Do Constraints Limit Employees’ Innovative Behavior? Interpretation Based on Constraint Typing

Abstract

Abstract: Constraints help organizations achieve goals and operate efficiently, while employees' innovation drives the organization's sustainable development. However, two basic ideas are currently being adopted in research in the innovation literature. One is that employees' innovative behavior is the expression of subjective ideas. Only when employees can express their thoughts and put them into action without any misgivings can organization seffectively stimulate employees' innovative behavior. Therefore, the organization should provide an atmosphere as loose and free as possible and minimize the constraints on employees so as to stimulate their innovative behavior. The other is that constraints do not always inhibit employees' creativity. Appropriate constraints under specific mechanisms are more conducive to employees' innovative behavior.
In view of the ubiquity of constraints and the importance of innovative behavior to organizational development in practice, this paper explores the mechanism of constraints promoting employees' innovative behavior. Based on this, it further examines how constraints promote employees' innovation and the interaction between different constraint types so as to guide the organization better.
Based on the concept of Levers of Control and with the help of the 7S model, constraints can be classified into belief, interaction, boundary, and diagnostic constraints, which can be further divided into soft and hard constraints. Belief constraints focus on organizational values and culture. Interaction constraints emphasize that managers regularly participate in subordinates' interactions and guide subordinates' behaviors. Boundary constraints limit employees' behaviors and help employees avoid risks. Diagnostic constraints regulate behaviors by monitoring operations and results with predetermined goals. Among them, belief and interaction constraints are classified as soft constraints, while boundary and diagnostic constraints are classified as hard constraints. From the analysis of the survey data of 210 employees, this study discovers the differentiated paths oftwo kinds of constraints influencing employees' innovative behavior and the complementary relationship between them. Soft constraints affect employees' innovative behavior through empowerment and behavior modeling, respectively, while hard constraints positively moderate them. Specifically, Soft constraints encourage innovative values to form a creative atmosphere, support employees' innovative behaviors through interaction, and build employees' psychological perception of empowerment. According to the self-determination theory, Empowered employees can build up their sense of self-determination, which will in turn stimulate their innovative behavior. The creative atmosphere under the constraint of belief provides behavior modeling for employees and strengthens their innovation desire, while the interaction of managers enhances the recognition of innovative behavior. These modelings stimulate employees' promotion focus. Hard constraints in the organization help employees avoid uncertainty in the innovation process through risk behavior avoidance and correction and enhance the guidance of soft constraints on innovative behavior.
By introducing two variables of empowerment and behavior demonstration, this study reveals the influence mechanism of soft constraints influencing employees' innovative behavior and the complementary relationship between soft constraints and hard constraints in promoting employees' innovative behavior. Soft constraints promote innovation through employees' perception of empowerment and clear behavior demonstration, while hard constraints further strengthen this positive effect. Employees' innovative behavior is based on the comprehensive impact of various constraints. In practice, managers should attach great importance to the integration of rule-making and guidance in stimulating employees' innovation and give full play to the role of behavior demonstration.

Key words: Soft Constraints, Hard Constraints, Employees' Innovative Behavior, Empowerment, Behavior Modeling

摘要： 约束会限制员工创新行为吗？为揭示约束与员工创新行为之间的关系,本文借助7S模型将信念约束、边界约束、纠偏约束及互动约束划分为软约束和硬约束两类,其中,信念约束和互动约束归类为软约束,边界约束和纠偏约束归类为硬约束。通过对210名员工的有效样本进行数据分析,文章发现了两类约束影响员工创新行为的差异化路径。具体而言,以创新为核心的软约束分别通过赋权、行为示范影响员工创新行为,硬约束正向调节软约束与员工创新行为之间的关系。在促进员工创新行为方面,软约束和硬约束之间存在互补关系。通过挖掘不同约束对员工创新行为的作用机制,为管理者厘清约束的作用、更好地激发员工创新提供启示。

关键词: 软约束, 硬约束, 员工创新行为, 赋权, 行为示范

CLC Number:

F272.9

ZHANG Jianyu, SHANG Xiangqiao, GAO Hui, YANG Xu. Do Constraints Limit Employees’ Innovative Behavior? Interpretation Based on Constraint Typing[J]. Collected Essays on Finance and Economics, 2023, 39(4): 91-101.

张建宇, 商祥巧, 高辉, 杨旭. 约束限制员工创新行为吗？——基于约束类型化的解读[J]. 财经论丛, 2023, 39(4): 91-101.

References

[1]Amabile T. M. How to Kill Creativity [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1998, 76(5): 76-87.
[2]Amabile T. M., Pratt M. G. The Dynamic Componential Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations: Making Progress, Making Meaning [J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2016, 36: 157-183.
[3]Rosso B. D. Creativity and Constraints: Exploring the Role of Constraints in the Creative Processes of Research and Development Teams [J]. Organization Studies, 2014, 35(4): 551-585.
[4]Acar O. A., Tarakci M., Van Knippenberg D. Creativity and Innovation under Constraints: A Cross-disciplinary Integrative Review [J]. Journal of Management, 2019, 45(1): 96-121.
[5]刘新梅, 赵旭, 陈玮奕. 流程正式化一定妨碍创造力吗——知识治理与环境不确定性的作用 [J]. 科学学研究, 2017, 5(2): 198-205, 239.
[6]Tsai C. Y., Chang Y. H., Lo C. L. Learning under Time Pressure: Learners Who Think Positively Achieve Superior Learning Outcomes from Creative Teaching Methods Using Picture Books [J]. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2018, 27: 55-63.
[7]Speklé R. F., van Elten H. J., Widener S. K. Creativity and Control: A Paradox-Evidence from the Levers of Control Framework [J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 2017, 29(2): 73-96.
[8]Simons R. How New Top Managers Use Control Systems as Levers of Strategic Renewal [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1994, 15(3): 169-189.
[9]Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior [M]. New York: Plenum, 1985.
[10]Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-determination of Behavior [J]. Psychological Inquiry, 2000, 11(4): 227-268.
[11]Higgins E. T. Beyond Pleasure and Pain [J]. American Psychologist, 1997, 52(12): 1280-1330.
[12]Brockner J., Higgins E. T. Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2001, 86(1): 35-66.
[13]Peters T. J., Waterman Jr., Robert H. How the Best-Run Companies Turn So-So Performers into Big Winners [J]. Management Review, 1982, 71(11): 8-16.
[14]Simons R. Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1995, 9(2): 82-84.
[15]Wilkins A. L., Ouchi W. G. Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship between Culture and Organizational Performance [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28(3): 468-481.
[16]Sanz-Valle R., Naranjo-Valencia J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez D., et al. Linking Organizational Learning with Technical Innovation and Organizational Culture [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2011, 15(6): 997-1015.
[17]Alge B. J., Ballinger G. A., Tangirala S., et al. Information Privacy in Organizations: Empowering Creative and Extrarole Performance [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91(1): 221-232.
[18]Sun L. Y., Zhang Z., Qi J., et al. Empowerment and Creativity: A Cross-Level Investigation [J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 2012, 23(1): 55-65.
[19]Thomas K. W., Velthouse B. A. Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1990, 15(4): 666-681.
[20]李正卫, 曹雅婷, 王飞绒. 领导授权赋能与员工创造力的关系研究: 个体和情境因素的影响 [J]. 浙江社会科学, 2019, (8): 34-40, 156.
[21]Ebers M., Maurer I. Connections Count: How Relational Embeddedness and Relational Empowerment Foster Absorptive Capacity [J]. Research Policy, 2014, 43(2): 318-332.
[22]Avery D. R., Richeson J. A., Hebl M. R., et al. It Does Not Have to be Uncomfortable: The Role of Behavioral Scripts in Black-White Interracial Interactions [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2009, 94(6): 1382-1393.
[23]李磊, 尚玉钒. 基于调节焦点理论的领导对下属创造力影响机理研究 [J]. 南开管理评论, 2011, (5): 4-11, 40.
[24]Augsdorfer P. A Diagnostic Personality Test to Identify Likely Corporate Bootleg Researchers [J]. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2012, 16(1): 1-18.
[25]Heinicke A., Guenther T. W., Widener S. K. An Examination of the Relationship between the Extent of a Flexible Culture and the Levers of Control System: The Key Role of Beliefs Control [J]. Management Accounting Research, 2016, 33: 25-41.
[26]Wilke G. D. Control Valve Having Pressure Boundary Integrity Diagnostic Capabilities, Method of Making the Control Valve, and Method of Using the Control Valve [Z]. Google Patents, 2013.
[27]Goncalo J. A., Chatman J. A., Duguid M. M., et al. Creativity from Constraint? How the Political Correctness Norm Influences Creativity in Mixed-Sex Work Groups [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2015, 60(1): 1-30.
[28]张鹏程, 刘文兴, 廖建桥. 魅力型领导对员工创造力的影响机制: 仅有心理安全足够吗? [J]. 管理世界, 2011, (10): 94-107.