Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring success conditions for innovative performance through Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): does job autonomy matter?

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, innovation has become a major concern for public sector organizations. In higher education institutions, new public management (NPM) is increasing the expectations of individual output, results and efficiency. This requires academic staff to be increasingly innovative in research and teaching. Based on an enabling work environment (an activity analysis approach), this article examines the relationship between professional autonomy and innovative performance. A qualitative study was conducted among French universities, and a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was conducted to explore the resource configurations leading to innovative performance. More specifically, we show how professional autonomy combined with various resources (individual, social and organizational) can lead to innovative performance.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbas, M., & Raja, U. (2015). Impact of psychological capital on innovative performance and job stress. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L’administration, 32(2), 128–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, M., & Koch, A. K. (2017). Expanding the job demands-resources model to classify innovation-predicting working conditions. Management Revue, 28(2), 175–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alain, B., & Anne, G. (1992). L’enquête et ses méthodes : l’entretien. Nathan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations : A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, Y., Silla, J. M. P., Tordera, N., Lorente, L., & Yeves, J. (2017). Job satisfaction and innovative performance in young spanish employees : Testing new patterns in the happy-productive worker thesis—A discriminant study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(5), 1377–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction : A motivational basis of performance and weil-being in two work settings 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baard, S. K., Rench, T. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Performance adaptation : A theoretical integration and review. Journal of Management, 40(1), 48–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory : Implications for employee well-being and performance. Handbook of well-being.

  • Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(2), 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardin, L. (1977). L’analyse de contenu. PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudry de Vaux, M. D. N., Ceccaldi, S., de Lassus, I., Crine, G., & Tissot, F. (2001). Gilbert de Terssac, Autonomie dans le travail, Paris, P.U.F., (Sociologie d’aujourd’hui), 1992. Formation Emploi, 76(1), 124–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, W., Song, W., & Zhao, S. (2013). An empirical study on the effects of creative personality and job autonomy on individual innovation performance of knowledge workers. International Business and Management, 6(2), 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 39–73). Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, C., Shang, L., & Meng, Q. (2020). Applying the job demands-resources model to exploring predictors of innovative teaching among university teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 103009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanson, G., Demil, B., Lecocq, X., & Sprimont, P.-A. (2005). La place de l’analyse qualitative comparée en sciences de gestion. Finance Contrôle Stratégie, 8(3), 29–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle, F. (2018). Risques psychosociaux et Qualité de Vie au Travail. Dunod.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charles-Pauvers, B., Commeiras, N., Peyrat-Guillard, D., & Roussel, P. (2007). Chapitre 3. La performance individuelle au travail et ses déterminants psychologiques. In Gestion des performances au travail (pp. 97–150). De Boeck Supérieur.

  • Chevalier, F., Dejoux, C., & Poilpot-Rocaboy, G. (2018). Éditorial : Management et innovations pédagogiques: un nouvel axe de recherche pour les enseignants-chercheurs en GRH. @ GRH, (1), 9–21

  • Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance : Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corteel, D., & Zimmermann, B. (2007). Capabilities and professional development. Formation Emploi, 2, 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coutarel, F., & Petit, J. (2009). Le réseau social dans l’intervention ergonomique : Enjeux pour la conception organisationnelle. Management Avenir, 7, 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahiru, L., & Opeyemi, D.-S. (2020). Innovativeness and Research Productivity of Academic Staff in Kaduna State University, Nigeria International Journal of academic libraries Info. Sci, 8(10), 324–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, C. (2004). A passion for teaching. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Block, D., & Vis, B. (2019). Addressing the challenges related to transforming qualitative into quantitative data in qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 503–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, D., & Pereira, R. (2019). Resilient employees are creative employees, when the workplace forces them to be. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(3), 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H., Niesen, W., & Van Hootegem, G. (2014). On the relation of job insecurity, job autonomy, innovative work behaviour and the mediating effect of work engagement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 318–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations : The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Depeyre, C., & Vergne, J.-P. (2019). In Méthodes de recherche qualitatives innovantes (pp. 262‑279). Economica.

  • Everaere, C. (1999). Autonomie et collectifs de travail. ANACT, collection points de repère.

  • Everaere, C. (2001). L’autonomie dans le travail : Portée et limites. Revue française de gestion, 15–26.

  • Everaere, C. (2007). Proposition d’un outil d’évaluation de l’autonomie dans le travail. Revue Française De Gestion, 11, 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallery, B., & Rodhain, F. (2007). Quatre approches pour l'analyse de données textuelles : lexicale, linguistique, cognitive, thématique. Talk presented at XVI ème Conférence de l'Association Internationale de Management Stratégique AIMS.

  • Falzon, P. (2013). Pour une ergonomie constructive. In P Falzon (Dir.), Ergonomie constructive (pp. 1–15). Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falzon, P. (2005). Ergonomie, conception et développement. Talk presented at Conférence introductive, 40ème Congrès de la SELF.

  • George, J. M. (2007). 9 Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context : Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. London, UK: Weidenf Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoire, M. (2019). L’autonomie et le travail non subordonné en coopérative d’activité et d’emploi : Une analyse critique (Published doctoral dissertation). France: Lille.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance : Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159.

    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(1), 90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harari, M. B., Reaves, A. C., & Viswesvaran, C. (2016). Creative and innovative performance : A meta-analysis of relationships with task, citizenship, and counterproductive job performance dimensions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 495–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128.Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287–302

  • Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javed, B., Khan, A. K., Arjoon, S., Mashkoor, M., Haque, A., & ul. (2020). Openness to experience, ethical leadership, and innovative work behavior. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(1), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jundt, D. K., Shoss, M. K., & Huang, J. L. (2015). Individual adaptive performance in organizations: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S53–S71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshnaw, S., & Alavi, H. (2020). Examining the Interrelation Between Job Autonomy and Job Performance : A Critical Literature Review. Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering, 3(1), 606–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knights, D., & Willmott, H. C. (2002). Autonomy as Utopia or Dystopia. In M. Parker (Ed.), 59–81, Utopia and Organization, Sociological Review Monograph, 50. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, Y., Ko, H., Chung, Y., & Woo, C. (2021). Do gender equality and work–life balance matter for innovation performance ? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(2), 148–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing ? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance : An extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leclerc, J.-S., Masciotra, V., Boudrias, J. S., & Montani, F. (2020). Vers une conceptualisation intégrative des mécanismes explicatifs liant la santé psychologique à la performance de tâche et innovante au travail. Sciences & Bonheur, 4(1), 30–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leclerc, J.-S. (2018). L’apport de la santé psychologique à la performance de tâche et innovante : Vérification de mécanismes cognitif, motivationnel et social au sein de divers contextes d’emploi. (Published doctoral dissertation). Montréal, Canada.

  • Li, T., Liang, W., Yu, Z., & Dang, X. (2020). Analysis of the Influence of Entrepreneur’s Psychological Capital on Employee’s Innovation Behavior Under Leader-Member Exchange Relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. G., Brockner, J., Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2017). The dark side of experiencing job autonomy : Unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 222–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascareño, J., Rietzschel, E., & Wisse, B. (2020). Envisioning innovation : Does visionary leadership engender team innovative performance through goal alignment? Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(1), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski, W. C. Borman (Ed), D. R. Ilgen (Ed), & R. J. Klimoski (Ed) (Éds.), Handbook of psychology : Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12. (pp. 39‑53). Wiley.

  • Nande, F. (2018). Identités multiples d’un salarié, bien-être au travail et performance individuelle au travail : Une étude auprès des enseignants-chercheurs de l’Université Française (Published doctoral dissertation). France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee Creativity : Personal and Contextual Factors at Work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulakos, E. D., Dorsey, D. W., & White, S. S. (2006). Adaptability in the workplace : Selecting an adaptive workforce. Understanding adaptability : A prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments (41–71). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research : Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry : Fuzzy sets and beyond (Vol. 240). Wiley Online Library.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renault, E. (2013). Autonomie Et Identité Au Travail. Travailler, 2, 125–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rihoux, B., Marx, A., & Álamos-Concha, P. (2014). 25 années de QCA (Qualitative Comparative Analysis): Quel chemin parcouru? Revue Internationale De Politique Comparée, 21(2), 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripouteau, M. (2003). Vers une conceptualisation de l’autonomie du travail : L’hétérautonomie professionnelle : l’expérience d’une entreprise" multi-artisanale" en réseau (Published doctoral dissertation). Lyon, France.

  • Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (2014). Adapting to rapid changes at work : Definitions, measures and research. In D. Chan & D. Chan (Eds.), Individual adaptability to changes at work : New directions in research. (pp. 3‑17). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior : A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and capabilities. OUP Catalogue.

  • 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(6), 933–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sisodia, S., & Das, I. (2013). Effect of job autonomy upon organizational commitment of employees at different hierarchical level. Psychological Thought, 6(2), 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2002). Performance concepts and performance theory. Psychological Management of Individual Performance, 23(1), 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sripirabaa, B., & Maheswari, S. T. (2015). Individual creativity : Influence of job autonomy and willingness to take risk. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 12(4), 110–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, F., & Zhang, J. (2020). Proactive personality and innovative behavior : A moderated mediation model. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 48(3), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamunomiebi, M. D., & Oyibo, C. (2020). Work-Life Balance and Employee Performance : A Literature Review. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 5(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative Self-Efficacy : Its Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 11371148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theurer, C. P., Tumasjan, A., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter? PloS one, 13(10), e0204089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troesch, L. M., & Bauer, C. E. (2017). Second career teachers : Job satisfaction, job stress, and the role of self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ul Haq, M. A., Usman, M., & Hussain, J. (2017). Enhancing employee innovative behavior: The moderating effects of organizational tenure. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 11(3), 814–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valcour, M., Ollier-Malaterre, A., Matz-Costa, C., Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Brown, M. (2011). Influences on employee perceptions of organizational work–life support : Signals and resources. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 588–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Véro, J., & Zimmermann, B. (2018). À la recherche de l’organisation capacitante: Quelle part de liberté dans le travail salarié? Savoirs, 2, 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Gomel, C. et Delgoulet, C. (2016). Des compétences au capabilités pour réinterroger les possibilités de développement du sujet. Dans S. Fernagu-Oudet et C. Batal (dir.), (R)évolution du management des ressources humaines. Des compétences aux capabilités (p. 393–408). Lille : Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wassouo, E. A., Tchagnéno, C. L. G., & Sima, M. N. (2020). Les exigences et ressources de travail comme déterminants des comportements d’innovation au travail et des intentions d’entreprendre chez les enseignants des collèges et lycées du Cameroun. Psychologie Du Travail Et Des Organisations, 26(4), 314–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M.-L. (2020). Transformation numérique de l’activité et dynamique d’influence sur les salariés : Une étude prospective d’usage de la réalité virtuelle dans l’enseignement supérieur (Published doctoral dissertation). France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M.-L., Rodhain, F., & Fallery, B. (2019). Usage de la réalité virtuelle et développement individuel des enseignants-chercheurs. Une approche par la didactique professionnelle. Management Avenir, 6, 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and Creativity at Work. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisner, A. (1995). Understanding problem building : Ergonomic work analysis. Ergonomics, 38(3), 595–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Article  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(2), 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., Jex, S. M., Peng, Y., & Wang, D. (2017). Exploring the effects of job autonomy on engagement and creativity : The moderating role of performance pressure and learning goal orientation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(3), 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity : Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research project has been conducted with full compliance of Ethical Rules applicable for this journal. The authors declare that they did not receive any financial support from any organization for the submitted work: no funds, grants, or other support was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Montpellier, Montpellier Research in Management, Montpellier, France

    Florence Nande, Marie-Laure Weber & Stéphanie Bouchet

Authors
  1. Florence Nande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie-Laure Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stéphanie Bouchet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Nande.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors of the manuscript declare that they have no conflict of interest. They have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Informed Consent

Participation in the research was voluntary, and informed consent has been discussed with all participants.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”

All authors whose names appear on the submission made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nande, F., Weber, ML. & Bouchet, S. Exploring success conditions for innovative performance through Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): does job autonomy matter?. Public Organiz Rev 22, 1257–1277 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00573-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00573-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation