Next Article in Journal
Migraine and Neuroticism: A Scoping Review
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating the Role of Insight, Decision-Making and Mentalizing in Functional Outcome in Schizophrenia: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Does Mobile Workplace Stress Affect Employee Innovative Behavior? The Role of Work–Family Conflict and Employee Engagement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/bs12020029
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Predicting Innovative Work Behaviour in an Interactive Mechanism

by
Samina Afrin
1,2,
Tarik Raihan
3,*,
Ahmed Ishmum Uddin
1 and
Md. Aftab Uddin
1,*
1
Department of Human Resource Management, University of Chittagong, Chattogram 4331, Bangladesh
2
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Malaysia
3
Department of Management, University of Chittagong, Chattogram 4331, Bangladesh
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Behav. Sci. 2022, 12(2), 29; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020029
Submission received: 30 December 2021 / Revised: 19 January 2022 / Accepted: 25 January 2022 / Published: 28 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Burnout, Perceived Efficacy, and Job Satisfaction)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impacts of employees’ creative self-efficacy (CSE) and creative self-identity (CSI) on their innovative work behaviour (IWB), with the indirect effects of creative process engagement (CPE) and creative climate (CC). Following the deductive reasoning approach, the study was conducted on IT-based firms in Bangladesh. A total of 348 surveys were collected using a multi-item questionnaire. The collected data were then analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM). The study reveals a significant relationship between CSE and IWB, and CSI and IWB. It further explores the significant mediating effects of CPE and the moderating effects of CC on CSE and IWB, and CSI and IB, relationships. Based on the premise of interactionist perspectives on creativity, this study contributes to the literature proposing a distinctive model comprising five variables to investigate employees’ IWB from a multi-level perspective. This integrated model, using predictors from multiple levels, supports the theoretical assumption that IB results from employees’ CSE, CSI, and, finally, CPE. Distinct from the other literature, the study also portrays the moderating and mediating impact of CC and CPE simultaneously.

1. Introduction

There is no other option in this competitive world but to ‘innovate or die’; if not, organizations will lose their position to competitors [1,2,3]. To reap the best possibilities in a volatile environment, the creative process engagement (CPE) of the workforce, together with the divergent process of creativity capabilities, have become a thriving force in innovative work behaviour (IWB) [4,5]. Although there is a clear disparity between the concepts of CPE and IWB, the two notions are often delineated identically. Studies have asserted that it is impossible to achieve IWB without the engagement of creative mindsets in the creative process [6,7,8]. Recent studies have posited the importance of creative self-efficacy (CSE) and creative self-identity (CSI) as crucial factors in stimulating employees’ CPE toward their IWB [1,9]. Furthermore, studies also suggested that the presence of creative climate (CC) matters to significantly bridge a person’s belief in their creative ability with CPE and IWB [8,10]. Therefore, integrating the theoretical insights of the self-efficacy theory, the self-identity theory, and the interactionist perspective of creativity, the degree of CPE toward IWB in an organization depends on the inclination of employees to be engaged in the creative process with a high level of CSE and CSI, which can be significantly moderated by the CC [1].
Consequently, researchers have endeavored to incorporate complementary variables such as CSI, CC, CSE, CPE, and IWB [11]. Individuals with high self-efficacy and self-identity are perceived to be more committed to their actions [12]. Moreover, within a creative climate, a strong determination works in the back of the minds of the employees to undertake more creative practices, with an intention to practice more thought-provoking activities [8]. Henceforth, in the headway of creativity and innovation domains, the contributory role of CPE in the nourishment of IWB has been recognized and validated by various research; whereas, very few studies have been conducted to demonstrate the psychosomatic aptitude of employees, nor the intervening factors that are the preconditions of wielding IWB [13,14,15]. In this regard, this study aims to investigate both the direct effect of CSE and CSI on IWB, and the mediating effect of CPE on IB. The noteworthy contribution of this study is embodied in the creative engagement of employees in recognizing and resolving problems with constructive solutions, which necessitates a higher degree of CSE and CSI that can be significantly moderated and mediated by the creative climate and engagement in the creative process, respectively.
The study enriches the CPE and IWB literature by adding several valuable aspects with novel discernment [11,16,17]. First, the study aims to develop an inclusive model to rationalize the relationship between the different variables of CSE, CSI, CC, and CPE, as well as their successive impacts on IWB. Particularly, the moderated mechanism with the inclusion of moderator (CC) and mediator (CPE) using both CSE and CSI as the direct predictor of CPE leading to IWB is newly investigated, which provides notable insight for the conceptualization of the CPE-IWB relationship. Second, the study explores the state of CPE and IB in the eastern context, whereas most previous research has been conducted in the western context [18,19,20]. Finally, it sheds light on the IWB of employees from the perspective of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), with the holistic representation of diverse industries such as IT, production and services, and light engineering, which significantly phase out the generalizability problems of previous findings [21,22].

2. Hypothesis Development

2.1. Relationship between Creative Self-Efficacy and Innovative Behaviour

Self-efficacy refers to the intrinsic confidence of individuals in achieving particular goals that shape both the quality and amount of the efforts they make towards successful attainment of specific tasks [23,24]. CSE has long been identified as an influential contributory aspect to IWB in both the individual and organizational contexts, and individuals with high self-belief on their creative capability eventually make things happen [25,26]. In a sense, IWB can be defined as a product of creative thinking ability, which brings out something new and unique. The study by Qiang et al. [27] asserts that IWB requires extensive thinking ability in creative ways to achieve sustainable outcomes and is the result of individuals’ belief in their ability to make things happen [28]. Therefore, the following hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
There is a significant relationship between creative self-efficacy and innovative behaviour.

2.2. Relationship between Creative Self-Identity and Innovative Behaviour

CSI is another dominant factor contributing to IWB, which refers to the self-perceived concept of creative identity [29]. In this research, CSI is the societally ascribed perceived image that, along with the perceived self-image, influences individuals to behave in line with the role identities accredited to them and portrays the distinctiveness and separation from others (who we think ourselves to be others) [30,31,32,33]. Creative self-identity enhances an individual’s endeavors in IWB, which instinctively are the result of the perceived images shaped by how people assess themselves and how others assess them [34,35,36]. The path of individual interaction, peer support, and engagement in IWB is directed by role identity [37,38]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
There is a significant relationship between creative self-identity and innovative behaviour.

2.3. Relationship between Creative Process Engagement and Innovative Work Behaviour

Most studies in the field of creativity have focused on uncovering the IWB of organizations, rather than investigating the factors responsible for creativity and innovation [2,39]. Contemporary research in the field of creativity now emphasizes the process of engaging in creative endeavor, which ultimately leads to the generation of creative outcomes [17,22,40]. CPE has been identified as the rational process of involvement in creative endeavor through the identification of underlying problems; searching for and encrypting relevant data consistent with the problem in question; and, finally, generating an alternative solution for the problem [22,41]. The aspirations of employees to engage in IWB necessitate significant and active involvement in identifying and exploring problems and constructing alternative solutions [17,42,43]. Moreover, organizational success in a competitive atmosphere hinges on the voluntary involvement of its employees through vigorous engagement in framing creative ideas and devising constructive roadmaps to gain a competitive edge [44]. Therefore, based on the previous literature, it can be stated that if employees dedicate themselves to CPE, they are more likely to develop IWB [13,17,45]. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Creative process engagement has a significant influence on employees’ innovative work behaviour.

2.4. Mediating Role of Creative Process Engagement

Employees with CSE tend to be more inclined towards achieving dynamic results than those with low CSE [46]. Being involved in various creative processes, individuals with CSE tend to bring about changes through psychological, behavioural, and subjective investment of their time and attention by identifying problems; probing, collecting and encoding information; generating feasible solutions; and, finally, implementing them [42,47]. Devloo [48] reported that employees’ CSE contributes to IWB because they perceive the situation to be under their control. It has been observed in different settings that if self-belief is high, then engagement in complex creative processes for innovation will follow [18]. Based on the theoretical discussion above, the following hypothesis is posited.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Creative process engagement mediates the relationship between creative self-efficacy and innovative behaviour.
CSI enables employees to be confident about their abilities to be creative in their work and encourages them to engage in innovation in order to reaffirm the identity consigned to them [49]. Possession of CSI influences engagement in the creative process, through which IWB is ultimately facilitated. As hypothesized in role identity theory, an individual socially identified as being creative is perceived to have a duty to be engaged in the creative process, thus delivering IWB [9,30]. As IWB is inevitable for organizational growth, employees’ engagement in the creative process is essential [50]. Likewise, in the absence of a creative outlook, it is evident that IWB is implausible [1,51]. Based on the above literature, the following hypothesis is suggested.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Creative process engagement mediates the creative self-identity-innovative behaviour relationship.

2.5. Moderating Effect of Creative Climate

Adaptation to volatility and sustainable competitiveness requires a favourable working climate [8]. Creation and the execution of innovative ideas are possible only when the organization can ensure a creative atmosphere [52]. The underlying concept of CC is grounded in IPC theory, and its impact has been assessed through the lens of previous studies [53,54]. Employees with CC feel a psychological compulsion to undertake risk and devise novel ideas, feeling comfortable to construct and propose innovative solutions to problems [55,56]. On the contrary, an absence of CC dilutes the process of developing creative aptitude in employees and subsequently weakens their commitment to CPE [4,43]. Previous studies have found a significant impact of CC on the relationship between CSE and CPE [4,57].
The underlying notion of CSI is that the expectations of an employee to gain personal and social advantage in an institutional setting encourage them to engage in the creative process [58]. Therefore, individuals with CSI will be more conscious of their role and strive to exhibit creative slants to redefining problems with creative solutions [51]. Notably, CC facilitates psychosomatic safety, allowing employees to develop more creative ideas; establish risk-taking aptitudes; and encourage curiosity to explore uncovered areas [59]. On the contrary, a climate hostile to creativity has an adverse effect on the creative involvement of employees and adversely affects the CSI-CPE relationship because of demoralization [4,43]. Hence, if an organization can warrant CC, employees with CSI will be able to display more eccentric endeavors with risk-taking attitudes and yield more constructive outcome [52,60]. Earlier studies have also demonstrated a significant influence of CC on the CSI-CPE relationship [17,59]. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Creative climate moderates the influence of creative self-efficacy on creative process engagement.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Creative climate moderates the influence of creative personal identity on creative process engagement.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Research Design

The research employed a quantitative research method with a deductive reasoning approach [61,62]. The perceptual value of the constructs was measured using a multi-item scale adopted from previous studies. In order to obtain valid feedback, the original questionnaire in English was translated into the native language (Bangla), and then translated back into English under the guidance of an expert panel through the back-translation process [63]. Until the affirmation of original representativeness of the statements, the process was repeated [64].

3.2. Data Collection Procedure and Sample Characteristics

The study used the convenience sampling method to collect cross-sectional data because the convenience sampling is the viable solution when the population is homogenous in nature and questionnaires need to reach respondents quickly [65]. The data were collected from ICT and Internet service provider firms listed in the Bangladesh Association of Software and Information Services (BASIS). After receiving approval from the concerned authority (BASIS), 600 questionnaires were distributed among the firms through personal visits and e-mail. Furthermore, the researchers attempted to eliminate response bias by considering each organization as single unit, and accordingly delivered two sets of instruments, one for top-level management to rate their subordinates, and another for employees to rate the organizational climate.
Three hundred and forty-eight matched replies from both managers and employees were received after sending repeat emails and making personal visits, a response rate of 58%, which has been found to be acceptable in similar contexts [1,8,18]. Due to erroneous responses, missing data, outlier problems and unmatched cases, 9 responses were discarded, leaving 339 for the final analysis. Table 1 shows that the majority of the respondents were men (258, 76%), with only 81 (24%) women. Out of the 339 respondents, the highest number (179, 53%) had obtained a postgraduate degree, followed by 116 (34%) with a bachelor’s degree, and the remainder (44, 13%) with other degrees. Remarkably, 184 (54%) of the respondents were in the 25–35 year old age group, with 82 (24%) in the 35–45 year old group, 50 (15%) in the 18–25 group, and the remainder (23, 7%) in the above 45 age group. Finally, in terms of experience it was found that most of the employees (145, 43%) had had a job tenure of between 5–10 years, followed by 83 (24%) with above 1 year, 81 (24%) with above 10 years, with the remainder (30, 9%) having above 15 years job experience.

3.3. Response Bias

The study observed that the application of cross-sectional data curtailed the relationship strength of the structural connotation and inhibited the generalizability of the research outcomes [66]. The authors gave assurances to the respondents that their identity would be kept anonymous and their responses recorded in a confidential manner, which ultimately encouraged them to provide their responses accurately and prevented the problem of social desirability biasness [66,67]. Additinally, we ran the Harman [68] one factor test, with the results showing that first factor explained only 27.14%, or less than 50%, of the total variance (76.93%). To identify and explore the association between variables that surpassed 0.90, we scrutinized the correlation matrix by following Bagozzi’s method; it was found that 0.641 was the highest association between any two variables [69,70].
Moreover, alternative model analysis was conducted to establish model-fit measures (Table 2). A comparison between the various factor models showed that the 5-factor model (x2/df = 1.278; GFI = 0.927; CFI = 0.987; TLI = 0.986; SRMR = 0.031; RMSEA = 0.029) generated a better fit index than the 1-factor model (x2/df = 8.969; GFI = 0.501; CFI = 0.63; TLI = 0.593; SRMR = 0.13; RMSEA = 0.154) [71]. Finally, the existence of a collinearity problem was tested by estimating the variance inflation factors, none of which exceeded the threshold limit (10.00) [65,72]. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence, it can be asserted that there were no issues related to method or response bias.

3.4. Measurement Tools

All the measurement instruments were adopted from previous studies. Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The survey measure of Jaiswal and Dhar [10] was used to estimate CSE. The CSI of employees was measured by using the tool developed by Karwowski [73]. The scale for creative climate was adopted from the work of Kim and Yoon [74], and finally, the measurement tools of CPE and IWB were adopted from the work of Zhang and Bartol [22] and Zhang and Begley [75], respectively.

3.5. Analytical Tools

The study aimed to analyze the collected data using different concurrent statistical tools such as IBM SPSS 23, IBM SPSS AMOS 23, and Microsoft Excel. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to justify the robustness of the outcomes by incorporating both the measurement model and structural model. Moreover, the study also included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural path estimates [76,77].

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Issues

In order to substantiate the measurement model, the item fitness suitability was assessed by examining the CFA along with the reliability and validity estimates. Figure 1 shows that the average regression weight of each construct was more than 0.70, which is above the threshold limit. Moreover, CFA also prescribes that the study generates a better fit index (x2/df = 1.278; GFI = 0.927; CFI = 0.987; TLI = 0.986; SRMR = 0.031; RMSEA = 0.029).
The estimation of reliability and validity can be seen in Table 3, which shows that the lowest values of composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) are 0.893 (>0.80) and 0.611 (>0.50) respectively, which are above the minimum threshold limits [62,77]. Additionally, the estimates also show that the square root of the AVE of all the latent variables is higher than the correlation value of a variable with other variables, which demonstrates that there is no problem of discriminant validity [78,79]. Therefore, it can be confirmed that there is no concern over measurement issues [76,77].

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

4.2.1. Direct Effects

With reference to Hypotheses 1 and 2, the direct influence of CSE and CSI on IWB was estimated. In Figure 2, the assessment shows that a positive influence of CSE on IWB and that the relationship is significant (β = 0.149, p = 0.002). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. In Hypothesis 2, it is proposed that there is a positive influence of CSI on IWB. Surprisingly, in contrast to the hypothesis, the estimation showed an insignificant relationship (β = 0.095, p = 0.074). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is not supported. Moreover, in Hypothesis 3, it is proposed that CPE has a positive influence on IWB. In line with the hypothesis, it was found that there was a significant relationship between CPE and IWB (β = 0.620, p = 0.000). Therefore, the hypothesis is supported.

4.2.2. Mediation Effect

The bootstrap method in PROCESS macros was run to examine the mediating effect of CPE on the influence of CSE and CSI on IWB. According to the criteria, the bias-corrected confidence interval must not contain zero for the specific indirect effect to have a mediation effect [80]. Table 4 shows the mediation effects. H4, regarding the mediation effect of CPE on the association between CSE and IWB, is supported because the confidence interval does not include zero. Since the direct effect of CSE on IWB still remains significant, there is a partial mediation. Likewise, in H5, the influence of CPE on the association between CSI and IWB is also supported. There is full mediation, since the direct effect of CSI on IWB is insignificant in the structural model.

4.2.3. Moderating Effect

Table 5 shows the moderating effect of CC on the influence of CSE and CSI. Model 1 indicates the effect of the control variables on CPE, with none found to be significant. Models 2 and 3 demonstrate the direct effects of CSE, CSI, and CC on CPE, which were found to be significant (p < 0.05). Moreover, we investigated the moderating effect of CC on the CSE-CPE (Hypothesis 6) and CSI-CPE (Hypothesis 7) relationships. The results shown in Table 5 (model 6) indicate that Hypothesis 6 (the moderating effect on CSE-CPE) and Hypothesis 7 are not supported.
Furthermore, we plotted the estimates in Figure 3a,b, which confirmed that a higher level of CC does not make a significant difference to the influence of CSE and CSI on CPE.

5. Discussion

The prevailing evidence that reflects the existence of a significant relationship between CSE and IWB [81] is clearly demonstrated in our findings in relation to Hypothesis 1 (β = 0.149, p = 0.002). Hypothesis 2 proposes that CSI positively predicts IWB. Surprisingly, in contrast to the hypothesis and previous research findings, the estimate does not support the significant prediction (β = 0.095, p = 0.074) [8,38]. Mediating variables such as CPE may have a stronger impact on predicting the relationship indirectly than the direct relationship between CSI and IWB [18]. In Hypothesis 3, we investigate the influence of CPE on IWB. The estimated results show that the effect is significant (β = 0.620, p = 0.000) and consistent with the findings of previous studies [1,18].
This study explored an additional area by investigating the mediating effect of CPE on CSE and IWB, and on CSI and IWB. According to our results, CPE mediates the relationship between CSE and IWB, strengthening the notion that employees who are self-efficacious in terms of creativity tend to engage themselves in the creative process, which ultimately facilitates IWB [82]. Therefore, the dependence of IWB on individuals’ CSE through CPE is both theoretically and statistically supported. Most studies [8,42,60] argue that employees who identify themselves as creative contribute significantly towards innovation [83].
Furthermore, the mediating effect of CPE on the relationship between CSI and IWB is also statistically significant, which implies that self-identified creative individuals portray innovative behaviour by engaging themselves in the creative process [84]. Moreover, the full mediation effect of CPE on the influence of CSI on IWB indicates that the influence of CSI influences IWB via CPE more than the influence of CSI on IWB alone. This means that individuals with a preoccupied mindset of being capable flourish their identity to achieve innovation through involvement in the creative outcome yielding process.
The study also sheds light on the moderating effect of CC on the relationships between CSE and CPE, and CSI and CPE. The results demonstrate that CC does not moderate the CSE-CPE relationship, thus indicating that CC is possibly not relevant to the study context. On the other hand, CC was also not found to significantly moderate the relationship between CSI and CPE. According to the results, individuals with creative identity do not associate themselves with the creative process more or less, given a favorable creative climate [53]. The findings postulate that the existence and persistence of creative individuals over ensuring a creative climate is more crucial for employees to engage in creative pursuits [8].

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

In the context of the 21st century, organizations need to invest a substantial proportion of their resources in the development of their employees, as well as fostering innovation through research in order to overcome the challenges of competition and to adjust to the knowledge- driven society. The outcomes of the study augment the existing pool of literature by adding several insightful contributions. First, in the field of creativity and innovation literature, most studies have striven to explore the independent role of CSE and CSI on CPE and IWB, but very few have explored the moderated and mediated impact of CC and CPE on the concerned relationship. Holistically, the study has endeavored to connect the integrative impact of CSE and CSI on IWB through the moderation and mediation mechanisms in the hypothesized relationship. Second, the role of creative individuals with efficacy and self-identity in creative behaviour in the south Asian context has not been portrayed adequately in the literature. This study, therefore, enhances the prevailing knowledge through its significant contribution to the creative literature. Third, the study has endeavored to demonstrate the application of the interactionist perspective from the employee viewpoint, with its multi-faceted implications in measuring employees’ IWB.

5.2. Managerial Implications

Achieving organizational sustainability in today’s competitive atmosphere clearly necessitates the effective management of employees’ creativity, which eventually facilitates the innovative outcome of organizations. Most ICT firms are facing innovation challenges from their competitors due to the frequent changes in consumer preferences. Employees can play an important driving role in taking advantage of opportunities from market dynamics through their resilience and innovativeness [85]. Managers can apply the finding of the research from different perspectives. First, the outcomes of the study show a direct positive relationship between CSE and CSI, and IWB. Therefore, managers can stimulate the creative aptitude of employees in different ways in order to improve their CPE towards IWB. Second, the study has explored the mediating role of CPE in the CSE-IWB and CSI-IWB relationships. If managers can provide enough flexibility, autonomy, and opportunities for career progression, employees will show enthusiasm for engaging in creative endeavor, entailing higher self-efficacy and self-identity, which will ultimately lead to IWB. Third, in light of the findings of the research on insignificant moderating influence of CC on exogenous and endogenous variables, the mangers or administrators need to remodule their conventional supervision styles [8]. The policy guidelines of managers and policy-makers need diversion from over-emphasizing CC to the acquisition of talents with heightened CSE and CSI. Moreover, top level management can strive to redesign their recruitment and selection policies by paying more attention to the creative aptitude of candidates during the selection procedure in order to synergizing their creative performance. Moreover, the study also sheds lights on the justification of the need to develop creative individuals in the ICT industry. Finally, the results signify that if an organization can facilitate a pro-creative workplace environment, CPE and CSI will make a greater contribution to CPE and IWB. Therefore, fostering IWB in IT professionals needs organizational nurturing in order to create a proactive and creative organizational climate.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Though the use of both reports’ survey and other precautions during the data collection process prevents the estimated results from being affected by common method bias, the study also has some underlying limitations. First, the data were collected only from ICT firms listed in BASIS, which weakens the general applicability of the findings. Future researchers could minimize this problem by incorporating diverse organizations from varying industries in the data collection process. Second, in order to examine the causal inferences, the study used cross-sectional data to draw inferences, which may have generated erroneous causal relationships. Future studies could overcome this limitation by using experimental or longitudinal research paradigms [35]. Third, the research model was developed by adopting constructs from different previous studies, which were conducted mostly in western settings. This research examined the implications of the model and attempted to suggest empirical support in the South Asian context. Further studies could demonstrate the comparative scenario between the eastern and western contexts. Fifth, the study projected IWB and CPE by using CSE and CSI as independent predictors. Future studies could incorporate more relevant factors such as intelligence, openness, conscientiousness, team efficacy, personality, and leadership, which could be responsible for envisaging the creative aptitude of employees.

6. Conclusions

Using the lens of multiple theories, the present study aimed to examine the predictors of IWB in a moderated mechanism with both rated samples from IT-related firms in an emerging country, Bangladesh. It also tested the mediating role of CPE in the CSE-IWE and CSI-IWB relationships in the light of multi-theory perspectives. The existing body of literature in the field of creativity will be strengthened by this research through its fascinating findings. The study reveals that CSE and CSI have unswerving impact on IWB. Moreover, it demonstrates the full mediating role of CPE on the CSE-IWB and CSI-IWB affiliations, while also revealing the insignificant moderating impact of CC on the CSE-CPE and CSI-CPE relationships. Subsequently, sustainable IWB is strengthened when CPE plays a dominant mediating role in the CSE-IWB and CSI-IWB relationships.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.R., A.I.U. and M.A.U.; methodology, T.R., A.I.U. and M.A.U.; software, M.A.U.; validation, S.A.; formal analysis, M.A.U.; investigation, T.R. and A.I.U.; resources, M.A.U. and S.A.; data curation, M.A.U.; writing—original draft preparation, T.R. and A.I.U.; writing—review and editing, M.A.U. and S.A.; visualization, M.A.U.; supervision, M.A.U. and S.A.; project administration, S.A.; funding acquisition, S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study followed the prescribed procedures with the ethical standards from Ethical Review Board, University of Chittagong (reference no: CU BUS-210001). The 1964 Helsinki declaration and its other related amendments were also followed. Informed consent was received before collecting the data, which postulates that respondents will receive a chance to withdraw themselves during the data collection process. Moreover, the privacy of the respondents and their identities will be maintained.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Raihan, T.; Uddin, M.A. The influence of creative self-efficacy, creative self-identity, and creative process engagement on the innovative behavior. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2021, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Huang, J.; Tang, C. Effects of coworker’s idiosyncratic deals on witness’s creative process engagement: Roles of responsibility for change and perceived exploitative leadership. J. Manag. Organ. 2021, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Palmer, C.; Kraus, S.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. Exploring dark creativity: The role of power in an unethical marketing task. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2020, 33, 145–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Leung, V.T.Y.; Lin, P.M.C. Exogenous factors of the creative process and performance in the culinary profession. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 69, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ugaddan, R.G.; Park, S.M. Quality of leadership and public service motivation: A social exchange perspective on employee engagement. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2017, 30, 270–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bäckström, I.; Bengtsson, L. A mapping study of employee innovation: Proposing a research agenda. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2019, 22, 468–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Afsar, B.; Badir, Y. Workplace spirituality, perceived organizational support and innovative work behavior: The mediating effects of person-organization fit. J. Workplace Learn. 2017, 29, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Uddin, M.A.; Priyankara, H.P.R.; Mahmood, M. Does a creative identity encourage innovative behaviour? Evidence from knowledge-intensive IT service firms. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 23, 877–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Karwowski, M. The dynamics of creative self-concept: Changes and reciprocal relations between creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Creat. Res. J. 2016, 28, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jaiswal, N.K.; Dhar, R.L. Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: A multilevel study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 51, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Puente-Díaz, R. Creative Self-Efficacy: An Exploration of Its Antecedents, Consequences, and Applied Implications. J. Psychol. 2016, 150, 175–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Beghetto, R.A. Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creat. Res. J. 2006, 18, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, X.; Bartol, K.M. The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 862–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yamin, M.A.Y. Examining the effect of organisational innovation on employee creativity and firm performance: Moderating role of knowledge sharing between employee creativity and employee performance. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2020, 22, 447–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kiveu, M.N.; Namusonge, M.; Muathe, S. Effect of innovation on firm competitiveness: The case of manufacturing SMEs in Nairobi County, Kenya. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2019, 18, 307–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nguyen, N.T.; Hooi, L.W. Relationship between leadership styles, employee creativity and organisational innovation: A proposed framework. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2020, 22, 23–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Uddin, M.A.; Mahmood, M.; Fan, L. Why individual employee engagement matters for team performance? Team Perform. Manag. An. Int. J. 2019, 25, 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Azim, M.T.; Fan, L.; Uddin, M.A.; Jilani, M.M.A.K.; Begum, S. Linking transformational leadership with employees’ engagement in the creative process. Manag. Res. Rev. 2019, 42, 837–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mahmood, M.; Uddin, M.A.; Luo, F. Influence of transformational leadership on employees’ creative process engagement: A multi-level analysis. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 741–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yi, L.; Uddin, M.A.; Das, A.K.; Mahmood, M.; Sohel, S.M. Do transformational leaders engage employees in sustainable innovative work behaviour? Perspective from a developing country. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Li, C.-R.; Yang, Y.; Lin, C.-J.; Liu, J. The complex within-person relationship between individual creative expression and subsequent creative process engagement. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2020, 29, 822–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, X.; Bartol, K.M. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 107–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Cheung, S.Y.; Huang, E.G.; Chang, S.; Wei, L. Does being mindful make people more creative at work? The role of creative process engagement and perceived leader humility. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 2020, 159, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Giesler, J.M.; Weis, J. Patient competence in the context of cancer: Its dimensions and their relationships with coping, coping self-efficacy, fear of progression, and depression. Support. Care Cancer 2021, 29, 2133–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Thundiyil, T.G.; Chiaburu, D.S.; Li, N.; Wagner, D.T. Joint effects of creative self-efficacy, positive and negative affect on creative performance. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2016, 10, 726–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tierney, P.; Farmer, S.M. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 1137–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Qiang, R.; Han, Q.; Guo, Y.; Bai, J.; Karwowski, M. Critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity: The mediating role of creative self-efficacy. J. Creat. Behav. 2020, 54, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Awang, A.H.; Mohd Sapie, N.; Hussain, M.Y.; Ishak, S.; Md Yusof, R. Nurturing innovative employees: Effects of organisational learning and work environment. Econ. Res. Ekon. 2019, 32, 1152–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2008, 13, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Farmer, S.M.; Tierney, P.; Kung-Mcintyre, K. Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Acad. Manag. J. 2003, 46, 618–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bang, H.; Reio, T.G., Jr. Personal accomplishment, mentoring, and creative self-efficacy as predictors of creative work involvement: The moderating role of positive and negative affect. J. Psychol. 2017, 151, 148–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Maqbool, S.; Černe, M.; Bortoluzzi, G. Micro-foundations of innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2019, 22, 125–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lebuda, I.; Jankowska, D.M.; Karwowski, M. Parents’ Creative Self-Concept and Creative Activity as Predictors of Family Lifestyle. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kunrath, K.; Cash, P.; Kleinsmann, M. Social-and self-perception of designers’ professional identity. J. Eng. Des. 2020, 31, 100–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, C.-J.; Tsai, H.-T.; Tsai, M.-T. Linking transformational leadership and employee creativity in the hospitality industry: The influences of creative role identity, creative self-efficacy, and job complexity. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Karwowski, M.; Lebuda, I.; Wisniewska, E.; Gralewski, J. Big five personality traits as the predictors of creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity: Does gender matter? J. Creat. Behav. 2013, 47, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Amabile, T.M.; Pratt, M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Res. Organ. Behav. 2016, 36, 157–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Williams, R.; Runco, M.A.; Berlow, E. Mapping the themes, impact, and cohesion of creativity research over the last 25 years. Creat. Res. J. 2016, 28, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Binnewies, C.; Wörnlein, S.C. What makes a creative day? A diary study on the interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 589–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Božić, L.; Rajh, E. The factors constraining innovation performance of SMEs in Croatia. Econ. Res. Ekon. 2016, 29, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Reiter-Palmon, R.; Beghetto, R.A.; Kaufman, J.C. Looking at creativity through a business–psychology–education (BPE) lens. In Creativity Research: An Inter-Disciplinary and Multi-Disciplinary Research Handbook; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  42. Du, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Z. Resources Matter: Combined Influence of Job Demands and Job Control on Creative Process Engagement. J. Psychol. 2019, 153, 141–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Royston, R.; Reiter-Palmon, R. Creative self-efficacy as mediator between creative mindsets and creative problem-solving. J. Creat. Behav. 2019, 53, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chen, L.; Wadei, K.A.; Bai, S.; Liu, J. Participative leadership and employee creativity: A sequential mediation model of psychological safety and creative process engagement. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2020, 41, 741–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Henker, N.; Sonnentag, S.; Unger, D. Transformational leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement. J. Bus. Psychol. 2015, 30, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Christensen-Salem, A.; Walumbwa, F.O.; Hsu, C.I.-C.; Misati, E.; Babalola, M.T.; Kim, K. Unmasking the creative self-efficacy–creative performance relationship: The roles of thriving at work, perceived work significance, and task interdependence. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 32, 4820–4846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cheng, C.; Yang, M. Creative process engagement and new product performance: The role of new product development speed and leadership encouragement of creativity. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 99, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Devloo, T. Intrinsic Motivation and Innovative Work Behavior Revisited: Reciprocal Relationships at Different Stages of the Innovation Process; Ghent University: Ghent, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jaussi, K.S.; Randel, A.E.; Dionne, S.D. I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creat. Res. J. 2007, 19, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, W.; Xu, F.; Sun, B. Are open individuals more creative? The interaction effects of leadership factors on creativity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 163, 110078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhu, Y.; Ritter, S.M.; Müller, B.C.; Dijksterhuis, A. Creativity: Intuitive processing outperforms deliberative processing in creative idea selection. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 73, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Sönmez, B.; Yıldırım, A. The mediating role of autonomy in the effect of pro-innovation climate and supervisor supportiveness on innovative behavior of nurses. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2019, 22, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Woodman, R.W.; Sawyer, J.E.; Griffin, R.W. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1993, 18, 293–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Woodman, R.W.; Schoenfeldt, L.F. An interactionist model of creative behavior. J. Creat. Behav. 1990, 24, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Castro, M.L.; Martins, N. The relationship between organisational climate and employee satisfaction in a South African information and technology organization. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2010, 36, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bhaskar, P.; Ashok, W. Organisational climate from view point of motivation in district hospital, India. Health 2012, 4, 400–406. [Google Scholar]
  57. Presbitero, A.; Teng-Calleja, M. Employee proactivity in hotels undergoing organizational change and development. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 16, 401–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, A.C.; Cheng, B.S. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Op den Kamp, E.M.; Bakker, A.B.; Tims, M.; Demerouti, E. Proactive vitality management and creative work performance: The role of self-insight and social support. J. Creat. Behav. 2020, 54, 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Sica, L.S.; Ragozini, G.; Di Palma, T.; Aleni Sestito, L. Creativity as Identity Skill? Late Adolescents’ Management of Identity, Complexity and Risk-Taking. J. Creat. Behav. 2019, 53, 457–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage Publications: Southend Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bell, E.; Bryman, A.; Harley, B. Business Research Methods; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  63. Brislin, R. Understanding Culture’s Inluence on Behavior; Wadsworth Publishing: Belmont, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  64. Prado-Gascó, V.; Amara, N.; Olmos-Peñuela, J. Measuring knowledge spillovers transfer from scholars in business schools: Validation of a multiple-item scale. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 24, 635–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students, 8th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  66. Arain, G.A.; Bhatti, Z.A.; Hameed, I.; Fang, Y.-H. Top-down knowledge hiding and innovative work behavior (IWB): A three-way moderated-mediation analysis of self-efficacy and local/foreign status. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 24, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yin, J.; Ma, Z.; Yu, H.; Jia, M.; Liao, G. Transformational leadership and employee knowledge sharing: Explore the mediating roles of psychological safety and team efficacy. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 24, 150–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Harman, D. A single factor test of common method variance. J. Psychol. 1967, 35, 359–378. [Google Scholar]
  69. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.; Phillips, L.W. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991, 36, 421–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pavlou, P.A.; Liang, H.; Xue, Y. Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 105–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Muhammed, S.; Zaim, H. Peer knowledge sharing and organizational performance: The role of leadership support and knowledge management success. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 24, 2455–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage Publications: Southend Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  73. Karwowski, M. Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2014, 8, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kim, S.; Yoon, G. An innovation-driven culture in local government: Do senior manager’s transformational leadership and the climate for creativity matter? Public Pers. Manag. 2015, 44, 147–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhang, Y.; Begley, T.M. Perceived organisational climate, knowledge transfer and innovation in China-based research and development companies. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 22, 34–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. MacKinnon, D.P.; Lockwood, C.M.; Hoffman, J.M.; West, S.G.; Sheets, V. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publication: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  78. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hu, L.-t.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hayes, A.F. Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Commun. Monogr. 2018, 85, 4–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Han, G.H.; Bai, Y. Leaders can facilitate creativity: The moderating roles of leader dialectical thinking and LMX on employee creative self-efficacy and creativity. J. Manag. Psychol. 2020, 35, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Diliello, T.C.; Houghton, J.D.; Dawley, D. Narrowing the creativity gap: The moderating effects of perceived support for creativity. J. Psychol. 2011, 145, 151–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Song, W.; Yu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, W. Goal orientation and employee creativity: The mediating role of creative role identity. J. Manag. Organ. 2015, 21, 82–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Robinson, M.; Novak-Leonard, J. Refining Understandings of Entrepreneurial Artists. Artivate A J. Entrep. Arts 2021, 10, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sigala, M.; Kyriakidou, O. Creativity and innovation in the service sector. Serv. Ind. J. 2015, 35, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Behavsci 12 00029 g001 550
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Behavsci 12 00029 g001
Behavsci 12 00029 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural model. CPE = Creative process engagement; IWB = Innovative work behaviour.
Figure 2. Structural model. CPE = Creative process engagement; IWB = Innovative work behaviour.
Behavsci 12 00029 g002
Behavsci 12 00029 g003 550
Figure 3. (a) Moderation effect of CPE on CSE-CPE; (b) Moderation effect of CPE on CSI-CPE.
Figure 3. (a) Moderation effect of CPE on CSE-CPE; (b) Moderation effect of CPE on CSI-CPE.
Behavsci 12 00029 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic information (n = 339).
Table 1. Demographic information (n = 339).
VariableClassificationsFrequencyPercentage
GenderMale25876
Female8124
EducationGraduate11634
Postgraduate17953
Other4413
AgeAbove 18 5015
Above 25 18454
Above 35 8224
Above 45 237
ExperienceAbove 1 year8324
Above 5 years14543
Above 10 years8124
Above 18 years309
Table
Table 2. Alternative model evaluation.
Table 2. Alternative model evaluation.
Alternative ModelCMIN/DFGFICFITLISRMRRMSEA
5-Factor model (CSI, CSE, CC, CPE, IWB)1.2780.9270.9870.9860.0310.029
4-Factor model (CSI + CSE, CC, CPE, IWB)2.9530.8170.9110.9000.0840.076
3-Factor model (CSI + CSE + CC, CPE, IWB)4.4170.7240.8430.8260.0740.101
2-Factor model (CSI + CSE + CC, CPE + IWB)6.3560.6140.7520.7270.1030.126
1-Factor model (CSI + CSE + CC + CPE + IWB)8.9690.5010.630.5930.130.154
Threshold 1.00–3.00>0.90>0.95>0.95<0.08<0.06
CPE = Creative process engagement; IWB = Innovative work behaviour; CSI = Creative self-identity; CC = Creative climate; CSE = Creative self-efficacy, GFI = Goodness of Fit; CFI = Comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation.
Table
Table 3. Reliability and validity estimates.
Table 3. Reliability and validity estimates.
Latent VariableCRAVECPEIWBCSICCCSE
CPE0.9260.6110.782
IWB0.9270.6790.615 ***0.824
CSI0.9270.7160.425 ***0.375 ***0.846
CC0.9190.6950.513 ***0.615 ***0.593 ***0.834
CSE0.8930.7350.449 ***0.429 ***0.482 ***0.641 ***0.857
*** p < 0.001, CPE = Creative process engagement; IWB = Innovative work behaviour; CSI = Creative self-identity; CC = Creative climate; CSE = Creative self-efficacy; CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted.
Table
Table 4. Mediation effect.
Table 4. Mediation effect.
HypothesisPathEstimateStandard Errorp-ValueCI
LLUL
H4CSE → CPE → IWB0.2060.0400.0000.1380.291
H5CSI → CPE → IWB0.2200.0390.0000.1500.300
CPE = Creative process engagement; IWB = Innovative work behaviour; CSI = Creative self-identity; CSE = Creative self-efficacy; CI = Confidence interval; LL = Lower limit; UL = Upper limit.
Table
Table 5. Moderation effect.
Table 5. Moderation effect.
VariableModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6
(Constant)1.8801.2880.9880.9100.9780.857
Age0.0280.0230.0290.0140.0150.011
Tenure0.0640.0460.0480.0460.0450.046
Education0.019−0.010−0.017−0.012−0.012−0.017
Gender−0.143−0.124−0.108−0.096−0.094−0.091
Creative self-efficacy 0.345 ***0.242 ***0.142 **0.1100.058
Creative self-identity 0.248 ***0.150 **0.149 **0.267 **
Creative climate 0.252 ***0.2180.282 **
CSE X CC 0.0150.043
CSI X CC −0.058
R20.0260.1820.2390.2820.2820.284
∆R2 0.1560.0570.0430.0000.002
*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.05; CSI = Creative self-identity; CC = Creative climate; CSE = Creative self-efficacy.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Afrin, S.; Raihan, T.; Uddin, A.I.; Uddin, M.A. Predicting Innovative Work Behaviour in an Interactive Mechanism. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020029

AMA Style

Afrin S, Raihan T, Uddin AI, Uddin MA. Predicting Innovative Work Behaviour in an Interactive Mechanism. Behavioral Sciences. 2022; 12(2):29. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020029

Chicago/Turabian Style

Afrin, Samina, Tarik Raihan, Ahmed Ishmum Uddin, and Md. Aftab Uddin. 2022. "Predicting Innovative Work Behaviour in an Interactive Mechanism" Behavioral Sciences 12, no. 2: 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020029

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop