英语论文网

aves them with less time think about doing their work differently.
The relationship with application behaviour was less clear. Some thought that excessive monitoring would hinder employees’ application efforts, but others were convinced that some degree of monitoring is desirable to keep track of progress. For instance, interviewees mentioned that:
You have to keep yourself informed about how things are going. You should not just throw away your money. But your supervision must not become too strict or else your employees will feel they are constantly being watched by “big brother” and avoid all risks. The dilemma of the bright and dark sides of monitoring is also found in previous empirical work. Monitoring impedes employees’ idea generation because it makes them feel insecure and unsafe at work – their jobs may be threatened if they make mistakes. A survey-based study by Olham and Cummings (1996) demonstrated that controlling supervision was negatively related to ,employees’ creative performance. The comparison of two teams by Amabile et al. (2004) revealed that the leader of the unsuccessful team tended to over-control workers by issuing decrees and spending much time on checking performance and activities, even for their highly experienced workers. Excessive monitoring may have negative consequences for application behaviour as well. Focusing too strongly on error prevention (through monitoring) is likely to lead to low levels of risk taking, exploration and innovation (Kirkman and Den Hartog, 2004). Hitt et al. (1996) studied 250 firms that reported R&D expenditures each year between 1985 and 1991 and found that the implementation of strict financial controls was associated with less internal innovation (as a result of employees’application behaviour). On the other hand, Leonard and Swap (2005) stress that some degree of monitoring is desirable to ensure the progress of both innovations and current operations. Thus, the relationship between monitoring and application behaviour may show an inverted U-shape, such that both excessive and too little monitoring hamper application.
4.13 Task assignment
Although no major differences emerged between both subsets, it was mentioned that it is important for task content to match job incumbents’ skills, abilities and preferences.
One interviewee stated that: It is essential that people like their job. If they enjoy doing their work, they are more interested in delivering high quality. Then they are more eager to make suggestions for improvements as well.
Literature indeed shows that task assignment can influence idea generation. Intrinsically motivating tasks serve as a trigger for creativity (Amabile, 1988). Olham and Cummings (1996) showed that manufacturing employees produced their most creative work when they felt that they working on complex, challenging tasks. Tesluk et al. (1997) stress task rotation as a relevant practice to enhance innovative behaviour.
4.14 Contingencies
Some interviewees elaborated on factors other than leadership that may enhance or impede employees’ innovative behaviour. Examples include work climate and the external contacts among employees. One respondent stated that: It is not only the manager who is important. I am not the first one who gets to hear about new ideas. Normally people talk to their colleagues first. If they reject an idea, I will probably never hear about it.
Other interviewees stressed that some employees