Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

With a view to make things better: individual characteristics and intentions to engage in management innovation

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Management innovations increasingly attract interest from both scholars and practitioners. However, few writers have studied the role of individuals in inventing and implementing management innovations. In particular, little is known about individual-level factors that can be put under scrutiny in personnel recruitment processes and which can be expected to drive individuals’ intention to engage in recognizing and championing opportunities for management innovations. We develop a set of hypotheses on the role of individuals’ needs for achievement, needs for power, and attitudes to change and risk in determining their intention to engage in management innovation behavior and put these hypotheses under empirical scrutiny.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thus wish to stress that we do not posit that managers do not engage in management innovation, or do so to a different extent than employees, or that the role of their individual characteristics for their intentions to engage in management innovation behavior are necessarily different from those of employees. We only focus here on (prospective) employees as one exemplary group of individuals since they have so far been entirely sidelined in the discussion on management innovation and since most firms regularly hire new employees, thus providing practitioners potentially with a ready lever to influence the level of management innovation experienced by their organizations.

References

  • Abernathy, M. A., & Bouwens, J. (2005). Determinants of accounting innovation implementation. ABACUS, 41, 217–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1993). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions (2nd printing). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.

  • Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Stony Stratford, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åmo, B. W. (2006). What motivates knowledge workers to involve themselves in employee innovation behaviour? International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 1, 160–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2004). Social psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ax, C., & Bjørnenak, T. (2005). Bundling and diffusion of management accounting innovations—The case of the balanced scorecard in Sweden. Management Accounting Research, 16, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baines, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Antecedents to management accounting change: A structural equation approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 675–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benders, J., & van Veen, K. (2001). What’s in a fashion? Interpretative viability and management fashions. Organization, 8, 33–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33, 825–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bougen, P. D. (1989). The emergence, roles and consequences of an accounting-industrial relations interaction. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14(3), 203–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the resource allocation process. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Strategy from an individual perspective. European Management Journal, 18, 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29, 1349–1364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R., & Grove, A. S. (2005). Strategic dynamics: Concepts and cases. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

  • Burns, J., & Scapens, R. W. (2000). Conceptualizing management accounting change: An institutional framework. Management Accounting Research, 11, 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J., & Vaivio, J. (2001). Management accounting change. Management Accounting Research, 12, 389–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, L. R., & Wholey, D. R. (1993). Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: Effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational network. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 106–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenhall, R. H., & Euske, K. J. (2007). the role of management control systems in planned organizational change: An analysis of two organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 601–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Performance measurement and reward systems, trust, and strategic change. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15, 117–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, M., & Meldrum, M. (1998). Creating change from below: Early lessons from agents of change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20, 70–80.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA/London, U.K.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2008). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 616–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. L., Luka, B., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2002). Social behavior. In H. Pashler & R. Gallistel (Eds.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 373–799). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13, 675–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 495–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, J. P. J., & Kemp, R. (2003). Determinants of co-workers innovative behavior: An investigation into knowledge intensive services. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 189–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Waal, A., & Hermkens-Janssen, M. (2007). To change or not to change the budgeting process … that’s a tough question. In Paper presented at the EURAM conference, Paris.

  • Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2008). The management of technological innovation. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neil, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifler, S. (2007). Evaluating the validity of self-reported deviant behavior using vignette analyses. Quality & Quantity, 41, 303–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Elofson, G. (2000). How the packaging of decision explanations affects perceptions of trustworthiness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 80–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H., & Worthington, F. (2004). Accounting and management–labour relations: The politics of production in the factory with a problem. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 269–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3, 441–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 32, 195–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fichter, K. (2009). Innovation communities: The role of networks of promotors in open innovation. R&D Management, 39(4), 357–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2010). Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 455–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2010). Entrepreneurial alertness and opportunity discovery: Origins, attributes, critique. In H. Landström & F. Lohrke (Eds.), Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research. Aldershot, U.K.: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., Pedersen, T., Pyndt, J., & Schultz, M. (2012). Innovating organization & management. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, B. P., & Ward, T. J. (1994). Theory of perpetual management accounting innovation lag in hierarchical organizations. Accounting, Organization and Society, 19, 401–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R. P, Jr, & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohman, A. L. (1997). Igniting organizational change from below: The power of personal initiative. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer, H. (2011). Exploring the contribution of management innovation to the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 1238–1250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(February), 72–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harder, M. (2011). Internal determinants of product innovation and management innovation: The effect of diagnostic capability and implementation capability. Working Paper, CBS, Denmark.

  • Harrison, G., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2007). Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109, 341–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J., & Kirchmann, E. (2001). Teamwork for innovation—The ‘Troika’ of promotors. R&D Management, 31, 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007a). Readiness for organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 232–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D. T., Rutherford, M. W., & Clohessy, G. R. (2007b). Corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical look at individual characteristics, context, and process. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. M. (2005). The right stuff: Identifying and developing effective champions of innovation. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 108–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of product innovations: Defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 641–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, F., & Hage, J. (1982). Organizing for innovation: Beyond burns and stalker’s organic type. Sociology, 16, 564–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy as practice: Research directions and resources. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapteyn, A., & Teppa, F. (2002). Subjective measures of risk aversion and portfolio choice. RAND Working Paper Series and Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

  • Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 689–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98, 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleysen, R. F., & Street, C. T. (2001). Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 284–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(March–April), 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, J., & Linder, S. (2012). Organizational control and work effort—Another look at the interplay of rewards and motivation. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 591–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, W. E. K., Greener, J. M., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Assessing organizational readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 197–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder, S. (2010). Studying micro-level phenomena in strategic management: How ecologically valid are findings from vignette experiments? In 30th annual conference of the Strategic Management Society, Rome.

  • Lonti, Z. (2005). How much decentralization? Managerial autonomy in the Canadian public service. American Review of Public Administration, 35, 122–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmi, T. (1999). Activity-based costing diffusion across organizations: An exploratory empirical analysis of Finnish firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 649–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. New York, NY and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (2003). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 81(January), 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeus, M., & Edquist, C. (2006). Introduction to part I. In J. Hage & M. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation, science, and institutional change (pp. 1–37). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner, J. B., & Dachler, H. P. (1973). Personnel attitudes and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 379–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1269–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirable response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 131–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naranjo-Gil, D., Maas, V. S., & Hartmann, F. G. H. (2009). How CFOs determine management accounting innovation: An examination of direct and indirect effects. European Accounting Review, 18, 667–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickel, S., Nicolitsas, D., & Patterson, M. (2001). Does doing badly encourage management innovation? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63, 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rank, J., Pace, V. L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psychology, 53, 518–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosner, M. M. (1968). Economic determinants of organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 614–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., & Anderson, A. B. (1982). The factorial survey approach: An introduction. In P. H. Rossi & S. L. Nock (Eds.), Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach (pp. 15–67). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauermann, H., & Cohen, W. M. (2010). What makes them tick: Employee motives and firm innovation. Management Science, 56, 2134–2153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffenbauer, A. (1974). Effects of observer’s emotional state on judgements of the emotional state of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalt, H.-D., & Heckhausen, H. (2010). Machtmotivation. In: J. Heckhausen, & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation und Handeln (4th edn., pp. 211–236). Berlin: Springer.

  • Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inventions. Harvard Business Review, 41, 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (1995). Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation championing roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 251–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stjernberg, T., & Philips, Å. (1993). Organizational innovations in a long-term perspective: Legitimacy and souls-of-fire as critical factors of change and viability. Human Relations, 46, 1193–1219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74 (May–June), 86–92.

  • Teece, D. J. (1980). The diffusion of an administrative innovation. Management Science, 26, 464–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial & Corporate Change, 3, 537–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks & Cole Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2012). Management innovation and leadership: The moderating role of organization size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vithessonthi, C., & Schwaninger, M. (2008). Job motivation and self-confidence for learning and development as predictors of support for change. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 5, 141–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallander, L. (2009). Twenty-five years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38, 505–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector—Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 387–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witte, E. (1977). Power and innovation: A two-center theory. International Studies of Management and Organization, 7, 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi, I. (2003). The relationships among individual differences, needs and equity sensitivity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 324–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 602–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The paper benefitted from helpful comments by three anonymous reviewers, Robert Burgelman, Steven Floyd, Nicolai J. Foss, Lars Frederiksen, Mie Harder, Torben Pedersen, Larissa Rabbiosi, Mia Reinholt, and the participants of the 5th EIASM Conference on Performance Measurement and Management and the CBS Conference on Management Innovation. We are also highly indebted to the participants in our study who provided us with the data underlying the present article as well as for Kunz and Linder (2012). Parts of the work were carried out during Stefan Linder’s previous affiliation with Copenhagen Business School’s Department for Strategic Management & Globalization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESSEC Business School, Paris, France

    Stefan Linder

  2. Goethe-University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

    Jennifer Kunz

Authors
  1. Jennifer Kunz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Linder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Linder.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Situational factors

Participation

Your supervisors emphasize the participation of employees in decision processes and often ask for your opinion when setting work targets

Your supervisors commonly decide on work-related aspects on their own and rarely ask for your opinion or try to understand your perspective

Competence acceptance

However/Moreover, your work often gives you the feeling of being proficient, as you frequently experience success in attaining your project’s objectives

However/Moreover, your work seldom gives you the feeling of being proficient, as you hardly experience success in attaining your project’s objectives

Autonomy

Additionally, in many situations you can decide on your own on the time and the way of performing your work and do not have to consult your supervisor

Additionally, you often have to follow preset steps and procedures or to consult your supervisor if you want to deviate from them

Climate of work

You feel as an accepted part of the company, as it is characterized by a close and cooperative relationship between employees

In your company, you feel just as one out of many employees, as it is characterized by a rather anonymous relationship between employees

Promotion rules

Promotions to more powerful and influential positions are mainly based on the exhibited level of performance on a job

Your company has a practice of allocating power and influence without taking performance into account, but rather to rely on seniority

Predictability/reliability

Finally, your company has a notable tradition of reliability and trustworthiness towards its employees and you can trust the company on getting a promised reward (e.g., salary increases)

Finally, your company has no tradition of reliability and trustworthiness towards its employees: It rarely provides promised rewards (e.g., salary increases) and you do not truly trust the company on getting a promised reward

Monetary incentives

Your wage has no variable, performance-based component. It is a fixed salary

Your wage has a very low variable component, i.e., 5 % variation according to your performance level. The remaining 95 % are fixed

Your wage is based to a high degree on your performance. Only 50 % are fixed, the other 50 % depend on your performance level

Affiliative incentives

Your superiors, colleagues, and co-workers strongly reward good performance on a job through strengthening personal ties with you and honoring your performance

In your company it is generally accepted to keep your performance level within a moderate range. Performance has only a weak influence on friendships and social membership

Appendix 2: Scales used to measure subjects’ needs (nAch and nPow)

Appendix 3: Scales used to assess attitudes to change and risk

Appendix 4: Scales used to measure intention for management innovation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kunz, J., Linder, S. With a view to make things better: individual characteristics and intentions to engage in management innovation. J Manag Gov 19, 525–556 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-013-9280-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-013-9280-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation