Towards a Sustainable Model of Innovative Work Behaviors’ Enhancement: The Mediating Role of Employability
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1. Predictors of Innovative Work Behaviors: LMX and OCB
2.2. Towards a Mediation Model of Innovative Work Behaviors
2.3. Perceived Organizational Politics as a Moderator
3. Methods
3.1. Participants and Procedures
3.2. Measures
3.3. Preliminary Analyses
3.4. Pair-Wise Comparisons
3.5. Structural Equation Modelling
3.6. Model Tests
3.7. Participants and Procedures
3.8. Data Analysis
4. Results
5. Discussion and Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Findings
5.1. Employee versus Supervisor Ratings
5.2. Towards a Mediation Model of Innovative Work Behaviors Enhancement
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
5.4. Practical Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- De Jong, J.P.J.; Den Hartog, D.N. Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2010, 19, 23–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, Y.; Xue, W.; Li, L.; Wang, A.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, X. Leadership style and innovation atmosphere in enterprises: An empirical study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 135, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. About the Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 5 December 2019).
- Duradoni, M.; Di Fabio, A. Intrapreneurial self-capital and sustainable innovative behavior within organizations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amabile, T.M. How to kill creativity. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 77–87. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, L.; Uddin, M.; 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]
- Kim, W.; Park, J. Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability 2017, 9, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Witt, U. Imagination and leadership–the neglected dimension of an evolutionary theory of the firm. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1998, 35, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erkut, B. Perceiving Innovation: Who ‘Makes’ SAP Labs India and How? South Asian J. Bus. Manag. Cases 2016, 5, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoffers, J.M.M.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. Towards an HRM model predicting organizational performance by enhancing innovative work behaviour: A study among Dutch SMEs in the province of Limburg. Bus. Leadersh. Rev. 2009, 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Parker, S.K.; Axtell, C.M. Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective-taking. Acad. Manag. J. 2001, 44, 1085–1100. [Google Scholar]
- Galinsky, A.D.; Moskowitz, G.B. Counterfactuals as behavioural primes: Priming the simulation heuristic and consideration of alternatives. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 36, 384–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galinsky, A.D.; Wang, C.S.; Ku, G. Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 95, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barile, S.; Saviano, M.; Landolo, F.; Calabrese, M. The viable systems approach and its contribution to the analysis of sustainable business behaviors. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2014, 31, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Florea, L.; Cheung, Y.H.; Herndon, N.C. For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, M.H. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 44, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijde, C.M.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2006, 45, 449–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van der Heijden, B.; Notelaers, G.; Peters, P.; Stoffers, J.; De Lange, A.; Froehlich, D.; Van der Heijde, C. Development and validation of the short-form employability five-factor instrument. J. Vocat. Behav. 2018, 106, 236–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van der Heijden, B.I.; Gorgievski, M.J.; De Lange, A.H. Learning at the workplace and sustainable employability: A multi-source model moderated by age. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2016, 25, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. Als het Getij Verloopt, Verzet men de Bakens [Inaugural Lecture on Life-long Employability Management]; Radboud University Nijmegen: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Graen, G.B.; Scandura, T. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In Research in Organizational Behavior; Cummings, L.L., Staw, B.M., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1987; pp. 175–208. [Google Scholar]
- Volmer, J.; Spurk, D.; Niessen, C. Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement. Leadersh. Q. 2011, 23, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naqshbandi, M.M.; Kaur, S. A study of organizational citizenship behaviours, organizational structures and open innovation. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2011, 2, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Organ, D.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- De Clippeleer, I.; De Stobbeleir, K.; Dewettinck, K.; Ashford, S. From Creativity to Success: Barriers and Critical Success Factors in the Successful Implementation of Creative Ideas; (Research Report); Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School: Leuven, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- De Jong, J.P.J.; Den Hartog, D.N. How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 2007, 10, 41–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoffers, J.M.M.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M.; Notelaers, G.L.A. Towards a moderated mediation model of innovative work behaviour enhancement. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2014, 27, 642–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoffers, J.M.M.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M.; Jacobs, E.A.G.M. Employability and innovative work behaviour in small and medium-sized enterprises. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weissenberger-Eibl, M.A.; Teufel, B. Organizational politics in new product development project selection: A review of the current literature. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 2011, 14, 51–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoham, A.; Vigoda-Gadot, E.; Ruvio, A.; Schwabsky, N. Testing an organizational innovativeness integrative model across cultures. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2012, 29, 226–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schyns, B.; Day, D. Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2010, 19, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Graen, G.B.; Uhl-Bien, M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 1995, 6, 219–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liden, R.C.; Sparrowe, R.T.; Wayne, S.J. Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1997, 15, 119–147. [Google Scholar]
- Yildiz, S.M. An empirical analysis of the leader–member exchange and employee turnover intentions mediated by mobbing: Evidence from sport organisations. Econ. Res. Ekonomska Istraživanja 2018, 31, 480–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fairhurst, G.T. Discursive Leadership: In Conversation with Leadership Psychology; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Miron, E.; Erez, M.; Naveh, E. Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? J. Organ. Behav. 2004, 25, 175–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, O. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behaviour. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2000, 73, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, K.; Moorkamp, M.; Torka, N.; Groeneveld, S.; Groeneveld, C. How to support innovative behaviour? The role of LMX and satisfaction with HR practices. Technol. Invest. 2010, 1, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Paine, J.B.; Bachrach, D.G. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 513–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Hum. Perform. 1997, 10, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boiral, O.; Paillé, P. Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: Measurement and validation. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 109, 431–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamm, E.; Tosti-Kharas, J.; Williams, E.G. Read this article, but don’t print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Group Organ. Manag. 2013, 38, 163–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lengnick-Hall, C.A. Innovation and competitive advantage: What we know and what we need to learn. J. Manag. 1992, 18, 399–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Ven, A.H. Central problems in the management of innovation. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 590–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farr, J.; Ford, C.; West, M.; Farr, J. Individual innovation. In Innovation and Creativity at Work; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, O. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 2001, 44, 1039–1050. [Google Scholar]
- Amabile, T.M.; Conti, R.; Coon, H.; Lazenby, J.; Herron, M. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad. Manage J 1996, 39, 1154–1184. [Google Scholar]
- Hedge, J.W.; Borman, W.C.; Lammlein, S.E. The Aging Workforce: Realities, Myths, Implications for Organizations; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Rothwell, A.; Arnold, J. Self-perceived employability: Development and validation of a scale. Pers. Rev. 2007, 36, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Cuyper, N.; Bernhard-Oettel, C.; Berntson, E.; DeWitte, H.; Alarco, B. Employability and employees’ well-being: Meditation by job insecurity. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 2008, 57, 488–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fugate, M.; Kinicki, A.J. A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2008, 81, 503–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M.; De Lange, A.H.; Demerouti, E.; Van der Heijden, C.M. Employability and career success across the life-span. Age effects on the employability-career success relationship. J. Vocat. Behav. 2009, 74, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. The development and psychometric evaluation of a multi-dimensional measurement instrument of professional expertise. High Ability Stud. 2000, 11, 9–39. [Google Scholar]
- Fugate, M.; Kinicki, A.J.; Ashforth, B.E. Employability a psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. J. Vocat. Behav. 2004, 65, 14–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howell, J.M.; Hall-Meranda, K.E. The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 650–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M.; Scholarios, D.; Bozionelos, N.; Van der Heijden, C.M.; Epitropaki, O. Indic@tor Report: A Cross-Cultural Study on the Measurement and Enhancement of Employability in Small and Medium-Sized ICT-Companies; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Spitzmuller, M.; Van Dyne, L.; Ilies, R. Organizational citizenship behavior: A review and extension of its nomological network. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior; Barling, J., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 106–123. [Google Scholar]
- Penner, L.A.; Dovidio, J.F.; Piliavin, J.A.; Schroeder, D.A. Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2005, 56, 365–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- George, J.M.; Brief, A.P. Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 310–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delaney, J.T.; Huselid, M.A. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 949–969. [Google Scholar]
- Guthrie, J.P.; Liu, W.; Flood, P.C.; MacCurtain, S. High Performance Work Systems, Workforce Productivity, and Innovation: A Comparison of MNCs and Indigenous Firms. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147597618.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2019).
- Kandampully, J. Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation: The role of technology, knowledge and networks. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 2002, 5, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youndt, M.A.; Snell, S.A.; Dean, J.W.; Lepak, D.P. Human resource management, manufacturing strategy and firm performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 836–867. [Google Scholar]
- Stoffers, J.M.M.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. An innovative work behaviour-enhancing employability model moderated by age. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2018, 42, 143–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Sun, S.; Zheng, X.; Liu, W. The role of cynicism and personal traits in the organizational political climate and sustainable creativity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferris, G.R.; Treadway, D.C. Politics in Organizations: Theory and Research Considerations; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Parker, C.P.; Dipboye, R.L.; Jackson, S.L. Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences. J. Manag. 1995, 21, 891–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferris, G.R.; Frink, D.D.; Galang, M.C.; Zhou, J.; Kacmar, M.K.; Howard, J.L. Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Hum. Relat. 1996, 49, 233–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferris, G.R.; Russ, G.S.; Fandt, P.M. Politics in organizations. In Impression Management in the Organization; Giacalone, R.A., Rosenfeld, P., Eds.; Lawerence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1989; pp. 143–170. [Google Scholar]
- West, M.A.; Wallace, M. Innovation in health care teams. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 21, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frost, P.J.; Egri, C.P.; Cummings, L.L.; Staw, B.M. The political process of innovation. In Research in Organizational Behaviour; Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1991; pp. 229–295. [Google Scholar]
- Vigoda-Gadot, E.; Vashdi, D.R. Politics in and around teams: Toward a team-level conceptualization of organizational politics. In Politics in Organizations: Theory and Research Considerations; Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 287–322. [Google Scholar]
- Ellström, P.E. Practice-based innovation: A learning perspective. J. Workplace Learn. 2010, 22, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ivankova, N.V.; Creswell, J.W.; Stick, S.L. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods 2006, 18, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mabe, P.; West, S. Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 1982, 67, 280–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnold, J.; MacKenzie Davis, K. Self-ratings and supervisor-ratings of graduate employees’ competences during early career. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1992, 65, 235–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, S.G.; Bruce, R.A. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 580–607. [Google Scholar]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common methods bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Graen, G.B.; Novak, M.; Sommerkamp, P. The effect of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1982, 30, 109–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kacmar, M.; Carlson, C. Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. J. Manag. 1997, 23, 627–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hambleton, R.K. Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological test: A progress report. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 1994, 10, 229–244. [Google Scholar]
- De Clercq, S.; Fontaine, J.R.J.; Anseel, F. In search of a comprehensive value model for assessing supplementary person-organization fit. J. Psychol. 2008, 142, 277–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J. Essentials of Psychological Testing; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models; Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 136–162. [Google Scholar]
- Coffman, D.L.; MacCallum, R.C. Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2005, 40, 235–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayduk, L.A. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances; Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Marsh, H.W.; Wen, Z.; Hau, K.T. Structural equation models of latent interaction and quadratic effects. In Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course; Hancock, G.R., Mueller, R.O., Eds.; Information Age: Greenwich, CT, USA, 2006; pp. 225–265. [Google Scholar]
- Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffman, C.C.; Nathan, B.R.; Holden, L.M. A comparison of validation criteria: Objective versus subjective performance measures and self versus supervisor ratings. Pers. Psychol. 1991, 44, 601–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M.; Verhelst, N.D. The psychometric evaluation of a multi-dimensional measurement instrument of professional expertise: Results from a study in small and medium-sized enterprises in the Netherlands. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2002, 18, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, M.S.; Bruch, H.; Vogel, B. Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 463–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wognum, A.A.M.; Bartlett, K.R. An examination of HRD in response to strategic learning needs in SMEs. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Dev. Manag. 2002, 2, 170–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, J.M.; Buliga, O.; Voigt, K.I. Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 2–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazir, S.; Qun, W.; Hui, L.; Shafi, A. Influence of social exchange relationships on affective commitment and innovative behavior: Role of perceived organizational support. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bysted, R. Innovative employee behaviour. The moderating effects of mental involvement and job satisfaction on contextual variables. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 2013, 16, 268–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodla, M.A.; Danish, R.Q. The perceptions of organisational politics and work performance: Exploring the differences in public and private sector. Int. J. Knowl. Cult. Chang. Manag. 2008, 8, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witt, L.A.; Spector, P.E. Personality and reactions to organizational politics. In Politics in Organizations: Theory and Research Considerations; Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 555–588. [Google Scholar]
- Treadway, D.C.; Ferris, G.R.; Hochwarter, W.A.; Perrewe, P.L.; Witt, L.A.; Goodman, J.M. The role of age in the perceptions of politics-job performance relationship: A three-study constructive replication. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 872–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Union. European Commission: SBA Fact Sheet 2018; European Commission: Brussels, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Audretsch, D.B.; Thurik, A.R. What’s new about the new economy? Form the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2001, 10, 267–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornsby, J.S.; Kuratko, D.F. Human resource management in U.S. small business: A replication and extension. J. Dev. Entrep. 2003, 8, 73–92. [Google Scholar]
- Wals, A.E.; Schwarzin, L. Fostering organizational sustainability through dialogic interaction. Learn. Organ. 2012, 19, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thaler, R.H.; Sunstein, C.R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA; London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Di Fabio, A. The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Employability six-point rating scale | 4.35 | 0.42 | 0.93 | ||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Occupational Expertise (Self) | 4.68 | 0.48 | 0.91 | |||||||||||||||||||
2 | Anticipation and Optimization (Self) | 3.90 | 0.68 | 0.36 ** | 0.84 | ||||||||||||||||||
3 | Personal Flexibility (Self) | 4.46 | 0.51 | 0.50 ** | 0.57 ** | 0.78 | |||||||||||||||||
4 | Corporate Sense (Self) | 4.11 | 0.66 | 0.48 ** | 0.60 ** | ||||||||||||||||||
5 | Balance (Self) | 4.27 | 0.61 | 0.35 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.35 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.84 | |||||||||||||||
Leader-Member Exchange five-point rating scale | 3.93 | 0.62 | 0.88 | ||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Respect (Self) | 3.91 | 0.73 | 0.09 ** | 0.14 ** | 0.07 | 0.28 ** | 0.19 ** | 0.76 | ||||||||||||||
7 | Trust (Self) | 4.03 | 0.68 | 0.12 ** | 0.16 ** | 0.07 | 0.30 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.70 ** | 0.69 | |||||||||||||
8 | Obligation (Self) | 3.85 | 0.76 | 0.08 | 0.18 ** | 0.04 | 0.29 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.56 ** | 0.65 ** | 0.74 | ||||||||||||
9 | Relationship (Self) | 3.95 | 0.77 | 0.15 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.15 ** | 0.29 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.57 ** | 0.60 ** | 0.58 ** | ||||||||||||
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors seven-point rating scale | 5.44 | 0.69 | 0.90 | ||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Altruism (Supervisor) | 5.59 | 0.77 | 0.06 | 0.15 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.20 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.83 | ||||||||||
11 | Conscientiousness (Supervisor) | 5.31 | 0.83 | 0.05 | 0.11 ** | 0.11 ** | 0.17 ** | 0.02 | 0.25 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.57 | |||||||||
12 | Sportsmanship (Supervisor) | 5.50 | 1.11 | 0.10 * | 0.05 | 0.18 ** | 0.07 | 0.17 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.20 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.55 ** | 0.35 ** | 0.82 | ||||||||
13 | Courtesy (Supervisor) | 5.36 | 0.85 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.10 * | 0.12 ** | 0.12 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.59 ** | 0.52 ** | 0.53 ** | 0.73 | |||||||
14 | Civic Virtue (Supervisor) | 5.45 | 0.88 | 0.09 * | 0.22 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.13 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.34 ** | 0.62 ** | 0.54 ** | 0.45 ** | 0.55 ** | 0.76 | ||||||
Perceptions of Organizational Politics five-point rating scale | 2.40 | 0.53 | 0.83 | ||||||||||||||||||||
15 | General Political Behaviors (Self) | 2.25 | 0.95 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.06 | −0.02 | −0.14 ** | −0.30 ** | −0.33 ** | −0.34 ** | −0.33 ** | −0.25 ** | −0.15 ** | −0.20 ** | −0.21 ** | −0.26 ** | 0.73 | |||||
16 | Go Along to Get Ahead (Self) | 2.29 | 0.66 | −0.09 | −0.16 ** | −0.11 ** | −0.29 ** | −0.22 ** | −0.40 ** | −0.46 ** | −0.46 ** | −0.43 ** | −0.30 ** | −0.26 ** | −0.23 ** | −0.25 ** | −0.31 ** | 0.57 ** | 0.82 | ||||
17 | Pay and Promotion Policies (Self) | 2.57 | 0.59 | −0.09 * | −0.10 * | −0.11 * | −0.16 ** | −0.27 ** | −0.30 ** | −0.32 ** | −0.30 ** | −0.24 ** | −0.22 ** | −0.16 ** | −0.22 ** | −0.21 ** | −0.20 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.65 | |||
Innovative Work Behaviors seven-point rating scale | 3.45 | 1.14 | 0.95 | ||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Idea Generation (Supervisor) | 3.52 | 1.10 | 0.04 | 0.18 ** | 0.14 ** | 0.23 ** | 0.02 | 0.18 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.38 ** | 0.29 ** | 0.23 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.51 ** | −0.16 ** | −0.18 ** | −0.08 | 0.90 | ||
19 | Idea Promotion (Supervisor) | 3.52 | 1.26 | −0.02 | 0.20 ** | 0.12 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.04 | 0.20 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.29 ** | 0.44 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.23 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.51 ** | −0.21 ** | −0.23 ** | −0.07 | 0.79 ** | 0.92 | |
20 | Idea Realization (Supervisor) | 3.33 | 1.32 | 0.04 | 0.19 ** | 0.10 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.04 | 0.18 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.19 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.51 ** | −0.15 ** | −0.19 ** | −0.08 | 0.77 ** | 0.81 ** | 0.90 |
Mean | SD | Cronbach’s Alphas | t-Value | r | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Self/Supervisor | Self/Supervisor | Self/Supervisor | |||
Employability | |||||
Occupational Expertise | 4.68/4.51 | 0.48/0.67 | 0.91/0.95 | 5.29 *** | 0.25 *** |
Anticipation and Optimization | 3.90/3.77 | 0.68/0.78 | 0.84/0.90 | 3.37 ** | 0.32 *** |
Personal Flexibility | 4.46/4.23 | 0.51/0.69 | 0.78/0.88 | 6.64 *** | 0.25 *** |
Corporate Sense | 4.11/4.01 | 0.66/0.78 | 0.79/0.87 | 2.49 * | 0.30 *** |
Balance | 4.27/4.24 | 0.61/0.56 | 0.84/0.83 | 1.05 | 0.32 *** |
Leader-Member Exchange | |||||
Respect | 3.91/3.78 | 0.73/0.64 | 0.76/0.68 | 3.19 ** | 0.21 *** |
Trust | 4.03/3.95 | 0.68/0.63 | 0.69/0.57 | 2.50 * | 0.27 *** |
Obligation | 3.85/3.76 | 0.76/0.76 | 0.74/0.67 | 2.06 * | 0.29 *** |
Relationship | 3.95/3.86 | 0.77/0.74 | -/- | 2.34 * | 0.36 *** |
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors | |||||
Altruism | 5.87/5.59 | 0.59/0.77 | 0.68/0.83 | 7.03 *** | 0.19 *** |
Conscientiousness | 5.58/5.31 | 0.70/0.83 | 0.48/0.57 | 6.54 *** | 0.29 *** |
Sportsmanship | 5.84/5.50 | 0.77/1.11 | 0.66/0.82 | 6.39 *** | 0.26 *** |
Courtesy | 5.60/5.36 | 0.73/0.85 | 0.64/0.73 | 4.89 *** | 0.05 |
Civic Virtue | 5.70/5.45 | 0.77/0.88 | 0.68/0.76 | 5.72 *** | 0.33 *** |
Innovative Work Behaviors | |||||
Idea Generation | 3.44/3.52 | 0.98/1.10 | 0.82/0.90 | −1.40 | 0.33 *** |
Idea Promotion | 3.28/3.52 | 1.07/1.26 | 0.85/0.92 | −3.67 ** | 0.28 *** |
Idea Realization | 3.06/3.33 | 1.10/1.32 | 0.83/0.90 | −4.06 *** | 0.30 *** |
Model | N | df | χ2 | χ2/df | RMSEA | GFI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Null Model for Model 1 | 487 | 136 | 4148.967 | 30.507 | 0.246 | 0.371 |
1. Baseline Model | 487 | 114 | 352.361 | 3.091 | 0.066 | 0.918 |
2. Employability/Innovative Work Behaviors | 487 | 19 | 91.951 | 4.840 | 0.089 | 0.957 |
3. Partial Mediation | 487 | 113 | 350.886 | 3.105 | 0.066 | 0.919 |
4. Full Mediation | 487 | 115 | 475.556 | 4.135 | 0.080 | 0.900 |
5. Moderator | 487 | 163 | 869.965 | 5.337 | 0.094 | 0.856 |
Themes | Exemplary Quotes |
---|---|
Ability to relate to another | “If you can’t put yourself in a situation, you can’t see why someone is doing certain things” (S8) “I can imagine that a technician can’t reflect on my work and doesn’t exactly know what I’m doing” (S6) “You both have a different role, with different interests, different information, so there might always be a difference in what you think or experience” (S9) “If you totally understand each other, there will be an atmosphere of kindness and sweetness. Then nothing will change, ever” (E1) “If my supervisor would communicate what she needs, then I can think along with her” (E1) |
LMX | “A supervisor telling me what to do and how to do it, that is not my forte” (E1) “Everyone has their own responsibility, and although I keep my eye on it, I am not on top of it” (S2) “I give employees the flexibility to do their job” (S1) “We also do nice things together” (S3) |
OCB | “We always help each other; we are just one team. And if one cannot manage, someone else will step in and take over” (S2) “What do I get back when I’m doing extra?” (E1) “It needs to be relaxed, feel good about yourself. That vibe also glows outside” (S2) |
Sustainable innovation | “Sometimes, employees come up with revolutionary ideas that might be brilliant but simply do not fit. That is a tricky one because it is simply not possible. That is very difficult to explain” (S7) “They come up with new ideas, and from there we try to do something with it” (S5) |
LMX on sustainable innovation | “Just to say, I was thinking and so I did it… That is something we don’t appreciate. Before you know it, it is a mess in here with people just doing whatever they feel like. But employees who come up with ideas, yeah, that happens” S4 “I see a lot of things, but I don’t do any of them, because my supervisor doesn’t say anything” E1 “Letting go is one of the hardest things to do” S6 |
OCB on sustainable innovation | “It is the same work, at a different moment, better suited with the customer” (S1) “Doing extra doesn’t lead to new innovations. We are too busy to think about innovation” (S7) “Within a very innovative organization, one of the employees was an advisor, but he was also incredibly creative. In the evening, at home, he was inventing all kinds of visual support tools, which he and other advisors introduced to clients” (S9) |
Employability | “We coach each other, but the employees here don’t attend formal training very often” (S3) |
OCB and LMX on employability | “Education and development are very important to me, so facilitate that for me” (E1) “I have had just a few employees who were willing to follow training and seminars. I have always found that quite disappointing” (S7) “My idea is that people who are busy at work also do the most outside of it” (S7) |
Influence of employability on sustainable innovation | “These terms go together. If you are innovative, then you are employable. And employable employees are innovative” (S7) “It is a craft that we do. You can’t learn this in the classroom. We perform at a very high level, but we can’t innovate much: it still is largely manual work” (S4) |
Moderating effect of organizational politics | “It actually plays no role here, because they know each other so well” S2 “Owners of an SME are often not aware of the great effect they have on the organization, on the behaviors of employees. That is much greater than they themselves think” A1 “It destroys a lot of people” S8 “Next time an employee thinks: I will not do my utmost anymore” A2 “It has to do with security: when you don’t feel safe, you don’t want to put extra effort in it, or take risks to improve your” E1 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stoffers, J.; van der Heijden, B.; Schrijver, I. Towards a Sustainable Model of Innovative Work Behaviors’ Enhancement: The Mediating Role of Employability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010159
Stoffers J, van der Heijden B, Schrijver I. Towards a Sustainable Model of Innovative Work Behaviors’ Enhancement: The Mediating Role of Employability. Sustainability. 2020; 12(1):159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010159
Chicago/Turabian StyleStoffers, Jol, Beatrice van der Heijden, and Ilse Schrijver. 2020. "Towards a Sustainable Model of Innovative Work Behaviors’ Enhancement: The Mediating Role of Employability" Sustainability 12, no. 1: 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010159
APA StyleStoffers, J., van der Heijden, B., & Schrijver, I. (2020). Towards a Sustainable Model of Innovative Work Behaviors’ Enhancement: The Mediating Role of Employability. Sustainability, 12(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010159