The effect of innovative work environment on the innovative work behavior of employees

Abstract

The study aims to examine the effect of an innovative work environment on the innovative work behaviour of employees. To broaden the concept of the study, related literature was reviewed. The study used a descriptive assessment and correlational research design and the population of the study was all employees from the two colleges (DWCL and DWCV). The data was gathered through research questionnaires and used inferential statistics to analyze the data. The study found that the innovative work environment and innovative work behaviour are high but not very high. The ANOVA result suggests that there is a significant correlation between an innovative work environment and the innovative work behaviour of employees. It recommends that nurturing innovative work behaviour is to nurture an innovative workplace. The study recognizes its limitation and recommends further investigation concerning different dimensions of innovative work environments and their effect on work performance.

Full text

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 12(3)(2023) 140-158
* Corresponding author. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9693-1541
© 2023 by the authors. Hosting by SSBFNET. Peer review under responsibility of Center for Strategic Studies in Business and Finance.
https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v12i3.2467
The effect of innovative work environment on the innovative work
behavior of employees
Damianus Abun (a)* Libertine Gertrude R. Macaspact (b) Elita B. Valdez (c)
Fredolin P. Julian (d)
(a,d) Ph.D., Professor, School of Business and Accountancy, Divine Word College of Laoag, Philippines
(b) Ph.D., Professor, School of Arts, Sciences and Education, Divine Word College of Laoag, Philippines
(c) Ed.D., Professor, School of Education, Divine Word College of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Vigan City, Philippines
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 10 February 2023
Received in rev. form 16 April 2023
Accepted 24 April 2023
Keywords:
Innovative, Innovation, Work
Environment, Work Behaviour
JEL Classification:
O15
A B S T R A C T
The study aims to examine the effect of an innovative work environment on the innovative work
behaviour of employees. To broaden the concept of the study, related literature was reviewed. The
study used a descriptive assessment and correlational research design and the population of the study
was all employees from the two colleges (DWCL and DWCV). The data was gathered through research
questionnaires and used inferential statistics to analyze the data. The study found that the innovative
work environment and innovative work behaviour are high but not very high. The ANOVA result
suggests that there is a significant correlation between an innovative work environment and the
innovative work behaviour of employees. It recommends that nurturing innovative work behaviour is
to nurture an innovative workplace. The study recognizes its limitation and recommends further
investigation concerning different dimensions of innovative work environments and their effect on work
performance.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee SSBFNET, Istanbul, Turkey. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Introduction
We are living in the era of information technology and the current technology that we enjoy is the fruits of invention and innovation,
we might assume that innovation is growing higher and faster. Compared to life before the introduction of the internet, cellphones,
social media, and other kinds of technology, the current life is far better and that is the fruit of the invention and innovation of the
previous generation. If we look into the history of innovation cycles, innovation started 250 years ago and has evolved into six waves.
According to Neufeld and Ma (2021), innovation has gone through six waves. The first wave (before 1845 or around 1873) was the
innovation of water, power, textile, and irons. It takes 55 years to move into a second wave which involves innovation along with
steam, rail, and steel. Then it took 50 years to enter into the third wave of innovation in electricity, chemicals, and Internal-
Combustion engines. The fourth wave was the innovation of Petrochemicals, Electronics, and Aviation and this happened after 40
years. The fifth wave is the innovation of Digital networks, Software, and New Media and this took place after 30 years. Now we are
entering into the six waves of innovation which involve digitization (AI, Robots, Drones, cleantech) and this takes 25 years. What is
next after 1-20 years? The cycles indicate that the speed of innovation is going to be faster and faster in the following years.
The rate of innovation has been linked to economic transformation or economic growth as pointed out by Schumpeter (1942) in his
view about creative destruction which argues that incessant product and process innovation mechanisms play a major role in the
macroeconomic performance. The speed of innovation of one country reflects its economic development. Indirectly Schumpeter
(1942) is stating that no innovation means no economic transformation or development. Thus, the key to economic development is
innovation. However, though we are seeing innovations everywhere at different rates and scales, studies suggest otherwise, that the
Research in Business & Social Science
IJRBS VOL 12 NO 3 (2023) ISSN: 2147-4478
Available online at www.ssbfnet.com
Journal homepage: https://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
141
rate of innovation has been declining. Huebner (2005) pointed out that the rate of innovation peaked in the year 1873 and now is
rapidly declining and there is no sign of reversing it back. The same study indicated that “we are at an estimated 85% of the economic
limit of technology, and it is projected that we will reach 90% in 2018 and 95% in 2038”. The decline of innovation is also
documented by Bloom, et al. (2020) since 1965, showing the declining trend of innovation. Those findings might be true in the West
in the case of America as pointed out by Cowen (2011) as he argued that the golden entrepreneurial and innovation age is behind it
because in general business dynamics have been growing at a lower rate. However, the story shows another look into Asian countries
as compared to Latin America. Asian Countries show an encouraging trend in terms of innovation as pointed out in the study,
particularly in East Asia and South-East Asia (Qureshi, et al. 2016). While the West is in a declining trend but Asia and the Pacific
are in a rising trend.
The need for innovation is not only in a particular industry but across sectors of industry including education. Since the environment
is dynamic and fast-changing in terms of market and technology, educational institutions have no choice except to adapt to new
changes in the environment. In-demand skills for a future job are changing which means that what we teach and how we teach today
and tomorrow is different. What works today will not work tomorrow. Rapid digitization that is taking place across industries requires
a rapid shift in educational concentration (Marr, 2022). Serdyukov (2017) pointed out that the primary focus of educational
innovations should be on teaching and learning and practising and the learner, parents, community, society, and culture. The challenge
posed by Serdyukov (2017) is how to create a base for large-scale innovations and their implementation, and how to increase the
effectiveness of technological innovations, particularly online learning. OECD (2016) pointed out that educational institutions today
are running up against very serious problems, if not touched, which could result in serious problems not only for education itself but
for economic growth, social progress, and well-being. OECD (2016) then points out areas to be given serious attention to educational
innovations such as digitalization, digital practice, and digital skills, which involve integrating ICT in teaching and learning that
requires teachers and students to be digitally oriented.
The current trend in innovation and the demand for educational innovation requires educational institutions to review educational
policies and practices which demand changes in leadership and management practices. Educational leadership must particularly
revisit their management and leadership approach to encourage an innovative environment. Wang (2021) studied the effect of the
work environment on employees' innovative work performance. The study found that the dynamics of the work environment affect
the individual innovative work performance. A similar study was also conducted by Shah, et al. (2022) to determine the influence of
the workplace on the innovative work behaviour of employees and it also confirmed that the workplace is a strong predictor of
innovative work behaviour.
The purpose of the current study is to examine the presence of an innovative work environment in the Divine Word College of Laoag
and its effect on the innovative work behaviour of employees. The output of the study will help the management to revise the policies
and management and leadership practices that promote an innovative work environment. There have been no studies yet related to
the current study and to fill the gap, the current study is conducted. The study is divided into several parts. The first part is the
introduction or rationale that explains the reason and the purpose of conducting the study. The second part is the literature review
which presents the literature that discusses the current topic. The purpose is to deepen the understanding of the concepts and establish
the theories of the study. The third part is the research methodology which explains the research design, population, locale of the
study, data administration, research instruments, and statistical treatment of data.
Literature Review
The purpose of the literature review is to deepen the understanding of the main concepts or theories of the current topic related to
innovation, work environment, innovative work environment, and innovative work behaviour.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
The Concept of Innovation and Its Contribution to Development and Quality
The concept of innovation has been misunderstood by many including researchers. The word has been wrongly associated with other
related terms such as creativity and invention. To understand the concept of innovation, the definition of different terms must be
presented. As a common reference, the dictionary can help us to differentiate the difference between the words to help us understand
the whole concept of this paper. Merriam-Webster (n.d) defines creativity as “the ability to create” which means producing something
new into existence that previously has not existed. The definition is similar to the definition of the invention. Invention is the ability
to produce something new or to “produce for the first time through the use of the imagination or ingenious thinking and experience”.
While innovation refers to “a change made to an existing product, idea, or field” (Merriam-Webster, n.d). Thus, innovation is not the
creation or invention of something new that has not been in existence. Based on the definition given by the dictionary, it is obvious
that creativity and innovation are interrelated because innovation can only happen if there is creation or invention in the first place
(Amabile (1988). It is just a different way of doing something better (Redding, et al. 2013). In terms of the scope of innovation, it is
not limited to tangible products (cellphones, computers, etc) but it encompasses all kinds of services and procedures or methods of
carrying out the task as indicated by the definition of West and Farr (1990, p. 9) who define innovation as “the intentional introduction
and application within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption,
designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or wider society”. This definition suggests that innovation is

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
142
the function of individual employees and the organization as a whole. Therefore, the challenge is to change the organizational
environment where individual employees or groups can generate ideas and turn those ideas into innovation.
As we have pointed out earlier in the introduction about the relationship between innovation and economic development and quality
of service or products. Innovation has been the main driver behind the economic growth and the success of any business organization
(Tohidi & Jabbari, 2012) and can help the business gain its competitive advantage (Cocco & Quttainah, 2015). This is emphasized
by Acar, et al (2018) that creativity and innovation are the foundation of an organization’s competitive advantage. Innovation is also
behind quality service and products (Gobeli & Brown, 1993). This is also true in the education sector which requires continuous
innovation to deliver a quality output of education (Rubalcaba, 2022). However, innovation is not something isolated from other
factors of the organization, particularly a conducive organizational environment that promote creativity and innovation. This has
been pointed out by Acar, et al. (2018) that there are factors that constrain innovativeness such as rules and regulations, deadlines,
and scarce resources. Thus, it is important for management to eliminate the constraints that hinder the development of creativity and
innovation (Amabile, 1996; Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Damanpour, 1991). It is a reality that constraints are always present in every
organization, therefore the duty of management is to reduce or eliminate those constraints to allow creativity and innovation to
flourish (Acar, et al. (2018).
As pointed out by the definition of West and Farr (1990), the scope of innovation is not limited to tangible products but includes new
ideas about processes or methods. Therefore, the application of innovation is not limited to manufacturing industries but applies to
all kinds of services like education or banking industries. In education, innovation comes in many forms a new pedagogic theory,
methodological approach teaching techniques, instructional tools, and learning processes, services that enhance the better output of
student learning (Serdyukov, 2017). Educational innovation can include instructional strategy or delivery systems such as the use of
new learning technology. Beyond technology, educational innovation includes introducing new ideas and simply solving old
problems to promote equity and improve learning as pointed out by Unicef (n.d). The purpose of educational innovation is to produce
a quality output of learning in the form of quality graduates. Halasz (2021) pointed out that innovations that are created by teachers
or schools play an important role in improving the quality and effectiveness of education. Teachers must find ways to improve their
teaching strategy to deliver their content to the students and therefore creativity and innovativeness are important skills to be acquired
by all teachers (Halasz, 2021). However, as we have pointed out earlier that innovation is a dependent variable that depends on the
organizational environment (Osborne, 2016). Thus, educational institutions must provide an environment in which the teachers are
allowed to introduce their way of doing things/deliver their instructions.
Work Environment
The issue of work environment and productivity have been the concern of management and researchers since the 1900s. It was
recognized that the work environment is a significant predictor of productivity. However, the concept of the work environment was
not too clear at the beginning. In the beginning, the work environment was referred to as a physical work environment which led to
the improvement of office setups including lighting. However, improvements in the physical environment and task structure were
not affecting much productivity which led to a shift of attention toward task performance and human relations. The work environment
was seen as a composition of task and human relations or social relations within the workplace. The study of Elton Mayo (1930) at
the Western Electric Company plant in Hawthorne, Illinois, on the effects of the physical work environment on workers’ performance,
as cited by Smith (1987) led to a further shift in the work environment concept toward human psychological needs. The study
suggested that employees' satisfaction and productivity increased by just the improvement of the physical environment and the salary
but by the mere fact that employees are given attention. When the employees perceived that they are being observed and attended to
by their employers, their performance increases. Then this result led to a broader investigation into workplace relationships. In the
1950s and 1960s, the concept of work environment extended to include communications and conflict within the workplace, and then
the concern was to improve cooperation among organizational members (Walden, 2004). Based on this historical development, the
definition of work environment varies from one researcher to another researcher. Raziq and Maulabakhsh (2015) defined work
environment as the “interrelationship of employees in their workplace”. This definition refers to only one aspect of the environment
which is human relations. Salunke (2015) defines it as "the physical aspect of a workplace". Again, this definition refers to the
physical aspects of the work environment which affect job satisfaction, health, concentration, and productivity. While, Kohun (1992)
defined it as “the bridge between the employees and the workplace” which refers to the setting, situation, condition, or circumstances
where employees perform their job.
As we have pointed out above, the work environment has been given serious attention by the management and the researchers because
of its contribution to the organization's success. In recent years, many studies have been conducted concerning the effect of the work
environment on job performance and those studies have found positive correlations. Demus, et al (2015), Jayaweera (2015), Al-
Omari and Okasheh (2017), and Rachman (2021) found a positive correlation between the work environment and job performance.
Raziq and Maulabakhsh (2015), and Agbozo, et al. (2015), Taheri, et al (2020), also found a positive effect of the work environment
on job satisfaction. While Pandey (2017) found a significant correlation between work environment and employees’ productivity,
Kamanja (2019) found a positive effect on work engagement. There are still many more studies related to the influence good work
environment on employees' performance, satisfaction, and productivity pointing out similar findings. These findings suggest that the
work environment can affect employees' work behaviour. Therefore, the management needs to give serious attention to improving

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
143
the work environment. A negative work environment may hinder employees’ job performance and result in the organization’s failure
to achieve its objective.
Innovative Work Environment
As we have defined and explained the work environment, we need to define and explain the concept of an innovative work
environment. Both, work environment and innovative work environment are two concepts that need to be differentiated. Work
environment refers to the physical and psychological work environment as we have discussed earlier in this paper. An innovative
work environment refers to a specific environment that allows innovative ideas and behaviours to operate. To understand the concept
as a whole, we need to review some studies related to the innovative work environment. There are several studies conducted by
different researchers concerning the effect of an innovative work environment on job satisfaction like that of Mckinnon et al. (2003)
and Zhou et al. (2005), Berson, Oreg, and Dvir (2008) which found to be significantly correlated, but unfortunately, these studies
have not defined what innovative work environment means. The concept must be defined to identify its special characteristics and
differentiate it from the concept of the work environment because both are different in terms of their characteristics. We can adopt
some definitions offered by different experts on the subject matter of an innovative work environment. Rogovskiy (2021) defines an
innovative work environment as “the kind of work environment that encourages its employees to embrace unorthodox thinking rather
than discouraging them from it”. He then argues that nurturing an innovation-friendly culture means putting the status quo aside and
challenging typicality to create something new. Definition of Rogovskiy (2021) refers innovative work environment as an
organizational climate that is innovation-oriented. Organizational climate is something that every member of the organization feels
or perceives and experiences in the organization (Litwin (1968). It is an organizational climate that is oriented toward innovation.
Innovation orientation means that knowledge workers believe that their innovative ideas are appreciated or encouraged (Xu, et al.
2022). According to Johannessen and Olsen (2011) only within a friendly organizational climate, do organizational members trust
each other and it makes it easy to cooperate among members and make it easier to share knowledge and consequently generate new
ideas. As Khan (1990) pointed out further that trusting relationship enables knowledge workers to dare and try new ideas and new
affairs. An innovation-orientated organization that is supported by trust relationships allows knowledge workers to apply their
innovative ideas and behaviours to achieve organizational objectives.
Research has found that within a friendly organizational climate, stress is reduced and improves the satisfaction and work
commitment of knowledge workers (Farr & West, 1991). Within such as environment, innovative work behaviour is encouraged and
it allows knowledge workers to innovate because they believe that innovative ideas and innovative behaviours are encouraged or
supported. As Farr and West (1991) pointed out that innovation-oriented organization has a significant impact on knowledge workers’
psychological state. Hennessey and Amabile (1998) found that when facing psychological threats and pressure, the tendency is to be
defensive and not to show innovative behaviours. It is along such finding Hennessey and Amabile (1998) pointed out that intrinsic
motivation is very crucial for individuals to generate creativity and innovation.
The influence of innovative organizational culture on performance has been one of the interests of the researchers. Studies have been
conducted measuring the effect of innovative organizations on organizational performance or employees’ performance. Ur Rehman,
et al. (2019) conducted a study on the effect of innovative organizational culture and organizational learning on organizational
performance and the study found that innovative culture and organizational learning are significantly correlated which suggests that
changing the bureaucratic environment into an innovative environment is important to increase organizational performance. A similar
study was conducted by Aboramadan, et al. (2020) on the effect of organizational and marketing innovation on business performance
and the study found that organization and marketing innovation affect significantly business performance. In terms of the effect of
organizational culture, and innovation on the employees’ performance, Naranjo-Valencia, et al (2016) also found a significant
influence of innovation culture on the employees’ performance.
Work Behaviour and Innovative Work Behaviour
Work behaviour is one of the key dimensions of performance management. The organization can achieve its organizational objectives
when the work behaviours of employees are congruent with the task and the objective of the organization. Therefore, the management
needs to manage work behaviour and define what kind of work behaviours are required to accomplish the task and achieve
organizational objectives. A clear concept of work behaviour is then necessary. Concerning the concept of work behaviour,
researchers have not come up with a common concept. However, reading some available research, shows that, there is always
common ground to understand work behaviour. Campbell (1990) classified work behaviour according to its influence on
organizational performance and then we have productive and counterproductive work behaviour. One on hand, productive work
behaviour is related to work behaviours that are task-related and contribute to performance. On the other hand, counterproductive
work behaviour is concerning work behaviours that are not task-related and harm the individuals, organization, and organizational
objectives as a whole (Motowidlo, 2003, 48). In a similar vein, Murphy (2004) classified work behaviour according to its impact on
the organization and so we have behaviours that are closely related to a task, human relations, and destructive behaviour. Based on
those concepts that we have presented, then it is understood that work behaviours are behaviours that are related to tasks which are
categorized as productive and counterproductive behaviour. Work behaviours are not isolated from personality and work
environmental issues. Landis (2015) pointed out that personality has a strong influence on work behaviour and career success as he
argued that a person can perform well if there is a fit between personality and the job, the team, and the overall organization. This is

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
144
also emphasized by Barrick, et al (2013) that traits and job characteristics explain work behaviours and work outcomes. Concerning
the influence of the work environment on innovative work behaviour, Wang (2021) found that the dynamics of the work environment
affect innovative work behaviour and performance.
After we have understood the concept of work behaviour, then now we understand what innovative work behaviour means. De
Spiegelaere, et al. (2014) define innovative work behaviour as “the behaviours that are aimed at the generation, introduction and the
application of ideas, processes, products, procedures, new and intended to benefit the relevant unit of adoption”. In this regard, it is
understood that innovative work behaviour is not just innovative work behaviour without any purpose but it is work behaviour that
serves the purpose of the organization. de Jong and Den Hartog (2008) identified four dimensions of innovative work behaviour
namely opportunity exploration (paying attention to issues that are not part of daily work and wondering how things can be improved),
idea generation (searching out new working methods, techniques or instruments, generate original solutions for problems, find new
approaches to execute tasks), championing ( make important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas, attempt to
convince people to support an innovative idea) and application (systematically introduce innovative ideas into work practices,
contribute to the implementation of new ideas, and put the effort in the development of new things).
Just like work behaviour is not isolated from the organizational environment, it is the same with innovative work behaviour. It is the
effect of other factors of the organization such as leadership and work environment. Zhang, et al. (2021) studied the effect of
transformational leadership styles and innovative work behaviour of employees and their study found that there is a positive
correlation between the two variables. Earlier, Sharifirad (2013), Tangrukwaraskul, and Kulchanarat (2018) conducted a similar
study and found that transformational leadership is not only affecting innovative work behaviour but is also affecting employees'
well-being. In terms of the influence of the work environment on innovative work behaviour, Shah, et al (2022) studied the effect of
workplace learning on innovative work behaviour and their study concluded that workplace learning is significantly correlated to
innovative work behaviour.
Conceptual Frameworks
Independent Variables Dependent Variables
Figure 1: The conceptual frameworks explain the purpose and the content of the study. It aims to determine the correlation
between the innovative work environment and the innovative work behaviour of employees; Source: Australian Government
(2022) De Jong & Den Hartog. (2008).
The study aims to examine the effect of an innovative work environment on the innovative work behaviour of employees. It
specifically seeks to answer the following questions:
i. What is the innovative work environment of the Divine Word College of Laoag in terms of
a. Leadership
b. Work practices that support innovation
c. Promoting innovation
d. Physical environment
e. Providing learning opportunities
ii. What is the innovative work behaviour of employees in terms of
a. Opportunity exploration
b. Idea generation
c. Championing
d. Application of ideas.
iii. Is there a relationship between an innovative work environment and innovative work behaviour?
Assumption
The study assumes that an innovative work environment influences the innovative work behaviours of employees and they can be
measured.
Innovative Work Environment:
- Leadership
- Work Practices that support innovation
- Promote Innovation
- Physical Environment
- Provide Learning opportunities
Innovative Work Behavior:
- Opportunity exploration
- Idea generation
- Championing
- Application of new idea

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
145
Hypothesis
Shah, et al (2022) studied the effect of workplace learning on innovative work behaviour and they found a correlation between the
two variables, Rosdaniati and Muafi (2021) studied the effect of workplace happiness on innovative work behaviour and they found
that workplace happiness is a significant predictor to innovative work behaviour. Thus, the current study hypothesizes that an
innovative work environment affects the innovative work behaviour of the employees.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The study limits its investigation of the effect of an innovative work environment to five dimensions namely leadership, work
practices that support innovation, promoting innovation, physical environment, learning opportunities, and innovative work
behaviour in terms of four dimensions namely opportunity exploration, idea generation, championing and application of ideas. The
population is limited to all employees of Divine Word College of Laoag.
Research Methodology
As required by scientific research, research needs to follow the prescribed procedures or research methodology. Following such
requirements, the current research is following a specific method of investigation. Wilkinson, (2000), and Leedy, (1974) opined that
research methodology is an established process for conducting the inquiry. It applies certain methods to determine, select, and analyze
the data related to the concerned topic, Therefore, the current study applies certain methods of investigation such as research design,
data gathering instruments method, the population of the study, the locale of the study, data gathering procedures, and the statistical
treatment of data.
Research Design of the study
The research design of the study is the descriptive assessment and descriptive correlational research design. Ariola (2006) argued
that a descriptive correlation study is intended to describe the relationship among variables without seeking to establish a causal
connection. While descriptive research is simply to describe a population, a situation, or a phenomenon. It is also used to describe
profiles, frequency distribution, describe characteristics of people, situations, or phenomena. In short, it answers the question of what,
when, how, where, and not why question (McCombes, 2020).
The Locale of the Study
The locale of the study was Divine Word College of Laoag and Divine Word College of Vigan. These colleges are located in Laoag
City, the capital of Ilocos Norte and Vigan City, Ilocos Sur.
Population
The respondents of the study are the employees of the colleges. Since the number of employees is limited, the total enumeration
sampling was used and thus all faculty and employees from the college were taken as respondents to the study.
Data Gathering instruments
The study adopted validated questionnaires by the Australian Government (2022) on the innovative environment, and de Jong and
Den Hartog (2008) on innovative work behaviour (IWB).
Data Gathering Procedures
To preserve the integrity of scientific research, the data were gathered after the approval of the Presidents of the college. The
researcher sent a letter to the president and after the letter was approved, the questionnaires were distributed by the researcher's
representative. Then the researcher's representative from the college collected the data and submitted it to the researcher for
tabulation.
Ethical Procedures
The study was carried out after the research ethics committee examined and approved the content of the paper if it does not violate
ethical standards and if it does not cause harm to human life and the environment.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To analyze the data, a descriptive and inferential statistic was used. The weighted mean was used to determine the level of innovative
leadership style, innovative knowledge and skills, and innovative work behaviour of employees, and the Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was used to measure the correlation between innovative work environment and innovative work behaviour.

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
146
The following ranges of values with their descriptive interpretation will be used:
Statistical Range Descriptive Interpretation
4.21-5.00 strongly agree/ Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree / High
2.61-3.40 somewhat agree/ Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low
Data Presentation and Analysis
This part presents the data that were gathered through research questionnaires. The data are presented according to the statement of
the problems.
Problem 1: What is the innovative work environment of the Divine Word College of Laoag in terms of
i. Leadership
ii. Work practices that support innovation
iii. Promoting innovation
iv. Physical environment
v. Providing learning opportunities
Table 1: Innovative Work Environment In Terms Of Leadership
Innovative Work Environment
Mean
DI
Indicators
Leadership
1
Makes Innovation an integral part of leadership and management activities.
4.02
A/H
2
Demonstrate positive reception of ideas from others and provide constructive advice
4.04
A/H
3
Establish and maintain a relationship based on mutual respect and trust
4.08
A/H
4
Take considerate risks to open up opportunities for innovation
4.04
A/H
5
Regularly evaluate own approaches for consistency with the wider organizational
context
3.98
A/H
Composite Mean
4.03
A/H
Source: Australian Government (2022)
Based on the data presented in the table, reveals that as a whole, the innovative work environment obtained a composite mean rating
of 4.03 which is interpreted as "agree/high". The mean rating indicates that as a whole, the innovative work environment is not very
high and it is not also very low, low or moderate but it is high. Even if the indicators are taken singly, they are all rated within the
same level mean range. Employees agree that innovation is an integral part of leadership (4.02), a positive reception of ideas coming
from others (4.04), a mutual relationship based on respect and trust (4.08), and allowances for employees to take a risk for innovation
(4.04) and regular evaluation of approaches for consistency (3.98).
Leadership always plays an important role in setting the tone for organizational culture as suggested by Helbig (2022) as he argued
that “effective leaders understand the power of strong workplace culture and they prioritize it daily”. The same idea is also
emphasized by Arnett, et al. (2017) when they discussed the role of leadership in setting the tone for a positive work environment.
Their views suggest that leaders must create an environment where employees are allowed to be innovative and must start from
themselves. They should set an example in terms of innovative behaviour that employees can learn and imitate.
Table 2: Innovative Work Environment Along With Work Practices That Support Innovation
Indicators
Innovative Work Environment
Mean
DI
Work Practices that support Innovations
1
Consult and establish working conditions that reflect and encourage innovative practice.
3.97
A/H
2
Introduce and maintain workplace procedures that foster innovation and allow for
rigorous evaluation of innovative ideas
3.97
A/H
3
Facilitate and participate in collaborative work arrangements to foster innovation
3.97
A/H
4
Build and lead teams to work in ways that maximize opportunities for innovation
3.99
A/H
Composite Mean
3.98
A/H
Source: Australian Government (2022)
As suggested by the data in the table, it shows that as a whole, innovative work environment along with workplace practices gained
a composite mean rating of 3.98 which is considered as “agree or high”. The mean rating indicates that as a whole the innovative
work environment of the Divine Word College of Laoag and Vigan concerning work practices is not very high and it is not also very

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
147
low, low or moderate but it is high. Even when the indicators are taken separately, they all are assessed with the same level of mean
rating. Employees agree that working conditions encourage innovative practices (3.97), rigorous evaluation of innovative ideas
(3.97), collaborative work arrangements to foster innovation (3.97), and maximization of opportunities for innovation (3.98).
An innovative workplace is one of the key factors contributing to organizational performance. Studies have been conducted related
to this concern and studies suggested that creating innovative workplace culture is important to achieve organizational objectives
(Oeij & Vass, 2016, Stoffers, et al., 2021, Taneseb & Park, 2020). It is along this concern, Serrat (2009) suggested harnessing
creativity and innovation in the workplace is the role of leadership. Leaders must establish working conditions that encourage
innovative practices, innovative ideas. Serrat (2009) pointed out further that creativity is the heart of human endeavour because,
without it, there will be no progress.
Table 3: Innovative Work Environment in Terms of Promoting Innovation
Innovative Work Environment
Mean
DI
Indicators
Promoting innovation
1
Acknowledge suggestions, improvements and innovations from all colleagues
4.08
A/H
2
Find appropriate ways of celebrating and promoting innovation
4.05
A/H
3
Promote and reinforce the value of innovation according to the vision and objectives of
the organization
4.05
A/H
4
Promote and support the evaluation of innovative ideas within the wider organizational
context
4.07
A/H
Composite Mean
4.06
A/H
Source: Australian Government (2022)
As gleaned from the data, it manifests that as a whole innovative work environment in terms of promoting innovation in the workplace
received a composite mean of 4.06 with the interpretation of "agree/high". This demonstrates that as a whole the innovative work
environment in terms of promoting innovation is not very high and it is not also very low, low or moderate but it is high. Even if the
indicators are taken singly, they all are rated within the same level of mean rating with the same interpretation as “agree/high”.
Employees agree that there is an openness to suggestion from all colleagues (4.08), celebration or appreciation for promoting
innovation (4.05), reinforcement of values for innovation (4.05), and evaluation of innovative ideas within the wider organizational
context (4.07).
Studies have been conducted by different researchers concerning the effect of promoting innovation in the workplace on
competitiveness. These studies came to the same conclusion that promoting innovation in the workplace is one of the keys to
achieving a competitive advantage for the organization (Quaye & Mensah, 2019, Dogan, 2016, Clark & Guy, 1998). It is related to
promoting innovation, Clark and Guy (1998) suggested the management to introduce policies that encourage advances in science
and technology.
Table 4: Innovative Work Environment Concerning The Physical Environment
Innovative Work Environment
Mean
DI
Indicators
Physical environment
1
Evaluate the impact of the physical environment concerning innovation
3.96
A/H
2
Collaborate with colleagues about ideas for enhancing the physical work environment
before taking actions
4.03
A/H
3
Consider the potential for supporting innovation when selecting physical resources and
equipment
4.00
A/H
4
Design, fit-out and decorate workspaces to encourage creative mindsets, collaborative
working and the development of positive workplace relationship
3.98
A/H
Composite mean
4.00
A/H
Source: Australian Government (2022)
An innovative work environment is not limited to leadership practices, work practices and promoting innovation through policies, it
includes the physical environment. Along with the physical environment, the data appears that as a whole, the innovative work
environment along with the physical environment obtained a composite mean of 4.00 which is considered as "agree/high". The mean
indicates that as a whole the innovative work environment in terms of the physical environment is not very high and it is not also
very low, low or moderate but it is high. Even if the items are taken separately, all items are rated within the same level of mean
rating with the same interpretation of "agree/high". Employees agree that the physical environment supports innovation (3.96), there
is a process of selecting physical resources and equipment that support innovation (4.00) and designing, and decorating workspaces
to encourage creative mindsets, collaborative working and the development of positive workplace relationships (3.98).
The importance of workplace physical setups to innovation has been studied by several researchers. For example, Moultrie et.al
(2007) pointed out the importance of physical setups that support innovation as they argued that physical setups should reflect the

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
148
firm's strategic intention toward innovation and provide a physical embodiment of their desired modes of working. The same
recommendation was also given by Oksanen and Stahle (2013) that the physical environment should enable collaborative learning
and reflect value orientation that is directed toward innovation.
Table 5: Innovative Work Environment Related to Providing Learning Opportunities
Innovative Work Environment
Mean
DI
Indicators
Providing learning opportunities
1
Pro-actively share relevant information, knowledge and skills with colleagues
3.93
A/H
2
Provide or encourage formal and informal learning opportunities to help develop the
skills needed for innovation
3.99
A/H
3
Create opportunities in which individuals can learn from the experience of others
3.98
A/H
Composite mean
3.96
A/H
Overall Mean
Leadership (4.03), Work practices (3.98), promoting innovation (4.06), Physical
environment (4.00), and Providing learning opportunities (3.96).
4.00
A/H
Source: Australian Government (2022)
An innovative work environment also provides learning opportunities. As gleaned from the data, it reveals that as a whole, an
innovative work environment along with providing learning opportunities gained a composite mean of 3.96 which is translated as
"agree/high". The mean rating suggests that as a whole innovative work environment in terms of providing learning opportunities is
not very high and it is not also very low, low or moderate but it is high. Even when they are taken separately, they all are rated within
the same level of mean rating with the interpretation of "agree/high". The employees agree that the environment is proactively sharing
relevant information (3.93), providing formal and informal learning opportunities (3.99), and creating opportunities in which
employees can learn from the experience of others (3.96).
An organization that provides learning opportunities for its employees can help employees advance their knowledge and skills related
to their job which consequently improves performance (Tenney, 2020). According to Tenney (2020) one of the key features of the
learning environment is an alignment between business strategies and professional development through training. A study by
Lehtonen et al., (2022) on the effect of workplace learning opportunities on job satisfaction and turnover intention suggested that the
two variables are significantly correlated. The study recommends that people can leave the organization when they are not growing
and satisfied.
The overall mean rating for the innovative work environment is 4.00 which is interpreted as "agree/high". This is supported by a sub-
variable mean rating along with leadership (4.03), work practices (3.98), promoting innovation (4.06), physical environment (4.00),
and providing learning opportunities (3.6). The 4.00 mean rating suggests that the innovative work environment of the school or
institution is not very high and it is not also very low, low or moderate but it is high.
Problem 2: What is the innovative work behaviour of employees in terms of
i. Opportunity exploration
ii. Idea generation
iii. Championing
iv. Application of ideas
Table 6: Innovative Work Behaviour in Terms of Opportunity Exploration
Innovative Work Behavior
Mean
DI
Indicators
Opportunity exploration
1
I pay attention to issues that are not part of my daily work
3.69
A/H
2
I wonder how things can be improved
4.08
A/H
Composite mean
3.88
A/H
Source: De Jong and Den Hartog (2008)
In consistency with learning opportunities is opportunity exploration. It requires the employees to discover opportunities and take
advantage of the opportunities to help the organization achieve its objectives. Based on the data, it shows that as a whole innovative
work behaviour of employees obtained a composite mean rating of 3.88 which is understood as "agree/high". This mean rating
suggests that as a whole innovative work behaviour of employees is not very high and it is not also very low, low or moderate but it
is high. Even if the items are taken singly, they all are rated within the same mean level with the same interpretation as "agree/high”.
Employees agree that they also pay attention to issues that are not part of their job descriptions (3.69), and think about how to improve
things (4.08).
Opportunity exploration refers to the search for new ideas, methods or approaches to perform a task or to solve problems that are
different from the usual way (Ngugi, 2021, Benitez, et al., 2018). The study by Tu, et al. (2022) found that when employees have the

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
149
opportunity exploration behaviour, the sustainable development of the company can be achieved or maintained and objectives can
be achieved. The study by Matejun (2018) also found that opportunity exploration behaviour affects the competitive advantage of
the company.
Table 7: Innovative Work Behaviour Along With Idea Generation
Innovative work behaviour
Mean
DI
Idea generation
1
I search out new working methods, techniques or instruments
4.16
A/H
2
I generate original solutions for problems
4.08
A/H
3
I find new approaches to executing tasks
4.14
A/H
Composite mean
4.12
A/H
Source: De Jong and Den Hartog (2008)
Innovative work behaviour always originated from innovative ideas; therefore, idea generation is one of the dimensions of innovative
work behaviour. Creativity and innovation cannot be separated from idea generation (Mmehta, et al, 2014). Without idea generation,
there will be no innovative work behaviour (Effendy & Sukmarani, 2021). Based on the data, it shows that as a whole, the innovative
work behaviour of the employees along with idea generation received a composite mean rating of 4.12 which is understood as
'agree/high". This implies that employees' innovative work behaviour concerning idea generation is not very high and it is not also
very low, low or moderate but it is still high. Even when they are taken singly, they all are rated within the same level of mean rating
with the same interpretation as "agree/high". The employees agree that they search out new working methods (4.16), generate new
solutions to problems (4.08), and find new approaches to execute the task (4.14).
Idea generation leads to creativity and innovation and it is an assurance for growth and development (Mehta, et al, 2014). Cerne, et
al., (2022) pointed out that a typical innovation process in an organization always begins with idea generation, individual creativity
and useful ideas.
Table 8: Innovative Work Behaviour Concerning Championing
Innovative Work Behaviour
Mean
DI
Championing
1
I make important organizational members enthusiastic about innovative ideas
4.03
A/H
2
I attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea
4.03
A/H
Composite mean
4.03.
A/H
Source: De Jong and Den Hartog (2008)
Championing innovative ideas and supporting innovative ideas is one of the key elements of organizational success. Concerning this
concept, the data reveals that as a whole innovative work behaviour employees concerning idea championing obtained a composite
mean of 4.03 which is interpreted as "agree/high". This suggests that as a whole innovative work behaviour of employees concerning
championing is not very high and it is not also very low, low or moderate but it is high. Even if the indicators are taken separately,
all are rated within the same level of mean rating with the same interpretation. The employees agree that they make important
organizational members enthusiastic about innovative ideas (4.03) and convince people to support innovative ideas.
The role of a leader in creating an environment that supports innovative work behaviour is important. Amabile and Khaire (2008)
pointed out that in today's economy which is driven by innovation, it is important to have managers who understand the importance
of innovative ideas and how to generate great ideas. Anderson, et al. (2014) argued that creativity and innovation are vital for
organizational success. Creating an environment that enhances creative innovative ideas is an integral part of the leadership role
(Kaziol-Nadolna, 2020).
Table 9: Innovative Work Behaviour Related to The Application
Innovative work behaviour
Mean
DI
Indicators
Application
1
I systematically introduce innovative ideas into work practices
4.03
A/H
2
I contribute to the implementation of new ideas
4.03
A/H
3
I put the effort into the development of new things
4.08
A/H
Composite mean
4.06
A/H
Overall Mean
Opportunity exploration (3.88), Idea generation (4.12), Championing (4.03),
Application of ideas (4.06)
4.00
A/H
Source: De Jong and Den Hartog (2008)
Championing innovative ideas is important; however, the application of ideas is equivalently important because application translates
innovative ideas into a tangible product or service. Related to this element, the data shows that as a whole innovative work behaviour

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
150
concerning the application of innovative ideas gained a composite mean rating of 4.00 which is understood as "agree/high". The such
mean rating indicates that as a whole employees' innovative work behaviour in terms of the application of ideas is not very high and
it is not also very low, low or moderate but it is high. Even when the items are taken singly, they all are rated within the same level
of mean rating. The employees agree that they systematically introduce innovative ideas into work practices (4.03), contribute to the
implementation of new ideas (4.03), and exert effort to develop new ideas (4.08).
Innovation is so crucial for an organization's competitiveness and development. Since it is so important for organizational
development, thus, the organizational environment must allow employees' autonomy to apply their innovative ideas. As pointed out
by Reisinger and Fetterer (2021) that it is not flexibility that employees want but it is autonomy. The study by Burcharth, et al (2017)
suggested that the economic performance of different firms is associated with autonomy in which the firms provide employees with
time, freedom and independence to apply their ideas in their own work.
The overall mean rating for innovative work behaviour is 4.00 which is the same as an innovative work environment. This is
supported by its sub-variable mean ratings along with opportunity exploration (3.88), idea generation (4.12), championing (4.03),
and application of ideas (4.06). This concludes that the innovative work behaviour of the employees of the school is not very high
and it is not also very low, low or moderate but it is high.
Problem 3: Is there a relationship between an innovative work environment and innovative work behaviour?
Table 10: Innovative Work Environment & Opportunity Exploration
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.739a
.547
.533
.48274
a. Predictors: (constant), providing learning opportunities, leadership, physical environment, promoting innovation, work
practices that support innovation
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
48.867
5
9.773
41.940
.000b
Residual
40.548
174
.233
Total
89.415
179
a. Dependent variable: opportunity exploration
b. Predictors: (constant), provıdıng learnıng opportunities, leadership, physical environment, promoting innovation, work
practices that support innovation
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
.924
.234
3.952
.000
Leadership
.307
.132
.287
2.320
.021
Work practices that support
innovation
.228
.140
.221
1.637
.103
Promoting innovation
-.380
.112
-.376
-3.394
.001
Physical environment
.392
.095
.428
4.111
.000
Providing learning
opportunities
.200
.103
.194
1.953
.052
a. Dependent Variable: Opportunity Exploration
The innovative work environment of DWCL in terms of leadership, work practices that support innovation, promoting innovation,
physical environment, and providing learning opportunities when taken together could significantly predict the employees' innovative
work behaviour along opportunity exploration, F (5, 180) = 41.940 p <.01 with .739 overlap between these predictor variables and
opportunity exploration.
Specifically, leadership B = .307 p <.05, promoting innovation B = -.380 p <.01, and physical environment B = -.392 p < .01, .924
quantified the Y-intercept of the regression equation.
Therefore, the innovative work environment factors of leadership, work practices that support innovation, promoting innovation,
physical environment, and providing learning opportunities could significantly predict the opportunity exploration of the DWCL
employees.

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
151
However, when the innovative work environment factors were considered singly, only leadership, promoting innovation, and physical
environment could significantly predict the employees' innovative work behaviour in terms of opportunity exploration.
Therefore, the variations in the DWCL employees' innovative work behaviour as regards opportunity exploration are attributed to
the innovative work environment of leadership, promoting innovation, and the physical environment.
Table 11: Innovative Work Environment & Championing
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.705a
.496
.482
.42992
a. predictors: (constant), providing learning opportunities, leadership, physical environment, promoting innovation, work practices
that support innovation
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
31.703
5
6.341
34.304
.000b
Residual
32.161
174
.185
Total
63.864
179
a. Dependent Variable: Idea Generation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Providing Learning Opportunities, Leadership, Physical Environment, Promoting Innovation, Work
Practices
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
1.499
.208
7.202
.000
Leadership
.309
.118
.342
2.627
.009
Work practices that support
innovation
-.142
.124
-.163
-1.147
.253
Promoting innovation
.026
.100
.031
.263
.793
Physical environment
-.014
.085
-.018
-.163
.871
Providing learning
opportunities
.478
.091
.547
5.236
.000
a. Dependent Variable: Idea Generation
The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicate that when the innovative work environment factors of leadership, work
practices that support innovation, promoting innovation, physical environment, and providing learning opportunities when taken
jointly could significantly predict the DWCL employees' innovative work behaviour in terms of idea generation, F (5,180) = 34.304
p < .01 with .705 overlap between these predictor variables and idea generation.
However, when these different innovative work environment factors were considered singly only leadership B = .309 p < .01, and
providing learning opportunities B = .478 p < .01, 1.499 quantified the Y-intercept of the regression equation.
Thus, leadership, work practices that support innovation, promote innovation, physical environment, and provide learning
opportunities taken together could significantly predict the DWCL employees' innovative work behaviour in terms of idea generation.
Meanwhile, when these innovative work environment factors were considered singly, only leadership and providing learning
opportunities could predict the idea generation of the employees.
Hence, the differences observed in the employees' innovative work behaviour in terms of idea generation are due to the variations
noted in the innovative work environment of leadership and providing learning opportunities.

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
152
Table 12: Innovative Work Environment & Application
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.740a
.548
.535
.39517
a. Predictors: (Constant), Providing Learning Opportunities, Leadership, Physical Environment, Promoting Innovation, Work
Practices That Support Innovation
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
32.911
5
6.582
42.151
.000b
Residual
27.171
174
.156
Total
60.082
179
a. Dependent Variable: Championing
b. Predictors: (Constant), Providing Learning Opportunities, Leadership, Physical Environment, Promoting Innovation, Work
Practices
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
1.469
.191
7.679
.000
Leadership
-.107
.108
-.123
-.992
.323
Work practices that support
innovation
.320
.114
.377
2.801
.006
Promoting innovation
.047
.092
.057
.516
.606
Physical environment
-.015
.078
-.020
-.196
.845
Providing learning
opportunities
.401
.084
.473
4.775
.000
a. Dependent Variable: Championing
When the different innovative work environment factors such as leadership, work practices that support innovation, promoting
innovation, physical environment, and providing learning opportunities are taken together, they could significantly predict the
employees' innovative work behaviour in terms of championing, F (5,180) = 42.151 p <.01 with .740 overlap between these predictor
variables and championing.
Particularly, work practices that support innovation B = .320 p < .01 and providing learning opportunities B = .401 p < .01, 1.469
quantified the Y-intercept of the regression equation.
Thus, when leadership, work practices that support innovation, promote innovation, physical environment, and provide learning
opportunities are taken together they could significantly predict the employees' innovative work behaviour championing.
However, when the predictor variables were taken singly, only the predictor variables work practices that support innovation and
provide learning opportunities that could significantly predict the DWCL employees' innovative work behaviour in terms of
championing.
Hence, the differences recorded in the employees' innovative work behaviour of championing are due to the differences they
experienced along work practices that support innovation, and provide learning opportunities.
The innovative work environment factors such as leadership, work practices that support innovation, promoting innovation, physical
environment, and providing learning opportunities when taken together could significantly predict the DWCL employees' innovative
work behaviour of an application, F (5,180) = 39.393 p <.01 with .729 overlap between the predictor variables and application.
However, when the predictor variables were taken singly, only the innovative work environment of providing learning opportunities
B = .481 p <.01, 1.493 quantified the Y-intercept of the regression equation.
Hence, leadership, work practices that support innovation, promote innovation, physical environment, and provide learning
opportunities taken together could significantly predict the employees' innovative work behaviour in terms of application.
But when the different predictor variables were taken singly, only the factor providing learning opportunities can predict the
innovative work behaviour of the employees as to application.

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
153
Therefore, the variations observed in the employees' innovative work behaviour in terms of application are attributed to the
differences they experienced in the innovative work environment of providing learning opportunities.
Table 13: Innovative Work Environment & Application
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.729a
.531
.517
.41088
a. Predictors: (Constant), Providing Learning Opportunities, Leadership, Physical Environment, Promoting Innovation, Work
Practices
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
33.253
5
6.651
39.393
.000b
Residual
29.376
174
.169
Total
62.629
179
a. Dependent Variable: Application
b. Predictors: (Constant), Providing Learning Opportunities, Leadership, Physical Environment, Promoting Innovation, Work
Practices That Support Innovation
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
1.493
.199
7.505
.000
Leadership
-.160
.113
-.178
-1.419
.158
Work practices that support
innovation
.224
.119
.259
1.886
.061
Promoting innovation
.153
.095
.180
1.600
.111
Physical environment
-.053
.081
-.069
-.654
.514
Providing learning
opportunities
.481
.087
.556
5.512
.000
a. Dependent Variable: Application
Result and Discussion
The study aims to determine the effect of an innovative work environment on the innovative work behaviour of the employees. The
results of the study found that innovative work environments affect significantly the innovative work behaviour of the employees.
This result recommends that management needs to improve the work environment by introducing policies that allow employees to
be innovative and creative. Innovative work behaviour has been defined as the contribution of individual employees or groups within
the organization to introduce new products, services, tasks or work-related ideas to contribute to the overall innovativeness and
produces desirable outcomes (Farrukh, et.al., 2021). These are sets of behavioural tasks that help employees develop, promote and
implement new and innovative ideas (Farrukh, et.al., 2023).
Innovative work behaviour is not just an individual desire but is also a product of the work environment. As Shah, et al., (2022)
pointed out that nurturing innovative work behaviour is necessarily nurturing workplace learning. In other words, innovative work
behaviour will not happen unless the workplace allows innovative learning where employees are allowed to exercise creative and
innovative ideas. Workplace learning can improve competencies and skills and finally help innovative work behaviour. This is the
role of leadership which allows employees to explore opportunities, generate ideas and apply their new ideas to improve products or
services (Coun, et al., 2021).
No one can deny the significant effect of innovative work behaviour on organizational performance. The result of different studies
has indicated that innovative work behaviour contributes significantly to business performance (Jankelova, et al.,2021, Lyndon, et
al., 2018, Shanker, et al., 2017, Leong & Rasli, 2013). These studies recommend that management needs to introduce policies that
encourage innovative work behaviour of the employees as suggested by Soleas (2020) as he argued that leaders should focus on
issues that encourage curiosity, and interest and if they use rewards, should focus their strategies to give related rewards. Without it,
it could risk the innovative behaviour of employees.

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
154
Conclusion
Based on the purpose and the statement of the problem of the study, the study concludes that the innovative work environment and
innovative work behaviour of the employees are considered high but not very high. As indicated by the Analysis of variance, the
study concludes that an innovative work environment could predict significantly the innovative work behaviour of the employees.
Therefore, one of the main roles of the management is to introduce policies that allow employees to exercise their innovative ideas
and innovative behaviour. Autonomy and empowerment are important.
The study recognizes its limitation because it limits its investigation only to two colleges with a limited population. The next study
may include other colleges to reflect the comprehensive picture of the innovative work environment and innovative work behaviour
of Divine Word Colleges.
Acknowledgement
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.A., L.R.M. E.B.V. F.P.J. Methodology, D.A., L.R.M. E.B.V. F, P.J. Data Collection: D.A., L.R.M.
E.B.V. Formal analysis: D.A., L.R.M., F.P.J. Writing—original draft preparation: D.A., L.R.M. E.B.V. F.P.J. Writing—review and editing: D.A.,
L.R.M. F.P.J. E.B.V.
All authors have read and agreed to the published final version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, and the research does not deal with vulnerable
groups or sensitive issues.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly
available due to privacy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding: The study is funded partially by the school.
References
Aboramadan, M., Albashiti, B., Alharazin, H., & Zaidone, S. (2020). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: a study
from a non-western context. Journal of Management Development, 39(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-06-2019-0253
Acar, O. A., Tarakci, M. & van Knippenberg, D. (2018). Creativity and Innovation Under Constraints: A Cross-Disciplinary
Integrative Review. Journal of Management, 45(1), 96–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318805832
Agbozo, G.K., Owusu, I.S., Hoedoafia, M.A. & Atakorah, Y.B. (2015). The Effect of Work Environment on Job Satisfaction:
Evidence from the Banking Sector in Ghana. Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 12-18.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jhrm.20170501.12
Al-Omari, K. & Okasheh, H. (2017). The Influence of Work Environment on Job Performance: A Case Study of Engineering
Company in Jordan. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(24), 15544-15550.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-
167
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
Amabile, T.M. & Khaire, M. (2008). Creativity and the Role of the Leader. Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from https://hbr.org
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review,
Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–
1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
Ariola, M.M. (2006). Principles and Methods of Research. Manila: National Bookstore
Arnett, R., Burchett, C., & Steward, K.L. (2017). Setting the Tone: Some Guidelines for Creating a Positive Work Environment.
Retrieved from https://www.somc.org/content/uploads/2017/09/SettingtheTone.pdf
Australian Government (2022). Build and Sustain an Innovative Work Environment. Retrieved from
https://training.gov.au/TrainingComponentFiles/BSB/BSBINN502_R1.pdf
Benitez, J., Llorens, J. & Brajos, J. (2018). How information technology influences opportunity exploration and exploitation firms'
capabilities. Information & Management, 55(4), 508-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.03.001
Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture, and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 29, 615-633. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.499
Burcharth, A., Præst Knudsen, M. and Søndergaard, H.A. (2017). The role of employee autonomy for open innovation
performance. Business Process Management Journal, 23 (6), 1245-1269. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2016-0209
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modelling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In: M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1 (687-732). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
155
Cerne, M., Kase, R. & Skerlavaj, M. (2022). Idea championing as a missing link between idea generation and team innovation
implementation: A situated emergence approach. European Management Journal, 41(1).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.011
Clark, J. & Guy, K. (1998). Innovation and Competitiveness: A Review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(3),
363-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524322
Cocco1, J. & Quttainah, M.A. (2015). Creativity Versus Innovativeness: Exploring the Differences between the Two Constructs
May Lead to Greater Innovation in Large Firms. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(11).
https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n11p83
Coun, M.J.H., Edelbroek, R., Peters, P. & Blomme, R.J. (2021). Leading Innovative Work-Behavior in Times of COVID-19:
Relationship Between Leadership Style, Innovative Work-Behavior, Work-Related Flow, and IT-Enabled Presence
Awareness During the First and Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontier in Psychology, 12,717345.
https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717345
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of
Management Journal, 34: 555-590. https://doi.org/10.2307/256406
de Jong, J. & den Hartog, D. (2008). Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
Demus, A.W., Kindangen, P., & Tielung, M.V.J. (2015). The Impact of Work Environment on Employee Performance. Jurnal
Berkala Ilmiah Efisiensi, 15(5).
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Van Hootegem, G. (2014). Innovatief Werkgedrag als concept: definiëring en oriëntering.
Gedrag & Organisatie, 27(2), 139–156.
Dogan, E. (2016). The Effect of Innovation on Competitiveness. Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sayı, 24, 60-81.
Effendy, G.P. & Sukmarani, S. (2021). The Description of Innovative Work Behavior in Entrepreneurs. Advances in Social
Science, Education and Humanities Research, 655, 1791-1796.
Farr, J.L. & West, M.A. (1991). Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Health Policy,
45(3), 175–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069201300209
Farrukh, M., Ansari, N. Y., Raza, A., Meng, F., & Wang, H. (2021). High-performance work practices do much, but HERO does
more: An empirical investigation of employees' innovative behaviour from the hospitality industry. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2020-0448
Farrukh, M., Meng, F., Raza, A. and Wu, Y. (2023). Innovative work behaviour: the what, where, who, how and when. Personnel
Review, 52(1), 74-98. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2020-0854
Gobeli, D.H. & Brown, D.J. (1993). Improving the Process of Product Innovation. Research-Technology Management, 36(2), 38-
44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24128311
Halasz, G. (2021). Measuring innovation in education with a special focus on the impact of organizational characteristics.
Hungarian Educational Research Journal 11(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1556/063.2021.00032
Helbig, B. (2022). Here’s How Good Leaders Set the Tone for Success. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://jobs.washingtonpost.com
Hennessey, B.A. &T. M. Amabile, T. M. (1998). The reality, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. American Psychologist, 53 (6),
674-675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.6.674
Huebner, J. (2005). A Possible Declining Trend for Worldwide Innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(8),
980-986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003
Jayaweera, T. (2015). Impact of Work Environmental Factors on Job Performance, Mediating Role of Work Motivation: A Study of
Hotel Sector in England. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3).
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n3p271
Jenkelova, N., Joniakova, J., & Misun, J. (2021). Innovative Work Behavior—A Key Factor in Business Performance? The Role of
Team Cognitive Diversity and Teamwork Climate in This Relationship. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(4).
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040185
Johannessen, J.A. & B. Olsen, B. (2011). Projects as communicating systems: creating a culture of innovation and
performance. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 30–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.04.006
Kamanja, D. M., Ogolla, D. & Gichunge, E. (2019). Influence of Work Environment on Employee Engagement Among Central
Government Ministries in Kenya, A Case of Meru County. Journal of Management, 6(4).
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 33 (4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
Kozioł-Nadolna, K. (2020). The Role of a Leader in Stimulating Innovation in an Organization. Administrative Sciences, 10, 59.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci1003005
Kohun S (1992). Business Environment. Ibadan: University Press Kyko OC (2005). Instrumentation: Know Yourself and Others
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2003) 3rd editions. Essex: Harlow Pearson Educational Limited.
Landis, B. D. (2015). Personality and Social Networks in Organizations: A Review and Future Directions. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. United States: Wiley.

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
156
Leedy, P.D. (1974). Practical research: planning and design. New York: Macmillan
Lehtonen, E.E., Nokelainen, P., Rintala, H. & Puhakka, I. (2022).Thriving or surviving at work: how workplace learning
opportunities and subjective career success are connected with job satisfaction and turnover intention? Journal of
Workplace Learning, 34(1), 88-109. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-12-2020-0184
Leong, C.T. & Rasli, A. (2013). The Relationship between innovative work behaviour on work role performance: An empirical
study. International Conference on Innovation, Management and Technology Research, Malaysia, 22 – 23 September 2013.
Litwin, G.H. & Stringer, R.A. Jr. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business
School.
Lyndon, S., Rawat, P. S., & Varghese, B. S. (2018). Influence of Thriving on Innovative Behavior at Workplace. Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 53(3), 519–528. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26536475
Marr, B. (2022). The Two Biggest Future Trends in Education. Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2022/01/21/the-2-biggest-future-trends-in-education/?sh=6fe69eec2d6f
Matejun, M. (2018). The Process of Opportunities Exploration and Exploitation in the Development of SMES’ Innovativeness.
Management and Production Engineering Review, 9(3), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.24425/119529
Mayo, E. (1930). The Western Electric Company Experiment. Human Factor, 6(1), 1-2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23745146
McKinnon, J. L., Harrison, G. L., Chow C.W., & Wu, A. (2003). Organizational Culture: Association with commitment, job
satisfaction, the propensity to remain, and information sharing in Taiwan. International Journal of Business Studies, 11,
25.
McCombes, S. (2020). Descriptive Research. Scibbr. Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/
Mehta, M., Chnadani, A. & Neeraja, B. (2014). Creativity and Innovation: Assurance for Growth. Procedia Economics and
Finance, 11, 804-811. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00244-5
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Creativity. In the Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/creativity
Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In: W. C., Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds), Handbook of Psychology, vol.
12: Industrial and organizational psychology (39-64). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U.-E., Janssen, S., & Van der Lugt, R. (2007). Innovation Spaces: Towards a
Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 16 (1), 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00419.x
Murphy, K. R. (2004). Assessment in work settings. In: S. N. Haynes & E. M. Heiby (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of
psychological assessment, vol. 3: Behavioural Assessment (346-364). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Publishers.
Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., ,Jiménez, D.J.& Sanz-Valle, R. (2016). Studying the links between organizational culture, innovation, and
performance in Spanish companies. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 48(1), 30-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlp.2015.09.009
Neufeld, D. & Ma, J. (2021). Long Waves: The History of Innovation Cycles. Visual Capitalist. Retrieved from
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-history-of-innovation-cycles/
Ngugi, J.K. (2021). Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Sustainability for ICT Students Towards the Post-COVID-19 Era.
Pennsylvania: IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge.
Nicholas, B., Tarek, H., Aakash, K., Josh, L. & Ahmed, T. (2020). The geography of new technologies. Boston: Institute for New
Economic Thinking. https://doi.org/10.36687/inetwp126
OECD (2016). Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. Paris: OECD
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en.
Oeij, P. & Vaas, F. (2016). Effect of Workplace Innovation on Organizational Performance and Sickness Absence. World Review
of Entrepreneurship Management and Sustainable Development, 2(11), 101-129.
https://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2016.073430
Oksanen, K. & Stahle, P. (2013). Physical environment as a source for innovation: Investigating the attributes of innovative space.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(7), 815-827. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2013-0136.
Osborne, M. (2016). How can an Innovative Learning Environment Promote the Diffusion of Innovation? Core Education.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1123355.pdf
Pandey, P. (2017). The Impact of Work Environment on Employees’ Productivity. Munich, GRIN Verlag,
https://www.grin.com/document/412794.
Quaye, D. and Mensah, I. (2019). Marketing innovation and sustainable competitive advantage of manufacturing SMEs in
Ghana. Management Decision, 57(7), 1535-1553. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2017-0784
Qureshi, I., Park, D., Crespi, G.A., & Bonavente, J.M. (2016). Trends and Determinants of Innovation in Asia-Pacific and Latin
America and the Caribbean. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-
document/575671/ado2020bp-innovation-asia-pacific-latam-caribbean.pdf
Rachman, M. (2021). The Impact of Work Stress and the Work Environment in the Organization: How Job Satisfaction Affects
Employee Performance. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 9, 339-354.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2021.92021.

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
157
Raziq, A. & Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). Impact of Working Environment on Job Satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23,
717-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00524-9
Redding, S., Twyman, J. S., & Murphy, M. (2013). What is an innovation in learning? In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. Twyman
(Eds.), Handbook on innovations in learning (pp. 3–1Ͷ). Philadelphia, PA: Center on Innovations in Learning, Temple
University; Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.centeril.org
Reisinger, H. & Fetterer, D. (2021). Forget Flexibility. Your Employees Want Autonomy. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved
from https://hbr.org
Rogovskiy, V. (2021). How Business Leader Can Foster an Innovative Work Culture. Entrepreneur. Retrieved from
https://www.entrepreneur.com
Rosdaniati, R. ., & Muafi, M. (2021). The influence of workplace happiness and innovative work behaviour on job satisfaction is
mediated by work engagement. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478), 10(7), 186–
198. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i7.1457
Rubalcaba, L. (2022). Understanding Innovation in Education: A Service Co-Production Perspective. Economies 10: 96.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ economies10050096
Salunke, G. (2015). Work Environment and its Effect on Job Satisfaction in Cooperative Sugar Factories in Maharashtra. India.
Abhinav. International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in Management & Technology. 4(5), 21-31.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 3d ed. 1942. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Serrat, O. (2009). Harnessing Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace. Asian Development Bank: Knowledge Solutions, 61.
Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in
Technology & Learning, 10(1), 4-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007
Shah, S.T.H., Shah, S.M.A. & El-Gohary, H. (2022). Nurturing Innovative Work Behaviour through Workplace Learning among
Knowledge Workers of Small and Medium Businesses. Journal of the Knowledge Economy.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-01019-5
Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., der Heijden, B. & Farrell, M. (2017). Organizational climate for innovation and organizational
performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behaviour. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100(3).
https://doi.org/0.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004
Sharifirad, M.S. (2013). Transformational Leadership, Innovative Work Behavior, and Employee Well-Being. Global Business
Perspective, 1, 198-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40196-013-0019-2
Smith, J. H. (1987). Elton Mayo and The Hidden Hawthorne. Work, Employment & Society, 1(1), 107–120.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23745146
Soleas, E.K (2020). Leader strategies for motivating innovation in individuals: a systematic review. Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-00120-w
Stoffers, J., Eringa, K., Niks, J.& Kleefstra, A. (2021). Workplace Innovation and Organizational Performance in the Hospitality
Industry. Sustainability, 13(11), 5847. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115847
Taheri, R. H., Miah, M. S., & Kamaruzzaman, M. (2020). Impact of Working Environment on Job Satisfaction. European Journal
of Business and Management Research, 5(6). https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2020.5.6.643
Taneseb, J.P. & Park, J.J. (2020). Impact of Organizational Innovation on Work Performance: The Mediating Effect of Work
Resources in Public-Sector Organizations. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology,10(3).
https://doi.org/10.30845/ijbht.v10n3p3
Tangrukwaraskul, E. & Kulchanarat, K. (2018). Effect of Transformation Leadership on Innovative Work Behavior. A case study
of Thai Service Provider. Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 7310094, International Institute of Social
and Economic Sciences
Tenney, M. (2020). Why a Learning Culture is so Important for Success. Business Leadership Today. Retrieved from
https://businessleadershiptoday.com
Tohidi, H. & Jabbari, M.M. (2012). The importance of Innovation and its Crucial Role in the Growth, Survival, and Success of
Organizations. Procedia Technology, 1, 535-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.02.116
Tu, P.A., Mai, T.T.H., Van Song, N., Duyen, C.T.L., Phuong, T.T.M., Huyen, V.N., & Ha, T.V. (2022). The Role of Opportunity
Exploration, Exploitation and Corporate Social Responsibilities on Sustainable Manufacturing Business Performance in
Mekong River Delta. Sports Analytics within Sports Economics and Management, 40(1).
Tyler, O. (2011). The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and
Will(Eventually) Feel Better. Dutton: Penguin.
Unicef (n.d). Strengthening Education Systems and Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/education/strengthening-
education-systems-innovation
Ur Rehman, S., Bhati, A. & Chaudhry, N.I. (2019). The mediating effect of innovative culture and organizational learning between
leadership styles at third-order and organizational performance in Malaysian SMEs. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship
Research, 9(36). https://doi.org/0.1186/s40497-019-0159-1
Walden, R. (2004). Work Environments. In Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Amsterdam: ScienceDirect.

Abun et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(3) (2023), 140-158
158
Wang, J. (2021). Research on the Influence of Dynamic Work Environment on Employees’ Innovative Performance in the Post-
Epidemic Era – The Role of Job Crafting and Voice Behavior. Front. Psychol. 12:795218.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.795218
West, M. A., Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In West, M. A., Farr, J. L. (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work:
Psychological and organizational strategies: 3-13. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons
Wilkinson, D. (2000). The Researcher’s Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Practitioner Research. London: Routledge.
Xu, Z., Wang, H. & Suntrayuth, S. (2022). Organizational Climate, Innovation Orientation, and Innovative Work Behavior: The
Mediating Role of Psychological Safety and Intrinsic Motivation. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and
Society, Vol. 2022, Article ID 9067136, 10 pages, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9067136
Zhang, Q., Abdullah, A., Hossan, D & Hou, Z. (2021). The effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behaviour
with the moderating role of internal locus of control and psychological empowerment. Management Science Letters, 11(4),
1267-1276. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.11.012
Zhou, K.Z., Gao, G. Y., Yang, Z., & Zhou N. (2005). Developing strategic orientation in China: Antecedents and consequences of
market and innovation orientation. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1049-1058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.02.003
Publisher’s Note: SSBFNET stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee SSBFNET, Istanbul, Turkey. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) by SSBFNET is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.