Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Envisioning, Planning and Innovating: A Closer Investigation of Proactive Goal Generation, Innovative Work Behaviour and Boundary Conditions

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Building on goal-regulation theory, we examine a) whether the regulatory elements of proactive goal generation, namely envisioning and planning, can sequentially stimulate individual innovative work behaviour, with planning acting as a mediator in the envisioning–innovation relationship and b) whether the link between envisioning and planning can be strengthened by the joint contributions of psychological empowerment and team support for innovation (TSI).

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data were collected from 268 employees of five Italian companies.

Findings

Hierarchical linear modelling analyses indicated that planning was positively predicted by envisioning, and partially mediated its effect on innovative work behaviour. In addition, employees who were highly involved in envisioning activities reported the highest levels of planning when both psychological empowerment and TSI were high.

Implications

The results of this research indicate that an effective means by which managers and practitioners can increase employees’ innovative efforts is by encouraging their involvement in proactive goal setting and goal planning activities. Additionally, our findings highlight the importance of creating an innovation-supportive team environment and nurturing individual psychological empowerment to increase the odds that employees will translate their envisioned proactive goals into effective action plans

Originality/Value

This is the first study to assess the envisioning–planning mechanism in relation to innovation, thus advancing our understanding of how individual and contextual conditions can amplify the effects of envisioning on planning activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although envisioning and the idea generation component of innovative work behaviour are conceptually distinct constructs, empirically they are nonetheless highly interrelated. Indeed, the items of the envisioning scale are similar in content to those of the idea generation subscale of innovative work behaviour, and the Pearson correlation between the two measures was considerably large in our study: r = .48, p < .01. Accordingly, it was meaningful to examine whether the envisioning–planning-innovative work behaviour mediating relationship would be still significant after removing the three idea generation items from the innovative work behaviour scale. Results effectively indicated that, when omitting the idea generation items, innovative behaviour was significantly positively associated with both envisioning (γ = .17, p < .05) and planning (γ = .35, p < .01). Additionally, the effect of envisioning on innovative work behaviour was significantly partially mediated by planning (indirect effect = .20; 95 % CI  .11, .30). Taken together, these findings suggest that the idea generation items, despite being related to the envisioning items, did not significantly affect the relationships of envisioning and planning to innovative work behaviour.

  2. Note that Preacher et al. (2010) suggest testing multilevel mediation with multilevel structural equation modelling, rather than through the standard multilevel modelling procedure (which was used in the present study). Indeed, the latter procedure does not completely separate between-group and within-group effects without introducing bias. Therefore, we replicated the mediation analyses by applying the multilevel structural equation modelling technique (Preacher et al. 2011). Results effectively paralleled those obtained through the traditional multilevel modelling procedure, indicating that a) envisioning was significantly positively related to planning (γ = .56, p < .01) and innovative work behaviour (γ = .25, p < .01); b) planning was significantly positively related to innovative work behaviour (γ = .26, p < .01); and c) planning significantly partially mediated the relationship between envisioning and innovative work behaviour (indirect effect = .15; 95 %, CI .06, .23).

  3. However, when the cross-level three-way interaction term was included in equations, the cross-level two-way interactions became significant: γ71 = 2.11, p < .01, for the envisioning X aggregate TSI interaction term; γ91 = 2.48, p < .01, and for psychological empowerment X aggregate TSI. A subsequent simple slope test indicated that planning was highest when aggregate TSI was high and when either envisioning or psychological empowerment was high.

  4. We further replicated analyses using group-mean centering, in order to test for the cross-level interactive effects, as separated from between-group interaction (Hofmann and Gavin 1998). Indeed, group-mean centering allows an accurate estimation of within-group slopes and minimizes the possibility of spurious cross-level interaction (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Culpepper, 2013). Results confirmed the hypothesized cross-level three-way interaction effect of envisioning, psychological empowerment, and aggregate TSI on planning (γ = -.61, p < .01). Additionally, a test of slope differences indicated that the simple slope for high psychological empowerment-high TSI was significantly different from two out of the three alternative conditions: 1) high psychological empowerment-low TSI (t = 2.72, p < .05); and 2) low psychological empowerment-low TSI (t = 3.25, p < .01). Conversely, the difference between the combination of high psychological empowerment and high TSI and the combination of low psychological empowerment and high TSI was significant only at the .07 level (t = -1.88, p < .07). Overall, these results were generally consistent with those obtained from analyses with grand-mean centered predictors.”

  5. Simple slopes: high psychological empowerment-high aggregate TSI: 1.20, p < .01; high psychological empowerment-low aggregate TSI: -.12, p < .01; low psychological empowerment-high aggregate TSI: 1.49, p < .01; low psychological empowerment-low TSI: -.32, p < .01.

References

  • Achtziger, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2010). Motivation and volition in the course of action. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (2nd ed., pp. 275–299). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499821.012.

  • Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39, 1490–1528. doi:10.1177/0149206313478188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80, 52–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3%3C235::AID-JOB837%3E3.3.CO;2-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. The Academy of Management Journal, 34, 251–280. doi:10.2307/256442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E. (1990). The organizationally induced helplessness syndrome: A preliminary model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 7, 30–36. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.1990.tb00532.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battistelli, A., & Boudrias, J. S. (2012). Favoriser le comportement innovatif au travail à travers la génération proactive des objectifs : Le rôle modérateur de l’habilitation au travail et de la sécurité participative [Promoting innovative work behaviour through proactive goal generation: The moderating role of psychological empowerment and participative safety]. Paper presented at the XVII Congrès de l’AIPTLF, Lyon.

  • Battistelli, A., Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., & Vandenberghe, C. (2013a). Mindsets of commitment and motivation: Interrelationships and contribution to work outcomes. The Journal of Psychology, 147, 17–48. doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.668146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Battistelli, A., Montani, F., & Odoardi, C. (2013b). The impact of feedback from job and task autonomy in the relationship between dispositional resistance to change and innovative work behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 26–41. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.616653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baughman, W. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1995). Process analytic models of creative capacities: Operations involved in the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 37–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12170-019.

  • Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 134–150. doi:10.1037/a0024368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence and reliability. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 5–18. doi:10.1002/per.481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandstätter, V., Heimbeck, D., Malzacher, J. T., & Frese, M. (2003). Goals need implementation intentions: The model of action phases tested in the applied setting of continuing education. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 37–59. doi:10.1080/13594320344000011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandstätter, V., Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 946–960. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.5.946.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005.

  • Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 75–90. doi:10.1108/01437720610652853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Campbel-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative systems: multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1018–1027. doi:10.1037/a0032663.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591–607. doi:10.2307/30040651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and de-motivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 541–547. doi:10.1037/a0021886.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 187–199. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1602&3_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., & Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: The insulating role of creative ability. Group and Organization Management, 34, 330–357. doi:10.1177/1059601108329811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2012). The emotive roots of creativity: Basic and applied issues on affect and motivation. In M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 217–240). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Diefendorff, J. M., & Lord, R. G. (2004). The volitional and strategic effects of planning on task performance and goal commitment. Human Performance, 16, 365–387. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1604_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durham, C. C., Locke, E. A., Poon, J. M. L., & McLeod, P. L. (2000). Effects of group goals and time pressure on group efficacy, information-seeking strategy, and performance. Human Performance, 13, 115–138. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1302_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbeiss, S., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446. doi:10.1037/a0012716.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eschleman, K. J., Madsen, J., Alarcon, G., & Barelka, A. (2014). Benefiting from creative activity: The positive relationships between creative activity, recovery experiences, and performance-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. doi:10.1111/joop.12064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–233. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.83.2.218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative (PI): An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frese, M., Krause, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Tonje Luneng, S., Heers, C., Unger, J., & Friedrich, C. (2007). Business owners’ action planning and its relationship to business success in three African countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1481–1408.

  • Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2012). Bridge building within the province of proactivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1053–1070. doi:10.1002/job.1780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616. doi:10.5465/AMR.1985.4279045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 141–185. doi:10.1080/14792779343000059.

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 287–312). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.54.7.493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bayer, U. (1999). Deliberative versus implemental mindsets in the control of action. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 403–422). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Feedback specificity, information processing, and transfer of training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 253–267. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73–96. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 90–105. doi:10.1037/a0018556.

  • Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102, 284–304. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.102.2.284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.44.3.513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80077-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467–511). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holman, D., Totterdell, P., Axtell, C., Stride, C., Port, R., Svensson, R., et al. (2012). Job design and the employee innovation process: The mediating role of learning strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 177–191. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9242-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. doi:10.1037/a0015978.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, S. T., Cassidy, S. E., & Ligon, G. S. (2012). Planning for innovation: A process-oriented perspective. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 515–545). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 490–509. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00033-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Hartman, E. A., Stebbins, M. W., & Jones, A. P. (1977). An examination of the relationships between psychological climate and VIE model for work motivation. Personnel Psychology, 30, 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739–751. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.74.5.739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The role of condition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 40–84). San Francisco; CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. A., & Sells, S. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and empirical research. In D. Magnussen (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 275–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-rewards fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302. doi:10.1348/096317900167038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, O., & ven der Vegt, G. S. (2011). Positivity bias in employees’ self-ratings of performance relative to supervisor ratings: The roles of performance type, performance-approach goal orientation, and perceived influence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 524–552. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2010.485736.

  • Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29, 440–458. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.13670969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, E. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169–211. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7506-9749-1.50010-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, E., & Chakrabart, A. (1999). Speeding up the pace of new product development. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 231–257. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(98)00048-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivimäki, M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A short version of the team climate inventory: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 241–246. doi:10.1348/096317999166644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 885–896. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.84.6.885.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101–121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, C. K., Huang, X., & Janssen, O. (2010). Contextualizing emotional exhaustion and positive emotional display: The signaling effects of supervisors’ emotional exhaustion and service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 368–376. doi:10.1037/a0017869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., Winters, D., & Locke, E. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49–63. doi:10.1002/job.4030150106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Huang, K.-L., Su, C.-H., & Lu, L. (2011). Curvilinear relationships between role stress and innovative performance: Moderating effects of perceived support for innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 741–758. doi:10.1348/096317910X520421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H. (2007). Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance in customer-perceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 475–489. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A. (2000). Motivation, cognition, and action: An analysis of studies of task goals and knowledge. Applied Psychology: An international Review, 49, 408–429. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2012). New developments in goal setting and task performance. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and the group performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97–120. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Ros, E., & Labeaga, J. M. (2009). Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities. European Management Review, 6, 64–75. doi:10.1057/emr.2009.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Committed but closed-minded: When making a specific plan for a goal hinders success. Social Cognition, 30, 37–55. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 153–180. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moneta, G. B., Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., & Kramer, S. J. (2010). Multirater assessment of creative contributions to team projects in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 150–176. doi:10.1080/13594320902815312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Hunter, S. T. (2008). Planning for innovation: A multi-level perspective. In M. D. Mumford, S. T. Hunter, & K. E. Bedell (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. VII, pp. 107–154). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S1475-9144(07)00005-7.

  • Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. IV, pp. 11–74). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S1475-9144(05)04001-4.

  • Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). Performance in planning: Processes, requirements, and errors. Review of General Psychology, 5, 213–240. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.5.3.213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). A comparison of self-ratings and non-self-report measures of employee creativity. Human Relations, 0, 1–27. doi:10.1177/0018726712446015.

  • Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. (2010). Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 744–751. doi:10.1037/a0018804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohari, K., & Gulatti, S. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 799–825. doi:10.2307/256998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oettingen, G., Bulgarella, C., Henderson, M., & Gollwitzer, P. (2004). The self-regulation of goal pursuit. In R. Wright, J. Greenberg, & S. Brehm (Eds.), Motivational analysis of social behaviour: Building on Jack Brehm’s contributions to psychology (pp. 225–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2000). Motivational and volitional processes in action initiation: A field study of the role of implementation intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 780–797. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02823.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.74.1.157.

  • Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856. doi:10.1177/0149206310363732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.

  • Potočnik, K., & Anderson, N. (2012). Assessing innovation: A 360-degree appraisal study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 497–509. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 53–66. doi:10.1080/10400410701841955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437:.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 161–182. doi:10.1080/10705511.2011.557329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233. doi:10.1037/a0020141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W. (1989). “Centering” predictors in multilevel analysis: Choices and consequences. Multilevel Modeling Newsletter, 1, 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: an evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Tests of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150–163. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.83.2.150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981–1003. doi:10.1037/a0022676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seijts, G. H., & Crim., D. (2009). The combined effects of goal type and cognitive ability on performance. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 343–352. doi: 10.1007/s11031-009-9143-3.

  • Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2001). The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291–302. doi:10.1002/job.70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.76.2.179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483–503. doi:10.2307/256689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. doi:10.2307/256865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, L.-Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2010). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 277–293. doi:10.1037/a0020952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. Ph., Taris, T. W., van der Flier, H., & Blonk, R. W. B. (2005). Bridging the gap between intentions and behavior: implementation intentions, action control, and procrastination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 238–256. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.10.003.

  • Vancouver, J. B., & Day, D. V. (2005). Industrial and organisation research on self-regulation: From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 155–185. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00202.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vancouver, J. B., More, K. M., & Yoder, R. J. (2008). Self-efficacy and resource allocation: Support for a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 35–47. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vinarski-Peretz, H., Binyamin, G., & Carmeli, A. (2011). Subjective relational experiences and employee innovative behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 290–304. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2007). How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 295–302. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.81.6.680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., Borril, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A., & Haward, B. (2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 393–410. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00044-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., Cote, J., & Buckley, M. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462–468. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.74.3.462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social-cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361–384. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4279067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. E., Whelan, J., Sojo, V., & Wong, M. (2012). Goals, goal orientations, strategies and performance. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 90–114). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 323–342. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X. A., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2010). Linking Transformational Leadership and Team Performance: A Conflict Management Approach. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1586–1611. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00974.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Sherbrooke, 2500, boulevard de l’Université, Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1, Canada

    Francesco Montani

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Florence, Via di San Salvi 12, 50135, Florence, Italy

    Carlo Odoardi

  3. Laboratory of Psychology, Health and Quality of Life EA 4139, University of Bordeaux, 3 ter, place de la Victoire, 33000, Bordeaux, France

    Adalgisa Battistelli

Authors
  1. Francesco Montani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Odoardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adalgisa Battistelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Montani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Montani, F., Odoardi, C. & Battistelli, A. Envisioning, Planning and Innovating: A Closer Investigation of Proactive Goal Generation, Innovative Work Behaviour and Boundary Conditions. J Bus Psychol 30, 415–433 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9371-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9371-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation