Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6, 134-151 2024 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate * Correspondence: jiafu.su@hotmail.com Error management atmosphere, employee career resilience and employee innovation behavior: The mediating role of psychological empowerment Jinsong Zheng1, Zhongwu Li1, Jiafu Su2* 1International College, National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok 10040, Thailand; owenka@163.com (J.Z.) zhongwu.li@nida.ac.th (Z.L.) 2International College, Krirk univeristy, Bangkok 10020, Thailand; jiafu.su@hotmail.com (J.S.) Abstract: In order to study the specific influence path and mechanism of different dimensions under error management culture on employees' innovation behavior, this paper takes the perception of error management atmosphere and employee career resilience as independent variables, psychological empowerment is taken as intermediary variable, active innovation motivation is taken as the moderating variable of psychological empowerment and employee innovation behavior, and employee innovation behavior is taken as the dependent variable. This paper systematically discusses the multi-dimensional and multi-level relationships among error management culture, employee occupational resilience, psychological empowerment, active innovation motivation and employee innovation behavior. The research finds that by enhancing employees' psychological empowerment, that is, making them feel the meaning, self-efficacy, self-determination and influence of work, enterprises can stimulate employees' intrinsic motivation and encourage them to be more actively involved in innovation activities. This research not only enriches our understanding of how organizational culture shapes the way employees behave, but also reveals the critical role that individual employee traits (such as occupational resilience) and psychological states (such as psychological empowerment) play in the innovation process. This paper provides some suggestions on how to build a culture that encourages innovation and tolerates errors. Keywords: Employee career resilience, Employee innovation behavior, Error management atmosphere, Structural equation model. 1. Introduction In the current global economic environment, rapid technological developments, ever-changing markets and global challenges require companies to be highly adaptable and innovative. The McKinsey Health Institute (MHI) recently conducted a global survey of nearly 15,000 employees and 1,000 human resource decision makers in 15 countries. The research shows that there is a significant disconnect between job evaluations by employees and employers, with an average gap of 22%. According to the survey on the reasons for leaving employees, the negative atmosphere in the workplace (such as an intolerant culture) is the most important factor, accounting for 60% of the reasons. Faced with a bad work environment, employees are six times more likely to quit than other employees. In a further study, Deng et al. [1] held that tolerating reasonable work errors and promoting employees to discuss errors not only helped employees to learn and make progress, but also promoted the integration of employees from different cultural backgrounds. This open and inclusive environment encourages employees to share their failures and successes, thereby enhancing team cohesion and innovation. In addition, research also shows that effective error management can effectively promote innovation. Avoyan [2] points out that innovation often results from novel solutions to existing problems, and these 135 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate solutions often come from in-depth analysis and understanding of failures. Therefore, a culture that accepts and learns from mistakes not only contributes to employee job satisfaction and teamwork, but is also a key factor in driving organizational innovation and continuous improvement. Career resilience not only helps employees effectively cope with difficulties at work, but also promotes cross-cultural adaptation and teamwork. In an open error management culture, confronting mistakes at work is an important part of personal growth and team progress. Employee occupational resilience enables employees to face up to their work mistakes, rather than avoiding or covering up. This attitude of confronting errors helps to promote open discussion and analysis of errors, thus providing valuable learning opportunities for individuals and teams [3]. Moreover, in a globalized corporate environment, employees' attitudes toward challenges and failures are critical to promoting innovative behavior [4]. Especially in a multicultural context, the way employees perceive and respond to mistakes and challenges at work is strongly influenced by their cultural background. Research points out that employees' innovation motivation, especially the active innovation motivation, is mostly driven by positive psychological factors [5]. Therefore, studying the relationship between the perception of error management culture, employees' career resilience and employees' innovation behavior, as well as exploring the mediating role of psychological empowerment in this process, will not only help enterprises to deeply understand how to create a more open and inclusive working environment, so as to promote employees to actively respond to challenges and mistakes and explore bravely. In addition, it can stimulate the overall innovation ability of enterprises and provide important theoretical support and practical guidance for enterprises to maintain competitive advantages in the rapidly changing market environment. This paper mainly studies and constructs a comprehensive and systematic theoretical model, which integrates five core variables: error management culture perception, employee career resilience, psychological empowerment, active innovation motivation and employee innovation behavior, aiming to deeply analyze and verify the intricate and interdependent relationships among them, and how these relationships synergistically affect and drive employee innovation behavior. Therefore, by optimizing organizational culture and creating a good atmosphere to encourage innovation and fault-tolerant improvement, employees' willingness and motivation to innovate can be stimulated. By improving employees' ability, enhancing their career resilience and psychological empowerment, they can be more confident in facing challenges and dare to try new methods and ideas; By stimulating the vitality of innovation, it can continuously promote the innovation activities within the organization and promote the birth of new products, new services or new processes, so as to bring sustainable competitive advantages and sustainable development to the organization. Although existing studies have explored the role of single factors such as error management culture, employee career resilience, psychological empowerment and employee innovation behavior, relatively few systematic studies have integrated these factors [6]. This paper systematically discusses the multi-dimensional and multi-level relationship among error management culture, employee career resilience, psychological empowerment as the independent variable, psychological empowerment as the mediating variable, active innovation motivation as the moderating variable of psychological empowerment and employee innovation behavior, and employee innovation behavior as the dependent variable. This research not only enriches our understanding of how organizational culture shapes the way employees behave, but also reveals the critical role that individual employee traits (such as occupational resilience) and psychological states (such as psychological empowerment) play in the innovation process. More importantly, it clarifies how active innovation motivation, as a moderating variable, affects the dynamic relationship between psychological empowerment and employee innovation behavior, providing a new perspective for understanding the internal mechanism of innovation behavior. 136 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 2 Literature Review and Hypotheses Development 2.1. The Perception of Error Management Culture Atmosphere Positive error management culture perception encourages employees to report errors when they are found, rather than hiding or ignoring them. This culture of openness and transparency reduces the psychological barrier to error reporting, thus facilitating the timely identification and correction of errors [7]. In addition, the perception of error management also significantly affects the innovation behavior of employees. In a culture that sees mistakes as opportunities to learn and grow, employees are more inclined to try new approaches and ideas, even if those attempts may not work out [8]. Al- Bsheish et al. [9] found that employees' perception of the organization's tolerance for errors is positively correlated with their level of psychological empowerment. When employees feel that the organization tolerates and understands mistakes, they are more likely to feel that they are respected and trusted, which enhances psychological empowerment. To sum up, there is a close relationship between error management perception, psychological empowerment and employee innovation behavior. Therefore, the following research hypothesis is proposed in this study: H1: The perception of error management atmosphere has a significant positive impact on psychological empowerment. H2: The perception of error management culture atmosphere has a significant positive impact on employee innovation behavior. 2.2. Employee Career Resilience Individuals with higher occupational resilience can cope with work pressure and challenges more effectively and reduce the risk of job burnout and psychological stress [10]. Career resilience can improve individual job satisfaction. When employees are able to actively cope with and recover from difficulties at work, they are more likely to be satisfied and engaged with their work [11]. There is a mutually reinforcing relationship between occupational resilience and psychological empowerment. Employees with higher levels of employee resilience are more likely to feel in control and autonomy at work, thus enhancing psychological empowerment. In the face of challenges and adversities, they are more confident in coping, more willing to take responsibility and seek solutions to problems, and this positive attitude helps to improve their work performance and anti-pressure ability [3]. People with a high sense of occupational resilience have a stronger ability to resist setbacks. Employees may face failures and setbacks at any time during the innovation process, but professional resilience can help them quickly recover from failures, readjust strategies, and move on. This indomitable spirit is an important guarantee for the success of innovation [12]. Therefore, the following research hypotheses are proposed in this study: H3: Employee career resilience has a significant positive impact on psychological empowerment. H4:Employee career resilience has a significant positive impact on employee innovation behavior. 2.3. Psychological Empowerment Psychological empowerment can improve the motivation and enthusiasm of employees. When employees feel that they are trusted and supported by the organization, they are more engaged in their work and passionately pursue excellence and innovation [13]. This increase in motivation and motivation makes employees work harder to explore and try new ideas and approaches. When employees feel that the organization tolerates and understands mistakes (error management perception) and have good psychological authorization, employees are more likely to exhibit positive innovative behaviors [14]. Employees with strong career resilience can obtain more innovation opportunities and successful experiences through psychological empowerment, and these successful experiences will further enhance their occupational resilience and psychological empowerment, thus forming a virtuous cycle and constantly promoting the occurrence and development of employees' innovative behaviors. Therefore, the following research hypotheses are proposed in this study: H5: Psychological empowerment has a significant positive impact on employee innovation behavior. 137 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate H6: Psychological empowerment plays a mediating role between the perception of error management atmosphere and employee innovation behavior. H7: Psychological empowerment plays an intermediary role between employee career resilience and employee innovation behavior. 2.4. Active Innovation Motivation When employees have a high sense of psychological empowerment, their motivation to take the initiative to innovate will be enhanced accordingly. This enhanced motivation for active innovation will further stimulate the innovation potential and enthusiasm of employees, making them more willing to invest time and energy in innovative activities [15]. Therefore, under the effect of psychological empowerment, employees' active innovation motivation is strengthened and amplified, which has a more significant promotion effect on employees' innovation behavior. Therefore, the following research hypotheses are proposed in this study: H8: Active innovation motivation plays an enhanced moderating role between psychological empowerment and employee innovation behavior. Based on the above assumptions, the following model is obtained in Figure 1. The perception of error management atmosphere 员工职业韧性 Psychological empowerment 员工职业韧性 Active innovation motivation Employee career resilience Employee innovation behavior H1 H3 H5 H8 H2 H4 H6-H7 Figure 1. Hypothetical model. 3. Research Methods 3.1. Data Collection Considering that employee innovation behavior may be more common in manufacturing enterprises, the survey samples of this study were selected from 8 manufacturing enterprises (4 state-owned enterprises and 4 private enterprises) in Shanghai, Tianjin, Beijing and Jiangsu. In this study, a combination of online questionnaire and paper questionnaire was used to investigate the in-service employees of enterprises, with a total of 525 respondents from April to June 2024. Due to environmental and resource constraints, the researchers did not limit the size and duration of the enterprise. A total of 500 questionnaires were collected in this study, the recovery rate was 95%, 4 were invalid, 496 were valid, and the effective rate was 99%. The number of questionnaires reached the requirement of at least three times the number of questions, so it could meet the needs of follow-up statistical analysis. The details are shown in Table 1. 138 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 1. Descriptive statistics. Name Category Frequency Percentage Gender Man 320 64.5 Woman 176 35.5 Age 18-25 74 14.9 25-35 141 28.4 35-45 151 30.4 45-55 75 15.1 Age more than 50 years 55 11.1 Education background High school diploma 55 11.1 Undergraduate diploma 256 51.6 Graduate diploma 139 28 Doctor's degree 46 9.3 Length of service Less than a year 103 20.8 1-3 years 114 23 4-10 years 93 18.8 11-25 years 79 15.9 More than 25 years 107 21.6 Position Research personnel 79 15.9 Planning personnel 59 11.9 Stylist 70 14.1 Engineer 288 58.1 3.2. Measurement This research scale includes 5 scales: the perception of error management atmosphere, employee career resilience, psychological empowerment, active innovation motivation, and employee innovation behavior. All scales in this study were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The six items for error management perception refer to Fischer et al. [8], Klamar et al. [16] and Van Mourik et al. [17]. The scale is designed to measure the perception of error management with six items to comprehensively assess the attitude and behavior towards error in the organizational culture. The employee career resilience scale refers to Näswall et al. [18]，Soer et al. [19]and Katsiana et al. [20]. The scale is designed with six items to comprehensively assess an individual's resilience in the face of career difficulties and challenges. The psychological empowerment scale refers to the studies of Ambad et al. [21] and Mahmoud et al. [5]. The six items designed in the scale are designed to comprehensively evaluate employees' sense of control, competence, autonomy and influence at work. The items in the active innovation motivation scale are based on the studies of Hirschi et al. [22]and Xu et al. [23]. The scale contains 6 items to comprehensively evaluate the active innovation motivation of employees. According to the studies of Janssen [24] and Lambriex-Schmitz et al. [25], the employee innovation behavior scale designed in this study contains 6 items to measure employees' innovation activities. 4. Result Analysis 4.1. Reliability analysis As can be seen from Table 2, the α coefficient of the perception of error management atmosphere is 0.887, greater than 0.8, indicating high data reliability of this dimension. The CITC values of the analysis items were all greater than 0.4, indicating that there was a good correlation between the analysis items. The α coefficient of employee career resilience is 0.883, which is greater than 0.8, indicating that the data reliability of this dimension is high. The CITC values of the analysis items 139 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate were all greater than 0.4, indicating that there was a good correlation between the analysis items. The α coefficient of psychological empowerment is 0.890, which is greater than 0.8, indicating that the data reliability of this dimension is high. The CITC values of the analysis items were all greater than 0.4, indicating that there was a good correlation between the analysis items. The α coefficient of active innovation motivation is 0.898, which is greater than 0.8, indicating that the data reliability of this dimension is high. The CITC values of the analysis items were all greater than 0.4, indicating that there was a good correlation between the analysis items. The α coefficient of employee innovation behavior is 0.909, which is greater than 0.8, indicating that the data reliability of this dimension is high. The CITC values of the analysis items are all greater than 0.4, indicating that there is a good correlation between the analysis items. In summary, the reliability quality of the research data meets the standards and can be used for further analysis. Table 2. Cronbach reliability analysis. Dimension Item CITC The term has been deleted for the α coefficient Cronbach'α The perception of error management atmosphere In my organization, when an employee makes a mistake, management usually provides support and guidance, not punishment. 0.641 0.877 0.887 I think my organization encourages learning and growth from mistakes. 0.797 0.854 When an employee makes a mistake, my organization tends to explore the reasons behind the mistake rather than immediately blame them. 0.675 0.871 I work in an environment where mistakes are seen as opportunities for improvement and innovation. 0.675 0.872 My organization allows people to make mistakes, which makes us more willing to try new approaches. 0.790 0.854 I am willing to openly discuss mistakes in my work and provide feedback and summary In the face of difficulties and challenges at work, I am usually able to maintain a positive and optimistic attitude. 0.660 0.875 Employee career resilience I am willing to openly discuss mistakes in my work and provide feedback and summary In the face of difficulties and challenges at work, I am usually able to maintain a positive and optimistic attitude. 0.667 0.867 0.883 I was able to recover quickly from professional setbacks and find the motivation to move forward. 0.653 0.869 140 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate I am able to maintain efficient work performance under high pressure. 0.723 0.858 In the face of change and uncertainty, I am able to adapt and find solutions. 0.719 0.859 I have the ability to overcome obstacles in my work and continue to achieve my goals. 0.694 0.863 Even when there are major challenges in my career, I will not give up. 0.707 0.861 Psychological empowerment I feel like I have a lot of control and influence over my work. 0.692 0.874 0.890 I feel capable of making important work decisions. 0.711 0.871 I believe I have the ability to complete the difficult task. 0.632 0.885 I feel autonomous in my work and able to express my ideas and creativity freely. 0.675 0.877 My opinions and suggestions are valued and considered in the work. 0.792 0.859 I feel like I have a key role to play in delivering results. 0.773 0.861 Active innovation motivation I am constantly looking for new ideas to improve work processes and methods. 0.770 0.875 0.898 I'm passionate about trying new things and innovative approaches. 0.684 0.887 In my work, I strive to seek opportunities for innovation and improvement. 0.719 0.881 I enjoy taking on challenging tasks to explore new solutions. 0.744 0.877 I often initiate or participate in projects to introduce new technologies or innovations. 0.703 0.884 For me, exploring the unknown and achieving innovation is my main driving force. 0.738 0.879 employee innovation behavior I often come up with new ideas or solutions to improve the current workflow. 0.691 0.901 0.909 I am actively involved in projects and activities to introduce new technologies or methods. 0.792 0.887 I am willing to try non-traditional methods to solve problems at work. 0.665 0.905 I am often a force for innovation and change in my team. 0.769 0.890 My innovative ideas were recognized 0.739 0.894 141 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate and implemented by my organization. I'm always looking for opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness through innovation. 0.834 0.880 4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis In this study, SPSS software and principal component analysis were used for exploratory factor analysis. The test results in Table 3 show that the KMO test value of the research data is 0.929, which is greater than 0.9, indicating that it is very suitable for factor analysis. The significance P-value of Bartlett sphericity test was less than 0.05, showing significance at the level. Therefore, null hypothesis was rejected, there was correlation between variables, factor analysis was effective, and it was suitable for factor analysis. Table 3. KMO and Bartlett tests. KMO and Bartlett tests KMO 0.929 Bartlett sphericity test Approximate chi-square 8796.816 Degree of freedom 435.000 Significance 0.000 According to Table 4, factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted by principal component analysis, and a total of 6 factors were extracted. The cumulative contribution rate of common factors was 66.155%, which was greater than 60%, indicating that the extracted common factors contained sufficient information. After rotation by the orthogonal rotation method, 42 items can be classified into 5 factors, in which the load coefficient value of each item of each factor is higher than 0.5, indicating that the corresponding relationship between each factor and item is good, and there is no situation of high double factor load. All observed variables are aggregated under each dimension according to the theoretical presupposition. The common degree value of all research items is higher than 0.4, which means that there is a strong correlation between research items and factors, and factors can effectively extract information. The above analysis shows that the scale selected in this paper has good construction validity. 142 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 4. Factor load coefficient after rotation Component1 Component2 Component3 Component4 Component5 Common degree The perception of error management atmosphere CC1 0.721 0.573 CC2 0.847 0.774 CC3 0.697 0.603 CC4 0.727 0.613 CC5 0.823 0.756 CC6 0.710 0.588 Employee career resilience YG1 0.696 0.597 YG2 0.713 0.580 YG3 0.779 0.673 YG4 0.743 0.664 YG5 0.753 0.633 YG6 0.799 0.676 Psychological empowerment XL1 0.730 0.626 XL2 0.766 0.656 XL3 0.726 0.561 XL4 0.730 0.608 XL5 0.831 0.759 XL6 0.794 0.734 Active innovation motivation ZD1 0.825 0.723 ZD2 0.766 0.612 ZD3 0.791 0.656 ZD4 0.801 0.690 ZD5 0.791 0.648 ZD6 0.819 0.692 Employee innovation behavior. Y1 0.739 0.620 Y2 0.819 0.749 143 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Y3 0.727 0.591 Y4 0.784 0.716 Y5 0.750 0.679 Y6 0.816 0.796 Characteristic root 9.781 3.367 2.392 2.203 2.104 variance contribution rate % 32.602 11.222 7.974 7.342 7.014 Accumulating contribution rate % 32.602 43.824 51.798 59.141 66.155 144 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 2. Model results. 145 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis As can be seen from Figure 2 and Table 5, the model CMIN is 611.697, DF is 395, and CMIN/DF is 1.549<3, which is ideal. RMSEA is 0.033<0.08, and GFI, CFI, NFI and IFI indexes are all greater than 0.9. Each index is in line with the standard, indicating that the model has a good fit. Table 5. Model fitting index. Index CMIN DF CMIN/DF GFI RMSEA CFI NFI IFI Ideal value - - <3 >0.9 <0.08 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 Reach the standard value - - <5 >0.8 <0.10 >0.8 >0.8 >0.8 Fitted value 611.697 395 1.549 0.925 0.033 0.975 0.932 0.975 It can be seen from the factor load coefficient table that the standardized factor load of each item is greater than 0.5, indicating that each item can well explain its dimension. Table 6. Table of factor load coefficients. Factor Measured item Non-standard load factor standard load factor SE z (C.R.) p The perception of error management atmosphere CC1 1.000 0.695 CC2 1.047 0.848 0.061 17.205 *** CC3 1.000 0.726 0.067 14.951 *** CC4 1.031 0.720 0.070 14.831 *** CC5 1.097 0.848 0.064 17.209 *** CC6 1.087 0.723 0.073 14.887 *** Employee career resilience YG1 1.000 0.727 YG2 0.896 0.704 0.060 14.933 *** YG3 1.005 0.774 0.061 16.414 *** YG4 1.028 0.780 0.062 16.539 *** YG5 0.962 0.747 0.061 15.845 *** YG6 0.962 0.750 0.061 15.900 *** Employee innovation behavior Y1 1.000 0.692 Y2 1.104 0.796 0.067 16.527 *** Y3 0.997 0.677 0.070 14.194 *** Y4 1.213 0.847 0.069 17.497 *** Y5 1.199 0.798 0.072 16.549 *** Y6 1.368 0.915 0.073 18.681 *** Psychological empowerment XL1 1.000 0.746 XL2 0.965 0.769 0.056 17.087 *** XL3 0.969 0.667 0.066 14.657 *** XL4 1.026 0.720 0.064 15.923 *** XL5 1.032 0.843 0.055 18.872 *** XL6 1.067 0.837 0.057 18.717 *** Active innovation motivation ZD1 1.000 0.827 ZD2 1.015 0.723 0.058 17.629 *** ZD3 1.034 0.763 0.055 18.959 *** ZD4 1.060 0.801 0.052 20.244 *** ZD5 1.006 0.751 0.054 18.547 *** 146 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate ZD6 0.981 0.780 0.050 19.518 *** Note: *** p<0.001. The results in Table 7 show that the combined reliability CR of each factor is greater than 0.7, indicating that all the measured items in each latent variable can consistently explain the latent variable. If AVE values are all greater than 0.5, it indicates that they have good convergent validity. In addition, it can be seen from Table 8 that the AVE square root value of any latent variable is greater than the correlation coefficient between this latent variable and other latent variables, indicating that the scale has good discriminative validity. Table 7. Results of AVE and CR indexes in the model. Factor Average variance extraction AVE value CR The perception of error management atmosphere 0.582 0.892 Employee career resilience 0.558 0.884 Psychological empowerment 0.587 0.894 Active innovation motivation 0.600 0.900 Employee innovation behavior 0.627 0.908 Table 8. Pearson correlation and AVE square root values. Active innovation motivation Psychological empowerment Employee innovation behavior Employee career resilience The perception of error management atmosphere Active innovation motivation 0.775 Psychological empowerment 0.298 0.766 Employee innovation behavior 0.297 0.48 0.792 Employee career resilience 0.339 0.438 0.491 0.747 The perception of error management atmosphere 0.218 0.454 0.509 0.457 0.763 4.4. Structural Equation Model As can be seen from Figure 3 and Table 9, CMIN of the model is 754.543, DF is 427, and CMIN/DF is 1.767<3, which is ideal. RMSEA is 0.039<0.08, and GFI, CFI, NFI and IFI indexes are all greater than 0.9. In summary, all the indicators are in line with the standard, indicating that the model has a good fit. 147 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 3. Structural equation model diagram. Table 9. Model fitting index. Index CMIN DF CMIN/DF GFI RMSEA CFI NFI IFI Ideal value - - <3 >0.9 <0.08 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 Reach the standard value - - <5 >0.8 <0.10 >0.8 >0.8 >0.8 Fitted value 754.543 427 1.767 0.912 0.039 0.967 0.927 0.967 As can be seen from Table 10, the standardized path coefficient of the perception of error management atmosphere to psychological empowerment is 0.300 (z=6.682, p=0.0<0.05), indicating that the perception of error management atmosphere has a significant positive impact on psychological empowerment, that is, the higher the perception of error management atmosphere, the higher the psychological empowerment. The standardized path coefficient of employee innovation behavior perceived by error management is 0.285 (z=7.040, p=0.0<0.05), indicating that the perception of error management atmosphere has a significant positive impact on employee innovation behavior, that is, the higher the perception of error management atmosphere, the higher employee innovation behavior. The standardized path coefficient from employee career resilience to psychological empowerment is 0.274 (z=6.003, p=0.0<0.05), indicating that employee career resilience has a significant positive effect on 148 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate psychological empowerment, that is, the higher the employee career resilience, the higher the psychological empowerment. The standardized path coefficient from employee career resilience to employee innovation behavior is 0.245 (z=6.203, p=0.0<0.05), indicating that employee career resilience has a significant positive impact on employee innovation behavior, that is, the higher the employee career resilience, the higher the employee innovation behavior. The standardized path coefficient from psychological empowerment to employee innovation behavior is 0.226 (z=5.578, p=0.0<0.05), indicating that psychological empowerment has a significant positive effect on employee innovation behavior, that is, the higher the psychological empowerment, the higher the innovation behavior. Table 10. Summary table of model coefficients. Path Standardized path coefficient SE z (C.R.) p The perception of error management atmosphere -> Psychological empowerment 0.300 0.044 6.682 *** The perception of error management atmosphere-> Employee innovation behavior 0.285 0.040 7.040 *** Employee career resilience -> Psychological empowerment 0.274 0.046 6.003 *** Employee career resilience -> Employee innovation behavior 0.245 0.039 6.203 *** Psychological empowerment -> Employee innovation behavior 0.226 0.041 5.578 *** 4.5. Mediation Effect Analysis In this paper, bootstrap method was adopted, and the sample size of bootstrap was set to 2000. At 95% confidence level, mediation effect test was performed. As can be seen from Table 11, the mediating effect is significant for the path: employee career resilience -> psychological empowerment -> employee innovation behavior, and the independent variable employee career resilience has a significant impact on the dependent variable employee innovation behavior, which is part of the mediating effect. For the path: the perception of error management atmosphere-> psychological empowerment -> employee innovation behavior, the mediating effect is significant, and the independent variable the perception of error management atmosphere has a significant impact on the dependent variable employee innovation behavior, which is part of the mediating effect. Table 11. Path verification. Path Direct effect Indirect effect Bias- corrected（95%） p Conclusion Lower bounds Upper bounds The perception of error management atmosphere, 0.245 (***) 0.062 0.034 0.096 0.000 Partial mediation The perception of error management atmosphere-> Psychological Empowerment -> Employee innovation behavior 0.285 (***) 0.067 0.040 0.100 0.000 Partial mediation Note: *** p<0.001. 149 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.6. Regulatory Effect Analysis Table 12 examines the standardized path coefficient values of "psychological empowerment", "active innovation motivation" and "employee innovation behavior" respectively. Among them, the path coefficient of "psychological empowerment --> employee innovation behavior" is 0.192 (p=0.000). The path coefficient of "active innovation motivation --> employee innovation behavior" is 0.118 (p=0.006), and the path coefficient of "interaction item --> employee innovation behavior" is 0.103 (p=0.003). The path coefficient of interaction item is significant, indicating that the adjustment effect is valid. In summary, the hypothesis is that the moderating effect of active innovation motivation has a significant moderating effect on the influence path of psychological empowerment on employees' innovation behavior, which is supported by the sample data. Table 12. Test of adjustment effect. Non- Standardized path coefficient Standardized path coefficient SE z (C.R.) p Psychological empowerment --> Employee Innovation behavior 0.194 (a) 0.192 0.043 4.553 0.000 Psychological empowerment --> Employee innovation behavior 0.115(b) 0.118 0.042 2.75 0.006 Interaction item --> Employee innovation behavior 0.104(c) 0.103 0.034 3.059 0.002 To sum up, all hypotheses have been tested by structured equation model. In this study, 5 direct effects, 2 intermediate effects and 1 moderating effect were proposed. Table 13 shows the hypothesis results: Table 13. Hypothesis results table. Hypothesis Result H1 The perception of error management atmosphere has a significant positive impact on psychological empowerment. Support H2 The perception of error management culture atmosphere has a significant positive impact on employee innovation behavior. Support H3 Employee career resilience has a significant positive impact on psychological empowerment. Support H4 Employee career resilience has a significant positive impact on employee innovation behavior. Support H5 Psychological empowerment has a significant positive impact on employee innovation behavior. Support H6 Psychological empowerment plays a mediating role between the perception of error management atmosphere and employee innovation behavior. Support H7 Psychological empowerment plays an intermediary role between employee career resilience and employee innovation behavior. Support H8 Active innovation motivation plays an enhanced moderating role between psychological empowerment and employee innovation behavior. Support 150 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 5. Conclusion This paper builds a comprehensive theoretical framework that integrates research findings from organizational culture, individual psychology, motivation, and behavior to deepen our understanding of how these factors work together to promote or inhibit employee innovation. This framework not only provides a solid theoretical foundation for future academic research, but also provides new research directions and ideas for researchers in related fields. At the same time, the research results of this paper have high application value to enterprise managers. It provides specific strategic advice on how to build a culture that encourages innovation and tolerates error. By enhancing employees' sense of psychological empowerment - meaning, self-efficacy, self-determination, and influence - companies can stimulate employees' intrinsic motivation and make them more actively engaged in innovative activities. By fostering professional resilience, a mental state of perseverance in the face of challenges and difficulties, companies can ensure that employees can recover quickly and move forward even if they fail in the innovation process. In addition, this paper also emphasizes the importance of motivating employees to take the initiative to innovate, pointing out that enterprises need to stimulate employees' innovation desire and motivation through reasonable incentive mechanism and working environment design. Of course, this paper also has the following shortcomings: First, as a mediating variable, psychological empowerment may be affected by other unconsidered variables, which may lead to inaccurate estimation of the mediating effect. Secondly, as a moderating variable, the moderating effect of active innovation motivation may be different in different situations, and this situational dependence may not be fully explored in the research. Moreover, as a moderating variable, the moderating effect of active innovation motivation may be different in different situations, and this situational dependence may not be fully explored in the research. Therefore, in future studies, more accurate and refined measurement tools can be developed to improve the reliability and validity of data for variables with strong subjectivity such as psychological empowerment and active innovation motivation. We can further subdivide the mechanism of psychological empowerment and other mediating variables, and explore their specific manifestations and influence paths in different situations. Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] D. S. Deng, H. J. Kim, H. Min, and J. C. Murray, "Error aversion versus error management: does organizational error culture affect employees’ Customer Orientation?," Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 199- 224, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480221088526 [2] E. Avoyan, "Collaborative governance for innovative environmental solutions: Qualitative comparative analysis of cases from around the world," Environmental Management, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 670-684, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01642-7 [3] M. Zare Zadeh, K. Hajalizadeh, and A. Amirfakhraei, "Efficacy of psychological capitals training on psychological resilience and mental empowerment of staff with work-family conflict at the sarkhoon and qeshm gas company," Journal of Applied Psychological Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 279-297, 2023. https://doi.org/10.22059/JAPR.2023.335382.644124 [4] A. C. Bos-Nehles and A. A. Veenendaal, "Perceptions of HR practices and innovative work behavior: the moderating effect of an innovative climate," The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 30, no. 18, pp. 2661- 2683, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1380680 [5] M. A. Mahmoud, S. Ahmad, and D. A. L. Poespowidjojo, "Psychological empowerment and individual performance: the mediating effect of intrapreneurial behaviour," European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1388- 1408, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2020-0517 [6] K. Kwon and T. Kim, "An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: Revisiting the JD-R model," Human resource management review, vol. 30, no. 2, p. 100704, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100704 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480221088526 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01642-7 https://doi.org/10.22059/JAPR.2023.335382.644124 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1380680 https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2020-0517 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100704 151 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 134-151, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2030 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [7] B. Javed, T. Jalees, G. M. Herani, and J.-a. Rolle, "Error Management Culture and its impact on organizational performance: A moderated mediation model," Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 23- 35, 2020. https://doi.org/10.24052/JBRMR/V15IS01/ART-03 [8] S. Fischer, M. Frese, J. C. Mertins, and J. V. Hardt‐Gawron, "The role of error management culture for firm and individual innovativeness," Applied Psychology, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 428-453, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12129 [9] M. Al-Bsheish, M. bin Mustafa, M. Ismail, A. Meri, and M. Dauwed, "Perceived management commitment and psychological empowerment: A study of intensive care unit nurses’ safety," Safety Science, vol. 118, pp. 632-640, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.055 [10] J. Shin, M. S. Taylor, and M.-G. Seo, "Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees' attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change," Academy of Management journal, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 727-748, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0325 [11] E. Kossek and M. Perrigino, "Resilience: A review using a grounded integrated occupational approach," The Academy of Management Annals, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 729-797, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1159878 [12] S. Scheibe, J. De Bloom, and T. Modderman, "Resilience during crisis and the role of age: Involuntary telework during the COVID-19 pandemic," International journal of environmental research and public health, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 1762, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031762 [13] A. Monje-Amor, D. Xanthopoulou, N. Calvo, and J. P. A. Vázquez, "Structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, and work engagement: A cross-country study," European Management Journal, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 779- 789, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.01.005 [14] M. J. Mustafa, M. Hughes, and H. M. Ramos, "Middle-managers’ innovative behavior: the roles of psychological empowerment and personal initiative," The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 34, no. 18, pp. 3464-3490, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2126946 [15] L. Löfqvist, "Motivation for innovation in small enterprises," International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 60, no. 3/4, pp. 242-265, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2012.049441 [16] A. Klamar, D. Horvath, N. Keith, and M. Frese, "Inducing error management culture–evidence from experimental team studies," Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, p. 716915, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716915 [17] O. Van Mourik, T. Grohnert, and A. Gold, "Mitigating work conditions that can inhibit learning from errors: Benefits of error management climate perceptions," Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, p. 1033470, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1033470 [18] K. Näswall, S. Malinen, J. Kuntz, and M. Hodliffe, "Employee resilience: Development and validation of a measure," Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 353-367, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2018-0102 [19] R. Soer, M. W. Six Dijkstra, H. J. Bieleman, R. E. Stewart, M. F. Reneman, F. G. Oosterveld, and K. M. Schreurs, "Measurement properties and implications of the Brief Resilience Scale in healthy workers," Journal of Occupational Health, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 242-250, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12041 [20] A. Katsiana, M. Galanakis, V. Saprikis, D. Tsiamitros, and A. Stalikas, "Psychological resilience and burnout levels in occupational therapists in Greece. An epidemiological nationwide research," Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 86-106, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2021.121006 [21] S. N. A. Ambad, K. M. Kalimin, D. H. D. Ag Damit, and J. V. Andrew, "The mediating effect of psychological empowerment on leadership styles and task performance of academic staff," Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 763-782, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2020-0197 [22] A. Hirschi, B. Lee, E. J. Porfeli, and F. W. Vondracek, "Proactive motivation and engagement in career behaviors: Investigating direct, mediated, and moderated effects," Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 31-40, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.003 [23] F. Xu, C. Hsu, T. Wang, and P. B. Lowry, "The antecedents of employees' proactive information security behaviour: The perspective of proactive motivation," Information Systems Journal, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1144-1174, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12488 [24] O. Janssen, "Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour," Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 287-302, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038 [25] P. Lambriex-Schmitz, M. R. Van der Klink, S. Beausaert, M. Bijker, and M. Segers, "Towards successful innovations in education: Development and validation of a multi-dimensional Innovative Work Behaviour Instrument," Vocations and Learning, vol. 13, pp. 313-340, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09242-4 https://doi.org/10.24052/JBRMR/V15IS01/ART-03 https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.055 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0325 https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1159878 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031762 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.01.005 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2126946 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2012.049441 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716915 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1033470 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2018-0102 https://doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12041 https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2021.121006 https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2020-0197 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.003 https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12488 https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09242-4