Future Work Self and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Informal Field-Based Learning for High Innovation Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s highly uncertain environment, the value of creativity and innovation are increasingly critical. How individuals could improve their creativity and innovation performance has become the focus of attention. Future work self as an intrinsic motivation factor plays an important role in creativity and innovation. Based on the self-consistency theory, this study integrated proactive personality and informal field-based learning (IFBL) to explore the relationship between future work self and employee creativity to increase innovation performance. It used data from 201 R&D department employees in China’s high-tech companies. The results show that future work self has a positive effect on employee creativity and that IFBL mediates the relationship between future work self and employee creativity. This process is then positively moderated by a proactive personality. This study’s results help clarify the formation mechanism of creativity from the perspective of intrinsic motivation and indicate that future work self can drive individuals’ creativity and innovation efforts, especially under the consistency of self-concept, motivation and personality. This research also emphasizes the importance of IFBL in improving individual creativity and further organizational innovation performance. Implications for theory and management to help improve creativity and innovation performance are then discussed in detail.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".