Identification and classification of behavioural indicators to assess innovation competence

Pérez-Peñalver, María Jose; Aznar-Mas, Lourdes E.; Montero-Fleta, Begoña Article Identification and classification of behavioural indicators to assess innovation competence Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM) Provided in Cooperation with: The School of Industrial, Aerospace and Audiovisual Engineering of Terrassa (ESEIAAT), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) Suggested Citation: Pérez-Peñalver, María Jose; Aznar-Mas, Lourdes E.; Montero-Fleta, Begoña (2018) : Identification and classification of behavioural indicators to assess innovation competence, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM), ISSN 2013-0953, OmniaScience, Barcelona, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 87-115, https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/188851 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management JIEM, 2018 - 11(1): 87-115 - Online ISSN: 2013-0953 - Print ISSN: 2013-8423 https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Identification And Classification of Behavioural Indicators to Assess Innovation Competence María José Pérez-Peñalver , Lourdes E. Aznar-Mas , Begoña Montero-Fleta Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain) [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Received: December 2017 Accepted: February 2018 Abstract: Purpose: Taking a literature review as a point of departure, the main aim of this paper was the identification of the behavioural indicators of innovators at the workplace, and their classification. Design/methodology/approach: A literature review was addressed by means of a search in Elsevier’s Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. By applying inclusive and exclusive criteria, references were obtained with the search protocol. After filtering and scanning, there was a selection of references plus other articles added by the snowball effect. The final phase undertaken was the classification of the main indicators raised in the publications selected. Findings: Our main contribution was the identification of the behavioural indicators of innovators at the workplace and their classification in five dimensions. Practical implications: This research may yield some light on the assessment of innovative workplace performance of individuals in organisations, as well as on the development of the innovative competence of students in academic institutions as a challenge to meet the needs of both professionals and Higher Education institutions. Originality/value: Some authors have studied the characteristics of innovative people mainly focusing on cognitive abilities, personality, motivation and knowledge. We have sought to offer a better understanding of the phenomenon of individual innovation in organisations, through the analysis of behavioural indicators, an issue that has not been studied from this perspective previously. Keywords: individual innovation, innovative work behaviour, behavioural indicators, literature review, soft competencies, innovation management in operations 1. Introduction Organizations and companies need to meet the challenges of a competitive and globalised 21st century if they want to develop sustainability and continue to grow. It is necessary for them to possess the driver for change that makes them different from the rest. Innovation, as a key determinant of company competitiveness (Amabile, 1988; Pérez-Peñalver, Aznar-Mas & Watts, 2012), has led social scientists and psychologists to discuss how organizational innovation can be promoted (De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, Van Thillo & Van Hootegem, 2012). It has recently been recognised that employees are crucial drivers for this innovation (Agarwal, 2014; Anderson, Potočnick & Zhou, 2014; De Spiegelaere et al., 2012; De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes & Van Hootegem, 2016; Kör, 2016; Odoardi, 2015; Patterson, Kerrin, Gatto-Roissard & Coan, 2009). -87- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Whereas not many individuals in organizations are able to think outside the box and show their openness because they are averse to taking risks (Parzefall, Seeck & Leppänen, 2008), others show a positive mood towards innovative behaviour and participate in the implementation of any novelty (Frese & Fay, 2001; Madrid, Patterson, Birdi, Leiva & Kausel, 2014). There is a lot of talent among these people (Marin-Garcia, Aznar-Mas & González-Ladrón de Guevara, 2011) and companies need to manage it, as the success of many organizations may be in the hands of these innovators (Ferruzca-Navarro, Rodrigues-Martínez, Monguet-Fierro & Trejo-Omeñaca, 2013; Gonzalez- Ladrón de Guevara, Watts, Andreu-Andrés, Aznar-Mas, Fernández, García-Carbonell et al., 2011; Odoardi, 2015). This is the reason why organizations are trying to recruit this type of individuals who will promote change with broader perspective (Giebels, de Reuver, Rispens & Ufkes, 2016), and will increase competitiveness (Bălău, Faems & van der Bij, 2012; Zhu, Djurjagina & Leker, 2014). 2. Justification and Aims of the Study Some scholars have complained about the fact that individual innovative behaviour has been underestimated for a long time in the literature and, hence, the need of further research (Anderson et al., 2014; Bălău et al., 2012; Hakimian, Farid, Ismail & Nair, 2016; Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall & Zhao, 2011; Nelson, Brice & Gunby, 2010; Patterson et al., 2009). Interestingly, the literature on individual innovation has expanded with increasing scholarly publications from the year 2000 up to now, as shown below in Figure 1, thus the reason for the rank established in our search. Figure 1. “Individual Innovation”, 165 hits; “Innovative Work Behaviour” (IWB), 142 hits; “Innovation competen*”, 156 hits. Search made after title, abstract and keywords (January 2018) (Scopus, 1988-2017) However, the topic still merits further research. The main aims of our study are to find in the existing literature the indicators associated to innovators and their classification. This classification is expected to shed some light on questions such as: How can innovators be detected? Which are the predictors of innovative behaviour in employees? A systematic literature review will be the point of departure of our study. This classification into categories can be relevant to detect and measure the innovative abilities at the individual level. The behavioural indicators pursued in this study are observable traits of a specific attitude that can be assessed. Thus, this paper strives to address a better understanding of the dimensions and indicators involved in the innovation of employees at the workplace and it seeks to establish a framework to allow the design of adequate assessment tools either for self-assessment and/or external assessment. -88- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 3. Previous Literature Reviews Some literature reviews arisen through our research on innovation at the workplace are very general and mainly concentrate on the state of the art and future directions (Anderson et al., 2014; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). Anderson et al. (2014) proposed an integrative definition of creativity and innovation and offered theoretical perspectives to creativity at the workplace and innovation from the point of view of componential or individual creative action, among others. Other reviews have studied the antecedents of innovation and creativity, innovation at the level of individual, teams and organizations (Anderson et al, 2014; Caniëls, De Stobbeleir & De Clippeleer, 2014; Parzefall et al., 2008). Some scholars have studied innovation based only on teamwork (Hülsheger, Anderson & Salgado, 2009). De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes and Van Hootegem (2014) have highlighted the concept of innovative work behaviour (IWB), its dimensions and other related aspects. Meta-analyses on the relationship of factors predicting innovation have been published (Hammond et al., 2011), and new models (Ramamoorthy, Flood, Slattery & Sardessai, 2005) with the framework of the relationship between IWB and other variables have also been carried out. Most recent systematic literature reviews by Bos-Nehles, Renkema and Janssen (2017) and Li and Hsu (2016) have studied the link between human resource practices and IWB at the employee level. Some scholars have focused on the concept of intrapreneurship in working life, e.g., Wiethe-Körprich, Weber, Bley and Kreuzer (2017) and De Jong (2016). Some insight into the impact of learning behaviours on innovative behaviour in work teams has been the concern of scholarly research run by Widmann, Messmann and Mulder (2016). Lukeš and Stephan (2017) have developed an integrative model and validate a tool to assess employee innovation. However, not many review studies have tackled innovation from an individual perspective, although there is an increasing interest in the topic. Hence, the need of a comprehensive framework that identifies the individual characteristics of innovation. Some authors have undertaken reviews laying emphasis on the characteristics of innovative people (Bălău et al., 2012; Hammond et al., 2011; Patterson et al., 2009), these have mainly focused on cognitive abilities, personality, motivation and knowledge (Batra & Vohra, 2016). 4. Layout of the Present Study After the introduction and justification above, the reader can first find the method used in the literature review. Secondly, our research will address the differences between the concepts of innovation and creativity; next, concepts related with individual innovation will be revised and some models will be presented. The study will also include the integrative feature of a model regarding the literature reviewed. Finally, our classification of behavioural indicators of innovation will be devised. 5. Methodology 5.1. Search Protocol Process In order to fulfil the objectives of this study, a group of three researchers worked together on a systematic literature review. The main aim of this literature review was the identification of the behavioural indicators of innovators at the workplace, and their classification. There was a first general scan of the literature via the Internet; then a series of specific keywords were agreed to be used in the search protocol so as to identify the indicators associated to the innovative behaviour of employees: •workplace: employment, work, company, organization; •innovative behaviour, innovative work behaviour and individual innovation; •indicators: markers, patterns, descriptors, components, characteristics, factors, observations, parameters, determinants. The publications searched were to be written in English from 2000 to June 2015, and indexed in the databases agreed. The most relevant literature prior to 2000 was included in the selection by the snowball process. Inclusive and exclusive criteria were clearly defined to reduce the vast number of research published during the period of -89- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 study. The publications had to be related to theoretical studies, journal articles, dissertations, literature reviews, meta-analyses and experimental or quasi-experimental studies. The exclusive criteria corresponded to studies related to the observation of particular psychological behaviour, other areas of Social Sciences and organizational innovation. The databases accessed were Elsevier’s Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, which offer extensive abstracts and citation databases, peer-reviewed literature, reliable multidisciplinary research and indexed work. The total number of references obtained was 2,264. The results of the search yielded 754 references retrieved from Elsevier’s Scopus, 773 from Web of Science, and 737 from Google Scholar. Concerning Google Scholar, only 200 references were finally selected by relevance and date of publication. Further details on the search protocol can be found in Montero-Fleta, Pérez-Peñalver and Aznar-Mas (2017). Once all references had been saved and organised with Mendeley, a reference manager software tool, the results were merged and duplicates were removed. Additionally, a number of studies not closely related, from the researchers’ point of view, were discarded. Other false negative studies were incorporated by using the agreed criteria; thus, the number of references selected was reduced to 1,383. There was a first phase in which the three researchers worked together in a screening of title and abstract of all articles to find evidences of significant details for the research being undertaken. In this phase, 115 articles were scanned in a joint session by the three researchers, to verify that there were no discrepancies according to the following selection criteria: experimental studies, impact, studies including questionnaires on individual innovation at the workplace, publications dealing with behavioural indicators of individual innovation at the workplace. Next, the titles and abstracts of the 1,383 articles previously selected were distributed to be read by the three researchers with an overlapping of a 10%. The second phase was the individual reading of the selected articles where those relevant for our research were saved. The labelling of articles identified those fitting any of the selection criteria. The total number of articles selected was 222 plus other 90 articles added by the snowball effect, then yielding a final number of 312 articles read by the three researchers. As the publication of the present paper has been delayed, we have found it convenient to update the search and add the most relevant references published in the years 2016 and 2017. Among the most cited publications in these years, 28 were read. A classification of the main indicators raised in the publications chosen was finally undertaken. 5.2. Methodology Used in the Design of the Model To devise the model of individual innovation competence the participation of members of a research group and Human Resources managers of multinational companies was required. Three group dynamics discussed the available material: •Research group. Purpose: to devise a preliminary model, based on existing models found through the systematic literature review undertaken. •Four members of the research group, three Human Resources managers and one person in charge of innovation working for two multinational companies located in Spain. Purpose: to redesign the model and divide it into phases. •A workshop with a new work group made up of nine researchers from other European partner universities and 17 managers from nine European innovative medium- and large-sized companies. Purpose: to discuss and finally agree the model and the definition of its dimensions. -90- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 6. Conceptual Framework of the Study 6.1. Behavioural Indicators and Behavioural Assessment An issue of special concern is the statement of the most appropriate behavioural indicators to assess innovation. Behavioural assessment is deals with “clearly observable aspects in the way a person interacts with his or her environment” (Groth-Marnat, 2009: page 103). This observable feature is a behavioural indicator that shows the presence of a particular competence (Dent & Krefft, 2004) or evidences the degree of development of a competence (Cruz-Serna., Orozco-Jaramillo, Varela-Gaviria, Trespalacios-Bustos, Zapata-Arboleda, Bustamante-Osorio et al., 2012). Then, the descriptors sought have to be observable and measurable behaviours to allow for a better assessment of staff performance and, thus, of their management and development (Muchinsky, 2006). The more behavioural indicators appear during, e.g., an interview, the greater the likelihood for the candidate to be strong in a particular competence (Dent & Krefft, 2004). Behavioural assessment focuses on issues such as why target behaviours occur, how behaviours should be measured, or what levels of analysis, possibility of change and complexity are preferred (Aznar-Mas, Pérez-Peñalver, Montero-Fleta, González-Ladrón de Guevara, Marin-Garcia & Atarés-Huerta, 2016). These assumptions are obvious in the use of specific assessment procedures that have been designed to yield data from well-defined and validated measures of target behaviours and contextual variables for an individual client (O’Brien, Oemig & Northern, 2010). Furthermore, behavioural assessment also fosters the design of the measuring instruments that can be validated and standardised, thus reducing the subjectivity of the process of staff assessment (Arias-Galicia & Heredia-Espinosa, 2006). 6.2. Key Concepts: Innovation and Creativity Innovation and creativity, two terms frequently considered synonyms have, thus, been often used interchangeably not only by organisations but also by researchers (Carmeli, Meitar & Weisberg, 2006; Scott & Bruce, 1994). These apparently overlapping concepts often lead to a misunderstanding regarding outcomes in organisational innovation (Patterson et al., 2009). Yet, although creativity is central to the whole innovation process, its difference from innovation is clearly highlighted by scholars (Amabile, 1983; Anderson et al., 2014; Ng & Feldman, 2013a, 2013b; Patterson et al., 2009; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Shalley, Gilson & Blum, 2009, to name only a few). For Scott and Bruce (1994), creativity is doing something for the first time anywhere or creating new knowledge. The idea of novelty is present in most definitions of creativity. According to Amabile (1983, 1996), creativity generates new and entirely original ideas and is a previous step, a prerequisite or a starting point for innovation. Furthermore, creative work must be not only novel but also appropriate (Messmann & Mulder, 2011). Thus, apart from the idea of novelty, applicability is also addressed when defining creativity. In this line of thought, Baer (2012) asserts that creativity implies not only the generation of ideas but also that these ideas meet the criteria of novelty and usefulness. There seems to be a general agreement on the application of employee creativity to the production of ideas, products, services, processes or procedures that, besides novel and original, are potentially useful to the employing organization (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2008; Kim, Hon & Crant, 2009; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). However, some scholars discard this latter perspective of usefulness and define creativity as the mental process and the ability to generate new ideas independently of their possible practicability and future added value (Cerinšec & Dolinšek, 2009). The considerations set out in the previous paragraphs clearly relate creativity with the generation of ideas, i.e., the creative stage of the process. This is in sharp contrast with the actual concept of innovation, which involves the subsequent stage of implementation of these ideas toward better procedures, practices, or products (Anderson et al., 2014). Thus, whereas creativity has to do with production, innovation can be seen as a successful implementation of creativity (Scott & Bruce, 1994), a distinction which leads some scholars support that the foundation of innovation ideas is creativity (De Spiegelaere et al., 2012; Janssen, 2000; Ng & Feldman, 2013a, 2013b; Slåtten & Mehmetoglu, 2011 based on Van de Ven, 1986). But although every innovation requires creativity, creativity does not necessarily lead to innovation. To develop and introduce new and improved ways of doing things, both creativity and innovation are needed. -91- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Generally speaking, there seems to be a current trend making innovation encompass both the proposal and applications of new ideas (West & Farr, 1990). Employee innovativeness can, thus, be argued to cover a broader range of behaviours than creativity (Parzefall et al., 2008). Innovation is a wider extensive concept (Anderson et al., 2014; Patterson, Kerrin & Gatto-Roisard, 2015), as it encompasses both creativity, e.g., the generation or proposal of new ideas, and also the implementation or application of new ideas, all aimed at improving organizational performance (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson & Harrington, 2000; Carmeli et al., 2006; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Van de Ven, 1986; West, 2002; West & Farr, 1989, 1990). Nevertheless, although research literature used this inclusive two-component concept of innovation, the need to distinguish creativity from innovation implementation is often claimed (Birdi, Leach & Magadley, 2014). Another issue of general concern is that creativity is carried out individually but it is innovation what is carried out as a result of cooperation because of the difficulty involved in innovating alone (Waychal, Mohanty & Verma, 2011). Innovation implies the transformation of individual work roles and the implementation of new ideas in work groups or teams (Anderson & West, 1998; Rank, Pace & Frese, 2004). Innovation is actually characterised by discontinuous activities rather than discrete, sequential stages (Schroeder, Van de Ven, Scudder & Polley, 1989). Individuals can be expected to be involved in any combination of these behaviours at any one time. In this concern, Anderson et al. (2014) assert that creativity and innovation can occur at the level of the individual, team, organization, or at more than one of these levels combined, but will invariably result in identifiable benefits at one or more of these levels of analysis. Based on the existing literature, Marin-Garcia, Andreu-Andrés, Atarés-Huerta, Aznar-Mas, García-Carbonell, González-Ladrón de Guevara et al., (2016: page 121) define creativity as: Creativity is the ability to transcend (think beyond) traditional ideas, rules, patterns or relationships, and to generate or adapt meaningful alternatives, ideas, products, methods or services, independently of their possible practicality and future added value Furthermore, interestingly, the integrative definition of innovation from Marin-Garcia et al., (2016: page121) is: Innovation is the introduction of a novelty (an idea, a method, a device, an invention, a process) or the improvement of something that already exists that must be useful to people or organizations as added value to meet their needs This view is backed by extensive research evidence demonstrating the “intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, the organization or wider society” (West & Farr, 1990: page 9). This definition is consistent with Amabile (1988) and Birdi et al. (2014). To fully understand employee innovation, some closely related concepts will be discussed in the next section and some innovation models will be provided. 6.3. Individual Innovation The literature on the characteristics of innovators in organizations uses different names for their identification, e.g., innovative behaviour, innovation competence, individual innovation, innovation-related behaviours, employee creativity and employee innovation behaviour (Amo, 2006; Cerinšek & Dolinšek, 2009; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; De Spiegelaere et al., 2012; Li & Hsu, 2016; Lukeš & Stephan, 2017; Marin-Garcia, Pérez-Peñalver & Watts, 2013; Ng & Feldman, 2013a, 2013b; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Waychal et al., 2011). It is commonly agreed that innovative behaviours constitute an extra-role behaviour in most jobs, which means individuals receive no immediate reward for their initiative and do not invoke sanctions if they do not do so (Agarwal, 2014; Janssen, 2000, 2004; Thurlings, Evers & Vermeulen, 2014). Thus, the first and most important concept defining the characteristics and indicators of innovative people is Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB), a term created by Scott & Bruce in 1994; since then the literature on IWB has grown steadily. Scott & Bruce (1994) devised a fuzzy concept of IWB that referred to various stages, i.e., generation, promotion, and application of new -92- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 ideas intended in the work role, group or organization to improve organizational performance (Abbas & Raja, 2015; Chughtai, 2013; Janssen, 2001; Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994). IWB has also been identified with West & Farr’s (1990) definition of innovation above given (Kleysen & Street, 2001; Reuvers, van Engen, Vinkenburg & Wilson-Evered, 2008; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). IWB has also been scholarly defined as a multiple-stage process in which new ideas are generated, created, developed, applied, promoted, realised, and modified by employees in order to benefit the organization or parts within it (Carmeli et al., 2006; Thurlings et al., 2014). Whereas the authors above mentioned centred on the different stages, some research has focused on behaviours and has identified IWB as a multi-dimensional, overarching construct that captures all behaviours through which employees can contribute to the innovation process (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Although the discussion on the IWB concept has not been settled (De Spiegelaere et al., 2014), the authors of the present study agree with the latter interpretation by De Jong & Den Hartog (2007), and support that “innovative work behaviour is all employee behaviour aimed at the generation, introduction and/or application (within a role, group or organisation) of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new and intended to benefit the relevant unit of adoption" (De Spiegelaere et al., 2014: page144). A second point of concern refers to the different dimensions of the IWB concept. Most scholarly research suggests that IWB is not a one-dimensional construct but refers to multiple, distinguishable innovative behaviours based on the phases of the innovation process. Some authors refer to two IWB dimensions (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Yet, most suggest three dimensions (Carmeli et al., 2006; Janssen, 2000; Messmann & Mulder, 2011; Reuvers et al., 2008; Scott & Bruce, 1994). A four-dimension IWB construct (e.g., De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010), or even a five-dimension IWB construct (e.g., Kleysen & Street, 2001) have also been provided. It is striking that researchers rarely manage to empirically distinguish these theoretical dimensions and IWB instruments are built on the assumption of finding dimensions related to the different phases of the innovation process. Finally, while some researchers consider IWB as a one-dimensional construct (Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994), some authors see these constructs not necessarily the most appropriate ones, and demand future research to look for alternatives (Caniëls et al., 2014; De Spiegelaere et al., 2012, 2014). Table 1 shows different models that present the dimensions involved in IWB in the literature reviewed. Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB) Idea generation (Ideation) Idea implementation (Application behaviour) e. g., De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) Idea generation Idea promotion Idea realization e. g., Scott and Bruce (1994) Problem recognition Idea generation Idea promotion Idea realization e.g., De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) Opportunity Exploration Generativity Formative Investigation Championing Application e.g., Kleysen and Street (2001) Creative-oriented Work Behaviour Implementation-oriented Work Behaviour Dorenbosch, van Engen and Verhagen (2005) Table 1. Models of Innovative Work Behaviour On the other hand, another related concept probably for the implementation phase, is intrapreneurship. This concept was borne out by Pinchot (1985) and is defined as the identification and exploitation of opportunities by individual workers to advance their organization, which is generally characterized by employees’ innovation, proactive and risk-taking behaviours (De Jong, 2016), where individuals, intrapreneurs, will “champion” new ideas from development to complete a profitable reality. Such people feel the need to exercise skills in obtaining and using power in order to accomplish innovation (Cerinšec & Dolinšek, 2009). -93- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Wiethe-Körprich et al. (2017) associate innovative behaviour with intrapreneurship competence, a construct which is directed towards individuals’ innovative work behaviour with regard to the recognition of opportunities for improvements, the generation of innovative project ideas, and the championing and implementation of such projects within the organisational practice. From the models above, Dorenbosch et al. (2005) is of particular interest to our study. Its two main macro-phases for the innovation process, generation (Creative-oriented Work Behaviour) and implementation (Implementation-oriented Work Behaviour) have been of general agreement in the scientific community on the subject. The first phase to take place is the idea generation phase, i.e., the creativity phase, without which, innovation is impossible. Lipponen, Bardi and Haapamäki (2008) call it suggestion-making phase, a fundamental phase to innovation that can be accomplished by any employee. The second phase refers to the promotion of novel ideas that are applied within the organization. Several representative models on workers’ innovation in organizations have been devised, as the ones shown in Table 2 below. These models may explicitly describe the abilities characterising an innovative person: Individual Innovation Ability to Conceptualize Creativity Risk-taking Visioning Evers (2005) Creativity ∩ Entrepreneurship Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2009) Creating Future Reflecting Dialoguing Organizing Derksen, de Caluwé and Simons (2011) Creativity Entrepreneurial Abilities Achievement orientation Waychal et al. (2011) Personal Interpersonal Network Kairisto-Mertanen, Räsänen, Lehtonen and Lappalainen, (2012) INCODE Marin-Garcia et al. (2013) Generating Ideas Taking Calculated Risks and Being Entrepreneurial Developing and Maintaining Interpersonal Relationships Turning Ideas into Products, Processes, and Services GISAT 2.0 (The Conference Board of Canada, 2013) Idea generation Idea search Idea communication Implementation starting activities Involving others Overcoming obstacles Lukeš & Stephan (2017) Table 2. Models on Individual Innovation Our own view of individual innovation competence departs from some of the features of the models above and gives rise to the model proposed in the following section of this study. 7. Towards a Model of Individual Innovation Competence We agree with Marin-Garcia et al. (2016) that innovation competence is the ability to create, introduce, adapt and/or apply beneficial novelty at any organizational level. As a competence, innovation can be considered a cluster of separate or even overlapping competences, capacities and skills, which jointly can be regarded as innovation competence (Watts, García-Carbonell & Andreu-Andrés, 2013). In seeking improved performance for the organization or group, innovation starts with the proposal and generation of new ideas and finishes with the use of the outcomes. Taking previous models as a starting point, our model integrates a two-dimensional model related to the two innovation phases by Dorenbosch et al. (2005) and other models that describe individual innovation -94- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Behavioural Indicators of Initiative_Category #3 Works towards goals Luthans et al. (2007); Watts et al. (2012) Uses an action-based approach: develops goals, collects information, makes plans for executing them De Spiegelaere et al. (2012); George and Zhou (2001, 2002); Kim and Lee (2013); Lukeš (2013); Lukeš and Stephan (2017); Patterson et al. (2009); Scott and Bruce (1994) Plans for contingencies and is ready with alternative strategies The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013) Fosters improvements in work organization De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) Table 14. Behaviours showing “organising the implementation of the work” Behavioural Indicators of Initiative_Category #4 Leads new ideas from development to complete a profitable reality Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2009); De Jong (2004); Hilmi et al. (2012); Kleysen and Street (2001) Transforms innovative ideas into useful applications Chughtai (2013); Gorgievski et al. (2014); Hilmi et al. (2012); Hormiga et al. (2013); Hsiao et al. (2011); Janssen (2000, 2001); Kheng et al. (2013); Madrid et al. (2014); Ruan et al. (2010); Odoardi (2015); Truss et al. (2012) Takes action to realize new ideas Bulut et al. (2011); De Jong and Den Hartog (2008); De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) Makes things happen if he/she believes in them Bateman and Crant (1993); Chen (2011); Lukeš (2013); Parker et al. (2006); Seibert, Crant and Kraimer (1999) Puts a lot of energy into coming up with new ideas at work Birdi et al. (2014); Dorenbosch et al. (2005); The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013); Lukeš and Stephan (2017) Loves being a champion for his/her ideas, even against others’ opposition Bateman and Crant (1993); Chen (2011); Lukeš and Stephan (2017); Parker et al. (2006); Seibert et al. (1999) Takes action to insure the adoption of the new product Nelson et al. (2010) Systematically introduces new ideas into work practices Bulut et al. (2011); Chughtai (2013); De Jong and Den Hartog (2008); De Spiegelaere et al. (2012); Hormiga et al. (2013); Hsiao et al. (2011); Janssen (2000, 2001); Kheng et al. (2013); Kleysen and Street (2001); Odoardi (2015); Ramamoorthy et al. (2005); Ruan et al. (2010); Implements changes that seem to be beneficial Kleysen and Street (2001) Table 15. Behaviours showing “implementing the ideas” Behavioural Indicators of Initiative_Category #5 Goes beyond expectations in the assignment, task, or job description without being asked Syracuse University Performance Partnership (2016) Engages in activities that have a chance of not working out Hormiga et al. (2013) Takes an acceptable level of risk to support new ideas Bulut et al. (2011); Choi (2004); Dewett (2006); Ettlie and O’Keefe (1982); George and Zhou (2001, 2002); Hilmi et al. (2012); Prieto and Pérez-Santana (2014); Watts et al. (2012) Takes the initiative to realize new products/services Globocnik and Salomo (2014) Uses own methods of doing and is creative to get jobs done Bulut et al. (2011) Accepts empowerment to carry out a task Globocnik and Salomo (2014) Table 16. Behaviours showing “assuming no common tasks and acceptable risks” -101- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Behavioural Indicators of Initiative_Category #6 Has resilience, recovers readily The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013); Lukeš and Stephan (2017); Luthans et al. (2007); Watts et al. (2012) Learns from his/her experiences and is not afraid to make mistakes The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013) Acts quickly and energetically Atwater and Carmeli (2009); Carmeli and Spreitzer (2009); Ettlie and O’Keefe (1982) Puts a lot of energy into coming up with new ideas at work Birdi et al. (2014); Dorenbosch et al. (2005); The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013); Lukeš and Stephan (2017) Persists in the face of possible resistance to his/her ideas Sternberg, (2006); Lukeš and Stephan (2017) Table 17. Behaviours showing “being persistent and active” 9.4. Teamwork Teamwork is a key determinant of innovation (Amabile, 1996; Ancona, Bresman & Kaeufer, 2002; Pearce & Ensley, 2004), and is most strongly associated with the implementation phase (Axtell et al., 2000; Herzog & Leker, 2010; West, 2002). For Marin-Garcia et al. (2016) teamwork is the ability to work effectively with others in a group (based on Stevens & Campion, 1994; Pearce & Ensley, 2004). The individual behaviours found on this dimension were classified into the two main categories shown below: working well with others (Table 18) and making the team work well (Table 19). Behavioural Indicators of Teamwork_Category #1 Attempts to share information throughout the team Anderson and West (1998); Anderson et al. (2014); Bulut et al. (2011); Burch, Pavelis and Port (2008); Chen (2011); Choi (2004) Interacts effectively with others to facilitate the gathering, integrating and conveying of information in many forms Anderson and West (1998); Berdrow and Evers (2011); Chen (2011); Choi (2004); Dorenbosch et al. (2005); Watts et al. (2012) Invites feedback and comments Anderson and West (1998); Anderson et al. (2014); Carmeli and Spreitzer (2009); Chen (2011); De Jong and Den Hartog (2010); Watts et al. (2012) Gives considerable opportunities for independence and freedom to the other team members Carmeli and Spreitzer (2009); De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) Encourages, mentors, and coaches others to share ideas and speak freely The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013) Coordinates the work of others and encourages positive group relationships Anderson et al. (2014); Berdrow and Evers (2011); Dekas, Bauer, Welle, Kurkoski and Sullivan (2013) Makes it easy for people to collaborate and deliver new solutions The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013) Identifies sources of conflict between his/herself and others, or among other people, and to take steps to overcome disharmony Berdrow and Evers (2011); Watts et al. (2012) Sets clear expectations to team members Choi (2004); Rousseau, Aube and Tremblay (2013) Identifies team weaknesses Dekas et al. (2013); Rousseau et al. (2013) Gives suggestions to the team Anderson and West (1998); Burch and Anderson (2004); Chen (2011); Dekas et al. (2013); Rousseau et al. (2013) -102- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Behavioural Indicators of Teamwork_Category #1 Stimulates problem solving in the team Dewett (2006); Ettlie and O’Keefe (1982); Ettlie et al. (2014); Rousseau et al. (2013); Scott and Bruce (1994) Meets team members frequently to talk both formally and informally Anderson and West (1998); Burch and Anderson (2004); Chen (2011) Table 18. Behaviours showing “working well with others” Behavioural Indicators of Teamwork_Category #2 Conveys ideas successfully Anderson and West (1998); Chen (2011); Choi (2004); Dekas et al. (2013); Watts et al. (2012) Provides constructive feedback, cooperation, coaching or help to team colleagues Chen (2011); Dekas et al. (2013); Dorenbosch et al. (2005); The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013); Schepers and Van den Berg (2007) Consults about essential changes De Jong and Den Hartog (2010); Pearce and Ensley (2004) Obtains constructive comments from colleagues Bysted (2013); Dekas et al. (2013); Schepers and Van den Berg (2007) Works well with others, understanding their needs and being sympathetic with them Anderson and West (1998); Berdrow and Evers (2011); Chen (2011) Co-operates in order to help develop and apply new ideas Anderson and West (1998); Burch and Anderson (2004); Chen (2011) Respects and supports the ideas, approaches, and contributions of others The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013) Is attentive when others are speaking, and responds effectively to others’ comments during the conversation Anderson and West (1998); Berdrow and Evers (2011); Chen (2011); Choi (2004); Watts et al. (2012) Accepts team decisions, even if in disagreement Anderson and West (1998); Chen (2011); Dekas et al. (2013) Shows flexibility when working in collaboration Anderson and West (1998); Anderson et al. (2014); West and Farr (1990) Interacts frequently in the team Anderson and West (1998); Burch and Anderson (2004); Chen (2011); Dekas et al. (2013) Understands and accepts team members Anderson and West (1998); Burch and Anderson (2004); Chen (2011) Table 19. Behaviours showing “making the team work well” 9.5. Networking The success of the implementation of an idea depends on the ability to persuade powerful and influential people of the value of innovation. Innovators need colleagues outside their own organization for informational and emotional social support. Then a social network for innovators facilitates the innovation process (De Jong, 2004; Nelson et al., 2010). For Ferris, Treadway, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, Kacmar, Douglas et al. (2005) and Baer (2012) networking ability is likely to allow people to cultivate different types of social relationships and network constellations. Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003) suggest that we need to empirically explore the social side of individual innovation in which (external) network contacts occur. Furthermore, De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) found that external work contacts were positively and significantly related to IWB, thus, it seems to be crucial to study the social network of the employees. For Marin-Garcia et al. (2016) networking is the ability to involve stakeholders outside the team. -103- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 The individual behaviours found on this dimension were classified into the four main categories shown below: making the necessary contacts for a project (Table 20), making contacts out of an organization (Table 21), working well in different contexts (table 22) and miscellaneous (Table 23). Behavioural Indicators of Networking_Category #1 Identifies the appropriate decision makers and stakeholders who have the power to make a difference Frese and Fay (2001); Lukeš and Stephan (2017; Watts et al. (2012) Engages outsiders of the core work group from the beginning George and Zhou (2001, 2002); Parker et al. (2006); Scott and Bruce (1994) Shares timely information with the appropriate stakeholders De Jong and Den Hartog (2008); Janssen (2000); Kleysen and Street (2001); Parker et al. (2006); Scott and Bruce (1994) Shows diplomacy and skill in managing situations with different stakeholders Lukeš (2013) Works together with outsiders to provide benefits to the team/organization Ferris et al. (2005) Table 20. Behavioural indicators showing “making the necessary contacts for a project” Behavioural Indicators of Networking_Category #2 Builds relationships outside the team/ organization Ettlie and O’Keefe (1982); Ettlie et al. (2014); Ferris et al. (2005); Frese and Fay (2001); The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013) Acquires, assimilates, transforms and exploits external knowledge to establish, manages and learns from informal organisational ties De Jong and Den Hartog (2008); Frese and Fay (2001); Janssen (2000); Kleysen and Street (2001); Lukeš (2013); Patterson et al. (2009); Scott and Bruce (1994) Meets people with different kinds of ideas and perspectives to extend his/her own knowledge domains Chen (2011); De Jong and Den Hartog (2010); Dyer, Gregensen and Christensen (2009); The Conference Board of Canada (GISAT 2.0) (2013) Visits conferences, trade fairs and/or expositions De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) Talks to people from other companies in the market De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) Keeps in touch with people from universities/knowledge institutions De Jong and Den Hartog (2008); De Jong and Den Hartog (2010); Janssen (2000); Kleysen and Street (2001); Scott and Bruce (1994) Makes a conscious effort to visit other countries and meet people from other walks of life De Jong and Den Hartog (2010); Dyer, Gregersen and Christensen (2009) Table 21. Behavioural indicators showing “making contacts out of an organization” Behavioural Indicators of Networking_Category #3 Works in multidisciplinary environments Frese and Fay (2001); Watts et al. (2012) Works in multicultural environments Ettlie and O’Keefe (1982); Watts et al. (2012) Table 22. Behavioural indicators showing “working well in different contexts” Behavioural Indicators of Networking_Category #4 Contacts people outside the company (e.g., customers) to discuss problems Bysted (2013); Parker et al. (2006) Visits external customers De Jong and Den Hartog (2008); De Jong and Den Hartog (2010); Janssen (2000); Kleysen and Street (2001); Scott and Bruce (1994) Chooses communication channels with different Bjorklund, Bhatli and Laakso (2013) -104- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Behavioural Indicators of Networking_Category #4 parties Takes the opportunity to translate communications from other departments for his/her work group Ettlie and O’Keefe (1982); Ettlie et al. (2014) Uses personal contacts to manoeuvre his/herself into choice work assignments Ettlie and O’Keefe (1982); Ettlie et al. (2014) Table 23. Miscellaneous 10. Conclusions The majority of the models in the literature describe several dimensions of the construct but, generally speaking, none of these models is based on any publication in scientific papers following a strict, complex validation process replicated by researchers (Marin-Garcia et al., 2016). There is a lack of publications containing a detailed analysis of the dimensionality of the models based on multi-item measurements (Marin-Garcia, Ramírez Bayarri & Atarés-Huerta, 2015). Our research focused on the existing models in the literature about individual innovation and our model integrates both the generation and the implementation phases, where creativity and critical thinking are associated to generation; conversely, initiative, teamwork and networking are associated to the implementation phase. The first contribution was the identification of the behavioural indicators of innovators at the workplace. To describe the capacity of individual innovators at the workplace, our literature review confirmed the presence of closely related concepts with blurred boundaries between them. The most relevant concepts in our research to detect the innovative behaviour of innovators are Innovative Work Behaviour and Innovation Competence. The behavioural indicators obtained will allow us to assess, self-assess and develop the innovation competence of individuals. We have sought to offer a better understanding of the phenomenon of individual innovation in organisations, an issue that has not been studied from this perspective in previous studies, according to the results of our systematic literature review. The second contribution was the classification of the behavioural indicators of innovators according to the model of innovation competence presented here. Our classification may be useful to design further tools to measure innovation competence of future professionals. On the one hand, our study fills a void that may be useful to HR Departments of organizations to value the potential of innovation in recruitment and selection processes, or management of individual innovators. On the other hand, it may be of special interest to universities to develop and measure the innovation competence of undergraduates (Lehto, Kairisto-Mertanen & Penttilä, 2011). This interest lays on the fact that universities are urgently required to transform the learning methodologies and assessment strategies if they want to provide society with qualified professionals for the future. Not only academic formation is required but also competences that may allow the development of innovation in organizations and companies (Marin-Garcia et al., 2013). Based on the results of the study, our avenue for future research is the piloting of a tool to measure innovation competence and to validate the model proposed. Next, it would be of interest to verify the value that organizations give to this tool as well as analyse the user’s perspective on the tool. This is our ongoing process to yield some light on the assessment of innovative workplace performance in organisations, as well as on the development and assessment of the innovative competence of students in academic institutions (Marin-Garcia et al., 2015), as a challenge to meet the needs of both professionals and Higher Education institutions. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. -105- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Funding This research has been supported by the Erasmus+ Project FINCODA (2015-2017). Framework for Innovation Competences Development and Assessment_554493-EPP-1-2014-1-FI-EPPKA2-KA (The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein) and by the Project PIME 2015-2016 A/09_Evaluación de los indicadores del comportamiento innovador en el alumno universitario, at the Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain). References Abbas, M., & Raja, U. (2015). Impact of psychological capital on innovative performance and job stress. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 32(2), 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1314 Agarwal, U.A. (2014). Examining the impact of social exchange relationships on innovative work behaviour. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 20(3/4), 102-120. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-01-2013-0004 Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 Amabile, T.M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 10(1), 123-167. Amabile, T.M. (1996). The motivation for creativity in organizations. Harvard Business Review, January, 5(9), 1-14. Amo, B.W. (2006). What motivates knowledge workers to involve themselves in employee innovation behaviour? International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 1(1/2), 160-177. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKMS.2006.008851 Ancona, D., Bresman, H. & Kaeufer, K. (2002). The comparative advantage of X-teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 33-39. Anderson, N.R., & West, M.A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19(3), 235-258. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128 Arias-Galicia L. F., & Heredia-Espinosa, V. (2006). Administración de Recursos Humanos para el Alto Desempeño (6a ed.). México: Trillas. Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader-member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.07.009 Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167029 Aznar-Mas, L.E., Montero-Fleta, B., Pérez-Peñalver, M.J., Watts, F., García-Carbonell, A., & Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2015). De Proyecto INCODE a FINCODA: utilización del Barómetro INCODE en alumnos universitarios y en empleados con competencias de innovación. Conference proceedings InRed 2015 (1197-1206). Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain. https://doi.org/10.4995/INRED2015.2015.1620 -106- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Aznar-Mas, L.E., Pérez-Peñalver, M.J., Montero-Fleta, B., González-Ladrón de Guevara, F., Marin-Garcia, J. A., & Atarés-Huerta, L.M. (2016). Indicadores de comportamiento de la competencia de innovación en el ámbito académico y en el profesional: revisión de la literatura. Conference proceedings InRed 2016 (1257-1268). Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain. https://doi.org/10.4995/INRED2016.2016.4389 Baer, M. (2012). Putting Creativity to Work: The Implementation of Creative Ideas in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102-1119. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0470 Bailin, S. (1987). Critical and creative thinking. Informal Logic, 9(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v9i1.2656 Bălău, G., Faems, D., & van der Bij, H. (2012). Individual Characteristics and Their Influence on Innovation: A Literature Review. Proceedings of the 9Th International Conference on Innovation and Management (887-901). Bateman, T.S., & Crant, J., (1993). The Proactive Component of Organizational behaviour: A Measure and Correlates. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14(2), 103-118.https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202 Batra, S., & Vohra, N. (2016) Exploring the linkages of cognitive style and individual innovativeness. Management Research Review, 39(7), 768-785. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2014-0047 Berdrow, I., & Evers, F.T. (2011). Bases of competence: A framework for facilitating reflective learner-centered educational environments. Journal of Management Education, 35(3), 406-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562909358976 Birdi, K., Leach, D., & Magadley, W. (2014). The relationship of individual capabilities and environmental support with different facets of designers’ innovative behaviour. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12250 Bjorklund, T., Bhatli, D., & Laakso, M. (2013). Understanding idea advancement efforts in innovation through proactive behaviour. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 15(2), 124-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-01-2013-0001 Bos-Nehles, A., Renkema, M., & Janssen, M. (2017). HRM and innovative work behaviour: a systematic literature review. Personnel Review, 46(7), 1228-1253. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2016-0257 Bulut, C., Samur, S.B., & Halac, D.S. (2011). Does Really Innovative Work Behaviours of Employees Mediate the Innovative Performance Impacts of Intrapreneurship? Fulford, H. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 173-182. Burch, G.S.J., & Anderson, N. (2004). Measuring person-team fit: Development and validation of the team selection inventory. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(4), 406-426. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410537954 Burch, G.S.J., Pavelis, C., & Port, R.L. (2008). Selecting for Creativity and Innovation: The relationship between the innovation potential indicator and the team selection inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(2), 177-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00422.x Bysted, R. (2013). Innovative employee behaviour: the moderating effects of mental involvement and job satisfaction on contextual variables. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(3), 268-284. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2011-0069 Bysted, R., & Hansen, J.J.R. (2013). Comparing Public and Private Sector Employees’ Innovative Behaviour: Understanding the role of job and organizational characteristics, job types, and subsectors. Public Management Review, 17(5), 698-717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841977 Caniëls, M.C.J., De Stobbeleir, K., & De Clippeleer, I. (2014). The Antecedents of Creativity Revisited: A Process Perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12051 Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G.M. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: implications for innovative behaviours at work. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 43(3), 169-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01313.x Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self‐leadership skills and innovative behaviour at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720610652853 -107- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive Leadership and Employee Involvement in Creative Tasks in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654 Cerinšek, G., & Dolinšek, S. (2009). Identifying employees’ innovation competency in organisations. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 6(2), 164-177. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2009.022811 Chen, W.J. (2011). Innovation in hotel services: Culture and personality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 64-72.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.07.006 Choi, J.N. (2004). Individual and contextual dynamics of innovation-use behaviour in organizations. Human Performance, 17(4), 397-414. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1704_3 Choi, J.N., Sung, S.Y., Lee, K., & Dong-Sung, C. (2011). Balancing cognition and emotion: Innovation implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional reactions toward innovation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 32(1), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.684 Chughtai, A.A. (2013). Linking affective commitment to supervisor to work outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(6), 606-627. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-09-2011-0050 Chughtai, A.A., & Buckley, F. (2011). Work engagement antecedents, the mediating role of learning goal orientation and job performance. Career Development International, 16(6-7), 684-705. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111187290 Cruz-Serna, A.V., Orozco-Jaramillo, Á.M., Varela-Gaviria, G., Trespalacios-Bustos, J.I., Zapata-Arboleda, J.A., Bustamante-Osorio, M.A., et al. (2012). Competencias gerenciales del directivo docente, para el ejercicio efectivo de la gerencia educativa. Identificación, descripción y metodologías para su desarrollo. (Trabajo de Grado). Facultad de Educación. Universidad de San Buenaventura, Medellín (Colombia). De Jong, J.P.J. (2004). How can leaders trigger bottom-up innovation? An Empirical Research into Knowledge Intensive Services. SCALES SCientific AnaLysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs, May, 1-53. De Jong, J.P.J. (2016). Entrepreneurial Behavior by Employees in Organizations. Available in SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2721615 De Jong, J.P.J., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710720546 De Jong, J.P.J., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2008). Innovative work behaviour, measurement and validation. SCALES SCientific AnaLysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs, 1-27. De Jong, J.P.J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Van Hootegem, G. (2014). The Innovative Work Behaviour concept: definition and orientation (Translated from: Innovatief werkgedrag als concept: definiëring en orienteering. Gedrag & Organisatie 27(2), 139-156). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285946970_The_concept_of_Innovative_Work_Behavior_Definition_and_orient ation De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Van Hootegem, G. (2016). Not All Autonomy is the Same. Different Dimensions of Job Autonomy and Their Relation to Work Engagement & Innovative Work Behavior. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 26(4) 515-527. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20666 De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., Van Thillo, T., & Van Hootegem, G. (2012). Innovative Work Behaviour: Concept & Measurement. ISPIM Conference Proceedings. Barcelona, Spain. Dekas, K.H., Bauer, T.N., Welle, B., Kurkoski, J., & Sullivan, S. (2013). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Version 2.0: A review and Qualitative Investigation of OCBs for Knowledge Workers at Google and beyond. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(3), 219-237. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0097 -108- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Dent, S.M., & Krefft, J.H. (2004). Powerhouse Partners: A Blueprint for Building Organizational Culture for Breakaway Results. California: Davies Black Publishing. Derksen, K., de Caluwé, L., & Simons, R.J. (2011). Developmental space for groups working on innovation. Human Resource Development International, 14(3), 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.585060 Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 40(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01265.x Dorenbosch, L., van Engen, M.L., & Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job Innovation: The Impact of Job Design and Human Resource Management through Production Ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8691.2005.00333.x Dyer, J.H., Gregersen, H.B., & Christensen, C.M. (2009). The Innovator’s DNA. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 60-67. Ettlie, J.E., & O’Keefe, R.D. (1982). Innovative attitudes, values, and intentions in organizations (1). Journal of Management Studies. 19(2), 163-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1982.tb00066.x Ettlie, J.E.S., Groves, K.S., Vance, C.M., & Hess, G.L. (2014). Cognitive style and innovation in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(3), 311-326. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2012-0101 Evers, F.T. (2005). Bases of Competence Skills Porfolio Specifications, (1-34). University of Guelph. Farmer, S.M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040653 Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C.J., Douglas, C et al. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386 Ferruzca-Navarro, M.V., Rodrigues-Martínez, J., Monguet-Fierro, J.M., & Trejo-Omeñaca, A. (2013). Team equilibrium and innovation performance. IEEE Tsinghua International Design Management Symposium, IEEE (30-36). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIDMS.2013.6981212 FINCODA (2015-2017). Erasmus+ Project: Framework for Innovation Competences Development and Assessment. 554493-EPP-1-2014-1-FI-EPPKA2-KA. https://www.fincoda.eu Ford, C.M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 23, 133-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6 Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37-63. https://doi.org/10.2307/256630 George, J.M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behaviour: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513 George, J.M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 687-697. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021- 9010.87.4.687 Ghafoor, A., Qureshi, T.M., Azeemi, H.R., & Tahir Hijazi, S. (2011). Mediating role of creative self-efficacy. African Journal of Business Management, 5(27), 11093-11103. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.876 Giebels, E., de Reuver, R.S.M., Rispens, S., & Ufkes, E.G. (2016). The Critical Roles of Task Conflict and Job Autonomy in the Relationship Between Proactive Personalities and Innovative Employee Behavior. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. 52(3), 320-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316648774 -109- Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552 Gilson, L.L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017863 Gino, F., & Wiltermuth, S.S. (2014). Evil Genius? How Dishonesty Can Lead to Greater Creativity. Psychological Science, 25(4), 973-981. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614520714 Globocnik, D., & Salomo, S. (2014). Do Formal Management Practices Impact the Emergence of Bootlegging Behaviour? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4), 505-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12215 Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7-28. González-Ladrón de Guevara, F., Watts, F., Andreu-Andrés, Mª.A., Aznar-Mas, L.E., Fernández, A., García-Carbonell, A., et al. (2011). Definition of Innovation Competences, University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, CARPE Consortium on Applied Research and Professional Education. Available at: http://www.carpenetwork.org/Networking%20conference/Social%20Innovations.aspx Gorgievski, M.J., Moriano, J.A., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Relating work engagement and workaholism to entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2012- 0169 Gough, H.G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398-1405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398 Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Gupta, B. (2011). Organisational culture and creative behaviour: moderating role of creative style preference. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 10(4), 429-441. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2011.043100 Gupta, V. (2014). Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship between leadership and creative performance behaviours: empirical evidence from the Indian R&D sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1373-1394. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.870311 Hakimian, F., Farid, H., Ismail, M.N., & Nair, P.K. (2016). Importance of commitment in encouraging employees’ innovative behaviour. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(1), 70-83. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-06- 2015-0054 Hammond, M.M., Neff, N.L., Farr, J.L., Schwall, A.R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018556 Herzog, P., & Leker, J. (2010). Open and Closed Innovation: Different Cultures for Different Strategies. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3/4). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8090-8 Hilmi, M.F., Pawanchik, S., Mustapha, Y., & Mahmud, N. (2012). Innovative behaviour of Malaysian employees: An exploratory study. International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology Research, IEEE (135-138). Malacca, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTR.2012.6236375 Hormiga, E., Hancock, C., & Valls-Pasola, J. (2013). The relationship between employee propensity to innovate and their decision to create a company. Management Decision, 51(5), 938-953. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2012-0591 Hsiao, H.C., Chang, J.C., Tu, Y.L., & Chen, S.C. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy on innovative work behaviour for teachers. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2011.V1.6 Hülsheger, U.R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J.F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128- 1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978 INCODE (2011-2013). Erasmus+ Project: Innovation Competencies Development. http://www.incode-eu.eu/en INNDUCE.ME (2014). http://www.innduce.me/en -110-