Autonomy Orientation and Innovative Work Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Introduction: Innovative work behavior (IWB) has a built-in, definitional association with elements of creativity and the provision of benefits to others within the work context. Because of the properties of IWB and the nature of autonomy, as conceptualized by self-determination theory, we hypothesized that autonomy orientation would be positively associated with IWB through the mediating role of both creativity and prosocial motivation. Aim: The study examines the relationship of dispositional autonomy with IWB and offers evidence for potential explanatory mechanisms of how autonomous forms of motivation are associated with IWB. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study in Greece and Canada, wherein employees ( N = 528) completed assessments of causality orientations at work, prosocial motivation, creativity and IWB. Results: Autonomy orientation, creativity, and prosocial motivation were positively associated with IWB, whereas controlled and impersonal orientations were negatively associated with IWB. Mediation analyses showed that creativity and prosocial motivation mediated the relationship between causality orientations and innovative work behavior. Discussion and conclusion: Our findings extend prior research on the role of autonomy and prosocial motivation on innovative and creative behavior at work.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".