Over the past three decades, innovative work behavior has become a mandatory strategy for companies' competitiveness, growth, and development (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, Reference Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou2014). Among different approaches to innovative work behavior (e.g., Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou2014; Janssen, Reference Janssen2000), a four-phase model consisting of idea generation, idea elaboration, idea championing,Footnote 1 and idea implementation emerged (De Jong & Den Hartog, Reference De Jong and Den Hartog2010). Unfortunately, most of the research on innovation has focused on idea generation and implementation phases (Howell & Higgins, Reference Howell and Higgins1990) rather than on the idea elaborating and championing phases (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). Moreover, some research suggested the existence of a single implementation factor integrating the promotion phase (e.g., Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou2014). This has resulted in a dearth of studies that looked at the role of idea championing (Howell & Boies, Reference Howell and Boies2004).
Perry-Smith and Mannucci (Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017) reported that, among the 22 articles they reviewed, only five dealt (implicitly yet) with the promotion phase. The decline of the study of idea championing could be explained by interest in the generation and implementation phases, which are often considered more important, and by the difficulty of studying idea championing in an organizational context (Battistelli, Reference Battistelli2014). However, ‘most ideas need to be promoted as they often do not match what is already used in their work group or organization’ (De Jong & Den Hartog, Reference De Jong and Den Hartog2010, p. 24). Without championing, a successful idea could remain dormant and hinder idea implementation (Frost & Egri, Reference Frost and Egri1991). It is, thus, useful to determine the facilitators and inhibitors of idea championing and its consequences.
Drawing upon social exchange theory (Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, & Hall, Reference Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels and Hall2017), social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001, Reference Bandura, Smith and Hitt2005), and the change and innovation literature (Potočnik & Anderson, Reference Potočnik and Anderson2016), this study examines the effect of proactive behavior and constructive deviance as antecedents to idea championing, and their relationship with commitment and turnover intention. Change and innovation may result from previous strategic development (Howell & Boies, Reference Howell and Boies2004) and deviation from organizational norms (Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, Reference Madjar, Greenberg and Chen2011) that challenge the status quo (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, Reference Anderson, De Dreu and Nijstad2004). Social cognitive theory states that a behavior that feeds the perception of self-efficacy leads to the emergence of other behaviors (Bandura, Reference Bandura, Smith and Hitt2005). Moreover, as individuals interact with their environment, they may influence the environment and vice versa (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001). Individuals would, thus, develop the ability to self-regulate their behaviors through intentionality, foresight, and purpose seeking, and their goal-directed behaviors would produce new behaviors and change over time (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001). Furthermore, the proactive (e.g., integrated, gathering, and preventive) and deviant (e.g., non-normative) relationship of individuals with the environment should influence the idea championing component of innovation in different ways. The inclusion of proactive work behavior (PWB; Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010) and constructive deviant work behavior (CDWB; Déprez, Battistelli, Boudrias, & Cangialosi, Reference Déprez, Battistelli, Boudrias and Cangialosi2020) as antecedents should allow determining the most appropriate behavioral approaches for the championing phase of innovation. In this study, PWB is operationalized through voice and taking charge whereas CDWB encompasses prosocial rule-breaking efficiency and constructive deviant behavior. As the championing phase involves seeking help and support to realize the generated ideas, it should be related to the champion's commitment and willingness to remain in the organization. Moreover, as CDWB engenders weaker social ties compared to PWB, the consequences of the interaction between the champion and his/her organization may differ (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017).
Our study makes several contributions to the innovation literature. First, it extends this literature by zooming on idea championing, a phase of the innovative process that has been understudied so far. Second, this research examines the effect of PWB and CDWB on idea championing, providing a deeper understanding of the antecedents by which idea championing emerges. Third, this study investigates how idea championing acts as a mechanism that fosters individuals' psychological attachment to the organization, an issue that remains unaddressed in the literature. We argue that idea championing constitutes an intervening factor between PWB and CDWB on one hand and organizational commitment and turnover intention on the other hand. Fourth, we introduced constructive deviance to change and advanced the innovation literature by using social cognitive theory, which is a promising framework for understanding the various processes of deviance. Results raise the question of when it is more appropriate to promote the development of deviant behaviors at work to innovate. These results should also help practitioners consider the use of organizational proactive behaviors rather than deviant behaviors to develop innovation. In this sense, we are advancing research on constructive and deviant behaviors. We show through our model that PWB and CDWB are indeed constructs whose elaboration and outcomes differ, and therefore follow different processes.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Innovative behavior in the change and innovation literature
There has been growing interest in concepts associated with how organizations, teams, and employees bring about change and innovation (Potočnik & Anderson, Reference Potočnik and Anderson2016). These concepts target different levels and processes through approaches perceived as similar (Anderson, et al., Reference Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou2014). Among nine concepts identified in the change and innovation literature (e.g., voice, taking charge, and extra-role behavior), innovative behavior emerged as a specific construct (West & Farr, Reference West, Farr, West and Farr1990) composed of creative ideas (generation) as the first phase and idea implementation as the second phase (Potočnik & Anderson, Reference Potočnik and Anderson2016). Innovative behavior differs from other concepts owing to its multi-phase nature (De Jong & Den Hartog, Reference De Jong and Den Hartog2010) and propensity to change the status quo via new ideas (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, Reference Anderson, De Dreu and Nijstad2004). Following the definition of innovative work behavior (Table 1), idea generation refers to the individual's ability to generate new ideas (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou2014). Idea implementation refers to the action to adopt, apply, and use innovative ideas (Janssen, Reference Janssen2000). Idea implementation requires a shared vision and an understanding of all actors (West & Farr, Reference West, Farr, West and Farr1990) whereas idea generation requires an organizational context fostering cognitive flexibility (Janssen, Reference Janssen2000). However, to legitimize and implement an innovation, the champion must promote the idea first (Howell & Higgins, Reference Howell and Higgins1990). Idea championing occurs between the generation and the implementation phases (Janssen, Reference Janssen2000). It refers to the ability to find support by expressing enthusiasm and confidence in the success of innovation (Howell & Boies, Reference Howell and Boies2004). According to Bandura (Reference Bandura1986), people are interested in the tasks in which they feel effective. In this sense, idea championing follows the tenets of social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura, Weiner and Craighead2010). The creation of a new idea may cause others to be reluctant and prevent the implementation of the idea to preserve the status quo (Howell & Higgins, Reference Howell and Higgins1990). The championing phase is thus essential to reduce this reluctance and to help implement the generated idea (e.g., Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). This paper focuses on the championing phase of innovation.
Constructs, dimensions, and definitions
a Dimensions used in confirmatory factor and SEM analyses.
Champions of innovation activate different networks, at the appropriate moment, that help transform ideas into implemented constructs (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). Idea championing requires behaviors well-adjusted to the organizational context (De Jong & Den Hartog, Reference De Jong and Den Hartog2010), unlike idea generation and implementation that aim to challenge the status quo (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, De Dreu and Nijstad2004). Indeed, as idea championing seeks to gain social approval, hence funding, to realize the idea the champion incurs a high risk of rejection (Howell & Higgins, Reference Howell and Higgins1990). To overcome this difficulty, individuals draw on their sense of self-efficacy (Zhou & Woodman, Reference Zhou, Woodman and Shavinina2003) and set goals that correspond to their expectations of innovation (Yuan & Woodman, Reference Yuan and Woodman2010). To get through idea implementation, the champion must build legitimacy (Cattani & Ferriani, Reference Cattani and Ferriani2008) and influence (Howell & Higgins, Reference Howell and Higgins1990) toward his/her network during the championing phase (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). For example, an employee is more likely to find support to change job characteristics if he/she proactively proposes ideas instead of imposing change without even considering colleagues' and supervisors' opinions.
Innovation, proactivity, and constructive deviance
Innovative behaviors follow a temporal sequence that involves interactions with individuals, environment, and organization (Grant & Ashford, Reference Grant and Ashford2008; Warren, Reference Warren2003). Even if they are named differently, they share similarities and partly overlap, and are sometimes identified through similar or opposite labels (Potočnik & Anderson, Reference Potočnik and Anderson2016). For example, voice and taking charge are presented as change and innovation-oriented behaviors that are linked to both proactivity (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010) and constructive deviance (Vadera, Pratt, & Mishra, Reference Vadera, Pratt and Mishra2013). To reduce conceptual ambiguity, Déprez et al. (Reference Déprez, Battistelli, Boudrias and Cangialosi2020) examined the relationship between behaviors included both in the literature on constructive deviance (Vadera, Pratt, & Mishra, Reference Vadera, Pratt and Mishra2013) and change and innovation (Potočnik & Anderson, Reference Potočnik and Anderson2016). Their results support the existence of two higher-order factors, both oriented toward change and innovation: PWB, reflecting proactivity, and CDWB, reflecting constructive deviance. Due to their contribution to innovation (Galperin, Reference Galperin2002; Tornau & Frese, Reference Tornau and Frese2013), PWB and CDWB should be related to innovative work behavior. However, the extent to which PWB and CDWB are related to idea championing needs to be assessed.
PWB is a second-order factor defined as ‘taking control of, and bringing about change within, the internal organizational environment’ (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010, p. 637). It encompasses four proactive behaviors: voice (Van Dyne & LePine, Reference Van Dyne and LePine1998), taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, Reference Morrison and Phelps1998), individual innovation (Scott & Bruce, Reference Scott and Bruce1994), and problem prevention (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010). Voice involves sharing opinions by communicating one's own ‘views about work issues to others in the workplace, even if views differ, and others disagree’ (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010, p. 637). It refers to behaviors expressed through promotive means that imply acting proactively and thinking about issues in advance to communicate an adapted method of action (Maynes & Podsakoff, Reference Maynes and Podsakoff2014). Taking charge has a more active elaboration and means trying ‘to bring about improved procedures in the workplace’ (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010, p. 637). It refers to the effort made to make changes in the execution of work tasks and involves autonomy (Morrison & Phelps, Reference Morrison and Phelps1998). Thus, voice and taking charge capture employees' effort to improve work methods and promote new ideas (Ng, Hsu, & Parker, Reference Ng, Hsu and Parker2019). Moreover, voice and taking charge are different from idea championing, as the latter aims to bring together the main actors who can help the promoted idea to be realized (Potočnik & Anderson, Reference Potočnik and Anderson2016). The action (i.e., taking charge) and discussion (i.e., voice) phases are, thus, preliminary to this phase of gathering and funding around the defended idea. They should be related to idea championing, which requires committed actors to obtain support (e.g., Howell & Higgins, Reference Howell and Higgins1990). Individual innovation and problem prevention behaviors should be more related to the generation of ideas through the search for new ways of thinking and identification of ‘the root causes of things that go wrong’ (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010, p. 637). Therefore, our focus is on voice and taking charge as components of PWB and key elements in the process of idea championing.
CDWB is defined as bringing about change by breaking rules in the organization (Déprez et al., Reference Déprez, Battistelli, Boudrias and Cangialosi2020) and as such reflect positive deviance, namely ‘intentional behaviors that depart from the norms of a referent group in honorable ways’ (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, Reference Spreitzer and Sonenshein2004). CDWB is characterized by an innovative intent that seeks non-conventional procedures to help the organization (Galperin, Reference Galperin2002) and influence the change process (Dahling, Chau, Mayer, & Gregory, Reference Dahling, Chau, Mayer and Gregory2012). CDWB encompasses two forms of behaviors: constructive deviant behavior and prosocial rule-breaking behavior (Déprez et al., Reference Déprez, Battistelli, Boudrias and Cangialosi2020). Such behaviors dismiss established norms without harming the organization. Constructive deviance behavior contains an innovation-oriented component that is found in each of its dimensions (i.e., interpersonal and organizational), all of which are expressed in counter-normative ways (Galperin, Reference Galperin2002). Prosocial rule breaking implies behaving against formal rules, which goes beyond non-normative actions (Morrison, Reference Morrison2006), and aims at seeking efficiency, providing better services to customers, or helping co-workers perform better. The search for efficiency through breaking rules contains a component oriented toward change and self-development (Dahling et al., Reference Dahling, Chau, Mayer and Gregory2012). Thus, constructive deviance and prosocial rules breaking for efficiency should be related to idea championing that implies efforts to bring about change by dealing with established norms and rules (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). The other two constructs of prosocial rule-breaking (i.e., customer service and helping colleagues) should be more related to idea implementation since they are immediate and do not require the acceptance of the organization (Morrison, Reference Morrison2006). In this paper, we focus on Galperin's constructive deviant behavior and on the efficiency component of prosocial rule breaking because the other two prosocial rule-breaking aspects appear less relevant to idea championing.
The innovative process may require acting in advance (Tornau & Frese, Reference Tornau and Frese2013) and influencing others (Howell & Boies, Reference Howell and Boies2004). Proactive behaviors, when successful, imply the replication or development of new behaviors (Tornau & Frese, Reference Tornau and Frese2013). Innovation is also likely an outcome of proactive behaviors (Tornau & Frese, Reference Tornau and Frese2013) requiring individuals to challenge the status quo by moving away from norms and rules (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, De Dreu and Nijstad2004). Constructive deviance behaviors aim to bring about organizational change and the generation of new organizational behaviors (Vadera, Pratt, & Mishra, Reference Vadera, Pratt and Mishra2013). Thus, PWB, because it is self-initiated (Potočnik & Anderson, Reference Potočnik and Anderson2016), and CDWB, as it brings change in non-normative ways (Galperin, Reference Galperin2012), may be related to innovation. However, their role may differ. CDWB is reactive and goes against the norms (Morrison, Reference Morrison2006), whereas PWB reflects anticipatory actions (Grant & Ashford, Reference Grant and Ashford2008). CDWB may be perceived as conflicting with the organization's goals, thereby threatening the well-being of both the organization and employees (Morrison, Reference Morrison2006). On the contrary, PWB is more mundane and less conflicting (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010). Finally, CDWB is mostly disruptive for personal relationships (Galperin, Reference Galperin2012), which is not the case of PWB as it takes more discretionary and conventional forms (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou2014).
The championing phase requires that actors perceive the creators' ability and efficacy positively, allowing them to ‘fill’ structural holes and defend new ideas (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). In the case of PWB, the creator's ability and self-efficacy perception should reinforce his or her sense of being able to successfully rally others around his/her ideas (Yuan & Woodman, Reference Yuan and Woodman2010). On the contrary, the deviant actor sees him/herself as deviant because he/she perceives him/herself as being at odds with his/her organizational environment (e.g., management) (Galperin, Reference Galperin2002). This does not necessarily prevent individuals from creating and attempting to implement ideas (Galperin, Reference Galperin2002), but it does not encourage them either. According to the tenets of social network theory (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, Reference Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve and Tsai2004), to promote an idea employees must occupy a central position in their networks (Cangialosi, Odoardi, Battistelli, & Baldaccini, Reference Cangialosi, Odoardi, Battistelli and Baldaccini2021). This requires social and professional recognition within the organization, which is not the case for deviant individuals (e.g., Spreitzer & Sonenshein, Reference Spreitzer and Sonenshein2004). Over time, individuals who do not conform to their network and environment may feel less able to gather and convince others of the validity of their ideas, which may reduce their propensity to defend their ideas. Thus, ideas perceived by deviant actors as being unwelcome by their peers and the organization (Morrison, Reference Morrison2006) are less likely to be defended. Through its breaking rule component and reactive nature, negatively impacting on the champion's legitimacy (Galperin, Reference Galperin2002), CDWB should thus undermine the championing phase, whereas PWB, through its constructive and planned nature, should have the opposite effect. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis 1a. PWB will be positively related to idea championing.
Hypothesis 1b. CDWB will be negatively related to idea championing.
Idea championing, affective commitment, and turnover intention
Few studies have examined the outcomes of proactive behaviors (Grant & Ashford, Reference Grant and Ashford2008), deviant behaviors (Galperin, Reference Galperin2002), and innovative work behavior (e.g., Montani, Odoardi, & Battistelli, Reference Montani, Odoardi and Battistelli2014). As idea championing remains understudied, the factors involved in the championing phase and their effects need to be explored, particularly their effects on psychological attachment (e.g., affective commitment and turnover intention). The failure of promoting innovation could weaken the ties of the champion to the organization and its social network, leading him/her to seek support from a newly created social network (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). In contrast, successful idea championing should strengthen the champion's ties to the organizational environment, making it possible to make change happen (Baer, Reference Baer2012). As ‘psychological attachment is a stabilizing force that binds individuals to organizations’ (Ng, Reference Ng2015, p. 155), this paper investigates the relationship between idea championing and two outcome variables: affective commitment and turnover intention.
Affective commitment
Organizational commitment encompasses three mindsets, namely affective, normative, and continuance commitment (Allen & Meyer, Reference Allen and Meyer1990). Continuance commitment is driven by cost and normative commitment is driven by moral obligations (Powell & Meyer, Reference Powell and Meyer2004), while affective commitment is based on ‘identification to’ and ‘involvement in’ the organization (O'Reilly & Chatman, Reference O'Reilly and Chatman1986). This study focuses on affective commitment, which has been found to be positively related to high-quality exchange relationships with the organization (Ng, Reference Ng2015) and innovative work behavior (e.g., Vinarski-Peretz, Binyamin, & Carmeli, Reference Vinarski-Peretz, Binyamin and Carmeli2011). Decision-makers are more likely to support champions they consider legitimate and competent (Cattani & Ferriani, Reference Cattani and Ferriani2008). Thus, successful idea championing should be related to the champions' feeling of being tied to the organization (Elsbach & Kramer, Reference Elsbach and Kramer2003) and social network. Due to its emotional nature, affective commitment is the dimension most likely to be influenced by idea championing. Championing ideas puts the actor in a situation where he/she feels part of his/her organization and sees that his/her expectations of innovation are shared by others (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). Following the tenets of social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura1991), this process should strengthen the innovative actor's attachment to his or her organizational environment (Bandura, Reference Bandura1991). In addition, the perception of a friendly context to innovation should facilitate using idea championing (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). This situation should not only develop the employee's feeling of confidence in disseminating new ideas, but also his/her commitment.
Hypothesis 2. Idea championing is positively related to affective commitment.
Whatever behavior has been put in place (i.e., PWB or CDWB), successfully promoting ideas would be interpreted by the champion as an endorsement of that behavior by peers and the organization (Vadera, Pratt, & Mishra, Reference Vadera, Pratt and Mishra2013). Idea championing may, thus, play a key role in the relationship between PWB, CDWB, and affective commitment. For instance, champions using PWB would both feel tied to their organization and find it legitimate to promote their ideas (Bandura, Reference Bandura1997, Reference Bandura2001). A positive relationship between proactivity and affective commitment has been reported (Den Hartog & Belschak, Reference Den Hartog and Belschak2007). Two components of PWB (i.e., voice and taking charge) have also been found to be positively related to affective commitment (Tornau & Frese, Reference Tornau and Frese2013). Indeed, individuals who engage emotionally with their organization may exert more effort on its behalf (Den Hartog & Belschak, Reference Den Hartog and Belschak2007). Concerning CDWB, it has been found to be negatively related to affective commitment (Kura, Shamsudin, & Chauhan, Reference Kura, Shamsudin and Chauhan2016). CDWB implies a detachment from the norms and values of the organization (Warren, Reference Warren2003) that potentially weakens the employee's affective commitment. It could suggest an inability to identify with the organization (Kura, Shamsudin, & Chauhan, Reference Kura, Shamsudin and Chauhan2016) and to create a positive bond with it (Yıldız, Alpkan, Ateş, & Sezen, Reference Yıldız, Alpkan, Ateş and Sezen2015). As per the tenets of social network theory (Brass et al., Reference Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve and Tsai2004), the failure to identify and be part of one's network should make individuals feel that they do not belong to their organization. As a result, deviant actors could become emotionally disengaged, particularly if they fail to promote the ideas intended to bring about organizational change. For these reasons, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis 3a. PWB is positively related to affective commitment through idea championing.
Hypothesis 3b. CDWB is negatively related to affective commitment through idea championing.
Turnover intention
In some cases, the reasons that lead an employee to leave an organization may be positive (e.g., low-performing employees), but in many cases turnover is related to negative exchange relationships with the organization (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, Reference Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner2000). Turnover intention has been found to positively predict turnover behavior (Ng, Reference Ng2015) and to be negatively related to affective commitment (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, Reference Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner2000). Employees who are not emotionally attached to their organization are likely to leave (Ng, Reference Ng2015). Thus, as innovation lowers turnover intention (De Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, Reference De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia2017), idea championing should be negatively related to turnover intention.
Hypothesis 4. Idea championing is negatively related to turnover intention.
Therefore, idea championing should play a mediating role in the relationship between PWB, CDWB, and turnover intention. Crant (Reference Crant2000) suggested that proactive employees are more likely to leave the organization rather than to passively adapt to unintended situations due to their confidence in their ability to obtain job opportunities. However, regardless of the behaviors (i.e., PWB or CDWB), champions seek to make change happen in the organization. They could perceive the idea championing phase as an achievement of their risk taking and investment in their search for change (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, De Dreu and Nijstad2004). It is, thus, unlikely that these employees will primary consider leaving. Constructive voice and taking charge imply some personal involvement in the organizational network due to the promotive character of these behaviors (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010). Thus, idea championing should negatively mediate the relationship between PWB and turnover intention. In contrast, the non-normative nature of CDWB would be unwelcome, especially in a context reluctant to challenging the status quo (Choi, Anderson, & Veillette, Reference Choi, Anderson and Veillette2009). Indeed, constructive deviance and prosocial rule-breaking efficiency (i.e., two components of CDWB), by their non-conforming approach to bringing about change (Galperin, Reference Galperin2012), imply efforts to radically modify organizational norms (Dahling & Gutworth, Reference Dahling and Gutworth2017). Acting counter-normatively in a context that requires other actors to support the idea should reduce the likelihood that innovation expectations will be met (Déprez et al., Reference Déprez, Battistelli, Boudrias and Cangialosi2020). This could weaken the individual's sense of self-efficacy and relationship with the environment (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001, Reference Bandura, Smith and Hitt2005) or network (Brass et al., Reference Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve and Tsai2004), and thus increase turnover intention. The above reasoning suggests the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 5a. PWB will be negatively related to turnover intention through idea championing.
Hypothesis 5b. CDWB will be positively related to turnover intention through idea championing.
Method
Sample and procedure
We used a two-wave design with a sample of full-time French workers recruited through social media (i.e., Facebook and LinkedIn). Links to an anonymous survey were shared with groups of people affiliated with specific professions (e.g., hospital staff, salespeople, social workers, and employees from insurance companies). A message described the study and invited people to participate in the project. It contained a hyperlink to access a Limesurvey questionnaire. Participation in the study was made on a voluntary basis and followed a snowball sampling method. Participants were to have salaried employment, hold French citizenship, work a minimum of 35 h per week, and be affiliated with a small- or medium-sized company (i.e., 50–500 employees). To ensure the anonymity of responses, information regarding the type of company or geographical region was not requested. The first survey (time 1) measured CDWB, PWB, and control variables (gender, age, tenure, and managerial status), and collected participants' email addresses. Six months later, time 1 respondents were sent an email requesting completion of the time 2 survey. Prospective participants were ensured of the confidentiality of their responses. The time 1 sample comprised of 515 employees affiliated with a variety of organizations. Among them, 350 provided useful responses at time 2. Excluding 40 surveys with a large proportion of missing data, there remained 310 responses (M age = 35 years, sd = 11; 84% female; 52% private organizations workers) that could be matched across time. Most respondents (79.4%) were employed for 1 year or more in their organization, 36.1% were managers, and the remainder were nonsupervisory employees. Respondents worked in a variety of industries including health care (25.5%), social services (22.3%), finance and insurance (19.4%), trade (17.7%), and education (15.1%).
All variables were measured through self-reports. Although the use of supervisor ratings helps provide an external assessment of employee behavior, hence reduces common method variance (CMV; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003), some research has suggested that self-reported measures remain valid (e.g., Conway & Lance, Reference Conway and Lance2010), particularly when the behaviors under study are hardly accessible to supervisors (e.g., innovative behavior, PWB, or CDWB). In this study, the recruitment of participants through social media made it difficult to obtain supervisor ratings of employee behavior.
Measures
CDWB was measured at time 1 with the French-adapted version (Déprez et al., Reference Déprez, Battistelli, Boudrias and Cangialosi2020) of constructive deviant behavior scale (Galperin, Reference Galperin2012) and the prosocial rule-breaking efficiency scale (Dahling et al., Reference Dahling, Chau, Mayer and Gregory2012). The constructive deviant behavior scale comprises two subscales: interpersonal (3 items; ω = .74) and organizational (4 items; ω = .83). Typical items are ‘Did not follow the instructions of your supervisor in order to improve work procedures’ and ‘Violated company procedures in order to solve a problem,’ respectively. Of the three prosocial rule-breaking dimensions, only efficiency has been retained as it focused on introducing change that increases performance (Morrison, Reference Morrison2006). An example item is ‘I ignore organizational rules to “cut the red tape” and be a more effective worker’ (4 items; ω = .76). Items were assessed using a 5-point scale (1 = never; 5 = always).
PWB was evaluated at time 1 through the scales of taking charge and voice. Taking charge was measured by using a 10-item scale (Morrison & Phelps, Reference Morrison and Phelps1998) (e.g., ‘I often try to eliminate redundant or unnecessary procedures’; ω = .91). Voice behavior was assessed using the French version (Déprez, Battistelli, & Peña Jimenez, Reference Déprez, Battistelli and Peña Jimenez2019) of the 5-item constructive voice scale of Maynes and Podsakoff (Reference Maynes and Podsakoff2014) (e.g., ‘Frequently makes suggestions about how to improve work methods or practices’; ω = .89). All items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
Idea championing was measured at time 2 with the 3-item promotion scale (Janssen, Reference Janssen2000) (e.g., ‘Acquiring approval for innovative ideas’; ω = .79). This scale was chosen as it was found to display strong psychometric properties in French-speaking samples (e.g., Montani, Odoardi, & Battistelli, Reference Montani, Odoardi and Battistelli2014). Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 5 = always).
Affective commitment was assessed at time 2 using Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe, and Stinglhamber's (Reference Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe and Stinglhamber2005) French-adapted version of Meyer, Allen, and Smith's (Reference Meyer, Allen and Smith1993) scale (e.g., ‘I am proud to belong to this organization’; ω = .89). Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
Turnover intention was measured at time 2 with a 3-item French-adapted version (Bentein et al., Reference Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe and Stinglhamber2005) of Meyer, Allen, and Smith's (Reference Meyer, Allen and Smith1993) scale (e.g., ‘I often think about quitting the organization’; ω = .93). Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
Control variables. We controlled for gender, age, tenure, and managerial status (i.e., supervisory vs. nonsupervisory responsibilities) as these variables have been shown to be related to affective commitment and/or turnover intention (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, Reference Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova2006; Thanacoody, Newman, & Fuchs, Reference Thanacoody, Newman and Fuchs2014). However, based on the results of the analysis of variance and multiple regression, only managerial status was found to be significantly related to the outcome variables. Therefore, managerial status was included as a control predicting affective commitment and turnover intention in our structural equations modeling (SEM) analyses.
Results
First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood with robust standard errors (MLR) through Mplus 8.2 (Muthén & Muthén, Reference Muthén and Muthén1998–2017) was performed to examine the viability of our eight first-order CFA model (Table 2: M7). This model yielded a good fit, χ2(600) = 917.51, p < .01, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04, comparative fit index (CFI) = .94, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .93, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .06, Akaike information criterion (AIC) = 27,898.70, and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) = 28,421.82. As shown in Table 2, the eight-factor model (M7) outperformed any more parsimonious model that merged two or more factors, such as a seven-factor model that combined affective commitment and turnover intention (M11), Δχ2(7) = 383.77, p < .01; a six-factor model combining prosocial rule-breaking efficiency, and interpersonal and organizational constructive deviance (M12), Δχ2(13) = 208.29, p < .01; a four-factor model that combined (a) prosocial rule-breaking efficiency, and interpersonal and organizational constructive deviance, (b) constructive voice and taking charge, and (c) affective commitment and turnover intention (M17), Δχ2(22) = 801.50, p < .01; and a one-factor model (M22), Δχ2(28) = 2,544.60, p < .01. Thus, our a priori eight-factor model (M7) was retained as the best model.
Fit indices for CFA and structural models
RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; IC, idea championing; PSRB, prosocial rule breaking; CDI, constructive deviance, interpersonal; CDO, constructive deviance, organizational; CV, constructive voice; TC, taking charge; AC, affective commitment; TI, turnover intention; PWB, proactive work behavior; CDWB, constructive deviant work behavior; M, model; ML, maximum likelihood; HM, hypothesized model; AM, alternative model.
Note: N = 310.
**p < .01.
We then examined the viability of a second-order CFA model where (a) prosocial rule-breaking efficiency, and interpersonal and organizational constructive deviance were first-order factors defining CDWB as a second-order factor, and (b) constructive voice and taking charge were first-order factors defining PWB as a second-order factor. This model yielded a good fit, χ2(613) = 926.722, p < .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .94, TLI = .94, SRMR = .06, AIC = 27,882.029, BIC = 28,356.57, and improved over the corresponding first-order CFA model (M7), χ2(13) = 98.69, p < .01, ΔTLI = .01, ΔAIC = 16.68, ΔBIC = 65.25. This model also yielded a better fit compared to other second-order CFA models (Table 2), such as a second-order factor model including CDWB versus PWB first-order factors combined with idea championing as second-order factors (M2), Δχ2(3) = 128.69, p < .01; a second-order factor model including CDWB first-order factors and idea championing versus PWB as second-order factors (M3), Δχ2(3) = 220.04, p < .01; a second-order factor model including CDWB and PWB first-order factors grouped within a single second-order factor (M4), Δχ2(4) = 387.52, p < .01; a second-order factor model grouping CDWB and PWB first-order factors along with idea championing as a single second-order factor (M5), Δχ2(6) = 435.79, p < .01; and a second-order factor model grouping all factors within a single second-order factor (M6), Δχ2(7) = 609.20, p < .01. These results suggest our theorized second-order factor model (M1) was the best model. It was used to examine our hypotheses.
Table 3 reports descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables. The internal consistency of our variables was tested using the omega (ω) coefficient (Peters, Reference Peters2014). As can be seen, reliabilities were high for all variables (ω .74). The two constructive deviant behavior dimensions were highly correlated with one another (r = .78, p < .01), as were constructive voice and taking charge (r = .64, p < .01), thus supporting viewing them as reflections of two second-order factors (i.e., CDWB and PWB). Idea championing was positively related to affective commitment (r = .41, p < .01) and PWB dimensions (rs = .42 to .43, ps < .01). Affective commitment was positively related to PWB dimensions (rs = .24 to .25, ps < .01) and negatively related to organizational constructive deviance (r = −.11, p < .05). Finally, turnover intention was negatively related to idea championing (r = −.22, p < .01) and affective commitment (r = −.52, p < .01).
Means, standard deviations, average variance extracted, composite reliabilities, and correlations for the study variables
CDWB, constructive deviant work behavior; PWB, proactive work behavior; AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliabilities.
Note. N = 310. For managerial status: nonsupervisory position = 0, supervisory position = 1. Internal consistency reliabilities, as reported in parentheses, are evaluated through the McDonald's omega (ω) coefficient.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
While testing hypotheses within our SEM model, we applied Shrout and Bolger's (Reference Shrout and Bolger2002) conditions for mediation: (1) the relationship between independent variables and mediator is significant (hypotheses 1a and 1b); (2) the relationship between the mediator and dependent variables is significant (hypotheses 2 and 4); (3) the indirect paths between independent variable and dependent variables through the mediator are significant (Table 4); and (4) the direct relationship between independent and dependent variables is non-significant when the mediator included in the model (Table 4). Analyses were conducted using SEM within Mplus with bootstrapping (1,000 resamples) and the maximum likelihood estimator. The hypothesized model fitted the data well (Table 2: HM), χ2(652) = 1,104.44, p < .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .06, AIC = 27,867.41, BIC = 28,334.48 (see the Appendix for item loadings). To determine whether this model was the best model, alternative models were examined (Table 2).Footnote 2 Alternative model 1 (AM1), which added a direct path from PWB and CDWB to affective commitment and turnover intention, did not improve over the hypothesized model, Δχ2(4) = 6.20, ns. Alternative model 2 (AM2) reversed the mediator and outcome variables, thereby testing whether affective commitment and turnover intention mediated the relationship between CDWB and PWB and idea championing. While displaying a good fit, χ2(652) = 1,273.14, p < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .90, TLI = .90, SRMR = .10, AIC = 28,036.12, BIC = 28,503.19, this model yielded a less optimal fit than the hypothesized model (ΔCFI = .03, ΔTLI = .02, ΔAIC = 168.71, ΔBIC = 168.71). Moreover, turnover intention was unrelated to CDWB (β = .12, ns) and idea championing (β = .00, ns) in that model. The hypothesized SEM model (HM) was thus retained,Footnote 3 namely meeting Shrout and Bolger's (Reference Shrout and Bolger2002) condition (4). Standardized path coefficients for this model are reported in Figure 1 and standardized indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported in Table 4.
Standardized loading and path coefficients for the hypothesized model (N = 310). Standard errors are reported in parentheses. PWB: proactive work behavior; CDWB = constructive deviant work behavior. *p < .05; **p < .01.
Bootstrapping analyses for the mediation model and indirect path estimates
CDWB, constructive deviant work behavior; PWB, proactive work behavior.
Note. N = 310.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
As can been seen from Figure 1, hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported as PWB was positively related (β = .62, p < .01) and CDWB negatively related (β = −.20, p < .01) to idea championing, which is consistent with Shrout and Bolger's (Reference Shrout and Bolger2002) condition (1). As predicted by hypotheses 2 and 4, idea championing was also positively related to affective commitment (β = .43, p < .01) and negatively related to turnover intention (β = −.22, p < .01), which is consistent with Shrout and Bolger's condition (2). Holding a supervisory position was associated with enhanced affective commitment (β = .21, p < .01) and decreased turnover intention (β = −.11, p < .05). Furthermore, as shown in Table 4, the indirect effect of PWB on affective commitment via idea championing was positive (.27, 95% CI = .17, .37) whereas the indirect effect of CDWB on affective commitment via idea championing was negative (−.09, 95% CI = −.15, −.02). Hypotheses 3a and 3b are thus supported. Finally, the indirect effect of PWB on turnover intention through idea championing was negative (−.14, 95% CI = −.23, −.05) whereas the indirect effect of CDWB on turnover intention through idea championing was positive (.05, 95% CI = .01, .10). Hypotheses 5a and 5b are thus supported. These results are consistent with Shrout and Bolger's condition (3), providing confirmation of the mediating role of idea championing.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore (a) the relationship between behaviors oriented to change and innovation (i.e., PWB and CDWB) and idea championing, and (b) the mediating role of idea championing between PWB, CDWB, and affective commitment and turnover intention. SEM analyses conducted on data from a two-wave study confirmed our hypothesized model (Figure 1). Theoretical and practical implications of this study are outlined below.
Theoretical and managerial implications
Prior research suggests that people engaged in proactive, or deviant behaviors, are inclined to initiate innovative processes (Galperin, Reference Galperin2012; Tornau & Frese, Reference Tornau and Frese2013). However, it remains unclear that such behaviors could benefit idea championing and influence commitment and turnover intention. Our study sheds new light on this issue by demonstrating that PWB and CDWB were linked in opposite ways to affective commitment and turnover intention through idea championing. These results are theoretically and practically relevant. From a theoretical perspective, our study was one of the first to support the mediating role of idea championing between behaviors supporting innovation and organizational attachment. Results also show a difference between PWB and CDWB, with PWB being proactive and preventive and CDWB violating norms and breaking rules. Thus, despite their common objectives, behaviors related to change and innovation may have opposite consequences.
First, as predicted, we found a negative relationship between CDWB and idea championing. Indeed, employees engaged in the process of championing innovation are exposed to others' judgments and possible stigmatization, which may dampen their efforts to engage in idea championing (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou2014). The price to pay by employees engaged in constructive deviance (e.g., stigmatization), perceived as too costly (Galperin, Reference Galperin2002), may prompt them to try to implement ideas without championing them as a way to demonstrate self-efficacy and see their expectations realized (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001). Our results showed that reduced idea championing undermines affective commitment and enhances the intention to leave. This may cause psychological discomfort in the champion that would lead him/her to disengage from the organization and search for a job elsewhere (Dahling & Gutworth, Reference Dahling and Gutworth2017). The activation of an adequate social network will be essential for a constructive deviant innovator and will help communicate his/her ideas and implement them.
Second, the positive link between PWB and idea championing is consistent with prior research (Tornau & Frese, Reference Tornau and Frese2013). Our results highlight the positive contribution of proactive behaviors and the key role played by idea championing as a facilitator of psychological attachment. Successfully transforming proactive behaviors into idea championing would increase the champion's perception of being supported in his/her efforts (Elsbach & Kramer, Reference Elsbach and Kramer2003), thereby contributing to organizational commitment. However, some negative effects of proactive behaviors have been observed in the past (Spychala & Sonnentag, Reference Spychala and Sonnentag2011), due to investment costs and organizational pressures (Grant & Ashford, Reference Grant and Ashford2008). Championing an idea should be perceived by the proactive employee as a recognition of his/her efforts and thus offset the cost of PWB. Such recognition and success may be important since PWB may be a response to management expectations, a professional requirement, or an organizational demand. Future research should explore whether support from the organization moderates the relationship between PWB and the phases of innovative work behavior.
Third, idea championing fostered affective commitment and reduced turnover intention. This suggests that idea championing was worth exploring as a construct independently from the other phases of innovation. The positive relationship between idea championing and affective commitment suggests it may play a role in the implementation of innovative ideas. Indeed, champions are more likely to explore, promote, and implement new ideas to help the organization reach its goals (Vinarski-Peretz, Binyamin, & Carmeli, Reference Vinarski-Peretz, Binyamin and Carmeli2011). Furthermore, it has been shown that there is a positive link between affective commitment and innovation implementation (Montani, Odoardi, & Battistelli, Reference Montani, Odoardi and Battistelli2014). Other results indicate that affective commitment moderates the relationship between subjective relational experiences and innovative behaviors (Vinarski-Peretz, Binyamin, & Carmeli, Reference Vinarski-Peretz, Binyamin and Carmeli2011). However, a worker who strongly identifies with his/her organization should be reluctant to change (Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, Reference Madjar, Greenberg and Chen2011). This reluctance should decrease if the individual feels involved in the championing process and perceives that the innovation action is being carried out for the good of the organization (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). Thus, an employee who promotes innovative ideas, and experiences positive affect (Ng, Reference Ng2015), will not only be committed to the organization, but will also feel engaged in the innovative process and encouraged to participate in idea implementation (George & Zhou, Reference George and Zhou2007).
From a practical perspective, our findings suggest that a company with a focus on innovation should develop an open environment that supports and enables idea championing. Therefore, the organizational environment must allow innovating individuals to create and maintain social networks that support them during each phase of the innovation process (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017). A consequence of such strategy would be that idea championing would have more chances to contribute to affective commitment and reduce turnover intention. Ultimately, this may foster organizational performance (Wang & Wu, Reference Wang and Wu2012). Therefore, it may be worthwhile for companies to invest in training programs aimed at developing proactive behaviors and networking skills among their employees. Such programs would help foster the development of PWB instead of CDWB, and in cases where constructive deviance would be more appropriate, to develop a network that could convey the championed ideas (Baer, Reference Baer2012).
Human resource practices that promote proactivity (Lee, Pak, Kim, & Li, Reference Lee, Pak, Kim and Li2019) and innovation (Shipton, Sparrow, Budhwar, & Brown, Reference Shipton, Sparrow, Budhwar and Brown2017) rather than ‘counter-normative’ behaviors (Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, Reference Thau, Bennett, Mitchell and Marrs2009) should be prioritized. It would be useful to focus on leadership styles that are conducive to creativity and innovation (e.g., transformational, empowering, and service-oriented leadership), particularly idea championing (Hughes, Lee, Tian, Newman, & Legood, Reference Hughes, Lee, Tian, Newman and Legood2018). Our results indicate that the inability of employees to use constructive deviance to promote innovative ideas may increase the likelihood of leaving the organization. The inability of companies to take advantage of innovators' ideas may prevent them from growing and making profits. It is necessary for organizations to target employees considered to be deviant and build up a collaborative environment where innovative ideas with strong potential can be expressed and attended to. However, during the championing phase it is necessary for the generated ideas to be promoted by the supervisor while involving the constructive deviant employee in the process to build the ideas' legitimacy. In addition, the use of appropriate leadership (Hughes et al., Reference Hughes, Lee, Tian, Newman and Legood2018; Thau et al., Reference Thau, Bennett, Mitchell and Marrs2009) and the involvement of the constructive deviant employee in the innovation process should reduce his/her willingness to leave and strengthen his/her affective commitment. Future research should explore how management can contribute to encourage employees initially perceived as constructive deviants to engage in PWB rather than CDWB.
Limitations and future research directions
This study has limitations. First, the use of self-reports to measure the core variables of our model (Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003) including second-order factors (Johnson, Rosen, & Djurdjevic, Reference Johnson, Rosen and Djurdjevic2011) of PWB and CDWB may be subject to CMV. To circumvent this problem, a temporal separation has been set between the predictor and outcome variables.Footnote 4 In addition, the use of self-reported measures of job attitudes and perceptions remains the best way to capture the individual processes underlying our hypothesized model. Nonetheless, future studies may extend this research by adopting multi-level longitudinal designs where the process of innovation and the role of PWB and CDWB in team-level innovation can be examined. Second, another limitation relates to the relatively small sample for the study, which limits the generalizability of the findings. For example, a larger and more diversified sample would allow examining differences across occupations, industries, and gender in the antecedents and effects of the idea championing phase of innovation (Jin, Chua, & Bledow, Reference Jin, Chua and Bledow2018).
Third, according to Perry-Smith and Mannucci (Reference Perry-Smith and Mannucci2017), future research should also investigate which type of social network is appropriate for each phase of innovation, depending on engagement in PWB or CDWB. A limitation of the current study is that the success versus failure of idea championing was not measured. The measurement scales and methodology used do not examine the actual success of the idea promotion behavior, but rather the perception of having promoted the idea. Thus, future research would benefit from examining the processes of successful implementation of idea promotion through experimental designs. Future studies should also examine through longitudinal methods the extent to which the success of idea promotion over time is influenced by PWB or CDWB. Indeed, the constructive deviant individual should initially attempt to bring about change and promote his or her ideas (Galperin, Reference Galperin2002; Vadera, Pratt, & Mishra, Reference Vadera, Pratt and Mishra2013). However, we argue that previous successes versus failures in promoting one's ideas will increase versus decrease, respectively, the use of idea promotion for implementing the ideas without prior agreement from managers or peers (see Chung, Choi, & Du, Reference Chung, Choi and Du2017).
Moreover, according to social cognitive theory, future research should also integrate the analysis of self-efficacy, intentionality, and expectations to evaluate how PWB and CDWB influence innovative work behavior. Finally, a last limitation relates to the organizational context. The sample was composed of multiple organizations, which precludes identification of the role of context pertaining to specific organizations or industries (Potočnik & Anderson, Reference Potočnik and Anderson2016). Moreover, our study does not allow understanding how some organizational factors and management practices alter the relationship between PWB, CDWB, and the promotion of innovation. Future research needs to be conducted to identify which organizational (e.g., culture, climate, and trust in the supervisor) and psychological (e.g., perspective taking, goal orientation, and motivation) factors facilitate versus hamper the use of idea championing, depending on one's adoption of proactivity versus constructive deviance.
Conclusion
To conclude, our study aimed at exploring the extent to which idea championing represents a mechanism through which PWB and CDWB affect psychological attachment. The results showed that idea championing mediated (a) a positive relationship between PWB and affective commitment and between CDWB and turnover intention, and (b) a negative relationship between PWB and turnover intention and between CDWB and affective commitment. Our study suggests that idea championing warrants being further studied at the same level as the generation or implementation phases of innovation, as it helps employees to build loyalty to their organization. The results also showed that a distinction should be made between the implementation of proactive and deviant behaviors. Unlike PWB, CDWB would have a negative influence on psychological attachment processes. We hope the current study will encourage further research on the psychological and social costs of CDWB versus PWB. Finally, our results suggest that organizations aiming to develop idea championing should implement management practices that support an environment conducive to PWB rather than CDWB.
Appendix
Items, factors loading scores, and standard errors
Guillaume R. M. Déprez is a professor (associate) of Work and Organizational Psychology (PhD) at the Laboratory of Psychology EA 4139, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. From September 2018 to September 2020, he worked for UmbraGroup under the ORBETEC-797338 MSCA-IF-SE grant. His research interests include change and innovation process, normativity, proactivity, deviance, and industry 4.0. His research has been published in Applied Psychology Bulletin, Le Travail Humain, Psychologica Belgica, Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, and The Spanish Journal of Psychology.
Adalgisa Battistelli is a professor of Work and Organizational Psychology at the Laboratory of Psychology EA 4139, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. She earned her PhD in work and organizational psychology at the University of Bologna, Italy. Her research interests include change and innovation processes in the workplace, work motivation, entrepreneurship, and training systems. Her work has been published in a variety of journals, including European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Journal of business and Psychology, Journal of Nursing Management, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, and The International Journal of Human Resource Management.
Christian Vandenberghe is a professor of Organizational Behavior at HEC Montréal, Québec, Canada. Since 2005, he has been the holder of the Research Chair in the Management of Employee Commitment and Performance. His research interests include organizational commitment, turnover and performance, organizational change, and employee well-being. His research has been published in a variety of journals, including Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Human Relations, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, and Journal of Vocational Behavior.
