| Literature DB >> 30479800 |
Wendy Niesen1,2, Anahí Van Hootegem2, Tinne Vander Elst2,3, Adalgisa Battistelli4, Hans De Witte2,5.
Abstract
Innovation is considered to be of crucial importance for organisational survival and growth, and in this respect employees play a leading role, as they are the ones who develop innovative ideas. At the same time, the struggle for organisational survival and growth gives rise to perceptions of job insecurity. To date, few studies have explored how employees' innovative work behaviour (IWB) is influenced by the perceived threat of job loss (i.e. job insecurity). As both job insecurity and IWB are increasingly salient in light of organisational change and competition, the present study examines the relationship between job insecurity and IWB, as well as the role of psychological contract breach in explaining this relationship. We hypothesized a negative relation between job insecurity and innovative work behaviour, with psychological contract breach as a mediator in this relationship. Participants were 190 employees from an industrial organisation that had faced restructuring and downsizing for several years. Contrary to our predictions, no direct association was found between job insecurity and the two sub-dimensions of innovative work behaviour (i.e., idea generation and idea implementation). Indirect relationships, however, were found between job insecurity and the two types of IWB through psychological contract breach. Surprisingly, psychological contract breach was positively related to idea generation and idea implementation. These findings shed new light on the relationship between job insecurity and IWB.Entities:
Keywords: Innovative work behaviour; idea generation; idea implementation; job insecurity; psychological contract breach
Year: 2018 PMID: 30479800 PMCID: PMC6194547 DOI: 10.5334/pb.381
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Belg ISSN: 0033-2879
Summary of Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Male | – | – | ||||||||
| 2. Tenure | 21.18 | 9.08 | .10 | |||||||
| 3. Fulltime | – | .16* | –.22** | |||||||
| 4. Occupational position | 3.40 | 1.12 | –.04 | –.22** | .08 | |||||
| 5. Dutch | – | – | –.05 | .03 | –.11 | –.03 | ||||
| 6. Job insecurity | 3.36 | .93 | .15 | .10 | –.02 | –.15* | .14 | |||
| 7. PC Breach | 3.55 | .80 | .04 | .02 | .02 | –.06 | .05 | .33** | ||
| 8. Idea generation | 3.43 | .64 | .07 | –.24** | .12 | .25** | .15* | –.01 | .21** | |
| 9. Idea implementation | 2.86 | .73 | .19** | –.08 | .20** | .18* | .06 | .01 | .16* | .67** |
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Idea Generation and Implementation Behaviour from Job Insecurity and Breach of Psychological Contract.
| Idea Generation | Idea Implementation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | |
| Step 1 | .13*** | .11** | ||
| Male | .10 | .18* | ||
| Tenure | –.19** | –.03 | ||
| Fulltime | .05 | .15* | ||
| Occupational position | .21** | .18* | ||
| Dutch | .17** | .09 | ||
| Step 2 | .00 | .00 | ||
| Job insecurity | –.08 | –.03 | ||
| Step 3 | .05** | .03* | ||
| PC breach | .24** | .17* | ||
| Adjusted R2 | .15 | .10 | ||
| 190 | 190 | |||
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Bootstrap Point Estimates and Bias-Corrected and – Accelerated (Bca) Confidence Intervals (Cis) for the Indirect Effects on Idea Generation and Idea Implementation.
| Indirect effect | Effect | Boot SE | 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| JI – PC breach – idea generation | .08 | .03 | .03 | .16 |
| JI – PC breach – idea implementation | .05 | .03 | .01 | .13 |
Note. JI = job insecurity; SE= standard error.
Figure 1Mediation of psychological contract breach in the relation between job insecurity and innovative work behaviour. Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.