Systematic Review of Innovative Work Behavior Concepts and Contributions

Management Review Quarterly
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00224-x
Systematic review of innovative work behavior concepts

and contributions
Hanan S. AlEssa1 · Christopher M. Durugbo1
Received: 16 March 2021 / Accepted: 12 May 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
Abstract
Ensuring survival and success of organizations in dynamic and competitive envi-
ronments requires managers to search for new ways to approach their businesses.
Innovative work behavior (IWB) is a complex behavior of employees that generates,
introduces, and applies innovative ideas. Thus, IWB offers capabilities for retain-
ing competitive advantage and maintaining organizational sustainability. Extensive
body of IWB publication exists and this systematic review contributes to analyzing
the state-of-the-art in research concepts and contributions of the topic. The purpose
of this article is threefold: (i) to provide a systematic analysis of IWB literature, (ii)
to integrate the established IWB management concepts and research contributions
in a multidimensional framework, and (iii) to propose a research agenda for future
IWB studies. The review includes an analysis of the research methodologies and
theories of studies along with the range of investigated regions and industries. Using
insights from this analysis, the review synthesizes sets of IWB factors coalesced in
the multidimensional framework and outlines opportunities for future research stud-
ies that advance IWB practice and scholarship.
Keywords Innovative work behavior · Workplace innovation · Organizational

performance · Systematic review · Proactive personality and work behavior
JEL Classification O32 Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
1 Introduction
Innovative ideas are critical ingredients for organizational survival and success.
Intense competition and global market forces cause companies to seek out innova-
tive ideas for reinventing themselves in order to remain competitive (Wang et al.
* Christopher M. Durugbo
mcmillanod@agu.edu.bh
1
Department of Innovation and Technology Management, Arabian Gulf University, Manama,
Bahrain
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
H. S. AlEssa, C. M. Durugbo
2018; Strobl et al. 2020). Importantly, many organizations consider human dimen-
sions as an intangible asset, if invested in rightly, generates and encourages innova-
tion (Mariz-Perez et al. 2012). For instance, Amazon made the press release and
frequently asked question (PRFAQ) tool popular for employees to propose big ideas
and the results include implemented ideas such as Alexa, Amazon Go and Prime
Now. Similarly, the C-Lab (Creative Lab) at Samsung is an initiative intended to
stimulate innovative work behavior (IWB) that nurtures new business ideas. Accord-
ingly, IWB research and scholarship continues to garner interest and recognition
in an evolving discourse that shifts from previous combinations of personality and
characteristics, outputs, and individual behavior (Hurt et al. 1977; West 1987), to an
output based view of work behavior (De Jong and Den Hartog 2008), and through to
the behavioral approach that underpins contemporary perspectives on IWB research.
While interest in IWB scholarship continues to grow, there is a need for ongoing
systematic reviews analyzing the domain and coalescing the range of academic stud-
ies to aid management decision making and practice. This need is the motivation for
this study.
The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of existing knowl-
edge on IWB management concepts and research contributions, establish linkages
in the literature and identify gaps in knowledge to inform future research studies.
Using the systematic review methodology (Tranfield et al. 2003), the article analy-
ses literature on IWB with a view to offering a comprehensive multidimensional
framework that capture the state-of-the-art in IWB research. Although there are
existing reviews of IWB [e.g. Bos-Nehles et al. (2017), Widmann et al. (2016)], this
review is unique in its focus on the concepts and contributions of IWB studies with
the intention of setting a future research agenda for IWB scholarship.
Although several scholars attempt to define IWB (Linh et al. 2020; Bawuro et al.
2019a; Siregar et al. 2019), the most common definition in the literature is the one
proposed by Janssen (2000) where IWB means the behavior of employees to create,
introduce, and apply new ideas intentionally at work, within a group or an organi-
zation with the intention of contributing to performance. In spite of the common
usage, this definition is somewhat limited as reflected by other definitions that delve
into more details on what exactly IWB entails. For instance, Kanter (1988b), Kessel
et al. (2012) define IWB as a complex, non-routine behavior where employees create
novel ideas while avoiding traditional thinking and challenge superiors and the sta-
tus quo. Similarly, De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) define IWB as a series of behav-
iors concerning the introduction of new ideas that are significant and beneficial for
development and execution with the objective of improving employee performance
and organizational performance. Table 1 provides some key IWB definitions. This
variation underscores the usefulness of integrating different descriptions with the
aim of proposing a more comprehensive definition that better reflects the facets of
IWB. With this in mind and inspired by IWB definitions (Janssen 2000; Messmann
and Mulder 2012; Kessel et al. 2012; De Jong and Den Hartog 2007; De Jong and
Den Hartog 2010; Kanter 1988b; Scott and Reginald 1994; Thurlings et al. 2015),
this review puts forward the following definition for IWB as:
13
Systematic review of innovative work behavior concepts and…
Table 1 Key IWB definitions in literature

IWB definition Source
The behavior of employees to create, introduce and apply new ideas (Janssen 2000)
intentionally at work, within a group or an organization for con-
tributing to performance
The capability of improvement in new ideas relating to the jobs (Axtell et al. 2000)
within organizations
A series of behaviors about the introduction of a new idea that (De Jong and Den Hartog 2007)
is important and useful to be developed and implemented with
the aim of improving employee performance and organizational
performance
The development, adoption, and implementation of new ideas for (Yuan and Woodman 2010)
products, technologies and work methods by employees
A complex, non-routine behavior where employees speak up for new (Kanter 1988b; Kessel et al. 2012)
ideas, avoid traditional thinking and disagree with superiors via
challenging the status quo
The ability to work actively to produce new products, find new (Dhar 2015)
markets, new processes, and new combinations
The process, in which new ideas are generated, created, developed, (Thurlings et al. 2015)
applied, promoted, realized, and modified by employees to benefit
their role performance in organizations
The ability of individuals to generate new ideas and viewpoints, (Escriba-Carda et al. 2017)
which are subsequently transformed into innovation
An individual behavior that intentionally introduces new and useful (Siregar et al. 2019)
ideas, work processes, products and procedures in the workplace
and in the context of modern work. New ideas are needed to
increase significant changes in organizations, for example the cre-
ating of new routines, simplifying work processes, using new work
tools, increasing cooperation both internally and externally
A deliberate approach of employees towards the realization of organ- (Bawuro et al. 2019a)
izational goals and objectives through the creation, managing, and
implementation of novel ideas that will help give the organization
competitive advantage and ensure sustainability
.. a complex self-initiated multi-dimensional behavior where employees inten-

tionally generate, introduce, and apply innovative ideas through critical think-
ing, recognizing potential and existing problems, exploring opportunities and
solutions, identifying performance gaps and seeking new methods and proce-
dures with the purpose of improving organizational performance internally
and externally for creating value, attaining competitive advantage and ensuring
sustainability.
Focused on this definition, this review contributes to the literature of IWB

through a critical analysis of prior literature that synthesizes the findings in a mul-
tidimensional framework. The framework captures management concepts and con-
tributions from prior research and intends to help researchers and decision makers
to get a better understanding of IWB and what influences this behavior. The review
also sheds light on the use of methodologies and theories in IWB studies along
13
with the range of industry sectors and geographical regions investigated by IWB
researchers.
Generally, IWB tends to resemble proactive personality, which concerns dispo-
sitions for engagement that influence their environment, as suggested by Li et al.
(2017). There are also IWB semblances to proactive work behaviors, as futuristic
workplaces entail more of a proactive performance and organizational behavior than
a reactive one, with settings that foster personal initiatives (Frese and Fay 2001).
Here, personal initiatives are consistent with the organization’s mission, long-term
focused, concerned with actions and goals, tenacious in facing barriers, and self-
active (Frese et al. 1996). Thus, research [e.g. Parker and Collins (2010)] notes
that proactive work behavior serves as the premise for individual innovation that
takes charge, voices, and prevents problem. Such individual innovation, along with
team innovation, organizational innovation and innovative climate, provide dimen-
sions for workplace innovation (De Jong 2007; Nisula and Kianto 2016; Dediu et al.
2018).
With initiatives like PRFAQ and C-Lab becoming a commonplace in futuristic
and innovative organizations, this review adds to the discourse on IWB as a key
performance indicator and a basis of the company performance leading to increased
value creation (Nangoy et al. 2019) along with being an asset that enables organiza-
tions to thrive in dynamic business environments (Bysted 2013). IWB also enables
businesses in finding new ways to satisfy targeted customers (Li et al. 2019). Con-
sidering these implications, the rationale for this review is that a multidimensional
framework of IWB concepts and contributions can contribute to better the under-
standing of mechanisms for initiatives that stimulate IWB, decision-making pro-
cesses that enrich IWB in workplaces, and policies that aid in enhancing the overall
innovativeness of organizations and organizational performance. This review also
presents information about IWB in a manageable way that will allow decision mak-
ers to get the most of the up-to-date literature of IWB to make prompt decisions.
The remainder of the article has the following structure. The next section outlines
the review methodology followed by the analysis and synthesis of the review find-
ings. The article then concludes with a discussion of future research opportunities
followed by the overall conclusion.
2 Methodology
This review applies the systematic review approach (Tranfield et al. 2003) and
involves three main stages for collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing review data.
Unlike a related systematic review of individual work performance (Koopmans et al.
2011), this review is unique in its focus on IWB as an intersection of innovation,
creativity and work behavior. With many studies published on IWB, as shown by
Fig. 1, a systematic review offers an opportunity to present the state-of-the-art in
literature and deliver a reliable summary of evidence. The potency of the system-
atic review approach also lies in the ability to provide heaps of information in a
manageable form and shed light on progress concerning IWB scholarship. However,
systematic reviews retain some downsides such as difficulty of data synthesis from
13
Fig. 1 Distribution of IWB articles from year 2000 to 2019 (Scopus 2020)
multiple disciplines, insufficient representation of books, and huge amounts of mate-

rial to review (Pittaway et al. 2004). Despite these challenges, the systematic review
continues to be a useful analysis that provides a full overview of IWB literature and
creates connections between existing knowledge. This is because the method is par-
ticularly efficient for capturing the essence of up-to-date articles and improves the
quality of the review with a detailed comprehensive plan and strategy with mini-
mized bias through identifying, appraising and synthesizing related studies on the
given topic (Uman 2011; Mark and Roberts 2008; Tranfield et al. 2003).
Collecting stage for the review involves a search using the Scopus scientific
search engine database and the reason for choosing this database is that it offers the
most comprehensive database for peer-reviewed publications with facilities for pre-
cise filtering. Scopus has more than 75 million records, 24,600 titles, and 5000 pub-
lishers in a range of fields such as health and science, life sciences, physical sciences
and social science. Scopus generates relatively accurate citation searches and has
powerful analytical tools (Scopus 2020). The search for this review centers on using
the keywords “Innovative work behavior” and “Innovative work behavior” to find
their occurrences in abstracts, the body of the article, or listings as a keyword for
articles. For quality and in line with related reviews of innovation and work [e.g. Liu
et al. (2019a, b)], the review sets inclusion criteria to academic journal publications
in English. Thus, the review excludes conference papers, book chapters, reports and
so on. Setting inclusion and exclusion criteria is a key tenet of the systematic review
and this process produced a total number of articles of 241. Through screening titles
and abstracts for relevance, the data collection process concludes with 211 articles
published between 2000 and 2019, as shown by Fig. 1.
Analyzing stage for the review entails a detailed examination of methodologies,
theories, countries and sectors used in prior research to capture and compare stud-
ies. Results of this analysis aids in distinguishing research approaches, establish-
ing trends, and giving insights into research gaps and potential areas of research.
The aim of the review drives this process for analyzing and creating summaries of
review sources.
13
Synthesizing stage for the review comprises of clustering concepts and contribu-
tions derived from the sample articles. IWB concepts stem from the goals, back-
grounds, and motivations of IWB research studies whereas IWB contributions origi-
nate from examining the findings and recommendations from the IWB literature.
Driven by insights from IWB research concepts and contributions, the review then
critically analyses current IWB scholarship to propose a multidimensional frame-
work and critiques the IWB discourse for a research agenda that sets forth future
research opportunities.
3 Review analysis
This section presents the findings of the analysis to capture the current state of IWB
literature. This analysis takes a closer look at methods used, theories utilized, coun-
tries, and covered sectors.
3.1 Research methods and theories
Although researchers apply different methods, the analysis finds that surveys (187
out of the 211 studies) dominate IWB studies, as shown by Fig. 2. Surveys provide
an avenue to accumulate information using questionnaires that examine IWB man-
agement constructs. Designs for survey focus mainly on cross-sectional and (Abdul-
lah et al. 2015; Bawuro et al. 2019a) longitudinal (Azevedo and Shane 2019; Wid-
mann et al. 2019) approaches. Mixed methods are the next favored methodology (11
out of the 211 studies) and involve integrating at least one quantitative and one qual-
itative method. Examples of mixed methods utilized by IWB scholars are combined
interviews and case studies (Jorgensen et al. 2014), combined surveys, interviews,
Fig. 2 Breakdown of IWB literature methodologies
13
and case studies (Piansoongnern 2016), and combined diaries and surveys (Madrid
et al. 2014). In some studies, researchers prefer to use interviews solely (6 out of
the 211 studies) as methodology. Other methodologies (7 out of the 211 studies) in
the study include meta-analysis (Lee and Qomariyah 2015), comparative analysis
(Posthuma 2011), and conceptual analysis (Siregar et al. 2019; Cerne et al. 2018;
Palazzeschi et al. 2018).
In support of these methodologies, researchers adopt different theories to inform
investigations, as outlined by the Appendix. Social theories are the most common
used theories in IWB studies with social exchange theory, which hypothesizes value
generation as conditional on social interaction, applied in more than half of studies
using social theories (e.g. Ghosh et al. 2019; Supriyanto 2019). The next favored
sets of theories are motivation-based and postulate on ways to motivate employ-
ees with the intention of achieving desired outcomes and performances. Motiva-
tional theories tend to relate to aversion or desire and include broaden-and-build
theory, intrinsic motivation theory, and ability, motivation and opportunity theory.
Although, individuals engage in self-motivation, leaders tend to have an important
role in motivating employees. Thus, leadership theories offer interesting framings
for IWB. Transformational, situational, and behavioral leadership theories are exam-
ples of theories adopted by scholars. Work and organizational theories also attract
interest in IWB scholarship and include examples such as contingency, boundary
and upper echelons theories. Other theories with behavioral, knowledge, and psy-
chological foci include attachment, prospect, dual control, planned behavior and
psychological contract theories.
3.2 Investigated countries and sectors
The analysis of the IWB literature shows variation in the regions investigated, as
shown by Fig. 3. The figure shows Europe and Central Asia are the highest publish-
ing regions in the field of IWB followed by East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East
and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, North America, and Latin America with the
least IWB articles. Some articles such as Azevedo and Shane (2019), Bysted and
Jespersen (2014), Dediu et al. (2018) include multiple countries. Within the IWB
Fig. 3 Breakdown of IWB publications according to industry sectors and geographical regions
13
literature, the analysis finds that studies investigate different education, industrial
and power, health, hospitality, finance, and public sectors, as shown by Fig. 3. The
figure also shows coverage in other sectors that include service, military, and real
estate. However, most studies tend to involve multiple sectors that aim to compare
and contrast findings from a wider range of industries (e.g. Abstein et al. 2014;
Odoardi et al. 2015; Pandey et al. 2019).
4 Review synthesis
This section presents a synthesis of the concepts and contributions from different
studies. It also builds linkages through grouping concepts, which is the primary
value-added product of a review as it produces knowledge based on data collection
(Hunter and Schmidt 1990).
4.1 Research concepts
The synthesis of the literature suggests four sets of management concepts investi-
gated by IWB researchers: innovative work learning and leadership (IWLL), innova-
tive work processes and performances (IWPPs), innovative work characteristics and
conditions (IWCCs), and innovative work inhibitors and interdependencies (IWIIs).
Table 2 provides an overview of these concepts, their related sub-concepts, and
references.
IWLL contains learning and leadership sub-concepts that focus on acquisition of
knowledge and skills required for innovation as determined by the organization and
direction provided by leaders. The concept reflects innovation at work that requires
creating an environment where employees feel safe to be innovatively creative and
this requirement tends to emerge from company leaders (Caniels and Veld 2019).
The review identifies several leadership styles studied in relation to IWB such as
entrepreneurial leadership, servant leadership, and Islamic leadership (Mokhber
et al. 2016; Cai et al. 2018; Supriyanto 2019). However, the inclusive leadership
approach stands out because at the core of it is doing things with people rather than
to people in postulations suggesting that everyone matters (Hollander 2009; Rob-
erson 2006). Generally, leadership studies dominate research related to IWB and
transformational leadership (TL) is the most studied style of leadership linked to
IWB. TL promotes the joint interest of employees by allowing them to reach mutual
goals (Garcia-Morales et al. 2012). Some TL research focus on organizational fac-
tors (Abdullah et al. 2015; Asfar and Umrani 2019) while some others link TL to
gender (Imran et al. 2011). However, most of the TL research focuses on the individ-
ual unit of analysis (Amankwaa et al. 2019; Zandberg and Morales 2019; Pradhan
and Jena 2019; Santoso et al. 2019). IWLL also considers individual motivation to
learn and knowledge sharing behavior (Asfar et al. 2019; Asfar and Umrani 2019),
since knowledge exchange between employees and other actors, either externally
or internally, remains important to sustaining an organization’s leadership position.
Knowledge, in this context, becomes a valuable asset, and some studies have focused
13
Table 2 Concepts of IWB prior literature
Concept Meaning Sub-theme References
IW learning & leadership (IWLL) These set of concepts focus on acquisition of Transformational Leadership (Asfar et al. 2019; Amankwaa et al. 2019; Yi
knowledge and skills required for innova- et al. 2019; Pradhan and Jena 2019; Li et al.
tion as determined by the organization and 2019; Santoso et al. 2019; Bin Saeed et al.
direction provided by leaders 2019; Al-Shammari and Khalifa 2019; Asfar
and Masood 2018; Skudiene et al. 2018;
Masood and Asfar 2017; Gyensare et al.
2017; Majumdar and Ray 2011; Imran et al.
2011; Asfar et al. 2014; Abdullah et al. 2015;
Reuvers et al. 2008)
Inclusive leadership (Javed et al. 2019a; Javed et al. 2019b; Khaola
and Coldwell 2019; Gupta et al. 2017; Denti
and Hemlin 2016; Piansoongnern 2016;
Schermuly et al. 2013; Odoardi et al. 2015;
Viswanatha and Lakshmi 2019; Rao Jada
et al. 2019; Supriyanto 2019; Cai et al. 2018;
Cerne et al. 2018; Bos-Nehles et al. 2017;
Mokhber et al. 2016; Yidong and Xinxin

2013)
Knowledge sharing (Nguyen et al. 2019, 2020; Battistelli et al.
2019; Mura et al. 2012, 2016; Birdi et al.
2016; Phung et al. 2019; Mansour and Trem-
blay 2018; Middleton et al. 2018; Akhavan
et al. 2015; Radaelli et al. 2014; Jenkins et al.
2019; Tri et al. 2019)
13

Table 2 (continued)
13
Leader-member Exchange (Truss, et al. 2012; Ghosh et al. 2019; Saeed
et al. 2019; Javed et al. 2018; Asfar et al.
2018; Agarwal 2014a; Pandey et al. 2019;
Widmann et al. 2019; Carlucci et al. 2020;
Shanker et al. 2017; Topcu et al. 2015;
Bysted and Jespersen 2014; Zandberg and
Morales 2019; Eskiler et al. 2016; Park
et al. 2014; Bos-Nahles and Veenendaal
2019; Kim and Park 2017; Bilal et al. 2017;
Veenendaal and Bondarouk 2015; June and
Khar Kheng 2014; Asfar et al. 2014; Khar
Kheng et al. 2013; Agarwal et al. 2012; Stof-
fers et al. 2020)
IW processes & performances (IWPPs) These set of concepts focus on the needed Job design (Wojtczuk-Turek and Turek 2015; Dorenbosch
steps to achieve desired tasks et al. 2005; Dediu et al. 2018; Suseno et al.
2020)
HRM practices (Friedman and Carmeli 2018; Masrek et al.
2017; Jorgensen et al. 2014)
Performance (Caniels and Veld 2019; Spanuth and Wald
2017; Hügel and Kreutzer 2020; Wynen et al.
2019; Battistelli et al. 2014; Theurer et al.
2018; Palazzeschi et al. 2018;Nazir and Islam
2019; Nohammer and Stichlberger 2019;
Messmann and Mulder 2011; Curzi et al.
2019; Hughes et al. 2018; De Spiegelaere
et al. 2018; Schuh et al. 2018; Fu et al. 2015;
Lee and Qomariyah 2015; Messmann and
Mulder 2012; De Jong and Den Hartog 2010)
IW characteristics & conditions (IWCCs) These set of concepts focus on qualities that Competencies (Zarefard and Jeong 2019; Tri et al. 2019; Aris
identify a person and/or a place and the et al. 2019; Wahyudi et al. 2019; Akhtar et al.
state of the quality of work 2019; Asfar et al. 2018; Asfar 2016; Asfar
and Badir 2016; Asfar and Badir 2015; Asfar
et al. 2015; Minh et al. 2017; Kör 2016;
Chughtai 2013; Newton and Nowak 2013;
Clarke and Higgs 2019; D’Arrigo et al. 2017;
Messmann et al. 2010)
Motivation (Siregar et al. 2019; Jason and Geetha 2019;
Bawuro et al. 2019b; Bawuro et al. 2019a;
Kimwolo and Cheruiyot 2019; Devloo et al.
2015; Saether 2019; Abdullah et al. 2019;
Buenaventura-Vera 2017; Chen et al. 2019;
Korzilius et al. 2017; Agarwal 2016)
Personality (Vleugels et al. 2019; Ahmed et al. 2018;
Azevedo and Shane 2019; Shih and Susanto
2017; Javed et al. 2017; Hamdy, et al. 2019;

Attiq et al. 2017; Munir and Beh 2016;
Madrid et al. 2014; Asfar and Badir 2017;
Mokhber et al. 2016; Wu and Wu 2019;
Stock et al. 2019; Lee and Kartika 2014;
Hafeez et al. 2019; Steyn 2019; Li et al.
2017; Luksyte et al. 2018; Montani et al.
2018; Woods et al. 2018; Koednok and Sung-
sanit 2018; Liu et al. 2019a, b)
13

13
IW inhibitors & interdependencies (IWIIs) These concepts focus on what prevents or Positive (Rehman et al. 2019; Santoso and Furinto
empowers an employee 2019; Somsriruen et al. 2018; Rahman et al.
2016; Gkorezis 2016; Bysted 2013; Ampofo
et al. 2018; Abukhait et al. 2019; Bandar
et al. 2019; Stoffers and Van der Heijden
2018; Carmeli and Spreitzer 2009; Devloo
et al. 2016; De Spiegelaere et al. 2016;
Montani et al. 2020; van Zyl et al. 2019;
Hammond et al. 2019; Khan and Malik 2017;
Yean et al. 2016; Jena and Memon 2018;
Sulistiawan et al. 2017; Alfes et al. 2013;
Yasir and Majid 2019; Mishra et al. 2019;
Prieto and Perez-Santana 2014; Messmann
and Mulder 2015; De Spiegelaere et al. 2015;
Messmann and Mulder 2014; Chughtai and
Buckley 2011; Agarwal 2014a; Kim and
Lee 2013; Akram et al. 2019; Raykov 2014;
Newton et al. 2008; Montani et al. 2017;
Montani et al. 2015; Montani et al. 2014)
Negative (Van Hootegem et al. 2019; Vander Elst et al.
2016; Roll et al. 2015; De Spiegelaere et al.
2014; Maqbool et al. 2019; Abstein et al.
2014; Abstein and Spieth 2014; Derdowski
et al. 2018; Shih and Susanto 2011; Rai and
Agarwal 2018; Argarwal 2017; Agrawal and
Bhargava 2014; Stock 2015; Battistelli et al.
2013; Ramamoorthy et al. 2005; Fay et al.
2019; Kruft et al. 2018; Messmann et al.
2017; Janssen 2000)
on knowledge sharing as an individual action (Birdi et al. 2016; Phung et al. 2019;
Mansour and Tremblay 2018; Mura et al. 2016) with some others placing empha-
sis on processes and human resources (HR) management (Battistelli et al. 2019;
Nguyen et al. 2019). There are also studies confirming the significance of interac-
tion between people, information, and innovation, and stressing that the act of shar-
ing facilitates innovation (Middleton et al. 2018; Radaelli et al. 2014). These studies
promote group interaction as one of the factors that shape innovation (Reuvers et al.
2008). The suggestion is that the way leaders develop relations with other associ-
ates can either support or delay the growth, which is the essence of leader-member
exchange. Many studies consider leader-member exchange from an organizational
perspective (Park et al. 2014; Eskiler et al. 2016; Topcu et al. 2015) highlighting the
importance of organizational climate. Other studies cover the individual perspective
(Saeed et al. 2019; Agarwal 2014a) underscoring the significance of self-evaluation
and engagement.
IWPPs contain sub-concepts of job design, performance, and HR management
practices which contribute to IWB. These sub-concepts detail characteristics for
innovative actions required for desirable organizational performance. For some
studies, interests lie in process characteristics that enhance IWB such as autonomy,
ambidextrous activities, and task characteristics guided by HR management prac-
tices (Caniels and Veld 2019; Suseno et al. 2020; Theurer et al. 2018; Masrek et al.
2017). Focused on these characteristics, job design plays a central role with stud-
ies considering flexibility and reflective performance (Messmann and Mulder 2011;
Dorenbosch et al. 2005). Here, performance applies in the context of implement-
ing functions that lead to certain outcomes. This context is of significance to IWB
researchers for the simple fact that in order for employees to adopt IWB they have
to expect positive performance (Drazin et al. 1999). Yet, IWB differs from regular
job performance because IWB requires a combination of proficiency, adaptivity, and
proactivity in work role performance by individuals (Griffin et al. 2007; Li et al.
2017). Recently, organizations are devoting more attention to activities that result
in a higher innovative performance (Caniels and Veld 2019) and this challenges
researchers to examine performance at an organizational level in terms of work sys-
tems, managerial support, and type of organization and at a process level in terms
of activities and slack (Wynen et al. 2019; Hugel and Kreutzer 2019). Performance
studies also focus on an individual level where employee performance, team perfor-
mance and appraisals attract some research interest (Schuh et al. 2018; Curzi et al.
2019).
IWCCs centers on the qualities of individuals and the environmental conditions
that allow the adoption of IWB. It underpins the mix of motivation, personality, and
competencies sub-concepts that trigger innovativeness in organizations. Research
suggests the importance of employee personality (Asfar and Rehman 2015; Woods
et al. 2018; Azevedo and Shane 2019) and study this quality based on different
notions of personalities such as mindfulness, cultural intelligence, and spirituality
(Asfar and Badir 2017; Montani et al. 2018). Here, the emphasis lies in how per-
sonality influences job performance with positive increases in productivity and effi-
ciency but also with potential negative effects such as limiting growth and slack.
IWCCs also considers competencies for achieving favorable performance with IWB
13
researchers showing interest in different employee competencies, such as creativity,

entrepreneurial, political skills, and positive self-regard (Tri et al. 2019; Clarke and
Higgs 2019). For these skills to thrive, motivation is key because it is the internal
will power that steers employees towards IWB. Hence, studies focus on the factors
that influence employee motivation such as promotion, high commitment, mean-
ingful work and their effect on work outcomes (Ahmed et al. 2018; Bawuro et al.
2019a).
No matter how much the organization tries to motivate its employees, some
inhibitors remain unavoidable and are likely to take place. IWII focuses on the nega-
tives and the positives in regards to facilitating IWB, where the negatives impede
and could even prevent IWB while the positives come in the form of interdependen-
cies that promote IWB. Some studies have been focusing on the negative aspects of
workplaces (Van Hootegem et al. 2019; Vander Elst et al. 2016) such as job stress-
ors, injustice, and job insecurity. Others focus on the fact that two or more parties
depend on each other to complete a task such as highly involved HR systems and
psychological empowerment and organization development interventions and psy-
chological empowerment (Rehman et al. 2019; Somsriruen et al. 2018), and this
view is more positive. Interestingly, organization climate generates mixed effects
as an inhibitor or an enabler (Topcu et al. 2015; Chughtai and Buckley 2011) and
this conundrum serves as the focus for individual, team and organizational lines of
empirical inquiry.
4.2 Research contributions
The synthesis of the literature also suggests four main contribution areas of IWB
studies: innovative behavioral strategies, innovative person-organization factor anal-
yses, IWB instruments & theory developments, and IWB construct examinations.
These contributions reflect attempts by IWB studies to propose theorizations and
interventions that advance IWB practice and scholarship. Table 3 summarizes these
contributions and provides the related sources.
Innovative behavioral strategies, the first set of IWB contributions, involves
action plans designed to introduce novel procedures and mechanisms for IWB, and
geared towards desired long term goals. Scholars offer guidance for organizations in
terms of HR policies and systems that prescribe new ways, enablers, interventions,
and suggestions to stimulate IWB (Kruft et al. 2018; Kessel et al. 2012; Nguyen
et al. 2020). These interventions are implemented at the workplace leading to
some researchers focusing on the use of technology (Devloo et al. 2016) and others
emphasizing the human dimension that stresses on decision making and personality
improvement (Friedman and Carmeli 2018; Mura et al. 2016). Strategic guidelines
for job design are a core function of HR management that outlines the tasks and
responsibilities for jobs that influence IWB. These guidelines elaborate on require-
ments, evaluation, and person-organization fit (Suseno et al. 2020; Luksyte et al.
2018; Theurer et al. 2018).
The second set of IWB contributions concerns innovative person-organization
factor analyses, which offers assessments that explain correlations between IWB
13
Table 3 Contributions of IWB prior literature
Contribution Meaning Sub theme References
Innovative Behavioral Strategies Plans of action designed to introduce new Suggestions and perspectives (Cerne et al. 2018; Palazzeschi et al. 2018;
processes and mechanisms at the work- Nguyen et al. 2020, 2019; Tri et al. 2019;
place aiming to achieve long term goals Park et al. 2014; Kruft et al. 2018; Mid-
dleton et al. 2018; Mura et al. 2016; Kessel
et al. 2012)
Enablers (Posthuma 2011; Suseno et al. 2020; Nguy
2019; Dediu et al. 2018; Ahmed et al. 2018;
Li et al. 2017; Messmann and Mulder
2015; De Spiegelaere et al. 2015; Radaelli
et al. 2014; Bysted and Jespersen 2014;
Montani et al. 2014; Bos-Nehles et al. 2017;
D’Arrigo et al. 2017; Devloo et al. 2016;
Montani et al. 2015; Abstein and Spieth
2014)
Appraisals and interventions (Mishra et al. 2019; Somsriruen et al. 2018;
Posthuma 2011; Curzi et al. 2019; Luksyte
et al. 2018; Friedman and Carmeli 2018)
13

13
Innovation workplace policies (Battistelli et al. 2019; van Zyl et al. 2019;
Montani et al. 2020; Clarke and Higgs
2019; Derdowski et al. 2018; Rai and
Agarwal 2018; De Spiegelaere et al. 2016;
Battistelli et al. 2013; Van Hootegem et al.
2019; Ampofo et al. 2018; Attiq et al.
2017; De Spiegelaere et al. 2017; Roll et al.
2015; Janssen 2000; Santoso and Furinto
2019; Lee and Qomariyah 2015;Fay et al.
2019; Asfar and Badir 2017; Theurer et al.
2018; Asfar and Rehman 2015; Stock 2015;
De Spiegelaere et al. 2014; Messmann
and Mulder 2011; Rehman et al. 2019;
Caniels and Veld 2019; Bos-Nahles and
Veenendaal 2019; Koednok and Sungsanit
2018; Veenendaal and Bondarouk 2015;
Wojtczuk-Turek and Turek 2015; Prieto
and Perez-Santana 2014; Jorgensen et al.
2014; Alfes et al. 2013; Abstein et al. 2014;
Dorenbosch et al. 2005; Nohammer and
Stichlberger 2019; Bandar et al. 2019)
Innovative Person-Organization Factor Analyses explaining correlations among Individual (Bawuro et al. 2019b; Phung et al. 2019;
Analyses multiple individual and organizational Stock et al. 2019; Siregar et al. 2019; Steyn
outcomes in which they are compatible 2019; De Spiegelaere et al. 2018; Montani
et al. 2018; Stoffers and Van der Heijden
2018; Mansour and Tremblay 2018;
Argarwal 2017; Montani et al. 2017; Kor-
zilius et al. 2017; Sulistiawan et al. 2017;
Buenaventura-Vera 2017; Vander Elst et al.
2016; Munir and Beh 2016; Akhavan et al.
2015; Devloo et al. 2015; Topcu et al. 2015;
Battistelli et al. 2014; Madrid et al. 2014;
Bysted 2013; Newton and Nowak 2013;
Truss et al. 2012; Messmann et al. 2010;
Newton et al. 2008; Abukhait et al. 2019;
Stock et al. 2019)
13

13
Leader (Javed et al. 2019a; Rao Jada et al. 2019;
Amankwaa et al. 2019; Yi et al. 2019;
Pradhan and Jena 2019; Khaola and Cold-
well 2019; Supriyanto 2019; Li et al. 2019;
Santoso et al. 2019; Asfar and Umrani
2019; Javed et al. 2019b; Javed et al. 2018;
Cai et al. 2018; Skudiene et al. 2018; Javed
et al. 2017; Minh et al. 2017; Khan and
Malik 2017; Gyensare et al. 2017; Gkorezis
2016; Mokhber et al. 2016; Odoardi
et al. 2015; Agarwal 2014a; Agrawal and
Bhargava 2014; June and Khar Kheng
2014; Stoffers et al. 2014; Asfar et al. 2014;
Schermuly et al. 2013; Yidong and Xinxin
2013; Agarwal et al. 2012; Imran et al.
2011; Majumdar and Ray 2011; Reuvers
et al. 2008; Hafeez et al. 2019; Stoffers
et al. 2020)
Organization (Carlucci et al. 2020; Wahyudi et al. 2019;

Akhtar et al. 2019; Hügel and Kreutzer
2020; Wynen et al. 2019; Woods et al.
2018; Asfar et al. 2018; Spanuth and Wald
2017; Shanker et al. 2017; Akram et al.
2017; Kim and Park 2017; Bilal et al. 2017;
Messmann et al. 2017; Agarwal 2016; Asfar
2016; Asfar and Badir 2016; Asfar and
Badir 2015; Asfar et al. 2015; Abdullah
et al. 2015; Agarwal 2014b; Kim and Lee
2013; Mura et al. 2012; Ramamoorthy et al.
2005; Eskiler et al. 2016; Ghosh et al. 2019;
Zarefard and Jeong 2019; Pandey et al.
2019; Widmann et al. 2019; Saeed et al.
2019; Hughes et al. 2018; Widmann and
Mulder 2018; Maqbool et al. 2019; Aris
et al. 2019; Akram et al. 2019)

IWB Instruments & Theory Developments New stages of developing ideas to justify a Theory Development (Jenkins et al. 2019; Bawuro et al. 2019a;
certain action and ways of measuring it Kimwolo and Cheruiyot 2019; Yasir and
Majid 2019; Bin Saeed et al. 2019; Asfar
et al. 2019; Al-Shammari and Khalifa 2019;
Asfar and Masood 2018; Masood and Asfar
2017; Piansoongnern 2016; Schuh et al.
2018; Atitumpong and Badir 2018; Shih
and Susanto 2017; Birdi et al. 2016; Liu
et al. 2019a, b)
Instrument (Messmann and Mulder 2012; De Jong and
Den Hartog 2010)
IWB Construct Examinations Detailed inspection of skills, abilities, and Motivation (Zandberg and Morales 2019; Saether 2019;
attributes Jason and Geetha 2019)
13

Others (Vleugels et al. 2019; Hapsari et al. 2019;
13
Hamdy et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2019; Ham-
mond et al. 2019; Wu and Wu 2019)
factors from individual and organizational lenses. For researchers such as Santoso
et al. (2019), Cai et al. (2018), the main correlated factors for IWB at human dimen-
sion, which consider individuals and leaders, center on performance, meaningful
work, creative self-efficacy, and leader-member exchange. For organizations to lev-
erage the potential of this human dimension, organization support is necessary. This
support takes place when employees experience different tangible and intangible
outcomes on a daily basis. When employees acknowledge this support they tend to
do extra activities that relates positively on their job outcome (Gregory et al. 2010).
Studies of IWB factors from an organizational lens shed light on organizational cul-
ture, team climate, and openness to innovation (Carlucci et al. 2020; Eskiler et al.
2016). These factors represent ways that the organization demonstrates taking care
of its employees in exchange for fulfilling job demands, in line with social exchange
theory.
The third set of contributions are IWB instruments and theory developments that
focus on developing and understanding measures of IWB. Here, researchers contrib-
ute by improving existing instruments and comparing different models with inten-
tions of prescribing models for measuring IWB (Messmann and Mulder 2012; De
Jong and Den Hartog 2010). Researchers also elaborate on different theories, mostly
social, establishing links between IWLL, IWPPs, IWCCs and/or IWIIs (Jenkins
et al. 2019; Bawuro et al. 2019a). Interestingly, while studying theory development,
researchers tend to mainly associate IWB with different types of motivation such as
intrinsic and prosocial (Bawuro et al. 2019a; Kimwolo and Cheruiyot 2019).
IWB construct examinations, the fourth set of contributions, tend to focus on the
motivation concept and contributes to IWB scholarship by testing skills, emotion,
ability, and proficiency. Contributions in this area vary from insights on motiva-
tional antecedents to greater understanding of motivational dynamics (Saether 2019;
Jason and Geetha 2019). Scholars also explain types of motivation with intrinsic
motivation insights dominating contributions (Saether 2019; Kimwolo and Cherui-
yot 2019; Bin Saeed et al. 2019). Contributions reflect an awareness that employees
respond differently to motivation, especially in the context of employee personal-
ity, with scholars such as Hamdy et al. (2019) stressing the importance of personal-
ity traits. Researchers also suggest generational differences in employee personality
through studies of generation diversity as Hapsari et al. (2019) finding that different
age groups react differently to IWB. Other scholars (Hammond et al. 2019) propose
constructs with desirable and undesirable effects of IWB such as employee burnout.
5 Future research opportunities
This review contributes to IWB scholarship by outlining a theoretical framework,

shown by Fig. 4. The model extends IWB knowledge by joining the research back-
ground and review findings into a multi-dimensional view of concepts from the pro-
posed IWB definition, management concepts and research contributions. Manage-
ment concepts as suggested in the literature, i.e. IWLL, IWPPs, IWCCs and IWIIs,
facilitate the generation, introduction and application of innovative ideas that lead to
value creation, attained advantage, and ensured sustainability. Underpinning these
13
Fig. 4 A multi-dimensional framework of IWB
concepts are work challenges that require critical thinking enhanced through behav-
ioral strategies, person-organization factor analyses, theory developments, and con-
struct examinations. Overall, the proposed framework derives concepts from prior
research and requires future studies to consolidate and advance IWB practice and
scholarship. In support of these studies, this section analyzes current research spaces
to broaden the lens for future IWB studies.
Within the workspace for IWB, prior research considers the climate (Pandey et al.
2019) and processes facilitating IWB, such as workplace learning (Jenkins et al.
2019). Team work and cultural aspects also interests IWB scholars. Analyzing the
current research workspaces suggests limited focus on critical and virtual environ-
ments. It could be interesting to explore IWPPs and IWCCs under which the lay-
out of the workplace enhances or hinders IWB. Some questions posed by this focus
include ‘how do IWBs differ in physical and virtual work settings?’ and ‘do vir-
tual environments increase employee motivation for fresh innovative ideas?’ Addi-
tionally, there are prospects for future studies to move from examining analytical
environments that generate ideas by asking the right questions to critical environ-
ments that are more skeptical. In this viewpoint, the questions confronting research
center on the prospects and challenges of an ‘open sceptic environment’ for IWB.
The methodological space within the IWB literature (Gkorezis 2016; Agarwal 2016)
heavily leans towards implementing quantitative research in the form of surveys.
13
Further investigation is required to strike a balance in the methodologies applied

in IWB research since 89% of previous studies is survey-based. Accordingly, this
review challenges IWB researchers to revisit the foundations and concepts of IWB
through more exploratory, qualitative and/or conceptual studies in areas such as
IWB accountability, mindfulness, convergence, resilience, etc. The review also rec-
ommends clarity on the foci (e.g. product or process) and type (e.g. technological
or social innovation) of innovation, as a premise for future IWB studies. Although
there are instances of meta-analysis and experimental studies, these works are lim-
ited. This challenges researchers to widen the methodological space through fur-
ther experimental studies and novel methods such as applied anthropology methods
and decision analysis. In terms of the theoretical space of IWB literature, studies
mainly apply social theories (Agarwal 2014b; June and Khar Kheng 2014) and some
behavioral and work theories. So far, theories of innovation remain limited. This
represents opportunities for studies to examine traditional concepts in Schumpet-
erian perspectives on technological change (Schumpeter 1976) and Rogers’ model
of diffusion theory (Rogers 1983). Studies may also consider contemporary innova-
tion theories such as eco-innovation, co-creation and frugal innovation. Opportuni-
ties also exist within the analytical space for research on front line employees upper
management such as chief executive officers (CEOs) and other strategic decision
makers. There are also other types of workers that were overlooked in IWB research,
such as part-time and contract workers in the GIG economy, and virtual workers in
the digital economy. There are also potentials for sectorial studies of the creative
industries (e.g. event planning), logistics, and marketing.
In addition to these research spaces, this review calls for specific future
research directions on leadership support, knowledge integration, work value
propositions, behavioral risk, workplace innovation and environmental sustaina-
bility. The review offers these topics as ‘inspirational advice’ to future research-
ers and does not claim to present these themes as a comprehensive set of recom-
mendations. These proposed topics stem from a reflection on the review findings
in accordance with the current state of IWB research. The remainder of this sec-
tion outlines, discusses, and links each topic to current debates and develop-
ments in the reviewed IWB articles. The next subsections elaborate on these top-
ics in order to advance understanding of IWB.
5.1 Leadership support synopsis and analysis
The first direction involves leadership synopsis and considers a breakdown of

leadership forms that influence IWB. Although few studies examine inclusive
leadership, TL dominates IWB studies of leadership style (Asfar et al. 2019;
Amankwaa et al. 2019). Therefore, this review suggests future research for dif-
ferent styles of leadership such as digital and purpose-driven leadership, which
researchers could analyze using different industry sectors and geographical
regions.
13
The review also suggests that for the most part, work on IWB involves micro-
and meso-level analysis of individual and organizations. An analysis of the effect
of leadership based on a macro-level remain limited (Amankwaa et al. 2019;
Masood and Asfar 2017) and gender-based role in leadership for IWB remains
largely unexplored. Although empirical evidence exists on the influence of lead-
ers on different genders of employees (Truss et al. 2012), the review suggests
paucity in research on the gender of leaders. This limited focus represents novel
areas for further research along with examinations of leadership competencies
required to facilitate IWB.
5.2 Integration of knowledge flow
Current studies focus on the benefits of knowledge acquisition, transfer and

exchange, considering knowledge as an IWB enabler (Phung et al. 2019). Knowl-
edge sharing works as a factor that encourages employees to create and transmute
knowledge (Leibowitz and Chen 2001). Paradoxically, the analysis of the IWB lit-
erature suggest the field has so far neglected the effects of knowledge excesses, what
happens to an employee’s IWB when too much knowledge is acquired as opposed
to too little. Can knowledge exchange always be beneficial? Alternatively, could it
cause confusion and hinder IWB when it is overdone? These are thought-provoking
questions calling for future research.
Although knowledge sharing involves exchanging knowledge at different lev-
els of organizations (Van Den Hoff and De Ridder 2004), IWB studies remain
focused on knowledge sharing between the same level of organization, i.e. peer-to-
peer exchanges horizontally. Therefore, future research could elaborate on vertical
knowledge sharing involving exchanging knowledge between different levels in an
organization (Beazley et al. 2002). Lines of empirical inquiry may focus on IWB in
the context of knowledge exchanges between managers, directors and staff.
5.3 Work value proposition and recognition
Value is a concept with two connotations, as a belief and as worth. Belief is an

acceptance of the existence of something and associated to faith, whereas worth
means resulting benefits. Within IWB studies, focus is largely centered on work
value as a belief with scholars (Azevedo and Shane 2019; Vleugels et al. 2019;
Oplatka 2014) emphasizing cultural value, value congruence, and social value.
There is a lack of studies focusing on work value proposition and this requires fur-
ther investigation for clarity on IWLL, IWPPs, IWCCs and IWIIs leading to value
creation.
Although studies of motivation dominate interest in IWB scholarship, a critique
of the concept accentuates the need for research on recognition that promotes IWB,
according to levels of employee participation, commitment, and contribution. Rec-
ognition may assume many forms such as thanking an employee, acknowledging an
idea, or as simple as leading a round of applause during a meeting (De Jonge et al.
2000). Although empirical evidence suggests recognition has a positive relationship
13
with employee performance (Appelbaum and Kamall 2000), its significance for
IWB represents a novel area of further research.
5.4 Behavioral risk and HR policies
Challenging the status quo through innovative ideas is a potentially risky employee
behavior because it requires confronting superiors by presenting different perspec-
tive on workplace challenges. Previous studies confirm risk as a factor associated
with innovation (Farr and Ford 1990) and perceived risks prevent employees from
utilizing IWB because such behavior tends to be difficult and perceived as com-
plicated (Carmeli et al. 2006). Potential future research work may propose work
designs that improve an employee acceptance of risk and shifts employees’ mental-
ity from risk aversion to risk taking in innovative work environments that promote
experimentation with learning from failure and mistakes.
HR policies support these environments by offering guidelines for managing
employees. These guidelines can form a brick wall preventing employees from or
facilitate IWB. It has been shown that HR policies enhance organization outcomes
(Bonias et al. 2010). Investigating how, what, and when policies need to be imple-
mented in a workplace to facilitate IWB is a potential area for research. Questions of
whether an organization should focus on employee’s capabilities working on trans-
forming them to risk takers or applying certain HR policies to facilitate IWB or hav-
ing both, calls for future research.
5.5 Workplace innovation and IWB
Since IWB happens at the work place, workplace innovations should be of interest
to researchers. Yet, the review suggests limited studies of workplace innovation in
the context of IWB. Workplace innovation is both an end goal and a tool, i.e. a pro-
cess and an outcome, to achieve improved organizational performance and improved
quality of life (Oeij et al. 2018). This form of organizational innovation depends on
innovative attitudes and aims at enhancing organizational performance—aims and
dependencies also shared by IWB. This relationship between workplace innovation
and IWB raises questions such as ‘what work designs and strategies for IWB lead to
workplace innovation?’, ‘what IWLL and IWIIs foster workplace innovation?’ and
’what constructs mediate and moderate the relationship between IWB and work-
place innovation?’ These questions require investigation and this review suggests
future studies of IWB for workplace innovation.
5.6 Environmental sustainability orientation
Sustainability, as suggested by the triple bottom line concept, means having the abil-
ity to maintain economic, environmental, and social performance (Spreitzer et al.
2012) with IWB studies investigating economic and social outcomes due to IWB
(Kim and Park 2017). Economic performance mainly concerns monetary value to
13
an organization while social outcomes consider human capital and dimensions for
social justice and fairness (Janssen 2000; Kim and Lee 2013; Shih and Susanto
2011). While both are significant for businesses, IWB studies in the context of envi-
ronmental outcomes remain scarce. This scarcity is offers a challenge for studies
examining IWLL, IWPPs, IWCCs and IWIIs stemming from and resulting in eco-
efficient technologies and green initiatives.
Significantly, green HR promote people management for increasing awareness
and commitment to environmental sustainability (Mandip 2012). Such green initia-
tives consist of two elements, environmentally friendly HR practices and the pres-
ervation of knowledge capital. In light of these prospects, this review recommends
future IWB studies focused on environmentally friendly HR. Future research could
focus on considering the role of behavioral strategies of IWB for attaining environ-
mental sustainability.
6 Conclusions
IWB is a multidimensional behavior through which individuals generate, introduce,

and apply innovative ideas. Critical thinking helps these individuals to identify
problems and performance gaps. In view of these creativity-driven processes, IWB
helps organizations gain competitive advantage and establish sustainability through
exploring solutions and opportunities. Given this significance of IWB to organiza-
tions, this review embarks on a systematic journey to coalesce extant IWB literature
that will help pinpoint potential areas of future research.
This article applies the systematic review methodology and yields four clusters
for management concepts and research contributions amalgamating themes in cur-
rent IWB scholarship. The clusters for management concepts involve innovative
work leadership and learning, processes and performance, characteristics and condi-
tions, and inhibitors and interdependencies. These clusters contain constructs sig-
nificantly linked to IWB such as leadership, work group, work climate, individual
differences, job characteristics and job demand, personality and values. The review
also identifies clusters of contributions from the research studies involving inno-
vative behavioral strategies, innovative person-organization factor analyses, IWB
instruments and theory developments, and IWB constructs and examinations. These
concepts and contributions underpin the review’s proposal of a multidimensional
framework to offer in-depth insights on IWB determinants.
With insights from the review, the article presents six strategic areas of future
research. Leadership support synopsis and analysis is first proposed area for research
to analyze leadership styles and to explore previously untested leadership types such
as purpose-driven leadership, in the context of different forms of IWB. Moreover,
the focus of current studies is mainly on employees with limited insights on top-
level management and chief executives. The second research area entails knowledge
flow integration with particular emphasis on knowledge exchanges between differ-
ent levels in the organization. Although the review suggests information exchange
and knowledge sharing between employees for IWB is beneficial, there is a need to
consider potential negative effects of such exchange and sharing processes. Negative
13
effects can exist in the form of excessive flow of information, and whether this
excess is positively (or negatively) associated with IWB, is a question that requires
further investigation. Knowledge sharing and learning generates value for employ-
ees and this value could be a certain belief or a value proposition. Building on this
focus, work value proposition and recognition presents the third research area for
studies on value and motivation. This area particularly stresses the need for investi-
gations focused on value as belief in relation to IWB. The review also recommends
studies of recognition for IWB to consolidate existing studies highlighting the sig-
nificance of motivation for IWB. Motivation may enable employees feel safer to
innovate since IWB may be considered a risky behavior. This leads to the fourth
research area, behavioral risk and HR policies. This area posits that since IWB is a
risky behavior, overcoming this downside of IWB necessitates further investigation.
Organizations could choose to focus on employees and implement initiatives to pro-
mote risk taking attitudes and mentalities. Another option could be for HR managers
to formulate policies for environments that ‘risk welcoming’. Investigations consid-
ering different permutations offer a path for future studies. The fifth research area
focuses on workplaces enabling or inhibiting workplace innovation (WPI). IWB and
WPI share the aim of improving organizational performance, and exploring if IWB
leads to WPI and if WPI leads to IWB, in virtuous cycles, calls for future research
studies. Environmental sustainability orientation for IWB is the sixth research chal-
lenging future researchers to focus on green initiatives and eco-efficient solutions.
In summary, IWB affords organizations with avenues for achieving competitive
advantage in dynamic environments. Current literature suggests a thriving field with
varied interests in mechanisms and motives for generating, introducing, and apply-
ing innovative ideas. The overall view of this systematic review of management con-
cepts and research contributions is that demands for innovation pose on-going pres-
sures for organizations to stimulate IWB. With companies continuously striving for
reinvention, so will IWB scholarship, and this field will likely continue to influence
initiatives and incentives for organizational survival and success.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11301-021-00224-x.
Funding Civil Service Commission (CSC), Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Declarations
Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Abdullah NH, Shamsuddin A, Wahab E, Abdul Hamid A (2015) Organizational commitment as a media-
tor between leadership and innovative behavior. Adv Sci Lett 21(5):1550–1552
Abdullah N, Wahab E, Shamsuddin A (2019) Creative self-efficacy, innovative work behavior and job
performance among selected manufacturing employees. J Sci Res 5(2):291–297
13
Abstein A, Spieth P (2014) Exploring HRM meta-features that foster employees’ innovative work behav-
ior in times of increasing work-life conflict. Creativity Innov Manag 23(2):211–225
Abstein A, Heidenreich S, Spieth P (2014) Innovative work behavior: the impact of comprehensive HR
system perceptions and the role of work-life conflict. Ind Innov 21(2):91–116
Abukhait R, Bani-Melhem S, Shamsudin FM (2019) Do employee resilience, focus on opportunity, and
work-related curiosity predict innovative work behaviour? The mediating role of career adaptabil-
ity. Int J Innov Manag. https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391962050070X
Agarwal U (2014a) Examining the impact of social exchange relationships on innovative work behavior:
role of work engagement. Team Perform Manag 20(3–4):102–120
Agarwal U (2014b) Linking justice, trust and innovative work behavior to work engagement. Pers Rev
43(1):41–73
Agarwal U (2016) Examining perceived organizational politics among Indian managers: engagement as
mediator and locus of control as moderator. Int J Organ Anal 24(3):415–437
Agarwal UA, Datta S, Blake-Beard S, Bhargava S (2012) Linking LMX, innovative work behavior and
turnover intentions: the mediating role of work engagement. Career Dev Int 17(3):208–230
Agrawal U, Bhargava S (2014) The role of social exchange on work outcomes: a study of Indian manag-
ers. Int J Hum Resour Manag 25(10):1484–1504
Ahmed F, Hassan A, Ayub MU, Klimoski R (2018) High commitment work system and innovative work
behavior: the mediating role of knowledge sharing. Pak J Commer Soc Sci 12(1):29–51
Akhavan P, Hosseini SM, Abbasi M, Manteghi M (2015) Knowledge-sharing determinants, behaviors,
and innovative work behaviors: an integrated theoretical view and empirical examination. Aslib J
Inf Manag 67(5):562–591
Akhtar M, Syed F, Husnain M, Naseer S (2019) Person-organization fit and innovative work behavior: the
mediating role of perceived organizational support, affective commitment and trust. Pak J Commer
Soc Sci 13(2):334–357
Akram T, Lei S, Haider MJ, Akram MW (2017) What impact do structural, relational and cognitive
organizational social capital have on employee innovative work behavior? A study from China. Int
J Innov Manag 21(2):1750012
Akram T, Lei S, Haider MJ, Hussain ST (2019) The impact of organizational justice on employee innova-
tive work behavior: mediating role of knowledge sharing. J Innov Knowl (In press)
Alfes K, Truss C, Soane EC, Rees C, Gatenby M (2013) The relationship between line manager behavior,
perceived HRM practices, and individual performance: examining the mediating role of engage-
ment. Hum Resour Manage 52(6):839–859
Al-Shammari M, Khalifa N (2019) Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior in an IT
department of a public organization in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Int J Hum Cap Inf Technol Prof
10(3):20–32
Amankwaa A, Gyensare M, Susomirth P (2019) Transformational leadership with innovative work
behavior: examining multiple mediating paths with PLS-SEM. Leadersh Org Dev J 4:402–420
Ampofo ET, Coetzer A, Poisat P (2018) Extending the job embeddedness-life satisfaction relationship: an
exploratory investigation. J Organ Eff 5(3):236–258
Appelbaum SH, Kamall R (2000) An analysis of the utilization and effectiveness of non-financial incen-
tives in small business. J Manag Dev 19(9/10):733–763
Argarwal U (2017) Linking psychological contract breach, innovative work behavior and collectivism: a
moderated mediation model. Int J Innov Manag 21(7):1750056
Aris A, Rajah N, Abdullah N, Hamid N (2019) Training and development on innovative work behavior
among public organization managers: the mediating effect of intrapreneurial competencies. Int J
Eng Adv Technol 8(5):2769–2775
Asfar B (2016) The impact of person-organization fit on innovative work behavior: the mediating effect
of knowledge sharing behavior. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 29(2):104–122
Asfar B, Badir Y (2015) The impacts of person-organization fit and perceived organizational support
on innovative work behavior: the mediating effects of knowledge sharing behavior. Int J Inf Syst
Change Manage 7(4):263–285
Asfar B, Badir Y (2016) The mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between
person-organization fit and innovative work behavior. J Chin Hum Resour Manag 7(1):5–26
Asfar B, Badir Y (2017) Workplace spirituality, perceived organizational support and innovative work
behavior: the mediating effects of person-organization fit. J Work Learn 29(2):95–109
Asfar B, Masood M (2018) Transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in supervisor, uncer-
tainty avoidance, and innovative work behavior of nurses. J Appl Behav Sci 54(1):36–61
13
Asfar B, Rehman M (2015) The relationship between workplace spirituality and innovative work behav-
ior: the mediating role of perceived person-organization fit. J Manag Spiritual Relig 12(4):329–353
Asfar B, Umrani WA (2019) Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: the role of moti-
vation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate. Eur J Innov Manag. https://doi.org/10.
1108/EJIM-12-2018-0257
Asfar B, Badir Y, Khan MM (2015) Person-job fit, person-organization fit and innovative work behavior:
the mediating role of innovation trust. J High Technol Manag Res 26(2):105–116
Asfar B, Badir Y, Saeed B (2014) Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Ind Manag
Data Syst 114(8):1270–1300
Asfar B, Cheema S, Bin Saeed B (2018) Do nurses display innovative work behavior when their values
match with hospitals’ values? Eur J Innov Manag 21(1):157–171
Asfar B, Masood M, Umrani W (2019) The role of job crafting and knowledge sharing on the effect of
transformational leadership on innovative work behavior. Pers Rev 48(5):1186–1208
Atitumpong A, Badir YF (2018) Leader-member exchange, learning orientation and innovative work
behavior. J Work Learn 30(1):32–47
Attiq S, Wahid S, Javaid N, Kanwal M, Shah HJ (2017) The impact of employees’ core self-evaluation
personality trait, management support, co-worker support on job satisfaction, and innovative work
behavior. Pak J Psychol Res 32(1):247–271
Axtell C, Holman D, Unsworth K, Wall T, Waterson P, Harrington E (2000) Shopfloor innovation: facili-
tating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. J Occup Organ Psychol 73(3):265–285
Azevedo A, Shane MJ (2019) A new training program in developing cultural intelligence can also
improve innovative work behavior and resilience: a longitudinal pilot study of graduate students
and professional employees. Int J Manag Edu 17(3):100303
Bandar NF, Malek FA, Hassan Z, Sabil S, Ibrahim DK, Md Nor NB et al (2019) The relationship between
innovative work behaviors and subjective career success among employees in selected private
organisation. Int J Eng Adv Technol 8(6 Special Issue 3):389–395
Battistelli A, Montani F, Odoardi C (2013) The impact of feedback from job and task autonomy in the
relationship between dispositional resistance to change and innovative work behavior. Eur J Work
Organ Psy 22(1):26–41
Battistelli A, Montani F, Odoardi C, Vandenberghe C, Picci P (2014) Employees’ concerns about change
and commitment to change among Italian organizations: the moderating role of innovative work
behavior. Int J Hum Resour 25(7):951–978
Battistelli A, Odoardi C, Vandenberghe C, Di Napoli G, Piccione L (2019) Information sharing and inno-
vative work behavior: the role of work-based learning, challenging tasks, and organizational com-
mitment. Hum Resour Dev Q 30(3):361–381
Bawuro F, Shamsuddin A, Wahab E, Chodozie C (2019) Prosocial motivation and innovative behavior:
an empirical analysis of selected Public University Lecturers in Nigeria. Int J Sci Technol Res
8:1187
Bawuro F, Shamsuddin A, Wahab E, Usman H (2019) Mediating role of meaningful work in the rela-
tionship between intrinsic motivation and innovative work behavior. Int J Sci Technol Res
8(9):2076–2084
Beazley H, Boenisch J, Harden D (2002) Continuity management: preserving corporate knowledge and
productivity when employees leave. Wiley
Bilal A, Umar S, Mir D, Zeeshan A (2017) Flight attendant’s knowledge sharing, innovative work behav-
ior, and new service development. Int J Work Innov 2(2–3):193–215
Bin Saeed B, Asfar B, Shahjehan A, Imad Shah S (2019) Does transformational leadership foster innova-
tive work behavior? The roles of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative
process engagement. Econ Res Ekon Istraz 32(1):254–281
Birdi K, Leach D, Magadley W (2016) The relationship of individual capabilities and environmental sup-
port with different facets of designers’ innovative behavior. J Prod Innov Manag 33(1):19–35
Bonias D, Bartram T, Leggat SG, Stanton P (2010) Does psychological empowerment mediate the rela-
tionship between high performance work systems and patient care quality in hospitals? Asia Pacific
J Hum Resour 48:319–337
Bos-Nahles AC, Veenendaal AA (2019) Perceptions of HR practices and innovative work behavior: the
moderating effect of an innovative climate. Int J Hum Resour Manag 30(18):2661–2683
Bos-Nehles A, Bondarouk T, Nijenhuis K (2017) Innovative work behavior in knowledge-intensive pub-
lic sector organizations: the case of supervisors in the Netherlands fire services. Int J Hum Resour
Manag 28(2):379–398
13
Buenaventura-Vera G (2017) The impact of leader self-efficacy on the characteristics of work teams.
Intang Cap 13(4):824–849
Bysted R (2013) Innovative employee behavior: the moderating effects of mental involvement and job
satisfaction on contextual variables. Eur J Innov Manag 16(3):268–284
Bysted R, Jespersen KR (2014) Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behav-
ior: comparing private and public employees. Public Manag Rev 16(2):217–241
Cai W, Lysova EI, Khapova SN, Bossink BA (2018) Servant leadership and innovative work behavior
in Chinese high-tech firms: a moderated mediation model of meaningful work and job autonomy.
Front Psychol 9:1767
Caniels M, Veld M (2019) Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work
behavior: how much balance we need? Int J Hum Resour Manag 30(4):565–585
Carlucci D, Mura M, Schiuma G (2020) Fostering employees’ innovative work behavior in healthcare
organizations. Int J Innov Manag 24(02):2050014
Carmeli A, Spreitzer GM (2009) Trust, connectivity, and thriving: implications for innovative behaviors
at work. J Creat Behav 43(3):169–191
Carmeli A, Meitar R, Weisberg J (2006) Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. Int J
Manpow 27:75–90
Cerne M, Batistic S, Kenda R (2018) HR systems, attachment styles with leaders, and the creativity-
innovation nexus. Hum Resour Manag Rev 28(3):271–288
Chen X, Liu J, Zhang H, Kwan HK (2019) Cognitive diversity and innovative work behavior: the mediat-
ing roles of task reflexivity and relationship conflict and the moderating role of perceived support. J
Occup Organ Psychol 92(3):671–694
Chughtai AA (2013) Linking affective commitment to supervisor to work outcomes. J Manag Psychol
28(6):606–627
Chughtai AA, Buckley F (2011) Work engagement: antecedents, the mediating role of learning goal ori-
entation and job performance. Career Dev Int 16(7):684–705
Clarke N, Higgs M (2019) Political skill and role overload as antecedents of innovative work behavior in
the public sector. Public Pers Manag 49:444
Curzi Y, Fabbri T, Scapolan AC, Boscolo S (2019) Performance appraisal and innovative behavior in the
digital era. Front Psychol 10:1659
D’Arrigo FP, Robini E, Larentis F, Camargo ME, Schmiedgen P (2017) Storytelling and innovative
behavior: an empirical study in a Brazilian group. Eur J Train Dev 41(8):722–736
De Jong J (2007) Individual innovation: the connection between leadership and employees’ innova-
tive work behavior. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
De Jong JP, Den Hartog DN (2007) How leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior. Eur J Innov
Manag 10(1):41–64
De Jong J, Den Hartog D (2008) Innovative work behavior: measurement and validation. EIM Bus Policy
Res 8(1):1–27
De Jong J, Den Hartog D (2010) Measuring innovative work behavior. Creat Innov Manag 19(1):23–36
De Jonge J, Bosma H, Peter R, Siegrist J (2000) Job strain, effort imbalance and employee well-being: a
large scale cross-sectional study. Soc Sci Med 50(9):1317–1327
De Spiegelaere S, Gyes GV, Witte HD, Hootegem GV (2015) Job design, work engagement and
innovative work behavior: a multi-level study on Karasek’s learning hypothesis. Manag Rev
26(2):123–137
De Spiegelaere S, Ramioul M, Van Gyes G (2017) Good employees through good jobs: a latent pro-
file analysis of job types and employee outcomes in the Belgian electricity sector. Empl Relat
39(4):503–522
De Spiegelaere S, Van Gyes G, Van Hootegem G (2016) Not all autonomy is the same. Different dimen-
sions of job autonomy and their relation to work engagement & innovative work behavior. Hum
Factors Ergon Manuf 26(4):515–527
De Spiegelaere S, Van Gyes G, Van Hootegem G (2018) Innovative work behavior and performance-
related pay: rewarding the individual or the collective? Int J Hum Resour Manag 29(12):1900–1919
De Spiegelaere S, Van Gyes G, De Witte H, Niesen W, Van Hootegem G (2014) On the relation of job
insecurity, job autonomy, innovative work behavior and the mediating effect of work engagement.
Creat Innov Manag 23(3):318–330
Dediu V, Leka S, Jain A (2018) Job demands, job resources and innovative work behavior: a European
Union study. Eur J Work Organ Psy 27(3):310–323
13
Denti L, Hemlin S (2016) Modelling the link between leader-member exchange and individual innovation
in R&D. Int J Innov Manag 20(3):16500038
Derdowski L, Ogaard T, Marnburg E, Mathisen GE (2018) Creative and innovative behaviors of corpo-
rate directors: an elusive role of task-related conflicts. J Manage Gov 22(4):1045–1069
Devloo T, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A, Feys M (2016) When the fire dies: perceived success and support
for innovation shape the motivating potential of innovative work behavior. Eur J Work Organ Psy-
chol 25(4):512–524
Devloo T, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A, Salanova M (2015) Keep the fire burning: reciprocal gains of basic
need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and innovative work behavior. Eur J Work Organ Psychol
24(4):491–504
Dhar R (2015) The effects of high performance human resource practices on service innovative behavior.
Int J Hosp Manag 51:67–75
Dorenbosch L, Engen ML, Verhagen M (2005) On-the-job innovation: the impact of job design and
human resource management through production ownership. Creat Innov Manag 14(2):129–141
Drazin R, Glynn MA, Kazanjian RK (1999) Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: a
sense making perspective. Acad Manag Rev 24(2):286–307
Escriba-Carda N, Balbastre-Benavent F, Canet-Giner T (2017) Employees’ perceptions of high-per-
formance work systems and innovative behavior: the role of exploratory learning. Eur Manag J
35(2):273–281
Eskiler E, Ekici S, Soyer F, Sari I (2016) The relationship between organizational culture and innovative
work behavior for sports services in Tourism enterprises. Phys Culture Sport Stud Res 69(1):53–64
Farr JL, Ford CM (1990) In: West MA, Farr, JL (eds.), Individual Innovation: innovation and Creativity
at Work
Fay D, Bagotyriute R, Urbach T, West M, Dawson J (2019) Differential effects of workplace stressors on
innovation: an integrated perspective of cybernetics and coping. Int J Stress Manag 26(1):11–24
Frese M, Fay D (2001) Personal initiative: an active performance concept for work in the 21st century.
Res Organ Behav 23:133–187
Frese M, Kring W, Soose A, Zempel J (1996) Personal initiative at work: differences between East and
West Germany. Acad Manag J 39(1):37–63
Friedman Y, Carmeli A (2018) The influence of decision comprehensiveness on innovative behaviors in
small entrepreneurial firms: the power of connectivity. Innov Manag Policy Pract 20(1):61–83
Fu N, Flood PC, Bosak J, Morris T, O’Regan P (2015) How do high performance work systems influence
organizational innovation in professional service firms? Empl Relat 37(2):209–231
Garcia-Morales VJ, Jimenez-Barrionuevo MM, Gutierrez-Gutierrez L (2012) Transformational leader-
ship influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. J
Bus Res 65(7):1040–1050
Ghosh V, Bharadwaja M, Yadav S, Kabra G (2019) Team-member exchange and innovative work
behavior: the role of psychological empowerment and creative self-efficacy. Int J Innov Sci
11(3):344–361
Gkorezis P (2016) Principal empowering leadership and teacher innovation behavior: a moderated media-
tion model. Int J Educ Manag 30(6):1030–1044
Gregory BT, Albritton MD, Osmonbekov T (2010) The mediating role of psychological empowerment
on the relationships between P-O fit, job satisfaction, and their role performance. J Bus Psychol
25(4):639–647
Griffin MA, Neal A, Parker SK (2007) A new model of work role performance: positive behaviour in
uncertain and interdependent contexts. Acad Manag J 50(2):327–347
Gupta V, Singh S, Bhattacharya A (2017) The relationship between leadership, work engagement and
employee innovative performance: empirical from the Indian R&D context. Int J Innov Manag
21(7):1750055
Gyensare MA, Kumedzro LE, Sanda M-A, Boso N (2017) Linking transformational leadership to turno-
ver intention in the public sector: the influences of engagement, affective commitment and psycho-
logical climate. Afr J Econ Manag Stud 8(3):314–337
Hafeez M, Panatik SA, Rahman AA, Rajab A, Abu Bakar S, Norazman I (2019) Ambidextrous leadership
and innovative work behavior: mediating role of emotional intelligence. Int J Recent Technol Eng
8(2 Special Issue 9):906–910
Hamdy A, Fazida K, Rashidah M, Asyraf A, Ahmad M, Mohd H et al (2019) Connecting the dots
between the Big Five and innovative work behavior: Maslow and Maqasid Al-Shari’a Perspectives.
Espacios 40(27):12
13
Hammond M, Cross C, Farrell C, Eubanks D (2019) Burnout and innovative wok behaviors for survivors
of downsizing: an investigation of boundary conditions. Creat Innov Manag 28(3):306–317
Hapsari C, Stoffers J, Gunawan A (2019) The influence of generational diversity management and leader-
member exchange on innovative work behaviors mediated by employee engagement. J Asia-Pacific
Bus 20(2):125–139
Hollander EP (2009) Inclusive leadership. Taylor & Francis
Hügel S, Kreutzer M (2020) The impact of organizational slack on innovative work behavior: how do top
managers and employees differ? Int J Innov Manag 24:2050022
Hughes M, Rigtering JP, Covin JG, Bouncken RB, Kraus S (2018) Innovative behavior, trust and per-
ceived workplace performance. Br J Manag 29(4):750–768
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL (1990) Methods of meta-analysis. Beverly Hills. Sage Publications, CA
Hurt TH, Joseph K, Cook CD (1977) Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Hum Commun Res
4(1):58–65
Imran R, Zaheer A, Noreen U (2011) Transformational leadership as a predictor of innovative work
behavior: moderated by gender. World Appl Sci J 14(5):750–759
Janssen O (2000) Job demands, perceptions of effort–reward fairness and innovative work behavior. J
Occup Organ Psychol 73:287–302
Jason V, Geetha SN (2019) Regulatory focus and innovative work behavior: the role of work engagement.
Curr Psychol:1–13
Javed B, Abdullah I, Zaffar M, Haque A, Rubab U (2019) Inclusive leadership and innovative work
behavior: the role of psychological empowerment. J Manag Organ 25(4):554–571
Javed B, Bashir S, Rawwas MY, Arjoon S (2017) Islamic Work Ethic, innovative work behavior, and
adaptive performance: the mediating mechanism and an interacting effect. Curr Issue Tour
20(6):647–663
Javed B, Khan AK, Quratulain S (2018) Inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior: examination
of LMX perspective in Small Capitalized Textile Firms. J Psychol 152(8):594–612
Javed B, Naqvi SM, Khan A, Arjoon S, Tayyeb HH (2019) Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative
work behavior: the role of psychological safety. J Manag Organ 25(1):117–136
Jena LK, Memon NZ (2018) Does workplace flexibility usher innovation? A moderated mediation model
on the enablers of innovative workplace behavior. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 19(1):5–17
Jenkins L, Hall H, Raeside R (2019) Application and applicability of social cognitive theory in informa-
tion science research. J Libr Inf Sci 51(4):927–937
Jorgensen F, Becker K, Hyland P (2014) Profiling human resource management practices in innova-
tive firms. Int J Hum Resour Dev Manag 14(4):187–204
June S, Khar Kheng Y (2014) Innovative work behavior (IWB) in the knowledge intensive business
services (KIBS) sector in Malaysia: the effect of leader-member exchange (LMX) and social
capital (SC). Asian Soc Sci 10(2):172–182
Kanter RM (1988) Three tiers for innovation research. Commun Res 15(5):509–523
Kanter RM (1988) When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions for
innovation in organizations. Knowl Manag Organ Des 10:93–131
Kessel M, Hannemann-Weber H, Kratzer J (2012) Innovative Work Behavior in healthcare: the benefit
of operational guidelines in the treatment of rare diseases. Health Policy 105(2):146–153
Khan MN, Malik MF (2017) “My leader’s group is my group”, leader-member exchange and employ-
ees’ behaviors. Eur Bus Rev 29(5):551–571
Khaola P, Coldwell D (2019) Explaining how leadership and justice influence employee innovative
behaviors. Eur J Innov Manag 22(1):193–212
Khar Kheng Y, June S, Mahmood R (2013) The determinants of innovative work behavior in the
knowledge intensive business services sector in Malaysia. Asian Soc Sci 9(15):47–59
Kim W, Park J (2017) Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational
procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organiza-
tions. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(2):205
Kim Y, Lee BG (2013) An analysis for the mediating effect of organizational justice on the perfor-
mance in the virtual organization. Int J Softw Eng Appl 7(1):201–210
Kimwolo A, Cheruiyot T (2019) Intrinsically motivating idiosyncratic deals and innovative work
behavior. Int J Innov Sci 11(1):31–47
Koednok S, Sungsanit M (2018) The influence of multilevel factors of human resource practices on
innovative work behavior. J Behav Sci 13(1):37–55
13
Koopmans L, Bernaards C, Hildebrandt V, Schaufeli W, de Vet H, Beek A (2011) Conceptual

frameworks of individual work performance: a systematic review. J Occup Environ Med
53(8):856–866
Kör B (2016) The mediating effects of self-leadership on perceived entrepreneurial orientation and
innovative work behavior in the banking sector. SpringerPlus 5(1):1–15
Korzilius H, Bucker J, Beerlage S (2017) Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: the mediat-
ing role of cultural intelligence. Int J Intercult Relat 56:13–24
Kruft T, Gamber M, Kock A (2018) Substitutes or complements? The role of corporate incubator
support and innovation climate for innovative behavior in the hosting firm. Int J Innov Manag
22(5):1840006
Lee LY, Qomariyah A (2015) The effects of work-role demands on cross-cultural adjustment and
expatriate effectiveness: a meta-analysis. Anthropologist 3:636–649
Lee L-Y, Kartika N (2014) The influence of individual, family, and social capital factors on expatri-
ate and performance: the moderating effect of psychology contract and organizational support.
Expert Syst Appl 41(11):5483–5494
Leibowitz J, Chen Y (2001) Developing knowledge-sharing proficiencies. Knowl Manag Rev 3:12–15
Li H, Sajjad N, Wang Q, Ali AM, Khaqan Z, Amina S (2019) Influence of transformational leader-
ship on employees’ innovative work behavior in sustainable organizations: test of mediation and
moderation processes. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11(6):1594
Li M, Liu Y, Liu L, Wang Z (2017) Proactive personality and innovative work behavior: the mediat-
ing effects of affective states and creative self-efficacy in teachers. Curr Psychol 36(4):697–706
Linh NT, Trana N, Doana X, Nguyena V (2020) The impact of knowledge sharing on innovative work
behavior of Vietnam telecommunications. Manag Sci Lett 10(1):53–56
Liu F, Chow IHS, Zhang JC, Huang M (2019) Organizational innovation climate and individual inno-
vative behavior: exploring the moderating effects of psychological ownership and psychological
empowerment. RMS 13(4):771–789
Liu Y, Xu S, Zhang B (2019) Thriving at work: how a paradox mindset influences innovative work
behavior. J Appl Behav Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319888267
Luksyte A, Unsworth KL, Avery DR (2018) Innovative work behavior and sex-based stereotypes: exam-
ining sex differences in perceptions and evaluations of innovative work behavior. J Organ Behav
39(3):292–305
Madrid HP, Patterson MG, Birdi KS, Leiva PI, Kausel EE (2014) The role of weekly high-activated pos-
itive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: a multilevel and interactional
model. J Organ Behav 35(2):234–256
Majumdar B, Ray A (2011) Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. J Indian Acad
Appl Psychol 37(1):140–148
Mandip G (2012) Green HRM: people management commitment to environmental sustainability. Res J
Recent Sci 1:244–252
Mansour S, Tremblay D (2018) Blended work and opportunities for knowledge sharing: human resource
management practices to increase innovative work behavior and life satisfaction of bridge workers.
Int J Knowl Based Dev 9(4):441–459
Maqbool S, Cerne M, Bortoluzzi G (2019) Micro-foundations of innovation: employee silence, perceived
time pressure, flow and innovation work behavior. Eur J Innov Manag 22(1):125–145
Mariz-Perez R, Teijeiro-Alvarez M, Garcia-Alvarez T (2012) The relevance of human capital as a driver
for innovation. Cuad Econ 35(98):68–76
Masood M, Afsar B (2017) Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior among nursing
staff. Nurs Inq 24(4):e12188
Masrek MN, Noordin SA, Yusof NI, Shuhidan SM (2017) The effect of job design on innovative work
behavior. Int J Mech Eng Technol 8(8):311–323
Messmann G, Mulder R (2012) Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behavior
as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Hum Resour Dev Int 15(1):43–59
Messmann G, Mulder R (2015) Reflection as a facilitator of teachers’ innovative work behavior. Int J
Train Dev 19(2):125–137
Messmann G, Mulder RH (2011) Innovative work behavior in vocational colleges: understanding how
and why innovations are developed. Vocat Learn 4(1):63–84
Messmann G, Mulder RH (2014) Exploring the role of target specificity in the facilitation of vocational
teachers’ innovative work behavior. J Occup Organ Psychol 87(1):80–101
13
Messmann G, Mulder RH, Gurber H (2010) Relations between vocational teachers’’ characteristics of
professionalism and their innovative work behavior. Empir Res Vocat Educ Train 2(1):21–40
Messmann G, Stoffers J, Van der Heijden B, Mulder RH (2017) Joint effects of job demands and job
resources on vocational teachers’ innovative work behavior. Pers Rev 46(8):1948–1961
Middleton L, Hall H, Muir L, Raeside R (2018) The interaction between people, information and inno-
vation: information literacy to underpin innovative work behavior in a Finnish organization. Proc
Assoc Inf Sci Technol 55(1):367–376
Minh NV, Badir Y, Quang NN, Asfar B (2017) The impact of leaders’ technical competence on employ-
ees’ innovation and learning. J Eng Technol Manag 44:44–57
Mishra P, Bhatnagar J, Gupta R, Wadsworth S (2019) How work-family enrichment influence innovative
work behavior: role of psychological capital and supervisory support. J Manag Organ 25(1):58–80
Mokhber M, Tan GG, Vakilbashi A, Zamil NA, Basiruddin R (2016) Impact of entrepreneurial leadership
on organization demand for innovation: moderating role of employees innovative self-efficacy. Int
Rev Manag Mark 6(3):415–421
Montani F, Battistelli A, Odoardi C (2017) Proactive goal generation and innovative work behavior: the
moderating role of affective commitment, production ownership and leader support for innovation.
J Creat Behav 51(2):107–127
Montani F, Dagenais-Desmarais V, Giorgi G, Gregoire S (2018) A conservation of resources perspective
on negative affect and innovative work behavior: the role of affect activation and mindfulness. J
Bus Psychol 33(1):123–139
Montani F, Odoardi C, Battistelli A (2014) Individual and contextual determinants of innovative work
behavior: proactive goal generation matters. J Occup Organ Psychol 87(4):645–670
Montani F, Odoardi C, Battistelli A (2015) Envisioning, planning and innovating: a closer investigation
of proactive goal generation, innovative work behavior and boundary conditions. J Bus Psychol
30(3):415–433
Montani F, Vandenberghe C, Khedhaouria A, Courcy F (2020) Examining the inverted U-shaped rela-
tionship between workload and innovative work behavior: the role of work engagement and
mindfulness. Hum Relat 73(1):59–93
Munir R, Beh LS (2016) Do personality traits matter in fostering innovative work behavior? Soc Sci
(Pakistan) 11(18):4393–4398
Mura M, Lettieri E, Radaelli G, Spiller N (2016) Behavioral operations in healthcare: a knowledge
sharing perspective. Int J Oper Prod Manag 36(10):1222–1246
Mura M, Lettieri E, Spiller N, Radaelli G (2012) Intellectual capital and innovative work bahaviour:
opening the black box. Int J Eng Bus Manag 4(1):39
Nangoy R, Hamsal M, Setiadi NJ, Pradipto YD (2019) The roles of employee work well-being on
innovative work behavior mediated by organizational commitment. Int J Econ Bus Res
18(3):314–327
Nazir O, Islam JU (2019) Influence of CSR-specific activities on work engagement and employees’
innovative work behavior: an empirical investigation. Curr Issues Tour. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13683500.2019.1678573
Newton SK, Nowak LI (2013) Attitudes and work environment factors influencing the information
technology professionals’ work behaviors. Int J Hum Cap Inf Technol Prof 4(4):46–65
Newton SK, Blanton JE, Will R (2008) Innovative work and citizenship behaviors from informa-
tion technology professionals: effects of their psychological contract. Inf Resour Manag J
21(4):27–48
Nguy TP (2019) Innovative work behavior of Vietnam telecommunication enterprise employees. Manag
Sci Lett 9(8):1169–1180
Nguyen T, Nguyen K, Do T, Nguyen T (2019) Knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior: the
case of Vietnam. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag 7(4):619–634
Nguyen T, Tran N, Doan X, Nguyen V (2020) The impact of knowledge sharing on innovative work
behavior of Vietnam telecommunications enterprises. Manag Sci Lett 10(1):53–62
Nisula AM, Kianto A (2016) The antecedents of individual innovative behaviour in temporary group
innovation. Creat Innov Manag 25(4):431–444
Nohammer E, Stichlberger S (2019) Digitalization, innovative work behavior and extended availability. J
Bus Econ 89(8–9):1191–1214
Odoardi C, Montani F, Boudrias J-S, Battistelli A (2015) Linking managerial practices and leadership
style to innovative work behavior: the role of group and psychological processes. Leadersh Org
Dev J 36(5):545–569
13
Oeij PRA, Dhondt S, Pot F, Totterdill P (2018) Workplace innovation as an important driver of social
innovation. Sozialforschungsstelle TU Dortmund, Dortmund, pp 54–57
Oplatka I (2014) Understanding teacher entrepreneurship in the globalized society: some lessons from
self-starter Israeli school teachers in road safety education. J Enterp Commun 8(1):20–33
Palazzeschi L, Bucci O, Di Fabio A (2018) Re-thinking innovation in organizations in the industry 4.0
scenario: new challenges in a primary prevention perspective. Front Psychol 9:30
Pandey A, Gupta V, Gupta R (2019) Spirituality and innovative behavior in teams: examining the mediat-
ing role of team learning. IIMB Manag Rev 31(2):116–126
Park YK, Song JH, Yoon SW, Kim J (2014) Learning organization and innovative behavior: the mediat-
ing effect of work engagement. Eur J Train Dev 38(1–2):75–94
Parker SK, Collins CG (2010) Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors.
J Manag 36(3):633–662
Phung VD, Hawryszkiewycz I, Chandran D, Ha BM (2019) Promoting knowledge sharing amongst aca-
demics: a case study from Vietnam. J Inf Knowl Manag 18:1950032
Piansoongnern O (2016) Chinese leadership and its impacts on innovative work behavior of the Thai
employees. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 17(1):15–27
Pittaway L, Robertson M, Munir K, Denyer D, Neely A (2004) Networking and innovation: a systematic
review of the evidence. Int J Manag Rev 5(6):68–137
Posthuma RA (2011) Conflict management and performance outcomes. Int J Confl Manag 22(2):108–110
Pradhan S, Jena L (2019) Does meaningful work explains the relationship between transformational lead-
ership and innovative work behavior? Vikalpa 44(1):30–40
Prieto IM, Perez-Santana MP (2014) Managing innovative work behavior: the role of human resource
practices. Pers Rev 43(2):184–208
Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Mura M, Spiller N (2014) Knowledge sharing and innovative work behav-
ior in healthcare: a micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creat Innov Manag
23(4):400–414
Rahman AA, Panatik SA, Alias RA (2016) The effect of web 2.0 usage on innovative work behavior
among academia in Malaysian research universities. J Theor Appl Inf Technol 93(2):441–448
Rai A, Agarwal U (2018) Impact of workplace bullying on employee outcomes: a study of Indian mana-
gerial employees. Int J Product Perform Manag 67(7):1147–1170
Ramamoorthy N, Flood PC, Slattery T, Sardessai R (2005) Determinants of innovative work behavior:
development and test of an integrated model. Creat Innov Manag 14(2):142–150
Rao Jada U, Mukhopadhyay S, Titiyal R (2019) Empowering leadership and innovative work behavior: a
moderated mediation examination. J Knowl Manag 25(3):915–930
Raykov M (2014) Employer support for innovative work and employees’ job satisfaction and job-related
stress. J Occup Health 56(4):244–251
Rehman W, Ahmad M, Allen M, Raziq M, Riaz A (2019) High involvement HR systems and innovative
work behavior: the mediating role of psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of man-
ager and co-worker support. Eur J Work Organ Psy 28(4):525–535
Reuvers M, Van Engen M, Vinkenburg C, Wilson-Evered E (2008) Transformational leadership and
innovative work behavior: exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creat Innov Manag
17(3):227–244
Roberson QM (2006) Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group Org
Manag 31(2):212–236
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovations (3 ed.). Free Press, New York
Roll LC, Siu OL, Li SY, De Witte H (2015) Job insecurity: cross-cultural comparison between Germany
and China. J Organ Eff 2(1):36–54
Saeed B, Asfar B, Cheema S, Javed F (2019) Leader-member exchange and innovative work behavior:
the role of creative process engagement, core self-evaluation, and domain knowledge. Eur J Innov
Manag 22(1):105–124
Saether EA (2019) Motivational antecedents to high-tech R&D employees’ innovative work behavior:
self-determined motivation, person-organization fit, organization support of creativity, and pay jus-
tice. J High Technol Managem Res 30(2):100350
Santoso H, Furinto A (2019) Combining self-efficacy and employee friendly workplace to generate
innovative work behavior: evidence from telecommunication industry. Int J Recent Technol Eng
8(2):498–505
13
Santoso H, Elidjen A, Arief M (2019) The role of creative self-efficacy, transformational leadership, and
digital literacy in supporting performance through innovative work behavior: evidence from tel-
ecommunication industry. Manag Sci Lett 9(13):2305–2314
Schermuly CC, Meyer B, Dammer L (2013) Leader-member exchange and innovative behavior: the
mediating role of psychological empowerment. J Person Psychol 12(3):132–142
Schuh SC, Zhang XA, Morgeson FP, Tian P, van Dick R (2018) Are you really doing good things in your
boss’s eyes? Interactive effects of employee innovative work behavior and leader-member exchange
on supervisory performance ratings. Hum Resour Manage 57(1):397–409
Schumpeter JA (1976) Capitalism, socialism and democracy, 3rd edn. George Allen and Unwin, London
Scopus. (2020). Scopus. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/114533/Scopus_Globa
lResearch_Factsheet2019_FINAL_WEB.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2020
Scott S, Reginald B (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innova-
tion in the workplace. Acad Manag J 37(3):580–607
Shanker R, Bhanugopan R, van der Heijden B, Farrell M (2017) Organizational climate for innova-
tion and organizational performance: the mediating effect of innovative work behavior. J Vocat
Behav 100:67–77
Shih HA, Susanto E (2017) Perceived identifiability, shared responsibility and innovative work behav-
ior. Int J Hum Resour Manag 28(22):3109–3127
Shih H-A, Susanto E (2011) Is innovative behavior really good for the firm? Innovative work behav-
ior, conflict with coworkers and turnover intention: moderating roles of perceived distributive
fairness. Int J Confl Manag 22(2):111–130
Siregar Z, Suryana A, Senen S (2019) Factors influencing innovative work behavior: an individual
factors perspective. Int J Sci Technol Res 8(9):324–327
Skudiene V, Augutye-Kvedaraviciene I, DemeSko N, Suchockis A (2018) Exploring the relationship
between innovative work behavior and leadership: moderating effect of locus of control. Organ
Mark Emerg Econ 9(1):21–40
Somsriruen T, Chavez GS, Tayko PM (2018) The effect of organization development intervention
on structural and psychological empowerment to enhance innovative work behavior: an action
research in a technical school in Thailand. ABAC J 38(1):56–73
Spanuth T, Wald A (2017) How to unleash the innovative work behavior of project staff? The role of
affective and performance-based factors. Int J Project Manag 35(7):1302–1311
Spreitzer G, Porath CL, Gibson CB (2012) Toward human sustainability: how to enable more thriving
at work. Organ Dyn 41:155–162
Steyn R (2019) Proactive personality in the workplace and its relevance in South Africa. Afr J Hosp
Tour Leisure 8(3):12
Stock R (2015) Is boreout a threat to frontline employees’ innovative work behavior? J Prod Innov
Manag 32(4):574–592
Stock R, Grob M, Xin KR (2019) Will self-love take a fall? Effects of top executives’ positive self-
regard on firm innovativeness. J Prod Innov Manag 36(1):41–65
Stoffers JM, Van der Heijden BI (2018) An innovative work behavior-enhancing employability model
moderated by age. Eur J Train Dev 42(1–2):143–163
Stoffers JM, Van der Heijden BI, Notelaers GL (2014) Towards a moderated mediation model of inno-
vative work behavior enhancement. J Organ Chang Manag 27(4):642–659
Stoffers J, Hendrikx K, Habets O, van der Heijden B (2020) Employability and innovative work
behaviours in SMEs in a Euroregion: a cross-national comparison between Belgium and the
Netherlands. Person Rev 49(1):167–187
Strobl A, Matzler K, Nketia BA, Veider V (2020) Individual innovation behavior and firm-level explo-
ration and exploitation: how family firms make the most of their managers. RMS 14(4):809–844
Sulistiawan J, Herachwati N, Permatasari SD, Alfirdaus Z (2017) The antecedents of innovative work
behavior: the roles of self-monitoring. Probl Perspect Manag 15(4):263–270
Supriyanto A (2019) Obtaining factors affecting innovative work behavior (IWB) of local bank
employees under Islamic leadership: application of partial least squares regression method. Ind
Eng Manag Syst 18(3):417–425
Suseno Y, Standing C, Gengatharen D, Nguyen D (2020) Innovative work behavior in the pub-
lic sector: the roles of task characteristics, social support, and proactivity. Aust J Public Adm
79(1):41–59
Theurer CP, Tumasjan A, Welpe IM (2018) Contextual work design and employee innovative work
behavior: when does autonomy matter? PLoS ONE 13(10):e0204089
13
Thurlings M, Evers A, Vermeulen M (2015) Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative

behavior: a literature review. Rev Educ Res 85(3):430–471
Topcu MK, Gursoy A, Gurson P (2015) The role of servant leadership on the relation between ethical
climate perception and innovative work. Eur Res Stud J 18(1):67–80
Tranfield D, Smart P, Denyer D (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222
Tri H, Nga V, Sipko J (2019) Predicting overall staffs’ creativity and innovative work behavior in
banking. Manag Market 14(2):188–202
Truss C, Conway E, d’Amato A, Kelly G, Monks K, Hannon E et al (2012) Knowledge work: gender-
blind or gender-biased? Work Employ Soc 26(5):735–754
Uman L (2011) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry
20(1):57–59
Van Den Hoff B, De Ridder JA (2004) Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational
commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. J Knowl Manag
8(6):117–130
Van Hootegem A, Niesen W, De Witte H (2019) Does job insecurity hinder innovative work behav-
ior? A threat rigidity perspective. Creat Innov Manag 28(1):19–29
van Zyl LE, van Oort A, Rispens S, Olckers C (2019) Work engagement and task performance within
a global Dutch ICT-consulting firm: the mediating role of innovative work behaviors. Curr Psy-
chol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00339-1
Vander Elst T, De Cuyper N, Baillien E, Niesen W, De Witte H (2016) Perceived control and psycho-
logical contract breach as explanations of the relationships between job insecurity, job strain
and coping reactions: towards a theoretical integration. Stress Health 32(2):100–116
Veenendaal A, Bondarouk T (2015) Perceptions of HRM and their effect on dimensions of innovative
work behavior: evidence from a manufacturing firm. Manag Rev 26(2):138–160
Viswanatha R, Lakshmi D (2019) Assessing the impact of authentic leadership and team climate on
innovative work behavior within self-managed teams in IT organizations. Int J Recent Technol
Eng 8(4):329–333
Vleugels W, Tierens H, Billsberry J, Verbruggen M, De Cooman R (2019) Profiles of fit and mis-
fit: a repeated weekly measures study of perceived value congruence. Eur J Work Organ Psy
28(5):616–630
Wahyudi S, Udin U, Yuniawan A, Rahardja E (2019) Person-organization fit, knowledge sharing
behavior, and innovative work behavior: a self-determination perspective. Int J Innov Creat
Change 4(4):145–161
Wang H, Wang L, Liu C (2018) Employee competitive attitude and competitive behavior promote job-
crafting and performance: a two-component dynamic model. Front Psychol 9:2223
West MA (1987) A measure of role innovation at work. Br J Soc Psychol 26:83
Widmann A, Mulder RH (2018) Team learning behaviors and innovative work behavior in work
teams. Eur J Innov Manag 21(3):501–520
Widmann A, Messmann G, Mulder RH (2016) The impact of team learning behaviors on team inno-
vative work behavior: a systematic review. Hum Resour Dev Rev 15(4):429–458
Widmann A, Mulder R, Konig C (2019) Team learning behaviors as predictors of innovative work
behavior—a longitudinal study. Innov Organ Manag 21(2):298–316
Wojtczuk-Turek A, Turek D (2015) Innovative Behavior in the workplace: the role of HR flex-
ibility, individual flexibility and psychological capital: the case of Poland. Eur J Innov Manag
18(3):397–419
Woods SA, Mustafa MJ, Anderson N, Sayer B (2018) Innovative work behavior and personality traits:
examining the moderating effects of organizational tenure. J Manag Psychol 33(1):29–42
Wu TJ, Wu YJ (2019) Innovative work behaviors, employee engagement, and surface acting: a deline-
ation of supervisor-employee emotional contagion effects. Manag Decis 57(11):3200–3216
Wynen J, Boon J, Kleizen B, Verhoest K (2019) How multiple organizational changes shape manage-
rial support for innovative work behavior: evidence from the Australian Public Service. Rev
Public Person Adm. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18824388
Yasir M, Majid A (2019) Boundary integration and innovative work behavior among nursing staff.
Eur J Innov Manag 22(1):2–22
Yean TF, Johari J, Yahya KK (2016) The mediating role of learning goal orientation in the relation-
ship between work engagement and innovative work behavior. Int Rev Manag Market 6(7 Spe-
cial Issue):169–174
13
Yi L, Uddin M, Das A, Mahmood M, Sohel S (2019) Do transformational leaders engage employees

in sustainable innovative behavior? Sustainability (Switzerland) 9:2485
Yidong T, Xinxin L (2013) How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: a
perspective of intrinsic motivation. J Bus Ethics 116(2):441–455
Yuan F, Woodman R (2010) The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Acad Manag
J 53(2):323–342
Zandberg T, Morales F (2019) Public managers’ networking and innovative work behavior: the impor-
tance of career incentives. Int Rev Adm Sci 85(2):286–303
Zarefard M, Jeong D (2019) The influence of entrepreneurial competencies of project leader on innova-
tive idea generation in the ICT firms. J Theor Appl Inf Technol 97(17):4612–4622
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
13

Systematic Review of Innovative Work Behavior Concepts and Contributions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systematic Review of Innovative Work Behavior Concepts and Contributions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Review Quarterly

Systematic review of innovative work behavior concepts

Received: 16 March 2021 / Accepted: 12 May 2021

Keywords Innovative work behavior · Workplace innovation · Organizational

JEL Classification O32 Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

Table 1 Key IWB definitions in literature

.. a complex self-initiated multi-dimensional behavior where employees inten-

Focused on this definition, this review contributes to the literature of IWB

Fig. 1 Distribution of IWB articles from year 2000 to 2019 (Scopus 2020)

multiple disciplines, insufficient representation of books, and huge amounts of mate-

3.1 Research methods and theories

Fig. 2 Breakdown of IWB literature methodologies

3.2 Investigated countries and sectors

Fig. 3 Breakdown of IWB publications according to industry sectors and geographical regions

Mokhber et al. 2016; Yidong and Xinxin

2017; Javed et al. 2017; Hamdy, et al. 2019;

researchers showing interest in different employee competencies, such as creativity,

et al. 2018; Friedman and Carmeli 2018)

Organization (Carlucci et al. 2020; Wahyudi et al. 2019;

et al. 2019; Akram et al. 2019)

5 Future research opportunities

This review contributes to IWB scholarship by outlining a theoretical framework,

Fig. 4 A multi-dimensional framework of IWB

Further investigation is required to strike a balance in the methodologies applied

5.1 Leadership support synopsis and analysis

The first direction involves leadership synopsis and considers a breakdown of

5.2 Integration of knowledge flow

Current studies focus on the benefits of knowledge acquisition, transfer and

5.3 Work value proposition and recognition

Value is a concept with two connotations, as a belief and as worth. Belief is an

5.4 Behavioral risk and HR policies

5.5 Workplace innovation and IWB

5.6 Environmental sustainability orientation

IWB is a multidimensional behavior through which individuals generate, introduce,

Funding Civil Service Commission (CSC), Kuwait City, Kuwait.

Koopmans L, Bernaards C, Hildebrandt V, Schaufeli W, de Vet H, Beek A (2011) Conceptual

Thurlings M, Evers A, Vermeulen M (2015) Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative

Yi L, Uddin M, Das A, Mahmood M, Sohel S (2019) Do transformational leaders engage employees

You might also like

Table 1 Key IWB definitions in literature

Fig. 1 Distribution of IWB articles from year 2000 to 2019 (Scopus 2020)

3.1 Research methods and theories

Fig. 2 Breakdown of IWB literature methodologies

3.2 Investigated countries and sectors

Fig. 3 Breakdown of IWB publications according to industry sectors and geographical regions

5 Future research opportunities

Fig. 4 A multi-dimensional framework of IWB

5.1 Leadership support synopsis and analysis

5.2 Integration of knowledge flow

5.3 Work value proposition and recognition

5.4 Behavioral risk and HR policies

5.5 Workplace innovation and IWB

5.6 Environmental sustainability orientation