Positive Deviance as a Mediator in the Relationship Between High Performance Indicators and Entrepreneurial Orientation

Abstract

The research was carried out on a representative and random sample of 406 enterprises using multi-source cross-sectional design. The main analytical technique is structural equations modelling. Findings: The impact of high performance indicators on positive deviance is somehow ambiguous. Some of the factors influence positive deviance in a positive way (continuous improvement, openness and action orientation, management quality) and some in a negative way (workforce quality, long-term orientation). Positive deviance has a positive effect on all three dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation. However, rather unexpectedly, the effect is the weakest for innovativeness. The study revealed general indirect effect of high performance factors on dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation with the mediation of positive deviance. Implications & Recommendations: The study has implications for research and practice. It partly explains the effects of high performance indicators for organisational entrepreneurship. Companies that are in pursuit of higher organisational entrepreneurship can use it as a good way of supporting it. Contribution & Value Added: The study contributes to research on high performance and entrepreneurship mainly by drawing attention to positive deviance as a mediator in the effect of high performance factors on organisational entrepreneurship. Article type: research article

Positive deviance at work: a systematic review and directions for future research

“…Dick and Scheffel (2015) findings also confirm that positive deviance is positively associated with entrepreneurial networking/orientation. These results differ from Zbierowski (2019) that have examined the relationship between positive deviance and entrepreneurial orientation. Despite growing interest in positive deviance, little remains known due to contrasting results.…”

“…Covin and Slevin (1988) argue that deviance is at the heart of entrepreneurship, as they focus on introducing new, bringing about change to compete in the market. Recently, Zbierowski (2019) have examined the positive effect of positive deviance and entrepreneurial orientation. The entrepreneurial orientation is better understood through innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking.…”

Organizational Agility, Competitive Capabilities, and the Performance of Health Care Organizations During the Covid-19 Pandemic

“…One key contrivance through which operational competitive capabilities operates is by increasing the speed, value, and effectiveness in which the organization functions, thus giving it high performance (Drnevich and Kriauciunas, 2011). The construct of highperformance indicators demands the proper implementation of agility (Zbierowski, 2019). Thus, the strategic support of organizational entrepreneurial processes that stimulate value creation generating innovative ideas stimulates innovations and leadership in changing envi ronment through organizational design (Dyduch, 2019).…”

The meta-analysis of organisational deviant behaviours research: past, present, and future

“…A wide range of different conditions and factors (the results of experimental and theoretical studies) causes positive deviant behaviours in the organisation. These factors include organisational justice, moral identity (direct effect) (Cohen and Ehrlich, 2019), group identification (including the indirect effect: through the role of mediator risk-taking intention), risk taking (including direct effect and the role of mediator) (Kim and Choi, 2018), intrinsic motivation, courage, personal efficacy (including direct effect and the role of mediator) (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2003), workaholism (direct effect) (Galperin and Burke, 2006), holistic approach to resource use, eager commitment to social or moral aim, better risk management (direct effect) (Seidman and McCauley, 2008), self-worth, transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, supervisor support and openness, felt obligation, non-controlling supervision, attachment to group, leader-member exchange, positive job attitudes, organisational culture and climate, organisational support, innovative cognitive style, efficacy of action, procedural justice, extraversion, group culture and norms, proactive personality, co-worker support (direct effect) (Vadera et al , 2013), psychological empowerment and competence in the workplace (direct effect) (Spreitzer and Doneson, 2005; Appelbaum et al , 2007; Mertens et al , 2016a, 2016b; Vadera et al , 2013), facilitative communication, active communication, technical information, appropriate information, provide of requested information, provide of accurate information, provide of unsolicited information, self-efficacy, motivation, use of communication aids, knowledge and skill, role expectations (direct effect) (Kim et al , 2008), network centrality, experience of senior managers and the board of directors (direct effect: a strong correlation) (Walls and Hoffman, 2013), service orientation (direct effect) (Mertens et al , 2016a, 2016b), high status in organisation and attendance in numerous reference groups, increase in employee “self-efficacy” (both moderates and mediates), the support of colleagues, more confidence in skills (direct effect) (Galperin, 2002; Appelbaum et al , 2007), access to resources, access to information (a central contextual variable), Machiavellianism, role breath self-efficacy (direct effect) (Galperin, 2012), perceived organisational support (positive and indirect effect by organisational trust), organisational trust (direct effect and also as a mediator) (Kura et al , 2016), collective leadership, cultural change, information sharing and transparency, focus on trust and integrity, express an eager perspective (direct effect) (Lavine and Cameron, 2012) and individual differentiation, accepting social risks (direct effect) (Franzese, 2013; Kim and Choi, 2018), continuous improvement, openness and action orientation, management quality (positively and directly: without intermediaries), workforce quality, long-term orientation (negatively and directly: without intermediaries) (Zbierowski, 2019).…”

“…On the other hand, positive organisational deviant has variety of consequences for various parts of the organisation (Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Appelbaum et al , 2007). Positive deviant causes innovation (Mayanja et al , 2019; Zbierowski, 2019), pro-activeness, risk taking (Zbierowski, 2019), subjective well-being, quality of relationship between a positive deviant and the recipient(s) of positively deviant behaviour and individual and organisational performance (Cameron, 2008; Zbierowski, 2019), changing the social norms (Kim and Choi, 2018), increase of employee cohesion, providence of innovative solutions to solve the problems of the company (Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Appelbaum et al , 2007), and consequences of psychological and social for employees and organisations (Tuzun et al , 2017). One of the positive deviant behaviours, the presence (or absence) of which in today’s competitive environment can play a very important role in the success (or failure) of organisations is innovation.…”