INTRODUCTION
Background of research
Innovative behavior serves as the cornerstone of high-performance organizations, particularly in today's knowledge-based economy where intangible assets are increasingly vital These assets significantly enhance organizational competitiveness and drive success in the modern workplace.
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 significance has led to extensive research exploring 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, research infrastructure, and creative output (Dutta and Lanvin, 2020) According to the Global Innovation Index 2020, Vietnam ranks first among 29 lower middle-income economies and 42nd among 131 economies worldwide, showcasing its potential for improvement in innovation and competitiveness Thus, fostering employee innovative behavior is crucial for organizations in Vietnam to enhance their innovation capacity and thrive in today's competitive landscape.
Researchers have shown significant interest in identifying the contextual factors that influence innovative behavior One key factor highlighted in various psychological and organizational studies is the role of stressors.
The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified various stressors affecting individuals, which serve as predictors of work performance According to the transactional theory of stress by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), stressful situations arise when employees perceive job demands as either challenges or threats to their 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 on the relationship between these stressors and innovative behavior have been inconsistent, revealing negative, positive, curvilinear, or even non-significant effects (Cavanagh et al., 2000; Janssen, 2000; Baer & Oldham, 2006; Melchior et al., 2007; Probst et al., 2007; Byron).
Different types of stressors impact innovative behavior in distinct ways, as highlighted by Cavanaugh et al (2000), who categorized stressors into challenge stressors and hindrance stressors Challenge stressors, such as time pressure and high workload, offer opportunities for personal growth and skill mastery In contrast, hindrance stressors, including role ambiguity, bureaucratic obstacles, and organizational politics, hinder progress and lead to negative outcomes 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 influence this relationship This study focuses on affective commitment and job autonomy as key factors Affective commitment fosters a strong sense of belonging within the organization (Cohen, 2007), potentially motivating employees to engage in innovative behaviors even in challenging situations Additionally, job autonomy, a significant aspect of organizational behavior, plays a vital role in enhancing employee creativity and innovation.
Allowing employees to set their own methods, pace, and schedules to achieve goals can significantly reduce stressors, thereby minimizing their negative impact on innovative behaviors (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
Research objective
In conclusion, innovative behavior is crucial for an organization's long-term success, prompting significant attention to the contexts that influence it This research identifies stressors as key antecedents affecting innovative behavior Previous studies have yielded inconclusive results, likely due to the varying nature of stressors Therefore, this thesis will examine the impact of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors on employee innovative behavior, while also exploring the moderating effects of affective autonomy and job autonomy in this relationship.
Research questions
The study investigates two key questions: first, it examines the types of stressors that influence innovative behavior, and second, it explores whether affective commitment and job autonomy serve as moderating factors in the relationship between stressors and innovative behavior.
This study's findings will offer theoretical insights for researchers to enhance existing theories and explore new approaches Additionally, the results will provide empirical evidence for managers and staff, highlighting how positive stressors can boost innovative behavior and improve organizational performance Furthermore, the research will address the negative effects of certain stressors, equipping employees with the knowledge to mitigate these detrimental impacts.
Research scope
Research on the impact of stressors on employee innovative behavior in Vietnam is limited, highlighting a need for further investigation As Vietnam seeks to improve its Global Innovation Index and enhance its competitive advantages, understanding these dynamics becomes crucial The presence of various stressors can lead to unexpected effects on employee creativity and innovation Therefore, it is essential for organizations in Vietnam to identify these influences to mitigate negative impacts and leverage any positive outcomes This study was conducted with samples from February to March 2021, aiming to provide valuable insights for organizational management.
Structure of the study
This research comprises 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 prior studies and outlining the concepts utilized in this research.
This article presents a conceptual model that includes hypothesis development and explanation It outlines the research methodology, data collection, and analysis necessary to test the hypothesis The findings will be discussed in relation to existing research to elucidate the reasons behind the results Additionally, the article will highlight both theoretical and practical implications for academia and business Lastly, it will address limitations and suggest directions for future research before concluding.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Employee innovative behavior
Creativity and innovation, while often used interchangeably, are distinct concepts According to Mumford and Gustafson (1988), creativity involves generating new and beneficial ideas, but it does not necessarily encompass their practical application Some ideas may be intriguing yet impractical, while others have significant applicability This distinction led to the development of the term "innovation," which encompasses a broader scope As noted by Kanter (1988) and Van de Ven (1986), innovation is a multistage process involving various activities executed by different individuals to implement ideas effectively Janssen (2000) defines innovative behavior as the intentional production, introduction, and implementation of new ideas to tackle challenges in complex environments High performance in innovative behavior is crucial for organizations, enhancing competitiveness and contributing to sustainable development Janssen's research highlights a connection between innovation and sustainable development, emphasizing the importance of innovative behavior for long-term organizational success, which has drawn significant attention from researchers seeking to clarify its correlation.
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 and Den Hartog (2010) identified four key stages of innovative behavior: exploration, generation, championing, and execution Each stage involves distinct characteristics managed by different team members to achieve innovation goals Initially, employees focus on identifying opportunities and addressing performance gaps (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007) This leads to the championing phase, where they seek support from allies, partners, and sponsors to advocate for their ideas (Kanter, 1988) These supporters provide guidance and resources necessary for successful implementation The final stage is the realization of ideas, resulting in prototypes or models that align with organizational objectives (Kanter, 1988) Participation in these stages can vary, allowing individuals to engage in one or multiple stages simultaneously (Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Creativity and implementation are crucial components of employee innovative behavior, as highlighted by Axtell et al (2000) This article defines innovative behavior in the workplace as consisting of two oriented behaviors, based on the framework by Dorenbosch et al (2005), which categorizes the process into four stages The initial two stages focus on creativity-oriented behavior, where employees identify problems and generate new ideas to address them The latter two stages emphasize implementation-oriented behavior, involving the advocacy for new ideas and the establishment of support systems to effectively apply these ideas in a practical work context.
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 various factors that influence it Key determinants include leadership styles, work group dynamics, and individual attributes (Scott & Bruce, 1994), as well as workplace environment, coworker support, and job stress (Bani-Melhem et al., 2017) Additionally, knowledge sharing and organizational climate (Yu et al., 2013) and time pressure (Baer & Oldham, 2006) also play crucial roles These findings indicate that while certain factors can enhance employee innovative behavior, others may hinder it.
Stressors, once considered essential elements of 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,
For decades, researchers have identified a strong 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 towards the potential positive outcomes of stress, such as personal development and growth (Tedeschi et al., 2018) Understanding the dual nature of stress—its ability to produce both detrimental and beneficial effects—is crucial for researchers and practitioners aiming to mitigate negative impacts while enhancing positive outcomes 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 ongoing physical and psychological effort, leading to potential physiological or psychological costs These demands can be classified as psychological stressors, including the pressure to work quickly, manage a heavy workload, or meet tight deadlines (Fox et al., 1993) While not inherently negative, job demands can become hindrances if they result in excessive effort without adequate recovery (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) Consequently, job demands can have varying effects on employee performance; positive stressors can foster favorable attitudes among employees, while negative stressors can lead to detrimental attitudes.
Job demands can be perceived as rewarding experiences that justify the associated inconveniences, which McCauley et al (1994) refer to as challenges, such as job overload, time pressures, and high responsibility, leading to positive emotions Cavanaugh et al (2000) describe these as challenge-related stressors that employees can manage, as they are within their control Likewise, Lazarus & Folkman (1984) identify stressful situations that offer opportunities for mastery, personal growth, and 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 stemming from job demands or work conditions that impose excessive constraints, hindering an individual's ability to achieve 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, such as organizational politics, bureaucratic red tape, role ambiguity, and job security concerns (Ren & Zhang, 2015) These barriers are often beyond the control of employees, leading to negative implications for their well-being within the organization.
Both challenge stressors and hindrance stressors contribute to strains such as anxiety, exhaustion, depression, and burnout (Jex, 1998) Lepine et al (2005) describe stressors as triggers that initiate the stress process, leading to various consequences known as strains The impact of these stressors on work performance can differ based on their nature Initial appraisals of challenge and hindrance stressors elicit distinct emotional responses that subsequently influence employee behavior (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Spector, 1998; Duhacheck & Iacobucci, 2005) Challenge stressors foster positive emotions, such as confidence and enthusiasm, prompting an active problem-solving approach (Wallace et al., 2009) Conversely, hindrance stressors evoke negative emotions like distraction and withdrawal, resulting in a passive coping style (Wallace et al., 2009) Employees employing an active problem-solving style are more likely to adapt to changes and exert greater effort to overcome challenges, while those with a passive coping style tend to reduce their effort, perceiving issues as beyond their control.
Cavanaugh et al (2000) distinguished between challenging job demands, associated with eustress, and hindrance job demands, linked to distress Selye (1982) characterized eustress as a source of fulfillment and achievement through challenges, while distress is viewed as its negative counterpart This highlights that not all stress is detrimental; it can lead to positive outcomes and encourage beneficial changes Consequently, stressors can prompt employees to cope in two ways: by adapting to increased demands or by altering their work environment (Edwards & Cooper, 1990) Employees may enhance their skills and abilities to meet high job demands, which is a manageable response, or they may attempt to change their tasks and job design, a process that can be more challenging Both approaches can effectively foster innovation in managing 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, revealing mixed results Lepine et al (2004) identified a positive correlation between challenge stress and learning performance, while hindrance stress negatively impacted it, a finding echoed by Wallace et al (2009) and Cavanaugh et al (2000) regarding job satisfaction However, Lukasik et al (2019) found no significant link between stress and working memory performance, and Baer & Oldham (2006) reported a non-significant relationship between time pressure and creativity Additionally, job insecurity, a form of stressor, adversely affected creative problem-solving abilities (Probst et al., 2007), with Byron & Khazanchi (2010) noting a curvilinear effect on creativity These inconsistent findings suggest that the impact of stress on work outcomes such as learning performance, job satisfaction, and creativity may depend on the stress level and nature experienced by individuals, as stress can enhance performance up to a certain point before leading to overarousal and decreased performance (Yerkes).
Inconsistent research results may stem from the differing nature of stressors, specifically challenge stressors and hindrance stressors, each of which impacts work outcomes in distinct ways.
The relationships between stressors and work performance in recent literature are summarized in table 2.1
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, with effects ranging from positive to negative, curvilinear, or even non-significant This contradiction may stem from differing research contexts or other significant factors that influence the relationship between stressors and innovation This study aims to investigate the influence of challenge and hindrance stressors on employee innovative behavior specifically 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 employees' innovative behavior Affective commitment, defined as an employee's psychological attachment and sense of belonging to an organization, influences their decision to remain with the company long-term (Cohen, 2007; Mowday et al., 2013) This study will 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 reduce 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 commitment model was developed that encompasses three types: affective, continuance, and normative commitment Affective commitment refers to an emotional attachment to the organization, characterized by an individual's identification and involvement, as defined by Mowday et al (2013) Continuance commitment arises when individuals perceive benefits in staying with the organization and costs associated with leaving, a concept highlighted by Kanter (1968) However, this definition can overlap with turnover intentions Normative commitment, on the other hand, is rooted in an individual's sense of responsibility towards the organization, motivating behavior based on moral beliefs (Wiener, 1972) This type of commitment is also linked to personal norms that drive such behaviors (Schwartz & Tessler, 1972) Meyer and Allen (1990) succinctly categorized these commitments: affective commitment signifies a desire to remain, continuance commitment indicates a necessity to stay, and normative commitment reflects an obligation to do so.
Cohen (2007) reconceptualized organizational commitment into two dimensions: instrumental considerations and psychological attachment The first dimension emphasizes the benefits of remaining with an organization, focusing on the equitable exchange between employees' contributions and the rewards they receive, thereby avoiding confusion with turnover intentions This tangible exchange relationship highlights a calculated approach to commitment The second dimension, known as normative or affective commitment, involves a moral obligation to the organization, fostering emotional attachment through the internalization of its goals, values, and norms.
Previous research has 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 Furthermore, it is rarely examined in isolation from other types of commitment 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 level of freedom, independence, and discretion an individual has in scheduling their work and determining the procedures to complete tasks This concept has been explored in various studies (Morgeson et al., 2005; Breaugh, 1985; Ng et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2016; Volmer et al., 2012), highlighting how employees can regulate their approach, pace, and schedules to meet their goals Individuals with high job autonomy exhibit greater flexibility in defining their roles, allowing them to choose how to perform their work effectively (Troyer et al., 2000) Moreover, autonomy fosters self-determination and reduces external controls or constraints (Deci et al., 1989).
Job autonomy, often examined through the job demand-control model (Karasek & Theorell, 2010), refers to the level of discretion employees have in their work processes and scheduling It is closely aligned with job control and is recognized as a crucial job resource that enhances work engagement according to the job demands-resources theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) Furthermore, self-determination theory posits that employees thrive in autonomy-supportive environments, fostering greater creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Individuals with greater job autonomy will have more responsibility for their job (Parker
Research indicates that job autonomy positively influences employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, and motivation, while reducing distress and turnover (Spector, 1986; Sprigg, 1999) Employees with high autonomy tend to exhibit greater creativity, especially when they have strong relationships with their supervisors (Volmer et al., 2012) However, some studies suggest a negative correlation between job autonomy and performance, with not all employees reporting positive attitudes (Langfred & Moye, 2004; Ng & Feldman, 2014) Additionally, the impact of job autonomy on performance can vary based on factors such as task uncertainty, task 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 article will examine the moderating role of job autonomy in the relationship between stressors and innovative behavior, aiming to determine whether it mitigates negative effects or enhances positive outcomes.
Research gap
Recent literature highlights the significance of innovative behavior in organizations, essential for achieving superior performance and competing effectively To foster such behavior among employees, it is crucial to identify antecedents, particularly stressors that inevitably affect employees However, the relationship between stressors and work performance, including innovative behavior, remains inconsistent; some studies suggest a positive correlation, while others indicate negative or non-significant effects This disparity may stem from varying methods of measuring stressors, either by their nature or the subjective stress levels reported by participants Additionally, different moderators may influence the effects of stressors on innovative behavior, contributing to the mixed findings in existing research.
Recent studies categorize stressors into two types: challenge stressors and hindrance stressors Additionally, innovative behavior is reframed into two main categories: creativity-oriented work behavior and implementation-oriented work behavior, moving away from the previous four-stage model Furthermore, the roles of affective commitment and job autonomy are examined for their differing moderating effects on the relationship between stressors and innovative behavior, potentially clarifying inconsistencies found in earlier research.
This research aims to explore the relationship between hindrance stressors and challenge stressors in relation to innovative behavior, while examining the moderating effects of affective commitment and job autonomy The key research questions focus on identifying the types of stressors that influence innovative behavior and determining whether affective commitment and job autonomy play a moderating role in this dynamic.
This study explores the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on innovative behavior within the Vietnamese context, revealing potential inconsistencies with previous research findings These insights allow researchers to develop a unique perspective on how stressors influence employee innovation Additionally, practitioners can use these findings to implement targeted interventions that foster innovative behavior in their organizations If the results align with earlier studies, it suggests that these insights may be applicable across various organizations, industries, 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 meet their expectations This belief fosters positive emotions, which expand attention, cognition, and action, ultimately enhancing physical, intellectual, and social resources Consequently, challenge stressors have been associated with positive organizational outcomes.
Creativity achievement thrives under optimal conditions, as highlighted by Mumford and Gustafson (1988) Identifying creative actions can be challenging due to their dependence on specific circumstances, leading to the concept of creativity-oriented behavior When such behavior is nurtured in a suitable environment, it fosters creativity achievement 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 and implement new ideas, enhancing their alignment with their environment and organization Consequently, challenge stressors can positively impact creativity-oriented work behavior.
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 issues like red tape and role ambiguity, significantly diminish employee creativity by creating a sense of helplessness These stressors, often beyond an individual’s control, foster a belief that increased effort will yield little improvement, thereby constraining an open mindset necessary for transforming actions into positive outcomes Consequently, employees may resort to passive emotional coping styles, which further obstruct their ability to generate innovative ideas This leads to the hypothesis that hindrance stressors negatively impact 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 evoke positive emotions that motivate employees to strive for their goals, encouraging collaboration and support among team members Recognizing that individual efforts alone may not suffice, employees seek assistance from others to enhance their chances of success In the process of developing prototypes or models, detailed input from participants is essential for refinement These challenge stressors compel employees to push themselves to meet deadlines, allowing their colleagues to learn from the outcomes Ultimately, this dynamic fosters timely completion of responsibilities during the idea implementation phase, positively influencing workplace behavior.
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 often encounter significant obstacles that hinder their implementation These challenges, such as role ambiguity, political policies, and bureaucratic red tape, manifest as skepticism and resistance that innovative concepts must overcome.
Hindrance stressors can push employees to overcome obstacles, ultimately motivating them to turn their ideas into reality As a result, these stressors can positively influence employee behavior, encouraging sustained efforts to navigate challenges and implement 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 like salary and bonuses (Cohen, 2007) Affective commitment fosters deeper emotional ties, characterized by feelings of identification and belonging, as described by Rousseau's psychological contracts (1995) Employees with strong organizational commitment are motivated to contribute extra effort towards shared goals, enhancing competitiveness, while those with low commitment may feel insecure and inclined to leave (Tang et al., 2019) By understanding commitment levels, employers can develop effective human resource strategies to retain talented employees Although building affective commitment takes more time, it results in a profound psychological attachment and a strong sense of belonging within the organization (Cohen).
Employees who choose to remain in an organization out of genuine desire tend to exhibit higher motivation and engagement levels 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 responsibilities, viewing challenges as opportunities for growth This mindset empowers them to tackle difficulties with resilience, often going the extra mile to transform obstacles into valuable learning experiences for their peers As a result, they foster creativity and innovation to address these challenges effectively The stronger the sense of belonging among employees, the better equipped they are to 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
Job demands-resources theory, as proposed by Bakker and Demerouti (2014), highlights that job resources such as autonomy, performance feedback, and development opportunities can alleviate the effects of job demands on employee strain Specifically, job autonomy acts as a moderating factor that influences how job stressors impact performance Defined by Volmer et al (2012), job autonomy refers to the degree of independence employees have in planning their work, choosing their tools, and determining the procedures they follow.
Self-leadership is defined as the process by which individuals control their own behavior, using specific behavioral and cognitive strategies (Neck & Houghton, 2006) Job autonomy enhances self-leadership by empowering employees to take initiative and break free from unproductive routines With self-leadership, employees are more motivated and confident in overcoming challenges, as they can make decisions independently without seeking upper management's approval This high level of autonomy accelerates progress within organizations, as employees actively seek optimal solutions to problems and identify potential stressors, ultimately preventing negative impacts on their 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 As job autonomy increases, it strengthens the beneficial effects that challenge stressors have on employees' ability to engage in work behaviors focused on implementation.
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 of hindrance stressors on such work behavior, suggesting that when employees have more control over their tasks, they are better able to channel stressors into productive outcomes.
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 viewed as demanding situations that employees feel they can manage Successfully navigating these challenges can lead to personal growth and a sense of accomplishment.
Hindrance stressors are perceived as stressful demands that employees feel are 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 is crucial for 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 faced by individuals, particularly stressors Innovative behavior among employees in relation to stressors emerged as a significant yet under-researched area in Vietnam This motivated the author to delve deeper into the subject, outlining objectives in the introduction A review of existing literature highlighted research gaps and helped formulate hypotheses Subsequently, questionnaires were developed, and a representative sample size was determined Data was collected through surveys and analyzed using SPSS 26.0 The findings led to discussions and interpretations, culminating in implications for researchers and practitioners, as well as addressing limitations and suggesting avenues 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 to ensure accurate results This sample size is crucial for the reliability of the findings.
In multiple regression analysis, a widely accepted guideline for determining the 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 required number of respondents is calculated to be 66, based on the formula.
This study employs exploratory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis, necessitating a minimum of 265 respondents Consequently, the author gathered 267 samples, ensuring a representative dataset for the research.
Data collection for this research was conducted over a month, from February to March 2021, utilizing mailing and social media To ensure the reliability and validity of the findings, respondents were carefully selected from a diverse range of organizations across Vietnam Recognizing the potential for single-informant bias to create significant obstacles, this study made a concerted effort to mitigate bias by gathering data from a variety of participants employed in multiple organizations.
The initial step involves identifying and sorting potential respondents before distributing the questionnaires The target participants are employees in Vietnam, encompassing various roles such as staff members, managers, CEOs, and business owners Notably, even those in high-ranking positions like CEOs or owners experience stress similar to their subordinates when accountable to higher authorities like presidents or directors This approach ensures that the findings are applicable across different organizational levels Upon obtaining consent to participate, respondents are added to the list of participants If any participant forgets to complete the questionnaire within two days due to their workload, a gentle reminder message will be sent to encourage their participation.
The study employed snowball sampling to expand the participant pool through three primary networks Initially, connections from the workplace and personal relationships were leveraged Subsequently, these individuals were encouraged to share the survey link with their coworkers and employees Lastly, suitable social media groups were utilized to disseminate the survey link, accompanied by an introduction to the study.
To gain insights into the characteristics and attributes of respondents, personal information was collected, including gender, age, current job position, and the duration of their longest tenure with a single organization.
The study utilized a comprehensive set of validated questionnaire items to assess various constructs Specifically, 20 items measuring challenge and hindrance stressors were adapted from LePine et al (2016) Additionally, 16 items focusing on creativity-oriented and implementation-oriented work behaviors were derived from Dorenbosch et al (2005) Affective commitment was measured using eight items developed by Allen and Meyer in 1990, while job autonomy was evaluated through six items proposed by Breaugh in 1985 Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with stressors and innovative behavior assessed from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and affective commitment and job autonomy rated from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
The questionnaires, originally designed in English and translated into Vietnamese for the target audience, consist of 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 features 14 questions focused on affective commitment and job autonomy.
The items within each section are randomly mixed rather than organized into distinct categories, preventing respondents from discerning the research's purpose and minimizing potential bias.
Having to complete a lot of work CS_1
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
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
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 assessment utilizes Cronbach’s alpha index, which is applicable when a scale includes three or more measurement items The alpha value ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better reliability A Cronbach’s alpha below 0.6 suggests that the measurement items fail to meet reliability standards, while values between 0.7 and 0.8 indicate sufficient reliability to support 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 is utilized to assess the correlation between individual items within a scale An index value below 0.3 indicates a weak correlation among items, suggesting that any items with such low values should be eliminated to enhance the scale's reliability (Nunnally).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is a statistical method used to identify the underlying relationships among a set of variables and to group related items together, effectively reducing a larger set of items (k) into a smaller set of factors (F, where F < k) This technique examines the relationships among items across all scales, rather than just within a single scale, with the goal of uncovering the key factors or components that define the data Researchers should take into account five important indices when conducting EFA to ensure robust and meaningful results.
- 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 evaluates the correlation among all items within a single component, and a significance level (Sig) of less than 0.05 indicates that these items are indeed correlated with one another (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 in the study are aged 24 to 28 years, comprising 53.9% of the total, while those aged 18 to 23 represent only 6.4% Participants aged 29 to 33 and those above 33 years old account for 20.6% and 19.1%, respectively This indicates a diverse age distribution among participants, predominantly skewed towards individuals older than 23.
The survey revealed that 68.5% of respondents were staff members, totaling 183 individuals Managers accounted for 13.5% of the sample, equating to 36 participants Additionally, 27 respondents held positions as supervisors or assistant managers Notably, both Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and business owners represented a small percentage of the respondents, with 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 for ensuring the integrity of subsequent testing Table 4.2 presents the Cronbach’s Alpha and the corrected item-total correlations for various factors, 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 reliability of each scale is confirmed by a Cronbach's alpha value exceeding 0.6 To enhance the scale's validity, items with a corrected item-total correlation below 0.3 are eliminated due to their weak correlation with other items Consequently, the items CS_2, CS_9, CS_10, AC_2, and AC_4 have been removed from the analysis.
4.2.2 Validity test with Exploratory Factor Analysis
To validate the independent variables, an 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 loading being below the acceptable 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, which is below 0.05, indicates that the exploratory analysis of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors is valid and adaptable This suggests a correlation among items that supports the construct validity of these stressors Additionally, the eigenvalues for challenge stressors and hindrance stressors stand at 2.034, satisfying the requirement 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)
The analysis identifies two key components of stressors: hindrance stressors and challenge stressors, each with a factor loading exceeding 0.5 The hindrance stressors component comprises eight items, while the challenge stressors component includes seven items Following the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), two items from the hindrance stressors scale were eliminated, resulting in a more streamlined and significant measurement 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 the scales for both dependent variables of 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 result of 0.000 confirms the validity of the data for this analysis The eigenvalue is also greater than 1, with a total variance explained of 53.446% for innovative behavior, encompassing 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 exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for the dependent variables, the items COWB_8 and IOWB_6 were excluded due to their factor loading values being below 0.5 Upon re-running the EFA without these items, COWB_5 remained but was not sufficiently strong to represent any variables alone Ultimately, the analysis revealed two distinct components, each corresponding to the scales as detailed in the accompanying table The first component consisted of four IOWB items and three COWB items, while the second component included five COWB items and one IOWB item, with some items being rotated between the components.
The innovation process involves four key activities: problem recognition, idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization, which are interconnected and can occur simultaneously (Kanter, 1988; Scott and Bruce, 1994) Each stage necessitates both creativity and implementation to effectively address challenges Problem recognition and idea generation demand creative thinking and practical solutions, as highlighted by Tippman et al (2017), who emphasize the importance of understanding problems and developing actionable solutions Additionally, collaboration among individuals is crucial for comprehensively addressing issues, requiring more implementation than creativity (Baer et al., 2012; Nutt, 1984) Similarly, idea promotion and realization also blend creativity with implementation, as applying specialized ideas can foster innovative thinking (Ford, 2002; Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000) Building coalitions of supporters is essential for successful innovation, necessitating specific knowledge and the ability to identify suitable partners (Kanter, 1988) Consequently, employee behaviors at each stage may encompass both creativity-oriented and implementation-oriented actions, potentially leading to a combination of these behaviors as revealed through exploratory factor analysis.
The author chooses to maintain consistent naming conventions for each variable, aligning them with the predominant characteristics of their respective components; specifically, the first component is designated as implementation-oriented work behavior, while the second component is referred to 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
Exploratory Factor Analysis reveals a significant scale for affective commitment and job autonomy, supported by a KMO index of 0.847 and a Bartlett's significance level below 0.05 Additionally, an eigenvalue greater than 1 and a total variance explained of 57.739% further validate the appropriateness of utilizing this analytical method.
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)
After conducting the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for moderator variables, the JA_3 item was removed due to a factor loading value below 0.5 In the subsequent analysis, the affective commitment scale was unexpectedly divided into two components, with job autonomy classified under one of them To rename each component of affective commitment, the author referenced previous research The first component 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 & Mayer (1990) identified ten key predictors of affective commitment in the workplace These include job challenge, where roles are demanding; role clarity, ensuring responsibilities are well-defined; and goal clarity, which involves having clear objectives Additionally, goal difficulty contributes to commitment, alongside management receptiveness to employee input Cohesion among team members, organizational dependability, and equitable treatment also play significant roles Furthermore, personal importance, where employees feel vital to the organization, as well as constructive feedback on performance and participation in decision-making regarding their work, are crucial for fostering affective commitment.
The author identifies that the first component of affective commitment aligns well with the predictor of cohesion, while the second component corresponds effectively 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 a disconnect among employees Many individuals may not feel like they are part of the organizational family, which highlights the importance of personal significance within the workplace Consequently, the affective commitment scale can be 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
** 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 behaviors Utilizing SPSS software, the regression function was employed to input representative variables into the dependent and independent boxes The "Statistics" function provided insights into the data characteristics, including regression coefficients, Durbin-Watson statistics for residuals, model fit, and collinearity diagnostics Additionally, "Histogram" and "normal probability plot" were generated to visually assess regression assumptions The evaluation of results was based on key indicators such as R-squared, p-value, and standardized coefficients.
To evaluate the moderating effect, the author utilized PROCESS v3.5 by Andrew F Hayes, which organizes variables into designated categories Dependent variables, such as COWB or IOWB, are assigned as Y variables, while independent variables, including CS or HS, are classified as X variables Additionally, moderators like AC or JA are designated as W variables This macro-PROCESS then 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
H8 HS*JA IOWB 37.371 0.000 -0.054 0.298 -0.826 0.409 Not supported
Challenge stressors (CS) can enhance job autonomy (JA) and foster creativity-oriented work behavior (COWB), while hindrance stressors (HS) may negatively impact affective commitment related to personal importance (AC_PI) and cohesion (AC_Co) Balancing these stressors is crucial for promoting implementation-oriented work behavior (IOWB) and overall employee engagement.
The evaluation of the first and second hypotheses indicates that the model is effective, as the F value's significance level is below 0.05 The adjusted R square of 0.286 reveals that challenge and hindrance stressors account for 28.6% of the variance in creativity-oriented work behavior While the t-test for challenge stressors shows a significant value well below 0.05, hindrance stressors have a t-test value of 0.271, indicating they are not significantly meaningful in this model Consequently, challenge stressors demonstrate a positive standardized coefficient, supporting the hypothesis that "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, supporting the third and fourth hypotheses.
The R square value of 0.235 indicates that challenge stressors 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 are not significantly impactful in this model Conversely, challenge stressors show a significant value of 0, which is below the 0.05 threshold, indicating a strong association with implementation-oriented work behavior The standardized coefficient for challenge stressors is 0.517, reflecting a positive effect on this behavior Consequently, the hypothesis that challenge stressors are positively associated with implementation-oriented work behavior is supported, while the hypothesis regarding hindrance stressors lacks support.
- oriented work behavior” is not supported
The analysis of the fifth hypothesis reveals that the moderating effect of affective commitment (cohesion) on the relationship between challenge stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior is not significant, with a value of 0.659, which exceeds the threshold of 0.05 Consequently, the hypothesis H5a, which posits that affective commitment (cohesion) enhances the positive impact of challenge stressors on creativity-oriented work behavior, is not supported.
The t-test results indicate that affective commitment (cohesion) significantly moderates the relationship between hindrance stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior, with a p-value less than 0.05 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 that affective commitment decreases the negative impact of hindrance stressors on creativity-oriented work behavior is rejected.
The study's findings related to the sixth hypothesis reveal that affective commitment (personal importance) significantly influences the relationship between hindrance stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior, with a t-test value of 0.000 However, it only shows a significant relationship with hindrance stressors, as the standardized coefficient is negative, indicating that affective commitment does not mitigate the adverse effects of hindrance stressors on creativity Consequently, the hypothesis "H6a: affective commitment moderates the relationship between challenge stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior" is unsupported, while the hypothesis "H6b: affective commitment moderates the relationship between hindrance stressors and creativity-oriented work behavior" is rejected.
Despite the rejection of the H5b and H6b hypotheses concerning affective commitment and personal significance, the influence of affective commitment in relation to hindrance stressors on creativity-oriented work behavior remains a significant topic for discussion, which will be explored in the following chapter.
The findings related to the seventh and eighth hypotheses indicate that the t-test values for challenge stressors and hindrance stressors on implementation-oriented work behavior, under the moderating effect of job autonomy, are both greater than 0.05, specifically 0.434 and 0.409 Consequently, the hypothesis stating that "job autonomy moderates the relationship between challenge stressors and implementation-oriented work behavior, enhancing the positive effects of challenge stressors" is not supported.
The hypothesis that job autonomy enhances the positive impact of hindrance stressors on implementation-oriented work behavior is not supported.