Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/pubmed-central/the-influence-of-supervisor-developmental-feedback-on-employee-nbyde0ph8Y
References
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
- Publisher
- Pubmed Central
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2019 Su, Lin and Ding.
- ISSN
- 1664-1078
- eISSN
- 1664-1078
- DOI
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01581
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 09 July 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01581 The Influence of Supervisor Developmental Feedback on Employee Innovative Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model 1 1 2 Weilin Su , Xinqi Lin * and He Ding 1 2 School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China, School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing, China Previous scholars have recognized the critical role of supervisors in stimulating employee innovative behavior, although it is still unclear whether and how supervisor developmental feedback impacts employee innovative behavior. To resolve this issue, the present study develops and verifies a moderated mediation model to explore the positive influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior via creative self-efficacy, as well as the moderating role of a supervisor’s organizational embodiment in this process. Analyses of the multi-time data from 375 employees indicate that supervisor developmental feedback is positively associated with employee innovative behavior via his/her creative self-efficacy. Moreover, a supervisor’s Edited by: organizational embodiment moderates the influence of supervisor developmental Fabrizio Gerli, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy feedback on employee creative self-efficacy and the mediating role of creative self- Reviewed by: efficacy. From these analyses, the present study not only further develops several views Fabrizio Maimone, of pervious research in the field of supervisor feedback and employee innovation, but Libera Università Maria SS. Assunta, Italy also provides a potential managerial way to promote employee innovative behavior from Zhenxing Gong, the perspective of supervisor feedback. Liaocheng University, China *Correspondence: Keywords: supervisor developmental feedback, employee creative self-efficacy, supervisor’s organizational embodiment, employee innovative behavior, moderated mediation model Xinqi Lin [email protected] INTRODUCTION Specialty section: This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, As the competition environment becomes more uncertain, firms that want to survive and develop a section of the journal should rely more on innovative activities (Stroeva et al., 2015; Azar and Ciabuschi, 2017; Zhang Frontiers in Psychology et al., 2018). Organizational innovation is becoming increasingly important to gain competitive Received: 11 January 2019 advantages and realize the sustainable development of firms (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Ramirez Accepted: 24 June 2019 et al., 2018). As a key factor in improving organizational innovation competence, employee Published: 09 July 2019 innovation behavior is usually beneficial and has always been regarded as a significant source of Citation: competitive advantage for the organization (Shin et al., 2017). Therefore, how to effectively promote Su W, Lin X and Ding H (2019) employee innovation behavior becomes particularly important at the present stage. Employee The Influence of Supervisor innovation behavior is defined as “the new ideas and methods in products and processes generated Developmental Feedback on by employees on the basis of existing conditions,” which includes not only innovative ideas Employee Innovative Behavior: themselves, but also the generation, promotion and realization of innovative ideas (Janssen et al., A Moderated Mediation Model. 2004; Carmeli et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2018). Many scholars have theoretically and empirically Front. Psychol. 10:1581. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01581 confirmed the effect of the supervisor on employee innovative behavior, which is mainly from the Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 2 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior perspective of supervisors’ traits, such as servant leadership employee creativity was not significant, but Joo et al, (2012) (Cai et al., 2018), ethical leadership (Tu and Lu, 2013), verified that supervisor developmental feedback has a positive transformational and transactional leadership (Pieterse influence on team creativity. The reasons that previous scholars et al., 2010). Nevertheless, such research usually presents come to these inconsistent conclusions are as follows. First, the characteristics of fragmentation and functionalization and feedback is a dynamic process composed of feedback source, tends to focus on the active output of supervisors, paying feedback information and feedback receiver. The credibility of insufficient attention to the interaction between supervisors and the feedback source, the quality and the delivery of feedback employees (Xu et al., 2018). information, and the perceptions of feedback receiver work In fact, supervisor feedback is essential in every organization together to produce feedback results (Dahling et al., 2017). (Zheng et al., 2015), and is an important form of interaction Second, for exploring the internal mechanism of supervisor and communication between supervisors and their subordinates. feedback and employee innovation, previous research did not The employees prefer to seek out feedback from their respective control for other possible interference or substitution factors supervisors rather than from colleagues and subordinates and ignored other influencing paths (Xu et al., 2018). Third, it (Ashford and Tsui, 1991). Therefore, feedback from supervisors assumes that employees have similar perceptions of supervisor has the most significant impact on employee motivation and feedback, and ignores feedback receiver’s construction and behavioral changes compared to the feedback from any other accepting of feedback (Steelman et al., 2004), so that it’s source (Majumdar, 2015), and its influence on employees has difficult to explain why different employees react differently been examined by previous researchers (e.g., Steelman et al., to the similar developmental feedback from their supervisors. 2004; Hon et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017). However, traditional Therefore, existing research cannot reflect the overall effect of supervisor feedback usually only provides evaluative information supervisor feedback on employee, and the influence of supervisor about employees’ past working behavior and working results developmental feedback on employee innovation, especially (Ilgen et al., 1979), and cannot meet the real needs of employees innovative behavior, needs to be further verified. (Guo et al., 2014). Employees are more welcoming of supportive In order to fully understand how supervisor developmental developmental feedback from their supervisors (Anseel and feedback affects employee innovative behavior, scholars should Lievens, 2007), and it would be wiser for supervisors to affect not only consider supervisor feedback interventions, but also their employees’ attitudes and behaviors more effectively by take individual factors into account. Many prior scholars providing developmental feedback (Longenecker and Nykodym, have acknowledged that employees’ personality characteristics, 1996). Supervisor feedback is developmental when it provides cognition and attitude would have significant impacts on their helpful and useful information that can be used by feedback innovation behaviors (Feist, 1998; Xerri and Brunetto, 2013). recipients to improve their current and future work (Zhou, Thus, employee innovation behavior is not only the product 2003). It can cultivate a creativity-supportive content, in which of a simple exchange relationship between employees and employees are more likely to proactively engage in innovative their respective organizations, but also depends on employee’s activities (Zhou, 2003; George and Zhou, 2007). In addition, cognition and evaluation of his/her own innovative ability the behavioral focused, constructive (as opposed to evaluative (Tierney and Farmer, 2002). Besides, in terms of the impact on an or threatening), and learning-oriented developmental feedback employee, supervisors seem to be in a relatively remote position, from a supervisor can help employees to act in ways that so there may be a near-end mediator variable (Schaubroeck benefit the organization. It requires the supervisors to use et al., 2012) to affect employees’ behaviors. According to the formal and informal feedback in the organization to build a social cognition theory, individual efficiency cognition is an supportive feedback environment (Steelman et al., 2004; Dahling important foundation of his/her actions. Only when employees et al., 2017). Previous research has indicated that such support believe that they can achieve the expected results through from supervisors could encourage employees to pour themselves their behaviors can they have the motivation to act (Bandura, into innovative activities and exhibit more innovative behaviors 1986). In view of the positive impact of creative self-efficacy (e.g., De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007; Gumusluoglu ˘ and Ilsev, on individual innovation behavior and its mediating effect in 2009; Wu and Parker, 2017). Hence, in the present study, we different situations, which has been verified (Carmeli et al., 2006; attempt to investigate the influence of supervisor developmental Hsu Michael et al., 2011; Grosser and Venkataramani, 2017), feedback on employee innovative behavior from the perspective another aim of the present study is to explore the mediating of supervisor feedback, which is also the key problem we want to role of creative self-efficacy between supervisor developmental solve in the present study. feedback and employee innovation behavior. Supervisor developmental feedback, which refers to the extent Due to a supervisor’s ability to represent the organization, to which supervisors provide employees with helpful and useful there is an important implicit assumption that the supervisor information that enables employees to learn, develop, and can influence their respective employees’ attitudes and behaviors make improvements (Zhou, 2003), has gradually attracted the (Dai et al., 2018). As a concept that describes the perceptions attention of scholars in the field of innovation. However, there of employees as to what extent their supervisors can represent are inconsistent results amongst research on the relationship the organization, supervisor’s organizational embodiment (SOE) between supervisor developmental feedback and employee can inevitably promote or weaken the degree to which the innovation. For example, George and Zhou (2007) found that supervisors influence their employees’ attitudes and behaviors the direct influence of supervisor developmental feedback on (Eisenberger et al., 2010, 2014). When employees think that the Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 3 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior supervisor can represent their organization, that is they have behavioral orientations, tend to actively seek out challenges. a high supervisor’s organizational embodiment, they would be They are more likely to be persistent and unafraid of trial and more likely to interpret the supervisors’ behaviors as the intention error (Dweck, 1986). As a result, they are more likely to learn, of organization. In this case, the promoting or inhibiting effect master and utilize innovative skills and strategies, and actively of the supervisors on the employees’ attitudes and behaviors generate creative ideas to solve problems. Third, supervisor will be more obvious (Stinglhamber et al., 2015). Thus, the final developmental feedback is future-oriented (Li et al., 2011) and aim of present study is to investigate supervisor’s organizational can convey a kind of support and encouragement from the embodiment as a moderating variable to further influence the organization for employees’ future development, which can boundary conditions of the relationships among supervisor also reduce employees’ concerns about the risks associated developmental feedback, employee’s creative self-efficacy and with innovation, so, they will have confidence in innovation innovative behavior. and show more innovative behavior. Considering the above argument, we assume that development feedback from the supervisors can promote employee innovative behavior and offer the following assumption: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND Hypothesis 1: Supervisor developmental feedback will positively HYPOTHESES influence employee innovative behavior. Supervisor Developmental Feedback and The Mediating Role of Creative Employee Innovative Behavior Self-Efficacy Zhou (2003) deems that supervisor developmental feedback Self-efficacy in a specific field can predict the behavior and refers to the extent which supervisors provide valuable and performance in this field more effectively (Malik et al., 2015). helpful information to their employees, so that the employees Creative self-efficacy is a specific form of self-efficacy, which can learn, develop and improve their work in the organization. refers to an individual’s belief in his/her ability to creatively Previous research has supported the argument that when a complete tasks and achieve creative results (Tierney and supervisor offers his/her employee developmental feedback, the Farmer, 2002). It has a significant positive effect on employee employee is essentially engaging in an informational organization innovation behavior and predicts innovation behavior better practice in nature, and this might lead to the improvement of than any other kind of self-efficacy (Hsu Michael et al., 2011; employee’s attitude, behavior or performance in the future (Zhou, Newman et al., 2018). Meanwhile, creative self-efficacy is not 2003; George and Zhou, 2007; Li et al., 2011; Guo et al., 2014; invariable and can be guided and promoted by external factors Joo et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2015). In the field of innovation, (Bandura, 2006; Gong et al., 2009). For example, Mittal and Zhou (2003) verified that the interaction between the employee Dhar (2015) confirmed that transformational leadership can creative personality and supervisor developmental feedback had promote employee creative self-efficacy and then enhance his/her a positive impact on employee creativity. George and Zhou (2007) creativity. Malik et al. (2015) indicated that extrinsic rewards found that positive emotions, negative emotions and supervisor of the organization could be effective in generating employee developmental feedback had an interactive effect on employee creative performance via creative self-efficacy. creativity. When all three levels are high, the employee creativity Previous research has suggested that supportive feedback and is the strongest. Joo et al, (2012) confirmed that the interaction supervisor support can promote individual creative self-efficacy effect between developmental feedback and team cohesion was (Tierney and Farmer, 2004) and, in line with this argument, we positively associated with team creativity. Hence, similar to prior can infer that supervisor developmental feedback can enhance studies, we infer that supervisor developmental feedback can employee creative self-efficacy. As a form of positive feedback effectively stimulate employee innovative behavior in the present that focuses on learning, development and improvement (Zhou, study, for the following three reasons: 2003; Zheng et al., 2015), supervisor developmental feedback First, supervisor developmental feedback is essentially neither emphasizes the evaluation of employees, nor puts forward informational feedback, which can provide useful information specific requirements on their work results (Shalley and Gilson, for employees instead of making specific job responsibility 2004; Joo et al., 2015), so that it can bring positive emotional to improve their performance (Zhou, 2003; Guo et al., 2014). experience to employees, make them more confident in their Unlike traditional performance feedback, which focuses innovation ability, and then elevate their creative self-efficacy. on the completion and improvement of the previous task Meanwhile, supervisor developmental feedback emphasizes the (Joo et al., 2015), supervisor developmental feedback can initiative to provide employees with information to help them stimulate the employees interest in the work itself (Joo and further learn and improve (Li et al., 2011; Guo et al., 2014), Park, 2010). Developmental feedback can enable employees to which is conducive to employees’ acquisitions of knowledge work in a relaxed and free atmosphere, which could inspire and skills, as well as the improvement of their own abilities employees’ divergent thinking (Steele et al., 2018). Second, (Gong et al., 2013). Since creativity cannot be stimulated without supervisor developmental feedback focuses on learning, skills and abilities in relevant fields, job-related knowledge is developing and improvement, which enables employees to regarded as an important antecedent variable of creative self- form behavioral guidance with these characteristics (George efficacy (Jaussi and Randel, 2014). Therefore, employees receiving and Zhou, 2007). In addition, the employees driven by these developmental feedback from supervisors are more likely to Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 4 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior feel confident about their innovation abilities and show higher the employee has high supervisor’s organizational embodiment, creative self-efficacy. abusive supervision is positively associated with perceived Furthermore, there has been a general consensus on the organizational support (Shoss et al., 2013). Adopting similar positive relationship between creative self-efficacy and employee logic here, we suggest that the positive influence of supervisor innovative behavior (Beghetto, 2006; Hsu Michael et al., 2011; developmental feedback on employee creative self-efficacy will Newman et al., 2018). When difficulties and obstacles arise in be strengthened by supervisor’s organizational embodiment. the process of innovation, employees with low creative self- Specifically, the employees with high supervisor’s organizational efficacy usually adopt emotion-focused processing strategies embodiment, are more likely to utilize supervisor developmental to generate the motivation to escape from this situation and feedback to help them learn new knowledge and skills, and ultimately form the behavioral orientation of avoiding risks actively apply these new skills and knowledge to improve their and maintaining the status quo. Conversely, those employees work, thus enhancing their confidence in innovation. On the with high self-efficacy always adopt problem-focused coping contrary, the employees with low supervisor’s organizational strategies, generate motivation to actively respond to problems, embodiment, don’t think supervisors could represent the and form behavioral guidance to adapt to changes and organization. For them, the supervisors are less attractive challenge the status quo. Therefore, we conclude that high and legitimate, and they attach little importance to the creative self-efficacy can stimulate employee innovative behavior developmental feedback from the supervisor and, therefore, orientation. To sum up, the present study believes that supervisor supervisor developmental feedback has a weak promotional developmental feedback can motivate employees to engage in effect on their creative self-efficacy. In sum, we propose the innovative activities and enhance their innovative behavior by moderating role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment in promoting their creative self-efficacy. In other words, we infer the the relationship between supervisor developmental feedback and mediating role of creative self-efficacy in the relationship between employee creative self-efficacy to be as follows: supervisor developmental feedback and employee innovative Hypothesis 3: Supervisor’s organizational embodiment will behavior, so, we propose: moderate the influence of supervisor developmental feedback on Hypothesis 2: Creative self-efficacy will mediate the positive employee creative self-efficacy, such that this influence will be more influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee positive when employee has high level of supervisor’s organizational innovative behavior. embodiment and less positive when employee has low level of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. The Moderating Role of Supervisor’s Based on hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 3, we expect that Organizational Embodiment supervisor’s organizational embodiment could also moderate the The supervisor’s organizational embodiment is defined as mediating role of creative self-efficacy in the relationship between the degree to which employees perceive their leaders or supervisor developmental feedback and employee innovative supervisors as an “organizational agent,” that is, the degree to behavior. Specifically, the indirect influence of supervisor which employees identify their leader or supervisor with the developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior via organization (Eisenberger et al., 2010). It is rooted in whether creative self-efficacy should be more significant for employees employees can be cared and valued by leaders or supervisors with a higher level of supervisor’s organizational embodiment and interpreted as the specific basis for how the organization than those with a lower level, which is called moderated evaluates their contributions, finally determines the degree of mediation (Muller et al., 2005; Hayes, 2015). Taken together, exchanging with the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). we have built a moderated mediation model for the influence Generally speaking, the supervisors who are interpreted by of supervisor developmental feedback on employee innovative employees as organizational agents are often perceived to have behavior, as shown in Figure 1. more disposable resources, thus their organizational status and power will be magnified and their influence on employees will MATERIALS AND METHODS naturally be enhanced (Eisenberger et al., 2014). This means that employees with high supervisor’s organizational embodiment Participants and Procedure are more likely to interpret the exchange relationship between them and their supervisors as positive, and perceive some certain In the present study, our data were collected from four companies behaviors of supervisors as organizational behaviors. So, if they in Beijing, China, by means of convenience sampling. All the receive those positive supervisor behaviors, they are more likely participants are Chinese. With the help of company’s human to show positive attitudes, behaviors and so on. resource managers, we got a list of all staff names and their email Many previous studies have confirmed that supervisor’s addresses. We randomly selected 400 volunteers and sent them organizational embodiment plays an important moderating the email questionnaires, with a shopping coupon as an incentive. role in the process of supervisor behavior style, influencing We also asked the participants to return their questionnaires after employees’ psychology, attitude and behavior. Eisenberger et al. completion within a week. Besides, all surveys are anonymous (2014) have confirmed that the influence of leader-member and we promise participants that all their information will be exchange on employee affective organizational commitment is kept confidential. more obvious among those employees with high supervisor’s Since common method bias may inflate the correlations organizational embodiment. They have also verified that if among variables and reduce the accuracy of our conclusion, we Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 5 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior Supervisor’s organizational embodiment Innovative Developmental Creative behavior feedback self-efficacy FIGURE 1 | The hypothesized model. collected our data at two different times. In the first wave, we Creative Self-Efficacy invited participants to fill out questionnaires with dependent Creative self-efficacy was measured with a 4-item scale designed variable (innovative behavior), independent variable (supervisor by Tierney and Farmer (2002). A sample item was, “I think developmental feedback) and demographic questions. One I am good at generating new ideas.” All respondents were month later, we sent questionnaires containing moderating invited to rate statements from strongly disagree to strongly variable (supervisor’s organizational embodiment) and mediating agree, indicated from 1 to 5, on a five-point Likert scale, based variable (creative self-efficacy) in the second wave. After on the extents of their agreement. The Cronbach’s a for this removing those samples with incomplete information and fuzzy measure was 0.81. information, we ultimately retained 375 valid samples (with response rate 93.75%). Besides, in order to further increase Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment confidence in our final valid samples and test whether our results Supervisor’s organizational embodiment was measured with a are representative, we used GPower (Faul and Erdfelder, 1992) to 9-item scale designed by Eisenberger et al. (2010). The employees conduct post hoc power analysis. evaluated their perceptions of respective supervisors’ sharing Among the valid participants, 41.1% were male, 58.9% were characteristics with their organization and the experiences of female. For age, 57.3% were under 35 years, and 99.5% were under treatment received from the supervisor as treatment from 45 years. Moreover, most of the participants were well educated, the organization. A sample item was, “When my supervisor 74.7% of them had at least of a bachelor’s degree or higher. For the is satisfied with my work, I believe the organization is also average number of years with supervisor, 52.3% of participating satisfied with my work.” All respondents were invited to rate employees had worked for less than 4 years, and 79.7% of them statements from strongly disagree to strongly agree, indicated had worked for less than 6 years. from 1 to 5, on a five-point Likert scale, based on based on their perceptions of respective supervisors. The Cronbach’s a for this Measures measure was 0.91. Based on the aims of this study, we built the theoretical model containing four core variables, which was composed of an Innovative Behavior independent variable (i.e., supervisor developmental feedback), Innovative behavior was measured with a 9-item scale designed a dependent variable (i.e., innovative behavior), a mediating and developed by Janssen (2000, 2003). It contents three sub- variable (i.e., creative self-efficacy) and a moderating variable scales (innovative ideas generating, promoting and realizing) (i.e., supervisor’s organizational embodiment). All survey items with three items respective. The samples items were: “I would were originally developed in English, so we invited two bilingual search out new working methods, techniques, or ideas in daily scholars (English-Chinese) to translate all items into Chinese work” (ideas generating), “I would mobilize my support for (Mandarin) and then back into English following the commonly innovative ideas in daily work” (ideas promoting), and “I would used back translation procedure. introduce innovative ideas into work environment in a systematic way if I can (idea realizing).” All respondents were invited to rate Supervisor Developmental Feedback statements from never to always, indicated from 1 to 5, on a five- Supervisor developmental feedback was measured with a 3-item point Likert scale, according their situations. The Cronbach’s a scale developed by Zhou (2003). This scale was used for for each sub-scale were 0.83, 0.85, 0.86, and 0.87. The Cronbach’s evaluating the employee’s perception of developmental feedback a for the total innovative behavior scale was 0.90. from his/her direct supervisor. In order to better conform to the language habits of the Chinese employees, we changed the reverse scored item, “My immediate supervisor never gives Control Variables me developmental feedback,” to “My immediate supervisor In the present study, we controlled several demographic often gives me developmental feedback.” All respondents were characteristics including gender, age, education and work tenure invited to rate statements from strongly disagree to strongly with your current supervisor, in correspondence with previous agree, indicated from 1 to 5, on a 5-point Likert-type scale, research (Zhou, 2003; Guo et al., 2014; Zheng et al., 2015). according to their actual perceptions of developmental feedback Gender was coded as a dummy variable (1 = male, 2 = female). from their direct supervisors. The Cronbach’s alpha for this Age, education and work-tenure with current supervisor were all measure was 0.76. divided into five levels. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 6 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior than any other alternative construct models. Meanwhile, the Analytical Strategy CFA results also indicate that the respondents could distinguish We firstly checked the convergent and discriminant validity of all the constructs clearly. our theoretical model using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by Mplus7.2. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), there are five Descriptive Analysis main indexes to measure the model fit: $ /df, TLI, CFI, RMSEA, Table 2 presents means, standard deviations and correlations and SRMR. Specifically, the $ /df is less than 2.00, TLI and CFI among the demographic and four core research variables. are more than 0.90, RMSEA and SRMR are less than 0.08, which An inspection of the correlations shows that supervisor may be accepted and widely supported (Kline, 2011). developmental feedback was positively related to employee Then, we used the hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS to innovative behavior (r = 0.21, p < 0.01), creative self-efficacy preliminary test the direct influence of supervisor developmental (r = 0.43, p < 0.01) and supervisor’s organizational embodiment feedback on employee innovative behavior, the mediation of (r = 0.42, p < 0.01). Meanwhile, employee creative self-efficacy creative self-efficacy in the influence of supervisor developmental was positively related to innovative behavior (r = 0.24, p < 0.01) feedback on employee innovative behavior, and the moderation and supervisor’s organizational embodiment (r = 0.44, p < 0.01). of supervisor’s organizational embodiment in the relationship In addition, employee supervisor’s organizational embodiment between supervisor developmental feedback and creative self- was positively associated with innovative behavior (r = 0.41, efficacy (Aiken et al., 1991; Preacher and Hayes, 2008). p < 0.01). Hence, the results of correlation analysis generally Finally, we used bootstrap methods in virtue of PROCESS supported our hypotheses of the relationship among these main program developed by Preacher et al. (2007) with Model research variables. 7 to further verify the whole moderated mediation model. We bootstrapped with 5000 in the present study so as to Hypotheses Testing generate bias-corrected confidence intervals of yield 95%. The hierarchical regression results of main study variables Only the confidence interval excludes 0, and the moderation are presented in Table 3. Hypothesis 1 predicts a positively of supervisor’s organizational embodiment on the effect of direct effect of supervisor developmental feedback on employee supervisor developmental feedback on employee innovative innovative behavior. The Model 6 of Table 3 shows that behavior via creative self-efficacy is significant (Hayes, 2015). supervisor developmental feedback is significantly related to innovative behavior (Model 6: b = 0.21, p < 0.001), thus RESULTS supporting Hypothesis 1. In order to check whether creative self-efficacy served as a mediator for the association between supervisor developmental Confirmatory Factor Analysis feedback and employee innovative behavior, the present study To check whether supervisor developmental feedback, creative adopted Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) procedure for justifying self-efficacy, supervisor’s organizational embodiment and a mediation effect. To put this in our research’s perspective, innovative behavior could be mutually discriminated, we used firstly, supervisor developmental feedback should be significantly Mplus7.2 to conduct the CFA. We compared the four factors associated with creative self-efficacy. Secondly, after controlling model with two three-factors models, a two-factors model the direct influence of supervisor developmental feedback and one-factor model, and assessed overall models fitted by on employee innovative behavior, the association between goodness-of-fit including, $ /df < 3, RMSEA < 0.08, CFI > 0.9, employee creative self-efficacy and innovative behavior should TLI > 0.9, SRMR < 0.08. The results, which is presented in be significant. Finally, the indirect influence of supervisor Table 1, show that the four-factors model (Model 1: $ /df = 2.73, developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior must CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.07) is better be significant as well. As Table 3 shows, after controlling the employees’ demographics, the results of Model 6 showed TABLE 1 | The result of Confirmatory factor analysis of the models. that supervisor developmental feedback was a significant direct predictor of employee innovative behavior (b = 0.21, p < 0.001). Models Factors $ /df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR When adding creative self-efficacy to the model, it also significantly predicted employee innovative behavior (Model Model 1 Four factors: SDF, CS, 2:73 0:07 0:91 0:90 0:07 SOE, IB 7: b = 0.18, p < 0.01), meanwhile, the effect of supervisor Model 2 Three factors (1): SDF 3:54 0:08 0:86 0:85 0:08 developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior was C SOE, CS, IB still significant (Model 7: b = 0.14, p < 0.05). Hence, we Model 3 Three factors (2): SDF, 4:69 0:09 0:80 0:78 0:13 can conclude that creative self-efficacy partially mediated the SOE, CS C IB influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee Model 4 Two factors: 5:39 0:10 0:76 0:74 0:10 innovative behavior, supporting Hypothesis 2. SDFCSOE, CS C IB The theoretical model of our study predicted that supervisor’s Model 5 One factor: SDF CCS 10:12 0:15 0:51 0:46 0:15 organizational embodiment would not only moderate the C SOE C IB effect of supervisor developmental feedback on creative self- N = 375; SDF, represents supervisor developmental feedback; CS, represents efficacy, but also moderate the mediating role of creative self- creative self-efficacy; SOE, represents supervisor’s organizational embodiment; IB, represents innovative behavior. efficacy in the relationship between supervisor developmental Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 7 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior TABLE 2 | Descriptive analysis and correlations among variables. Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (1) Gender 1:59 0:24 (2) Age 2:48 0:65 0:13 (3) Education 2:85 0:66 0:02 0:13 (4) Work tenure 2:74 2:21 0:09 0:38 0:19 (5) SDF 2:48 0:81 0:05 0:04 0:04 0:08 (6) Creative self-efficacy 2:51 1:07 0:03 0:02 0:02 0:14 0:43 (7) SOE 2:56 0:73 0:02 0:02 0:01 0:09 0:42 0:44 (8) Innovative behavior 3:14 0:84 0:07 0:06 0:15 0:05 0:21 0:24 0:41 N = 375; SDF, represents supervisor developmental feedback; SOE, represents supervisor’s organizational embodiment; p < 0.05 and p < 0.01. TABLE 3 | Hierarchical regressions for main study variables. Creative self-efficacy Innovative behavior Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Gender 0:04 0:04 0:06 0:06 0:05 0:07 0:06 Age 0:03 0:01 0:02 0:09 0:09 0:08 0:08 Education 0:05 0:03 0:04 0:15 0:16 0:16 0:17 Work tenure 0:16 0:11 0:09 0:07 0:03 0:04 0:02 SDF 0:41 0:26 0:21 0:14 CS 0:24 0:18 SOE 0:27 SDF SOE 0:12 R 0:02 0:19 0:28 0:04 0:09 0:08 0:11 1R 0:17 0:09 0:05 0:04 0:03 F 2:29 17:44 20:30 3:41 7:35 6:29 7:23 N = 375; SDF, represents supervisor developmental feedback; CS, represents creative self-efficacy; SOE, represents supervisor’s organizational embodiment; p < 0.001, p < 0.01, p < 0.05. feedback and employee innovative behavior, which should 2.5 satisfy four conditions (Muller et al., 2005; Hayes, 2015): (1) significant influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior; (2) significant influence of 2 the interaction between supervisor developmental feedback and supervisor’s organizational embodiment in predicating creative 1.5 self-efficacy; (3) significant influence of employee creative Low SOE self-efficacy on his/her innovative behavior; (4) significant High SOE difference in conditional indirect influence of supervisor Low SDF High SDF developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior via creative self-efficacy, between high and low levels of supervisor’s FIGURE 2 | The moderating effect of supervisor’s organizational embodiment organizational embodiment employee. on the influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee creative As showed in Table 3, we can test the first three conditions. self-efficacy. In Model 6, supervisor developmental feedback was significantly associated with employee innovative behavior, which supported Condition 1. In Model 3, the interaction term for supervisor developmental feedback and supervisor’s organizational between supervisor developmental feedback and employee embodiment was significant in predicting employee creative creative self-efficacy separately for low and high supervisor’s self-efficacy, which supported Condition 2. In Model 5, employee organizational embodiment. creative self-efficacy was positively related to his/her innovative To further test Condition 4, we followed Hayes’ (2013) behavior, which supported Condition 3. So, we can conclude suggestions by PROCESS macros to examine the whole that a supervisor’s organizational embodiment could moderate moderated mediation model. The results indicate that the index the relationship between supervisor developmental feedback value of employee creative self-efficacy for moderated mediation and employee creative self-efficacy, supporting Hypothesis 3. effect is significant [index = 0.02, SE = 0.01,95% CI = (0.00– Figure 2 shows this interaction pattern, plotting the relationship 0.05)]. Besides, the employee with a higher level [index = 0.07, Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 Creative self-efficacy fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 8 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior SE = 0.03, 95% CI = (0.03–0.12)] is more significant than that behavior. Our results reveals that supervisor developmental with a lower level [index = 0.03, SE = 0.01, 95% CI = (0.01–0.07)] feedback, as a positive and supportive feedback from a supervisor, of supervisor’s organizational embodiment, fulfilling the fourth can promote employee innovative behavior, which is beneficial condition. Therefore, the whole moderated mediation model of for the organization. To the best of our knowledge, this our study was fully supported. is the first study in the supervisor developmental feedback Finally, we used the power analysis with GPower to test literature that empirically investigates its influences on employee the final sample size of 375 and 8 predictors as the baseline innovation behavior. More specifically, our result demonstrates to further examine whether our valid sample and conclusions that the positive influence of supervisor developmental feedback were representative and appropriate (Faul and Erdfelder, 1992). on employee innovation behavior may trigger the employee’s Specifically, we based on Cohen’s (1977) suggestions to verify psychological mechanism of creative self-efficacy, which is these assessments, which involve in three different effect sizes, achieved to a definite extent in our research (Bandura, 2006; small (f = 0.02), medium (f = 0.15), and large (f = 0.35). Gong et al., 2009; Jaussi and Randel, 2014). This provides the 2 2 2 The results of post hoc power analysis revealed that at the 0.05 insight that the creative self-efficacy of employee also plays level the power to detect obtained effect for the whole regression an important role in the process of supervisor feedback and in prediction of employee innovative behavior was 0.86, which employee innovative behavior. Taken together, for the feedback was above the value of 0.8 recommended by previous researches literature, our research not only heeds the call for the examination (Cohen, 1977; Field, 2009; Mustafa et al., 2016). Hence, we can of supervisor developmental feedback in a Chinese context (Li deduce that our final valid sample of 375 has enough power to et al., 2011; Guo et al., 2014), but also deepens our knowledge and detect small effects, and our conclusions based on this sample are understanding of the influence process of supervisor feedback on appropriate and representative. employee behavior. Second, the present study further contributes to the current literature by identifying creative self-efficacy of employee as DISCUSSION a mediating mechanism between supervisor developmental feedback and his/her innovative behavior. Previous research has Base on supervisor feedback and employee innovation literature, suggested that there were a number of alternative mechanisms in the present study offers theoretical and empirical accounts the relationships between supervisor characteristics or behaviors for whether and how supervisor developmental feedback and employee innovative behavior, such as intrinsic motivation influence employee innovation behavior by establishing creative (Shin and Zhou, 2003; Shalley and Gilson, 2004; Tu and Lu, self-efficacy as an intervening mechanism and supervisor’s 2013), goal self-concordance (Zhang et al., 2017), and meaningful organizational embodiment as a boundary condition. Using work (Cai et al., 2018), and our results show that creative multi-time data from a sample of 375 Chinese employees, we self-efficacy can be an additional mechanism like them. This found that the influence of supervisor developmental feedback means that employees’ motivation to innovate may not only be on employee innovative behavior was not only significant, but affected by organizational factors, such as supervisor feedback, also mediated by employee creative self-efficacy. In addition, but also by their creative self-efficacy (Hsu Michael et al., 2011), we verified that a supervisor’s organizational embodiment of which provides a new empirical contribution to the external employee could moderate the relationship between supervisor validity of creative self-efficacy. Meanwhile, previous research developmental feedback and employee creative self-efficacy, and suggests that individual creative self-efficacy is the closest factor the mediating role of creative self-efficacy, such that the more a to employee innovation behavior, and transfers the influence supervisor’s organizational embodiment of the employees is at of situational factors on innovation behavior (Gong et al., work, the stronger this mediating role is. These findings illustrate 2009; Mittal and Dhar, 2015; Grosser and Venkataramani, 2017; that supervisor developmental feedback has a positive influence Newman et al., 2018). Our study, based on social cognition on employee innovative behavior by elevating employee creative theory, verified that the effectiveness of creative self-efficacy self-efficacy, especially when the supervisor’s organizational was an appropriate mediator between supervisor developmental embodiment is high. feedback and innovative behavior. This would also be productive for further scholars to explore other potential mechanisms Theoretical Contributions linking situational factors with employee innovation outcomes. The conclusions of present study make several theoretical Finally, our results also have some contributions to the contributions to the research on supervisor feedback and supervisor’s organizational embodiment literature by introducing employee innovation. First, our key problem was to examine it as a moderator of the relationships between supervisor the influence of developmental feedback from supervisor on developmental feedback, employee creative self-efficacy and employee innovative behavior. Although research increasingly innovative behavior. Specifically, in employees with high highlights that a positive supervisor feedback can motivate levels of supervisor’s organizational embodiment, developmental employees’ positive attitude and behavior by providing useful, feedback from the supervisors may generate more benefits to helpful and valuable information (Zhou and Shalley, 2008; promote their creative self-efficacy and, thereby, innovative Belschak and Den Hartog, 2009; Dahling et al., 2017; Zhang behaviors. For employees with low level of supervisor’s et al., 2017), the literature provides scant evidences as to how organizational embodiment, regardless of whether supervisors supervisor developmental feedback affects employee innovative offer them developmental feedback, they are unlikely to Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 9 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior take part in innovative activities. That is, high supervisor’s should conscientiously strengthen their own organizational organizational embodiment is essential to determine whether identity to make the employees really treat them as the supervisor developmental feedback positively associates with embodiment of organization. They also should make their employee creative self-efficacy and innovative behavior. As a new own inner values and external behaviors consistent with the concept, the academic research on supervisor’s organizational organization to further enhance the employees’ approval and embodiment is still in its infancy. Our study introduced it into the support for them. field of supervisor feedback and employee behavior for the first Limitations and Future Directions time and verified its applicability in Chinese context. Meanwhile, these results have responded to the repeated calls by Eisenberger Although the present study has several limitations, it does et al. (2010), Shoss et al. (2013), and Stinglhamber et al. (2015) provide some directions for future research. The first one is to investigate the role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment our sample. We still use employee self-reported assessments of in organizational behavior research and management psychology, four core variables that may fail to assess them objectively. Even and also to shed light on an important boundary condition that though the CMV in our study weren’t serious, the conclusions strengthens the relationship between supervisor feedback and should be explained cautiously for the potential CMV caused employee feedback reaction. by the data sources of employee self-assessment. Hence, we encourage future scholars to measure variables at different Practical Implications time from different source (i.e., employees and supervisors). The present study also provided relevant and fruitful guidance Future research also could use longitudinal designs or quasi- for practitioners and organizations. Firstly, we highlighted the experimental to further improve the accuracy of conclusions. significance of supervisor developmental feedback in promoting Second, consistent with previous research, creative self- employee innovative behavior. Notwithstanding, organizations efficacy (Tierney and Farmer, 2002; Gong et al., 2009) and in a Chinese context usually have a more hierarchical structure supervisor organizational embodiment (Eisenberger et al., 2010, than in a Western context (Xin and Pearce, 1996; Cai et al., 2018), 2014; Shoss et al., 2013) of employees are still measured using so supervisor development feedback still has a positive effect participant’s self-perception in our study. The self-evaluation of on Chinese employees, with a powerful influence on managing creative self-efficacy may be influenced by biases and under- subordinates’ creative self-efficacy and innovative behavior. In estimation (or over-estimation), and the employees may not be this line of thinking, mangers should change their ways of able to rate accurately the level of organizational embodiment feedback. In daily work, the supervisors should focus on the of their supervisors. Therefore, we suggest that further scholars content of feedback and consciously provide employees with develop new evaluation questionnaires from other sources to the information they need for their development, learning and evaluate creative self-efficacy and supervisor’s organizational improvement, so as to help employees continuously improve embodiment of employee. their work ability. On the flip side, the supervisor should pay Third, the present research examined employee creative attention to the frequency of feedback, give timely responses and self-efficacy as an intermediary mechanism and supervisor’s support to their employees, especially regarding new ideas, and organizational embodiment as a boundary condition in the guide them to make continuous progress and innovation. relationship between supervisor developmental feedback Secondly, our results indicated that employee innovative and employee innovative behavior and tested the moderated behavior was not only influenced by supervisor feedback, but mediating effects simultaneously. However, other mechanisms also influenced by their own creative self-efficacy. The creative also could explain this managerial phenomenon. Future scholars self-efficacy of employee is more closely related to innovative could go further by incorporating other mediating or moderating behavior than other external factors (Bandura, 1990; Tierney variables, such as intrinsic motivation, employee personality, and Farmer, 2004). Therefore, managers should fully focus supervisor support and specific organizational practice. on the real demands of employees and constantly stimulate Fourth, owing to the data selected in China, the their internal innovation motivation and willingness through generalizability and external validity of our results were various means, to truly encourage employees to put new limited, especially regarding the West. China is a collectivist and creative ideas into practice. In addition, managers should culture country. Chinese employees are more concerned take employees’ characteristics into account, especially when about social relationships with their supervisors compared to recruiting and selecting newcomers for organization. Recruiters western employees. They may react differently to developmental should try to introduce employees with high self-efficacy feedback from their supervisors. Therefore, we advise future into enterprises, particularly those positions requiring more scholars to replicate our research under different cultural innovative behaviors. contexts. Besides, we also hope that future research about Finally, considering the moderating role of a supervisor’s supervisor feedback that are rooted in China could take Chinese organizational embodiment, diverse management practices culture into account. should be implemented to increase the levels of supervisor’s Finally, we suggest another possible direction to facilitate organizational embodiment. Specifically, the organization should research in the field of feedback. The present study has clarify the legitimacy of the leader’s identity, enhance the just investigated the influence of supervisor developmental internal consistency between supervisor and organization, feedback, which is a specific form of feedback, on employee and truly integrate with each other. Meanwhile, supervisors innovative behavior. However, feedback is a complex process Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 10 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior (Carless, 2006; Pokorny and Pickford, 2010), and feedback ETHICS STATEMENT behavior, the credibility of the feedback source, the quality and the delivery of feedback work together to produce feedback The present study was carried out in accordance with the results (Dahling et al., 2017). Just discussing a single type of recommendations of the ethics committee of the Renmin feedback seem cannot fully reveal its consequences. Therefore, University of China with written informed consent from all future studies could be based on a more comprehensive concept, subjects. All the participants were asked to read and approve this such as feedback environment (Steelman et al., 2004), to explore ethical consent before taking part in the present study and follow the influence of supervisor feedback on employee. it in the process of research. The protocol was approved by the ethical committee of the Renmin University of China. CONCLUSION AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS The present study shows that developmental feedback from a supervisor has a positive influence on employee innovative WS, XL, and HD were responsible for and took part in this behavior. In particular, our results indicate that supervisor study. WS as the first author, mainly designed the basic model, developmental feedback positively and indirectly associated with analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. XL made some employee innovative behavior via creative self-efficacy. Moreover, contributions in data collection. HD took part in research design our results suggest a moderated mediated model, in that, the and data analysis. supervisor’s organizational embodiment of employee not only moderates the direct influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee creative self-efficacy, but also moderates FUNDING the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy in the relationship between supervisor developmental feedback and This research is funded by China Scholarship Council employee innovative behavior. (Award ID: 201806360111). Crossan, M. M., and Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of REFERENCES organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J. Manage. Stud. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., and Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and 47, 1154–1191. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 6486.2009.00880.x Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Dahling, J. J., Gabriel, A. S., and MacGowan, R. (2017). Understanding typologies Anseel, F., and Lievens, F. (2007). The long-term impact of the feedback of feedback environment perceptions: a latent profile investigation. J. Vocat. environment on job satisfaction: a field study in a Belgian context. Appl. Psychol. Behav. 101, 133–148. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.007 56, 254–266. doi: 10.1111/j.1464- 0597.2006.00253.x Dai, Y. D., Hou, Y. H., Chen, K. Y., and Zhuang, W. L. (2018). To help or not to Ashford, S. J., and Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: help: antecedents of hotel employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. the role of active feedback seeking. Acad. Manage. J. 34, 251–280. doi: 10.5465/ Contemp. Hosp. M. 30, 1293–1313. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM- 03- 2016- 0160 De Jong, J. P., and Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence Azar, G., and Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological employees’ innovative behaviour. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 10, 41–64. doi: 10.1108/ innovation, and export performance: the effects of innovation radicalness 14601060710720546 and extensiveness. Int. Bus. Rev. 26, 324–336. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. Am. psychol. 41, 09.002 1040–1048. doi: 10.1037/0003- 066X.41.10.1040 Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of thought and action: A Social-Cognitive Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., and Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentic-Hall. organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 500–507. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010. Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of control over 71.3.500 AIDS infection. Eval. Program. Plann. 13, 9–17. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(90) Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., 90004-G Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., et al. (2010). Leader–member exchange and Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. affective organizational commitment: the contribution of supervisor’s 1, 164–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1745- 6916.2006.00011.x organizational embodiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 1085–1103. doi: 10.1037/ Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: correlates in middle and secondary a0020858 students. Creat. Res. J. 18, 447–457. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1804_4 Eisenberger, R., Shoss, M. K., Karagonlar, G., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Wickham, Belschak, F. D., and Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Consequences of positive and R. E., and Buffardi, L. C. (2014). The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS negative feedback: the impact on emotions and extra-role behaviors. Appl. chain: moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational Psychol. 58, 274–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1464- 0597.2008.00336.x embodiment. J. Organ. Behav 35, 635–656. doi: 10.1002/job.1877 Cai, W., Lysova, E. I., Khapova, S. N., and Bossink, B. A. G. (2018). Servant Faul, F., and Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPOWER: A Priori, Post-Hoc, and Compromise leadership and innovative work behavior in chinese high-tech firms: a Power Analyses for MS-DOS [Computer program]. Bonn, FRG: Bonn University. moderated mediation model of meaningful mork and job autonomy. Front. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Psychol. 9:1767. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01767 Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2, 290–309. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5 Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Stud. High. Educ. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd Edn. London: Sage. 31, 219–233. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572132 George, J. M., and Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., and Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors innovative behavior at work. Int. J. Manpow. 27, 75–90. doi: 10.1108/ to employee creativity. Acad. Manage. J. 50, 605–622. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007. 01437720610652853 25525934 Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., and Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, New York, NY: Academic Press. transformational leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 11 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior employee creative self-efficacy. Acad. Manage. J. 52, 765–778. doi: 10.5465/amj. Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N., and Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative 2009.43670890 performance: moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., and Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team and locus of control. J. Organ. Behav. 36, 59–74. doi: 10.1002/job.1943 goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Acad. Manage. J. 56, Mittal, S., and Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee 827–851. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0177 creativity: mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of Grosser, T. J., and Venkataramani, V. (2017). An alter centric perspective knowledge sharing. Manage. Decis. 53, 894–910. doi: 10.1108/MD- 07- 2014- on employee innovation: the importance of alters’ creative self-efficacy and 0464 network structure. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 1360–1374. doi: 10.1037/apl0000220 Muller, D., Judd, C. M., and Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated Gumusluoglu, ˘ L., and Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership and and mediation is moderated. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 852–863. doi: 10.1037/ organizational innovation: the roles of internal and external support for 0022- 3514.89.6.852 innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 26, 264–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1540- 5885.2009. Mustafa, M., Martin, L., and Hughes, M. (2016). Psychological ownership, job 00657.x satisfaction, and middle manager entrepreneurial behavior. J. Leadersh. Organ. Guo, Y., Liao, J., Liao, S., and Zhang, Y. (2014). The mediating role of intrinsic Stud. 23, 272–287. doi: 10.1177/1548051815627360 motivation on the relationship between developmental feedback and employee Newman, A., Herman, H. M., Schwarz, G., and Nielsen, I. (2018). The effects job performance. Soc. Behav. Personal. 42, 731–741. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2014.42. of employees’ creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: the role of 5.731 entrepreneurial leadership. J. Bus. Res. 89, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018. Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process 04.001 analysis. J. Educ. Meas. 51, 335–337. doi: 10.1111/jedm.12050 Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., and Stam, D. (2010). Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multiv. Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the Behav. Res. 50, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2014.962683 moderating role of psychological empowerment. J. Organ. Behav. 31, 609–623. Hon, A. H., Chan, W. W., and Lu, L. (2013). Overcoming work-related stress and doi: 10.1002/job.650 promoting employee creativity in hotel industry: the role of task feedback from Pokorny, H., and Pickford, P. (2010). Complexity, cues and relationships: Student supervisor. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 33, 416–424. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.11.001 perceptions of feedback. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 11, 21–30. doi: 10.1177/ Hsu Michael, L. A., Hou, S.-T., and Fan, H.-L. (2011). Creative self-efficacy and 1469787409355872 innovative behavior in a service setting: optimism as a moderator. J. Creative. Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for Behav. 45, 258–272. doi: 10.1002/j.2162- 6057.2011.tb01430.x assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance Res. Methods 40, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., and Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated Modeling. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar. Behave. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., and Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of Res. 42, 185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316 individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 64, 349–371. Ramirez, F. J., Parra-Requena, G., Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., and Garcia-Villaverde, P. M. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.64.4.349 (2018). From external information to marketing innovation: the mediating Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and role of product and organizational innovation. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 33, 693–705. innovative work behavior. J. Occup. Organ. Psych. 73, 287–302. doi: 10.1348/ doi: 10.1108/JBIM- 12- 2016- 0291 096317900167038 Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W., Lord, R. G., Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behavior and job involvement at the price of conflict Treviño, L. K., et al. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 76, organization levels. Acad. Manage. J. 55, 1053–1078. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011. 347–364. doi: 10.1348/096317903769647210 0064 Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., and West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of Shalley, C. E., and Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: a review of individual and group innovation: a special issue introduction. J. Organ. Behav. social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadersh. Q. 25, 129–145. doi: 10.1002/job.242 15, 33–53. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004 Jaussi, K. S., and Randel, A. E. (2014). Where to look? Creative self-efficacy, Shin, S. J., Yuan, F., and Zhou, J. (2017). When perceived innovation knowledge retrieval, and incremental and radical creativity. Creat. Res. J. 26, job requirement increases employee innovative behavior: a sensemaking 400–410. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2014.961772 perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 38, 68–86. doi: 10.1002/job.2111 Joo, B. K., Hahn, H. J., and Peterson, S. L. (2015). Turnover intention: the Shin, S. J., and Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and effects of core self-evaluations, proactive personality, perceived organizational creativity: evidence from Korea. Acad. Manage. J. 46, 703–714. doi: 10.5465/ support, developmental feedback, and job complexity. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 30040662 18, 116–130. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2015.1026549 Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., and Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Joo, B. K., and Park, S. (2010). Career satisfaction, organizational commitment, Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: the roles of perceived and turnover intention: the effects of goal orientation, organizational learning organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Appl. culture and developmental feedback. Leadership. Org. Dev. J. 31, 482–500. doi: Psychol. 98, 158–168. doi: 10.1037/a0030687 10.1108/01437731011069999 Steele, L. M., Johnson, G., and Medeiros, K. E. (2018). Looking beyond Joo, B. K., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., and Yoon, S. W. (2012). Team creativity: the generation of creative ideas: confidence in evaluating ideas predicts the effects of perceived learning culture, developmental feedback and team creative outcomes. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 125, 21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017. cohesion. Int. J. Train. Dev. 16, 77–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011. 12.028 00395.x Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., and Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd scale: construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educ. Psychol. Meas. Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 64, 165–184. doi: 10.1177/0013164403258440 Li, N., Harris, T. B., Boswell, W. R., and Xie, Z. (2011). The role of organizational Stinglhamber, F., Marique, G., Caesens, G., Hanin, D., and De Zanet, F. (2015). The insiders’ developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomers’ influence of transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment: performance: an interactionist perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 1317–1327. the role of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational doi: 10.1037/a0024029 embodiment. Career. Dev. Int. 20, 583–603. doi: 10.1108/CDI- 12- 2014- 0158 Longenecker, C. O., and Nykodym, N. (1996). Public sector performance appraisal Stroeva, O., Lyapina, I. R., Konobeeva, E. E., and Konobeeva, O. E. (2015). effectiveness: a case study. Public Personnel Manage. 25, 151–164. doi: 10.1177/ Effectiveness of management of innovative activities in regional socio-economic 009102609602500203 systems. Eu. R. Stud. J. 18, 63–76. Majumdar, B. (2015). Using Feedback in Organizational Consulting by Jane Brodie Tierney, P., and Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: its potential Gregory and Paul E. Levy. Org. Manage. J. 12, 193–194. doi: 10.1080/15416518. antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad. Manage. J. 45, 2015.1076652 1137–1148. doi: 10.5465/3069429 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581 fpsyg-10-01581 July 6, 2019 Time: 12:41 # 12 Su et al. Developmental Feedback and Innovative Behavior Tierney, P., and Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee employees and supervisors. Front. Psychol. 9:1871. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018. creativity. J. Manage. 30, 413–432. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2002.12.001 01871 Tu, Y., and Lu, X. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative Zheng, X., Diaz, I., Jing, Y., and Chiaburu, D. S. (2015). Positive and negative work behavior: a perspective of intrinsic motivation. J. Bus. Ethics. 116, 441–455. supervisor developmental feedback and task-performance. Leadership. Org. doi: 10.1007/s10551- 012- 1455- 7 Dev. J. 36, 212–232. doi: 10.1108/LODJ- 04- 2013- 0039 Wu, C. H., and Parker, S. K. (2017). The role of leader support in facilitating Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: proactive work behavior: a perspective from attachment theory. J. Manag. 43, role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative 1025–1049. doi: 10.1177/0149206314544745 personality. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 413–422. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.88.3.413 Xerri, M. J., and Brunetto, Y. (2013). Fostering innovative behavior: the importance Zhou, J., and Shalley, C. E. (2008). Expanding the scope and impact of of employee commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. I. J. Hum. organizational creativity research. Handbook. Organ. Creative. 28, 125–147. Resour. Mange. 24, 3163–3177. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.775033 Xin, K. K., and Pearce, J. L. (1996). Guanxi: connections as substitutes for formal Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was institutional support. Acad. Manage. J. 39, 1641–1658. doi: 10.5465/257072 conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could Xu, J., Shang, Y., and Song, H. (2018). Supervisor developmental feedback be construed as a potential conflict of interest. and creativity: a moderated mediation model. J. Manage. Sci. 31, 69–78. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672- 0334.2018.01.005 Copyright © 2019 Su, Lin and Ding. This is an open-access article distributed Zhang, J., Gong, Z., Zhang, S., and Zhao, Y. (2017). Impact of the supervisor under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, feedback environment on creative performance: a moderated mediation model. distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original Front. Psychol. 8:256. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00256 author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Forest, J., and Chen, C. (2018). The negative and in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, positive aspects of employees’ innovative behavior: role of goals of distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1581
Journal
Frontiers in Psychology – Pubmed Central
Published: Jul 9, 2019