Confirmatory Model of the Workplace Creativity in Higher Education

Abstract

This study has identified the key factors of workplace creativity in the higher educational institution. Previous studies have provided evidence of the positive correlation between the performance level of students and employees. Similarly, past studies have also explained the close association between favorable cultural conditions and workforce performance. One of such cultural conditions is the culture of creativity and innovation. Many institutions are unable to perform due to lack of motivation among employees to exercise creativity in their work, which is the indication of weak cultural manifestation that provides support for creativity and innovation. Current study has identified twelve key visible practices among employees in the higher educational institutions from the past literature. These indicators were employed to factor-out four latent constructs: presence of challenge in job, motivation to take up the challenging tasks, freedom and flexibility in doing job, and availability of enough resources to experiment. Data was collected from 191 employees in eight institutions of higher education in UAE by using creativity scale questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis was initially employed to verify the structure of the proposed path model, and then relationships between indicators and underlying contracts were tested in the confirmatory factor analysis. Findings show that leadership role is an important element for the development of creative practices among employees, which provokes innovative approach in performing jobs. Employees are motivated in facing the challenges and finding the creative solutions. The study provides valuable information to the leaders in higher educational institutions and policymakers about the importance of the cultural factors which could be used as a criterion identifying presence or absence of workplace creativity and innovation.

Factors influencing teachers’ creative teaching: A systematic review

“…From 33 articles, a total of 14 studies focused on China (Chang et al, 2021;Chen & Yuan, 2021;Cheung & Mok, 2018;Chung & Chen, 2018;Deng et al, 2020;Huang et al, 2019;Jin et al, 2021;Ke et al, 2020;Li & Li, 2019;Liu et al, 2020aLiu et al, , 2020bNiu et al, 2017;Wang & Kokotsaki, 2018;Xiong et al, 2020), 3 on Turkey (Atabek, 2020;Akyildiz & Celik, 2020;Kandemir et al, 2019), 2 on Saudi Arabia (Azeem et al, 2019;Mahmoud Alali, 2020), 2 on Europe (NemerAitski & Heinla, 2020;Sliogeriene & Valunaite-Oleskeviciene, 2017), 2 on Indonesian (Dwiningrum et al, 2020;Fitriah, 2018) and 2 on the United States (Anderson et al, 2021;Robinson et al, 2018). In the meanwhile, each research study focused on Korea.…”

“…In terms of publication year, 3 papers were released in 2017 (Cayirdag, 2017;Niu et al, 2017;Sliogeriene & Valunaite-Oleskeviciene, 2017), 7 studies were published in 2018 (Barajas & Frossard, 2018;Cheung & Mok, 2018;Chung & Chen, 2018;Fitriah, 2018;Harris & de Bruin, 2018;Robinson et al, 2018;Wang & Kokotsaki, 2018), 6 studies were published in 2019 (Azeem et al, 2019;Huang et al, 2019;Kandemir et al, 2019;Li & Li, 2019;So & Hu, 2019), 11 studies were published in 2020 (Akyildiz & Celik, 2020;Atabek, 2020;Deng et al, 2020;Dwiningrum et al, 2020;Ke et al, 2020;Liu et al, 2020aLiu et al, , 2020bMahmoud Alali, 2020;NemerAitski & Heinla, 2020;Xiong et al, 2020) and 5 studies were published in 2021 (Abdullah et al, 2021;Amzaleg & Masry-Herzallah, 2021;Anderson et al, 2021;Chang et al, 2021;Chen & Yuan, 2021;Jin et al, 2021). The year 2020 was the most frequent year of publication.…”

“…The year of publication are shown in Figure 3. There were 24 researches that focused on quantitative analysis (Amzaleg & Masry-Herzallah, 2021;Anderson et al, 2021;Atabek, 2020;Azeem et al, 2019;Cayirdag, 2017;Chang et al, 2021;Chen & Yuan, 2021;Cheung & Mok, 2018;Chung & Chen, 2018;Deng et al, 2020;Dwiningrum et al, 2020;Hetherington et al, 2020;Huang et al, 2019;Jin et al, 2021;Kandemir et al, 2019;Ke et al, 2020;Li & Li, 2019;Liu et al, 2020aLiu et al, , 2020bMahmoud Alali, 2020;NemerAitski & Heinla, 2020;Niu et al, 2017;Xiong et al, 2020). In addition, there were five studies in the form of qualitative analysis (Akyildiz & Celik, 2020;Barajas & Frossard, 2018;Robinson et al, 2018;Sliogeriene & Valunaite-Oleskeviciene, 2017;So & Hu, 2019), while four studies used mixed-method approach to ensure that the information obtained was reasonable and useful.…”

“…On the other hand, three studies found that principals' transformational leadership has a positive impact on teachers' creative teaching (Chang et al, 2021;Chen & Yuan, 2021;Harris & de Bruin, 2018). Therefore, other factors that are also discussed are workplace (Azeem et al, 2019;Ke et al, 2020), sociocultural (Amzaleg & Masry-Herzallah, 2021) and supportive peers (Chung & Chen, 2018;Jin et al, 2021).…”

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Value Creation: The Mediating Role of Innovative Performance

“…These results suggest that CSR signi􀅫icantly motivates businesses to become more inventive, ef􀅫icient, and successful. Additionally, this study con􀅫irmed that value generation and innovation performance are inextricably linked (Enrico et al, 2019;Azeem et al, 2019). Innovation is important for value creation because it involves producing and using fresh ideas and creative thinking that add value to the organization that adopts it and improve the welfare of its stakeholders (Ogunkoya, 2019).…”