The Model of Job Autonomy and Task Complexity in Creative Behaviors in Employees of Sport and Youth Offices of Golestan Province

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistance Professor, Sport management, Department of Physical Education, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Department of Physical Education and Sport Sceinces, Azadshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Azadshahr, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Aliabad Katool Branch, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katool, Iran.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explain the role of job autonomy and task complexity in creative behaviors of employees of Sport and Youth offices of Golestan province (N=220). 140 employees of these offices were selected as the statistical sample by simple random sampling method. To collect data, Langfred’s (2005) job autonomy, Maynard and Hakel’s (2009) task complexity and Zhou and George’s (2001) creative behaviors in workplace questionnaires were used. Face and content validity of the questionnaires were confirmed by experts and reliability coefficients of the questionnaires were determined respectively as 0.83, 0.78 and 0.79. Data were analyzed and the causal relationships of research variables were identified by structural equation modeling based on Smart PLS 2. Results showed that autonomy in job planning had a positive and significant effect on employees’ creative behaviors (t=3.31, β=0.34). The effects of autonomy in the approaches to do the job and autonomy in job evaluation on creative behaviors were not significant. Results showed that the task complexity of job had a negative and significant effect on employees’ creative behaviors (t=3.38, β= -0.38). Also, predictor variables of the study totally explained 44% of the variation of creative behaviors variable. According to these results, it is suggested that respective managers should identify the individual and organizational factors affecting the employees’ creative behaviors such as empowerment, knowledge sharing, organizational learning culture and organizational support to lay the groundwork for a creative and innovative organization in the field of sport.

Keywords

References

  1. Zhang W, Jex SM, Peng Y, Wang D. Exploring the effects of job autonomy on engagement and creativity: The moderating role of performance pressure and learning goal orientation. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2017; 32 (3): 235-251.
  2. Orth M, Volmer J. Daily within-person effects of job autonomy and work engagement on innovative behavior: The cross-level moderating role of creative self-efficacy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2017; 26 (4): 601-612.
  3. Huang CE, Liu CHS. Employees and Creativity: Social Ties and Access to Heterogeneous Knowledge. Creativity Research Journal. 2015; 27 (2): 206-213.
  4. Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Griffin RW. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review. 1993; 18 (2): 293-321.
  5. Taggar, S. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal. 2002; 45(4): 315-330.
  6. Beth H, Amiable A. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology. 2010; 61: 569-598.
  7. Dasgupta M, Gupta RK. A review of the role of organizational learning & knowledge management. Global Business Review. 2009; 10 (2): 203-224.
  8. Nisula AM, Kianto A. The Antecedents of Individual Innovative Behavior in Temporary Group Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2015; 25(4): 431-444.
  9. Gong T, Choi JN. Effects of task complexity on creative customer behavior. European Journal of Marketing. 2016; 50(5/6): 1003-1023.
  10. Fang E. Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing. 2008; 72 (4): 90-104.
  11. Sung SY, Antefelt A, Choi JN. Dual Effects of Job Complexity on Proactive and Responsive Creativity: Moderating Role of Employee Ambiguity Tolerance. Group & Organization Management. 2017; 42 (3):388-418.
  12. Shalley CE. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity? The Leadership Quarterly. 2004; 15 (1): 33-53.
  13. Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975; 60:159-170.
  14. Breaugh JA. The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations.1985; 38(6):551-570.
  15. Volmer J, Spurk D, Niessen C. Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly. 2012; 23 (3): 456-465.
  16. Humphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92:1332-1356.
  17. sabet A, davodi A, Hashemi A, rokni E. Causal model to evaluate variables related to innovative behavior, faculty, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. J Med Educ Dev. 2015; 8 (17) :1-11
  18. Araste Salehkooh N. Mehdad A. Chain relationship model of job characteristics, job satisfaction and innovative behaviors. Quarterly Journal of Career & Organizational Counseling. 2017; 8(28): 76-92
  19. Siadat A, Yarmoohamzadeh P. Investigating the relationship between the nature of the job and the creativity of the staff in terms of supervisors at Isfahan Steel Company. Journal of the School of Administrative Sciences and Economics. 2007; 2: 53-68
  20. Liu D, Chen XP, Yao X. From autonomy to creativity: a multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011; 96(2): 294-309.
  21. Battistelli A, Montani F, Odoardi C. The impact of feedback from job and task autonomy in the relationship between dispositional resistance to change and innovative work behavior. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2013; 22 (1):26-41.
  22. De Spiegelaere S, Van Gyes G, De Witte H, Niesen W, Hootegem GV. On the Relation of Job Insecurity, Job Autonomy, Innovative Work Behavior and the Mediating Effect of Work Engagement. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2014; 23 (3): 318-330.
  23. Sripirabaa B, Maheswari TS. Individual Creativity: Influence of Job Autonomy and Willingness to take Risk. Journal of Indian Management. 2015; 12 (4):110-118.
  24. Wang K. The effect of autonomy on team creativity and the moderating variables. Journal of Creativity and Business Innovation. 2016; 2: 160-171.
  25. Giebels E, De Reuver RSM, Rispens S, Ufkes EG. The critical roles of task conflict and job autonomy in the relationship between proactive personalities and innovative employee behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2016; 52 (3):320-341.
  26. Valcour M. Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92 (6):1512–1523.
  27. Kumar Sia S, Appu AV. Work autonomy and workplace creativity: Moderating role of task complexity. Global Business Review. 2015; 16 (5):772-784.
  28. Schwab D, Cumming LA. Theoretical analysis of the impact of task scope on employee performance. Academy of Management Review. 1976; 1 (2): 23-35.
  29. Lepine JA, Podsakoff NP, Lepine MA. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor—hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal. 2005; 48:764-775.
  30. Choi DY, Hahn MH, Lee KC. The Structure of Individual Creativity Revelation Processes with Task Characteristics and Social Characteristics: An Empirical Analysis Based on IT-Services Participants. Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2011; 264: 207- 216.
  31. Jo NY, Lee KC. The Effect of Organizational Trust, Task Complexity and Intrinsic Motivation on Employee Creativity: Emphasis on Moderating Effect of Stress. Human Centric Technology and Service in Smart Space. 2012; 182: 199-206.
  32. Shih JC, Chang SSC. Task Characteristics and Personal Success in Innovative Project, Journal of Advanced Management Science. 2013; 1(1): 6-11.
  33. Chae S, Seo Y, Lee KC. Effects of task complexity on individual creativity through knowledge interaction: A comparison of temporary and permanent teams. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 42: 138-148.
  34. Cunningham JB. Creative Work Environments in Sport Organizations: The Influence of Sexual Orientation Diversity and Commitment to Diversity. Journal of Homosexuality. 2011; 58: 1041-1057.
  35. Hoeber L, Hoeber O. Determinants of an Innovation Process: A Case Study of Technological Innovation in a Community Sport Organization. Journal of Sport Management. 2012; 26: 213-223.
  36. Ahmadpour daryani M. Entrepreneurship: definitions, theories, models. (1st Edi). Tehran, PA: Pardis Publication; 2000.p.137. [In Persian]
  37. Williams S. Increasing employee’s creativity by training their managers. Journal of Industrial and Commercial Training. 2001; 33: 63-68.
  38. Hair JRG. Tomas M, Hult CR, Marko S. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM).Translat; Azar A, Gholamzade R. Tehran, Negah Danesh. 2016:138. [In Persian]
  39. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18(1): 39-50.
  40. Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides. G.A. (Ed.). Modern Methods for Business Research. Erlbaum. Mahwah; 1998.p. 295-358.
  41. Liu, W. Effects of positive mood and job complexity on employee creativity and performance. Social Behavior and Personality.2016; 44 (5): 865-880
Journal of Sport Management
Volume 12, Issue 2
Summer 2020
Pages 349-368

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics