The structural validity of the innovative work behaviour questionnaire: Comparing competing factorial models

Abstract

Understanding and building theory on innovative work behaviour (IWB), as well as the parallel measurement thereof, is a prerequisite to the development of models for enhancing IWB. Most theorists propose IWB as a sequential process involving steps such as exploration, generativity, investigation, championing and application. These steps are also reflected in the design of IWB measurements. In this study, the theorised step-structure of IWB, as proposed by Kleysen and Street in 2001, is tested -relying on general descriptive statistics and applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, with five different factorial structures tested. Methods: Complete records for more than 3000 respondents on the IWB measure were available. The results revealed that exploration and generativity occur more often than investigation, championing and application, alerting theorists to the dwindling effect of creative ideas and also to the hierarchical nature of the steps embedded in IWB. With regard to structure, the results revealed that the IWB steps were correlated, not orthogonal, and unlikely to be sequential as theorised. The initial steps of IWB (exploration and generativity) are therefore linked to the latter steps (investigation, championing and application), implying that employees are cognisant of the latter steps when engaging in the former. Results:The results of this study suggest reconsidering the segmented stepwise thinking regarding IWB. It also has important practical implications for stimulating IWB: Enabling individuals to manage the latter 'steps' of the IWB may well encourage the creativity and curiosity associated with the former 'steps'. Conclusion:The research provides important insights into the nature of IWB, informing theoretical models using data-driven information.

Innovative work behavior scale: development and validation of psychometric properties in higher education in the GCC countries

“…In their studies, Messmann and Mulder (2011) have recommended constructing “additional items for idea realization” (p. 57). Steyn and Bruin (2019) discuss that idea exploration scores highest among the other constructs (p. 8). According to De Jong and Den Hartog (2010), who have explored idea exploration, generation, championing and implementation communicate that “evidence of the distinctiveness of the four dimensions was weak” (p. 33).…”

“…Indeed, IWB has gained popularity among many authors in different fields. For instance, Steyn and Bruin (2019) present a “detailed conceptualization of the complex concept of IWB” while also “exposing the structure of IWB.” Noteworthy, too, Messmann and Mulder (2012) claim that “reflection related to the improvement of competence and performance may be a consequence of IWB” (p. 58). Moreover, Carmeli et al (2006) and Noefer et al (2009) have mentioned that IWB appears when an employee identifies problems or challenges at work and attempts to propose new solutions for those problems or challenges.…”

“…And in which context should they be used? The number of IWB dimensions is an issue that is still debatable and context bounded in the extant literature (Baharuddin et al , 2020; De Jong and Hartog, 2008, 2010; Lambriex-Schmitz et al , 2020b; Messmann and Mulder, 2012; Messmann and Mudler, 2020; Styen and De Bruin, 2019; Scott and Bruce, 1994). It is also worth noting that there is a lack of research exploring academic staff's IWB, and there is not a recognized global scale for measuring IWB in educational institutions (Lambriex-Schmitz et al , 2020b).…”

“…Indeed, IWB has gained popularity among many authors in different fields. For instance, Steyn and Bruin (2019) present a "detailed conceptualization of the complex concept of IWB" while also "exposing the structure of IWB." Noteworthy, too, Messmann and Mulder (2012) claim that "reflection related to the improvement of competence and performance may be a consequence of IWB" (p. 58).…”

Gender differences in the relationship between innovation and its antecedents

“…Although empirical support for the theorised structure was mixed, Kleysen and Street (2001) suggest the use of the items as a single measure of innovation behaviour, as did Hebenstreit (2003). Steyn and De Bruin (2019) were able to replicate the five-factor structure of IWB as proposed by Kleysen and Street. Steyn and De Bruin (2020) also demonstrated that the measure was invariant across gender (equal latent means invariance; CFI = 0.973 and RMSEA = 0.057) and report alphas coefficients of 0.947 (men) and 0.954 (women).…”