Next Article in Journal
Improving Governance of Tenure in Policy and Practice: A Conceptual Basis to Analyze Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Multi-Stakeholder Transformative Governance Illustrated with an Example from South Africa
Previous Article in Journal
Smart Security in the Smart City
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 23
10.3390/su12239886
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Linkages between Social Goal Orientation and Innovative Behavior: Examining the Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing and Employee Engagement

by
Kwangho Lee
1 and
Hae-Deok Song
2,*
1
Department of Human Resource Development, Graduate School, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea
2
Department of Education, College of Education, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(23), 9886; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239886
Submission received: 4 November 2020 / Revised: 23 November 2020 / Accepted: 24 November 2020 / Published: 26 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this study is to identify the structural relationships among social goal orientation, knowledge sharing, employee engagement and innovative behavior on employees of an organization. This study used a data sample of office workers in Korean companies by survey. The findings are as follows. First, knowledge sharing plays a significant role in the relationship between social goal orientation type and innovative behavior. Second, employee engagement plays a mediating role between social goal orientation and innovative behavior. Third, the dual mediating effect of knowledge sharing and employee engagement is important between social goal orientation and innovative behavior. Our findings have important theoretical implications, which suggest that not only psychological motivations of individuals but also their social motivations should be considered to promote innovative behavior. Therefore, it is important to provide an appropriate knowledge sharing and employee engagement environment for employees according to their social goal orientation type rather than requiring innovative behavior.

1. Introduction

Companies are promoting organizational innovation as a means of adapting to a rapidly evolving business environment and sustaining high organizational performance. Scott and Bruce [1] addressed the need for innovation, emphasizing the importance of employees’ willingness and actions as key factors in achieving organizational innovation. Innovative behavior is considered a source of innovation, in that employees of an organization lead the development, promotion, and implementation of ideas that can improve the efficiency of individual task roles and preserve sustainable organizational performance.
As corporate structures become less vertical and more horizontal, the importance of interactions among employees becomes more evident. This is particularly true in light of current changes in organizational culture, and strategies for managing employees, which are emerging as issues to be addressed by organizations [2]. In particular, it is essential to obtain employees’ support and cooperation in addition to having supportive organizational policy and financing to translate innovative behavior into enhanced organizational performance [3]. Consequently, the social competence of employees who can encourage effective communication among other employees and influence the formation of positive social relationships within an organization is becoming increasingly important.
Social goal orientation is an application of the concept of achievement goal orientation to the social context [4], with the aim of promoting relationships among colleagues and social competence [5]. The concept of goal orientation refers to what motivates individuals to perform certain actions [6], presented as a mental criterion that influences the way individuals interpret and respond to tasks [7].
Ryan and Hopkins [8] conceptualized three types of goal orientation based on a social perspective: Social mastery goal orientation, social performance approach goal orientation, and social performance avoidance goal orientation. Social mastery goal orientation focuses on developing individual social skills that can facilitate the formation of deep social relationships with people. Social performance approach goal orientation focuses on obtaining positive evaluations and feedback from others by displaying social competence. Conversely, social performance-avoidance goal orientation focuses on avoiding other people’s negative evaluations of an individual’s social competence [4]. The type of social goal orientation adopted would influence the decision-making process of an individual within their social relationships, which would in turn, considerably influence relationships among colleagues [9].
Employees’ knowledge-sharing efforts are the core of organizational competitiveness and are associated with individual goal-seeking behavior [10]. In a knowledge society like the one we live in today, the input of knowledge is more important than the inputs of capital and labor, and there are increasing cases of challenges being resolved or novel solution being developed through the combination of information technology and creativity with existing knowledge. Knowledge sharing is particularly critical for innovative behavior because employees can easily and rapidly acquire the knowledge they require for their tasks rather than by accumulating knowledge through direct experience. In addition, an organization’s employees could create new knowledge by referring to various opinions and the practical experiences of others who have similar work experiences.
Prior studies have emphasized the importance of relationships among employees of an organization as a prerequisite for promoting knowledge sharing [11,12]. Therefore, an employee with a social mastery goal orientation or social performance goal orientation would view relationships among employees positively, and would, in turn, influence innovative behavior positively through knowledge sharing. However, an employee with a social performance avoidance goal orientation, who would opt to avoid social relations, would not be expected to influence knowledge sharing and innovative behavior positively.
In addition, the manifestation of innovative behavior could be promoted when employees of an organization take ownership and carry out their tasks faithfully to pursue change on their own and demonstrate a passion for the organization. Therefore, employee engagement which increases experiences of positive emotions at work is a potential key factor driving innovation [13]. Due to technological advancements and cost reduction efforts, it has become increasingly difficult in recent times to differentiate products among competitors, and employee engagement has emerged as a critical factor in increasing performance to exploit an organization’s capabilities optimally [14,15].
Saks [16] defined employee engagement as immersion through cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors linked to personal roles, and classified it into two subordinate variables in the form of job engagement and organizational engagement. Prior studies have shown that individuals seeking social relationships and high social skills have a strong sense of belonging and unity with the organization and participate in voluntary activities of the organization as far as their job and organization is concerned [17]. Therefore, individuals with high social mastery goal orientation would influence innovative behavior positively through employee engagement.
In the present study, knowledge sharing and employee engagement were selected as underlying factors through which social goal orientation influences innovative behavior. Our objective was to evaluate the mediating effects of knowledge sharing in an organization in terms of influence on innovative behavior through employee engagement. Therefore, the following research questions were formulated:
First, what is the effect of employees’ social goal orientation types on innovative behavior? Second, does knowledge sharing play a mediating role between employees’ social goal orientation types and innovative behavior? Third, does employee engagement mediate the relationship between employees’ social goal orientation types and innovative behavior? Fourth, does knowledge sharing and employee engagement play a dual mediating role between employees’ social goal orientation types and innovative behavior?
In the following sections of this paper, the theoretical background was first provided. Theoretical framework and methods followed. Finally, findings were suggested with the conclusion of this study and implications.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. The Relationship between Social Goal Orientation Types and Innovative Behavior

Innovative behavior is an activity that introduces, promotes, and applies novel and creative ideas and can enhance individual task roles or organizational performance [18,19]). Scott and Bruce [1] defined innovative behavior as actions such as planning and securing resources undertaken to identify problems and generate ideas or solutions to solve them and to transform them into reality. In the market environment of the modern economy, the technological gap between companies is decreasing due to rapid technological advancements and the expansion of the shared knowledge. Innovative behavior is recognized as the starting point of innovation and is an important re-search subject [20].
As the complexity of technology increases, more work becomes more interdependent and requires more collaboration within the organization [21]. Innovative behavior is encouraged by allowing in-group members to have more discretion and decision-making power [1]. In other words, the importance of social relations in an organization is increasing, and the more competent the employee socially, the more opportunities there would be to demonstrate innovative behavior.
The social goal drives the reasons and intentions of social interaction with a focus on peer relations [22]. Recent goal orientation studies are expanding from the traditional academic domain to the social domain and have emphasized the importance of social goals as a major cause of social competence development [23,24,25,26]. As noted above, there are three types of social goal orientation.
Social mastery goal orientation focuses on the development of social competence and aims to develop social skills to facilitate deep social relations with people [4]. Employees who have high social mastery goals are interested in individual growth and development whereby they consider cooperation to be a mechanism for developing friendships and learning [9]. Therefore, the higher the social mastery goal, the higher the quality of peer support and peer relations. An individual applying a social performance approach goal orientation tends to be perceived as an important and popular person among colleagues and the individual tends to avoid actions that affect their popularity or prestige negatively by focusing on their image [27]. Conversely, an individual with a social performance avoidance goal orientation has the tendency of avoiding negative evaluation from others by endeavoring not to reveal their lack of social skills [27].
Given that social goal orientation is a major factor in social relationship, it is likely that employees with a high social mastery goal orientation show innovative behaviors through indirect ways of solving problems with their peers rather than directly suggesting, introducing and implementing novel ideas. Meanwhile, employees who are high in social performance goal orientation would have a negative effect on innovative behavior because they are afraid of other people’s evaluations [27]. It is expected that they would refrain from innovative actions that could lead a challenge or draw opposition from other employees of an organization.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Employees’ social goal orientation types are associated with innovative behavior.

2.2. Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing

The know-how and experience gained in the company’s life are often stored in employees’ desks in the form of knowledge. Therefore, companies that want to adapt to changes in the market environment and survive the competition are essential to extract and utilize their accumulated knowledge. Ruggles [10] defined the sharing and exploitation of the information and knowledge that is, the work know-how held by employees or an organization as knowledge sharing. Organizations are building knowledge management systems and encouraging knowledge sharing to make the most of the knowledge held by their employees so as to enhance performance. In particular, the degree of activation of procedural knowledge such as work methodologies and success cases, are considered core competencies of a company.
Further, knowledge sharing promotes the development of intellectual property that impacts corporate performance, maximizes the use of collective intelligence in decision-making processes within an organization, and drives a variety of other outcomes [28]. Although knowledge sharing facilitates value creation in an organization, it is hardly linked to employee evaluation or reward because it is beyond the roles and responsibilities expected from an individual [29]. In some organizations, even if collaboration with colleagues is emphasized, there is a tendency not to share knowledge beyond the level that can affect one’s image [30].
Social goal orientation could be a way of allowing employees to actively and voluntarily share knowledge within an organization because the efforts of employees to share knowledge voluntarily are also associated with their individual goals. Objective-oriented individuals share knowledge associated with their work actively because they are passionate and determined to achieve their goals [31]. Previous studies emphasized the importance of relationships among employees as a way of stimulating knowledge sharing [11,12,32]. Therefore, based on an individual’s psychological goals, the social goal orientation which defines how relationships are formed with colleagues influences knowledge sharing significantly.
Companies are leveraging knowledge sharing as a way to solve problems that are scattered across their organizations or promote organizational innovation [33]. An individual’s knowledge or experience is shared within an organization so that the organization can improve its performance [34]. It is increasingly difficult to achieve innovation based on individual knowledge because of the speed of rapid technological advancements and because individual tasks are specific and subdivided. Therefore, companies can enhance innovation by promoting and strengthening innovative behavior among employees through knowledge sharing. It is expected that employees with a social mastery goal orientation and social performance approach goal orientation would view relationships among employees positively, which would influence innovative behavior positively through knowledge sharing. On the other hand, employees with a social performance-avoidance goal orientation would negatively influence knowledge sharing and, in turn, innovative behavior.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between employees’ social goal orientation types and innovative behavior.

2.3. Mediating Role of Employee Engagement

Kahn [35] defined employee engagement as a state in which employees actively engage with their tasks and employ themselves cognitively, emotionally, and physically while performing their roles. In addition, Saks [16] defined employee engagement as “a distinct and unique construct consisting of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance.” Employee engagement is different from the concepts of job engagement and organizational engagement in that it includes both [16]. Preceding studies have also demonstrated that employee engagement has a positive impact on innovative behavior [36]. Therefore, employee engagement is potentially a major factor influencing innovative behavior.
Innovation begins with the creation of novel ideas, which emerge through a cognitive system that challenges the status quo combined with a unique approach of integrating existing ideas [37]. If an employee is not passionate about or immersed in their task, they cannot come up with new ideas or solutions based on existing knowledge. In the same vein, they are unlikely to make voluntary efforts to create new ideas within one’s task.
An employee must experience positive feeling at the workplace to be able to immerse themselves in their job and organizations. If an employee does not have a good relationship with their boss or colleagues, it is expected that they would not concentrate on their tasks and even consider transferring across jobs or organizations. Furthermore, modern organizations often have organic linkages across the entire work environment, making it difficult to work effectively without collaborating with colleagues. According to Leiter and Maslach [38], engagement is defined by three factors: Energy, sense of belonging, and efficiency, which are determined by the work environment, task demands, empowerment, and affiliation with individuals in the surrounding environment.
Social goal orientation is a variable that could be expected to influence employee engagement because it is closely connected to the factor of colleague relationships: Individuals with a high level of social mastery goal orientation would influence innovative behavior positively through employee engagement, and individuals with a high level of social performance goal orientation would be more interested in their image than in belonging to an organization, which could influence employee engagement negatively.
Employees can share valuable information such as success stories and work methodologies via direct communication or through a company’s knowledge management system. Therefore, if an employee forms a mutually beneficial relationship with their colleagues or if their in-house public knowledge facilitates their personal growth and development, they can be expected to feel a strong sense of belonging toward their job and organization. Therefore, it is also critical to examine the mediating effects of knowledge sharing on employee engagement with regard to the relationship between social goal orientation type and innovative behavior.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Employee engagement mediates the relationship between employees’ social goal orientation types and innovative behavior.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Employee engagement further mediates the mediating effect of knowledge sharing between employees’ social goal orientation types and innovative behavior.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Model

The purpose of the present study was to examine the impact of social goal orientation on innovative behavior in office workers in Korea IT companies. In addition, we investigated whether knowledge sharing and employee engagement have a mediating effect on the relationship. A research model of the present study is illustrated in Figure 1.

3.2. Participants

This study used a data sample of employees in Korean IT companies. Office workers were selected because social relationships are critical considering the rate of change in business behavior is higher than in production jobs and work is performed in teams or projects. The final sample consisted of 388 questionnaire responses.
The proportion of males in the sample was relatively high, with 267 men (68.8%) and 121 women (121%). Regarding the age distribution, 211 (54.3%) of the individuals surveyed were in their 40s, 137 (35.3%) in their 30, and 23 (6.0%) in their 20s. Based on academic background, 276 (71.0%) had completed college and 108 (27.9%) had completed graduate school in the sample. The length of service in the organization they were working for at the time of survey was between 15 and 20 years for 191 respondents (49.2%), more than 20 years for 34 respondents (8.8%), between 10 and 15 years for 132 respondents (34.0%), and less than 10 years for 29 respondents (8.0%). By job position, 208 respondents (53.5%) were general managers, 140 (36.1%) were managers, 27 (7.0%) were executive directors, and 8 (2.1%) were assistant managers. Regarding sectors, respondents worked in IT (80.1%, 311 respondents), services (5.7%, 22 respondents), and sales/distributions (5.3%, 20 respondents).

3.3. Instruments

The questionnaire used for the survey consisted of social goal orientation as an independent variable, knowledge sharing and employee engagement as mediating variables, and innovative behavior as dependent variable. This study used a questionnaire whose reliability and validity were verified in a previous study. Questionnaires were simultaneously administered online and offline during November 2018.
To measure social goal orientation, 12 items developed by Ryan and Shim [4] were adopted, and the Cronbach’s alpha for the internal consistency of this measure was 0.905. Examples of questions for measuring social performance goal orientation include “I think it is important to avoid looking foolish to others.” and “I think it’s important to be seen as having many friends.”
Eight items developed by Ruggels [10] were adopted for measuring knowledge sharing, and the Cronbach’s alpha for the measure was 0.920. Examples of knowledge sharing questions include “I actively participate in sharing knowledge with colleagues.” and “If I gain important knowledge, I share it with other employees.”
To measure employee engagement, 11 items developed by Saks [16] were adopted. Five questions were on job engagement and six were on organizational engagement. The Cronbach’s alpha in this study was 0.915. Examples of employee engagement questions include “I’m totally hooked to my work.” and “Being an employee of this organization makes me feel alive.”
To measure innovative behavior, 6 items developed by Scott and Bruce [1] were adopted. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.907. Examples of questions for innovative behavior are “I try to find new technologies, methods, etc., that can be used to perform my work.” and “I make people at work enthusiastic about innovative ideas.”
To evaluate the reliability and validity of the measurement model, a confirmatory factor analysis was used and the measurement model was evaluated based on the coefficients derived from the results of the analyses. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to review the significance of the variable impact relationship and a path analysis of the potential variable was performed to examine the relationships among the variables. Bootstrapping technique was used to verify the statistical significance of the total effects, direct effects, and indirect effects. Harman’s single factor test was performed to estimate the presence of common method bias.

4. Results

A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to gain an overview of survey respondents in terms of social mastery goal orientation, social performance approach orientation, social performance avoidance goal orientation, knowledge sharing, employee engagement, and innovative behavior. The results are presented in Table 1.
This table shows that the mean of the social mastery goal orientation measure was 3.685, that of social performance approach goal orientation was 3.265, social performance avoidance goal orientation was 3.139, knowledge sharing was 3.549, and innovative behavior was 3.685. In the case of employee engagement, the mean was 3.745, and the means of the sub-component variables: Job engagement and organizational engagement were 3.770 and 3.723, respectively. The standard deviations of the variables ranged from 1.211 to 0.624.
To analyze the correlation between the research variables, Pearson correlation coefficients were derived. Social mastery goal orientation showed a significant statistical correlation with knowledge sharing (0.517), employee engagement (0.604), and innovative behavior (0.472). In the case of social performance approach goal orientation, a significant correlation was found with knowledge sharing (0.594), employee engagement (0.195), and innovative behavior (0.368). In the case of social performance avoidance goal orientation, a negative correlation was found with knowledge sharing (−0.485). No significant correlation was found with employee engagement. Furthermore, a negative correlation was found with innovative behavior (−0.527). Finally, a positive correlation was found between knowledge sharing and employee engagement (0.445).
The research model was verified using path analysis among the potentially related variables. The model fit index results obtained using the structural equation model are presented in Table 2. The items considered to determine model fit were RMSEA (0.083), CFI (0.939), TLI (0.926), and SRMR (0.045). The acceptance conditions of the model were satisfied [39].
The results of the potential variable path analysis for the influence relationship among the research variables are presented in Table 3. Social mastery goal orientation had a significant positive effect on knowledge sharing (B = 0.381, ß = 0.445, p < 0.001) and employee engagement (B = 0.178, ß = 0.283, p < 0.001), but there was no significant effect on innovative behavior.
In other words, when the level of social mastery goal orientation increases, the level of knowledge sharing and employee engagement increases; however, there is no direct effect on innovative behavior. Social performance approach goal orientation showed a positive effect on knowledge sharing (B = 0.387, ß = 0.495, p < 0.001), but had a negative effect on innovative behavior (B = −0.083, ß = −0.121, p < 0.05). No significant effect was found between social performance approach goal orientation and employee engagement. In sum, when the level of social performance approach goal orientation increases, the level of knowledge sharing increases, but the level of innovative behavior would decrease.
Conversely, social performance avoidance goal orientation was negatively related to knowledge sharing (B = −0.151, ß = −0.223, p < 0.001) and innovative behavior (B = −0.135, ß = −0.227, p < 0.001) but positively related to employee engagement (B = 0.144, ß = 0.289, p < 0.01).
In other words, higher levels of social performance avoidance goal orientation reduce knowledge sharing and innovative behavior while increasing employee engagement. Knowledge sharing had a positive effect on employee engagement (B = 0.391, β = 0.532, p < 0.001) and innovative behavior (B = 0.619, β = 0.706, p <0.001). In addition, employee engagement also showed a significant positive effect on innovative behavior (B = 0.273, β = 0.401, p < 0.001). Therefore, as the level of knowledge sharing increases, the level of employee engagement increases, so does the level of employee engagement, and an increase in these two variables would have a positive effect on innovative behavior.
Hypothesis verification, including the mediating effect, was achieved by measuring the direct effect, indirect effect, and total effect. Direct effect refers to the effect of one variable on another directly, and the indirect effect refers to the intervention of other variables mediating in an impact relationship between two variables [39]. Total effect refers to the sum of the direct and indirect effects. A mediating effect is considered to exist if the independent variable has a significant indirect effect on the dependent variable. In the verification process, the significance of the indirect effect was measured by performing 5000 iteration of bootstrapping, which can be estimated even from abnormal data set. The results of the analysis of the direct effect, indirect effect, and total effect among the variables are presented in Table 4.
Figure 2 shows that knowledge sharing and employee engagement each had a full mediating effect in the relationship between social mastery goal orientation and innovative behavior. In the relationship between social performance approach orientation and innovative behavior, only knowledge sharing partially mediated. Finally, in the relationship between social avoidance goal orientation and innovative behavior, knowledge sharing and employee engagement both had a partial mediating effect.

5. Discussion

Work complexity has increased in recent years with increasing application of novel technologies in business environments of organizations. Companies are attempting to develop innovative solutions by organizing projects and teams to solve emerging and persistent problems. To work effectively as a member of a team or within a project, social competence is required; therefore, organizational managers need to comprehend and consider the concept of social goals, which is one of the major perspectives through which employees view social relationships. The aim of the present study was to highlight the structural relationship between social goal orientation, knowledge sharing, and employee engagement as a critical factor in the improvement of innovative behavior in office workers in Korean companies. This study derived the following conclusions.
First, social mastery goal orientation did not have a significant impact on innovative behavior. Because employees who are high in social mastery goal orientation value collaboration with colleagues based on social competence and social skill, and consider colleagues as partners [9], they prefer to work with colleagues rather than individually [22]. Thus, the results imply that employees with high social mastery goals value social relations and pursue harmony rather than innovative behavior.
On the other hand, the social performance approach goal orientation and the social performance avoidance goal orientation both had a negative influence on innovative behavior. Employees with high social performance approach orientation tend to focus more on their familiar and good areas that are recognized by others, rather than new area that needs innovative behaviors. Those high in social performance avoidance goal orientation are considered to negatively influence innovative behaviors out of their fear of receiving negative evaluations. This result is consistent with the results of Ryan and Shim [4], who reported that the more a social avoidance goal was pursued, the lower the level of self-esteem and the higher the instability.
Second, knowledge sharing plays a significant role in the relationship between employees’ social goal orientation type and innovative behavior. Social mastery goal orientation and social performance approach goal orientation revealed that knowledge sharing has a positive mediating effect on innovative behavior, but it has a negative mediating effect in the relationship between social performance avoidance goal orientation and innovative behavior. This finding is consistent with the results of prior studies emphasizing the importance of relationships between employees in knowledge sharing [11,12,32]. Considering the typological characteristics of social goal orientation, employees who exhibit social mastery goal orientation are interested in individual growth and development and regard their colleagues as learning partners [9], while employees who have high social performance approach goals influence knowledge sharing positively, since it could be an opportunity to reinforce the image that they contribute to the organization through knowledge sharing. However, social performance avoidance goal orientation exhibits a negative mediating effect on innovative behavior, which is attributable to employees’ desire to avoid expanding or revealing relationships through knowledge sharing, because employees who have a higher level of this orientation than experience difficulties in maintaining social relationships [4].
Third, employee engagement plays a mediating role in the relationship between social goal orientation and innovative behavior. Employee engagement mediated the relationship between social mastery goal orientation and innovative behavior, between social performance avoidance goal orientation on innovative behavior, respectively. The positive mediating effect of employee engagement in the relationship between social mastery goal orientation and innovative behavior is consistent with study of Albrecht and Marty [40], in which personal affinity was found to influence employee engagement. In particular, employee engagement had a full mediating effect in the relationship between social mastery goal orientation and innovative behavior. It is likely that social mastery goal orientation drives employees to perform individual duties and enhance their engagement to the organization. This suggests that an affirmative environment in which employees can be immersed should be created in order to induce innovation behaviors of employees with high social mastery goal orientation. In addition, positive mediating effect of employee engagement in the relation-ship between social performance avoidance goal orientation and innovative behavior can be explained by the fact that academic mastery goal orientation and social performance-avoidance goal orientation can exist simultaneously and the social performance avoidance goal orientation has a positive effect on self-efficacy, as confirmed by study of Yeom and Lee [41]. Since personal resources such as self-efficacy have been proven to have a positive influence on employee engagement [42], it seemed that the social avoidance induces positively employee engagement.
Lastly, the dual mediating effects of knowledge sharing and employee engagement were significant between social goal orientation and innovative behavior. This tends to be similar to the previous research that knowledge sharing has a positive effect on employee engagement [43]. With the development of technology, consumers’ tastes are changing rapidly, and in response, a business trend of striving to become a learning organization has emerged. Since self-efficacy and problem-solving competence increases through the acquisition of new knowledge [42], establishing a culture and system of knowledge sharing within an organization is directly related to performance.
Our findings have important theoretical implications which suggest that not only the psychological motivations of individuals but also the social motivations should be considered to promote innovative behavior. First, in the case of employees with high social mastery goal orientation, it is necessary to establish a knowledge sharing and employee engagement environment rather than forcing them to exhibit innovative behavior. Second, in the case of employees with high social performance approach goal orientation, opportunities to contribute to the organization through active knowledge sharing activities should be offered, and innovative behavior could be triggered by acknowledging them.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study examined the effect of the type of social goal orientation that an individual has on an individual’s innovation behavior in an organization. In order for an organization to continue to grow and sustain organizational innovation, an understanding of the psychological goals of its members along with the competence of its members must precede. Thus, findings from this paper suggest important theoretical implications which propose that not only the psychological motivations of individuals but also the social motivations should be considered to promote innovative behavior. First, in the case of employees with high social mastery goal orientation, it is necessary to establish a knowledge sharing and employee engagement environment rather than forcing them to exhibit innovative behavior. Second, in the case of employees with high social performance-approach goal orientation, opportunities to contribute to the organization through active knowledge sharing activities should be offered, and innovative behavior could be triggered by acknowledging them. Lastly, social performance-avoidance goal orientation, knowledge sharing and employee engagement have a negative double mediating effect on innovative behavior, which suggests that in the case of employees with high social performance-avoidance goals, forcing them to share knowledge could have an adverse effect on their engagement. Formalizing their own experiences such as making use cases or improving work manuals based on their experiences might be better desirable for them rather than sharing knowledge publicly through presentations or in seminars.
There are several limitations to our study that should be considered when interpreting the findings. The sample was cross-section of data at a single point in time and covered only one country. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the causal relationship over time based on a longitudinal study in the future, as well as to conduct similar studies in other geographical regions. It is necessary to conduct continuous research with various variables that can lead innovation behavior, focusing on prior research of social goal orientation in the future.

Author Contributions

K.L. designed and wrote the draft. H.-D.S. modified and edited the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A3A2066878).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Scott, S.G.; Bruce, R.A. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 580–607. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arif, M.; Zahid, S.; Kashif, U.; Sindhu, M.I. Role of leader-member exchange relationship in organizational change management: Mediating role of organizational culture. IJOL 2017, 6, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Galbraith, M.W. Becoming an effective teacher of adults. In Adult Learning Methods; Galbraith, M.W., Ed.; Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, FL, USA, 1998; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ryan, A.M.; Shim, S.S. Social achievement goals: The nature and consequences of different orientations toward social competence. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 32, 1246–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Harter, S. The perceived competence scale for children. Child. Dev. 1982, 53, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Elliot, A.J.; McGregor, H.A.; Gable, S. Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 1999, 91, 549–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Farr, J.L.; Hofmann, D.A.; Ringenbach, K.L. Goal orientation and action control theory: Implications for industrial and organizational psychology. Ind. Organ Psychol. 1993, 8, 193–232. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ryan, A.M.; Hopkins, N.B. Achievement Goals in the Social Domain; University of Illinois: Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA, 2003; Unpublished Manuscript. [Google Scholar]
  9. Levy, I.; Kaplan, A.; Patrick, H. Early adolescents’ achievement goals, social status, and attitudes to-wards cooperation with peers. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2004, 7, 127–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ruggles, R. The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1998, 40, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chiu, C.M.; Hsu, M.H.; Wang, E.T. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1872–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Connelly, C.E.; Zweig, D. How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 24, 479–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bindl, U.K.; Parker, S.K. Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. APA Handb. Ind. Organ Psychol. 2010, 2, 567–598. [Google Scholar]
  14. Rich, B.L.; LePine, J.A.; Crawford, E.R. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 617–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schneider, B.; Macey, W.H.; Barbera, K.M.; Martin, N. Driving customer satisfaction and financial success through employee engagement. People Strategy 2009, 32, 22. [Google Scholar]
  16. Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2009, 21, 600–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Amabile, T.M. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res Organ Behav. 1988, 10, 123–167. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kwon, K.; Kim, T. An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: Revisiting the JD-R model. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2020, 30, 100704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kheng, Y.K.; June, S.; Mahmood, R. The determinants of innovative work behavior in the knowledge intensive business services sector in Malaysia. Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 9, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cross, R.; Parker, A. Charged up: Creating energy in organizations. J. Organ. Excell. 2004, 23, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ryan, A.M.; Shim, S.S. An exploration of young adolescents’ social achievement goals and social adjustment in middle school. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Covington, M.V. Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2000, 51, 171–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Patrick, H.; Anderman, L.H.; Ryan, A.M. Social motivation and the classroom social environment. In Goals, Goal Structures, and Patterns of Adaptive Learning; Midgley, C., Ed.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 85–108. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wentzel, K.R. What is it that I’m trying to achieve? Classroom goals from a content perspective. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 25, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Horst, S.J.; Finney, S.J.; Barron, K.E. Moving beyond academic achievement goal measures: A study of social achievement goals. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 32, 667–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Srivastava, A.; Bartol, K.M.; Locke, E.A. Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 1239–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Lin, H.F. Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. Int. J. Manpow. 2007, 28, 315–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Wayne, S.J.; Liden, R.C. Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 232–260. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bierly, P.E., III; Kessler, E.H.; Christensen, E.W. Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2000, 13, 595–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Černe, M.; Nerstad, C.G.; Dysvik, A.; Škerlavaj, M. What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 57, 172–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Oyemomi, O.; Liu, S.; Neaga, I.; Alkhuraiji, A. How knowledge sharing and business process contribute to organizational performance: Using the fsQCA approach. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5222–5227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Long Range Plan. 1996, 4, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kahn, W.A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 692–724. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, H.-M.; Song, H.-D. Structural relationship among positive psychological capital, perceived organizational support, work engagement, and innovative behaviors for IT salespersons. J. Corp. Edu. 2017, 19, 23–47. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dougherty, D. Organizing for innovation in complex innovation systems. Innov. J. 2017, 19, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Leiter, M.P.; Maslach, C. Preventing Burnout and Building Engagement: A Complete Program for Organizational Renewal; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  40. Albrecht, S.L.; Marty, A. Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and their associations with employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 657–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yeom, H.-S.; Lee, E.-J. The structural relationship among level and instability of social self-esteem, social achievement goals, aggression and social anxiety of adolescents. Korean J. Sch. Psychol. 2014, 11, 207–226. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gorgievski, M.J.; Hobfoll, S.E. Work can burn us out or fire us up: Conservation of resources in burn-out and engagement. Handb. Stress Burn. Health Care 2008, 2008, 7–22. [Google Scholar]
  43. Chakravarthy, B.S.; Zaheer, A.; Zaheer, S. Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Field Study; Strategic Management Research Center, University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 12 09886 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 12 09886 g001
Sustainability 12 09886 g002 550
Figure 2. Path analysis of potential variables by type of social goal orientation. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Figure 2. Path analysis of potential variables by type of social goal orientation. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Sustainability 12 09886 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations.
VariableMSD12345
Social mastery3.6850.9261
Social performance approach3.2651.0890.140 *1
Social performance avoidance3.1391.211−0.404 **−0.166 **1
Knowledge sharing3.5490.8080.604 **0.594 **−0.485 **1
Employee engagement3.7450.6300.472 **0.195 **−0.0640.496 **1
Innovative behavior3.6850.7460.517 **0.368 **−0.527 **0.802 **0.526 **
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 2. Fit indices for confirmatory factory analysis models.
Table 2. Fit indices for confirmatory factory analysis models.
FITχ2(df)RMSEACFITLISRMR
MODEL571.000.0830.9390.9260.045
Table
Table 3. Results of influence relationship among research variables.
Table 3. Results of influence relationship among research variables.
BßSEt
Social mastery →Knowledge sharing0.3810.4450.03510.870 **
Social performance-approach→Knowledge sharing0.3870.4950.03112.397 **
Social performance-avoidance→Knowledge sharing−0.151−0.2230.026−5.724 **
Social mastery →Employee engagement0.1780.2830.0434.108 **
Social performance-approach →Employee engagement−0.065−0.1130.038−1.690
Social performance-avoidance→Employee engagement0.1440.2890.0295.054 **
Social mastery →Innovative behavior−0.070−0.0930.039−1.772
Social performance-approach→Innovative behavior−0.083−0.1210.035−2.382 *
Social performance-avoidance→Innovative behavior−0.135−0.2270.027−5.054 **
Knowledge sharing→Employee engagement0.3910.5320.0695.698 **
Knowledge sharing→Innovative behavior0.6190.7060.0689.161 **
Employee engagement→Innovative behavior0.2730.4010.0564.873 **
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Analysis of total effect, direct effect and indirect effect.
Table 4. Analysis of total effect, direct effect and indirect effect.
Total EffectDirect EffectIndirect Effect
Social mastery →Knowledge sharing0.445 **0.445 **-
Social performance-approach→Knowledge sharing0.495 **0.495 **-
Social performance-avoidance→Knowledge sharing−0.223 **−0.223 **-
Social mastery →Employee engagement0.520 **0.283 **0.237 **
Social performance-approach →Employee engagement0.150 **−0.1130.263 **
Social performance-avoidance→Employee engagement0.171 **0.289 **−0.119 **
Social mastery →Innovative behavior0.340 **−0.0930.433 ***
Social performance-approach→Innovative behavior0.263**−0.121 *0.384 **
Social performance-avoidance→Innovative behavior−0.346 **−0.227 **−0.119 **
Knowledge sharing→Innovative behavior0.828 **0.706 **0.122 **
Knowledge sharing→Employee engagement0.532 **0.532 **
Employee engagement→Innovative behavior0.229 **0.229 **-
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, K.; Song, H.-D. Linkages between Social Goal Orientation and Innovative Behavior: Examining the Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing and Employee Engagement. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239886

AMA Style

Lee K, Song H-D. Linkages between Social Goal Orientation and Innovative Behavior: Examining the Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing and Employee Engagement. Sustainability. 2020; 12(23):9886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239886

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Kwangho, and Hae-Deok Song. 2020. "Linkages between Social Goal Orientation and Innovative Behavior: Examining the Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing and Employee Engagement" Sustainability 12, no. 23: 9886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239886

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop