How does it feel and how does it look? The role of employee motivation in organizational learning type

• Published date: 01 October 2018
• Author: Olli‐Pekka Kauppila
• Date: 01 October 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2270

RESEARCH ARTICLE

How does it feel and how does it look? The role of employee

motivation in organizational learning type

Olli‐Pekka Kauppila

School of Business, Aalto University, Helsinki,

Finland

Correspondence

Olli‐Pekka Kauppila, School of Business, Aalto

University, PO Box 21230, Aalto FI‐00076,

Finland.

Email: olli‐pekka.kauppila@aalto.fi

Summary

Employees' work outcomes vary as a function of their focus on exploring new possibilities versus

exploiting current opportunities. But what determines how employees divide their attention

between these contrasting work behaviors? Drawing on studies on work motivation and

employees' impression management concerns, we examine how intrinsic work motivation and

self‐enhancement motivation relate to the exploration–exploitationbalance and how environmen-

tal dynamism moderates these relationships. Based on the analyses of a sample of 638 employees

in 34 organizations in Finland, we find that intrinsic work motivation is positively associated with

employees' focus on exploration relative to exploitation. By contrast, self‐enhancement motivation

negatively associates with exploration relative to exploitation, but this relationship is nonlinear,

such that as self‐enhancement motivation increases, its positive association with exploitation

diminishes. The findings also show that the hypothesized nonlinear relationship between

self‐enhancement motivation and exploration is particularly pronounced in stable business envi-

ronments. Our findings contribute to organizational learning research and provide a new theoret-

ical perspective on pursuing exploration and exploitation in organizations.

KEYWORDS

environmentaldynamism, explorationand exploitation, intrinsicmotivation, organizationallearning,

self‐enhancement motivation

1|INTRODUCTION

To perform effectively across various tasks and situations, employees

should be able to divide their attention between explorative and

exploitative behaviors (Levinthal & March, 1993; Rogan & Mors,

2014). In organizations, exploitation and exploration capture two con-

trasting types of learning activities (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Gupta, Smith,

& Shalley, 2006; He & Wong, 2004; Kang, Morris, & Snell, 2007).

Explorative behaviors involve actions to facilitate the search, variation,

and creation of new capabilities and opportunities at work. In contrast,

exploitative behaviors involve actions to improve the efficiency and

incremental refinement of existing knowledge and competences

(March, 1991). Researchers have argued that both types of learning

activities are essential for the effective functioning and enduring

viability of the organization (O'Reilly III & Tushman, 2008). Exploitative

behaviors are particularly salient in stable environments, where the

efficiency of operations and the incremental refinement of skills and

capabilities are the key determinants of firms' competitiveness

(Ebben & Johnson, 2005; Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2006).

As the dynamism in the organization's environment increases, the

calls for explorative behaviors to develop new ideas and opportunities

that would help the firm compete and thrive in the changing

markets become more intensified (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001; Benner &

Tushman, 2003).

Rooted in research on organizational theory and innovation man-

agement, earlier studies on exploration and exploitation tended to

examine these activities primarily in macro‐organizational systems

and structures (see, e.g., Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008 for a review).

Although organizations emphasize exploration and exploitation differ-

ently (Cao, Gedajlovic, & Zhang, 2009; Giarratana & Fosfuri, 2007;

Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006) and although these activities

are likely to vary across employees nested in different organizational

settings (Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr, 2009; Parker, 2014),

the actual balancing between exploration and exploitation in one's

work role is largely regulated by employees' own preferences, discre-

tion, and volition (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999; Gibson &

Birkinshaw, 2004). However, the current understanding of the factors

affecting these activities in organizations is incomplete because

Received: 10 November 2016 Revised: 17 January 2018 Accepted: 17 January 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2270

J Organ Behav. 2018;39:941–955. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 941