Linking Leaders’ Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior and Team Green Innovation: The Mediation Role of Team Green Efficacy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Background
3. Theory and Hypotheses
3.1. Leaders’ Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior and Team Green Innovation
3.2. The Mediator of Team Green Efficacy
3.3. Leaders’ Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior and Team Green Efficacy
3.4. Team Green Efficacy and Team Green Innovation
3.5. A Mediation Model
4. Methods
4.1. Procedure and Participants
4.2. Measurements
4.3. Analytical Strategy
5. Results
5.1. Preliminary Analysis
5.2. Hypotheses Testing
6. Discussion
6.1. Theoretical Implications
6.2. Practical Implications
6.3. Limitations and Avenues for Further Research
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Anderson, N.; Potočnik, K.; Zhou, J. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. J. Manag. 2014, 40, 1297–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crossan, M.M.; Apaydin, M. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1154–1191. [Google Scholar]
- Piening, E.P.; Salge, T.O. Understanding the antecedents, contingencies, and performance implications of process innovation: A dynamic capabilities perspective. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2015, 32, 80–97. [Google Scholar]
- Albort-Morant, G.; Henseler, J.; Cepeda-Carrión, G.; Leal-Rodríguez, A.L. Potential and realized absorptive capacity as complementary drivers of green product and process innovation performance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, C.-H. The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: The mediation role of green innovation. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 104, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Z.; Chen, W. Environmental regulation, green innovation, and industrial green development: An empirical analysis based on the Spatial Durbin model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Leeuwen, G.; Mohnen, P. Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: An empirical analysis of green innovation for the Netherlands. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2017, 26, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gao, Y.; Tsai, S.B.; Xue, X.; Ren, T.; Du, X.; Chen, Q.; Wang, J. An Empirical Study on Green Innovation Efficiency in the Green Institutional Environment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guo, Y.; Xia, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, D. Environmental Regulation, Government R&D Funding and Green Technology Innovation: Evidence from China Provincial Data. Sustainability 2018, 10, 940. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Y.; Yin, Q.; Pan, Y.; Cui, W.; Xin, B.; Rao, Z. Green product innovation and firm performance: Assessing the moderating effect of novelty-centered and efficiency-centered business model design. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Xue, Y.; Yang, J. Impact of environmental regulations on green technological innovative behavior: An empirical study in China. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 188, 763–773. [Google Scholar]
- Triguero, A.; Moreno-Mondéjar, L.; Davia, M.A. Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
- Norton, T.A.; Parker, S.L.; Zacher, H.; Ashkanasy, N.M. Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 103–125. [Google Scholar]
- Ángel del Brío, J.; Junquera, B.; Ordiz, M. Human resources in advanced environmental approaches–a case analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2008, 46, 6029–6053. [Google Scholar]
- Robertson, J.L.; Barling, J. Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 176–194. [Google Scholar]
- D’Mello, S.; Ones, D.; Klein, R.; Wiernik, B.; Dilchert, S. Green company rankings and reporting of pre-environmental efforts in organizations. In Proceedings of the Poster session presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL, USA, 14–16 April 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Boiral, O. Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 87, 221–236. [Google Scholar]
- Jabbour, C.J.C.; Santos, F.C.A.; Fonseca, S.A.; Nagano, M.S. Green teams: Understanding their roles in the environmental management of companies located in Brazil. J. Clean Prod. 2013, 46, 58–66. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, A.; Kim, Y.; Han, K.; Jackson, S.E.; Ployhart, R.E. Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1335–1358. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1986, 4, 359–373. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.S.; Lai, S.B.; Wen, C.T. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 331–339. [Google Scholar]
- Dangelico, R.M. Green product innovation: Where we are and where we are going. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2016, 25, 560–576. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, P.J.; Wu, T.J.; Yuan, K.S. “Green” Information Promotes Employees’ Voluntary Green Behavior via Work Values and Perceived Accountability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6335. [Google Scholar]
- Chaudhary, R. Green human resource management and employee green behavior: An empirical analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 630–641. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 116, 107–119. [Google Scholar]
- Marquis, C.; Jackson, S.E.; Li, Y. Building sustainable organizations in China. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2015, 11, 427–440. [Google Scholar]
- Bossink, B.A. Leadership for sustainable innovation. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 6, 135–149. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, G.; Farh, J.L.; Campbell-Bush, E.M.; Wu, Z.; Wu, X. Teams as innovative systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 98, 1018–1027. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, B.C.; Ployhart, R.E. Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 610–621. [Google Scholar]
- Whitmarsh, L.; O’Neill, S. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 305–314. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H.; Lin, Y.H. Green Transformational leadership and green performance: The mediation effects of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6604–6621. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Chen, J.; Tao, Y. Innovation Performance in New Product Development Teams in C hina’s Technology Ventures: The Role of Behavioral Integration Dimensions and Collective Efficacy. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2015, 32, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahroum, S.; Al-Saleh, Y. Towards a functional framework for measuring national innovation efficacy. Technovation 2013, 33, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. 2000, 9, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afsar, B.; Badir, Y.; Kiani, U.S. Linking spiritual leadership and employee pro-environmental behavior: The influence of workplace spirituality, intrinsic motivation, and environmental passion. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flannery, B.L.; May, D.R. Prominent factors influencing environmental activities: Application of the environmental leadership model (ELM). Leadersh Q. 1994, 5, 201–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, N.J.; Cialdini, R.B.; Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 2008, 35, 472–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Egri, C.P.; Herman, S. Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 571–604. [Google Scholar]
- Fernández, E.; Junquera, B.; Ordiz, M. Managers’ profile in environmental strategy: A review of the literature. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2006, 13, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elenkov, D.S.; Manev, I.M. Top management leadership and influence on innovation: The role of sociocultural context. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 381–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, C.L.; Ensley, M.D. A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). J. Organ. Behav. 2004, 25, 259–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Utterback, J.M.; Abernathy, W.J. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 1975, 3, 639–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.S. Green organizational identity: Sources and consequence. Manage. Decis. 2011, 49, 384–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dangelico, R.M.; Pujari, D. Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 471–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubik, F.; Frankl, P.; Pietroni, L.; Scheer, D. Eco-labelling and consumers: Towards a re-focus and integrated approaches. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 2, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiou, T.Y.; Chan, H.K.; Lettice, F.; Chung, S.H. The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transp. Res. Logist. Transp. Rev. 2011, 47, 822–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kam-Sing Wong, S. The influence of green product competitiveness on the success of green product innovation: Empirical evidence from the Chinese electrical and electronics industry. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2012, 15, 468–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayoko, O.B.; Chua, E.L. The importance of transformational leadership behaviors in team mental model similarity, team efficacy, and intra-team conflict. Group Organ. Manage. 2014, 39, 504–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmondson, A.C.; Nembhard, I.M. Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2009, 26, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akgün, A.E.; Keskin, H.; Byrne, J. Organizational emotional capability, product and process innovation, and firm performance: An empirical analysis. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2009, 26, 103–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, T.W. Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways. Leadersh Q. 2017, 28, 385–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tierney, P.; Farmer, S.M. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 1137–1148. [Google Scholar]
- Judge, T.A.; Jackson, C.L.; Shaw, J.C.; Scott, B.A.; Rich, B.L. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Salanova, M.; Llorens, S.; Cifre, E.; Martínez, I.M.; Schaufeli, W.B. Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Res. 2003, 34, 43–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, A.; Bartol, K.M.; Locke, E.A. Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 1239–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, G.; Bliese, P.D. The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 549–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, D.I.; Sosik, J.J. Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Res. 2002, 33, 313–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A.; Wessels, S. Self-Efficacy; W.H. Freeman & Company: San Diego, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Epitropaki, O.; Kark, R.; Mainemelis, C.; Lord, R.G. Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. Leadersh Q. 2017, 28, 104–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riggs, M.L.; Warka, J.; Babasa, B.; Betancourt, R.; Hooker, S. Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1994, 54, 793–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brislin, R.W. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology 1980, 2, 389–444. [Google Scholar]
- Bliese, P.D. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations; Klein, K.J., Kozlowski, S.W., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 349–381. [Google Scholar]
- MacKinnon, D.P.; Fritz, M.S.; Williams, J.; Lockwood, C.M. Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 384–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hayes, A. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Sobel, M.E. Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. Sociol. Methodl. 1986, 16, 159–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrout, P.E.; Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adner, R.; Levinthal, D. Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: Implications for product and process innovation. Manag. Sci. 2001, 47, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, C.H.; Chen, Y.S. Green organizational identity and green innovation. Manage. Decis. 2013, 51, 1056–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, M.A.; Davis, E.A.; Weaver, P.A. Eco-friendly attitudes, barriers to participation, and differences in behavior at green hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittal, S.; Dhar, R.L. Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: A study of tourist hotels. Tourism Manag. 2016, 57, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, W.; Lysova, E.I.; Khapova, S.N.; Bossink, B.A. Servant leadership and innovative work behavior in Chinese high-tech firms: A moderated mediation model of meaningful work and job autonomy. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luu, T.T. Green human resource practices and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The roles of collective green crafting and environmentally specific servant leadership. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1167–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Jiang, K.; Shalley, C.E.; Keem, S.; Zhou, J. Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2016, 137, 236–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factor Loading | |
---|---|
Leaders’ Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior (α = 0.90) | |
| 0.85 |
| 0.78 |
| 0.81 |
| 0.80 |
| 0.80 |
| 0.86 |
Team Green Efficacy (α = 0.81) | |
| 0.78 |
| 0.86 |
| 0.83 |
| 0.87 |
Team Green Product Innovation (α = 0.76) | |
| 0.81 |
| 0.92 |
| 0.82 |
Team Green Process Innovation (α = 0.90) | |
| 0.90 |
| 0.87 |
| 0.95 |
Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Product innovation | 4.95 | 0.37 | 1 | |||||||||
2. Process innovation | 5.02 | 0.4 | 0.12 | 1 | ||||||||
3. Efficacy | 2.32 | 0.82 | 0.22 ** | 0.35 ** | 1 | |||||||
4. VWGB | 1.77 | 0.31 | 0.12 ** | 0.34 ** | 0.35 ** | 1 | ||||||
5. Gender | 1.65 | 0.15 | −0.09 | −0.05 | −0.12 | 0.12 | 1 | |||||
6. Age | 2.44 | 0.55 | −0.43 ** | 0.17 | 0.22 ** | 0.19 * | −0.05 | 1 | ||||
7. Education | 3.23 | 0.39 | −0.49 ** | 0.20 * | 0.02 | 0.22 * | −0.08 | 0.72 * | 1 | |||
8. Experience | 6.06 | 1.78 | 0.01 | 0 | −0.20 * | −0.31 ** | 0.19 * | −0.16 | −0.22 * | 1 | ||
9. Organization | 2.44 | 0.72 | −0.18 * | 0.12 | −0.06 | −0.01 | 0.09 | −0.09 | 0.05 | −0.09 | 1 | |
10. Teamyear | 5.4 | 1.4 | −0.1 | −0.33 * | −0.15 | −0.04 | 0.16 | 0.27 * | 0.11 | 0.08 | −0.25 * | 1 |
VIF | 1.38 | 1.35 | 1.16 | 2.62 | 2.42 | 1.22 | 1.13 | 1.28 |
Dependent Variable | Model 1: Team Green Product Innovation | Model 2: Team Green Process Innovation | Model 3: Team Green Efficacy | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1: Control variables | Model 1A | Model 1B | Model 1C | Model 2A | Model 2B | Model 2C | Model 3A | Model 3B |
Age | −0.13 (0.10) | −0.15 (0.10) | −0.22 ** (0.04) | 0.17 (0.12) | 0.15 (0.11) | 0.07 (0.12) | −0.23 (0.60) | 0.72 *** (0.23) |
Gender | −0.21 (0.25) | −0.34 (0.25) | −0.28 (0.24) | 0.05 (0.25) | −0.14 (0.29) | −0.08 (0.28) | 0.76 *** (0.24) | −0.61 (0.07) |
Education | −0.35 ** (0.14) | −0.38 *** (0.13) | −0.30 ** (0.14) | 0.10 (0.16) | 0.06 (0.16) | 0.15 (0.16) | −0.75 ** (0.33) | −0.84 ** (0.32) |
Experience | −0.02 (0.02) | −0.01 (0.01) | −0.00 (0.02) | 0.02 (0.03) | 0.05 * (0.03) | 0.05 * (0.02) | −0.08 (0.05) | −0.03 (0.05) |
Organization | −0.10 * (0.05) | −0.09 * (0.05) | −0.08 * (0.05) | 0.02 (0.06) | 0.04 (0.06) | 0.04 (0.06) | −0.08 (0.13) | −0.05 (0.12) |
Team years | −0.01 (0.02) | −0.00 (0.02) | −0.01 (0.03) | −0.12 *** (0.03) | −0.11 *** (0.03) | −0.09 *** (0.03) | −0.14 ** (0.07) | −0.12 * (0.07) |
Step 2: Predictor | ||||||||
VWGB | 0.30 ** (0.12) | 0.22 * (0.13) | 0.44 *** (0.14) | 0.35 ** (0.15) | 0.86 *** (0.29) | |||
Step 3: Mediator | ||||||||
Team green efficacy | 0.10 ** (0.05) | 0.11 * (0.06) | ||||||
R2 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.40 | 0.19 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.19 | 0.27 |
ΔR2 | 0.05 ** | 0.05 ** | 0.10 ** | 0.04 ** | 0.09 ** | |||
F | 5.48 | 5.88 | 5.91 | 2.91 | 4.18 | 4.28 | 2.76 | 3.87 |
ΔF | 0.40 | 0.03 | 1.27 | 0.10 | 0.11 |
Total Effect | Indirect Effects (95%CI) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Effect | SE | p-Value | Bootstrap Indirect Effect | Bootstrap SE | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |
Dependent variable: team green product innovation | 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.015 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.27 |
Dependent variable: team green process innovation | 0.44 | 0.14 | 0.002 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.30 |
Hypotheses | Results |
---|---|
H1. Leaders’ VWGB is positively related to team green product innovation. | Supported |
H2. Leaders’ VWGB is positively related to team green process innovation. | Supported |
H3. Leaders’ VWGB is positively related to team green efficacy. | Supported |
H4. Team green efficacy is positively related to team green product innovation. | Supported |
H5. Team green efficacy is positively related to team green process innovation. | Supported |
H6. Team green efficacy mediate the positive relationship between leaders’ VWGB and team green product innovation. | Supported |
H7. Team green efficacy mediate the positive relationship between leaders’ VWGB and team green process innovation. | Supported |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cai, W.; Yang, C.; Bossink, B.A.G.; Fu, J. Linking Leaders’ Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior and Team Green Innovation: The Mediation Role of Team Green Efficacy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083404
Cai W, Yang C, Bossink BAG, Fu J. Linking Leaders’ Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior and Team Green Innovation: The Mediation Role of Team Green Efficacy. Sustainability. 2020; 12(8):3404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083404
Chicago/Turabian StyleCai, Wenjing, Chun Yang, Bart A. G. Bossink, and Jingtao Fu. 2020. "Linking Leaders’ Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior and Team Green Innovation: The Mediation Role of Team Green Efficacy" Sustainability 12, no. 8: 3404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083404
APA StyleCai, W., Yang, C., Bossink, B. A. G., & Fu, J. (2020). Linking Leaders’ Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior and Team Green Innovation: The Mediation Role of Team Green Efficacy. Sustainability, 12(8), 3404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083404