TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 15 September 2022

DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

How does goal orientation

OPEN ACCESS affect employees’ innovation
EDITED BY
Radha R. Sharma,
New Delhi Institute of Management,
behavior: Data from China
India

REVIEWED BY Meirong Zhen*, Jinru Cao and Mi Wang

Yanki Hartijasti,
University of Indonesia, Indonesia School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China
Susmita Mukhopadhyay,
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, India
*CORRESPONDENCE
Meirong Zhen The study takes an interaction perspective to examine possible interaction
zmr4233868@ujs.edu.cn effects of goal orientation, psychological capital, and organizational
SPECIALTY SECTION innovation climate aimed at enhancing employees’ innovation behavior.
This article was submitted to A total sample of 398 employees were selected in Chinese enterprises.
Organizational Psychology,
a section of the journal The descriptive statistical analyses, multiple regression, and bootstrap
Frontiers in Psychology approach are adopted to test the interactive effects after controlling
RECEIVED 05 March 2022 for gender, age, years for work of employees, type of enterprises, and
ACCEPTED 12 August 2022
PUBLISHED 15 September 2022
industry. Results indicate that learning goal orientation and proving goal
orientation have a positive effect on employees’ innovation behavior through
CITATION
Zhen M, Cao J and Wang M (2022) psychological capital. The positive relationship between psychological capital
How does goal orientation affect and employees’ innovation behavior is stronger when employees perceive
employees’ innovation behavior: Data
from China. more organizational innovation climate. Additionally, the positive effect
Front. Psychol. 13:890062. of learning goal orientation and proving goal orientation on employees’
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062
innovation behavior is stronger in high organizational innovation climate
COPYRIGHT
through high-level psychological capital than in low organizational innovation
© 2022 Zhen, Cao and Wang. This is
an open-access article distributed climate. However, the negative effect of avoiding goal orientation on
under the terms of the Creative innovation behavior is not significant. Finally, implications and further research
Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in are discussed.
other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright
KEYWORDS
owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is learning goal orientation, proving goal orientation, avoiding goal orientation,
cited, in accordance with accepted innovation behavior, psychological capital, organizational innovation climate
academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which
does not comply with these terms.

Introduction
Employees’ innovation behavior, such as producing, adopting, and practicing new
ideas for work methods, processes, and products (Amabile et al., 1996), is the core
behavior needed by an organization to succeed in a changing business environment
(Fan et al., 2016). A growing body of literature has devoted attention to the critical
role of individual and organizational factors that could potentially influence innovation
behavior (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Hunter et al., 2005; Ren and Zhang, 2015; Song et al.,
2020). Anderson et al. (2014) identified four main factors in different levels: individual,
team, organizational, and multi-levels. Many studies have considered goal orientation,

Frontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

ethical leadership (Chen and Hou, 2016; Li et al., 2020), However, only limited studies have been conducted on
and personal trait (Lomberg et al., 2017) as individual level the affecting mechanism of goal orientation as personal
factors, team composition and team climate (Somech and cognitive with psychological capital and innovation
Drach-Zahavy, 2013) as team factors, and organizational climate that aims for more innovation. Accordingly,
innovation climate (Hsu and Chen, 2017) and organizational the following questions should be answered: How would
supportive climate as organizational factors. An increasing different categories of goal orientation affect the innovation
number of researchers have conducted multilevel factor behavior of employees with different levels of psychological
studies and found that employees’ innovation behavior is capital? Is organizational innovation climate a significant
influenced by individual-, organizational- or team-level factors condition interacting with goal orientation and psychological
(Kumar et al., 2022). capital on innovation behavior? Given that these questions
This study that adopted social cognitive theory analyzes remained unanswered, we found theoretical importance
the theoretical conceptual framework from the multilevel to investigate the interaction effect of goal orientation,
perspective. Social cognitive theory suggests a model of behavior psychological capital, and organizational innovation climate on
(B), cognition and other personal (P), and environmental innovation behavior.
(E) factors as interactive determinants that influence one The objective of our research was to explore how goal
another bidirectionally (Bandura, 1986, 2001). According to orientation affects employees’ innovation behavior by taking
social cognitive theory, goal orientation is an important psychological capital as a mediator and organizational
individual cognitive factor that gives directions to behavior. innovation climate as a moderator. We contribute to
Goal orientation refers to individual differences in goal the literature by explaining the relationship among
preferences within achievement settings and depends on goal orientation as an individual cognitive framework,
personal values, needs, and beliefs (Dweck, 1991). Goal psychological capital as a positive psychological state,
orientation has been categorized into learning, proving, and and innovation climate as an environmental factor and
avoiding goal orientations (VandeWalle, 1997). Individuals with innovation behavior. Employees with different goal
different goal orientations have their respective perceptual- orientations may have different levels of psychological
cognitive frameworks (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004), thereby capital and present different innovative output in response
explaining why some employees are more innovative than to their perceived innovation climate. The remainder of
others. Direct affection of goal orientation on individual the paper is arranged as follows. The next section contains
innovative behavior and moderating role of goal orientation a review of the literature, which leads to the development
concerning innovative behavior have been considerably proven of the hypotheses. The following section discusses the
(Hirst et al., 2009; Guo et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2021). methodology used and evaluates the results of the hypotheses.
However, existing literature has not sufficiently discussed the Finally, theoretical and practical implications are discussed
indirect effects of goal orientation on employees’ innovation in the conclusion.
behavior. Hence, the mechanism between goal orientation and
employees’ innovation behavior remains unclear and should
not be disregarded.
Bandura (2001) suggested that positive psychological state is
Theoretical framework and
an important mechanism, resulting in the desirable outcomes, hypotheses
such as employee’s innovative behavior. Luthans et al. (2007)
used positive psychology ideas to develop the concept and Goal orientation and innovation
construct of the psychological capital. Psychological capital behavior
is defined as an individual’s positive psychological state of
development and consisted of hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and In the 1980s, Dweck defined goal orientation according to
resilience, which are crucial in the relationship between goal the research conducted with grade school children. Goal
orientation and innovation behavior. Social cognitive theory has orientation refers to the individual differences in goal
devoted particular attention to environmental factors on human preferences within achievement settings. Dweck (1991)
functioning. Existing studies have suggested that compatibility identified learning goal orientation and performance goal
between person and environment is a critical condition for orientation as two major classes of goal orientations.
enhanced creativity (Choi, 2004). Organizational innovation Learning and performance goal orientations relate to
climate can create favorable environment for individual different implicit theories on personal abilities as well as
innovation behavior (Andersson et al., 2020; Battistelli et al., different beliefs on the value of effort, causes of success, and
2021). Yan et al. (2020) indicated that organizational innovation interpretation of feedback.
climate can significantly influence psychological capital and Originally, goal orientation was central to educational
innovation behavior. psychology literature, but it was also discussed in organizational

Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

studies (Shamin et al., 2017). VandeWalle (1997) studied goal continually (Sherf et al., 2021). Thus, we propose the following
orientation with MBA students and noted that performance hypothesis:
goal orientation encompasses both the desire to gain
favorable judgments and to avoid unfavorable judgments H1a: Learning goal orientation has a positive effect on
about one’s ability. VandeWalle (1997) claimed that goal employees’ innovation behavior.
orientation should have three dimensions, which are redefined
as follows. First, learning goal orientation is a focus on Empirical findings on proving goal orientation were
developing one’s competence by acquiring new skills, mastering more complex because several studies found that it has
new no significant (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004; Song
situations, and learning from experience. Second, proving goal et al., 2015) or negative relationship (Zhu et al., 2019)
orientation is a focus on demonstrating one’s competence with employee’s creativity. However, numerous studies
and on gaining favorable judgments from others. Third, have shown that proving goal orientation has positive
avoiding goal orientation is a focus on avoiding negation of associations to achievement, persistence, and innovation
one’s competence and negative judgments from others. These (Elliot and Church, 1997; Gong et al., 2013; Liu et al.,
categories of goal orientation have been well established in the 2015; Janke et al., 2016). Individuals with proving goal
literature and have received substantial empirical support (Elliot orientation are interested in showing their skills and
and Church, 1997; VandeWalle, 1997; Lin et al., 2022). The competency (Khattak et al., 2017; Domurath et al.,
different types of goal orientation are neither mutually exclusive 2020). They demonstrate their competence through
nor contradictory (Button et al., 1996). They are independent of knowledge manipulation (Lu et al., 2012). They may
each other. Goal orientation plays a significant role in numerous promote their knowledge as a part of their persistent
organizational decisions (Shamin et al., 2017). endeavors and manipulate the value and content of their
To distinguish the effect of learning goal orientation, knowledge to maximize their performance (Rhee and Choi,
proving goal orientation, and avoiding goal orientation on 2017; Shariq et al., 2019). Li and Tsai (2020) found that
innovation behavior, we apply the perspectives of behavioral employees who have proving goal orientation would perform
activation system (BAS) and behavioral inhibition system well and improve their learning outcomes. Ma et al. (2021)
(BIS) (Sherf et al., 2021), which group human behaviors indicated that proving goal orientation can strengthen their
into two categories based on self-regulatory systems of goal challenge behavior. We are convinced that proving goal
choice (Wrosch et al., 2003). BAS is associated with obtaining orientation acts as BAS. By being valued as “innovative
potential opportunities and rewards. Individuals with BAS employees,” proving goal-oriented employees’ BAS would be
would be motivated by desirable goals and are future-focused. triggered significantly and employees could receive positive
By contrast, BIS is related to avoiding potential punishments judgment and enhance their confidence and ability by engaging
and minimizing threats (Sherf et al., 2021). Individuals with creatively with problems and challenges (Hirst et al., 2009; Liang
BIS prefer to avoid potential failures and prevent new et al., 2019). Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:
negative change.
Individuals with learning goal orientations have an H1b: Proving goal orientation has a positive effect on
incremental implicit theory and perceive ability as a malleable employees’ innovation behavior.
trait that can be developed with effort and persistence (Dweck,
1991). We argue that learning goal orientations response By contrast, individuals with strong avoiding goal
to BAS regulations with enthusiasm and approach-oriented orientation and entity implicit theory consider ability an
behaviors. For learning goal-oriented individuals, the effort innate and fixed attribute that is difficult to develop. Avoiding
is an important determinant of success, an effective path to goal orientation acts as BIS, which corresponds to avoiding
activate one’s current ability, and a strategy to develop additional dangers and failures (Sherf et al., 2021). Individuals with
capabilities needed for future task mastery. Individuals with high level of avoiding goal orientation can view substantial
high levels of learning goal orientation are self-initiated, which effort as evidence of ineffectiveness, disadvantage, and
align with BAS and are apt to achieve desirable outcomes failures after hard work as an unbearable confirmation of
by diagnosing progress, correcting errors, or formulating low ability. Thus, when creativity-relevant skills are involved,
alternative strategies (Kakkar et al., 2016). Goal orientation avoiding goal-oriented employees have the tendency to
plays a key role in creativity, and learning goal-oriented avoid challenges or uncertainties that pose risks of error
individuals would positively seek new skills and information (VandeWalle, 1997; Guo et al., 2019; Shariq et al., 2019).
to achieve innovation performance (Zia, 2020; Zhou, 2021). They would not explore situations or generate innovative
Individuals with high learning orientation tend to accept the ideas with high possibilities of receiving negative feedback
challenges and difficulties when innovating (Annosi et al., 2020) (Gong et al., 2013). Therefore, the following hypothesis is
acting as BAS, thereby possibly triggering innovation behavior generated:

Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

H1c: Avoiding goal orientation has a negative effect on goal orientation have a positive relationship with self-efficacy
employees’ innovation behavior. (Geitz et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019; Du et al., 2020).
By believing that ability can be developed, these individuals
are receptive to finding ways to develop the skills needed
to overcome setbacks (Annosi et al., 2020). Additionally,
Psychological capital as a mediator
learning goal orientation has a positive relationship with
optimism and hopes that foster resiliency to setbacks (Nuutila
Psychological capital represents individual motivational
et al., 2020). Thus, individuals with learning goal orientation
propensities that accrue through positive psychological
may exhibit high-level psychological capital, and learning
constructs, such as efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience
goal orientation may affect innovation behavior through
(Luthans and Youssef, 2004), thereby indicating one’s “positive
psychological capital. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
appraisal of circumstances and probability for success based on
generated:
motivated effort and perseverance” (Luthans et al., 2007, p. 550).
Several studies have provided strong support that psychological
H3a: Psychological capital mediates the relationship
capital has a positive effect on employees’ growing performance
between learning goal orientation and employees’
and innovation (Park and Jo, 2018; Slåtten et al., 2019; Montani
innovation behavior.
et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2020). Psychological capital provides
positive psychological resources that can release anxiety,
Individuals with proving goal orientation act BAS
uncertainty, and distress from the innovation process (Broad
and want to receive positive comments from others.
and Luthans, 2020). Employees with strong efficacy would
They would have high levels of hope, self-efficacy and
like to carry out a broad and proactive set of work tasks that
optimism, and enthusiastic to prove their abilities by
extend beyond prescribed technical requirements (Parker,
demonstrating their innovation behavior (Farmer et al.,
1998; Sun et al., 2016). Given challenging tasks, optimistic
2003). This situation proves that proving goal-oriented
and hopeful employees generally believe that good rather
individuals have greater confidence and competence
than bad things will happen to them. Even though things go
and easy to bounce back by favorable judgment of being
bad, employees with high resilience would bounce back from
innovative. Thus, individuals with proving goal orientation
adversity, uncertainty, conflict, and failure to even positively
may exhibit high-level psychological capital, and proving
carry out new ideas (Luthans, 2002). Thus, we propose the
goal orientation may affect innovation behavior through
following hypothesis:
psychological capital. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
generated:
H2: Psychological capital has a positive effect on employees’
innovation behavior.
H3b: Psychological capital mediates the relationship
between proving goal orientation and innovation behavior.
Goal orientation and psychological capital are individual
factors that affect employees’ innovation behavior. Accordingly,
For avoiding goal orientation, there is a risk of failure
the following question must be answered: What is the
that would demonstrate their inadequate abilities and receive
relationship among goal orientation, psychological capital, and
negative comments from others. Individuals with avoiding
employees’ innovation behavior? Renn and Vandenberg (1995)
goal orientation present BIS that connects to negative
generally supported the mediating role of critical psychological
emotions, such as worry and fear (Sherf et al., 2021).
states (CPS). Olaniyan and Hystad (2016) showed the indirect
Avoiding goal-oriented employees exhibit low self-esteem, low
effect of authentic leadership through psychological capital on
employees’ job satisfaction, insecurity, and intentions to quit. self-efficacy, and decreased emotional stability (Elliot and
These aspects may provide some support for the mediating Church, 1997) and have difficulty in overcoming setbacks.
role of psychological capital between goal orientation and Such individuals make negative attribution about abilities
innovation behavior. and report decreased interest in tasks and withdraws from
Individuals with learning goal orientation pursue an such tasks. Thus, individuals with avoiding goal orientation
adaptive response pattern and view challenging tasks as an may exhibit low-level psychological capital, and avoiding
opportunity for growth and development. Learning goal- goal orientation may affect innovation behavior through
oriented individuals present BAS associated with positive psychological capital. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
emotional states and drive others to achieve goals through generated:
effective learning (Merchan-Clavellino et al., 2019). Learning
goal orientation has been found to characterize individuals H3c: Psychological capital mediates the relationship
who have a generally positive approach to life, challenges, and between avoiding goal orientation and employees’
success (Elliot and McGregor, 2001). Individuals with learning innovation behavior.

Frontiers in Psychology 04 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

Organizational innovation climate as a more innovation behaviors in an organizational innovation

moderator climate. Accordingly, this research formulates the following
hypothesis:
The interactional perspective claims that the climate in
which a person works either facilitates or inhibits his or H4: Organizational innovation climate moderates the
her innovation behavior (Benjamin et al., 2014; Hsu and relationship between psychological capital and employees’
Chen, 2017; Li et al., 2020). For organizational climate, innovation behavior.
scholarly literature reveals two main perspectives of ontological
issues. Several theorists have conceived organizational climate Organizational innovation climate provides a safe context
as an objective property of the organization that exists for taking on challenges, exchanging ideas (Dirks and Ferrin,
independently of the perceptions and understandings of its 2001), and encouraging mutual learning and cooperation
members. It is a combination of feelings, attitudes, values, and among organization members. Such a climate affects employees’
behaviors that characterize research life in the organization attitudes and behaviors. Individuals with learning goal
(Ekvall, 1996). Other theorists define organizational climate orientation would present more BAS that has implications for
as a collective perception generated from the interaction promoting positive challenge appraisal in innovation supportive
among organization members (Schneider, 1975; Amabile climate (Espedido and Searle, 2020). On the one hand, learning
et al., 1996). In this study, the organizational innovative goal-oriented individuals who perceive the climate appear to
climate refers to the perception of organizational members have more positive attitude to challenges and be more closely
on the procedures, rules, practices, and behaviors that can related to creativity (Kim and Kwon, 2017). On the other hand,
promote the creation, development, and realization of new learning goal-oriented individuals would establish supportive
ideas (Van der Vegt et al., 2005; Zohar and Hofmann, relationship with colleagues who could suggest a positive
2012; Ehrhart et al., 2015; Andersson et al., 2020). It is effect on innovative engagement (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).
the perceived psychological climate that nurtures creative or Organizational innovation climate would result in greater
innovative behavior which is more important than objective innovative behavior when perceived by individuals with high
climate for an individual’s intrinsic motivation (Amabile levels of learning goal orientation. Hence, we propose the
et al., 1996). A work climate in which the employees feel following hypothesis:
supported can enhance their performance, particularly on
exploratory activities (Deci et al., 2001). When employees H5a: Organizational innovation climate strengthens
perceive the support for innovation from organizations, they the relationship between learning goal orientation and
would return the favor from organizations by doing well in employees’ innovation behavior.
innovation-role behavior (Fan et al., 2022). In an organizational
innovation climate, people are allowed to handle unexpected An innovation climate could minimize potential risks in
issues proactively and to make decisions even in situations the innovation process (Zhou and George, 2001). Individuals
where they lack information and certainty in the workplace with proving goal orientation would present more BAS that has
(Isaksen and Ekvall, 2010). implications for less stress appraisal in an innovation supportive
Organizational innovation climate could create positive climate (Espedido and Searle, 2020), thereby enhancing their
conditions necessary for psychological capital to flourish. confidence and ability by engaging creatively with problems and
When employees perceive organizational innovation climate challenges (Hirst et al., 2009). Therefore, when they perceive
and feel supported, they are more likely to try unproven the innovation climate, they would have greater confidence,
or new methods with higher level of hope to accomplish competence, and insist on demonstrating their innovation
the tasks at workplaces. Moreover, organizational innovation behavior (Farmer et al., 2003). Hence, we propose the following
climate will likely act as a contextual resource for individuals hypothesis:
to immediately bounce back after setbacks. By experiencing
high levels of resiliency, employees would not be in fear of H5b: Organizational innovation climate strengthens
reprisal or punishment owing to their mistakes in a supportive the relationship between proving goal orientation and
innovation climate. An organizational innovation climate employees’ innovation behavior.
may contribute to individual optimistic levels by allowing
employees to attribute failures to external circumstances versus Organizational innovation climate acts as a safeguard
low personal knowledge, skills, and abilities (Zhang et al., against infections of failure for avoiding goal-oriented
2015). When the level of employees’ psychological capital is individuals and they would present less with BIS. They
high, they would prefer to show their innovation behavior would have less anxiety and less failure appraisal (Mckay
(Ye et al., 2021). A growing recognition is that employees et al., 2020). Accordingly, organizational innovation climate
would have higher level of psychological capital and cause may decrease the negative effect of avoiding goal orientation

Frontiers in Psychology 05 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

on employees’ innovation behavior. Hence, the following were returned (89.5% response rate) and 398 questionnaires
hypothesis is generated: were valid (63.3% valid response rate). When selecting valid
questionnaires, some questionnaires were excluded, such as
H5c: Organizational innovation climate weakens the those lacking more than five items, repeatedly selecting the
relationship between avoiding goal orientation and same option or having contradictory answers to positive and
employees’ innovation behavior. negative questions. The sample indicated that 56.5% of the
respondents were men and 43.5% were women. Among the
According to H3, H4, and H5, we build a moderated total respondents, 43.5% of them had a bachelor’s degree, 16.8%
mediation model. Employees with learning goal orientation of them had a master’s degree, and 23.4% of them had been
and proving goal orientation would have high-level working for over 5 years. In terms of age, respondents aged
psychological capital and act positively toward more 25 and below were 21.7%, 26- to 35-year-old respondents
innovation behavior in high-level organizational innovation were 30.4%, 36- to 45-year-old respondents were 31.7%, and
climate than in low-level organizational innovation climate. respondents aged 46 and above were 16.2%. The enterprises
Additionally, employees with avoiding goal orientation were distributed among the following branches: electronic
would have fewer negative actions on innovation behavior communication (15.8%), instrument manufacturing (31.0%),
through psychological capital in high-level organizational biomedical industry (6.2%), chemical and food industry (6.0%),
innovation climate than in low-level organizational computer and software service (2.8%), banking and finance
innovation climate. Hence, we propose the following (6.7%), and construction industry (31.5%). In total, 27.8% of
hypotheses: the enterprises were state-owned enterprises, 52.6% of the
enterprises were private enterprises, and 19.6% of the enterprises
H6a: Organizational innovation climate can positively were international enterprises.
moderate the relationship between learning goal orientation
and innovation behavior though psychological capital.
Measures
H6b: Organizational innovation climate can positively The questionnaire adopted a five-point Likert scale with
moderate the relationship between proving goal orientation answers that ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly
and innovation behavior though psychological capital. agree.” The original scales of innovation behavior and goal
orientation were in English. They were translated into Chinese
and then back into English to ensure proper understanding for
H6c: Organizational innovation climate can negatively respondents and simultaneously retain their original meaning.
moderate the relationship between avoiding goal
orientation and innovation behavior though Goal orientation
psychological capital. Goal orientation is a categorical variable with three
dimensions of learning, proving, and avoiding goal orientations.
Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical model underlying the These dimensions were measured using the scale of VandeWalle
hypotheses presented in this research. (2001) with 12 sub-categorized items. An example item for
learning goal orientation is “I am willing to select a challenging
work assignment that I can learn a lot from.” An example item
Method for proving goal orientation is “I like to show that I can perform
better than my co-workers.” An example item for avoiding goal
Sample and procedure orientation is “I would avoid taking on a new task if there was
a chance that I would appear rather incompetent to others.”
The data for this study were collected through a survey Cronbach’s α for the whole scale is 0.990 and for subscales is
from 600 R&D employees from 41 enterprises in China. between 0.800 and 0.818, which all indicate good reliability.
The enterprises were randomly selected from five different
provinces, namely, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanxi, Henan, and Organizational innovation climate
Ningxia, which are located in the eastern, middle, and The scale to measure organizational innovation climate
western areas of China. Printed questionnaires inquired was designed by Qiu et al. (2009). The scale was based
about respondents’ perceptions regarding innovation behavior. on Work Environment Index (Amabile and Gryskiewicz,
For each item, those respondents described their opinions 1989) and is more suitable for Chinese. Employees assessed
on organizational innovation climate, goal orientation, and their perceived organizational climate in enhancing innovation
innovation behavior. A total of 537 completed questionnaires and creativity. The scale has 35 items in seven dimensions,

Frontiers in Psychology 06 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

Organizational innovation climate

Goal orientation
learning goal orientation
Proving goal orientation Psychological Innovation
Avoiding goal orientation capital behavior

FIGURE 1
Theoretical model.

which are organizational value, operating method, resource Confirmatory factor analysis
supply, team operation, learning and growing, leadership
efficiency, and organizational climate. One sample item is Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess
“My supervisor can respect and support my innovation at the model fit and validity by inputting raw data to IBM SPSS
the workplace.” Cronbach’s α for this scale is 0.970 and AMOS and requesting an analysis based on the covariance
for subscales is between 0.850 and 0.950, which all indicate matrix (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996). Fit indices indicated that
good reliability. six-factor model has a better fit for the hypothesized model
when compared to the five-factor model, four-factor model,
Employees’ innovation behavior three-factor model, two-factor model, and one-factor model (see
The scale to measure and rate the level of employees’ Table 1). All items loaded significantly on the latent constructs
innovation behavior was designed by Scott and Bruce (1994). they were designed to measure.
In their study (Scott and Bruce, 1994), employees’ innovation The probability of common-method variance exists because
behavior was rated by the supervisors. However, the study every part of the questionnaire was self-reported by employees.
of Carmeli et al. (2006) indicated that the reliability of Thus, this study used the CFA marker technique to explore
the same scale as reported by the employees themselves the common method variance (CMV) and unmeasured method
was similar to the Cronbach’s α of 0.89 reported by variance (UMV) models and to conduct model comparisons
Scott and Bruce (1994). In this study, a self-evaluation with various key parameters (refer to Table 2). Key parameters
was adapted, and innovation behavior was measured as that show the CMV model has greater fit than the UMV model
a single-dimensional variable. The scale has six items, indicate a significant common method bias (Williams et al.,
including “Promotes and champions ideas to others.” 2010). However, the present model comparisons show the key
Cronbach’s α for this scale is 0.930, which indicates parameters of the CMV model that does not have greater fit
good reliability. than those of the UMV model, which suggests a lack of common
method variance to confound the interpretation of results.
Psychological capital
The scale to measure psychological capital was designed
by Luthans et al. (2007). Employees rated their positive Results
psychological state of efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism.
The scale has 24 items in four dimensions: efficacy, hope, The direct influence of goal orientation, psychological
resilience, and optimism. One sample item is “I feel confident capital, and innovation behavior and the indirect effects of
in representing my work area in meetings with management.” mediating effect, moderating effect, and moderated mediation
Cronbach’s α for this scale is 0.970 and for subscales is effect were validated by IBM SPSS AMOS software package with
between 0.890 and 0.980, which indicate that the scale has bootstrapping approach in this study.
good reliability.

Control variables Descriptive statistics

The effect of gender, age, years for work, type of enterprises,
and industry were statistically controlled to remove their Table 3 reports the means, standard deviations, and
potential confounding effect. correlations among variables. Variance inflation factor (VIF)

Frontiers in Psychology 07 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

TABLE 1 Fit indices of CFA.

CFA χ2 df χ2 /df RMSEA NFI CFI IFI TLI

Six-factor model 529.913 237 2.235 0.056 0.836 0.901 0.902 0.885
Five-factor model 704.812 242 2.912 0.069 0.782 0.844 0.845 0.822
Four-factor model 496.474 98 5.066 0.101 0.717 0.756 0.789 0.701
Three-factor model 430.792 101 4.265 0.090 0.754 0.798 0.800 0.760
Two-factor model 709.433 103 6.887 0.121 0.629 0.661 0.665 0.606
Single-factor model 311.648 44 7.082 0.123 0.587 0.617 0.623 0.521

Mathieu and Farr (1991) mentioned that if variables with items are more than 7, they need to be simplified into three items.
A: Learning goal orientation, B: Proving goal orientation, C: Avoiding goal orientation, D: Psychological capital, E: Organizational innovation climate, F: Innovation behavior.
One-factor model: A + B + C + D + E + F; two-factor model: A + B + C + D + E, F; three-factor model: A + B + C + D, E, F; four-factor model: A + B + C, D, E, F; five-factor model: A + B,
C, D, E, F; and six-factor model: A, B, C, D, E, F.

TABLE 2 CMV and UMV model comparisons of key parameters.

Model χ2 df χ 2 /df RMSEA AGFI NNFI CFI IFI SRMR

UMV 468.053 164 2.854 0.069 0.862 0.963 0.986 0.968 0.050
CMV 798.620 149 5.360 0.092 0.792 0.934 0.948 0.948 1.157

TABLE 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations (n = 398).

Variables Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Organizational innovation climate 3.623 0.677 –

2. Learning goal orientation 3.981 0.705 0.364*** –
3. Proving goal orientation 3.890 0.679 0.214*** 0.422*** –
4. Avoiding goal orientation 2.938 0.943 0.044 −0.155** 0.133** –
5. Psychological capital 3.854 0.526 0.633*** 0.548*** 0.374*** −0.091** –
6. Innovation behavior 3.756 0.666 0.489*** 0.531*** 0.349*** −0.341** 0.677***

**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

is the standard for testing multicollinearity. The results show capital and innovation behavior (β = 0.626, p < 0.001). Thus,
that the maximum VIF value is 2.413 and is under the H2 is supported.
recommended maximum values (Hair et al., 2018), indicating
that multicollinearity is not an issue in this study.

Mediating effect of psychological

capital
Analysis of the influence of goal
orientation, psychological capital, and The results shown in Table 5 indicate that the mediating
innovation behavior effect of psychological capital between learning goal orientation
and innovation behavior is significant (β = 0.225, p < 0.05),
Table 4 shows the results of Hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, and the bootstrap confidence interval (CI) with 95% confidence
and H2. Learning goal orientation (β = 0.475, p < 0.001) level is (0.146, 0.339), not including 0. Moreover, the
and proving goal orientation (β = 0.310, p < 0.001) have mediating effect of psychological capital between proving
significant positive relationship with innovation behavior. goal orientation and innovation behavior is significant
Thus, H1a and H1b are supported. There is no significant (β = 0.216, p < 0.01), and CI is (0.138, 0.345). Hence, H3a
relationship between avoiding goal orientation and innovation and H3b are supported. That is, through psychological
behavior (β = 0.007, p > 0.05). Thus, H1c is not supported. capital, learning goal orientation and proving goal orientation
The results indicate that learning goal orientation and proving positively affect employees’ innovation behavior. However,
goal orientation can positively affect employees’ innovation the mediating effect of psychological capital for avoiding
behavior. However, negative affection of avoiding goal goal orientation is not significant, and CI is (−0.095, 0.012),
orientation on innovation behavior is not significant. Table 4 which includes 0. Therefore, H3c is not supported. That
indicates a significant relationship between psychological is, psychological capital does not mediate the relationship

Frontiers in Psychology 08 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

TABLE 4 Results of the influence of goal orientation, psychological capital on innovation behavior.

Path Estimate SE CR P

Learning goal orientation → Innovation behavior 0.475 0.070 6.781 0.000

Proving goal orientation → Innovation behavior 0.310 0.059 5.185 0.000
Avoiding goal orientation → Innovation behavior 0.007 0.029 0.239 0.812
Psychological capital → Innovation behavior 0.626 0.072 8.657 0.000

TABLE 5 Mediating effect test of psychological capital.

Mediating influence path Estimate SE CR Percentile 95% CI

Lower limit Upper limit P

Learning goal orientation → Psychological capital → Innovation behavior 0.225 0.047 4.787 0.146 0.339 0.010
Proving goal orientation → Psychological capital → Innovation behavior 0.216 0.053 4.075 0.138 0.345 0.007
Avoiding goal orientation → Psychological capital → Innovation behavior −0.036 0.027 1.333 −0.095 0.012 0.169

between avoiding goal orientation and innovation behavior and 95% CI is (0.136, 0.663), not including 0. Thus, when
when avoiding goal orientation could not affect innovation organizational innovation climate is higher, the effect of learning
behavior significantly. goal orientation on innovation behavior though psychological
capital is stronger, which means that the moderated mediation
effect is significant. Hence, H6a is supported. For proving goal
Moderating effect of organizational orientation, mediation effect is significant (β = 0.321, p < 0.05),
innovation climate with 95% CI at (0.112, 0.586) in high organizational innovation
climate. Thus, H6b is supported. However, for avoiding
Table 6 shows the moderating effect of organizational goal orientation, 95% CI includes 0, whether organizational
innovation climate. The moderating effect of organizational innovation climate is low or high. Hence, H6c is not supported.
innovation climate on the relationship of psychological capital The preceding results show the moderated mediation
and innovation behavior is significant (β = 0.399, p < 0.01), relationships. For employees in high organizational innovation
with 95% CI at (0.251, 0.583). Hence, H4 is supported. The climate, the effects of learning goal orientation and proving
moderating effect of organizational innovation climate on the goal orientation on innovation behavior are stronger through
relationship between learning goal orientation and innovation psychological capital compared with those in low organizational
behavior is significant (β = 0.795, p < 0.05), with 95% CI at innovation climate.
(0.462, 1.215). Similarly, the moderating effect of organizational
innovation climate on the relationship between proving goal
orientation and innovation behavior is significant (β = 0.404, Discussion and conclusion
p < 0.05), with 95% CI at (0.241, 0.588). Hence, H5a and H5b are
supported. However, there is no significant moderating effect of This study findings contribute to the relationship
organizational innovation climate on avoiding goal orientation between goal orientation and employees’ innovation
and innovation behavior. Therefore, H5c is not supported. behavior by interacting with psychological capital and
organizational innovation climate. The results indicate the
relationship between goal orientation and innovation behavior
Moderated mediation effect of in clear manner.
psychological capital and
organizational innovation climate
Theoretical significance
The results of moderated mediation analysis are shown
in Table 7. For learning goal orientation, the mediation First, this study took goal orientation as an individual
effect of psychological capital is not significant when the cognitive factor based on social cognitive theory and verified
organizational innovation climate is low and 95% CI is (−0.112, that different categories of goal orientation have different
0.291). In addition, mediation effect is significant (β = 0.374, relationship with employees’ innovation behavior. Learning
p < 0.05) when organizational innovation climate is high goal orientation and performance goal orientation have direct

Frontiers in Psychology 09 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

TABLE 6 Moderating effect test of organizational innovation climate.

Moderating influence path Estimate SE CR Percentile 95% CI

Lower limit Upper limit P

Psychological capital → Organizational innovation climate → Innovation behavior 0.399 0.083 4.807 0.251 0.583 0.007
Learning goal orientation → Organizational innovation climate → Innovation behavior 0.795 0.187 4.251 0.462 1.215 0.014
Proving goal orientation → Organizational innovation climate → Innovation behavior 0.404 0.084 4.810 0.241 0.588 0.010
Avoiding goal orientation → Organizational innovation climate → Innovation behavior −0.049 0.029 1.380 −0.098 0.010 0.113

TABLE 7 Moderated mediation effect test of psychological capital and organizational innovation climate.

Moderated mediation influence path Estimate SE CR Percentile 95% CI

Lower limit Upper limit P

Learning goal orientation Low organizational innovation climate 0.071 0.101 0.703 −0.112 0.291 0.160
→ Psychological capital
→ Innovation behavior
High organizational innovation climate 0.374 0.133 2.812 0.136 0.663 0.023
Proving goal orientation Low organizational innovation climate 0.061 0.092 0.663 −0.142 0.233 0.444
→ Psychological capital
→ Innovation behavior
High organizational innovation climate 0.321 0.121 2.652 0.112 0.586 0.015
Avoiding goal Low organizational innovation climate 0.015 0.023 0.652 −0.036 0.060 0.132
orientation →
Psychological capital →
Innovation behavior
High organizational innovation climate 0.067 0.043 1.558 −0.012 0.156 0.059

positive effect on employees’ innovation behavior. These results avoiding goal orientation) and employees’ innovation behavior
are the same as the results of many previous studies (Gong was proved in this study. Although previous research has proven
et al., 2013; Zhou, 2021). However, contrary to our expectations, that organizational innovation climate is one of the crucial
avoiding goal orientation showed no significant negative effect predictors of employees’ innovation behavior (Taştan, 2013;
on innovation behavior. Kang et al., 2016; Hsu and Chen, 2017), only a few studies have
Second, this study explored the mediating mechanism focused on how different categories of goal orientation react to
between goal orientation and innovation behavior. Considering innovation behavior in an innovation supportive climate. This
psychological capital as the positive psychological state of study extends social cognitive theory with how individuals with
individuals that could considerably predict innovation behavior different goal orientation (P) act toward innovation behavior (B)
(Bandura, 2001), employees having different goal orientation by interacting with organizational innovation climate (E).
would have different levels of psychological capital and likely Finally, to clarify the interaction between psychological
have different tendencies to innovation behavior. The results capital and organizational innovation climate, this study
indicate that psychological capital functions as a catalyst and developed a moderated mediation effect among variables as
clarifies the inner mechanism of how goal orientation affects an initial attempt to show that in organizational innovation
innovation behavior. That differs from many studies that have climate, how different types of goal orientation affect innovation
focused on the direct relationship between goal orientation behavior go through psychological capital. The result supports
and innovation behavior or have taken goal orientation as our expectation that psychological capital is stronger when
moderator or mediator (Guo et al., 2019; Zia, 2020) to predict compared to innovation behavior when employees have high,
innovation behavior. rather than low, perceived organizational innovation climate. In
Third, organizational innovation climate was considered addition, learning goal orientation and proving goal orientation
in this study as an important environmental factor according could bring more innovation behavior caused by high-level
to social cognitive theory and serves as a condition to psychological capital in high organizational innovation climate
trigger employees’ innovation behavior. The moderator role of than in low-level organizational innovation climate. However,
organizational innovation climate on the relationship between the moderated mediation effect does not work for avoiding
learning goal orientation (proving goal orientation, but not goal orientation.

Frontiers in Psychology 10 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

Practical significance variables may be relevant to the attitude toward innovation in

employees’ and company’s perspectives. In the future research,
This study also presents practical implications for individuals’ risk attitude, dispositional optimism, and company’s
management. First, enterprises should pay greater attention incentive structure should be considered as control variables.
to employees’ goal orientations. Enterprises should hire more
learning goal-oriented or proving goal-oriented employees
to build innovation teams. Employees with learning goal Data availability statement
orientations can keep learning, developing skills and knowledge,
and producing innovation behavior. Employees with proving The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will
goal orientation could positively involve in more innovation. be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
However, enterprises should avoid recruiting individuals
with avoiding goal orientation for innovational programs
(Weidinger et al., 2016). Second, the study suggests that Author contributions
enterprises should improve the psychological capital level of
employees. Psychological capital can be managed and developed All authors contributed to the article and approved the
as human resource capital, and the managing and developing submitted version.
of psychological capital have lower cost and more return
than the managing and developing of other capitals (Luthans
and Youssef, 2004). Luthans et al. (2007) and Zhao (2011)
Funding
have researched on the management and development of
psychological capital and provided the methods for enterprises.
This study was funded by Humanities and Social Science
Third, enterprises need to provide a secure and supportive
Fund of Ministry of Education of China (20YJA840021)
climate to encourage employees to act in unconventional ways
and Research and Innovation Practice Program for Graduate
to gain innovation value. A strong climate for innovation and
Students of Jiangsu Province (KYCX22_3597).
psychological safety may lead to greater innovation behavior.

Conflict of interest
Limitations and avenues for future
research The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
To interpret the findings of this study, we must consider be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
several limitations that may also suggest directions for future
research. First, this study used a cross-sectional design, which
could prohibit causal inferences and reduce the credibility Publisher’s note
of results. Thus, longitudinal or semi-laboratory studies are
necessary to expound on the relationship among factors from All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
the organizational climate level, factors from the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
level, and innovation behavior in future studies. Furthermore, organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
individual-level variables, such as individuals’ risk attitude reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
and dispositional optimism, and organizational-level variables, claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed
such as the company’s incentive structure, are ignored. These or endorsed by the publisher.

References
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., and Herron, M. (1996). Andersson, M., Moen, O., and Brett, P. O. (2020). The organizational climate
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 39, 1154–1184. for psychological safety: Associations with SMEs’ innovation capabilities and
doi: 10.5465/256995 innovation performance. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 55:101554. doi: 10.1016/j.
jengtecman
Amabile, T. M., and Gryskiewicz, N. (1989). The creative environment scales:
The work environment inventory. Creat. Res. J. 2, 231–254. doi: 10.1080/ Annosi, M. C., Monti, A., and Martini, A. (2020). Individual learning goal
10400418909534321 orientations in self-managed team-based organizations: A study on individual and
contextual variables. Creat. Innov. Manag. 29, 528–545. doi: 10.1111/caim.12377
Anderson, N., Potoènik, K., and Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity
in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
guiding framework. J. Manag. 40, 1297–1333. 0149206314527128 doi: 10.1177/ Cognitive Theory. Hoboken: Prentice-Hall.

Frontiers in Psychology 11 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Gong, Y., Kim, T., Lee, D., and Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal
Psychol. 52, 1–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 56, 827–851.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0177
Battistelli, A., Odoardi, C., Cangialosi, N., Di Napoli, G., and Piccione, L. (2021).
The role of image expectations in linking organizational climate and innovative Guo, Y., Wang, C., and Feng, Y. (2019). The impact of psychological climate
work behaviour. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 25, 204–222. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-01-2021- on employees’ innovative use of information systems: The moderating role of
0044 goal orientation. Behav. Inf. Technol. 38, 345–360. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2018.
1534988
Benjamin, R. H., Rita, B., and Felix, B. C. (2014). Does an adequate team climate
for learning predict team effectiveness and innovation potential? A psychometric Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate
validation of the team climate questionnaire for learning in an organizational Data Analysis Eighth Edition. Andover: Cengage.
context. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 114, 543–550. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.
Hirst, G., Van, K. D., and Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee
12.744
creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity.
Broad, J. D., and Luthans, F. (2020). Positive resources for psychiatry Acad. Manag. J. 52, 280–293. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.37308035
in the fourth industrial revolution: Building patient and family focused
Hsu, M. A., and Chen, F. H. (2017). The cross-level mediating effect
psychological capital (PsyCap). Int. Rev. Psychol. 32, 542–554. doi: 10.1080/095
of psychological capital on the organizational innovation climate-employee
40261
innovative behavior relationship. J. Creat. Behav. 51, 128–139. doi: 10.1002/
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., and Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in jocb.90
organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organ. Behav.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., and Mumford, M. D. (2005). Dimension of creative
Hum. Decis. Process. 67, 26–48. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0063
climate: A general taxonomy. Int. J. Creat. Problem Solving 15, 97–116.
Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., and Wdisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills
Isaksen, S. G., and Ekvall, G. (2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of
and innovative behavior at work. Int. J. Manpow. 27, 75–90. doi: 10.1108/
tension in creative climates. Creat. Innov. Manag. 19, 73–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
01437720610652853
8691.2010.00558.x
Chen, A. S. Y., and Hou, Y. H. (2016). The effects of ethical leadership, voice
Janke, S., Nitsche, S., Praetorius, A. K., Benning, K., Fasching, M., Dresel,
behavior and climates for innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation.
M., et al. (2016). Deconstructing performance goal orientations: The merit of a
Leadersh. Q. 27, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.007
dimensional approach. Learn. Individual Differ. 50, 113–146. j.lindif.2016.08.013
Choi, J. N. (2004). Person-environment fit and creative behavior: Differential doi: 10.1016/
impacts of supplies-values and demands-abilities versions of fit. Hum. Relat. 57,
Janssen, O., and Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employee’s goal orientations, the
531–552. doi: 10.1177/0018726704044308
quality of leader member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagneì, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., and satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 47, 368–384. 20159587 doi: 10.5465/
Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in
Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide.
the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural
Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.
study of self-determination. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27, 930–942. doi: 10.1177/
0146167201278002 Kakkar, H., Tangiralas, S., Srivastava, N. K., and Kamdar, D. (2016). The
dispositional antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice. J. Appl. Psychol. 101,
Dirks, K. T., and Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings.
1342–1351. doi: 10.1037/apl0000130
Organ. Sci. 12, 450–467. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640
Kang, J. H., Matusik, J. G., Kim, T. Y., and Phillips, J. M. (2016). Interactive
Domurath, A., Coviello, N., Patzelt, H., and Ganal, B. (2020). New venture
effects of multiple organizational climates on employee innovative behavior in
adaptation in international markets: A goal orientation theory perspective.
entrepreneurial firms: A cross level investigation. J. Bus. Venture. 31, 628–642.
J. World Bus. 55:101019. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2019.101019
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.08.002
Du, K., Wang, Y., Ma, X., Lou, Z., Wang, L., and Shi, B. (2020). Achievement
Khattak, S. R., Saleem, Z., and Khan, H. (2017). Relationship between
goals and creativity: The mediating role of creative self-efficacy. Educ. Psychol. 40,
goal orientation and employee creativity: A mediating role of creative
1249–1269. 01443410.2020.18 06210 doi: 10.1080/
self-efficacy. Int. J. Organ. Leadersh. 6, 434–443. doi: 10.33844/IJOL.2017.
Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-Theories and Goals: Their Role in Motivation, 60338
Personality and Development. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Kim, B. N., and Kwon, S. M. (2017). The link between hypomania
Ehrhart, M. G., Schneider, B., and Macey, W. H. (2015). Organizational climate risk and creativity: The role of heightened behavioral activation system
and culture: An introduction to theory, research and practice. Pers. Psychol. 68, (BAS) sensitivity. J. Affect. Disord. 215, 9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.
703–706. doi: 10.1111/peps.12113_3 02.033
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. Eur. J. Kumar, D., Upadhyay, Y., Yadav, R., and Goyal, A. K. (2022). Psychological
Work Organ. Psychol. 5, 105–123. doi: 10.1080/13594329608414845 capital and innovative work behaviour: The role of mastery orientation and
creative self-efficacy. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 102:103157. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.
Elliot, A. J., and Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and
103157
avoidance achievement motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72, 218–232. doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.72.1.218 Li, C., Makhdoom, H. U. R., and Asim, S. (2020). Impact of entrepreneurial
leadership on innovative work behavior: Examining mediation and moderation
Elliot, A. J., and McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2\times 2 achievement goal
mechanisms. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 13, 105–118. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.
framework. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 501–519.
S236876
Espedido, A., and Searle, B. J. (2020). Daily proactive problem-solving and next
Li, D. C., and Tsai, C. Y. (2020). Antecedents of employees’ goal orientation
day stress appraisals: The moderating role of behavioral activation. Anxiety Stress
and the effects of goal orientation on e-learning outcomes: The roles of
Coping 33, 416–428. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2020
intra-organizational environment. Sustainability 12:4759. doi: 10.3390/su121
Fan, C., Tang, S., Chen, L., and Sun, T. (2022). Perceived organizational support 14759
and proactive innovation behavior: The mediating role of basic psychological
Liang, H., Sun, W., Fonseka, M. M., and Zhou, F. (2019). Goal
needs. Front. Psychol. 13:804363. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022
orientations, absorptive capacity, and NPD team performance: Evidence
Fan, H. L., Chang, P. F., Albanese, D., Wu, J. J., Yu, M. J., and Chuang, from China. Chin. Manag. Stud. 13, 489–510. doi: 10.1108/CMS-01-201
H. J. (2016). Multilevel influences of transactive memory systems on individual 8-0389
innovative behavior and team innovation. Think Skills Creat. 19, 49–59. doi: 10.
Lin, Y., Yang, M., Quade, M. J., and Chen, W. (2022). Is the bottom line reached?
1016/j.tsc.2015.11.001
An exploration of supervisor bottom-line mentality, team performance avoidance
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., and Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity goal orientation and team performance. Hum. Relat. 75, 349–372. doi: 10.1177/
in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Acad. Manag. J. 46, 618–630. 00187267211002917
doi: 10.5465/30040653
Liu, D., Wang, S., and Wayne, S. J. (2015). Is being a good learner enough? An
Geitz, G., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., and Kirschner, P. A. (2016). Changing learning examination of the interplay between learning goal orientation and impression
behaviour: Self-efficacy and goal orientation in PBL groups in higher education. management tactics on creativity. Pers. Psychol. 68, 109–142. doi: 10.1111/peps.
Int. J. Educ. Res. 75, 146–158. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.11.001 12064

Frontiers in Psychology 12 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

Lomberg, C., Kollmann, T., and Stockmann, C. (2017). Different styles for Shamin, S., Cang, S., and Yu, H. (2017). Supervisory orientation, employee goal
different needs-the effect of cognitive styles on idea generation. Creat. Innov. orientation, and knowledge management among front line hotel employees. Int. J.
Manag. 26, 49–59. doi: 10.1111/caim.12188 Hosp. Manag. 62, 21–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.11.013
Lu, L., Lin, X., and Leung, K. (2012). Goal orientation and innovative Shariq, S. M., Mukhtar, U., and Anwar, S. (2019). Mediating and moderating
performance: The mediating roles of knowledge sharing and perceived impact of goal orientation and emotional intelligence on the relationship of
autonomy. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 180–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012. knowledge oriented leadership and knowledge sharing. J. Knowl. Manag. 23,
01018.x 332–350. doi: 10.1108/JKM-01-2018-0033
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational Sherf, E. N., Parke, M. R., and Isaakyan, S. (2021). Distinguish voice and silence
behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 23, 695–706. doi: 10.1002/job.165 at work: Unique relationship with perceived impact, psychological safety, and
burnout. Acad. Manag. J. 64, 114–148. doi: 10.5465/amj.2018.1428
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., and Norman, S. M. (2007).
Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance Slåtten, T., Lien, G., Horn, C. M. F., and Pedersen, E. (2019). The links between
and satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 60, 541–572. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007. psychological capital, social capital, and work-related performance-a study of
00083.x service sales representatives. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 30, S195–S209. doi:
10.1080/14783363.2019.1665845
Luthans, F., and Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social and now positive
psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Somech, A., and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to
Organ. Dyn. 33, 143–160. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004 innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for
innovation. J. Manag. 39, 684–708. doi: 10.1177/0149206310394187
Ma, J., Peng, Y., and Wu, B. (2021). Challenging or hindering? The roles of
goal orientation and cognitive appraisal in stressor-performance relationships. Song, W., Yu, H., Zhang, Y., and Jiang, W. (2015). Goal orientation and
J. Organ. Behav. 42, 388–406. doi: 10.1002/job.2503 employee creativity: The mediating role of creative role identity. J. Health Organ.
Manag. 21, 82–97. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2014.64
Mathieu, J. E., and Farr, J. L. (1991). Further evidence for the discriminant
validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job Song, Z., Gu, Q., and Cooke, F. L. (2020). The effects of high-involvement work
satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 76, 127–133. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.1.127 systems and shared leadership on team creativity: A multilevel investigation. Hum.
Res. Manag. 59, 201–213.
Mckay, D., Yang, H., Elhai, J., and Asmundson, G. (2020). Anxiety
regarding contracting COVID-19 related to interoceptive anxiety sensations: The Sun, H., Ni, J., Wu, H., and Zhou, L. (2016). An empirical research on
moderating role of disgust propensity and sensitivity. J. Anxiety Disord. 73:102233. the relationship between psychological capital and performance of knowledge
doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102233 workers. Sci. Res. Manag. 37, 60–69.
Merchan-Clavellino, A., Alameda-Bailen, J. R., García, A. Z., and Guil, Taştan, S. B. (2013). The influences of participative organizational climate and
R. (2019). Mediating effect of trait emotional intelligence between the self-leadership on innovative behavior and the roles of job involvement and
behavioral activation system (BAS)/behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and proactive personality: A survey in the context of SMEs in Izmir. Soc. Behav. Sci.
positive and negative affect. Front. Psychol. 10:424. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019. 75, 407–419. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.045
00424
Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., and Huang, X. (2005). Location-level
Montani, F., Vandenberghe, C., Khedhaouria, A., and Courcy, F. (2020). links between diversity and innovative climate depend on national power distance.
Examining the inverted u-shaped relationship between workload and innovative Acad. Manag. J. 48, 1171–1182. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.19573116
work behavior: The role of work engagement and mindfulness. Hum. Relat. 73,
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain
59–93. doi: 10.1177/0018726718819055
goal orientation instrument. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 57, 995–1015. doi: 10.1177/
Nuutila, K., Tapola, A., Tuominen, H., Kupiainen, S., Pásztor, A., and 0013164497057006009
Niemivirta, M. (2020). Reciprocal predictions between interest, self-efficacy, and
VandeWalle, D. (2001). Goal orientation: Why wanting to look successful
performance during a task. Front. Educ. 5:36. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00036
doesn’t always lead to success. Organ. Dyn. 30, 162–171. doi: 10.1016/S0090-
Olaniyan, O. S., and Hystad, S. W. (2016). Employees’ psychological capital, 2616(01)00050-X
job satisfaction, insecurity, and intentions to quit: The direct and indirect effects
Weidinger, A. F., Spinath, B., and Steinmayr, R. (2016). Why does intrinsic
of authentic leadership. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 32, 163–171. doi: 10.1016/j.rpto.
motivation decline follow negative feedback? The mediating role of ability self-
2016.09.003
concept and its moderation by goal orientations. Learn. Individual Differ. 47,
Park, S., and Jo, J. S. (2018). The impact of proactivity, leader-member exchange, 117–128. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.01.003
and climate for innovation on innovative behavior in the Korean government
Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., and Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and
sector. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 39, 130–149. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-09-2016-0216
marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organ. Res.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job Methods 13, 477–514. doi: 10.1177/1094428110366036
enrichment and other organizational interventions. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 835–852.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., and Carver, C. S.
doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.83.6.835
(2003). Adaptive self-regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal
Qiu, H., Chen, Y., and Lin, B. (2009). Development and inspection of reengagement, and subjective well-being. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 1494–1508.
organizational innovation climate scale. Method J. 56, 69–97. doi: 10.1016/j.envint. doi: 10.1177/0146167203256921
2021.106629
Yan, D., Wen, F., Li, X., and Zhang, Y. (2020). The relationship between
Ren, F., and Zhang, J. (2015). Job stressors, organizational innovation climate, psychological capital and innovation behaviour in Chinese nurses. J. Nurs. Manag.
and employees’ innovative behavior. Creat. Res. J. 27, 16–23. doi: 10.1080/ 28, 471–479. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12926
10400419.2015.992659
Ye, P., Liu, L., and Tan, J. (2021). Creative leadership, innovation climate and
Renn, R. W., and Vandenberg, R. J. (1995). The critical psychological states: An innovation behavior: The moderating role of knowledge sharing in management.
underrepresented component in job characteristics model research. J. Manag. 21, Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 25, 1092–1114. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-05-2020-0199
279–303. doi: 10.1016/0149-2063(95)90059-4
Zhang, J., Cao, C., Shen, S., and Qian, M. (2019). Examining effects of self-
Rhee, Y. W., and Choi, J. N. (2017). Knowledge management behavior and efficacy on research motivation among Chinese university teachers: Moderation
individual creativity: Goal orientations as antecedents and in-group social status of leader support and mediation of goal orientations. J. Psychol. 153, 414–435.
as moderating contingency. J. Organ. Behav. 38, 813–832. doi: 10.1002/job.2168 doi: 10.1080/00223980.2018.1564230
Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their Zhang, S., Yuan, J., and Li, X. (2015). The impact of team culture and
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. psychological capital on graduate students’ knowledge sharing behavior. J. Grad.
25, 293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248 Educ. 30, 39–45.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climate: An essay. Pers. Psychol. 28, 361– Zhao, S. (2011). Review on the theory and practical application of intellectual
388. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01386.x capital and psychological capital. Soc. Sci. Nanjing 2, 22–29.
Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: Zhou, J., and George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity:
A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 37, Encouraging the expression of voice. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 682–696. doi: 10.5465/
580–607. doi: 10.5465/256701 3069410

Frontiers in Psychology 13 frontiersin.org

Zhen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890062

Zhou, K. (2021). The influence of creative personality and goal orientation Zia, N. U. (2020). Knowledge-oriented leadership, knowledge management
on innovation performance. Front. Psychol. 12:634951. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021. behaviour and innovation performance in project-based SMEs The moderating
634951 role of goal orientations. J. Knowl. Manag. 24, 1819–1839. doi: 10.1108/JKM-02-
2020-0127
Zhu, Y., Chen, T., Wang, M., Jin, Y., and Wang, Y. (2019).
Rivals or allies: How performance-prove goal orientation influences Zohar, D. M., and Hofmann, D. A. (2012). “Organizational culture and climate,”
knowledge hiding. J. Organ. Behav. 40, 849–868. doi: 10.1002/job. in The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, ed. S. W. J. Kozlowski
2372 (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).

Frontiers in Psychology 14 frontiersin.org