What Value Do You Bring to the Company? Daily Diary Insights on the Relationship between Employees’ Autonomy and Value Creation Beliefs *

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the link between work autonomy and employees’ daily value creation beliefs outside an exclusively economic standpoint. We utilized Lackéus’ (2018) value creation model, which encompasses not only economic but social, influence, enjoyment and harmony-based categories of value creation as well. Data were based on 59 Greek employees who completed a quantitative diary questionnaire for five consecutive workdays. Results from multilevel analyses suggested positive links between daily work autonomy and value creation beliefs and between trait positive affectivity (tPA) and value creation beliefs. A negative contextual effect for work autonomy was found, suggesting that when individuals experience greater control and independence in their job tasks during our study period, it has a detrimental impact on their perception of contributing value to the organization. The research adds to the continuous theoretical expansion of value creation literature in organizational settings by demonstrating that both trait affectivity and work autonomy serve as motivators, propelling employees to explore various avenues for value creation.

Keywords

Value creation work autonomy change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour affectivity

Introduction

Value creation is integral for businesses. Extensive studies affirm its significance, showcasing its role in fostering innovation-friendly environments, thereby establishing a competitive advantage in the market, one that remains unique and resistant to appropriation by other businesses (Grahovac & Miller, 2009). Moreover, it facilitates the development of efficient processes, leading to a surplus of valuable goods and services (Ritala et al., 2021). This is driven by the integration of workers’ skills and goals in the product development process, while simultaneously strengthening relationships with stakeholders (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010).

The many benefits of value creation for organizations require identifying its antecedents, including exploring value-creating factors. We studied value creation’s link to work autonomy, which, unlike other variables, directly connects an employee’s efforts to meaningful results (Liu et al., 2022), while also being linked to creativity, motivation, innovation and productivity, suggesting inherent value creation potential. Truly, existing literature strongly supports granting employees autonomy for economic success and positive societal impact. Autonomy empowers employees to boost revenues through innovative product development and fosters collaboration, enhancing the organization’s societal impact and community engagement (Scott, 2020).

However, a research gap exists on work autonomy and non-monetary value creation, with limited exploration of how employee autonomy contributes beyond economic factors. Studying autonomy’s impact on value creation beyond economics is essential, as profitability ratios are inadequate (Copeland et al., 2005) and do not align with modern expectations for a psychological approach to employee value that would allow a worker’s innate psychological states and predispositions to be taken into consideration (Rothwell, 2012). Additionally, investigation into this relationship is sporadic, with few researchers independently probing the subject and lacking substantial interconnections.

This article addresses issues and advances the literature. First, we shift focus from solely economic to diverse value creation using Lackéus’ (2018) framework: Economic, influence, enjoyment, social and harmony values. Thus, valuable insights into autonomy’s effects on lesser-known value categories can emerge. Second, our study examines employees’ beliefs about autonomy and value creation. Unlike traditional economic metrics, we focus on their subjective experiences, revealing the psychological aspect of value. Third, our approach is novel in dissecting the effect of trait affectivity in employee interactions, shedding light on a less explored area due to limited research.

We hypothesize that granting autonomy prompts workers to create value, moderated by trait positive affectivity (tPA), trait negative affectivity (tNA) and change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB-CH). We tested this on 59 Greek employees from diverse companies who completed a quantitative diary for five consecutive workdays. In Figure 1, we present our theoretical model.

Figure 1.

Note: OCB-CH, change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour; tPA, trait positive affectivity.

Literature Review

Work Autonomy

In this study, work autonomy takes centre stage, involving the authority employees have in tasks like pacing, arrangement and infusing creative input into work tasks (Benson, 2001). This authority is not innate to employees but is granted by the organization strategically aligning with its context and objectives. Organizations promote independence, especially in crucial cognitive areas like decision-making, allowing individuals the freedom to think and make choices that result in predictable and distinct work outcomes.

Value Creation

In psychological literature, these outcomes translate to organizational value creation. This involves generating goods and services surpassing production costs and fostering supportive work environments (Austin & Seitanidi, 2016). A dynamic concept, it is often linked to employee skills, knowledge and motivations, pursued collectively for strategic aims (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). Yet, even though psychological constructs like motivation are tied to the definition of value creation, the comprehensive exploration of non-financial benefits reveals a gap in value typology.

Creating Value through Autonomy

The specificity regarding the array of value types attainable through employees’ efforts originates from the conceptual framework crafted by Lackéus (2018), who identifies various forms of value: Economic value creation involves providing profitable products/services to boost company gains. Social value creation centres on human-centric goals, like social issues and well-being. Influence value creation prioritizes personal/colleague goal achievement, harmony value seeks alignment within the group, while enjoyment value creation offers intrinsic joy and focus, tied to the ‘flow’ state. Lackéus’ framework stipulates a theoretical multidimensional perspective on the value generated by work-related variables, which serves as the basis for the practical exploration of the applicability of autonomy.

On the one hand, the economic component of value creation and autonomy are closely linked, as employees’ independence encourages the generation and execution of value-generating concepts (Fisher & Amabile, 2009). These concepts can lead to high-quality products and services that enhance business value, bolstering an organization’s prospects for value creation, which aligns with Lackéus’ concept of economic value creation.

On the other hand, the value created can also adhere to a social component. Granting employees freedom allows them to align their work with value-creation motives (Baron, 2010), potentially addressing societal issues. Our hypotheses align with research showing that autonomy empowers social impact, well-being and social value creation (Ros et al., 1999). However, most research focuses on socially mission-driven organizations with a shared ethos, with this article attempting to address this gap by exploring social value within profit-driven enterprises.

Lackéus identified three other kinds of value largely ignored in the literature. First, in terms of achievement value, autonomy enables workers to make lasting changes and pursue individual aims. Research indications suggest that workers with more autonomy display greater initiative and well-being (Rana et al., 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2022); thus, we infer that employees may channel their autonomy towards realizing value-driven objectives, benefiting them. Second, concerning enjoyment value, work autonomy enhances employee well-being, correlating with positive emotions (Price & Mueller, 1986). Similarly, the study by Caers et al. (2008) demonstrates that occupations with more autonomy are linked to greater job enjoyment, especially on days with heightened flexibility provisions, and falls within the boundaries of enjoyment value.

Lastly, the relationship between work autonomy and harmony value is the one most underexplored in existing literature. Cultivating harmonious connections with coworkers, especially within autonomous states, seems theoretically plausible. Soloviov’s (2022) inquiry suggests increased autonomy leads to a higher willingness to cooperate harmoniously, aligning with the harmony value concept. While these studies lack longitudinal findings, workplace harmony exhibits daily within-person dynamics (Park et al., 2021), which reinforces our trust in coworker harmony’s within-person variability and the capacity to form harmonious work relationships.

Given previous findings, we propose that:

H₁: Daily work autonomy is associated with daily value creation at the within-person level.

Alongside our main hypothesis, we explored OCB-CH’s moderating role in the work autonomy and value creation relationship. OCB-CH, a subtype of OCB, involves voluntary transformative actions enhancing organizational performance (Choi et al., 2007). Evidence links extra-role behaviours to increased autonomy use for cooperation and coordination, while a proactive personality generally boosts innovative behaviour and creative output under high autonomy (Al-Mahasneh, 2015). Recognizing a research gap in OCB-CH’s value creation, we propose further investigation.

H₂: The daily positive relationship between autonomy and value creation will be moderated by employees’ general OCB-CH levels, such that the relationship will be stronger for higher levels of OCB-CH.

The positive predispositions of individuals with high tPA may amplify autonomy’s value-generating outcomes by allowing workers to engage in personally meaningful activities, fostering positive feelings (Watson & Naragon, 2009). This positive emotional alignment motivates individuals to contribute more effort towards achieving organizational objectives (Jáuregui, 2017). Conversely, negative emotions linked to tNA, like anger and frustration (Choi, 2007), hinder employees’ overall ability to generate value (Nöhammer & Stichlberger, 2019). We hypothesize that:

H₃: The daily positive relationship between autonomy and value creation will be moderated by employees’ general tPA levels, such that the relationship will be stronger for higher levels of tPA.

Methods

Procedure and Participants

We employed a snowball sampling method to recruit working adult employees to complete a article survey. We first extended an invitation to participate in this study to a convenience sample of 38 individuals through the personal and professional networks of the researchers. These individuals were instructed to find a working adult who was willing to fill out a survey about their work experiences, leading to 59 total participants that took place in our research for five consecutive days. This sample size was considered adequate for a daily diary study (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019).

Participants received two questionnaire documents on the first day, including a baseline explaining study details, ethics and consent. A unique code was created for informed participation. Our study involved employees from 11 public and private organizations across sectors like consulting, energy, human resources, telecommunications and banking. Detailed sample characteristics are in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants.

	Categorical Variables		Continuous Variables
Baseline Characteristic	n	Per cent	Mean	SD
Gender
Female	29	49.2
Male	30	50.8
Marital status
Single	43	72.9
Married/partnered	15	25.4
Divorced/widowed	1	1.7
Leadership position
Yes	39	66.1
No	20	33.9
Educational level
Elementary school	3	5.1
High school	8	13.6
University degree	32	54.2
Master’s degree/PhD	16	27.1
Type of employer
Public sector	28	47.4
Private sector	31	52.6
Age			26.5	7.04
Tenure			4.3	4.02
Hours worked per week			25.6	13.57
Size of organization			864	2,057

Note: SD, standard deviation.

Materials

Baseline Questionnaire

The baseline questionnaire included demographic questions and measures of participants’ general levels of tPA, tNA and OCB-CH. Using a single item, we measured the following variables: (a) Gender (coded as 0 for male and 1 for female), (b) age (continuous variable), (c) marital status (0 = single, 1 = married, 2 = divorced, 3 = widowed), (d) education level (0 = elementary–secondary, 1 = high school, 2 = university, 3 = master’s/PhD), (e) employer type (0 = public sector, 1 = private sector), (f) leadership position (0 = no, 1 = yes), (g) tenure in the current position (continuous variable), (h) hours worked per week (continuous variable) and (i) number of coworkers (continuous variable).

tPA and tNA

tPA and tNA were assessed using a 10-item adaptation of the PANAS developed by Thompson (2007). Respondents indicated their general feelings on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘not at all/never’ to 5 = ‘to a large extent’). tPA items encompassed alert, inspired, determined, attentive and active; tNA items included upset, hostile, ashamed, nervous and afraid. Reliability coefficients were strong (tPA: 0.85, tNA: 0.81). Overall tPA and tNA scores were computed by averaging pertinent items.

OCB-CH

We used a 4-item scale from the change orientation dimension of the scale in the study of Zampetakis et al. (2009). Respondents were asked to indicate the extend to which they engage in the following behaviours: (a) ‘I encourage others to take the initiative for their own ideas’, (b) ‘I devote time to help others find ways to improve our products and services’, (c) ‘I inspire others to think about their work in new and stimulating ways’ and (d) ‘I quickly change course of action when results are not achieved’. Participants rated adjective statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘not at all/never’ to 5 = ‘to a large extent’) with a Cronbach’s reliability coefficient of 0.76. The overall score for OCB-CH was obtained by averaging the four items.

Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) suggested that the three latent variables referring to dispositional characteristics provided an adequate fit to data: χ²(74) = 137.03, p < .001; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.921; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.097; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.011 [90 per cent confidence interval (CI): 0.077–0.012], with items loading significantly onto their corresponding latent factors. The three-factor model has a better fit compared to the fit of one-factor model: χ²(77) = 437.56, p = .00; CFI = 0.545; SRMR = 0.184; RMSEA = 0.282; (90 per cent CI: 0.256–0.308).

Daily Questionnaire

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the items on the measurement instruments, using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= ‘did not apply to me at all today’ to 5= ‘totally applied to me today’. Following the literature guidelines (Geldhof et al., 2014), we used the omega coefficient (ω) to estimate scale reliability at each level.

Daily Work Autonomy

We employed five items from the work design questionnaire (WDQ), developed by Morgeson & Humphrey (2006), to assess work autonomy. Ιtems were: ‘Today at wok’ … ‘I made my own decisions about how to schedule my work’, ‘I decided on the order in which things were done on the job’, ‘I had the opportunity to use my personal initiative or judgment in performing the work that needs to be done’, ‘I made a lot of decisions on my own’ and ‘I had considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I did my work’. The results of multilevel CFA (MLCFA) analyses indicated that the model measuring a unidimensional daily work autonomy model had a good fit to the data: χ²(10) = 30.75, p < .001; CFI = 0.969; RMSEA = 0.084; and SRMR_{within/between} = 0.024/0.042, with the items presenting statistically significant factor loadings. Omega coefficient (ω_between = 0.91, ω_within = 0.94) indicated acceptable reliability (McDonald, 1999). The overall score for job autonomy was obtained by averaging the five items.

Daily Value Creation Beliefs

We employed items from Zampetakis and Kourougkiavouris’ study (2022) for our assessment. The items were: ‘Today at work, I created economic value by delivering products or services that other people wanted or needed’ (economic value), ‘Today at work, I created social value by fostering a team climate and enhancing others’ well-being or alleviating their distress’ (social value), ‘Today at work, I created harmony value by promoting mutual understanding and contributing to the common good’ (harmony value), ‘Today at work, I generated achievement value by guiding others towards their personal goals (influence value)’ and ‘Today at work, I generated enjoyment value by fostering a work environment where colleagues embraced, enjoyed and engaged in their tasks’ (enjoyment value). MLCFA outcomes indicated a well-fitting one-factor model: χ²(10) = 29.11, p < .001; CFI = 0.975; RMSEA = 0.08; and SRMR_{within/between} = 0.02/0.056. Items exhibited significant factor loadings on the latent factor. The omega coefficient (ω_between = 0.92, ω_within = 0.94) demonstrated reliable consistency (McDonald, 1999).

Results of MLCFA suggested that the two latent variables provided an adequate fit to data: [χ²(68) = 143.98, p < .001; CFI = 0.963; RMSEA=0.062; and SRMR_{within/between} = 0.034/0.011], with items loading significantly onto their corresponding latent factors. The two-factor model has a better fit compared to the fit of one-factor model [χ²(70) = 224.71, p < .001; CFI = 0.901; RMSEA = 0.095; and SRMR_{within/between} = 0.091/0.141]. This suggests that daily work autonomy and daily value creation could be empirically distinguished on a daily basis. The overall score for daily value creation beliefs was obtained by averaging the relevant items.

General Analytical Strategy

Our data have a nested structure with daily observations nested within individuals. We conducted multilevel linear regression models to analyze daily value creation beliefs. Model 1 (M1) focused on demographic variables, individual differences and work autonomy, while model 2 (M2) explored interactions between work autonomy and individual differences. Jamovi software and the maximum likelihood estimator algorithm were used for analyses, with statistical significance set at p = .05. MLCFA and reliability tests supported manifest variable applications. Discriminant validity was established through a fixed correlation of 1 in a multilevel measurement model. Fit indices were employed: (a) RMSEA: 0.05–0.08 for fair fit; (b) CFI: Best above 0.9; (c) SRMR: Best <0.08. Null models without predictors were estimated to compute intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for daily constructs.

Two multilevel regression models were employed for daily value creation beliefs. M1 included demographic variables, relevant individual differences and work autonomy. M2 explored interactions between work autonomy and individual differences. Model fit was assessed using Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC), where lower values indicate improved fit (Snijders & Bosker, 2011). For each model, we present intercept variances at levels 1 and 2, along with calculated explained variance (pseudo R²; Snijders & Bosker, 2011).

Results

In Table 2, we present descriptive statistics and correlations of the study variables.

Table 2.

Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations Among Variables of Interest.

Variables

Mean

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(1) Sex

0.51

0.50

–

(2) Age

26.51

6.99

–0.08

–

(3) Marital status

0.29

0.49

–0.04

0.44^***

–

(4) Educational level

2.03

0.78

–0.001

0.36***

0.42^***

–

(5) Type of organization

0.69

0.67

–0.04

0.17**

–0.09

–0.17^**

–

(6) Managerial role

0.34

0.47

–0.23^***

0.015

–0.02

0.01

0.00

–

(7) Tenure⁺

4.29

3.99

–0.071

0.60^***

0.27^***

0.37^***

–0.14*

0.02

–

(8) Working hours/week

25.66

13.48

–0.24^***

0.21^***

–0.07

0.08

0.16**

0.015

0.14^*

–

(9) OCB-CH

3.63

0.73

0.061

–0.11

–0.28^***

–0.07*

0.19^***

0.14*

–0.12^*

0.24^***

–

(10) tPA

3.51

0.80

–0.05

0.01

0.04

0.13*

0.01

–0.02

0.16^**

0.15*

0.28^***

–

(11) tNA

2.47

0.88

0.030

–0.09

–0.16^**

–0.19^***

–0.04

–0.06

–0.15^*

–0.18^**

–0.06

–0.21^***

–

(12) Work autonomy

3.38

1.01

–0.002

0.08

–0.02

0.14^**

0.04

0.03

0.18^**

–0.03

0.21^***

0.34^***

–0.11

–

0.85***

(13) Value creation

3.34

0.96

0.002

0.14**

0.03

–0.00

0.02

0.14^**

0.11

0.22^***

0.44^***

–0.09

0.54^***

–

Notes: N = 295; ⁺ refers to years of work in the specific job; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. tNA, trait negative affectivity; tPA, trait positive affectivity; OCB-CH, change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour; SD, standard deviation.

Analyses suggested that considerable amounts of variation in the daily variables within individuals. For work autonomy, the ICC value was 0.20. This suggests that 80 per cent of the variance is found within individuals rather than in individual differences. For value creation beliefs, ICC = 0.21, indicating that 21 per cent of the total variance was attributable to individual differences.

Results from Table 2 indicate that at the between-person level, value creation beliefs are positively correlated to respondents’ age, OCB-CH, tPA and work autonomy, which will be used in our analyses. At the within-person level of analysis, value creation beliefs were positively correlated to work autonomy.

The results of the multilevel linear regression with daily value creation as the dependent variable are presented in Table 3. Results from M1 suggested a positive relationship between daily work autonomy and daily value creation beliefs (β = 0.81, p < .001). This indicates that on days when employees experience higher levels of work autonomy than their personal average, their value creation beliefs are stronger, in support of hypothesis 1 (H₁). We also found a positive correlation between work autonomy and value creation at the between-person level of analyses (β = 0.41, p < .001). Thus, we have found that, on average, higher work autonomy is linked to stronger value creation beliefs, both across different employees and within each employee on specific days. However, the regression weight for work autonomy and value creation beliefs at level 1 is larger and statistically different from the regression weight in level 2 (p = .0007). This difference of the between-person and within-person effects represents a significant contextual effect (β = –0.40, p < .001), which is negative. Within persons, our model had an R² of 0.54.

Table 3.

Estimates from Multilevel Analyses with Daily Value Creation Beliefs as Dependent Variable.

	Model 0			Model 1			Model 2
Variables	Est	SE	z	Est	SE	z	Est	SE	z
Intercept	3.34	0.08	44.23**	0.80	0.50	1.61	0.80	0.50	1.61
Between-person (level 2)
Age				0.01	0.01	1.04	0.01	0.01	1.04
Tenure				–0.00	0.02	–0.42	0.00	0.02	–0.42
tPA				0.21	0.08	2.56**	0.21	0.08	2.56**
OCB-CH				0.04	0.09	0.43	0.04	0.09	0.43
Work autonomy				0.41	0.11	3.87***	0.41	0.11	3.87***
Within-person (level 1)
Time (day)				–0.00	0.01	–0.02	0.00	0.02	–0.10
Work autonomy (WA)				0.81	0.03	3.87***	0.88	0.11	3.55***
WA × tPA							–0.05	0.05	–0.86
WA × OCB-CH							0.02	0.06	0.42
AIC	796.01			464.05			474.83
BIC	807.07			500.92			502.76
Pseudo R²—level 2	0.00			0.38			0.38
Pseudo R²—level 1	0.21			0.54			0.54
Level 2 intercept variance (σ² _b )	0.19	0.06		0.17	0.04		0.17	0.02
Level 1 intercept variance (σ² _w )	0.72	0.06		0.19	0.02		0.16	0.01

Notes: AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; tPA, trait positive affectivity; OCB-CH, change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour; SE, standard error. Pseudo R² = approximatelly estimated based on Snijders and Bosker (2011); level 1, N = 59; level 2, N = 295; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Employees who tend to experience positive emotions are more likely to have higher value creation beliefs (β = 0.21, p < .01). We did not find any evidence that OCB-CH was directly associated with value creation beliefs.

Moreover, we did not uncover any interactions that were statistically significant between tPA, OCB-CH and job autonomy, disproving our second and third hypotheses. M2, which included interactions, had higher values on AIC and BIC compared to M1. Thus, our final model is M1.

Conclusion

The research reveals substantial day-to-day variation in work autonomy and value creation beliefs within individuals. On days when employees experience higher-than-average work autonomy, they tend to display stronger value creation beliefs. This positive relationship exists both within an individual’s experiences and across the broader set of employees. Interestingly, the link between autonomy and value creation is significantly stronger on a day-to-day basis compared to overall averages. Additionally, individuals experiencing positive emotions demonstrate greater value creation beliefs, while OCB-CH did not have a direct association with these beliefs. Finally, no significant interactions emerged between positive affect, OCB-CH and job autonomy.

Limitations

Nevertheless, our approach has limitations. Combining scores across diverse value types may overlook unique value characteristics, reducing depth. Further investigations into individual value types (economic, social, achievement, harmony and enjoyment) are needed. Another limitation is our network sampling method, providing a convenience sample that limits generalizability. In addition, despite exceeding prior cross-sectional approaches, our 5-day data collection period inadequately captures daily variable dynamics. Self-reported questionnaires may heighten social desirability effects and common method bias, affecting validity. Lastly, our value creation beliefs scale requires further testing and psychometric evaluation.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study advances literature by bridging economic-centric views on value creation and socio-psychological implications, highlighting underrepresented types of value creation. Identifying positive affectivity as a moderator suggests autonomy’s impact may depend on an individual’s disposition. Contrary to previous studies, our findings challenge the notion of sustained effects of daily autonomy on value creation and the prevailing idea of autonomy as a precursor to sustaining economic indexes for a company. Future investigations could explore alternative personality traits affecting the autonomy-value creation link and assess applicability in diverse settings.

On a more practical note, the contextual impact of work autonomy on value creation beliefs is vital for organizations to tailor strategies, empowering employees for consistent value contribution. Customized leadership and management are crucial to address individual preferences and daily fluctuations, while targeted training helps employees maximize value creation within varying autonomy levels. Organizations can enhance value creation beliefs by promoting positive fluctuations in work autonomy, providing opportunities on suitable days. Maintaining a balance between autonomy and task consistency is essential for fostering employees’ confidence in their value-creation abilities.

Discussion

Our findings indicate a positive correlation between daily work autonomy and value beliefs, with higher tPA intensifying these beliefs. This is particularly significant as our value creation metric was shaped by non-economic elements like social, enjoyment, influence and harmony value creation, which reflects employees attributing value to their non-financial contributions, offering a comprehensive view of their impact on organizational growth under varying work conditions (autonomy) and individual predispositions (tPA). Future research should explore tPA’s broader impact on value creation, considering employee interactions across diverse work settings over time.

The negative contextual impact of work autonomy implies that the long-term impact of autonomy is less pronounced. While an initial theoretical discourse could be mapped, given that it is possible for long-term autonomy to reduce work engagement due to employee acclimatization to empowerment, thereby reducing value creation and perceived contribution (Van Dorssen-Boog et al., 2020), it is imperative that future research further examine this issue.

Our study revealed no impact of OCB-CH on value creation, challenging prior research. Possible reasons include clashes with the organization’s structure, culture and short-term goals (Kangwele, 2021). Change-oriented behaviours may also take time to manifest observable shifts (Choi, 2007), implying a prolonged process. Rigorous inquiries are needed for a clearer understanding of the relationship dynamics and rationale behind the negative relationship observed.

Footnotes

Data Availability Statement

Our data sets are publicly available at the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23388113.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Christodoulos Katsaitis

References

Al-Mahasneh

M. A.

(2015). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on job performance at Greater Amman Municipality. European Journal of Business and Management , 7, 108–118.

Austin

J. E.

, & Seitanidi

M. M.

(2016). Value creation through collaboration (Vol. 15). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bakker

A. B.

, & Oerlemans

W. G.

(2019). Daily job crafting and momentary work engagement: A self-determination and self-regulation perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 112, 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.005

Baron

R. A.

(2010). Job design and entrepreneurship: Why closer connections = mutual gains. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31(2/3), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.607

Benson

(2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning . Longman.

Caers

, Du Bois

, Jegers

, De Gieter

, De Cooman

, & Pepermans

(2008). Measuring community nurses’ job satisfaction: Literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 62(5), 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04620.x

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

Copeland

, Weston

, & Shastri

(2005). Financial theory and corporate policy (4th ed.). Pearson Addison Wesley.

Fisher

C. M.

, & Amabile

(2009). Creativity, improvisation and organizations. In Rickards

, Runco

M. A.

, & Moger

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativity (pp. 13–24). Routledge.

10.

Foss

N. J.

, & Lindenberg

(2013). Microfoundations for strategy: A goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value creation. Academy of Management Perspectives , 27(2), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0103

11.

Geldhof

G. J.

, Preacher

K. J.

, & Zyphur

M. J.

(2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods , 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138

12.

Grahovac

, & Miller

D. C.

(2009). Competitive advantage and performance: The impact of value creation and costliness of imitation. Strategic Management Journal , 30(11), 1192–1212. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.778

13.

Jáuregui

D. A. G.

(2017). Toward emotional internet of things for smart industry. In SMART 2017: The sixth international conference on smart cities, systems, devices and technologies . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318502686_Toward_Emotional_Internet_of_Things_for_Smart_Industry

14.

Kangwele

(2021). Strategy implementation factors and financial performance at centum investment company PLC. Journal of Strategic Management , 5(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.53819/81018102t5003

15.

Lackéus

(2018). What is value?—a framework for analyzing and facilitating entrepreneurial value creation. Uniped , 41(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2018-01-02

16.

Liu

, Zhao

, Liu

, & Yang

(2022). Effect of workplace status on employees’ creativity from the perspective of expectation identity: A moderated chain double mediation model. Chinese Management Studies , 17(4), 718–738. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms-12-2021-0550

17.

McDonald

R. P.

(1999). Test theory: A unified treatment . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

18.

Morgeson

F. P.

, & Humphrey

S. E.

(2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

19.

Nöhammer

, & Stichlberger

(2019). Digitalization, innovative work behavior and extended availability. Journal of Business Economics , 89(8–9), 1191–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-019-00953-2

20.

Park

, Kim

P. B.

, Hai

, & Zhang

(2021). What matters for employees’ daily interpersonal behaviors? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 33(4), 1210–1229. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-05-2020-0479

21.

Price

J. L.

, & Mueller

C. W.

(1986). Absenteeism and turnover amongst hospital employees . JAI Press.

22.

Ramaswamy

, & Gouillart

(2010). Build the co-creative enterprise. Harvard Business Review , 88(10), 100–109, 150.

23.

Rana

, Ardichvili

, & Tkachenko

(2014). A theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: Dubin’s method. The Journal of Workplace Learning , 26(3–4), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0063

24.

Ritala

, Albareda

, & Bocken

(2021). Value creation and appropriation in economic, social, and environmental domains: Recognizing and resolving the institutionalized asymmetries. Journal of Cleaner Production , 290, 125796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125796

25.

Rothwell

W. J.

(2012). The encyclopedia of human resource management: Thematic essays (Vol. 3). Pfeiffer.

26.

Ros

M. B.

, Schwartz

S. H.

, & Surkiss

(1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology , 48(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999499377664

27.

Ryan

R. M.

, & Deci

E. L.

(2022). Self-determination theory (pp. 1–7). Springer eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_2630-2

28.

Scott

(2020). Theoretical framework of social value in construction employment . Association of Researchers in Construction Management. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/143895

29.

Snijders

T. A.

, & Bosker

R. J.

(2011). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling . Sage Publications.

30.

Soloviov

(2022). Linking regional autonomy–embeddedness value orientation and innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00218-3

31.

Thompson

E. R.

(2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 38(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301

32.

Van Dorssen-Boog

, De Jong

, Veld

, & Van Vuuren

(2020). Self-leadership among healthcare workers: A mediator for the effects of job autonomy on work engagement and health. Frontiers in Psychology , 11, 1420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01420

33.

Watson

, & Naragon

(2009). Positive affectivity: The disposition to experience positive emotional states . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0019

34.

Zampetakis

L. A.

, Beldekos

, & Moustakis

(2009). “Day-to-day” entrepreneurship within organisations: The role of trait emotional intelligence and perceived organisational support. European Management Journal , 27(3), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.08.003

35.

Zampetakis

L. A.

, & Kourougkiavouris

(2022). The psychology of value creation in times of crisis: A daily diary study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eleutherna: Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355904075_The_psychology_of_value_creation_in_times_of_crisis_A_daily_diary_study_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic