A New Measure of Workplace Innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the popularity of Workplace Innovation (WI) and its demonstrable utility for supporting both organizational productivity and employee well-being, there is at present no reliable and valid measure of WI practices for use in research and workplace settings. The aim of this paper is to present the development of a measure of WI climate.The study involved 855 individuals across all levels of three organizations, and a survey of WI practices that was based on four underlying elements: jobs and teams; organizational structures, management and procedures; employee-driven improvement and innovation; and co-created leadership and employee voice.The original list of items was developed in consultation with employers and practitioners. WI was assessed as climate perceptions. A series of analyses were undertaken on the measure, demonstrating good psychometric properties, including consistency of the factor structure, internal reliability, construct validity, and criterion validity. Support for reliability and validity of the new 19-item measure with four elements is presented. Employees who experienced the four elements of WI climate more positively also enjoyed greater work engagement and job satisfaction, outlining criterion validity of the new measure. The availability of a rigorous and reliable measure of WI climate offers a tool for practitioners and researchers tasked with communicating and promoting WI in diverse workplace settings and with diverse groups of stakeholders. We hope that this new measure of WI will stimulate further research on the role of WI in promoting healthy and productive workplaces.Keywords: workplace innovation; measurement validation; work engagement; job satisfaction
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".