| Literature DB >> 35795452 |
Shu-Kuan Zhao1, Jia-Ming Cai1.
Abstract
To understand the mechanism of boundary personnel opportunistic behaviors in collaborative R&D projects to reduce the risk of companies suffering from opportunism in collaboration. This study is conducted based on the context of collaborative R&D in the equipment manufacturing industry in Northeast China. This research mainly explored the mechanism of boundary personnel opportunistic intentions. Drawing on the theory of reasoned action (TRA), this study investigated the relationship between boundary personnel Guanxi, organizational loyalty, opportunistic attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions. In addition, this research examined the moderating role of the degree of dependence on the collaborator. In total, 524 valid questionnaires were finally collected. The data analysis results suggested that Guanxi inhibits opportunistic attitudes and subjective norms. Organizational loyalty promotes opportunistic attitudes and subjective norms. Opportunistic attitudes and subjective norms positively predict intentions. Opportunistic attitudes mediate between organizational loyalty and opportunistic intentions. Opportunistic subjective norms mediate between Guanxi and opportunistic intentions. Opportunistic subjective norms also mediate between organizational loyalty and opportunistic intentions. Dependence on the collaborator positively moderates the relationship between opportunistic attitudes and intentions. Therefore, it can be argued that in collaborative R&D in the equipment manufacturing industry, the corporate could stimulate boundary personnel to build good Guanxi to eliminate opportunism. At the same time, companies should lead employees to show loyalty properly, which opportunism is not wise in collaborative R&D. Finally, enterprises should objectively understand and evaluate the dependence relationship between the two partners in collaborative R&D to adopt the right strategy.Entities:
Keywords: Guanxi; boundary personnel; dependence on the collaborator; opportunism; organizational loyalty
Year: 2022 PMID: 35795452 PMCID: PMC9252448 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Theoretical framework.
Frequency distribution.
| Variable | Label | Frequency | Percent |
| Gender | Male | 318 | 60.7 |
| Female | 206 | 39.3 | |
| Educational | High school or below | 3 | 0.6 |
| College/University | 462 | 88.2 | |
| Master or above | 59 | 11.3 | |
| Working years | Under 2 years | 11 | 2.1 |
| 3–5 years | 153 | 29.2 | |
| 6–9 years | 317 | 60.5 | |
| ≥10 years | 43 | 8.2 | |
| Enterprise type | State-owned enterprises | 85 | 16.2 |
| Private enterprises | 331 | 63.2 | |
| Joint ventures and foreign companies | 97 | 18.5 | |
| Else | 11 | 2.1 | |
| Position | High-level | 30 | 5.7 |
| Middle-level | 264 | 50.4 | |
| Basic-level | 230 | 43.9 |
Descriptive statistical analysis.
| Mean | Standard deviations | Skewness | Kurtosis | |
| GX | 3.765 | 1.454 | 0.737 | –0.059 |
| OL | 5.092 | 1.369 | –1.512 | 2.102 |
| OA | 3.668 | 1.290 | 0.153 | –0.464 |
| OSN | 4.337 | 1.486 | –0.783 | –0.027 |
| OI | 3.160 | 1.437 | 0.348 | –0.643 |
GX, Guanxi; OL, organizational loyalty; OA, opportunistic attitudes; OSN, opportunistic subjective norms; OI, opportunistic intentions; DC, dependence on the collaborator.
Convergent validity.
| Construct | Factor loading | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
| GX | 0.799–0.867 | 0.915 | 0.934 | 0.702 |
| OL | 0.806–0.892 | 0.929 | 0.944 | 0.739 |
| OA | 0.787–0.904 | 0.917 | 0.938 | 0.752 |
| OSN | 0.842–0.899 | 0.915 | 0.936 | 0.746 |
| OI | 0.838–0.881 | 0.930 | 0.944 | 0.739 |
Discriminant validity.
| GX | OL | OA | OSN | OI | |
| GX |
| ||||
| OL | −0.421 |
| |||
| OA | −0.346 | 0.463 |
| ||
| OSN | −0.571 | 0.342 | 0.599 |
| |
| OI | −0.361 | 0.134 | 0.375 | 0.540 |
|
The bold value of the diagonal is the square root of AVE.
Path analysis.
| Path coefficient | Standard deviation |
|
| |||
| GX → OA | –0.183 | 0.052 | 3.500 | 0.000 | 0.242 | 0.180 |
| OL → OA | 0.386 | 0.051 | 7.519 | 0.000 | ||
| GX → OSN | –0.519 | 0.046 | 11.161 | 0.000 | 0.338 | 0.251 |
| OL → OSN | 0.123 | 0.044 | 2.818 | 0.005 | ||
| OA → OI | 0.080 | 0.039 | 2.076 | 0.038 | 0.296 | 0.214 |
| OSN → OI | 0.492 | 0.043 | 11.516 | 0.000 |
FIGURE 2Structural model, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Results of the indirect effect.
| Indirect effect | Standard deviation | |||
| GX – > OA – > OI | –0.015 | 0.010 | 1.443 | 0.149 |
| OL – > OA – > OI | 0.031 | 0.014 | 2.213 | 0.027 |
| GX – > OSN – > OI | –0.255 | 0.037 | 6.900 | 0.000 |
| OL – > OSN – >OI | 0.061 | 0.021 | 2.880 | 0.004 |
Results of the moderation effect.
| Original sample | Standard deviation | |||
| OA × DC- > OI | 0.069 | 0.033 | 2.125 | 0.034 |
| OSN × DC- > OI | 0.013 | 0.037 | 0.364 | 0.716 |
FIGURE 3Moderating effect of dependence on the collaborator.