Victimizing innovative employees: joint roles of in-role behavior and task interdependence

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine how an employee’s engagement in innovative behavior (IB) can lead to the experience of aggressive actions from other members of an organization and the joint roles of employee in-role performance and task interdependence in this relationship. Design/methodology/approach A field study conducted among a diverse sample of employees working in various industries provided converging evidence for the theorized predictions. The sample of 204 full-time employees is included in the analyses. Findings The results confirmed that innovative employees can be targets of victimization in an organization and employees’ high in-role performance and high task interdependence jointly moderate the negative relationship between innovative performance and victimization. Research limitations/implications The current study should be evaluated in light of some limitations, such as single-source data and the use of cross-sectional data. Practical implications It is advised that innovative individuals should accomplish their required duties in highly task-interdependent contexts to avoid harmful responses from peers. Managers should be aware of the potential negative side of IB. The data involving various industries provide evidence for the generalizability of the research findings and conclusions. Originality/value This paper advances the understanding of the consequences of creative behavior by examining the unexplored aspect that innovative employees can become victims of peer mistreatments. It also expands the understanding of negative outcomes of engaging in creativity by concurrently examining moderating roles of in-role behavior and task interdependence.

Employee innovative behavior and workplace wellbeing: Leader support for innovation and coworker ostracism as mediators

“…However, little attention was paid to employees’ innovative behavior as an antecedent, and only few studies discussed the positive influence of employees’ innovative behavior on organizational performance ( Laforet, 2011 ; Aryee et al, 2012 ). In addition, some studies have started to focus on the dark side of employees’ innovative behavior in recent years ( Hammond et al, 2019 ; Ng and Wang, 2019 ; Nguyen and Le, 2019 ; Breidenthal et al, 2020 ; Dadaboyev et al, 2021 ), but the relationship between innovative behavior and employee wellbeing was ignored. Only one study presented a conceptual model of how to moderate the negative effects of employee creativity on wellbeing ( Mustafa and Ramos, 2018 ).…”

“…Moreover, although the results show that employee innovative behavior has a positive influence on leader support for innovation, future research could investigate the acceptance of different leadership orientations (mastery orientation vs. performance orientation) on employee innovative behavior. In addition, future research may consider the effects of moderating variables, such as innovative style, organizational context ( Janssen et al, 2004 ), task interdependence ( Dadaboyev et al, 2021 ), and LMX ( Nelson, 2017 ; Breidenthal et al, 2020 ). For instance, employees with a high-quality LMX relationship may be more ostracized by their coworkers and be more supported by their leaders.…”

“…Coworkers have been considered particularly likely referents to be used in the workplace, especially when assessing performance in innovative activities ( Mumford, 1983 ). Specifically, the successful performance of an employee (e.g., innovative behavior) triggers negative upward comparisons with coworkers, and such unfavorable comparisons with peers can lead to increased coworker envy and coworker ostracism ( Breidenthal et al, 2020 ; Dadaboyev et al, 2021 ), thus reducing employees’ workplace wellbeing.…”

“…From this point of view, employee innovative behavior may lead to coworker ostracism. Meanwhile, from the perspective of social comparison, employee innovative behaviors are prone to generate social comparison, unlike intra-role behaviors, which are specified in role regulations and recognized by formal reward systems ( Dadaboyev et al, 2021 ). In this case, members in the same team tend to compare themselves with their coworkers to determine their own attributes, and coworkers engaging in considerable innovative behavior are equivalent to setting a good example for the team.…”

“…Thus, most studies focused on the antecedents of employee innovative behavior to explore how to facilitate such behavior but rarely examined its outcomes. In the literature on the outcomes of employee innovative behavior, most studies focused on the benefits of such behavior to individuals or organizations, and recently, the dark side of employee innovative behavior or creativity has been gaining attention ( Janssen, 2003 ; Janssen et al, 2004 ; Aryee et al, 2012 ; Harari et al, 2016 ; Kim and Koo, 2017 ; Hammond et al, 2019 ; Ng and Wang, 2019 ; Nguyen and Le, 2019 ; Breidenthal et al, 2020 ; Coad et al, 2021 ; Dadaboyev et al, 2021 ). For example, Aryee et al (2012) and Kim and Koo (2017) proved the existence of a positive correlation between employee innovative behavior and job performance.…”