Abstract
Orientation: As quick-commerce emerges as an evolving extension within the broader e-commerce landscape, it requires a deeper understanding of how to effectively manage employees to sustain continuous innovation. Implementing appropriate leadership practices has been shown to promote the development of employees from varied backgrounds and personalities, thereby enhancing innovation and driving organisational success.
Research purpose: This study explored how transformational leadership influences the relationship between employees with proactive personality and the frequencies of innovative work behaviour (IWB) within a quick-commerce organisation, offering insights for organisations to enhance team performance.
Motivation for the study: Quick-commerce organisations present novel work processes and environments. This research examines how to effectively translate and implement appropriate leadership approaches that sustain IWB in these dynamic settings.
Research approach/design and method: Online questionnaires were utilised for data collection involving 200 employees working at a quick-commerce organisation. This quantitative research approach utilised SEM-PLS (Structural Equation Modelling Partial Least Squares) to conduct moderation analysis on processed data.
Main findings: The analysis indicated that proactive personality had a significant positive effect on IWB, whereas transformational leadership was found to negatively moderate the relationship between proactive personality and IWB.
Practical/managerial implications: The transformational leadership approach is not well-suited for encouraging employees with proactive personalities to engage in innovative behaviour within a quick-commerce environment.
Contribution/value-add: The study shows that transformational leadership is not necessarily the best leadership approach for stimulating IWB in a quick-commerce context, potentially opening the door for further exploration and discussion on this topic.
Keywords: innovative work behaviour; proactive personality; transformational leadership; quick-commerce; moderating variable.
Introduction
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, driven by the significant development of the internet and digital technology, has paved the way for the groundwork of connectivity between humans and machines. One rapidly growing sector in Indonesia, driven by the advancement of intelligent and evolving automated and smart shopping industry, is e-commerce. Marhawati et al. (2023) stated that e-commerce is a marketing system that utilises internet networks through websites, mobile applications or browsers on mobile devices and computers for conducting business transactions, including commercial transactions between organisations or individuals.
Because of the remarkable growth of on-demand e-commerce in Indonesia (with a 449.4% increase in revenue by 2022, according to BPS, 2022), quick-commerce (Q-commerce) has emerged as the next evolution of e-commerce as it emerged as an investment choice during 2021. Unlike e-commerce, which provides a diverse range of products with regular delivery lines (3–6 working days), the difference lies in offering rapid delivery of a wide selection of groceries within minutes. The rapid delivery service is facilitated through distributed warehouses, commonly referred to as dark stores, which enable delivery within 20–60 min (Statista, 2024).
Quick-commerce has proliferated because of the intelligent and evolving automated shopping industry. Delivery innovation combined with the convenience of e-commerce integrated into smartphone applications benefits consumers with limited mobility, particularly in fulfilling their everyday needs (Ahmed & Shafighi, 2022; Kurniawan, 2022; Tugberk, 2021). Statista (2023) predicted that revenue from Indonesia’s quick-commerce market segment will reach $2.82 billion in 2023. This anticipated growth aligns with the projection of reaching 25.1 million users by 2028, indicating that the sector not only holds significant promise for expansion but also plays a pivotal role in enhancing consumer accessibility and convenience in online grocery shopping through the immediacy of its rapid delivery service and further amplified by user-friendly apps and platforms that streamline the shopping process. The expansion of the market subsequently contributes to the growth of Indonesia’s economy.
Despite the optimistic outlook, profitability is a challenge owing to the small size of the basket and (limited) volume of orders. Inflation is a leading issue impacting shoppers – whether in store or online. As reported by Novina on CNBC (2022), companies like Happy Fresh have ceased operations after a 7-year run, whereas Bananas quick-commerce, focusing on groceries, shut down after 10 months of inception because of difficulties in adapting its economic model and business strategy to market dynamics. One of the quick-commerce companies that has steadily grown its wings in Indonesia until now, surviving the inflation and market demands, is ASTRO. Since 2021, ASTRO, a prominent quick-commerce service in Jakarta, has surpassed the standard delivery time, reducing it from 20–60 minutes to just 15–30 minutes. This enhanced performance is likely because of the strategic placement of multiple dark stores across main lines on the Greater Jakarta area (Jabodetabek), coupled with the integration of its own exclusive delivery system and proprietary product line, enabling efficient outreach to even the most distant locations. Additionally, ASTRO provides various promotions and discounts through their dedicated smartphone app, which customises the interface and product recommendations based on customer preferences. This level of predictive innovation distinguishes ASTRO from its competitors.
According to Reif (2022), the characteristics and demands of organisations engaged in the quick-commerce industry emphasise the crucial role of the workforce in achieving business success. This includes attributes such as agility, adaptability, innovativeness and strong communication skills, which are essential for efficiently handling the fast-paced and dynamic environment of superfast grocery delivery services. The innovations or adaptations initiated by employees serve as key components for organisations to distinguish themselves from competitors and attain competitive advantages amid the prevailing challenges they face (Munir & Beh, 2019; Ramamoorthy et al., 2017).
Within the industrial context where ideas are implemented and integrated into existing systems, innovation encompasses the creation and application of original concepts that influence the theoretical and practical aspects of products or services, thereby facilitating novel design and workflow processes at small and large scale (Janssen, 2004). According to West and Farr (Abun et al., 2023), innovating in the workplace, or innovative work behaviour (IWB) fundamentally involves the initiation and utilisation of processes, ideas or work procedures relevant to one’s role, group, department or organisation with the aim of substantially enhancing individuals or their work environment on a daily basis.
Organisations operating in the realm of online transactions, such as those in the quick-commerce sector, must ensure that their management possesses the capability to recruit employees who exhibit positive and proactive personalities, as these traits are essential for fostering a dynamic and responsive workforce that can effectively navigate the challenges of this rapidly evolving market. These individuals have the capability of recognising opportunities, willingness to face challenges and radiating eagerness to take action (Auliya & Wiradendi, 2022; Janssen, 2003) which allow them to compete effectively and provide innovation from all aspects compared to other traits in customer-centric companies operating in the same industry. Individuals with proactive personalities also bear a sense of responsibility to continually seek ways to enhance their performance and improve their environments (Fuller in Kim et al., 2009).
Structural, cultural and human resource factors are essential when examining dynamic and innovative organisations. In addition to individual differences, according to Agarwal (2014), organisations can continue to evolve and instigate change if they encourage employees to invent and introduce ideas into their work. This statement is further underpinned by research conducted by Bednall et al. (2006), who stated that companies or organisations are more likely to thrive and prosper when management promotes innovative behaviour and engages in endeavours to bring forth and implement new concepts that harness the capabilities and knowledge of the entire workforce of an organisation. Appropriate leadership is essential for nurturing and encouraging innovative behaviour among employees, given the significant influence and interaction that leaders have on the perceptions and performance of their subordinates (Lin et al., 2022).
Transformational leadership is crucial in adapting to the rapid changes in today’s business environment as it involves inspiring and motivating employees to enhance dynamic capabilities, encourages innovation and drives organisational change effectively fostering career adaptability, and maintaining mental health to navigate through uncertainties and disruptions (Ayaz, 2022; Lan & Chen, 2020; Usman, 2020). According to Basu and Green (Murniasih, 2023), leadership with dominant traits such as transformation can stimulate innovative behaviour among employees by inspiring them to flourish and exceed expected performance levels (Edeh & Dialoke, 2020; Khuzwayo et al., 2023; Krause, 2004; Reuvers et al., 2008). Moreover, leaders in this category motivate their subordinates by adjusting their motivations, beliefs, values and skills, thereby aligning the individual interests and goals of followers in harmony with the vision and objectives of the organisation (Goodwin et al., 2001).
Several studies (Afsar et al., 2014; Handoyo & Shari, 2017; Khasanah & Himam, 2019) have indicated a simultaneous positive and significant effect on both transformational leadership and proactive personality on IWB. This is credited to the supportive function of transformational leadership in facilitating employees’ actualisation of ideas into practical solutions within their work processes. However, research on the influence of transformational leadership on the causal relationship between proactive personalities and IWB is limited. Moreover, research examining transformational leadership as a moderating variable in the influence of proactive personalities on IWB in the quick-commerce sector remains largely unexplored.
Research purpose and objectives
The study investigates the influence of transformational leadership as a moderating variable on the relationship between proactive personality and IWB among employees in quick-commerce organisations, especially those that manage their own delivery systems and have proprietary grocery lines. Furthermore, based on the research findings, it provides practical recommendations for quick-commerce organisations, specifically those with their own delivery system and own line of groceries, to select the appropriate leadership approach and hire individuals with proactive personalities for the company, as it influences innovative behaviour within the organisation.
Literature review
Innovative work behaviour
Discussions surrounding the construct of innovation behaviour have become increasingly prevalent in response to changes caused by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Innovative work behaviour in the workplace serves as a process and outcome to enhance organisation productivity and improve employee well-being (Oeij, 2018). Innovative work behaviour is defined as employees’ intentional creation of new ideas and implementation of these ideas within work groups to improve performance or generate new outcomes, as it beneficially influences individual or organisational performance (De Jong & De Hartog, 2007; Janssen, 2000; Yuan & Woodman, 2010).
Janssen (2000) identified three aspects of IWB: idea generation, idea promotion and idea realisation. Idea generation entails identifying existing problems and creating useful ideas or solutions. Idea promotion involves employees sharing ideas with colleagues to garner support and approval for later implementation. Finally, in idea realisation, the ideas are manifested as tangible models and then applied in the work setting to improve work efficiency. Baumann (2011) investigated organisational and individual characteristics as supportive factors for IWB. It has been found that leadership and personality are key components that influence IWB (Baumann, 2011; Hammond et al., 2011).
Proactive personality
Numerous studies have examined which individuals are inclined towards IWB, based on the Big Five Personality model. Truxillo et al. (2012) asserted that personality traits characterised by openness to experience, extraversion, goal achievement (conscientiousness) and the exploration of new ideas (openness) are key components of a proactive personality. Overall, proactive personalities can be characterised as individuals who prioritise their interactions with their environment, actively shape their circumstances and demonstrate resilience in the face of pressure and challenges with the goal of enhancing effectiveness in both work and life contexts (Auliya & Wiradendi, 2022; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Tekeli & Ozkoc, 2022).
Based on research conducted by Bateman and Crant (1993), a proactive personality is shaped by four key aspects: recognising opportunities, demonstrating initiative, action, and persisting until change is accomplished. Recognising opportunities involves an individual’s willingness to identify opportunities for future self-development. Subsequently, individuals with proactive personalities exhibit a proactive inclination to explore. Furthermore, they like to explore ideas in the environment. Those with proactive personalities persevere in their ideas despite facing rejection or obstacles. Previous inquiries have depicted a positive relationship between proactive personality and IWB (Giebels et al., 2016; Kong & Li, 2018; Parker & Collins, 2010; Schwaab et al., 2007).
Transformational leadership
Within an organisation, there is a need for a leader who can act as a catalyst for change, drive organisational transformation and effectively guide the organisation towards its objectives. Erhan et al. (2022) assert the critical role of leaders in companies, particularly in their capacity to influence subordinates. Drawing on Burns (Safaria, 2004), transformational leadership is characterised by instigating changes in subordinates’ values, beliefs, attitudes, behaviours, emotions and needs, aiming for a more promising future. Transformational leaders serve as exemplary role models for their employees, communicate a clear vision and motivate the staff to pursue organisational goals (Bass & Avolio, 1997, 2005).
As outlined by Bass and Avolio (Eds. 1994), transformational leadership is characterised by four components: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Idealised influence pertains to imparting a vision and mission to inspire subordinates and demonstrate higher ethical standards. Inspirational motivation requires leaders to motivate their subordinates to pursue personal and organisational objectives by emphasising the significance of tasks and conveying optimism regarding future goals. Subsequently, leaders with this disposition demonstrate the capacity to heighten awareness of issues and sway their followers to adopt novel viewpoints on problems. Ultimately, they exhibit the ability to comprehend and address each subordinate’s distinct needs through empowerment and mentoring. Multiple studies have highlighted a constructive association or influence of transformational leadership and innovative behaviour among employees (Janssen, 2000; Afsar et al., 2014; Handoyo & Shari, 2017). However, some studies suggest that transformational leadership has a negative effect on IWB (Basu & Green, 1997; Ferdinand & Lindawati, 2021) and lacks significant influence (Bogar, 2019; Farid et al., 2020).
The influence of proactive personality on innovative work behaviour
Researches (Hammond et al., 2011; Windiarsih & Etikariena, 2018) have been exploring the influence of proactive personality as one of the influencers of IWB. Janssen (2003) stated that to take innovative action, one must be willing to activate one’s idea in one’s environment. Several studies have also shown that a proactive personality has a significantly positive association with IWB (Li et al., 2016; Pons et al., 2016). This is because people with proactive personalities can actively promote their ideas. Therefore, it is easier for them to gain the support required to implement these ideas.
Transformational leadership as a moderating variable in the influence of proactive personality towards innovative work behaviour
Discussions on workplace behaviour are intricately linked to a multitude of factors, including human resources, environmental dynamics, demographic elements and inherent characteristics of the company. Leadership has emerged as one of the key factors driving innovative behaviour in the workplace (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Mumford & Gustafson, 1998). Sudibjo and Prameswari (2021) explain that enhancing innovation within an organisation is best achieved not only through research and development efforts, but also by prioritising the IWB exhibited by employees themselves.
According to Helmy and Saputri (2021), small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) leaders in the Kebumen area who exhibit transformational leadership tendencies are likely to encourage proactive employees to explore novel approaches to their tasks. In a study by Engelen et al. (2012) involving 790 employees across SMEs in Austria, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States, intellectual stimulation within transformational leadership was found to moderate IWB.
Transformational leadership can effectively stimulate employees’ desire to create new things (Pradhan & Jena, 2019). Furthermore, transformational leadership can also strengthen new ideas and concepts by challenging others, persuading subordinates to take calculated risks, offering individual assistance and feedback and encouraging intellectual stimulation (Tănase & Alexandru, 2020).
Mubarak et al. (2021) conducted research among employees at 259 SMEs in Pakistan and found that a proactive personality exerted a positive influence on IWB, directly and indirectly. This influence was moderated by transformational leadership and mediated by work engagement. The research further explained that transformational leadership influenced individuals with proactive personalities by prompting them to generate fresh ideas and solutions. Based on the abovementioned discussion, the following conclusions were drawn as is also depicted in Figure 1:
H1: Proactive personality has a positive and significant influence on IWB.
H2: Transformational leadership strengthens the influence of proactive personality on IWB.
Research design
Research approach
This study employed a quantitative methodology (Azwar, 2011), as it is considered the most suitable method for the research problem, objectives and aims, as asserted by Creswell and Creswell (2017). Statistical data analysis facilitated the measurement and clarification of the transformational leadership as moderating variable in the influence of proactive personalities on IWB. We utilised the Structural Equation Modelling Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) software to test the data and hypotheses in this research, owing to its investigative approach and the intricate framework that incorporates a moderating variable. Prior to the implementation of psychometric assessments, preliminary interviews were conducted with selected managerial staff within the company. This step was crucial to ascertain the significance of the foundational data in identifying the presence of the variables under investigation.
Research model
Respondents
The population of this research comprised employees working at the main business office in different departments and in the field of quick-commerce in Jakarta, Indonesia. Questionnaires were distributed to 480 employees using a convenience sampling technique, resulting in a total of 200 responses received (N = 200). The participants were at managerial and non-managerial levels (Operator = 16.5%; Staff = 25.5%; Officer = 8.5%; Analyst = 4.5%; Associate = 3%; Admin = 7%; Auditor = 2%; Engineer = 7%; Specialist = 2.5%; Supervisor = 4%; Manager = 7.5%; Lead = 7.5%; Head = 3%). The participants were predominantly male (57%). Fifty-eight per cent (58%) of the respondents were aged between 30 and 40 years. Most participants (91%) had completed their bachelor’s degrees. Half of the respondents were staff (25.5%), operator (16.5%) and officer (8.5%), while the rest represented the professional and managerial levels.
Measurements
This study used a structured survey instrument to collect data to assess IWB, proactive personalities and transformational leadership. The IWB questionnaire consisted of an English-to-Indonesian translated scale by Etikariena and Muluk (2014) based on the original scale with three aspects of the IWB developed by Janssen (2003), which was later modified to fit the population. The scale was translated and verified with the assistance of the Language Centre at the University of Indonesia (UI) to ensure linguistic validity. Aspects measured include idea generation, idea promotion and idea realisation with a six-point Likert scale (1 = never, 6 = always).
The proactive personality scale is a self-reported questionnaire. This scale consisted of an English-to-Indonesian translated short version of the scale by Masiroh (2019) based on the original scale containing four aspects of proactive personality developed by Seibert et al. (1999). The scale was translated and verified with the assistance of the external language centre, and later modified to fit the population. Aspects measured include identifying opportunities, showing initiative and acting and persevering until meaningful change is achieved with a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).
The transformational leadership questionnaire is based on subordinates’ perceptions of their superiors, measured using an English-to-Indonesian translated scale developed by Murniasih (2023) based on the original scale with four aspects of transformational leadership constructed by Bass (Hemsworth et al., 2013). These aspects include inspirational motivation, idealised influence, individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation with a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).
Research procedure
Questionnaires were distributed online to collect data from the sample of employees. This method was used to achieve cost efficiency, save time and allow researchers to approach the employees evenly. Online questionnaires were distributed to the participants via an email distributed by the HR department on the company’s internal platform. Subsequently, the HR department distributed it to all employees via an official email. A notice was provided at the onset of the survey to clarify the study’s objectives and discuss possible ethical considerations, such as confidentiality, autonomy and anonymity.
Results
Measurement model/Outer model analysis
This study used SEM-PLS to examine the reliability and validity of the instrument to explain the relationship between the latent variables which are transformational leadership, proactive personality and IWB with their aspects. An item is deemed valid if it exhibits an outer loading value greater than 0.7 and possesses an average variance extracted (AVE) greater than 0.5 (Abdullah, 2015). Table 1 presents the item-loading for IWB, proactive personality and transformational leadership. Based on the outer loading analysis, all items exceeded the limit of the loading factor (> 0.7). Then based on AVE values of IWB, proactive personality and transformational leadership scale items, the results in Table 1 indicate that all items fulfilled the benchmark of convergent and discriminant validity (> 0.5). All three scales showed reliability scores higher than 0.7, implying these instruments were reliable (Table 1).
| TABLE 1: Factor analysis and loading of the items (cross-loading); innovative work behaviour, proactive personality and transformational leadership (N = 200). |
Structural model/Inner model analysis
An inner model analysis using partial least squares (SEM-PLS) was conducted in this study to determine the strength and direction of the causal relationship between proactive personality and IWB, and transformational leadership as a moderating factor in this relationship among employees working at a quick-commerce organisation. The findings of the bootstrapping test on hypothesis 1 (Table 2) revealed that proactive personality had a positive and significant influence on IWB (O = 0.474; t = 6.317; p = 0.000). However, Table 2 indicates that transformational leadership as a moderating variable has a negative value and did not exhibit a significant moderating effect (O = -0.088; t-values = < 1.99; p = 0.274). Therefore, the second hypothesis is rejected. The strength of the moderating effect, based on Cohen’s (1988) criteria of effect size, bootstrapping analysis on Table 2 (f-Square ≥ 0.03) is small.
| TABLE 2: Structural model/inner model analysis; summary of bootstrapping on moderating effect. |
Table 3 shows an analysis to examine the influence of various elements of transformational leadership on IWB, aiming to substantiate the rejection of the hypothesis in this study. The findings in Table 3 show that two of the transformational leadership elements, namely, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation negatively affect IWB. Individual consideration and idealised influence, however, induced a positive effect on IWB (Table 3). Yet none of the transformational leadership elements provide significant values.
| TABLE 3: Summary on bootstrapping analysis of transformational leadership aspect on innovative work behaviour. |
Discussion
Outline of the result
The main result indicates that proactive personality has a significantly positive influence on IWB, implying that a greater prevalence of proactive personality traits among employees correlates with a greater prevalence of IWB in the dynamic environment of quick-commerce. Using both empirical and hypothetical mean scores, descriptive analyses were conducted to gain an understanding of the distribution of responses for the variable. On IWB, 75% of the responses were on a high level (µ = 31.5; σ = 7.5). For proactive personality, 75% of the responses were on moderate or medium level (µ = 35; σ = 8.3), while for transformational leadership, 45% of the responses were on moderate or medium level (µ = 70; σ = 16.7).
From an organisational standpoint, a proactive personality can be regarded as pivotal in enhancing creativity and generating new ideas within the workplace environment. These ideas can assist companies competing in the market and capitalising on opportunities (Alikaj et al., 2021; Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Song & Lee, 2020).
Another key insight revealed by this study is that transformational leadership did not demonstrate the anticipated moderating influence on the causal relationship between proactive personality and IWB. This suggests that rather than strengthening the causal relationship, transformational leadership failed to fulfil its expected role. Innovative behaviour is a complex concept that can be affected by numerous external and internal factors such as intellectual capabilities, family, culture, education and economic standards (Rosing et al., 2011). Table 2 supports findings from previous research (Chen et al., 2009) that transformational leadership within this quick-commerce company is not the dominant factor influencing employees’ IWB (f2 = 0.03 / 3%).
Transformational leadership emphasises the development of individuals within the corporate ecosystem, focusing on the human aspect (people-oriented). This development is achieved through values, organisation vision and personal values. Transformational leaders are keen to share their passion and energy to inspire subordinates to exceed their work standards (Hüttermann & Boerner, 2011). The characteristics of transformational leadership have a positive influence on job characteristics that rely on continuous thinking, interdependence and communication (Basu & Green, 1997; Ferdinand & Lindawati, 2021; Lima & Carvalho, 2023). However, in this study, transformational leadership did not show a significant influence on IWB.
In the case of the quick-commerce company where this study was conducted, some of the subjects are employed in fields that allow for autonomy in performing their tasks without the need for direct supervision from their superiors (Warehouse = 7.5%; Operations = 7.5%; IT = 8.5%; Legal = 4.5%; QA/QC = 4%; Supply = 3.5%; Data = 2%; Logistics = 1.5%; Finance & Accounting = 4.5%). Consequently, this type of working department could explain why transformational leadership did not exhibit a positive moderating effect. That leadership approach is less effective when applied to job types with low levels of interdependence, where employees can perform their functions independently without profound guidance from a leader, strict regulations or tasks that do not require high levels of interpersonal cooperation. Transformational leadership, which generally functions to control change within an organisation (Aprilita, 2012), relies on continuous workplace communication.
This leadership style is most effective in work environments that predominantly involve idea generation, are dynamic and flexible and demand high levels of collaboration and cooperation (Podsakoff in Wang et al., 2011). Examples include departments or divisions in research and development, FMCG, marketing and sales, strategic planning and business development. However, in the data we acquired, total respondents from the department, as mentioned earlier, were less represented (FMCG = 6.5%; Marketing = 9%; Commercial = 10%; Business = 4%). The low representation from these departments could explain why transformational leadership did not demonstrate a strong effect within the quick-commerce work environment.
In addition to internal and external factors that could influence the moderation effect of transformational leadership as measured in this study, the presence of a predominant Generation Y (1982–2000) among the participants could also have contributed to the negative results obtained for transformational leadership as a moderating factor. Anantatmula and Shrivastav (2012), for example, suggested that Generation Y tends to be more independent in the workplace, preferring flexibility, more freedom and as motivation, financial incentives.
In today’s dynamic business landscape, companies, especially those in quick-commerce, encounter multifaceted challenges and ever-changing markets. Embracing cultures championing learning, ethics, diversity, innovation and adaptability is pivotal to their success (Ramana et al., 2024). In these companies, managers, employees and stakeholders are encouraged to express new ideas, be creative and take risks wisely (Dobni, 2008).
Practical implications
The insights of this research provide fresh perspectives on practical implications for businesses and leadership practices within emerging organisations arising from the evolution of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Firstly, the findings emphasise the importance of aligning leadership approaches with organisational goals and employee traits, which, in turn, may enhance or diminish their contribution to the success of the organisation.
Secondly, the study indicates that for quick-commerce organisations, transformational leadership failed to act as a moderating variable in influencing workers’ proactive personalities towards IWB. In addition to transformational leadership, several other leadership styles could positively influence the development and fostering of innovative behaviour in the workplace.
Organisations in highly uncertain yet competitive industries, such as quick-commerce, should consider fostering a work environment that encourages autonomy, risk-taking and idea generation, while still providing the utmost support and guidance. By striking this balance, management can optimise the proactive nature of its workforce to drive innovation and augment its competitive edge in the commercial landscape. Furthermore, the results emphasise that transformational leadership does not serve well in elevating IWB among employees if they already have proactive personalities.
In contrast to transformational leadership, which acts as a catalyst for change and guides employees in alignment with the organisation’s vision and mission, relying strongly on communication to influence employees, other leadership approaches, such as complexity leadership, may be more suitable to the quick-commerce context. Complexity leadership facilitates effective learning and adaptability among leaders and employees (Zenouzi & Deghan, 2021). Unlike various leadership concepts that emphasise leader–follower interaction or top-down control, complexity leadership is a style that focuses on supporting interdependent collaborative systems and creating an environment in which employees are engaged (bottom-up), competent and empowered to solve problems innovatively, regardless of their position within the organisation (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009).
Limitations and recommendations
This study had several limitations. Firstly, the methodology presents a structural framework with a moderation analysis conducted using SEM. Future research could benefit from using other research approaches and designs, such as qualitative, cross-sectional or longitudinal approaches, to further generalise the findings of this study. Secondly, the study centred on a particular sample or population in a specific work environment. (e.g., employees of quick-commerce organisations that operate their own product lines and delivery systems.). Hence, the applicability of the findings to alternative industries is not representative of those in other sectors. In addition, a comparative analysis spanning different situations, industries and demographics is required to determine potential variations in the significance of IWB predictors. Such research can offer deeper insights into the correlations among proactive personalities, transformational leadership and IWB within diverse contexts.
Conclusion
The implementation of novel ideas has the potential to prolong an organisation’s lifespan by enhancing sustainable and effective internal processes, thereby yielding high-quality work outcomes. As these objectives are achieved, competitive advantage can be sustained (Messmann & Mulder, 2012). This study investigates how transformational leadership moderates the causal relationship between proactive personalities and IWB among employees working in a quick-commerce organisation. The study indicates that employees with proactive personalities tend to exhibit innovative behaviours independently, without the necessity of transformational leadership influence. These findings contrast those of numerous studies concerning the positive effects of transformational leadership.
However, moderating analysis revealed that transformational leadership did not significantly influence the relationship between proactive personality and IWB. This observation and the result data suggest that transformational leadership is not well-suited for implementation in a quick-commerce environment. Employees with a proactive personality require an appropriate leadership style tailored to their needs and preferences to enhance productivity further.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their sincere appreciation to the management and staff of the commerce company for their indispensable contributions to this research. Additionally, they extend their appreciation to the Psychology faculty at North Sumatera University for their assistance in facilitating the study.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
A.A.A. contributed towards the methodology, supervision, conceptualisation of the main idea and article submission. K.P. conducted the analysis, validated the research and was responsible for software processing. S.H. anchored the review and revisions.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Sumatera Utara Faculty of Psychology Ethics Committee (No. 21/Komet/FPsi/2024).
Funding information
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this research are available within this article.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Abdullah, M. (2015). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif. Aswaja Perssindo.
Abun, D., Macaspact, L.G.R., Valdez, E.B., & Julian, F.P. (2023). The effect of innovative work environment on the innovative work behavior of employees. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 12(3), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v12i3.2467
Afsar, B., Badir, Y.F., & Saeed, B.B. (2014). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Industrial Management Data System, 114(8), 1270–1300. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v6n12p192
Agarwal, U.A. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel Review, 43(1), 41–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2012-0019
Ahmed, F., & Shafighi, N. (2022). Growth of Q-Commerce industry in South Asia: Challenges and opportunities. IOSR Journal of Business and Managements, 24, 67–74.
Alikaj, A., Ning, W., & Wu, B. (2021). PP and creative behavior: Examining the role of thriving at work and high-involvement HR practices. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36, 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09704-5
Anantatmula, V.S., & Shrivastav, B. (2012). Evolution of project teams for generation Y workface. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371211192874
Aprilita, B. (2012). Dimensi-Dimensi Gaya Kepemimpinan Bass dan Avolio Menurut Persepsi Karyawan Dalam Membangun Gaya Kepemimpinan yang Efektif. Skripsi. UNDIP.
Auliya, V.P.W., & Wiradendi, C. (2022). Effect of empowering leadership and proactive personality on innovative behavior in E-Commerce through thriving at work. International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science, 8(12), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v8n12p3
Ayaz, S. (2022). Transformational leadership and dynamic capabilities in businesses. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 5(3), 602–621. https://doi.org/10.33712/mana.1171297
Azwar, S. (2011). Metode Penelitian. Pustaka Pelajar.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Mindgarden.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage.
Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2005). Transformational leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Basu, R., & Green, S.G. (1997). Leader-Member Exchange and Transformational Leadership: An Empirical Examination of Innovative Behaviors in Leader-Member Dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 477–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00643.x
Bateman, T.S., & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
Baumann, P.K. (2011). The relationship between individual and organizational characteristics and nurse innovation behavior. Unpublished dissertation, School of Nursing Indiana University.
Bednall, T., Rafferty, A., Shipton, H., Sanders, K., & Jackson, C. (2018). Innovative behaviour: How much transformational leadership do you need?. British Journal of Management, 29(4), 796–816. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12275
Bogar, W. (2019). The effect of transactional leadership and transformational leadership on employees’ creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Management and Education, 2(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.32535/apjme.v2i1.371
BPS-Statistics Indonesia. (2022). Indonesian economic report, 2022. Bps.go.id; BPS-Statistics Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.bps.go.id/en/publication/2022/09/16/2ff6faa58654862615a92019/indonesian-economic-report--2022.html
Chen, V., Li, H., & Tang, Y. (2009). Transformational leadership and creativity: Exploring the mediating effects of creative thinking and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 6(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMED.2009.022627
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods Approaches (5th edn.). SAGE.
De Jong, J.P., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710720546
Dobni, C.B. (2008). Measuring innovation culture in organizations: The development of a generalized innovation culture construct using exploratory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 539–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060810911156
Edeh, F.O., & Dialoke, I. (2020). Effect of human resource planning on organizational performance of the hospitality sector in Nigeria. Business Perspective Review, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.38157/business-perspective-review.v2i1.71
Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1069–1097. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312455244
Erhan, T., Uzunbacak, H.H., & Aydin, E. (2022). From conventional to digital leadership: Exploring digitalization of leadership and innovative work behavior. Management Research Review, 45(11), 1524–1543. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0338
Etikariena, A., & Muluk, H. (2014). Correlation between organizational memory and innovative work behavior. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia, 18(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.7454/mssh.v18i2.3463
Farid, M.A., Kee, D.M.H., Bin Mohamad, M.S., Bin Hameem, M.S.U., & Bin Zulkafli, A.Z. (2020). The role of leadership and leaders’ behavioral characteristics on employees: A study of Petronas Berhad. International Journal of Applied Business and International Management, 5(3), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.32535/ijabim.v5i3.982
Ferdinand, A.B., & Lindawati, T. (2021). The effect of transformational leadership and organizational culture on lecturer performance through innovative work behavior at Catholic Universities in Surabaya. International Journal of Applied Business and International Management (IJABIM), 6(2), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.32535/ijabim.v6i2.1106
Giebels, E., De Reuver, R.S.M., Rispens, S., & Ufkes, E.G. (2016). The critical roles of task conflict and job autonomy in the relationship between proactive personalities and innovative employee behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316648774
Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C., & Whittington, J.L. (2001). A theoretical and empirical extension to the transformational leadership construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 759–774. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.111
Grant, A.M., & Ashford, S.J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
Hammond, M.M., Neff, N.L., & Farr, J.L. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018556
Handoyo, S., & Shari, M.P. (2017). Pengaruh Persepsi Kepemimpinan Transformasional dan Kepribadian Proaktif Terhadap Perilaku Inovatif di Badan Narkotika Nasional Provinsi Jawa Timur. Jurnal Psikologi Industri dan Organisasi, 6(3), 88–99.
Helmy, I., & Saputri, Z. (2021). Pengaruh Motivasi Intrinsik dan Work Life Balance Terhadap Organizational Citizenship Behavior dengan Komitmen Organisasi sebagai Variabel Intervening. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Manajemen, Bisnis dan Akuntansi (JIMMBA), 3, 933–959. https://doi.org/10.32639/jimmba.v3i5.945
Hemsworth, D., Muterera, J., & Baregheh, A. (2013). Examining basss transformational leadership in public sector executives: A psychometric properties review. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 29(3), 853. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v29i3.7785
Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (2010) Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416
Hüttermann, H., & Boerner, S. (2011). Fostering innovation in functionally diverse teams: The two faces of transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(6), 833–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.524412
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038
Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647210
Janssen, O. (2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.238
Khasanah, I., & Himam, F. (2019). Kepemimpinan Transformasional Kepribadian Proaktif dan Desain Kerja sebagai Prediktor Perilaku Kerja Inovatif. Gadjah Mada Journal of Psychology (GamaJoP), 4, 143. https://doi.org/10.22146/gamajop.46361
Khuzwayo, A.B., Flotman, A-P., & Mitonga-Monga, J. (2023). Transformational leadership influences on organisational justice and employee commitment in a customer service organisation. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 49, a1979. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v49i0.1979
Kim, T.-Y., Hon, A.H., & Chant, J.M., (2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9094-4
Kong, Y., & Li, M. (2018). Proactive personality and innovative behavior: The mediating roles of job-related affect and work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(3), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6618
Krause, D.E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.006
Kurniawan, S. (2022). Tren Quick commerce: Cepat Saja Tak Cukup. Retrieved from https://www.marketeers.com/tren-quick-commerce-cepat-saja-tak-cukup/
Lan, Y., & Chen, Z. (2020). Transformational leadership, career adaptability, and work behaviors: The Moderating role of task variety. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 02922. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02922
Li, M., Liu, Y., Liu, L., & Wang, Z. (2016). Proactive personality and innovative work behavior: The mediating effects of affective states and creative self-efficacy in teachers. Current Psychology, 36, 697–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9457-8
Lima, R.O., & Carvalho, A. (2023). Linking transformational leadership to start-ups creativity. Revista de Gestão e Secretariado (Management and Administrative Professional Review), 14(7), 11650–11673. https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v14i7.2498
Lin, M., Zhang, X., Ng, B.C.S., & Zhong, L. (2022). The dual influences of team cooperative and competitive orientations on the relationship between empowering leadership and team innovative behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 102, 103160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103160
Marhawati, Azizah, A., & Erwina, R. (2023). E-commerce dan startup: wujud inovasi keberlanjutan bisnis di era industri 4. Journal of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management Business and Accounting, 1(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.61255/jeemba.v1i1.16
Masiroh, I. (2019). Pengaruh Kepribadian Proaktif, Lokus Kendali Karir, Dan Perilaku Orang Tua Terkait Karir Terhadap Self-Efficacy Pengambilan Keputusan Karir Pada Mahasiswa Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Messmann, G., & Mulder, R.H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human Resource Development International, 15(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.646894
Mubarak, N., Khan, J., Yasmin, R., & Osmadi, A. (2021). The impact of a proactive personality on innovative work behavior: The role of work engagement and transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(7), 989–1003. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2020-0518
Mumford, M.D., & Gustafson, S.B. (1998). Creativity syndrome; integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27
Munir, R., & Beh, L.S. (2019). Measuring and enhancing organisational creative climate, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior in startups development. The Bottom Line, 32(4), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-03-2019-0076
Murniasih, F. (2023). The role of proactive personality on transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Psychocentrum Review, 5(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.26539/pcr.511665
Novina, P.B. (2022). HappyFresh Stop Layanan di Sebagian Jakarta, Seluruh Malaysia. CNBC Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/tech/20220908170802-37-370473/happyfresh-stop-layanan-di-sebagian-jakarta-seluruh-malaysia
Oeij, P. (2018). The resilient innovation team: A study of teams coping with critical incidents during innovation projects. In New waves in innovation management research (pp. 1–17). Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press.
Parker, S.K., & Collins, C.G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554
Pons, F.J., Ramos, J., & Ramos, A. (2016). Antecedent variables of innovation behaviors in organizations: Differences between men and women. European Review of Applied Psychology/Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 66(3), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2016.04.004
Pradhan, S., & Jena, L.K. (2019). Does meaningful work explains the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour?. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 44(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090919832434
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P.C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of innovative work behaviour: Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00334.x
Ramana, V, Ghosh, R, Renu, J, Tinnaluri, N., & Abanibhusan, J. (2024). The intersection of management and HR: Exploring the influence of leadership styles on organizational culture. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 161–167.
Reif, T. (2022). Quick commerce – An analysis of superfast grocery delivery services in Europe (pp. 1–93). Universitat Freiburg.
Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M.L., Vinkenburg, C.J., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2008). Transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour: Exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00487.x
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
Safaria, T. (2004). Kepemimpinan. Graha Ilmu.
Schwaab, R., Postmes, T., Van Beest, I., & Spears, R. (2007). Shared cognition as a product of, and precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294788
Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M., & Kraimer, M.L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416
Shalley, C.E., & Gilson, L.L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004
Song, C., & Lee, C.H. (2020). The effect of service workers’ proactive personality on their psychological withdrawal behaviors: A moderating effect of servant leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 41(5), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2019-0149
Statista Market Forecast. Quick Commerce – Southeast Asia. (2024). Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/outlook/emo/online-food-delivery/grocery-delivery/quick-commerce/southeast-asia
Statista. (2003). Quick commerce – Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/online-food-delivery/grocery-delivery/quick-commerce/indonesia
Sudibjo, N., & Prameswari, R. (2021). The effects of knowledge sharing and person–organization fit on the relationship between transformational leadership on Innovative work behavior. Heliyon, 7(6), e07334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07334
Tănase, M., & Alexandru, I.C. (2020). Influence of transformational leadership on innovation in organizations. Network Intelligence Studies, 8(15), 81–89.
Tekeli, M., & Özkoç, A.G. (2022). The effect of proactive personality and locus of control on innovative work behavior: The mediating role of work engagement. Anais Brasileiros de Estudos Turísticos, 12(1), 1–12.
Truxillo, D.M., McCune, E.A., Bertolino, M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2012). Perceptions of older versus younger workers in terms of big five facets, proactive personality, cognitive ability, and job performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(11), 2607–2639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00954.x
Tugberk, A. (2021). Do consumers punish retailers with poor working conditions during COVID-19 crisis? An experimental study of qcommerce grocery retailers. Journal of Management, Marketing and Logistics, 8(3), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2021.1453
Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 631–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.007
Usman, M. (2020). Transformational leadership and organizational change: In The context of today’s leader. International Business Education Journal, 13(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.37134/ibej.vol13.1.8.2020
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S.H., & Colbert, A.E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111401017
Windiarsih, R., & Etikariena, A. (2018). Hubungan Antara Kepribadian Proaktif dan Perilaku Kerja Inovatif di BUMN X. Journal Psikogenesis, 5(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.24854/jps.v5i2.501
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R.W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995
Zenouzi, B.N., & Dehghan, A. (2012). Complexity theory and general model of leadership. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(21), 47–59.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
