The impact of perceived organizational support on employees' knowledge transfer and innovative behavior: comparisons between Taiwan and mainland China

The study addresses how perceived organizational support (POS) and psychological cognition (particularly self-efficacy) influence employees’ knowledge sharing/transfer and innovative behavior, an issue heightened under the uncertainty and stress of the COVID-19 pandemic. Existing literature links organizational support to improved work attitudes, resource acquisition, and innovation; however, pandemic-induced constraints likely reduced interpersonal interaction and knowledge sharing, potentially suppressing innovation and increasing turnover intentions. The research seeks to determine whether prior findings on POS and innovation hold in pandemic conditions and to clarify the roles of self-efficacy and knowledge transfer. Guided by social cognitive theory, goal-oriented behavior (MGB), and social identity/exchange perspectives, the study examines the relationships among POS, self-efficacy, knowledge transfer, and innovative behavior in information service companies, comparing Taiwan and mainland China to understand cross-cultural moderating effects. It aims to fill gaps by testing Western-derived theories in Eastern contexts and by evaluating innovation behaviors under high environmental risk.

The literature review integrates social identity theory and the model of goal-directed behavior (MGB) to explain innovative behavior, extending beyond TPB by incorporating anticipated emotions and social exchange. Innovative behavior is defined as proactive introduction and implementation of new ideas, processes, or solutions, encompassing both idea generation and execution. Knowledge transfer involves reciprocal transformation of tacit and explicit knowledge through socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization, and is central to organizational learning and innovation effectiveness. Prior work generally finds knowledge transfer positively relates to innovative behavior, though pandemic-related uncertainty could dampen transfer. Self-efficacy, a core cognitive belief in one’s capabilities (SCCT), supports motivation, performance, and innovation; higher self-efficacy typically predicts greater innovative behavior and knowledge sharing. POS reflects employees’ perceptions that the organization values them and supports their well-being, fostering commitment, resource access, reduced stress, and innovation-supportive climates. Hypotheses: H1 Knowledge transfer → innovative behavior (positive); H2 Self-efficacy → innovative behavior (positive); H3 Self-efficacy → knowledge transfer (positive); H4 POS → innovative behavior (positive); H5 POS → self-efficacy (positive); H6 POS → knowledge transfer (positive).

Design and sampling: Cross-sectional two-wave survey (two months apart) of frontline service employees in information service companies in Taiwan and mainland China during COVID-19. Non-probability purposive sampling targeted medium and large firms with face-to-face customer service in eastern mainland China and western Taiwan; participants required at least one year of service. Data collection: 1000 questionnaires were distributed (May–July 2020) with a reminder in June. Final valid responses: Taiwan n=636 (63.6% response), mainland China n=558 (55.8%). Taiwan demographics: 62.0% male; 78.3% bachelor’s or higher; 78.5% aged 30–40; mean tenure 3.8 years. Mainland demographics: 62.3% male; 66.7% bachelor’s or higher; 54.6% aged 30–35; mean tenure 4.3 years. CMV check: Harman’s single-factor accounted for 32.74% (<50%), suggesting CMV not problematic. Measures: - POS: Supervisor/colleague support (4 items) and organizational support (8 items) from De Vos et al. (2011). - Self-efficacy: 6-item occupational self-efficacy adapted from Rigotti et al. (2008). - Knowledge transfer: tacit (4 items) and explicit (5 items) from Zhou et al. (2010). - Innovative behavior: 3 items from Kao et al. (2015). All measured on 5-point Likert scales. Measurement model (CFA/PLS): Factor loadings >0.50; Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.723; CR ≥0.769; AVE ≥0.501 across constructs/regions, indicating reliability and convergent validity; discriminant validity met (square root of AVE > inter-construct correlations). Analysis: PLS-SEM with bootstrapping for path significance; model fit via R2 (>0.30), Q2 (>0), and SRMR (<0.05). Multi-group analysis (Henseler’s MGA) compared Taiwan vs. mainland paths. Mediation: Bootstrapping tested indirect effects of self-efficacy and knowledge transfer within each region.

Measurement quality: All constructs showed adequate reliability and validity (alphas: Taiwan 0.870–0.938; mainland 0.723–0.884; CR ≥0.769; AVE ≥0.501; discriminant validity satisfied). Structural paths (standardized β, p-values): - H1 Knowledge transfer → Innovative behavior: Taiwan β=0.196, p<0.001; mainland β=0.412, p<0.001 (supported in both). - H2 Self-efficacy → Innovative behavior: Taiwan β=0.382, p<0.001; mainland β=0.018, p=0.727 (supported in Taiwan only; partially supported). - H3 Self-efficacy → Knowledge transfer: Taiwan β=0.368, p<0.001; mainland β=0.141, p=0.041 (supported in both). - H4 POS → Innovative behavior: Taiwan β=0.204, p<0.001; mainland β=0.292, p<0.001 (supported in both). - H5 POS → Self-efficacy: Taiwan β=0.636, p<0.001; mainland β=0.470, p<0.001 (supported in both). - H6 POS → Knowledge transfer: Taiwan β=0.319, p<0.001; mainland β=0.031, p=0.497 (supported in Taiwan only; partially supported). Model fit and explained variance: - Taiwan: R2 Self-efficacy=0.404; Knowledge transfer=0.386; Innovative behavior=0.455; SRMR<0.05; Q2>0. - Mainland China: R2 Self-efficacy=0.221; Knowledge transfer=0.324; Innovative behavior=0.257; SRMR<0.05; Q2>0. Multi-group differences (MGA): Significant cross-regional differences on multiple paths, including stronger Knowledge transfer → Innovative behavior in mainland China; stronger POS → Self-efficacy, Self-efficacy → Innovative behavior, Self-efficacy → Knowledge transfer, and POS → Knowledge transfer in Taiwan. Mediation: Bootstrapped indirect effects supported self-efficacy and knowledge transfer as mediators in Taiwan; mediating effects were not supported in mainland China. Additional descriptive statistics: Means (Taiwan vs. mainland) indicated higher knowledge transfer (tacit/explicit) and innovative behavior levels in mainland sample, with reliability indices meeting thresholds across both samples.

Findings address the core question of how organizational support and individual cognition shape knowledge transfer and innovative behavior under pandemic conditions and across cultures. POS consistently enhanced innovative behavior and self-efficacy in both regions, underscoring the social exchange mechanism where perceived care and resources from the organization foster reciprocal innovative effort and confidence. Self-efficacy was pivotal: it directly bolstered innovative behavior in Taiwan and promoted knowledge transfer in both regions, aligning with SCCT that efficacy beliefs drive persistence, learning, and performance. Knowledge transfer robustly predicted innovative behavior in both contexts, evidencing the knowledge-innovation link through both tacit and explicit exchanges. Cross-cultural moderation emerged: - In Taiwan, POS strongly built self-efficacy and knowledge transfer, and self-efficacy transmitted POS effects to outcomes, suggesting a psychologically supportive, learning-oriented climate enabling employees to convert support into confidence, sharing, and innovation. - In mainland China, POS did not significantly drive knowledge transfer, and self-efficacy did not translate to innovative behavior, indicating contextual barriers (e.g., competitive climates, limited long-term supportive mechanisms) that may dampen the conversion of support and efficacy into sharing and innovation. These differences validate the importance of cultural and contextual contingencies in applying social identity and goal-directed behavior frameworks in Eastern settings. Overall, results reinforce the centrality of POS and self-efficacy in fostering knowledge-enabled innovation and highlight that supportive climates and knowledge sharing cultures are critical levers, especially under uncertainty.

This study advances theory and practice by: (1) demonstrating, in an Eastern context under pandemic conditions, that POS enhances self-efficacy and innovative behavior, and that knowledge transfer is a key antecedent of innovation; (2) integrating social identity theory with the model of goal-directed behavior to elucidate mechanisms linking support, efficacy, knowledge transfer, and innovation; and (3) revealing cross-cultural differences between Taiwan and mainland China, with stronger efficacy- and transfer-related pathways in Taiwan and a non-significant POS → knowledge transfer link in mainland China. Practical recommendations include strengthening organizational support (resources, empowerment, recognition), cultivating psychologically safe and collaborative climates, investing in learning mechanisms (mentoring, team networks), and structuring knowledge repositories to enable smooth tacit/explicit transfer. Future research should employ more representative sampling, deepen analysis of mediating mechanisms (and potential moderators like leadership and justice), incorporate multi-source/longitudinal or mixed-method designs to reduce self-report bias, and test alternative motivational and learning theories to explain regional variations in innovative behavior.

- Sampling and generalizability: Non-probability purposive sampling within constraints of time and cost limits generalizability; future studies should adopt more representative sampling across industries and regions. - Self-report and CMV: Although Harman’s single-factor test suggested CMV was not severe, reliance on self-reports for psychological constructs may introduce biases; multi-source, longitudinal, or experimental designs are recommended. - Mediation scope: Space constraints limited comprehensive analysis of all potential mediators and moderators; further research should explore nuanced mediation chains and boundary conditions (e.g., leadership style, justice, incentives). - Context specificity: Pandemic-era conditions and industry focus (information services) may limit applicability to other periods or sectors. - Measurement of psychological states: More direct assessments (e.g., interviews, observations) could better capture mental mechanisms linking identity processes and innovation.