@article{FayBagotyriuteUrbachetal.2019,
  author    = {Fay, Doris and Bagotyriute, Ruta and Urbach, Tina and West, Michael A. and Dawson, Jeremy},
  title     = {Differential effects of workplace stressors on innovation},
  series = {International Journal of Stress Management},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {International Journal of Stress Management},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {1072-5245},
  doi       = {10.1037/str0000081},
  pages     = {11 -- 24},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {It is now consensus that engaging in innovative work behaviors is not restricted to traditional innovation jobs (e.g., research and development), but that they can be performed on a discretionary basis in most of today's jobs. To date, our knowledge on the role of workplace stressors for discretionary innovative behavior, in particular for innovation implementation, is limited. We draw on a cybernetic view as well as on a transactional, coping-based perspective with stress to propose differential effects of stressors on innovation implementation. We propose that work demands have a positive effect on innovation implementation, whereas role-based stressors (i.e., role conflict, role ambiguity, and professional compromise) have a negative effect. We conducted a time-lagged, survey-based study in the health care sector (Study 1, United Kingdom: N = 235 nurses). Innovation implementation was measured 2 years after the assessment of the stressors. Supporting our hypotheses, work demands were positively related to subsequent innovation implementation, whereas role ambiguity and professional compromise were negatively related to subsequent innovation implementation. We also tested organizational commitment as a mediator, but there was only partial support for the mediation. To test the generalizability of the findings, we replicated the study (Study 2, Germany: employees from various professions, N = 138, time lag 2 weeks). Similar results to that in Study 1 were obtained. There was no support for strain as a mediator. Our results suggest differential effects of work demands and role stressors on innovation implementation, for which the underlying mechanism still needs to be uncovered.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FayShiptonWestetal.2015,
  author    = {Fay, Doris and Shipton, Helen and West, Michael A. and Patterson, Malcolm},
  title     = {Teamwork and Organizational Innovation: The Moderating Role of the HRM Context},
  series = {Creativity and innovation management},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {Creativity and innovation management},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0963-1690},
  doi       = {10.1111/caim.12100},
  pages     = {261 -- 277},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Evidence is accumulating on the role of teams in shaping a variety of business outcomes, but our knowledge on the effect of teamwork on organizational innovation is still evolving. This study examines whether the extent to which two staff groups are organized in teams (production staff and management/administrative staff) affects organizational innovation and whether human resource management (HRM) systems, which can be of facilitating or constraining nature, enhance the teamwork/innovation relationships. Hypotheses were tested with lagged and longitudinal data derived from 18 to 45 organizations from the UK manufacturing sector. Results suggest that the more widespread the use of teamwork in organizations, the higher the level of organizational innovation. Furthermore, this effect depends, particularly for production teams, on the overall quality of the HRM systems that exist in their organizations. Teamwork/innovation relationships are further moderated (for management and administrative teams) by an HRM practice that provides teams with time for thoughtful reflection. Thus, HRM systems can be of more or less facilitating or constraining nature for teams in organizations.},
  language  = {en}
}