Understanding the Mediating Role of Innovative Work Behaviour in the Relationship between Job Autonomy, Job Engagement, and Employee Performance: A Conceptual Study on Gen-Z

Tanzila Salma Maulita; Agus Maolana Hidayat; Arry Widodo; Nurafni Rubiyanti

doi:10.55927/fjmr.v4i6.254

Authors

Tanzila Salma Maulita Telkom University
Agus Maolana Hidayat Telkom University
Arry Widodo Telkom University
Nurafni Rubiyanti Telkom University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55927/fjmr.v4i6.254

Keywords:

Job Autonomy, Job Engagement, Innovative Work Behaviour, Employee Performance, Generation Z

Abstract

This conceptual paper explores the relationships between job autonomy, job engagement, and employee performance, specifically focusing on Generation Z employees within the service sector. Given the distinct characteristics of this generation, the study aims to develop a theoretical framework that illustrates how job autonomy and engagement serve as predictors of innovative work behaviors, which subsequently influence employee performance. The research highlights that job autonomy positively affects employee performance by instilling a sense of ownership and responsibility among Generation Z workers. Furthermore, job engagement is identified as a critical factor that enhances performance, as employees who are emotionally and cognitively involved are more likely to tackle work challenges enthusiastically. Innovative work behavior is proposed as a partial mediator in the relationship between job autonomy and job engagement, thereby strengthening their impact on performance outcomes. The findings emphasize the necessity for organizations to cultivate a work environment that promotes autonomy, engagement, and innovation, which are essential for improving the performance of Generation Z employees.

References

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job Demands-Resources Theory : Taking Stock and Looking Forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 687–732.

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(170), 250–279.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

Parker, S. K., Axtell, C. M., & Turner, N. (2001). Designing a safer workplace: importance of job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive supervisors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.3.211

Rasool, S. F., Samma, M., Wang, M., Zhao, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2019). How human resource management practices translate into sustainable organizational performance: the mediating role of product, process and knowledge innovation. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 1009–1025. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S204662

Rotundo, M. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing approach. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., & Gonzalez-Roma, Vicente, Bakker, A. B. (2002). The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout : A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.63.021114

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/256701

West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. John Wiley & Sons.