The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1460-1060.htm

Innovative work behavior scale: Innovative

work behavior
development and validation of scale

psychometric properties in higher

education in the GCC countries 119
Alaa Eldin Abdel Hamid Ayoub Received 6 April 2021
Revised 27 May 2021
Gifted Education, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain and Accepted 14 June 2021
Educational Psychology, Aswan University, Aswan, Egypt
Soud Mohammad Almahamid
Department of Innovation and Technology Management, College of Graduate Studies,
Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain, and
Luma F. Al Salah
Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain

Abstract
Purpose – The study aims to develop an innovative work behavior (IWB) scale for the faculty members and
faculty leaders of universities in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries (GCC). This research is intended for
assessing the level of IWB in higher education and evaluating its psychometric properties.
Design/methodology/approach – The study targets academic staff of universities in the GCC region, and
out of 810 questionnaires that were distributed, only 773 valid responses were obtained of which 517 were
responses from males and 256 from females whose ages range between 33 and 67 years.
Findings – The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used and confirmed a five-factor structural
model (opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea promotion, idea realization and idea sustainability), and
the model has a satisfactory fit. The scale consists of 27 items with high Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.87,
demonstrating good internal consistency. Preliminary results suggest that the IWB scale has adequate
convergent and divergent validity.
Practical implications – The IWB scale can be a useful tool for evaluating and developing a high level of
innovative work behavior that maintains university services’ sustainability and increases industries’
competitiveness.
Originality/value – This research provides insights into the importance of IWB in achieving tangible success
to the educational institutions. It provides a new method to confront sudden and unexpected circumstance such
as what has happened during COVID-19 pandemic.
Keywords Innovative work behavior (IWB), Dimension, Scale, Higher education, GCC countries, Faculty
members, Innovation, Digital teaching, COVID-19 pandemic
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced sudden and rapid change in all sectors of the global
societies. Educational organizations have shifted from offering the traditional concept of
“classroom” teaching to virtual learning, and many changes have been witnessed allowing
new patterns to be observed along the way. These patterns serve as criteria to capture how
innovative work behavior (hereafter IWB) among faculty members have surfaced themselves
in higher education. Different institutional and personal factors have influenced faculty
members’ IWB (El Alfy and Naithani, 2021). The competitive pressures, shortage of European Journal of Innovation
Management
Vol. 26 No. 1, 2023
pp. 119-133
The authors are deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and © Emerald Publishing Limited
1460-1060
suggestions. DOI 10.1108/EJIM-04-2021-0176
EJIM governmental funds, the diversification of the labor market needs and the necessity of
26,1 providing high quality educational services continuously (Shafait et al., 2021) urge the need
for developing IWB among faculty members (Lambriex-Schmitz et al., 2020b). Teachers’ IWB
is certainly a function of supportive educational learning environment (Hosseini and Shirazi,
2021; Kleebbua and Lindratanasirikul, 2021).
Innovation at the workplace is also crucial for maintaining and sustaining the educational
organizational development as well as the success of any educational institution. Much of the
120 innovation in any given organization “depends on people’s behavior” (Thurlings et al., 2014,
p. 1). In fact, innovation depends on individualistic behavior which reflects the manner and
quality of work productivity. Innovative individuals who create new ideas form and shape
the core element of the innovation process. Indeed, IWB has gained popularity among many
authors in different fields. For instance, Steyn and Bruin (2019) present a “detailed
conceptualization of the complex concept of IWB” while also “exposing the structure of IWB.”
Noteworthy, too, Messmann and Mulder (2012) claim that “reflection related to the
improvement of competence and performance may be a consequence of IWB” (p. 58).
Moreover, Carmeli et al. (2006) and Noefer et al. (2009) have mentioned that IWB appears when
an employee identifies problems or challenges at work and attempts to propose new solutions
for those problems or challenges. Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has posed several
challenges while creating major problems in the educational setting. Accordingly, teaching
innovatively has become a necessity for the development and success of any educational
institution especially under the COVID-19 crisis.
IWB refers to a connected series of processes in which new ideas are generated, created,
developed, promoted, realized, applied, and modified by an employee to improve his/her role
and performance (Baharuddin et al., 2019). Moreover, De Spiegelaere and Van Gyes (2012)
believe that IWB includes employees’ behaviors that directly and indirectly encourage the
development and introduction of innovations in the workplace. Abdullatif et al. (2016)
mention that IWB is one of the most important factors for organizational growth and
development in both private and public sectors.
Prior studies highlight the complexity of the IWB phenomenon by trying to understand its
antecedents, structures, and consequences. The validity of the developed IWB scales depend
on the number of dimensions in use and the context in which it has been used. The remarkable
dilemma of addressing IWB is encapsulated in how many dimensions should be applied: one,
two, three, four or five? And in which context should they be used? The number of IWB
dimensions is an issue that is still debatable and context bounded in the extant literature
(Baharuddin et al., 2020; De Jong and Hartog, 2008, 2010; Lambriex-Schmitz et al., 2020b;
Messmann and Mulder, 2012; Messmann and Mudler, 2020; Styen and De Bruin, 2019; Scott
and Bruce, 1994). It is also worth noting that there is a lack of research exploring academic
staff’s IWB, and there is not a recognized global scale for measuring IWB in educational
institutions (Lambriex-Schmitz et al., 2020b). Therefore, our study’s main contributions
include filling this void in the literature by addressing IWB among academic faculty
members in higher education in the GCC region.
Our research is a pioneer study in the GCC region revealing a deeper insight on the field of
individual innovation by offering and validating a measure of IWB within the higher
education context. The study presents an analysis of data collected and summarized
quantitatively from GCC faculty members’ responses to our questionnaire. The study is
considered as a reference by providing a clearer picture of how IWB is measured particularly
in the GCC’s higher education context since there is insufficient data in the region regarding
higher education faculty members’ innovative response and adaptation towards digital
teaching in the COVID-19 era. As such, the study shall set a baseline in determining the level
of IWB among faculty members at higher education institutions in the GCC region.
Literature review Innovative
During the current working environment of the Coronavirus pandemic, IWB can be work behavior
considered as one of the most important issues that concerns the survival and success of both
public and private sectors’ organizations. All members of the educational institutions need to
scale
be more innovative, especially in this critical time to adapt to the unexpected current situation
to be able to respond to dynamic and ongoing, unexpected changes as a way to increase
competitiveness and provide high quality performance. It can be said that IWB is a must and
not a choice in the time of the Coronavirus pandemic for sustainability and beyond. 121
Previous studies have explored various aspects of employees’ IWB in different sectors.
Thurlings et al. (2014) studied the factors that affect innovative behavior of teachers in their
work context. In this regard, too, Hosseini and Shirazi (2021) relate that a “learning
organization has a significant positive direct effect on teachers’ innovative work behavior.”
Zhang et al. (2021) have studied individual employees’ innovative intention and IWB, while
Hosseini and Shirazi (2021) focused on displaying that a “learning organization not only
positively predicted work engagement but also acted as a significant positive predictor of
innovative work behavior.” Lambriex- Schmitz et al. (2020a) have also conducted a study to
measure IWB of teachers in vocational education. IWB is essential in the teaching profession
to promote knowledge-based societies that rely on innovative thinking styles, practices, and
applications. Teachers are required “to demonstrate IWB by playing an active role in the
development and implementation of educational innovations” (Lambriex-Schmitz et al.,
2020b, p. 119). IWB contributes to the effectiveness and efficiency of innovation in teaching
and knowledge sharing at higher educational institutions. Lambriex-Schmitz et al. (2020b)
also clearly indicate that in the near future, the need for innovative teachers will increase
substantially as education at all levels is facing changes that require huge transformations,
and further to keep pace with the fast-changing job market, the roles of teachers are changing
whereas critical and creative thinking, lifelong learning and showing adaptive behavior
becomes crucial.
A thorough review of the literature reveals a plethora of stances on the measurement of
IWB based on varied IWB dimensions. In addressing IWB measurement, De Jong and Hartog
(2010) developed a measure of IWB with four dimensions: “the exploration, generation,
championing and implementation of ideas.” It is worth noting that both Jong and Hartog
(2010) claimed that scientists and practitioners stress the significance of IWB of employee for
organizational success. In the literature, too, Amabile (1988), De Jong (2006), Dorenbosch et al.
(2005), Janssen (2005), Kanter (1998), Kleysen and Street (2001), Scott and Bruce (1994) and
West and Farr (1990) have noted that innovation development entails “four tasks including
opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization” (as cited in
Messman and Mulder, 2012a, pp. 44–45).
The way IWB is measured plays a major role in ensuring research quality and validity.
A crucial point, though, in the literature refers to the IWB dimensions. Messman and Mulder
(2012a) identify opportunity exploration, idea generation and idea promotion as key
dimensions of IWB. Similarly, De Spiegelaere et al. (2012b) believe that idea generation,
development, introduction and the application processes should be part of IWB measures.
Other studies including that of Loh et al. (2013) have tackled other dimensions like
sustainability by using questionnaires to conceptualize and explore faculty members’
innovations. Studies have also related that project sustainability is “crucial for achieving
longer-term changes, along with sustained attention to the target issue and project diffusion
and replication” (Loh et al., 2013, p. 32). Previous conclusions indicate that “sustained
innovations will see long-term benefits to the institution that could include improved
curriculum and teaching, stronger research efforts, and greater student involvement”
(Loh et al., 2013, p. 38).
EJIM A comprehensive literature review study conducted by De Spiegelaere et al. (2012a)
26,1 highlights that varied dimensions were used to measure IWB. Authors such as de Jong and
Den Hartog (2007) and Yuan and Woodman (2010) have referred to two dimensions: idea
generation and idea implementation. Other authors such as Carmeli et al. (2006), Janssen
(2000), Messmann and Mudler (2011), Reuvers et al. (2008) and Scott and Bruce (1994) have
suggested three dimensions: idea generation, idea championing and idea implementation.
Four and five dimensions also have been respectively addressed by De Jong and Hartog
122 (2010) and Kleysen and Street (2001) (as cited in De Spiegelaere et al., 2012a, p. 5). It has also
been reported by De Spiegelaere et al. (2012a) that these dimensions have been rarely
distinguished in the empirical data and that “researchers cannot distinguish between the
different dimensions statistically or find high intercorrelations so that they opt for a single
scale of IWB” (p. 5).
De Spiegelaere et al. (2012a) who have offered a comprehensive study in that respect,
sought the definition of IWB. The definition relates to the definition offered by Spreitzer
(1995) as “Innovative behaviors reflect the creation of something new or different. Innovative
behaviors are by definition change-oriented because they involve the creation of a new
product, service, idea, procedure or process” (p. 3). Another definition was provided by
Tuominen and Toivonen (2011) who view “innovation and change activities as all activities
that aim at contributing to the creation and utilization of beneficial novelties in an
organization” (as cited in De Spiegelaere et al., 2012a). However, by adopting previous
contributions, De Spiegelaere et al., (2012a) have summarized the definition of IWB as follows:
“ Innovative work behavior is all employee behavior directed at the generation, development,
introduction, and/or application (within a role, group or organization) of ideas, processes,
products or procedures, new and intended to be beneficial for the relevant unit of adoption”
(p. 4). Moreover, in a survey study of the literature, Thurlings et al. (2014) explain teachers’
innovative behavior by compiling the different IWB studies conducted while communicating
that Messmann and Mulder (2011) reiterated that innovative teacher behavior as performing
the innovation and they further elaborated that “innovative behavior encompasses
observing, listening to, and adapting ideas, building a strategy of action, assessing
through reflection and evaluation, adjusting the innovation, and finding Allies” (p. 12).
IWB can be a new tool of crisis management especially in the time of the current pandemic
where the end of the tunnel may be far too long to be clear; thus, many researchers have tried
to discover which factors stimulate IWB. They identified five factors that drive IWB:
individual factors, job characteristics, team factors, relationship factors and organizational
characteristics (West and Farr, 1990). Furthermore, Bommer and Jalajas (2004) believed that
organizations that are more innovative are better able to obtain the necessary resources to
increase performance and to get a positive response toward the environment than others.
Whether IWB is a unidimensional or multidimensional concept is still a debatable topic in
the literature. Some scholars have discussed the multi-dimensionality of IWB and have
launched strong critics for the unidimensional approach. Other researchers including De
Spiegelaere and Van Gyes (2012), De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) and Yuan and Woodman
(2010) have used two dimensions to measure IWB. They have focused only on idea generation
and idea implementation as the most two necessary dimensions to measure IWB. While other
researchers like Scott and Bruce (1994), Janssen (2000), Carmeli et al. (2006), Reuvers et al.
(2008) and Messmann and Mulder (2011) suggest the three dimensions model: idea
generation, idea championing and idea implementation for measuring IWB. In addition,
Messman and Mulder (2020) have mentioned that IWB can be measured using three
dimensions: opportunity exploration, idea generation and idea promotion. The variation in
the studies measuring IWB is not only restrained by the number of dimensions but also by the
content and indicators of the dimensions themselves.
 According to De Jong and Hartog (2010), the best approach to measure IWB is the four- Innovative
dimension model: exploration, generation, championing and implementation of ideas. In the work behavior
first dimension, which is exploration, employees scan the workplace environment
continuously looking for a new opportunity or emergent problem. In the second
scale
dimension, employees think about new procedures and processes to exploit opportunity
by developing a new solution for an existing or emergent problem. Third, employees may
initiate or conduct a promotional rally to convince managers and sponsors to provide needed
resources to develop new solutions. The fourth dimension involves putting the proposed idea 123
or solution into the real-world workplace practice. Additionally, many researchers including
Kleysen and Street (2001), Dorenbosch et al. (2005), Janssen (2005) and De Jong (2006) believe
that IWB entails four tasks including opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea
promotion and idea realization. Although the naming of the IWB dimensions may seem
different among studies, their indicators share a high level of similarity ranging from the
cognitive aspect, as in idea generation, to the behavioral aspect, as in idea implementation.
Lambriex-Schmitz et al. (2020a) reveal that there are five dimensions to measure IWB
effectively. The five measures are opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea promotion,
idea realization (differentiated in two sub-dimensions: Criterion-based implementation
and learning-based communication) and idea sustainability (differentiated in two
sub-dimensions: external dissemination and internal embedding). These five-dimensions of
IWB proved to be the most effective as they cover all the aspects of IWB. Interestingly,
Lambriex-Schmitz et al. (2020) have developed a scale to fit school teachers, but they have also
recommended examining the psychometrical properties of the scale within higher education
colleges’ and universities’ contexts. Also, the review study by Thurlings et al. (2014) shows
“that research findings, regarding IWB in the educational sector, to date are inconclusive and
fail to provide an unambiguous picture of factors that really matter” (as cited in Lambriex-
Schmitz, 2020b, p. 120). Hence, our study contributes to the existing literature to be a reference
study as it exclusively measures IWB with 5 dimensions: opportunity exploration, idea
generation, idea promotion, idea realization and idea sustainability in the GCC region within
the educational context. Our research also distinguishes between the different IWB
dimensions in the provided scale. Unlike other studies, our research cross-validates the IWB
dimensions by an explanatory and a confirmatory factor analysis. Moreover, our study
comprises a more heterogenous sample of survey respondents unlike previous studies that
include only homogenous samples or respondents. Thus, the current study extends and
validates the applicability of the five dimensions to the GCC universities’ context, which is a
context that has been ignored by prior studies. Moreover, our research can also be considered
a regional study unlike previous studies that focus on one sector or a country. To conclude, to
the best of our knowledge, there is no unified scale that has considered the best scale to
measure IWB in the educational context. The number of dimensions of the scale are still
debatable in the extant literature. Finally, there is no single study prior to our research aiming
to validate the five-dimensional model in the higher education institutions’ context, in general,
and in the GCC countries, in particular.

Method
Participants
The population of the study consisted of universities’ faculty members from the Gulf
Cooperation Council Countries (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman,
Bahrain, Qatar). To obtain an optimal sample size, a ratio of 15 respondents to one question
was used (Everitt, 1975). The sample size was calculated by multiplying the number of
questions (27) in the IWB scale by the number of respondents (15); this resulted in a sample
size of 405. As a result, 810 eligible participants were invited to participate in the study, and a
EJIM total of 773 (95.43%) completed the IWB scale. The participants’ age ranged from 33 to 67
26,1 years with a mean of 47.92 and SD 8.32. The participants were divided into two groups: the
first group (n1 5 387) was used to calculate the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), while the
second group (n2 5 386) was used for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Table 1
summarizes the characteristics of the participants in the two samples.

Instrument
124 Innovative work behavior scale. IWB was assessed with a self-report that consists of 27 items
taken from the innovative work behavior scales advanced by Baharuddin et al. (2019),
De Jong and Den Hartog (2010), Kleysen and Street (2001), Lambriex-Schmitz et al. (2020a),
Messmann (2012), Radaelli et al. (2014). These items where then translated into Arabic by one
of the research team who is bilingual to ensure there is no missing information caused by the
translation process. In addition, the scale was checked by two of the research team who have
long experience in scale development and validation. Further, the scale was sent to three
academic staff working at the college of graduate studies who are expert in innovation
management for checking clarity and accuracy. The research team took in their account all
the feedback from the expert and issue a new version of the scale to be distributed to the
target population. Answers were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
agree (5) to strongly disagree (1).

Procedures
To collect data and verify the psychometric properties of the IWB scale, the researchers
identified higher education institutions, public universities and private universities in the
GCC countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar). After obtaining the
approval of the Scientific Research and Ethics Committee at the Arabian Gulf University,

Characteristics EFA sample (n 5 387) N (%) CFA sample (n 5 386) N (%)

Age (Years)
31–36 37 (9.56) 37 (9.59)
37–42 48 (12.40) 48 (12.44)
43–48 114 (29.46) 114 (29.53)
49–54 110 (28.42) 109 (28.24)
55–60 47 (12.15) 47 (12.18)
≥61 31 (8.01) 31 (8.02)
Gender
Male 259 (66.93) 258 (66.84)
Female 128 (33.07) 128 (33.16)
Academic Rank
Assistant Professor 121 (31.27) 120 (31.09)
Associate Professor 177 (45.74) 177 (45.85)
Professor 89 (22.99) 89 (23.06)
Managerial Position
Dean 21 (5.43) 21 (5.44)
Vice Dean 57 (14.73) 57 (14.77)
Head of Department 77 (19.90) 76 (19.69)
Faculty Members 232 (59.94) 232 (60.10)
Table 1.
Descriptive University
characteristics of the Government 83 (21.45) 82 (21.24)
study samples Private 304 (78.55) 304 (78.76)
the researchers communicated with universities to obtain their approval to apply the study Innovative
tool and obtain a list of the names of faculty members in various academic ranks and work behavior
managerial positions. 810 participants were randomly selected to represent countries of the
GCC, with diverse academic ranks and various managerial positions. An email was sent to all
scale
participants to clarify the purpose of the study. Also, a link was sent to all participants to
record their demographic data and respond to the items of the IWB scale, with clarification
that the response on the scale is voluntary and that the data will be confidential and used for
academic purposes only. Data were collected between November 2020 and February 2021. 125
Analysis of the data
Data were analyzed using the statistical programs SPSS for windows version 27.0 and
LISREL version 8.8. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used with 387 participants of
the study sample, while a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) based on a model of structural
equations was carried out with the other 386 participants. An exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) was tested to explore the factorial structure of the data. To assess the adequacy of the
inter-correlations matrix in order to perform a factor analysis of the main components two
indicators were used: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013). The data were normally distributed and the factors
were expected to be correlated. For extraction in the factor analysis, a principal component
analysis using varimax rotation was used. Any factor with an eigenvalue equal to one or
above one and the loading criterion of 0.4 or more was considered to be significant for factor
extraction. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess theorized five-factor
model and the goodness of fit of the factor structure of the proposed scale. Many indices were
used in order to explore model fit, including Chi-square ratio (χ 2/df), root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI),
normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) (J€oreskog and S€orbom, 2006). Reliability of
the scale and dimensions were explored by computing Cronbach’s alpha and the intra-class
correlation (ICC).

Results
Explanatory factor analysis
The Kaiser–Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.91, and Bartlett’s test
of sphericity showed that the variables were not independent (Bartlett test 5 6213.142,
p < 0.001) which suggests that pairwise variable correlations are nearly entirely explained by
the other variables. These results show the suitability of the correlation matrix for factor
analysis.
Table 2 showed that after assigning an item to all factors with a factor loading above 0.60
apart from items 26 with 0.521, there were five values obtained with an eigenvalue of 1 or
above which explained 60.31% of the total variance. The main focus of this section is the good
factor loading obtained. The greatest saturation was associated to idea realization (15.11%),
idea promotion (13.44%), idea generation (11.60%), idea sustainability (11.47%), and
opportunity exploration (8.69%) respectively. The matrix of components that were resulting
from the principal component analysis and the factors and their associated scale items as well
as the saturation values were shown also in Table 2. This indicated that the result of the
exploratory factor analysis is encouraging, and we can proceed to the confirmatory factor
analysis.

Confirmatory factor analysis

To verify the predicted factor structure of the IWB scale, a confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted with LISREL software. This analysis was carried out on the next tested group,
EJIM Components
26,1 OE IG IP IR IS

Factor 1: Opportunity Exploration

1 I am able to develop ideas and solutions for creative 0.813
opportunities in my field
2 I share ideas with my colleagues or supervisors 0.826
126 about opportunities for the development of working
methods within the organization
3 I share ideas with my colleagues or supervisors 0.886
about the opportunities to find solutions to the
problems we face at work
4 I discuss with my colleagues or supervisors the 0.783
possible opportunities to change work patterns to
achieve better results
Factor 2: Idea generation
5 I propose new ideas for development within the 0.780
organization
6 I am able to express personal opinions about basic 0.806
problems in the workplace
7 I discuss personal ideas for work improvement with 0.809
colleagues
8 I share ideas about concrete changes at work with 0.875
colleagues
9 I suggest improvements to ideas expressed by 0.733
colleagues or bosses at work
Factor 3: Idea Promotion
10 I am able to convince others of the importance of an 0.776
improved idea or a new solution
11 I propose the new idea to key people authorized to 0.748
allocate resources to this new idea
12 I promote supervisors’ new ideas 0.760
13 I promote colleagues’ new ideas 0.765
14 I introduce to colleagues to use an idea or a new 0.676
solution
15 I illustrate how the new idea can be applied 0.715
gradually and practically to others
Factor 4: Idea realization
16 Testing solutions for unexpected problems that 0.738
arise when ideas are put into practice
17 Analyzing solutions arising from unwanted effects, 0.702
when putting ideas in practice
18 Monitoring progress during the process of putting 0.685
ideas into practice
19 Identifying the criteria for success to achieve or to 0.774
realize the new idea
20 Keeping colleagues informed about progress in 0.759
achieving the idea
21 Critical thinking about the procedures that are 0.656
followed when putting the idea into practice
22 Designing practical (operational) strategies for 0.777
Table 2. similar future situations
Standardized factors
of IWB (continued )
 Components
Innovative
OE IG IP IR IS work behavior
scale
Factor 5: Idea Sustainability
23 Comparing the results of the proposed ideas with 0.718
the original predetermined goals
24 Engaging with colleagues to further develop the 0.684
idea 127
25 Initiating collaboration with other groups in the 0.785
organization to apply the new idea in other contexts
as well
26 Discussing with colleagues how to consolidate ideas 0.521
that have been implemented more strongly in the
organization’s system
27 Awareness of the steps that can be taken to make 0.697
the implementation of the proposed idea a success
Variance percentage 8.69% 11.60% 13.44% 15.11% 11.47% Table 2.

formed from 386 participants. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to ensure the
constructive validity of the scales based on the previous literature (MacCallum and Austin,
2000) in order to test the internal structure of the data. It can be considered as the most
appropriate statistical framework that can be used to evaluate the validity and reliability of
each item instead of the overall data which allowing the researchers to be able to design and
adapt the scale (J€oreskog and S€orbom, 2006). The Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model of IWB
was shown in Figure 1. It was carried out with structural equations following a maximum
likelihood model. The results presented a sustainable model constituted by the five identified
factors and a total of 27 items which confirmed its validity. The fit indices of the IWB scale are
χ 2/df 5 1.39; the values of the root mean square error of approximation are (RMSEA 5 0.046),
the goodness of fit index are (GFI 5 0.94), the adjusted goodness of fit index are (AGFI 5 0.91),
and the normed fit index are (NFI 5 0.96), which are above the minimum threshold of 0.90 for
GIF, AGIF, NFI and below the maximum threshold for RMSEA 0.10.
The analysis revealed that the chosen theoretical construct had a significant influence on
the variability of the scores for specific items and confirmed that the results of the model are
fully confirmatory. The results suggest that the model is reasonably well adjusted.

Reliability test
To measure the internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. The Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient for the IWB scale was 0.87, indicating high internal reliability. The values for the
sub-scales of opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea promotion, idea realization, and
idea sustainability were 0.85, 0.82, 0.84, 0.81 and 0.83 respectively which are above
the minimum threshold of 0.70 for confirmatory study. A test-retest analysis was conducted
to assess the stability of the IWB scale. The results indicated satisfactory results. The
intra-class correlation (ICC) was 0.87 (95% CI 5 0.84–0.90) for opportunity exploration. The
ICC for idea generation was 0.84 (95% CI 5 0.81–0.86), ICC 5 0.86, (95% CI 5 0.83–0.90) for
idea promotion, 0.82 (95% CI 5 0.79–0.85) for idea realization, 0.84 (95% CI 5 0.81–0.86) for
idea sustainability, 0.89 (95% CI 5 0.85–0.91) for IWB scale.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine and validate IWB in higher educational context which
has been conceptualized as constituting opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea promotion,
EJIM 0.59 item_1
26,1 0.60 item_2
0.78 item_3
0.64
0.63 item_4 0.63
0.47
128 0.62 item_5 0.61
0.74 item_6 OE 1.00
0.55 item_7
0.62
0.71 item_8 0.51 0.93
0.67
0.53 item_9 0.53
0.68
IG 1.00 0.89
0.46 item_10
0.66 item_11
0.74 1.01 0.93
0.56 item_12 0.58
0.66
0.55 item_13 0.67 IP 1.00 1.00 0.88
0.74
0.45 item_14 0.70
0.51 item_15 0.93 0.88

0.63 item_16
0.60
0.61
IR 1.00 0.85
0.63 item_17
0.65
0.58 item_18 0.51
0.61 0.97
0.74 item_19 0.56
0.54
0.63 item_20 IS 1.00

0.69 item_21
0.59
0.70 item_22 0.73
0.56
0.65 item_23 0.66
0.66
0.46 item_24
0.68 item_25
0.57 item_26
Figure 1.
The confirmatory 0.56 item_27
factor analysis model
of IWB
Note(s): Chi-Square = 436.80, df = 314, P-value = 0.00000,
RMSEA = 0.046

idea realization and idea sustainability. In their studies, Messmann and Mulder (2011)
have recommended constructing “additional items for idea realization” (p. 57). Steyn
and Bruin (2019) discuss that idea exploration scores highest among the other constructs
(p. 8). According to De Jong and Den Hartog (2010), who have explored idea exploration,
generation, championing and implementation communicate that “evidence of the Innovative
distinctiveness of the four dimensions was weak” (p. 33). While, the idea realization phase work behavior
has gained higher scores in the study conducted by Lambriex-Scmitz et al. (2020b), de Jong
and Den Hartog (2008) have expressed that “evidence of discriminant validity is weaker as
scale
the four dimensions (opportunity exploration, idea generation, championing and application)
show high intercorrelations” (p. 21).
However, the aforementioned norms we have addressed in higher educational institutions
across the GCC region through the perceptions of faculty members call for attention. Findings 129
of studies like that of Hosseini and Shirazi (2021) “demonstrate the crucial part teacher work
engagement plays in triggering their innovation.” Notably, too, Zhang et al. (2021) specify
that “the innovative work behavior (IWB) or creativity of employees is regarded as the key to
the sustainable innovation performance of an organization.”
Also, Ajzen (2002) has highlighted that individual perceptions affect behaviors and
attitudes. Prior studies like that of Bourgonjon et al. (2013) indicate that teachers’ beliefs
towards their innovative abilities and experiences are predictors of IWB.
It is also worth noting that for over the last three decades, several IWB measures have
been developed; however, mixed psychometric results and varied number of dimensions were
revealed “due to a lack of verifying the content validity and testing the construct validity”
(Lambriex-Schmitz et al., 2020a). Thus, this study has developed and validated an instrument
to measure IWB of faculty members in GCC higher educational institutions, covering all
essential IWB aspects. We have hypothesized that IWB consists of five dimensions, namely
opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea promotion, idea realization and idea
sustainability. The research conducted by Lambriex-Schmitz et al. (2020b) seem to be valid
in higher educational context with some modifications. This indicates that higher educational
institutions are in need to develop IWB to counter the COVID-19 crisis and remain in contact
with their current and potential students even during these difficult times by offering new
ways, methods, techniques, and solutions to deal with emerging educational challenges.
These dimensions address the physical and cognitive activities that contribute to IWB.
We have ensured that scale structures are valid and reliable to confirm that measures are
invariant across samples. This study has helped in gaining insight into the factors resulting
in IWB. The outcomes of our study reveal that undergoing changes as portrayed in
experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic have contributed to the scores on IWB.

Conclusions
Soon the need for innovative knowledge sharing will increase exponentially due to the rapid
unprecedented changes witnessed worldwide due to the Coronavirus pandemic. The future
no longer relies merely on creative thoughts or ideas, but rather bringing these ideas into life
as innovations. Facing the pandemic, faculty members had to respond and react to a sudden,
abrupt change that turned into a real awakening in delivering and communicating
knowledge. We are all witnessing a new trend at all levels, and with the everchanging
circumstances that the pandemic has brought to our lives, it is safe to claim that education is
no longer captured under working hard, but rather working smart. Working innovatively is
the way to working smart. All teachers and faculty members need to perceive innovativeness
to be able to convey their knowledge innovatively to parallel the newness we are witnessing
in various life domains. Traditional teaching has become outdated and to keep pace with the
fast-changing world, teachers and faculty members need to provide effective, lifelong
learning via innovative ways. Indeed “teachers must not only be professionally trained, but
they are also expected to be able to teach students as optimally as possible, from a didactical,
pedagogical, socio-psychological and ICT perspective” (Lambriex-Schmitz et al., 2020b).
It is, therefore, imperative for higher educational institutions to ensure that faculty
members develop innovative attitude and behavior towards teaching and learning to be able
EJIM to cope with change at any time. Unexpected change has been abruptly and urgently
26,1 responded to during the pandemic. IWB has been a major factor in surpassing the unexpected
and uncertainties in knowledge sharing during the pandemic. Therefore, IWB should be
unconditionally and continuously encouraged and appraised, regardless of sudden changes
like a pandemic. It is, thus, recommended that faculty members be trained and coached to
accept change and adapt to it, as well as to also excel and sustain excellence through IWB.
With adequate attention to IWB, the likelihood of achieving greater success and
130 sustainability in innovative education will increase.

Limitations and future research

Although this research has addressed IWB in the higher educational context in the
GCC region, which can be seen a weakness as well as a strength point of the current work.
The current research is not free of limitations. These limitations represent new directions for
future studies. First, the current study can be further expanded to include higher educational
institutions in the MENA region or internationally. As different educational institutions have
different educational systems and curricula that can be tackled differently. Higher
education’s institutions in other regions can examine the validity and reliability of the
current scale and expand the use of the IWB scale in different cultures where new insights
emerge as culture can be a facilitator or hinder to the IWB.
Second, the rapidly evolving nature and emerging knowledge on the COVID-19 pandemic
not only represents a key limitation of this study and its limited focus on educational
institutions in the GCC region, but also offers a unique context to theorize on IWB in time of
crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic changes the work context and make most people work from
home that may dramatically change the traditional structure of IWB. Thus, home design and
workspace, and family structure, digital infrastructure, and personal contacts determine the
IWB and its structure. Third, the current work focused on the scale reliability and validity
without considering the key role of respondents’ demographic variables. Therefore, it is
highly important to understand how respondents’ demographic variables and health-
wellbeing affect IWB especially in time of crisis. Fourth, the current work did not show which
one of the current IWB dimensions may considered as a catalyst for the other dimensions. In
other words, it is worthwhile to understand the interrelated relationships between IWB
dimensions to help policy makers and educational institutions managers to pick up the
starting point to activate IWB. Fifth, the current work focused on IWB at one level. Thus,
future research can consider IWB at different educational levels, not just higher education,
colleges, research centers/institutions, private universities, public universities, etc.
Sixth, the current work focused only on educational sector. Future studies can also explore
IWB beyond the educational context to target other organizations in other fields, such as
governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, state-owned companies, and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Although the IWB scale seem to be identical for
measuring innovative human behavior, the organizational context whether is governmental,
educational, and non-governmental plays a crucial role in developing and engaging
employees in IWB. Considering that understanding under which conditions the current scale
is applicable to other organizations is exceptionally important. Further studies may try to
understand how the contextual conditions other than COVID-19 crisis affect the applicability
of the IWB current scale. Seventh, significantly, too, other specific items can be incorporated
in future studies to include respondents’ specific competencies and experiences. Eighth, other
predictive factors like learning climate, leadership style, personality traits, and the New Ways
of Working (NWW) (Almahamid et al., 2021) under the current pandemic can be pointed out.
Ninth, it is also worth stating that the survey we used relied on self-reporting, so
perspectives of supervisors and other colleagues can also be included. The innovation cycle
can be further stressed and collecting qualitative data from focus groups or faculty members Innovative
can also aid in better instilling the IWB notion. Additionally, another point of interest that work behavior
may be encompassed is in measuring the degree of the significance, effectiveness, efficiency
and success of IWB. All in all, it has been pointed out that evidence about the levels of
scale
innovative behavior of teachers in higher education in the GCC region is scarce and our study
has come to fill in this gap.
131
References
Abdullatif, T., Johari, H. and Adnan, Z. (2016), “The influence of extrinsic motivation on innovative
work behaviour with moderating role of quality culture”, Journal of Business and Social Review
in Emerging Economies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 79-86.
Ajzen, I. (2002), “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 665-683.
Alfy, S.E. and Naithani, P. (2021), “Antecedents of innovative work behaviour: a systematic review of
the literature and future research agenda”, World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Almahamid, S., Ayoub, A. and Al Salah, L. (2021), “New ways of working scale development and
psychometric properties: validation in higher education institutions in the GCC countries”,
Journal of Facilities Management, In Press.
Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, in Shaw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 123-67.
Baharuddin, M., Masrek, M.N. and Shuhidan, S.M. (2019), “Innovative work behaviour of school
teachers: a conceptual framework”, IJAEDU- International E-Journal of Advances in Education,
Vol. 5, pp. 213-221.
Baharuddin, M.F., Masrek, M.N. and Shuhidan, S.M. (2020), “Content validity of assessment
instrument for innovative work behaviour of Malaysian school teachers”, International Journal
of Scientific and Technology Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1940-1946.
Bommer, M. and Jalajas, D.S. (2004), “Innovation sources of large and small technology-based firms”,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 13-18.
Bourgonjon, J., De Grove, F., De Smet, C., Van Looy, J., Soetaert, R. and Valcke (2013), “Acceptance of
game-based learning by secondary school teachers”, Computers and Education, Vol. 67,
pp. 21-35.
Carmeli, A., Meitar, R. and Weisberg, J. (2006), “Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at
work”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27, pp. 75-90.
De Jong, J. and Den Hartog, D. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10, pp. 41-64.
De Jong, J.P. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2008), “Innovative work behavior: measurement and validation”,
EIM Business and Policy Research, A report submitted to Netherlands Ministry of Economic
Affairs, pp. 1-27.
De Jong, J. and Den Hartog, D. (2010), “Measuring innovative work behaviour”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
De Jong, J.P.J. (2006), “Individual innovation: the connection between leadership and employees’
innovative work behavior”, Paper provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in its series
Scales Research Reports with number R200604, available at: http://www.entrepreneurship-sme.
eu/pdf-ez/R200604.pdf.
De Spiegelaere, S. and Van Gyes, G. (2012), “Innovative work behavior: concept and measurement”,
ISPIM Conference Proceedings, The International Society for Professional Innovation
Management (ISPIM), p. 1.
EJIM De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G. and Hootegem, G.V. (2012a), “Mainstreaming innovation in Europe –
Findings on employee innovation and workplace learning from Belgium”, Lifelong Learning in
26,1 Europe (LLinE), Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 1-20.
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., Vandekerckhove, S. and Hootegem, G.V. (2012b), Job Design and
Innovative Work Behavior: Enabling Innovation through Active or Low-Strain Jobs?, HIVA - K.U.
Leuven, CeSO, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, available at: SSRN 2158618.
Dorenbosch, L., Engen, M.L.V. and Verhagen, M. (2005), “On the job innovation: the impact of job
132 design and human resource management through production ownership”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 129-141.
Everitt, B. (1975), “Multivariate analysis: the need for data, and other problems”, British Journal of
Psychiatry, Vol. 126, pp. 237-240.
Hosseini, S. and Shirazi, Z.R. (2021), “Towards teacher innovative work behavior: a conceptual model”,
Cogent Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, 1869364.
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative behaviour”,
Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 287-302.
Janssen, O. (2005), “The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on
employee innovative behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78
No. 4, pp. 573-580.
J€oreskog, K.G. and S€orbom, D. (2006), LISREL (Version 8.80) [Computer Software], Scientific Software
International, Lincolnwood, IL.
Kanter, R.M. (1998), “When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for
innovation in organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 169-211.
Kleebbua, C. and Lindratanasirikul, K. (2021), “Learning climate for enhancing innovative behavior in
Thai higher education”, The Journal of Behavioral Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 45-57.
Kleysen, R.F. and Street, C.T. (2001), “Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative
behavior”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 284-296.
Lambriex-Schmitz, P., Van der Klink, M.R., Beausaert, S., Bijker, M. and Segers, M. (2020a), “Towards
successful innovations in education: development and validation of a multi-dimensional
Innovative Work Behaviour Instrument”, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 313-340,
doi: 10.1007/s12186-020-09242-4.
Lambriex-Schmitz, P., Van der Klink, M.R., Beausaert, S., Bijker, M. and Segers, M. (2020b), “When
innovation in education works: stimulating teachers’ innovative work behaviour”, International
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 118-134, doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12175.
Loh, L.C., Friedman, S.R. and Burdick, W.P. (2013), “Factors promoting sustainability of education
innovations: a comparison of faculty perceptions and existing frameworks”, Education for
Health, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 32-8.
MacCallum, R.C. and Austin, J.T. (2000), “Applications of structural equation modeling in
psychological research”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 201-226, doi: 10.1146/
annurev.psych.51.1.201.
Messmann, G. and Mulder, R.H. (2011), “Innovative work behaviour in vocational colleges:
understanding how and why innovations are developed”, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 63-84.
Messmann, G. and Mulder, R.H. (2012), “Development of a measurement instrument for innovative
work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 43-59.
Messmann, G. and Mulder, R.H. (2020), “A short measure of innovative work behaviour as a
dynamic, context-bound construct”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 41 No. 8,
pp. 251-1267.
Messmann, G.M.A. (2012), Innovative Work Behaviour: Investigating the Nature and Facilitation of Innovative
Vovational Teachers’ Contributions to Innovation Development, Universit€at Regensburg,
Regensburg. work behavior
Noefer, K., Stegmaier, R., Molter, B. and Sonntag, K. (2009), “A great many things to do and not a
scale
minute to spare: can feedback from supervisors moderate the relationship between skill variety,
time pressure, and Employees’Innovative behavior?”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 384-393.
Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., Mura, M. and Spiller, N. (2014), “Knowledge sharing and innovative work 133
behaviour in healthcare: a micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 400-414.
Reuvers, M., van Engen, M.L., Vinkenburg, C.J. and Wilson-Evered, E. (2008), “Transformational
leadership and innovative work behavior: exploring the relevance of gender differences”,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 17, pp. 227-44.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behaviour: a path model of individual
innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 580-607.
Shafait, Z., Yuming, Z. and Sahibzada, U.F. (2021), “Emotional intelligence and conflict management:
an execution of organisational learning, psychological empowerment and innovative work
behaviour in Chinese higher education”, Middle East Journal of Management, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Steyn, R. and de Bruin, G. (2019), “The structural validity of the innovative work behaviour
questionnaire: comparing competing factorial models”, The Southern African Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 11.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2013), Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed., Pearson, Boston.
Thurlings, M., Evers, A.T. and Vermeulen, M. (2014), “Toward a model of explaining teachers’
innovative behavior”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 430-471, doi: 10.3102/
0034654314557949.
Tuominen, T. and Toivonen, M. (2011), “Studying innovation and change activities in KIBS through
the lens of innovative behavior”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 393-422.
West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1990), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational
Strategies, John Wiley & Sons, Oxford.
Yuan, F. and Woodman, R.W. (2010), “Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance
and image outcome expectations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 323-342.
Zhang, Z., Liu, M. and Yang, Q. (2021), “Examining the external antecedents of innovative work
behavior: the role of government support for talent policy”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, pp. 1-17.

Corresponding author
Alaa Eldin Abdel Hamid Ayoub can be contacted at: alaaeldinaa@agu.edu.bh

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com