Role of Meaningful Work in Interpreting the Connections ...xajzkjdx.cn/gallery/494-mar2020.pdfRole...

Role of Meaningful Work in Interpreting the Connections between

Motivational Mechanisms and Innovative Behaviour

1. Faiza A Bawuro*,

Faculty of Technology Management, Business and Entrepreneurship,

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM),

86400 Parit Raja, Malaysia

Author Email: [email protected]

2. Alina Shamsuddin,





3. Eta Wahab,





1. Mohammed Ishaq Mohammed,

Department of Estate Management and Valuation

Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU)

Bauchi, Nigeria

Email: [email protected]

2. Said Alkali Kori

Building Information Modeling (BIM)

Africa Initiative

Abuja Nigeria.

Email: [email protected]

Abstract: Despite the significance of motivation in stimulating innovative behaviour, little is

known about the mutual consequences of the numerous motivational mechanisms aimed at

evaluating innovative behaviour. It is against this development that this study examined the

unique impact of meaningful work on the connection between innovative behaviour and the

numerous mechanisms of motivation. For this study, a total of 309 teachers were selected

from Federal Colleges in North-Eastern Nigeria using convenient random sampling. The data

was analysed using partial least square – structural equation modelling. The effect of

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology

Volume XII, Issue III, 2020

Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5281

mailto:[email protected]




motivational mechanisms on the innovative behaviour of teachers was found to be more

influential when teachers have high self-belief in their ability to produce creative outcomes.

This was also evident when the teachers showed the desire to expend effort to benefit others

than engaging in activities primarily because the job is interesting. The authors also found

that a perceived sense of meaningfulness at work exerts a robust mediating effect on the

motivational mechanisms.

Keywords: Innovative behaviour, motivational mechanisms, meaningful work, education

system

1. Introduction

Employee innovative behaviour has been a significant dream of attainment in the modern

work environment (Evans et al., 2017). The ability to generate ideas, solve problems, and

think imaginatively have become an explicit demand for innovative personnel. This request is

expected to soar in the future, providing organisations with the prospects and obligations to

effectively preserve their competitive advantage by nurturing innovative behaviour

(Grigorenko, 2019). As supported by Binnewies & Gromer (2012), employees’ innovative

work behaviour is recognised as an essential performance outcome, which enables

organisations to take advantage of opportunities, initiate new strategies, and adjust to shifting

environmental conditions. With the emergence of the global knowledge society, Messmann,

Mulder &Palonen (2018) argue that, not only do organisations need to innovate but also non-

profit organisations, for example, educational institutes. This is because the environment in

which educational systems operate also changes rapidly due to the society’s expectations of

schools and expanding fields of knowledge (Thurlings, Evers & Vermeulen, 2015).

Therefore, given the emergence of the modern economy and the stresses placed on

people and associations, the significance of innovative behaviour has never been higher

(Tierney & Farmer, 2011). Numerous researchers have argued that innovative behaviour is a

competitive weapon in the workplace (Devloo et al., 2015). It is responsible for creating

approximately 80% of the novel ideas implemented in organisations (Newman et al., 2018).

Furthermore, it encourages innovative employee behaviour, which is a significant notion

among leaders, managers or administrators in the 21st century. Hence, given the strong

evidence that innovative behaviour positively influences performance outcomes (Wang &

Dass, 2017), researchers have focused on the predictors and antecedents of innovative



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5282

behaviour (Devloo et al., 2015; Klaeijsen, Vermeulen & Martens, 2018; Popa, Soto-Acosta &

Martinez-Conesa, 2017). One of the critical determinants of individual innovative behaviour

is intrinsic motivation. This key factor is also defined as the internal drive that stimulates an

individual’s desire to be continuously engaged or committed to a job (Amabile, 2012). For

instance, Yidong & Xinxin (2013) found a positive connection between intrinsic motivation

and innovative work behaviour. Similarly, Devloo et al. (2015) reported that intrinsic

motivation positively influences innovative behaviour.

Despite the insightful and valuable findings from previous research, current

theoretical work on intrinsic motivation presents a compelling case that “motivation is not

just intrinsic but has other manifestation” (Liu et al., 2016). Similar to the research output on

intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour, motivational research has drawn on creative

self-efficacy (Bandura, 2011) and prosocial motivation (Grant, 2008) as alternative

motivational constructs conducive to innovative behaviour. Notably, the three motivational

mechanisms have generally advanced distinctly from each other. However, empirical studies

are yet to investigate how each category of motivation supports innovative behaviour in a

single study. This is challenging, considering the significant relationships between the three

categories of motivation.

Current research on innovative behaviour examines individual or selected predictors

simultaneously. Typically, the studies examine intrinsic motivation (Bhaduri & Kumar,

2011), creative self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2011), prosocial motivation and intrinsic

motivation (Grant & Berry, 2011), and intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy (Klaeijsen et al.,

2018). Although these empirical studies have made vital contributions to the literature on

innovation, the studies have not highlighted whether the multiple mechanisms of motivational

can operate correspondingly or otherwise to innovative behaviour. Moreover, there is a

growing rate of research highlighting the status of meaningful work as a predictor of

desirable employee outcomes. For example, the outcomes can include organisational

commitment (Geldenhuys, Laba & Venter, 2014) and work engagement (Hoole & Bonnema,

2015). Lastly, the role of meaningful work on motivational mechanisms and innovative

behaviour has not been examined in detail, especially in an education system.

Therefore, this paper seeks to highlight the impact of multiple motivational

mechanisms for innovative behaviour along with the mediation of meaningful work between

the two variables. The contribution of the present study is to provide a novel perspective for

motivational theory and to enrich the predictors of individual innovative behaviour.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5283

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1 Innovative Work Behaviour

Innovation has been reflected as human behaviour from the time when research on innovation

extended from administrative, communication, and anthropological sciences to psychology

and sociology in the 1980s (Bos-Nehles, Renkema & Janssen, 2017). Innovative behaviour at

work is defined as an added role or behaviour essential for organisations to function

successfully (Shanker et al., 2017). The innovative work behaviour (IWB) of employees is

defined as the actions of individuals focussed on the development, processing, and

application of fresh ideas. Typically, such ideas are about novel ways of undertakings,

comprising new products, technologies, procedures or work processes to increase the

efficiency and accomplishment of organisational procedures (Nijenhuis, 2015). Innovative

behaviour is explained as the presentation and implementation of new opinions, products,

processes, and procedures to a person’s workplace roles, operational units, or organisations

(Darvishmotevali, 2019). While Scott & Bruce (1994) conceptualise innovative behaviour as

a self-initiated activity that seeks to generate new or improve current ideas to change

conditions.

However, for innovation to be fully realised, organisations typically depend solely on

individuals at work to innovate. Individuals are the primary source of ideas and are

responsible for the introduction and implementation of ideas, which are the basic

requirements for innovation (Messmann & Mulder, 2014). The benefits and advantages of

innovative behaviour include improving the performance of the individual and organisation

(Agarwal et al., 2012). It also includes the provision of social benefits for employees such as

work engagement, job satisfaction, role performance, high morale and commitment (De Jong

& Den Hartog, 2010; Hughes et al., 2018). Over the years, researchers have placed

significant emphasis on the private organisation or precisely for-profit organisations. Issues

affecting the innovative behaviour of people at work have been extensively investigated

(Thurlings et al., 2015). Klaeijsen et al. (2018) argued that only a few studies focus on the

public sector, specifically on teachers’ innovative behaviour and its factors. Many existing

studies on innovative behaviour are mainly focused on the service, industrial, and

manufacturing industries (Chatchawan, Trichandhara & Rinthaisong, 2017), which is

essentially the private sector. Besides, Thurlings et al. (2015) established that research on

innovative behaviour among teachers has not hitherto received the thoughtful attention it

merits in developing countries.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5284

Earlier studies identified opportunity exploration, idea generation, championing and

application as vital constructs of innovative work behaviour (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010;

Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Other scholars like Kaur & Gupta (2016) maintained

that the instrument established by Messmann & Mulder (2012) is more suitable for measuring

innovative behaviour, especially for teachers. It means that being innovative and reflecting on

teaching practices enables teachers to find their strengths, weaknesses, and improve their

capabilities (Messmann & Mulder, 2015). This implies that teachers can implement changes

or improve their teaching practices by reflecting on their classroom experiences. Therefore,

the need for reflection as the fifth dimension is imperative in this research. This approach can

increase the innovative performance of teachers in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.

Consequently, it is against this development that this study explored the innovative behaviour

among teachers, whose duties and responsibilities are designed to nurture students with

essential knowledge and skills for the future.

2.2 Motivation

Motivation in the workplace is an extensively researched subject. The concept of motivation

examines the psychological aspects required to understand and explain human behaviour

(Peters, 2015). The term motivation has been defined in different ways. According to Forgas

et al. (2005), motivation was hitherto regarded as an entity that binds a person to action.

However, current researchers have suggested diverse explanations of motivation. Heckhausen

& Heckhausen (2018) viewed it as a predisposition for one to act in a purposive way to

accomplish specific needs or the internal drive to satisfy (Itri et al., 2019); or the will to attain

an unfulfilled need (Lazaroiu, 2015). Even though there are some disagreements on the

meaning of motivation, there is an agreement regarding the fundamental notion that it is an

individual sensation (Cook & Artino, 2016). According to Abraham Maslow (1943),

motivation is defined as an intentional and multifaceted ideology (Miner, 2015). Furthermore,

it is maintained that the purpose of motivational theories is to forecast behaviour. Therefore,

the definition developed by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in 2010

was adopted in this study. SHRM (2010) considered motivation as the psychological forces

that govern the manner of exertion and perseverance an individual requires to accomplish a

given assignment (Lockwood, 2010).

In this regard, people who are internally motivated to perform their duty are usually

self-applied without any noticeable external rewards such as pay or bonuses (Cherry, 2016).



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5285

Consequently, this study focuses on the internal factors of motivation, namely: creative self-

efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and prosocial motivation. Therefore, intrinsic motivation is a

measure of how people are involved in an activity mainly to determine if it is exciting,

pleasing or inspiring (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). Creative self-efficacy was derived from

Bandura’s general concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is one of the

essential ideas in psychology research (Lunenburg, 2011). It is described as the judgment of

people’s abilities to accomplish selected tasks or attain a particular performance level

(Bandura, 1986). On the other hand, the origins of prosocial motivation could be traced to the

1980s, when Batson (1987) described it as the eagerness to benefit others through spending

energies. Grant (2007) improved the Batson definition by describing prosocial motivation as

the yearning to significantly influence other people or social cooperatives voluntarily.

2.2.1 Motivational Mechanisms and Innovative Behaviour

Numerous motivational researchers have maintained that internal motivational mechanisms

underlie innovative behaviour (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Liu et al., 2016). Based on the self-

determination theory, Devloo et al. (2015) investigated the relationship between intrinsic

motivation and innovative work behaviour over time. Besides, the facilitating role of intrinsic

motivation in the connection between the fundamental needs of satisfaction and innovative

work behaviour was examined. The findings revealed that intrinsic motivation mediates the

relationship between the fundamental needs of satisfaction and innovative work behaviour.

Notably, Gorozidis & Papaioannou (2014) confirmed that intrinsic motivation is essential for

teachers. The authors found that high levels of intrinsic motivation influence the positive

attitudes of teachers and the implementation of an innovative curriculum. However,

researchers such as Fidan & Oztürk (2015) found that private school teachers in the Ankara

province have higher levels of intrinsic motivation and are more creative than the teachers in

public schools. Similarly, Klaeijsen et al. (2018) observed that intrinsic motivation among

teachers is not suggestively connected to innovative behaviour. Nevertheless, these empirical

studies are related to the present research as it seeks to examine the connection between

intrinsic motivation and the innovative behaviour of teachers.

H1: There is a significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and innovative behaviour

among teachers.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5286

Conversely, individuals can have high levels of intrinsic motivation in their work or

are prosocially motivated to help others by initiating new ideas. Bandura (2011) argued that

without self-efficacy beliefs, individuals might fail to effect change in behaviour, which in

turn affects their abilities to execute the courses of action required to achieve a goal. Given

this, there is evidence from empirical studies showing that inventive self-efficacy is

connected to innovative behaviour. Recently, Klaeijsen et al. (2018) examined the

motivational processes (i.e. intrinsic motivation and occupational self-efficacy) that

contribute to the innovative behaviour of teachers. The findings revealed that occupational

self-efficacy strongly supports the innovative behaviour of teachers compared to intrinsic

motivation.

Similarly, Ng & Lucianetti (2016), Tierney & Farmer (2011) and Malik, Butt &Choi

(2015) found that high levels of self-efficacy stimulate the innovative behaviour of

individuals (i.e. idea generation, dissemination and implementation of the new idea).

Previous studies were conducted in countries using different population, sample sizes,

methods and statistical analysis. However, these studies are relevant to the present study as it

intends to examine the link between inventive self-efficacy and innovative behaviour of

teachers.

H2: There is a significant relationship between creative self-efficacy and innovative

behaviour among teachers.

Prosocial motivation is still an emerging construct given the limited studies that have

explored the connection between prosocial motivation and innovative work behaviour.

Nonetheless, previous studies from diverse cultures have linked prosocial motivation to

creativity. For instance, Grant & Berry (2011) examined the connection between intrinsic

motivation and creativity, along with the moderating role of prosocial motivation. The

findings of the study revealed that the connection between intrinsic motivation and creativity

is supported by prosocial motivation. However, the correlation between creativity and

prosocial motivation is corroborated by Li & Bai (2015). Furthermore, Jaekel (2017)

observed that prosocial motivation has a positive impact on the innovative behaviour of civil

servants in Russia. Based on these findings, it is assumed that prosocial motivation will likely

have a unique contribution to the innovative behaviour of teachers.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5287

H3: There is a significant relationship between prosocial motivation and innovative

behaviour among teachers.

2.3 Meaningful Work

Work accounts for the most substantial part of an individual’s working day. Therefore, it is

not possible to isolate work from the rest of humanity (Bailey & Madden, 2016). If there is

any essential personal transformation that would occur, then it is more likely to take place at

work (Benefiel, Fry & Geigle, 2014). Today, employees seek more than just economic

compensation (money) for their work (Steger, Dik & Duffy, 2012). Some workers want their

work to have meaning rather than just a way of making money (Shea-Van Fossen &

Vredenburgh, 2014). Consequently, the work is viewed as an essential context where workers

engage themselves in goal-oriented activities that provides meaning in their lives (Ahmadi,

Nami & Barvarz, 2014). Meaningful work is described as employees’ perceptions that a

specific job is valuable and worthwhile. Meaningful work, therefore, means an inclusive state

of being and a medium through which people derive meaning and purpose through the

respective jobs that comprise most of their wakening hours (Geldenhuys et al., 2014). Hence,

meaningful work is any work that is not trivial or valuable but somewhat evocative.

2.3.1 Meaningful Work as a Mediator

The core state of psychology is a critical factor that features prominently in the theory of job

design (Hackman, 1980). It is also evident in the cognitive element of empowerment

(Spreitzer, 1996), psychological condition for job engagement (Kahn, 1990), and

fundamental motivation for identity construction (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). The meaningful

work construct was previously identified as an essential psychological state within of itself.

According to Steger et al. (2012), meaningful work is a predictor of desirable work

outcomes. For example, job satisfaction (Allan et al., 2018), work engagement (Hoole &

Bonnema, 2015), job satisfaction (Allan et al., 2018), work engagement (Hoole & Bonnema,

2015), decrease in absenteeism (Benefiel et al., 2014) and reduction in staff turnover (Steger

& Dik, 2010). However, when employees experience an absence of individual meaning in the

workplace, adverse outcomes such as stress (Isaksen, 2000) and cynicism are exhibited

(Cartwright & Holmes, 2006).

However, researchers have not empirically examined the effect of meaningful work

and the mechanisms of motivation on the innovative behaviour of teachers. Numerous studies

have discovered the mediating part of meaningful work using different variables in various



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5288

sectors and contexts based on theoretical contributions. For example, Pradhan and Jena

(2019) observed that meaningful work positively meditated the affiliation between

transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour. Similarly, Nawrin (2018)

revealed that meaningfulness ultimately facilitates the connection between trustworthy

leadership and unselfish behaviour. Sagnak and Kuruöz (2017) reported that the connections

linking organisational job, personal resources, and work engagement were partly facilitated

by meaningful work. However, the outcomes that link meaningful work and the changes that

occur in the workplace have highlighted the relevance of the research findings. Based on the

findings, attaching meaning to work with motivation may likely boost a person to engage in

extra-role activities and perform beyond expectations, which demonstrates innovative

behaviour. The experience of meaningful work that includes a person’s discernment of

profiting from a superior-good (Steger et al. 2013). The skill could also increase the

preparedness of teachers to use their capabilities and energies to invent new teaching policies

that will engage and motivate the students to learn. Also, teachers may be more likely to

engage in innovative activities for the benefit of the students and the school at large by

finding significance and purpose in their teaching jobs. Therefore, this study proposes a

significant connection between meaningful work, motivational mechanisms and the

innovative behaviour of teachers. It can be hypothesised that:

H4: Meaningful work mediates the relationship between intrinsic motivation and teachers’

innovative behaviour.

H5: Meaningful work mediates the relationship between creative self-efficacy and teachers’


H6: Meaningful work mediates the relationship between prosocial motivation and teachers’


H7: There is a significant relationship between meaningful work and teachers’ innovative

behaviour.

3. Methods

A total of 309 teachers from 12 Federal Colleges in North-eastern Nigeria participated in this

survey. The participants in the research consisted of the researcher(s) and responsible staff

within the colleges, who were provided with cover letters, questionnaires, and return

addressed envelopes. Moreover, the confidentiality of all the contributors was guaranteed ab

initio. Using identification numbers, each item on the questionnaire was coded so that all the



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5289

respondents’ responses could be harmonised for the consequent analyses of the data. The

completed questionnaires were returned at the end of the exercise. The return rate of the

questionnaires was 87%, which revealed the high rate of interest from the respondents to

partake in this survey. The mean age of the sample was 35.5 years, with about 69% of male

participants. Approximately 75% of the target group possessed an undergraduate degree. The

participants had taught students for seven years and above, on average, with a minimum

salary of N50,000.

For this study, eighteen (18) items were measured for the teachers’ innovative behaviour

developed by Messmann and Mulder (2012). The intrinsic motivation required seven (7)

items on the interest/enjoyment subscale developed by Ryan and Deci (2000). The creative

self-efficacy required six (6) items on the scale developed by Karwowski (2011). However,

the prosocial motivation required the four-item scale developed by Grant (2008), and ten (10)

items were used for meaningful work as developed by (Steger et al. 2012). The replies were

established on the five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree). Statistical package for the social science (SPSS) and partial least squares – structural

equation modelling (PLS-SEM) were used for the analysis. SPSS was used for the

preliminary analyses, whereas the measurement and structural models were evaluated using

PLS-SEM.

4. PLS

From the initial analysis stage, the validity of the construct (convergent and discriminant

validity) and the consistency of the study items were examined. Both the convergent and

discriminant validity was computed through the average variance extracted (AVE) and

composite reliability (CR). The factors were determined according to the suggested terms CR

> 0.70 and AVE > 0.50 developed in the literature (Hair, Black & Babin, 2010). In this study,

the results revealed that the terms CR and AVE for the entire study parameters were

significantly higher than 0.70 and 0.50, respectively. Besides, the coefficient of Cronbach’s

alpha was regarded as satisfactory for the parameters based on the end point mark, as

presented in Table 2.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5290

Table 2: Items, Factor Loadings and Construct Validity Results

Items Factor

Loadings t- value AVE CR Cα

Teachers’ Innovative Behaviour

(Messmann & Mulder, 2012) 0.507 0.930 0.919

I promote new ideas for the administrator to gain active

support. 0.686** 16.375

I promote the application of the new solution within the

school. 0.732** 22.236

I make plans on how to put an idea into practice. 0.727** 18.388

I introduce colleagues to the application of a developed

solution concerning teaching and learning. 0.729** 19.724

I analyse evolving solutions on unwanted effects when

putting teaching activities into practice. 0.704** 17.330

I express personal evaluations of a problem regarding

teaching. 0.682** 19.654

I address issues related to teaching practices that must

change. 0.694** 17.040

I express new ideas concerning teaching and learning in

school. 0.716** 18.803

I suggest improvements in expressed ideas in the school. 0.701** 16.037

I keep myself informed about new concepts within my

professional field. 0.682** 13.894

I assess the progress of students while putting ideas into

teaching practices. 0.737** 23.400

I reflect on my teaching experiences from the classroom to

improve my shortcomings. 0.742** 23.274

I identify triggers for change in the school. 0.720** 18.634

Intrinsic Motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) 0.645 0.926 0.906

I enjoy my work as a teacher. 0.837** 42.214

I would define working as a teacher as very interesting. 0.855** 44.954

Teaching is a fun job. 0.631** 12.801

Teaching is an exciting job. 0.858** 41.796

Teaching as a job is quite enjoyable. 0.851** 47.550

While I am teaching students in the classroom, I was

thinking about how much I enjoyed it. 0.724** 19.040

Teaching as a career holds my attention 0.837** 44.060

Creative Self-Efficacy (Karwowski (2011) 0.565 0.886 0.846

I can solve problems efficiently, even complicated

problems. 0.770** 19.993

I trust my creative abilities. 0.715** 15.327

Compared to my friends, my ideas are outstanding. 0.737** 17.832

Many times, I proved I can find at least one solution for

any difficult situation. 0.818** 28.755

I can deal with problems requiring creative thinking. 0.767** 21.601

I am good at proposing original solutions to problems

solutions. 0.697** 17.406



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5291

Prosocial Motivation (Grant, 2008) 0.692 0.900 0.851

I get energized with teaching when I have the potential to

benefit students. 0.816** 27.531

I do my best in teaching when my job contributes to the

well-being of students. 0.877** 56.444

My teaching job allows me to have a positive impact on

my students. 0.856** 37.963

I need to do good for students through my work. 0.776** 22.847

Meaningful Work (Steger et al., 2012) 0.598 0.926 0.912

My teaching serves a greater good. 0.751** 20.816

My teaching profession makes a difference in the world. 0.685** 14.742

Am aware my teaching job makes a positive difference in

the world. 0.753** 23.875

I view my teaching career as contributing to my personal

growth 0.764** 20.866

My teaching job helps me better understand myself. 0.791** 31.549

My teaching job helps me make sense of the world around

me. 0.751** 22.659

I have found a meaningful job 0.704** 18.334

I understand how my teaching job contributes to my life’s

meaning. 0.784** 32.339

I have a good sense of what makes my teaching job

meaningful 0.713** 18.684

I discovered teaching as a satisfying purpose. 0.766** 28.874

Note: all items measured by a 5-point Likert scale

Furthermore, the results also revealed that the innovative behaviour of teachers has factor

loadings between 0.686 and 0.742; intrinsic motivation has 0.631 to 0.858; creative self-

efficacy has 0.697 to 0.818; prosocial motivation has 0.776 to 0.877, and meaningful work

has 0.685 to 0.791. The results also indicated that all the factor loadings were considered

significant because the loadings were above 0.5, whereas all items with factor loadings < 0.4

were removed from the model according to the recommendation of Hair et al. (2014).

Besides, the model converged after small iterations below the suggested 300 maximum

requirement (Wong, 2013). Based on the findings, the measurement models in this study

achieved convergent validity.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5292

Table 2: Discriminant Validity using the Fornell and Larker Criterion

CSE IBC IM MMW PM

CSE 0.752

IBC 0.741 0.712

IM 0.643 0.648 0.803

MMW 0.669 0.727 0.724 0.747

PM 0.694 0.719 0.626 0.696 0.832

Note IBC – Teachers’ innovative behaviour, IM – Intrinsic motivation, CSE – Creative self-efficacy, PM –

Prosocial motivation and MMW – Meaningful work.

Table 2 presents the discriminant validity using the Fornell and Larker Criterion. The values

indicate the square root of average variance explained (AVE) figures introduced transversely

in the shaded bolded italics. However, the other figures inserted horizontally and vertically

indicate the correlation between the constructs of the study. Based on the results, PM has the

highest square root of AVE at 0.832 above its highest correlation of 0.719 with the other

constructs. In ascending order, the square roots of the AVEs of IM, CSE, MMW and IBC are

above the highest correlation with other constructs at 0.724, 0.741, 0.724 and 0.741,

respectively. Therefore, the discriminant validity was achieved based on the criterion of

Fornell & Larcker (1981).

Table 3: Structural Model Results

Paths Beta Value

(β) Standard Error T-Statistics P-Values Decision

Direct Path

IM -> IBC 0.081 0.052 1.566 0.117 Not Supported

CSE -> IBC 0.336 0.067 5.051 0.000 Supported

PM -> IBC 0.244 0.055 4.425 0.000 Supported

IM -> MMW 0.408 0.056 7.318 0.000 Supported

CSE -> MMW 0.194 0.061 3.181 0.001 Supported

PM -> MMW 0.306 0.059 5.194 0.000 Supported

MMW -> IBC 0.274 0.066 4.150 0.000 Supported

Indirect Specific Effects

IM -> MMW -> IBC 0.112 0.032 3.473 0.001 Supported

CSE -> MMW -> IBC 0.053 0.021 2.482 0.013 Supported

PM -> MMW -> IBC 0.084 0.026 3.190 0.001 Supported

Note: IBC – Teachers’ innovative behaviour, CSE – Creative self-efficacy, PM – Prosocial motivation, IM –

Intrinsic motivation, and lastly MMW – Meaningful work.

Based on data shown in Table 3, the study found the following direct effects. The intrinsic

motivation revealed a negative causal impact on teacher’ innovative behaviour (β=0.081;

t=1.566; and p=0.117). The results also show that the t-statistics and p-value are below and

above the minimum and maximum required threshold of 1.96 and 0.05, respectively.

However, both creative self-efficacy (β=0.336; t=5.051; and p=0.000) and prosocial



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5293

motivation (β=0.244; t=4.425; and p=0.000) have positive and significant direct effects on

teachers’ innovative behaviour. Similarly, meaningful work showed a positive and significant

impact on teachers’ innovative behaviour (β=0.274; t=4.150; p=0.001). Similarly, the study

found that the three motivational mechanisms have a direct positive and significant impact on

meaningful work. This included the effects of intrinsic motivation on meaningful work

(β=0.408; t=7.318; p=0.000), creative self-efficacy on meaningful work (β=0.194; t=3.181;

p=0.001), and prosocial motivation on meaningful work PM (β=0.306; t=5.194; p=0.000). In

conclusion, the results show that all the direct paths have a significant causal influence on

their endogenous constructs, except the path leading IM to IBC (i.e. intrinsic motivation to

teachers’ innovative behaviour).

Conversely, the study found all the three indirect effects are positive and significant.

The intrinsic motivation through meaningful work on teachers’ innovative behaviour is

significant (β=0.112; t=3.473; p=0.001), creative self-efficacy through meaningful work

teaches’ innovative behaviour is significant (β=0.053; t=2.482; p=0.013), and prosocial

motivation through meaningful work on teachers’ innovative behaviour is also significant

(β=0.084; t=3.190; p=0.001). Overall, the findings validate and support the hypothesis that

meaningful work and its relationship with inherent motivation can underlie the innovative

behaviour of teachers.

5. Discussion

In this study, only two motivational mechanisms; creative self-efficacy and prosocial

motivation showed a direct positive impact on teachers’ innovative behaviour compared to

intrinsic motivation. The findings of the present study are consistent with Tierney and Farmer

(2011), and Grant and Berry (2011). The authors observed that individuals have a high level

of belief in their creative ability and the desire to help others. Such individuals are more than

likely to engage in innovative behaviour compared to others who find the job interesting.

Likewise, the findings support the findings of Fidan and Oztürk (2015) that indicated that

intrinsic motivation is not significantly linked to the innovative behaviour of teachers in

public schools.

Moreover, meaningful work was found to mediate the effect of the trio of

motivational mechanisms (i.e. intrinsic motivation, creative self-efficacy and prosocial

motivation) on teachers’ innovative behaviour. When the feeling of meaningfulness or

purpose on the job was high, intrinsic motivation had a significantly stronger influence on

teachers’ innovative behaviour than the direct link between intrinsic motivation and teachers’



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5294

innovative behaviour. Therefore, the results confirm that teachers with a high sense of

purpose or who find their jobs valuable or worthwhile are more likely to have more interest in

the job. Lastly, confidence in the teachers’ creative abilities and the desire to benefit others to

engage in innovative behaviour also feature prominently.

5.1 Theoretical Contribution

The present study has made several noteworthy contributions to the current literature on the

facilitating impacts of meaningful work and the connections between the mechanisms of

motivation and innovative behaviour. First, a theoretical contribution was made by evaluating

the mutual effects of the three motivational mechanisms on innovative behaviour using

teachers in an educational sphere. The present study also explored whether any of the three

motivational mechanisms contributed significantly to the innovative behaviour of teachers.

Consequently, the authors replied to the researchers demand to observe the degree to which

the three mechanisms of motivation influence the creative and inventive work results (Liu et

al. 2016). Although previous studies have examined how one or a few motivational

mechanisms may encourage individuals at work to exhibit higher levels of creativity and

innovative behaviour. These studies explored the roles of intrinsic motivation (de Jesus et al.

2013), rewards (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012), and creative self-efficacy (Newman et al. 2018)

among others. However, the present study is the first to examine whether the three

motivational mechanisms mutually affect individuals involved in additional innovative work.

Secondly, previous studies have demonstrated that the different motivational

mechanisms are valid for specific ground-breaking behaviour (Devloo et al. 2015). However,

existing studies are yet to examine the significance of stimulating meaningful work among

individuals that exhibit high degrees of creative self-efficacy, prosocial motivation, and

intrinsic motivation. This could be achieved through optimum levels of innovativeness or

commitment to innovative behaviour. Therefore, the present study addressed this challenge

by initially testing the multiple tools of motivation and their connections to forecast the

innovative behaviour of the teachers. As such, the present study identified the critical factors

at the specific levels that nurture the conception along with the presentation of novel concepts

within the teacher’s job roles. Hence, this allows researchers to also respond to the calls of

scholars to take on additional tasks on the mediation variables, which affect the linkage

amongst motivational mechanisms and innovative behaviour (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5295

Lastly, the present study also considerably validates the literature on educational

management by instituting the motivational factors that nurture innovative behaviour among

teachers. Building on the research that examines the direct influence of intrinsic motivation

on teachers’ innovative behaviour (Klaeijsen et al. 2018), the present paper recommends the

immediate consideration of the meaning and purpose teachers attach to their jobs. This

viewpoint is crucial when determining the effectiveness of internal motivational mechanisms,

as this is prospective and hence it is better not to assume it is generally important for all

teachers.

5.2 Practical Contribution

Organisations are consistently calling for individuals to be innovative in their job roles.

Considering that monetary rewards are not readily available, particularly in the public sector,

schools, policymakers, stakeholders and researchers are eager to distinguish the mechanisms

that can effectively boost teachers’ innovative behaviour. The outcomes from the present

study serve as a tool to provide information to practitioners and researchers about the profuse

attributes of creative self-efficacy, prosocial motivation, and intrinsic motivation towards

innovative behaviour. Schools can draw on the insights from the componential theory of

creativity and innovation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016), social cognitive model (Bandura, 2011)

and prosocial motivation (Grant & Berry, 2011) to propose mediation policies to fuel all the

motivational mechanisms. This study also recommends that encouraging job autonomy is

effective in stimulating intrinsic motivation. However, the existence of interesting or

multifaceted jobs can practically increase creative self-efficacy while providing supportive

leadership that can enable prosocial motivation. This is because teachers will prospectively

and positively respond to the support and reassurances provided by the administrators of the

school. Ultimately, this notion will initiate imaginative solutions and discover opportunities

identified within the teaching jobs. Therefore, the degree to which these factors can favour

innovative behaviour are measured, so school administrators are encouraged to keep track of

the changes in teachers’ motivation.

5.3 Limitations and Recommendations

Several limitations must be addressed in future research. First, although we adopted similar

techniques reported in previous literature for data collection and eliminated any prejudices

likely to impact on the overall results, it is suggested that future research might consider

gathering data from multiple sources to evaluate the innovative behaviour of teachers and the



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5296

principals. Secondly, the study is cross-sectional; hence the oversimplification of the results

makes it difficult to establish causation. Accordingly, it is suggested that future research

should deliberate on performing a parallel survey to evaluate the motivational mechanisms

and their impacts on teachers’ innovative behaviour over some time. Likewise, since the

study was performed in Federal Colleges in North-Eastern, Nigeria, this could limit the

potential to generalise the results. Therefore, it is recommended that future research accounts

for further segments of the Nigerian society. Moreover, future research could consider

examining other variables such as psychological empowerment or extrinsic motivational

factors to add credence to the findings. In conclusion, future research could also re-examine

the outlined restrictions, simultaneously performing experimental studies on the connection

between motivational mechanisms and the innovative behaviour of teachers in the Nigerian

context.

6. Conclusions

The present study examined whether meaningful work mediates the motivational mechanisms

and the innovative behaviour of teachers. Therefore, this study recommended that if

meaningful work is high, the consequence of the three motivational mechanisms on teachers’

innovative behaviour will be stronger. The findings submit that school administrators are

responsible for providing a conducive work environment where teachers can attach meaning,

purpose, and significance to their jobs. Such conditions could inspire teachers with high

intrinsic motivation, creative self-efficacy, and prosocial motivation to engage in innovative

behaviour. Lastly, the conditions can encourage the teachers to exploit and identify

opportunities, initiate new ideas, and implement novel strategies for active learning.

7. Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest.

8. Funding

The authors state that no financial assistance was received for the study or publication of the

article.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5297

9. References

Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S. & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative

work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement.

Career development international, 17(3), 208-230.

Ahmadi, S., Nami, Y. & Barvarz, R. (2014). The relationship between spirituality in the

workplace and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedia-Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 114, 262-264.

Allan, B. A., Dexter, C., Kinsey, R. & Parker, S. (2018). Meaningful work and mental health:

job satisfaction as a moderator. Journal of Mental Health, 27(1), 38-44.

Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential theory of creativity. Harvard Business School, 12(96),

1-10.

Amabile, T. M. & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity.

The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3-15.

Amabile, T. M. & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and

innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183.

Bailey, C. & Madden, A. (2016). What makes work meaningful-or meaningless? MIT Sloan

Management Review, 57(4).

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological review, 84(2), 191.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of

social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

Bandura, A. (2011). Social cognitive theory. Handbook of social psychological theories,

2012, 349-373.

Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65-122): Elsevier.

Benefiel, M., Fry, L. W. & Geigle, D. (2014). Spirituality and religion in the workplace:

History, theory, and research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(3), 175.

Bhaduri, S. & Kumar, H. (2011). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to innovate: tracing the

motivation of ‘grassroot’innovators in India. Mind & Society, 10(1), 27-55.

Binnewies, C. & Gromer, M. (2012). Creativity and innovation at work: The role of work

characteristics and personal initiative. Psicothema, 24(1), 100-105.

Bos-Nehles, A., Renkema, M. & Janssen, M. (2017). HRM and innovative work behaviour:

A systematic literature review. Personnel review, 46(7), 1228-1253.

Byron, K. & Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of

theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological bulletin, 138(4), 809.

Cartwright, S. & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining

employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human resource management review,

16(2), 199-208.

Chatchawan, R., Trichandhara, K. & Rinthaisong, I. (2017). Factors affecting innovative

work behavior of employees in local administrative organizations in the South of

Thailand. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 4(3), 154-157.

Cherry, K. (2016). What is intrinsic motivation. About. com Psychology retrieved from

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5245a9c6e4b038b5cbe9a684/t/5990decd893fc0

867d8aba46/1502666445285/What+Does+Intrinsic+Motivation+Mean%3F.pdf.

Cook, D. A. & Artino, A. R. (2016). Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary

theories. Medical education, 50(10), 997-1014.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5298

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5245a9c6e4b038b5cbe9a684/t/5990decd893fc0867d8aba46/1502666445285/What+Does+Intrinsic+Motivation+Mean%3F.pdf

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5245a9c6e4b038b5cbe9a684/t/5990decd893fc0867d8aba46/1502666445285/What+Does+Intrinsic+Motivation+Mean%3F.pdf

de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W. & Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and

creativity related to product: A meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990–

2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80-84.

De Jong, J. & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and

innovation management, 19(1), 23-36.

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

behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(4), 491-

504.

Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A. & Barlow,

C. Y. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified

perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 26(5), 597-608.

Fidan, T. & Oztürk, I. (2015). The relationship of the creativity of public and private school

teachers to their intrinsic motivation and the school climate for innovation. Procedia-

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 905-914.

Forgas, J. P., Williams, K. D., Laham, S. M. & Von Hippel, W. (2005). Social motivation:

Conscious and unconscious processes (Vol. 5): Cambridge University Press.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables

and measurement error: Algebra and statistics: SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los

Angeles, CA.

Geldenhuys, M., Laba, K. & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and

organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 01-10.

Gorozidis, G. & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers' motivation to participate in training

and to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1-11.

Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.

Academy of management review, 32(2), 393-417.

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy

in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of applied

psychology, 93(1), 48.

Grant, A. M. & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention:

Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of

management journal, 54(1), 73-96.

Grigorenko, E. L. (2019). Creativity: a challenge for contemporary education. Comparative

Education, 55(1), 116-132.

Hackman, J. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology, 11(3), 445.

Hair, J., Black, W. & Babin, B. (2010). Anderson. RE, 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis.

New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Heckhausen, J. & Heckhausen, H. (2018). Motivation and action: Introduction and overview

Motivation and action (pp. 1-14): Springer.

Hoole, C. & Bonnema, J. (2015). Work engagement and meaningful work across

generational cohorts. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1-11.

Hughes, M., Rigtering, J. C., Covin, J. G., Bouncken, R. B. & Kraus, S. (2018). Innovative

behaviour, trust and perceived workplace performance. British Journal of

Management, 29(4), 750-768.

Isaksen, J. (2000). Constructing meaning despite the drudgery of repetitive work. Journal of

humanistic Psychology, 40(3), 84-107.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5299

Itri, J. N., Bruno, M. A., Lalwani, N., Munden, R. F. & Tappouni, R. (2019). The Incentive

Dilemma: Intrinsic Motivation and Workplace Performance. Journal of the American

College of Radiology, 16(1), 39-44.

Jaekel, T. (2017). Innovative Behavior and Prosocial Motivation of Russian Civil

Servants. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP, 9.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work

behaviour. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn't hurt to ask… But sometimes it hurts to believe: Polish

students' creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,

and the Arts, 5(2), 154.

Kaur, K. D. & Gupta, V. (2016). The Impact of Personal Characteristics on Innovative Work

Behaviour: An Exploration into Innovation and Its Determinants amongst Teachers.

The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(3/11), 158-172.

Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M. & Martens, R. (2018). Teachers’ innovative behaviour: the

importance of basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and

occupational self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5),

769-782.

Lazaroiu, G. (2015). Work motivation and organizational behavior. Contemporary Readings

in Law and Social Justice, 7(2), 66.

Li, Y. & Bai, X. (2015). Creating for others: An experimental study of the effects of intrinsic

motivation and prosocial motivation on creativity. Advances in Psychological

Science, 23(2), 175-181.

Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S. & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of

employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the

creativity literature. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 137,

236-263.

Lockwood, N. (2010). Motivation in today’s workplace: The link to performance. Research

Quarterly, Society for Human Resource Management, Berea, OH.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and

performance. International journal of management, business, and administration,

14(1), 1-6.

Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N. & Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative

performance: Moderating effects of creative self‐efficacy, reward importance, and

locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 59-74.

Messmann, G. & Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for

innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human

Resource Development International, 15(1), 43-59.

Messmann, G. & Mulder, R. H. (2014). Exploring the role of target specificity in the

facilitation of vocational teachers’ innovative work behaviour. Journal of

occupational and organizational psychology, 87(1), 80-101.

Messmann, G. & Mulder, R. H. (2015). Reflection as a facilitator of teachers' innovative

work behaviour. International Journal of Training and Development, 19(2), 125-137.

Messmann, G., Mulder, R. H. & Palonen, T. (2018). Vocational education teachers’ personal

network at school as a resource for innovative work behaviour. Journal of Workplace

Learning, 30(3), 174-185.

Miner, J. B. (2015). Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and

leadership: Routledge.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5300

Nawrin, R. (2018). Mediating role of meaningful work between resources and work

engagement in Bangladesh’s private banks. Management & Marketing, 13(1), 777-

795.

Newman, A., Herman, H., Schwarz, G. & Nielsen, I. (2018). The effects of employees'

creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: The role of entrepreneurial leadership.

Journal of Business Research, 89, 1-9.

Ng, T. W. & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and

creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social–cognitive theory

perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 101(1), 14.

Nijenhuis, K. (2015). Impact factors for innovative work behavior in the public sector: the

case of the Dutch Fire Department. University of Twente.

Peters, R. S. (2015). The concept of motivation: Routledge.

Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P. & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017). Antecedents, moderators, and

outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 134-142.

Pradhan, S. & Jena, L. K. (2019). Pradhan, S., & Jena, L. K. (2019). Does Meaningful Work

Explains the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Innovative

Work Behaviour?. Vikalpa, 44(1), 30-40.

Pratt, M. G. & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work.

Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, 309, 327.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.

Sagnak, M. & Kuruöz, M. (2017). Authentic Leadership and Altruism: The Mediating Role

of Meaningfulness. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 447-452.

Scott, S. G. & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of

individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 580-

607.

Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., Van der Heijden, B. I. & Farrell, M. (2017). Organizational

climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of

innovative work behavior. Journal of vocational behavior, 100, 67-77.

Shea-Van Fossen, R. J. & Vredenburgh, D. J. (2014). Exploring differences in work's

meaning: An investigation of individual attributes associated with work orientations.

Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 15(2), 101.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.

Academy of management journal, 39(2), 483-504.

Steger, M. F. & Dik, B. J. (2010). Work as Meaning: Individual and Organizational Benefits

of Engaging in Meaningful Work.

Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J. & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and

meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337.

Steger, M. F., Littman-Ovadia, H., Miller, M., Menger, L. & Rothmann, S. (2013). Engaging

in work even when it is meaningless: Positive affective disposition and meaningful

work interact in relation to work engagement. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(2),

348-361.

Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T. & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining

teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research,

85(3), 430-471.

Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative

performance over time. Journal of applied psychology, 96(2), 277.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5301

Wang, X. & Dass, M. (2017). Building innovation capability: The role of top management

innovativeness and relative-exploration orientation. Journal of Business Research, 76,

127-135.

Wong, K. K.-K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)

techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.

Yidong, T. & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative

work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of business ethics,

116(2), 441-455.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 5302

Role of Meaningful Work in Interpreting the Connections ...xajzkjdx.cn/gallery/494-mar2020.pdfRole...

Documents

Transcript of Role of Meaningful Work in Interpreting the Connections ...xajzkjdx.cn/gallery/494-mar2020.pdfRole...