Employee innovation is crucial for firms to build competitive advantage (Ye et al., 2021). However, employees looking to innovate often face resource tensions; further, the principle of bounded rationality, referring to the state in which people cannot achieve complete rationality due to limited information, cognitive ability, and decision-making time, leads to the organization’s inability to select the optimal solution. In such cases, some employees may informally implement their innovation plans (Duan et al., 2023). Bootlegging innovation occurs when employees proceed with innovation through informal channels after the organization rejects their innovation plans (Demir & Knights, 2021; Duan et al., 2023). With the dual attributes of constructive goals and illegitimate means, bootlegging innovation has unique managerial significance (Globocnik, 2019) and is a key driver of firms’ innovative breakthroughs (Augsdorfer, 2005). Its antecedents include individual traits such as high creative self-efficacy and proactive personality (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015), leadership styles like paradoxical and ethical leadership (X. Liu et al., 2021), and organizational factors including support and an innovation environment (Globocnik, 2019).

 

The employee–organization relationship reflects the human relationship between employees and their organizations (S. L. Zhu et al., 2015). Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) is a crucial framework for understanding this relationship, and it categorizes exchanges between employees and organizations into two major types: economic exchange and social exchange (Shore et al., 2006). Different combinations of firms’ investment in employees and their expectations form different types of employee–organization relationships, resulting in various performance outcomes for the organization and its employees (Pan et al., 2020). S. L. Zhu et al. (2015) conducted a study based on Chinese cultural characteristics and proposed and verified a highly integrated family-like exchange relationship within Chinese firms, thus expanding social exchange theory to include the unique context of Chinese corporate practices. Numerous studies have focused on the impact of the employee–organization relationship on organizational or individual outcomes (e.g., Cai et al., 2016). However, the impact of this kind of relationship on employees’ bootlegging innovation behavior and its specific mechanisms have not received sufficient attention.

 

Many scholars have studied the predictability of employee–organization relationships on employees’ work attitudes and behaviors in Western contexts (Tsui et al., 1997). However, significant differences exist in organizational cultural backgrounds and institutional norms between China and the West. For instance, Western corporate culture prioritizes individualism and views appropriate deviance as innovative (S. L. Zhu et al., 2015), while Chinese corporate culture emphasizes collectivism, norm obedience, and relational harmony, thus constraining bootlegging innovation (Duan et al., 2023; Z. Liu & Liu, 2024). Regarding regulatory systems, Western firms rely on rigid contracts, whereas Chinese firms implement more flexible, humanized systems where rule enforcement and behavior evaluation are influenced by relationships and hierarchy (S. L. Zhu et al., 2015). Thus, whether previous research applies to employee–organization relationships in Chinese firms remains to be discussed.

 

The rapid rise of the knowledge economy has brought new attention to knowledge employees and their innovative behaviors (Khan et al., 2021; C. Zhu & Zhang, 2020). Knowledge employees have higher needs for self-actualization and creativity (Miao et al., 2022), stronger motivation to affectively use work resources for innovative activities, and show greater perseverance to achieve goals compared to general employees (Mládková et al., 2015). They can anticipate outcomes of innovation through professional perspectives and skills, achieving more significant innovation performance driven by intrinsic motivation to innovate. As a group with a higher sense of professional calling, knowledge employees are more likely to engage in riskier bootlegging innovation behaviors than general employees (Globocnik, 2019). Thus, focusing on the context of Chinese organizational culture, we explored the predictive effect of employee–organization relationships on the bootlegging innovation of knowledge employees, as well as the mediating roles of affective commitment and knowledge sharing.

Innovation is a creative act that implements novel ideas within an organization to foster development. Bootlegging, on the other hand, involves behaviors that deviate from or contravene the will of the organization’s management without obtaining support or approval (Criscuolo et al., 2014). Bootlegging innovation amalgamates these concepts, describing an innovation behavior that achieves successful innovation through bootlegging (Demir & Knights, 2021). Although there has been a limited amount of direct research on the relationship between employee–organization relationship and employee bootlegging innovation, relevant studies have laid a preliminary foundation. For instance, S. L. Zhu et al. (2015) showed family-like exchange has stronger explanatory power than social exchange for employees’ organizational-related behaviors, and Z. Liu and Liu (2024) highlighted that positive psychological and emotional bonds are crucial for stimulating constructive bootlegging.

 

Social exchange theory suggests that when organizations show concern and care for employees, employees will reciprocate with positive work attitudes and behaviors (Blau, 1964). This interaction creates a positive exchange relationship between employees and the organization, and the valuable resources provided by the organization can stimulate employees’ creativity (Pan et al., 2020). Existing research has also shown the impact of the employee–organization relationship on employee innovation activities. For example, Pan et al. (2020) combined social exchange theory and self-determination theory and found a positive correlation between employee–organization exchange and employee creativity (Ryan, 1995). Further, X. Li et al. (2021) found that social exchange moderated the relationship between proactive personality and employee creativity through multisource information exchange. When individuals feel more empowered in exchanges with the organization, they are more inclined to engage in positive behaviors such as innovation (Pan et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2021). Notably, knowledge employees have a stronger pursuit of creativity and are more willing to effectively utilize work resources (Mládková et al., 2015), making them more likely to undertake bootlegging innovation behaviors that achieve breakthrough progress for firms (Z. Liu & Liu, 2024). On the basis of the above analysis, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: Family-like exchange will predict knowledge employees’ bootlegging innovation behavior.

Hypothesis 1b: Social exchange will predict knowledge employees’ bootlegging innovation behavior.

Hypothesis 1c: Economic exchange will predict knowledge employees’ bootlegging innovation behavior.

Affective commitment refers to employees’ emotional identification, embedding, and attachment to their organization (J. Mueller, 2012), meaning that employees are willing to continue working in the organization due to their strong emotional connection (Bouraoui et al., 2019). According to social exchange theory, when firms provide employees with tangible or intangible resources, an emotional bond forms between organization and employee, leading to a strong sense of identity and belonging (Gouldner, 1960). Specifically, in both economic exchange and family-like exchange, the provision of social and emotional resources can meet employees’ needs for self-esteem, recognition, and support, thus increasing their level of affective commitment (Jian & Dalisay, 2017). In a fair economic exchange, employees may also perceive recognition and support from the organization, leading to higher job satisfaction and thereby enhancing affective commitment (Casimir et al., 2014).

 

Further, when individuals perceive a more positive exchange relationship with the organization, they feel that their careers have sufficient resources, training, and development opportunities. These resources enhance their sense of belonging and psychological attachment, thereby prompting positive feedback to the organization (Bouraoui et al., 2019). Employees with higher affective commitment are willing to contribute by maintaining the organization’s competitive advantage, engaging in innovative behaviors (Taylor et al., 2012) and enhancing competitiveness (Tremblay & Landreville, 2015). Moreover, Astuty and Udin (2020) found that affective commitment improved employees’ creativity and performance. Therefore, those with high affective commitment have a stronger willingness to create breakthrough innovation and promote disruptive development (Miao et al., 2022). They are also more likely to surpass organizational rules and engage in bootlegging innovation behavior (Kumar et al., 2024). On the basis of the above analysis, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Affective commitment will play a positive mediating role between family-like exchange and the bootlegging innovation behavior of knowledge employees.

Hypothesis 2b: Affective commitment will play a positive mediating role between social exchange and the bootlegging innovation behavior of knowledge employees.

Hypothesis 2c: Affective commitment will play a positive mediating role between economic exchange and the bootlegging innovation behavior of knowledge employees.

Knowledge sharing is the process by which knowledge is transferred from one person, team, or organization to another. This includes job-related content information, problems encountered at work, and solutions (J. Mueller, 2012). Similar to extrarole behaviors like organizational citizenship behavior and relational performance behavior, knowledge sharing is a voluntary employee behavior that organizations tend to encourage (Yuan & Ma 2022). According to social exchange theory, when people are treated positively, they tend to reciprocate this positive treatment (Tsui et al., 1997). In an organizational environment where employees perceive that the organization cares about, recognizes, and supports them, they may engage in more knowledge-sharing behaviors to reciprocate the organization’s support (Zhang et al., 2022). Studies have found that employees with higher levels of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and commitment are more willing to participate in knowledge sharing (Malik & Malik, 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). To reciprocate the organization’s support, employees not only repay it with excellent in-role work but may also voluntarily engage in behaviors beyond their normal roles when they perceive a mutually beneficial relationship (Walden & Kingsley Westerman, 2018).

 

Further, knowledge sharing drives innovation by enhancing organizations’ learning ability and adaptability, promoting the discovery and application of new knowledge and skills (Chua & Jin, 2020), thereby boosting their innovation capabilities. Research has confirmed that knowledge sharing improves individual innovation performance (J. S. Mueller & Kamdar, 2011), and that obtaining knowledge resources can stimulate employees’ bootlegging innovation motives (Malik & Malik, 2021). In addition, the network nature of knowledge sharing, due to the typical complexity and covertness of bootlegging innovation activities (Criscuolo et al., 2014), means that employee knowledge needs have strong uncertainty and ambiguity. Social networks formed in knowledge-sharing activities, such as collaboration and communication, enable the transformation of knowledge resources from static potential to dynamic power, completing the spiral value-added function of knowledge resources in the process (Campanella et al., 2019). This transformation helps employees to effectively cope with the resource needs caused by uncertainty and ambiguity in bootlegging innovation activities. On the basis of this analysis, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: Knowledge sharing will play a positive mediating role between family-like exchange and the bootlegging innovation behavior of knowledge employees.

Hypothesis 3b: Knowledge sharing will play a positive mediating role between social exchange and the bootlegging innovation behavior of knowledge employees.

Hypothesis 3c: Knowledge sharing will play a positive mediating role between economic exchange and the bootlegging innovation behavior of knowledge employees.

 

The conceptual framework of this study is shown in Figure 1.

We collected data using an online survey distributed through Wenjuanxing (https://www.wjx.cn) across various regions in China, and spanning multiple industries including chemical engineering, information technology, and biomedicine manufacturing. Survey distribution targeted scientific researchers, key business personnel, and management in order to screen knowledge employees who met the research criteria. To avoid common method bias, marker variables were added. The research process lasted for 1 month and we distributed 500 surveys. After eliminating invalid samples, such as short response times, regular responses, inconsistent identities, and obvious reverse tendencies, we retained 485 valid surveys, resulting in an effective response rate of 97.0%.

 

In terms of gender, 321 (66.2%) of the respondents were men and 164 (33.8%) were women. Regarding age, the highest proportion was 36–45 years old (43.7%), indicating a sample predominantly comprising young and middle-aged individuals. In terms of educational background, 73.6% of respondents held a bachelor’s degree and 17.5% held a master’s or doctoral degree. In terms of tenure, 50.0% of the respondents had over 15 years of tenure, indicating significant working experience. Regarding job positions, 10.3% were scientific researchers, 38.1% were key business personnel, and 51.5% were management personnel.

 

Participants did not receive any compensation for their involvement. This study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles, including informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the use of data for legitimate research only. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at Jilin International Studies University (2025DD0016).

To ensure the reliability and validity of the survey, each variable was measured using an established scale, modified according to the actual context of Chinese firms. Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. We included reverse-scored questions to test respondents’ seriousness and enhance the survey’s validity. The scale translation was completed by our university research team in strict adherence to the internationally accepted bidirectional translation and back-translation process. Initially, two bilingual researchers independently conducted forward translation and integrated the initial draft. Subsequently, a third-party professional performed the back-translation. After comparison, revision, and cultural adaptation by team experts, the semantic accuracy and academic normativity and reliability were ensured. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of each scale was higher than .70, indicating a high level of reliability.

 

To assess employee–organization relationships, we used S. L. Zhu et al.’s (2015) scale for family-like exchange and Shore et al.’s (2006) scales for social exchange and economic exchange. Family-like exchange was measured with four items, for example, “In my work, I always prioritize the firm’s interests because they are closely related to mine.” Social exchange was measured with four items, such as “In the long run, the work I am currently doing will be beneficial for my future position in the firm.” Economic exchange was measured with four items, such as “The most accurate description of my working status is I do what I should do, and the firm pays a commensurate salary.” For this study, Cronbach’s alpha values were .96 for family-like exchange, .89 for social exchange, and .90 for economic exchange.

 

For the dependent variable of bootlegging innovation, we used the scale developed by Criscuolo et al. (2014), employing a three-item measurement. This included items such as “I can flexibly arrange work tasks based on my work plan, thereby exploring new, potential, and valuable business opportunities” and “I will take the initiative to spend time on some informal projects, and hope to incorporate these projects into future formal projects.” For this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .83.

 

For the mediating variable of affective commitment, we adopted items from an organizational commitment measure developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). After removing items with low factor loadings, four items were retained, such as “I’m willing to spend the rest of my career in this firm” and “I think the firm’s business is my own business.” For this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .88.

 

Regarding the other mediating variable, knowledge sharing, we synthesized the research results of Lu et al. (2006) and used a three-item measurement. This included items such as “In daily work, I will actively share professional knowledge with colleagues” and “I think sharing knowledge and experience with colleagues is a very fulfilling thing.” For this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .94.

 

Studies have shown that demographic characteristics may be related to innovation behavior (L. Li et al., 2022; Ng & Feldman, 2013). Considering the characteristics of knowledge employees, we included gender, age, educational background, tenure, and job position as control variables.

In this study we used SPSS 26.0 and Amos 24.0 software for data analysis.

The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all main variables are presented in Table 1. The correlation matrix showed that all absolute correlation coefficients were below .80, with the highest being .79. Thus, no severe multicollinearity existed among variables, which met the assumptions for further regression or structural equation modeling.

The model fit indices after optimization and correction of the error term are presented in Table 2. The six-factor model exhibited an excellent fit to the data, outperforming other alternative models. All fit indices met the recommended standards, indicating that the sample data aligned well with the factor model, which supported the theoretical model’s validity and enhanced the reliability of subsequent analysis.

We conducted a direct effect test using hierarchical linear regression modeling. First, affective commitment, knowledge sharing, and bootlegging innovation were set as dependent variables. Second, we arranged the control variables and included independent and mediating variables in the regression model. The results are presented in Table 3. Models 1, 3 and 5 supported the predictive effect of the control variables on affective commitment, knowledge sharing, and bootlegging innovation. The results in Models 2 and 4 showed that family-like exchange and social exchange positively predicted affective commitment and knowledge sharing, while economic exchange did not significantly affect affective commitment and knowledge sharing. The regression results in Model 6 supported Hypothesis 1, indicating that family-like exchange, social exchange, and economic exchange significantly and positively predicted employee bootlegging innovation. The Model 7 results showed that both affective commitment and knowledge sharing predicted bootlegging innovation. After introducing the three exchange relationships and two mediating variables, social exchange and economic exchange significantly impacted bootlegging innovation, while family-like exchange and the mediating variables did not. The specific mediating effects require further analysis.

To further explore the mediating effects, we adopted the bias-corrected percentile method of bootstrapping analysis with 2,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals. Detailed results in Table 4 showed that the total effect of the three exchange dimensions of employee–organization relationship was significant. In the family-like exchange relationship, the mediating effect of affective commitment was significant, whereas the mediating effect of knowledge sharing was not, supporting Hypothesis 2a but not Hypothesis 3a. In the social exchange relationship, the mediating effects of affective commitment and knowledge sharing were not significant, indicating that Hypotheses 2b and 3b were not supported. In the economic exchange relationship, affective commitment and knowledge sharing showed a significantly negative mediating effect, partially supporting Hypotheses 2c and 3c. Further, the results of Models 2 and 4 showed that economic exchange did not significantly impact affective commitment and knowledge sharing. Therefore, although economic exchange predicted employees’ bootlegging innovation, the variables of affective commitment and knowledge sharing exerted a masking effect, making the impact of economic exchange on bootlegging innovation less direct or obvious, partially offsetting the positive impact of economic exchange on bootlegging innovation.

This study examined the predictive role of three employee–organization relationships (i.e., family-like, social, and economic exchange types) on bootlegging innovation among Chinese knowledge employees, incorporating the mediating mechanisms of affective commitment and knowledge sharing. The findings offer nuanced insights that both align with and extend the existing literature reviewed in the introduction. First, supporting the foundational premise of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), all three exchange relationships significantly predicted bootlegging innovation. This indicates that the quality of the employee–organization relationship, whether based on emotion, long-term reciprocity, or economic terms, is a critical antecedent to innovative behavior, thereby extending the application of exchange theories to the context of covert, unsanctioned innovation. Meanwhile, this result also supports the stronger explanatory power of family-like exchange for Chinese employees’ organizational-related behaviors, as proposed by S. L. Zhu et al. (2015).

 

Second, consistent with Allen and Meyer’s (1990) definition of affective commitment as emotional organizational attachment, and Astuty and Udin’s (2020) finding that affective commitment boosts creative performance, we found that this form of commitment positively mediated the family-like exchange–bootlegging relationship, exerted no significant mediating effect on the social exchange–bootlegging relationship, and negatively mediated the economic exchange–bootlegging relationship. This pattern corroborates Shore et al.’s (2006) distinction between relational and economic exchange, confirming that a purely transactional relationship fails to foster, and may even undermine, the emotional bonds conducive to risky, informal innovation.

 

Third, inconsistent with prior evidence that knowledge sharing enhances individual innovation (J. S. Mueller & Kamdar, 2011) and fuels bootlegging motives (Malik & Malik, 2021), we found that knowledge sharing had no significant mediating effect on the family-like exchange–bootlegging relationship or the social exchange–bootlegging relationship, and further exerted a significant negative mediating effect on the economic exchange–bootlegging relationship. This suggests that the covert and uncertain nature of bootlegging innovation (Criscuolo et al., 2014) may limit the utility of formal knowledge-sharing pathways, especially within transactional exchange contexts where such sharing is less likely to occur voluntarily.

The theoretical contributions of this study are reflected in three main aspects. First, the study contributes to the literature on employee innovation behavior. Previous research on the influencing factors of employee innovation behavior has mainly focused on the organizational level (Duan et al., 2023) or the individual level (Yao & Xiong, 2024). There has been little discussion of how the interaction between individuals and organizations predicts employee innovation behavior. This study expands the research perspective on employee innovation behavior by exploring the influencing factors of employee bootlegging innovation from the employee–organization relationship perspective.

 

Second, this study enriches the literature on the employee–organization relationship. Focusing on the characteristics of Chinese organizational culture, our research extended the traditional dual dimensions of the employee–organization relationship (i.e., instrumental social exchange and economic exchange) into three dimensions by adding the emotional dimension of family-like exchange (S. L. Zhu et al., 2015). The results showed that the three exchange relationships positively predicted employees’ bootlegging innovation behavior. These findings provide more comprehensive theoretical understanding for effectively stimulating the bootlegging innovation behavior of knowledge employees from the perspective of the employee–organization relationship.

 

Third, this study reveals the complex mechanism of the employee–organization relationship affecting bootlegging innovation. Existing studies have focused more on positive promotion mechanisms (Astuty & Udin, 2020; Pan et al., 2020) than inhibition or masking mechanisms (Globocnik, 2019; Jia et al., 2021; Pan et al., 2020). By constructing a dual mediation model, we found distinct paths of different exchanges, including that family-like exchange was emotion-driven, the mechanism of social exchange remained unclear, and economic exchange had a negative masking effect. The nonsupported hypotheses indicate that instrumental exchange may crowd out intrinsic innovation motivation, which improves the mechanism explanation and expands the research boundary of bootlegging innovation’s constraining factors.

This study offers significant implications for organizational management. First, firms should prioritize employee–organization relationships via family-like management. This will enhance employee–organization integration, emotional attachment, and loyalty, and promote employees’ willingness to serve their organization. Second, to foster employees’ affective commitment, we recommend that organizations focus on emotional exchange rather than merely material rewards. Caring for employees’ emotional needs shapes their organizational attachment and motivates bootlegging innovation. Social and family-like exchange management enhances commitment, which is critical for Chinese employees valuing human feelings. Third, promoting tacit knowledge sharing among employees facilitates innovation (Malik & Malik 2021). Firms should optimize knowledge management, broaden sharing channels, establish learning organizations, and use incentives to reduce knowledge monopolies and build trust mechanisms.

This study has several limitations. First, the sample firms were relatively concentrated, and future research could expand the sample coverage across industries to verify our conclusions. Second, employee–organization relationships were self-reported by employees, leading to subjective biases. Future studies could use more precise empirical sampling methods. Third, this study explored only the predictive mechanism of employee–organization relationships on bootlegging innovation, not its subsequent impacts, and future research could further examine these follow-up effects. In addition, this study focused on cultural specificity in the Chinese context, and the cross-cultural applicability of the conclusions remains to be verified. Future research could conduct cross-cultural comparative studies to explore the differences in the active mechanism between employee–organization relationships and deviant innovation under different cultural backgrounds to further enrich localized and cross-cultural organizational innovation research.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

 

Astuty, I., & Udin, U. (2020). The effect of perceived organizational support and transformational leadership on affective commitment and employee performance. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.401

 

Augsdorfer, P. (2005). Bootlegging and path dependency. Research Policy, 34(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.010

 

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643

 

Bouraoui, K., Bensemmane, S., Ohana, M., & Russo, M. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and employees’ affective commitment: A multiple mediation model. Management Decision, 57(1), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2017-1015

 

Cai, H.-R., Li, M., & Guan, P.-P. (2016). Fostering managers’ knowledge-sharing behavior: The impact of the employee–organization relationship. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 44(4), 669–677. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.4.669

 

Campanella, F., Derhy, A., & Gangi, F. (2019). Knowledge management and value creation in the post-crisis banking system. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2017-0506

 

Casimir, G., Ngee Keith Ng, Y., Yuan Wang, K., & Ooi, G. (2014). The relationships amongst leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and in-role performance: A social-exchange perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(5), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2012-0054

 

Chua, R., & Jin, M. (2020). Across the great divides: Gender dynamics influence how intercultural conflict helps or hurts creative collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 63(3), 903–934. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1319

 

Criscuolo, P., Salter, A., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2014). Going underground: Bootlegging and individual innovative performance. Organization Science, 25(5), 1287–1305. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0856

 

Demir, R., & Knights, D. (2021). Unsanctioned practice innovation: A process model. Long Range Planning, 54(4), Article 102108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102108

 

Duan, Y., Yang, M., Liu, W., Mu, C., Liu, Y., Cillo, V., & Pascucci, F. (2023). Work stressors and emotional intelligence on bootlegging innovation: Explorative evidence of value creation from the China context. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 12897–12909. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3299179

 

Globocnik, D. (2019). Taking or avoiding risk through secret innovation activities—The relationships among employees’ risk propensity, bootlegging, and management support. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), Article 1950022. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919619500221

 

Globocnik, D., & Salomo, S. (2015). Do formal management practices impact the emergence of bootlegging behavior? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12215

 

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623

 

Jia, J., Liu, Z., & Zheng, Y. (2021). How does paradoxical leadership promote bootlegging: A TPB-based multiple mediation model. Chinese Management Studies, 15(4), 919–939. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-09-2020-0418

 

Jian, G., & Dalisay, F. (2017). Conversation at work: The effects of leader-member conversational quality. Communication Research, 44(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214565924

 

Khan, M. M., Mubarik, M. S., & Islam, T. (2021). Leading the innovation: Role of trust and job crafting as sequential mediators relating servant leadership and innovative work behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(5), 1547–1568. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2020-0187

 

Kumar, N., Jin, Y., & Liu, Z. (2024). The nexus between servant leadership and employee’s creative deviance for creativity inside learning and performance goal-oriented organizations. Management Decision, 62(4), 1117–1137. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2022-1294

 

Li, L., Huang, G., & Yan, Y. (2022). Coaching leadership and employees’ deviant innovation behavior: Mediation and chain mediation of interactional justice and organizational identification. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 2022(15), 3861–3874. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S381968

 

Li, X., Zhang, A., & Guo, Y. (2021). Are proactive employees more creative? The roles of multisource information exchange and social exchange-based employee-organization relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 170, Article 110484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110484

 

Liu, X., Baranchenko, Y., An, F., Lin, Z., & Ma, J. (2021). The impact of ethical leadership on employee creative deviance: The mediating role of job autonomy. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2020-0026

 

Liu, Z., & Liu, Q. (2024). Does leader–member exchange (LMX) ambivalence influence employees’ constructive deviance? Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), Article 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010070

 

Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00029.x

 

Malik, P., & Malik, P. (2021). Investigating the impact of knowledge sharing system on workplace deviance: A moderated mediated process model in Indian IT sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(8), 2088–2114. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2020-0567

 

Miao, B., Suo, Y., Liang, Y., & Li, Y. (2022). The influence of organizational identity on knowledge employees’ job performance—The mediating role of work values. IEEE Access, 10, 90903–90914. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3201905

 

Mládková, L., Zouharová, J., & Nový, J. (2015). Motivation and knowledge workers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.163

 

Mueller, J. (2012). Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(3), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211238751

 

Mueller, J. S., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Why seeking help from teammates is a blessing and a curse: A theory of help seeking and individual creativity in team contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021574

 

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). A meta‐analysis of the relationships of age and tenure with innovation‐related behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 585–616.https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12031

 

Pan, W., Sun, L.-Y., & Lam, L. W. (2020). Employee–organization exchange and employee creativity: A motivational perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(3), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1331368

 

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x

 

Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 837–867. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00046.x

 

Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking workplace incivility to citizenship performance: The combined effects of affective commitment and conscientiousness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 878–893. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.773

 

Tremblay, M., & Landreville, P.-E. (2015). Information sharing and citizenship behaviors: Mediating the roles of empowerment, procedural justice, and perceived organizational support. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(4), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525459

 

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089–1121. https://doi.org/10.5465/256928

 

Walden, J. A., & Kingsley Westerman, C. Y. (2018). Strengthening the tie: Creating exchange relationships that encourage employee advocacy as an organizational citizenship behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(4), 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918783612

 

Yao, Z., & Xiong, Z. (2024). The impact of family-like employee-organization relationship on unethical pro-family behavior. The Service Industries Journal, 44(9–10), 710–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2024.2362831

 

Ye, P., Liu, L., & Tan, J. (2021). Influence of knowledge sharing, innovation passion and absorptive capacity on innovation behaviour in China. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(5), 894–916. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-08-2020-0237

 

Yuan, H., & Ma, D. (2022). Gender differences in the relationship between interpersonal trust and innovative behavior: The mediating effects of affective organizational commitment and knowledge-sharing. Behavioral Sciences, 12(5), Article 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050145

 

Zhang, Y., Chen, H., Liu, E., He, Y., & Cheng, E. (2022). Impacts of cooperative and competitive personalities on tacit knowledge sharing among Chinese employees. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2020-0713

 

Zhou, X., Wu, Z., Liang, D., Jia, R., Wang, M., Chen, C., & Lu, G. (2021). Nurses’ voice behaviour: The influence of humble leadership, affective commitment and job embeddedness in China. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(6), 1603–1612. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13306

 

Zhu, C., & Zhang, F. (2020). How does servant leadership fuel employee innovative behavior? A moderated mediation framework. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(3), 356–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12227

 

Zhu, S. L., Long, L. R., He, W., & Wang, Z. (2015). Beyond the instrumental exchange, the family-like employee-organization relationship in Chinese firms: Theory building and empirical investigation [In Chinese]. Management World, 11, 119–134.

Anwar Tursun, School of Economics, Jilin University, 2699 Qianjin Street, Changchun City, Jilin Province, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]