9010894599




doi1011770149206310388419



Research 14(4) 579-582 doi 101086209137


Journal 8(3) 220-227 doi 102307254790



1111-1132 doi 101111j1559-18161992tb00945x







107



101207S15327965PLI1104_01






125(6) 627-668 doi 1010370033-29091256627



Journal 39(4) 949-969 doi 102307256718







Sage




101111j1476-8691200500333x






52(3) 412-430 doi 101111j2044-8309201102090x





108



dxdoiorg1010160378-8733(94)00251-5



105465AMR19969704071865













doi 105465AMR19854279045



1081-1111 doi 105465AMR19969704071864






93(1) 48-58 doi 1010370021-901093148



Psychology 94(4) 927-944 doi 101037a0014391



109




101111j1464-0597201200525x










doi 101111j1744-65701996tb01802x






CT JAI Press




6(1) 1-55 doi 10108010705519909540118






110







Psychologists Press



doi 101111j1467-8691201000558x








doi 1010370021-901069185



30(2) 229-254 doi 101111j1744-65701977tb02091x



101348096317900167038









111










doi 1010370033-2909993422


Psychology 61(5) 622-629 doi 1010370021-9010615622





101007BF00992553



101108EUM0000000005660



doi10310200346543066001001










101146annurevpsych55090902142105

112



doi1011771094428106296642



doi101177001872679905200801





doi 101016B978-012619070-050032-5






66(1) 5-32 doi10310200346543066001005







365-385 doi 1010160378-8733(86)90003-1






9588E68789pdf

113





70ampuid=4ampsid=21103268691393



doi 1010160749-5978(91)90023-M



388-403 doi 105465AMR200413670974







119-140 doi 101207s15326934crj1601_12















114




10110801437720410535972














Behavior 34(5) 583-606 doi 101002job1802



doi102189asqu2005501100




Behavior 26(4) 379-408 doi 101002job312







115





Prentice Hall





















International






116








101006ceps19991020







Jossey-Bass











Row



580-607 doi 102307256701



105465AMR200413670972

117











doi10230730040662








13(3) 403-406 doi1011771094428110366303



102307256865








118





A094E8A88EE69C83E99984E6AA94


MA Allyn and Bacon











Press












DOI 101111j2044-83251992tb00488x



119



105465AMR19933997517


John Wiley

120









性別 1 男 2 女



年齡 1 25以下 2 26－30 3 31－35 4 36－40 5 41－50 6 50以上




其他__________________________ (請填寫)



其他__________________________ (請填寫)

您在貴公司的年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)

您的工作總年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)



林燦螢博士



121



有認識























122



從

不

很

少

偶

而經

常

總

是










非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通

同

意

非

常

同

意














123



非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通同

意

非

常

同

意





















124


AGGREGATE


BREAK=Company

OCI_1=SD(OCI_1)

OCI_2=SD(OCI_2)

OCI_3=SD(OCI_3)

OCI_4=SD(OCI_4)

OCI_5=SD(OCI_5)

OCI_6=SD(OCI_6)

OCI_7=SD(OCI_7)

OCI_8=SD(OCI_8)

OCI_9=SD(OCI_9)

OCI_10=SD(OCI_10)

OCI_11=SD(OCI_11)

OCI_12=SD(OCI_12)

OCI_13=SD(OCI_13)

OCI_14=SD(OCI_14)

OCI_15=SD(OCI_15)

OCI_16=SD(OCI_16)

OCI_17=SD(OCI_17)

OCI_18=SD(OCI_18)

N_BREAK=N














(continue)

125

(continue)







Execute



OCI_18)

Compute scale=5

Compute dim_num=18

Compute s2=abcd

Execute


Execute


Execute




126


127


128


III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABSTRACT I


LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES VII




Research Purpose 5


Delimitations 5





Work Motivation 21






Measures 48

Data Collection 49


IV




Hypothesis Tests 68




Conclusions 93




REFERENCES 103



V

LIST OF TABLES



32


Innovation 35






Scale 65




Factors 67



Behaviour 70


Behaviour 71




VI















VII

LIST OF FIGURES







VIII


1








Research Background











study







2



























3



























4
























5

Research Purpose





Research Questions










Delimitations







6




as described below













Work Motivation










7











8

9


























10



























11



















Den Hartog 2010)








12



























13



























14



























15







16

Table 21


Reliabilitya


sample

Number



d IC

e IR

f








c idea exploration

d idea generation

e idea championing

f idea

realization

17


Social Capital

























18



























19
















and IWB











20

























21

Work Motivation













Motivation













22

Work Motivation










Steers et al 2004)









Drives

(Prime movers)

Decisions and

Behaviors

Needs

(Second movers)

eg a drive from

feeling loneliness

eg a need for


eg to make friends

with someone


23
















Barrick 2004)







1993)

24

















the work










25



























26
























(pp957-959)

27




















behaviour







28













Schneider 2000)





1996 p625 Glick 1985)









29



























30


























31
























32

Table 22


Definitions Factors







Work Group Supports












DynamismLiveliness






work groups




Frequency




their organisations


Teamwork Leadership


2009 Chiou et al

33



























34














35

Table 23


Measure


Samplec Factor

Number




e 5 38







e = British


36
























Kao 2004 Tsai 2008)

37




38


Behaviour

























39














Behaviour













40



























41



























42



















43









Research Framework



Employee level

Firm level




Intrinsic

Motivation (IM)

Extrinsic

Motivation (EM)

Innovative Work

Behaviour (IWB)

H1

H2

H4

H5

H6

Accessed Social

Capital (ASC)

H3

Work Motivation

(WM)

44








Table 31

The Hypotheses

Hypotheses Content














(continued)

45


Hypotheses Content













46

Research Procedures



Preparation









Implementation








Completion




47




Research Design

Data Collection

Proposal Meeting

Research Motivation


Data Analyses


Data Coding


Final Defense


Preparation

Implementation

Completion


48

Measures

























49

Work Motivation



















Data Collection

Sampling






50














Procedures













51













Participants













52

















moderator)










53

























1 119862119877 = 120588119888 =

(sum120582119894)2

[(sum120582119894)2+sumΘ119894119894)]


54





were also reported

Multilevel analysis


















2 119860119881119864 = 120588119907 = sum120582119894

2

(sum120582119894 2+sumΘ119894119894)


55



























4 119868119862119862(1) = 120588 =

12059100



56























5(James Demacee amp

5 119908 = (

2

2 )

( 2

2 )+

2

2

where


57

























6 119868119862119862 ( ) =



7 119877119871 2 =

120590 1198731199061198971198972 120590 119868119899119905119890119903

2

120590 1198731199061198971198972 where 120590 119873119906119897119897



8 11987711987122 =

120591 00119873119906119897119897 120591 00119868119899119905119890119903



58





















59























(χ2



60




















61

Table 41



2 c v

IWBb

1 50 (03) 1458

25

85 50

2 87 (03) 2787

77

5 69 (03) 2155

48

6 62 (03) 1782

38

7 76 (03) 2413

57

9 75 (03) 2246

56





p lt 001

Work Motivation




paragraph



(78) =






62






significant (χ2






Table 42



2 c v

IMb

7 52 (02) 1537

27

82 41

11 47 (03) 1362

22

17 52 (03) 1321

17

27 45 (02) 1236

20

3 81 (03) 2443

65

13 77 (03) 2256

59

26 81 (02) 2562

64



c = extrinsic



p lt 001

63



(78)










(6) = 2271 p lt 001 χ2df = 379




Table 43



2 c v

EMb

15 58 (03) 1496

34

77 36

18 52 (03) 1397

27

21 62 (03) 1517

38

24 64 (02) 1826

41

25 54 (03) 1514

29

29 69 (03) 1891

48





p lt 001

64








(120) = 64964 p lt 001) The











OCI model (χ2


and SRMR = 055)

65

Table 44



2 c v

Value

1 80 (－)b (－)

b 65

85 65 2 78 (03) 2332

61

3 84 (03) 2497

70

Jobstyle

4 61 (－) (－) 37

75 50 5 78 (04) 1578

61

6 72 (04) 1552

51

Teamwork

7 82 (－) (－) 67

84 65 8 86 (03) 2615

74

9 72 (02) 2273

53

Leadership

10 85 (－) (－) 72

88 71 11 85 (03) 2899

72

12 84 (02) 2889

70

Learning

13 78 (－) (－) 60

85 66 14 73 (04) 1686

54

15 92 (03) 2267

84

Environment

16 69 (－) (－) 48

82 60 17 79 (03) 2671

62

18 84 (04) 1901

71






n = 922

p lt 001

66

Table 45



GFIsa χ

2(df) χ


First-order

oblique model 113973 (120) 950 87 87 85 097 055

Second-order

model 64964 (120) 541 92 92 91 076 053







67

Table 46


Factora

Organisational

Climate for

Innovation


1 2 3 4 5

1 VL 76b

2 JS 77 59 c

3 TW 78 56

50

4 LD 85 58

69

68

5 LN 71 72

36

55

55

6 EN 83 49

64

59

64

60




n = 922

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests









68

Hypothesis Tests




















69

Table 47



1 Tenure 08 21 1012 750

2 Education 1 5 307 76 -38

3 IWB 183 5 345 63 -03 -13

4 IM 243 416 366 51 -03 -11

51

5 EM 183 431 367 51 -09

-01 22

15

6 ASC 291 183 0 1 -01 -05 33

13

-06

7 UR 52 85 7743 678 -17

-24

26

20

-03 75

8 HG 1 17 865 333 -05 -07 33

16

-03 79

71

9 ES 0 69 5356 1222 -00 -03 22

11

-06 73

75

59

10 OCI 209 497 338 57 -14

-01 27

40

-27

14

12

19

13



n = 922

p lt 01

Two-tailed tests

70











Table 48




where



Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [42]

where




Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + u0j + rij [43]



71


(35) = 39182 p lt 001) and a σ 2 of 29










Table 49


The Null Model (M0)

Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 346

06 5782 τ00 12

39182 29






p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

72












73

Table 410





where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [45]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j





Mixed Model



74




















Hypotheses 5 and 6)





75

Table 411




Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 344

08 4074 τ00 185

42374

025

Education γ10 -07 02 -260 τ11 018

29246

Tenure γ20 -03 07 -035 τ22 164

36671


11 368 τ33 373

24087


11832


08 296 τ55 194

30704

pseudo R2

within-companyc 91




c R




p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

76













77

Table 412






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j






Mixed Model



78






R2










79

Table 413






2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4364 τ00 183

40304

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -254 τ11 016

24456

Tenure γ20 -03 08 -034 τ22 162

36608


11 375 τ33 379

24423


11480


08 314 τ55 191

31575

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 47

13 341

pseudo R2


Model devianced 747



errors c R





p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

80













81

Table 414






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j

β3j = γ30 + γ02(OCIj) + u3j

β4j = γ40 + γ03(OCIj) + u4j

β5j = γ50 + u5j

[47]

[413]

[414]

[410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

γ02-03

u0j

u1j-5j








Mixed Model



[415]

82




















Innovative

Work Behaviour


High OCI

Low OCI

83

Table 415




The Full Model (M3)



2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4065 τ00 189

40834

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -222 τ11 016

24082

Tenure γ20 -02 08 -032 τ22 162

36588


11 357 τ33 407

28434


12 282 τ44 499

20837


08 307 τ55 194

308

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 -38

13 301

γ33 -25 28 89

γ44 -50 24 210

pseudo R2


for EM slopes

-08

-09

Model devianced 636



c R




analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

84











85

Table 416





d Difference





Variableg


Hypotheses

M0 M1 M2 M3

YIWB XEPS


XOCI rarr YIWB

XEPS rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YEM-IWB

XOCI rarr YIM-IWB


Employee-level

Intercept γ00 (τ00) 346 (12) 344 (19) 347 (18) 347 (19)

Education γ10 (τ11) -07 (02) -06 (02) -06 (02)

Tenure γ20 (τ22) -03 (16) -03 (16) -02 (16)




Firm-level


innovation

γ01 (τ00) 47 (18) 38 (19) H4 times



pseudo R2

within-companyd 91


-09 for EM slopes

Model Deviancee f

155891 1061 747 636

86










EM is discussed







work behaviour










87






propensities






that is resulted


















88



























89


obviously required

Firm-level research









work behaviour















90



























91
























obtain recognition



92



















93









Conclusions














94





















recognition





95





behaviour









for innovation












96












for innovation

97


























98











behaviour
















99



























100



























101






102


103

REFERENCES










453-474 doidxdoiorg1010160022-1031(86)90045-4



185-201 doi1010161053-4822(93)90012-S



10108010400418909534321






102307256995











104







doi 1010370021-9010861154




















Methods 7(4) 400-417 doi1011771094428104268542






105



Park CA Sage




al20Capitalpdf



doi101016S0019-8501(01)00203-6



Research 71(1) 29-42 doi10310200346543071001029



doi10310200346543064003363










10110814601061211192834



105-117 doi 105172impp121105



from


name=etd-0831106-142534pdf

106






ampname=DLFE-624pdf









1010370021-9010894599




doi1011770149206310388419



Research 14(4) 579-582 doi 101086209137


Journal 8(3) 220-227 doi 102307254790



1111-1132 doi 101111j1559-18161992tb00945x







107



101207S15327965PLI1104_01






125(6) 627-668 doi 1010370033-29091256627



Journal 39(4) 949-969 doi 102307256718







Sage




101111j1476-8691200500333x






52(3) 412-430 doi 101111j2044-8309201102090x





108



dxdoiorg1010160378-8733(94)00251-5



105465AMR19969704071865













doi 105465AMR19854279045



1081-1111 doi 105465AMR19969704071864






93(1) 48-58 doi 1010370021-901093148



Psychology 94(4) 927-944 doi 101037a0014391



109




101111j1464-0597201200525x










doi 101111j1744-65701996tb01802x






CT JAI Press




6(1) 1-55 doi 10108010705519909540118






110







Psychologists Press



doi 101111j1467-8691201000558x








doi 1010370021-901069185



30(2) 229-254 doi 101111j1744-65701977tb02091x



101348096317900167038









111










doi 1010370033-2909993422


Psychology 61(5) 622-629 doi 1010370021-9010615622





101007BF00992553



101108EUM0000000005660



doi10310200346543066001001










101146annurevpsych55090902142105

112



doi1011771094428106296642



doi101177001872679905200801





doi 101016B978-012619070-050032-5






66(1) 5-32 doi10310200346543066001005







365-385 doi 1010160378-8733(86)90003-1






9588E68789pdf

113





70ampuid=4ampsid=21103268691393



doi 1010160749-5978(91)90023-M



388-403 doi 105465AMR200413670974







119-140 doi 101207s15326934crj1601_12















114




10110801437720410535972














Behavior 34(5) 583-606 doi 101002job1802



doi102189asqu2005501100




Behavior 26(4) 379-408 doi 101002job312







115





Prentice Hall





















International






116








101006ceps19991020







Jossey-Bass











Row



580-607 doi 102307256701



105465AMR200413670972

117











doi10230730040662








13(3) 403-406 doi1011771094428110366303



102307256865








118





A094E8A88EE69C83E99984E6AA94


MA Allyn and Bacon











Press












DOI 101111j2044-83251992tb00488x



119



105465AMR19933997517


John Wiley

120









性別 1 男 2 女



年齡 1 25以下 2 26－30 3 31－35 4 36－40 5 41－50 6 50以上




其他__________________________ (請填寫)



其他__________________________ (請填寫)

您在貴公司的年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)

您的工作總年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)



林燦螢博士



121



有認識























122



從

不

很

少

偶

而經

常

總

是










非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通

同

意

非

常

同

意














123



非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通同

意

非

常

同

意





















124


AGGREGATE


BREAK=Company

OCI_1=SD(OCI_1)

OCI_2=SD(OCI_2)

OCI_3=SD(OCI_3)

OCI_4=SD(OCI_4)

OCI_5=SD(OCI_5)

OCI_6=SD(OCI_6)

OCI_7=SD(OCI_7)

OCI_8=SD(OCI_8)

OCI_9=SD(OCI_9)

OCI_10=SD(OCI_10)

OCI_11=SD(OCI_11)

OCI_12=SD(OCI_12)

OCI_13=SD(OCI_13)

OCI_14=SD(OCI_14)

OCI_15=SD(OCI_15)

OCI_16=SD(OCI_16)

OCI_17=SD(OCI_17)

OCI_18=SD(OCI_18)

N_BREAK=N














(continue)

125

(continue)







Execute



OCI_18)

Compute scale=5

Compute dim_num=18

Compute s2=abcd

Execute


Execute


Execute




126


127


128


IV




Hypothesis Tests 68




Conclusions 93




REFERENCES 103



V

LIST OF TABLES



32


Innovation 35






Scale 65




Factors 67



Behaviour 70


Behaviour 71




VI















VII

LIST OF FIGURES







VIII


1








Research Background











study







2



























3



























4
























5

Research Purpose





Research Questions










Delimitations







6




as described below













Work Motivation










7











8

9


























10



























11



















Den Hartog 2010)








12



























13



























14



























15







16

Table 21


Reliabilitya


sample

Number



d IC

e IR

f








c idea exploration

d idea generation

e idea championing

f idea

realization

17


Social Capital

























18



























19
















and IWB











20

























21

Work Motivation













Motivation













22

Work Motivation










Steers et al 2004)









Drives

(Prime movers)

Decisions and

Behaviors

Needs

(Second movers)

eg a drive from

feeling loneliness

eg a need for


eg to make friends

with someone


23
















Barrick 2004)







1993)

24

















the work










25



























26
























(pp957-959)

27




















behaviour







28













Schneider 2000)





1996 p625 Glick 1985)









29



























30


























31
























32

Table 22


Definitions Factors







Work Group Supports












DynamismLiveliness






work groups




Frequency




their organisations


Teamwork Leadership


2009 Chiou et al

33



























34














35

Table 23


Measure


Samplec Factor

Number




e 5 38







e = British


36
























Kao 2004 Tsai 2008)

37




38


Behaviour

























39














Behaviour













40



























41



























42



















43









Research Framework



Employee level

Firm level




Intrinsic

Motivation (IM)

Extrinsic

Motivation (EM)

Innovative Work

Behaviour (IWB)

H1

H2

H4

H5

H6

Accessed Social

Capital (ASC)

H3

Work Motivation

(WM)

44








Table 31

The Hypotheses

Hypotheses Content














(continued)

45


Hypotheses Content













46

Research Procedures



Preparation









Implementation








Completion




47




Research Design

Data Collection

Proposal Meeting

Research Motivation


Data Analyses


Data Coding


Final Defense


Preparation

Implementation

Completion


48

Measures

























49

Work Motivation



















Data Collection

Sampling






50














Procedures













51













Participants













52

















moderator)










53

























1 119862119877 = 120588119888 =

(sum120582119894)2

[(sum120582119894)2+sumΘ119894119894)]


54





were also reported

Multilevel analysis


















2 119860119881119864 = 120588119907 = sum120582119894

2

(sum120582119894 2+sumΘ119894119894)


55



























4 119868119862119862(1) = 120588 =

12059100



56























5(James Demacee amp

5 119908 = (

2

2 )

( 2

2 )+

2

2

where


57

























6 119868119862119862 ( ) =



7 119877119871 2 =

120590 1198731199061198971198972 120590 119868119899119905119890119903

2

120590 1198731199061198971198972 where 120590 119873119906119897119897



8 11987711987122 =

120591 00119873119906119897119897 120591 00119868119899119905119890119903



58





















59























(χ2



60




















61

Table 41



2 c v

IWBb

1 50 (03) 1458

25

85 50

2 87 (03) 2787

77

5 69 (03) 2155

48

6 62 (03) 1782

38

7 76 (03) 2413

57

9 75 (03) 2246

56





p lt 001

Work Motivation




paragraph



(78) =






62






significant (χ2






Table 42



2 c v

IMb

7 52 (02) 1537

27

82 41

11 47 (03) 1362

22

17 52 (03) 1321

17

27 45 (02) 1236

20

3 81 (03) 2443

65

13 77 (03) 2256

59

26 81 (02) 2562

64



c = extrinsic



p lt 001

63



(78)










(6) = 2271 p lt 001 χ2df = 379




Table 43



2 c v

EMb

15 58 (03) 1496

34

77 36

18 52 (03) 1397

27

21 62 (03) 1517

38

24 64 (02) 1826

41

25 54 (03) 1514

29

29 69 (03) 1891

48





p lt 001

64








(120) = 64964 p lt 001) The











OCI model (χ2


and SRMR = 055)

65

Table 44



2 c v

Value

1 80 (－)b (－)

b 65

85 65 2 78 (03) 2332

61

3 84 (03) 2497

70

Jobstyle

4 61 (－) (－) 37

75 50 5 78 (04) 1578

61

6 72 (04) 1552

51

Teamwork

7 82 (－) (－) 67

84 65 8 86 (03) 2615

74

9 72 (02) 2273

53

Leadership

10 85 (－) (－) 72

88 71 11 85 (03) 2899

72

12 84 (02) 2889

70

Learning

13 78 (－) (－) 60

85 66 14 73 (04) 1686

54

15 92 (03) 2267

84

Environment

16 69 (－) (－) 48

82 60 17 79 (03) 2671

62

18 84 (04) 1901

71






n = 922

p lt 001

66

Table 45



GFIsa χ

2(df) χ


First-order

oblique model 113973 (120) 950 87 87 85 097 055

Second-order

model 64964 (120) 541 92 92 91 076 053







67

Table 46


Factora

Organisational

Climate for

Innovation


1 2 3 4 5

1 VL 76b

2 JS 77 59 c

3 TW 78 56

50

4 LD 85 58

69

68

5 LN 71 72

36

55

55

6 EN 83 49

64

59

64

60




n = 922

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests









68

Hypothesis Tests




















69

Table 47



1 Tenure 08 21 1012 750

2 Education 1 5 307 76 -38

3 IWB 183 5 345 63 -03 -13

4 IM 243 416 366 51 -03 -11

51

5 EM 183 431 367 51 -09

-01 22

15

6 ASC 291 183 0 1 -01 -05 33

13

-06

7 UR 52 85 7743 678 -17

-24

26

20

-03 75

8 HG 1 17 865 333 -05 -07 33

16

-03 79

71

9 ES 0 69 5356 1222 -00 -03 22

11

-06 73

75

59

10 OCI 209 497 338 57 -14

-01 27

40

-27

14

12

19

13



n = 922

p lt 01

Two-tailed tests

70











Table 48




where



Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [42]

where




Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + u0j + rij [43]



71


(35) = 39182 p lt 001) and a σ 2 of 29










Table 49


The Null Model (M0)

Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 346

06 5782 τ00 12

39182 29






p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

72












73

Table 410





where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [45]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j





Mixed Model



74




















Hypotheses 5 and 6)





75

Table 411




Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 344

08 4074 τ00 185

42374

025

Education γ10 -07 02 -260 τ11 018

29246

Tenure γ20 -03 07 -035 τ22 164

36671


11 368 τ33 373

24087


11832


08 296 τ55 194

30704

pseudo R2

within-companyc 91




c R




p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

76













77

Table 412






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j






Mixed Model



78






R2










79

Table 413






2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4364 τ00 183

40304

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -254 τ11 016

24456

Tenure γ20 -03 08 -034 τ22 162

36608


11 375 τ33 379

24423


11480


08 314 τ55 191

31575

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 47

13 341

pseudo R2


Model devianced 747



errors c R





p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

80













81

Table 414






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j

β3j = γ30 + γ02(OCIj) + u3j

β4j = γ40 + γ03(OCIj) + u4j

β5j = γ50 + u5j

[47]

[413]

[414]

[410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

γ02-03

u0j

u1j-5j








Mixed Model



[415]

82




















Innovative

Work Behaviour


High OCI

Low OCI

83

Table 415




The Full Model (M3)



2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4065 τ00 189

40834

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -222 τ11 016

24082

Tenure γ20 -02 08 -032 τ22 162

36588


11 357 τ33 407

28434


12 282 τ44 499

20837


08 307 τ55 194

308

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 -38

13 301

γ33 -25 28 89

γ44 -50 24 210

pseudo R2


for EM slopes

-08

-09

Model devianced 636



c R




analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

84











85

Table 416





d Difference





Variableg


Hypotheses

M0 M1 M2 M3

YIWB XEPS


XOCI rarr YIWB

XEPS rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YEM-IWB

XOCI rarr YIM-IWB


Employee-level

Intercept γ00 (τ00) 346 (12) 344 (19) 347 (18) 347 (19)

Education γ10 (τ11) -07 (02) -06 (02) -06 (02)

Tenure γ20 (τ22) -03 (16) -03 (16) -02 (16)




Firm-level


innovation

γ01 (τ00) 47 (18) 38 (19) H4 times



pseudo R2

within-companyd 91


-09 for EM slopes

Model Deviancee f

155891 1061 747 636

86










EM is discussed







work behaviour










87






propensities






that is resulted


















88



























89


obviously required

Firm-level research









work behaviour















90



























91
























obtain recognition



92



















93









Conclusions














94





















recognition





95





behaviour









for innovation












96












for innovation

97


























98











behaviour
















99



























100



























101






102


103

REFERENCES










453-474 doidxdoiorg1010160022-1031(86)90045-4



185-201 doi1010161053-4822(93)90012-S



10108010400418909534321






102307256995











104







doi 1010370021-9010861154




















Methods 7(4) 400-417 doi1011771094428104268542






105



Park CA Sage




al20Capitalpdf



doi101016S0019-8501(01)00203-6



Research 71(1) 29-42 doi10310200346543071001029



doi10310200346543064003363










10110814601061211192834



105-117 doi 105172impp121105



from


name=etd-0831106-142534pdf

106






ampname=DLFE-624pdf









1010370021-9010894599




doi1011770149206310388419



Research 14(4) 579-582 doi 101086209137


Journal 8(3) 220-227 doi 102307254790



1111-1132 doi 101111j1559-18161992tb00945x







107



101207S15327965PLI1104_01






125(6) 627-668 doi 1010370033-29091256627



Journal 39(4) 949-969 doi 102307256718







Sage




101111j1476-8691200500333x






52(3) 412-430 doi 101111j2044-8309201102090x





108



dxdoiorg1010160378-8733(94)00251-5



105465AMR19969704071865













doi 105465AMR19854279045



1081-1111 doi 105465AMR19969704071864






93(1) 48-58 doi 1010370021-901093148



Psychology 94(4) 927-944 doi 101037a0014391



109




101111j1464-0597201200525x










doi 101111j1744-65701996tb01802x






CT JAI Press




6(1) 1-55 doi 10108010705519909540118






110







Psychologists Press



doi 101111j1467-8691201000558x








doi 1010370021-901069185



30(2) 229-254 doi 101111j1744-65701977tb02091x



101348096317900167038









111










doi 1010370033-2909993422


Psychology 61(5) 622-629 doi 1010370021-9010615622





101007BF00992553



101108EUM0000000005660



doi10310200346543066001001










101146annurevpsych55090902142105

112



doi1011771094428106296642



doi101177001872679905200801





doi 101016B978-012619070-050032-5






66(1) 5-32 doi10310200346543066001005







365-385 doi 1010160378-8733(86)90003-1






9588E68789pdf

113





70ampuid=4ampsid=21103268691393



doi 1010160749-5978(91)90023-M



388-403 doi 105465AMR200413670974







119-140 doi 101207s15326934crj1601_12















114




10110801437720410535972














Behavior 34(5) 583-606 doi 101002job1802



doi102189asqu2005501100




Behavior 26(4) 379-408 doi 101002job312







115





Prentice Hall





















International






116








101006ceps19991020







Jossey-Bass











Row



580-607 doi 102307256701



105465AMR200413670972

117











doi10230730040662








13(3) 403-406 doi1011771094428110366303



102307256865








118





A094E8A88EE69C83E99984E6AA94


MA Allyn and Bacon











Press












DOI 101111j2044-83251992tb00488x



119



105465AMR19933997517


John Wiley

120









性別 1 男 2 女



年齡 1 25以下 2 26－30 3 31－35 4 36－40 5 41－50 6 50以上




其他__________________________ (請填寫)



其他__________________________ (請填寫)

您在貴公司的年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)

您的工作總年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)



林燦螢博士



121



有認識























122



從

不

很

少

偶

而經

常

總

是










非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通

同

意

非

常

同

意














123



非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通同

意

非

常

同

意





















124


AGGREGATE


BREAK=Company

OCI_1=SD(OCI_1)

OCI_2=SD(OCI_2)

OCI_3=SD(OCI_3)

OCI_4=SD(OCI_4)

OCI_5=SD(OCI_5)

OCI_6=SD(OCI_6)

OCI_7=SD(OCI_7)

OCI_8=SD(OCI_8)

OCI_9=SD(OCI_9)

OCI_10=SD(OCI_10)

OCI_11=SD(OCI_11)

OCI_12=SD(OCI_12)

OCI_13=SD(OCI_13)

OCI_14=SD(OCI_14)

OCI_15=SD(OCI_15)

OCI_16=SD(OCI_16)

OCI_17=SD(OCI_17)

OCI_18=SD(OCI_18)

N_BREAK=N














(continue)

125

(continue)







Execute



OCI_18)

Compute scale=5

Compute dim_num=18

Compute s2=abcd

Execute


Execute


Execute




126


127


128


V

LIST OF TABLES



32


Innovation 35






Scale 65




Factors 67



Behaviour 70


Behaviour 71




VI















VII

LIST OF FIGURES







VIII


1








Research Background











study







2



























3



























4
























5

Research Purpose





Research Questions










Delimitations







6




as described below













Work Motivation










7











8

9


























10



























11



















Den Hartog 2010)








12



























13



























14



























15







16

Table 21


Reliabilitya


sample

Number



d IC

e IR

f








c idea exploration

d idea generation

e idea championing

f idea

realization

17


Social Capital

























18



























19
















and IWB











20

























21

Work Motivation













Motivation













22

Work Motivation










Steers et al 2004)









Drives

(Prime movers)

Decisions and

Behaviors

Needs

(Second movers)

eg a drive from

feeling loneliness

eg a need for


eg to make friends

with someone


23
















Barrick 2004)







1993)

24

















the work










25



























26
























(pp957-959)

27




















behaviour







28













Schneider 2000)





1996 p625 Glick 1985)









29



























30


























31
























32

Table 22


Definitions Factors







Work Group Supports












DynamismLiveliness






work groups




Frequency




their organisations


Teamwork Leadership


2009 Chiou et al

33



























34














35

Table 23


Measure


Samplec Factor

Number




e 5 38







e = British


36
























Kao 2004 Tsai 2008)

37




38


Behaviour

























39














Behaviour













40



























41



























42



















43









Research Framework



Employee level

Firm level




Intrinsic

Motivation (IM)

Extrinsic

Motivation (EM)

Innovative Work

Behaviour (IWB)

H1

H2

H4

H5

H6

Accessed Social

Capital (ASC)

H3

Work Motivation

(WM)

44








Table 31

The Hypotheses

Hypotheses Content














(continued)

45


Hypotheses Content













46

Research Procedures



Preparation









Implementation








Completion




47




Research Design

Data Collection

Proposal Meeting

Research Motivation


Data Analyses


Data Coding


Final Defense


Preparation

Implementation

Completion


48

Measures

























49

Work Motivation



















Data Collection

Sampling






50














Procedures













51













Participants













52

















moderator)










53

























1 119862119877 = 120588119888 =

(sum120582119894)2

[(sum120582119894)2+sumΘ119894119894)]


54





were also reported

Multilevel analysis


















2 119860119881119864 = 120588119907 = sum120582119894

2

(sum120582119894 2+sumΘ119894119894)


55



























4 119868119862119862(1) = 120588 =

12059100



56























5(James Demacee amp

5 119908 = (

2

2 )

( 2

2 )+

2

2

where


57

























6 119868119862119862 ( ) =



7 119877119871 2 =

120590 1198731199061198971198972 120590 119868119899119905119890119903

2

120590 1198731199061198971198972 where 120590 119873119906119897119897



8 11987711987122 =

120591 00119873119906119897119897 120591 00119868119899119905119890119903



58





















59























(χ2



60




















61

Table 41



2 c v

IWBb

1 50 (03) 1458

25

85 50

2 87 (03) 2787

77

5 69 (03) 2155

48

6 62 (03) 1782

38

7 76 (03) 2413

57

9 75 (03) 2246

56





p lt 001

Work Motivation




paragraph



(78) =






62






significant (χ2






Table 42



2 c v

IMb

7 52 (02) 1537

27

82 41

11 47 (03) 1362

22

17 52 (03) 1321

17

27 45 (02) 1236

20

3 81 (03) 2443

65

13 77 (03) 2256

59

26 81 (02) 2562

64



c = extrinsic



p lt 001

63



(78)










(6) = 2271 p lt 001 χ2df = 379




Table 43



2 c v

EMb

15 58 (03) 1496

34

77 36

18 52 (03) 1397

27

21 62 (03) 1517

38

24 64 (02) 1826

41

25 54 (03) 1514

29

29 69 (03) 1891

48





p lt 001

64








(120) = 64964 p lt 001) The











OCI model (χ2


and SRMR = 055)

65

Table 44



2 c v

Value

1 80 (－)b (－)

b 65

85 65 2 78 (03) 2332

61

3 84 (03) 2497

70

Jobstyle

4 61 (－) (－) 37

75 50 5 78 (04) 1578

61

6 72 (04) 1552

51

Teamwork

7 82 (－) (－) 67

84 65 8 86 (03) 2615

74

9 72 (02) 2273

53

Leadership

10 85 (－) (－) 72

88 71 11 85 (03) 2899

72

12 84 (02) 2889

70

Learning

13 78 (－) (－) 60

85 66 14 73 (04) 1686

54

15 92 (03) 2267

84

Environment

16 69 (－) (－) 48

82 60 17 79 (03) 2671

62

18 84 (04) 1901

71






n = 922

p lt 001

66

Table 45



GFIsa χ

2(df) χ


First-order

oblique model 113973 (120) 950 87 87 85 097 055

Second-order

model 64964 (120) 541 92 92 91 076 053







67

Table 46


Factora

Organisational

Climate for

Innovation


1 2 3 4 5

1 VL 76b

2 JS 77 59 c

3 TW 78 56

50

4 LD 85 58

69

68

5 LN 71 72

36

55

55

6 EN 83 49

64

59

64

60




n = 922

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests









68

Hypothesis Tests




















69

Table 47



1 Tenure 08 21 1012 750

2 Education 1 5 307 76 -38

3 IWB 183 5 345 63 -03 -13

4 IM 243 416 366 51 -03 -11

51

5 EM 183 431 367 51 -09

-01 22

15

6 ASC 291 183 0 1 -01 -05 33

13

-06

7 UR 52 85 7743 678 -17

-24

26

20

-03 75

8 HG 1 17 865 333 -05 -07 33

16

-03 79

71

9 ES 0 69 5356 1222 -00 -03 22

11

-06 73

75

59

10 OCI 209 497 338 57 -14

-01 27

40

-27

14

12

19

13



n = 922

p lt 01

Two-tailed tests

70











Table 48




where



Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [42]

where




Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + u0j + rij [43]



71


(35) = 39182 p lt 001) and a σ 2 of 29










Table 49


The Null Model (M0)

Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 346

06 5782 τ00 12

39182 29






p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

72












73

Table 410





where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [45]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j





Mixed Model



74




















Hypotheses 5 and 6)





75

Table 411




Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 344

08 4074 τ00 185

42374

025

Education γ10 -07 02 -260 τ11 018

29246

Tenure γ20 -03 07 -035 τ22 164

36671


11 368 τ33 373

24087


11832


08 296 τ55 194

30704

pseudo R2

within-companyc 91




c R




p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

76













77

Table 412






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j






Mixed Model



78






R2










79

Table 413






2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4364 τ00 183

40304

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -254 τ11 016

24456

Tenure γ20 -03 08 -034 τ22 162

36608


11 375 τ33 379

24423


11480


08 314 τ55 191

31575

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 47

13 341

pseudo R2


Model devianced 747



errors c R





p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

80













81

Table 414






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j

β3j = γ30 + γ02(OCIj) + u3j

β4j = γ40 + γ03(OCIj) + u4j

β5j = γ50 + u5j

[47]

[413]

[414]

[410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

γ02-03

u0j

u1j-5j








Mixed Model



[415]

82




















Innovative

Work Behaviour


High OCI

Low OCI

83

Table 415




The Full Model (M3)



2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4065 τ00 189

40834

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -222 τ11 016

24082

Tenure γ20 -02 08 -032 τ22 162

36588


11 357 τ33 407

28434


12 282 τ44 499

20837


08 307 τ55 194

308

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 -38

13 301

γ33 -25 28 89

γ44 -50 24 210

pseudo R2


for EM slopes

-08

-09

Model devianced 636



c R




analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

84











85

Table 416





d Difference





Variableg


Hypotheses

M0 M1 M2 M3

YIWB XEPS


XOCI rarr YIWB

XEPS rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YEM-IWB

XOCI rarr YIM-IWB


Employee-level

Intercept γ00 (τ00) 346 (12) 344 (19) 347 (18) 347 (19)

Education γ10 (τ11) -07 (02) -06 (02) -06 (02)

Tenure γ20 (τ22) -03 (16) -03 (16) -02 (16)




Firm-level


innovation

γ01 (τ00) 47 (18) 38 (19) H4 times



pseudo R2

within-companyd 91


-09 for EM slopes

Model Deviancee f

155891 1061 747 636

86










EM is discussed







work behaviour










87






propensities






that is resulted


















88



























89


obviously required

Firm-level research









work behaviour















90



























91
























obtain recognition



92



















93









Conclusions














94





















recognition





95





behaviour









for innovation












96












for innovation

97


























98











behaviour
















99



























100



























101






102


103

REFERENCES










453-474 doidxdoiorg1010160022-1031(86)90045-4



185-201 doi1010161053-4822(93)90012-S



10108010400418909534321






102307256995











104







doi 1010370021-9010861154




















Methods 7(4) 400-417 doi1011771094428104268542






105



Park CA Sage




al20Capitalpdf



doi101016S0019-8501(01)00203-6



Research 71(1) 29-42 doi10310200346543071001029



doi10310200346543064003363










10110814601061211192834



105-117 doi 105172impp121105



from


name=etd-0831106-142534pdf

106






ampname=DLFE-624pdf









1010370021-9010894599




doi1011770149206310388419



Research 14(4) 579-582 doi 101086209137


Journal 8(3) 220-227 doi 102307254790



1111-1132 doi 101111j1559-18161992tb00945x







107



101207S15327965PLI1104_01






125(6) 627-668 doi 1010370033-29091256627



Journal 39(4) 949-969 doi 102307256718







Sage




101111j1476-8691200500333x






52(3) 412-430 doi 101111j2044-8309201102090x





108



dxdoiorg1010160378-8733(94)00251-5



105465AMR19969704071865













doi 105465AMR19854279045



1081-1111 doi 105465AMR19969704071864






93(1) 48-58 doi 1010370021-901093148



Psychology 94(4) 927-944 doi 101037a0014391



109




101111j1464-0597201200525x










doi 101111j1744-65701996tb01802x






CT JAI Press




6(1) 1-55 doi 10108010705519909540118






110







Psychologists Press



doi 101111j1467-8691201000558x








doi 1010370021-901069185



30(2) 229-254 doi 101111j1744-65701977tb02091x



101348096317900167038









111










doi 1010370033-2909993422


Psychology 61(5) 622-629 doi 1010370021-9010615622





101007BF00992553



101108EUM0000000005660



doi10310200346543066001001










101146annurevpsych55090902142105

112



doi1011771094428106296642



doi101177001872679905200801





doi 101016B978-012619070-050032-5






66(1) 5-32 doi10310200346543066001005







365-385 doi 1010160378-8733(86)90003-1






9588E68789pdf

113





70ampuid=4ampsid=21103268691393



doi 1010160749-5978(91)90023-M



388-403 doi 105465AMR200413670974







119-140 doi 101207s15326934crj1601_12















114




10110801437720410535972














Behavior 34(5) 583-606 doi 101002job1802



doi102189asqu2005501100




Behavior 26(4) 379-408 doi 101002job312







115





Prentice Hall





















International






116








101006ceps19991020







Jossey-Bass











Row



580-607 doi 102307256701



105465AMR200413670972

117











doi10230730040662








13(3) 403-406 doi1011771094428110366303



102307256865








118





A094E8A88EE69C83E99984E6AA94


MA Allyn and Bacon











Press












DOI 101111j2044-83251992tb00488x



119



105465AMR19933997517


John Wiley

120









性別 1 男 2 女



年齡 1 25以下 2 26－30 3 31－35 4 36－40 5 41－50 6 50以上




其他__________________________ (請填寫)



其他__________________________ (請填寫)

您在貴公司的年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)

您的工作總年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)



林燦螢博士



121



有認識























122



從

不

很

少

偶

而經

常

總

是










非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通

同

意

非

常

同

意














123



非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通同

意

非

常

同

意





















124


AGGREGATE


BREAK=Company

OCI_1=SD(OCI_1)

OCI_2=SD(OCI_2)

OCI_3=SD(OCI_3)

OCI_4=SD(OCI_4)

OCI_5=SD(OCI_5)

OCI_6=SD(OCI_6)

OCI_7=SD(OCI_7)

OCI_8=SD(OCI_8)

OCI_9=SD(OCI_9)

OCI_10=SD(OCI_10)

OCI_11=SD(OCI_11)

OCI_12=SD(OCI_12)

OCI_13=SD(OCI_13)

OCI_14=SD(OCI_14)

OCI_15=SD(OCI_15)

OCI_16=SD(OCI_16)

OCI_17=SD(OCI_17)

OCI_18=SD(OCI_18)

N_BREAK=N














(continue)

125

(continue)







Execute



OCI_18)

Compute scale=5

Compute dim_num=18

Compute s2=abcd

Execute


Execute


Execute




126


127


128


VI















VII

LIST OF FIGURES







VIII


1








Research Background











study







2



























3



























4
























5

Research Purpose





Research Questions










Delimitations







6




as described below













Work Motivation










7











8

9


























10



























11



















Den Hartog 2010)








12



























13



























14



























15







16

Table 21


Reliabilitya


sample

Number



d IC

e IR

f








c idea exploration

d idea generation

e idea championing

f idea

realization

17


Social Capital

























18



























19
















and IWB











20

























21

Work Motivation













Motivation













22

Work Motivation










Steers et al 2004)









Drives

(Prime movers)

Decisions and

Behaviors

Needs

(Second movers)

eg a drive from

feeling loneliness

eg a need for


eg to make friends

with someone


23
















Barrick 2004)







1993)

24

















the work










25



























26
























(pp957-959)

27




















behaviour







28













Schneider 2000)





1996 p625 Glick 1985)









29



























30


























31
























32

Table 22


Definitions Factors







Work Group Supports












DynamismLiveliness






work groups




Frequency




their organisations


Teamwork Leadership


2009 Chiou et al

33



























34














35

Table 23


Measure


Samplec Factor

Number




e 5 38







e = British


36
























Kao 2004 Tsai 2008)

37




38


Behaviour

























39














Behaviour













40



























41



























42



















43









Research Framework



Employee level

Firm level




Intrinsic

Motivation (IM)

Extrinsic

Motivation (EM)

Innovative Work

Behaviour (IWB)

H1

H2

H4

H5

H6

Accessed Social

Capital (ASC)

H3

Work Motivation

(WM)

44








Table 31

The Hypotheses

Hypotheses Content














(continued)

45


Hypotheses Content













46

Research Procedures



Preparation









Implementation








Completion




47




Research Design

Data Collection

Proposal Meeting

Research Motivation


Data Analyses


Data Coding


Final Defense


Preparation

Implementation

Completion


48

Measures

























49

Work Motivation



















Data Collection

Sampling






50














Procedures













51













Participants













52

















moderator)










53

























1 119862119877 = 120588119888 =

(sum120582119894)2

[(sum120582119894)2+sumΘ119894119894)]


54





were also reported

Multilevel analysis


















2 119860119881119864 = 120588119907 = sum120582119894

2

(sum120582119894 2+sumΘ119894119894)


55



























4 119868119862119862(1) = 120588 =

12059100



56























5(James Demacee amp

5 119908 = (

2

2 )

( 2

2 )+

2

2

where


57

























6 119868119862119862 ( ) =



7 119877119871 2 =

120590 1198731199061198971198972 120590 119868119899119905119890119903

2

120590 1198731199061198971198972 where 120590 119873119906119897119897



8 11987711987122 =

120591 00119873119906119897119897 120591 00119868119899119905119890119903



58





















59























(χ2



60




















61

Table 41



2 c v

IWBb

1 50 (03) 1458

25

85 50

2 87 (03) 2787

77

5 69 (03) 2155

48

6 62 (03) 1782

38

7 76 (03) 2413

57

9 75 (03) 2246

56





p lt 001

Work Motivation




paragraph



(78) =






62






significant (χ2






Table 42



2 c v

IMb

7 52 (02) 1537

27

82 41

11 47 (03) 1362

22

17 52 (03) 1321

17

27 45 (02) 1236

20

3 81 (03) 2443

65

13 77 (03) 2256

59

26 81 (02) 2562

64



c = extrinsic



p lt 001

63



(78)










(6) = 2271 p lt 001 χ2df = 379




Table 43



2 c v

EMb

15 58 (03) 1496

34

77 36

18 52 (03) 1397

27

21 62 (03) 1517

38

24 64 (02) 1826

41

25 54 (03) 1514

29

29 69 (03) 1891

48





p lt 001

64








(120) = 64964 p lt 001) The











OCI model (χ2


and SRMR = 055)

65

Table 44



2 c v

Value

1 80 (－)b (－)

b 65

85 65 2 78 (03) 2332

61

3 84 (03) 2497

70

Jobstyle

4 61 (－) (－) 37

75 50 5 78 (04) 1578

61

6 72 (04) 1552

51

Teamwork

7 82 (－) (－) 67

84 65 8 86 (03) 2615

74

9 72 (02) 2273

53

Leadership

10 85 (－) (－) 72

88 71 11 85 (03) 2899

72

12 84 (02) 2889

70

Learning

13 78 (－) (－) 60

85 66 14 73 (04) 1686

54

15 92 (03) 2267

84

Environment

16 69 (－) (－) 48

82 60 17 79 (03) 2671

62

18 84 (04) 1901

71






n = 922

p lt 001

66

Table 45



GFIsa χ

2(df) χ


First-order

oblique model 113973 (120) 950 87 87 85 097 055

Second-order

model 64964 (120) 541 92 92 91 076 053







67

Table 46


Factora

Organisational

Climate for

Innovation


1 2 3 4 5

1 VL 76b

2 JS 77 59 c

3 TW 78 56

50

4 LD 85 58

69

68

5 LN 71 72

36

55

55

6 EN 83 49

64

59

64

60




n = 922

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests









68

Hypothesis Tests




















69

Table 47



1 Tenure 08 21 1012 750

2 Education 1 5 307 76 -38

3 IWB 183 5 345 63 -03 -13

4 IM 243 416 366 51 -03 -11

51

5 EM 183 431 367 51 -09

-01 22

15

6 ASC 291 183 0 1 -01 -05 33

13

-06

7 UR 52 85 7743 678 -17

-24

26

20

-03 75

8 HG 1 17 865 333 -05 -07 33

16

-03 79

71

9 ES 0 69 5356 1222 -00 -03 22

11

-06 73

75

59

10 OCI 209 497 338 57 -14

-01 27

40

-27

14

12

19

13



n = 922

p lt 01

Two-tailed tests

70











Table 48




where



Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [42]

where




Mixed Model

IWBij = γ00 + u0j + rij [43]



71


(35) = 39182 p lt 001) and a σ 2 of 29










Table 49


The Null Model (M0)

Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 346

06 5782 τ00 12

39182 29






p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

72












73

Table 410





where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + u0j [45]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j





Mixed Model



74




















Hypotheses 5 and 6)





75

Table 411




Variable



2 σ

Intercept γ00 344

08 4074 τ00 185

42374

025

Education γ10 -07 02 -260 τ11 018

29246

Tenure γ20 -03 07 -035 τ22 164

36671


11 368 τ33 373

24087


11832


08 296 τ55 194

30704

pseudo R2

within-companyc 91




c R




p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

76













77

Table 412






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j [47]

β3j = γ30 + u3j [48]

β4j = γ40 + u4j [49]

β5j = γ50 + u5j [410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

u0j

u1j-5j






Mixed Model



78






R2










79

Table 413






2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4364 τ00 183

40304

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -254 τ11 016

24456

Tenure γ20 -03 08 -034 τ22 162

36608


11 375 τ33 379

24423


11480


08 314 τ55 191

31575

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 47

13 341

pseudo R2


Model devianced 747



errors c R





p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

80













81

Table 414






where


Firm-level Model

β0j = γ00 + γ01(OCIj) + u0j [411]

β1j = γ10 + u1j [46]

β2j = γ20 + u2j

β3j = γ30 + γ02(OCIj) + u3j

β4j = γ40 + γ03(OCIj) + u4j

β5j = γ50 + u5j

[47]

[413]

[414]

[410]

where

γ00

γ01

γ10-50

γ02-03

u0j

u1j-5j








Mixed Model



[415]

82




















Innovative

Work Behaviour


High OCI

Low OCI

83

Table 415




The Full Model (M3)



2 σ

Employee-level

Intercept γ00 347

08 4065 τ00 189

40834

025

Education γ10 -06 03 -222 τ11 016

24082

Tenure γ20 -02 08 -032 τ22 162

36588


11 357 τ33 407

28434


12 282 τ44 499

20837


08 307 τ55 194

308

Firm-level


for innovation

γ01 -38

13 301

γ33 -25 28 89

γ44 -50 24 210

pseudo R2


for EM slopes

-08

-09

Model devianced 636



c R




analyses

p lt 05

p lt 01

p lt 001

Two-tailed tests

84











85

Table 416





d Difference





Variableg


Hypotheses

M0 M1 M2 M3

YIWB XEPS


XOCI rarr YIWB

XEPS rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YIWB

XOCI rarr YEM-IWB

XOCI rarr YIM-IWB


Employee-level

Intercept γ00 (τ00) 346 (12) 344 (19) 347 (18) 347 (19)

Education γ10 (τ11) -07 (02) -06 (02) -06 (02)

Tenure γ20 (τ22) -03 (16) -03 (16) -02 (16)




Firm-level


innovation

γ01 (τ00) 47 (18) 38 (19) H4 times



pseudo R2

within-companyd 91


-09 for EM slopes

Model Deviancee f

155891 1061 747 636

86










EM is discussed







work behaviour










87






propensities






that is resulted


















88



























89


obviously required

Firm-level research









work behaviour















90



























91
























obtain recognition



92



















93









Conclusions














94





















recognition





95





behaviour









for innovation












96












for innovation

97


























98











behaviour
















99



























100



























101






102


103

REFERENCES










453-474 doidxdoiorg1010160022-1031(86)90045-4



185-201 doi1010161053-4822(93)90012-S



10108010400418909534321






102307256995











104







doi 1010370021-9010861154




















Methods 7(4) 400-417 doi1011771094428104268542






105



Park CA Sage




al20Capitalpdf



doi101016S0019-8501(01)00203-6



Research 71(1) 29-42 doi10310200346543071001029



doi10310200346543064003363










10110814601061211192834



105-117 doi 105172impp121105



from


name=etd-0831106-142534pdf

106






ampname=DLFE-624pdf









1010370021-9010894599




doi1011770149206310388419



Research 14(4) 579-582 doi 101086209137


Journal 8(3) 220-227 doi 102307254790



1111-1132 doi 101111j1559-18161992tb00945x







107



101207S15327965PLI1104_01






125(6) 627-668 doi 1010370033-29091256627



Journal 39(4) 949-969 doi 102307256718







Sage




101111j1476-8691200500333x






52(3) 412-430 doi 101111j2044-8309201102090x





108



dxdoiorg1010160378-8733(94)00251-5



105465AMR19969704071865













doi 105465AMR19854279045



1081-1111 doi 105465AMR19969704071864






93(1) 48-58 doi 1010370021-901093148



Psychology 94(4) 927-944 doi 101037a0014391



109




101111j1464-0597201200525x










doi 101111j1744-65701996tb01802x






CT JAI Press




6(1) 1-55 doi 10108010705519909540118






110







Psychologists Press



doi 101111j1467-8691201000558x








doi 1010370021-901069185



30(2) 229-254 doi 101111j1744-65701977tb02091x



101348096317900167038









111










doi 1010370033-2909993422


Psychology 61(5) 622-629 doi 1010370021-9010615622





101007BF00992553



101108EUM0000000005660



doi10310200346543066001001










101146annurevpsych55090902142105

112



doi1011771094428106296642



doi101177001872679905200801





doi 101016B978-012619070-050032-5






66(1) 5-32 doi10310200346543066001005







365-385 doi 1010160378-8733(86)90003-1






9588E68789pdf

113





70ampuid=4ampsid=21103268691393



doi 1010160749-5978(91)90023-M



388-403 doi 105465AMR200413670974







119-140 doi 101207s15326934crj1601_12















114




10110801437720410535972














Behavior 34(5) 583-606 doi 101002job1802



doi102189asqu2005501100




Behavior 26(4) 379-408 doi 101002job312







115





Prentice Hall





















International






116








101006ceps19991020







Jossey-Bass











Row



580-607 doi 102307256701



105465AMR200413670972

117











doi10230730040662








13(3) 403-406 doi1011771094428110366303



102307256865








118





A094E8A88EE69C83E99984E6AA94


MA Allyn and Bacon











Press












DOI 101111j2044-83251992tb00488x



119



105465AMR19933997517


John Wiley

120









性別 1 男 2 女



年齡 1 25以下 2 26－30 3 31－35 4 36－40 5 41－50 6 50以上




其他__________________________ (請填寫)



其他__________________________ (請填寫)

您在貴公司的年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)

您的工作總年資 ___________年___________月(請填寫)



林燦螢博士



121



有認識























122



從

不

很

少

偶

而經

常

總

是










非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通

同

意

非

常

同

意














123



非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

普

通同

意

非

常

同

意





















124


AGGREGATE


BREAK=Company

OCI_1=SD(OCI_1)

OCI_2=SD(OCI_2)

OCI_3=SD(OCI_3)

OCI_4=SD(OCI_4)

OCI_5=SD(OCI_5)

OCI_6=SD(OCI_6)

OCI_7=SD(OCI_7)

OCI_8=SD(OCI_8)

OCI_9=SD(OCI_9)

OCI_10=SD(OCI_10)

OCI_11=SD(OCI_11)

OCI_12=SD(OCI_12)

OCI_13=SD(OCI_13)

OCI_14=SD(OCI_14)

OCI_15=SD(OCI_15)

OCI_16=SD(OCI_16)

OCI_17=SD(OCI_17)

OCI_18=SD(OCI_18)

N_BREAK=N














(continue)

125

(continue)







Execute



OCI_18)

Compute scale=5

Compute dim_num=18

Compute s2=abcd

Execute


Execute


Execute




126


127


128


A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Employee ...

Documents

Transcript of A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Employee ...