This study examines how smart work use affects innovative behavior among public bureaucrats, particularly focusing on the moderating role of organizational goal ambiguity. Using large-scale survey data from Korean central and local governments (N = 29,197), we discover that smart work use, work autonomy, and innovative culture significantly enhance innovation, whereas organizational goal ambiguity suppresses it. Notably, smart work benefits are diminished under goal ambiguity conditions. These findings offer new insights into designing flexible work policies in the public sector, especially where performance and innovation are prioritized.
AhujaM. K.ChudobaK. M.KacmarC. J.McKnightD. H.GeorgeJ. F. (2007). IT road warriors: Balancing work–family conflict, job autonomy, and work overload to mitigate turnover intentions. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 1–17.
4.
AllenT. D.GoldenT. D.ShockleyK. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–68.
5.
AmabileT. M.GryskiewiczS. S. (1987). Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Center for Creative Leadership.
6.
AndersonD. M.StritchJ. M. (2016). Goal clarity, task significance, and performance: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 211–225.
7.
AngeliciM.ProfetaP. (2024). Smart working: work flexibility without constraints. Management Science, 70(3), 1680–1705.
8.
AnthopoulosL. (2017). Smart utopia vs. smart reality: Learning by experience from 10 smart city cases. Cities, 63, 128–148.
9.
AnthopoulosL. G.ReddickC. G. (2016). Smart city and smart government: Synonymous or complementary? In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 351–355). ACM.
10.
BaileyD. E.KurlandN. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 383–400.
11.
BarbieriB.MondoM.De SimoneS.PinnaR.GallettaM.PileriJ.BelliniD. (2024). Enhancing productivity at home: The role of smart work and organizational support in the public sector. Societies, 14(4), 50.
12.
BernardsB. (2025). Cognitive uncertainty and employees’ daily innovative work behavior: The moderating role of ambidextrous leadership. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 45(4), 647–670.
13.
BernierL.HafsiT.DeschampsC. (2015). Environmental determinants of public sector innovation: A study of innovation awards in Canada. Public Management Review, 17(6), 834–856.
14.
BoellS. K.Cecez-KecmanovicD.CampbellJ. (2016). Telework paradoxes and practices: The importance of the nature of work. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(2), 114–131.
15.
BolívarM. P. R.MeijerA. J. (2016). Smart governance: Using a literature review and empirical analysis to build a research model. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 673–692.
16.
BonaciniL.GalloG.ScicchitanoS. (2021). Working from home and income inequality: Risks of a ‘new normal’ with COVID-19. Journal of Population Economics, 34(1), 303–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-020-00800-7
17.
BorinsS. (2011). Governing fables: Learning from public sector narratives. Information Age Publishing.
18.
BorinsS. F. (2014). The persistence of innovation in government. Brookings Institution Press with Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation.
19.
BrunE.SætreA. S. (2009). Managing ambiguity in new product development projects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(1), 24–34.
20.
BuiT.SankaranS.FilsD. (1996). Beyond telecommuting: Organizational suitability of different modes of telework. In Proceedings of the 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-29) (pp. 287–296). IEEE.
21.
CabreraÁ.CollinsW. C.SalgadoJ. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245–264.
22.
CameronA. C.MillerD. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317
23.
CameronE.GreenM. (Eds.). (2019). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change (5th ed.). Kogan Page.
24.
CarilloK.Cachat-RossetG.MarsanJ.SabaT.KlarsfeldA. (2021). Adjusting to epidemic-induced telework: Empirical insights from teleworkers in France. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1829512
25.
ChoY.SongH. (2021). How to facilitate innovative behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Evidence from public employees in korea. Public Personnal Management, 50(4), 509–537.
26.
ChoiB.ChoK. W. (2025). Influence of transformational leadership on innovative behavior in the Korean public service sector: The moderated mediating effect of change management and PSM. Public Performance & Management Review, 48(2), 437–467.
27.
ChudobaK. M.WynnE.LuM.Watson-ManheimM. B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15(4), 279–306.
28.
ChunY. H.RaineyH. G. (2005a). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 529–557.
29.
ChunY. H.RaineyH. G. (2005b). Goal ambiguity in US federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 1–30.
30.
CiolfiL.de CarvalhoA. F. P. (2014). Work practices, nomadicity and the mediational role of technology. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 23(2), 119–136.
31.
CoenenM.KokR. A. W. (2014). Workplace flexibility and new product development performance: The role of telework and flexible work schedules. European Management Journal, 32(4), 564–576.
32.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
33.
DamanpourF.SchneiderM. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 495–522.
De SpiegelaereS.Van GyesG.De WitteH.NiesenW.Van HootegemG. (2014). On the relation of job insecurity, job autonomy, innovative work behaviour and the mediating effect of work engagement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 318–330.
37.
de VriesH.BekkersV. J. J. M.TummersL. G. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166.
38.
de VriesH.TummersL.BekkersV. (2019). The benefits of teleworking in the public sector: Reality or rhetoric?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4), 570–593.
39.
DimandA.-M.AbutabenjehS.Rodriguez-PlesaE.AlkadryM. G.Bruns AliS. (2023). Human capital drivers of employee intent to innovate: The case of public procurement professionals. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(4), 727–753.
40.
DimitrovaD. (2003). Controlling teleworkers: Supervision and flexibility revisited. New Technology Work and Employment, 18(3), 181–195.
41.
Di TeccoC.RonchettiM.RussoS.GhelliM.RondinoneB. M.PersechinoB.IavicoliS. (2021). Implementing smart working in public administration: A follow up study. La Medicina del Lavoro, 112(2), 141–152.
42.
DorenboschL.EngenM. L. V.VerhagenM. (2005). On-the-job innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 129–141.
43.
EcclesR. G.NohriaN. (1992). Beyond the hype: Rediscovering the essence of management. Harvard Business School Press.
44.
ElsbachK. D.BechkyB. A. (2007). It's more than a desk: Working smarter through leveraged office design. California Management Review, 49(2), 80–101.
45.
EomS. J.ChoiN.SungW. (2016). The use of smart work in government: Empirical analysis of Korean experiences. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 562–571.
46.
EomS. J.KimS.ParkH. W. (2016). The use of smart work in government: Empirical analysis of Korean experiences. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 562–571.
47.
FaveroN.BullockJ. B. (2015). How (Not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 285–308.
48.
FeeneyM. K.StritchJ. M. (2019). Family-friendly policies, gender, and work–life balance in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(3), 422–448.
49.
FernandezS.MoldogazievT. (2013). Using employee empowerment to encourage innovative behavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 155–187.
50.
FordC. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112–1142.
51.
GabrisG. T.GrenellK.IhrkeD. M.KaatzJ. (2000). Managerial innovation at the local level: Some effects of administrative leadership and governing board behavior. Public Productivity & Management Review, 23(4), 486–494.
52.
GeorgsdottirA. S.GetzI. (2004). How flexibility facilitates innovation and ways to manage it in organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(3), 166–175.
53.
GibsonC.GibbsJ.StankoT.TeslukP.CohenS. (2011). Including the “I” in virtuality and modern job design: Extending the job characteristics model to include the moderating effect of individual experiences of electronic dependence and copresence. Organization Science, 22(6), 1481–1499.
54.
Gil-GarciaJ. R.HelbigN.OjoA. (2013). Smart cities and smart governments: Using information technologies to address urban challenges. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 1–8). ACM.
55.
GoldenT. D. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 319–340.
56.
GoldenT.RaghuramS. (2010). Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological interactions. Journal of Orgnizational Behavior, 31(8), 1061–1085.
57.
GraenG.CashmanJ. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In HuntJ. G.LarsonL. L. (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–165). Southern Illinois University Press.
58.
GreenhausJ. H.CallananG. A. (Eds.). (1994). Career management (2nd ed.). Dryden Press.
59.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R. (1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.
60.
HannahS. B. (1995). The correlates of innovation: Lessons from best practice. Public Productivity & Management Review, 19(2), 216–228.
61.
HaslamA. S.ReicherS. D.PlatowM. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
62.
HeadB.AlfordJ. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration and Society, 47(6)711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997134
63.
HempellT.ZwickT. (2008). New technology, work organisation, and innovation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(4), 331–354.
64.
HigónD. A. (2012). The impact of ICT on innovation activities: Evidence for UK SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 30(6), 684–699.
65.
HuR. (2020). COVID-19, smart work, and collaborative space: A crisis-opportunity perspective. Journal of Urban Management, 9(3), 276–280.
66.
IbarraH. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56–87.
67.
IllegemsV.VerbekeA. (2004). Telework: What does it mean for management?Long Range Planning, 37(4), 319–334.
68.
JansenE. A.GaylenG. N. (1994). Innovation and restrictive conformity among hospital employees: Individual outcomes and organizational considerations. Journal of Healthcare Management, 39(1), 63–75.
69.
JaskyteK. (2011). Predictors of administrative and technological innovations in nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 77–86.
70.
JungC. S. (2014a). Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(4), 955–981.
71.
JungC. S. (2014b). Extending the theory of goal ambiguity to programs: Examining the relationship between goal ambiguity and performance. Public Administration Review, 74(2), 205–219.
72.
JungC. S.LeeS.-Y. (2015). The Hawthorne studies revisited: Evidence from the US federal workforce. Administration & Society, 47(5), 507–531.
73.
KimP.ChoW.YangI. (2024). Workplace disruption in the public sector and HRM practices to enhance employee resilience. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44(1), 86–115.
74.
KoellingerP. (2008). The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance—Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe. Research Policy, 37(8), 1317–1328.
75.
KossekE. E.PerriginoM. B.LautschB. A. (2023). Work-life flexibility policies from a boundary control and implementation perspective: A review and research framework. Journal of Management, 49(6), 2062–2108.
76.
KousinaE.VoudourisI. (2023). The ambidextrous leadership – innovative work behavior relationship in the public sector: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1478–1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13650
77.
KwonM.Kim-GohM. (2023). The impacts of telework options on worker outcomes in local government: Social exchange and social exclusion perspectives. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(4), 754–773.
78.
LathamG. P.SeijtsG.CrimD. (2008). The effects of learning goal difficulty level and cognitive ability on performance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40(4), 220–229.
79.
LeeD.LeeJ.KimS. Y. (2024). Paving the way for interpersonal collaboration in telework: The moderating role of organizational goal clarity in the public workplace. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44(4), 768–789.
80.
LeeE. (2025). The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between job autonomy and innovative behavior. Review of Public Personnel Administration, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X251342001
81.
LeeS.OlshfskiD. (2002a). Employee commitment and firefighters: It’s my job. Public Administration Review, 62(s1), 108–114.
82.
LeeS.-H. (2008). The effect of employee trust and commitment on innovative behavior in the public sector: An empirical study. International Review of Public Administration, 13(1), 27–46.
83.
LeeS.-H.OlshfskiD. (2002b). An examination of variations in the nature of employee commitment: The case of paid and volunteer firefighters. International Review of Public Administration, 7(1), 29–38.
84.
LeeY. S. (2010). Office layout affecting privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality in LEED-certified buildings. Building and Environment, 45(7), 1594–1600.
85.
LeeY.KimS. (2024). Public service motivation, organizational commitment, and innovative behavior in public organizations: The moderating role of perceived innovative culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1378217.
86.
LemonM.SahotaP. S. (2004). Organizational culture as a knowledge repository for increased innovative capacity. Technovation, 24(6), 483–498.
87.
LeonardiP. M.ParkerS. H.ShenR. (2024). How remote work changes the world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 193–219.
88.
LewisG. B.Pizarro-BoreX.EmidyM. B. (2026). Who gets denied telework in the U.S. federal service?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 46(1), 85–105.
89.
LockeE. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 5, 117–124.
90.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1(4), 240–246.
91.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
92.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (Eds.) (2013). New developments in goal setting and task performance. Routledge.
93.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (2015). Goal-setting theory. In MinerJ. B. (Ed.), Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership (pp. 159–183). Routledge.
94.
LuksyteA.UnsworthK. L.AveryD. R. (2018). Innovative work behavior and sex-based stereotypes: Examining sex differences in perceptions and evaluations of innovative work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 292–305.
95.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2003). Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 689–699.
96.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.GoerdelH. T. (2006). Management activity and program performance: Gender as management capital. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 24–36.
97.
MeleV.BelardinelliP.BelléN. (2023). Telework in public organizations: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1649–1666.
98.
MićićL.MastiloZ. (2022). Digital workplace transformation: Innovative approach after COVID-19 pandemic. Economics, 10(2), 63–76.
99.
MooreM.HartleyJ. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3–20.
100.
MumfordM. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3), 313–351.
101.
NamT.PardoT. A. (2011). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 185–194). ACM.
102.
NonakaI. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104.
103.
NonakaI. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37.
104.
OlsonM. H. (1989). Work at home for computer professionals: Current attitudes and future prospects. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 7(4), 317–338.
105.
OpstrupN.Pihl-ThingvadS. (2018). Does setting goals and incentivizing results matter for the psychosocial work environment?Public Performance & Management Review, 41(4), 815–834.
106.
PandeyS. K.RaineyH. G. (2006). Public managers’ perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity: Analyzing alternative models. International Public Management Journal, 9(2), 85–112.
107.
PaolilloJ. G.BrownW. B. (1978). How organizational factors affect R&D innovation. Research Management, 21(2), 12–15.
108.
ParkerS. K.ChmielN.WallT. D. (1997). Work characteristics and employee well-being within a context of strategic downsizing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2(4), 289–303.
109.
ParkerS. K.WallT. D.CorderyJ. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 413–440.
110.
PeregoA.BelardinelliP. (2025). Telework and public employees’ attitudes post-pandemic: Experimental evidence from Italy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 45(3), 516–538.
111.
PinderC. C. (1984). Work motivation: Theory, issues, and applications. Foresman and Company.
112.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
113.
RaguseoE.VitariC.MarziG. (2016). Smart work: Supporting employees’ flexibility through ICT, HR practices and office layout. Evidence-Based HRM a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 4(1), 36–53.
114.
RaineyH. G. (1993). Toward a theory of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Research in Public Administration, 2(1), 121–166.
115.
RaineyH. G.JungC. S. (2010). Extending goal ambiguity research in government: From organizational goal ambiguity to programme goal ambiguity. In WalkerR. M.BoyneG. A.BrewerG. A. (Eds.), Public management and performance: Research directions (pp. 34–59). Cambridge University Press.
116.
RaineyH. G.JungC. S. (2015). A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 71–99.
117.
RamamoorthyN.FloodP. C.SlatteryT.SardessaiR. (2005). Determinants of innovative work behaviour: Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142–150.
118.
RittleH.WebberM. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
119.
RobertsN. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19.
120.
SalgeT. O.VeraA. (2012). Benefiting from public sector innovation: The moderating role of customer and learning orientation. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 550–559.
121.
ScottS. G.BruceR. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.
122.
SewellG.TaskinL. (2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies, 36(11), 1507–1529.
123.
ShermanJ. D. (1989). Technical supervision and turnover among engineers and technicians: Influencing factors in the work environment. Group and Organization Studies, 14(4), 411–421.
124.
ShermanS. (1995). Stretch goals: The dark side of asking for miracles. Fortune, 132, 231–232.
125.
SiegelS. M.KaemmererW. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(5), 553–562.
126.
Sikorska-SimmonsE. (2005). Predictors of organizational commitment among staff in assisted living. Gerontologist, 45(2), 196–205.
127.
SitkinS. B.SeeK. E.MillerC. C.LawlessM. W.CartonA. M. (2011). The paradox of stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 544–566.
128.
SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842–868.
129.
SripadaC. S.StichS. (2005). A framework for the psychology of norms. In CarruthersP.LaurenceS.StichS. (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 2, pp. 280–301). Oxford University Press.
130.
SrirahayuD. P.EkowatiD.SridadiA. R. (2023). Innovative work behavior in public organizations: A systematic literature review. Heliyon, 9(2), e13754.
131.
StrayerD. L.RobisonM. K.UnsworthN. (2024). Effects of goal-setting on sustained attention and attention lapses. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 86(5), 1594–1608.
132.
SusenoY.StandingC.GengatharenD.NguyenD. (2020). Innovative work behaviour in the public sector: The roles of task characteristics, organisational social support, and proactive personality. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(1), 41–59.
133.
TangY. T.ChangC. H. (2010). Impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on employee creativity. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6), 869–881.
134.
TerryL. D. (1993). Why we should abandon the misconceived quest to reconcile public entrepreneurship with democracy: A response to Bellone and Goerl's “reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy”. Public Administration Review, 53(4), 393–395.
135.
TeslukP. E.FarrJ. L.KleinS. R. (1997). Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 27–41.
136.
ThatcherS. M. B.ZhuX. (2006). Changing identities in a changing workplace: Identification, identity enactment, self-verification, and telecommuting. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1076–1088.
137.
TsaiC.KaoC. (2004). The relationships among motivational orientations, climate for organizational innovation, and employee innovative behavior: A test of Amabile’s motivational synergy model. Journal of Management, 21(5), 571–592.
van der LippeT.LippényiZ. (2020). Co-workers working from home and individual and team performance. New Technology Work and Employment, 35(1), 60–79.
141.
van der VegtG. S.Van de VliertE.HuangX. (2005). Location-level links between diversity and innovative climate depend on national power distance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1171–1182.
142.
Van ZoonenW.SivunenA. E. (2021). The impact of remote work and mediated communication frequency on isolation and psychological distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(4), 610–621.
143.
VenkateshA.VitalariN. P. (1992). An emerging distributed work arrangement: Computer-based supplemental work at home. Management Science, 38(12), 1687–1706. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.12.1687
144.
WalkerR. M. (2007). An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 591–615.
145.
WeissJ. A.PideritS. K. (1999). The value of mission statements in public agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(2), 193–224.
146.
WiesenfeldB. M.RaghuramS.GarudR. (2006). Communication patterns as determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 0.
147.
YuC.YuT. F.YuC. C. (2013). Knowledge sharing, organizational climate, and innovative behavior: A cross-level analysis of effects. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(1), 143–156.
