Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:21:23.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The end justifies the means: the role of organizational identification on bootleg innovation behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2023

Chilombo Namwinga Nanyangwe Open the ORCID record for Chilombo Namwinga Nanyangwe [Opens in a new window] ,
Hongyu Wang  and
Zhisong Cui Open the ORCID record for Zhisong Cui [Opens in a new window]
Chilombo Namwinga Nanyangwe
Affiliation:
School of Business and Management, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin 130012, China
Hongyu Wang*
Affiliation:
School of Business and Management, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin 130012, China
Zhisong Cui
Affiliation:
School of Business Administration, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, Jiangxi 330032, China
*
Author for correspondence: Hongyu Wang, E-mail: wanghongyu1965@126.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research has acknowledged the value of bootleg innovation behavior (BIB) to organizational innovation. Unfortunately, we know little about the factors that lead to the emergence of this behavior, how and when it occurs. Integrating self-concordance theory and sense-making perspective, we build a moderated mediation model positioning work engagement as a mediator of the organizational identification's effects on BIB, and willingness to take risks as a moderator of such effects. The results based on data analysis of 237 employees from different organizations in China show that organizational identification is positively related to BIB and work engagement partially mediates this link. Moreover, willingness to take risks not only moderates the work engagement–BIB association but also moderates the mediating effect of work engagement between organizational identification and BIB. Notably, at the lowest level of willingness to take risks, the influence of organizational identification on BIB via work engagement is insignificant.

Keywords

Bootleg innovation behaviororganizational identificationwillingness to take riskswork engagement
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , First View , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acquila-Natale, E., & Iglesias-Pradas, S. (2020). How to measure quality in multi-channel retailing and not die trying. Journal of Business Research, 109, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albrecht, T. L., & Hall, B. (1991). Relational and content differences between elites and outsiders in innovation networks. Human Communication Research, 17(4), 535–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N. R., De Dreu, C. K. W., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, J., & Smith, D. C. (1996). In search of the marketing imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aram, J. D. (1973). Innovation via the R&D underground. Research Management, 16(6), 24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augsdorfer, P. (1994). Forbidden fruit: An analysis of bootlegging, uncertainty and learning in corporate R&D (Doctoral dissertation). University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Augsdorfer, P. (1996). Forbidden fruit: An analysis of bootlegging, uncertainty, and learning in corporate. R&D. UK: Aldershot.Google Scholar
Augsdorfer, P. (2005). Bootlegging and path dependency. Research Policy, 34, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augsdorfer, P. (2012). A diagnostic personality test to identify likely corporate bootleg researchers. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blader, S. L., Patil, S., & Packer, D. J. (2017). Organizational identification and workplace behavior: More than meets the eye. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen-Salem, A., Walumbwa, F. O., Hsu, C. I. C., Misati, E., Babalola, M. T., & Kim, K. (2021). Unmasking the creative self-efficacy–creative performance relationship: The roles of thriving at work, perceived work significance, and task interdependence. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(22), 4820–4846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criscuolo, P., Salter, A., & Ter Wal, A. L. (2014). Going underground: Bootlegging and individual innovative performance. Organization Science, 25(5), 1287–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, Z., Wang, H., & Nanyangwe, C. N. (2022). How does coaching leadership promote employee's constructive deviance? Affective events perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(2), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darvishmotevali, M., & Ali, F. (2020). Job insecurity, subjective well-being and job performance: The moderating role of psychological capital. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 102462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, D., Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Matsyborska, G. (2014). Unpacking the goal congruence-organizational deviance relationship: The roles of work engagement and emotional intelligence. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(4), 695–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, J. E., & Penner, W. J. (1993). The importance of organizational identity for strategic agenda building. In Hendry, J., Johnson, G. & Newton, J. (Eds.), Strategic thinking: Leadership and the management of change (pp. 89–113). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dutton, J., Roberts, L., & Bednar, J. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 265–293.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Globocnik, D., & Salomo, S. (2015). Do formal management practices impact the emergence of bootlegging behavior? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4), 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, Q., Tang, T. L. P., & Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social psychology in industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts, controversies and contributions. In Hodgkinson, G. P. & Ford, J. K. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 39–118). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hirst, G., van Dick, R., & van Knippenberg, D. L. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 963–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, L., Qun, W., Nazir, S., Mengyu, Z., Asadullah, M. A., & Khadim, S. (2021). Organizational identification perceptions and millennials’ creativity: Testing the mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of work values. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(5), 1653–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, W. (2010). The essence of employee engagement: Lessons from the field. In Albrecht, S. (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement (pp. 20–30). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Karanika-Murray, M., Duncan, N., Pontes, H. M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Organizational identification, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 1019–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R., & Leitner, K. H. (2008). The dynamics and functions of self-organization in the fuzzy front end: Empirical evidence from the Austrian semiconductor industry. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 216–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, C. W., Van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., & Doosje, B. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leicht-Deobald, U., Huettermann, H., Bruch, H., & Lawrence, B. S. (2021). Organizational demographic faultlines: Their impact on collective organizational identification, firm performance, and firm innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 58(8), 2240–2274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., Bracht, E., Zhang, X. A., Bradley, B., & Van Dick, R. (2020). Creativity in non-routine jobs: The role of transformational leadership and organizational identification. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(1), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730–743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 558–578.Google Scholar
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masoudnia, Y., & Szwejczewski, M. (2012). Bootlegging in the R&D departments of high-technology firms. Research-Technology Management, 55(5), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanyangwe, C. N., Wang, H., & Cui, Z. (2021). Work and innovations: The impact of self-identification on employee bootlegging behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(4), 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Packer, D. J. (2008). On being both with us and against us: A normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 280–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabine, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528.Google Scholar
Sass, J. S., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Organizational commitment and identification: An examination of conceptual and operational convergence. Western Journal of Communication, 55(3), 275–293.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 152–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude–behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee engagement, organizational performance and individual well-being: Exploring the evidence, developing the theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2657–2669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Vadera, A. K., Aguilera, R. V., & Caza, B. B. (2009). Making sense of whistle-blowing's antecedents: Learning from research on identity and ethics programs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 553–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dick, R., Grojean, M. W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, V, & Wenzel, M. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and routinization. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1944–1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Long, L., & Zhang, J. (2015). Pay for performance and employee creativity. Management Decision, 53(7), 1378–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar