International Journal of Manpower

Job embeddedness and employee enactment of innovation-related work behaviours

Alan Coetzer, Chutarat Inma, Paul Poisat, Janice Redmond, Craig STANDING,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Alan Coetzer, Chutarat Inma, Paul Poisat, Janice Redmond, Craig STANDING, "Job embeddedness and employee
enactment of innovation-related work behaviours", International Journal of Manpower, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJM-04-2016-0095
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2016-0095
Downloaded on: 19 March 2018, At: 09:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:215438 []
For Authors
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 1

Job embeddedness and employee enactment of innovative work behaviours

Purpose
In a highly competitive globalised environment the innovative behaviour of employees plays
a key role in the economic viability and competitive advantage of organisations. In this
context, developing our understanding of innovative work behaviour is important for the field
of individual innovation and this is the focus of the study.

Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected using a survey from 549 employees in organisations operating in four
major business centres in South Africa.

Findings
On-the-job embeddedness was positively and significantly related to innovative behaviours
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

by employees in organisations operating in diverse industries. Consistent with the view that
small organisations have a ‘behavioural’ innovation advantage over larger organisations, the
size of the organisation moderated the positive relationship between on-the-job
embeddedness and innovative behaviours. On-the-job embeddedness was more positively
related to innovative behaviours in small organisations than in medium-sized and large
organisations.

Practical implications
Employees who are highly embedded in their jobs (but not necessarily their communities) are
more likely to enact innovative behaviours than employees who are not similarly embedded.
HRM professionals and line managers can potentially foster employee innovative behaviours
through adopting strategies aimed at positively influencing the fit, links and sacrifice
dimensions of on-the-job embeddedness.

Originality/value
The study contributes to theoretical and empirical expansion of job embeddedness by
examining: (1) how work and non-work forces that attach employees to their organisations
influence their propensity to enact innovative behaviours; and (2) how organisation size
moderates the relationship between job embeddedness and innovative behaviours. The results
will help managers who wish to foster innovation.

Key words: innovation, innovative behaviours, job embeddedness, South Africa

Article classification Research paper.

Introduction
Innovation is a strategic priority for many countries and organisations (Slater et. al., 2014). In
South Africa, its priority is evident in the Department of Science and Technology’s (DST)
(2007) innovation plan titled Innovation towards a knowledge-based economy: Ten year plan
for South Africa (2008-2018). In this plan, innovation is considered to be one of four
interdependent pillars on which a knowledge-based economy rests. The country’s
transformation to a knowledge-based economy is deemed essential if the government’s
 2

developmental mandate is to be achieved and the society’s deep and pressing socio-economic
challenges (e.g., unemployment, poverty, exclusion of a large fraction of the population from
the formal economy) are to be met (DST, 2007).

Since the foundation of innovation is novel ideas (Shalley et al., 2004), and it is
people who generate, share, react to, modify and implement ideas (de Jong and den Hartog,
2010), the study of what motivates or enables innovative work behaviour (IWB) is critical
(Scott and Bruce, 1994). In this regard, studies show that employees who are highly
embedded in their jobs have a greater propensity to enact extra-role behaviours, such as
organisational citizenship (Lee et al., 2004; Lev and Koslowsky, 2012) and IWBs (Ng and
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

Feldman, 2010a), than less embedded colleagues. Job embeddedness (JE) can be defined as
“the combined forces that keep a person from leaving his or her job” (Yao et al., 2004, p.
159). JE theory (Mitchell et al., 2001) explains why people choose to stay in their work
organisations and the JE construct has two main components: on-the-job forces bind
employees to their work organisations, while off-the-job forces bind employees to their
residential communities. Community-related forces may influence individuals to decline
opportunities for inter-organisational mobility if the employment opportunity involves
geographical relocation (Feldman et al., 2012). Thus, in short, JE theory suggests that we are
tethered to our jobs and residential communities by a web of work and community-related
forces (Clinton et al., 2012).

The proposition that high job embeddedness may foster IWB is contentious. An
opposing view is that a certain amount of employee turnover is useful in reducing stagnation,
infusing creativity into the organisation and improving innovation (Abelson and Baysinger,
1984; Allen et al., 2010). Thus, further research is needed to explore what effects, if any,
embeddedness has on employee enactment of IWBs. In this regard, the present study makes
three important contributions to JE literature. First, to the best of our knowledge there is only
one other study that has investigated the relationship between JE and employee enactment of
IWBs (see Ng and Feldman, 2010a). Consequently, further studies are needed to corroborate
the purported relationship and to extend this potentially meaningful direction of theory and
research (Lee et al., 2014). Second, we contribute to the debate on innovation advantages of
large and small organisations (e.g., Bommer and Jalajas, 2004; Nieto and Santamaria, 2010)
by examining the relationship between JE and IWB in organisations of different size. Third,
the study responds to calls for further JE research in non-USA settings (e.g., Holtom et al.,
 3

2008; Tanova and Holtom, 2008). Thus, the present study begins the necessary process of
exploring the potential predictive validity of JE on IWB across nations and settings.

Theoretical background
Innovative work behaviours
In some jobs (e.g. design engineer) being innovative is in-role behaviour and thus part of the
job incumbent’s core task performance, while in most jobs being innovative is largely
discretionary, extra-role behaviour (Ng and Feldman, 2010a; 2013). Farr and Ford (1990)
describe IWB as behaviour that aims to achieve the initiation and intentional introduction of
new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures. Similarly, de Jong and den Hartog
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

(2010, p.23) refer to IWB as encompassing “a broad set of behaviours related to the
generation of ideas, creating support for them, and helping their implementation.” Literature
that discusses IWB (e.g., Scott and Bruce, 1994) frequently distinguishes between innovation
and creativity. Creativity is typically viewed as development of novel, potentially useful ideas
(Shalley et al., 2004). Although employees might share such ideas with others, it is only
when the original and potentially useful ideas are successfully implemented that the ideas are
considered to be an innovation (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Shalley et al., 2004). Therefore,
creative behaviour is just one type of IWB (Prieto and Pe´rez-Santana, 2014). In the present
study we focus exclusively on IWB.

Literature that discusses individual IWB typically views innovation as a process

comprised of three or four stages with different behaviours necessary at each stage (de Jong
and den Hartog, 2010; Scott and Bruce, 1994). These behaviours represent important ways in
which employees can contribute to innovation processes in organisations across a wide array
of organisations and industries (Ng and Feldman, 2013). For example, Scott and Bruce
(1994) outline a three-stage innovation process: (1) problem recognition and the generation of
ideas or solutions, either novel or adopted; (2) seeking sponsorship for an idea and attempting
to build a coalition of supporters for it; and (3) working toward completing the idea by trying
to realise and apply it. By contrast, de Jong and den Hartog (2010) identify four dimensions
of IWB: (1) idea exploration; (2) idea generation; (3) idea championing; and (4) idea
implementation. As Scott and Bruce (1994) have noted, innovative individuals can be
involved in any combination of the aforementioned behaviours at any one time, because
innovation processes are characterised by discontinuous activities, rather than discrete
sequential stages.
 4

Job embeddedness and innovative work behaviours

JE is a concept developed in the context of literature on voluntary employee turnover
(Mitchell et al., 2001). As a general attachment construct, JE does not seek to explain why
employees leave an organisation, but considers the broad set of influences that makes them
want to stay (Mitchell et al., 2001). Measures of JE assess an individual’s affective and
cognitive-based evaluations of the job arising internally from their work experiences (on-the-
job embeddedness) as well as externally from their social, psychological and economic
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

embeddedness in the community (off-the-job embeddedness) (Jiang et al., 2012).

Forces at play in embedding employees in their jobs include links, fit and sacrifice,
which are associated with where employees work (on-the-job) and where they reside (off-the-
job) (Lee et al., 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001). Mitchell et al. (2001, p. 1104) describe links as
“formal or informal connections between a person and institutions or other people”.
Organisational links include connections to individuals and groups within the work
organisation, and community links include interpersonal links to family, friends and
community organisations. The greater the quantity of links and the more important they are,
the more employees become embedded. Fit deals with employees’ perceptions of their
compatibility with the organisation and their community (Lee et al., 2004; Mitchell et al.,
2001). When there is a match between employees’ abilities and the job requirements, and
their professional interests and the opportunities and rewards provided by their organisation,
then JE will be increased. Similarly, JE is increased if employees perceive they fit well into
their residential community and surrounding environment. Finally, sacrifice deals with the
perceived financial, social or psychological losses associated with exiting (Mitchell et al.,
2001), which could include organisation-related sacrifices such as pay, benefits and status, as
well as community-related losses such as giving up a short commute to work and good
childcare facilities. Thus, JE is increased if the material and psychological benefits to be
sacrificed on leaving are perceived to be very substantial (Mitchell et al., 2001).

Although JE theory was originally conceived to explain why people stay and has
shown to be a robust predictor of retention (Jiang et al., 2012), JE also predicts other
important work behaviours. For example, Lee et al. (2004) argued that the threat of losing
 5

embeddedness would increase employee motivation to perform and showed that on-the-job
embeddedness was significantly predictive of job performance and organisational citizenship
behaviours. They reasoned that “because high on-the-job embeddedness reflects (1) many
links, (2) a good fit, and/or (3) consequential things that an employee gives up by quitting,
the motivation to perform should be high” (p. 714). Drawing on conservation of resources
theory (Hobfoll, 1989), Wheeler et al. (2012) conceptualised JE as a state of resource
abundance that employees invest into work effort and showed that work effort fully mediated
the relationship between on-the-job embeddedness and job performance. In short, embedded
employees have strong incentives to exert effort on their jobs and to be high performers
(Kiazad, et al., 2015; Ng and Feldman, 2010b). Lee et al. (2004) distinguish between two
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

types of performance: in-role performance, which is similar to job description specifications

of performance; and extra-role performance, which includes organisational citizenship
behaviour as part of a larger family of extra-role behaviours.

Building on this stream of theory and research, Ng and Feldman (2010a) theorised
and found evidence of a predictive effect of on-the-job embeddedness on the IWBs of a
diverse range of employees (n = 285). They argued that when employees experience high
levels of fit with the work environment they would more readily both share ideas with others
and provide constructive feedback on others’ ideas. Furthermore, in their view, embedded
employees would find it easier and faster to spread innovation across the organisation
because high on-the-job embeddedness is, in part, the result of broad and deep social
networks (or links). Finally, Ng and Feldman reasoned that to avoid the sacrifices associated
with losing a job, highly embedded employees will be motived to enact IWBs because they
would want to help ensure the economic viability and competitive advantage of their
organisation to enhance their own job security.

As noted, Ng and Feldman (2010a) included just the on-the-job component of JE in

their study of the impact of JE on IWB. This is consistent with the reasoning that the saliency
of the immediate job and organisation supersedes the more distal effects of off-the-job
embeddedness on a decision to perform extra-role work behaviours (Lee et al., 2004).
Accordingly, we propose that:

Hypothesis 1: On-the-job embeddedness will be positively related to innovative work

behaviours.
 6

Although Ng and Feldman (2010a) included just the on-the-job component of JE in

their study of the impact of JE on IWB, elsewhere they have argued that on-the-job
embeddedness and off-the-job embeddedness work in combination to affect work behaviours
and attitudes (Feldman et al., 2012). Similarly, Wheeler et al. (2012) proposed a positive
relationship between off-the-job embeddedness and job performance for two reasons. First,
employees high in off-the-job embeddedness are likely to have additional resources (i.e. time
and energy) to invest into their job performance. For example, employees who have many
and strong social ties in the community might receive extra tangible support with childcare
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

and socio-emotional support in times of family emergencies (Ng and Feldman, 2013).
Second, poor job performance potentially threatens employees’ community embeddeness,
because job loss might require geographical relocation. Therefore, employees who are highly
embedded in their communities will be motivated to engage in work behaviours that protect
what they personally value (Lee et al., 2004; Wheeler et al., 2012). Consistent with this
reasoning, Wheeler et al. (2012) found that off-the-job embeddedness predicted job
performance. Furthermore, in their review of JE, Lee et al. (2014) wrote that much can be
learned from studying the off-the-job component of JE because “almost all the studies on job
embeddedness attend to the on-the-job component, whereas only a few investigate the off-
the-job component” (p.212). Consequently, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 2: Off-the-job embeddedness will be positively related to innovative work

behaviours.

Moderator of the JE-innovative work behaviour relationship

Organisation size
The innovation advantages of large and small organisations have been a topic of much debate
(e.g., Rogers, 2004; Vossen, 1998). The consensus seems to be that large organisations have a
resource advantage, while small organisations have a behavioural advantage (Bommer and
Jalajas, 2004; Nieto and Santamaria, 2010). The main innovation advantages of large
organisations are thought to originate from their access to critical resources and capabilities
for innovation. Resource and capability advantages include: strong cash flows and access to
external finance to fund innovation; fixed costs of innovation can be spread over a large
 7

volume of sales; access to a wide range of knowledge and human capital skills; and
availability of highly skilled personnel required to conduct research and development (e.g.,
Bommer and Jalajas, 2004; Nieto and Santamaria, 2010).

On the other hand, small organisations are purported to generally enjoy internal
conditions relating to organisation and management that foster IWBs. These conditions
include: flat management structures; quick decision making; internal flexibility; ability to
react quickly to the changing business environment; lack of a silo mentality; informal
communication; minimal bureaucracy; and an entrepreneurial spirit (e.g., Bommer and
Jalajas, 2004; Freeman and Engel, 2007). Employees in small organisations who are
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

embedded in their jobs should therefore find that their work environments are conducive to
behavioural patterns which support innovation. For example, the small number of employees
and regular and personalised communication that can occur between employer and
employees (Tsai et al., 2007) should enable both dissemination of an idea throughout the
organisation and securing support for it. Furthermore, employees should be motivated to
incorporate ideas into the organisation’s products, services or practices. This is because they
know that the success of the organisation directly affects them, and because the results of
what they do are more visible to them due to comparatively shorter feedback loops in small
organisations (Wong and Aspinwall, 2004). Freeman and Engel (2007) argued that small
businesses are often set up and run by dynamic entrepreneurs that have an innovative outlook
and who are keen to develop innovations quickly. By contrast, managers in large businesses
are often risk averse due to the impact of project failures on their careers. Although large
organisations generally have access to greater resources for innovation, small businesses are
likely to use research and development finance efficiently and because they typically have
less finance to invest in innovation they have less to fear from failure.

Drawing on the foregoing arguments and Lewin’s (1951) B-P-E model which
postulates that Behaviour is a function of the interaction between Person and Environment,
we propose that:

Hypothesis 3: Organisation size will moderate the positive relationship between on-
the-job embeddedness and innovative behaviours, such that on-the-job embeddedness
will be more positively related to innovative behaviours in small organisations than in
medium-sized and large organisations.
 8

Methods

Respondents and Procedures

During 2015 we approached 90 professionals enrolled in a part-time executive MBA
programme at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in South Africa about their
voluntary participation in this study. These professionals were employed in the fields of
Engineering, Finance, Information Technology, Accounting, and Management in
organisations across a wide range of industry sectors. Following a snowball sampling
approach each of the 90 professionals were asked to recruit at least five participants from
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

their respective organisations. Potential participants were informed that participation in the
online survey was voluntary and that responses were anonymous. This resulted in 549
participants (of which 533 cases were used in the analyses) drawn from organisations
operating in four major business centres. When completing the survey all study participants
assessed their own level of embeddedness and rated their own enactment of IWBs.

Demographic profile of participants

We asked participants to indicate the size of their organisation in terms of employee numbers.
The 533 participants were split across the size options as follows: less than 50 (42.2%); 50 -
249 (23.5%); and 250 or more (34.3%). About 94 percent of the sample was employed in full
time roles. The mean organisational tenure of participants was about seven years and the
mean industry tenure was approximately nine years. In terms of gender, the sample was
almost equally split, with females (53%) being in the majority. About 76% of all participants
were under 40 years of age. Eighty five percent of the sample had a post-school qualification.

Measures
The key measures used in this study are in Appendix 1.

Independent variable:
We used a 21-item short form of the original 40-item measure published in the seminal article
by Mitchell et al. (2001). Holtom et al. (2006) developed and validated the 21-item scale
which has subsequently been successfully used by other researchers (e.g., Felps et al., 2009).
When using the short form of the JE scale respondents indicate on a five-point scale the
extent to which they agree with 18 of the 21 items. Nine of the 18 dimensional items assess
 9

respondents’ perceptions of on-the-job influences and the other nine items assess their
perceptions of off-the-job influences. Within the nine items used to assess on-the-job
influences, links, fit and sacrifice are each represented by three items. Similarly, within the
nine items used to assess off-the-job influences, links, fit and sacrifice are each represented
by three items. The remaining three questions require yes or no answers and are additional
measures of off-the-job influences. This study did not use the three dichotomous questions.
The personal nature of the items (i.e. Are you married? Does your spouse work outside the
home? Do you own a home? With, or without, a mortgage?) may be viewed as an invasion
of privacy. In this study the α reliability of the 18 item scale was 0.83. The α reliabilities for
on-the-job embeddedness and off-the-job embeddedness were 0.86 and 0.86 respectively.
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

Moderating variable
Although research has established a relationship between organisational size and a substantial
set of organisational outcomes, there is no definitive interpretation of organisational size
(Josefy et al., 2015). While definitions tend to vary by country and by industry, number of
employees is the measure most frequently used to define organisational size. In this study
respondents were asked to indicate the size of their organisation by selecting one of the
following options: less than 50 employees; 50-249 employees; or 250 or more employees.
These size categories align with the European Union staff headcount definition of firm sizes:
small (including micro enterprises) < 50 employees; medium-sized between 50 and 249
employees; and large 250 or more employees (Verheugen, 2005). This approach should
promote comparability of the present study’s results with that of other studies.

Dependent variable
To assess the respondents’ enactment of IWBs we used six items that were adapted from
measures published in de Jong and den Hartog (2010). The items reflect the four dimensions
of IWB distinguished by de Jong and den Hartog: idea exploration, idea generation, idea
championing, and idea implementation. The scale reliability for IWBs was high (α = 0.90).

The use of self-ratings of individual IWBs was deemed appropriate for essentially
three reasons. First, self-ratings of IWBs have been used in several prior studies (e.g., Ng and
Feldman, 2010a; Prieto and Pe´rez-Santana, 2014). Second, employees may be in a better
position than observers to assess how frequently and intensely they have explored, generated,
championed and implemented ideas within their organisations (Ng and Feldman, 2013;
 10

Odoardi et al., 2014). For example, supervisors may fail to capture some of their
subordinates’ IWBs by noticing only those behaviours intended to impress them (Odoardi et
al., 2014). Third, prior research (e.g., Axtell et al., 2000; Janssen, 2000) has reported
considerable convergent validity between self-ratings and supervisor-ratings of IWBs (Ng
and Feldman, 2013).

Control variables
Job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and job characteristics were
statistically controlled throughout the analyses because they potentially confound the
relationship between the focal variables in our study (i.e. JE and innovative behaviours). Job
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

satisfaction and affective organisational commitment have some overlap with organisational
(i.e. on-the-job) embeddedness. That is, these two attitudinal constructs have some
similarities to and some differences from organisational embeddedness (Mitchell et. al., 2001;
Oyler, 2014). Job characteristics was statistically controlled for two reasons. First, because it
is an important antecedent of job satisfaction (Oldham & Hackman, 2010). Second, because
job characteristics (e.g., low discretion, routine tasks versus high discretion, non-routine
tasks) affects the emergence of innovative behaviours (Scott & Bruce, 1984).

To assess job satisfaction we measured participants’ overall satisfaction with the

three-item measure used by Mitchell et al. (2001). The coefficient alpha was good (α = 0.77).
Affective organisational commitment refers to an employee’s emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in the organisation (Meyer et al., 2002). Meta-analyses
of the consequences of affective commitment show that this type of organisational
commitment is positively related to performance and organisational citizenship behaviour
(Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2002). We used six items from Meyer and Allen’s (1997)
overall organisational commitment scale to assess the affective commitment sub-dimension
of the three-dimensional scale. The coefficient alpha for this sub-scale of organisational
commitment was high (α = 0.86).

Here we focus on the problem-solving characteristics of individuals’ jobs. Problem

solving involves active cognitive processing tasks, such as generating unique or innovation-
related ideas or solutions and diagnosing and solving non-routine problems and as such it is
conceptually related to the creativity demands of work (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). To
assess the problem-solving characteristics of the respondents’ jobs we used the four-item
 11

problem-solving sub-scale within the Work Design Questionnaire that was developed and
validated by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). The coefficient alpha for this sub-scale of the
Work Design Questionnaire was high (α = 0.80).

We also assessed the following sample attributes as potential control variables: age,
gender, education, and tenure (job, organisation, and industry). Only gender, age and tenure
within the industry were related to the study variables and so these variables were included in
all the analyses. The categorical variable ‘gender’ was dummy coded (male = 0; female = 1)
to meet the assumption of regression analysis with nominal data.
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

Analytic approach
We checked initial data (549 cases) for missing values. The threshold for listwise and
pairwise deletion is flexible. The general threshold in treating missing data implies variables
or cases that have missing responses of more than ten percent may be problematic. We set a
more conservative threshold to treat missing data at five percent, whereby cases that had
more than five percent missing values were deleted. Other missing cases were treated using
the EM algorithm as recommended by Dempster et al. (1977). The results found data were
missing at random. The final number of cases used in the analyses was 533. Assumptions of
linearity, heteroscedascity and multicollineary that are necessary to conduct multiple
regression analysis were tested (Hair, 2010). Data were normal and homoscedasticity were
not found in the data. Common method bias (CMB) was assessed using Harman’s (1960)
one-factor test. All six variables were entered into an exploratory factor analysis using
unrotated principal component factor analysis to determine whether the majority of variance
could be explained by a single factor. The result indicated that one factor did not account for
the majority of the variance (26.38%). A further test to detect CMB was performed using the
common latent factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) marker technique (Williams et al.,
2010). We used the ‘job prospects’ variable as a marker variable. ‘Job prospects’ is one of
the variables in our main study that showed no or low correlations with other variables tested
in the regression model. The common latent factor CFA model produced the common
variance of seven per cent. However, the result showed a significant drop in the common
variance (6.08 %) when the marker variable ‘job prospects’ was added into the common
latent CFA model ( ∆X2 = 225, ∆d.f.= 144, p < 0.000). Thus CMB was not apparent.
 12

Three-step hierarchical regression analyses were used with interaction terms to test
the hypotheses. Following the recommendation of Aiken and West (1991), we mean centred
the predictor variables (i.e. on-the-job embeddedness and organisational size), and then
created the multiplicative term using these variables to eliminate non-essential
multicollinearity. In the first step, we entered job satisfaction, affective commitment, job
characteristics, tenure (industry), age group and gender. In the second step, we introduced on-
the-job embeddedness, off-the-job embeddedness and organisational size to test the main
effects. In the final step, we entered the interaction term between on-the-job embeddedness
and organisational size.
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

Results

Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, scale reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) and
correlations. Innovative behaviour was significantly correlated with all other variables in this
study, except off-the-job embeddedness and organisational size. Organisational size was
negatively and significantly correlated with job satisfaction (r = -.094, p < 0.05) and affective
commitment (r = -.103, p < 0.05). Off-the-job embeddedness was positively and significantly
correlated with on-the-job embeddedness (r = .150, p < 0.01), job satisfaction (r =.111, p <
0.05) and commitment (r = .154, p < 0.01). Additionally, significant positive associations
were found between on-the-job embeddedness and job satisfaction (r = .712, p < 0.01), and
on-the-job embeddedness and affective commitment (r = .686, p < 0.01). The correlation
between innovative behaviour and off-the-job embeddedness was not significant. The sample
mean for industry tenure was 9.15 years (SD = 6.83).

Table 1 also reports the results of independent-samples t-tests that were conducted to
compare male and female respondents on the following variables: innovative behaviours; on-
the-job and off-the-job embeddedness; job satisfaction; commitment; job characteristics; and
tenure in the industry. There were significant differences in the means on innovative
behaviour (t = 3.128, p = .002); on-the-job embeddedness (t = 1.989, p = .047); job
satisfaction (t = 2.062, p = .040); job characteristics (t = 3.026, p = .003); and industry tenure
(t = 2.495, p = .013).

--------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

 13

--------------------------------

Table 2 shows the results from the three-step regression analysis. The results of the
independent model provide strong support for hypothesis 1. The independent model was
significant (F9, 523 =27.592, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.322) and results indicate that most of the
variation in the independent variables and control variables was explained by the regression
equation and that the model provided a good fit (Keller et al., 1994). When job satisfaction,
affective commitment, job characteristics, tenure, age group and gender were added as
control variables, it was confirmed that high on-the-job embeddedness was related to high
levels of IWB (β = .247, p < 0.001). However, a significant relationship between off-the-job
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

embeddedness and IWB (β = -.008, ns) was not found. Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

--------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

--------------------------------

To test whether organisational size moderates the relationship between on-the-job

embeddedness and IWB, the interaction model was employed (hypothesis 3). To avoid the
potential issue of high multicollinearity with the interaction term, the variables were centered
and an interaction term between on-the-job embeddedness and organisational size was
created (Aiken and West, 1991). Step 2 of the interaction model found a significant effect of
on-the-job embeddedness on IWB (β = .278, p < 0.001), however the effect of organisational
size on IWB was not significant (β = -.004, ns). However, when the interaction term was
entered in step 3, the moderating effects were found to be significant (β = -.108, p < 0.05),
thus providing support for hypothesis 3. The interaction model was a good fitting model with
a significant F-value (F10, 522 = 26.309 , p < 0.001, R2 = 0.327). The interaction term
accounted for an additional five percent of the explained variance in IWB (∆R2 = 0.005, ∆F =
4.032, p < 0.05).

To illustrate the moderating effects, the interaction terms are graphically displayed in
Figure 1. The regression weights associated with on-the-job embeddedness and
organisational size were examined at one standard deviation below the mean, the mean level,
and one standard deviation above the mean using procedures recommended by Hayes (2012).
Examination of the interaction plot shows that the linear line of IWB along the low-high on-
the-job embeddedness continuum is steeper for small organisations than for medium-sized
 14

and large organisations. When on-the-job embeddedness is high, small organisations have the
highest levels of IWB.

------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

-------------------------------------------

Discussion

As noted, prior research has shown that on-the-job embeddedness is positively related to both
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

in-role job performance and extra-role citizenship behaviours (e.g., Lee et al., 2004; Lev and
Koslowsky, 2012). Researchers have also begun to examine implications of on-the-job
embeddedness for employee enactment of extra-role, IWBs (Ng and Feldman, 2010a). This is
a potentially meaningful research direction, because research is most needed in contexts
where innovation efforts are part of employees’ extra-role job performance, rather than in
contexts of innovation-oriented jobs (de Jong and den Hartog, 2010). Furthermore, as de Jong
and den Hartog (2010, p. 34) have observed, “understanding innovative work behaviour is
important for the field of individual innovation.” Research which examines relationships
between JE and IWBs may contribute to such an understanding.

Results of our study provide several theoretical and empirical contributions to this
research direction. First, we contribute to JE theory by providing evidence of a positive
relationship between on-the-job embeddedness and employee enactment of IWBs in South
African organisations. In contrast, our results suggest that off-the-job embeddedness is not
significantly associated with employee enactment of IWBs. Second, we extend JE theory by
showing that organisation size moderates the relationship between on-the-job embeddedness
and employee enactment of IWBs. Finally, we provide preliminary evidence for the effects of
gender on IWB and for a negative relationship between job satisfaction and IWB. These
contributions are elaborated below.

Our results provide evidence of a positive relationship between on-the-job

embeddedness and IWBs by employees in small, medium-sized and large organisations
operating in diverse industries. Results of our study are largely consistent with the results of
Ng and Feldman (2010a). In our study the explained variance in IWBs by the proposed
 15

interaction effect with on-the-job embeddedness was 5 per cent. In Ng and Feldman’s
(2010a) study the explained variance was 3 per cent. These size effects are to be expected,
because embeddedeness is primarily a ‘staying’ construct (Lee et al., 2014). Taken together,
results of our study and that of prior research suggest that the effects of embeddedness on
IWBs is a potentially fruitful research direction.

Two results in Table 1 are worthy of comment. Results show that both gender and job
satisfaction were significantly correlated with IWB. Further analyses relating to gender using
independent sample t-tests revealed that this was because male respondents (mean = 3.37;
S.D. = 0.83) reported significantly higher levels of IWBs (t = 3.128, p <0.01) than females
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

(mean = 3.15; S.D. = 0.84). The social role theory of gender differences (Eagly, 1987), which
posits that men and women typically differ in a variety of attributes and social behaviours,
may provide an explanation for this result. Consistent with this theory, men might be
expected to report higher levels of IWBs because they tend to display assertive tendencies
(e.g., being competitive, ambitious, and dominating), while women tend to be relational-
oriented (Eagly, 1987; 2009). IWB has been shown to produce conflict and less satisfactory
relations with co-workers who want to prevent innovative change (Janssen, 2003). In regard
to job satisfaction, research suggests that the relationship between job satisfaction and IWB is
complex. For example, Bysted (2013) showed that job satisfaction is positively related to
IWB, but only in an environment of innovation trust (i.e. an environment characterised by a
positive view and acceptance of innovation). Thus employees with high levels of job
satisfaction may be unenthusiastic about enacting IWBs because they are reluctant to change
their environment, or because they want to avoid the risk of having dysfunctional conflict
with co-workers who prefer to avoid the uncertainty associated with change (Janssen, 2003).

Contrary to our expectations, off-the-job embeddedness was not positively and

significantly related to IWBs. Prior research on the association between off-the-job
embeddedness and job performance has produced mixed results. For example, Lee et al.
(2004) found that on-the-job embeddedness significantly predicted performance, whereas off-
the-job embeddedness did not. In contrast, Wheeler et al. (2012) found that off-the-job
embeddedness predicted job performance. Off-the-job embeddedness may positively affect
work performance, but only when changing organisations requires geographical relocation
(Feldman et al., 2012). In larger communities, such as the four major business centres from
which our sample was drawn, individuals can change employers without relocating. Thus,
 16

further research is necessary to clarify if high levels of off-the-job embeddedness affects

IWBs when employees live in communities where they cannot easily secure alternative jobs
locally.

We found that size of the organisation moderated the positive relationship between
on-the-job embeddedness and IWBs. Specifically, on-the-job embeddedness was more
positively related to IWBs in small organisations than in medium-sized and large
organisations. These results are consistent with the view that small organisations have a
‘behavioural’ innovation advantage over larger organisations. This purported advantage is
because small organisations are generally supposed to enjoy internal conditions relating to
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

organisation and management that are facilitative of IWBs (Bommer and Jalajas, 2004; Nieto
and Santamaria, 2010). The moderation effects of organisation size may be due, at least in
part, to the concept of formality in human resource management (HRM). Prior research has
shown that small organisations exhibit less formality in HRM than large organisations (e.g.,
Storey et al., 2010).

The relatively lower level of formality in small organisations has been linked to a
range of positive outcomes, including: high levels of job autonomy and favourable attitudes
to managers (Tsai et al., 2007); higher levels of employee self-reported job quality when
compared to employee reports of job quality in large organisations (Storey et al., 2010); and
higher levels of organisational commitment when compared to employees in large
organisations (Saridakis et al., 2013). Overall, results of these studies suggest that small
organisations offer an array of non-material benefits, such as job variety, job autonomy, close
and satisfying working relationships with co-workers and managers, and a ‘familial’
environment that are difficult to replicate in large organisations (Tsai et al., 2007; Saridakis et
al., 2013). These non-material benefits may enhance employees’ motivation to advance their
organisation’s best interests through enacting IWBs.

Practical implications
Implications of this study for HRM professionals and line managers are essentially three-fold.
First, employees who are highly embedded in their jobs (but not necessarily their
communities) are more likely to engage in IWBs than employees who are not similarly
embedded. Second, HRM professionals and line managers can potentially foster employee
IWBs through adopting strategies aimed at positively influencing the fit, links and sacrifice
 17

dimensions of on-the-job embeddedness. For example, they could positively influence fit by
providing a realistic job preview during recruitment and by assessing fit with the organisation
and job during selection (Allen et al., 2010). Organisational links could be strengthened by
providing socialisation opportunities to newcomers that allow them to get acquainted with
other employees, especially their work group members (Allen 2006; Holtom and O’Neill,
2004) and by training supervisors how to develop effective relationships with subordinates
(Allen et al., 2010). Finally, employees’ perceptions of sacrifice could be heightened by
tailoring benefits to meet individual needs, improving work–life balance (Holtom and
O’Neill, 2004) and providing opportunities for employees to engage in learning and
development (Allen et al., 2010). The third practical implication is that the internal context of
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

small organisations seems more facilitative of IWBs than the internal context of larger
organisations. Management formality rises with increases in organisational size (Josefy et al.,
2015; Storey et al., 2010) and it might be argued here that the additional managerial formality
in larger organisations imposes a price in terms of having dampening effects on IWBs of
embedded employees.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Measures of JE and IWB were provided by the same person on the same survey. Thus,
relationships among these constructs could be influenced by CMB (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Results of our test for CMB suggest that it was not an issue in our study. Nonetheless, future
research should employ techniques for controlling CMB, such as introducing a time lag
between measurement of JE and IWBs (Podsakoff et al., 2003). A further potential limitation
is that we used self-report measures of IWBs. For comparison with self-report data, it will be
important in future research to complement focal employee self-ratings of IWBs with peer
and supervisor ratings.

Embedded employees comprise both ‘enthusiastic stayers’ and ‘reluctant stayers’ and
their behaviour may be very different (Lee et al., 2014). ‘Enthusiastic stayers’ are similar to
employees who have high affective commitment, while ‘reluctant stayers’ are akin to
employees who have high continuance commitment. Continuance commitment refers to an
employee’s calculative attachment to the organisation whereby the employee is motivated to
stay, only because it would be too costly to quit (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Employees with
high continuance commitment tend to have lower performance ratings and are less likely to
enact extra-role behaviours (Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2002). Thus future research should
 18

examine whether continuance commitment moderates the relationship between on-the-job

embeddedness and IWB.
Our results provide evidence of a positive relationship between organisational
embeddedness and employee enactment of IWBs. However, off-the-job embeddedness was
not significantly associated with IWBs. Future research could investigate the separate effects
of organisational links, fit and sacrifice on employee enactment of IWBs.
This study found that size of the organisation moderated the positive relationship
between on-the-job embeddedness and IWB. Specifically, on-the-job embeddedness was
more positively related to IWB in small organisations than in medium-sized and large
organisations. This moderation effect may be due, in part, to the concept of formality in
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

HRM. HRM formality tends to increase with organisational size (Storey et al., 2010).
Therefore, future research should examine whether HRM formality moderates the
relationship between on-the-job embeddedness and IWB. The level of HRM formality can be
assessed by collecting data on the range of documented HRM policies and procedures in
organisations. The presence of an HRM professional is also an indicator of HRM formality
(Storey et al., 2010).

Conclusion

A link between JE and IWB has rarely been shown empirically. We theorised and
demonstrated empirically that employees who are embedded in their organisation are
motivated to enact IWBs, presumably because they have positive feelings about the
employment relationship (Ng and Feldman, 2010b). The current study also extends our
knowledge by the finding that on-the-job embeddedness is more positively related to IWBs in
small organisations than in medium-sized and large organisations. This finding accords with
the view that small organisations have a ‘behavioural’ innovation advantage over larger
organisations. More broadly, we make a contribution to the small body of non-turnover
related research which has examined the effects of JE on extra-role behaviours. Clearly, more
empirical studies are needed to further enhance our understanding of the effects of
embeddedness on IWBs. We hope our study will stimulate such work.
 19

References

Abelson, M. A. and Baysinger, B. D. (1984), “Optimal and dysfunctional turnover: Toward

an organizational level model”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No.2,
pp.331-341.
Aiken, L. S. and West, S. G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Allen, D.G. (2006), “Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer
embeddedness and turnover?” Journal of Management, Vol.32 No.2, pp.237-256.
Allen, D.G., Bryant, P.C. and Vardaman, J.M. (2010), “Retaining talent: Replacing
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

misconceptions with evidence-based strategies”. Academy of Management

Perspectives, Vol.24 No.2, pp.48-64.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization”. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol.63 No.1, pp.1-18.
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., and Harrington,
E. (2000), “Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of
ideas”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No.3,
pp.265–285.
Bommer, M. and Jalajas, D.S. (2004), “Innovation sources of large and small technology-
based firms”. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.51 No.1, pp.13-
18.
Bysted, R. (2013), “Innovative employee behaviour: The moderating effects of mental
involvement and job satisfaction on contextual variables”. European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp.268-284.
Clinton, M., Knight, T., and Guest, D.E. (2012), “Job embeddedness: A new attitudinal
measure”. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol.20 No.1, pp.111-
117.
de Jong, J. and den Hartog, D. (2010), “Measuring innovative work behaviour”. Creativity
and Innovation Management, Vol.19 No.1, pp.23 – 36.
Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M., and Rubin, D. B. (1977), “Maximum likelihood estimation
from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion)”. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Association, Series B (Methodological), Vol.39 No.1, pp.1-38.
 20

Department of Science and Technology. (2007), Innovation towards a knowledge-based

economy: Ten year plan for South Africa (2008-2018), Department of Science and
Technology, Pretoria.
Eagly, A.H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role Interpretation, Erlbam,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Eagly, A. H. (2009), “The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social
psychology of gender”. American Psychologist, Vol.64 No.8, pp.644–658.
Farr, J.L. and Ford, C.M. (1990), “Individual Innovation”, in West, M.A. and Farr, J.L.
(Eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational
Strategies, John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, England, pp.63-80.
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

Feldman, D.C., Ng, T.W.H. and Vogel, R.M. (2012), “Off-the-job embeddedness: A
reconceptualization and agenda for future research”, in Martocchio, J.J, Joshi, A. &
Liao, H. (Eds.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 31
No.1, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.209 – 251.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T.R., Hekman, D.R., Lee, T.W., Holtom, B.C., and Harman, W.S.
(2009), “Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and job search
behaviors influence quitting”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.52 No. 3,
pp.545-561.
Freeman, J. and Engel, J.S. (2007), “Models of innovation: Startups and mature
corporations”, California Management Review, Vol. 50 No.1, pp.94-119.
Hair, J. F. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson Education,
Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Harman, H. H. (1960), Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hayes, A. F. (2012), “PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modelling” [White paper], available
at http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf (accessed 9 June 2017).
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress”,
American Psychologist, Vol.44 No.3, pp.513-524.
Holtom, B.C. and O’Neill, B.S. (2004), “Job embeddedness: A theoretical foundation for
developing a comprehensive nurse retention plan”, Journal of Nursing
Administration, Vol.34 No.5, pp. 216–227.
Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.C., Lee, T.W., and Eberly, M.B. (2008), “Turnover and retention
research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the
future”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 231-274.
 21

Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T. and Tidd, S. (2006), “Less is more: Validation of a
short form of the job embeddedness measure and theoretical extensions”, in Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-rewards fairness, and innovative
work behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol.73
No.3, pp.287–302.
Janssen, O. (2003), “Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and
less satisfactory relations with co-workers”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol.76 No.3, pp. 347-364.
Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P.F., Lee, T.W., and Mitchell, T.R. (2012), “When and how is job
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-analytic investigation”, Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol.97 No.5, pp.1077-1006.
Josefy, M., Kuban, S., Duane Ireland, R., and Hitt, M. A. (2015), “All things great and small:
Organizational size, boundaries of the firm, and a changing environment”, The
Academy of Management Annals, Vol.9 No.1, pp.715-802.
Keller, G., Warrack, B. and Bartel, H. (1994), Statistics for Management and Economics,
Duxbury Press, Belmont, California.
Kiazad, K., Holtom, B.C., Hom, P.W. and Newman, A. (2015), “Job embeddedness: A
multifoci theoretical extension”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 3,
pp.641-659.
Lee, T.W., Burch, T.C., and Mitchell, T.R. (2014), “The story of why we stay: A review of
job embeddedness”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol.1 No.1, pp.199-216.
Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C.J., Burton, J.P., and Holtom, B.C. (2004), “The
effects of job embeddedness on organisational citizenship, job performance, volitional
absences and voluntary turnover”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol.47
No.5, pp.711-722.
Lev, S. and Koslowsky, M. (2012), “Teacher gender as a moderator of the on-the-job
embeddedness-OCB relationship”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.42
No.1, pp.81-89.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York.
Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
 22

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.61
No.1, pp.20-52.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W. Sablynski, C.J., and Erez, M. (2001), “Why people
stay. Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol.44 No.6, pp.1102-1121.
Morgeson, F.P. and Humphrey, S. E. (2006), “The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the
nature of work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.91 No.6, pp.1321–1339.
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2010a), “The impact of job embeddedness on innovation-
related behaviors”, Human Resource Management, Vol.49 No.6, pp.1067-1087.
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2010b), “The effects of organizational embeddedness on
development of social capital and human capital”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol.95 No.4, pp.696-712.
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2013), “Age and innovation-related behavior: The joint
moderating effects of supervisor undermining and proactive personality”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol.34 No.5, pp.583–606.
Nieto, M.J. and Santamaria, L. (2010), “Technological collaboration: Bridging the innovation
gap between small and large firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol.48
No.1, pp.44-69.
Odoardi, C., Montani, F., Boudrias, J-S., and Battistelli, A. (2014), “Linking managerial
practices and leadership style to innovative work behaviour”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol.36 No.5, pp.545 – 569.
Oldham, G.R. and Hackman, J.R. (2010), “Not what it was and not what it will be: The future
of job design research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 2-3, pp.463-
479.
Oyler, J.D. (2014), “Exploring the content and factorial validity of job embeddedness through
the lens of a multigroup sample”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp.153-175.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No.5, pp.879-903.
 23

Prieto, I.M. and Pérez-Santana, M.P. (2014), “Managing innovative work behavior: the role
of human resource practices”, Personnel Review, Vol.43 No,2, pp.184 – 208.
Riketta, M. (2002), “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-
analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.23 No.3, pp.257-266.
Rogers, M. (2004), “Networks, firm size and innovation”, Small Business Economics, Vol.22
No.2, pp.141–153.
Saridakis, G., Muñoz Torres, R. and Johnstone, S. (2013), “Do human resource practices
enhance organizational commitment in SMEs with low employee satisfaction?”,
British Journal of Management, Vol.24 No.3, pp.445-448.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behaviour: A path model of
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.37

No.3, pp.580-607.
Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J., and Oldham, G.R. (2004), “The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?”, Journal of
Management, Vol.30 No.6, pp.933–958.
Slater, S. F., Mohr, J. J., and Sengupta, S. (2014), “Radical product innovation capability:
Literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol.31 No.3, pp.552-566.
Storey, D.J., Saridakis, G., Sen-Gupta, S., Edwards, P.K., and Blackburn, R.A. (2010),
“Linking HR formality with employee job quality: The role of firm and workplace
size”, Human Resource Management, Vol.49 No.2, pp.305-329.
Tanova, C. and Holtom, B.C. (2008), “Using job embeddedness factors to explain voluntary
turnover in four European countries”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol.19 No.9, pp.1553–1568.
Tsai, C.-J., Sengupta, S., and Edwards, P. (2007), “When and why is small beautiful? The
experience of work in the small firm”, Human Relations, Vol.60 No.12, pp.1779–
1808.
Verheugen, G. (2005), “The new sme definition: user guide and model declaration”, available
at:
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=The+new+SME+definition&btnG=&hl=en&
as_sdt=0%2C5 (accessed 9 June 2017).
Vossen, R.W. (1998), “Relative strengths and weaknesses of small firms in innovation”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol.16 No.3, pp.88-94.
 24

Wheeler, A.R., Harris, K.J. and Sablynski, C.J. (2012), “How do employees invest abundant
resources? The mediating role of work effort in the job-embeddedness/job-
performance relationship”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No.S1,
pp.244–266.
Williams, L. J., Hartman, N. and Cavazotte, F. (2010), “Method variance and marker
variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique”, Organizational
Research Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 477-514.
Wong, K.Y. and Aspinwall, E. (2004), “Characterizing knowledge management in the small
business environment”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No.3, pp.44 – 61.
Yao, X., Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Burton, J.P., and Sablynski, C.S. (2004), “Job
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

embeddedness: Current research and future directions”, in Griffeth R and Hom P

(Eds.), Understanding Employee Retention and Turnover, Information Age,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 153–187.
 25

Appendix 1: Scale items

Organisational (on-the-job) embeddedness (Agree/Disagree)
1. My job utilizes my skills and talents well. (Fit)
2. I feel like I am a good match for my organization. (Fit)
3. If I stay with my organization, I will be able to achieve most of my goals. (Fit)
4. I am a member of an effective work group. (Links)
5. I work closely with my co-workers. (Links)
6. On the job, I interact frequently with my work group members. (Links)
7. I have a lot of freedom on this job to pursue my goals. (Sacrifice)
8. I would sacrifice a lot if I left this job. (Sacrifice)
9. The prospects for continuing employment with this organisation are excellent. (Sacrifice)

Community (off-the-job) embeddedness (Agree/Disagree)

1. I really love the place where I live. (Fit)
2. The place where I live is a good match for me. (Fit)
3. The area where I live offers the leisure activities that I like (outdoor activities, cultural events). (Fit)
Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

4. My family roots are in this community. (Links)

5. I am active in one or more community organizations (e.g., churches, sports teams, schools). (Links)
6. I participate in cultural and recreational activities in my local area. (Links)
7. Leaving the community where I live would be very hard. (Sacrifice)
8. If I were to leave the community, I would miss my non-work friends. (Sacrifice)
9. If I were to leave the area where I live, I would miss my neighbourhood. (Sacrifice)

Source: Felps et al. (2009).

Innovative work behaviour (How often do you….)

1. Make suggestions to improve current products or services
2. Actively contribute to development of new products or services
3. Produce ideas to improve work practices
4. Systematically introduce innovative ideas into work practices
5. Acquire new knowledge externally to improve the way you do your job
6. Convince people to support an innovative idea

Source: Adapted from de Jong, J. and den Hartog, D. (2010).

Job satisfaction (Agree/Disagree)

1. All in all, I am satisfied with my job.
2. In general, I don’t like my job.
3. In general, I like working here.

Source: Mitchell et al. (2001).

Affective organisational commitment (Agree/Disagree)

1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organisation.
2. I really feel as if this organisation’s problems are my own.
3. I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at this organisation.
4. I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organisation.
5. This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
6. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this organisation.

Source: Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1997).

Job characteristics (Agree/Disagree)

1. The job involves solving problems that have no obvious correct answers.
2. The job requires me to be creative.
3. The job often involves dealing with problems that I have not met before.
4. The job requires unique ideas or solutions to problems.

Source: Morgeson, F.P. and Humphrey, S. E. (2006).

 Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Estimates, Correlations and Gender T-tests

Innovative behaviour On-the-job Off-the-job Job satisfaction Commitment Job characteristics Tenure Age Gender Size
Innovative behaviour
{0.90}
On-the-job **
.374 {0.86}
Off-the-job
.062 .150** {0.86}
Job satisfaction ** **
.259 .712 .111* {0.77}
Commitment ** ** **
.355 .686 .154** .686 {0.86}
Job characteristics ** ** ** **
.490 .367 .036 .334 .303 {0.80}
Tenure ** * ** ** *
.171 .091 172** .114 .137 .095 -
Age * * * ** **
.104 .085 .213** .094 .131 .008 .599 -
Gender ** * * ** *
-.135 -.086 .077 -.089 .019 -.130 -.108 -.013 -
Size
-.032 -.064 -.020 -.094* -.103* -.025 074 .021 -.015 -
Means (S.D.)
3.257(0.844) 3.643(0.662) 3.232(0.774) 3.600(0.800) 3.240(0.852) 3.572(0.791) 9.154(6.830) - - -

Male Means (S.D.) 3.377(0.829) 3.703(0.650) 3.168(0.753) 3.676(0.767) 3.223(0.862) 3.681(0.752) 9.93(7.00) - - -

Female Means (S.D.) 3.150(0.844) 3.589(0.668) 3.288(0.789) 3.532(0.824) 3.254(0.844) 3.475(0.812) 8.46(6.61) - - -

Gender T-tests 3.128** 1.989* -1.789(ns) 2.062* -0.430(ns) 3.026** 2.495* - - -

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ns = not significant, reliability level is reported in parenthesis { }
 Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

Table 2: Regression results of hierarchical moderation analyses with organisational size as a moderator

Independent
Control model model Interaction model
Step 1
Job satisfaction -.095 ns -.182** -.197***
Commitment .275*** .206*** .199***
Job characteristics .444*** .421*** .417***
Tenure .010 ns .011 ns .010 ns
Age group .022 ns .020 ns .027 ns
Gender -.143* -.127* -.133*

Step 2
On-the-job embeddedness .247*** .278***
Off-the-job embeddedness -.008 ns -.009 n.s.
Organisational size -.006 ns -.004 n.s.

Step 3
On-the-job embeddedness x size -.108*

F6, 526 = 38.813*** F9, 523 = 27.592*** F10, 522 = 26.309***

R2 = .327, ∆R2=
R2 = .307 R2 = .322 .005
R2(adj) = .299 R2(adj) = .310 R2(adj) = 314
∆F = 3.878** ∆F = 4.032*

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p<0.001, ns = not significant

 Downloaded by University of Saskatchewan At 09:06 19 March 2018 (PT)

Figure 1: Moderating effects of organisation size on the on-the-job embeddedness-innovative behaviour relationship

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1
Small organisation

Innovative behaviour
3 Medium organisation
Large organisation
2.9

2.8
Low on-the-job Average on-the-job High on-the-job
embeddedness embeddedness embeddedness

Note: Small organisation (< 50 employees ), Medium-sized organisation (50-249 employees ), Large organisation (250 or more employees)