Dr Saeedeh Ahmadi, Prof Tom Mom, Alexander Schmidt, Prof Henk Volberda
{"title":"Multiple goal conflicts and exploratory innovation: Does alignment between team and organization help or hurt?","authors":"Dr Saeedeh Ahmadi, Prof Tom Mom, Alexander Schmidt, Prof Henk Volberda","doi":"10.1016/j.lrp.2025.102562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the varying impacts of multiple goal conflicts on employees’ exploratory innovative behaviors. Although innovation is vital for an organization's survival and competitive advantage, the simultaneous pursuit of other goals may create goal conflicts for employees: increasing pressure on their scarce resources, including time and cognitive capacity. While much of the existing research discusses goal conflicts in general or emphasizes their negative performance consequences, we extend this literature by theorizing about two distinct ways individuals may interpret goal conflicts—either as a trade-off (e.g., innovation vs. revenue) or as complementary (e.g., innovation vs. safety)—and how these interpretations affect exploratory innovation. Moreover, we theorize that team–organization alignment moderates these effects. Our findings, based on multilevel, multisource, time-lagged data from a large energy company, indicate that conflicts involving innovation goals do not uniformly impact employee exploratory behavior. Increasing levels of conflict between innovation and safety goals are associated with employees conducting more innovation activities, but the expected negative effect of innovation-revenue conflicts is insignificant. Moreover, in a context of high alignment the innovation-safety conflict triggers employees to innovate more; in contrast, for the innovation-revenue conflict it is the opposite. Our study offers important implications for the literature on multiple goal conflict and highlights the critical roles of employees and their alignment with senior leadership.","PeriodicalId":18141,"journal":{"name":"Long Range Planning","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Long Range Planning","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2025.102562","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study examines the varying impacts of multiple goal conflicts on employees’ exploratory innovative behaviors. Although innovation is vital for an organization's survival and competitive advantage, the simultaneous pursuit of other goals may create goal conflicts for employees: increasing pressure on their scarce resources, including time and cognitive capacity. While much of the existing research discusses goal conflicts in general or emphasizes their negative performance consequences, we extend this literature by theorizing about two distinct ways individuals may interpret goal conflicts—either as a trade-off (e.g., innovation vs. revenue) or as complementary (e.g., innovation vs. safety)—and how these interpretations affect exploratory innovation. Moreover, we theorize that team–organization alignment moderates these effects. Our findings, based on multilevel, multisource, time-lagged data from a large energy company, indicate that conflicts involving innovation goals do not uniformly impact employee exploratory behavior. Increasing levels of conflict between innovation and safety goals are associated with employees conducting more innovation activities, but the expected negative effect of innovation-revenue conflicts is insignificant. Moreover, in a context of high alignment the innovation-safety conflict triggers employees to innovate more; in contrast, for the innovation-revenue conflict it is the opposite. Our study offers important implications for the literature on multiple goal conflict and highlights the critical roles of employees and their alignment with senior leadership.
期刊介绍:
Long Range Planning (LRP) is an internationally renowned journal specializing in the field of strategic management. Since its establishment in 1968, the journal has consistently published original research, garnering a strong reputation among academics. LRP actively encourages the submission of articles that involve empirical research and theoretical perspectives, including studies that provide critical assessments and analysis of the current state of knowledge in crucial strategic areas. The primary user base of LRP primarily comprises individuals from academic backgrounds, with the journal playing a dual role within this community. Firstly, it serves as a platform for the dissemination of research findings among academic researchers. Secondly, it serves as a channel for the transmission of ideas that can be effectively utilized in educational settings. The articles published in LRP cater to a diverse audience, including practicing managers and students in professional programs. While some articles may focus on practical applications, others may primarily target academic researchers. LRP adopts an inclusive approach to empirical research, accepting studies that draw on various methodologies such as primary survey data, archival data, case studies, and recognized approaches to data collection.