This article explains employee turnover through the lens of innovative work behavior within the context of hierarchical organizational culture. Using the sample of South Korean public employees and longitudinal least squares dummy variable (LSDV) estimation, this article finds that innovative work behavior in the public sector can have a dark side, leading to increasing turnover intention. Innovative work behavior conflicts with existing work practices rooted in strong hierarchical organizational culture within public organizations, implying that it may not be readily adopted in the public sector. Therefore, even if innovative work behavior increases turnover intention, hierarchical organizational culture can buffer this effect.
Points for Practitioners
In the public sector, innovative work behavior can lead to turnover intention. However, hierarchical organizational culture can mitigate this effect. Therefore, public organizations should be cautious about overly minimizing hierarchical organizational culture or excessively promoting innovative work behavior.
AjzenI (2011) The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health26(9): 1113–1127.
2.
ArundelAHuberD (2013) From too little to too much innovation? Issues in measuring innovation in the public sector. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics27: 146–159.
3.
BakH (2020) The link between authentic leadership and innovative work behavior: the mediating role of person-organization fit and the moderating role of innovation-driven organizational climate. Korean Public Administration Review54(1): 1–35.
4.
BakHJinMHMcDonaldBDIII (2022) Unpacking the transformational leadership-innovative work behavior relationship: the mediating role of psychological capital. Public Performance & Management Review45(1): 80–105.
5.
BateP (2000) Changing the culture of a hospital: from hierarchy to networked community. Public Administration78(3): 485–512.
6.
BermanEMKimC-G (2010) Creativity management in public organizations. Public Performance & Management Review33(4): 619–652.
7.
BettsJHoldenR (2003) Organisational learning in a public sector organisation: a case study in muddled thinking. Journal of Workplace Learning15(6): 280–287.
8.
BorinsS (2002) Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership & Organization Development Journal23(8): 467–476.
BrewerGAMarantoRA (2000) Comparing the roles of political appointees and career executives in the U.S. Federal executive branch. The American Review of Public Administration30(1): 69–86.
11.
BrownLOsborneSP (2013) Risk and innovation: towards a framework for risk governance in public services. Public Management Review15(2): 186–208.
12.
BüschgensTBauschABalkinDB (2013) Organizational culture and innovation: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation Management30(4): 763–781.
13.
BystedRJespersenKR (2014) Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behaviour: comparing private and public employees. Public Management Review16(2): 217–241.
14.
CameronKSQuinnRE (2011) Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
ChenC-A (2012) Sector imprinting: exploring its impacts on managers’ perceived formalized personnel rules, perceived red tape, and current job tenure. The American Review of Public Administration42(3): 320–340.
16.
DaltonM (2017) Men Who Manage: Fusions of Feeling and Theory in Administration. New York: Routledge.
17.
DemirciogluMA (2024) Public sector innovation: sources, benefits, and leadership. International Public Management Journal27(2): 190–220.
18.
DemirciogluMAHameduddinTKnoxC (2023) Innovative work behaviors and networking across government. International Review of Administrative Sciences89(1): 145–164.
19.
DownsA (1965) A theory of bureaucracy. The American Economic Review55(1/2): 439–446.
20.
GerhartB (1990) Voluntary turnover and alternative job opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology75(5): 467–476.
21.
GreerLLde JongBASchoutenME, et al. (2018) Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: a meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology103(6): 591–613.
22.
GriffethRWHomPW (1988) A comparison of different conceptualizations of perceived alternatives in turnover research. Journal of Organizational Behavior9(2): 103–111.
23.
HanYHongS (2019) The impact of accountability on organizational performance in the U.S. Federal government: the moderating role of autonomy. Review of Public Personnel Administration39(1): 3–23.
24.
HeidenreichSTalkeK (2020) Consequences of mandated usage of innovations in organizations: developing an innovation decision model of symbolic and forced adoption. AMS Review10(3): 279–298.
25.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
26.
HomPWMitchellTRLeeTW, et al. (2012) Reviewing employee turnover: focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin138(5): 831–858.
27.
HoutgraafGRopesE (2024) Thinking ‘outside the box’ whilst remaining ‘inside the box’: Do rules and procedures demotivate creativity and innovation in the public sector?Review of Public Personnel Administration. Epub ahead of print 2 August 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X241266117.
28.
JanssenO (2000) Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology73(3): 287–302.
29.
JanssenO (2003) Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology76(3): 347–364.
30.
JanssenO (2004) How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior25(2): 201–215.
31.
JanssenOVan de VliertEWestM (2004) The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: a special issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior25(2): 129–145.
32.
JinMHMcDonaldBParkJ (2018) Person–organization fit and turnover intention: exploring the mediating role of employee followership and job satisfaction through conservation of resources theory. Review of Public Personnel Administration38(2): 167–192.
33.
JuhdiNPa’wanFHansaramRMK (2013) HR Practices and turnover intention: the mediating roles of organizational commitment and organizational engagement in a selected region in Malaysia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management24(15): 3002–3019.
34.
KangN-YParkSM (2019) An empirical exploration of the determinants of proactive administration in Korean bureaucracy: drawing upon an organizational behavioral perspective. Korean Public Administration Quarterly31(4): 879–909.
35.
KaufmannWBorryELDeHart-DavisL (2023) Can effective organizational rules keep employees from leaving? A study of green tape and turnover intention. Public Management Review25(8): 1427–1448.
36.
KaufmannWTaggartGBozemanB (2019) Administrative delay, red tape, and organizational performance. Public Performance & Management Review42(3): 529–553.
37.
KimHChoYJ (2020) The impacts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on innovative work behavior of government officials: focusing on moderating effects of communication and reward for innovation. Korean Public Personnel Administration Review19(4): 303–333.
38.
KimJ (2015) What increases public employees’ turnover intention?Public Personnel Management44(4): 496–519.
39.
Korea Institute of Public Administration. (2017) 2017 Public employee perception survey. Report, Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Administration. December.
40.
Korea Institute of Public Administration. (2018) 2018 Public employee perception survey. Report, Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Administration. December.
41.
Korea Institute of Public Administration. (2020) 2019 Public employee perception survey. Report, Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Administration. January.
42.
Korea Institute of Public Administration. (2021) 2020 Public employee perception survey. Report, Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Administration. January.
43.
KousinaEVoudourisI (2023) The ambidextrous leadership-innovative work behavior relationship in the public sector: the mediating role of psychological ownership. Public Administration Review83(6): 1478–1495.
44.
LeeJ (2021) Relationship between unfair performance of duties and abuse of authority by public officials. Korean Lawyers Association Journal70(1): 212–254.
45.
LeeJJinMH (2023) Understanding the organizational learning culture—innovative behavior relation in local government: the roles of knowledge sharing and job autonomy. Public Administration101(4): 1326–1348.
46.
LeeJJinMH (2024) Fostering employee innovation: linking person–organization fit to innovative behavior through knowledge sharing and reward perception. Public Administration102(2): 753–770.
47.
LeeJS (2016) Analyzing the issues and policy alternatives for positive administration. The Korean Local Administration Review30(4): 3–23.
48.
LightPC (1995) Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
49.
LuthansFAvolioBJAveyJB, et al. (2007) Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology60(3): 541–572.
50.
McNeishDKelleyK (2019) Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. Psychological Methods24(1): 20–35.
51.
MeijerAThaensM (2021) The dark side of public innovation. Public Performance & Management Review44(1): 136–154.
52.
MinIChoiP (2019) STATA Panel Data Analysis, 2nd ed Paju: Jiphil.
NicaE (2016) Employee voluntary turnover as a negative indicator of organizational effectiveness. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management4(2): 220–226.
55.
OrthMVolmerJ (2017) Daily within-person effects of job autonomy and work engagement on innovative behaviour: the cross-level moderating role of creative self-efficacy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology26(4): 601–612.
56.
ParkJSKimTH (2009) Do types of organizational culture matter in nurse job satisfaction and turnover intention?Leadership in Health Services22(1): 20–38.
57.
ParkSJoSJ (2018) The impact of proactivity, leader–member exchange, and climate for innovation on innovative behavior in the Korean government sector. Leadership & Organization Development Journal39(1): 130–149.
58.
RaineyHG (1999) Using comparisons of public and private organizations to assess innovative attitudes among members of organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review23(2): 130–149.
59.
SacramentoCAFayDWestMA (2013) Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes121(2): 141–157.
60.
ScottSGBruceRA (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal37(3): 580–607.
61.
SelznickP (1943) An approach to a theory of bureaucracy. American Sociological Review8(1): 47–54.
62.
ShankerRBhanugopanRvan der HeijdenBIJM, et al. (2017) Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of innovative work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior100: 67–77.
63.
ShawJD (1999) Job satisfaction and turnover intentions: the moderating role of positive affect. The Journal of Social Psychology139(2): 242–244.
64.
ShihH-ASusantoE (2011) Is innovative behavior really good for the firm? Innovative work behavior, conflict with coworkers and turnover intention: moderating roles of perceived distributive fairness. International Journal of Conflict Management22(2): 111–130.
65.
ShimDCParkHHChungKH (2023) Workgroup innovative behaviours in the public sector workplace: the influence of servant leadership and workgroup climates. Public Management Review25(5): 901–925.
66.
ShinSJYuanFZhouJ (2017) When perceived innovation job requirement increases employee innovative behavior: a sensemaking perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior38(1): 68–86.
67.
SunRWangW (2017) Transformational leadership, employee turnover intention, and actual voluntary turnover in public organizations. Public Management Review19(8): 1124–1141.
68.
SuzukiKHurH (2020) Bureaucratic structures and organizational commitment: findings from a comparative study of 20 European countries. Public Management Review22(6): 877–907.
69.
TeodoroMP (2011) Bureaucratic Ambition: Careers, Motives, and the Innovative Administrator. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
70.
WillemsTVan DoorenW (2011) Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox. International Review of Administrative Sciences77(3): 505–530.
71.
WynenJBoonJKleizenB, et al. (2020) How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior: evidence from the Australian public service. Review of Public Personnel Administration40(3): 491–515.
72.
WynenJVerhoestKKleizenB (2017) More reforms, less innovation? The impact of structural reform histories on innovation-oriented cultures in public organizations. Public Management Review19(8): 1142–1164.
73.
YangS-BTorneoAR (2016) Government performance management and evaluation in South Korea: history and current practices. Public Performance & Management Review39(2): 279–296.
74.
YuanFWoodmanRW (2010) Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal53(2): 323–342.
75.
YucelD (2019) Job autonomy and schedule flexibility as moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and work-related outcomes. Applied Research in Quality of Life14(5): 1393–1410.
