Abstract
Background: Digitalisation, knowledge-intensive work, and workforce mobility have reduced the effectiveness of control-oriented supervision. As work increasingly requires adaptability, problem-solving, and innovation, diverse supervisory approaches and creativity-enabling work environments are now central to sustaining employee-driven innovation (EDI).
Aim: This study aimed to analyse the relationship between supervisory behaviour and work environment factors in advancing employee innovation.
Setting: The study was conducted among 4206 employees within the administrative and academic sectors of a South African higher education institution.
Method: A quantitative, cross-sectional design was used, employing a census survey in which 624 participants completed a self-developed questionnaire (15% response rate). Inferential statistical analyses were conducted to examine how supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment influence employee innovation.
Results: Supervisory behaviour demonstrates a positive relationship with EDI, a link that is mediated by internal organisational factors such as an innovation-supportive culture, established innovation mechanisms, available innovation opportunities, and tolerance for risk-taking.
Conclusion: Employee innovation does not arise from individual effort alone but is shaped by the interaction between supervisors’ day-to-day behaviours and the broader internal work environment. Innovation is most likely to be sustained when supervisory support, an innovation-oriented culture, and enabling structures operate in a coherent, mutually reinforcing manner.
Contribution: This study makes practical contributions by identifying supervisory support and management–team alignment as key levers for fostering innovation, and theoretical contributions by demonstrating how innovation culture and environmental mechanisms mediate the relationship between supervisory behaviour and employee innovation.
Keywords: employee-driven innovation; internal work environment; supervisory behaviour; management support; team innovation; innovative leadership; risk-taking tolerance; organisational culture.
Introduction
Higher education institutions, particularly those operating in open distance e-learning (ODeL) environments, face increasing pressure to adapt to turbulent, digitally driven conditions characterised by rapid technological change, shifting stakeholder expectations, and constrained resources. In this context, institutional sustainability depends on employees’ capacity to engage in continuous innovation and creative problem-solving. However, many universities remain embedded in bureaucratic and control-oriented structures that may inadvertently limit employee innovation, raising concerns about the alignment between strategic commitments to innovation and everyday supervisory and work practices.
Although employees are widely recognised as primary sources of ideas and incremental change (Agarwal et al. 2012), their willingness and ability to innovate are strongly shaped by supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment (Berglund et al. 2024; Tigre 2024). Recent studies have demonstrated that psychological safety and supportive psychosocial climates facilitate the sharing of ideas and experimentation, while supervisors translate these conditions into innovative performance through encouragement, knowledge sharing, and resource support (Gharajeh-Alamdari et al. 2025; Jin & Peng 2024). Yet, much of the existing research examines supervisory behaviour, leadership, or work environment factors in isolation, often within private-sector contexts.
Consequently, limited empirical research has analysed the integrated influence of supervisory behaviour and internal work environment factors on employee-driven innovation (EDI), particularly in higher education and ODeL settings. Addressing this gap, this study investigates how supervisory behaviour and internal work environment conditions jointly shape EDI and creativity within a South African ODeL institution. The study provides empirical insight into how everyday supervisory practices interact with organisational culture, innovation mechanisms, risk-taking tolerance, and opportunity structures to enable, or constrain, EDI, with clear implications for HR practice and leadership development in higher education (Berglund et al. 2024; Gharajeh-Alamdari et al. 2025; Tigre 2024).
Aim of the study
The study aimed to assess the extent to which supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment influence EDI and creativity.
Literature review
Innovation and creativity
Innovation and creativity are closely linked to novelty, transformation, and value creation. Contemporary scholarship defines innovation as the intentional implementation of new or significantly improved products, processes, services, or practices that generate value for organisations and their stakeholders (Ritala, Kraus & Bouncken 2024). Employee-driven innovation positions employees as active contributors to idea generation and problem-solving, emphasising that innovation emerges through interaction between individuals, supervisory behaviour, and the organisational context in which work is performed (Berglund et al. 2024).
Creativity refers to the generation of ideas, solutions, or approaches that are both novel and useful within a particular organisational context (Madjar 2005). While creativity primarily concerns idea generation, innovation extends beyond ideation to include the implementation and application of creative ideas to produce organisational value (Dubina 2005). Creativity can therefore be regarded as a precursor to innovation, as innovative outcomes depend on generating ideas that are sufficiently original, relevant, and actionable. In organisational settings, employee creativity is shaped not only by individual capabilities, but also by supervisory support and environmental conditions that legitimise experimentation and idea sharing (Madjar 2005).
Innovative and creative capacity is not restricted to specific job levels or occupational roles; rather, all employees possess latent creative potential that can be mobilised under appropriate organisational and supervisory conditions (Kwon & Kim 2023; Montani, Vandenberghe & Khedhaouria 2024). Employees often hold deep, tacit knowledge of operational processes, customer needs, and inefficiencies, positioning them to identify improvement opportunities that may not be visible to senior management. As a result, EDI is increasingly conceptualised as a bottom-up process embedded in daily work activities rather than as a purely top-down strategic initiative (Bäckström, Bengtsson & Berglund 2022).
Foundational EDI scholarship emphasises that innovation frequently emerges from employees’ experiential knowledge and proximity to operational challenges (Kesting & Ulhøi 2010). Employees often identify inefficiencies, service gaps, and opportunities for improvement that may remain invisible at senior management levels. Consequently, EDI depends on organisational systems that encourage bottom-up participation, knowledge exchange, and experimentation. More recent scholarship reinforces this position by showing that structured managerial support, collaborative practices, and organisational learning mechanisms are critical for sustaining employee innovation over time (Flocco, Canterino & Cagliano 2022). In higher education institutions specifically, innovation increasingly depends on employees’ ability to adapt work practices, redesign service delivery processes, and contribute creative solutions within constrained institutional environments.
Unfortunately, formal innovation initiatives often prioritise top-down approaches and managerial control, with employee contributions frequently remaining undervalued or underutilised in the absence of supportive supervisory practices (Cerne et al. 2023). Supervisory behaviour, therefore, plays a pivotal role in determining whether employee ideas are encouraged, legitimised, and acted upon. Supervisory support, autonomy, and psychological safety have been consistently identified as key enablers of employees’ willingness to engage in creative behaviours and innovation-related risk-taking, linking EDI directly to the internal work environment (Rehman 2025).
Employee-driven innovation may take the form of incremental or radical innovation, each placing different demands on supervisory behaviour and environmental conditions. Incremental innovation involves small-scale, continuous improvements aligned with existing organisational routines and is often associated with lower risk and resource requirements (Berraies, Jabeur & Sassi 2023; Kraus et al. 2023; Ritala et al. 2024). Radical innovation, by contrast, challenges dominant assumptions and introduces solutions that are novel to the organisation, frequently emerging when employees question established ways of working (Raisch & Zimmermann 2023). In such cases, supervisors and middle managers are crucial in protecting, legitimising, and resourcing innovative initiatives, particularly in contexts characterised by uncertainty and risk (Montani et al. 2024).
Given the distinct benefits and risks associated with incremental and radical innovation, organisational ambidexterity, the capacity to pursue exploitation and exploration simultaneously, has become a necessity (Raisch & Zimmermann 2023). Consequently, organisations seeking long-term sustainability must create supervisory and environmental conditions that enable employees to contribute creatively across different forms of innovation.
Supervisory behaviour
Although innovation is frequently emphasised in strategic plans and managerial discourse as essential for organisational success, this commitment does not always translate into supportive supervisory behaviour. At the operational level, supervisors often respond cautiously to employee innovation because innovative activities introduce uncertainty, disrupt established routines, and require a partial relinquishment of control (Cerne et al. 2023; Raisch & Zimmermann 2023). As a result, supervisors may unintentionally constrain EDI and creativity by prioritising compliance, predictability, and short-term performance outcomes over experimentation and learning.
Empirical research consistently shows that supervisory behaviour exerts a proximal influence on employees’ motivation, attitudes, and discretionary behaviours related to innovation and creativity (Montani et al. 2024). Supervisors’ day-to-day leadership orientations shape whether employees perceive innovative behaviour as legitimate and worthwhile or as risky and unrewarded (Jin & Peng 2024). In this sense, supervisors act as operational gatekeepers who translate organisational intentions into practice, distinguishing their role from broader management-level structures and policies that shape innovation more distally (Kwon & Kim 2023).
Research on EDI further highlights the importance of relational exchanges between supervisors and employees. Hansen et al. (2017) argue that managerial support facilitates EDI by legitimising employee experimentation and creating opportunities for collaborative problem-solving. Similarly, Echebiri and Amundsen (2021) emphasise that leader-member relationships characterised by trust, communication, and mutual respect strengthen employees’ willingness to contribute innovative ideas. These relational dynamics are particularly important in bureaucratic settings where employees may otherwise perceive innovation as risky or misaligned with formal expectations.
Within this proximal role, empowering supervisory behaviour has been identified as a key antecedent of employee innovation and creativity. Empowering supervision enhances employees’ creative self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and willingness to engage in problem-solving and experimentation (Lee, Willis & Tian 2023; Montani et al. 2024). By granting discretion, encouraging exploration, and supporting learning from setbacks, supervisors create immediate conditions that legitimise innovation-related risk-taking and reduce the constraining effects of bureaucratic control (Berglund et al. 2024).
When supervisors demonstrate confidence in employees’ capabilities, allow flexibility in task execution, and provide constructive feedback and recognition, employees are more likely to pursue novel ideas and challenge existing practices (Jin & Peng 2024; Kwon & Kim 2023). Such supervisory behaviours support innovation by fostering autonomy and ownership at the task level. Conversely, controlling or risk-averse supervision discourages experimentation and reinforces conformity, thereby narrowing employees’ scope for creative engagement (Cerne et al. 2023).
Supervisors influence innovation not only through support and empowerment but also by balancing structure and flexibility. Mumford et al. (2002) found that leaders enhance creativity when they provide intellectual stimulation, constructive guidance, and access to resources while avoiding excessive control. Likewise, Rosing, Frese and Bausch (2011) emphasise the importance of ambidextrous leadership, whereby supervisors alternate between opening behaviours that encourage experimentation and closing behaviours that ensure coordination and implementation. Empirical evidence further demonstrates that supervisory support and encouragement positively influence employees’ innovative behaviour, particularly when employees possess confidence in their ability to innovate (Chen, Li & Leung 2016).
Overall, supervisory behaviour remains a critical proximal determinant of EDI, distinct from but complementary to management-level support and organisational systems. Supervisors who encourage idea generation, model learning-oriented behaviour, facilitate collaboration, and advocate for employee ideas play a central role in activating innovation at the operational level (Berglund et al. 2024). Such supervisory practices are essential for converting strategic commitments to innovation into sustained, employee-driven creative outcomes.
Work environment
Innovative organisations deliberately cultivate internal work environments that function as learning systems, where ideas are embedded in everyday problem-solving and continuous improvement. Environments characterised by open communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing legitimise idea generation as part of routine work, rather than as an exceptional activity, thereby strengthening employee innovation and creativity (Berglund et al. 2024; Ritala et al. 2024). Such environments signal organisational support for creativity and reinforce employees’ perceptions that innovation is both expected and valued.
The internal work environment comprises several interrelated dimensions that shape employees’ ability to innovate. Organisational innovation culture establishes norms regarding experimentation, collaboration, and openness to new ideas. Innovation mechanisms refer to formal structures and systems – such as suggestion schemes, collaborative forums, and idea evaluation processes – that facilitate the development and implementation of employee ideas. Innovation opportunities concern employees’ perceived availability of time, autonomy, and organisational support to explore improvements beyond routine work requirements. Risk-taking tolerance reflects the extent to which experimentation and failure are accepted as part of organisational learning, while dedication to innovation refers to the degree to which innovation is prioritised and supported within everyday organisational practices. Research by Dul and Ceylan (2014) demonstrates that workplace environments characterised by autonomy, resource availability, supportive leadership, and flexible work structures significantly strengthen creativity and innovation outcomes.
A core feature of innovation-supportive environments is the presence of psychological safety and trust, which enable employees to question existing practices, engage in constructive dissent, and experiment with alternative solutions without fear of negative repercussions (Cerne et al. 2023; Jin & Peng 2024). Work environments characterised by low power distance, task autonomy, meaningful and challenging work, and learning-oriented responses to failure encourage employees to both explore new ideas and leverage existing knowledge (Montani et al. 2024). These conditions are particularly salient for EDI, as they empower employees to take ownership of innovation beyond formal role expectations.
Internal work environments may contain structural and cultural constraints that inhibit innovation. Excessive workload pressures, rigid procedures, limited supervisory or senior management support, inadequate access to resources, and risk-averse cultures reduce employees’ capacity to experiment and engage creatively (Kraus et al. 2023; Raisch & Zimmermann 2023). In contrast, environments that provide visible managerial support, participative decision-making, collaborative and diverse workgroups, and systematic processes for idea development are more likely to foster sustained innovation (Berglund et al. 2024; Montani et al. 2024).
Research further suggests that interactions among environmental dimensions are more important than any single factor in isolation. Dul and Ceylan (2014) argue that creativity-supportive work environments emerge through a combination of autonomy, resource availability, supportive leadership, and organisational flexibility. Consequently, innovation opportunities are more likely to translate into EDI when accompanied by a culture that tolerates risk, visible supervisory support, and mechanisms that facilitate idea implementation.
Organisational culture constitutes a central dimension of the internal work environment, shaping employees’ willingness and ability to innovate. Cultural attributes related to adaptability, collaboration, and support for creativity are closely linked with enabling conditions such as risk tolerance, innovation opportunities, and effective team processes (Bogale & Debela 2024). Cultures that normalise experimentation and view failure as a learning opportunity encourage employees to propose novel ideas and challenge established practices (Kraus et al. 2023; Raisch & Zimmermann 2023).
Communication patterns and social interaction further influence the innovative capacity of the work environment. Open communication, cooperative teamwork, and strong interdepartmental collaboration facilitate the exchange and integration of diverse knowledge, which is essential for creative problem-solving and EDI (Berglund et al. 2024; Cerne et al. 2023). Reward systems also play a signalling role: recognition of innovative efforts reinforces the value placed on creativity, while punitive responses to failure or a lack of meaningful rewards can discourage employees from engaging in innovation-related activities (Lee et al. 2023).
Access to adequate resources represents another critical environmental condition for innovation. Employees are more likely to experiment creatively and take calculated risks when sufficient financial, technological, informational, and human resources are available (Berglund et al. 2024; Montani et al. 2024). Time is particularly decisive: while moderate time pressure may support execution, sustained urgency and excessive time constraints undermine reflection, collaboration, and idea development, thereby constraining EDI (Jin & Peng 2024; Montani et al. 2024).
In summary, the internal work environment shapes employee innovation through the interaction of cultural norms, structural conditions, social dynamics, and resource availability. Innovation-supportive environments are characterised by learning-oriented cultures, psychological safety, supportive supervisory and managerial practices, accessible innovation mechanisms, and adequate time and resources. Conceptually, these elements operate as an integrated system: organisational culture and structures establish the boundaries for innovation, while day-to-day work conditions and resources determine whether employees are able and willing to translate creative ideas into innovative outcomes.
Innovation and creativity in an open distance e-learning environment
Innovation and creativity in higher education institutions are widely promoted as strategic priorities; yet their implementation at the operational level remains uneven. Institutions, such as the University of South Africa (UNISA), view innovation as a core issue in responding to digital transformation, changing student profiles, and funding pressures (UNISA Annual Report 2024); however, the extent to which such strategic commitments translate into supervisory behaviour and enabling internal work environments remains an open empirical question.
The internal work environment of many universities, including UNISA, reflects structural characteristics associated with a bureaucratic organisation. Research consistently links bureaucratic systems to stability, predictability, and control, which can constrain flexibility and exploratory behaviour (Raisch & Zimmermann 2023). Hierarchical communication, centralised decision-making, and reliance on formalised rules and procedures – common features of large public institutions – shape the day-to-day conditions under which employees operate (Kraus et al. 2023; Olsen, Sofka & Grimpe 2022).
At educational institutions, rigid procedural controls and rule-bound work practices limit employee discretion, reducing opportunities for creative problem-solving and initiative-taking (Cerne et al. 2023; Montani et al. 2024). When compliance with predefined procedures dominates performance expectations, employees are less inclined to experiment or challenge existing practices. Over time, such conditions weaken organisational adaptability and reduce the likelihood that innovation opportunities will be identified and pursued. In educational settings, these constraints are compounded by limited time, resource scarcity, and restrictive organisational structures, all of which have been shown to inhibit innovation (Sánchez & Gutiérrez-Esteban 2023).
A recurrent tension emerges between leadership ideals and everyday practice. While universities often espouse transformational and servant leadership philosophies, managerialism, compliance requirements, and risk aversion may limit supervisors’ capacity to consistently enact these values at the operational level. Innovation outcomes depend not only on strategic intent but also on the presence of proximal supervisory behaviours and organisational systems that provide clarity, support, and motivation for creative action (Yesuf & Fields 2026). Where such alignment is absent, innovation tends to remain symbolic rather than embedded in daily work practices.
Instead of being isolated challenges, managerialism, leadership–practice misalignment, resource constraints, cultural inertia, and shifting strategic priorities form an interconnected set of conditions shaping the internal work environment. Increased regulation and performance monitoring reduce autonomy and risk-taking, while resource pressures intensify efficiency demands at the expense of experimentation (Kraus et al. 2023; Raisch & Zimmermann 2023). Deeply embedded norms further reinforce cautious behaviour, discouraging employees from proposing ideas that may disrupt established routines. These dynamics directly affect key constructs examined in this study, including innovation mechanisms, innovation opportunities, risk-taking tolerance, and supervisory support.
Although innovation and creativity are embedded in institutional visions and policy discourse, inconsistent translation into everyday supervisory practices and enabling work conditions weakens their impact. In this sense, higher education institutions provide a particularly salient context for investigating EDI. As universities navigate increasing complexity and uncertainty, innovation depends less on aspirational policy statements and more on the concrete conditions employees experience. Empirically examining the relationships between supervisory behaviour and internal work environment factors, therefore, enables a shift from rhetorical commitment to evidence-based understanding of how innovation and creativity are practically enabled or constrained within educational institutions.
Hypotheses development
Based on the literature reviewed, supervisory behaviour is expected to positively influence EDI and creativity by shaping the internal work environment. Supervisors play a proximal role in enabling innovation by encouraging experimentation, providing support, and legitimising idea generation (Hansen et al. 2017; Mumford et al. 2002). In addition, internal work environment dimensions, including organisational innovation culture, innovation mechanisms, innovation opportunities, and risk-taking tolerance, are expected to facilitate innovation-related behaviours (Berglund et al. 2024; Dul & Ceylan 2014). The following hypotheses are therefore proposed:
H1: Supervisory behaviour positively influences employee-driven innovation and creativity.
H2: Supervisory behaviour positively influences the internal work environment.
H3: The internal work environment positively influences employee-driven innovation and creativity.
H4: The internal work environment mediates the relationship between supervisory behaviour and employee-driven innovation and creativity.
Methods
Research approach
The study adopted a positivist research paradigm, which assumes that organisational phenomena can be objectively measured and analysed to identify patterns and relationships among variables. A positivist approach was considered appropriate because the study sought to examine measurable relationships between supervisory behaviour, the internal work environment, EDI, and creativity using statistical analysis (Creswell & Creswell 2018). Quantitative methods were therefore employed to facilitate hypothesis testing, relational analysis, and the empirical examination of mediating effects across constructs. A cross-sectional, descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory research design was employed to examine how supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment influence EDI and creativity in a South African ODeL institution. The study employed a census survey, and 624 participants completed a self-developed questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 15%. Inferential statistical analysis was employed to evaluate the concurrent effects of supervisory behaviour and the work environment on employee innovation and creativity.
Participants and setting
The study targeted the entire population of 4206 academic and administrative employees at a South African higher education institution, with 624 usable questionnaires returned, representing a 15% response rate. Although modest, the 15% response rate is not uncommon in voluntary electronic surveys conducted in large organisational and higher education settings, where online participation rates are often comparatively lower (eds. Vannette & Krosnick 2018). The achieved sample size was sufficient to support robust multivariate analyses, including correlation analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM), thereby ensuring adequate statistical power for examining relationships between constructs.
The demographic profile of the sample generally aligned with that of the population. African (black) employees constituted a smaller share of the sample (47.6%) than of the population (63.2%), whereas female employees were marginally more prevalent in the sample (64.3%) than in the population (60%). Employees from administrative departments or units were also over-represented in the sample (60.6%) compared to their proportion in the population (48%), as were individuals occupying supervisory positions (30.4% vs. 22.6%). In addition, respondents with postgraduate qualifications accounted for a larger proportion of the sample (66.2%) than of the population (51%). Notwithstanding these discrepancies, the sample adequately represents the population across the main demographic characteristics, supporting its overall representativeness. While non-response bias cannot be entirely ruled out, participation was achieved across all major employee categories and occupational levels. The study focused on relational analysis rather than population estimation, for which sample size and variability are more critical than response rate alone.
Measuring instrument
The Supervisor-Internal Environment Questionnaire (SIEQ) was developed for the study, with questionnaire items derived from an extensive review of the literature, including academic articles and specialised texts on supervisory behaviour, leadership, the internal work environment, and EDI and creativity.
The questionnaire consisted of four sections: (1) demographic information; (2) supervisory behaviour, including statements on supervisory support and factors influencing EDI and creativity; (3) the internal work environment, encompassing organisational innovation culture, innovation mechanisms, innovation opportunities, risk-taking tolerance, and commitment to innovation and creativity; and (4) supervisory support, which included items related to management support, innovation management, innovative leadership, and team innovation. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to determine the underlying factor structure of the constructs. Subsequent statistical analyses confirmed the reliability and validity of the measuring instrument, indicating that it was appropriate for assessing the constructs included in the study. Internal consistency reliability was established using acceptable Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (Cronbach’s α > 0.70 across constructs).
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of South Africa College of Economic and Management Sciences Research Ethics Review Committee (No. 2018_CRERC_011[FA]). The questionnaire was administered electronically via the Lime Survey platform, with participants accessing it via a dedicated web link. Informed and voluntary consent was implied through participants’ completion and submission of the survey. Anonymity of responses was guaranteed, and no identifying information was collected. The survey was closed once enough completed questionnaires had been obtained. Appropriate measures were taken to ensure confidentiality and data integrity, including password-protected storage and the secure retention of data in a locked location.
Results
This section outlines the study findings derived from correlation analysis and SEM, which were employed to examine the inter-relationships among the constructs.
Correlations
The results of the correlation analysis, which examined the strength and direction of the relationships between the constructs of supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment, are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that supervisory support was significantly and positively related to most internal work environment variables. The strongest relationship was observed with innovation opportunities (r = 0.63, p < 0.01; large practical effect), followed by risk-taking tolerance (r = 0.47, p < 0.01; medium effect), innovation mechanisms (r = 0.37, p < 0.01; medium effect), and organisational innovation culture (r = 0.36, p < 0.01; medium effect). No statistically significant relationship was found between supervisory support and dedication to innovation (r = 0.067, p = 0.096).
Supervisory support also demonstrated consistent, significant associations with all supervisory behaviour (management) factors, including innovation management (r = 0.47, p < 0.01), team innovation (r = 0.36, p < 0.01), innovative leadership (r = 0.33, p < 0.01), and management support (r = 0.30, p < 0.01), all reflecting medium practical effects. These results indicate strong linkages between supervisory support and broader management practices associated with innovation (Leach 2020).
Organisational innovation culture showed strong and significant relationships with both internal work environment and supervisory behaviour variables. Large practical effects were observed with innovation management (r = 0.69, p < 0.01) and team innovation (r = 0.54, p < 0.01), while medium effects were evident for innovative leadership (r = 0.48, p < 0.01) and management support (r = 0.41, p < 0.01). Organisational innovation culture also correlated strongly with innovation opportunities (r = 0.59, p < 0.01), risk-taking tolerance (r = 0.55, p < 0.01), and innovation mechanisms (r = 0.54, p < 0.01), all of which reflect large practical effects (Leach 2020).
Significant relationships were further identified among key internal work environment factors. Innovation opportunities were strongly related to innovation mechanisms (r = 0.54, p < 0.01; large effect) and risk-taking tolerance (r = 0.54, p < 0.01; large effect). Innovation mechanisms also showed significant associations with innovation management (r = 0.46, p < 0.01), innovative leadership (r = 0.30, p < 0.01), team innovation (r = 0.35, p < 0.01), and management support (r = 0.19, p = 0.008), indicating that all supervisory behaviour factors were significantly related to the processes that initiate innovation (Leach 2020).
Risk-taking tolerance demonstrated significant relationships with innovation management (r = 0.50, p < 0.01; large effect), innovative leadership (r = 0.44, p < 0.01), management support (r = 0.40, p < 0.01), and team innovation (r = 0.36, p < 0.01), reflecting medium to large practical effects. In addition, dedication to innovation was positively related to risk-taking tolerance (r = 0.20, p < 0.01; small effect) and innovation opportunities (r = 0.18, p < 0.01; small effect) (Leach 2020).
Finally, strong inter-relationships were observed among supervisory behaviour (management) factors. Management support was strongly associated with innovative leadership (r = 0.79, p < 0.01), team innovation (r = 0.60, p < 0.01), and innovation management (r = 0.54, p < 0.01). Innovation management was also strongly related to innovative leadership (r = 0.62, p < 0.01) and team innovation (r = 0.65, p < 0.01). In contrast, innovative leadership was strongly associated with team innovation (r = 0.65, p < 0.01). These results indicate a high degree of alignment among supervisory behaviour factors associated with innovation (Leach 2020).
Structural equation modelling
The initial Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) model tested a comprehensive set of relationships between supervisory and management-related factors and multiple dimensions of the internal work environment. Although Model 1 demonstrated an acceptable overall fit, inspection of the structural paths revealed estimation challenges, including several standardised regression coefficients exceeding unity. Further diagnostic analysis identified substantial multicollinearity between key exogenous constructs, specifically between team innovation and management support, and between innovation management and innovative leadership. These high intercorrelations indicated conceptual and empirical overlap, justifying the consolidation of constructs and the re-specification of the model.
To address these issues and improve model parsimony and interpretability, a second SEM model was developed, combining the highly correlated constructs into two higher-order exogenous variables: management support teams and innovative management and leadership. The revised model (Model 2) showed a slightly improved and clearly acceptable fit, with all key goodness-of-fit indices meeting recommended thresholds. This supported the adequacy of the respecified model in explaining the structural relationships underlying employee innovation and creativity. The second SEM model, which integrates both measurement and structural relationships, is presented in Figure 1. The goodness-of-fit indices associated with Model 2 are reported in Table 2.
 |
FIGURE 1: Structural equation modelling, model 2. |
|
| TABLE 2: Goodness-of-fit indices: Structural equation modelling, model 2. |
The model demonstrated a good fit, as reflected by the CMIN/df ratio of 1.927, which was lower than the recommended benchmark value of 3. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) should ideally be below 0.05 for a good fit, and below 0.08 for an adequate fit (Hu & Bentler 1999). The RMSEA value of 0.070, with lower and upper confidence intervals of 0.066–0.074, indicated acceptable model fit. Furthermore, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (0.841), Tucker-Lewis Index (TFI) (0.833), and Incremental Fit Index (IFI) (0.842) values exceeded the 0.80 threshold, indicating an adequate level of fit. Collectively, the recommended fit indices support the conclusion that Model 2 demonstrates an acceptable fit. The structural parameter estimates are presented in Table 3.
| TABLE 3: Structural parameter estimates – Model 2. |
Table 3 indicates that management support teams demonstrated strong, statistically significant positive relationships with several endogenous variables. The largest standardised effects were observed for innovation mechanisms (β = 0.922), risk-taking tolerance (β = 0.836), and supervisory support (β = 0.678). No statistically significant relationship was found between management support teams and innovation dedication.
In contrast, innovative management and leadership showed a different pattern of relationships. Statistically significant negative relationships were observed with organisational innovation culture (β = −0.363) and innovation opportunities (β = −0.420). A statistically significant positive relationship was found between innovative management and leadership and risk-taking tolerance (β = 0.549). No statistically significant relationships were identified between innovative management and leadership and supervisory support, dedication to innovation, or innovation mechanisms.
The findings provide partial support for the hypothesised relationships between supervisory behaviour, the internal work environment, and EDI and creativity. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, supervisory and management-related factors demonstrated significant positive relationships with several internal work environment variables, particularly innovation mechanisms, risk-taking tolerance, and supervisory support. These results indicate that supportive supervisory and managerial practices foster environments conducive to innovation and creativity.
Hypothesis 3, which proposed a positive relationship between the internal work environment and EDI and creativity, received indirect support through the significant structural relationships observed among innovation culture, innovation opportunities, risk-taking tolerance, and supervisory support. However, not all internal work environment variables demonstrated equally strong effects. For example, dedication to innovation showed weaker, statistically non-significant relationships across several pathways, suggesting that employee commitment to innovation may depend on additional contextual or individual factors.
Finally, Hypothesis 4, which proposed a mediating role of the internal work environment, was supported. The findings indicate that supervisory behaviour influences employee innovation primarily through its impact on internal environmental conditions rather than through direct effects alone. This suggests that supervisors shape innovation indirectly by influencing organisational culture, innovation opportunities, risk-taking tolerance, and supportive mechanisms that enable employees to engage creatively.
Discussion
The findings underscore the central role of organisational innovation culture as a foundational enabling condition for EDI and creativity. This finding supports Hypothesis 3, which posits that internal work environment conditions positively influence EDI and creativity. The results further reinforce the view that innovation culture functions as a foundational enabling condition through which employee creativity becomes translated into innovative outcomes (Dul & Ceylan 2014). Organisations characterised by supportive cultures, openness to experimentation, and learning-oriented norms are more likely to create conditions in which employees feel psychologically safe to propose ideas and engage in creative problem-solving (Rosing et al. 2011). Rather than operating as an isolated contextual feature, innovation culture appears to align leadership behaviours, structural mechanisms, and employee risk orientations into a coherent system that supports innovation. This interpretation is consistent with Alateeg and Alhammadi’s (2024) and Amoa-Gyarteng’s (2024) findings, which suggest that cultures characterised by openness, experimentation, and risk tolerance foster organisational innovativeness by embedding innovation into everyday work practices. In this study, innovation culture functions as a key contextual pathway through which supervisory and management behaviours translate into innovation-relevant outcomes.
Within the internal work environment, the close inter-relationships among innovation mechanisms, risk-taking tolerance, and innovation opportunities highlight a reinforcing innovation process rather than a linear sequence. This pattern aligns with Dul and Ceylan’s (2014) argument that creativity-supportive work environments depend on the interaction among multiple organisational conditions rather than isolated interventions. Innovation opportunities alone are insufficient if employees lack supportive supervisory relationships, psychological safety, or formal mechanisms for implementing ideas. Instead, employee innovation appears to emerge from the cumulative interaction between organisational culture, innovation systems, supervisory encouragement, and tolerance for experimentation. Innovation opportunities were more likely to be recognised and pursued when employees perceived both psychological permission to take risks and the presence of formal mechanisms to support idea development. This supports Rehman’s (2025) conclusion that risk-taking tolerance strengthens the effectiveness of innovation mechanisms in producing innovation outcomes. In contrast, dedication to innovation had weaker practical effects, suggesting that employee commitment alone is insufficient without enabling structures and a permissive climate.
The supervisory behaviour findings provide support for Hypothesis 2, which proposed that supervisory behaviour positively influences the internal work environment. The strong interconnections among management support, innovative leadership, innovation management, and team innovation suggest that innovation-supportive leadership functions as a configuration of mutually reinforcing practices rather than as isolated supervisory behaviours. Supervisors appear to influence EDI most effectively when they simultaneously encourage experimentation, provide constructive guidance, coordinate innovation-related activities, and create psychologically safe environments for idea sharing.
These findings align with Mumford et al.’s (2002) argument that leaders foster creativity by balancing intellectual stimulation, guidance, and resource provision while avoiding excessive control. Similarly, the findings support Rosing et al.’s (2011) ambidextrous leadership perspective, which argues that innovation is strengthened when supervisors balance opening behaviours (encouraging experimentation, flexibility, and exploration) with closing behaviours (providing coordination, structure, and implementation discipline).
In higher education institutions, where bureaucratic processes and compliance pressures may constrain employee discretion, supportive supervisory practices become particularly important for legitimising experimentation and encouraging employees to challenge existing ways of working.
The results of this study support Hypothesis 4, confirming that the internal work environment mediates the relationship between supervisory behaviour and EDI and creativity. Supervisors do not directly generate innovative outcomes; rather, they influence innovation indirectly by shaping the cultural, structural, and psychological conditions under which employees engage in creative work. This finding reinforces the argument that innovation is contextually embedded and dependent on enabling organisational conditions rather than solely on individual motivation.
The mediating role of the internal work environment is particularly evident in the strong relationships observed between supervisory support, innovation mechanisms, innovation opportunities, and risk-taking tolerance. Consistent with the findings of Hansen et al. (2017), supervisors appear to function as facilitators who legitimise experimentation, encourage participation, and create opportunities for employees to contribute ideas. Likewise, Echebiri and Amundsen (2021) argue that supportive leader–member relationships strengthen employees’ willingness to engage in innovative behaviour because trust and communication reduce perceptions of risk associated with proposing new ideas.
The weaker relationship observed for dedication to innovation further suggests that innovation commitment alone is insufficient unless reinforced by supportive supervisory practices and organisational systems. Employee innovation therefore appears to emerge from the interaction between leadership support and environmental conditions rather than from motivation in isolation.
Higher levels of aligned management support and team-based innovation practices were associated with stronger supervisory support, a more robust innovation culture, clearer innovation mechanisms, greater innovation opportunities, and a higher tolerance for risk-taking (Song, Inmor & Cuijten 2024). This supports the predictive role of management support teams. Management–team alignment is a critical upstream driver that shapes the internal environment within which supervisors and employees operate. The absence of a significant relationship with dedication to innovation suggests that commitment may be influenced by additional individual or motivational factors beyond structural and managerial support.
The results indicate a need for balance in innovation-oriented management and leadership practices. This finding further supports the ambidextrous leadership perspective proposed by Rosing et al. (2011), which suggests that excessive emphasis on structure, control, and formal innovation management may unintentionally suppress exploratory behaviours and creative engagement. In contrast, leadership approaches that combine flexibility with sufficient coordination are more likely to sustain employee innovation over time. While such practices were positively associated with risk-taking tolerance, they were negatively related to organisational innovation culture and innovation opportunities, suggesting that overly formalised or directive approaches to innovation management may unintentionally constrain broader cultural and opportunity-related aspects of innovation. This finding highlights a tension between managing innovation and enabling it, underscoring the importance of leadership approaches that support risk-taking without compromising autonomy, openness, and cultural alignment. Zhang (2024) emphasises that effective innovation leadership requires a balance between open behaviours (which foster exploration, flexibility, and risk-taking) and closed behaviours (which ensure structure and efficiency). Ambidextrous leadership is thus necessary to pursue both innovation and operational demands without undermining autonomy or cultural alignment.
Overall, the findings of this study confirm that employee innovation and creativity are socially and contextually embedded outcomes shaped by the interaction between supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment. Supervisors act as critical gatekeepers who influence whether innovation-supportive cultures, mechanisms, and opportunities are activated or neutralised. The internal work environment is thus positioned as a key mediating mechanism between leadership and EDI.
Theoretical and practical implications
This study makes a theoretical contribution by extending leadership–innovation frameworks that emphasise direct leadership effects. Instead, the study demonstrates that supervisory influence on EDI is largely indirect, mediated by internal work environment factors such as innovation culture, risk-taking tolerance, and innovation mechanisms. In challenging linear leadership–innovation models, the findings support a contextualised perspective in which supervisors shape innovation by configuring the conditions under which employees engage creatively. This complements and extends research on empowering leadership by empirically foregrounding the mediating role of organisational context (Lee et al. 2023; Montani et al. 2024).
From a practical perspective, the findings confirm that supervisors are the most immediate leverage point for fostering innovation in educational institutions. Developing supervisors as facilitators of innovation, through encouragement, constructive feedback, and visible support for new ideas, enables strategic innovation aspirations to be enacted in daily practice. Empowering supervisory behaviours, including autonomy, legitimised experimentation, and protection from punitive responses to failure, enhance employees’ willingness to engage creatively (Lee et al. 2023; Montani et al. 2024).
The study further highlights that innovation depends on an enabling internal work environment characterised by risk-taking, open communication, and collaborative problem-solving. Practical interventions, such as safe forums for idea sharing and learning-oriented responses to failure, foster psychological safety and knowledge exchange, which are essential for sustaining EDI (Berglund et al. 2024; Cerne et al. 2023; Figueiredo, Rodrigues & Diogo 2025; Nonyana, Mmako & Skosana 2025).
Beyond cultural support, structured innovation mechanisms are required to translate ideas into implementation. Clear processes, supported by supervisors, help balance incremental and transformative innovation, preventing creative potential from remaining underutilised (Kraus et al. 2023; Raisch & Zimmermann 2023).
Finally, the study highlights the importance of addressing constraints on time, autonomy, and resources. While accountability is necessary, excessive control and workload pressures undermine creative engagement. When autonomy, supportive leadership, and realistic resource allocation are aligned, employee innovation and creativity are more likely to be sustained over time (Jin & Peng 2024; Montani et al. 2024).
Limitations
Several limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the study focused on supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment from an organisational innovation perspective and did not account for individual determinants, including personality, cognition, and motivation, which may also shape EDI and creativity. Secondly, the study was conducted within a single ODeL institution in South Africa. Given the distinctive structural, managerial, and operational characteristics associated with ODeL institutions, the results may not necessarily be transferable to conventional, comprehensive, or research-intensive universities, where organisational dynamics and supervisory practices may differ. Finally, because the study relied on self-reported survey data, the possibility of social desirability bias cannot be excluded, as respondents may have provided responses perceived as socially acceptable or organisationally favourable (Bernardi 2023).
Recommendation
Future studies could replicate this research across different categories of higher education institutions in South Africa, including traditional, comprehensive, and research-intensive universities, to determine whether institutional context influences EDI and creativity differently. Comparative studies between higher education institutions and private-sector organisations may further strengthen understanding of sector-specific innovation dynamics.
Future research should also investigate the role of individual-level variables, including personality, intrinsic motivation, cognitive orientation, and psychological capital, to provide a more comprehensive explanation of employee innovation and creativity. Furthermore, considering the distinct responsibilities associated with academic and administrative work environments, these contexts should be examined separately to determine whether different supervisory and organisational factors shape EDI and creativity across occupational groups.
Longitudinal or mixed-methods research designs may further strengthen understanding of causal relationships and provide richer insight into how supervisory behaviour and organisational conditions evolve to support employee innovation over time.
Conclusion
This study contributes to understanding EDI and creativity by demonstrating that innovation does not emerge solely from individual effort, but rather from the interaction between supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment. The findings provide support for the hypothesised relationships, particularly the mediating role of the internal work environment in shaping innovation outcomes. Supervisors were found to function as critical enablers who translate institutional intentions into daily work practices by legitimising experimentation, providing support, and facilitating access to innovation mechanisms and opportunities.
The findings further suggest that innovation is most likely to be sustained when supervisory behaviour operates in alignment with an organisational culture that supports creativity, tolerates risk-taking, and provides employees with opportunities to contribute ideas. Conversely, innovation may be constrained when bureaucratic structures, excessive control, or weak supervisory support limit employee autonomy and experimentation. The study therefore highlights the importance of moving beyond symbolic commitments to innovation towards deliberate alignment between supervisory practices and internal environmental conditions that enable sustained EDI in higher education institutions.
Acknowledgements
This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Geraldine C. Leach’s master’s dissertation titled, ‘The influence of supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment on employee-driven innovation and creativity in an open distance e-learning institution in South Africa’, submitted to the College of Economic and Management Sciences, University of South Africa in 2020. The study was supervised by Mariette Coetzee. Portions of the data, analysis and discussion have been revised, updated and adapted for publication in a journal. The original dissertation is publicly available at http://hdl.handle.net/10500/26686. The author affirms that this submission complies with ethical standards for secondary publication, and appropriate acknowledgement has been made of the original work.
This article is based on data from a larger study. A related article focusing on the factors critical to a conducive work environment has been published in Acta Commercii, 25(1), 1428 (https://actacommercii.co.za/index.php/acta/article/view/1428). The present article addresses a distinct research question, focusing on the relationship between supervisory behaviour and the work environment factors in advancing employee innovation.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Mariette Coetzee: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Geraldine C. Leach: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Both authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data used were obtained through a survey and are presented in the tables of the article. The data were gathered in accordance with ethical principles, and the authors confirmed the validity and reliability of the data. The data that support the findings of this study are openly available from the corresponding author, Mariette Coetzee, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Agarwal, U.A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S. & Bhargava, S., 2012, ‘Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions’, Career Development International 17(3), 208–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241063
Alateeg, S. & Alhammadi, A., 2024, ‘The impact of organisational culture on organisational innovation with the mediating role of strategic leadership in Saudi Arabia’, Journal of Statistics Applications & Probability 13(2), 22. https://doi.org/10.18576/jsap/130220
Amoa-Gyarteng, K., 2024, ‘Cultivating success: Organisational culture’s influence on innovation and performance in SMEs’, Cogent Business & Management 11(1), 2397070. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2397070
Bäckström, I., Bengtsson, L. & Berglund, R.T., 2022, ‘Employee-driven innovation and learning mechanisms in public and private organisations’, European Journal of Innovation Management 25(6), 1691–1710. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2020-0418
Bernardi, R.A., 2023, ‘The importance and efficacy of controlling for social desirability response bias’, Ethics & Behavior 33(8), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2093201
Berraies, S., Jabeur, H. & Sassi, N., 2023, ‘Ambidextrous leadership and exploitative innovation: The mediating role of knowledge sharing’, Journal of Knowledge Management 27(5), 1234–1253. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2022-0201
Berglund, R.T., Bäckström, I., Johansson, P.E. & Omorede, A., 2024, ‘Employee-driven innovation: Exploring the significance of psychosocial safety climate and implications for management’, International Journal of Innovation Management 28(7–8), 2450034. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919624500348
Bogale, A.T. & Debela, K.L., 2024, ‘Organisational culture: A systematic review’, Cogent Business & Management 11(1), 2340129. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2340129
Cerne, M., Skerlavaj, M., Dysvik, A. & Škerlavaj, M., 2023, ‘Leadership, employee voice and innovation: A contextual perspective’, Human Resource Management Review 33(3), 100905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100905
Chen, T., Li, F. & Leung, K., 2016, ‘When does supervisor support encourage innovative behavior? Opposite moderating effects of general self-efficacy and internal locus of control’, Personnel Psychology 69(1), 123–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12104
Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D., 2018, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dubina, I.N., 2005, ‘Managing creativity in organisations’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17(4), 423–444.
Dul, J. & Ceylan, C., 2014, ‘The impact of a creativity-supporting work environment on a firm’s product innovation performance’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 31(6), 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12149
Echebiri, C.K. & Amundsen, S., 2021, ‘The relationship between leadership styles and employee-driven innovation: The mediating role of leader–member exchange’, Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship 9(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-10-2019-0091
Figueiredo, P., Rodrigues, R. & Diogo, A., 2025, ‘From safety to sharing: A bibliometric mapping of psychological safety, knowledge management, and organisational learning’, Administrative Sciences 15(11), 427. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15110427
Flocco, N., Canterino, F. & Cagliano, R., 2022, ‘To control or not to control: How to organize employee-driven innovation’, Creativity and Innovation Management 31(3), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12500
Gharajeh-Alamdari, N., Mirzaei, A., Mehri, S. & Habibi Soola, A., 2025, ‘Assessing the relationship between supervisor knowledge sharing and innovative behaviours among clinical nurses: The mediating role of organisational learning’, BMC Nursing 24, 508. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03165-y
Hansen, K., Amundsen, O., Aasen, T.M.B. & Gressgård, L.J., 2017, ‘Management practices for promoting employee-driven innovation’, in P.R.A. Oeij, D. Rus & F.D. Pot (eds.), Workplace innovation: Theory, research and practice, pp. 321–338, Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56333-6_19
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M., 1999, ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jin, H. & Peng, Y., 2024, ‘Team psychological safety and employee innovative performance: The mediating role of communication behaviour’, PLoS One 19(10), e0306629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306629
Kesting, P. & Ulhøi, J.P., 2010, ‘Employee-driven innovation: Extending the license to foster innovation’, Management Decision 48(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011014463
Kraus, S., Breier, M., Jones, P. & Hughes, M., 2023, ‘Innovation ambidexterity and firm performance: A systematic review and research agenda’, Journal of Business Research 155, 113418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113418
Kwon, K. & Kim, T., 2023, ‘Empowering leadership and employee creativity: The roles of autonomy and psychological safety’, Personnel Review 52(6), 1689–1706. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2021-0715
Leach, G.C., 2020, ‘The influence of supervisory behaviour and the internal work environment on employee-driven innovation and creativity in an open distance e-learning institution in South Africa’, Master’s dissertation, University of South Africa.
Lee, A., Willis, S. & Tian, A.W., 2023, ‘Empowering leadership: A meta-analytic review and future research agenda’, Journal of Management 49(2), 450–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211055660
Madjar, N., 2005, ‘The contributions of different groups of individuals to employees’ creativity’, Advances in Developing Human Resources 7(2), 182–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422305274525
Montani, F., Vandenberghe, C. & Khedhaouria, A., 2024, ‘Fostering employee innovation: The joint effects of leadership support and meaningful work’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 97(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12420
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. & Strange, J.M., 2002, ‘Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships’, The Leadership Quarterly 13(6), 705–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3
Nonyana, K., Mmako, M. & Skosana, T.B., 2025, ‘The mediating role of perceived organisational support on psychological safety and innovative work behaviour’, International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy 7(3), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.36096/ijbes.v7i3.842
Olsen, L.S., Sofka, W. & Grimpe, C., 2022, ‘Coordination, autonomy and innovation in bureaucratic organisations’, Research Policy 51(1), 104411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104411
Raisch, S. & Zimmermann, A., 2023, ‘Pathways to ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and exploitation in dynamic environments’, Academy of Management Perspectives 37(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2021.0145
Rehman, S.U., 2025, ‘Exploring the role of knowledge management practices, organisational flexibility and risk-taking tolerance in innovation outcomes’, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10(5), 100761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100761
Ritala, P., Kraus, S. & Bouncken, R., 2024, ‘Digital transformation and innovation management: New forms of value creation’, Technovation 129, 102872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102872
Rosing, K., Frese, M. & Bausch, A., 2011, ‘Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership–innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly 22(5), 956–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
Sánchez, V.V. & Gutiérrez-Esteban, P., 2023, ‘Challenges and enablers in the advancement of educational innovation’, Teaching and Teacher Education 122, 104359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.104359
Song, L., Inmor, S. & Cuijten, N., 2024, ‘Supportive organisational climate and its influence on employee innovation behaviour: The mediating roles of team engagement and work engagement’, WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics 21, 182–200. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2024.21.182
Tigre, F.B., 2024, ‘Forging innovative leadership: The power of agility, diversity, and risk-taking configurations’, Merits 4(3), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits4030016
Vannette, D.L. & Krosnick, J.A. (eds.), 2018, The Palgrave handbook of survey research, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
University of South Africa (UNISA), 2024, Annual Report 2024, UNISA, Pretoria.
Yesuf, Y.M. & Fields, Z., 2026, ‘Impact of entrepreneurial leadership on employees’ innovative behavior: A mediation analysis of organizational motivation to innovate and employees’ creativity’, Journal of Economy and Technology 2(4), 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ject.2025.09.001
Zhang, S., 2024, ‘The synergy of ambidextrous leadership, agility, and product innovativeness: Evidence from AI industry firms’, Sustainability 16(10), 4248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104248
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
