Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour
Abstract
Both scientists and practitioners emphasize the importance of innovative work behaviour (IWB) of individual employees for organizational success, but the measurement of IWB is still at an evolutionary stage. This article is concerned with developed a measure of IWB with four potential dimensions: the exploration, generation, championing and implementation of ideas. From a pilot survey among 81 research professionals and their supervisors, we derived an initial version of ten items. Next, analysis of validity drew on survey data from 703 matched dyads of knowledge workers and their supervisors in 94 knowledge intensive services firms. It included confirmatory factor analyses and hierarchical multilevel regressions to test hypothesized relationships of IWB with related constructs, including participative leadership, external work contacts and innovative output. These analyses demonstrated sufficient reliability and criterion validity. Evidence for the distinctiveness of the four dimensions was, however, weak, suggesting that IWB is one‐dimensional. We conclude that further research on this issue is merited.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Innovative behavior has a positive effect on organizational innovation.
“In addition, many other studies have demonstrated that innovative behavior has a positive effect on organizational innovation [141-149].”
From A Study on the Effect of Change Management on Organizational Innovation: Focusing on the Mediating Effect of Members’ Innovative Behavior (2021) · cites this paper as [145]
Cites
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bunjak, A., Černe, M., & Popovič, A. (2021) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103533 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Sung, W., & Kim, C. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13042079 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
- Authors
- De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D.
- Venue
- Creativity and Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-02-19
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-36
- ISSN
- 0963-1690 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8691
- OpenAlex
- W1981053063
- Cited by
- 1,644
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 155 · 2025: 160 · 2024: 192 · 2023: 247 · 2022: 201 · 2021: 172 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 28.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Creativity and Innovation Management (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Leadership
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Keywords
- innovative behavior, scale development, exploratory behavior, idea generation, idea implementation, knowledge workers, democratic leadership, innovation output, supervisor-subordinate dyads
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
