Innovative Work Behaviour of teachers in Higher Education : An extended view; A first exploration

Within health education, many innovations are introduced, but are often not successful or sustainable. It is generally acknowledged that the quality of an educational system mainly depends on the quality of the teachers. Innovations will only succeed if teachers experience a climate that stimulates innovation and if they possess a sufficient level of innovative work behaviour. The current concept of innovative work behaviour (IWB) consists of three different behavioural dimensions: Idea generation, promotion and realization. However, the concept lacks attention for idea sustainability, which is necessary to embed the innovation deeply in daily practice. The limited attention for improving and continuation of an implemented idea is an often-mentioned explanation for the lack of the long-term success of innovations. Aim: This study aims at the development and validation of an instrument for innovative work behaviour that also includes the dimension idea sustainability, which has been overlooked by other researchers. Method: A questionnaire is developed, based on the questionnaire of Messmann (2012). Additional items are added to measure the new dimension idea sustainability. This new dimension contains the following concepts: Improving and optimising the innovation, disseminating the innovation in depth in the system of the organization and disseminating on a larger scale, and finally visualization of the benefits for stakeholders. The questionnaire is send to 400 teachers of a University for applied sciences in the South of The Netherlands. Results: 179 questionnaires were completed. It can be concluded that the scales to measure innovative work behaviour are strongly interrelated. There are significant correlations between the original dimensions and the added dimensions. The results for individual characteristics indicated that age and tenure did not correlate with any of the scales. Work experience, gender and also the faculty to which teachers belong did make some difference with regard to IWB. The results for job characteristics showed that the number of working hours, job position and the participation in research groups did make a difference with regard to IWB. In general, job characteristics showed more links with the various scales to measure innovative work behavior compared to the individual characteristics.

[1]  Knowlton W. Johnson,et al.  Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model , 2004 .

[2]  Onne Janssen,et al.  The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour , 2005 .

[3]  Onne Janssen.  Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour , 2000 .

[4]  Amy L. Pablo,et al.  Transforming New Ideas into Practice: An Activity Based Perspective on the Institutionalization of Practices , 2013 .

[5]  M. West,et al.  Innovation at work:psychological perspectives , 1989 .

[6]  Chris T. Street,et al.  Toward a multi‐dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior , 2001 .

[7]  Gerhard Messmann,et al.  Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct , 2012 .

[8]  M. Fullan.  The New Meaning of Educational Change , 1990 .

[9]  John Hattie,et al.  Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement , 2008 .

[10]  Luc W. Dorenbosch,et al.  On-the-Job Innovation: The Impact of Job Design and Human Resource Management Through Production Ownership , 2005 .

[11]  Gerhard Messmann,et al.  Innovative Work Behaviour in Vocational Colleges: Understanding How and Why Innovations Are Developed , 2011 .

[12]  G. R. Oldham,et al.  Rewarding creativity: when does it really matter? , 2003 .

[13]  R. H. Mulder,et al.  Exploring the role of target specificity in the facilitation of vocational teachers’ innovative work behaviour , 2014 .

[14]  Jo Boon,et al.  Competencies: the triumph of a fuzzy concept , 2003 .

[15]  Louis George,et al.  Work Motivation of Teachers: Relationship with Organizational Commitment , 2011 .

[16]  G. Robert,et al.  Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. , 2004, The Milbank quarterly.

[17]  M. West,et al.  The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation:a special issue introduction , 2004 .

[18]  S. Friedman,et al.  Factors promoting sustainability of education innovations: a comparison of faculty perceptions and existing frameworks. , 2013, Education for health.

[19]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Central problems in the management of innovation , 1986 .

[20]  Rosabeth Moss Kanter,et al.  When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organization , 2000 .

[21]  J. D. Jong,et al.  Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour , 2010 .

[22]  Deanne Gannaway,et al.  Cultivating change: disseminating innovation in higher education teaching and learning , 2013 .

[23]  Henny P. A. Boshuizen,et al.  Exploring teachers’ will to learn , 2006 .

[24]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity , 1996 .