Refer the journal attached:
This week’s journal article focuses on attribution theory and how it influences the implementation of innovation technologies. Two types of employee attributions are noted in the article (intentionality and deceptive intentionality), please review these concepts and answer the following questions:
- Provide a high-level overview/ summary of the case study
- Note how constructive intentionality impacts innovation implementations
- Find another article that adds to the overall findings of the case and note how attribution-based perspective enhances successful innovation implementations. Please be explicit and detailed in answering this question.
Social Behavior and Personality, Volume 47, Issue 7, e8124 https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8124 www.sbp-journal.com Why are we having this innovation? Employee attributions of innovation and implementation behavior Se Yeon Choi 1 , Goo Hyeok Chung 2 , Jin Nam Choi 1 1 College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea 2 College of Business Administration, Kwangwoon University, Republic of Korea How to cite: Choi, S. Y., Chung, G. H., & Choi, J. N. (2019). Why are we having this innovation? Employee attributions of innovation and implementation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 47(7), e8124 We used attribution theory to explain employee behavior toward innovation implementation. We focused on employee innovation attributions to organizational intentionality as employees’ sensemaking of why their organization has adopted an innovation. We identified two types of employee attributions: to constructive intentionality and to deceptive intentionality. We collected data from 397 employees and 84 managers of Chinese and Korean organizations. Results showed that employee attribution to constructive intentionality enhanced innovation effectiveness by increasing active implementation and decreasing implementation avoidance. By contrast, employee attribution to deceptive intentionality diminished innovation effectiveness by increasing implementation avoidance. These findings enrich the innovation implementation literature by introducing the attribution-based perspective of sensemaking. Keywords innovation attributions; attribution to constructive intentionality; attribution to deceptive intentionality; active implementation; passive implementation; implementation avoidance; innovation effectiveness Innovation has been identified as the key to the survival and growth of firms in a rapidly changing and competitive business environment (Greenhalgh et al., 2005). In the past, researchers paid close attention to organizational innovation adoption, because they considered implementation to be a relatively automatic and static process (Choi & Chang, 2009). However, as researchers have recently realized that innovation success depends not only on the adoption of innovation, but also on employees’ consistent use of the innovation, they have shifted their attention to implementation (Birken et al., 2015; Chung & Choi, 2018). As the role of employees in shaping implementation processes and outcomes is critical, the way in which they perceive and react to innovation needs to be understood. Various theoretical models have been used to explain employee perceptions and behavior toward innovation. For example, the technology acceptance model suggests that individual cognitive evaluations, such as perceived usefulness and ease of use, are positively related to innovation use (F. D. Davis, 1989). Similarly, the theory of planned behavior identifies perceived behavioral control as a critical determinant of intention and behavior in relation to innovation (Ajzen, 1991). Researchers have drawn on coping theory to propose that innovation use depends on the cognitive appraisal of innovations as a threat or an opportunity (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005). The focus in these theoretical accounts has mostly been on employee expectations of the cost and benefit of an innovation, with these expectations affecting subsequent implementation behavior. Whereas previous researchers have focused on expectations of future utility functions of innovation use, we have examined innovation implementation by highlighting the role of attribution. Expectation refers to CORRESPONDENCE Jin Nam Choi, College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected] © 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. mailto:[email protected] Choi, Chung, Choi future consequences or the prediction of the result of an event, whereas attribution is related to the perceived cause of an outcome or the interpretation of the result of an event (Seifert, 2004). As a fundamental cognitive process, attributions are considered a core mechanism of sensemaking, influencing emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions as well as expectations (Fiske & Taylor, 2013; Martinko & Gardner, 1982; Weiner, 1985). In this study, we proposed that attributions have incremental value in explaining employee implementation behavior over and above expectations. We drew on the attribution of intentionality model (Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, & Judge, 1995) and identified two types of employee attributions of an organization’s perceived intentionality in innovation adoption, that is, attributions to constructive and deceptive intentionality. We proposed that these attributions would engender distinct behavioral reactions to an innovation. Although employees confronting innovation tend to exhibit different behaviors (Greenhalgh et al., 2005), previous researchers investigating behavioral reactions to innovation have examined only a single behavior of either innovation acceptance and use, or resistance to innovation (Choi & Moon, 2013). As employees may exhibit behavior beyond using or rejecting an innovation (Chung & Choi, 2018; Greenhalgh et al., 2005), in our examination of the role of attributions of an innovation, we used three forms of implementation behavior based on engagement level. These may offer a more realistic picture of innovation implementation in organizations. We identified active implementation, passive implementation, and implementation avoidance as employee behavior with high, medium, and low engagement with an innovation, respectively. We proposed that these implementation patterns would affect the ultimate outcome of innovation effectiveness, which refers to each employee’s performance gain or achievement of desired outcomes, such as skill acquisition and improved productivity through innovation (Klein, Conn, & Sorra, 2001). Literature Review and Hypothesis Development Innovation is defined as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p. 12). Once an innovation is adopted by an organization, employees confront challenges, and are under pressure to change work routines, update skills, and adapt to different work styles and task roles. These equivocal circumstances trigger sensemaking (C. G. Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Larson, 1998; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Employees attempt to label and assign meaning to these situations by interpreting the cause of the innovation (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Park, 2010). As a core driver of sensemaking, attributions of intentionality underlying the adoption of an innovation play a crucial role in labeling the situation and determining subsequent behavioral reactions. Innovation Implementation Behavior Researchers in social psychology have demonstrated that behavior can be exhibited in various ways when individuals confront social situations (Fiske & Taylor, 2013). Social behavior is broadly classified into prosocial and antisocial, and prosocial behavior is specified as extrarole and role-prescribed (Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006). Work-related behavior is categorized into extrarole, in-role, and counterproductive work behavior domains, which are relatively independent and characterized by different antecedents and consequences (Dalal, 2005; Spector & Fox, 2010). Accordingly, we applied these three domains to the innovation context and proposed three forms of implementation, namely, active, passive, and avoidance, on the basis of engagement level. Active implementation refers to employees’ spontaneous and voluntary engagement in innovation implementation. Active implementation is a form of proactive extrarole behavior in an implementation context, and is characterized by the self-initiated action of challenging the status quo and creating favorable conditions for implementing the innovation (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). By contrast, passive implementation refers to employees’ compliant implementation behavior in accordance with organizational requirements and directions. It is a form of in-role prescribed behavior in an implementation context (Klein 2© 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal et al., 2001). Employees engaging in passive implementation follow innovation-related instructions carefully (Chung & Choi, 2018; Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003). Finally, implementation avoidance is the withdrawal of employees from an innovation implementation. Implementation avoidance is a passive form of counterproductive or deviant behavior whereby the employee avoids work or intentionally reduces attention to, or interest in, innovation (Dalal, 2005). To maintain the status quo, employees who avoid implementation fail to conform to innovation initiatives by refusing to, or even pretending not to, recognize such initiatives (Chung & Choi, 2018; Erwin & Garman, 2010). Employee Attribution of Innovation to Organizational Intentionality In social psychology, attribution theory proposes that to predict and control the environment, individuals tend to seek the causes of an event (Gilbert, 1998). The search for causal explanations involves ascribing meaning and labels to events or to other individuals’ actions, which affects subsequent attitudes and behavior (Fiske & Taylor, 2013). Causal attribution thus considerably influences individuals’ sensemaking of, and behavioral reactions to, events with or without expectations (Fiske & Taylor, 2013; Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015; Rodell & Lynch, 2016; Weiner, 1985). According to Ferris et al. (1995), an observer attributes an actor’s behavior to positive (authentic and sincere) or negative (self-serving and manipulative) intentions. In an organizational context, employees tend to attribute decisions to the organization’s intentions or motives. For example, Nishii, Lepak, and Schneider (2008) divided employee attribution of motivation underlying human resource practices into commitment-focused (i.e., promoting service quality and employee development) and control-focused attributions (i.e., reducing costs and exploiting employees). These attributions affect employees’ interpretation and labeling of, and responses to, human resource practices. In the innovation implementation context, attributions to intentionality trigger employees’ sensemaking of the organization’s innovation adoption. Accordingly, we proposed that employees would attribute an organization’s innovation adoption decision to either positive (i.e., constructive intentionality) or negative intentions (i.e., deceptive intentionality). Attribution to constructive intentionality refers to employees’ reasoning that their organization has adopted an innovation with authentic and sincere intentions of achieving desirable outcomes, such as organizational development and employee well-being. Attribution to deceptive intentionality is defined as employees’ reasoning that their organization has adopted an innovation with self-serving, manipulative intentions, such as catching up with a managerial fad or increasing political power and management control to exploit employees. Although these attributions are independent, they are not mutually exclusive. We expected them to trigger different labeling of innovation, thereby leading to disparate implementation. Attribution to constructive intentionality. When innovation adoption is attributed to constructive intentionality, employees tend to develop favorable attitudes toward, and behavioral engagement with, the innovation (Ferris et al., 1995). Employees’ belief that the organization’s intentions are genuine increases their sense of control, satisfaction, and organizational commitment, thereby promoting proactive and extrarole behavior (Bala & Venkatesh, 2016; Dalal, 2005). Accordingly, we proposed that employees with attributions of constructive intentionality would implement an innovation with enthusiastic commitment. They would be unlikely to withdraw from its implementation because their positive attribution discourages negative reactions (Byrne, Kacmar, Stoner, & Hochwarter, 2005; Nishii et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2006). Thus, attribution of constructive intentionality stimulates employees to actively engage in implementation by identifying and addressing implementation barriers and modifying the features and components of an innovation to realize potential benefits for the organization and themselves. This positive labeling of innovation adoption may engender employees’ affective commitment to innovation, and thus urge them to exhibit passive implementation, which is faithful innovation