With the rapid development of Internet communication information technology, more and more enterprises begin to popularize the remote working mode. Compared with traditional jobs, are remote jobs really more conducive to employees’ deviant innovation behavior? Previous studies on the influencing factors of deviant innovation behavior mainly focus on organizational factors, leadership factors, personal factors of employees, etc. For the first time, this study focuses on the relationship between the work environment of organization isolation of remote jobs and employees’ deviant innovation behavior. Based on the survey data of 231 remote employees in two phases and hypothesis model test analysis, this study reveals the internal influence mechanism of remote jobs on employees’ deviant innovation behavior. The main conclusions of this study are as follows: Firstly, compared with traditional jobs, the characteristics of the job autonomy environment created by the organizational isolation of remote jobs reduce the organizational binding force and interpersonal pressure of employees’ deviant innovation behavior, promote the related psychological state or reaction of remote employees’ deviant innovation, and then promote the deviant innovation behavior of remote employees. The organizational isolation of remote jobs has a significant positive impact on the deviant innovation behavior of remote employees, and job autonomy plays a completely mediating role between the organizational isolation of remote jobs and the deviant innovation behavior of remote employees. Secondly, the deviant innovation behavior has the characteristics of challenging the current situation and improving the performance orientation. It has certain requirements for the ability quality and cognitive awareness of the innovation behavior individuals who work alone in remote places. Creative efficacy and organizational commitment play a positive regulatory role in the relationship between job autonomy and employees’ deviant innovation behavior. When creative efficacy and organizational commitment are low, the indirect effect of organizational isolation of remote jobs on employees’ deviant innovation behavior by job autonomy is not significant. The significance of theoretical innovation of this paper lies in two aspects: （1） It reveals the mechanism of the work environment of remote jobs on employees’ deviant innovation behavior, and expands the relevant research on the theory of deviant innovation behavior; （2） Taking individual characteristics as situational variables, it focuses on the differences of creative efficacy and organizational commitment, and answers the controversial reasons and boundary conditions of the influence of remote jobs on the effectiveness of employees’ deviant innovation behavior. The study results enrich the theoretical research and practical exploration of remote employee management and innovation management in the Internet era.
“Outside, the Monarch’s Order May Not Be Accepted”: Are Remote Jobs Really Conducive to Employees’ Deviant Innovation Behavior?
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 42, Issue 04, pp. 36 - 47 (2020) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20200203.302
 Ling Wenquan, Zhang Zhican, Fang Liluo. A Study of the organizational commitment of Chinese employees[J]. Social Sciences in China, 2001, (2): 90-102.
 Qi Xin，Liu Hong, Lin Yanmei. Study on the relationship between telework permission and production deviance: Influencing mechanism and boundary conditions[J]. Management Review, 2017, (10): 143-156.
 Tian Xiaoming, LI Rui. Can self-sacrificial leadership promote employee proactive behavior? The mediating effect of felt obligation and its boundary conditions[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica , 2015, (12): 1472-1485.
 Wang Hongyu, Cui Zhisong, Zou Chunlong, et al.Loyal or rebel? Employee bootleg innovation in Chinese context[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, (6): 975-989.
 Wang Yan-fei，Cai Ru-yin，Lin Xing-chi. The relationship between perceived insider status and employee’s innovative behavior: A study of a moderated mediating model[J]. Foreign Economics ＆ Management, 2014, (10): 40-53.
 Xiao Zhi-ming. Work in the Cao Camp，but Heart in the Han Camp? Research on the organizational identification among remote employees under organizational isolation[J]. East China Economic Management, 2019, (9): 178-184.
 Baines S. New technologies and old ways of working in the home of the self-employed teleworker[J]. New Technology, Work and Employment, 2002, 17(2): 89-101.
 Cooper C D, Kurland N B. Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2002, 23(4): 511-532.
 Cordery J L, Morrison D, Wright B M, et al. The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2010, 31(2-3): 240-258.
 Criscuolo P, Salter A, Ter Wal A L J. Going underground: Bootlegging and individual innovative performance[J]. Organization Science, 2014, 25(5): 1287-1305.
 Eisenberger R, Karagonlar G, Stinglhamber F, et al. Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010, 95(6): 1085-1103.
 Gajendran R S, Harrison D A, Delaney-Klinger K. Are telecommuters remotely good citizens? Unpacking telecommuting’s effects on performance via I-deals and job resources[J]. Personnel Psychology, 2015, 68(2): 353-393.
 Grosser T J, Venkataramani V, Labianca G J. An alter-centric perspective on employee innovation: The importance of alters’ creative self-efficacy and network structure[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2017, 102(9): 1360-1374.
 Hartmann L C, Bambacas M. Organizational commitment: A multi method scale analysis and test of effects[J]. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2000, 8(1): 89-108.
 Hornung S, Rousseau D M. Active on the job—Proactive in change: How autonomy at work contributes to employee support for organizational change[J]. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2007, 43(4): 401-426.
 Kanuka H, Jugdev K, Heller R, et al. The rise of the teleworker: False promises and responsive solutions[J]. Higher Education, 2008, 56(2): 149-165.
 Lin B L, Mainemelis C, Kark R. Leaders’ responses to creative deviance: Differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance[J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 2016, 27(4): 537-556.
 Mainemelis C. Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas[J]. The Academy of Management Review, 2010, 35(4): 558-578.
 Maruyama T, Tietze S. From anxiety to assurance: Concerns and outcomes of telework[J]. Personnel Review, 2012, 41(3): 450-469.
 Meyer J P, Allen N J. Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 69(3): 372-378.
 Morgeson F P, Humphrey S E. The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91(6): 1321-1339.
 Morgeson F P, Reider M H, Campion M A. Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge[J]. Personnel Psychology, 2005, 58(3): 583-611.
 Naotunna S, Zhou E. Autonomy and creativity of professional teleworkers: The mediating role of creative self-efficacy[J]. The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 2018, 10(3): 300-308.
 Richter A W, Hirst G, van Knippenberg D, et al. Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012, 97(6): 1282-1290.
 Taskin L, Bridoux F. Telework: A challenge to knowledge transfer in organizations[J]. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2010, 21(13): 2503-2520.
 Tierney P, Farmer S M, Graen G B. An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1999, 52(3): 591-620.
 van Knippenberg D, Sleebos E. Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2006, 27(5): 571-584.
 Volmer J, Spurk D, Niessen C. Leader-member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement[J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 2012, 23(3): 456-465.
 Wang A C, Cheng B S. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2010, 31(1): 106-121.
Cite this article
Xiao Zhiming. “Outside, the Monarch’s Order May Not Be Accepted”: Are Remote Jobs Really Conducive to Employees’ Deviant Innovation Behavior?[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2020, 42(4): 36-47.