To elucidate the underlying mechanism of organizational members’ engagement in open innovation, this study draws on the theory of motivated information management and analyzes survey data of 1200 full-timers in Japan. Structural equation modeling and multi-group structural equation modeling analyses have revealed that employees tasked with open-innovation initiatives rely more heavily on self-efficacy beliefs (β = 0.69, p < .001) than cost–benefit calculations (β = 0.08, p = .10) to determine their actions. These tendencies are further amplified by the employees’ individual-level corporate entrepreneurship (βs = 0.44–0.47, p < .001), whereas the impact of organizational support remains comparatively limited (β = 0.0.08–0.40, p < .01–.001). These results are consistent with the theory of motivated information management, which posits that individuals in high-uncertainty contexts prioritize efficacy over cost–benefit calculations—thereby they demonstrate the theory uniquely explains and predicts human-level dynamics of open innovation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed along with the limitations and future directions.
AfifiTDAfifiWA (eds)2015Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications. New York: Routledge.
2.
AfifiWAMorseC (2009) Expanding the role of emotion in the theory of motivated information management. In: AfifiTAAfifiWA (eds) Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications. New York: Routledge, 87–105.
3.
Al-GhazaliBMAfsarB (2021) Investigating the mechanism linking task conflict with employees’ innovative work behavior. International Journal of Conflict Management32(4): 599–625.
4.
AmabileTMPrattMG (2016) The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior36: 157–183.
5.
AsadMMagablehIKTa’AmnhaM, et al. (2025) Mediating role of social media adoption between the impact of entrepreneurial orientation and perceived benefits of social media on performance of Jordanian entrepreneurial firms. Cogent Business & Management12(1): 2592424.
6.
AsadMSulaimanMAAwainAM, et al. (2024) Green entrepreneurial leadership, and performance of entrepreneurial firms: Does green product innovation mediates?Cogent Business & Management11(1): 2355685..
7.
AsgharMTayyabMGullN, et al. (2021) Polychronicity, work engagement, and turnover intention: The moderating role of perceived organizational support in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management49: 129–139.
8.
BernardsB (2024) Cognitive uncertainty and employees’ daily innovative work behavior: The moderating role of ambidextrous leadership. Review of Public Personnel Administration45(4): 647–670.
9.
BlomquistTFarashahADThomasJ (2016) Project management self-efficacy as a predictor of project performance: Constructing and validating a domain-specific scale. International Journal of Project Management34(8): 1417–1432.
10.
CarmeliAGelbardRReiter-PalmonR (2013) Leadership, creative problem-solving capacity, and creative performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management52(1): 95–121.
11.
CheungGWCooper-ThomasHDLauRS, et al. (2021) Testing moderation in business and psychological studies with latent moderated structural equations. Journal of Business and Psychology36: 1009–1033.
12.
ConwayJMLanceCE (2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business & Psychology25: 325–334.
13.
Da Silva MeirelesFRAzevedoACBoaventuraJMG (2022) Open innovation and collaboration: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management65: 101702.
De JongJPParkerSKWennekersS, et al. (2011) Corporate entrepreneurship at the individual level: Measurement and determinants. EIM research Reports11(13): 3–27.
16.
DirikerDPorterAJTuertscherP (2023) Orchestrating open innovation through punctuated openness: A process model of open organizing for tackling wicked multi-stakeholder problems. Organization Studies44(1): 135–157.
17.
EisenbergerRHuntingtonRHutchisonS, et al. (1986) Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology71(3): 500–507. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1986-31507-001.
18.
FischerSFreseMMertinsJC, et al. (2014) Climate for personal initiative and radical and incremental innovation in firms: A validation study. Journal of Enterprising Culture22(01): 91–109.
19.
GriffinMAGroteG (2020) When is more uncertainty better? A model of uncertainty regulation and effectiveness. Academy of Management Review45(4): 745–765.
20.
HuLTBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6(1): 1–55.
21.
HuangYLuoYLiuY, et al. (2016) An investigation of interpersonal ties in interorganizational exchanges in emerging markets: A boundary-spanning perspective. Journal of Management42(6): 1557–1587.
22.
JooMKCruzKS (2024) Formal mentoring and protégés’ leadership development: The roles of protégés’ informal mentoring networks, political skill, and gender. Group & Organization Management49(5): 1199–1243.
23.
KraneHPJohansenAAlstadR (2014) Exploiting opportunities in the uncertainty management. Procedia-Social & Behavioral Sciences119: 615–624.
24.
KratzerJMeissnerDRoudV (2017) Open innovation and company culture: Internal openness makes the difference. Technological Forecasting & Social Change119: 128–138.
KuangKWilsonSR (2021) Theory of motivated information management: A meta-analytic review. Communication Theory31(3): 463–490.
27.
MarshHWWenZNagengastB, et al. (2012) Structural equation models of latent interaction. In: HoyleRH (ed) Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford, 436–458.
28.
MatsunagaM (2024) Employee Uncertainty over digital transformation: Mechanisms and solutions. Singapore: Springer Nature.
29.
MohamedEBRamadaniVFatmaEB, et al. (2025) A new lens on opportunity recognition: The impact of dispositional optimism and human capital. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation: 14657503251346414.
30.
MuhammadNUllahFSmithR (2023) The influence of cultural constraints on entrepreneurial motivations: Exploring the experiences of Muslim women entrepreneurs in Pakistan. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation: 14657503231221691.
31.
MuthénLKMuthénB (2018) Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for applied researchers: user’s guide, 5. https://www.statmodel.com/.
32.
NewmanAHermanHMSchwarzG, et al. (2018) The effects of employees’ creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: The role of entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of Business Research89: 9.
33.
PitesaMGelfandMJ (2023) Going beyond western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) samples and problems in organizational research. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes174: 104212.
34.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
35.
RahmanMRahmanNSalamzadehA, et al. (2025) Inclusive talent management as the source of open innovation. In: BariMWVirgilioFD (eds) Handbook of Talent Management and Learning Organizations. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 53–67.
36.
RhoadesLEisenbergerR (2002) Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology87(4): 698–714. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2002-15406-008.
37.
SáTFerreiraJJJayantilalS (2025) Open innovation strategy: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Innovation Management28(2): 454–510.
38.
SeligJPCardNALittleTD (2015) Latent variable structural equation modeling in cross-cultural research: Multigroup and multilevel approaches. In: van de VijverFJRvan HemertDAPoortingaYH (eds) Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Cultures. New York: Psychology Press, 93–119.
39.
SottiniACMCannatelliBL (2025) Rule-breaking entrepreneurs in times of institutional instability: Seeking forgiveness for surviving. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation: 14657503251400967.
40.
TarkaP (2018) An overview of structural equation modeling: Its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity52: 313–354..
41.
YunJJAhnHJLeeDS, et al. (2022) Inter-rationality; modeling of bounded rationality in open innovation dynamics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change184: 122015.
42.
ZayadinRZucchellaAAnandA, et al. (2023) Entrepreneurs’ decisions in perceived environmental uncertainty. British Journal of Management34(2): 831–848.
