intentionality and deceptive intentionality -

The below journal article focuses on attribution theory and how it influences the implementation of innovation technologies. Two types of employee attributions are noted in the article (intentionality and deceptive intentionality), please review these concepts and answer the following questions:

1. Provide a high-level overview/ summary of the case study

2. Note how constructive intentionality impacts innovation implementations

3. Find another article that adds to the overall findings of the case and note how attribution-based perspective enhances successful innovation implementations. Please be explicit and detailed in answering this question.

Format Requirements:

1. The paper must be minimum 3 pages excluding title and references pages.

2. Include references of at least 5 peer reviewed papers supporting your case study.

3. The paper must comply APA Format and include a cover page, an introduction, a body with fully developed content, a conclusion and references.

Social Behavior and Personality, Volume 47, Issue 7, e8124

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8124

www.sbp-journal.com

Why are we having this innovation? Employee attributions of innovation and implementation behavior

Se Yeon Choi

, Goo Hyeok Chung

, Jin Nam Choi

College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea

College of Business Administration, Kwangwoon University, Republic of Korea

How to cite: Choi, S. Y., Chung, G. H., & Choi, J. N. (2019). Why are we having this innovation? Employee attributions of innovation

and implementation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 47(7), e8124

We used attribution theory to explain employee behavior toward

innovation implementation. We focused on employee innovation

attributions to organizational intentionality as employees’ sensemaking

of why their organization has adopted an innovation. We identified two

types of employee attributions: to constructive intentionality and to

deceptive intentionality. We collected data from 397 employees and 84

managers of Chinese and Korean organizations. Results showed that

employee attribution to constructive intentionality enhanced

innovation effectiveness by increasing active implementation and

decreasing implementation avoidance. By contrast, employee

attribution to deceptive intentionality diminished innovation

effectiveness by increasing implementation avoidance. These findings

enrich the innovation implementation literature by introducing the

attribution-based perspective of sensemaking.

Keywords innovation attributions;

attribution to constructive

intentionality; attribution

to deceptive

intentionality; active

implementation; passive

implementation;

implementation

avoidance; innovation

effectiveness

Innovation has been identified as the key to the survival and growth of firms in a rapidly changing and

competitive business environment (Greenhalgh et al., 2005). In the past, researchers paid close attention to

organizational innovation adoption, because they considered implementation to be a relatively automatic

and static process (Choi & Chang, 2009). However, as researchers have recently realized that innovation

success depends not only on the adoption of innovation, but also on employees’ consistent use of the

innovation, they have shifted their attention to implementation (Birken et al., 2015; Chung & Choi, 2018).

As the role of employees in shaping implementation processes and outcomes is critical, the way in which

they perceive and react to innovation needs to be understood.

Various theoretical models have been used to explain employee perceptions and behavior toward

innovation. For example, the technology acceptance model suggests that individual cognitive evaluations,

such as perceived usefulness and ease of use, are positively related to innovation use (F. D. Davis, 1989).

Similarly, the theory of planned behavior identifies perceived behavioral control as a critical determinant of

intention and behavior in relation to innovation (Ajzen, 1991). Researchers have drawn on coping theory to

propose that innovation use depends on the cognitive appraisal of innovations as a threat or an opportunity

(Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005). The focus in these theoretical accounts has mostly been on employee

expectations of the cost and benefit of an innovation, with these expectations affecting subsequent

implementation behavior.

Whereas previous researchers have focused on expectations of future utility functions of innovation use, we

have examined innovation implementation by highlighting the role of attribution. Expectation refers to

CORRESPONDENCE Jin Nam Choi, College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul

08826, Republic of Korea. Email: jnchoi@snu.kr

mailto:jnchoi@snu.kr
Choi, Chung, Choi

future consequences or the prediction of the result of an event, whereas attribution is related to the

perceived cause of an outcome or the interpretation of the result of an event (Seifert, 2004). As a

fundamental cognitive process, attributions are considered a core mechanism of sensemaking, influencing

emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions as well as expectations (Fiske & Taylor, 2013; Martinko &

Gardner, 1982; Weiner, 1985). In this study, we proposed that attributions have incremental value in

explaining employee implementation behavior over and above expectations. We drew on the attribution of

intentionality model (Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, & Judge, 1995) and identified two types of employee

attributions of an organization’s perceived intentionality in innovation adoption, that is, attributions to

constructive and deceptive intentionality. We proposed that these attributions would engender distinct

behavioral reactions to an innovation.

Although employees confronting innovation tend to exhibit different behaviors (Greenhalgh et al., 2005),

previous researchers investigating behavioral reactions to innovation have examined only a single behavior

of either innovation acceptance and use, or resistance to innovation (Choi & Moon, 2013). As employees

may exhibit behavior beyond using or rejecting an innovation (Chung & Choi, 2018; Greenhalgh et al.,

2005), in our examination of the role of attributions of an innovation, we used three forms of

implementation behavior based on engagement level. These may offer a more realistic picture of innovation

implementation in organizations. We identified active implementation, passive implementation, and

implementation avoidance as employee behavior with high, medium, and low engagement with an

innovation, respectively. We proposed that these implementation patterns would affect the ultimate

outcome of innovation effectiveness, which refers to each employee’s performance gain or achievement of

desired outcomes, such as skill acquisition and improved productivity through innovation (Klein, Conn, &

Sorra, 2001).

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development Innovation is defined as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit

of adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p. 12). Once an innovation is adopted by an organization, employees confront

challenges, and are under pressure to change work routines, update skills, and adapt to different work styles

and task roles. These equivocal circumstances trigger sensemaking (C. G. Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema, &

Larson, 1998; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Employees attempt to label and assign meaning to these

situations by interpreting the cause of the innovation (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Park, 2010). As a core

driver of sensemaking, attributions of intentionality underlying the adoption of an innovation play a crucial

role in labeling the situation and determining subsequent behavioral reactions.

Innovation Implementation Behavior

Researchers in social psychology have demonstrated that behavior can be exhibited in various ways when

individuals confront social situations (Fiske & Taylor, 2013). Social behavior is broadly classified into

prosocial and antisocial, and prosocial behavior is specified as extrarole and role-prescribed (Dovidio,

Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006). Work-related behavior is categorized into extrarole, in-role, and

counterproductive work behavior domains, which are relatively independent and characterized by different

antecedents and consequences (Dalal, 2005; Spector & Fox, 2010). Accordingly, we applied these three

domains to the innovation context and proposed three forms of implementation, namely, active, passive,

and avoidance, on the basis of engagement level.

Active implementation refers to employees’ spontaneous and voluntary engagement in innovation

implementation. Active implementation is a form of proactive extrarole behavior in an implementation

context, and is characterized by the self-initiated action of challenging the status quo and creating favorable

conditions for implementing the innovation (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). By contrast, passive

implementation refers to employees’ compliant implementation behavior in accordance with organizational

requirements and directions. It is a form of in-role prescribed behavior in an implementation context (Klein

Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

et al., 2001). Employees engaging in passive implementation follow innovation-related instructions carefully

(Chung & Choi, 2018; Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003). Finally, implementation avoidance

is the withdrawal of employees from an innovation implementation. Implementation avoidance is a passive

form of counterproductive or deviant behavior whereby the employee avoids work or intentionally reduces

attention to, or interest in, innovation (Dalal, 2005). To maintain the status quo, employees who avoid

implementation fail to conform to innovation initiatives by refusing to, or even pretending not to, recognize

such initiatives (Chung & Choi, 2018; Erwin & Garman, 2010).

Employee Attribution of Innovation to Organizational Intentionality

In social psychology, attribution theory proposes that to predict and control the environment, individuals

tend to seek the causes of an event (Gilbert, 1998). The search for causal explanations involves ascribing

meaning and labels to events or to other individuals’ actions, which affects subsequent attitudes and

behavior (Fiske & Taylor, 2013). Causal attribution thus considerably influences individuals’ sensemaking

of, and behavioral reactions to, events with or without expectations (Fiske & Taylor, 2013; Jacquart &

Antonakis, 2015; Rodell & Lynch, 2016; Weiner, 1985).

According to Ferris et al. (1995), an observer attributes an actor’s behavior to positive (authentic and

sincere) or negative (self-serving and manipulative) intentions. In an organizational context, employees

tend to attribute decisions to the organization’s intentions or motives. For example, Nishii, Lepak, and

Schneider (2008) divided employee attribution of motivation underlying human resource practices into

commitment-focused (i.e., promoting service quality and employee development) and control-focused

attributions (i.e., reducing costs and exploiting employees). These attributions affect employees’

interpretation and labeling of, and responses to, human resource practices.

In the innovation implementation context, attributions to intentionality trigger employees’ sensemaking of

the organization’s innovation adoption. Accordingly, we proposed that employees would attribute an

organization’s innovation adoption decision to either positive (i.e., constructive intentionality) or negative

intentions (i.e., deceptive intentionality). Attribution to constructive intentionality refers to employees’

reasoning that their organization has adopted an innovation with authentic and sincere intentions of

achieving desirable outcomes, such as organizational development and employee well-being. Attribution to

deceptive intentionality is defined as employees’ reasoning that their organization has adopted an

innovation with self-serving, manipulative intentions, such as catching up with a managerial fad or

increasing political power and management control to exploit employees. Although these attributions are

independent, they are not mutually exclusive. We expected them to trigger different labeling of innovation,

thereby leading to disparate implementation.

Attribution to constructive intentionality. When innovation adoption is attributed to constructive intentionality, employees tend to develop favorable attitudes toward, and behavioral engagement with, the

innovation (Ferris et al., 1995). Employees’ belief that the organization’s intentions are genuine increases

their sense of control, satisfaction, and organizational commitment, thereby promoting proactive and

extrarole behavior (Bala & Venkatesh, 2016; Dalal, 2005). Accordingly, we proposed that employees with

attributions of constructive intentionality would implement an innovation with enthusiastic commitment.

They would be unlikely to withdraw from its implementation because their positive attribution discourages

negative reactions (Byrne, Kacmar, Stoner, & Hochwarter, 2005; Nishii et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2006).

Thus, attribution of constructive intentionality stimulates employees to actively engage in implementation

by identifying and addressing implementation barriers and modifying the features and components of an

innovation to realize potential benefits for the organization and themselves.

This positive labeling of innovation adoption may engender employees’ affective commitment to innovation,

and thus urge them to exhibit passive implementation, which is faithful innovation implementation by

conforming to innovation-related directions and instructions (Parker et al., 2006). Therefore, we proposed

Choi, Chung, Choi

the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: Employee attribution to constructive intentionality will be positively related to active

implementation.

Hypothesis 1b: Employee attribution to constructive intentionality will be positively related to passive

implementation.

Hypothesis 1c: Employee attribution to constructive intentionality will be negatively related to

implementation avoidance.

Attribution to deceptive intentionality. When employees attribute an innovation to deceptive intentionality, they are likely to label the situation as unfavorable and harmful and to react negatively to

implementation. As this attribution is likely to engender passive maladaptive behavior and reduced task

engagement (Martinko & Gardner, 1982), employees’ passion and responsibility to implement the

innovation is diminished, because they are unconvinced of the value and necessity of the innovation

(Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005). Therefore, employees with deceptive attribution exhibit neither

active nor passive implementation. This negative labeling may render employees reluctant to implement an

innovation even under pressure to do so (Chung & Choi, 2018). By justifying the withdrawal from, or

rejection of, an innovation (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2008), employees with attribution to deceptive

intentionality are likely to withdraw support and avoid involvement with the innovation as much as

possible. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Employee attribution to deceptive intentionality will be negatively related to active

implementation.

Hypothesis 2b: Employee attribution to deceptive intentionality will be negatively related to passive

implementation.

Hypothesis 2c: Employee attribution to deceptive intentionality will be positively related to

implementation avoidance.

Implementation Behavior and Innovation Effectiveness

The manner in which an innovation is implemented determines its success or innovation effectiveness,

which refers to the extent to which each employee’s performance-related consequences, benefits, or

outcomes are accrued as expected from the innovation (Klein et al., 2001). Previous findings have

demonstrated a significant association between implementation behavior and innovation outcome (Choi &

Chang, 2009; Klein et al., 2001). We therefore predicted that implementation behavior would affect

innovation effectiveness in different ways.

First, as researchers have suggested a strong positive relationship between proactive behavior and

innovative performance (Baer & Frese, 2003), employees exhibiting active implementation exert extra effort

to fully use the innovation in their task roles and they optimize it in their work context. They can thus use

the innovation effectively and fully accrue its expected benefits. Second, study findings on innovation

implementation with a focus on employee compliance to implementation have revealed a positive

relationship between this behavior and innovation effectiveness (Choi & Chang, 2009; Klein et al., 2001). By

eliciting compliant effort toward implementation, passive implementation can generate the intended

positive outcomes when employees use the innovation. Third, regardless of how useful an innovation is, it

cannot achieve its potential or positive outcomes when employees avoid it and fail to use it (Real & Poole,

2005). When employees stop implementing an innovation, the expected outcome cannot be realized (Jones,

2001). Thus, implementation avoidance hinders the success of an innovation. We therefore proposed the

following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: Innovation effectiveness will be positively related to active implementation.

Hypothesis 3b: Innovation effectiveness will be positively related to passive implementation.

Hypothesis 3c: Innovation effectiveness will be negatively related to implementation avoidance.

Implementation Behavior as Mediator of the Effects of Innovation Attribution on Innovation

Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

Effectiveness

We thus proposed that employee innovation attributions to different intentionalities indirectly affect

innovation effectiveness by shaping implementation behavior. Attribution to constructive intentionality may

promote active and passive implementation and reduce implementation avoidance, leading to positive and

negative innovation outcomes, respectively. We expected that employee attribution of an innovation to

deceptive intentionality may lead to deterioration of innovation effectiveness by undermining active and

passive implementation and by enabling implementation avoidance. Thus, we proposed the following

hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4a: Attribution to constructive intentionality will have an indirect positive effect on

innovation effectiveness through increased active and passive implementation and decreased

implementation avoidance.

Hypothesis 4b: Attribution to deceptive intentionality will have an indirect negative effect on innovation

effectiveness through decreased active and passive implementation and increased implementation

avoidance.

Method

Participants and Procedure

To test our model, we collected field data from China and Korea, as the organizations in these countries

frequently create and adopt innovations, and their employees are exposed to numerous innovation

implementation events that require them to make sense of such events. We contacted managers enrolled in

executive Master of Business Administration programs in two universities, one in China and one in Korea.

With the consent of these managers, we mailed the survey packets to 127 teams. We received usable data

from 84 managers and 397 employees (response rate = 66.1%), with the final sample consisting of 33 teams

from Seoul, Korea, and 51 teams from Shanghai, China.

Of the participants, 76 managers identified administrative innovations (e.g., organizational culture change)

as their target innovation, whereas eight managers named technological innovations (e.g., introduction of

new information technology) as coded by two graduate research assistants. We adopted this innovation

typology because of its prevalence and significance in the implementation context (Kim & Chung, 2017).

Team manager participants were 16 women and 68 men, with an average age of 38.8 years (SD = 6.3) and

an average tenure of 9.2 years (SD = 6.8). Eight managers held degrees from two- or three-year colleges or

high schools (9.5%), 51 had a bachelor’s degree (60.7%), and 25 had graduate degrees (29.8%). Employee

participants were 139 women and 258 men with an average age of 31.6 years (SD = 5.9) and an average

tenure of 4.9 years (SD = 4.9). Of these participants, 80 employees had obtained degrees from two- or three-

year colleges or high schools (20.2%), 280 had bachelor’s degrees (70.5%), and 37 had graduate degrees

(9.3%).

We initially asked managers to identify an innovation that had been recently adopted and was in the process

of implementation at the time of the data collection. Employees reported their attributions related to

innovation, and their supervising managers rated implementation behavior and the outcome of their

employees, that is, each employee’s performance gain or achievement of the desired outcomes, such as skill

acquisition and improved productivity through the innovation.

Measures

We assessed all variables with multi-item measures rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree

and 5 = strongly agree). All measures exhibited acceptable internal consistency reliability coefficients. We

translated all items from English to Korean and Chinese using the standard translation/back-translation

procedure (Brislin, 1986).

Choi, Chung, Choi

Attribution to constructive intentionality. We adopted Nishii et al.’s (2008) measure of human resource attributions. We used a four-item index (α = .86) to assess the employees’ attribution that their organization

adopted an innovation to obtain organizationally desirable outcomes. The four items are (a) “This

innovation was adopted because it would deliver high-quality service and products to customers,” (b) “This

innovation was adopted because it would improve internal workflows and processes,” (c) “This innovation

was adopted because it would increase productivity,” and (d) “This innovation was adopted because it would

improve overall efficiency.”

Attribution to deceptive intentionality. We used human resource attribution items from Nishii et al.’s (2008) study, and constructed a four-item measure (α = .85) to assess the employees’ attribution that their

organization adopted an innovation for manipulation or exploitation. The four items are (a) “This

innovation was adopted for no reason but to show someone’s power,” (b) “This innovation was adopted just

for political reasons,” (c) “This innovation was adopted because it was a kind of fad without any substantial

benefit for my organization,” and (d) “This innovation was adopted with the goal of exploiting employees

rather than enhancing employees’ income and well-being.”

Active implementation. We measured the employees’ active implementation of an innovation by adapting items from proactive behavior and innovative behavior scales (Choi, 2007; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). We

developed a three-item index (α = .88) to measure the employees’ active implementation of an innovation.

The managers rated the three items: (a) “This employee provides suggestions to improve the process of

implementing the innovation,” (b) “This employee actively solves problems occurring during the

implementation of the innovation,” and (c) “This employee suggests ideas to enhance the quality of the

implemented innovation.”

Passive implementation. We took the in-role behavior items from Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) study to construct a three-item measure (α = .88) for managers to assess employees’ innovation-targeted in-role

behavior. The three items are (a) “This employee fulfills his/her job responsibilities specified in the

innovation,” (b) “This employee adequately completes his/her responsibilities related to the innovation,”

and (c) “This employee meets job performance expectations related to the innovation.”

Implementation avoidance. We used three implementation ineffectiveness items (α = .84) from Klein et al.’s (2001) scale to measure employee avoidance of an innovation. The managers rated the three items: (a)

“When this employee can do a task by either using or not using the innovation, he/she usually chooses not

to use the innovation,” (b) “Even when this employee can do a task using the innovation, he/she still uses

the old system or work process most of the time,” and (c) “I think that this employee believes that the

innovation is a waste of time and money for the organization.”

Innovation effectiveness. We used three innovation effectiveness items (α = .90) from Klein et al.’s (2001) scale to assess the positive outcomes or performance gains from an innovation accrued to each

employee. The managers rated the three items: (a) “Because of this innovation this employee improved the

quality of his/her product, service, or administration,” (b) “Because of this innovation this employee’s

morale improved,” and (c) “Because of this innovation this employee’s productivity improved.”

Control variables. We controlled for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), age, education, employees’ organizational tenure, and managers’ tenure as the leader of the current team, because these demographics

have been found to affect implementation behavior (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). We included a country

dummy (0 = Korea, 1 = China) because the data were collected from two countries. The innovation type (0 =

administrative innovation, 1 = technological innovation) was controlled for because innovation types may

stimulate different implementation behavior (Kim & Chung, 2017).

Finally, we controlled for employees’ innovation expectations to examine the incremental contribution of

Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

employees’ attributions over and above innovation expectations (Ajzen, 1991; Beaudry & Pinsonneault,

2005). Innovation expectations were assessed by two items (α = .72) from Klein et al.’s (2001) study: (a) “I

think my organization made a good decision in adopting the innovation,” and (b) “I think the innovation is a

waste of time and money for my organization” (reverse scored). The hypothesis testing results were identical

with and without these control variables in all analyses (Becker, 2005).

Results We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to investigate the empirical distinctiveness of the variables.

The hypothesized six-factor model showed a satisfactory fit to the data, χ

(df = 134) = 275.60, p

The post intentionality and deceptive intentionality appeared first on Versed Writers.