Toward a multi‐dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior

By Robert F. Kleysen, Chris T. Street. 2001

576 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Management of Technology and Innovation, Mechanical Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a6355b4b24bbdd359b3b907e29e5742b06cbbaab

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Mechanical Engineering

Citations in the corpus

How work–family enrichment influence innovative work behavior: Role of psychological capital and supervisory support (2017, methodology): “Moreover, in the absence of supervisory support, employees may fear jeopardizing their image if their innovative ideas fail (Kleysen & Street, 2001).”
Perceptions of HR practices and innovative work behavior: the moderating effect of an innovative climate (2019, methodology): “IWB was measured using eleven items adapted from Kleysen and Street (2001) and from De Jong and Den Hartog (2010).”
My strengths count!: Effects of a strengths-based psychological climate on positive affect and job performance (2015, methodology): “Innovativeness Innovativeness was measured with an eightitem scale covering the dimensions of idea exploration, generation, promotion, and implementation (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2005; based on Kleysen & Street, 2001).”
Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct (2012, background): “From studies on creative and innovative work behaviour (Amabile 1988 ; De Jong 2007 ; Dorenbosch, Van Engen, and Verhagen 2005 ; Janssen 2005 ; Kanter 1988 ; Kleysen and Street 2001 ; Scott and Bruce 1994 ; West and Farr 1990 ), it is derived that innovation development requires the accompli”
Toward a Model of Explaining Teachers’ Innovative Behavior (2015, background): “For instance, four studies included teachers among other participants (i.e., Carmeli et al., 2006; Kleysen & Street, 2001; Noefer et al., 2009; Yu et al., 2007), but these authors did not report findings separately for each group.”
Innovative work behavior and personality traits: Examining the moderating effects of organizational tenure (2017, methodology): “While IWB has been traditionally measured using only a single dimension (Kleysen & Street, 2001; Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994), such an approach may not be sufficient to capture the complex multi-dimensional properities of IWB.”
On the Relation of Job Insecurity, Job Autonomy, Innovative Work Behaviour and the Mediating Effect of Work Engagement (2014, unknown): “Although researchers distinguish between three, four or even five sub-dimensions of IWB (see Janssen, 2000; Kleysen & Street, 2001; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010), a large share of the literature identifies just two sub-dimensions: idea generation and idea implementation (Krause, 2004; Yuan & Woodman,…”
Influence of Social Exchange Relationships on Affective Commitment and Innovative Behavior: Role of Perceived Organizational Support (2018, background): “As argued earlier, it is very hard to encourage innovation because there is risk involved in all type of innovation [3,70].”
Measuring employee innovation:a review of existing scales and the development of the innovative behavior and innovation support inventories across cultures (2017, result): “A similar conclusion was reached by Kleysen and Street (2001).”
Identifying key determinants for new product introductions and firm performance in small service firms (2005, background): “The innovative behaviour of employees can be found in various activities like opportunity exploration, idea generation, championing and application (which consists of developing, testing and commercialising the innovation) [Kleysen and Street, 2001].”