Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and employee creativity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between exploratory/exploitative innovation and employee creativity in the Chinese context and how these two relationships can be moderated by an important cultural dimension – collectivism. Design/methodology/approach A theoretical framework was developed to explore the relationships between exploratory/exploitative innovation, employee creativity and collectivism. Data were collected by sending out surveys to managers and employees in various industries in mainland China. Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regressions. Findings The results show that both exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation are positively related to employee creativity. Furthermore, collectivism negatively moderates the effects of both types of innovation on employee creativity, despite its positive main effect. Originality/value This study explores the relationship between organizational innovation and individual employee creativity in the Chinese context. This paper empirically analyzes the moderating effect of collectivism in the relationship between organizational innovation and employee creativity. It also indicates the factors inherent in Chinese culture that influence innovation and gives explanations from education, subordinate relation, etc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it