role of meaningful work in interpreting the connections ...xajzkjdx.cn/gallery/494-mar2020.pdfrole...
TRANSCRIPT
Role of Meaningful Work in Interpreting the Connections between
Motivational Mechanisms and Innovative Behaviour
1. Faiza A Bawuro*,
Faculty of Technology Management, Business and Entrepreneurship,
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM),
86400 Parit Raja, Malaysia
Author Email: [email protected]
2. Alina Shamsuddin,
Faculty of Technology Management, Business and Entrepreneurship,
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM),
86400 Parit Raja, Malaysia
Author Email: [email protected]
3. Eta Wahab,
Faculty of Technology Management, Business and Entrepreneurship,
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM),
86400 Parit Raja, Malaysia
Author Email: [email protected]
1. Mohammed Ishaq Mohammed,
Department of Estate Management and Valuation
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU)
Bauchi, Nigeria
Email: [email protected]
2. Said Alkali Kori
Building Information Modeling (BIM)
Africa Initiative
Abuja Nigeria.
Email: [email protected]
Abstract: Despite the significance of motivation in stimulating innovative behaviour, little is
known about the mutual consequences of the numerous motivational mechanisms aimed at
evaluating innovative behaviour. It is against this development that this study examined the
unique impact of meaningful work on the connection between innovative behaviour and the
numerous mechanisms of motivation. For this study, a total of 309 teachers were selected
from Federal Colleges in North-Eastern Nigeria using convenient random sampling. The data
was analysed using partial least square – structural equation modelling. The effect of
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5281
motivational mechanisms on the innovative behaviour of teachers was found to be more
influential when teachers have high self-belief in their ability to produce creative outcomes.
This was also evident when the teachers showed the desire to expend effort to benefit others
than engaging in activities primarily because the job is interesting. The authors also found
that a perceived sense of meaningfulness at work exerts a robust mediating effect on the
motivational mechanisms.
Keywords: Innovative behaviour, motivational mechanisms, meaningful work, education
system
1. Introduction
Employee innovative behaviour has been a significant dream of attainment in the modern
work environment (Evans et al., 2017). The ability to generate ideas, solve problems, and
think imaginatively have become an explicit demand for innovative personnel. This request is
expected to soar in the future, providing organisations with the prospects and obligations to
effectively preserve their competitive advantage by nurturing innovative behaviour
(Grigorenko, 2019). As supported by Binnewies & Gromer (2012), employees’ innovative
work behaviour is recognised as an essential performance outcome, which enables
organisations to take advantage of opportunities, initiate new strategies, and adjust to shifting
environmental conditions. With the emergence of the global knowledge society, Messmann,
Mulder &Palonen (2018) argue that, not only do organisations need to innovate but also non-
profit organisations, for example, educational institutes. This is because the environment in
which educational systems operate also changes rapidly due to the society’s expectations of
schools and expanding fields of knowledge (Thurlings, Evers & Vermeulen, 2015).
Therefore, given the emergence of the modern economy and the stresses placed on
people and associations, the significance of innovative behaviour has never been higher
(Tierney & Farmer, 2011). Numerous researchers have argued that innovative behaviour is a
competitive weapon in the workplace (Devloo et al., 2015). It is responsible for creating
approximately 80% of the novel ideas implemented in organisations (Newman et al., 2018).
Furthermore, it encourages innovative employee behaviour, which is a significant notion
among leaders, managers or administrators in the 21st century. Hence, given the strong
evidence that innovative behaviour positively influences performance outcomes (Wang &
Dass, 2017), researchers have focused on the predictors and antecedents of innovative
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5282
behaviour (Devloo et al., 2015; Klaeijsen, Vermeulen & Martens, 2018; Popa, Soto-Acosta &
Martinez-Conesa, 2017). One of the critical determinants of individual innovative behaviour
is intrinsic motivation. This key factor is also defined as the internal drive that stimulates an
individual’s desire to be continuously engaged or committed to a job (Amabile, 2012). For
instance, Yidong & Xinxin (2013) found a positive connection between intrinsic motivation
and innovative work behaviour. Similarly, Devloo et al. (2015) reported that intrinsic
motivation positively influences innovative behaviour.
Despite the insightful and valuable findings from previous research, current
theoretical work on intrinsic motivation presents a compelling case that “motivation is not
just intrinsic but has other manifestation” (Liu et al., 2016). Similar to the research output on
intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour, motivational research has drawn on creative
self-efficacy (Bandura, 2011) and prosocial motivation (Grant, 2008) as alternative
motivational constructs conducive to innovative behaviour. Notably, the three motivational
mechanisms have generally advanced distinctly from each other. However, empirical studies
are yet to investigate how each category of motivation supports innovative behaviour in a
single study. This is challenging, considering the significant relationships between the three
categories of motivation.
Current research on innovative behaviour examines individual or selected predictors
simultaneously. Typically, the studies examine intrinsic motivation (Bhaduri & Kumar,
2011), creative self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2011), prosocial motivation and intrinsic
motivation (Grant & Berry, 2011), and intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy (Klaeijsen et al.,
2018). Although these empirical studies have made vital contributions to the literature on
innovation, the studies have not highlighted whether the multiple mechanisms of motivational
can operate correspondingly or otherwise to innovative behaviour. Moreover, there is a
growing rate of research highlighting the status of meaningful work as a predictor of
desirable employee outcomes. For example, the outcomes can include organisational
commitment (Geldenhuys, Laba & Venter, 2014) and work engagement (Hoole & Bonnema,
2015). Lastly, the role of meaningful work on motivational mechanisms and innovative
behaviour has not been examined in detail, especially in an education system.
Therefore, this paper seeks to highlight the impact of multiple motivational
mechanisms for innovative behaviour along with the mediation of meaningful work between
the two variables. The contribution of the present study is to provide a novel perspective for
motivational theory and to enrich the predictors of individual innovative behaviour.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5283
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
2.1 Innovative Work Behaviour
Innovation has been reflected as human behaviour from the time when research on innovation
extended from administrative, communication, and anthropological sciences to psychology
and sociology in the 1980s (Bos-Nehles, Renkema & Janssen, 2017). Innovative behaviour at
work is defined as an added role or behaviour essential for organisations to function
successfully (Shanker et al., 2017). The innovative work behaviour (IWB) of employees is
defined as the actions of individuals focussed on the development, processing, and
application of fresh ideas. Typically, such ideas are about novel ways of undertakings,
comprising new products, technologies, procedures or work processes to increase the
efficiency and accomplishment of organisational procedures (Nijenhuis, 2015). Innovative
behaviour is explained as the presentation and implementation of new opinions, products,
processes, and procedures to a person’s workplace roles, operational units, or organisations
(Darvishmotevali, 2019). While Scott & Bruce (1994) conceptualise innovative behaviour as
a self-initiated activity that seeks to generate new or improve current ideas to change
conditions.
However, for innovation to be fully realised, organisations typically depend solely on
individuals at work to innovate. Individuals are the primary source of ideas and are
responsible for the introduction and implementation of ideas, which are the basic
requirements for innovation (Messmann & Mulder, 2014). The benefits and advantages of
innovative behaviour include improving the performance of the individual and organisation
(Agarwal et al., 2012). It also includes the provision of social benefits for employees such as
work engagement, job satisfaction, role performance, high morale and commitment (De Jong
& Den Hartog, 2010; Hughes et al., 2018). Over the years, researchers have placed
significant emphasis on the private organisation or precisely for-profit organisations. Issues
affecting the innovative behaviour of people at work have been extensively investigated
(Thurlings et al., 2015). Klaeijsen et al. (2018) argued that only a few studies focus on the
public sector, specifically on teachers’ innovative behaviour and its factors. Many existing
studies on innovative behaviour are mainly focused on the service, industrial, and
manufacturing industries (Chatchawan, Trichandhara & Rinthaisong, 2017), which is
essentially the private sector. Besides, Thurlings et al. (2015) established that research on
innovative behaviour among teachers has not hitherto received the thoughtful attention it
merits in developing countries.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5284
Earlier studies identified opportunity exploration, idea generation, championing and
application as vital constructs of innovative work behaviour (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010;
Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Other scholars like Kaur & Gupta (2016) maintained
that the instrument established by Messmann & Mulder (2012) is more suitable for measuring
innovative behaviour, especially for teachers. It means that being innovative and reflecting on
teaching practices enables teachers to find their strengths, weaknesses, and improve their
capabilities (Messmann & Mulder, 2015). This implies that teachers can implement changes
or improve their teaching practices by reflecting on their classroom experiences. Therefore,
the need for reflection as the fifth dimension is imperative in this research. This approach can
increase the innovative performance of teachers in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
Consequently, it is against this development that this study explored the innovative behaviour
among teachers, whose duties and responsibilities are designed to nurture students with
essential knowledge and skills for the future.
2.2 Motivation
Motivation in the workplace is an extensively researched subject. The concept of motivation
examines the psychological aspects required to understand and explain human behaviour
(Peters, 2015). The term motivation has been defined in different ways. According to Forgas
et al. (2005), motivation was hitherto regarded as an entity that binds a person to action.
However, current researchers have suggested diverse explanations of motivation. Heckhausen
& Heckhausen (2018) viewed it as a predisposition for one to act in a purposive way to
accomplish specific needs or the internal drive to satisfy (Itri et al., 2019); or the will to attain
an unfulfilled need (Lazaroiu, 2015). Even though there are some disagreements on the
meaning of motivation, there is an agreement regarding the fundamental notion that it is an
individual sensation (Cook & Artino, 2016). According to Abraham Maslow (1943),
motivation is defined as an intentional and multifaceted ideology (Miner, 2015). Furthermore,
it is maintained that the purpose of motivational theories is to forecast behaviour. Therefore,
the definition developed by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in 2010
was adopted in this study. SHRM (2010) considered motivation as the psychological forces
that govern the manner of exertion and perseverance an individual requires to accomplish a
given assignment (Lockwood, 2010).
In this regard, people who are internally motivated to perform their duty are usually
self-applied without any noticeable external rewards such as pay or bonuses (Cherry, 2016).
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5285
Consequently, this study focuses on the internal factors of motivation, namely: creative self-
efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and prosocial motivation. Therefore, intrinsic motivation is a
measure of how people are involved in an activity mainly to determine if it is exciting,
pleasing or inspiring (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). Creative self-efficacy was derived from
Bandura’s general concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is one of the
essential ideas in psychology research (Lunenburg, 2011). It is described as the judgment of
people’s abilities to accomplish selected tasks or attain a particular performance level
(Bandura, 1986). On the other hand, the origins of prosocial motivation could be traced to the
1980s, when Batson (1987) described it as the eagerness to benefit others through spending
energies. Grant (2007) improved the Batson definition by describing prosocial motivation as
the yearning to significantly influence other people or social cooperatives voluntarily.
2.2.1 Motivational Mechanisms and Innovative Behaviour
Numerous motivational researchers have maintained that internal motivational mechanisms
underlie innovative behaviour (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Liu et al., 2016). Based on the self-
determination theory, Devloo et al. (2015) investigated the relationship between intrinsic
motivation and innovative work behaviour over time. Besides, the facilitating role of intrinsic
motivation in the connection between the fundamental needs of satisfaction and innovative
work behaviour was examined. The findings revealed that intrinsic motivation mediates the
relationship between the fundamental needs of satisfaction and innovative work behaviour.
Notably, Gorozidis & Papaioannou (2014) confirmed that intrinsic motivation is essential for
teachers. The authors found that high levels of intrinsic motivation influence the positive
attitudes of teachers and the implementation of an innovative curriculum. However,
researchers such as Fidan & Oztürk (2015) found that private school teachers in the Ankara
province have higher levels of intrinsic motivation and are more creative than the teachers in
public schools. Similarly, Klaeijsen et al. (2018) observed that intrinsic motivation among
teachers is not suggestively connected to innovative behaviour. Nevertheless, these empirical
studies are related to the present research as it seeks to examine the connection between
intrinsic motivation and the innovative behaviour of teachers.
H1: There is a significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour
among teachers.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5286
Conversely, individuals can have high levels of intrinsic motivation in their work or
are prosocially motivated to help others by initiating new ideas. Bandura (2011) argued that
without self-efficacy beliefs, individuals might fail to effect change in behaviour, which in
turn affects their abilities to execute the courses of action required to achieve a goal. Given
this, there is evidence from empirical studies showing that inventive self-efficacy is
connected to innovative behaviour. Recently, Klaeijsen et al. (2018) examined the
motivational processes (i.e. intrinsic motivation and occupational self-efficacy) that
contribute to the innovative behaviour of teachers. The findings revealed that occupational
self-efficacy strongly supports the innovative behaviour of teachers compared to intrinsic
motivation.
Similarly, Ng & Lucianetti (2016), Tierney & Farmer (2011) and Malik, Butt &Choi
(2015) found that high levels of self-efficacy stimulate the innovative behaviour of
individuals (i.e. idea generation, dissemination and implementation of the new idea).
Previous studies were conducted in countries using different population, sample sizes,
methods and statistical analysis. However, these studies are relevant to the present study as it
intends to examine the link between inventive self-efficacy and innovative behaviour of
teachers.
H2: There is a significant relationship between creative self-efficacy and innovative
behaviour among teachers.
Prosocial motivation is still an emerging construct given the limited studies that have
explored the connection between prosocial motivation and innovative work behaviour.
Nonetheless, previous studies from diverse cultures have linked prosocial motivation to
creativity. For instance, Grant & Berry (2011) examined the connection between intrinsic
motivation and creativity, along with the moderating role of prosocial motivation. The
findings of the study revealed that the connection between intrinsic motivation and creativity
is supported by prosocial motivation. However, the correlation between creativity and
prosocial motivation is corroborated by Li & Bai (2015). Furthermore, Jaekel (2017)
observed that prosocial motivation has a positive impact on the innovative behaviour of civil
servants in Russia. Based on these findings, it is assumed that prosocial motivation will likely
have a unique contribution to the innovative behaviour of teachers.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5287
H3: There is a significant relationship between prosocial motivation and innovative
behaviour among teachers.
2.3 Meaningful Work
Work accounts for the most substantial part of an individual’s working day. Therefore, it is
not possible to isolate work from the rest of humanity (Bailey & Madden, 2016). If there is
any essential personal transformation that would occur, then it is more likely to take place at
work (Benefiel, Fry & Geigle, 2014). Today, employees seek more than just economic
compensation (money) for their work (Steger, Dik & Duffy, 2012). Some workers want their
work to have meaning rather than just a way of making money (Shea-Van Fossen &
Vredenburgh, 2014). Consequently, the work is viewed as an essential context where workers
engage themselves in goal-oriented activities that provides meaning in their lives (Ahmadi,
Nami & Barvarz, 2014). Meaningful work is described as employees’ perceptions that a
specific job is valuable and worthwhile. Meaningful work, therefore, means an inclusive state
of being and a medium through which people derive meaning and purpose through the
respective jobs that comprise most of their wakening hours (Geldenhuys et al., 2014). Hence,
meaningful work is any work that is not trivial or valuable but somewhat evocative.
2.3.1 Meaningful Work as a Mediator
The core state of psychology is a critical factor that features prominently in the theory of job
design (Hackman, 1980). It is also evident in the cognitive element of empowerment
(Spreitzer, 1996), psychological condition for job engagement (Kahn, 1990), and
fundamental motivation for identity construction (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). The meaningful
work construct was previously identified as an essential psychological state within of itself.
According to Steger et al. (2012), meaningful work is a predictor of desirable work
outcomes. For example, job satisfaction (Allan et al., 2018), work engagement (Hoole &
Bonnema, 2015), job satisfaction (Allan et al., 2018), work engagement (Hoole & Bonnema,
2015), decrease in absenteeism (Benefiel et al., 2014) and reduction in staff turnover (Steger
& Dik, 2010). However, when employees experience an absence of individual meaning in the
workplace, adverse outcomes such as stress (Isaksen, 2000) and cynicism are exhibited
(Cartwright & Holmes, 2006).
However, researchers have not empirically examined the effect of meaningful work
and the mechanisms of motivation on the innovative behaviour of teachers. Numerous studies
have discovered the mediating part of meaningful work using different variables in various
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5288
sectors and contexts based on theoretical contributions. For example, Pradhan and Jena
(2019) observed that meaningful work positively meditated the affiliation between
transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour. Similarly, Nawrin (2018)
revealed that meaningfulness ultimately facilitates the connection between trustworthy
leadership and unselfish behaviour. Sagnak and Kuruöz (2017) reported that the connections
linking organisational job, personal resources, and work engagement were partly facilitated
by meaningful work. However, the outcomes that link meaningful work and the changes that
occur in the workplace have highlighted the relevance of the research findings. Based on the
findings, attaching meaning to work with motivation may likely boost a person to engage in
extra-role activities and perform beyond expectations, which demonstrates innovative
behaviour. The experience of meaningful work that includes a person’s discernment of
profiting from a superior-good (Steger et al. 2013). The skill could also increase the
preparedness of teachers to use their capabilities and energies to invent new teaching policies
that will engage and motivate the students to learn. Also, teachers may be more likely to
engage in innovative activities for the benefit of the students and the school at large by
finding significance and purpose in their teaching jobs. Therefore, this study proposes a
significant connection between meaningful work, motivational mechanisms and the
innovative behaviour of teachers. It can be hypothesised that:
H4: Meaningful work mediates the relationship between intrinsic motivation and teachers’
innovative behaviour.
H5: Meaningful work mediates the relationship between creative self-efficacy and teachers’
innovative behaviour.
H6: Meaningful work mediates the relationship between prosocial motivation and teachers’
innovative behaviour.
H7: There is a significant relationship between meaningful work and teachers’ innovative
behaviour.
3. Methods
A total of 309 teachers from 12 Federal Colleges in North-eastern Nigeria participated in this
survey. The participants in the research consisted of the researcher(s) and responsible staff
within the colleges, who were provided with cover letters, questionnaires, and return
addressed envelopes. Moreover, the confidentiality of all the contributors was guaranteed ab
initio. Using identification numbers, each item on the questionnaire was coded so that all the
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5289
respondents’ responses could be harmonised for the consequent analyses of the data. The
completed questionnaires were returned at the end of the exercise. The return rate of the
questionnaires was 87%, which revealed the high rate of interest from the respondents to
partake in this survey. The mean age of the sample was 35.5 years, with about 69% of male
participants. Approximately 75% of the target group possessed an undergraduate degree. The
participants had taught students for seven years and above, on average, with a minimum
salary of N50,000.
For this study, eighteen (18) items were measured for the teachers’ innovative behaviour
developed by Messmann and Mulder (2012). The intrinsic motivation required seven (7)
items on the interest/enjoyment subscale developed by Ryan and Deci (2000). The creative
self-efficacy required six (6) items on the scale developed by Karwowski (2011). However,
the prosocial motivation required the four-item scale developed by Grant (2008), and ten (10)
items were used for meaningful work as developed by (Steger et al. 2012). The replies were
established on the five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Statistical package for the social science (SPSS) and partial least squares – structural
equation modelling (PLS-SEM) were used for the analysis. SPSS was used for the
preliminary analyses, whereas the measurement and structural models were evaluated using
PLS-SEM.
4. PLS
From the initial analysis stage, the validity of the construct (convergent and discriminant
validity) and the consistency of the study items were examined. Both the convergent and
discriminant validity was computed through the average variance extracted (AVE) and
composite reliability (CR). The factors were determined according to the suggested terms CR
> 0.70 and AVE > 0.50 developed in the literature (Hair, Black & Babin, 2010). In this study,
the results revealed that the terms CR and AVE for the entire study parameters were
significantly higher than 0.70 and 0.50, respectively. Besides, the coefficient of Cronbach’s
alpha was regarded as satisfactory for the parameters based on the end point mark, as
presented in Table 2.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5290
Table 2: Items, Factor Loadings and Construct Validity Results
Items Factor
Loadings t- value AVE CR Cα
Teachers’ Innovative Behaviour
(Messmann & Mulder, 2012) 0.507 0.930 0.919
I promote new ideas for the administrator to gain active
support. 0.686** 16.375
I promote the application of the new solution within the
school. 0.732** 22.236
I make plans on how to put an idea into practice. 0.727** 18.388
I introduce colleagues to the application of a developed
solution concerning teaching and learning. 0.729** 19.724
I analyse evolving solutions on unwanted effects when
putting teaching activities into practice. 0.704** 17.330
I express personal evaluations of a problem regarding
teaching. 0.682** 19.654
I address issues related to teaching practices that must
change. 0.694** 17.040
I express new ideas concerning teaching and learning in
school. 0.716** 18.803
I suggest improvements in expressed ideas in the school. 0.701** 16.037
I keep myself informed about new concepts within my
professional field. 0.682** 13.894
I assess the progress of students while putting ideas into
teaching practices. 0.737** 23.400
I reflect on my teaching experiences from the classroom to
improve my shortcomings. 0.742** 23.274
I identify triggers for change in the school. 0.720** 18.634
Intrinsic Motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) 0.645 0.926 0.906
I enjoy my work as a teacher. 0.837** 42.214
I would define working as a teacher as very interesting. 0.855** 44.954
Teaching is a fun job. 0.631** 12.801
Teaching is an exciting job. 0.858** 41.796
Teaching as a job is quite enjoyable. 0.851** 47.550
While I am teaching students in the classroom, I was
thinking about how much I enjoyed it. 0.724** 19.040
Teaching as a career holds my attention 0.837** 44.060
Creative Self-Efficacy (Karwowski (2011) 0.565 0.886 0.846
I can solve problems efficiently, even complicated
problems. 0.770** 19.993
I trust my creative abilities. 0.715** 15.327
Compared to my friends, my ideas are outstanding. 0.737** 17.832
Many times, I proved I can find at least one solution for
any difficult situation. 0.818** 28.755
I can deal with problems requiring creative thinking. 0.767** 21.601
I am good at proposing original solutions to problems
solutions. 0.697** 17.406
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5291
Prosocial Motivation (Grant, 2008) 0.692 0.900 0.851
I get energized with teaching when I have the potential to
benefit students. 0.816** 27.531
I do my best in teaching when my job contributes to the
well-being of students. 0.877** 56.444
My teaching job allows me to have a positive impact on
my students. 0.856** 37.963
I need to do good for students through my work. 0.776** 22.847
Meaningful Work (Steger et al., 2012) 0.598 0.926 0.912
My teaching serves a greater good. 0.751** 20.816
My teaching profession makes a difference in the world. 0.685** 14.742
Am aware my teaching job makes a positive difference in
the world. 0.753** 23.875
I view my teaching career as contributing to my personal
growth 0.764** 20.866
My teaching job helps me better understand myself. 0.791** 31.549
My teaching job helps me make sense of the world around
me. 0.751** 22.659
I have found a meaningful job 0.704** 18.334
I understand how my teaching job contributes to my life’s
meaning. 0.784** 32.339
I have a good sense of what makes my teaching job
meaningful 0.713** 18.684
I discovered teaching as a satisfying purpose. 0.766** 28.874
Note: all items measured by a 5-point Likert scale
Furthermore, the results also revealed that the innovative behaviour of teachers has factor
loadings between 0.686 and 0.742; intrinsic motivation has 0.631 to 0.858; creative self-
efficacy has 0.697 to 0.818; prosocial motivation has 0.776 to 0.877, and meaningful work
has 0.685 to 0.791. The results also indicated that all the factor loadings were considered
significant because the loadings were above 0.5, whereas all items with factor loadings < 0.4
were removed from the model according to the recommendation of Hair et al. (2014).
Besides, the model converged after small iterations below the suggested 300 maximum
requirement (Wong, 2013). Based on the findings, the measurement models in this study
achieved convergent validity.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5292
Table 2: Discriminant Validity using the Fornell and Larker Criterion
CSE IBC IM MMW PM
CSE 0.752
IBC 0.741 0.712
IM 0.643 0.648 0.803
MMW 0.669 0.727 0.724 0.747
PM 0.694 0.719 0.626 0.696 0.832
Note IBC – Teachers’ innovative behaviour, IM – Intrinsic motivation, CSE – Creative self-efficacy, PM –
Prosocial motivation and MMW – Meaningful work.
Table 2 presents the discriminant validity using the Fornell and Larker Criterion. The values
indicate the square root of average variance explained (AVE) figures introduced transversely
in the shaded bolded italics. However, the other figures inserted horizontally and vertically
indicate the correlation between the constructs of the study. Based on the results, PM has the
highest square root of AVE at 0.832 above its highest correlation of 0.719 with the other
constructs. In ascending order, the square roots of the AVEs of IM, CSE, MMW and IBC are
above the highest correlation with other constructs at 0.724, 0.741, 0.724 and 0.741,
respectively. Therefore, the discriminant validity was achieved based on the criterion of
Fornell & Larcker (1981).
Table 3: Structural Model Results
Paths Beta Value
(β) Standard Error T-Statistics P-Values Decision
Direct Path
IM -> IBC 0.081 0.052 1.566 0.117 Not Supported
CSE -> IBC 0.336 0.067 5.051 0.000 Supported
PM -> IBC 0.244 0.055 4.425 0.000 Supported
IM -> MMW 0.408 0.056 7.318 0.000 Supported
CSE -> MMW 0.194 0.061 3.181 0.001 Supported
PM -> MMW 0.306 0.059 5.194 0.000 Supported
MMW -> IBC 0.274 0.066 4.150 0.000 Supported
Indirect Specific Effects
IM -> MMW -> IBC 0.112 0.032 3.473 0.001 Supported
CSE -> MMW -> IBC 0.053 0.021 2.482 0.013 Supported
PM -> MMW -> IBC 0.084 0.026 3.190 0.001 Supported
Note: IBC – Teachers’ innovative behaviour, CSE – Creative self-efficacy, PM – Prosocial motivation, IM –
Intrinsic motivation, and lastly MMW – Meaningful work.
Based on data shown in Table 3, the study found the following direct effects. The intrinsic
motivation revealed a negative causal impact on teacher’ innovative behaviour (β=0.081;
t=1.566; and p=0.117). The results also show that the t-statistics and p-value are below and
above the minimum and maximum required threshold of 1.96 and 0.05, respectively.
However, both creative self-efficacy (β=0.336; t=5.051; and p=0.000) and prosocial
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5293
motivation (β=0.244; t=4.425; and p=0.000) have positive and significant direct effects on
teachers’ innovative behaviour. Similarly, meaningful work showed a positive and significant
impact on teachers’ innovative behaviour (β=0.274; t=4.150; p=0.001). Similarly, the study
found that the three motivational mechanisms have a direct positive and significant impact on
meaningful work. This included the effects of intrinsic motivation on meaningful work
(β=0.408; t=7.318; p=0.000), creative self-efficacy on meaningful work (β=0.194; t=3.181;
p=0.001), and prosocial motivation on meaningful work PM (β=0.306; t=5.194; p=0.000). In
conclusion, the results show that all the direct paths have a significant causal influence on
their endogenous constructs, except the path leading IM to IBC (i.e. intrinsic motivation to
teachers’ innovative behaviour).
Conversely, the study found all the three indirect effects are positive and significant.
The intrinsic motivation through meaningful work on teachers’ innovative behaviour is
significant (β=0.112; t=3.473; p=0.001), creative self-efficacy through meaningful work
teaches’ innovative behaviour is significant (β=0.053; t=2.482; p=0.013), and prosocial
motivation through meaningful work on teachers’ innovative behaviour is also significant
(β=0.084; t=3.190; p=0.001). Overall, the findings validate and support the hypothesis that
meaningful work and its relationship with inherent motivation can underlie the innovative
behaviour of teachers.
5. Discussion
In this study, only two motivational mechanisms; creative self-efficacy and prosocial
motivation showed a direct positive impact on teachers’ innovative behaviour compared to
intrinsic motivation. The findings of the present study are consistent with Tierney and Farmer
(2011), and Grant and Berry (2011). The authors observed that individuals have a high level
of belief in their creative ability and the desire to help others. Such individuals are more than
likely to engage in innovative behaviour compared to others who find the job interesting.
Likewise, the findings support the findings of Fidan and Oztürk (2015) that indicated that
intrinsic motivation is not significantly linked to the innovative behaviour of teachers in
public schools.
Moreover, meaningful work was found to mediate the effect of the trio of
motivational mechanisms (i.e. intrinsic motivation, creative self-efficacy and prosocial
motivation) on teachers’ innovative behaviour. When the feeling of meaningfulness or
purpose on the job was high, intrinsic motivation had a significantly stronger influence on
teachers’ innovative behaviour than the direct link between intrinsic motivation and teachers’
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5294
innovative behaviour. Therefore, the results confirm that teachers with a high sense of
purpose or who find their jobs valuable or worthwhile are more likely to have more interest in
the job. Lastly, confidence in the teachers’ creative abilities and the desire to benefit others to
engage in innovative behaviour also feature prominently.
5.1 Theoretical Contribution
The present study has made several noteworthy contributions to the current literature on the
facilitating impacts of meaningful work and the connections between the mechanisms of
motivation and innovative behaviour. First, a theoretical contribution was made by evaluating
the mutual effects of the three motivational mechanisms on innovative behaviour using
teachers in an educational sphere. The present study also explored whether any of the three
motivational mechanisms contributed significantly to the innovative behaviour of teachers.
Consequently, the authors replied to the researchers demand to observe the degree to which
the three mechanisms of motivation influence the creative and inventive work results (Liu et
al. 2016). Although previous studies have examined how one or a few motivational
mechanisms may encourage individuals at work to exhibit higher levels of creativity and
innovative behaviour. These studies explored the roles of intrinsic motivation (de Jesus et al.
2013), rewards (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012), and creative self-efficacy (Newman et al. 2018)
among others. However, the present study is the first to examine whether the three
motivational mechanisms mutually affect individuals involved in additional innovative work.
Secondly, previous studies have demonstrated that the different motivational
mechanisms are valid for specific ground-breaking behaviour (Devloo et al. 2015). However,
existing studies are yet to examine the significance of stimulating meaningful work among
individuals that exhibit high degrees of creative self-efficacy, prosocial motivation, and
intrinsic motivation. This could be achieved through optimum levels of innovativeness or
commitment to innovative behaviour. Therefore, the present study addressed this challenge
by initially testing the multiple tools of motivation and their connections to forecast the
innovative behaviour of the teachers. As such, the present study identified the critical factors
at the specific levels that nurture the conception along with the presentation of novel concepts
within the teacher’s job roles. Hence, this allows researchers to also respond to the calls of
scholars to take on additional tasks on the mediation variables, which affect the linkage
amongst motivational mechanisms and innovative behaviour (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5295
Lastly, the present study also considerably validates the literature on educational
management by instituting the motivational factors that nurture innovative behaviour among
teachers. Building on the research that examines the direct influence of intrinsic motivation
on teachers’ innovative behaviour (Klaeijsen et al. 2018), the present paper recommends the
immediate consideration of the meaning and purpose teachers attach to their jobs. This
viewpoint is crucial when determining the effectiveness of internal motivational mechanisms,
as this is prospective and hence it is better not to assume it is generally important for all
teachers.
5.2 Practical Contribution
Organisations are consistently calling for individuals to be innovative in their job roles.
Considering that monetary rewards are not readily available, particularly in the public sector,
schools, policymakers, stakeholders and researchers are eager to distinguish the mechanisms
that can effectively boost teachers’ innovative behaviour. The outcomes from the present
study serve as a tool to provide information to practitioners and researchers about the profuse
attributes of creative self-efficacy, prosocial motivation, and intrinsic motivation towards
innovative behaviour. Schools can draw on the insights from the componential theory of
creativity and innovation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016), social cognitive model (Bandura, 2011)
and prosocial motivation (Grant & Berry, 2011) to propose mediation policies to fuel all the
motivational mechanisms. This study also recommends that encouraging job autonomy is
effective in stimulating intrinsic motivation. However, the existence of interesting or
multifaceted jobs can practically increase creative self-efficacy while providing supportive
leadership that can enable prosocial motivation. This is because teachers will prospectively
and positively respond to the support and reassurances provided by the administrators of the
school. Ultimately, this notion will initiate imaginative solutions and discover opportunities
identified within the teaching jobs. Therefore, the degree to which these factors can favour
innovative behaviour are measured, so school administrators are encouraged to keep track of
the changes in teachers’ motivation.
5.3 Limitations and Recommendations
Several limitations must be addressed in future research. First, although we adopted similar
techniques reported in previous literature for data collection and eliminated any prejudices
likely to impact on the overall results, it is suggested that future research might consider
gathering data from multiple sources to evaluate the innovative behaviour of teachers and the
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5296
principals. Secondly, the study is cross-sectional; hence the oversimplification of the results
makes it difficult to establish causation. Accordingly, it is suggested that future research
should deliberate on performing a parallel survey to evaluate the motivational mechanisms
and their impacts on teachers’ innovative behaviour over some time. Likewise, since the
study was performed in Federal Colleges in North-Eastern, Nigeria, this could limit the
potential to generalise the results. Therefore, it is recommended that future research accounts
for further segments of the Nigerian society. Moreover, future research could consider
examining other variables such as psychological empowerment or extrinsic motivational
factors to add credence to the findings. In conclusion, future research could also re-examine
the outlined restrictions, simultaneously performing experimental studies on the connection
between motivational mechanisms and the innovative behaviour of teachers in the Nigerian
context.
6. Conclusions
The present study examined whether meaningful work mediates the motivational mechanisms
and the innovative behaviour of teachers. Therefore, this study recommended that if
meaningful work is high, the consequence of the three motivational mechanisms on teachers’
innovative behaviour will be stronger. The findings submit that school administrators are
responsible for providing a conducive work environment where teachers can attach meaning,
purpose, and significance to their jobs. Such conditions could inspire teachers with high
intrinsic motivation, creative self-efficacy, and prosocial motivation to engage in innovative
behaviour. Lastly, the conditions can encourage the teachers to exploit and identify
opportunities, initiate new ideas, and implement novel strategies for active learning.
7. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest.
8. Funding
The authors state that no financial assistance was received for the study or publication of the
article.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5297
9. References
Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S. & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative
work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement.
Career development international, 17(3), 208-230.
Ahmadi, S., Nami, Y. & Barvarz, R. (2014). The relationship between spirituality in the
workplace and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 114, 262-264.
Allan, B. A., Dexter, C., Kinsey, R. & Parker, S. (2018). Meaningful work and mental health:
job satisfaction as a moderator. Journal of Mental Health, 27(1), 38-44.
Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential theory of creativity. Harvard Business School, 12(96),
1-10.
Amabile, T. M. & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity.
The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3-15.
Amabile, T. M. & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and
innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183.
Bailey, C. & Madden, A. (2016). What makes work meaningful-or meaningless? MIT Sloan
Management Review, 57(4).
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A. (2011). Social cognitive theory. Handbook of social psychological theories,
2012, 349-373.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65-122): Elsevier.
Benefiel, M., Fry, L. W. & Geigle, D. (2014). Spirituality and religion in the workplace:
History, theory, and research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(3), 175.
Bhaduri, S. & Kumar, H. (2011). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to innovate: tracing the
motivation of ‘grassroot’innovators in India. Mind & Society, 10(1), 27-55.
Binnewies, C. & Gromer, M. (2012). Creativity and innovation at work: The role of work
characteristics and personal initiative. Psicothema, 24(1), 100-105.
Bos-Nehles, A., Renkema, M. & Janssen, M. (2017). HRM and innovative work behaviour:
A systematic literature review. Personnel review, 46(7), 1228-1253.
Byron, K. & Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of
theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological bulletin, 138(4), 809.
Cartwright, S. & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining
employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human resource management review,
16(2), 199-208.
Chatchawan, R., Trichandhara, K. & Rinthaisong, I. (2017). Factors affecting innovative
work behavior of employees in local administrative organizations in the South of
Thailand. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 4(3), 154-157.
Cherry, K. (2016). What is intrinsic motivation. About. com Psychology retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5245a9c6e4b038b5cbe9a684/t/5990decd893fc0
867d8aba46/1502666445285/What+Does+Intrinsic+Motivation+Mean%3F.pdf.
Cook, D. A. & Artino, A. R. (2016). Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary
theories. Medical education, 50(10), 997-1014.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5298
de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W. & Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and
creativity related to product: A meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990–
2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80-84.
De Jong, J. & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and
innovation management, 19(1), 23-36.
Devloo, T., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A. & Salanova, M. (2015). Keep the fire burning:
Reciprocal gains of basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and innovative work
behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(4), 491-
504.
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A. & Barlow,
C. Y. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified
perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 26(5), 597-608.
Fidan, T. & Oztürk, I. (2015). The relationship of the creativity of public and private school
teachers to their intrinsic motivation and the school climate for innovation. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 905-914.
Forgas, J. P., Williams, K. D., Laham, S. M. & Von Hippel, W. (2005). Social motivation:
Conscious and unconscious processes (Vol. 5): Cambridge University Press.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics: SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los
Angeles, CA.
Geldenhuys, M., Laba, K. & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and
organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 01-10.
Gorozidis, G. & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers' motivation to participate in training
and to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1-11.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.
Academy of management review, 32(2), 393-417.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy
in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of applied
psychology, 93(1), 48.
Grant, A. M. & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention:
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of
management journal, 54(1), 73-96.
Grigorenko, E. L. (2019). Creativity: a challenge for contemporary education. Comparative
Education, 55(1), 116-132.
Hackman, J. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology, 11(3), 445.
Hair, J., Black, W. & Babin, B. (2010). Anderson. RE, 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis.
New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
Heckhausen, J. & Heckhausen, H. (2018). Motivation and action: Introduction and overview
Motivation and action (pp. 1-14): Springer.
Hoole, C. & Bonnema, J. (2015). Work engagement and meaningful work across
generational cohorts. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1-11.
Hughes, M., Rigtering, J. C., Covin, J. G., Bouncken, R. B. & Kraus, S. (2018). Innovative
behaviour, trust and perceived workplace performance. British Journal of
Management, 29(4), 750-768.
Isaksen, J. (2000). Constructing meaning despite the drudgery of repetitive work. Journal of
humanistic Psychology, 40(3), 84-107.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5299
Itri, J. N., Bruno, M. A., Lalwani, N., Munden, R. F. & Tappouni, R. (2019). The Incentive
Dilemma: Intrinsic Motivation and Workplace Performance. Journal of the American
College of Radiology, 16(1), 39-44.
Jaekel, T. (2017). Innovative Behavior and Prosocial Motivation of Russian Civil
Servants. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP, 9.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn't hurt to ask… But sometimes it hurts to believe: Polish
students' creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 5(2), 154.
Kaur, K. D. & Gupta, V. (2016). The Impact of Personal Characteristics on Innovative Work
Behaviour: An Exploration into Innovation and Its Determinants amongst Teachers.
The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(3/11), 158-172.
Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M. & Martens, R. (2018). Teachers’ innovative behaviour: the
importance of basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and
occupational self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5),
769-782.
Lazaroiu, G. (2015). Work motivation and organizational behavior. Contemporary Readings
in Law and Social Justice, 7(2), 66.
Li, Y. & Bai, X. (2015). Creating for others: An experimental study of the effects of intrinsic
motivation and prosocial motivation on creativity. Advances in Psychological
Science, 23(2), 175-181.
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S. & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of
employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the
creativity literature. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 137,
236-263.
Lockwood, N. (2010). Motivation in today’s workplace: The link to performance. Research
Quarterly, Society for Human Resource Management, Berea, OH.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and
performance. International journal of management, business, and administration,
14(1), 1-6.
Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N. & Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative
performance: Moderating effects of creative self‐efficacy, reward importance, and
locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 59-74.
Messmann, G. & Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for
innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human
Resource Development International, 15(1), 43-59.
Messmann, G. & Mulder, R. H. (2014). Exploring the role of target specificity in the
facilitation of vocational teachers’ innovative work behaviour. Journal of
occupational and organizational psychology, 87(1), 80-101.
Messmann, G. & Mulder, R. H. (2015). Reflection as a facilitator of teachers' innovative
work behaviour. International Journal of Training and Development, 19(2), 125-137.
Messmann, G., Mulder, R. H. & Palonen, T. (2018). Vocational education teachers’ personal
network at school as a resource for innovative work behaviour. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 30(3), 174-185.
Miner, J. B. (2015). Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and
leadership: Routledge.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5300
Nawrin, R. (2018). Mediating role of meaningful work between resources and work
engagement in Bangladesh’s private banks. Management & Marketing, 13(1), 777-
795.
Newman, A., Herman, H., Schwarz, G. & Nielsen, I. (2018). The effects of employees'
creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: The role of entrepreneurial leadership.
Journal of Business Research, 89, 1-9.
Ng, T. W. & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and
creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social–cognitive theory
perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 101(1), 14.
Nijenhuis, K. (2015). Impact factors for innovative work behavior in the public sector: the
case of the Dutch Fire Department. University of Twente.
Peters, R. S. (2015). The concept of motivation: Routledge.
Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P. & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017). Antecedents, moderators, and
outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 134-142.
Pradhan, S. & Jena, L. K. (2019). Pradhan, S., & Jena, L. K. (2019). Does Meaningful Work
Explains the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Innovative
Work Behaviour?. Vikalpa, 44(1), 30-40.
Pratt, M. G. & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work.
Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, 309, 327.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Sagnak, M. & Kuruöz, M. (2017). Authentic Leadership and Altruism: The Mediating Role
of Meaningfulness. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 447-452.
Scott, S. G. & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 580-
607.
Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., Van der Heijden, B. I. & Farrell, M. (2017). Organizational
climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of
innovative work behavior. Journal of vocational behavior, 100, 67-77.
Shea-Van Fossen, R. J. & Vredenburgh, D. J. (2014). Exploring differences in work's
meaning: An investigation of individual attributes associated with work orientations.
Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 15(2), 101.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
Academy of management journal, 39(2), 483-504.
Steger, M. F. & Dik, B. J. (2010). Work as Meaning: Individual and Organizational Benefits
of Engaging in Meaningful Work.
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J. & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and
meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337.
Steger, M. F., Littman-Ovadia, H., Miller, M., Menger, L. & Rothmann, S. (2013). Engaging
in work even when it is meaningless: Positive affective disposition and meaningful
work interact in relation to work engagement. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(2),
348-361.
Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T. & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining
teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research,
85(3), 430-471.
Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative
performance over time. Journal of applied psychology, 96(2), 277.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5301
Wang, X. & Dass, M. (2017). Building innovation capability: The role of top management
innovativeness and relative-exploration orientation. Journal of Business Research, 76,
127-135.
Wong, K. K.-K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.
Yidong, T. & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative
work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of business ethics,
116(2), 441-455.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 5302