Experiencing flow at work: the impact of organizational fault tolerance on employees’ taking charge behaviors

Abstract

Background

In the complex and uncertain environment, employees are expected to proactively take constructive actions to optimize the organizational structure, improve job methods, and enhance work processes. Employees’ taking charge behavior as a typical positive extra-role behavior has generated extensive discussion.

Methods

Data on 398 knowledge employees of Chinese companies were collected online through convenience sampling. SPSS 26.0, Amos 26.0 and PROCESS v4.1 software was used for data analysis.

Results

Based on Proactive Motivation Theory, this study explores the impact mechanism of organizational fault tolerance on employees’ taking charge behavior and the moderating effect of growth need. The study findings indicate that flow experience at work plays a mediating role between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behaviors. Growth need moderates the relationship between organizational fault tolerance and work-related flow. Specifically, when growth need is higher, the positive impact of organizational fault tolerance on work-related flow is stronger. The moderating role of growth needs is significant in the indirect impact of organizational fault tolerance on employees’ taking charge behavior through work-related flow.

Conclusion

Organizational fault tolerance can facilitate employees’ taking charge behavior by enhancing their work-related flow. Organizations should encourage employees to keep trying and learn from failure. Especially for individuals with high growth needs, they are more likely to experience work-related flow and demonstrate taking charge behaviors due to organizational fault tolerance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-025-03717-6.

Introduction

Accumulating and mobilizing employees’ initiative is fundamental for enterprises to maintain their innovation and vitality, as well as an important way to achieve high-quality development [1, 2]. In an era of rapid technological change, organizations that seek to maintain their competitive advantage and market position rely not only on employees to perform in-role behaviors following duties, processes, and norms, but also on motivating them to take extra-role responsibilities [3]. In the service industry, organizations expect that employees can take the initiative to provide personalized service to customers [4]. In information industry, employees’ attention to and efforts in adopting new technologies are also highly valued and acknowledged [5]. In the manufacturing industry, organizations encourage employees to contribute suggestions for improvements in production processes and methods so as to maintain an enduring competitive advantage [6]. These behaviors are defined as taking charge behaviors, which reflect employees’ spontaneous and constructive actions to prompt beneficial functional changes in the organization [7]. Organization members tend to improve work processes and optimize organizational policies. They are motivated to contribute to the expected success of the organization. Employees’ taking charge behavior can enhance an organization’s ability to cope with uncertainty and help to improve the firm’s innovative capacity, thus achieving long-term development [8]. Its formation mechanism has thus been widely noted and discussed [9].

Currently, many studies have been conducted on the antecedents of employees’ taking charge behaviors. Employees with proactive personalities have stronger intrinsic motivation, while narcissistic employees have greater self-confidence and expressiveness on their job, and they usually show more frequent taking charge behaviors at work [10, 11]. Employees with a positive error orientation will proactively anticipate possible problems before taking actions, which enhances their psychological security and willingness to take responsibility [12]. Leadership styles and traits can also predict employees’ taking charge behaviors. Both empowered leadership and servant leadership help to increase employees’ perceived autonomy, which in turn fosters a sense of being respected and valued. Shared leadership encourages team members to take on leading roles, which creates employees’ ownership and satisfies their need for autonomy. Authentic and participative leadership can enhance employees’ job security and motivate them to express ideas for change. These positive leadership styles all contribute to the emergence of employees’ taking charge behaviors [13–15]. Trust from the organization, supervisors, and coworkers can also inspire employees to exhibit taking charge behaviors [16]. Employees are more likely to take responsibility proactively with high collective moral ownership [17]. Taking charge behavior has been extensively studied from individual and leadership perspectives, while explanations from the organizational perspective are relatively lacking. Organizations can gain higher customer satisfaction, product innovation, and sustained competitiveness from employees’ taking charge behaviors [18, 19], and therefore should play a more important role in promoting their initiative in taking extra-role responsibilities. Understanding the mechanisms through which organizational practices and work climate influence employee taking charge behaviors is crucial for cultivating workforce proactivity. Our study addresses this gap by examining how organizational fault tolerance, a critical dimension of the organizational climate, impacts taking charge behavior. Focusing on knowledge workers, this study targets a population particularly playing a significant role in organizational change and development, and their professionalism make them more likely to demonstrate proactive work behaviors.

Proactive Motivation Theory states that proactive behaviors are motivated, conscious, goal-directed actions. Individuals will actively seek opportunities and take action to achieve their goals only if they have the “ability to do”, “reason to do” and “energy to do” [20]. Engagement in proactive behavior depends on both abilities and motivation. Proactivity often accompanies potential risk. Employees need to be confident in the goals they set and the subsequent results before they can make the “can do” judgment. Organizational fault tolerance emphasizes the importance of creating an environment that encourages risk-taking, experimentation, and learning from mistakes. Employees are not punished for their continued attempts, reflecting a relatively tolerant organizational climate [21]. In a highly fault-tolerant workplace, employees may feel more capable and confident to undertake additional work assignments as their self-efficacy improves [22]. In addition, organizational fault tolerance reduces employees’ anxiety and stress, so that they maintain stronger psychological security and control. Especially when employees are faced with challenging work assignments, they may experience passion and enjoyment from their work. Organizational fault tolerance helps employees to be fully engaged and get engrossed in their current tasks [9]. Organizational fault tolerance establishes conducive environment for employees to attain work-related flow, defined as a state of complete absorption and enjoyment in an activity. This flow at work provides a strong positive emotional experience that “energizes” employees to take the initiative and contribute to organizational improvements [23–25]. Thus, organizational fault tolerance, by fostering a climate where errors are tolerated and learning is encouraged, can enhance employees’ work-related flow, thereby promoting their taking charge behaviors.

Proactive Motivation Theory also indicates that an individual’s initiative is self-inspired rather than externally driven. The stronger the self-initiated motivation, the more likely it is to motivate proactive behaviors [20]. Growth need emphasizes an individual’s intrinsic motivation to pursue growth, learning, and development [26]. Employees with high growth needs are more self-directed. They expect to choose, internalize, and regulate their behavior autonomously [27]. They are more likely to be proactive in exploring opportunities at work, taking risks, and coping with challenges [12, 13]. Organizational tolerance is more valuable to them, and they are encouraged by the organization’s support for continuous innovation. The desire for growth and development of employees with high growth needs is the “reason” why their proactive behaviors are maintained and reinforced. When employees are not concerned about facing negative consequences for failure, they are more likely to deeply engage in their work. This, in turn, increases their willingness to take on challenging tasks and proactively assume responsibility [28]. Growth needs may be the boundary condition for the impact of organizational fault tolerance on employees’ taking charge behavior through work-related flow.

Based on Proactive Motivation Theory, this study systematically examines the relationship between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behaviors by validating the mediating role of work-related flow and the moderating role of growth need.

Theoretically, this study contributes to the understanding of proactive motivation by examining the relationship between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behaviors from an organizational perspective, a relatively less explored area. It expands the theoretical framework by incorporating flow experience as a mediator, which enriches the understanding of how personal psychological state during work contributes to proactive behaviors. This study also highlights the importance of moderating role of growth need in the relationship between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behaviors. The findings underscore the role of individual characteristics in shaping the outcomes of organizational practices and work climate. Furthermore, the study provides robust empirical support for Proactive Motivation Theory’s organizational-level explanations of employees’ positive extra-role behaviors in the workplace, offering a more nuanced understanding of the motivational processes underlying taking charge. Practically, the findings indicate that fostering an environment of organizational fault tolerance can promote employees’ taking charge behaviors. Organizations can benefit from creating a work climate that encourages risk-taking, learning from failures, and providing support for employees to explore new ideas and initiatives. In particular, employees with high growth needs are more likely to exhibit taking charge behaviors with work-related flow due to organizational fault tolerance.

Theory and hypotheses

Proactive motivation theory

Proactive Motivation Theory focuses on the achievement of proactive goals. Individual proactivity has three core characteristics: self-initiation, concern for change, and prospective orientation [20]. Instead of passively accepting responsibility and outcomes, people actively set goals and work toward them. In the workplace, it also means that employees proactively engage and contribute to the achievement of specific work goals. Taking charge behavior is an extra-role behavior that challenges the status quo with the aim of improving the organization’s policies and processes [7]. Its formation requires a high degree of personal proactivity. In line with Proactive Motivation Theory, “can do” “reason to do” and “energized to do” are necessary requirements for activating an individual’s initiative [20]. “Can do” emphasizes personal judgment on whether he or she is capable of accomplishing the goal after evaluating the probable cost of their behaviors [20]. In the workplace, high fault tolerance climate reflects the organization’s inclusion of risk and error. Employees will thus reduce their fear of failure [8]. They will feel more confident to take on work tasks beyond their responsibilities. “Reason to do” emphasizes the emotional component of personal initiative. Intrinsic motivation, such as a strong growth need, provides a powerful “reason” for individuals to set proactive goals and work toward them consistently [29]. Taking charge behavior is aimed at improving the status quo and goes beyond the requirements of the job [21]. Individuals with high growth needs view challenges as opportunities for personal growth. This desire for self-development serves as a key driver for their proactive efforts [9]. “Energized to do” relates to the positive affective states that provide the energy needed for proactive behavior. Work-related flow is a state of complete absorption and enjoyment that generates positive energy. The challenging and often risky nature of taking charge behavior means that positive emotional stimulation and energy are beneficial. Organizational fault tolerance, by guaranteeing that employees will not be punished for failed attempts and reducing anxiety/fear, creates a psychologically safe environment where employees are more likely to become fully engaged in their work and experience flow.This strong positive emotion “energizes” them to take the initiative and put in the extra effort to improve the organization’s working methods and procedures [25].

In view of the above analysis, Proactive Motivation Theory highlights formulation requirements for proactive behaviors. In the workplace, organizational fault tolerance makes employees more confident to take on additional responsibilities (“Can do”). The flow experience allows employees to feel strong positive emotions from their work, and they are more willing to contribute to the sustainable development of their organization (“Energized to do”). For high growth need employees, their desire for development provides a strong “Reason to do”, which enhances the impact of organizational fault tolerance on their flow experience and subsequent taking charge behaviors.

Organizational fault tolerance and taking charge behaviors

Organizational fault tolerance reflects a highly inclusive work climate, under which the organization encourages employees to take risks and embrace potential failures. Instead of harsh punishment for errors, the organization motivates employees to learn and improve from their mistakes [21, 22]. Taking charge behavior emphasizes that employees voluntarily and proactively take some constructive actions to optimize organization structure, improve work methods, and enhance work processes [16]. If employees are worried that their initiative will lead to leader dissatisfaction or coworker suspicion, they will be discouraged and give up proactive behaviors. However, organizational fault tolerance can significantly increase employees’ psychological safety and can promote more active work participation and knowledge sharing. The psychological safety of employees is critical to the health and efficient functioning of an organization. As indicated in Proactive Motivation Theory, employees first need to confirm that they “can do” it before they will demonstrate their initiative [20]. Anticipated risks can significantly reduce their willingness to engage in change and initiate improvements [29]. The positive and safe work environment can reduce employees’ psychological wariness and stimulate proactive behavior [30]. Organizational fault tolerance is also positively related to employees’ innovative behaviors, which means that employees are more willing to try new ideas and methods when they feel supported and tolerated by the organization [21, 31]. A highly fault-tolerant climate can encourage employees to share ideas, offer opinions, and try new approaches, thus promoting learning and innovation [29]. Especially when faced with more complex work requirements, and the established rules cannot achieve the desired results, fault tolerance mechanisms can motivate employees to explore new work methods to solve problems [32]. Employees’ taking charge behaviors will also be more frequent. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is proposed:

Hypothesis 1

Organizational fault tolerance positively influences employees’ taking charge behaviors.

Mediating role of work-related flow

Work-related flow is the brief peak experience that occurs when an individual is fully engaged in his or her work. In this experiential state, individuals are spontaneously engaged and absorbed in current tasks that he or she forget everything around and feel a sense of pleasure and relief [23, 33]. Proactive Motivation Theory emphasizes the importance of “energy” in shaping an individual’s proactive behavior [20]. Positive emotional experiences in the workplace are intrinsic drivers for individuals to engage and seek change [20, 34, 35]. The flow experience in the workplace is a concrete expression of positive emotions. It can enhance an employee’s perceived accomplishment and fulfillment at work. Existing research has amply demonstrated that employees who experience flow are more likely to demonstrate higher work engagement and performance [36].

As indicated in Proactive Motivation Theory, individuals must be both competent and motivated to demonstrate high initiative [20]. In the workplace, employees need primarily be confident enough to take on additional responsibilities to help the organization make improvements. “Can do” means that individuals believe they can cope with potential setbacks and difficulties. Employee with higher perceived control tend to take responsibility for their actions, persist in the face of challenges, and hold high expectations for success [20, 35]. Organizational fault tolerance can reduce the perceived risk of trying new things. Employees are more likely to enter a state of pleasure where challenges and abilities are matched. It provides a favorable environment for the formation of flow experience [37]. In a fault-tolerant organization, employees are not severely punished for mistakes, which can increase their commit to proactive goals [38, 39]. Organizational fault tolerance can reduce individual anxiety and stress. It enables employees to focus on the current assignment and increases the likelihood of their work-related flow [37]. Meanwhile, organizational fault tolerance helps to enhance employees’ psychological security. It encourages individuals to learn and improve from their mistakes which increases their perceived control and accomplishment [39, 40]. Organizational fault tolerance can positively predict the occurrence of employee work-related flow. “Confidence” to take on extra-role responsibilities is increased. Work-related flow can stimulate employees’ enthusiasm and motivation, which in turn leads to a greater willingness to take on additional responsibilities [33, 41]. When employees feel extreme pleasure at work, they will show high commitment to their duties and work harder to achieve the goal [36]. This dedication helps to motivate employees to strive for excellence, put in extra effort, and proactively seek improvement [41, 42]. Work-related flow can also contribute to enhanced autonomy perceptions in employees’ work choices, skill utilization, and challenging tasks. They will be more motivated to pursue shared goals and exhibit positive work behaviors, such as actively engaging in taking charge activities [41, 42]. Furthermore, current studies have sufficiently confirmed that a positive correlation between work-related flow and positive psychological resources (e.g., self-efficacy, optimism) and positive organizational resources (e.g., leadership support, appropriate job design) [37, 41, 42], which are necessary to support employees’ work initiative. The“energy” to drive employees’ proactive behavior is guaranteed. Organizational fault tolerance can contribute to employee engagement and the generation of work-related flow. Positive emotions and resources can further promote the emergence of employees’ taking charge behavior. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is proposed:

Hypothesis 2

Work-related flow mediates the relationship between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behaviors.

Moderating role of growth need

Growth need is an important intrinsic trait. It describes the extent to which an individual expects career development, self-learning, and achievement acquisition [26]. Individuals with high growth needs aspire to accomplish challenging work goals. They often actively seek out opportunities to fulfill their expectations for growth and learning in the workplace. In addition to an intrinsic thirst for development, extrinsic motivation is also an important consideration for employees with high growth needs to pursue learning opportunities. They crave recognition and appreciation from others when accomplishing challenging goals [43, 44]. Individuals’ expectations for development, learning, and achievement at work make employees differ in their understanding of and response to organization policies and climate [45–47].

Proactive Motivation Theory argues that individuals need “reasons” to show their initiative. Intrinsic motivation is more likely to prompt an individual to establish proactive goals and work toward them consistently [20]. Humans naturally possess a tendency towards psychological growth and development. Basic psychological needs satisfaction is key to the development of intrinsic motivation, which in turn influences the formation of an individual’s proactive behavior [20, 34]. Organizational fault tolerance reduces the cost of trying new things, and individuals are more likely to experience flow at work. However, the generation of such positive emotions may be constrained by the individual’s need for growth and development [39]. Individuals are more sensitive and attentive to the work environment when they have higher expectations for career development. They will value whether the organization can provide learning opportunities. Individuals with high growth needs aspire to accomplish high work goals to satisfy their desire for self-actualization and to gain career success [43, 48]. Especially when organizations encourage employees to learn from failure, individuals are more willing to overcome difficulties to accept challenging tasks [39]. The desire for personal growth serves as a driving force for individuals to continuously seek opportunities for self-improvement. Flow experiences will more often arise when individuals are faced with challenges and have the potential for growth [36]. Employees with high need for personal growth are particularly responsive to organizational fault tolerance. By fostering an environment that encourages learning from mistakes, organizations can create conditions that facilitate employees’ flow experiences. However, People with low growth needs tend to settle for the status quo [48]. They are less inclined to engage in challenging work that promotes individual learning and are insensitive to the organization’s ability to tolerate mistakes [39, 43]. Additionally, due to negative attitudes toward the work environment and organizational culture, employees with low growth needs may tend to view their jobs only as a means of survival rather than an opportunity for personal development. As a result, the impact of organizational fault tolerance on their positive workplace perception is relatively weak. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is proposed:

Hypothesis 3

Growth need moderates the relationship between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ work-related flow.

Following Proactive Motivation Theory, growth needs reflect an individual’s desire for self-development and improvement. This is why many employees are willing to take on additional responsibilities and make proactive efforts [27]. They are eager for opportunities to grow from challenging tasks. Employees with high growth need usually set clear goals for themselves and seek timely feedback. They have a strong internal drive and prefer to undertake extra duties [48]. Additionally, employees with a strong desire for personal growth are often open to trying new approaches, which may occasionally result in failures or unexpected setbacks. However, if the organization fosters a climate that encourages exploration and innovation, supports employees in learning valuable lessons from their failures, and demonstrates understanding towards their setbacks, employees will feel more secure and less concerned about potential punishment or negative consequences [2, 31]. They have all the more reasons to devote themselves to their work and to experience intense pleasure. This, in turn, encourages employees with high growth needs to take risks, explore new possibilities, and contribute to continuous improvement of organizations [13, 17, 28]. Conversely, employees with low growth needs lack confidence in dealing with job difficulties and show less initiative at work [13, 31, 43]. At this point, even if the organization has relatively high fault tolerance, employees with low growth needs have difficulty generating work-related flow, which also inhibits their taking charge behaviors [49]. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is proposed:

Hypothesis 4

Growth need moderates the indirect relationship between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behavior through work-related flow.

The framework of this study is shown in Fig. 1:

Fig. 1.

Theoretical Model

Method

Sample and procedures

Convenience sampling was used to collect data for this study with the support of seven DBA Students (Doctor of Business Administration). On their availability and accessibility, they helped to collect data at their working organizations. Given that knowledge employees are more likely to be involved in improving the organization and exhibit taking charge behaviors [50], the educational background of the respondents was constrained to a bachelor’s degree or above. While literature supports the relevance of knowledge workers for studying taking charge, our primary justification lies in their characteristics including their elevated organizational expectations, their strategic positioning in organizational change and sustainable development, and their inherent propensity for proactive work behaviors. Respondents covered a wide range of industries, including information, services, trade, logistics, and consulting etc. The questionnaires were distributed online through the WJX (widely used online data platform in China). The survey consisted of a series of questions designed to gather relevant information on employees’ taking charge behaviors. Respondents were asked to complete the survey as their perception. Participants were given clear instructions on how to complete the survey and were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. Respondents participate in the survey voluntarily and can terminate it at any time. A total of 462 online questionnaires were distributed and 424 were collected. Questionnaires with answer time much shorter than the normal answer time (less than one minute) were considered invalid and removed. Finally, 398 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective response rate of 86.1%. The study was reviewed by the Business School Ethics Committee of Macau University of Science and Technology.

Among the valid samples, in terms of gender: 78.1% are male and 21.9% are female. In terms of age: 7.8% are 25 years old and below, 61.1% are 25–35 years old, 28.9% are 35–45 years old, 2.2% are 45–55 years old. In terms of education, 93.5% of the respondents had a bachelor’s degree or higher. In terms of company nature, state-owned enterprises accounted for 77.4%, private enterprises accounted for 13.3%, and foreign enterprises accounted for 3%. In terms of company size, samples from enterprises with more than 5,000 employees accounted for 53.5%, 2,000–5,000 employees accounted for 22.6%, 500-2,000 employees accounted for 2.3% and less than 500 employees accounted for 21.6%.

Measures

The present study was conducted using widely recognized scales. The Likert 5-point measurement was adopted, with 1–5 indicating from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

Organizational fault tolerance

was measured using the scale developed by Huang et al. [51] with four items, such as “In the organization, my objections or dissenting opinions are considered and accepted”. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.838.

Taking charge behavior

was measured using the scale developed by Morrison and Phelps [7] with 10 items, such as “I often try to use improved processes to get my work done”. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.951.

Work-related flow

was measured using the scale developed by Bakker [24] with 13 items, such as “When I am working, I don’t think about anything else”. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.931.

Growth need

was measured the scale developed by Hackman [52] with 7 items, such as “I will utilize my imagination and creativity in my work”. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.939.

Control variables

gender, age, education, company nature, and company size were selected as control variables in this study.

Results

Validity and reliability

Reliability and validity were first tested by SPSS 26.0 and Amos 26.0. The standardized loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, Combined Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of each variable are shown in Table 1. The Cronbach’s alpha and Combined Reliability (CR) of each variable are all greater than 0.7 [53], and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of each variable is greater than 0.5, which indicates that the scales have good reliability and validity [54].

Table 1.

Validity and reliability (n = 398)

Variables	Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	AVE	CR
OFT	0.659–0.856	0.838	0.587	0.849
WRF	0.552–0.880	0.931	0.518	0.930
TCB	0.762–0.847	0.951	0.658	0.951
GN	0.711–0.906	0.939	0.741	0.952

OFT Organizational fault tolerance, WRF Work-related flow, TCB Taking charge behavior, GN Growth need

Common method bias test

The Harman one-way method and the Unmeasured Latent Method Construct (ULMC) method were used to statistically test the potential common method bias in the study [55]. According to the results of Exploratory Factor Analysis, the explained variance of the first factor was 20.81%, which does not exceed the 50% critical criterion [55]. In addition, when comparing the model with the common methodological factor to the original model, the five-factor model with the methodological factor (= 2.309, CFI = 0.945, TLI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.057) outperforms the four-factor model. However, the five-factor model increases its CFI by only 0.021 compared to the hypothetical model, which is lower than the suggested standard of 0.050 [56]. Therefore, the common method bias in this study is not serious.

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

Mean, standard deviation, and correlations of organizational fault tolerance, taking charge behavior, work-related flow, and growth need are analyzed using SPSS 26.0. The results in Table 2 indicate that organizational fault tolerance has a positive correlation with taking charge behavior (r = 0.265, p < 0.01), work-related flow (r = 0.257, p < 0.01), and growth need (r = 0.295, p < 0.01). Work-related flow has a positive correlation with taking charge behavior (r = 0.422, p < 0.01), and growth need (r = 0.405, p < 0.01). Taking charge behavior has a positive correlation with growth need (r = 0.425, p < 0.01). This provides initial support for the study hypotheses.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis (n = 398)

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.Gender	1.219	0.414
2.Age	2.256	0.627	−0.029
3.Edu	2.359	0.610	0.121*	0.000
4.CN	1.382	0.822	0.025	0.018	−0.089
5.CS	3.080	1.191	−0.012	0.2058	0.078	−0.635**
6.OFT	3.440	0.666	−0.008	0.000	0.131**	−0.407**	0.443**
7.WRF	3.689	0.617	0.031	0.081	0.016	−0.106**	0.079	0.257**
8.TCB	3.873	0.729	0.044	0.015	−0.022	−0.090	0.151**	0.265**	0.422**
9.GN	4.081	0.656	−0.070	0.014	0.040	−0.008	0.097	0.295**	0.405**	0.425**

CN Company Nature, CS Company Size, OFT Organizational fault tolerance, WRF Work-related flow, TCB Taking charge behavior, GN Growth need

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Hypothesis Testing

Hierarchical regressions were used to test the hypotheses (Table 3): As shown in Model 2, organizational fault tolerance has a significant positive impact on employees’ taking charge behavior (β = 0.318, p < 0.001). Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Table 3.

Hierarchical regression results (n = 398)

	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7
	TCB	TCB	WRF	TCB	WRF	WRF	WRF
Gender	0.112	0.122	0.057	0.104	0.050	0.072	0.066
Age	−0.018	−0.008	0.092	−0.036	0.085	0.084	0.107
Edu	−0.028	−0.061	−0.041	−0.048	−0.017	−0.045	−0.045
CN	0.064	0.076	−0.028	0.084	−0.037	−0.041	−0.022
CS	0.110	0.044	−0.008	0.047	0.039	0.002	−0.018
OFT		0.318***	0.229***	0.248***		0.136***	0.176***
WRF				0.306***
GN						0.212***	0.336***
OFT×GN							0.120***
△R2	0.025	0.095***	0.072***	0.157***	0.021	0.113***	0.198***
F	2.015	30.117	31.303	28.851	1.682	18.407	41.267

CN Company Nature, CS Company Size, OFT Organizational fault tolerance, WRF Work-related flow, TCB Taking charge behavior, GN Growth need

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

As shown in Models 2 and 3, organizffational fault tolerance significantly influences employees’ taking charge behavior (β = 0.318, p < 0.001) and work-related flow (β = 0.229 p < 0.001). However, considering the role of work-related flow, the impact of organizational fault tolerance has weakened in Model 4 (β = 0.248, p < 0.001), which indicates that work-related flow plays a partially mediating role. Meanwhile, this study also tests the mediating role of work-related flow with the bootstrap test (Table 4). Through 5000 samples bootstrap, the indirect effect value of work-related flow is 0.070 with 95% confidence interval excluding zero [0.022, 0.136]. Accordingly, work-related flow has a partial mediating role on the relationship between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behavior. Hypothesis 2 is supported.

Table 4.

Mediating effect bootstrap test (n = 398)

	Path	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Direct Effect	OFT → TCB	0.248	0.058	0.135	0.361
Indirect Effect	OFT → WRF → TCB	0.070	0.030	0.022	0.136
Total Effect		0.318	0.058	0.204	0.432

OFT Organizational fault tolerance, WRF Work-related flow, TCB Taking charge behavior, LLCI Lower level of 95% confidence interval, ULCI Upper level of 95% confidence interval

As shown in Model 7 (Table 3), the regression coefficient of the interaction term between organizational fault tolerance and growth need is significant (β = 0.120, p < 0.001), and growth need positively moderates the relationship between organizational fault tolerance on work-related flow. Hypothesis 3 is supported. When employees have high growth needs, the positive impact of organizational fault tolerance on their work-related flow is enhanced.

As shown in Table 5, the confidence interval at the 95% level for the moderated mediation effect excludes zero [0.032, 0.143]. Growth need moderates the mediating role of work-related flow between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behavior. Specifically, when individuals have high growth needs, the mediating effect of work-related flow between the organizational fault tolerance and employees’ proactive taking charge behavior exists [0.044, 0.188]. When individuals have lower growth needs, the mediating effect is not significant [−0.052, 0.051]. Therefore, employee growth need positively moderates the indirect effect of organizational fault tolerance on employee taking charge behavior through work-related flow. Hypothesis 4 is supported.

Table 5.

Moderated mediation effect (n = 398)

Mediator	Moderator	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Work-related flow	Low growth need(M-1SD)	−0.025	0.026	−0.052	0.051
	High growth need (M+1SD)	0.108	0.372	0.044	0.188
	The moderated mediation	0.084	0.029	0.032	0.143

LLCI Lower level of 95% confidence interval, ULCI Upper level of 95% confidence interval

Discussions and conclusions

Through a survey of 398 Chinese knowledge workers, the study examines the impact mechanism and boundary condition of organizational fault tolerance on employees’ taking charge behaviors. The study findings indicate that work-related flow plays a mediating role between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behaviors. Organizational fault tolerance can improve employees’ work-related flow, thus promoting employees to show more taking charge behaviors. Growth need plays a moderating role between organizational fault tolerance and work-related flow; when employees’ growth need is high, organizational fault tolerance further strengthens the generation of employees’ work-related flow. Growth need moderates the mediating effect of work-related flow between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behavior. The positive impact of organizational fault tolerance on employees’ taking charge behaviors through work-related flow is greater when employees have high growth needs.

Theoretical implications

This study makes three key theoretical contributions to the literature on proactive work behaviors.

First, our findings extend current understanding of organizational fault tolerance by empirically establishing its positive relationship with employees’ taking charge behaviors. Existing research still focuses mainly on explaining employees’ taking charge behaviors from the perspective of leadership styles and personal traits [7, 10, 57, 58]. Limited research has been conducted on the influence mechanisms of organizational practices and climate on its formation. Our study highlights the crucial role of organizational climate, specifically fault tolerance, in fostering employee proactivity. This expands the understanding of how a supportive organizational environment can encourage employees to initiate constructive change, moving beyond solely focusing on individual traits or direct supervision.

Second, our research integrates a key psychological state into the motivational process linking organizational fault tolerance and taking charge behaviors by establishing work-related flow as a mediator. When organizations are characterized by high fault tolerance, work-related flow can facilitate the emergence of employees’ taking charge behaviors as a psychological mechanism to stimulate positive work emotion. Our results reveal that fault-tolerant environments facilitate two critical components of Proactive Motivation Theory: the “Can do” aspect through psychological safety and reduced failure anxiety, and the “Energized to do” dimension through flow-induced positive affect and cognitive absorption from flow, which in turn drive employees’ willingness to take charge. This expands the application of Proactive Motivation Theory by demonstrating how a specific organizational climate feature can cultivate the “Energized to do” component via the experience of flow at work. It enriches our understanding of the psychological mechanisms through which organizational contexts influence proactive motivation. It also highlights the importance of creating a fault-tolerant atmosphere for employees with high growth needs to experience flow and engage in proactive behaviors.

Third, our identification of growth need as a moderator of the indirect effect underscores the importance of considering individual differences in the relationship between organizational climate and proactive behavior. High growth needs are conducive to facilitating the transformation of individuals’ work-related flow into actual positive extra-role behaviors. Especially in an organization with a fault tolerant climate, employees are encouraged to learn from failure. Growth need represents a core intrinsic “Reason to do” according to Proactive Motivation Theory. Our findings suggest that a fault-tolerant environment is particularly effective in fostering flow and subsequent taking charge among employees with a strong desire for growth. For these individuals, the opportunities for learning and challenge inherent in a fault-tolerant, flow-inducing context strongly align with their intrinsic motivation, amplifying the positive pathway to proactivity. This provides a more nuanced understanding of the boundary conditions under which organizational fault tolerance translates into proactive behavior via flow, highlighting the interaction between organizational factors and individual motivational needs. As illustrated by Proactive Motivation Theory, the study also amply demonstrates that employees’ engagement in taking charge behaviors depends on “can do”, “energy”, and “reason”. The findings of this study enrich empirical research on positive extra-role behaviors and deepen the understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying proactive behaviors in the workplace.

In summary, this study empirically validates and extends Proactive Motivation Theory by demonstrating how organizational fault tolerance fosters the “Can do” and “Energized to do” aspects, which are amplified by the “Reason to do” (growth need) in predicting taking charge behavior via the mediating role of work-related flow. This integrated perspective offers a more comprehensive framework for understanding the complex interplay between organizational climate, individual motivation, and proactive behavior in the workplace.

Practical implications

Organizations should build an atmosphere with high fault tolerance. Employees are fully aware of the organization’s expectations on their behaviors. They will not be penalized for trying and innovating, and the organization values learning from failure. It can encourage employees to go beyond their comfort zones and explore new solutions. It also helps the organization to adapt to the changing environment, thus maintaining competitiveness and achieving sustained success. Employees’ work-related flow has a positive impact on employees’ taking charge behavior. Organizations can provide employees with challenging tasks, support their learning and development, create a harmonious work environment, and encourage self-drive. With higher work-related flow, employees can better cope with challenges and stress, resulting in increased productivity. They are also more likely to be attentive to the feelings and needs of others in the workplace and exhibit more positive extra role behaviors.

Individuals with high growth needs expect to develop, learn, and achieve at work. They are more likely to have flow experience and demonstrate taking charge behaviors as a result of organizational fault tolerance. Managers should fully understand employees’ job expectations and adopt supportive strategies to better satisfy different needs. Organizational practices such as training, career development, job enrichment, tutor programs, and job rotation can be effective in helping individuals expand their skills and stimulate growth needs. Challenging work assignments and high empowerment can also be provided to maintain their work enthusiasm and learning willingness. For employees with strong growth needs, organizational fault tolerance is more valuable to them, and their consequent work-related flow can motivate them to show higher initiative in their work.

Limitations and future study

This study has the following limitations: Cross-sectional data were employed in this study, which may potentially inflate the observed relationships between variables. To address these concerns in future research, the adoption of multi-stage or longitudinal research designs may not only enhance the accuracy of the data but also provide a more robust basis for examining and validating the mediating effect of work-related flow. Furthermore, incorporating data from multiple sources would also help mitigate potential common method bias and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics under investigation.

Future research could consider using cross-level data analysis to gain a more objective understanding on the effectiveness of organizational fault tolerance. Furthermore, respondents in the study were mainly from knowledge employees in Chinese companies, which may result in limited generalizability of the study’s findings. State-owned enterprises in China, which formed a large part of our sample, may have unique cultural characteristics influencing fault tolerance and taking charge behavior. While our findings provide insights into this important context, researchers should exercise appropriate caution when extrapolating these results to other organizational settings and cultural contexts. In future research, it can be further tested whether the study conclusions are still applicable to the sample of non-knowledge workers.

Finally, based on the characteristics of the organizational context, this study provides evidence for a positive association between organizational fault tolerance and employees’ taking charge behavior. However, the formation of taking charge behaviors is complex. In the future, research on the influence mechanism and boundary conditions of organizational fault tolerance on employees’ taking charge behavior needs to be further expanded. The moderating roles of other individual differences or contextual factors could be explored. More extensive studies can also be conducted from the perspective of organizational identity, environmental matching, interpersonal interaction, and psychological capital to explain employees’ taking charge behaviors.

Abbreviations

OFT

Organizational fault tolerance

WRF

Work-related flow

TCB

Taking charge behavior

GN

Growth need

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization: S.W. and T.N.; methodology, T.N.; software, S.W.; validation, T.N.; formal analysis, S.W.; investigation, S.W.; resources, S.W.; data curation, T.N.; writing—original draft preparation, S.W. and T.N.; writing—review and editing, S.W. and T.N.; visualization, T.N.; supervision, T.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data availability

The authors confirm that all data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the article.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable: The manuscript does not include details, images, or videos relating to an individual person.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.