During the EAWOP 2019 congress we participated in three communications on the relationship between innovative behaviours at work and proactive behaviors, organisational climate, or learning processes. Our talk (Déprez et al., 2019) showed how proactive behaviors were related to deviance behaviors in an industry-oriented 4.0 context. Other communications focused on so-called traditional organizations.
Allain, C., Déprez, G., & Battistelli, A. (2019). Examination of the relationships between organizational climate, organizational commitment, and constructive organizational deviance. Communication présentée à l’European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology Congress (EAWOP), Mai-Juin 29–1, Turin, Italie.
Cangialosi, N., Odoardi, C., Battistelli, A, & Déprez, G. (2019). Learning climate and innovative work behavior, the mediation of work-based learning. Communication présentée à l’European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology Congress (EAWOP), Mai-Juin 29–1, Turin, Italie.
Déprez, G., Battistelli, A, Cangialosi, N., & Odoardi, C. (2019). What inhibits and enhance the elaboration of proactivity and constructive deviance. Communication présentée à l’European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology Congress (EAWOP), Mai-Juin 29–1, Turin, Italie.
The aim of this research is to examine the relationship between proactive work behaviors (PWB) and constructive deviant work behaviors (CDWB), supposed to be two different higher order factors related to common antecedents. We suggest that personal orientations related to deviance and normativity produce/reduce the generation of PWB and CDWB. We also suggest that perceived organizational obstruction (Gibney, Zagenezyk, & Masters, 2009) enhance CDWB and inhibits PWB, whereas top management openess (Detert & Burris, 2007) produce opposite results. A survey, measuring PWB (taking charge, idea generation, voice), CDWB (constructive deviance and prosocial rule breaking), personal orientation toward normativity (conformity and rule respect) and deviance (initiative and performance), perceived organizational obstruction, and top management openness, was distributed to French workers from public and private organizations (N=402). Structural equation modeling analyses by bootstrap were used to test the hypotheses. The theoretical research model present good MFI (χ2 (1559) = 2869.350, p < .001; RMSEA = .04; CFI = .91; TLI = .90; SRMR = .05) and supported hypotheses. The collection of data does not allow to postulate an overtime effect. These results help to clarify the nomological network of proactive and constructive deviant constructs. They also introduce PWB and CDWB antecedents. This study is one of the first to show a difference between PWB and CDWB dimensions. It seems that individuals are more likely to generate CDWB when they perceive organizational obstruction; while top management openness favor the emergence of PWB.
You ca n find more about EAWOP association here.