The Influence of Pay Satisfaction on Innovative Behavior: Role of Self-Efficacy and Organizational Commitment ()
1. Introduction
In a world of high technology and fierce competition, companies of all sizes must solve complex problems that require a multidisciplinary approach, including innovation. Without innovation, companies will disappear from the market, and to achieve this, employees are at the heart of innovation. Companies need their adaptability and, above all, their ability to innovate. Employee innovation behavior is a concept with many connotations. In particular, innovative behavior is ambiguous and complex, and we cannot predict it. In terms of individual characteristics, it means the willingness to change the status quo of the individual in the broadest sense. From the perspective of the innovation process, it includes the individual recognizing problems and forming ideas; seeking support for their ideas; creating innovative prototypes (Prototype) or models (Model) to practice innovative ideas, and finally completing several stages such as innovative ideas and commercialized products or services. Active innovation behavior is the target action that is determined or designed by the employees themselves, rather than relying on external forces to promote or be influenced by others. Innovative behavior begins with the individual identifying the problems that arise in the immediate situation (Scott & Bruce, 1994b) and then, based on the idea of solving the problem, implementing the idea and naming it in work practice, the execution of the plan involves three distinct acts: idea generation, development and completion. Individual innovation behavior is its core cognition that has gradually converged (Kleysen & Street, 2001) . Innovative behavior can be seen as challenging and uncertain, as there is always a risk of failure. Although many factors can encourage innovative behavior in employees, in this study we mention pay satisfaction, self-efficacy, organizational commitment and social comparison orientation.
Pay satisfaction is an influential motivating factor (Walker & Yip, 2018) that drives knowledge workers to act. Salary is key for organizations to attract, motivate and retain key talent. Employees’ acceptance, subjective evaluation of the salary system and satisfaction with salary are also the key to the impact of the organization’s salary system.
With the rapid development of organizational behavior and human resource management, salary (pay) satisfaction is becoming more and more important in practical research. According to this study, the relationship between pay satisfaction and innovative behavior is as follows: Employees who engage in innovative behavior receive rewards that lead to a sense of greater personal control and greater commitment to themselves and their jobs. By rewarding innovative performance, pay satisfaction can encourage employees to engage in innovative behavior.
Organizational commitment is a person’s identification and trust in the goals and values of the organization to which they belong, and the resulting positive emotional experiences. An employee’s attitude has an important influence on innovative behavior and work performance. Organizational commitment can increase employee job satisfaction. When employees have a strong commitment to the organization, they identify more strongly with the tasks or work assigned by the organization and are therefore more satisfied with the tasks they have completed. When employees have a strong commitment to the organization, they will be more dedicated to their work, put more effort into improving their work performance and thus improve their job performance.
Schwarzer et al. (1997) defined general self-efficacy as the ability to recognize and evaluate one’s self. He emphasizes the self-efficacy that individuals possess and maintain in general situations and general tasks. Self-efficacy has three dimensions, namely extent, strength and generality. Many studies have shown that self-efficacy is related to goals, learning and effort and has a positive effect on performance levels and innovative behavior (e.g. Bandura & Locke, 2003; Mone & Baker, 1992; Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005 ). People with high self-efficacy therefore set themselves higher goals and perform better: Individuals with high self-efficacy generally have a solid performance foundation that they have acquired in completing tasks, and high achievers have high self-efficacy. Thus, this study chooses Organizational commitment and Self-efficacy as mediating variables to understand more and deeply how these variables jointly influence the relationship between pay satisfaction and employee innovative behavior.
The social comparison orientation is how people evaluate their opinions on the one hand and their abilities on the other. It is the fact that an individual compares himself with other individuals. Leon Festinger (1957) claims that people do not always have an objective basis for evaluating their opinions or certain abilities. When this is the case, they can only rely on social reality, i.e. consensus. If their opinion is shared, they conclude that it is valid, just as if others value their abilities, they conclude that they are satisfactory. Codol (1975) found that individuals tend to assume that they better fulfill the criteria of their group. Based on this principle, employees who frequently compare themselves with others tend to have very high self-efficacy, which will have a positive or negative impact on their innovative behavior.
The aim of this study is not to repeat previous studies. In recent years, with the development of the economic market, the rapid changes in organizations and markets, and the reform and opening up, people’s perceptions and also employees’ thinking patterns have changed. Pay satisfaction is an important system for the organization to motivate employees, and its rationality has an important influence on employees’ innovation behavior. Therefore, this study selects the factors of self-efficacy, organizational commitment, and social comparison orientation that influence employees’ innovative behavior, and hopes to empirically investigate the relationship between pay satisfaction, self-efficacy, and organizational commitment.
The remainder of this study is organized as follows. First, we present a simple conceptual framework based on an empirical investigation by defining pay satisfaction, organizational commitment, self-efficacy, social comparison orientation, and innovative behavior concepts. Second, we describe our data collection and procedure and conduct data analysis and hypothesis testing. Finally, we present our main results.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Pay Satisfaction
Lawler (1971) argued that an employee’s satisfaction with his salary results from the degree of difference between the expected and actual salary level. He proposed a one-dimensional view, i.e. salary satisfaction refers to the degree of satisfaction with the salary. Dyer & Theriault (1976) argued that salary satisfaction refers to the perception of the appropriateness of the salary level, the understanding of the salary level, the accuracy of the performance appraisal, and the consistency of the salary policy/agreement with reality. Heneman & Schwab (1985) has proved through empirical research that the salary system is an antecedent variable whose characteristics and individual perceptions influence salary satisfaction, which is reflected in two levels in particular: Salary level and salary management. Adams first proposed pay satisfaction and held that salary satisfaction is a kind of comparison and employees will compare themselves with employees in the same period. In 2012, the American Compensation Association created a total rewards model that essentially consists of five parts, namely salary, benefits, development and career opportunities, performance and recognition, and work-life balance.
2.2. Organizational Commitment
The American sociologist Becker first proposed the concept of organizational commitment in 1960. In his view, it is a psychological phenomenon in that the individual is unwilling to leave the organization because of the costs he or she invests in it. Organizational commitment can be viewed as a behavior or set of behavioral intentions and attitudes that have some influence on the behavioral outcomes of organizational members (Goulet & Frank, 2002) . Organizational commitment is defined as an organizational member’s psychological view of his or her attachment to the organization for which he or she works. It plays an important role in determining whether an employee stays in the organization longer and is passionate about achieving the organization’s goals.
2.3. Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1977) pointed out that self-efficacy is the fact that individuals assess their ability to master a situation to achieve their goals and have a high degree of confidence in it. According to Frank Pajares, self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to organize and execute the courses of action required to accomplish a specific task or achieve a specific goal. It represents a personal assessment of one’s ability to organize and execute a specific course of action. Based on this definition, we can conclude that self-efficacy is often associated with education, learning, purpose, effort, performance, ability, etc. (Schunk, 1996; Campbell et al., 2003; Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005) . Employees with high self-efficacy beliefs are more motivated, take on more challenging tasks, and show more commitment and perseverance. They are also more able to cope effectively with work-related stress and adapt to changing work demands, which leads to higher work performance.
2.4. Social Comparison Orientation
The theory of social comparison was first introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954. According to this theory, the social and individual value of an individual is defined by his or her position with others. Gibbons and Buunk (1999) have developed an instrument that measures the propensity for social comparison and captures important aspects of the self, others, and the psychological interaction between the two. Individuals with high social comparison tendencies seek more opportunities to compare, spend more time doing so, and have stronger emotional reactions to such comparisons (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2014) . Social comparison tendencies are mostly related to self-insecurity: People with low self-esteem are particularly prone to social comparison due to their unstable or insecure self-concept; melancholic and highly autonomous people are also susceptible to comparison and like to compare themselves with others.
2.5. Innovative Behavior
Innovative behavior can be defined as behaviors that are intended to deliberately incite the introduction of new ideas, procedures, or products (De Jong, 2006) . To accomplish this task, innovative behavior is a set of employees’ behaviors that stimulates innovation (Jong & Hartog, 2007) , and which, in turn, increases organizational performance (Newton & Nowak, 2013) .
Organizations increasingly rely on their employees to innovate (Abstein, Heidenreich, & Spieth, 2014; Bysted & Hansen, 2013) . Jong and Hartog (2008) , for their part, distinguish four dimensions of CIT: an exploration of opportunities, the generation of ideas, the defense of ideas, and their implementation. These dimensions which construct an innovative behavior lead to increased confidence which, in turn, enables the multiplication of creative and innovative activities (Odoardi et al., 2015) . Organizational innovation arises from the expression of innovative behavior by members towards their work, which includes using creativity, sensitivity in identifying problems, and seizing opportunities to stimulate proactive creative thinking and implement creative ideas to develop new products, and services or even create new markets. As a result, organizational innovation researchers are constantly looking for ways to stimulate the creativity of organizational members or to encourage them to implement their creative ideas (Scott & Bruce, 1994b; Anderson et al., 2014) .
3. Hypothesis
3.1. Pay Satisfaction and Innovative Behavior
According to Lawler & Suttle (1973) , pay satisfaction results from the comparison that the employee makes between the assessment of the amount he should receive and his perception of the amount he receives; this is the approach in which the employee is only interested in his salary level (amount). The individual’s satisfaction with his salary is a result of what he thinks about the amount of his salary, its fairness, and the management of the compensation system in his company (Goodman, 1974; Schwab & Wallace, 1974; Dyer & Theriault, 1976) . The issue of compensation is at the center of the dynamic between employer and employee. Today, employees can negotiate better wages (and conditions) based on the quality of their work and the level of their skills. So, employees are not just cogs in the wheel, but drivers of creativity and innovation. Most studies have proven that salary is no longer the only reason to motivate employees, but we know that the renewal of the pay and benefits system and a well-designed remuneration system may signal and reinforce innovative behaviors. Pay satisfaction being a part of job satisfaction affects employees’ innovative behavior (Deci, 1985; Shipton et al, 2006; Cingoğz & Kaplan, 2015) . According to the discussion above, the following hypothesis was derived:
H1: Pay satisfaction has a positive impact on innovative behavior.
3.2. Self-Efficacy and Innovative Behavior
Other factors would determine innovative behavior, such as self-efficacy, which consists of a judgment on the ability to carry out a particular task (Bandura, 1977) . Tierney and Farmer (2002) applying Bandura’s theory in the field of innovation, develop the concept of creative self-efficacy. Creative self-efficacy consists of one’s belief in one’s ability to produce creative results. It is a self-judgment about the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior in a specific creative performance context. According to this conception, creative behavior is influenced by the judgment that each person makes of their abilities to produce new and creative results (Choi, 2004) . Self-efficacy is a dynamic construct that orchestrates performance. People with the same ability can perform differently depending on how self-efficient they feel to perform (Gist & Mitchell, 1992) . Self-efficacy is also a regulator of human activity. Several authors have demonstrated that creative self-efficacy is positively associated with innovative behavior. Hu (2023) shows that creative self-efficacy can significantly improve innovative behavior. Altogether, we posit the following hypothesis:
H2: self-efficacy has a positive impact on innovative behavior.
3.3. Organizational Commitment and Innovative Behavior
Employees with high organizational commitment have the feeling that they are emotionally valuable to the company. They develop a positive work attitude and exhibit productive and effective behavior, which encourages the emergence of innovative ideas and innovative behaviors. Wang & Hou (2023) found that the higher an employee’s emotional commitment to the organization, the more emotionally connected the employee is to the organization and the more likely they are to engage in innovative behaviors that benefit the organization. Becker (1960) believes that the employee’s sense of belonging to the organization manifests itself primarily in the employee’s dependence on the organization, i.e. the employee’s intention to stay in the organization is influenced by the employee’s commitment to the organization, and the higher the commitment, the stronger the intention to stay. Employees with a high sense of belonging to the organization are also more likely to show the intention and behavior to cooperate with the organization (Zhenjing et al., 2022) , including employee innovation behavior. Ye, Liu and Tan (2022) suggest that employee innovation behavior is also affected by individual factors (such as employee belongingness, employee satisfaction, employee loyalty, etc.) that have a significant impact on. According to the discussion above, the following hypothesis was derived in this study:
H3: organizational commitment has a positive impact on innovative behavior.
3.4. Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment
Pay satisfaction is defined as an employee’s overall level of positive feelings towards their salary (Qaiser Danish et al., 2015) . The meta-analysis by John P. Meyer et al. (2002) also found a positive correlation between pay satisfaction and the three components of organizational commitment. Miceli and Mulvey (2000) examined the effects of satisfaction with salary level and salary system. They found that both satisfaction with salary level and salary system were positively associated with employee’s affective commitment. The results of the study by A’yuninnisa and Saptoto (2015) show that there is a positive relationship between all dimensions of pay satisfaction and affective commitment. Igbaria and Greenhaus (1992) pointed out that promotion opportunities and level of compensation affect the level of organizational commitment of employees.
Organizational commitment refers to a person’s willingness to be dedicated and loyal to an organization. Employees agree with the goals and values of the organization when they have a strong sense of organizational commitment and are more willing to exhibit out-of-role behaviors. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) also suggested that a person’s innovative behavior is an expression of their out-of-role behavior. Based on the definition of organizational commitment, we can confirm that there is a positive relationship between organizational commitment and employees’ innovative behaviors (Jafri, 2010) . Wahyuni et al. (2021) found that organizational learning and organizational commitment have a positive direct impact on innovative behavior. According to the discussion above, the following hypothesis was derived in this study:
H4: Organizational commitment plays a mediating role between pay satisfaction and innovative behavior.
3.5. Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy
Bandura was the first to propose the concept of self-efficacy, assuming that self-efficacy refers to people’s ability to achieve their behavioral goals in a specific area. At the same time, self-efficacy is a core component of the self-concept and is mainly derived from experiences of success or failure, alternative learning (modelling by others), verbal persuasion, physical and mental states (emotional, biological management), and other aspects. Although there are not several studies showing that satisfaction with salary has a positive effect on self-efficacy, this study states that the more satisfied employees are with the amount of their salary, the more their self-efficacy increases. Compared to those who are dissatisfied with the level of their salary, they tend to underestimate the challenges they face and fail to cope with them.
Conversely, self-efficacy can significantly motivate employees’ innovative behavior. High self-efficacy employees are likely to lead to innovative behavior because they are confident that they have the knowledge and skills to develop and implement ideas at work. Compared to those with low self-efficacy, they are more likely to see challenges as opportunities and persevere even in the face of setbacks. Many findings confirm that employees’ self-efficacy, especially creative self-efficacy (Karnowski & Kaufman, 2017) , promotes their innovative behavior. In their study, The Impact of Self-efficacy on Innovative Work Behavior for Teachers, Hsi-Chi Hsiao, Jen-Chia Chang et al. (Hsiao et al., 2011) found that there is a significant positive relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and innovative work behavior. Self-efficacy is a self-assessment of the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior in a particular creative performance context (Tierney & Farmer, 2011) . This means that innovative behavior is influenced by one’s assessment of one’s ability to achieve creative outcomes. High levels of self-efficacy would lead to higher levels of persistence in individuals as well as a greater ability to adapt to obstacles that arise (Chong & Ma, 2010) . Bussey and Bandura explained that a person with high self-efficacy always tries to improve working conditions, build good relationships, and achieve the organization’s goals. Altogether, we posit the following hypothesis:
H5: self-efficacy plays a mediating role between pay satisfaction and innovative behavior.
3.6. Moderating Role of Social Comparison Orientation
Social comparison means that people compare themselves with others to evaluate their abilities, values, and performance (Festinger, 1954) . Based on this definition, this study finds that social comparison tends to negatively affect the relationship between self-efficacy and innovative behavior in the following cases: Inadequate self-evaluation: When individuals feel that their abilities or performance are inferior to others in some aspects due to social comparison, they may have doubts and feelings of insecurity about their self-efficacy (Buunk et al., 1990) . This feeling reduces the individual’s self-confidence and affects their recognition and trust in their innovative abilities. Social comparison can lead to pressure from peers, colleagues, or social groups. This pressure comes from the evaluation and expectations of others regarding one’s own abilities. Once an individual feel that they are at a comparative disadvantage, they will feel the negative evaluation and pressure of the group, thereby reducing their own self-efficacy and innovative behavior (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993) . Society is more likely to induce a competitive mentality in individuals, especially if the individual views the comparison object as an opponent. A competitive mentality leads individuals to focus more on their status and performance in comparison while ignoring the collaboration, exploration, and experimentation required for innovative behavior. Individuals may strive to differentiate themselves from others and ignore individual innovative behavior. According to the discussion above, the following hypothesis was derived in this study:
H6: Social comparison orientation plays a negative moderating role between self-efficacy and innovative behavior.
The conceptual framework of this study is shown in Figure 1.
4. Methods
This study first used a small sample pre-survey method to distribute questionnaires to students in the field of Business Administration to test whether they could accurately understand the questionnaire items. Second, we sent electronic versions of questionnaires to top managers and employees who were willing to accept the survey via WeChat to obtain research data. Three hundred forty-six questionnaires were given feedback, 41 were eliminated, and finally obtained 305 valid questionnaires. Sample basic situation is shown in “Table 1”. The answers to each question item use a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree). Innovative behavior is measured by six statements built by Scott and Bruce (1994a) . Pay satisfaction is measured by Heneman’s 18-item scale, in which we retained 11 items. Self-efficacy is measured by ten statements built by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) in which we retained eight items. Organizational commitment is measured by fifteen statements built by Mowday and Porter (1979) in which we retained nine items and Social comparison orientation is measured by ten statements built by Gibbons and Buunk (1999) .
The control variables identified in this study mainly include Age, gender, education, position and job tenure statistical characteristics.
The final sample of this study comprised 305 questionnaires. “Table 1” shows the respondents’ profile. As can be seen from “Table 1”, the majority of the respondents (51.8%, n = 158) were male, 36.7% (n = 112) were in the age range of 30 - 39 and 37.4% (n = 114) had a bachelor’s degree, 40.7% (n = 124) had a job tenure between 1 - 3, and 68.5% (n = 209) had a non-management role in the society.
N = 305.
5. Analysis and Results
5.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis
The reliability of scales has been tested by using Cronbach’s α. As shown in “Table 2”, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient value for employee innovative behavior is 0.857, the coefficient value of pay satisfaction is 0.937, the coefficient value of self-efficacy is 0.932, the coefficient value of organizational commitment is 0.946, and the coefficient value of social comparison orientation is 0.883, each coefficient value is above 0.8, which proves that the scale used in this paper has significant reliability.
Factor analysis was conducted on pay satisfaction, organizational commitment, self-efficacy, social comparison orientation, and innovative behavior. The results are shown in “Table 2” below.
N = 305.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy test showed an adequate figure of 0.771. Bartlett’s sphericity test was significant (χ2 = 323.314) at P = 0.000 and was therefore acceptable, and the total explanation rate of variance was 27.371%.
5.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
“Table 3” shows the correlation coefficients between the variables. From the analysis of results, it can be seen that salary satisfaction, self-efficacy, organizational commitment, and innovative behavior are positively correlated. There is a positive correlation between pay satisfaction and innovative behavior (r = 0.507, P < 0.01): there is also a positive correlation between pay satisfaction and self-efficacy (r = 0.352, P < 0.01), and there is a positive correlation between pay satisfaction and organizational commitment (r = 0.410, P < 0.01); There is a positive correlation between self-efficacy and innovative behavior (r = 0.480, P < 0.01), and there is a positive correlation between organizational commitment and innovative behavior (r = 0.522, P < 0.01). From this, we can initially confirm that pay satisfaction positively affects self-efficacy, organizational commitment, and innovative behavior.
5.3. Hypothesis Test
This study used SPSS 25.0 software to conduct Linear regression analysis using the independent variable pay satisfaction, the dependent variable innovative behavior, the mediating variables self-efficacy and organizational commitment, and age, gender, education, position, and job tenure as control variables. The results are shown in “Table 4”: Regression analysis table for hypothesis testing.
Pay innovation and innovative behaviors
Results in “Table 4” (Model 6) show that pay satisfaction has a positive impact on employee innovative behavior (β = 0.506, P < 0.001), H1 supported. Secondly, pay satisfaction has also a positive impact on Organizational commitment (β = 0.391, P < 0.001) and Self-efficacy (β = 0.346, P < 0.001).
![]()
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations.
N = 305; PS = pay satisfaction; OC = organizational commitment; SE = self-efficacy; IB = Innovative Behavior.
![]()
Table 4. Results of hierarchical regression analysis.
N = 305; PS = pay satisfaction, OC = organizational commitment, SE = self-efficacy. Standard error in parentheses *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
To confirm the aforementioned results, this study used SPSS Robust Regression to assess the quality of observations. The relationships mentioned earlier were all verified. For instance, according to (Model 3) in “Table 5”, pay satisfaction has a significant impact on innovative behavior (β = 0.618, P < 0.01). According to (Model 7), pay satisfaction, organizational commitment, and self-efficacy each have a significant positive effect on innovative behavior (β = 0.353, P < 0.01; β = 0.280, P < 0.01; β = 0.295, P < 0.01). The results from “Table 5” confirm all basics hypotheses. It is important to note that this analysis is objective and does not include any subjective evaluations.
Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment and Self-efficacy
Based on the controlling variables, pay satisfaction has a positive impact on organizational and self-efficacy, respectively (β = 0.391, P < 0.001) and (β = 0.346, P < 0.001), in turn, organizational commitment and self-efficacy in terms of impacting innovative behavior (β = 0.411, P < 0.001; β = 0.350, P < 0.001). Secondly, the mediating role of organizational commitment and self-efficacy between pay satisfaction and employees’ innovative behavior was also verified in “Table 4” (Model 8) (β = 0.321, P < 0.001; β = 0.282, P < 0.001). To determine the mediating role of organizational commitment and self-efficacy, this study applied to SPSS bootstrapping analysis and found that organizational commitment and self-efficacy mediated the association between pay satisfaction and innovative behavior, the 95% confidence interval is [0.0806; 0.2156]; [0.0576, 0.1691]. H4 and H5 are supported. See “Table 6”.
![]()
Table 5. Results of robust analysis.
N = 305; PS = pay satisfaction; OC = organizational commitment; SE = Self-efficacy.
![]()
Table 6. Bootstrap results of the effect of organizational commitment and self-efficacy.
N = 305.
Moderator Role of Social Comparison Orientation
Results in “Table 7” showed that the interaction between social comparison orientation and self-efficacy on employee innovative behavior was (β = −0.883, P < 0.05), which means that social comparison orientation negatively moderates the relationship between self-efficacy and innovative behavior. H6 supported.
![]()
Table 7. The moderating role of social comparison orientation.
N = 305; SE = self-efficacy, SCO = social comparison orientation. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
6. Discussion
This study explores the aspects of pay satisfaction, organizational commitment, and self-efficacy. The three perspectives examine how to inspire employees to innovate. From this point of view, research with theoretical value has been obtained. Thus, organizational commitment, self-efficacy and social comparison orientation were chosen as the mediating and moderating variables to investigate the influence of pay satisfaction on the innovative behavior of employees. A total of six hypotheses were established in this study, and the results showed that all research hypotheses were established through specific analysis, and the conclusions obtained through specific analysis were as follows:
1) Pay satisfaction and innovative behavior were significantly positively correlated. In the increasingly competitive environment, the innovative behavior of employees is the key to success, affecting the performance of the enterprise. As a major component of job satisfaction, pay satisfaction is a key factor for companies to attract, motivate, and retain compound and diverse talents. When employees’ pay satisfaction increases, they are willing to give more in their work and maintain greater enthusiasm for their work, thereby promoting their innovative behavior.
2) Self-efficacy and innovative behavior are positively correlated. Self-efficacy has the characteristics of a self-reinforcing cycle. People with high self-efficacy will set higher goals, have greater confidence in completing preset goals, dare to try challenging tasks and have a strong personal commitment to complete innovation standards.
3) There is a significant correlation between pay satisfaction and self-efficacy. The factor that can contribute most to increasing productivity in the workplace is self-efficacy. When employees feel that their pay meets their needs, this strengthens their self-efficacy and motivates them to work harder and give their all at work. Thus, self-efficacy plays a significant mediating role between pay satisfaction and innovative behavior. By analyzing the interaction mechanism between the independent variable pay satisfaction, the mediating variable self-efficacy, and the dependent variable innovative behavior, the research on this topic found that the improvement of pay satisfaction can promote the establishment and improvement of employees’ self-efficacy, improve employees’ enthusiasm and confidence, and provide a basis for the promotion of innovative behavior.
4) Organizational commitment and innovative behavior are significantly correlated. Employees who have high organizational commitment, want to stay in the organization, are willing to contribute to the organization and display innovative behaviors. Employees with high organizational commitment feel free to try new ideas and approaches.
5) There is a significant correlation between pay satisfaction and organizational commitment. When employees are satisfied with the level of their salary, their view of how much the company values their contributions and cares about their well-being rises, which in turn affects their motivation and level of organizational commitment. Thus, organizational commitment plays a significant mediating role between pay satisfaction and innovative behavior. Employees with high-level salary are willing to stay working for the company and are more committed to this one. This commitment in turn will push them to generate new ideas.
6) Social comparison orientation negatively moderates the association between self-efficacy and innovative behavior. Employees with a lower self-efficacy are not more likely to display innovative behavior when they have a lower tendency of social comparison.
6.1. Managerial Implications
This study has important managerial implications precisely in private societies. According to the main role of pay satisfaction, firstly, “Organizations need a new path forward that is grounded not only on data and benchmarks but also on a set of principles that reflect the fact that compensation is more than a set of numbers—it’s a reflection of how organizations value individuals and vice versa.” Although sometimes severely underestimated, it is a pillar of today’s business, by using, for example, the Skill-based pay. Apart from the fact that it makes talents feel as such, increases their organizational commitment, and thus saves funds for the company, this model can also help in increasing the general skills of the company by encouraging other employees to develop their skills.
Secondly, make a retirement security plan for retired employees. In addition, as part of the unified support provided by each Country, each company should also protect employees who are retiring or are about to retire. Regardless of whether the company is large or small, it must be as comprehensive as possible to relieve the worries of retired employees. This can ensure to a certain extend that employees retire on time or retire early, thus providing new opportunities for new employees joining the company to have more opportunities for practical improvement.
Finally, improve the overall salary level of employees. Let employees who hardly work be able to use their creativity to a greater to achieve the company’s goals.
6.2. Limitations
Our research presents some boundaries, firstly, our research is limited to workers in China. It would be interesting to replicate the study with professionals from different countries.
Secondly, the data were obtained from a single source at a single time point measure. Therefore, we cannot exclude the existence of method variance commune. However, the construction of the questionnaire, in which the variables are separated from each other by others unrelated to the research, can be considered precautionary measures that help reduce this problem. Therefore, we do not believe that the results presented in our research are biased.
Thirdly, given the nature of the data, the moderating role of social comparison has not been verified and theoretically there are not several theoretical studies concerning the subject. Future research should seek to use longitudinal data designed to test cause and effect relationships more precisely and track perception of social comparison orientation over time.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Shiyu Rong and Prof. Xinwen He my supervisor for their support and careful guidance.