15. Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement. *Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research*, 25-38.

16. Underwood, L. G. (2011). The daily spiritual experience scale: Overview and results. *Religions*, 2(1), 29-50.

17. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. *Journal of personality and social psychology*, 54(6), 1063.

18. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. *Research in organizational behavior*, 18(1), 1-74.
Tihona Bozhinovska, PhD

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3350-7468

Teaching and Research assistant

Faculty of Economics – Skopje

University Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje

**Theoretical background and purpose of the study:** Employee engagement is a construct that has been widely investigated from the organizational sciences perspective in the past few decades. Employee engagement is a contrast that incorporates the employees' dedication and involvement in their job and in the fulfilment of the job-related roles. Numerous authors have attempted to define employee engagement and to elaborate all the concepts of the concept (Khan, 1990; Maslach and Later, 1997; Beker and Demerouti, 2007; Bailey, 2016). Additionally, significant number of studies focus on the investigation of the antecedents and the consequences of employee engagement mostly from the management perspective (such as: Saks, 2006; Saks, 2019; Robinson, 2007; Zeng et al., 2020, Govender and Busin, 2020; Aisa et al., 2023). However, dome of the research efforts in the past decade are highlighting the importance of employee engagement for introducing new concepts of human resource management and for enhancing the overall organizational performance (Saks, 2022; Gruman and Saks, 2011). Namely, Gruman and Saks (2011) elaborate the importance of employee engagement for overall organizational effectiveness and introduce the model of the form of performance management called the engagement management model. Although the relation between human resource management or to be more precise the strategic human resource management and competitiveness has been thoroughly investigated, there seems to exist a gap in the research regarding the relation of employee engagement with the overall national competitiveness and growth. However, recently some authors have analyzed the relation between human resource practices and competitiveness, relying on the endogenous growth theory assumptions (Sheran et al., 2013). Nonetheless, most of the studies on antecedents and consequences of employee engagement focus only on the organizational preconditions for increasing employee engagement and the organizational consequences. Considering the identified gap in the literature and the existing research on the association between human resource practices, on the one side, and employee engagement and innovation (Sheran et al., 2013) and competitiveness (Albrecht et al., 2015), on the other side, conducting research on the relationship between employee engagement on a country level and the variables related to the level of labor utilization and countries competitiveness should be considered.

**Methods:** To investigate the relationship between employee engagement on national level and countries labor utilization and countries competitiveness, a correlation analysis was conducted. The data on employee engagement was gathered from the Gallup research on employee engagement by country in the period 2019-2022. Regarding the variables labor utilization, average hours worked per person employed and gross national income per hour worked (presented in USD, current prices) data from the OECD dataset were used. Regarding the countries competitiveness the rankings by the IMD World competitiveness center were used. In total data for 63 countries for the period between 2019 and 2022 were gathered. The total number of observations varied between 136 and 247.
**Findings:** The results from the analysis indicate that the percentage of engaged employees is statistically significantly corelated with labor utilization, average hours worked per person employed, gross national product per hour worked and countries competitiveness ranking. The Pearson correlation between the percentage of engaged employees and labor utilization (hours worked per head of population) is statistically weaker (it is significant at the 0.05 level), while the other three correlations are statistically significant at level 0.01. Furthermore, Kendall's tau_b and Spearman's rho coefficients between the percentage of engaged employees, on the one hand, and labor utilization, average hours worked per person employed, GNP per hours worked and countries competitiveness ranking, on the other hand, are statistically significant at level 0.01.

**Limitations and further research:** Although the correlations indicate the existence of certain associations between the analyzed variables, we must take into consideration the limitations of these methods. These findings only suggest the existence of certain associations that should be further investigated. In future research the analysis of the nature of the association between employee's engagement and countries' competitiveness (measured by countries' ranking or by countries' competitiveness index) should be deepened. Namely, future research should focus on investigating whether countries' competitiveness can be analyzed as a predictor or as a consequence of employee engagement levels.

**Key words:** employee engagement, competitiveness, labor utilization

References:

1. Adisa, T.A., Ogbonnaya, C. & Adekoya, O.D. (2023). Remote working and employee engagement: a qualitative study of British workers during the pandemic. *Information Technology & People*, 36:5, 1835-1850. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2020-0850

2. Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H. & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage. *Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance*, 2:1, 7–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-08-2014-0042

3. Bailey, C. (2016). Employee engagement: Do practitioners care what academics have to say – And should they?. *Human Resource Management Review*, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.014

4. Beker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). Towards a model of work engagement. *Career Development International*, 13:3, 209-223.

5. Govender, M., & Busin, M. H. R. (2020). Performance management and employee engagement: A South African perspective, *SA Journal of Human Resource Management*, https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm. v18i0.1215

6. Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. *Human Resource Management Review*, 21, 123-136.

7. Khan, W. A. (1990). Psychological Conditions Of Personal Engagement And Disengagement At Work. *Academy of Management Journal*, 33:4, 692-724.

8. Maslach, C., & Later, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: how organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, USA, John Willey & Sons.

9. Robinson, D. (2007). Employee engagement. Institute for Employment studies, available at: https://www.employmentstudies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/op11.pdf

10. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. *Journal of Managerial Psychology*, 27 (7), 600-619. 10.1108/02683940610690169
11. Saks, A. M. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. *Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance*, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034

12. Saks, A. M. (2022). Caring human resources management and employee engagement. *Human Resource Management Review*, 32:3, 100835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100835

13. Sheehan, M., Garavan, T. N., Carbery, R. (2014), Innovation and human resource development (HRD). *European Journal of Training and Development*, 38:1/2, 2-14. DOI 10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0128

14. Zheng, M. X., Masters-Waage, T. S., Yao, J., Lu, Y., Tan, N., & Narayanan, J. (2020). Stay Mindful and Carry on: Mindfulness Neutralizes COVID-19 Stressors on Work Engagement via Sleep Duration. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 11: 610156. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.610156

Internet sources:

https://www.gallup.com/394373/indicator-employee-engagement.aspx

https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV#

https://www.imd.org/centers/wcc/world-competitiveness-center/rankings/world-competitiveness-ranking/
Doc.dr. Melita Balas Rant

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana

E-mail: melita.balas.rant@ef.uni-lj.si

Modern life style in the 21st century is rippled with salient paradoxes (Eisenhardt, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2022). Paradox depicts »contradictions that persist over time, impose and reflect back on each other, and develop into seemingly irrational or absurd situations because their continuity creates situations in which options appear mutually exclusive, making choices among them difficult" (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 8). Ambivalence is "simultaneously oppositional positive and negative orientations toward an object« (Ashforth et al., 2014, p. 1456) such as a person, situation, object, symbol, idea or even selfhood (Hoobler et al., 2024). Salient paradoxes trigger the ambivalence when the contradictory elements foster opposite orientations to a particular object. A person may not choose to be exposed to ambivalence but can choose how to respond to it.

There are two dominant models that categorize different responses to ambivalence. Ashforth et al (2014) “Model Actor Response to Ambivalence” and Rothman et al. (2017) “Model of Outcomes to the Ambivalence”. These two models are depicting different types of responses categorised along several dimensions: (1) responses with attentional focus on positive vs negative orientation toward a targeted object, (2) inflexible-flexible cognition, behaviour, emotional and physical responses; and (3) engaged/disengaged responses of moving toward or moving away from the target of ambivalence (i.e., engage with others or leave/absence ). The most understudied is category of holistic responses that denote simultaneously high positive and negative orientation toward the targeted object with high on flexibility and (paradoxically) high disengagement from the object of ambivalence.

In this paper, we tentatively propose a conceptual model of holistic response to ambivalence that results in flexible disengagement. We adopt Ashforth et al. (2014) three processes of holistic response (mindfulness; Janusian “both/and” thinking; and informed choice) and upgrade them: (1) extend mindfulness to mindful equanimity (Desbordes et al., 2015), (2) extend Janusian “both/and” thinking to Rothenberg tripple cognitive process model, which in addition to Janusian “both/and” thinking (Rothenberg, 1979) includes also homospatial process (Rotenberand, 1976) and sep-con articulation process (Rothenberg, 1999); and (3) we extend the informed choice into free choice and voluntary action (Racine, 2017). Informed choice is defined as binding of positive and negative elements and then offer the free choice to accept both (Ingram & Roberts, 2000). Examples of binding opposites are many: Weick's (2004) wisdom as a form of binding of knowing with doubting, Rousseau et al. (1988) trust as a form of binding of positive (future reward) with negative (vulnerability) or promoting organizational commitment by highlighting existing sources of ambivalence in people's relationships (Pratt & Rosa, 2003). Free choice and voluntary action is dynamic and sensitive to priming and framing effects and can involve in spirals in different directions (Racine, 2017). We discuss synergistic links between these extended processes on an individual level model.
Furthermore, we add additional processes (likely candidates for moderation): (1) model is situated in self-ambivalence, the root cause of all ambivalences, which activates the mechanism of self-concept clarity and self-concept discrepancy, that results in the identification and de-identification; 2) model could be situated in holding environments that buffer against the system psychodynamics. We discuss the value (pros and cons) of proposed wise model of holistic response to ambivalence through flexible disengagement by applying different criteria and perspectives (humanistic vs economic).

The main contribution is the systematic exploration of understudied aspects of responses on organizational ambivalence with incorporations of several novel concepts (processes).
Laura Fink* (presenting author)

GEA College, Faculty of entrepreneurship

Bojan Cestnik

Temida and GEA College, Faculty of entrepreneurship

In recent years, higher education institutions have consistently sought to integrate advanced technologies into their educational practices, aiming to provide innovative approaches to the delivery and enhancement of learning (Lockee, 2021). To promote student engagement, improve retention of subject matter, and provide a more objective assessment of their skills, faculties utilise strategies that engage students' attention and encourage their active participation in the learning process. However, educators in various countries continue to face the challenge of engaging students, who are often drawn to the distracting but compelling information on their mobile devices.

The use of devices for anything other than learning material (Bradbury, 2016; 2017; 2023) during classroom learning should be avoided, since this causes the students' attention span to become scattered and unfocused. Both students and educators should ignore and avoid distractions that take focus away from the learning material. Due to the many distractions, many of which are available on mobile and other devices, educators find it challenging to maintain the attention span of their students.

The dilemmas arising from the use of mobile technology in learning environments have been tackled by the scientific community since 2007 (Dimensions, 2023), after which the number of publications per year in the field of “engaging students through mobile technology” mostly exhibits growth. To encourage student cooperation, teachers can use a variety of teaching strategies, including workshop-style instruction, educational games and gamification in general, badges or other rewards for good work, discussions, and questions. In this research, we focus on the utilisation of the mobile-based real-time response system in educational settings. Previous research supports the inference that mobile technology in educational settings can compromise learning achievements (Duncan et al., 2012; Kuznekoff and Titsworth, 2013), which supports the inference that multitasking is ineffective and any devices that cause distractions from learning material (Duncan et al., 2012) and compromise the attention span should not be used during lessons and learning. On the other hand, the literature shows that mobile technology, when used purposefully and possibly under teacher regulation rather than self-regulation (Le Roux and Parry, 2022; Dontre, 2021), yields advantageous results, although it can also cause frustrations related to the use of technology (Gikas and Grant, 2013). Provided the appropriate use of digital technology, mobile technology can contribute to engagement and motivation (Kapun et al., 2021). The literature shows that the use of tools that support students’ interactions, such as Mentimenter (Tarazi et al., 2023; Mohin et al., 2022), Slido (Ningsih, 2023; Stojaković, 2022), Kahoot (Baszuk & Heath, 2020; Wang & Tahir, 2020), Edpuzzle (Mischel, 2019), Quizizz (Zainuddin et al., 2020), Padlet (Mehta et al., 2021), GoogleForms (Hakimah et al., 2021), and QTvity (Cestnik et al., 2015; Cestnik et al., 2016), is becoming increasingly popular and consequently facilitate satisfaction, engagement, and motivation. However, according to Wang and Tahir (2020), measuring how quickly students answer might hinder reflection and thinking.
Real-time response system QTvity enables students to promptly answer questions during the lectures. Besides, it allows the educators to get connected with the students, to include the students in the discussion, to consider the students' answers, and to adjust the discussion and lectures according to the students' answers. Questions awaken the students' interest in the topic and make them think about the learning material. Last but not least, students are rewarded for their participation and for the correctness of their answers.

The main purpose of our research is to find out how students' motivation affects the final learning outcomes. In particular, we are interested in whether students who more frequently and more correctly participated in lectures via the mobile response system QTvity achieved better learning outcomes. Although it has been found that mobile response systems facilitate engagement, motivation, and student's satisfaction (Cestnik et al., 2015, 2016), and that engagement (Chi and Wylie, 2014) and motivation (Liu et al., 2012) facilitate learning outcomes, to the best of our knowledge, the literature on the use of mobile technology in educational context that we examined so far is based on the students' perceptions and has so far not examined the effect that the H1.) frequency of students' participation and H2.) the correctness of the responses through the mobile-based real-time response system have on the learning outcomes.

We collected data from the students enrolled in the course Informatics for entrepreneurs in the years 2021/22 and 2022/23 at the Faculty of Entrepreneurship, GEA College. This research is the continuation of the previous research (Fink and Cestnik, 2023) that showed that students of generation 2021/22 who achieved a higher score on the practical exam (word and excel) on average achieved a higher score on the theoretical exam, and similarly, those who achieved a higher score in word on average also achieved higher scores in excel.

Further, this study aims to revolve around further concepts of student motivation and engagement, such as exploring students' inclination towards delving deeper into the learning material after course completion, regular submission of class assignments, and regular utilisation of common technological tools.

This study is an interdisciplinary work in progress that resides in previous findings from fields such as developing digital skills, digital literacy, students' engagement and motivation, mobile technology, and real-response systems in learning environments. The methodology includes quantitative statistical analysis, based on which we will provide answers to the research questions and determine whether we can accept or reject hypotheses. The research is still ongoing. The specific statistical methods will be described along with the results in the next steps.

Keywords: digital skills, digital literacy, students' engagement and motivation, mobile technology and real-response systems, learning environments, higher education.
# THE ROLE OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

Nikolina Posarić

Faculty of Organization and Informatics, University of Zagreb, Croatia
niposari@foi.unizg.hr

**Theoretical background.** In the modern business environment, managers face various challenges related to human resources management. And considerable attention is paid to establishing a good working atmosphere and achieving high employee motivation. Therefore, scientists and practitioners have been researching how to develop employees' positive attitudes and behaviors in recent decades. This research focuses on examining the relationship between organizational commitment, employee engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior. For this purpose, first of all, it performs a bibliometric analysis of citations with the VOS Viewer software tool using a database of published articles in Web of Science in the last ten years. Table 1 provides an overview of the results of this analysis.

<table><caption>Table 1. Overview of results of the bibliometric analysis</caption><thead><tr><td>Construct</td><td>Criteria</td><td>Keywords</td><td>Most cited authors</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Employee engagement</td><td>Keywords: minimum 20 occurrence<br/>Authors: minimum 5 articles</td><td>2.188 keywords; 16 keywords met criteria: work engagement, employee engagement, job engagement, job crafting, job satisfaction, burnout, job resources, self-efficacy...etc.</td><td>2.657 authors; 20 authors met criteria: Bakker, Arnold B.; Demerouti, Evangelia; Breevaart, Kimberley; Derks, Daantje; Alfes, Kerstin; etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Organizational commitment</td><td>Keywords: minimum 30 occurrence<br/>Authors: minimum 6 articles</td><td>4.392 keywords; 26 keywords met criteria: organizational commitment, commitment, affective commitment, affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction, transformational leadership, turnover intention, work engagement...etc.</td><td>5.052 authors; 20 authors met criteria: Morin, Alexandre J.S.; Meyer, John P.; Vandenberghe, Cristian; De Cuyper, Nele; Zacher, Hannes; etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Organizational citizenship behavior</td><td>Keywords: minimum 30 occurrence<br/>Authors: minimum 7 articles</td><td>3.784 keywords; 27 keywords met criteria: organizational citizenship behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, task performance, organizational identification, organizational commitment, work engagement, job performance...etc.</td><td>4.336 authors; 18 authors met criteria: Koopman, Joel; Johnson, Russell E.; Bolino, Mark C.; Karatepe, Osman M.; Newman, Alexander; etc.</td></tr></tbody></table>

As can be observed, examining the relationships between employee engagement, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior is relevant. According to the bibliometric analysis of the keywords, it is evident that organizational citizenship behavior is related to several constructs, including organizational commitment and employee engagement. Moreover, previous research has established a positive relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010; Kataria, Garg, & Renu, 2012; Marić, Hernaus, Tadić Vujčić, & Černe, 2019; Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012; Wahyu Ariani, 2013).
Saks (2006) determined the mediation effect of employee engagement in research on predictor variables of employee engagement and job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, Lavy and Littman-Ovadia (2017) determined the mediating effect of employee engagement in research on using advantages at work, productivity, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. The mediating effect of employee engagement was also determined in research on job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior (Marić et al., 2019). Zeinabadi (2010) also stated that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are significant predictor variables of organizational citizenship behavior. Najafi, Noruzy, Azar, Nazari-Shirkouhi, and Dalvand (2011) found that organizational commitment directly affects organizational citizenship behavior. Additionally, Sani (2013) showed that there is a positive relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.

A brief previous research review revealed a lack of research examining the role of employee engagement in the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, the following three hypotheses were formulated:

H1. A positive relationship exists between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.

H2. Employee engagement has a mediating effect on the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.

H3. Employee engagement has a moderating effect on the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.

**Purpose of study.** This research aims to examine the role of employee engagement in the relationship between organizational commitment as an independent variable and organizational citizenship behavior as a dependent variable. Based on the abovementioned research hypotheses, three models were formulated that tested the employee engagement role in the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, shown in Figure 1.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Three tested models and hypotheses</figcaption></figure>
**Method.** Primary data was collected in 20 small industrial, trade, and service Croatian companies, and the sample consisted of 213 employees. The study used well-established measurement instruments: *Utrecht Work Engagement Scale* (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002) to assess employee engagement, *Organizational Commitment Scale* (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993) to assess organizational commitment, and *OCB-O and OCB-I scales* (Lee & Allen, 2002) to assess organizational citizenship behavior. Correlation analysis was used to test the first hypothesis. To test the second and third hypotheses, regression analysis was used with the help of Model 1 and Model 4 of the PROCESS MACRO code for SPSS (Hayes, 2018).

**Findings.** The correlation analysis results showed a positive and statistically significant relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, so hypothesis H1 can be accepted. The regression analysis results showed that employee engagement does not mediate the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Likewise, the results showed that employee engagement does not moderate the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. In other words, the positive relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior will not increase under the moderating variable of employee engagement. Accordingly, hypotheses H2 and H3 cannot be accepted.

**Theoretical contribution.** This research is the first of its kind to examine the role of employee engagement in the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in small Croatian companies. Contrary to theoretical assumptions and the results of previously conducted research, neither the mediation effect nor the moderation effect of employee engagement on the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior was determined. Additionally, no statistically significant relationship was established between employee engagement and organizational commitment, as well as employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. Such contradictory findings can provide the grounds for further research on these constructs in small companies. Moreover, such contradictory results can be considered a kind of paradox in organizational behavior. The established statistically significant and positive relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior also contributes to contemporary literature on organizational behavior.

**Practical implications.** The research results help managers form positive employee attitudes and indicate which attitudes require particular attention to influence employees' positive work performance and the overall organizational performance.

**Keywords:** employee engagement, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, small companies
REFERENCES

1. Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The Relationship Between Charismatic Leadership, Work Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. *The Journal of Psychology*, **144**(3), 313–326.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223981003648336

2. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based perspective (Second Edition). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

3. Kataria, A., Garg, P., & Renu, R. (2012). Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. *International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation*, **6**(1), 102–113.

4. Lavy, S., & Littman-Ovadia, H. (2017). My Better Self: Using Strengths at Work and Work Productivity, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Satisfaction. *Journal of Career Development*, **44**(2), 95–109. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0894845316634056

5. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, **87**(1), 131–142.

6. Marić, M., Hernaus, T., Tadić Vujčić, M., & Černe, M. (2019). Job Characteristics and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Multisource Study on the Role of Work Engagement. *Društvena Istraživanja*, **28**(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.5559/di.28.1.02

7. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, **78**(4), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131

8. Najafi, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H. K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Dalvand, M. R. (2011). Investigating the Relationship Between Organizational Justice, Psychological Empowerment, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: An Empirical Model. *African Journal of Business Management*, **5**(13), 5241–5248. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM10.1505

9. Rurkkhum, S., & Bartlett, K. R. (2012). The Relationship Between Employee Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Thailand. *Human Resource Development International*, **15**(2), 157–174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.664693

10. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement. *Journal of Managerial Psychology*, **21**(7), 600–619.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

11. Sani, A. (2013). Role of Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction on Job Performance: The Mediating Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. *International Journal of Business and Management*, **8**(15), 57–67.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n15p57

12. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. *Journal of Happiness Studies*, **3**, 71–92.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

13. Wahyu Ariani, D. (2013). The Relationship Between Employee Engagement, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Counterproductive Work Behavior. *International Journal of Business Administration*, **4**(2), 46–56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v4n2p46
14. Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of Teachers. *Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences*, *5*, 998–1003.

**Nikolina Posarić**, M.Econ., is a Teaching Assistant at the Faculty of Organization and Informatics, University of Zagreb and PhD student at Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb. She teaches seminar classes in the courses of organization, management, and organizational behavior in various study programs. She is particularly interested in the field of organization, management, and organizational behavior, with special emphasis on the study of stewardship climate and employee attitudes.
Biljana Kovačević, Katarina Božić PhD students

University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Business Economics Bijeljina, Republic of Srpska,
Bosnia and Herzegovina

biljana.kovacevic@fpe.ues.rs.ba, katarina.bozic@fpe.ues.rs.ba

Theoretical background. Productivity maximization and maintaining employee motivation represent two key goals in organizations. While organizations seek to increase productivity to remain competitive, at the same time, they have to take care of the motivation of their employees in order to maintain their engagement and satisfaction at work, which is often called organizational paradox. Paradox refers to the presence of persistent contradictions between interdependent forces. Those persistent tensions are researched and they point to the approaches which will stimulate the adaptive use of paradox as a force of innovation and renewal (Pina e Cunha, Nogueira Leite, Rego & Hernández-Linares, 2024). The management is required to deal with the opposites simultaneously, so the need to choose one in relation to the other or to make a compromise is circumvented. Unlike contingency approach, the paradox perspective observes tensions as normal, which can be of use to both employees and the organization (Loon, Otaye-Ebede & Stewart, 2019).

The early approaches relied on the assumption that the increase in job satisfaction resulted in greater productivity, while later research disputed this idea, suggesting that high productivity was linked with satisfactory employee behavior, and not vice versa (Mamiseishvili & Rosser, 2011).

In modern era, organizations face a few challenges due to the dynamic nature of the environment. One of many challenges for the organization is that its employees are sufficiently motivated, in order to deal with the environment that is constantly changing and developing, but also to succeed in remaining competitive. In order to increase efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and commitment to work by employees, the management must meet its employees' needs by ensuring good working conditions. In the article Raziq & Maulabakhsh (2015), the influence of work environment on the employee job satisfaction is analyzed. The results point to a positive relationship between work environment and employee job satisfaction. Unlike measuring productivity, the percentage of absence from work and the rate of organization abandonment, job satisfaction is a subjective factor present in the employee's mind, which cannot be measured directly without its active participation in the evaluation process. The methods for indirect job satisfaction measurement include employee monitoring, interviewing and survey via questionnaire. Research via questionnaire enables organizations to obtain broad insight into job satisfaction of all or the majority of employees. Questionnaires usually focus on general assessment of job satisfaction or accompanying aspects of satisfaction. This approach of job satisfaction measurement is shown to be useful in the situations when it is necessary to understand specific factors that influence employee (dis)satisfaction in more details (Radić, 2015).

Based on the analysis of the literature on academic productivity and employee satisfaction, it is evident that further study is desirable in order to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between faculty productivity and employee motivation.
Purpose of research. The analysis which will show to what extent the increase in productivity reflects on employee motivation in the area of higher education is proposed for the needs of the research. Faculties face increasing pressures and demands, both within the institution itself and from the external environment. These pressures include the need for increasing productivity in key academic areas, such as research, teaching process and extracurricular activity. Faculty productivity in these areas is crucial for maintaining education and research quality, as well as fulfilling the expectations of students, scientific community and society as a whole. However, while the pressure for productivity enhancement increases, it is simultaneously important to consider how these demands influence employee motivation at faculties.

The purpose of the research is measuring faculty productivity and employee motivation, and examining how productivity is connected with employee motivation while controlling certain demographic characteristics. The population of this research is composed of the academic staff of the faculty in the area of social science of the University of East Sarajevo. Based on that, two research questions are formed: (1) How to conceive and measure the productivity and motivation of faculty employees? and (2) How is faculty productivity connected with employee motivation at work?

These research questions are led by the main goal to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between faculty productivity and employee motivation at the faculties in the area of social science of the chosen faculty, as well as to provide conceptual and measurable frameworks for the analysis of this relationship.

Method. A questionnaire is used in this research as the main method of data collection. The questionnaire consists of three parts, whereby the first part concerns demographic type questions (gender, years of work experience, title, area of research and the like), the second part concerns questions that measure productivity, and the third part concerns measuring employee motivation. The questionnaire is completely anonymous. For the needs of the research, the employees at the faculties of the University of East Sarajevo were chosen and specifically teaching staff in the area of social science. According to the data from secondary sources, total number of employees in this category is 190.

Three main variables are included for the purpose of conducting research, and they are as follows: (1) productivity, (2) employee motivation and (3) demographics. For measuring productivity, the variables based on the article by the authors Mamiseishvili and Rosser (2011) are defined. These variables refer to: (1) scientific productivity, (2) productivity in the teaching process and (3) extracurricular productivity. For the variable, employee motivation, a measurement scale was created which examines: (1) intrinsic motivation, (2) extrinsic motivation, (3) the sense of belonging to the organization and (4) work environment.

In this study, a comprehensive data analysis is planned, which refers to several key statistical techniques. First, descriptive analysis provides main statistical data about the sample, and after that, ANOVA analysis which will be used for the comparison of mean values between groups, identifying statistical significance of differences between groups. In addition to this, correlation analysis provides insight into the relationships between variables, while factor analysis will be used to identify adequate factor groups. These analyses together provide a deeper insight into the characteristics of data and the relationships between the variables, which enables a better understanding of the studies phenomenon.
Theoretical contribution. Theoretical contribution of this research lies in detailed consideration of the paradox between productivity maximization and maintaining employee motivation, providing a deeper understanding of the interaction between these two key factors within a context. While organizations seek to increase productivity, at the same time, they face the problem of maintaining a high level of employee motivation. The focus of the paper is on the identification of key factors concerning productivity and employee motivation.

Practical implications. Through understanding of paradox and the application of efficient strategies, organizations can advance its organizational culture, so that it supports a high level of motivation and productivity among employees. This can lead to better employee engagement, fewer conflicts and the improvement of efficiency at work, and it can also result in improved performance and organization competitiveness.

Keywords: paradox, productivity, motivation, employees, education, faculties.

## REFERENCES

1. Loon, M., Otaye-Ebede, L., & Stewart, J. (2019). The paradox of employee psychological well-being practices: An integrative literature review and new directions for research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(1), 156-187.

2. Mamiseishvili, K., & Rosser, V. J. (2011). Examining the relationship between faculty productivity and job satisfaction. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(2).

3. Pina e Cunha, M., Nogueira Leite, A., Rego, A., & Hernández-Linares, R. (2024). Visibilizing and managing paradox: redefining the role of non-executive directors. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.

4. Radić, N. (2015). Uticaj motivacije zaposlenih na performanse organizacije. In Synthesis 2015-International Scientific Conference of IT and Business-Related Research (pp. 353-358). Singidunum University.

5. Raziq, A., & Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 717-725.

Biljana Kovačević is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Business Economics in Bijeljina, the University of East Sarajevo. She is engaged in the subjects Business economics, Management and Business organisation in undergraduate studies, and the subject Innovative management in MA studies. She completed her PhD degree at the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Economics and Business.

Katarina Božić is a PhD student at the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Economics and Business. She is a teaching assistant at the Faculty of Business Economics in Bijeljina, the University of East Sarajevo. She is engaged in the subjects Business economics, Management, Entrepreneurship, Human resource management, Business organisation, Business communication and ethics, Managing investments and projects.
Bor Krizmanič

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana
Doctoral Student

Climate change is an undeniable reality, posing multifaceted challenges to both the planet and humanity. The consequences of shifting weather patterns, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events demand urgent attention (Myers et al., 2021 & Allen et al., 2018). Recognizing the gravity of this global issue, countries worldwide are proactively implementing measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. From sustainable energy initiatives to reforestation projects, the collective efforts underscore the importance of addressing climate change comprehensively. In light of these efforts, the European Union (EU) is actively pursuing ambitious environmental goals outlined in the European Green Deal. With targets to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, the EU focuses on reducing energy consumption, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and promoting renewable energy sources. Given that the transport sector contributes up to 25% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions, the EU aims for a 55% reduction by 2030 and an impressive 90% reduction by 2050 compared to 1990 levels (European Commission, 2021). At the EU level, several documents have been adopted, obliging member states to reduce pollution from transport as part of the "Fit for 55" legislative package. This includes a determination that only new cars with zero CO2 emissions will be allowed to be registered in the EU from 2035 onwards, eliminating the possibility of registering new cars with internal combustion engines from that year (European Commission, 2023). According to the EU Regulation 2018/1999, member states must draft comprehensive national energy and climate plans until 2030 (and with a view to 2040), forming the basis for setting goals and measures to increase the share of vehicles with zero carbon dioxide emissions. Despite the potential of hydrogen as an energy source, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles face significant challenges and are currently not suitable for general use (Manoharan et al., 2019), making electric vehicles the most realistic option for mass satisfaction of the condition of vehicles with zero CO2 emissions.

Governments are actively encouraging residents and companies to adopt electric vehicles through various subsidies and incentives (Langbroek, Franklin, & Susilo, 2016). As governments increasingly endorse electric mobility to combat environmental issues and reduce fossil fuel dependence, a paradox arises in the dual objectives of promoting sustainable transportation through electric vehicles while heavily depending on excise taxes generated from the sale of traditional petrol-fueled vehicles. A significant portion of national budgets relies on revenue from excise taxes, also known as petrol excise taxes, fuel duties, fuel taxes, and gas or gasoline taxes, imposed on the sale of petrol. These taxes traditionally contribute significantly to government coffers and are a reliable income stream (OECD, 2024). The paradox emerges as countries push for the transition to electric vehicles, potentially leading to a decline in state revenue from petrol excise taxes. The number of newly registered electric vehicles in EU countries has been growing rapidly in recent years (European Environment Agency, 2023), posing a fiscal challenge for governments striving to balance sustainable practices with crucial budgetary income.
Therefore, in my study, I will conduct a brief literature review and analyze data on the share and importance of petrol excise taxes on the state treasury, with a primary focus on Slovenia and some European countries. I will also provide a brief overview of the adoption of electric vehicles in these countries, paying attention to the goals and commitments of the countries. Next, I will present the current and projected future impact of electric vehicles on fuel excise tax revenues. In conclusion, I will examine examples of countries that have attempted to address the problem of the increasing share of electric vehicles and the resulting decrease in state revenues in the treasury.

With my research, I aim to address the intricate balance between environmental sustainability and fiscal responsibility, exploring the challenges governments face in transitioning to electric vehicles while relying on revenue from traditional petrol taxes. I intend to improve understanding of this topic and contribute to this field of knowledge. The findings could help policymakers and politicians with policy recommendations to better regulate this area. The research could also generate new ideas and encourage further reflection on the long-term economic sustainability of current green transition policies.

Keywords

electric vehicles, state revenues, petrol excise taxes, government policies, fiscal policies

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Acha, S., Green, T. C., & Shah, N. (2010, April). Effects of optimised plug-in hybrid vehicle charging strategies on electric distribution network losses. In IEEE PES T&D 2010 (pp. 1-6). IEEE. 10.1109/TDC.2010.5484397

2. Myers, K. F., Doran, P. T., Cook, J., Kotcher, J. E., & Myers, T. A. (2021). Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later. Environmental Research Letters, 16(10), 104030. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774

3. European Commission (2021). Renewable energy directive. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/renewable-energy/directive-targets-and-rules/renewable-energy-directive_en (Accessed 10 December 2021).

4. European Environment Agency. (2023). New registrations of electric vehicles in Europe - Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/new-registrations-of-electric-vehicles

5. Manoharan, Y., Hosseini, S. E., Butler, B., Alzhahrani, H., Senior, B. T. F., Ashuri, T., & Krohn, J. (2019). Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; current status and future prospect. Applied Sciences, 9(11), 2296. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9112296

6. Langbroek, J. H., Franklin, J. P., & Susilo, Y. O. (2016). The effect of policy incentives on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy, 94, 94-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.050

7. OECD, (2024) Revenue Statistics - OECD countries: Comparative tables. Available at: https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV

8. European Commission. (2023). Fit for 55: EU reaches new milestone to make all new cars and vans zero-emission from 2035. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-your-voice/news/fit-55-eu-reaches-new-milestone-make-all-new-cars-and-vans-zero-emission-2035-2023-03-28_en
MANAGING PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS MODELS IN FUNCTION OF
INCREASED ROLE-BASED ENGAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY,
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF JAPAN AND NORTH MACEDONIA

Prof. Masayuki Susai, Ph.D.,
Shiga University, Emeritus Professor at Nagasaki University, Japan

Prof. Leonid Nakov, Ph.D.,
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje (UKIM), North Macedonia
Monika Spasovska, M.Sc., North Macedonia

Presenting Author: Prof. Leonid Nakov, Ph.D.

Theoretical Background

The process of creating the concept of ‘human-centered management’ undoubtedly implies to the tendency for progressive and paradoxical modelling of 5 prevalent pillars to achieving the organizational quality, among which disruption resilience and agility constitute the key features of the contemporary paradoxical leaders. Latest tendencies of the WEF, which principally reflect the fundamental reset from the ‘Great Reset Initiative’ (WEF, January, 2021), towards ‘Navigating Global Challenges’, (WEF, January, 2024) is a prior indicator of paradoxical understanding of critical transformative challenges, aimed at increased commitment and accountability, reflecting on one hand the behavioral changes, alongside with empowerment and employee engagement, connected to the competitiveness changes, on the other hand.

Purpose of study

Fundamental purpose of this methodological-empirical study is placed at building up and validating, through designed Questionnaire, the mutual causality among pillars of organizational stability within the ‘human-centered management’, specifically disruption resilience and agility, with the critical behavioral employee orientations, particularly with the accountability and effective employee engagement, both of them tested within the process of managing ‘progressive business models’. In this context, corrective variables in the modelling phase would be paradoxical implications of disruptive innovations, focused on establishing the social concept of ‘responsible enterprise’.

Research method

Principal research hypothesis in this scientific-research paper is determined as: Identifying and measuring the degree of causality between human-centered management pillars in relation to behavioral and competitive changes, through socially responsible behavior. Designed Questionnaire would be applied to representative sample of 50 SME’s, 25 from Japan and North Macedonia, which would be subject to holistic qualitative analyzes.
## Findings

Expected findings from this scientific-research paper are identified as:

* Progressive identifying, analyzing, validating and modelling of contemporary, critical-to-quality organizational pillars, with the research focus on representative sample of 50 Macedonian and Japanese businesses, at paradoxical harmonization of behavioral and competitive changes, i.e.:

1) commitment and accountability, as well as,

2) empowerment and employee engagement.

* Developing a pathway for a holistic, transformative and integrated application of progressive business models, for dynamic understanding of the milestone of advanced excellence, i.e. the focus of the managers as leaders of changes.

## Theoretical Contribution

The prevalent impornatce and applicability of the Cabality Management Development Process (Beaulieu & LeBlanc, 2012), would be analyzed within the fundamental determinants of advanced managing of progressive business models (O'Higgins Eleanor & Laszlo Zsolnai Ed., 2018), particularly from the view-point of socially responsible actions and sustainable development models. It would encounter our immense scientific-research focus, the process of identifying the comparability of empirical research findings out of advanced Japanese businesses with the tendencies arising within the EU, in order to detail the intended managerial steps for a proper and vivid managing in times of dynamic paradoxes in North Macedonia.

## Practical Implications

Applicative importance of the entire empirical research analyses within this paper would lead to the following expected practical implications:

* Statistically developed and sustained research findings, from methodological and empirical point of view, which leads to an accomodated, inter-related and integrated modalities of behavioaral and competitive changes,

* Clearing-up the mutual dependence among capability-based management model in comparison with the socially-responsible model for managing sustainable and pro-active businesses.

## Keywords

Progressive business models, Capability development management process, Transformation through social impact

## References

1. Cronin J. Mary, Dearing C. Tiziana Editors (2017), Managing for Social Impact: Innovations in Responsible Enterprises, Springer International Publ. AG, Switzerland

2. Lepeley Maria-Teresa (2017), Human Centered Management: 5 Pillars of Organizational Quality and Global Sustainability, Greenleaf Publishing Limited, UK,

3. O'Higgins Eleanor & Laszlo Zsolnai Ed. (2018), Progressive Business Models: Creating Sustainable and Pro-social Enterprise, Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business in Association with Future Earth,

4. Young F. Stephen, Lisa A. Steelman, Matthew D. Pita & James Gallo (2020), Role-based engagement: scale development and validation, Journal of Management & Organization, pp. 1 – 21 etc.
STRIKING THE BALANCE: UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN
AMBIDEXTERITY AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

**Vesna Stojanović-Aleksić, PhD, Full Professor,**
Faculty of Economics, University of Kragujevac
[vesnasa@kg.ac.rs](mailto:vesnasa@kg.ac.rs)

**Aleksandra Stevanović, PhD, Assistant Professor**
Faculty of Economics, University of Kragujevac
[aboskovic@kg.ac.rs](mailto:aboskovic@kg.ac.rs)

**Jelena Erić Nielsen, PhD, Associate Professor,**
Faculty of Economics, University of Kragujevac
[jelena_eric@kg.ac.rs](mailto:jelena_eric@kg.ac.rs)

Employee engagement is a motivational construct or a positive state of mind related to the job and organization, based on three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). In order to achieve and maintain engagement, organizational scholars and managers have unrevealed many of its antecedents and the research is still on-going. However, as successful firms are now considered to be those that manage to reconcile various paradoxes in their strategy and organization (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; He & Wong, 2004: Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996; Duncan, 1976), it is important to consider how the need for organizational ambidexterity affects *individuals* within the organization - a topic that is often overlooked in organizational design research. Therefore, this paper aims to address the research gap and shed light on this important issue.

Ambidexterity can be described as the ability of an organization to adeptly balance and achieve two opposing or paradoxical sets of goals (Weber & Tarba, 2014). It is usually associated with the simultaneous application of the activity of *exploring* new opportunities for learning and innovation and *exploitation* of existing resources (Fourné, Jansen & Mom, 2014). Shaping the context for creating an ambidextrous organization involves balancing hard elements, such as discipline and stretch, and soft elements, such as support and trust (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004 based on Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994). There are various approaches that organizations can take to harmonize these activities. One option is to apply them cyclically, while another is to design a structure where different parts of the organization are dedicated to either exploitation or exploration, or alternatively, to balance the two activities constantly.

All of these elements affect work design, which is one of the main factors of employee engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Saks, 2006; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009; Crawford, Le Pine, & Rich, 2010). Starting from the Job Demands-Resources theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), as well as from the theory of job characteristics (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2008), the focus of the paper is on establishing a connection between organizational ambidexterity and employee engagement, through job characteristics.

Based on the literature review, it is possible to draw the following conclusions. Achieving ambidexterity at the organizational level will require balancing paradoxical demands at the job design level. This will necessitate that employees devote themselves to a balance of routine activities and innovative endeavors, while simultaneously balancing diverse demands and resources. As a result of this approach, employees can expect a combination of both high
specialization and an increase in autonomy. Autonomy gives individuals a sense of control and ownership over their work, with greater encouragement to take responsibility for their tasks and projects, thus, leading to enhanced engagement (Shantz, Alfes, Truss, Soane, 2013; Marinova, Ye & Singh, 2008; Kahn, 1990).

Also, ambidextrous work designs often incorporate a diverse range of tasks and projects, leading to higher levels of task variety and skill variety, both of which are positively related to engagement (Crawford et al., 2010). It has been observed that jobs that require a high degree of cognitive demands present a unique challenge to employees, which can foster their interest, creativity, and motivation (Marinova et al. 2008). The emphasis on flexibility and learning fosters a growth-oriented mindset among employees, leading to higher levels of engagement and performance.

One of the key assumptions of ambidextrousness is the existence of social support, both at the level of the organization and at the level of work. Social support fosters a sense of belonging and commitment, ultimately leading to increased engagement (e.g. Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Saks, 2006). Additionally, ambidextrous work designs facilitate regular feedback and recognition mechanisms that acknowledge employees' contributions to both exploitation and exploration activities. Constructive feedback and recognition of achievements reinforce employees' sense of value and competence, thereby enhancing their engagement (e.g. Schafeli & Bakker, 2004) and commitment to organizational goals.

Balancing the conflicting objectives of exploration and exploitation at the job design level requires ongoing attention and effort. While it is essential to have formalized basic mechanisms in place to ensure that employees understand their roles, responsibilities, and expectations, it's equally important not to overlook the soft elements of organizational design, such as high support and trust. Finding the right balance between these two aspects can be challenging, but it's essential for creating a healthy and productive work environment.

The *theoretical implications* of the paper are reflected in emphasizing the connection between different organizational levels, that is, the strategic level of organization design, job design and the individual level - employee engagement. The psychological implications of ambidexterity are not often explored, so the paper contributes to the literature in the field of management, organizational behavior and organizational psychology.

The paper has significant *implications for practitioners* as well, and above all for managers who strive to successfully balance the various paradoxes that represent contemporary organizational challenges, but at the same time take care of the well-being of employees, bearing in mind that only engaged people achieve sustainable, positive results in the long term. The paper highlights the work characteristics that should be strived for in order to respond to the demands of ambidextrousness at the organizational level, and how this would ultimately positively affect employee engagement.

**Keywords:** organizational ambidexterity, contextual ambidexterity, employee engagement
References

1. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. *Journal of Managerial Psychology*, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

2. Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator Analysis of Employee Engagement: Role of Perceived Organizational Support, P-O Fit, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. *Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers*, 38(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920130103

3. Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 95(5), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364

4. Duncan, R.B. (1976). The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation. The Management of Organization, 1, 167-188.

5. Fourné, S. P. L., Jansen, J. J. P., & Mom, T. J. M. (2014). Strategic Agility in MNEs: Managing Tensions to Capture Opportunities across Emerging and Established Markets. *California Management Review*, 56 (3), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.13

6. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. *Strategic Management Journal*, 15 (S2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250151007

7. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. *Academy of Management Journal*, 47(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573

8. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

9. Morgeson, F. P. & Humphrey, S. E. (2008). Job and team design: Toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), *Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management* (Vol. 27, pp. 39-91). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27002-7

10. Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. (2013). The role of employee engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviours. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 24(13), 2608 - 2627. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.744334

11. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. *Journal of Organizational Behavior*, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248

12. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. *Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being*, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

13. Tushman, M. L. & O'Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. *California Management Review*, 38(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852

14. Weber, Y. & Tarba, S. (2014). Strategic Agility: State of Art. *California Management Review*, 56 (3), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.5
15. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. *Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74*(3), 235-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003
**Ajda Merkuž**

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana
ajda.merkuz@ef.uni-lj.si

**Robert Kaše**

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana
robert.kase@ef.uni-lj.si

**Katarina Katja Mihelič**

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana
katja.mihelic@ef.uni-lj.si

## THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Sustainability is becoming important in many aspects of our lives: from environmental sustainability initiatives (Charfeddine & Umlai, 2023) to sustainable views on careers (De Vos et al., 2016; Hirschi et al., 2022). Specifically, sustainable career is reflected through various career experiences, which provide meaning to an individual (De Vos et al., 2016), and intersects both work and life domains (Van der Heijden et al., 2020). De Vos et al. (2020) highlight the importance of self-determining behaviors by employees to experience positive outcomes of a sustainable career, such as subjective career success in terms of work-life balance. Moreover, to be subjectively satisfied with career success, one has to be in supportive environment (Goh et al., 2022; Merkuž & Mihelič, 2023), which enables growth and psychological well-being (De Vos et al., 2020), and together they contribute to thriving at work. Thriving is a psychological state, where one experiences joint feelings of learning and vitality (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Thriving employees exhibit higher ability for career adaptability (Jiang, 2017) and enhanced career resilience (Jiang et al., 2021).

We argue that thriving is an energetic resource (Hirschi et al., 2019) that enables higher satisfaction with work-life balance as a subjective career success dimension. For example, if employee is tired (low vitality) and is learning new strategies to improve work-life balance (high learning), it can in time proactively improve vitality aspect, but still search for new ways to balance work and life domains (learning) to maintain high levels of vitality. Moreover, learning is also one of the prerequisites for a sustainable career (Van der Heijden et al., 2020). Recent theoretical developments (Hirschi et al., 2019; Hirschi et al., 2022) direct us to examine how different aspects of work and nonwork domains affect one's career and how individuals can utilize both domains to work in their favor. In this paper we investigate how a positive state at work, thriving, affects employee's feelings of accomplishment with their career success in terms of balancing work and nonwork domains. We base our research on the integrative multilevel model of thriving (Goh et al., 2022) and action-regulation theoretical model of work-family balance (Hirschi et al., 2019). This model proposes that individuals consider their resources and demands to set their work and family goals in order to achieve balance. Equipped with positive psychological resources they engage in action regulation strategies in order to attain the goals by allocating resources, and diminishing the effects of demands on goals, experiencing higher levels of work-life balance (Hirschi et al., 2019).
Thus, we are interested if there are any effects between thriving and subjective career success in terms of work-life balance, and if this relationship is mediated by active regulation of work-family interface. With this we aim to address calls to examine the role of thriving using a more holistic perspective, not only focusing on work aspect of career development (Goh et al., 2022); and how psychological resources (i.e. thriving) relate to application of different action regulation strategies (Hirschi et al., 2019), resulting in one's subjective career success. To ensure that employees are really thriving, we propose that employees should simultaneously experience both high levels of both learning and vitality, as initially conceptualized by Spreitzer et al. (2005). Therefore, we are using the congruence aspect of thriving (see Kleine et al. (2023)). Our hypotheses are presented in Figure 1.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Conceptual model</figcaption></figure>

## RESULTS

Participants are employees (n=306), who were recruited through a panel study. We used previously validated scales and analyses were done in two steps: 1) polynomial regression (assessing fit between dimensions of thriving: learning and vitality) analysis and 2) mediation analysis (using block variable approach by Edwards and Cable (2009)).

Results of polynomial regression show, that the fit line slope is positive and significantly different from zero (a1 = 0.36; p < 0.001), which means that employees who experience higher fit between learning and vitality (are thriving) experience more accomplishment in their subjective career success in terms of their work-life balance, compared to those who are low on the learning-vitality fit (not thriving). The curvature of fit line is insignificant (a2 = 0.14, p > 0.05), so we cannot confirm, that subjective career success in terms of work-life balance increases at the area of curvature, where fit between learning and vitality increases. As of misfit, slope (a3 = -0.06; p > 0.05) and curvature (a4 = 0.37; p > 0.05) are both insignificant, thus there is no significant difference in subjective career success in terms of work-life balance when employees are experiencing misfit between learning and vitality (i.e. not thriving). Figure 2 further confirms that subjective career success is higher in high learning-vitality fit, thus, H1 is accepted.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Surface relating learning and vitality to subjective career success</figcaption></figure>

Next, results show that thriving as a fit has a positive effect on all action regulation strategies, while only orientation/mapping and planning have (same) significant positive effect on subjective career success for work-life balance (b = 0.17; p < 0.05). Consequently, only orientation/mapping (indirect effect = 0.01; 95% CI [0.0002; 0.0221]) and planning (indirect effect = 0.01; 95% CI [0.0005; 0.0203]) are (partial) mediators of the relationship between thriving fit and subjective career success for work-life balance. Although the indirect effect sizes are relatively small, we can confirm H2b and H2c and reject H2a, H2d and H2e.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In summary, employees who are high on learning and high on vitality scale – are thriving – report higher levels of feelings of accomplishment in their subjective career success as related to work-life balance, compared to those who are not thriving (i.e. are low on both dimensions of thriving). Next, our results show that only orientation/mapping and planning, affect subjective career success related to work-life balance, whereas other strategies do not have a significant effect.

There are two main contributions of our study. First, we provide evidence, that thriving employees experience better sense of achievement for their subjective career success in terms of work-life balance, which contributes to the new perspective of thriving in terms of nonwork domain (Goh et al., 2022). Moreover, we confirm the theoretical proposition, that thriving is beneficial for action regulation strategies (Hirschi et al., 2022). Also, thriving employees have more ability to plan on how to use personal resources, check for opportunities and consider barriers that would hinder him/her from attaining work or family goal (i.e. planning and orientation/mapping), and because of this they would experience higher levels subjective career success. Thus, thriving employees are the ones, that can self-manage and regulate successfully their subjective career perspective, when considering their work and nonwork domains. A general recommendation to individuals and employers is thus to take action, that enhances both learning and vitality of employees.
Keywords: thriving at work, subjective career success, action-regulation at work-family interface, work-life balance

REFERENCES

1. Charfeddine, L., & Umlai, M. (2023). ICT sector, digitization and environmental sustainability: A systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2022. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 184, 1-25.

2. De Vos, A., Dujardin, J.-M., Gielens, T., & Meyers, C. (2016). Developing Sustainable Careers Across the Lifespan: European Social Fund Network on 'Career and AGE (Age, Generations, Experience)'. Springer Cham.

3. De Vos, A., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Akkermans, J. (2020). Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of vocational behavior, 117, 1-13.

4. Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of applied psychology, 94(3), 654-677.

5. Goh, Z., Eva, N., Kiazad, K., Jack, G. A., De Cieri, H., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2022). An integrative multilevel review of thriving at work: Assessing progress and promise. Journal of organizational behavior, 43(2), 197-213.

6. Hirschi, A., Shockley, K. M., & Zacher, H. (2019). Achieving work-family balance: An action regulation model. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 150-171.

7. Hirschi, A., Zacher, H., & Shockley, K. M. (2022). Whole-life career self-management: A conceptual framework. Journal of Career Development, 49(2), 344-362.

8. Jiang, Z. (2017). Proactive personality and career adaptability: The role of thriving at work. Journal of vocational behavior, 98, 85-97.

9. Jiang, Z., Jiang, Y., & Nielsen, I. (2021). Thriving and career outcomes: The roles of achievement orientation and resilience. Human Resource Management Journal, 31(1), 143-164.

10. Kleine, A.-K., Rudolph, C. W., Schmitt, A., & Zacher, H. (2023). Thriving at work: an investigation of the independent and joint effects of vitality and learning on employee health. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(1), 95-106.

11. Merkuž, A., & Mihelič, K. K. (2023). Thriving While Working Remotely: The Role of Family-Work Affect, Exploration, and Ambidextrous Leadership. SAGE open, 13(1), 1-13.

12. Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization science, 16(5), 537-549.

13. Van der Heijden, B., De Vos, A., Akkermans, J., Spurk, D., Semeijn, J., Van der Velde, M., & Fugate, M. (2020). Sustainable careers across the lifespan: Moving the field forward. 117, 1-9.

Ajda Merkuž is a PhD student and junior researcher at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana. Her PhD mentor is full professor Katarina Katja Mihelič and in her PhD she researches the concept of thriving at work, and how work or non-work characteristics are affecting employee's thriving. In terms of research she is interested in positive organizational behaviour, employee well-being, work-family/life interface, and the effects in the workplace in the post-pandemic area. Besides her research work, she participates in Organizational behaviour course as a teaching assistant.
**Yan Shao**

University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam 1018 TV, The Netherlands
TEL. (31) 205255610
E-mail: y.shao@uva.nl

**Ella Miron-Spektor**

INSEAD, Europe Campus
Fontainebleau 77305, France
TEL. (33) 160724018
E-mail: ella.miron-spektor@insead.edu

**Susanne Täuber**

University of Groningen
Groningen 9747 AE, The Netherlands
TEL. (31) 503637302
E-mail: s.tauber@rug.nl

**Bernard A. Nijstad**

University of Groningen
Groningen 9747 AE, The Netherlands
TEL. (31) 503638674
E-mail: b.a.nijstad@rug.nl

Interpersonal tensions have traditionally been studied in the literature of relationship conflict in teams. Relationship conflicts are the interpersonal tensions an individual experiences because of conflicting or competing interests, values, preferences, and personalities (De Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999; De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001). This type of tension has been shown to bring many negative outcomes (see the meta-analyses by De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2013) and undermines work engagement at both the group (Costa, Passos, & Arnold, 2015) and individual levels (Chen, Zhang, & Vogel, 2011; Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011).

Despite accumulated insights, previous work on relationship conflict has mostly focused on either its team-level consequences or on consequences for team members who are directly involved in it (see De Dreu & Weingart, 2001; De Wit et al., 2012). Few studies have considered its spillover effects on team members who observe the tension, albeit interpersonal tensions often occur in the presence of others and exert a negative effect on people around them (Chua, 2013; Frost, 2003). Moreover, although research has examined collective team conflict management (e.g., Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008; Somech, Desivilya, & Lidogoster, 2009; Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001), conflict management strategies of people who are directly involved in a conflict (e.g., De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001; Wombacher, & Felfe, 2017), and formal third-party (e.g., professional mediators, supervisors, or human resource managers) interventions in conflict (e.g., Benharda, Brett, & Lempereur, 2013; Nugent & Broedling, 2002), we lack knowledge on what enables individuals to cope better with interpersonal tensions from the observers' perspective.
To address this issue, we draw on the paradox perspective to examine how third-party observers can cope with interpersonal tensions to sustain work engagement, an important outcome of interpersonal tensions (e.g., Chen et al., 2011; Costa et al., 2015). In particular, we propose that the effects of observed interpersonal tensions on work engagement depend on individuals' psychological proximity, operationalized as team identification, and that the stronger the sense of team identification – a member's sense of oneness with, or belonging to the team (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) – the more proximate and threatening the observed interpersonal tension will be (Conroy, Henle, Shore, & Stelman, 2017), and the less engaged the observer will become (Sulea, Virga, Maricutoiu, Schaufeli, Dumitru, & Sava, 2012).

However, paradox theory further suggests that individuals can approach tensions in defensive or constructive ways: some see it as threatening and seek to avoid or eliminate it; others see tensions as natural and seek to 'build bridges'. We further posit that individuals' ability to adopt a paradox mindset will act as a buffer against the negative effect of observed interpersonal tensions on work engagement even when the actor strongly identifies with the team (H2: There will be a three-way interaction among observing interpersonal tension, team identification, and paradox mindset on work engagement. When paradox mindset is low, team identification strengthens the negative effect of observing interpersonal tension on work engagement; when paradox mindset is high, the negative effect of observing interpersonal tension on work engagement of highly identified team members is weaker).

Moreover, we argue that actors who are high in team identification and paradox mindset can better sustain their engagement when facing other team members' relationship conflict because they are better motivated and capable of adopting integrative conflict management (H3: When observing relationship conflict, an integrative conflict management approach will mediate the interaction between team identification and paradox mindset on observers' work engagement: team identification will have an indirect positive effect on work engagement through integrative conflict management when paradox mindset is high but not when it is low). The conceptual model is displayed in Figure 1.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

To test our hypotheses, we conducted two scenario experiments and one survey among Mturk participants. In Study 1, we manipulated relationship conflict and team identification with scenarios. 360 Mturk participants were randomly assigned to one of the 6 conditions in a 3 (relationship conflict: high, low, or no conflict) by 2 (team identification: high or low) design. Work engagement was measured with the UWES scale.
The results support H1, showing that relationship conflict had a stronger negative effect on observers' work engagement when team identification was high as compared to low (see Figure 2). In Study 2, we measured observed interpersonal tension, operationalized as relationship conflict, team identification, paradox mindset, and work engagement in a survey among 267 Mturk participants who had teamwork experiences. The results support H2, showing that paradox mindset attenuated the negative impact of observed relationship conflict on highly identified observers' work engagement (see Figure 3). In Study 3, 240 Mturk workers were employed to participate in a scenario study. All participants read a scenario in which they observed a relationship conflict between two team members and they were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (team identification: high, low, or no conflict) by 2 (paradox mindset: high or low) design. Then, we measured integrative conflict management by asking them to write down their reactions to the observed conflict and report their work engagement on the UWES scale. The results support H3, showing that highly identified team members are more likely to search for an integrative approach to the observed relationship conflict if they adopt a high paradox mindset (see Figure 4), which helps them stay engaged in their work.

Our research makes several unique contributions to the literature. First, we integrate paradox theory (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Smith & Lewis, 2011) and literature on conflict (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; Jehn, 1995), two literatures that thus far have remained disconnected. We draw insights from both literatures to propose when and how interpersonal tensions can be constructively managed from the observers' perspective. Our study goes beyond existing studies which examined the effects of interpersonal tensions on work engagement of those who directly experience the tension (Chen, Zhang, & Vogel, 2011; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995), showing that the impact of interpersonal tensions is broader than previously assumed. Besides, we extend paradox theory by identifying team identification as a new boundary condition relevant for interpersonal tension and by empirically testing work engagement as the consequence of observed interpersonal tensions, thus expanding the scope of outcomes of tension management. Last but not least, we suggest that paradox mindset can attenuate the negative impact of observed interpersonal tensions on high identifiers' work engagement because it enables the adoption of an integrative conflict management. We thereby complement existing studies which have exclusively focused on intrapersonal tensions, showing that a paradox mindset can also help to manage reactions to interpersonal tensions.

## References

1. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

2. Benharda, I., Brett, J. M., & Lempereur, A. (2013). Gender and role in conflict management: Female and male managers as third parties. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(2), 79-93.

3. Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170.

4. Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541-557.

5. Chen, Z. J., Zhang, X. I., & Vogel, D. (2011). Exploring the Underlying Processes Between Conflict and Knowledge Sharing: A Work-Engagement Perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(5), 1005-1033.
6. Chua, R. Y. J. 2013. The costs of ambient cultural disharmony: Indirect intercultural conflicts in social environment undermine creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6): 1545-1577.

7. Conroy, S., Henle, C. A., Shore, L., & Stelman, S. 2017. Where there is light, there is dark: A review of the detrimental outcomes of high organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2): 184-203.

8. Costa, P. L., Passos, A. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2015). Direct and contextual influence of team conflict on team resources, team work engagement, and team performance. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8(4), 211-227.

9. De Dreu, C. K., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 645-668.

10. De Dreu, C. K. W., Harinck, F., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (1999). Conflict and performance in groups and organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1999, Vol. 14, pp. 369-414). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

11. De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309-328.

12. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team member satisfaction and team effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.

13. De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889-905.

14. De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360-390.

15. Frost, P. J. 2003. Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and conflict. Boston: Harvard Business School

16. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282

17. Leung, A. K. Y., Liou, S., Miron-Spektor, E., Koh, B., Chan, D., Eisenberg, R., & Schneider, (2018). Middle ground approach to paradox: Within- and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 443-464.

18. Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760-776.

19. Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. 2014. Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2): 127-149.

20. Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53-65.

21. Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to- detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 740-760.
22. Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 116(2), 229-240.

23. Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2018. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. *Academy of Management Journal*, 61(1), 26–45.

24. Miron-Spektor, E., & Paletz, S. B. (2020). Collective paradoxical frames. *The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning*, 429-446.

25. Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. *Academy of Management Journal*, 44(6), 1251-1262.

26. Nugent, P. S., & Broedling, L. A. (2002). Managing conflict: Third-party interventions for managers. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, 16(1), 139-154.

27. Pruitt, D. G., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 31(4), 621–633.

28. Rognes, J. K., & Schei, V. 2010. Understanding the integrative approach to conflict management. *Journal of Managerial Psychology*, 25(1), 82–97.

29. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. *The Academy of Management Annals*, 10(1): 5–64.

30. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. 2002. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. *Journal of Happiness Studies*, 3(1): 71–92.

31. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. *Academy of Management Review*, 36(2), 381–403.

32. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. *Organization science*, 16(5), 522-536.

33. Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C. Z., & Sava, F. A. (2012). Emerald Article: Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-role behaviors. *Career Development International*, 17(3), 188-207.

34. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social of identity theory of inter-team behaviour. In S. Worche & W. Austin (Eds.), *Psychology of Interteam Relations*: 7–24. Chicago: Nelson.

35. Zhang, X., Bollen, K., Pei, R., & Euwema, M. C. (2018). Peacemaking at the workplace: A systematic review. *Negotiation and Conflict Management Research*, 11(3), 204-224.
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figures</figcaption></figure>

Figure 2 Two-way interaction between observed relationship conflict and team identification on work engagement (Study 1)
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 Three-way interaction among observed relationship conflict(ORC), team identification(TI) and paradox mindset(PM) on work engagement (Study 2)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 Two-way interaction between team identification and paradox mindset on integrative conflict management (Study 3)</figcaption></figure>
Aleksandar Nikolovski

nikolovski.aleksandar@yahoo.com

Robert Kaše

robert.kase@ef.uni-lj.si

Extended abstract:

Individuals pursue investment in education, knowledge, and skills to land a desired job and a promising career. For overqualified workers, however, this quest often results in feelings of deprivation (Crosby, 1984) because they get a job below what they consider appropriate for their qualification (Triana, Trzebiatowski & Byun, 2017). Perceiving that someone else got the job that fits their qualification makes them feel disappointed, resulting in job dissatisfaction. In this paper, we question the hypothesized productivity-enhancing effects of education (Becker, 1962; Mincer, 1974). Education should develop skills that lead to higher productivity and higher pay, distributing jobs and pay based on qualifications. We argue that for overqualified employees, more education does not lead to higher wages but rather to a wage penalty relative to qualification level (Brynin, 2002). We address this issue by differentiating between two types of overqualification: objective overqualification or overeducation (OOQ) and perceived overqualification (POQ) (Liu, Luksyte, Zhou, Shi & Wang, 2015; Erdogan, Bauer, Peiró & Truxillo, 2011).

Literacy skills are also considered a direct result of schooling, and we used them as an example of a skill mismatch and its relation to low job satisfaction and income. Seemingly, in the existing literature, POQ was used as a standard measure (proxy) for the skills mismatch.

From the above, we hypothesize and test the relationship between both types of overqualification and two important employee outcomes: job satisfaction and relative income. In addition, we examine whether POQ moderates the relationships between OOQ and the two focal outcomes. Finally, we attempt to find an instrument to detach the skills from qualification in measuring the workers' mismatches on the labor market; primarily, how literacy mismatches moderate the relationships between OOQ or POQ and the two mentioned outcomes.

For the purpose of testing the hypothesized relationships, we considered the data in a hierarchical multilevel linear regression modeling procedure (HMLR), on a significant sample size (n=156,058), sourced from 27 countries that participated in the first two rounds of the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competences (PIAAC).

We found that 20.8% of the workers perceive themselves as overqualified, but 28.9% are objectively overqualified or overeducated. We also confirmed that both POQ and OOQ reduce job satisfaction and relative income, but no relationship was observed between overqualification types and skills mismatch: neither high nor low overqualification types imply over- or under-skilling in literacy.
Next, we confirmed that workers who perceive themselves as overqualified and have an excess of education in relation to their job are more dissatisfied with their jobs. Among the workers perceiving themselves as overqualified, those who are over-skilled are less satisfied with their job, and those who are under-skilled are more satisfied with their job. Furthermore, neither over-skilling nor under-skilling affects the negative relation between OOQ and job satisfaction. Also, among the workers who perceive themselves as overqualified, the over-skilled have a lower relative income compared to the workers who are not over-skilled. Paradoxically, the workers who perceive themselves as overqualified and are under-skilled tend to have a higher relative income than the workers who are not under-skilled.

OOQ is also found to be a significant, negative predictor of relative income. The workers who are overeducated and perceive themselves as overqualified have lower relative income than the workers who do not perceive themselves as overqualified, just as the workers who are overeducated and are over-skilled in literacy. On the other hand, being underskilled did not affect the relationship between OOQ and relative income.

Our findings add nuance to the exploration between overqualification and employee outcomes in the overqualification literature. We add a moderator that alternates between mitigating and enhancing the effect on job dissatisfaction or income loss. Furthermore, we tackle the two relevant theories by showing that the lack of (literacy) skills does not affect the deprivation feelings equally (or not even at all) when considering OOQ or POQ.

Concerning relative income loss, we confirmed that when it is due to POQ, over-skilling reduces it and under-skilling increases it. As for overeducated individuals, the over-skilled receive a lower income than those who are not over-skilled, again challenging the supposed enhancing effects of educational attainment, as per human capital theory.

The simultaneous and yet separate consideration of all these aspects unveils that HR policies or practices that focus on only one aspect of employee overqualification might not understand its comprehensiveness and might not be fully able to tackle it. The skills mismatch does not compensate for or exacerbate the deprivation feelings due to OOQ, just as under-skilling does not compensate for the relative income loss caused by OOQ.

This paper also offers an unbiased measure of literacy mismatch and proficiency assessment, which was previously challenging (Flisi, Goglio, Meroni, Rodrigues & Vera-Toscano, 2014). Thereby, an employer could differentiate skills from education and from one's feeling of being overqualified when assessing the vertical job (mis)match of workers and job applicants.

Keywords: objective and subjective overqualification, moderator, skills, literacy

References:

1. Brynin, M. (2002). Overqualification in employment. Work, employment and society 16(4), pp. 637-654Liu, S., Luksyte, A., Zhou, L., Shi, J. & Wang, M. (2015). Overqualification and counterproductive work behaviours: Examining a moderated mediation model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 250-271.

2. Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N., Peiró, J. & Truxillo, D.M. (2011). Overqualification theory, research, and practice: Things that matter. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), pp. 260-267.
3. Flisi, S., Goglio, V., Meroni, E., Rodrigues, M. & Vera-Toscano, E. (2014). Occupational mismatch in Europe: Understanding overeducation and overskilling for policy making. JRC Science and Policy Report. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union.

4. Triana, M. D. C., Trzebiatowski, T. & Byun, S. Y. (2017). Lowering the threshold for feeling mistreated: Perceived overqualification moderates the effects of perceived age discrimination on job withdrawal and somatic symptoms. Human resources management 56 (6), 979-994.

Dr. Aleksandar Nikolovski's focal interest are employee competences and mismatches as well as human resources management in the professional armies.

Dr. Robert Kaše is a Professor of Management at the School of Economics of the University of Ljubljana, Department of Management and Organization, where he teaches various courses at the undergraduate, graduate, MBA and PhD level. His current research interests include social networks (relationships at work), strategic and international HRM, careers, and teamwork/emergence. Supporting interaction between research and practice he is an active member of the Slovenian HR Association, regular speaker at professional conferences, lecturer at executive trainings, and time-permitting works on applied projects, where he disseminates knowledge and learns from interesting organizations and talents.
Shuai Yuan

University of Amsterdam
s.yuan@uva.nl

Katrin Riisla

University of Amsterdam
k.l.a.riisla@uva.nl

In the realm of human resource management (HRM), understanding solid causal relationships is pivotal, not only for advancing theoretical frameworks but also for enhancing practical decision-making processes within organizations (Grosz et al., 2020; Foster, 2010). These relationships help address the challenges of the "replication crisis" (Shrout & Rodgers, 2018) and the "theory crisis" (Eronen & Bringman, 2021) by providing a rigorous basis for evidence-based HR practices (Hallsworth, 2023). Traditionally, the identification of causal relationships in HRM has relied heavily on controlled experiments. However, recent advancements have shown the feasibility of deriving structured causal insights from observational data (Rohrer, 2018; Rohrer et al., 2022; Deffner et al., 2022), a crucial development for HRM fields where randomized experiments may not always be possible.

A significant gap in HRM research is the systematic exploration of heterogeneity in causal effects, especially given the diverse nature of workforces and organizational contexts (Bolger et al., 2019). Understanding these variations is essential for developing more targeted and effective HR policies and interventions (Bryan et al., 2021; Yarkoni, 2022). Identifying such heterogeneities can lead to more nuanced theories of employee behavior and interaction, helping reconcile empirical inconsistencies and driving theoretical progress (Yarkoni, 2022). Furthermore, it facilitates the customization of HR interventions, ensuring they are optimally effective for different employee subgroups (Bryan et al., 2021; Davis & Heller, 2017). Addressing the challenge of presumed homogeneous causal effects, one might suggest categorizing employees into predefined subgroups based on observable characteristics like gender or nationality. However, this approach is often flawed: essential characteristics may be unavailable or insufficient for capturing meaningful causal effect variations; significant but 'hidden' subgroups might exist beyond these observable traits, as extensively documented in HRM literature; and reliance on such characteristics can encourage questionable research practices (e.g., p-hacking).

To bridge this methodological gap, we propose a comprehensive tutorial on the causal tree algorithm (Athey & Imbens, 2016), a robust and interpretable machine learning approach that has proven effective in other social sciences but remains underutilized in HRM. This tutorial aims to introduce HRM researchers to this innovative method, demonstrating its ability to uncover causal effect heterogeneity and identify critical 'hidden groups' within the workforce. The tutorial will encompass three parts: an accessible introduction to the causal tree algorithm, a step-by-step guide through its application in HRM research (including data partitioning, model training, and sensitivity analysis), and a discussion on practical considerations such as software choices and best practices. We will apply the causal tree to an open HR dataset, providing reproducible code in both R and Python, and pre-register our analysis to adhere to open science principles. By making all tutorial materials publicly available, we aim to foster a deeper understanding of causal analysis in HRM, enhancing both theoretical knowledge and practical HR decision-making.
Reference

1. Athey, S., & Imbens, G. (2016). Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 113(27), 7353-7360.

2. Bolger, N., Zee, K. S., Rossignac-Milon, M., & Hassin, R. R. (2019). Causal processes in psychology are heterogeneous. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 148(4), 601.

3. Brand, J. E., Xu, J., Koch, B., & Geraldo, P. (2021). Uncovering sociological effect heterogeneity using tree-based machine learning. *Sociological Methodology*, 51(2), 189-223.

4. Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E., & Yeager, D. S. (2021). Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. *Nature human behaviour*, 5(8), 980-989.

5. Davis, J. M., & Heller, S. B. (2017). Using causal forests to predict treatment heterogeneity: An application to summer jobs. *American Economic Review*, 107(5), 546-550.

6. Deffner, D., Rohrer, J. M., & McElreath, R. (2022). A causal framework for cross-cultural generalizability. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science*, 5(3), 25152459221106366.

7. Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 16(4), 779-788.

8. Foster, E. M. (2010). Causal inference and developmental psychology. *Developmental Psychology*, 46(6), 1454.

9. Foster, E. M. (2010). Causal inference and developmental psychology. *Developmental*

10. psychology, 46(6), 1454.

11. Grosz, M. P., Rohrer, J. M., & Thoemmes, F. (2020). The taboo against explicit causal inference in nonexperimental psychology. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 15(5), 1243-1255.

12. Hallsworth, M. (2023). A manifesto for applying behavioural science. *Nature Human Behaviour*, 7(3), 310-322.

13. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. *Psychological science*, 31(7), 770-780.

14. Rohrer, J. M. (2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. *Advances in methods and practices in psychological science*, 1(1), 27-42.

15. Rohrer, J. M., Hünermund, P., Arslan, R. C., & Elson, M. (2022). That's a lot to PROCESS! Pitfalls of popular path models. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science*, 5(2), 25152459221095827.

16. Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., Wang, M., Valero, D., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A

17. review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. *Journal of*

18. vocational behavior, 120, 103445.

19. Yarkoni, T. (2022). The generalizability crisis. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 45, e1.
This paper is based on recent literature on teams and follows the suggestions for advancing research by focusing on encouraging collaboration and following the flow of teams in organizations (Edmondson, 2012). It addresses the question of how managers can encourage members of an organization to “team up” into voluntary self-regulated teams that are focused on improving organizational processes. This paper presents a case study from the field of education (Likon, 2022) and draws on literature that examines teams and their implementation in professional learning communities within educational institutions (DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, 2008, DeFlaminis et al., 2016). The focus is on understanding this process through events (Pettigrew, 1997, Langley, 2013). For deeper understanding of the process, considering the alteration of relationships between teachers, the case history was written with a chronological order of events. The research was later upgraded by exploring the development of teaming as a network-changing process through studying connections between events drawing on research that explores business network development.

This paper reveals the paradox of time when analysis is focused on critical events and the sequence of events by studying only events that are pre-planned with an aim to trigger change in the formation of teams and relationships or to encourage a more intense and qualitative collaboration with organizational process improvements (in this case study: learning processes). The paper presents findings from non-traditional organizational research that draws on methodology and the analytical tool eNPA that was developed to better understand changes in business networks (Halinen et al., 2013). Employing this tool in the presented research shed light on the time paradox. Although the initial aim of the study was to explain the sequence of events during team development (and teaming) by identifying intentional critical events that consequently lead to team implementation and improvements within an organization over time (based on the linear version of time), the eNPA as a combination of the steering wheel, analytical scheme, and event trajectories can help track events over time and see beyond the predetermined path of predefined events and pre-planned data collection. The presented methods involve identifying and labeling the scope of events, which refers to the extent to which the researchers seek out and detect relevant events, and allowing informants to take the lead in searching for these events. The researcher can then create a view of the events and emerging processes at each point and later reconstruct this view through retrospective examination. By combining the chronological order of events, studying the connections between events, and employing an analytical scheme and event trajectories, it was possible to show how the process unfolded and how a combination of different critical events and influence factors affected the emergence or dissolution of teams and the alternation of relationships between members of the organization, resulting in more intensive collaboration among teachers.

Myllykoski and Rantakari (2018) addressed the temporality paradox and exposed the re-evaluation of the nature of intention in strategy-making, arguing that temporality should not be treated merely as an objective background or a subjective managerial orientation, but as a fundamental characteristic of processuality that defines the dynamics of strategy-making.
Adopting a moderate constructivist perspective, research considers teaming and events as parts of a socially constructed reality which are linked with the human perception of time. Our paper presents some findings that indicate the importance of the time paradox in the teaming process. First, the teaming process is not just a sequence of linearly connected events where an intentional critical event consequently leads to team implementation and improvements within an organization. It deals with the issue of a linear version of time that often leads further to the idea that time is chopped and that phenomena could be studied at different points in time. Rather, teaming is a multi-event process: a process in the making where events are connected and emerge at different levels. Second, the importance of events changes over time, especially when they are considered a socially constructed reality, which opens the question of whether the past is changing. Some events that were not initially planned as events that could trigger change were recurred and were retrospectively identified as critical events.

The study has practical implications for managers (in this case study: school principals) who should pay close attention to intentional and unintentional events. The findings of this study imply that school principals should be aware that over time events could be perceived differently and their previous relevance could change. Consequently, the development of the teaming process could be reinterpreted. The steering wheel builds on events and applies real-time analysis to construct the process by following it forward, and retrospective analysis to reconstruct the process by tracking it backwards.

Data was collected in real time over four school years, and in the last set of interviews the data was also gathered retrospectively. The teachers and principals perceived some events differently when asked retrospectively. The data was collected from 2014 through 2017 by conducting a total of 39 interviews, six with principals and 33 with subject teachers.

Keywords: teams, change, flow of teams, process, time paradox

## REFERENCES

1. DeFlaminis, J. A., Abdul-Jabbar, M., & Yoak, E. (2016). Distributed leadership in schools: A Practical guide for learning and improvement. Routledge.

3. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. E. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: new insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.

4. DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2012). Essentials for principals: The school leader's guide to professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree Press.

5. Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming how organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. Jossey-Bass.

6. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van De Ven, A. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.4001

7. Likon, B. (2022). Teacher Teaming as a Process of a Changing Network: Cross-case Analysis of Finnish and Slovenian Schools: Academic Dissertation. University of Oulu.

8. Myllykoski, J., & Rantakari, A. (2018). Eternal today: the temporality paradox in strategy-making. Dualities, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizational Life.

7. Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 337-348. doi:10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00020-1
EXPLORING EMPLOYEE AUTONOMY: TRACING THE ROOTS AND
CHARTING FUTURE STEPS THROUGH BIBLIOMETRIC DATA
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW

Ljupcho Eftimov, PhD

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Faculty of Economics – Skopje,
blvd. Goce Delcev 9V, 1000 Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
[ljupco.eftimov@eccf.ukim.edu.mk](mailto:ljupco.eftimov@eccf.ukim.edu.mk)

Violeta Cvetkoska, PhD

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Faculty of Economics – Skopje,
blvd. Goce Delcev 9V, 1000 Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
[vcvetkoska@eccf.ukim.edu.mk](mailto:vcvetkoska@eccf.ukim.edu.mk)

Bojan Kitanovikj, PhD student

(presenting author)

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Faculty of Economics – Skopje,
blvd. Goce Delcev 9V, 1000 Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
[bojan.kitanovikj@eccf.ukim.edu.mk](mailto:bojan.kitanovikj@eccf.ukim.edu.mk)

*Theoretical background* – Following the phenomena of the Great Resignation, quiet quitting, and ubiquitous remote work in post-COVID human resource management, researchers’ interest in employee autonomy has grown to an all-time high. Besides the growing scientific maturity of the field, the extent to which employees should enjoy autonomy in crafting their workload, choosing their work methods and workplace, and the impact on the work outcomes is not synthesized and open to debates (Clausen et al., 2022). The concept in the broadest sense can be defined as the level of freedom and discretion employees have in terms of their workplace autonomy, worktime autonomy, and methods autonomy (Kubicek et al., 2017).

*Purpose of study* – The purpose of this study is to uncover the inherent intellectual structure of the employee autonomy body of research, identify the most influential concepts, themes, and hotspots, and stress new paths for future research on the topic.

*Method* – The research is grounded in multitechnique bibliometric analysis, which is useful for obtaining a more objective, comprehensive, aerial view of a certain topic or research niche (Zupic & Cater, 2013). Descriptive bibliometric analysis, co-authorship analysis, and keyword co-occurrence bibliometric analysis are conducted. The data for carrying out the analysis was based on a keyword-based search query in the Scopus database of global quality research about articles published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals, written in English. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement is used for obtaining and cleaning data (Moher et al., 2015). The final dataset includes 1041 articles. Following the bibliometric analysis, a systematic literature review is presented through the prism of the invisible college framework. The framework helps us interpret the field's development across four phases from its origins in the 1950s until now (Vogel, 2012), including college transformation, drift, differentiation, and fusion.
*Findings* – More than 900 articles detailing employee autonomy have been published since 2010, which is nine times more than in all years before 2010 combined. Moreover, the findings focused on tracing the evolutionary development of the field point out a few core themes such as benefits of employee autonomy, job satisfaction and well-being, environmental context, motivation, employee behavior, organizational psychology, work organization, leadership, digitalization, and job performance. Connected to this, the output of the keyword co-occurrence analysis resulted in a visual network map of 10 interconnected clusters of keywords from the vast research landscape on employee autonomy. Subsequently, five distinct paths for future research endeavors are outlined.

*Theoretical contribution* – This is one of the first bibliometric analyses on employee autonomy as a testament to its originality. To date, published research has focused mainly on determining various relationships between employee autonomy and other organizational phenomena, and assessing its influences on employee well-being, work-life balance, job performance, and work outcomes (Muecke & Iseke, 2019). Additionally, several meta-literature reviews exist on the topic, yet are predominantly partial and focused on specific relationships between constructs (Khoshnaw & Alavi, 2020) or are in turn industry specific (Pursio et al., 2021). This represented an additional motivation for the researchers to carry out the research as a way of presenting an overarching aerial view of this concept through bibliometric analysis. Additionally, the systematic literature review grounded in the invisible college framework is an innovative theoretical presentation in this field.

*Practical implications* – The findings have the potential to benefit policymakers, practitioners, and the academic community as crucial stakeholders in the field. Namely, policymakers can benefit from these findings when regulating unionization and forms of increased employee participation to further democratize workplaces. Additionally, practitioners and the academic community can benefit from the synthesized findings when choosing fields for new research and further cross-pollination with other managerial concepts.

**Keywords:** Employee autonomy; Job autonomy; Bibliometric review; Keyword co-occurrence analysis

References:

1. Clausen, T., Pedersen, L.R.M., Andersen, M.F., Theorell, T. & Madsen, I.E. 2022. Job autonomy and psychological well-being: A linear or a non-linear association?. *European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology*, 31(3): 395-405.

2. Khoshnaw, S. & Alavi, H. 2020. Examining the interrelation between job autonomy and job performance: A critical literature review. *Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering*, 3(1): 606-616.

3. Kubicek, B., Paškvan, M. & Bunner, J. 2017. The bright and dark sides of job autonomy. Job demands in a changing world of work: Impact on workers' health and performance and implications for research and practice: 45-63.

4. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L.A. & Prisma-P Group, 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. *Systematic reviews*, 4: 1-9.

5. Muecke, S. & Iseke, A. 2019, July. How does job autonomy influence job performance? A meta-analytic test of theoretical mechanisms. In *Academy of management*
*proceedings* (Vol. 2019, No. 1, p. 14632). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

6. Pursio, K., Kankkunen, P., Sanner-Stiehr, E. & Kvist, T. 2021. Professional autonomy in nursing: An integrative review. *Journal of Nursing Management*, 29(6): 1565-1577.

7. Vogel, R. 2012. The visible colleges of management and organization studies: A bibliometric analysis of academic journals. *Organization Studies*, 33(8): 1015-1043.

8. Zupic, I. & Cater, T. 2013. Bibliometric methods in management and organization: A review. In *Academy of Management Proceedings* (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 13426). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
# ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME? THE EFFECT OF EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTION OF SUPERVISORS' VIRTUAL LISTENING ON HIGH TECH EMPLOYEES' TURNOVER BEHAVIOUR DURING THE COVID-9 PANDEMIC IN ISRAEL

## Limor Kessler Ladelsky

The Academic Center for Law and Science

The Faculty of Management

The Master on Business Administration (MBA) Dept.

Hod Hasharon, Israel

Bar Ilan University. The Management Dept.

Ramat Gan, Israel

Authors' information- Assistant professor (Senior faculty)

### Purpose

The goal of this paper is to examine whether high-tech supervisors' virtual listening, as evaluated by their IT professional employees, affects turnover behavior beyond a novel constellation of variables, some of which have never been researched as antecedents of turnover behavior, particularly during a pandemic or crisis. Virtual listening refers to the process of actively hearing and understanding another person's communication through digital means. It also encompasses the practice of using digital communication technologies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of virtual listening as many businesses and organizations have shifted to remote work, particularly in the IT sector. It seems likely that telecommuting/remote working may become a primary means of employment in the post-pandemic period. Therefore, the effect of virtual listening skills on the turnover behavior of high-tech employees is expected to be relevant in the post-pandemic period.

### Design/methodology/approach

Logistic regression analysis was employed to examine the hypotheses via SPSS 26 and PROCESS (model 6). The variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated to test for multicollinearity. Interaction was tested using the Hayes and Preacher PROCESS macro model. The researchers also used the J-N technique test (Johnson – Neyman via process). The supplemental analysis also used PROCESS MACRO (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States, 2023) model 4 and Bootstrap test.

### Main Findings

The findings show that perceptions of supervisors' virtual listening quality as evaluated by their employees moderated the organizational deviance as a type of organizational misbehavior and turnover behavior relationship and had the strongest effect on turnover behavior beyond other key predictors (organizational deviance as a type of misbehavior, turnover intention, job satisfaction, embeddedness, and alternatives in the labor market). Alternatives to current work moderated the correlation between perceptions of managers' virtual listening as evaluated by their employees and turnover behavior. Specifically, when alternatives in the labor market were high or medium, the perceived quality of managers' virtual listening reduced turnover behavior. Ultimately, the perception of the IT employees' managers' virtual listening moderated the relationship between organizational deviance and turnover intention among engineers in the high-tech sector.
Implication to practice

High-tech supervisors' virtual listening, as evaluated by their IT professional employees, significantly impacts turnover behavior in high-technology firms. General supervisors in high-tech firms and technology supervisors should learn how to listen to their IT employees. High-tech companies should invest in coaching and training their IT employees' supervisors to be excellent listeners and to be perceived and presented as good listeners by their professional IT employees. If supervisors listen professionally to their IT employees in the high-tech sector, employees who misbehave will tend to leave the organization. Thus, this actual turnover (voluntary turnover) in high-tech firms can be considered positive and can prevent negative consequences for the firm.

Originality/value

Evaluating supervisor listening in high-tech firms may have value in terms of its impact on outcomes such as retaining IT employees, intent to leave, and especially actual turnover/turnover behavior. The effect on turnover behavior and of that new constellation of antecedents on turnover behavior when people work remotely has not been researched until now and is therefore very important for the post-COVID-19 era. Additionally, in contrast to most studies of turnover, this research also focuses on the positive facets of turnover and especially turnover behavior to organizations in general and specifically to high-tech firms, not just the negative aspects that have been researched until now.

A further contribution is the finding that when employees perceive their managers' virtual listening quality as high, the effect of deviance as a type of OMB (Organizational Misbehavior) on turnover behavior is positive. Specifically, listening as a moderator and turnover assisted in making the organization cleaner from inappropriate behavior. Additionally, when alternatives in the labor market are high or medium, the perceived quality of virtual listening by managers, as rated by their employees, can reduce turnover behavior. This virtual listening–turnover relationship and the moderator of alternatives to current work had not previously been found in the turnover literature, making this a significant contribution to the turnover and withdrawal literature.

Keywords Turnover intention, Deviance, Embeddedness, high tech voluntary turnover, Turnover behavior, Virtual listening
Didion, Eva; Perello-Marin, Maria Rosario; Ambrosius, Ute; Català Pérez, Daniel

a Ansbach University of Applied Sciences, Department of Business Administration;
Universitat Politècnica de València,

Doctoral Program in Business Management and Administration, 0000-0002-4185-8666,
(eva didion@hs-ansbach.de)

b Universitat Politècnica de València. Dept. Organizacion de Empresas. Spain. 0000-0001-9183-0568

(rperell@upvnet.upv.es)

c Ansbach University of Applied Sciences, Department of Business Administration, 0000-0001-6979-2112

(ute.ambrosius@hs-ansbach.de)

d Universitat Politècnica de València. Dept. Organizacion de Empresas. Spain. 0000-0001-5042-0239

(dacapre@ade.upv.es)

Eva Didion is a PhD student in the Doctoral Program in Business Management and Administration at the Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain). She will present the paper at the SAM conference in Belgrade.

**Keywords**

Organizational Socialization, Onboarding, Paradox Theory, Virtuality, Virtual Work, Virtual Organizational Socialization

**The Paradox of Virtual Organizational Socialization**

This conceptual article advances the discussion on Organizational Socialization (OS) by combining existing knowledge on OS and virtual work. We show that virtuality is a paradox and derive a model of virtual OS in the New Normal.

**Theoretical background**

Drawing on paradox theory, introduced by Lewis (2000), several authors have identified virtuality as a paradox phenomenon (Cousins et al., 2007; Dube & Robey, 2009; Gibbs, 2009; Purvanova & Kenda, 2018, 2022). Contrary to the predominant negative view of virtuality for teamwork, they propose a balanced view of the opportunities and challenges that come with virtuality (Purvanova & Kenda, 2022). Research on OS so far has mainly viewed virtuality as a threat to successful newcomer adjustment (Gruman & Saks, 2018; Wesson & Gogus, 2005). The virtuality-as-paradox perspective (Purvanova & Kenda, 2022), however, might be helpful to give justice to the complexity of the multiple effects of virtual work.

**Purpose of the paper**

We move the discussion on OS in the New Normal forward by developing a model of four types of onboarding tactics organizations choose based on their degree of digitalization and virtuality.

**Findings**

Virtuality is defined by technology dependence and geographic dispersion (Raghuram et al.,
2019). It simultaneously leads to challenges and opportunities for the OS of new employees. By conceiving virtual work as a paradox, virtual onboarding strategies can evolve by applying the principles of paradox management. Paradox theory states that in order to take advantage of the power of paradox, organizations need to find a synergy between the opposing poles of paradoxical tensions (Purvanova & Kenda, 2018).

## Paradox of Technology Dependence

Purvanova and Kenda (2018) describe the technology dependence paradox for virtual leadership, which can also be applied to virtual OS. Technology use enables newcomers to use large amounts of data during the onboarding process, which can be enriching and overwhelming at the same time. To make use of the information richness that digital technology can offer newcomers, it may be helpful to curate information for newcomers and deliver information via digital learning tools. Artificial Intelligence, in the form of chatbots that answer newcomers' questions, might help address the tension of technology dependence.

## Paradox of Employee Relationships

Virtual onboarding challenges relationship-building among colleagues as well as with supervisors. At the same time, it reduces hostility in the workplace, such as harassment, intimidation, or bullying (Jackowska & Lauring, 2021; Sani et al., 2022). To synergize the relationship tension, onboarding practices should be designed to encourage informal communication. At the same time, measures should be implemented to keep interactions professional (Purvanova & Kenda, 2018).

## Paradox of Tacit Knowledge Sharing

With fewer opportunities to observe peers and supervisors and face-to-face communication, tacit knowledge is hard for newcomers to grasp in a virtual setting (Golden & Raghuram, 2010; Nonaka et al., 2000; Russo et al., 2023). On the contrary, mobile technology and virtual platforms offer new opportunities for tacit knowledge sharing (Sial et al., 2023). Digital tools and platforms like corporate social media, cloud-based document sharing, or teamwide visible threads instead of email communication might synergize this tension by making work and structures more transparent and accessible for newcomers.

## Paradox of Task Interdependence

Task interdependence indicates how much a person depends on others to do their job successfully (Wageman, 1995). Virtual team research shows mixed results regarding the effect of task interdependence on team functioning. It positively affects motivation, team learning, and creativity and, in contrast, hinders coordination processes in virtual teams by requiring more communication (Handke et al., 2020). Furthermore, task interdependence positively affects information seeking, a widely recognized factor of newcomer adjustment (Major & Kozlowski, 1997). Assigning newcomers to tasks that oblige them to work with other organizational members right after starting their new job might be especially beneficial in virtual environments. Later on, working from home might lead to higher performance with less task interdependence (Golden & Gajendran, 2019).

## Discussion

By looking at digitalization and virtuality, a typology of organizations' path to digital
onboarding can be explored. First, there is the avoidant type: organizations that – maybe after negative experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic – choose socialization tactics that take place face-to-face and do not make use of technology. They try to avoid virtual work and may take back working-from-home arrangements. Second, there are organizations offering virtual work but not adapting their onboarding practices (stagnant). Those organizations will experience negative effects on newcomer adjustment as described by Gruman and Saks (2018). Third, organizations may be low in dispersion, but at the same time, use technology intensively when socializing their new employees (digital). They take advantage of digital onboarding tools albeit offering remote work only sparsely. Finally, some organizations embrace virtual work and implement digital technology for their onboarding strategy (synergistic). In doing so, they will take advantage of digital technology and virtual work to the benefit of their organization.

## Approaches of Virtual Organizational Socialization

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Approaches of Virtual OS based on the conceptual model from Purvanova and Kenda (2018)</figcaption></figure>

### Theoretical contribution

This conceptual article aims to bring the discussion on virtual OS forward by moving from the debate about the effect of virtuality on OS to the discussion about how virtual OS can be managed. The integration of paradox theory into the debate elucidates the complex nature of virtuality, emphasizing the simultaneous challenges and opportunities it poses on OS. The paradoxes we identified – technology dependence, employee relationships, tacit knowledge sharing, and task interdependence – provide a framework for understanding the complexity of virtual OS. This theoretical foundation can guide future research in exploring the dynamics of virtual OS and its impact of newcomer adjustment and socialization outcomes such as organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and performance.

### Practical implications

On a practical level, our model provides companies with a typology of onboarding tactics based on their level of digitalization and virtuality. The four types – avoidant, stagnant, digital, and synergistic – offer practical insights for organizations to overcome the challenges of OS in the New Normal. By recognizing the inherent paradoxes of virtual work, organizations can take a
synergistic approach that leverages the benefits of technology while addressing the challenges
through tailored onboarding strategies.

References

1. Cousins, K. C., Robey, D., & Zigurs, I. (2007). Managing strategic contradictions in hybrid teams. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 460–478. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000692

2. Dube, L., & Robey, D. (2009). Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Information Systems Journal, 19(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00313.x

3. Gibbs, J. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team: Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations, 62(6), 905–935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709104547

4. Golden, T. D., & Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Unpacking the Role of a Telecommuter's Job in Their Performance: Examining Job Complexity, Problem Solving, Interdependence, and Social Support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9530-4

5. Golden, T. D., & Raghuram, S. (2010). Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological interactions: TELEWORKER KNOWLEDGE SHARING. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1061–1085. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.652

6. Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2018). E-SOCIALIZATION: The Problems and the Promise of Socializing Newcomers in the Digital Age. In J. H. Dulebohn & D. L. Stone (Hrsg.), Brave New World Of EHRM 2.0 (S. 111–139). Information Age Publishing-IAP.

7. Handke, L., Klonek, F. E., Parker, S. K., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Interactive Effects of Team Virtuality and Work Design on Team Functioning. Small Group Research, 51(1), 3–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419863490

8. Jackowska, M., & Lauring, J. (2021). What are the effects of working away from the workplace compared to using technology while being at the workplace? Assessing work context and personal context in a global virtual setting. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2021.100826

9. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760. https://doi.org/10.2307/259204 Major, D., & Kozlowski, S. (1997). Newcomer information seeking: Individual and contextual influences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00042

10. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Uni®ed Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33.

11. Purvanova, R. K., & Kenda, R. (2018). Paradoxical Virtual Leadership: Reconsidering Virtuality Through a Paradox Lens. Group and Organization Management, 43(5), 752–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118794102

12. Purvanova, R. K., & Kenda, R. (2022). The impact of virtuality on team effectiveness in organizational and non-organizational teams: A meta-analysis. Applied Psychology, 71(3), 1082–1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12348

13. Raghuram, S., Hill, N. S., Gibbs, J. L., & Maruping, L. M. (2019). Virtual Work: Bridging Research Clusters. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 308–341. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0020

14. Russo, M., Morandin, G., & Manca, C. (2023). How Can Organizations Improve Virtual Onboarding? Key Learnings from the Pandemic. In S. Bergum, P. Peters, & T. Vold
(Hrsg.), Virtual Management and the New Normal (S. 203–221). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06813-3_11

15. Sani, K. F., Adisa, T. A., Adekoya, O. D., & Oruh, E. S. (2022). Digital onboarding and employee outcomes: Empirical evidence from the UK. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2021-1528

16. Sial, M. A., Paul, Z. I., Rafiq, Z., & Abid, G. (2023). Does mobile technology shape employee socialization and enable tacit knowledge sharing in public sector organizations. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(3), 100089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100089

17. Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative science quarterly, 145–180.

18. Wesson, M. J., & Gogus, C. I. (2005). Shaking Hands With a Computer: An Examination of Two Methods of Organizational Newcomer Orientation. Journal of Applied

19. Psychology, 90(5), 1018–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.1018
Nebojša Janićijević

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Economics

Mia Kotarac

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Economics

Operating in circumstances of globalization, technological development, political changes, and unforeseen disruptive events such as pandemics and war, modern companies are forced to undergo frequent organizational changes. However, organizational changes are expensive, risky, and related to many negative consequences for the organization and its members. Therefore, company management strives to conduct them quickly and efficiently and approaches them systematically and deliberately.

Planned organizational changes (POCs) are a set of deliberate activities undertaken by the company's management to move the organization from its present state to a desired future state (Stouten et al., 2018). POCs are very complex and involve many activities and participants and occur in constantly changing conditions, so their success is highly questionable. According to some studies, only one-third of the POC projects are successful (Jarrel, 2017).

This paper explores another reason for complexity and relative failure of POCs – the paradoxical nature of these changes (Lewis, 2000). Paradoxes occur when individually rational and necessary activities, emotions, and ideas counteract each other when implemented together (Handy, 1994), and they force management to balance contradictory demands. This complicates and slows down the change process and reduces the likelihood of its success, because it depends on the management’s ability to balance between paradoxical demands.

This paper aims to highlight the importance of paradox in implementing POCs and to identify some of these paradoxes. The most popular POC models will be synthesized and grouped into main activities that the company management should perform to efficiently implement POC. Next, we will identify paradoxical demands in these activities, and then suggest how to resolve these paradoxes.

Literature identifies many POC models (Stouten et al., 2018; Rosenbaum, 2018; Siddiqui, 2017; Teczke et al., 2017). They all contain steps, or groups of activities that should be undertaken in a specific order to successfully implement POCs. According to one of the best reviews of POC models (Stouten et al., 2018), the most cited models in WoS and the most googled models are: Beer et al.’s (1996) Six Step Model, Kotter’s (1996) Eight Step Model, Judson’s (1991) Five Stage Model, Kanter, et al.’s (1992) Ten Commandments, Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider, Srivastva, 1987), ADKAR model (Hiatt, 2006). We would also add Nadler’s (1997) 12 Action Step Model and Penedleebury et al.’s (1998) Ten Key Model. Finally, the first-signed author of this paper has created his own Ten Step Model (Janićijević, 2008).

Even a cursory review of these POC models implies that they are similar and largely overlapping. This is because they are all based on the same model: Lewin’s “unfreezing – moving – refreezing” model. Lewin’s seminal work (1952) laid the foundations for all subsequent thoughts on what the process of POCs should look like.
The relative similarity of POC models enables their synthesis and we have concluded that all the activities that management should undertake to implement POCs may be grouped into five large groups: 1. initiation of changes; 2. shaping the future; 3. dealing with people; 4. implementing; 5. legitimization and institutionalization of changes. These groups of activities vary in nature and character. They are arranged more or less chronologically, although their overlapping is possible. Initiation of changes involves the often-cited building top management awareness of the necessity and urgency of changes, overcoming inertia, diagnosing opportunities or problems that cause changes, and building a team to lead the changes. The second major group of activities involves shaping the image of the desired organization through creating a vision, communicating the vision, and planning changes. The third group of activities involves dealing with people: motivating change, empowerment, managing emotions, handling power, gaining participation, and identifying and overcoming resistance to change. The fourth group involves change implementation along with monitoring, communicating, and facilitating changes. The fifth group of activities involves stabilizing changes to ensure their long-term sustainability, which includes their legitimization (incorporating into corporate culture) and institutionalization (incorporating into structure and systems). In each group of POC, there are certain paradoxes that complicate their implementation.

In initiation of changes, there is the paradox of unfreezing. To create awareness of the necessity and urgency of changes, company management must disavow and destroy the existing state and functioning of the organization, and at the same time provide its normal functioning during changes, avoid dissatisfaction, fear, and self-discreditation.

In shaping the future, there is the paradox of vision. To be compelling and desirable to a wide range of stakeholders, the vision must not be detailed, and technical. But, to be a clear picture of the future that leads changes, the vision must clearly depict the future state of the organization and contain a description of the key elements of the future organization's state.

In dealing with people, there is the paradox of behavior. Management must discourage and invalidate the existing behavior of employees and indicate to them that their previous behavior at work is unacceptable. On the other hand, management must provide psychological safety for employees, informing them that they will not be blamed for the current unsatisfactory state of the organization.

In implementing changes, there is the paradox of autonomy and control. Management should provide employees with autonomy in carrying out change activities, as this releases their creative energy, motivates them to accept changes, and eliminates resistance to change. On the other hand, employees need to be provided with leadership and control from the top to make their activities during changes purposeful and coordinated.

In the final phase of change, there is the paradox of cultural change. Management must change corporate culture so it would legitimize the changes made. On the other hand, implementing changes that are completely inconsistent with the existing culture is almost impossible.

Resolving these paradoxes during POCs is very difficult, but not impossible. To resolve them, management must balance contradictory demands by simultaneously performing mutually opposing activities, which require ambidextrous ability.
The paper's theoretical contribution is in highlighting the significance and role of paradoxes in POC models. The practical contribution consists in raising awareness among company managers that implementing changes contains a series of paradoxes, and that successful implementation of POCs will require meeting contradictory demands.

Key words: organization, organizational change, planned organizational change, paradox

References

1. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs do not produce change. *Harvard Business Review*, 68: 158–166.

2. Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). *Appreciative inquiry in organizational life*. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), *Research in organizational change and development*: 129–169. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

3. Handy, C. (1994). *The Age of Paradox*. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

4. Hiatt, J.M. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community: How to implement successful change in our personal lives and professional careers. Loveland, CO: Prosci Learning Center Publications.

5. Janićijević, N. (2008). *Upravljanje organizacionim promenama*. Beograd: Ekonomski fakultet.

6. Jarrel, T. (2017). *Success factors for implementing change at scale*. New York: McKinsey & Co Presentation, Behavioral Science & Policy Association.

7. Judson, A. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

8. Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. *New York: Free Press*.

9. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. *Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press*.

10. Lewin, K. (1952). Selected theoretical papers. London: Tavistock.

11. Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. *Academy of Management Review*, 25(4), 760-76.

12. Nadler, D.A. (1997). Champions of Change: How CEOs and their Companies are Mastering the Skills of Radical Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

13. Pendlebury, J., Grouard, B., & Meston, F. (1998). *The Ten Keys to Successful Change Management*. London: John Wiley & Sons.

14. Rosenbaum, D., More, E., Steane, P. (2018). Planned organizational change management: Forward to the past? An exploratory literature review. *Journal of Organizational Change Management*, 31(2), 286-303.
15. Siddiqui, S.T. (2017). A critical review of change management strategies and models. *International Journal of Advanced Research*. 5(4), 670-676.

16. Stouten, J., Rousseau, D.M. De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. *Academy of Management Annals*, 12(2), 752–788.

17. Teczke, M., Bespayeva, R.S., Bugubayeva, R.O. (2017). Approaches and models for change management. *Jagiellonian Journal of Management*, 3(3), 195–208.
Dragana Mitrić - Aćimović, Ivana Jošanov-Vrgović, Jelena Đorđević Boljanović, Filip
Đoković, Duško Petrović, Marija Popović

Faculty of Organizational Studies “Eduka”, Belgrade

Introduction

Creating an organizational environment conducive to innovation and supportive of creativity stands as a pivotal responsibility for leaders grappling with dynamic business landscapes and escalating challenges in the VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) world. However, this task often faces setbacks, with organizational efforts frequently resembling what Viki (2020) describes as "innovation theater," despite substantial resource allocations. Such outcomes stem from various factors, with leadership behavior, management processes, personnel competencies, and organizational culture and values emerging as primary sources of concern (Loewe & Dominiquini, 2006). This study focuses on the leader's role as a principal role model and primary decision-maker, shedding light on potential inadvertent obstruction of team innovation efforts amidst stressful business conditions. It examines detrimental practices through the lens of five Transactional Analysis (TA) drivers and their resulting characteristic work styles (Hay, 2009, 2013): Be Perfect, Be Strong, Please Others, Try Hard, and Hurry Up. In TA theory, drivers exhibit a compulsive nature under stress, representing an individual's efforts to garner environmental approval, thereby diminishing the leader's autonomy in behavior choices concerning innovation endeavors and expectations of team members. For instance, a leader predominantly driven by perfectionism may, under competitive pressure and other stressors, establish unrealistically high innovation demands on colleagues, leading to potential frustration. Despite their drawbacks, drivers can offer certain business benefits (Klein, 1987), and this paper explores their potential advantages in fostering innovation.

The purpose of the paper

This paper aims to deepen the understanding of a leader's role in facilitating the seamless progression of the innovation process. It seeks to examine leadership behavior through the lenses of Transactional Analysis (TA) and the theory of drivers, offering insights into the somewhat contradictory behavior of leaders. On one hand, leaders are expected to promote innovation, while on the other hand, they may exhibit disruptive behaviors such as hastening innovation processes, demanding flawless business plans and prototypes from innovators, utilizing inadequate "hard" motivation techniques, failing to reassess ideas from team members, and persisting with unprofitable projects despite clear indicators. Additionally, this paper seeks to introduce the business community to the concept of TA drivers and elucidate their significance.

Method

The paper is grounded in a theoretical review and an empirical analysis of practical insights regarding the factors contributing to innovation failure. This analysis is conducted through the lens of Transactional Analysis (TA) drivers and the resultant work styles.
## Results

The paper posits that a leader exhibiting a work style stemming from any of the aforementioned drivers may impede the innovation process of team members. It further argues the adverse impact of the Be Perfect and Be Strong drivers. Additionally, the paper highlights potential positive effects of leader drivers on the innovation process.

## Contribution

By highlighting the unconscious processes within leaders and their detrimental effects on the organizational innovation process, this paper contributes to the delineation of leader development and the mitigation of certain organizational barriers to innovation.

## Practical implications

The practical implications encompass discussions regarding personal growth areas and leader development, as well as recommendations for mitigating undesirable behaviors in high-stress contexts. The paper delineates messages and actions that can facilitate a "liberating" effect for leaders and their teams, thereby enhancing innovation processes and collaboration within the team. Moreover, the practical implications extend to counseling and educating employees to enhance their productivity and innovation capabilities.

Key words: innovations, innovations, organization, leader, TA drivers, transactional analysis

## References

1. Gibson, D. L. (2005). Hurdling Creativity Barriers: A Top-Down Approach for Encouraging Innovation in the Workplace. *Leadership Advance Online*, *5*. Pristupljeno 26.02.2024. na: [https://www.regent.edu/journal/leadership-advance-online/hurdling-creativity-barriers-encouraging-workplace-innovation/](https://www.regent.edu/journal/leadership-advance-online/hurdling-creativity-barriers-encouraging-workplace-innovation/)

2. Hay, J. (2009). *Transactional Analysis for Trainers*. Hertford: Sherwood Publishing

3. Hay, J. (2013). *Drivers – and Working Styles - an Essay*. Pristupljeno 26.02.2024. na: [https://juliehay.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/drivers_working_stlyes_-_an_essay.pdf](https://juliehay.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/drivers_working_stlyes_-_an_essay.pdf)

4. Klein, M. (1987). How to Be Happy Though Human. *Transactional Analysis Journal*, *17*(4),152-162.

5. Loewe, P. and Dominiquini, J. (2006), "Overcoming the barriers to effective innovation", *Strategy & Leadership*, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 24-31. [https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570610637858](https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570610637858)

6. Viki, T. (2020). What is innovation theater? *Forbes*. Pristupljeno 26.02.2024. na: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/tendayiviki/2020/05/24/what-is-innovation-theater/?sh=955836c6894f](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tendayiviki/2020/05/24/what-is-innovation-theater/?sh=955836c6894f)
**Jelena Uzelac Vasic**, PhD Student Faculty of Economics and Business University of Rijeka
Ivana Filipovića 4 Rijeka, Croatia
e-mail: [jelenauzelac@gmail.com](mailto:jelenauzelac@gmail.com)

## Theoretical background

In the last decade, one of the most dynamic streams in strategic management literature has been the business ecosystem (BE) and its evolution in times of complexity, uncertainty, and unpredictable external pressures. Parallel with gradually increasing scientific and practical research on this subject year by year (Yoon et al., 2022), the managed BE organizational form grew up in the paradigmatic innovation industry of the late 20th century: the high-technology computer business (Moore, 2006). Still, there is a significant research gap in the BE literature. On the other side, many managers still struggle with the broad scope of the concept, unclear definitions, and the lack of practical advice.

## Purpose of the study

With the primary aim of identifying and understanding critical areas that are affected by and connected with the BE concept and identifying different approaches from which the BE is analyzed, a structured literature review (SLR) was conducted.

## Method

To take stock of empirical prior research on BE, an SLR was guided by a multistep process. The choice of databases was led by the frequency of using concrete databases in bibliometric studies in management and organization, including Web of Science (WOS) as the most frequently used database in strategic management studies, Google Scholar, and Scopus. All publications from 2000-2023 were included to capture the latest development of the study, as well as articles from key authors from 1993-2000. The search was limited to articles containing business ecosystem(s) in the title, abstract, keywords, and a deeper analysis of the abstracts and the first part of the articles. Such a list included 120 articles written in English, only from strategic management, innovation, and technology fields. This paper summarized the main findings through the following dimensions: the *fundamental concept of BE empirical studies* and *future research areas*.

## Key Findings

Analysis of the literature revealed that the concept has been researched from various approaches:

* grounded theory and concept meaning (Moore, 1993; Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Teece, 2007; Adner and Kapoor, 2010);

* innovation, circular economy, ecology, sustainability, collaborative networks, open systems digital enterprise architecture, platforms, and business models (Espina-Romero et al., 2023);

* stakeholders and BE members' relation (Yu et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2014; Wieniger et al., 2020; Awano et al., 2022; Yoon et al., 2022);

* strategy and performance (Iansiti and Levien, 2004; den Hartigh et al., 2013);

* capabilities and mindset needed for the BE (Riquelme-Medina et al., 2022). This could be explained by the evolving phase of the concept and the lack of standardized terminology and approach.
The topics of the majority of empirical BE studies can be divided into three segments and phases:

* BE members, roles, and connections – mostly from 2000 to 2010 (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Thomas & Autio, 2014; Peltoniemi et al. 2004);

* BE health and performance – mostly from 2000 to 2006 (den Hartigh et al., 2023; Iansiti & Levien, 2004);

* Capabilities and resources essential for BE – mostly from 2010 to 2023 (Foss et al. 2023; Ramezani et al. 2019; Riquelme-Medina et al., 2022; Riquelme-Medina et al., 2023; Teece et al. 2016; Teece, 2017; Thomas & Autio, 2014; Williamson et al., 2012; Wulf et al. 2017).

The increasing number of empirical BE studies in the last decade may be connected to the fact that critical elements of those studies are the capabilities essential for success: collaborative learning, knowledge sharing, resilience, antifragility, collaboration, coopetition, absorptive capacity, agility, embeddedness, and ecosystem leadership capabilities. Looking through the lens of DC theory, all capabilities mentioned are essential for addressing complex changing environments, such as business ecosystems. It can be concluded that DC is the main topic of the current BE literature.

When it comes to the future research areas that BE navigates, the main conclusion from SLR can be summarized in three aspects:

* More papers and authors on BE concept understanding – from 1993 to 2005;

* More firm-level empirical analysis and standardization in terminology and framework – from 2006 to 2015;

* More empirical studies, identification, and understanding of essential capabilities for BE member's success – from 2018 to 2023.

During the entire period analyzed within this SLR, there is a call for more empirical studies, particularly on the firm level. In terms of the subjects that future studies should cover, the most novel and relevant articles show that identification, understanding, and measurement scales of DC are the research areas that will contribute the most to the theoretical and practical world of the BE environment.

The parallel view on the BE concept, through the perspective of the evolution of strategic management, leads toward the same conclusion. Considering three dominant theoretical strategy approaches (Teece et al., 1997), and their assumptions toward environmental certainty and complexity, it can be concluded that approaches changed orientation from external to ecosystem environment over time. The dominant approach in the 1980s – The Five Forces model, focused on positioning their customers, suppliers, and existing or potential competitors, and little guidance was provided to managers concerning what resources they needed to compete (Teece, 2023). The resource-based view (RBV) focused on the internal environment only (Peteraf, 1993). Dynamic capabilities theory started with a 1997 study and is one of the two most cited papers on the economy and business. It primarily focuses on the entire ecosystem (internal and external) environments, creating the point of alignment between the BE and DC theory.

## Theoretical and practical implications

The presented conclusions identified and shed light on the most essential concepts and areas connected with the BE concept. They also identified relevant authors and papers, offering stimulus and guidelines for further research in the BE area. Since this paper is a segment of more extensive PhD research that aims to examine the strategy, capabilities, and performance of firm members of business ecosystems through the novel framework, it contributed as a confirmation and guide for developing the PhD research design.
LITERATURE

1. Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2010) ‘Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations’, Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), pp. 306–333. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.821.

2. Awano, H. and Tsujimoto, M. (2022) ‘Mechanisms for Business Ecosystem Members to Capture Value through the Strong Network Effect’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(18). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811595.

3. Bogers, M., Sims, J. and West, J. (2019) ‘What Is an Ecosystem? Incorporating 25 Years of Ecosystem Research’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019(1), p. 11080. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2019.11080abstract.

4. Espina-Romero, L. et al. (2022) ‘What Are the Topics That Business Ecosystems Navigate? Updating of Scientific Activity and Future Research Agenda’, Sustainability (Switzerland). MDPI. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316224.

5. Espina-Romero, L.C., Guerrero-Alcedo, J.M. and Ossio, C. (2023) ‘7 topics that business ecosystems navigate: Assessment of scientific activity and future research agenda’, Heliyon, 6(9). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16667.

6. Foss, N.J., Schmidt, J. and Teece, D.J. (2023) ‘Ecosystem leadership as a dynamic capability’, Long Range Planning, 56(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102270.

7. den Hartigh, E. et al. (2013) ‘Measuring the health of a business ecosystem’, Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry, pp. 221–246. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781955628.00020.

8. Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004) ‘Strategy as Ecology’, Harward Business Review, 82(3), pp. 68–78.

9. Lu, C. et al. (2014) ‘Business ecosystem and stakeholders’ role transformation: Evidence from Chinese emerging electric vehicle industry’, Expert Systems with Applications, 41(10), pp. 4579–4595. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.01.026.

10. Moore, J.F. (1993) ‘Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition’, Harward Business Review, 71(3), pp. 75–86.

11. Moore, J.F. (2006) ‘Business Ecosystems and the View from the Firm’, Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1), pp. 31–75. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X0605100103.

12. Peltoniemi, M. and Vuori, E.K. (2004) ‘Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments’, in M. Seppä et al. (eds) Frontiers of E-Business Research. Tampere: University of Tampere, pp. 267–281.

13. Peteraf, M.A. (1993) The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View, Strategic Management Journal. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html.

14. Ramezani, J. and Camarinha-Matos, L.M. (2020) ‘Approaches for resilience and antifragility in collaborative business ecosystems’, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 151. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119846.

15. Riquelme-Medina, M. et al. (2022) ‘Coopetition in business Ecosystems: The key role of absorptive capacity and supply chain agility’, Journal of Business Research, 146, pp. 464–476. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.071.

16. Riquelme-Medina, M. et al. (2023) ‘Business ecosystem embeddedness to enhance supply chain competence: the key role of external knowledge capacities’, Production Planning and Control, 34(7), pp. 658–675. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1951389.

17. Rong, K. et al. (2015) ‘Understanding business ecosystem using a 6C framework in Internet-of-Things-based sectors’, International Journal of Production Economics, 159, pp. 41–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.003.

18. Teece, D.J. (2007) ‘Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro-foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance,’ Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), pp. 1319–1350. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640.

19. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509–533.

20. Teece, D., Peteraf, M. and Leih, S. (2016) ‘Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy’, California Management Review, 58(4), pp. 13–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13.

21. Thomas, L.D.W. and Autio, E. (2014) ‘The Fifth Facet: The Ecosystem as an Organizational Field’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), p. 10306. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.10306abstract.

22. Wieninger, S. et al. (2019) ‘The strategic analysis of business ecosystems: New conception and practical application of a research approach’, in Proceedings - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, ICE/ITMC 2019. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2019.8792657.

23. Williamson, P.J. et al. (2012) Ecosystem Advantage: How to Successfully Harness the Power of Partners, California Management Review. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research.

24. Wulf, A. and Butel, L. (2017) ‘Knowledge sharing & collaborative relationships in business ecosystems & networks: A definition & a demarcation’, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 117(7), pp. 1407–1425. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2016-0408.

25. Yoon, C., Moon, S. and Lee, H. (2022) ‘Symbiotic Relationships in Business Ecosystem: A Systematic Literature Review’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042252.

26. Yu, J., Li, Y. and Zhao, C. (2011) ‘Analysis on structure and complexity characteristics of electronic business ecosystem’, in Procedia Engineering, pp. 1400–1404. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.259.

27. Zupic, I. and Čater, T. (2015) ‘Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization’, Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), pp. 429–472. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629.
Sotiris T. Lalaounis

University of Bristol Business School, University of Bristol, UK s.lalaounis@bristol.ac.uk

Ajit Nayak

Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, UK a.nayak@soton.ac.uk

**Theoretical Background**

The creative economy is beset with competing demands (e.g., breakthroughs vs. profit, exploration vs. exploitation) (Andriopoulos, 2003; Andriopoulos & Gotsi, 2005; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009, 2010; Gaim, 2018) generating tensions and conflicts which managers must successfully manage. Extant literature discusses three types of conflict: *task conflict* - the task at hand (e.g. different ideas and opinions), *process conflict* - method pursued to complete the task at hand (e.g., timing and planning disagreements), and *relationship (or emotional) conflict* - disagreements about personal values, negative emotions, and relationships. Such tensions and conflicts can have negative and positive effects on managers’ creative behaviour. Scholars have highlighted some positive outcomes of conflict (Assael, 1969; Chen, 2006, Evan, 1965) and have indicated that little or no conflict can lead to organizational stagnation. Organizations are advised to allow some cognitive conflict provided it does not lead to relationship/emotional conflict (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992; Rahim & Magner, 1985).

Maintaining a moderate level of conflict can be difficult, which means that conflict, regardless of its type, needs to be managed (albeit not necessarily resolved) in organizational settings. Paradox theory has become a useful lens (Lewis & Smith, 2014) to understand the tensions and conflicts which managers in the creative economy face (Gotsi, Lewis, & Ingram, 2010; Knight & Harvey 2015; Pick et al., 2015). The main premise of paradox is the existence of interrelated tensions and contradictions (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Using paradox as a tool, we can gain a deeper understanding of the negative and positive effects of conflict on creativity and identify the optimal level of conflict on creative behaviour.

**Purpose of Study**

To understand the impact of conflict on managers’ work in the creative economy, we use a paradox lens to answer the following research question: How does each type of conflict (task, process, and personal) influence an individual’s creative behaviour? Answering this question will go a long way towards understanding the relationship between conflict and creativity from a paradox perspective.

**Methodology**

Our research involved managers in the creative economy who held different positions of varying seniority levels in different sectors. Our study pursued an exploratory methodological approach, and we conducted forty (40) semi-structured in-depth interviews to collect our data. The interviews ranged approximately from thirty to seventy minutes and were voice-recorded and transcribed. All interviews followed a pre-determined protocol while allowing a degree of flexibility in the discussion. The questions asked during the interviews involved exploring the types of conflicts present in participants’ organizational settings, and participants’ thoughts regarding the negative and positive effects of conflict on their work.
We pursued an iterative (abductive) mode of analysis continuously moving between the interview transcripts and extant literature to make sense of the data and develop theoretical arguments. We pursued an iterative (abductive) mode of analysis (Locke et al., 2008, Sætre & Van de Ven, 2021), similar to Smith (2014), continuously moving between the interview transcripts and extant literature to make sense of the data and develop theoretical arguments (Grodal & Van de Ven, 2021). Our study generated data about conflict episodes and the negative and positive effects of conflict on participants' creative behaviour. We clustered the interview codes into themes which provided us with key theoretical insights.

## Research Findings

Our data analysis identified several negative and positive effects of conflict on individuals' creative behaviour, but more interestingly that these effects are interconnected as six sets of dualities. Two of these dualities have a combined focus, regarding the type of conflict, i.e., task conflict with process conflict, and process conflict with relationship (emotional) conflict, and four dualities have a single focus on relationship (emotional) conflict.

### Combined focus

*Wasting time on wrong ideas vs. Better creative ideas (Process vs. Task).* Participants explained that conflict can make the team work on ideas which are inappropriate and not 'on brand' leading to wasting time and resources (process) but it can also lead to better ideas and creative outputs (task).

*Feeling overwhelmed vs. Personal growth and development (Relationship/Emotional vs. Process).* Participants indicated that conflict can make them feel overwhelmed which can lead to them being less creative (relationship / emotional), but it can also aid their own personal growth and development regarding how to deliver better quality of work (process).

### Single focus

*Feeling stress and anxiety vs. Feeling energised (Relationship/Emotional vs. Relationship/Emotional).* Participants also explained that conflict can lead to them feeling stressed and anxious (relationship / emotional), but it can also make them feel energised (relationship / emotional).

*Feeling frustrated vs. Feeling positively challenged (Relationship/Emotional vs. Relationship/Emotional).* Participants articulated that conflict can lead to them feeling frustrated (relationship / emotional), but it can also make them feel positively challenged (relationship / emotional) bringing dynamism to their work.

*Feeling frustrated vs. Helping others and developing relationships (Relationship/Emotional vs. Relationship/Emotional).* Participants explained that conflict can lead to them feeling frustrated (relationship / emotional), but it can also make them feel great about themselves helping their colleagues and helps them build strong relationships with colleagues and clients (relationship / emotional).

*Damages relationships vs. Increasing empathy and trust (Relationship/Emotional vs. Relationship/Emotional).* Participants indicated that conflict can damage professional relationships (relationship / emotional), but it can also lead to a sense of trust and empathy among team members (relationship / emotional).
**Theoretical Contributions**

Our study makes two important theoretical contributions. First, we add to the emerging literature on conflict and creativity from a paradox perspective by articulating several negative and positive effects of each type of conflict on creative behaviour. Second, our paper also goes beyond understanding these negative and positive effects as separate. It demonstrates that these negative and positive effects are interconnected as six sets of dualities which allow managers in the creative economy to balance the negative effects of each type of conflict on their creative behaviour with positive effects.

**Practical implications**

Our study provides managers a deeper understanding of the negative and positive effects of conflict on creative behaviour from a paradox perspective. It also demonstrates that a moderate level of conflict which can be conducive to creative behaviour when the negative effects are balanced with their interconnected positive effects. Indeed, conflict management is about an “intervention to reduce conflict if there is too much, or...to promote conflict if there is too little” (Brown, 1983, p.9). Using a paradox lens, we can understand how each type of conflict influences an individual’s creative behaviour and can determine the optimal level of conflict in organizational settings.

**Keywords:** Conflict, paradox, creativity, creative economy, conflict management.

**References**

1. Andriopoulos, C. (2003). Six paradoxes in managing creativity: An embracing act. *Long Range Planning, 36*, 375-388.

2. Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2005). The virtues of ‘blue sky’ projects: how lunar design taps into the power of imagination. *Creativity and Innovation Management, 14*, 316-324.

3. Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. *Organization Science, 20*, 696-717.

4. Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. *Long Range Planning, 43*, 104-122.

5. Assael, H. (1969). Constructive role of interorganizational conflict. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 14*(4), 573-582.

6. Brown, L.D. (1983). *Managing conflict at organizational interfaces*. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

7. Chen, M. H. (2006). Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team creativity process. *Creativity and Innovation Management, 15*(1), 105-116.

8. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. *Strategic Management Journal, 13*(S2), 17-37.

9. Evan, W. M. (1965). Superior-subordinate conflict in research organizations. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 10*(1), 52-64.

10. Gaim, M. (2018). On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms. *European Management Journal, 36*(4), 497-518.

11. Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. (2010). Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation. *Human Relations, 63*(6), 781-805.
12. Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021). Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. *Academy of Management Review*, 46(3), 591-612.

13. Knight, E., & Harvey, W. (2015). Managing exploration and exploitation paradoxes in creative organisations. *Management Decision*, 53(4), 809-827.

14. Pick, D., Weber, P., Connell, J., & Geneste, L. A. (2015). Theorising creative industry management: rebooting the woolly mammoth. *Management Decision* 53(4), 754-762.

15. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. *Academy of Management Review*, 25(4), 760-776.

16. Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. *The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science*, 50(2), 127-149

17. Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K. & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. *Organization Science*, 19(6), 907-918.

18. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. *Academy of Management Review*, 36(2), 381-403.

19. Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 116(2), 229-240.

20. Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. *Academy of Management Journal*, 61(1), 26-45.

21. Rahim, M. A, & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 80(1), 122.

22. Sætre, A. S., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Generating theory by abduction. *Academy of Management Review*, 46(4), 684-701.

23. Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. *Academy of Management Journal*, 57(6), 1592-1623.
NAVIGATING SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF
INDIVIDUAL SUSTAINABLE ATTITUDES, TEAM COLLABORATION, SUSTAINABLE
TEAMWORK, AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUSTAINABLE STRATEGY

Saleh Samimi Dehkordi*

DEAMS Department, University of Trieste, Italy
saleh.samimidehkordi@phdunits.it

* The presenting author is PhD student.

Matej Černe

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
matej.cerne@ef.uni-lj.si

Guido Bortoluzzi

DEAMS Department, University of Trieste, Italy
guido.bortoluzzi@deamsunits.it

Ales Popovic

NEOMA Business School, Mont-Saint Aignan, France
ales.popovic@neoma-bs.fr

Payam Partohafshejani

Department of industrial engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
payamparto91@gmail.com

Keywords: Sustainable Innovative Work Behavior, Individual Sustainable Attitudes, Organizational Sustainable Strategy, Sustainable Teamwork

Research goals and why the work was worth doing:

Sustainability has become an essential strategy for organizations long-term endurance. Sustainable innovation refers to new or improved products, processes, systems, or technologies that tackle their negative effects on the environment and society (Arundel & Kemp, 2009). The apparent increase in the need for sustainable innovation has prompted scholars to seek answers to the question of how to adapt innovation to sustainability issues (Hofmann & Jaeger-Erben, 2020; Shakeel et al., 2020), where some strategic changes are considered necessary by experts (Ghobakhloo et al., 2021).

Employees, being a fundamental component of the organization, demonstrate different behaviors as the result of organizational change (Dehkordi & Khani, 2021), organizational strategy, and environmental situations (Anderson & West, 1998) and their collective behavior significantly shapes and defines the organization. In this study, by building upon the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), we aim to expose the underlying mechanisms through how individual sustainable attitudes influence sustainable innovative work behavior (Dehkordi et al., 2023), as well as the moderating roles of organization sustainable strategy, sustainable teamwork, and team collaboration on this relationship. Organizational strategy establishes the framework for sustainability initiatives, potentially influencing individual behaviors, while teamwork and collaboration facilitate the implementation of sustainable practices and innovation. Investigating these moderators provide a better understating on the interaction between organizational factors and individual attitudes in shaping sustainable innovative work behavior.
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Theoretical background:

Increasing the emphasis on sustainability in the innovation process, scholars are focusing on developing reconciliation between sustainability matters and innovation (Cillo et al., 2019). Therefore, innovation is highly related to sustainability, and innovation is essential for achieving sustainable development, which has both long and short-term benefits either for the company or for the environment and society. As Rahimah et al. (2020) explained sustainable attitude and behavior are linked together and also, the individual attitude might be a strong internal motivation for individuals to demonstrate creative and innovative behavior (Amabile, 1997). Employees' attitudes play a crucial role in their behavior and ability to innovate in the organizational context (Ghitulescu, 2013). In other words, individuals with positive attitudes towards a strategy or group are more likely to participate and behave accordingly (Salazar et al., 2017; Žnidaršič et al., 2021). Therefore, it can be assumed there is a direct relationship between employees' sustainable attitudes and sustainable innovative work behavior.

H1: there is relationship between individual creative behavior and employees' sustainable innovative work behavior.

Creativity and innovation are influenced by multiple elements (Shalley et al., 2004; Tett & Burnett, 2003). In previous studies, it has been argued that team organizational support for innovation associate with employees' innovation behavior (Anderson & West, 1998). Furthermore, organization sustainable strategies empower managers to navigate daily decisions with a focus on sustainable and long-term goals. Thus, organizational sustainable strategies play a crucial role in fostering subjective norms for individuals to behave more sustainably and promote sustainable innovation.

H2: organization sustainable strategy moderates the relationship between employee sustainable attitude and employees' sustainable innovative work behavior.

In addition, collaboration between team members could enhance knowledge creation, sharing and innovation (Pathak et al., 2020). Collaboration or social interactions and open dialogue between employees refers to the degree of help or support between individuals within the group to solve a problem or share new ideas (Gold et al., 2001; Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). In addition, team collaboration is consistent with the concept of perceived behavioral control as the third dimension of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, team collaborations along with sustainable strategy in organizations would enhance the relationship between sustainable attitude and SIWB.
H3: There is a three-way interaction effect between employee sustainable attitude, organizational sustainable strategy, and team collaboration on employees' sustainable innovative work behavior.

Sustainable teamwork refers to teamwork that is designed to address social and environmental issues which is adopted from environmental teamwork (Daily et al., 2012). Thus, following the theory of planned behavior, sustainable teamwork along with organization sustainable strategy may boost the sustainable attitude-SIWB relationship.

H4: There is a three-way interaction effect between employee sustainable attitude, organizational sustainable strategy, and sustainable teamwork on employees' sustainable innovative work behavior.

### Design/Methodology/Approach/Intervention:

The data for the empirical hypotheses test were collected from a variety of teams in a sample of home appliances industry companies, in December 2023 and January 2024 in Isfahan, Iran. To assess the variables a questionnaire using a Likert scale from 1 to 7 (from never to always, or totally disagree to totally agree) was employed. Moreover, to test hypotheses regression-based analysis, namely models 1 and 3 in process macro (Hayes, 2018) was utilized.

### Results obtained:

The result of this study supports the relationship between individual sustainable attitudes and sustainable innovative work behavior. Furthermore, the moderating effect of sustainable organizational strategy was significant in this relationship. In addition, both the three-way effects, sustainable attitudes, sustainable organizational strategy and teamwork on SIWB and sustainable attitudes, sustainable organizational strategy and teamwork on SIWB were supported.

### Theoretical contribution

By drawing on the theory of planned behavior and emphasizing the role of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, this study provides insights into how organizations can effectively integrate sustainability into their innovation processes and foster a culture of sustainability. Thus, this study complemented extant literature on sustainability and provide more understanding of the interplay between individuals and organizations in the context of sustainability. Furthermore, this study aims to contribute to the advancement of innovation literature by investigating the complex association of the organizational-level and team-level variables within innovation (Saari et al., 2021), and sustainable practices (Pappas & Pappas, 2015).

### References

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. *Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50*(2), 179-211.

2. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. *California management review, 40*(1), 39-58.

3. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. *Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19*(3), 235-258.

4. Arundel, A., & Kemp, R. (2009). Measuring eco-innovation.
5. Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A. M., Ardito, L., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. *Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management*, 26(5), 1012-1025.

6. Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Massoud, J. A. (2012). The role of training and empowerment in environmental performance: A study of the Mexican maquiladora industry. *International Journal of Operations & Production Management*, 32(5), 631-647.

7. Dehkordi, S. S., Černe, M., & Bortoluzzi, G. (2023). Prediction of Sustainable Innovation by the Multi-Level Interaction Among Creative Behaviour, Sustainable Leadership, and Industry 4.0. *management international conference*.

8. Dehkordi, S. S., & Khani, N. (2021). Investigating the moderating role of organisational authenticity in relationship between dimensions of change and employees' behavioural pattern. *International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management*, 12(3), 193-208.

9. Ghitulescu, B. E. (2013). Making change happen: The impact of work context on adaptive and proactive behaviors. *The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science*, 49(2), 206-245.

10. Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Grybauskas, A., Vilkas, M., & Petraitė, M. (2021). Industry 4.0, innovation, and sustainable development: A systematic review and a roadmap to sustainable innovation. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 30(8), 4237-4257.

11. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. *Journal of management information systems*, 18(1), 185-214.

12. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. *Communication monographs*, 85(1), 4-40.

13. Hofmann, F., & Jaeger-Erben, M. (2020). Organizational transition management of circular business model innovations. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 29(6), 2770-2788.

14. Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture. *Decision sciences*, 34(2), 351-384.

15. Pathak, B., Ashok, M., & Tan, Y. L. (2020). Value co-destruction: Exploring the role of actors’ opportunism in the B2B context. *International Journal of Information Management*, 52, 102093.

16. Rahimah, A., Khalil, S., Dang, H. P., & Cheng, J. M.-S. (2020). The terror of death and consumers’ sustainability attitudes. *Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services*, 57, 102196.

17. Salazar, M. R., Feitosa, J., & Salas, E. (2017). Diversity and team creativity: Exploring underlying mechanisms. *Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice*, 21(4), 187.

18. Shakeel, J., Mardani, A., Chofreh, A. G., Goni, F. A., & Klemeš, J. J. (2020). Anatomy of sustainable business model innovation. *Journal of cleaner production*, 261, 121201.

19. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here? *Journal of Management*, 30(6), 933-958.

20. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. *Journal of applied psychology*, 88(3), 500-517.

21. Žnidaršič, J., Bogilović, S., Černe, M., & Kumar Gupta, R. (2021). Leadership-promoted diversity climate and group identification. *Leadership & Organization Development Journal*, 42(7), 1018-1036.
Nicola Cangialosi<fnref n="1" /> and Carlo Odoardi<fnref n="2" />

**Theoretical background** – Organizations are increasingly relying on team-based work systems to increase their levels of innovation (Mohrman, et al., 1995). Consequently, both researchers and practitioners have strived to find ways to design innovative teams by identifying the factors that promote team innovation (West, 2002). Including the right mix of people in the team is critical to the team's success and its ability to innovate (Mathieu et al., 2014), yet little is known about how to effectively build innovative teams (Chatzi et al. 2020) and only a few studies have examined the relationships between personality composition in teams and innovation (e.g., Den Hartog et al., 2020).

Personality represents the structures and propensities that reflect the unique patterns of an individual's thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Funder, 2001). Historically, the most used model to describe an individual's personality is that of the Big Five (McCrae & Costa, 1987), including openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism as key traits (LePine, et al., 2011).

Team personality composition represents the aggregation in team-level indices of the average of everyone's personality trait scores (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998). Thus, team personality composition is a concept where the different personality traits are combined so that different team members contribute to the team with their different and unique personalities (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The elevation of personality traits in teams has received considerable attention as a predictor of team innovation (Chatzi et al., 2020) and previous research suggests that teams composed of members with different levels of each of the five personality dimensions have the potential to exhibit high team innovation (e.g., Robert et al., 2004). Specifically, while some studies suggest that composing teams of individuals high on extraversion or openness to experience may incentive high levels of innovation (Driskell et al., 1987), others have stressed the importance of assembling teams composed primarily of individuals low on conscientiousness (Moynihan & Peterson, 2004). Moreover, other research advises that agreeableness and neuroticism may also be relevant when composing teams that have the potential to produce creative ideas (Goncalo & Staw, 2006).

The results mentioned above are based on studies focusing on single personality characteristics, but teams are necessarily made up of a blend of all five traits. In this regard, the effects of group trait patterns, or joint effects between traits, have so far been unexplored although it seems necessary for further advances in the field. The present research aims at filling this gap by examining specific configurations of personality traits in teams that are associated with team innovation.

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, nicola.cangialosi@unimi.it</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Department of Education, Languages, Interculture, Literatures and Psychology, Università degli Studi di Firenze, carlo.odoardi@unifi.it</footnote>
**Purpose of study** - The present study sets up to analyze the personality composition of teams and its link to team innovation. The research goal is to identify specific combinations of the five personality traits conducive to team innovation and to highlight substitutive and/or synergistic mechanisms with the use of the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA).

**Method** - The research question is addressed through a self-report cross-sectional survey of 83 teams and 308 employees of an Italian manufacturing company by adopting a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA).

**Findings** - Results reveal three configurations leading to high levels of team innovation compatible configurations of team personality.

**Theoretical contribution** - This research is one of the first to empirically test the relation of team personality composition for team innovation using a configurational approach. By doing so it contributes to the literature by advancing the notion that innovative teams are determined by the holistic effects of different interdependent configurations of personality within teams.

**Practical implications** - This study not only offers actionable insights for tailoring team compositions to enhance innovative output but also underscores the importance of considering the complex interplay of personality traits when assembling teams, thereby enabling managers to make more informed decisions in the development of high-performing innovative teams.

**Keywords** - Big Five; Team Personality Composition; Innovation; Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA); Team Dynamics

**References**

1. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 83*(3), 377-391.

2. Chatzi, S., Gregoriou, G. N., & Vinci, D. (2020). Team innovation: The impact of team personality composition. *Academy of Management Discoveries, 6*(2), 204-220.

3. Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2020). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 95*(1), 141-152.

4. Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), *Review of personality and social psychology: Group processes* (Vol. 9, pp. 91-112). Sage Publications.

5. Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. *Annual Review of Psychology, 52*, 197-221.

6. Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100*(1), 96-109.

7. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), *Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions* (pp. 3-90). Jossey-Bass.

8. LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (2011). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 96*(5), 925-942.

9. Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2014). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. *Journal of Management, 34*(3), 410-476.
10. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52*(1), 81-90.

11. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. Jr. (1995). *Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work*. Jossey-Bass.

12. Moynihan, L. M., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The impact of organizational climate on team performance: The mediating role of team conflict and team effectiveness. *Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77*(4), 557-573.

13. Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2004). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 89*(5), 643-658.

14. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. *Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51*(3), 355-424.
**Tomislav Hernaus**

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb
and
School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana

**Nikolina Dragičević**

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb

**Sara Melkić**

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb

**Matija Marić**

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb

* PhD student

** presenting author

What is (not) necessary for team performance?

A method triangulation approach

**Theoretical background** – Through teamwork, managers organize tasks and meet organizational (unit) goals. Although collective efforts are well-ingrained in organizational practices, workgroup research has not yet reached a consensus on critical team success factors. The complexity of contemporary team arrangements muddles our understanding of what makes a difference in team performance. Meta-analyses (e.g., Bell, 2007; D'Innocenzo et al., 2016) and systematic reviews (e.g., Mathieu et al., 2019) of contextual features, structural and compositional contingencies, and mediating mechanisms help us frame the problem; they communicate the overlapping and coevolving nature of various antecedents that collectively combine to achieve team effectiveness. However, not all antecedents should be approached in the same manner; we need to evidence which team facets are sufficient (nice-to-have) and which ones are necessary (must-have) for reaching desired team outcomes.

**Purpose of the study** – The present research addresses structural and compositional features of organizational teams/units. We intended to explore whether and to what extent paradoxical leadership (i.e., “leaders’ seemingly competing yet interrelated behaviors to meet competing workplace demands simultaneously and over time;” Zhang et al., 2015), unit ambidexterity (i.e., “the extent to which teams as a whole emphasize and engage in both exploration and exploitation over time,” Zhang et al., 2022), team cohesion (i.e., “the degree to which members of the group are attached,” Shaw, 1981), and team cross-training (i.e., a training program where each team member learns about and receives instruction regarding the roles and responsibilities of his or her teammates, Volpe et al., 1996)—directly or indirectly (via team job design happiness, i.e., the situation at work when team members feel happy and satisfied with the organization of work; Dutschke et al., 2019)— drive team performance (see Figure 1).