“Things have to change!” How and when change-oriented leaders and idea championing employees can address organizational underperformance through performance pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study investigates how and when employees' exposure to organizational leaders who propose major changes might direct those employees toward efforts to mobilize support for innovative ideas. It specifically theorizes a mediating role of performance pressure beliefs and a moderating role of perceived organizational underperformance in this process. Design/methodology/approach Three-wave, multi-rater survey data were collected among employees and their supervisors across various industries. Findings A critical explanatory mechanism that links change-oriented leadership with enhanced championing efforts is that employees experience performance-related hardships. The extent to which employees perceive that their organization is unable to meet its own performance targets triggers this process. Practical implications For organizational decision makers, the findings identify results-driven pressures as key mechanisms by which employees' exposures to change-oriented leadership can be leveraged to promote novel ideas. This translation is more likely among employees who are convinced that there is significant room for organizational improvement. Originality/value This study unravels the previously unexplored link between change-oriented leadership and idea championing, pinpointing the influences of two performance-related aspects: beliefs about strenuous organization-induced performance expectations and perceptions of an underperforming employer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".