Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour

By Onne Janssen. 2000

2,899 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7ee66b11a758af3c676f250a9c1f7477468713e3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Marketing

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

The Effects of Transformational Leadership and Perceived Creativity on Innovation Behavior in the Hospitality Industry (2015, methodology): “Items used for INNOVB were inspired from the study of Janssen (2000) and modified for this study.”
Revisiting Individual Creativity Assessment: Triangulation in Subjective and Objective Assessment Methods (2016, methodology): “For example, there exists evidence of significant correlations between various subjective assessment methods and between subjective and objective methods (Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994).”
Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behavior (2017, background): “Driven by the assumption that employees' innovative work behavior contributes positively to work outcomes, researchers such as Janssen (2000), Janssen, van de Vliert, and West (2004), and Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange (2002) have devoted increasing attention to organizational and individual…”
Team Reflexivity and Innovation (2015, background): “Such shared cognitive space, in the context of preparedness for action spurred by demands (necessity to act), creates the opportunity for innovation (Bunce & West, 1994; Janssen, 2000; West, 1989).”
Exploring Managerial Mechanisms that Influence Innovative Work Behaviour: Comparing private and public employees (2014, background): “These employees take on the role of active innovators in the organization (Janssen 2000; Zhang and Bartol 2010a).”
The role of basic psychological needs satisfaction in the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior (2021, background): “IWB is associated with various benefits for employees such as improved work processes and outcomes (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2005; Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994).”
INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF GROWTH NEED STRENGTH, WORK CONTEXT, AND JOB COMPLEXITY ON SELF-REPORTED CREATIVE PERFORMANCE (2009, background): “However, it has been proposed that managers and supervisors may be more likely to observe behaviors designed to impress and thus, are more able to accurately rate objective performance than creativity (Janssen, 2000, 2004; Organ & Konovsky, 1989).”
How innovation can alleviate negative consequences of demanding work contexts: The influence of climate for innovation on organizational outcomes (2007, background): “…degree of demands (Amabile, 1988; Amabile et al., 1996; West et al., 2005b), the stage of the innovation process (West, 2002; West et al., 2005b), task focus and objective clarity (West, Dawson, Utsch, & Borrill, 2005a), or the perceived fairness associated with efforts and rewards (Janssen, 2000).”
Teachers’ Innovative Behaviour: The Importance of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction, Intrinsic Motivation, and Occupational Self-Efficacy (2018, methodology): “In this study, innovative behaviour at work is defined as “the intentional creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within a work role, group or organisation, in order to benefit role performance, the group or the organisation” (Janssen, 2000, p. 288).”
A comparison of self-ratings and non-self-report measures of employee creativity (2012, background): “For instance, Janssen (2000) found that self-ratings of creativity were correlated with leader-ratings of creativity at .35, whereas Scott and Bruce (1994) found that leader-ratings of creativity were correlated with objective measures of creativity at .33.”
Making Change Happen (2013, background): “Using self-assessments of adaptive and proactive behaviors also avoids a potential halo effect of external raters who are more likely to base assessments on overall impressions or observe behaviors designed to impress (Janssen, 2000; Parker & Collins, 2010).”