Related resources
Search for item elsewhere
University researcher(s)
Academic department(s)
THE BEHAVIOURAL INNOVATION PROCESS MODEL: A CRITICAL, CONSTRUCTIVE EVALUATION OF THE INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR LITERATURE AND A WAY FORWARD.
[Thesis]. Manchester, UK: The University of Manchester; 2020.
Access to files
-
Â
FULL-TEXT.PDFÂ (pdf)
Abstract
The present thesis examined the individual level innovative work behaviours that facilitate the development, promotion, and implementation of innovative ideas. The thesis entails a systematic literature review of the innovative work behaviour literature, which critically evaluated the empirically tested models of innovative work behaviour. This review identified that existing models of innovative work behaviour sub-optimally describe the theoretical content of the construct of innovative work behaviour, due to including construct irrelevant content (Creativity, Innovative performance), and under-representing the construct’s theoretical domain. Furthermore, the corresponding psychometric measures have also been negatively impacted by the sub-optimal conceptualisation, whereas scale development studies have used only a sub-section of the available scale development methodologies. To address the theoretical limitations of the existing models of innovative work behaviour, the present thesis developed the Behavioural Innovation Process model (M-BIP). The M-BIP adopts an explicit behavioural orientation, and presents a comprehensive synthesis of the empirical literature, enriched by relevant inter-disciplinary knowledge. The M-BIP adopts the widely accepted three stage conceptualisation of innovative work behaviour, but further extends the construct by introducing seven behaviourally focused activities, describing the behaviours involved in the facilitation of the objectives of the three stages (The development, promotion, and implementation of the innovative idea). Two empirical studies were designed to empirically test the M-BIP. Study 1 (n = 294) detailed the development of the psychometric measure, the assessment of its psychometric properties, and a qualitative assessment of items’ ability to elicit construct relevant participants’ responses. Results indicated that the a priori hypothesised factorial structure of the M-BIP was supported, the M-BIP converged as hypothesised to Holman et al. (2012) measure of innovative work behaviour, and was a positive predictor of self-report innovative outcomes. Moreover, the qualitative evaluation of the M-BIP items indicated that they successfully captured the construct’s content. Study 2 findings (n = 861) provided further support on the M-BIP’s hypothesised factorial structure, supported the M-BIP’s measurement invariance, and discriminance against the construct of Personal Initiative, and used multi-source data to support the convergence of the measure in relation to the De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) measure of innovative work behaviour. Furthermore, the M-BIP’s was shown to be a positive predictor of supervisor rated innovative outcomes. Finally, Study 2 assessed how the M-BIP is positioned within the established nomological network of innovative work behaviour, by examining its relationships with three variables; supervisor support, job control, and openness to experience. Results confirmed 10 out of 12 hypotheses, indicating that the M-BIP largely complies with the empirical literature.