How to Facilitate Innovative Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Evidence From Public Employees in Korea

Abstract

For decades, scholars and practitioners have paid serious attention to how to facilitate extra-role behaviors of employees. While many studies have been conducted, it is not yet clear what factors facilitate or suppress those behaviors within organizations and how those factors interact with each other. The current research focuses on two extra-role behaviors of employees: innovative behavior and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Both behaviors have been discussed as determinants of individual and organizational performance. Filling the gap of the existing studies, the current research comprehensively considers organizational characteristics, task characteristics, and motivational factors in explaining those behaviors. Integrating two data sets, the 2015 and 2016 Perception of Public Officials Surveys administered by the Korea Institute of Public Administration (KIPA), we conducted a hierarchical linear model (HLM) analysis to examine the effects of determinants in the Korean context. Based on the multi-level analysis, this research demonstrates the positive influence of autonomy and PSM on both behaviors. Among organizational-level variables, cooperative culture increases the innovative behavior, whereas the lack of organizational support decreases it. We provide several managerial implications based on the findings.

Keywords

innovative behavior organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)perceived organizational support (POS)job demand-resource (JD-R)

Introduction

While citizens’ trust in government has been decreasing in many countries, the expectations and demands for government have not decreased (Grimmelikhuijsen, 2012; Kim, 2010; Lee & Schachter, 2019; Miller & Listhaug, 1998; Van De Walle et al., 2008). Rather, citizens want more services and higher quality policies from government and expect that government should actively tackle various social problems (Carvalho & Brito, 2012; Hetherington & Husser, 2012). In this regard, many governments, including the United States and the United Kingdom, seek to increase the capacity of public employees (Hameduddin & Fernandez, 2019). While one can define the capacity of public employees from several perspectives, the current research focuses on the capacity for voluntary and proactive behaviors by organizational members to achieve organizational purpose. As proxy measures of those behaviors, it employs innovative behavior and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), both of which can be considered as a type of extra-role behaviors of employees.

For higher performance of government, public employees need to be more active in identifying critical social issues, creating initiatives to solve them, and taking risks as policy entrepreneurs (Bhatti et al., 2015; Teske & Schneider, 1994). For example, in dealing with the recent COVID-19 pandemic problem, the Korean government showed its entrepreneurship by rapidly adopting innovative diagnostic methods such as drive-through and walk-through tests. However, proactive actions sometimes fail. In tackling the same issue, the Korean government alleviated the “social distance” policy after the national election in April. The decision was made against the warnings of experts from the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) and the Korean Society of Infectious Diseases (KSID), which resulted in the second outbreak of COVID-19. In addition, some public employees have been slow to confront environmental changes due to their passivity and blame avoidance (Hansson, 2015; Hood, 2010). Scholars in the field of public administration have also been slow to address this issue (Hinterleitner, 2017; for exceptions, Howlett, 2014; Weaver, 1986).

Seeking to fill the gap, this research asks the following research questions: What organizational and individual factors lead to innovative behavior and OCB of public employees? How does the lack of organizational support interact with individual factors in affecting those behaviors? This research examines which factors facilitate or suppress those behaviors, and it mainly relies on the perceived organizational support (POS) theory and the job demand-resource (JD-R) model in identifying core antecedents. Accordingly, organizational, task, and motivational characteristics are considered as the determinants. In detail, the research considers cooperative culture, capacity of change management, and lack of organizational support as organizational characteristics, while the task and motivational characteristics include autonomy, role conflict, and public service motivation (PSM). In addition, this research also explores whether a lack of organizational support moderates the effect of autonomy, role conflict, and PSM on innovative behavior and OCB.

To address the research questions, we integrated two data sets: the 2015 and 2016 Perception of Public Officials Surveys administered by the Korea Institute of Public Administration (KIPA). Using the 2015 data, this research measured organizational characteristics by aggregating the responses into the organizational level. However, individual-level factors and dependent variables came from the 2016 survey data. Employing the multi-level approach, the current research contributes to the literature by considering both individual and organizational factors. Methodologically, although not perfect, the integration of the data sets partly avoids the common method bias. Another contribution is to examine the determinants of innovative behavior and OCB in the East-Asian context. While there are many relevant studies, most of them were conducted in western countries. This research wants to provide empirical evidence for determinants of innovative behavior and OCB in the Korean context, effects of which might differ from those in western countries.

The following section reviews the concept of innovative behavior and OCB as well as the existing studies on the subjects. Identifying the research gap, we highlight the contribution of the current research. The next section suggests the research framework and provides theoretical discussion supporting the core hypotheses. Following the explanation of the research method, the analysis results are reported. Then, the conclusion section summarizes the research findings and provides practical implications.

Literature Review on Innovative Behavior and OCB

Existing Studies on Innovative Behavior

Innovation refers to the production or adoption of new and useful ideas and implementation of those ideas (Hansen & Pihl-Thingvad, 2019; Rogers, 2003). Innovation of products and technologies has been a key source for performance improvement and competitiveness of private sector firms (Christensen, 1997; Fagerberg et al., 2005; Porter, 1985), and many studies suggest that innovation is also critical for public sector performance (Altshuler & Behn, 1997; Borins, 2014; Damanpour et al., 2009; Light, 1998). Researchers and practitioners agree that, to solve “unruly and wicked” problems, public organizations need to build more capacity for innovation (Crosby et al., 2017; Hansen & Pihl-Thingvad, 2019: 918; Kinder, 2012; Moore & Hartley, 2008; Torfing & Ansell, 2017).

Because innovation is initiated with the problem recognition and generation of ideas (Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994), it is important to study what factors facilitate or suppress individual innovative behaviors. Janssen (2003) defined innovative work behavior as “the intentional generation, promotion, and realization of new ideas within a work role, work group, or organization” (p. 348). Similarly, Aryee et al. (2012) defined innovative behavior as “the production or adoption of useful ideas and idea implementation” (p. 8). Scholars have nominated various factors that may affect innovative behavior. Scott and Bruce (1994) and Bysted and Jespersen (2014) emphasized the importance of building an organizational climate to enhance innovation, while other scholars have argued that the engaged individuals with vigor and dedication are the key to generate innovation (Al-Hawari et al., 2019; Aryee et al., 2012). Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2013) stressed various empowerment practices as sources for innovation and Wynen et al. (2014) argued that, by focusing on job characteristics, autonomy and room for experimentation are antecedents for innovation. Scholars, such as Bysted and Hansen (2015) and Miao et al. (2018), underscored the role of leadership for facilitating innovative behaviors among employees. Based on the existing studies, the current research classifies the determinants of innovative behavior into three categories, including organizational (managerial) characteristics, job characteristics, and motivational factors.

Existing Studies on OCB

Since Organ and colleagues (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983) developed and introduced the concept of OCB, numerous studies have been conducted in the field of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2018). In the very early days of OCB research, Organ (1988) defined the concept as follows: “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). Organ also suggested the specified dimensions of OCB, which include altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. Recently, peacekeeping and cheerleading were also included in the dimensions (Organ, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2009). The aforementioned definition and constructs of OCB make one expect that OCB is positively associated with organizational effectiveness. Indeed, previous studies have shown that OCB has a positive impact on job performance and employee behaviors, whereas it negatively affects various forms of withdrawal behaviors such as turnover intention, absenteeism, and turnover (Podsakoff et al., 2009).

A variety of factors have been considered as the antecedents of OCB. They include personality traits (e.g., conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability, extraversion, openness), leadership characteristics (e.g., transformational leadership, transactional leadership, servant leadership, leader-member demographic similarity, LMX), and other contextual factors (e.g., justice, structure, coworker support) (Chiaburu et al., 2011; Ilies et al., 2007; Kacmar et al., 2011; Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Pandey et al., 2008; Taylor, 2013). Most of these OCB studies have focused on the individual-level antecedents of individual-level OCB. In recent years, researchers have begun to examine the effects of organizational-level variables as well as to identify the moderating effects of those variables (Dekas, 2010; Kalshoven et al., 2013; Podsakoff et al., 2018; Wherry, 2012). Besides individual-level factors, the current research considers organizational-level factors, including cooperative culture (Ng & Van Dyne, 2005), change management capacity (Choi, 2007), and lack of organizational support.

Contribution of Current Research

Assuming that innovative behavior and OCB can cope with expectations of citizens and environmental changes, researchers and practitioners have shown considerable interest in identifying the antecedents. Those behaviors can be considered extra-role behaviors, which are positively related to work outcomes such as satisfaction, performance, network management, and problem solving (Alessandri et al., 2018; DeGroot & Brownlee, 2006; Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Kim & Gong, 2009; MacKenzie et al., 2011; Moeller et al., 2018; Nielsen et al., 2012; Podsakoff et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2008). From the social exchange perspective, employees engage in extra-role behaviors by responding to organizational support for providing abundant resources (Blau, 1964). Employees who perceive that they have received enough resources from the organization perform well in their organizations (Saks, 2006). Some task characteristics and motivational factors were also found to be critical elements affecting those extra-role behaviors (Giebels et al., 2016; Grant, 2007, 2008; Pandey et al., 2008; Todd & Kent, 2006). In addition, both innovative behavior and OCB can also be considered as types of behavioral engagement in that Macey and Schneider (2008) argued that behavioral engagement include “innovative behavior, demonstrations of initiative, proactively seeking opportunities to contribute, and going beyond what is, within specific frames of reference, typically expected or required” (p. 15). That is, behaviorally engaged employees are dedicated to focusing on their work activities, being open to new experiences, and helping their colleagues (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018).

Although many studies have been conducted on innovative behavior and OCB, one can identify several gaps in the research. First, few studies employed a multi-level approach to explore the interactions between organizational factors and individual factors in explaining those behaviors. For example, Biggs et al. (2014) have emphasized the need for research that deals with both individual and environmental factors by arguing that few studies have examined how strategic alignment at the organizational level affects employee engagement. Similarly, Chen and Kao (2011) argued the necessity to conduct the multi-level analysis to explain OCB. Studies dealing with some organizational factors, such as job resources and leadership, are increasing (e.g., Alfes et al., 2013; Breevaart et al., 2014; Holman & Axtell, 2016), but more studies are required to obtain practical knowledge to facilitate and maintain those extra-role behaviors. To fill such gap, the current research takes a multi-level approach by considering both organizational-level and individual-level factors.

Second, for a systematic understanding of extra-role behaviors, research is needed on the public and nonprofit sectors in addition to the private sector (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018). While studies have been conducted on innovative behavior and OCB in the public sector, the private sector research deals with a wider range of subjects and research topics (e.g., Al-Hawari et al., 2019; Aryee et al., 2012; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). In addition, the most critical resources and influential determinants for those extra-role behaviors might be different across the sectors. While acknowledging the importance of investigating such differences, the public management field was relatively slow to respond to the call for research on innovative behavior and OCB (Hansen & Pihl-Thingvad, 2019). In addition, many empirical studies for the subject were conducted in western countries and one can find little research dealing with the Asian context. Examining survey data collected from government officials working in the South Korea, the current research contributes to filling the gaps.

Research Framework and Hypotheses

Research Framework

Figure 1 illustrates the framework of this research. The current research is mainly based on the JD-R model and the POS theory. Seeking to encompass various relevant factors, the framework includes organizational characteristics, job characteristics, and motivational factors. Organizational factors at Level 2 reflect the level of support for innovative behavior and OCB from several aspects at the organizational level, the effects of which can be explained by the POS theory. Furthermore, the JD-R model is also applicable in that those supports from organization can be perceived as job resources. Individual-level factors mainly reflect job characteristics and motivational aspects. Among those factors, the effects of job characteristics are well explained by the JD-R model.

Figure 1.

Research framework.

Altogether, in explaining the individual-level dependent variables, innovative behavior, and OCB, the framework hypothesizes that both organizational- and individual-level factors have influences. Organizational-level factors include cooperative culture, capacity for change management, and lack of organizational support. The first two factors are expected to have a positive influence on innovative behavior and OCB, whereas the last factor, lack of organizational support, is expected to have a negative effect. Individual-level factors include autonomy, role conflict, PSM, and demographic factors. We assume that autonomy and PSM are positively associated with the dependent variables, while role conflict has a negative association with them. In addition, the research examines interaction effects between lack of organizational support and the three individual-level factors noted above. The section below explains the relationships between core independent variables and the dependent variables. We suggest hypotheses based on the discussion.

Theoretical Discussion and Hypotheses

Organizational factors

The influence of three organizational factors can be explained by both the POS theory and the JD-R model. POS means employees’ “beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 500). Various organizational characteristics will give positive or negative signals to employees’ perception, which will constitute the level of organizational support (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle et al., 2009). In addition, based on the JD-R model, the perceived level of organizational support actually works as an emotional and physical resource for organizational members, which eventually affects important organizational outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In sum, both the POS theory and the JD-R model explain the effects of organizational factors considered by the current research.

Cooperative culture facilitates work environments that permit employees to work together and rely on each other in initiating innovations. Cooperation becomes more important when organizations seek innovations which require a complex process and participation of various organizational members. OCB will more easily emerge when the overall organizational culture is cooperative. The members of cohesive groups tend to be more sensitive to social, affective, and cognitive cues that are displayed by other members, from which they infer how their colleagues should feel, think, and act in the group (Van Mierlo & Bakker, 2018). Engaging in extra-role behaviors will be natural when employees are willing to collaborate.

Change management capacity refers to the degree of readiness and commitment to change. When an organization actively supports change, organizational members recognize it as POS for creativity, by which employees perceive that the organization values and rewards creative behaviors (Zhou & George, 2001). When management focuses on change and innovation, extra-role behaviors will be further recognized and more innovations and creative activities will emerge. Accordingly, both innovative behaviors and OCB will be positively influenced by change management capacity.

In contrast, the lack of organizational support will decrease such voluntary behaviors. Many existing studies have found that sufficient organizational support leads to positive outcomes (Bishop et al., 2000; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2016; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Jong & Ford, 2016), but not many studies have dealt with how insufficient support negatively affects outcomes. The lack of resources leads to perceptional constraints by decreasing psychological room (Bum, 2015). Compared to people who have enough resources, people who are lack of resources are more sensitive to opportunity costs and perceive a higher level of psychological threats, which leads to conservative decision-makings (Shah et al., 2015). The deficiency of resources also generates the “tunnel vision” effect which narrows one’s view (Williams, 1982). Accordingly, the lack of support is not just the absence of sufficient support. Rather, it has negative impact on employees and decreases extra-role behaviors. In case of Korea, to solve the economic hardship resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Korean government decided to provide a stimulus check ranging $400 to $1,000 to citizens. One problem was that it substantially increased the workloads of street-level bureaucrats, but additional organizational support was not provided. Consequently, many public employees suffered from emotional labor and burnout syndrome (Hankyung, 2020, May 16). Furthermore, they were under political pressure to donate their own stimulus check (ChosunBiz, 2020, April 30). All these circumstances made street-level bureaucrats more passive and risk-avoided in managing their works. In sum, when there is a lack of support, employees will experience difficulties in conducting their current tasks, which delays developing innovative ideas and helping others in the workplace (Cohen & Abedallah, 2015; Van Emmerik et al., 2003). Instead, the lack of support will lead to negative outcomes such as work stress, burnout, and job distress (Caesens et al., 2014; Demerouti et al., 2001). While existing studies mainly focused on positive factors increasing innovative behavior and OCB, the current research also deals with the lack of organizational support as a factor that may negatively affect them.

Consequently, out of many organizational characteristics, the three factors discussed above reflect the substantial portion of organizational influences that affect innovative behavior and OCB. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses were established:

Hypothesis 1: Cooperative culture will be positively associated with innovative behavior and OCB.

Hypothesis 2: Change management capacity will be positively associated with innovative behavior and OCB.

Hypothesis 3: Lack of organizational support will be negatively associated with innovative behavior and OCB.

Job characteristics and motivational factors

In addition to organizational characteristics, other factors may affect the level of innovative behavior and OCB. Representatively, characteristics of one’s task and the level of motivation are core elements in explaining innovative behavior and OCB (Chen & Kao, 2011; Giebels et al., 2016; Pandey et al., 2008; Todd & Kent, 2006). Accordingly, the current research deals with two job characteristics, autonomy and role conflict, and one motivational factor, PSM.

Autonomy is critical to enhance both innovative behavior and OCB. If public employees do not have enough autonomy, then they will have less room to design and implement innovative ideas. Under less autonomy, employees will feel higher constraints and be less likely to engage in voluntary helping behaviors. In short, a low level of autonomy will decrease employees’ capacity for innovative behavior and OCB. The JD-R model gives a good explanation for the relationship. The model suggests that job strain and well-being are the results coming from the balance between job resources and job demands (Demerouti et al., 2001). According to the model, autonomy is one of the representative examples of job resources that lead to positive outcomes including enhanced motivation, extra-role performance, innovativeness, higher work engagement, and higher performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). In a study of 826 nurses in Italy, Trinchero et al. (2013) confirmed that discretionary power was an important driver of engagement and Shantz et al. (2013) also found a positive relationship between autonomy and employee engagement with a sample of 283 employees in the United Kingdom.

The effect of another independent variable, role conflict, is also well explained by the JD-R model, but in the opposite way (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Job demands are defined as “those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). Role conflict works as a job demand in that it requires employees to clarify their roles, which is often accompanied by much stress. Role conflict as the hindrance demand will lead to employee depression, psychological strain, and burnout (Crawford et al., 2010), which all leave little room for extra-role behaviors. However, one can think of the opposite perspective that innovative behavior may lead to role conflict. If employees are engaged in innovative behavior, which accompanies new ideas and suggestions, their roles might become in conflict with other employees’ roles because innovations often cross the boundaries of roles. Despite the possibility, the current research considers the role conflict as the antecedent of innovative behavior by relying on the JD-R model. Future research using a longitudinal design is needed to test the competitive arguments.

Existing studies have also demonstrated the above arguments. Working as a job resource, autonomy is closely related to positive outcomes (Bakker et al., 2005), while role conflicts are associated with negative attitudes and behaviors (Crawford et al., 2010; Kahn, 1990). As previous studies demonstrated that these factors work as critical determinants of extra-role behaviors, they need to be controlled to properly capture the effects of other independent variables. More importantly, not many studies have demonstrated the effects of those factors on innovative behavior yet (for exceptions, see Bysted & Hansen, 2015; Bysted & Jespersen, 2014), which increases the necessity to examine the relationship. In addition, one needs to confirm whether those factors have similar influences in the Korean context. Accordingly, we set the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Autonomy will be positively associated with innovative behavior and OCB.

Hypothesis 5: Role conflict will be negatively associated with innovative behavior and OCB.

PSM is expected to increase both innovative behavior and OCB. Defined as “a mix of motives that drives an individual to engage in an act that benefits society” (Taylor, 2007, p. 934), PSM drives public employees to strive to serve the public interests. In explaining the positive effect of PSM in the public sector, person-organizational fit (P-O fit) theory is frequently used. The P-O fit refers to the extent of compatibility between an individual and the work environment (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), and the expectation is that employees well matched to organizational characteristics will show better attitudes and behaviors than others. When one applies the theory to PSM, he or she can assume that people who are attracted to fulfilling the public interests are likely to work in public organizations that serve the purpose. As their needs are fulfilled in the public sector, public employees who have a high level of PSM will show higher levels of satisfaction and commitment as well as be more dedicated to their mission and vision, making them willing to engage in extra-role behaviors (Kim, 2006; Pandey et al., 2008). Helping other employees and keeping organizational rules are representative examples. Besides, these employees will think of innovative ideas and actively suggest them to achieve public interests (Miao et al., 2018; Perry & Wise, 1990). While Miao et al. (2018) demonstrated the indirect effect of PSM on innovative behavior via psychological empowerment, to our knowledge, no research has demonstrated the direct effect of PSM on innovative behavior yet. Based on the discussion, we set the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: PSM will be positively associated with innovative behavior and OCB.

In addition, this research examines the moderating effect of lack of organizational support on the relationship between individual-level variables and extra-role behaviors. The main reason to choose this factor is to explore how organizational constraints affect the extra-role behaviors. While existing studies provide several factors facilitating extra-role behaviors (e.g., Afsar & Badir, 2016; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2016), not many studies have identified factors suppressing the effects of those behaviors. Focusing on insufficient workforce, unreasonable task deadline, and the lack of work–family balance, the current research examines whether the lack of organizational support moderates the influences of individual-level factors.

The JD-R model provides the explanation for the moderating effects. As mentioned earlier, the JD-R model argues that the balance between job resources and job demands affects job strain and well-being (Demerouti et al., 2001), where not only the excessive demands but also insufficient resources may lead to negative consequences. Accordingly, when there is a lack of organizational support, this will suppress the full realization of positive effects of individual-level factors.

For example, under the lack of organizational support, the effect of autonomy might not be fully realized. Even when one has job autonomy, if available resources are not enough to initiate any innovative project, then no innovation might happen or the outcome of the innovation will be limited. As a result, the influence of autonomy enhancing innovative behavior and OCB will be reduced when the organizational support is limited. Under the lack of organizational support, the negative impact of the role conflict might be getting worse. The deficiency of support will exacerbate employees’ capacity to resolve conflict in the workplace, which will further decrease the room for innovative ideas and extra-role behaviors. That is, the lack of organizational support and role conflict will make the negative synergy in reducing extra-role behaviors. Finally, the effect of PSM will be decreased under the condition of lack of organizational support. Like the autonomy, the positive influence of PSM may not be fully realized when an organization does not provide enough support. The efforts to achieve public interests will experience frustration when the organization does not provide enough support. Reflecting the discussion above, we set the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 7: The effects of autonomy on innovative behavior and OCB will be weakened under the lack of organizational support.

Hypothesis 8: The effects of role conflict on innovative behavior and OCB will be strengthened under the lack of organizational support.

Hypothesis 9: The effects of PSM on innovative behavior and OCB will be weakened under the lack of organizational support.

Method

Data and Analytic Method

To address the research questions, this research integrates two data sets: the 2015 and 2016 Perception of Public Officials Surveys conducted by The KIPA. As a representative survey on public employees in Korea, the survey is conducted for both central and local public employees. In the 2015 survey, 43 central administrative agencies and 17 local governments participated, while the 2016 survey was distributed to 42 central administrative agencies and 17 local governments. Using multi-level quota sampling, the KIPA collected 2,000 public officials in 2015 and 2,070 public officials in 2016. We constructed a hierarchical data structure by aggregating 2015 survey responses into the organizational level. Then, using the aggregated measures of the 2015 data, the research matched the 2015 organizational-level data with 2016 individual-level data by the organizational affiliation. With the integration of the data sets, we partly avoided the common method bias because the respondents of the 2015 survey were different from those of the 2016 survey. That is, at least the organizational-level factors came from a different data source.

Regarding the aggregating responses, one can find several existing studies using the aggregated measures of individual survey responses as team- or organizational-level factors (e.g., Bertelli et al., 2013; Chan, 2005; Ehrhart et al., 2006; Raver et al., 2012). Like those studies, this research used the referent-shift consensus model as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2014). Prior to aggregating 2015 survey data, we first tested the within-group agreement (rWG) level of the data (James et al., 1984, 1993) and the interrater agreement (intraclass correlation [ICC1]) level. This research used the tool designed by Biemann et al. (2012) in computing the estimates. The average rWG values for cooperative culture, change management capacity, and lack of organizational support were .83, .87, and .76, respectively, all of which met the critical value of .70 proposed by James et al. (1984). To test the consistency in member scoring, James (1982) recommends the use of ICC(1). A low ICC close to 0 means that values from the same group are not similar. The ICC(1) coefficient was .03 for cooperative culture, .04 for change management capacity, and .05 for lack of organizational support. Based on Bliese’s (2000) study, the appropriate criterion for the ICC(1) coefficient is between .05 and .30, so the ICC(1) values of cooperative culture and change management capacity did not meet the criteria. However, when group sizes are large (i.e., more than 25), even a very small ICC(1) (i.e., .01) is not a big problem (Bliese, 1998: 363). As the average group size of this study was 34, it was feasible to conduct a group-level analysis through the aggregation of individual-level data.

Accordingly, we aggregated data into the organizational level and conducted the hierarchical linear model (HLM) analysis. The HLM analysis is appropriate for examining the effects of both higher level factors (organizational-level factors) and lower level factors (individual-level factors) on lower-level factors (individual-level outcomes). This characteristic makes the HLM a suitable analytic method for the current analysis. In addition, the research also examines the moderating effect of lack of organizational support on the relationship between individual-level factors and two types of behaviors, innovative behavior and OCB.

Measurements

The questionnaire items used in the study are shown in Table 1. The dependent variables are innovative behavior and OCB. Innovative behavior was conceptualized as two behavioral phases for employees to undertake: idea generation and idea realization. The scale is based on the work of Janssen (2001) and Scott and Bruce (1994). The OCB survey items reflect those used in Stumpf et al. (2013).

Table 1.

Measurement.

Variables	Measurement
Individual level
Innovative behavior(Cronbach’s α = .87)	I try to come up with new and better ways of doing things.I develop new ideas to solve problems that arise during work.
OCB(Cronbach’s α = .78)	I help my colleagues who are absent or have lots of workloads.I listen to my colleagues’ problems and concerns.I help my boss even if he or she does not ask.
Autonomy(Cronbach’s α = .82)	I can participate in decisions relating to my work.I can choose the method and procedure for how my job is done.
Role conflict(Cronbach’s α = .82)	I sometimes have contradictory requests from my supervisors.I have different requirements for my role from my supervisors and subordinates.I have been in conflict because of differences in official job responsibilities and my values.
Public service motivation(Cronbach’s α = .91)	Meaningful public service is very important to me.Public services should be able to contribute to the public good.Public services should be democratically determined, even if time and efforts are involved.Quality services should be provided to all citizens even with extra costs.When developing public policy, the interests of future generations need to be considered.I feel compassion for those who are not socially benefited. I do not feel good when people are treated unfairly.
Gender	Male = 1, Female = 0
Marital status	Married = 1, Otherwise= 0
Tenure	How long have you been with the government?(2016—year of employment)
Grade	What is your grade?Grade 1–5 = 1, Grade 6–9 = 0
Organizational level
Cooperative culture(Cronbach’s α = .87)	My organization emphasizes participation, cooperation, trust and the development of the members’ capabilities.My organization values on organizational morale and teamwork.
Change management capacity(Cronbach’s α = .87)	My organization is flexible and promptly responds to changes.My organization tolerates some risks for innovation.In my organization, a change usually lead to a positive outcome
Lack of organizational support(Cronbach’s α = .76)	In my organization, insufficient workforce is a major obstacle to achieve high performance.In my organization, unreasonable task deadline is a major obstacle to achieve high performance.In my organization, the lack of work–family balance support is a major obstacle to achieve high performance.

Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.

The cooperative culture scale comes from Quinn’s (1988) competing values model. The questionnaires were developed based on the support orientation concept: mutual trust and interpersonal harmony (Van Muijen, 1999). The change management capacity questions are related to the “Perceived Organization Support for Innovation” introduced in Scott and Bruce’s (1994) study. The questions of lack of organizational support reflect major obstacles to high performance at the organizational level. As noted before, the three organizational-level factors have been conceptualized and measured as a referent-shift construct (Chan, 1998). The current research aggregated individual responses into organizational level in two reasons. First, in Korea, one can observe a large variation of budget scale and capacity across central agencies and local governments and the effect of top leadership is much more substantial than mid-level leadership. Second, because team-level data are not available, the current research was not able to examine team-level effects.

Out of three aspects of autonomy including method autonomy, scheduling autonomy, and criteria autonomy (Breaugh, 1985), the current measurements focus on method and criteria autonomy. In addition, role conflict questions were selected from Kahn et al. (1964), Rizzo et al. (1970), and King and King (1990). Sources for the PSM questions included Perry (1996), and Kim et al. (2013). Finally, we controlled several demographic variables that have been shown to influence innovative behavior and task performance (Pieterse et al., 2010; Scott & Bruce, 1994). All measurements with multiple items showed the acceptable Cronbach’s alpha values over .70, and only one factor was retained by the factor analysis for each variable.

Although the measurements of organizational-level factors came from the different source, 2015 survey data, the individual-level factors and the dependent variables came from the same data source, 2016 survey data. To test the seriousness of the common method bias, the current research conducted Harman’s single-factor test. Although the test does not eliminate the bias, it helps us evaluate the seriousness of it. The test result demonstrated that the bias was not serious. The biggest factor explained only 19% of the total variance, less than the common threshold (50%). Accordingly, we proceeded to the HLM analysis.

Analysis Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 shows summary statistics and zero-order correlations. Besides demographic factors, role conflict had the lowest mean value, 2.99, which was close to the mid-point, 3. Both innovative behavior and OCB had mean values, 3.23 and 3.58, respectively, higher than the mid-point. For correlations, the dependent variables, innovative behavior and OCB, were positively correlated as expected, 0.39. Autonomy and PSM were positively correlated with both dependent variables, while role conflict was negatively correlated with them. Regarding organizational-level factors, cooperative culture and change management capacity had a statistically significant and positive correlation.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations.

Variables	M	SD	N	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Individual level
1. Innovative behavior	3.23	0.72	2,070	1.00
2. OCB	3.58	0.57	2,070	.39**	1.00
3. Autonomy	3.29	0.75	2,070	.29**	.24**	1.00
4. Role conflict	2.99	0.70	2,070	–.14**	–.04	–.16**	1.00
5. Public service motivation	3.90	0.54	2,070	.24**	.37**	.15**	–.01	1.00
6. Gender	0.63	0.48	2,070	.12**	.01	.10**	–.03	.03	1.00
7. Marital status	0.75	0.44	2,070	.16**	.11**	.10**	.02	.07**	.23**	1.00
8. Tenure	12.79	9.01	2,070	.20**	.10**	.12**	–.03	.07**	.12**	.48**	1.00
9. Grade	0.30	0.46	2,070	.06**	–.01	.15**	–.03	.08**	.17**	.11**	.25**
Organizational level
1. Cooperative culture	3.64	0.18	59	1.00
2. Change management capacity	3.30	0.21	59	.26*	1.00
3. Lack of organizational support	3.43	0.21	59	.05	.08	1.00

Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.

*p <.05. **p < .01.

HLM Analysis

Table 3 presents the HLM analysis results. The number of observations was 2,070 at the individual level, and the number of groups was 59 at the organizational level. The number of individuals per group ranged from 20 to 70. Regarding innovative behavior, two organizational-level factors had statistically significant effects. Lack of organizational support decreased the innovative behavior, while cooperative culture enhanced the behavior. Among the individual-level factors, autonomy and PSM were positively associated with the innovative behavior, whereas role conflict reduced such behavior. Several demographic factors were statistically significant. Males, married employees, and employees with longer tenure were more likely to engage in innovative behavior.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Linear Model Analysis Results.

	Model 1Innovative behavior			Model 2OCB
Parameter	Estimate(z)	SE	p-value	Estimate(z)	SE	p-value
Cooperative culture	0.540*** (3.48)	.155	.001	0.236^† (1.83)	.129	.067
Change management capacity	–0.224(–1.51)	.149	.131	–0.145(–1.17)	.124	.241
Lack of organizational support	–0.244** (–2.75)	.089	.006	–0.139^† (–1.88)	.074	.060
Autonomy	0.215*** (10.68)	.020	.000	0.145*** (9.14)	.016	.000
Lack of organizational support × autonomy	–0.191^† (–1.90)	.101	.058	0.002(0.03)	.079	.977
Role conflict	–0.102*** (–4.92)	.021	.000	–0.011(–0.70)	.016	.483
Lack of organizational support × role conflict	–0.052(–0.47)	.110	.637	0.008(0.09)	.087	.930
Public service motivation	0.253*** (9.31)	.027	.000	0.352*** (16.39)	.021	.000
Lack of organizational support ×PSM	0.069(0.51)	.136	.613	0.216* (2.01)	.108	.045
Gender	0.088** (2.80)	.031	.005	–0.031(–1.27)	.025	.204
Marital status	0.087* (2.26)	.039	.024	0.081** (2.65)	.030	.008
Tenure	0.009*** (4.80)	.002	.000	0.003(1.78)	.002	.076
Grade	–0.033(–0.96)	.034	.336	–0.077** (–2.87)	.027	.004
Constant	3.004*** (85.40)	.035	.000	3.524*** (125.12)	.028	.000
Wald’s χ²	419.71***			466.55**
N	2,070			2,070
Group N	59			59

Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; PSM = public service motivation.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hypotheses for the cross-level effects between individual factors and lack of organizational support were rejected at the .05 significance level. While all the moderating effects were not significant at the .05 significance level, the relationship between autonomy and lack of organizational support was significant at the .1 level. With caution, we interpret the relationship in consideration of its contextual importance. The moderating effect shows when there was a lack of organizational support, the effect of autonomy on innovative behavior was decreased. This influence can be plotted as shown in Figure 2. As the autonomy increases, the innovative behavior tends to increase. The slope is steeper when the lack of organizational support is at the low level (−.4), but the positive effect of autonomy on innovative behavior is decreased when the lack of organizational support is at the high level (.6). In other words, when organizational support is deficient, the effect of autonomy which increases innovative behavior is reduced. However, the effect is further boosted when one does not perceive such deficiency. Despite the interpretation, the current result is based on the .1 significance level and future studies need to reaffirm the relationship using a stricter standard.

Figure 2.

Cross-level effect between autonomy and lack of organizational support.

Regarding OCB, the result of organizational-level factors was not statistically significant at the .05 significance level. However, lack of organizational support and cooperative culture were significant at the .1 level. When organizational support was deficient, employees were less likely to engage in OCB. On the contrary, under cooperative organizational culture, employees were more likely to show OCB. However, further validation is required to assure the relationships.

Among the individual-level factors, the importance of autonomy and PSM were demonstrated. When individual employees enjoyed a high level of autonomy and had a high level of PSM, they were more actively engaged in OCB. The coefficient of PSM was the largest among the variables included in the model, which implies that PSM is the major determinant of OCB. Role conflict did not have a significant effect on OCB. The reason might be that OCB is basically extra-role behaviors that do not require specific job descriptions, which is not much affected by the level of in-role conflict. Married employees were more likely to show OCB, whereas high-level officers showed less OCB when other conditions were equal.

For the cross-level effects between individual-level factors and lack of organizational support, only the interaction between PSM and lack of organizational support was significant, but in the opposite direction. When there was a lack of organizational support, the effect of PSM on OCB was further increased. In other words, the impact of PSM is larger when one cannot obtain enough support from the organization. The reason might be that employees seek to overcome the organizational constraints when they have a high level of PSM, but further research is required to confirm this conjecture. Figure 3 shows the relationship more clearly. One can find that the overall level of OCB is higher when there is organizational support (low level of lack of organizational support). As the PSM increases, the OCB also tends to increase. Especially, the slope is flatter when the lack of organizational support is at the low level (−.4, high level of organizational support), while the slope is steeper when the lack of organizational support is at the high level (.6, low level of organizational support). That is, under the deficiency of organizational support, the positive effect of PSM on OCB was further increased. In contrast, the effect was reduced when organizational support existed.

Figure 3.

Cross-level effect between PSM and lack of organizational support.

Conclusion

This study examined organizational-level and individual-level factors that affect two types of extra-role behaviors, innovative behavior and OCB. The empirical analysis based on the 2015 and 2016 Perception of Public Officials Surveys revealed some significant effects of organizational factors. Establishing a cooperative culture among employees and supporting organizational members were critical to facilitate those behaviors.¹ Regarding individual-level factors, autonomy had a positive impact on both innovative behavior and OCB, whereas the lack of organizational support weakened the positive impact of autonomy on innovative behavior. PSM was positively associated with innovative behaviors and OCB, where the effect of PSM was further increased with the lack of organizational support. In other words, PSM buffered a negative effect of insufficient organizational support. Employees with role conflict were less likely to show innovative behavior. Unexpectedly, some hypotheses were rejected. For example, change management capacity did not show a significant effect on innovative behavior or OCB. It might have indirect effects by working through other factors rather than directly affecting those behaviors. The exploration of plausible mediating factors might be desired in the future research. Role conflict did not have a significant effect on OCB. As noted before, by being closely related with work roles, role conflict may largely influence in-role behaviors rather than extra-role behaviors. Despite the conjectures, future studies need to demonstrate those unexpected findings.

Focusing on extra-role behaviors, this research sought to provide some practical implications on how to enhance innovative behavior and OCB. The environmental changes will be greater in the near future, which will make the command and control mechanism less useful. Sometimes, the rapid changes of environment may increase the pressure on employees to conduct rule-bending behaviors (Sekerka & Zolin, 2007). Although bending rules might be a risky choice to individual employees and organizations, such behavior can be done based on knowledge and experience with the expectation of better policy results (Borry, 2017; Collins, 2012; DeHart-Davis, 2007; Sekerka & Zolin, 2007; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004). Likewise, extra-role behaviors based on a voluntary mechanism will be more critical and contribute to solving the issue of risk-avoidance of public employees. The current analysis demonstrates that both individual and organizational factors are critical to facilitate innovative behavior and OCB. At the organizational level, nurturing a cooperative culture and providing support for employees are necessary. At the individual level, the management of job characteristics needs to be considered. Providing more autonomy while reducing role conflict will be helpful for employees to be more engaged in extra-role behaviors. Finally, from the motivational perspective, efforts to enhance PSM will pay off with the increased level of those behaviors as several studies have demonstrated that PSM can be nurtured within organizations (e.g., Giauque et al., 2013; Ritz et al., 2016).

In general, most governments will make efforts to facilitate those extra-role behaviors. Especially in the case of the South Korean government, to encourage “proactive governance” that seeks to enhance innovative capacity of public employees, the government established the consulting system and the proactive governance support committee, which help public officials who have difficulties in making decisions during proactive governance (Enforcement Rule of the Audit Vindication System Operation, including Proactive Governance Immunity, 2019). The government also provides some incentives such as accelerated promotion and performance pay to public officials who demonstrate proactive governance (Operating Regulation of et al., 2019). To some extent, these initiatives can be positively evaluated in that they help improve institutional support and extrinsically motivate employees for innovative behavior and OCB. However, one can also find some limitations of the government policy. The implication of the current analysis is that the lack of organizational support, such as manpower, time, and a work–family balance support system, decreases extra-role behaviors, but those supports are not covered by the current policy. Rather, they are dealt with in a separate manner. Furthermore, the current incentive system for proactive governance is ex post facto, rather than proactive. Under the current policy, proactively provided resources might not be enough for public employees who seek to engage in extra-role behaviors. Restructuring the incentive system by integrating separate policies and providing proactive incentives will be necessary to further facilitate those behaviors. The implication might be applicable to other countries under similar circumstances, but one needs a caution in that the current research largely reflects the Korean contexts.

The current research has several limitations. First, the current research is not free from the common method bias although it partly avoids the bias by using multiple data sources. While organizational-level factors come from the 2015 survey with different respondents, the relationships among individual-level factors might be inflated by the bias. However, Harman’s single-factor test demonstrates that the bias is not very serious. When conducting the test, the biggest factor explained 19% of the variance, which is much less than the threshold (50%). Thus, although the bias does exist, it is not sufficient to invalidate the analysis results. However, to establish more robust causal relationships, future research may want to integrate multiple data sources at the individual level. Regarding the data integration, the current research merged the data into the organizational level rather than the team level. However, some group characteristics might be better reflected at the team level. As the secondhand data were used and the team affiliation was not available, the current research was not able to examine the case. Considering the limitation, future research may want to compare the effects of group-level factors at different levels.

Another area for future research is to examine the effects of innovative behavior and OCB on individual and organizational performance. Performance has been a major concern of management. While one can think of innovative behavior and OCB as performance itself, it is necessary to confirm whether those extra-role behaviors lead to actual performance. Although one can find such evidence in the private sector (Aryee et al., 2012; Gong et al., 2009), little evidence has been provided in the public sector. In pursuing the discussed research method and topic, the time factor needs to be considered. Although the current research sets a 1-year time lag for organizational-level factors, it does not assure the time precedence for individual-level factors. By constructing a longitudinal data set, future research may want to examine the long-term effects of antecedents as well as clarify the dynamics among antecedents, extra-role behaviors, and relevant outcomes. Then, for example, one can deal with the complicated relationships such as the relationship between role conflict and innovative behavior, and provide an answer for which factor is more likely to work as an antecedent. In addition, the current research used the shortened version of measurements for the main variables. Although the research sought to justify the use from theoretical and methodological perspectives, future studies may want to test the core relationships based on the full version of measurements.

It will be also worthwhile to extend the scope of the research by linking innovative behavior and OCB to entrepreneurial or rule-bending activities. Such effort will broaden the managerial view to facilitate innovations in the public sector. In addition, while the current research deals with innovative behavior and OCB as extra-role behaviors, future environments may change the status into in-role behaviors by explicitly requiring innovativeness in conducting one’s role. How the different status affects actual innovation and performance will be worthwhile to examine. Exploring plausible causal relationships among innovative behavior, OCB, and other extra-role behaviors will be another topic for future research.

Future organizations should respond to rapid changes and high uncertainties such as the current COVID-19 pandemic situation. Under those circumstances, employees tamed by the command-and-control mechanism might have difficulties in designing organizational innovations, whereas the engaged workforce will play more critical roles (Miller, 2010, November 28). As organizations become bigger and more hierarchical, autonomous discretion is infringed and working processes are slowed down, thereby making employees more passive. To reverse this inclination and successfully conduct innovations, public organizations need to develop extra-role behaviors such as innovative behavior and OCB. The Korean government and other governments may want to cultivate such engaged employees by securing autonomy, nurturing PSM, establishing the cooperative culture, and strengthening organizational support.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A3A2067636).

ORCID iD

Yoon Jik Cho

Notes

Author Biographies

Yoon Jik Cho, PhD, is a professor of the Department of Public Administration at Yonsei University in South Korea. His research focuses on the role of trust in public management, organizational behavior, and human resource management.

Hyun Jin Song is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Public Administration at Yonsei University in South Korea. Her research interests include street-level bureaucracy, organizational behavior, and human resource management.

References

Afsar

Badir

Y. F.

(2016). Person–organization fit, perceived organizational support, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of job embeddedness. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(3), 252–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2016.1147936

Al-Hawari

M. A.

Bani-Melhem

Shamsudin

F. M.

(2019). Determinants of frontline employee service innovative behavior: The moderating role of co-worker socializing and service climate. Management Research Review, 42(9), 1076–1094. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-07-2018-0266

Alessandri

Consiglio

Luthans

Borgogni

(2018). Testing a dynamic model of the impact of psychological capital on work engagement and job performance. Career Development International, 23(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2016-0210

Alfes

Shantz

A. D.

Truss

Soane

E. C.

(2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), 330–351.

Altshuler

A. A.

Behn

R. D.

(1997). The dilemmas of innovation in American government. In Altshuler

A. A.

Behn

R. D.

(Eds.), Innovation in American government (pp. 3–37). RR Donnelley & Sons.

Aryee

Walumbwa

F. O.

Zhou

Hartnell

C. A.

(2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance, 25(1), 1–25.

Bakker

A. B.

Albrecht

(2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.

10.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Euwema

M. C.

(2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170–180.

11.

Bateman

T. S.

Organ

D. W.

(1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587–595.

12.

Bertelli

A. M.

Mason

D. P.

Connolly

J. M.

Gastwirth

D. A.

(2013). Measuring agency attributes with attitudes across time: A method and examples using large-scale federal surveys. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 513–544. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut040

13.

Bhatti

Z. K.

Zall Kusek

Verheijen

(2015). Logged on: Smart government solutions from South Asia. World Bank.

14.

Biemann

Cole

M. S.

Voelpel

(2012). Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(j) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 66–80.

15.

Biggs

Brough

Barbour

J. P.

(2014). Strategic alignment with organizational priorities and work engagement: A multi-wave analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 301–317.

16.

Bishop

J. W.

Scott

K. D.

Burroughs

S. M.

(2000). Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1113–1132.

17.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

18.

Bliese

P. D.

(1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 355–373.

19.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.

20.

Borins

S. F.

(2014). The persistence of innovation in government. Brookings Institution Press with Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation.

21.

Borry

E. L.

(2017). Ethical climate and rule bending: How organizational norms contribute to unintended rule consequences. Public Administration, 95(1), 78–96.

22.

Breaugh

J. A.

(1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38(6), 551–570.

23.

Breevaart

Bakker

Hetland

Demerouti

Olsen

O. K.

Espevik

(2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138–157.

24.

Bum

S. K.

(2015). Stupid consumers. Mkbook (in Korean).

25.

Bysted

Hansen

J. R.

(2015). Comparing Public and Private Sector Employees’ Innovative Behaviour: Understanding the role of job and organizational characteristics, job types, and subsectors. Public Management Review, 17(5), 698–717.

26.

Bysted

Jespersen

K. R.

(2014). Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behaviour: Comparing private and public employees. Public Management Review, 16(2), 217–241.

27.

Caesens

Stinglhamber

Luypaert

(2014). The impact of work engagement and workaholism on well-being: The role of work-related social support. Career Development International, 19(7), 813–835.

28.

Carvalho

Brito

(2012). Assessing users’ perceptions on how to improve public services quality. Public Management Review, 14(4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.649976

29.

Chan

(1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.

30.

Chan

(2005). Multilevel research. In Leong

F. T. L.

Austin

J. T.

(Eds.), The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants (pp. 401–418). SAGE.

31.

Chen

C.-H. V.

Kao

R.-H.

(2011). A multilevel study on the relationships between work characteristics, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and organizational citizenship behavior: The case of Taiwanese Police Duty-Executing Organizations. The Journal of Psychology, 145(4), 361–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.574168

32.

Chiaburu

D. S.

I.-S.

Berry

C. M.

Gardner

R. G.

(2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166.

33.

Choi

J. N.

(2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(4), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.433

34.

ChosunBiz. (2020, April 30). Public officials feel anxious about vacation bonus cut and the pressure to donate stimulus check. https://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2020/04/29/2020042903880.html (in Korean)

35.

Christensen

(1997). The Innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.

36.

Cohen

Abedallah

(2015). The mediating role of burnout on the relationship of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy with OCB and performance. Management Research Review, 38(1), 2–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2013-0238

37.

Collins

S. E.

(2012). Rule bending by nurses: Environmental and personal drivers. Journal of Nursing Law, 15(1), 14–26.

38.

Coyle-Shapiro

J. A.

Diehl

M.-R.

Chang

(2016). The employee–organization relationship and organizational citizenship behavior. In Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S.B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 317–330). Oxford University Press.

39.

Crawford

E. R.

Lepine

J. A.

Rich

B. L.

(2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.

40.

Crosby

B. C.

t’Hart

Torfing

(2017). Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 655–669.

41.

Damanpour

Walker

R. M.

Avellaneda

C. N.

(2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675.

42.

DeGroot

Brownlee

A. L.

(2006). Effect of department structure on the organizational citizenship behavior–department effectiveness relationship. Journal of Business Research, 59(10–11), 1116–1123.

43.

DeHart-Davis

(2007). The unbureaucratic personality. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892–903.

44.

Dekas

K. H.

(2010). Citizenship in context: Investigating the effects of work group climate on organizational citizenship perceptions and behavior [PhD thesis]. University of Michigan.

45.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.

46.

Dunlop

P. D.

Lee

(2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(1), 67–80.

47.

Ehrhart

M. G.

Bliese

P. D.

Thomas

J. L.

(2006). Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness: Examining the incremental effect of helping behavior. Human Performance, 19(2), 159–173.

48.

Eisenberger

Fasolo

Davis-LaMastro

(1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.

49.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

50.

Enforcement Rule of the Audit Vindication System Operation, including Proactive Governance Immunity. (2019, 15 July). Act on public sector audits, article 34-3. http://www.law.go.kr/법령/적극행정면책등감사소명제도의운영에관한규칙

51.

Fagerberg

Mowery

D. C.

Nelson

R. R.

(2005). The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press.

52.

Fernandez

Moldogaziev

(2013). Using employee empowerment to encourage innovative behavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 155–187.

53.

Giauque

Anderfuhren-Biget

Varone

(2013). HRM practices, intrinsic motivators, and organizational performance in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 42(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026013487121

54.

Giebels

de Reuver

R. S. M.

Rispens

Ufkes

E. G.

(2016). The critical roles of task conflict and job autonomy in the relationship between proactive personalities and innovative employee behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316648774

55.

Gong

Huang

J.-C.

Farh

J.-L.

(2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.

56.

Grant

A. M.

(2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417.

57.

Grant

A. M.

(2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.

58.

Grimmelikhuijsen

(2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: An experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429667

59.

Hameduddin

Fernandez

(2019). Employee engagement as administrative reform: Testing the efficacy of the OPM’s employee engagement initiative. Public Administration Review, 79, 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13033

60.

Hankyung. (2020, May 16). “The stimulus check is a disaster for us . . .” Welfare officials are having a hard time. https://www.hankyung.com/print/202005152339i (in Korean)

61.

Hansen

J. A.

Pihl-Thingvad

(2019). Managing employee innovative behaviour through transformational and transactional leadership styles. Public Management Review, 21(6), 918–944.

62.

Hansson

(2015). Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government: A framework for analysis. Discourse & Society, 26(3), 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514564736

63.

Hetherington

M. J.

Husser

J. A.

(2012). How trust matters: The changing political relevance of political trust. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 312–325.

64.

Hinterleitner

(2017). Reconciling perspectives on blame avoidance behaviour. Political Studies Review, 15(2), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12099

65.

Holman

Axtell

(2016). Can job redesign interventions influence a broad range of employee outcomes by changing multiple job characteristics? A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(3), 284–295.

66.

Hood

(2010). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton University Press.

67.

Howlett

(2014). Why are policy innovations rare and so often negative? Blame avoidance and problem denial in climate change policy-making. Global Environmental Change, 29, 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.009

68.

Ilies

Nahrgang

J. D.

Morgeson

F. P.

(2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277.

69.

James

L. R.

(1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219–229.

70.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.

71.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306–309.

72.

Janssen

(2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039–1050.

73.

Janssen

(2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 347–364.

74.

Jong

Ford

M. T.

(2016). The lagged effects of job demands and resources on organizational commitment in federal government agencies: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 475–492.

75.

Kacmar

K. M.

Bachrach

D. G.

Harris

K. J.

Zivnuska

(2011). Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring the moderating role of gender and organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021872

76.

Kahn

R. L.

Wolfe

D. M.

Quinn

R. P.

Snoek

J. D.

Rosenthal

R. A.

(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Wiley.

77.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

78.

Kalshoven

Den Hartog

D. N.

De Hoogh

A. H.

(2013). Ethical leadership and follower helping and courtesy: Moral awareness and empathic concern as moderators. Applied Psychology, 62(2), 211–235.

79.

Kanter

R. M.

(1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations. Knowledge Management and Organisational Design, 10, 93–131.

80.

Kim

Gong

(2009). The roles of tacit knowledge and OCB in the relationship between group-based pay and firm performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(2), 120–139.

81.

Kim

(2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea. International Journal of Manpower, 27(8), 722–740.

82.

Kim

(2010). Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter? Public Administration Review, 70(5), 801–810.

83.

Kim

Vandenabeele

Wright

B. E.

Andersen

L. B.

Cerase

F. P.

Christensen

R. K.

Desmarais

Koumenta

Leisink

Liu

(2013). Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation across populations: Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of measurement invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 79–102.

84.

Kinder

(2012). Learning, innovating and performance in post-new public management of locally delivered public services. Public Management Review, 14(3), 403–428.

85.

King

L. A.

King

D. W.

(1990). Role conflict and role ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct validity. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 48–64.

86.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Johnson

E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.

87.

Kurtessis

J. N.

Eisenberger

Ford

M. T.

Buffardi

L. C.

Stewart

K. A.

Adis

C. S.

(2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554

88.

Lee

Schachter

H. L.

(2019). Exploring the relationship between trust in government and citizen participation. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(5), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1465956

89.

Light

P. C.

(1998). Sustaining innovation: Creating nonprofit and government organizations that innovate naturally. Jossey-Bass.

90.

Macey

W. H.

Schneider

(2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(01), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007..0002.x

91.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2011). Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organization’s bottom line? Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 559–592.

92.

Miao

Newman

Schwarz

Cooper

(2018). How leadership and public service motivation enhance innovative behavior. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 71–81.

93.

Miller

A. H.

Listhaug

(1998). Policy preferences and political distrust: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. Scandinavian Political Studies, 21(2), 161–187.

94.

Miller

C. C.

(2010, November 28). Now a giant, Google works to retain nimble minds. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/technology/29google.html

95.

Moeller

Ivcevic

White

A. E.

Menges

J. I.

Brackett

M. A.

(2018). Highly engaged but burned out: Intra-individual profiles in the US workforce. Career Development International, 23(1), 86–105.

96.

Moore

Hartley

(2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3–20.

97.

K. Y.

Van Dyne

(2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behavior in work groups: A multilevel analysis. Group & Organization Management, 30(5), 514–540.

98.

Nielsen

T. M.

Bachrach

D. G.

Sundstrom

Halfhill

T. R.

(2012). Utility of OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior and group performance in a resource allocation framework. Journal of Management, 38(2), 668–694.

99.

Operating Regulation of Proactive Governance. (2019, 8 June). Presidential Decree No.30016. http://www.law.go.kr/법령/적극행정운영규정

100.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/D.C. Heath and Company.

101.

Organ

D. W.

(1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 43–72.

102.

Organ

D. W.

Ryan

(1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802.

103.

Pandey

S. K.

Wright

B. E.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2008). Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 89–108.

104.

Perry

J. L.

(1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–22.

105.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.2307/976618

106.

Pieterse

A. N.

Van Knippenberg

Schippers

Stam

(2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.

107.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Maynes

T. D.

Spoelma

T. M.

(2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S87–S119.

108.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Whiting

S. W.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Blume

B. D.

(2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.

109.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2018). The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior. Oxford University Press.

110.

Porter

M. E.

(1985). Competitive advantage. Free Press.

111.

Quinn

R. E.

(1988). Jossey-Bass management series.Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. Jossey-Bass.

112.

Raver

J. L.

Ehrhart

M. G.

Chadwick

I. C.

(2012). The emergence of team helping norms: Foundations within members’ attributes and behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 616–637.

113.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

(2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.

114.

Riggle

R. J.

Edmondson

D. R.

Hansen

J. D.

(2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 1027–1030.

115.

Ritz

Brewer

G. A.

Neumann

(2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 414–426.

116.

Rizzo

J. R.

House

R. J.

Lirtzman

S. I.

(1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486

117.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Simon & Schuster.

118.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

119.

Scott

S. G.

Bruce

R. A.

(1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701

120.

Sekerka

L. E.

Zolin

(2007). Rule-bending: Can prudential judgment affect rule compliance and values in the workplace? Public Integrity, 9(3), 225–243.

121.

Shah

A. K.

Shafir

Mullainathan

(2015). Scarcity frames value. Psychological Science, 26(4), 402–412.

122.

Shantz

Alfes

Truss

Soane

(2013). The role of employee engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviours. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(13), 2608–2627.

123.

Smith

Organ

D. W.

Near

J. P.

(1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.

124.

Spreitzer

G. M.

Sonenshein

(2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828–847.

125.

Stumpf

S. A.

Tymon

W. G.

Jr. Van Dam

N. H.

(2013). Felt and behavioral engagement in workgroups of professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 255–264.

126.

Taylor

(2007). The impact of public service motives on work outcomes in Australia: A comparative multi-dimensional analysis. Public Administration, 85(4), 931–959.

127.

Taylor

(2013). Goal setting in the Australian Public Service: Effects on psychological empowerment and organizational citizenship behavior. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12040

128.

Teske

Schneider

(1994). The bureaucratic entrepreneur: The case of city managers. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/977380

129.

Todd

S. Y.

Kent

(2006). Direct and indirect effects of task characteristics on organizational citizenship behavior. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 253–268.

130.

Torfing

Ansell

(2017). Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through the expansion of collaborative forms of governance. Public Management Review, 19(1), 37–54.

131.

Trinchero

Brunetto

Borgonovi

(2013). Examining the antecedents of engaged nurses in I taly: Perceived Organisational Support (POS); satisfaction with training and development; discretionary power. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(6), 805–816.

132.

Van De Walle

Van Roosbroek

Bouckaert

(2008). Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 47–64.

133.

Van Emmerik

I. J. H.

Stone

T. H.

Jawahar

I. M

. (2003). The relationship between altruism and helping behaviors: Some moderating effects of burnout. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2003(1), B1–B6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2003.13793172

134.

Van Mierlo

Bakker

A. B

. (2018). Crossover of engagement in groups. Career Development International, 23(1), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-03-2017-0060

135.

Van Muijen

J. J

. (1999). Organizational culture: The focus questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(4), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398168

136.

Weaver

R. K.

(1986). The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy, 6(4), 371–398.

137.

Wherry

H. M. S.

(2012). Authentic leadership, leader-member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis [PhD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln]. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecdiss/91

138.

Williams

L. J.

(1982). Cognitive load and the functional field of view. Human Factors, 24(6), 683–692.

139.

Wynen

Verhoest

Ongaro

Van Thiel

, & in Cooperation with the COBRA Network. (2014). Innovation-oriented culture in the public sector: Do managerial autonomy and result control lead to innovation? Public Management Review, 16(1), 45–66.

140.

Yuan

Woodman

R. W.

(2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342.

141.

Zhang

Wan

Jia

(2008). Do high-performance human resource practices help corporate entrepreneurship? The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 19(2), 128–138.

142.

Zhou

George

J. M.

(2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.