Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302 – 1311
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

How to unleash the innovative work behavior of project staff?

The role of affective and performance-based factors
Thomas Spanuth a , Andreas Wald b,⁎
a
Horváth & Partner GmbH, Hamburger Allee 2-4, 60486 Frankfurt, Germany
b
School of Business and Law, University of Agder, Postboks 422, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway

Received 16 September 2016; received in revised form 26 March 2017; accepted 3 July 2017
Available online 25 July 2017

Abstract

Although the literature generally presumes that temporary forms of organizing such as projects are especially suitable for generating innovation,
empirical support for this assumption that goes beyond case-based evidence is still scarce. The study at hand aims to close this gap in research by
investigating how the characteristics of temporary organizations (TOs) affect an individual's innovative work behavior (IWB). By applying a
structural equation modeling approach on an Austrian-German sample of 583 TO professionals, it can be shown that both, performance-based
factors and affective factors are having a significant impact on the emergence of IWB. However, the hypothesized moderating role of a TO-related
reward system has not been validated. Our results can help project managers to more effectively unleash the creative potential of their project staff
and to increase the innovativeness of project work.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Task proficiency; Innovative work behavior; Organizational commitment; Project; Reward management; Temporary organization

1. Introduction
Innovation is an important means for achieving competitive
advantage. Accordingly, the number of scholarly works dealing
with innovation has increased tremendously over the last
decades (Mumford, 2000; West, 2002; Ramamoorthy et al.,
2005; Cefis and Marsili, 2006; Marvel and Lumpkin, 2007).
The investigation of the emergence of innovation is thereby
of particular interest. Existing research has shown that innova-
tion cannot be explained by higher-level factors alone (e.g., the
strategy, organizational culture), but that a closer look on
lower-levels factors such as an employee's affective behavior
(e.g., personal motivation, commitment) and performance (e.g.,
a person's cognitive skills, task proficiency) are important
too (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Bunce and West, 1995; Mumford
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: TSpanuth@horvath-partners.com (T. Spanuth),
andreas.wald@uia.no (A. Wald).
et al., 2002; Anderson et al., 2004; Yuan and Woodman, 2010;
Dörner, 2012). However, not only those employee-related
factors are considered to be important aspects in generating
innovation, but also the surrounding work environment. For
example, there is a common held assumption among organiza-
tional scholars that temporary forms of organizing such as projects
are especially suitable for generating innovation (Whittington
et al., 1999; Bakker, 2010). This is generally attributed to the
specific characteristics of temporary organizations (TOs) like
the limited duration, uniqueness, ambiguous hierarchies, hetero-
geneous team constellations and informal coordination mecha-
nisms (cf. Packendorff, 1995; Hobday, 2000; Bakker, 2010;
Hanisch and Wald, 2014; Tyssen et al., 2014). Surprisingly,
empirical support for this assumption that goes beyond case-based
evidence is still scarce. As there is an increased tendency towards
organizing work in TOs (Aubry and Lenfle, 2012; Packendorff
and Lindgren, 2014; Wald et al., 2015), this issue becomes even
more severe.
The study at hand aims to close this gap in innovation and TO
research by empirically investigating how firms can unleash their

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.002
0263-7863/00/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
 T. Spanuth, A. Wald / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302–1311
employees' innovative work behavior (IWB) in the context of
the TO. More precisely, we will explore whether the effect
of performance-based development factors will be stronger in
this respect than that of affective ones, or vice versa. Thereby,
we will focus on two individual factors, TO proficiency (TOP)
and TO commitment (TOC), as their permanent organization
(PO)-related counterparts were found to have a strong influence
on fostering IWB. Do to the fact that human resource (HR)
practices like reward management (RM) showed to enable
employees' IWB in permanent organizational settings (Dorenbosch
et al., 2005; Abstein et al., 2014), we will explore whether this also
applies to TOs.
We contribute to existing research in four ways. First,
we demonstrate how the characteristics of the TO will affect
the emergence of IWB at the individual-level. Thereby, we
consider two separate groups of antecedents – affective and
performance-based. In addition, and in line with prior research
in permanent organizational settings, particular attention is
given to reward management as a relevant organizational
enabler for the effectiveness of such factors in fostering IWB.
Second, as lower-level analysis can provide further explana-
tions for a phenomenon's higher-level effects (cf. Coleman,
1990; Abell et al., 2008), we simultaneously support ongoing
research on IWB at the organizational-level. Third, by con-
sidering the practical implications of our research, we are also
able to give guidance to project managers on how to adequately
stimulate the aspired behavioral outcome of their project staff, a
task which is often found to be difficult in practice (especially
with regard to IWB; cf. Abstein et al., 2014). Lastly, by using a
broad, cross-sectional data set, we provide sufficient empirical
support to our investigation.
Our work proceeds as follows. In the next section, the
theoretical background of our study and the underlying research
model are presented. Thereafter, we will describe the research
design and methods. This will be followed by the presentation
and discussion of the results. Finally, we will derive impli-
cations for theory and practice, show important limitations of
our study and highlight potential fields for future research.
2. Theoretical background and research model
The term innovative work behavior describes an individual's
ability within a role, a group or an entire organization to
generate, to promote and to realize new ideas, products or the
like (West and Farr, 1990; Janssen, 2000; de Jong and den
Hartog, 2010). Since such a behavior typically exceeds the
normal job and role expectations (Seibert et al., 2001), it is
often related to the so-called group of extra-role behaviors
(Katz, 1964; Katz and Kahn, 1966 & 78). By taking a closer
look into the literature, one can find several other concepts that
are closely related to IWB (cf. Abstein et al., 2014) such as
employee innovativeness (West, 2002; Huhtala and Parzefall,
2007), innovative job performance (Janssen, 2001; Hammond
et al., 2011) and on-the-job innovation (Dorenbosch et al.,
2005), just to name a few.
According to Axtell et al. (2000), an individual's IWB can
range from the development of small incremental product
1303
improvements to the introduction of radically new product
ideas. Thereby, the timing aspect plays an important role as
other firms might start to imitate those ideas while time passes
by. As imitation costs are in general much lower than inno-
vation costs, the sooner a firm places its innovation(s) on the
market, the more it may profit from it (cf. Lieberman and
Montgomery, 1988). Moreover, innovation is a quite complex
and unique process, which requires a broad range of different
expertise for a successful implementation (Abra, 1994). Prior
research has also shown that high levels of formalization
negatively affect the generation of new ideas (Troy et al.,
2001), and more precisely that the strict compliance with orga-
nizational rules and guidelines will most likely lead to routine,
non-innovative (product or service) solutions (Moreno et al.,
2013).
Because of today's increased environmental dynamism and
uncertainty, a notable progress in research on IWB can be
observed, especially with regard to its emergence (cf. Mumford
et al., 2002; Anderson et al., 2004; Dörner, 2012). Surprisingly,
although being commonly agreed-upon by many scholars that
temporary forms of organizing are beneficial for generating
innovation (Whittington et al., 1999; Bakker, 2010), empirical
research on the antecedents of IWB in the context of the TO is
still scarce. As a consequence, scholars such as Anderson et al.
(2004) are calling for more research on innovation processes
in the TO context. In a similar way, Eriksson (2014) claims
that a better understanding of how TOs are impacting the
emergence of dynamic capabilities (DCs), which comprises the
capability to innovate (cf. Wang and Ahmed, 2007), would be
of particular interest.
Following these calls in the literature, we will proceed by
taking a closer look on how an individual's organizational
commitment and task proficiency will influence the emergence of
IWB in the TO. For example, a project worker can be willing to
perform a certain task, but misses the adequate proficiency in
terms of skills and qualification in order to do so (commitment
but no proficiency). On the other hand, a project worker could
have the skills and qualification in order to perform a certain task,
but lacks the necessary motivation in order to do so (proficiency
but no commitment). We chose these two factors for two reasons.
First, the PO-related counterparts were found to be among the
most prevalent development factors in fostering IWB. Second,
the characteristics of TOs (limited duration, uniqueness, ambig-
uous hierarchies, informal coordination mechanisms) are consid-
ered to have a significant influence on those factors, which makes
it interesting to investigate whether its known effects in POs
also apply to TOs. For example, project members are compared
to their PO counterparts more likely to be exposed to high
levels of uncertainty, which again is found to negatively affect
a person's job commitment (cf. Keegan and den Hartog, 2004;
Hui and Lee, 2000).
In addition, we will explore whether the enabling role of
reward management as an important HR practice on IWB also
holds for TOs. Thereby, our research will not be limited to a single
type of TO such as R&D projects. Instead, we consider a hetero-
geneous set of various types of TOs which allows for a broader
generalization of the results (for further details, see Table 1).
1304 T. Spanuth, A. Wald / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302–1311

Table 1 2.2. TO proficiency and innovative work behavior

Descriptive statistics (TO focus).
TO type % TO duration % TO size % (Task) proficiency refers to the extent to which an employee
(months) (budget, EUR) meets his/her formalized job requirements (Griffin et al., 2007).
Organizational/HR a 6 b3 1 b50 k 10 As prior research on permanent organizations has shown,
IT b 31 3–6 16 50–100 k 7 employees' proficiency has in general a positive effect on their
R&D/NPD c 12 7–12 24 101–200 k 9
work motivation (e.g., Locke and Latham, 1990) as well as
Marketing & sales 2 13–24 32 201–500 k 17
Infrastructure 5 25–48 22 501–1000 k 14 their self-confidence (e.g., Dreher, 1982), which in turn are
Other 44 N48 5 N1000 k 43 found to be core enablers of innovation (Anderson et al., 2004).
No answer – No answer – No answer – TOs typically imply complex and non-routine tasks. Further,
Note: N = 583. they are often short in time and may be set up of highly
a
Human resources. heterogeneous team constellations (Tyssen et al., 2014). We
b
Information technology. therefore presume that TO members, compared to those in
c
Research & technology/new product development.
POs, are more challenged in their problem-solving activities,
and thus are required to be more proficient in order to meet
their preset, time-limited job requirements. With other words,
2.1. TO commitment and innovative work behavior TO members with a high level of TO proficiency (i.e., the
extent to which a TO participant reaches his/her predefined
Organizational commitment can be defined in general as job requirements) are likely to perform better than those with a
a psychological state that illustrates an employee's identifica- low level. As TOs are especially considered for the generation
tion with a specific organization (O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; of innovation (Whittington et al., 1999; Bakker, 2010), we
Allen and Meyer, 1990; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Previous expect the following:
research on permanent organizations confirmed that committed
employees, especially those that were affectively attached to H2. TOP enhances an employee's IWB.
their surrounding organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991), are
more willing to tolerate occupational stress (Reilly and Orsak, 2.3. The joint effects of TO commitment and TO proficiency
1991; Fornes et al., 2008) and are less burnt out at work (Jamal,
1990). Moreover, it has also been shown that committed em- TO participants are in general high-skilled experts working
ployees tend to work harder and more goal-oriented (Wiener, together for a limited duration in time (Hanisch and Wald,
1982; Fornes et al., 2008). 2014). They usually depend on a superior line manager in the
TOs are increasingly integrated by POs to cope with non- PO rather than the respective TO head (Tyssen et al., 2014).
routine, complex tasks (Bechky, 2006; Hanisch and Wald, Furthermore, they are often not familiar with each other –
2014), which are often fairly unrelated to the PO's business neither on a personal nor on a professional level (Sydow et al.,
routines. The time to accomplish such tasks is limited, which 2004; Brockhoff, 2006; Tyssen et al., 2013). Becoming
implies that TOs are limited in their duration as well affectively committed to a specific TO setting seems therefore
(Maaninen-Olsson and Müllern, 2009). Beyond that, TOs are to be a time-consuming and long-lasting endeavor, which will
in general composed of groups of independently working certainly lower the resulting behavioral impact. TO partici-
experts with diverse professional and cultural backgrounds pants, on the other side, are typically involved in more than one
(Bechky, 2006; Cattani et al., 2011). Moreover, TOs are organizational setting at the same time (Hanisch and Wald,
supposed to exhibit fewer formal guidelines than POs and 2014). High levels of proficiency seem to be of particular
rely more on informal coordination (Bechky, 2006; Janowicz- help in this context. As TOs are by definition limited in their
Panjaitan et al., 2009). As a result, TOs are seen by many duration (Maaninen-Olsson and Müllern, 2009), this aspect
scholars as beneficial for achieving innovation (e.g., Bakker, becomes even more severe. We therefore assume the following
2010). However, the positive characteristics of TOs pose effect:
also certain psychological challenges. TO members are, com-
pared to their PO counterparts, often exposed to high levels of H3. In the context of the TO, the effect of TOP on IWB is
uncertainty, risk and ambiguity (Keegan and den Hartog, stronger than that of TOC.
2004). Therefore, they might become more easily stressed
or frustrated, which in turn (if not handled appropriately) 2.4. The moderating role of reward management in the context
will have a negative impact on their overall well-being and of the TO
quality of work (e.g., Maslach, 2003; Rothmann, 2008). Due
to that, it seems reasonable to assume that the level of a TO Reward management as one of the core HR practices
member's (affective) organizational commitment has a partic- (Abstein et al., 2014), is concerned with the strategic defi-
ularly strong influence on his/her work behavior. We thus nition, implementation and operation of the workforce's com-
hypothesize: pensation scheme (Armstrong and Murlis, 2004). As claimed
by many scholarly works (e.g., Conway and Monks, 2008;
H1. TOC positively affects an employee's IWB. Bustamam et al., 2014), a transparent and understandable reward
 T. Spanuth, A. Wald / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302–1311 1305

management practice is positively related to workforce satisfac- Fig. 1 shows a comprehensive summary of our final research
tion. Likewise, Bowen and Schneider (1988) and Boon et al. model.
(2007) argue that reward practices can be used to stimulate and
guide a desired employee behavior.
3. Research design
TOs are often called into existence when a given task cannot
be effectively realized within the organization's permanent
3.1. Data collection and analysis
structure (Sydow et al., 2004). From a HR perspective, setting
up a TO-specific reward system (i.e., a reward system that
To empirically test the hypotheses (see Fig. 1), we decided
adequately incorporates the characteristics of TOs) is challeng-
to focus on TO professionals in Austria and Germany for two
ing as TOs are unique undertakings which may differ signif-
reasons. First, the various industry sectors of both countries
icantly in their size, complexity as well as duration (Brockhoff,
make a high use of temporary forms of organizing. A recent
2006; Hanisch and Wald, 2014; Tyssen et al., 2014). Hence,
study of Wald et al. (2015), for instance, shows that the share
setting up a TO-specific and transparent reward system across
of TOs in the entire German economy already reached up to a
the entire TO portfolio will be of certain difficulty. Moreover,
total of 34.7% in 2013, and is expected to even grow further in
TO participants are typically depending on their respective line
the upcoming years. Second, by focusing on two closely related
manager in the PO. In this case, the leader of a TO has only
countries we keep a potential influence of cultural factors to a
limited influence on TO members' promotions, rewards and the
minimum.
like (Packendorff, 1995; Tyssen et al., 2013). An example for a
Finding and accessing the right set of contact persons is
TO-related reward system would be that of consulting firms
a central problem in all kinds of empirical studies, and even
where an employee's bonus is based on the project delivery
more in the context of temporary organizations. Due to that,
outcome as well as PO-related tasks such as recruiting support,
we decided to join collaboration with the two leading project
and product marketing activities.
management associations in Austria and Germany, Project
However, thus being rather seldom and difficult to set up,
Management Austria (PMA) and German Association for
we expect that a transparent and balanced reward management
Project Management (GPM), for conducting a survey on
system would have a similar effect in the context of the TO as
rewards systems and careers in projects. By using the respective
it has in the PO. On the one hand, TO participants are often
newsletter systems of both associations for distributing our
confronted with high levels of risk and uncertainty (Keegan
web-based questionnaire, we were thus able to reach out to
and den Hartog, 2004), where specific rewards would act as
N 8000 potential respondents. Within the questionnaire, the
an additional motivator. On the other hand, they typically
possible respondents were asked to evaluate the proposed
possess several hierarchical roles at the same time (Tyssen
questions on behalf of their last TO experience. In both, the
et al., 2014). It seems reasonable to assume that those roles
title and the introduction of the questionnaire, it was made clear
that are sufficiently rewarded are more likely to be handled first
that we talk about compensation and rewards in the context
and with more care than those which are not. We therefore
of the TO.
expect the following:
The data collection itself took part in between May and
H4. The extent of RM moderates the effects of TOC and TOP. July 2015. Beforehand, we extensively pre-tested the associated
questionnaire with a group of TO experts for assuring inter-
H4a. RM increases the positive effect of TOC on IWB.
subjective validity and reliability. Overall, we received a
H4b. RM increases the positive effect of TOP on IWB. total of 1724 responses. Of these, 583 (33.8%) were found

Antecedents Influencing Factor Phenomenon

Affective
Performance-
based

Fig. 1. Research model.

1306 T. Spanuth, A. Wald / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302–1311

completed. In this sample, the average age of the participants
was 40 years. Less than one-fifth (16.1%) were female.
Further, 399 (68.4%) respondents came from Germany and
184 (31.6%) from Austria. The respondents' TO-related work
experience was on average 10 years, and ranged from a
minimum of 0 to a maximum of 38 years. Likewise, N 84.0%
of the respondents were in a managing position (i.e., project
lead or higher). A detailed overview of all TO-related indicators
can further be found in Table 1.
Since we were using a single informant design (i.e., all
independent and dependent variables in the questionnaire are
answered by the same person), there is a certain risk that a
common method bias might decrease the construct validity
(Doty and Glick, 1988). In order to control for such an effect,
we therefore conducted a Harman's single factor test (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). As no single factor emerged, we presume that
it is rather unlikely that our results are misled by a common
method bias. Beyond that, we also tested for a potential non-
response bias in our dataset by dividing it in two separate
groups: Early respondents (group 1) and late respondents
(group 2). Then, we applied a Mann-Whitney U test (Mann
and Whitney, 1947), where no significant differences between
the two datasets could be found.
To simultaneously examine and test all of the latent
variables and their hypothesized interrelationships, structural
equation modeling (SEM) was applied (cf. Landsperger et al.,
2012; Sarstedt et al., 2014). Although covariance-based
methods are more common in SEM (Homburg et al., 2008), a
variance-based method (PLS: Partial Least Squares) was used
in this respect for two reasons. First, higher-order formative
constructs such as IWB (for further details, see Table 2) cannot
be adequately modeled with covariance-based (CB) methods
(Chin, 2010). Second, PLS-SEM has been particularly devel-
oped as an exploratory-oriented approach to SEM, setting
lower restrictions on data availability and specification of rela-
tionships compared to CB-SEM (Dijkstra, 2010; Reinartz et al.,
2009).
3.2. Measures
Variables such as TO commitment, TO proficiency and IWB
are in practice not directly measurable (latent). Therefore,
measurable indicators are needed for an approximation. The
measurement can be done either with reflective constructs
where the direct manipulation of a particular indicator is not
expected to have a direct effect on the construct itself, or with
formative constructs where changes in one or several indicators
are supposed to lead to a change on the construct level also
(Coltman et al., 2008). For example, the latent variable TO
proficiency was measured as a reflective construct including of
three individual indicators (Griffin et al., 2007): 1. “I carried
out the core parts of my job well”, 2. “I completed my core
tasks well using the standard procedures”, and 3. “I ensured my
tasks were completed successfully.”
All variables used in this study were assessed based on
previously established and validated scales which got further
adapted to the TO context in wording (where necessary). For
measuring the scale items, a 7-point Likert scale was used,
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). A com-
plete overview of all items applied in the survey can be found
in Table 2.

Table 2
First-order hierarchical measurement model results.
Construct level Item Loading Sig.
(λi) (t-value)
2nd-Order 1st-Order
Innovative work Problem recognition CR = 0.751; I often looked for opportunities to improve things 0.914 47.700
behavior a AVE = 0.610 I often paid attention to issues that were not part of my daily work 0.619 9.974
Idea generation CR = 0.902; I often searched for new working methods, techniques or instruments 0.798 35.461
AVE = 0.756 I often generated original solutions for problems 0.893 100.526
I often found new approaches to execute tasks 0.912 128.529
Idea championing CR = 0.938; I often made important TO members enthusiastic about my ideas 0.941 143.471
AVE = 0.883 I often convinced colleagues and supervisors about my ideas 0.937 123.972
Idea realization CR = 0.912; I often systematically introduced innovative ideas into work practices 0.900 106.709
AVE = 0.775 I often contributed to the implementation of new ideas 0.911 106.244
I often put effort in the development of new ideas 0.828 47.053
- Reward management a CR = 0.871; The criteria on which my compensation is based are clear and understandable 0.843 6.497
AVE = 0.694 My employer's TO-related remuneration structure is transparent 0.884 7.605
I think my compensation package is appropriate 0.768 5.719
- TO commitment a CR = 0.860; I believe in the value of this TO 0.862 47.557
AVE = 0.509 I think the management was making a mistake by introducing this TO (r.c.) 0.650 10.104
This TO was installed to serve an important purpose 0.766 24.065
Things would have been better without this TO (r.c.) 0.592 9.097
This TO was not necessary (r.c.) 0.661 10.075
I enjoyed working in this last TO 0.717 17.699
- TO proficiency a CR = 0.851; I carried out the core parts of my job well 0.899 80.498
AVE = 0.659 I completed my core tasks well using the standard procedures 0.694 13.898
I ensured my tasks were completed successfully 0.828 36.113
Note: N = 583; r.c. = reverse coded.
a
The respondent was asked to answer the proposed statements by thinking of the last completed TO (here: project case) he/she was involved in.
 T. Spanuth, A. Wald / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302–1311
| TO commitment: following the work of Tyssen et al.
(2014), which transferred Hersovitch and Meyer's (2002)
prevalent commitment to change scale to the TO context,
we operationalized TOC as a five-item long, reflective
construct.
| Innovative work behavior: by taking a closer look into
the existing innovation and behavioral science literature,
one can find several different approaches for conceptualiz-
ing the IWB construct. de Jong and den Hartog's (2010)
conceptualization of a four-dimensional construct (problem
recognition, idea generation, idea championing and idea
realization) can, however, be seen as the most compre-
hensive version in this context. Due to that, we followed
Abstein et al. (2014) and measured IWB as a second-order,
formative construct, using their modified version of de Jong
and den Hartog's (2010) original IWB scale.
| TO proficiency: using Griffin et al.'s (2007) construct of
task proficiency as a basis, we operationalized TOP as a
three-item long, reflective construct.
| Reward management: we conceptualized the reward man-
agement practice as a reflective construct based on a slightly
modified version of Abstein et al. (2014).
To control for cross-sectional as well as socio-demographical
effects, we additionally included a mix of TO-related (project
type and industry; cf. Hanisch and Wald, 2014) and respondent-
specific (citizenship and gender) variables.
4. Results
4.1. Evaluation of the measurement model
For determining the overall quality of the measurement
model, we conducted a broad variety of statistical tests; for a
detailed overview of our findings see Table 2.
In a first step, we assessed our first-order constructs (TOC,
TOP and RM), which were all operationalized as reflective.
First, we evaluated each construct's indicator loadings (cf.
Chin, 2010) and composite reliability (cf. Bagozzi and Yi,
1988). All values thereby exceeded the respective thresholds
(see Table 2). We then assessed each construct's convergent
validity by calculating its average variance extracted (AVE).
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981). Convergent validity
can be assumed if each construct surpasses an AVE of 0.5,
which is the case. Additionally, we could also find proof
for the measurement model's discriminant validity since the
construct's squared intercorrelations were all found lower than
Table 3
Second-order hierarchical measurement model results.
2nd-Order construct 1st-Order construct Weights Sig. (t-value)
Innovative work behavior Problem recognition 0.696 5.317
VIF = 2.258 Idea generation − 0.318 2.716
Idea championing 0.589 4.664
Idea realization 0.132 1.235
Note: N = 583.
1307
their AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Likewise, we could
also confirm the construct's predictive validity by means of a
Stone-Geisser test (Geisser, 1974).
In a second step, we evaluated the quality of our second-
order, formative construct IWB by checking for multi-
collinearity and indicator relevance (Chin, 2010). As the
calculated variance inflation factor (VIF) reached a maximum
value of 2.258 (see Table 3), we showed that no multi-
collinearity should be present at the measurement model level
(Henseler et al., 2009). Further, all indicators' outer weights
exceeded the typical significance threshold of t N 1.96, except
for idea realization. Still, each weight surpassed the minimum
absolute threshold of 0.1 (Chin and Newsted, 1999).
4.2. Evaluation of the structural model
To check the appropriateness of our structural model, we
calculated all path coefficients, their respective significance
levels and the endogenous construct's R2-value (see Fig. 2).
Overall, the model and the data seem to fit, since the
R2-value of IWB reaches a value of 0.23. Further, regarding
the path coefficients and their respective significance levels,
we find empirical support for all our hypotheses except
those related to the moderating role of RM. More precisely,
H1 and H2 are supported as both employees' TOC (β = 0.23;
p b 0.01) and TOP (β = 0.32; p b 0.01) positively affect their
IWB. In line with H3, we also revealed that the effect of
TOP on IWB is stronger than that of TOC. To test for the
significance and magnitude of the moderating effect of RM
(as claimed in H4), the PLS product indicator approach was
conducted (Chin et al., 1996). Contrary to our proposition, the
perceived results do not confirm a significant effect of RM on
the relationship between TOC and IWB (β = − 0.07; n.s.) as
well as TOC and IWB (β = − 0.04; n.s.). Hence, both H4a
and H4b are rejected.
Since the proposed control variables (gender, citizenship,
project type and industry) did not show any significant effect,
they were ex post excluded from our model.
5. Discussion and conclusion
Following two open calls for research (Anderson et al.,
2004; Eriksson, 2014), the aim of this study was to explore
how the characteristics of the TO will affect the emergence
of IWB at the individual-level, and more precisely, whether
affective organizational commitment and task proficiency are
also influencing IWB in the context of the TO.
5.1. Theoretical contribution
Our study contributes to existing IWB and TO theory in
several ways.
First, our results confirm the hypothesized positive effect of
TOC on IWB. This finding shows that the relevance of orga-
nizational commitment on behavioral outcomes (Vandenberghe
and Tremblay, 2008) is not restricted to permanent organiza-
tional settings alone. Further, it also extends the previous work
1308 T. Spanuth, A. Wald / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302–1311
Affective
Performance-
based
Fig. 2. Structural model results.
of Tyssen et al. (2014), which investigated the effect of TOC
on project success, by transferring the exploration of TOC
benefits from the project-level to the individual- (respectively,
behavioral-) level. A recent statement of Zhu (2013) further
underlines the relevance of this aspect by arguing that there is
an augmented interested in management research observable
regarding the analysis and interpretation of employee behav-
ior. Finally, we are able to provide empirical insights to a
recent claim of Dwivedula et al. (2013), which states that
employee commitment has been well explored in organiza-
tional research, however only in permanent and not in tem-
porary organizational settings.
Second, we are able to show that POC positively enhances
IWB, and that the relation of POC on IWB is stronger than that
of TOC on IWB. The first finding supports the outcome of
previous works like that of Dreher (1982) which stresses the
importance of employees' proficiency for their self-confidence,
a prevalent enabler of innovation (Anderson et al., 2004;
Dörner, 2012). Moreover, it also strengthens the assumption
that TO participants with a high level of TOP are likely to
perform better than those with a low level. On the one hand,
TOs are by definition time-limited (Maaninen-Olsson and
Müllern, 2009), which again requires a certain level of efficiency
regarding a successful execution. On the other hand, TOs are
typically used in case of complex and non-routine tasks
(e.g., Bechky, 2006; Hanisch and Wald, 2014). In order to
solve these tasks, a certain competence will be needed. The
second finding which regards the joint effects of TOP and TOC
stresses the assumption that becoming affectively committed
to a specific TO setting takes time, which will likely lower
the resulting behavioral impact. Likewise, it also gives empirical
support to the idea that high levels of proficiency are of particular
help in the TO.
Third, contrary to our expectation, our results do not show
evidence for a significant role of RM regarding the afore-
mentioned relationships. A possible explanation for this could
be that TO participants are still used to the fact that their
promotions and bonuses typically depend on their superior
line manager in the PO and not the respective TO manager
(Packendorff, 1995; Tyssen et al., 2013). Hence, the installment
of a RM practice in the PO is likely to have yet a much higher
impact on TO participants' behavioral output than one in
the TO would have. However, we do expect that this effect
will change in the future as there is an augmented tendency
to organize work in TOs observable (Aubry and Lenfle,
2012; Packendorff and Lindgren, 2014; Wald et al., 2015),
which again will have a positive impact on the establishment
of TO-related RM practices. With other words, the current
“authority gap” (Tyssen et al., 2014: 378) will gradually
decrease and TO participants will get more familiarized with
TO-related RM practices as time passes by. An alternative
explanation could be our focus on compensation. The gen-
eration of innovation is a creative task which requires an
innovation-oriented organizational climate and mindset (Scott
and Bruce, 1994). Monetary aspects might be beneficial in this
context, but they are probably not the core prerequisite.
Finally, our results contribute to TO theory building by
providing empirical evidence for the common held assumption
that TOs are especially suitable for generating innovation
(Hobday, 2000; Maylor et al., 2006). At the same time, we
are able to address a claim made by Anderson et al. (2004)
that empirical studies available in the field of innovation are
often composed of relatively small samples sizes, whose results
cannot be simply generalized due to the implied bias.
5.2. Practical implications
From a practical perspective, our findings can help managers
to get a better understanding on how to capitalize their
employees' innovative work behavior in the context of the
TO. In sum, there are three important aspects managers should
pay special attention:
First, as both TOC and TOP were found to enhance IWB,
TO managers should investigate more into practices that
will help to improve their employees' emotional attachment
(respectively, proficiency) towards their temporary organization.
 T. Spanuth, A. Wald / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302–1311
Existing research such as Reilly and Orsak (1991) and Dreher
(1982) support this aspect by emphasizing that committed
(proficient) employees are more willing to tolerate occupational
stress (having a higher self-confidence), which in turn will have a
positive impact on their behavioral outcome.
Second, the study also shows that TOP has a stronger
relation on IWB than TOC. Therefore, managers should first
observe possible ways on how to improve their employees'
TOP, before considering their TOC development. In addition to
this, it is worthwhile mentioning that the process of becoming
committed to a specific TO setting takes time. A long TO
duration is therefore an important premise in this context.
Third, our results suggest that employees need sufficient
time to get familiarized with a TO-related reward management
system and its benefits before it can have a significant impact
on their behavior. Research on HR management in projects
such as that of Zwikael and Unger-Aviram (2010) support this
claim by showing that the behavioral effect of a TO-related
reward management is only noticeable in case of long TO
durations. Consequently, firms should introduce a TO-specific
RM practice rather in case of long-term TOs or in project-based
organizations such as professional services and construction.
5.3. Limitations and future research
Our study provides various new insights on how TO char-
acteristics will impact the emergence of IWB at the individual-
level. However, it also contains certain limitations, which sub-
sequently lead to potential avenues for future research.
First, the study used a cross-sectional design, which
prohibits a longitudinal observation of the hypothesized effects.
To overcome this issue, a repetitive design would be necessary.
Second, the presented results are based on an Austria-
German sample of TO professionals. Future research must
show if the results are generalizable (i.e., also apply to other
country contexts).
Third, we treated innovative work behavior only as a
dependent variable, thereby neglected any of its potential
consequences. The common held assumption that IWB implies
a certain organizational benefit has yet, however, only scarcely
been empirically investigated (Janssen et al., 2004). Hence,
more integrated research models are needed that handle IWB
as an independent as well as dependent variable (Janssen et al.,
2004; Dörner, 2012).
Lastly, determining performance-related factors such as
innovative work behavior by asking a single person may imply
a subjective bias, often referred to as single or key informant
bias (Seidler, 1974; Philipps, 1981). To minimize this bias and
to improve the overall validity and reliability of the measure-
ment results, a multiple informant approach would be necessary
(Ernst and Teichert, 1998).
Conflict of interest
None.
1309
References
Abell, P., Felin, T., Foss, N., 2008. Building micro foundations for the routines,
capabilities, and performance links. Manag. Decis. Econ. 29, 489–502.
Abra, J., 1994. Collaboration in creative work: an initiative for investigation.
Creat. Res. J. 8, 205–218.
Abstein, A., Heidenreich, S., Spieth, P., 2014. Innovative work behaviour: the
impact of comprehensive HR system perceptions and the role of work-life
conflict. Ind. Innov. 21, 91–116.
Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup.
Psychol. 63, 1–18.
Anderson, N., de Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., 2004. The routinization of
innovation research: a constructively critical review of the state-of-the-
science. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 147–173.
Armstrong, M., Murlis, H., 2004. Reward Management: A Handbook of
Remuneration Strategy and Practice. 5th edition. Kogan Page, London.
Aubry, M., Lenfle, S., 2012. Projectification: Midler's footprint in the project
management field. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5, 680–694.
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E.,
Harrington, E., 2000. Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and
implementation of ideas. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 73, 265–285.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models.
J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16, 74–94.
Bakker, R.M., 2010. Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a
systematic review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 466–486.
Bechky, B.A., 2006. Gaffers, gofers, and grips: role-based coordination in
temporary organizations. Organ. Sci. 17, 3–21.
Boon, C., Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., den Hartog, D., 2007. Measuring strategic
and internal fit in HRM: an alternative approach. Paper Presented at the
Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Philadelphia.
Bowen, D.E., Schneider, B., 1988. Services marketing and management:
implications for organizational behavior. Res. Organ. Behav. 10, 43–80.
Brockhoff, K., 2006. On the novelty dimension in project management. Proj.
Manag. J. 37, 26–36.
Bunce, D., West, M.A., 1995. Personality and perceptions of group climate
factors as predictors of individual innovation at work. Appl. Psychol. 44,
199–215.
Bustamam, F.L., Teng, S.S., Abdullah, F.Z., 2014. Reward management and
job satisfaction among frontline employees in hotel industry in Malaysia.
Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 144, 392–402.
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., Täube, F., 2011. Project-based
organizing and strategic management: a long-term research agenda on
temporary organizational forms. In: Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen,
L., Täube, F. (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management. Project-based
Organizing and Strategic Management volume 28. Emerald, Bingley,
pp. xv–xxxix.
Cefis, E., Marsili, O., 2006. Survivor: the role of innovation in firms survival.
Res. Policy 35, 626–641.
Chin, W.W., 2010. How to write up and report PLS analysis. In: Vinci, V.E.,
Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least
Squares, Concepts, Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
pp. 655–690.
Chin, W.W., Newsted, P.R., 1999. Structural equation modeling: analysis with
small samples using partial least squares. In: Hoyle, R. (Ed.), Statistical
Strategies for Small Sample Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
pp. 307–341.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.I., Newsted, P.R., 1996. A partial least squares latent
variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a
Monte Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study.
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Systems,
Cleveland, Ohio, pp. 21–41.
Coleman, J.S., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T.M., Midgley, D.F., Venaik, S., 2008. Formative
versus reflective measurement models: two applications of formative
measurement. J. Bus. Res. 61, 1250–1262.
1310 T. Spanuth, A. Wald / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302–1311
Conway, E., Monks, K., 2008. HR practices and commitment to change: an
employee-level analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 18, 70–87.
Dijkstra, T.K., 2010. Latent variables and indices: Herman World's basic
design and partial least squares. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W.,
Henseler, J., Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares:
Concepts, Methods, and Applications. Springer, Berlin, pp. 23–46.
Dorenbosch, L., van Engen, M.L., Verhagen, M., 2005. On-the-job innovation:
the impact of job design and human resource management through
production ownership. Creat. Innov. Manage. 14, 129–141.
Dörner, N., 2012. Innovative Work Behavior: The Roles of Employee
Expectations and Effects on Job Performance. (Doctoral Thesis). University
of St. Gallen (120 ps. Dissertation no. 4007).
Doty, G.H., Glick, W.H., 1988. Common method bias: does common methods
variance recall bias results? Organ. Res. Methods 1, 374–406.
Dreher, G.F., 1982. The role of performance in turnover process. Acad. Manag.
J. 25, 137–147.
Dwivedula, R., Bredillet, C., Müller, R., 2013. Work motivation as a
determinant of organisational and professional commitment in temporary
organisations: theoretical lenses and propositions. J. Proj. Program Portfolio
Manage. 4, 11–29.
Eriksson, T., 2014. Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic
capabilities. Scand. J. Manag. 30, 65–82.
Ernst, H., Teichert, T., 1998. The R&D/marketing interface and single
informant bias in NPD research: an illustration of a benchmarking study.
Technovation 18, 721–739.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50.
Fornes, S.L., Rocco, T.S., Wollard, K.K., 2008. Workplace commitment: a
conceptual model developed from integrative review of the research. Hum.
Resour. Dev. Rev. 7, 339–357.
Geisser, S., 1974. A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika
61, 101–107.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., Parker, S.K., 2007. A new model of work role
performance: positive behavior in uncertain and independent contexts.
Acad. Manag. J. 50, 327–347.
Hammond, M.M., Neff, N.L., Farr, J.L., Schwall, A.R., Zhao, X., 2011.
Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: a meta-analysis. Psychol.
Aesthet. Creat. Arts 5, 90–105.
Hanisch, B., Wald, A., 2014. Effects of complexity on the success of temporary
organizations: relationship quality and transparency as substitutes for formal
coordination mechanisms. Scand. J. Manag. 30, 197–213.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R., 2009. The use of partial least
squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 20,
277–320.
Hersovitch, L., Meyer, J.P., 2002. Commitment to organizational change:
extension of a three component model. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 474–483.
Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing
complex products and systems? Res. Policy 29, 871–893.
Homburg, C., Pflesser, C., Klarmann, 2008. Strukturgleichungsmodelle mit
latenten Variablen: Kausalanalyse. In: Hermann, A., Homburg, C., Klarmann,
M. (Eds.), Handbuch Marktforschung, 3rd edition Gabler, Wiesbaden,
pp. 545–577 (German).
Huhtala, H., Parzefall, M.R., 2007. A review of employee well-being and
innovativeness: an opportunity for a mutual benefit. Creat. Innov. Manage.
16, 299–307.
Hui, C., Lee, C., 2000. Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on
organizational uncertainty: employee response relationships. J. Manag. 26,
215–232.
Jamal, M., 1990. Relationship of job stress and type-a behavior to employees
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychosomatic health prob-
lems, and turnover motivation. Hum. Relat. 43, 727–738.
Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., Bakker, R.M., Kenis, P.N., Kenis, P.N., Janowicz-
Panjaitan, M.K., Cambré, B., 2009. Research on temporary organizations: the
state of the art and distinct approaches towards temporariness. Temporary
Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Cheltenham, pp. 56–85.
Janssen, O., 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and
innovative work behavior. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 73, 287–302.
Janssen, O., 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear
relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction.
Acad. Manag. J. 44, 1039–1050.
Janssen, O., van de Vliert, E., West, M.A., 2004. The bright and dark sides
of individual and group innovation: a special issue introduction. J. Organ.
Behav. 25, 129–145.
de Jong, J., den Hartog, D., 2010. Measuring innovative work behavior. Creat.
Innov. Manage. 19, 23–36.
Katz, D., 1964. Motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behav. Sci. 9,
131–146.
Katz, D., Kahn, R.L., 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley,
New York.
Keegan, A.E., den Hartog, D.N., 2004. Transformational leadership in a
project-based environment: a comparative study of the leadership styles of
project managers and line managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 609–617.
Landsperger, J., Spieth, P., Heidenreich, S., 2012. How network managers
contribute to innovation network performance. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 16,
1–21.
Lieberman, M.B., Montgomery, D.B., 1988. First-mover advantages. Strateg.
Manag. J. 9, 41–58.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Maaninen-Olsson, E., Müllern, T., 2009. A contextual understanding of projects —
the importance of space and time. Scand. J. Manag. 25, 327–339.
Mann, H.B., Whitney, D.R., 1947. On a test of whether one of two random
variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat. 18, 50–60.
Marvel, M.R., Lumpkin, G.T., 2007. Technology entrepreneurs' human
capital and its effects on innovation radicalness. Entrep. Theory Pract. 31,
807–828.
Maslach, C., 2003. Job burnout: new directions in research and intervention.
Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 189–192.
Mathieu, J., Zajac, D., 1990. A review and meta-analysis of antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychol. Bull.
108, 171–194.
Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T., Hodgson, D., 2006. From
projectification to programmification. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 663–674.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., 1991. A three-component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1, 61–89.
Moreno, A.R., García-Morales, V.J., Montes, Llorens, 2013. Determinants of
proactive innovative behaviour in new services: empirical investigation of
service vs. manufacturing firms. Serv. Ind. J. 33, 977–1002.
Mumford, M.D., 2000. Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for
innovation. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 10, 313–351.
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., Strange, J.M., 2002. Leading creative
people: orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadersh. Q. 13, 705–750.
O'Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., 1986. Organizational commitment and psycho-
logical attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and interna-
tionalization on prosocial behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 492–499.
Packendorff, J., 1995. Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions
for project management research. Scand. J. Manag. 11, 319–333.
Packendorff, J., Lindgren, M., 2014. Projectification and its consequences:
narrow and broad conceptualisations. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manage. Sci. 17,
7–21.
Philipps, L.W., 1981. Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: a
methodological note on organizational analysis in marketing. J. Mark. Res.
18, 395–415.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common
method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903.
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P.C., Slattery, T., Sardessai, R., 2005. Determinants
of innovative work behaviour: development and test of an integrated model.
Creat. Innov. Manage. 14, 142–150.
Reilly, N.P., Orsak, C.L., 1991. A career stage analysis of career and
organizational commitment in nursing. J. Vocational Behav. 39, 311–330
(???).
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., Henseler, J., 2009. An empirical comparison of the
efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Int. J. Res. Mark. 26,
332–344.
 T. Spanuth, A. Wald / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 1302–1311
Rothmann, S., 2008. Job satisfaction, occupational stress, burnout and work
engagement as components of work-related wellbeing. S. Afr. J. Ind.
Psychol. 34, 11–16.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Smith, D., Reams, R., Hair Jr., J.F., 2014. Partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for
family business researchers. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 5, 105–115.
Scott, S.G., Bruce, R.A., 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: a path
model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 37,
580–607.
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., Crant, J.M., 2001. What do proactive people do?
A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Pers.
Psychol. 54, 845–874.
Seidler, J., 1974. On using informants: a technique for collecting quantitative
data and controlling for measurement error in organisational analysis. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 39, 816–831.
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., DeFillippi, R., 2004. Project-based organizations,
embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: editorial. Organ. Stud. 25,
1475–1489.
Troy, C., Szymanski, M., Varadarajan, P., 2001. Generating new product ideas:
an initial investigation of the role of market information and organizational
characteristics. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 29, 84–101.
Tyssen, A.K., Wald, A., Spieth, P., 2013. Leadership in temporary organizations: a
review of leadership theories and a research agenda. Proj. Manag. J. 44, 52–67.
Tyssen, A.K., Wald, A., Heidenreich, S., 2014. Leadership in the context
of temporary organizations: a study on the effects of transactional und
transformational leadership on follower's commitment in projects. J. Leadersh.
Organ. Stud. 21, 376–393.
Vandenberghe, C., Tremblay, M., 2008. The role of pay satisfaction and
organizational commitment in turnover intentions: a two-sample study.
J. Bus. Psychol. 22, 275–286.
1311
Wald, A., Spanuth, T., Schneider, S., Schoper, Y., 2015. Towards a
measurement of “projectification”: a study on the share of project work
in the German Economy. In: Wald, A., Wagner, R., Schneider, C.,
Gschwendtner, M. (Eds.), Advanced Project Management (Volume 4):
Flexibility and Innovative Capacity, 1st edition GPM, Nuremberg,
pp. 18–36.
Wang, C.L., Ahmed, P.K., 2007. Dynamic capabilities: a review and research
agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 9, 31–51.
West, M.A., 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model
of creativity and innovation implementation within groups. Appl. Psychol.
51, 355–386.
West, M.A., Farr, J.L., 1990. Innovation at work. In: West, M.A., Farr, J.L.
(Eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organiza-
tional Strategies. Wiley, Chichester.
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E., Conyon, M., 1999. Change
and complementarities in the new competitive landscape: a European panel
study, 1992–1996. Organ. Sci. 10, 583–600.
Wiener, Y., 1982. Commitment in organizations: a normative view. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 7, 418–428.
Yuan, F., Woodman, R.W., 2010. Innovative behavior in the workplace: the
role of performance and image outcome expectations. Acad. Manag. J. 53,
323–342.
Zhu, Y., 2013. Individual behavior: in-role and extra-role. Int. J. Bus. Adm. 4,
23–27.
Zwikael, O., Unger-Aviram, E., 2010. HRM in project groups: the effect of
project duration on team development effectiveness. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28,
413–421.