INTRODUCTION
Background of research
Innovative behavior serves as the cornerstone of high-performance organizations, particularly in a knowledge-based economy where intangible assets are crucial for boosting competitiveness (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009; Carmeli & Tishler, 2004).
Innovative behavior, defined as the intentional creation and application of new ideas to address challenges in complex environments, is essential for an organization's long-term success (Janssen, 2000) This concept has garnered significant attention from researchers seeking to understand its correlation with performance The Global Innovation Index (GII), developed annually by Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), evaluates innovation based on criteria such as human capital, infrastructure, and creative output (Dutta and Lanvin, 2020) According to the "Global Innovation Index 2020," Vietnam ranked first among 29 lower middle-income economies and 42nd globally, indicating a strong potential for improvement Enhancing employee innovative behavior is crucial for organizations in Vietnam to boost innovation and competitiveness in today's challenging environment.
Identifying the contextual factors that influence innovative behavior has garnered significant attention from researchers One key factor highlighted in psychological and organizational literature is the role of stressors (Ren & Zhang).
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated various stressors that impact individuals' work performance, as highlighted by the transactional theory of stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) Stressful situations arise when job demands are perceived as either challenging or detrimental to well-being Key stressors include time pressure (Baer & Oldham, 2006), job insecurity (Probst et al., 2007), job demands (Janssen, 2000), and social evaluative threats (Byron and Khazanchi, 2010), each influencing innovative behavior in different ways However, research findings remain inconclusive, revealing a complex relationship between stressors and innovative behavior, with outcomes ranging from negative to positive, curvilinear, or even non-significant (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Janssen, 2000; Baer & Oldham, 2006; Melchior et al., 2007; Probst et al., 2007; Byron).
Research by Cavanaugh et al (2000) categorizes stressors into two types: challenge stressors and hindrance stressors Challenge stressors, like time pressure and high workload, can foster personal growth and mastery, while hindrance stressors, such as role ambiguity and organizational politics, obstruct positive outcomes and lead to negative consequences This paper will explore the relationship between these stressors and employee innovative behavior.
To foster innovative behavior among employees, it is crucial to consider moderating variables that can mitigate negative impacts or enhance positive influences This research focuses on affective commitment and job autonomy as key moderating factors Affective commitment, which instills a strong sense of belonging to the organization (Cohen, 2007), may serve as a motivating force for employees to engage in innovative behaviors even in the face of stressors Additionally, job autonomy, an essential aspect of organizational behavior, plays a vital role in promoting creativity and innovation within the workplace.
Allowing employees to set their own methods, pace, and schedules can help them achieve their goals, as noted by Hackman and Oldham (1975) This autonomy can reduce stressors and prevent negative impacts on innovative behaviors.
Research objective
In conclusion, innovative behavior is crucial for long-term organizational success, prompting significant attention to the factors that influence it This research highlights stressors as key antecedents, yet previous studies have yielded inconclusive results, likely due to the varying nature of these stressors This thesis aims to explore the impact of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors on employee innovative behavior Additionally, it will examine the moderating effects of affective autonomy and job autonomy in the relationship between stressors and innovative behavior.
Research questions
This study investigates the impact of various stressors on innovative behavior, focusing on two key research questions: the types of stressors that influence innovative behavior and whether affective commitment and job autonomy serve as moderating factors in this relationship.
This study offers valuable theoretical insights for researchers to enhance existing theories and explore new approaches based on its findings Additionally, it provides empirical evidence for managers and staff to recognize and leverage the positive effects of stressors on innovative behavior, ultimately driving organizational performance Furthermore, the research investigates the negative effects of certain stressors, equipping employees with the knowledge to mitigate their adverse impacts.
Research scope
Research on the impact of stressors on employee innovative behavior in Vietnam is limited, highlighting the need for further investigation As the country strives to improve its Global Innovation Index and enhance its competitive advantages, understanding these dynamics becomes crucial In the face of various contemporary stressors, their unexpected effects on employee innovation must be examined This research aims to provide valuable insights for managers, enabling them to mitigate negative impacts and leverage positive influences on innovation within their organizations The study was conducted in Vietnam from February to March 2021.
Structure of the study
This research is structured into seven key components, beginning with a discussion on the necessity of the study Following this, the literature review summarizes existing information and research on innovative behavior and stressors, while also examining previous studies and outlining the concepts utilized in this research.
This article presents a conceptual model that includes hypothesis development and an explanation of the hypotheses It outlines the research methodology, data collection, and analysis to determine the validity of the hypotheses The findings and discussion section compares the results with existing research, providing insights into their significance Additionally, the article addresses theoretical and practical implications for both academic and business contexts Finally, it discusses limitations and suggests directions for future research before concluding.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Employee innovative behavior
Creativity and innovation, while often used interchangeably, are distinct concepts Creativity, as defined by Mumford and Gustafson (1988), involves generating new and beneficial ideas, but does not necessarily address their practical application In contrast, innovation encompasses a broader process, as described by Kanter (1988) and Van de Ven (1986), involving multiple stages where various individuals contribute to applying ideas in real-world scenarios Innovative behavior, characterized by the intentional production, introduction, and implementation of new ideas to tackle challenges in complex environments, is crucial for enhancing organizational performance and competitiveness (Janssen, 2000) Furthermore, research indicates a significant link between innovation and sustainable development, particularly in how individuals respond to innovation, highlighting the importance of innovative behavior for long-term organizational success This correlation has garnered considerable attention from researchers aiming to clarify the relationship between innovative behavior and organizational outcomes.
Innovative behavior was described as a set of behavioral activities combining four stages: problem recognition, idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization (Scott
De Jong & Den Hartog (2010) identified four key stages of innovative behavior: exploration, generation, championing, and execution Each stage involves distinct characteristics and responsibilities among team members to achieve innovation goals Initially, employees engage in exploration to identify opportunities and address performance gaps (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007) This stage highlights the need to resolve underlying issues The subsequent stage, championing, involves promoting ideas to potential allies, where employees seek support from partners and sponsors to build alliances for their proposals (Kanter, 1988) These allies provide guidance and resources for successful implementation Finally, the realization stage culminates in the development of prototypes or models that facilitate the application of innovations within the organization (Kanter, 1988) Each stage encompasses unique activities and behaviors, allowing individuals to engage in multiple stages simultaneously (Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Both creativity and implementation are crucial components that contribute to employee innovative behavior (Axtell et al., 2000) This article explores these components as two distinct behaviors, as outlined by Dorenbosch et al (2005), which categorize innovative behavior into four stages based on job flexibility The first two stages focus on creativity-oriented behavior, where individuals identify problems in their work and generate new ideas to address them The latter two stages emphasize implementation-oriented behavior, involving the sponsorship of new ideas and the establishment of support systems to realize these ideas in practical work contexts.
Figure 2.1: Four stages and two oriented – work behaviors of innovative behavior
(Scott & Bruce, 1994; Janssen, 2000; Dorenbosch et al., 2005)
Numerous studies have highlighted the significance of innovative behavior in the workplace, identifying key factors that influence it Leadership, work group dynamics, and individual attributes play a crucial role (Scott & Bruce, 1994) Additionally, elements such as workplace environment, coworker support, and job stress have been shown to impact innovation (Bani-Melhem et al., 2017) Knowledge sharing and organizational climate also contribute to fostering innovative behavior (Yu et al., 2013), while time pressure can hinder it (Baer & Oldham, 2006) Collectively, these findings indicate that various factors can either enhance or diminish employee innovative behavior.
Stressors, once considered essential in the workplace, are now recognized as factors that significantly impact job outcomes, including innovative behavior.
2010) Job stressors are as the source of stress (Beehr & Newman, 1978), which occurs when demand are placed on the person which exceed his or her ability to adjust (Lazarus,
Research has long established a correlation between stress and various negative effects, including fatigue, sleep disturbances, poor concentration, and emotional distress (Melchior et al., 2007) However, recent studies have shifted focus to the potential positive outcomes of stress, such as personal growth and transformation (Tedeschi et al., 2018) Understanding the dual nature of stress is crucial for researchers and practitioners aiming to mitigate its adverse effects while enhancing its beneficial aspects in the workplace.
Challenge stressors and hindrance stressors
According to Job Demand – Resources Theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014), job demands encompass aspects of work that require continuous physical and psychological effort, leading to potential costs These demands can manifest as psychological stressors, such as the pressure to work quickly, manage a heavy workload, or meet tight deadlines (Fox et al., 1993) While job demands are not inherently negative, they can become hindrances when employees lack adequate recovery from their efforts (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) Consequently, stressors resulting from job demands can impact employee performance positively or negatively; beneficial stressors foster positive attitudes, whereas detrimental stressors lead to negative attitudes.
Job demands can be perceived positively when they are seen as gratifying experiences that outweigh the inconveniences, as described by McCauley et al (1994) These demands, such as job overload, time pressures, and high responsibility, can evoke positive feelings Cavanaugh et al (2000) characterized this as challenge-related self-reported stress that is manageable and within the employee's control Additionally, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) identified stressful situations that offer opportunities for mastery, personal growth, or future benefits.
“challenges” Then, this sort of stress is called a challenge stressor by Ren and Zhang
(2015) because it includes demanding demands that people see as possibilities for growth, learning, and achievement
Hindrance-related self-reported stress refers to the stress experienced due to job demands or work conditions that create excessive constraints, obstructing an individual's ability to reach valued goals (Cavanaugh et al., 2000) This type of stress arises from hindrance stressors, which individuals perceive as obstacles to personal growth and goal attainment, including factors such as organizational politics, bureaucratic red tape, role ambiguity, and job security concerns (Ren & Zhang, 2015) These barriers are often beyond the employee's control, leading to a more negative impact on their well-being within the organization.
Both challenge stressors and hindrance stressors contribute to strains such as anxiety, exhaustion, and burnout (Jex, 1998) Lepine et al (2005) describe stressors as provocations that initiate the stress process, with strains representing the resulting consequences The impact of these stressors on work performance can vary based on their nature The initial appraisal of stressors triggers specific emotional responses that influence employee behavior (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Spector, 1998; Duhacheck & Iacobucci, 2005) Challenge stressors often evoke positive emotions, fostering confidence and enthusiasm, which promote an active problem-solving approach (Wallace et al., 2009) Conversely, hindrance stressors lead to negative emotions such as distraction and withdrawal, resulting in a passive emotional coping style (Wallace et al., 2009) An active problem-solving style encourages employees to adapt to changes and invest effort to overcome challenges, while a passive coping style tends to diminish effort as employees feel overwhelmed by problems beyond their control.
Cavanaugh et al (2000) distinguished between challenging job demands, which evoke eustress, and hindrance job demands, associated with distress Selye (1982) defined eustress as a feeling of fulfillment and achievement through challenges, highlighting that not all stress is detrimental; it can lead to positive outcomes and inspire constructive changes Consequently, stressors can drive employees to cope in two ways: by adapting to increased demands or altering their work environment (Edwards & Cooper, 1990) Employees may enhance their skills and abilities to meet high job demands or modify their tasks and objectives, with the former being manageable and the latter often perceived as unmanageable Both approaches can effectively foster innovation in addressing heavy workloads and job demands (Bunce & West, 1994).
The related frameworks of previous research
Numerous studies have explored the relationship between stress and work outcomes Lepine et al (2004) identified a connection between challenge and hindrance stress and learning performance, revealing that challenge stress positively influences learning, while hindrance stress has a detrimental effect This finding aligns with Wallace et al (2009), who also noted similar impacts on role-based performance, and Cavanaugh et al (2000), who found that challenge stress correlates positively with job satisfaction, whereas hindrance stress correlates negatively Conversely, Lukasik et al (2019) reported no significant link between stress and working memory performance, and Baer & Oldham (2006) found a non-significant association between time pressure and creativity Additionally, job insecurity, a form of stressor, negatively affects creative problem-solving abilities (Probst et al., 2007), with Byron & Khazanchi (2010) highlighting a curvilinear effect in this relationship These findings illustrate the inconsistent conclusions regarding stressors and work outcomes such as learning performance, job satisfaction, and creativity, suggesting that the level and nature of stress experienced by individuals may play a crucial role in these effects.
Inconsistent research results may stem from the varying nature of stressors, specifically challenge stressors and hindrance stressors, each of which impacts work outcomes differently.
The relationships between stressors and work performance in recent literature are summarized in table 2.1 n
Table 2.1: The recent studies about the relationship between stressors and work performance
Hindrance stressors s/- Job satisfaction s/+ Job search
Janssen (2000) Job demand s/+ Innovative work behavior
Time pressure ns Creativity Survey 170
Probst et al (2007) Job insecurity s/- Creativity Laboratory experiment
Challenge stressors s/+ Role - based performance
Stressors Curvilinear Creativity Meta - analysis 86
Stress ns Working memory performance
*Note: s/+ (positive significance), s/- (negative significance), ns (non-significance)
Table 2.1 reveals inconsistent findings regarding the impact of stressors on innovative behavior across various studies, indicating that the effects can be positive, negative, curvilinear, or non-significant These contradictions may stem from differing research contexts or other significant factors that moderate the relationship between stressors and innovation This study aims to investigate the influence of challenge and hindrance stressors on employee innovative behavior within the Vietnamese context, addressing a gap in the existing literature.
Affective commitment and job autonomy play vital roles as moderators in enhancing the positive effects or mitigating the negative impacts of stressors on employee innovative behavior Affective commitment, defined as the psychological attachment and sense of belonging to an organization, influences an employee's decision to remain with a company long-term (Cohen, 2007; Mowday et al., 2013) This study aims to explore how affective commitment can alleviate the adverse effects of stressors on innovative behavior Similarly, job autonomy, which allows employees to control their methods, pace, and schedules (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), may also help in reducing the negative relationship between stressors and innovative behavior.
The author also determined the extent to which affective commitment and job autonomy could explain the different relationship between two forms of stressors and innovative behavior.
Affective commitment
One sort of organizational commitment is affective commitment Meyer and Allen
In 1991, a model of commitment was developed that includes three approaches: affective, continuance, and normative commitment Affective commitment refers to the emotional attachment an individual has to an organization, characterized by a strong identification and involvement, as described by Mowday et al (2013) Continuance commitment arises when individuals perceive benefits in staying with the organization while facing costs associated with leaving, a concept discussed by Kanter (1968) This definition highlights the overlap between continuance commitment and turnover intention Normative commitment, on the other hand, is defined by a sense of responsibility towards the organization, where individuals act based on moral beliefs (Wiener, 1972), and is further identified as personal norms that drive behavior (Schwartz & Tessler, 1972) Meyer and Allen (1990) succinctly categorized these commitments: affective commitment reflects a desire to remain, continuance commitment indicates a necessity to stay, and normative commitment conveys an obligation to do so.
Cohen (2007) reconceptualized organizational commitment as a two-dimensional construct, distinguishing between instrumental considerations and psychological attachment The first dimension emphasizes the benefits of remaining with the organization, focusing on an equitable exchange of contributions and rewards, which helps to clarify the distinction from turnover intentions In this context, employees engage in a calculative process regarding their commitment The second dimension, known as normative or affective commitment, involves a moral obligation and emotional attachment, stemming from the internalization of the organization's goals, values, and norms.
Previous studies have largely overlooked the role of affective commitment as a moderator in the relationship between stressors and employee innovative behavior, often treating it as an independent or dependent variable instead Additionally, it is frequently discussed alongside other types of commitment rather than being analyzed in isolation Given that both affective commitment and innovative behavior fall under the umbrella of organizational behavior, this study aims to investigate the specific moderating effect of affective commitment on the relationship between stressors and innovative behavior.
Job autonomy
Job autonomy is considered as one of important and prominent job design features (Karasek & Theorell, 2010) Hackman and Oldham (1975) interpreted job autonomy as
Job autonomy refers to the degree of freedom, independence, and discretion an individual has in scheduling their work and determining the procedures to execute it This concept has been explored in various research studies (Morgeson et al., 2005; Breaugh, 1985; Ng et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2016; Volmer et al., 2012) and illustrates how employees can regulate their approach, pace, and schedule to meet targets Those with high job autonomy can adapt their roles more flexibly, allowing them to choose how to perform their tasks (Troyer et al., 2000) Additionally, autonomy fosters self-determination and freedom from external controls or constraints (Deci et al., 1989).
Job autonomy, often explored within the job demand-control model (Karasek & Theorell, 2010), refers to the level of discretion employees have over their work processes and schedules This concept aligns closely with job control and is recognized as a vital job resource that enhances work engagement, according to job demands-resources theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) Furthermore, self-determination theory posits that employees thrive in autonomy-supportive environments, leading to greater creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Individuals with greater job autonomy will have more responsibility for their job (Parker
Research indicates that job autonomy can enhance employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, and motivation, while also reducing negative factors such as distress and turnover (Spector, 1986) Employees with high job autonomy tend to exhibit greater creativity, especially when they maintain positive relationships with their supervisors (Volmer et al., 2012) However, some studies suggest that high autonomy does not always correlate with positive outcomes; for instance, Langfred and Moye (2004) found a negative association between job autonomy and performance Additionally, Ng and Feldman (2014) noted that not all employees with high autonomy report positive attitudes The relationship between job autonomy and performance can also be influenced by factors such as task uncertainty, interdependence, and work demands climate (Cordery et al., 2010; Langfred, 2005; Hirst et al., 2008).
The relationship between job autonomy and its effects is inconsistent This study aims to examine the moderating role of job autonomy in the relationship between stressors and innovative behavior, specifically to determine if it mitigates negative effects or enhances positive outcomes.
Research gap
A literature review reveals that innovative behavior has garnered attention from scholars over the past few decades, as it is crucial for organizational performance and competitiveness Identifying the antecedents of innovative behavior, such as stressors present in any organization, is essential, as they can significantly impact employees However, the relationship between stressors and work performance, including innovative behavior, remains inconsistent; some studies report a positive correlation, while others indicate a negative or non-significant relationship This variation may stem from differences in how stressor variables are measured—whether by the nature of the stressors or the participants' perceived stress levels Additionally, different moderators may influence the effects of stressors on innovative behavior, contributing to the conflicting findings in the research.
Recent research categorizes stressors into two types: challenge stressors and hindrance stressors Additionally, innovative behavior is now classified into creativity-oriented work behavior and implementation-oriented work behavior, moving away from the previous four-stage model Furthermore, the study explores how affective commitment and job autonomy serve as moderating factors in this relationship, potentially clarifying inconsistencies found in earlier studies.
This research aims to explore the connection between hindrance and challenge stressors and their impact on innovative behavior, while also examining the moderating roles of affective commitment and job autonomy The key research questions focus on identifying which types of stressors influence innovative behavior and whether affective commitment and job autonomy serve as moderators in this relationship.
This study examines the impact of challenge and hindrance stressors on innovative behavior within the Vietnamese context, revealing potential inconsistencies with previous research findings As a result, researchers may gain diverse insights into how stressors influence employee innovation This understanding can lead to the development of unique theoretical perspectives on stressors and innovative behavior Furthermore, practitioners can derive practical implications to effectively manage stressors and foster innovation in their organizations If the findings align with existing research, it suggests that these insights may be applicable across various industries, organizations, and regions.
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
Hypothesis development
3.1.1 The relationship between challenge stressors and creativity - oriented work behavior
Challenge stressors are viewed as opportunities for personal growth, leading employees to believe that increased effort will fulfill their expectations This belief fosters positive emotions, which enhance attention, cognition, and action, ultimately contributing to the development of physical, intellectual, and social resources Consequently, challenge stressors have been shown to positively impact organizational outcomes.
Creativity achievement thrives in the right conditions, as highlighted by Mumford and Gustafson (1988) The complexity of determining what constitutes creative behavior stems from its dependence on specific circumstances, leading to the concept of creativity-oriented behavior When such behavior is nurtured in an appropriate environment, creativity can flourish Additionally, challenge stressors, which arise from opportunities for personal growth, play a crucial role in this process According to Janssen (2000), creativity-oriented work behavior is essential for employees to develop new ideas and enhance their alignment with their organization Thus, challenge stressors can positively impact creativity-oriented work behavior, fostering an environment conducive to innovation.
H1: Challenge stressors are positively related to creativity - oriented work behavior
3.1.2 The relationship between hindrance stressors and creativity – oriented work behavior
In contrast to challenge stressors, hindrance stressors are perceived as threatening for employees to grow and develop, which was associated with rigid thinking (Cowen,
Hindrance stressors, such as organizational red tape, political dynamics, and role ambiguity, significantly hinder employee creativity by fostering a belief that increased effort will not yield better results This perception limits an open mindset, preventing the transformation of actions into positive outcomes Consequently, passive emotional coping styles emerge, creating barriers to creativity and negatively impacting employees' ability to generate innovative ideas Thus, it can be hypothesized that hindrance stressors adversely affect creativity-oriented work behavior.
H2: Hindrance stressors are negatively related to creativity - oriented work behavior
3.1.3 The relationship between challenge stressors and implementation - oriented work behavior
Implementation of an idea requires factors to apply successfully into practical situations
It involves calling for participants to support and accompany with this idea before producing a prototype or model to ultimately apply in the organization (Kanter, 1988)
Challenge stressors can motivate employees by fostering positive emotions that drive them to achieve their targets Recognizing that collaboration is essential, employees actively seek support from colleagues, understanding that individual efforts alone may not suffice When developing prototypes, detailed input from participants is crucial for refinement and completion These stressors encourage employees to push through challenges, enabling them to finish tasks on time, which not only aids in their own learning but also benefits the team Ultimately, this process enhances their work behaviors and contributes to successful idea implementation.
H3: Challenge stressors are positively associated with implementation - oriented work behavior
3.1.4 The relationship between hindrance stressors and implementation – oriented work behavior
In an environment characterized by hindrance stressors, creative ideas encounter numerous obstacles that hinder their implementation These challenges, which include role ambiguity, political policies, and bureaucratic red tape, manifest as skepticism and resistance that innovative concepts must overcome.
Hindrance stressors can drive employees to overcome challenges, ultimately leading to sustained efforts in bringing ideas to fruition Consequently, these stressors can positively influence employee behavior, motivating them to transform difficulties into practical solutions.
H4: Hindrance stressors are positively associated with implementation - oriented work behavior
3.1.5 Moderating role of affective commitment
Affective commitment surpasses instrumental commitment, which is primarily based on contractual exchanges such as salary and bonuses (Cohen, 2007) Affective commitment, however, requires time to develop deep emotional ties, fostering feelings of identification and belonging, akin to psychological contracts of belief in paid-for promises (Rousseau, 1995) Employees with strong organizational commitment are motivated to contribute extra effort toward shared goals, enhancing competitiveness, while those with low commitment may feel insecure and consider leaving the organization (Tang et al., 2019) By understanding commitment levels, employers can implement effective human resource strategies to retain talented employees Although building affective commitment takes longer than instrumental commitment, it cultivates a profound psychological attachment and a strong sense of belonging among highly committed individuals (Cohen).
Employees who choose to remain in an organization willingly are generally more motivated and engaged compared to those who feel compelled to stay due to contractual obligations.
Employees with high affective commitment readily accept workplace stressors as part of their roles, viewing challenges as opportunities to demonstrate resilience This mindset enables them to exert extra effort in transforming difficult situations into valuable learning experiences for their colleagues, thereby minimizing costly mistakes As a result, they foster creativity and innovative solutions to address challenges The stronger the sense of belonging among employees, the better they can navigate both hindrance and challenge stressors in their work environment.
H5: Affective commitment moderates the relationship between stressors and creativity
- oriented work behavior, such that affective commitment increases the effects of challenge stressors on creativity - oriented work behavior
H6: Affective commitment moderates the relationship between stressors and creativity
- oriented work behavior, such that affective commitment decreases the effects of hindrance stressors on creativity - oriented work behavior
3.1.6 Moderating role of job autonomy
According to the job demands-resources theory by Bakker and Demerouti (2014), job resources like autonomy, performance feedback, and development opportunities can alleviate the effects of job demands on employee strain Job autonomy, which refers to the degree of independence employees have in planning their work, choosing their tools, and determining procedures (Volmer et al., 2012), plays a crucial role in moderating the impact of job stressors on performance.
Self-leadership is defined as the process by which individuals manage their own behavior, using specific cognitive and behavioral strategies (Neck & Houghton, 2006) Job autonomy enhances self-leadership, empowering employees with the motivation and confidence to break free from unproductive routines This autonomy allows employees to make decisions independently, facilitating the ability to overcome challenges without needing upper management's approval Consequently, employees with high autonomy can accelerate organizational progress by actively seeking optimal solutions to problems, thereby identifying potential stressors and mitigating negative impacts on performance.
The final hypotheses can be stated as:
Job autonomy plays a crucial role in enhancing the positive impact of challenge stressors on implementation-oriented work behavior Specifically, greater job autonomy strengthens the relationship between these stressors and the resulting work behavior, leading to improved performance and productivity.
Job autonomy plays a crucial role in moderating the relationship between hindrance stressors and implementation-oriented work behavior Specifically, higher levels of job autonomy enhance the positive impact that hindrance stressors have on implementation-oriented work behavior.
Conceptual model
Based on hypothesis development, a conceptual model (Figure 3.1) is illustrated as follows:
Each variable framework is described as below:
Implementation - oriented work behavior Affective commitment
Challenge stressors are stressors that employees perceive as manageable demands When successfully navigated, these challenges can lead to opportunities for personal growth and achievement.
Hindrance stressors are stressful demands that employees perceive as beyond their control, acting as obstacles to personal growth and development opportunities.
Creativity-oriented work behavior is essential for the initial stages of innovative behavior, specifically problem recognition and idea generation This focus on creativity plays a crucial role in fostering innovation during these two key phases.
Implementation-oriented work behavior encompasses the final two stages of innovative behavior: idea promotion and idea realization These stages necessitate proactive efforts to convert new ideas into practical applications, making implementation orientation a crucial element for fostering innovative behavior.
Affective commitment is considered as the psychological attachment, which involves emotional commitment and a strong sense of belonging to the organization
Job autonomy is considered as power to some extent at which employees can regulate their pace, sequence, and method to complete the tasks.
Research methodology
The author identified compelling topics in psychology and individual behavior, focusing on current issues such as stressors that resonate with both personal experiences and societal challenges Notably, the relationship between innovative behavior among employees and stressors emerged as an under-researched area in Vietnam This led to a deeper exploration of the research motivation and objectives in the introduction A comprehensive review of existing literature was conducted to identify research gaps and formulate hypotheses Subsequently, questionnaires were developed, and a representative sample size was determined to ensure the validity of the research Data collection was carried out through surveys, followed by analysis using SPSS 26.0 The findings were then discussed and interpreted, culminating in the provision of implications for researchers and practitioners, as well as addressing limitations and suggesting directions for future research.
Figure 3.2: Research design by the author 3.3.2 Sampling
Hair (2011) states that the minimum sample size for exploratory factor analysis should be calculated by multiplying the number of questionnaire items by five In this research, with 53 questionnaire items, a minimum of 265 respondents is required (53 x 5 = 265) to ensure accurate results.
In multiple regression analysis, a common guideline for determining the required sample size is given by the formula N = 50 + 8*m, where m represents the number of predictor variables (Tabachnick et al., 2019) In this study, with two independent variables, the necessary number of respondents is calculated to be 66.
This study employs exploratory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis, necessitating a minimum of 265 respondents Consequently, the author gathered 267 samples, ensuring the research's representativeness.
Data collection for this research took place from February to March 2021, utilizing mailing and social media To ensure the reliability and validity of the findings, participants from diverse organizations across Vietnam were carefully selected The study aimed to minimize single-informant bias, which can significantly hinder results, by gathering responses from a variety of respondents actively working in different sectors within the country.
The initial step involves selecting a diverse group of respondents from various organizational roles in Vietnam, including staff members, managers, CEOs, and owners Despite their high-ranking positions, these individuals experience stress similar to their employees when reporting to superiors This approach enhances the generalizability of the findings across all organizational levels Following the selection, participants are promptly asked for their consent to complete the research questionnaire If they agree, their names are added to the participant list To ensure timely responses, a gentle reminder message is sent two days after the questionnaire is distributed if they have not yet completed it due to their workload.
The study employed snowball sampling through three primary networks to enhance the participant population Initially, connections among individuals at their workplaces and personal relationships were utilized Subsequently, these relationships were leveraged to request assistance in distributing the survey link to coworkers and employees Lastly, suitable social media groups were targeted, where the survey link was shared along with an introduction to the study.
To gain insights into the respondents' characteristics, personal information was gathered, including gender, age, current job position, and the duration of their longest tenure with a single organization.
The study utilized a selection of validated items from established theories to assess various constructs Specifically, twenty items related to challenge and hindrance stressors were adapted from LePine et al (2016), while sixteen items measuring creativity-oriented and implementation-oriented work behaviors were sourced from Dorenbosch et al (2005) Affective commitment was evaluated using eight items developed by Allen and Meyer in 1990, and job autonomy was assessed through six items proposed by Breaugh in 1985 Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with stressors and innovative behavior questions ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and affective commitment and job autonomy questions ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
The questionnaires, created in English and translated into Vietnamese for a Vietnamese audience, are divided into two main sections The first section contains 36 questions addressing challenge stressors, hindrance stressors, creativity-oriented work behavior, and implementation-oriented work behavior The second section includes 14 questions focused on affective commitment and job autonomy.
The items within each section are randomly mixed rather than organized into distinct variables, preventing respondents from discerning the research's intent This approach effectively minimizes potential bias.
Having to complete a lot of work CS_1 n
Having to work very hard CS_2
Having to work at a rapid pace to complete all of my tasks CS_4
Having to use a broad set of skills and abilities CS_6 Having to balance several projects at once CS_7 Having to multitask your assigned projects CS_8
Having high levels of responsibility CS_9
A high level of accountability for your work CS_10
Bureaucratic constraints to completing work (red tape) HS_2
Conflicting instructions and expectations from your boss and bosses HS_3
Conflicting requests from your supervisor HS_5 Inadequate resources to accomplish tasks HS_6
Coworkers receiving undeserved rewards/promotions HS_10
You actively think along concerning improvements in the work of direct colleagues COWB_1
You generate ideas to improve or renew services my department provides COWB_2
You generate ideas on how to optimize knowledge and skills within your department COWB_3
You generate new solutions to old problems COWB_4
You discuss matters with direct colleagues concerning your work COWB_5
You suggest new ways of communicating within your department COWB_6 n
You generate ideas concerning the distribution of tasks and work activities within your department COWB_7
You actively engage in the thinking on which knowledge and skills are required within your department COWB_8
You try to detect impediments to collaboration and coordination COWB_9
You actively engage in gathering information to identify deviations within your department COWB_10
You be in collaboration with colleagues, get to transform new ideas in a way that they become applicable in practice IOWB_1
You realize ideas within your department/ organization with an amount of persistence IOWB_2
You get to transform new ideas in a way that they become applicable in practice IOWB_3
You mobilize support from colleagues for your ideas and solutions IOWB_4
You eliminate obstacles in the process of idea implementation IOWB_5
You make your supervisor enthusiastic for your ideas IOWB_6
You would be very happy to spend the rest of your career with this organization AC_1
You enjoy discussing your organization with people outside it AC_2
You really feel as if this organization’s problems are your own AC_3
You think that you could easily become as attached to another organization as you are to this one (R) AC_4
You do not feel like “part of the familyyou’re your organization (R) AC_5
You do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for you AC_7
You do not feel a strong sense of belonging to your organization (R) AC_8
You are allowed to decide how to go about getting your job done JA_1
(1985) You are able to choose the way to go about your job JA_2 n
You are free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out your work JA_3
You have control over the scheduling of your work JA_4
You have some control over the sequencing of your work activities (when you do what) JA_5
You job is such that you can decide when to do particular work activities JA_6
Your job allows you to modify the normal way you are evaluated so that you can emphasize some aspects of your job and play down others JA_7
You are able to modify what your job objectives are (what you are supposed to accomplish) JA_8
You have some control over what you are supposed to accomplish (what your supervisor sees as your job objectives) JA_9
SPSS 26.0 is used to analyze the data and test hypothesis The step is described as below:
Reliability analysis is essential for establishing a solid foundation for subsequent analyses by consistently reflecting the construct being measured This internal measurement utilizes Cronbach’s alpha, which is applicable when a scale contains three or more measurement items The value of Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better reliability A Cronbach’s alpha below 0.6 suggests that the measurement items do not meet reliability standards, while values between 0.7 and 0.8 indicate sufficient reliability to support the research findings (Cortina, 1993).
1993) If the Cronbach’s alpha is from 0.8 to nearly 1, the measurement is excellent to analyze (Cortina, 1993)
The "Corrected Item – total correlation" index assesses the correlation of individual items within a scale, with a value below 0.3 indicating weak correlation Items with this low correlation will be eliminated to enhance the scale's reliability, as suggested by Nunnally.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is a statistical method used to identify the underlying relationships between variables and to group related items together (DeCoster, 1998) It condenses a larger set of items (k) into a smaller set of factors (F) while examining the relationships among items across all scales, not just within a single scale The primary goal of EFA is to uncover which items belong to specific variables or components Researchers should consider five key indexes when conducting this analysis.
- Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin (KMO) index is the entrance condition to analyze the suitability of using EFA It has to be higher than 0.5 to analyze exploratory factor (Kaiser,
Bartlett's test of sphericity assesses the correlation among all items within a single component A significance level (Sig) of less than 0.05 indicates that all items in that component are correlated with one another, as noted by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007).
- Eigenvalue is considered as the condition to identify the number of components Therefore, which component has eigenvalue of being more than 1 will be kept (Kaiser, 1960)
- Total Variance Explained is larger than 50% to illustrate that EFA model is suitable
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data description
Table 4.1: The general information of respondents
There are 118 male participants, which takes 44.2 percent, while the female participants take account of 55.8 percent Besides, they are mainly falling into the group of age from
The majority of participants, accounting for 53.9 percent, are aged between 24 and 28 years old, while the smallest group, comprising only 6.4 percent, falls within the 18 to 23 age range Participants aged 29 to 33 years represent 20.6 percent, and those above 33 years old make up 19.1 percent This data illustrates a diverse age distribution among participants, predominantly skewed towards individuals over 23 years old.
The survey results reveal that 68.5% of respondents are staff members, totaling 183 samples Managers comprise the second largest group at 13.5%, with 36 participants, while 27 individuals hold positions as supervisors or assistant managers Notably, both Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and business owners represent a small percentage of the respondents, at 2.2% and 2.6%, respectively.
Almost the respondents have quite short time in one organization, below 3 years with 60.8 percent The distance between the number of below 3 years of attachment time and
3 - 6 years is relatively considerable The latter takes 19.9 percent, which is involved in
53 samples The attachment years from 7 years to 10 years and above 10 years are a little bit different, 9.7 percent and 10.1 percent respectively.
Measurement test
Reliability analysis is essential to ensure the integrity of subsequent tests Table 4.2 presents the Cronbach’s Alpha and corrected item-total correlations for various constructs, including challenge stressors, hindrance stressors, creativity-oriented work behavior, implementation-oriented work behavior, affective commitment, and job autonomy.
Creativity – oriented work behavior (COWB) 0.849
The Cronbach’s alpha values for all scales exceed 0.6, indicating adequate reliability Items with a corrected item-total correlation below 0.3 were deemed weak and subsequently removed As a result, the items CS_2, CS_9, CS_10, AC_2, and AC_4 have been eliminated from the analysis.
4.2.2 Validity test with Exploratory Factor Analysis
To validate the independent variables, Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted to condense 20 items into a more significant scale As a result, two items, HS_1 and HS_8, were excluded from the scale due to their factor loadings being below the threshold of 0.5.
Table 4.3: Validity test for independent variables
Sig (Bartlett's test of Sphericity) 0.000
The KMO index of 0.888, exceeding the threshold of 0.5, along with a Bartlett’s significance value of 0.000, indicates that the exploratory analysis of challenge and hindrance stressors is valid and adaptable This suggests a significant correlation among the items, supporting the construct validity of both types of stressors Additionally, the eigenvalues for challenge and hindrance stressors stand at 2.034, satisfying the criterion of being greater than 1, while the total variance explained by these stressors is 50.951%.
Table 4.4: Rotated component matric for challenge and hindrance stressors
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
*Note: CS (challenge stressors), HS (hindrance stressors) n
The analysis identifies hindrance stressors and challenge stressors as two key components, each with a factor loading exceeding 0.5 The hindrance stressors component consists of 8 items, while the challenge stressors component includes 7 items Following the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), 2 items from the hindrance stressors scale were eliminated, resulting in a more streamlined and significant scale.
Secondly, testing validity of dependent variables are conducted similarly as independent variables
Table 4.5: Validity test for dependent variables
Sig (Bartlett's test of Sphericity) 0.000
Exploratory Factor Analysis can effectively condense the items of both dependent variables: creativity-oriented work behavior and implementation work behavior, as indicated by a KMO index of 0.921, which exceeds the threshold of 0.5 Furthermore, the significant Bartlett’s test of Sphericity, with a value of 0.000, confirms the validity of the data for this analysis The eigenvalue exceeding 1, along with a total variance explanation of 53.446% for innovative behavior, encompasses both creativity-oriented and implementation-oriented work behaviors.
Table 4.6: Rotated component matrix for creativity – oriented work behavior and implementation – oriented work behavior
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
*Note: IOWB (implementation – oriented work behavior), COWB (creativity – oriented work behavior)
In the initial run of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for the dependent variables, the items COWB_8 and IOWB_6 were removed due to their factor loading values being below 0.5 Upon re-running EFA without these items, COWB_5 remained but did not significantly contribute to any variable as it was associated with only one component Ultimately, the analysis identified two distinct components representing each scale The first component consists of four items from IOWB and three from COWB, while the second component contains five items from COWB and one from IOWB, with some item rotations observed between the components.
The innovation process comprises four key activities: problem recognition, idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization, which are non-linear and can involve various combinations of behaviors at any time (Kanter, 1988; Scott and Bruce, 1994) Each stage necessitates both creativity and implementation, as problem recognition and idea generation require creative thinking and practical solutions (Tippman et al., 2017) Comprehensive problem-solving involves collaboration among individuals to ensure the best solutions are developed, emphasizing the importance of implementation over mere creativity (Baer et al., 2012; Nutt, 1984) Similarly, idea promotion and realization also demand a blend of creative and implementation behaviors, as applying specialized ideas can encourage innovative thinking (Ford, 2002; Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000) Building coalitions of supporters with the right expertise is crucial for successful innovation (Kanter, 1988) Thus, employee behaviors at each stage may reflect a mix of creativity-oriented and implementation-oriented work, potentially leading to varied outcomes in exploratory factor analysis.
The author chooses to maintain consistent naming for each variable based on the predominant items within each component, designating the first component as implementation-oriented work behavior and the second as creativity-oriented work behavior.
In summary, the creativity-oriented work behavior scale comprises six items: COWB_2, COWB_9, IOWB_2, COWB_10, COWB_6, and COWB_1 Conversely, the implementation-oriented work behavior scale consists of seven items: IOWB_1, IOWB_3, COWB_7, COWB_4, IOWB_4, COWB_3, and IOWB_5.
Thirdly, testing validity for moderators are implemented as for independent and dependent variables
Table 4.7: Validity test for moderators
Sig (Bartlett's test of Sphericity) 0.000 n
Exploratory Factor Analysis reveals that affective commitment and job autonomy are significant scales, supported by a KMO index of 0.847 and a Bartlett's test significance of less than 0.05 Additionally, an eigenvalue greater than 1 and a total variance explained of 57.739% further confirm the appropriateness of employing Exploratory Factor Analysis for this study.
Table 4.8: Rotated component matrix for affective commitment and job autonomy
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
*Note: JA (job autonomy), AC (affective commitment) n
In the initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for moderator variables, the JA_3 item was eliminated due to a factor loading value below 0.5 Upon re-evaluation, the affective commitment scale was unexpectedly divided into two components, with job autonomy categorized under one of them To appropriately rename these components, the author referenced previous research by other scholars The first component of affective commitment comprises items AC_3, AC_7, and AC_1, while the second component includes AC_8, AC_6, and AC_5.
Table 4.9: The content for each item of affective commitment scale
Research by Allen & Meyer (1990) identified ten key predictors that significantly contribute to affective commitment in the workplace These include job challenge, where roles are engaging; role clarity, which ensures responsibilities are well-defined; and goal clarity, providing clear objectives Additionally, goal difficulty adds an element of challenge, while management receptiveness fosters an environment where employee suggestions are valued Cohesion among team members enhances collaboration, and organizational dependability builds trust Equitable treatment is crucial, as is the sense of personal importance employees feel within the organization Finally, regular feedback on work performance and opportunities for participation in decision-making regarding their roles further strengthen affective commitment.
The author identifies that the first component of affective commitment aligns well with the predictor of cohesion, while the second component demonstrates a strong correlation with related factors.
AC_3 You really feel as if this organization’s problems are your own AC_7 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for you
AC_1 You would be very happy to spend the rest of your career with this organization
A lack of strong belonging and emotional attachment to an organization can indicate low affective commitment This disconnection manifests as not feeling like part of the organizational family Consequently, the affective commitment scale is categorized into two distinct scales: "Affective Commitment (Cohesion)" and "Affective Commitment (Personal Importance)."
To sum up, the new model to test the hypothesis after running EFA is shown:
Figure 4.1: Conceptual model after running EFA 4.2.3 Correlation analysis
Then the correlation analysis is conducted, and the result is illustrated in the Table 4.10:
Creativity - oriented work behavior COWB: COWB_2, COWB_9, IOWB_2, COWB_10, COWB_6,
Implementation - oriented work behavior IOWB: IOWB_1, IOWB_3, COWB_76, COWB_4, IOWB_4, COWB_3, IOWB_5
Affective commitment AC_Co: AC_3 AC_7, AC_1 AC_PI: AC_8, AC_6, AC_5
Job autonomy JA: JA_2, JA_1, JA_8, JA_4, JA_5, JA_6, JA_7, JA_9 n
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 – tail)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 – tail)
Hypothesis testing
Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the direct effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on creativity-oriented and implementation-oriented work behavior The analysis was performed using SPSS software, where representative variables were assigned to the dependent and independent variable boxes The "Statistics" function provided insights into the data characteristics, including regression coefficients, Durbin-Watson statistics for residuals, model fit, and collinearity diagnostics Additionally, histograms and normal probability plots were created to assess the validity of regression assumptions Finally, key indicators such as R-squared, p-values, and standardized coefficients were evaluated to interpret the results.
To evaluate the moderating effect, the author utilized PROCESS v3.5 by Andrew F Hayes, which organizes variables into specific categories Dependent variables, such as COWB or IOWB, are designated as Y variables, while independent variables, CS or HS, are classified as X variables Additionally, moderators like AC or JA are identified as W variables This macro-PROCESS generates a regression model incorporating three independent variables: X.
W, X * W (the product X * W is denoted Int_1)
Then, the results of testing hypothesis are illustrated as the Table 4.12:
Table 4.12: The results of testing hypothesis For direct effects:
No Independent variables** Dependent variables** F - value Signif
H5 a CS*AC_Co COWB 52.025 0.000 -0.027 0.372 -0.441 0.659 Not supported
HS*AC_Co COWB 34.816 0.000 -0.144 0.284 -2.191 0.029 Not supported
CS*AC_PI COWB 37.895 0.000 -0.068 0.301 -1.223 0.222 Not supported
H6 b HS*AC_PI COWB 20.121 0.000 -0.196 0.186 -3.811 0.000 Not supported
H7 CS*JA IOWB 60.590 0.000 0.054 0.408 0.782 0.434 Not supported n
H8 HS*JA IOWB 37.371 0.000 -0.054 0.298 -0.826 0.409 Not supported
Challenge stressors (CS) can enhance creativity-oriented work behavior (COWB) and implementation-oriented work behavior (IOWB) by fostering job autonomy (JA) and affective commitment related to cohesion (AC_Co) and personal importance (AC_PI) In contrast, hindrance stressors (HS) may impede these positive outcomes, emphasizing the need for organizations to manage stressors effectively to promote a productive work environment.
The model evaluated for the first and second hypotheses shows a significant F value below 0.05, indicating its overall suitability The adjusted R square of 0.286 suggests that challenge and hindrance stressors account for 28.6% of the variance in creativity-oriented work behavior While the t-test for challenge stressors is significantly less than 0.05, the t-test for hindrance stressors at 0.271 exceeds this threshold, indicating that hindrance stressors lack significant relevance in this model Conversely, challenge stressors are positively associated with creativity-oriented work behavior, supporting the hypothesis "H1: challenge stressors are positively related to creativity-oriented work behavior," while the hypothesis "H2: hindrance stressors are negatively related to creativity-oriented work behavior" is not supported.
The model effectively evaluates the impact of stressors on implementation-oriented work behavior, as indicated by a significant F-value of less than 0.05.
The R square value of 0.235 indicates that challenge and hindrance stressors account for 23.5% of the variance in implementation-oriented work behavior The t-test significance level for hindrance stressors exceeds 0.05, suggesting they do not have a meaningful impact in this model Conversely, challenge stressors show a significant value of 0, which is below 0.05, indicating a strong association with implementation-oriented work behavior With a standardized coefficient of 0.517, challenge stressors positively influence this behavior Therefore, the hypothesis that challenge stressors are positively associated with implementation-oriented work behavior is supported, while the hypothesis regarding hindrance stressors is not.
- oriented work behavior” is not supported
The analysis of the fifth hypothesis reveals that the model's significant value for affective commitment (cohesion) as a moderator in the relationship between challenge stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior is 0.659, exceeding the threshold of 0.05 This indicates that affective commitment (cohesion) does not significantly influence the regression in this model Consequently, the hypothesis "H5a: affective commitment (cohesion) moderates the relationship between challenge stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior, enhancing the positive effects of challenge stressors on creativity-oriented work behavior" is not supported.
The t-test results indicate that the significance level is below 0.05, confirming that affective commitment (cohesion) plays a moderating role in the relationship between hindrance stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior However, the negative standardized coefficient of -0.144 suggests that affective commitment does not mitigate the adverse effects of hindrance stressors on creativity-oriented work behavior Consequently, the hypothesis stating that affective commitment decreases the negative impact of hindrance stressors on creativity-oriented work behavior is rejected.
The analysis related to the sixth hypothesis reveals that only hindrance stressors significantly impact creativity-oriented work behavior when moderated by affective commitment (personal importance), with t-test values of 0.222 and 0.000, respectively Notably, the standardized coefficient is negative, indicating that affective commitment does not mitigate the adverse effects of hindrance stressors on creativity-oriented work behavior Consequently, the hypothesis "H6a: affective commitment moderates the relationship between challenge stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior, enhancing the positive effects of challenge stressors" is unsupported Conversely, the hypothesis "H6b: affective commitment moderates the relationship between hindrance stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior, reducing the negative effects of hindrance stressors" is rejected.
Despite the rejection of both H5b and H6b hypotheses related to affective commitment (cohesion) and personal importance, the impact of affective commitment in the context of hindrance stressors on creativity-oriented work behavior merits further exploration This topic will be addressed in the following chapter.
The t-test results for challenge stressors and hindrance stressors in relation to implementation-oriented work behavior, moderated by job autonomy, yielded significant values of 0.434 and 0.409, both exceeding the 0.05 threshold Consequently, the hypothesis H7, which posits that job autonomy enhances the positive impact of challenge stressors on implementation-oriented work behavior, is not supported.
The hypothesis that job autonomy enhances the positive relationship between hindrance stressors and implementation-oriented work behavior is not supported.