Sustainable HRM as a Driver for Innovative Work Behaviour: Do Respect, Openness, and Continuity Matter? The Case of Lithuania

Abstract

There is a widespread consensus in prior literature that innovative work behaviour is a crucial factor in enabling organisations to adapt to rapid changes, to gain a competitive advantage, and create a sustainable organisation. Despite its importance, knowledge about potential drivers of this behaviour is fragmented and inconsistent. As such, organisations may be restricted in their ability to innovate because they do not know how to induce the employees in a way that will encourage them to explore, generate, champion, and finally implement the ideas. Recently, human resource management (HRM) has been explored among potential drivers, considering it as primary means by which organisations can influence and shape the behaviours of employees. Despite the notion that HRM predicts innovative work behaviour, there is a lack in the literature of insights into the ways the organisations can stimulate behaviour by offering sustainability-focused HRM. Sustainable HRM refers to a new approach to people management with the focus on external business environment (openness), respect for the employee (respect), and balanced interests of employer and employee (continuity). Relying on the notion that organisations are gradually introducing sustainable HRM and trying to close the gap in the literature, the paper is designed to link a new approach to people management with innovative work behaviour. The aim of the paper is an initial assessment of whether sustainable HRM is a driver for innovative work behaviour. Disentangling four dimensions of innovative work behaviour makes it possible to determine whether sustainable HRM can stimulate different behaviour types linked to idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation. The results of a preparatory survey of 306 employees working in Lithuanian companies showed that respect-oriented HRM and continuity-oriented HRM were positively related to innovative work behaviour and the appropriate dimensions (except for idea exploration in case of continuity-oriented HRM); meanwhile, there was no support for the relationship between openness-oriented HRM and innovative work behaviour. Overall, sustainable HRM was found to be a driver for enhancing innovative work behaviour and its dimensions.

1. Introduction

Challenges facing organisations are constantly increasing and acquiring new shapes [1,2,3,4,5]. As a result of technological advancements, global competition, or other alterations, business is continually under transformation. Given this trend, organisations cannot rely only on standard and tested ways, procedures, and mechanisms to compete in the business world successfully [6,7]. They continuously need innovation, which refers to new and potentially useful products or processes that are developed and applied in a particular work context in order to address problems on different levels, from global competition to quality issues of articles or services [8]. Therefore, at present, continuous innovation is a crucial source for organisational longevity and success [9,10,11], which is no longer defined solely in financial terms, but also in terms of social and environmental sustainability [12,13].

Innovation studies deal with the management of innovation at the levels of organisations, work groups, networks, and individuals [14,15]. In this paper, the focus is on innovation at the level of individuals in organisations, as individuals’ actions are seen as a cornerstone of continuous innovation and improvements at other levels [16,17,18]. In general, it is recognised that innovations tend to depend firmly on employees’ expertise, knowledge, and commitment as key inputs in the value creation process [19,20]. Consistent with this, previous studies have considered employee innovative work behaviour as an essential prerequisite for organisational survival [21] and a key resource for creating sustainable organisations and maintaining a competitive advantage [2,22]. In other words, the ability to adapt to fast changes and business sustainability serves as major rationale for investigating the mentioned behaviour. However, despite the crucial importance of innovative work behaviour, it still receives less attention in comparison with group or firm innovation [17,21,23]. The paper seeks to close this gap and belongs to the stream of literature focusing on innovative work behaviour.

Addressing innovative work behaviour in a complex way requires clear understanding of its nature, in terms of definition and dimensions. Thus, innovative work behaviour can be characterised as a complex set of actions orientated to exploring, generating, promoting, and realising novel ideas in the workplace [6,7,24,25]. It refers to “everyday innovation”, intentional efforts of employees to provide beneficially novel outcomes at work [7,23,26,27]. From one side, being in frequent contact with processes and products allows the employees to find gaps, detect potential improvements and opportunities for new developments [23]. However, from another side, innovation only occurs if employees engage in development, adoption, and implementation of new ideas for products, technologies, and work methods [28]. The above-mentioned activities such as finding gaps or idea implementation refer to the notion that innovative work behaviour is a multistage process [15,25,26]. Although some studies ignore the multistage aspect, the current paper follows the multidimensional view.

Given the relevance of innovative work behaviour, the main question is: What drives such behaviour? Having fragmented knowledge on antecedents may negatively affect the organisations by restricting their ability to innovate because they do not know how to galvanise the employees in a way that will encourage them to demonstrate the desirable behaviour [23]. Previous studies on innovative work behaviour have examined a variety of personal and contextual factors as important antecedents to individual’s innovative behaviour, such as engagement [17,29], co-worker support and workplace happiness [21], job stress [17,21], servant leadership and meaningful work [30], organisational support for innovation [31], extraversion [32], leader–member exchange and pro-environmental organisational climate [33], organisational trust [22], leadership practices [28], workload [34], leadership [35], leadership style [36], employability, and organisational citizenship behaviour [11].

More recently, several studies on contextual characteristics that shape and stimulate innovative work behaviour have started analysing not only isolated HRM practices, but also HRM as a bundle of practices [18,23,27,37,38,39]. The argument behind this lies in the notion that HRM serves as a means for influencing and shaping the employee attitudes and behaviour. However, the knowledge about the way HRM can influence innovative work behaviour is still fragmented and inconsistent [23]. Moreover, the previous studies did not include the sustainability dimension in HRM while analysing the way HRM promotes innovative work behaviour. In other words, a shift in the mainstream HRM by giving priority to employees and by addressing simultaneously economic, social, and environmental aspects was overlooked. The paper seeks to close the existing gap by introducing sustainable HRM as a driver for promoting innovative work behaviour. Sustainable HRM is a broad concept and different understandings about its nature exist in the literature [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. The paper follows the approach proposed by De Prins, Van Beirendonck, De Vos, and Segers [48] arguing that respect, openness, and continuity (ROC model) are the three building blocks of sustainable HRM.

The purpose of the paper is an initial assessment whether sustainable HRM is a driver for innovative work behaviour.

In doing this, the paper seeks to answer the following: How can innovative work behaviour be described and what are its dimensions? How can sustainable HRM be defined applying the ROC model? Will respect-oriented HRM, openness-oriented HRM, and continuity-oriented HRM result in a positive effect on innovative work behaviour and its dimensions? Does sustainable HRM boost innovative work behaviour and, accordingly, the four different behavioural types linked to idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation?

The paper intends to contribute to the existing literature in several ways. First, the research into innovation management focuses more on group or firm innovation giving employee innovative work behaviour less attention [17,21]. As the paper supports the latter research stream, it expands the knowledge on innovative work behaviour. Second, according to Agarwal [29], “one option for organisations to become more innovative is to encourage their employees to be innovative” (p. 43). However, Bos-Nehles, Renkema, and Janssen [23] notice that “there is a dearth of knowledge about how innovation can be fostered at the individual level” (p. 1228). The paper responds to the dominating call to reveal the factors influencing innovative work behaviour. In doing this, the focus is on organisational practices, namely human resource management practices. Third, the paper introduces sustainable HRM as a driver for innovative work behaviour. To the best knowledge of authors, so far, this is an initial attempt to link sustainable HRM, in terms of respect, openness, and continuity blocks, to innovative work behaviour. Relying on previous empirical findings, that inter alia the design of HRM practices can serve as a factor in predetermining innovative work behaviour [23,49], the paper expands the literature by demonstrating the way sustainable HRM as a HRM design option drives innovative work behaviour. Forth, although innovative work behaviour is a multistage process [25], the vast majority of empirical studies do not take this into consideration. The paper provides data and analysis whether sustainable HRM has a different effect on different stages of behaviour. Disentangling the four dimensions of innovative work behaviour makes it possible to determine the way sustainable HRM can stimulate the four different behavioural types linked to idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation [18]. Finally, the paper follows the approach that national context matters [21]. Given the above, the paper increases the knowledge on sustainable HRM as a driver for innovative work behaviour by providing insights from Lithuanian employees.

The paper is organised as follows. It starts by examining the literature on innovative work behaviour and sustainable HRM applying the ROC model and developing hypotheses. The research methodology is then outlined. Following this, the results of the research will be presented and discussed. Last, the paper provides some general conclusions before indicating research limitations and some future research avenues.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Innovative Work Behaviour

The increasing complexity of environment in terms of economic, social, environmental, or technological aspects calls for changes. Actions aimed at adapting to unexpected work situations or taking advantage of new opportunities at work are central to moving towards corporate sustainability [6]. The debates on innovative work behaviour have been going on since the 1970s, addressing the definition, features, and dimensional nature of the construct.

Referring to the development of the definition, only slightly modifications can be observed. Drawing on works of West [50] and West and Farr [51], Janssen [7] defines innovative work behaviour as “the intentional creation, introduction and application of new ideas within a work role, group or organization, in order to benefit role performance, the group, or the organization” (p. 288). De Jong and Den Hartog [52] follow the same approach, referring to innovative work behaviour as to “individual’s behaviour that aims to achieve the initiation and intentional introduction (within a work role, group or organization) of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures” (p. 5). Accordingly, Messmann and Mulder [8] refer to innovative work behaviour as to a dynamic, context-bound construct, reflecting “the sum of physical and cognitive work activities carried out by employees in their work context, either solitarily or in a social setting, in order to accomplish a set of tasks that are required to achieve the goal of innovation development” (p. 45). More recently, Lukes and Stephan [10] argued that innovative work behaviour implies the behaviours through which employees generate or adopt new ideas and make subsequent efforts to implement them. Examples of such behaviours include searching out new technologies, applying new work methods, offering new ways to achieve objectives, or securing resources to implement new ideas [53].

Correspondingly, several features of the construct can be seen in the above-mentioned definitions. First, although innovative work behaviours are closely related to employee creativity, they still differ [15]. Creativity is defined as the production of new and useful ideas concerning products, services, processes, and procedures [52,54]. It is argued that creativity has to do with the production of novel and useful ideas; meanwhile, innovation has to do with both, with the production or adoption of useful ideas and with idea implementation [25]. Generally speaking, creativity occurs primarily at the early stages of innovation processes [55]. Thus, creativity can be seen as a crucial component of innovative work behaviour most evident in the beginning of the innovation process, when problems are recognised and ideas are generated in response to a perceived need for innovation [15,55].

Second, innovative work behaviour is restricted to intentional attempts to bring about benefits from new changes [55]. Benefits from such behaviours could include both better functioning of the organisation and higher wellbeing of employees [7].

Third, the notion of extra-role behaviour by doing more than is determined in job description is also present in the concept of innovative work behaviour [5]. In such case, innovative behaviour has been recognised as a type of out-role behaviour because innovation is above and beyond the responsibilities required in a job description [56].

Forth, innovative work behaviour is seen as a multistage process, with different activities and different individual behaviours necessary at each stage [25]. Drawing on Kanter [57], Scot and Bruce [25] propose three stages of innovative work behaviour, namely idea generation, coalition building, and implementation. The first stage, idea generation, refers to problem recognition and generation of ideas or solutions, either novel or adopted. The further stage is about seeking sponsorship for an idea and attempts to build a coalition of supporters for it. The final stage is dedicated to realising the idea by producing a prototype or model of the innovation. The main criticism for this three-stage model was related to the first stage, seeing that idea generation is rather broad as it includes both generating ideas and recognition of problems [15,52]. In response, De Jong and Den Hartog [15] introduced four types of innovative work behaviour, namely idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation. According to Messmann and Mulder [8], it is worthwhile to deal with a two-stage process. The first stage is a creative stage referring to problem recognition and generation of ideas at the individual level. The second stage is called an implementation stage and involves the championing and application of innovative ideas in an organisation.

Concerning dimensionality, this paper follows the four-stage model proposed by De Jong and den Hartog [15]. The first stage is idea exploration. Usually, innovation is triggered by the recognition of a new opportunity [57]. According to Drucker [58], opportunities lie in incongruities and discontinuities—things that do not fit the expected patters or provide signs that trends may be changing. Thus, an opportunity for change and improvement is the outcome of the recognition and comprehension of problems and needs in one’s work context [8]. Looking for ways to improve the existing products or services or trying to think about them in alternative ways reflect the idea exploration dimension.

The second stage refers to idea generation. This stage contains “the activation of innovation development by creating and suggesting ideas for products or processes that are new, applicable, and potentially useful for approaching the identified opportunities” [8] (p. 44). It means the combination and reorganisation of information and existing concepts to solve the existing problems or to improve the performance, especially employing a different-angle perspective [15].

Championing is the third stage of innovative work behaviour, which becomes relevant once an idea has been generated. As stated by Kanter [57], most ideas need to be sold. The need for selling lie in the fact that the vast majority of ideas do not match what is already used in organisations [15]. Moreover, although ideas may appear to fill a performance gap and have some legitimacy, it is uncertain whether their benefits will exceed the cost of developing and implementing them, and resistance to change is to be expected [15,57]. Championing involves promoting “the ideas by convincing the social environment of the envisioned innovation and building a coalition of allies that take over responsibility and provide necessary information, resources, and support” [8] (pp. 44–45).

The last stage is implementation, involving creating a physical or intellectual prototype or model, examining and improving its adequacy, planning its integration into organisational practices, and ultimately applying it within a work role, a group, or the entire organisation [7,8,15].

Seeing the crucial role of innovative work behaviour, it is vital to reveal the drivers of such extra-role behaviour. Among various antecedents of innovative work behaviour, recently the researchers have started to link HRM to innovative work behaviour [18,23,27,28]. Veenendaal and Bondarouk [18] focused on HRM practice perceived by employees. They conducted a survey among 328 workers in a Dutch manufacturing company. The survey results demonstrated that four perceived HR practices (supportive supervision, training and development, information sharing, and compensation) have an effect on all four dimensions of innovative work behaviour. Bos-Nehles, Renkema, and Janssen [23] clustered HRM practices according to the ability–motivation–opportunity framework. They found that the best HRM practices for boosting innovative work behaviour were training and development, reward, job security, autonomy, task composition, job demand, and feedback. Prieto and Pérez-Santana [27] supported the notion that high-involvement HRM drives innovative work behaviour.

The literature review and provided illustrations reveal that in linking HRM to innovative work behaviour, HRM is conceptualised using various frameworks, for instance, the AMO framework (ability, motivation, opportunity to contribute). Recently, the literature proposed a new approach to people management, namely sustainable HRM [40,43,59,60]. Drawing upon the mentioned works, the core idea of the new construct is to link sustainability and HRM with the focus on long-term human development, regeneration, and renewal. The frameworks proposed in the literature for achieving such outcomes differ. One of them applies the ROC model and is further described in the next subsection.

2.2. Sustainable HRM: Respect, Openness, and Continuity

By nature, the field of HRM reflects developments in society and trends in the academic disciplines [61]. During the 1990s, three issues were predominant in the mainstream HRM literature, namely: The link between HRM and financial performance; the fit between HRM and strategy; and HRM for sustainable competitive advantage [48]. Thus, the vast majority of the literature was about “the search for added value through the people”, treating employee attitudes and behaviour as means rather than an end [62]. However, such trend did fit the notion of sustainable development, which started gaining increasing attention in the past decade. Sustainable development addresses “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [63] (p. 43). Turning to the business level, corporate sustainability refers to organisational activities “demonstrating the inclusion of social and environmental concerns in business operations and in interactions with stakeholders” [64]. Corporate sustainability debates shift the attention to success factors going beyond financial outcomes, applying a multiple bottom line approach. In this vein, the “value of human resources is recognised as being more than immediate financial usefulness” [65] (p. 423).

As a result of growing attention to sustainability on business level, scholars started linking sustainability to HRM introducing such constructs as sustainable HRM [41,66,67], green HRM [68,69,70], socially responsible HRM [71,72,73], and ethical HRM [74,75,76], depending on the key focus of the approach. This paper focuses on sustainable HRM, which is an umbrella term that covers multiple dimensions, multiple levels of analysis, and a certain form of dynamics over time [41]. While recently the field has rapidly evolved [59], it is nonetheless recognised that sustainable HRM can be understood in terms of a number of complimentary frameworks [67]. As the comprehensive analysis of all publications in the field of sustainable HRM is beyond the scope this paper, only aspects that are relevant for the main purpose of the paper are further underlined.

One of the frameworks for explaining sustainable HRM is proposed by De Prins, Van Beirendonck, De Vos, and Segers [48] introducing the so-called ROC model. The model encompasses three blocks, namely: Respect, openness, and continuity. Drawing upon the idea of De Lange and Koppens [77] to translate the three P’s (planet, people, and profit) of Elkington [78] into respect, openness, and continuity, the ROC model aims at building a sensible framework for classifying and (re)positioning initiatives and practices within the domain of sustainable HRM [79,80].

Relying on the three-block idea, De Prins [80]) defined sustainable HRM as a “specific form of personnel management that is explicitly linked with the external environment of the organization, which is focused on respect of the human workforce and in which the interests of the employer, the workers, and the societal interests are balanced with each other” (p. 189). Consistent with the definition, sustainable HRM differs from mainstream HRM because of the following three characteristics: A renewed focus on respect for the employees as internal stakeholders in the organisation (respect); environmental awareness and outside-in perspective on HRM (openness); and a long-term approach, both in terms of economic and societal sustainability terms and with regard to individual employability (continuity) [48].

The ROC model of sustainable HRM is based on two main assumptions. First, sustainable HRM forms the next, complementary stage in the tradition of HRM thinking [67]. The revision of mainstream HRM literature by focusing on stakeholder, institutional, ethical HRM, and critical HRM theories allows introducing the ROC model [48]. Second, sustainable HRM highlights the synthesis paradox. That is, organisations can apply “both/and” approach and use the HRM practices to maximise their profits, and in addition to reduce the harm of HRM practices on the stakeholders because “these two polarities are not mutually exclusive but are rather mutually reinforcing” [46] (p. 314).

As it was mentioned before, the ROC model encompasses three blocks, namely: Respect, openness, and continuity.

Respect calls for a smarter and more respectful attitude towards human resources [79,80]. Respect captures the state of being seen and valued by recognising another person, understanding and appreciating people, listening, attending to needs, emphasising another’s good qualities, and making requests not demands [81]. The need to bring the “human” component back into HRM is at the core of Respect. The key questions is “How can we strengthen our employees (even more) as VIP-internal stakeholders” [80] (p. 191). This could be done by implementing appreciative and engaging HRM. Seeing that such practices are numerous [79], for the purpose of current research, the paper focuses on two respect-oriented HRM practices, namely: Employee participation, and health and safety at work.

Openness implies the adoption of stakeholder perspective to HRM [79]. The connection of HRM with the external environment is underlined recognising such societal trends as diversity, need for work–life balance, or aging society. This means that the organisational response to these challenges of labour market is acknowledged [80]. For the purpose of current research, the paper focuses on two openness-oriented HRM practices, namely: Diversity management and work–life balance.

Continuity represents the long-term perspective from the viewpoints of both the organisational relationship and the employee relationship. Survival over the long term is one of organisational ambitions where sustainable HRM can contribute [80]. For the purpose of current research, the paper focuses on two continuity-oriented HRM practices, namely: Employee development and career planning.

After explaining the construct of sustainable HRM, the next subsection is devoted to explaining the possible linkage between the sustainable HRM practices and innovative work behaviour.

2.3. Linking Sustainable HRM to Innovative Work Behaviour: Hypothesis Development

The subsection starts with the development of hypotheses treating participation as a respect-oriented HRM practice; later on, it proceeds with training and development and career management as continuity-oriented HRM practices; further go the work–life balance and diversity management as openness-oriented HRM practices, and health and safety at work is proposed as a respect-oriented HRM practice. Finally, the main hypotheses are proposed as regards sustainable HRM, applying the linking of the ROC model with innovative work behaviour and its dimensions. As the current paper seeks to support the theoretical insight that factors influencing various stages of behaviour may differ, the hypothesis includes not only the construct of innovative work behaviour, but also all four stages on behaviour.

Participation and innovative work behaviour

Participation could be defined as conscious and intentional effort of individuals on the higher level in organisation to provide an obvious role or expansion of opportunities for individuals or groups on the lower level in organisation to provide larger voice in one or more areas of fulfilment of organisational goals [82]. The added value of employee participation in terms of win–win for both sides, employer and employee, is well established in the literature. Participation enhances the employees’ attachment and loyalty to a particular organisation as well as contributes to human growth and satisfaction of social needs [83].

A considerable number of empirical studies provide evidence that supportive leadership enhance innovative work behaviour [52]. Turning to employee level, the core message in the literature conveys the call to enhance the employee participation in decision making for fostering innovations [84]. De Jong and den Hartog [15] argue that participation in decision-making encourages the employees to generate and implement the ideas. Employee perception that they have an influence within their team and the organisation could promote innovative behaviour.

Empirical support for participation as the determinant of innovative work behaviour is also identified. For instance, Axtell et al. [85] studied employees of a manufacturing plant and demonstrated positive connections between participation and employees’ innovative output, measured through self-ratings of employees’ suggestions and implementation efforts. Prieto and Pérez-Santana [27], drawing upon the AMO framework, demonstrated that opportunity-enhancing HRM practices, including participation, drive innovative work behaviour.

Given the foregoing, it is suggested that:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). 

Participation will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H1a), idea generation (H1b), idea championing (H1c), and idea implementation (H1d).

Training and development and innovative work behaviour

The main objective of training and development activities is to generate new skills and knowledge and transform the existing knowledge into new configurations that are able to meet the emerging needs [86]. In the light of sustainability, the main focus is on skillsets and capacities the employees will need in the future [87,88]. Thus, training and development of employees is related to long-term orientation, considering employees both as main assets and agents of change [89]. Consistent with the nature of change, training and development could be seen as drivers for innovative work behaviour as such behaviour refers to the creation and application of new ideas within an organisation [16]. Additionally, the relationship between training and development practices and innovative work behaviour can be understood as a social exchange phenomenon in which employees experience training and development practices as an organisation’s commitment to the human resources, where they then feel a need to reciprocate through positive behaviour, for instance through innovative work behaviour [38]

Training can be used to increase innovative work behaviour thought processes and provide educational opportunities that can enhance the task domain expertise [90]. Drawing upon the job resource–demand model, training is viewed as a resource [91]. Training enhances employees’ sets of knowledge and skills; this, in turn, should help the employees to try to be more creative in their work [90]. When the employees are encouraged to seek training outside work and to pursue higher educational degrees, their work will benefit from the increased knowledge base [92]. With an enhanced skill set, employees are more aware of various alternatives and feel more secure in testing and trying out new things [18,90]. Thus, training and development opens avenues for innovative work behaviour.

Previous studies provide empirical evidence that training and development result in higher employee performance [93] and in innovative performance [94]. Turning to innovative work behaviour, Bos-Nehlen, Renkema, and Janssen [23], based on a systematic review of the literature, recently concluded that training of employees may help organisations to foster the innovative work behaviour of targeted employees. As training and development is a composite of various activities, Battistelli et al. [86] found that task-related learning had a positive relationship with innovative work behaviour. However, it seems that the impact of training and development on different stages of innovative work behaviour differ. For instance, Birdi, Leach, and Magadley [94] found training to be positively related to idea generation but unrelated to idea implementation. A more recent study by Veenendaal and Bondarouk [18] shows that perceptions of training and development have a significant effect on idea generation. Thus, the theoretical notion that factors influencing various stages of behaviour may differ is supported.

Based on theoretical insights and empirical evidence, the paper hypothesises:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). 

Training and development will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H2a), idea generation (H2b), idea championing (H2c), and idea implementation (H2d).

Career management and innovative work behaviour

Career refers to the pattern of work-related experiences a person encounters during his or her professional life [95,96]. Meanwhile, career management includes all the processes and practices that manage the development of individuals along a path of experiences and jobs [96]. Career plans, feedback on performance and development, and opportunity for employees to decide on career paths are just a brief list of such practices. Career management is highly relevant for organisations in terms of their continuity [79]. In turn, organisation longevity and continuity are highly dependent on innovative work behaviour [22].

The number of studies dealing with career management and innovative work behaviour is scant. Stoffers, van der Heijden, and Schrijver [11] found that enhancing workers’ employability nurtures innovative work behaviour. As career potential is a part of employability, a positive linkage assumption could be made regarding career management and innovative work behaviour. Furthermore, Zandberg and Morales [97] found that when aiming at increasing innovative behaviour, individual career motives seem to have stronger positive effects than collective motivations (such as teamwork-related motivations). In general, career supports employee wellbeing. After seeing career opportunities, an employee is likely to notice the problems at work, generate novel and useful ideas within the work context, promote these ideas to potential sponsors, produce prototypes or models, and ultimately apply them within an organisation [5].

In light of the mentioned explanations, it is suggested that:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). 

Career management will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H3a), idea generation (H3b), idea championing (H3c), and idea implementation (H3d).

Work–life balance and innovative work behaviour

To be sustainable, organisations should be able to develop, preserve, and maintain their employees, and protect them from depletion [60]. Timely informational, financial, and direct support are the core means offered by organisations to enable the employees to balance their work and private life [98]. In general, work–life balance refers to the individuals’ perception that work and non-work activities are compatible with their given life priorities [99].

Earlier literature has analysed work–life conflict [100,101], work-to-family enrichment [102,103], and work–family balance [99] in relation to innovative work behaviour. For instance, Abstein, Heidenreich, and Spieth [100] suggested that work–life conflict was negatively related to innovative work behaviour. However, contrary to the expectation, they found a significant yet positive effect of work–life conflict on innovative work behaviour. Meanwhile, Yasir and Majid [102] revealed that work-to-family enrichment had a positive effect on behaviour. As the empirical findings are contradicted, a need arises to expand the research in the domain of linkage between work–family balance and innovative work behaviour.

Evidence shows that employees who can balance work and life issues are able to concentrate better at work [99]. Successful fulfilment of work and family demands provides psychological motivation to the employees, which enables them to think about new ways of performance and generate and implement the ideas [102] Accordingly, the higher the work–life conflict level the employees perceive, the more they are likely to conclude that the company cares little about them [100], and this in turn might result in lower interest in innovations at work.

Given the foregoing, it is suggested that:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). 

Work–life balance will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H4a), idea generation (H4b), idea championing (H4c), and idea implementation (H4d).

Diversity management and innovative work behaviour

Diversity reflects the degree to which people within a group differ on any attribute [104]. Usually, literature defines diversity by referring to employee socio-demographic traits, such as age, gender, tenure, educational background, ethnicity, etc. [105]. Demographic shifts in the labour force, increasing the movement of labour across national borders, differences in educational background, and more active involvement of women in the labour market all reinforce the calls for diversity management.

Studies often support the notion that diversity within organisations is positively related to performance, innovation, and innovative work behaviour [106]. Østergaard, Timmermans, and Kristinsson [106] found a positive relation between diversity in education and gender on the likelihood of introducing an innovation, a negative effect of age diversity and no significant effect of ethnicity on the firm’s likelihood to innovate. The study of Korzilius, Bücker, and Beerlage [104] demonstrated that multiculturalism had a positive influence on innovative work behaviour.

Employee diversity is often considered as positive since it might create a broader search space and make the firm more open towards new ideas and more creative [106]. Diversity should increase the firm’s knowledge base and increase the interaction between different types of competences and knowledge [104]. Nemeth [107] argued that divergent thinking has been shown to be an essential element of creativity, as it involves considering a number of alternatives and exploring connections between those alternatives. In line with this, diversity might play an important role in enhancing innovative work behaviour.

Given the foregoing, it is suggested that:

Hypothesis 5 (H5). 

Diversity management will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H5a), idea generation (H5b), idea championing (H5c), and idea implementation (H5d).

Health and safety at work

It seems that employee health covering various topics like mortality, diseases, ergonomic work conditions, or stress and burnout, is a relevant research field addressing the necessity to rethink people management [108,109]. Equal attention is attracted by the safety at work climate, referring to the employees’ shared perceptions of the importance and the right priority of safety, safety policies, procedures, and practices in their organisation [110]. Health and safety at work is one of cornerstones of sustainable HRM.

Based on the website content analysis, Ehnert [111] concluded that one of the main objectives linking sustainability and HRM was the maintaining of a healthy and productive workforce. The study of Järlström, Saru, and Vanhala [43] confirmed the previous results emphasising the need to implement practices that foster, among other things, the mental and physical health of employees to be sustainable. In doing this, organisations implemented a health management system, aimed at designing work in a way that preserves the health of employees and fosters health-promoting behaviour [98].

To the best knowledge of authors of the current paper, there is a lack of empirical evidence linking health and safety at work with innovative work behaviour. However, drawing upon the notion that employee health and safety at work [112] leads to better performance, it could be assumed that the same applies to innovative work behaviour. Intentional creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within a work role, group, or organisation [7] will be enhanced when employees feel safe and enjoy good mental and psychological health.

Given the foregoing, it is suggested that:

Hypothesis 6 (H6). 

Health and safety at work will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H6a), idea generation (H6b), idea championing (H6c), and idea implementation (H6d).

Sustainable HRM and innovative work behaviour

Organisations are able to stimulate the desired behaviours by using sustainable HRM practices that encourage the desired behaviours [38]. Based on the ideas of social exchange theory [113] and signalling theory [114], employees are seen as perceiving HRM practices as signals of the organisation [5]. If employees treat HRM practices as providing value, they will feel obliged to reciprocate with something of value [38]. In such case, if employees feel that HRM reflects respect, openness, and continuity, they will be willing to demonstrate extra-role behaviour, in terms of innovative work behaviour. Summing up, the general hypotheses are proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 7 (H7). 

Respect-oriented HRM will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H7a), idea generation (H7b), idea championing (H7c), and idea implementation (H7d).

Hypothesis 8 (H8). 

Openness-oriented HRM will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H8a), idea generation (H8b), idea championing (H8c), and idea implementation (H8d).

Hypothesis 9 (H9). 

Continuity-oriented HRM will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H9a), idea generation (H9b), idea championing (H9c), and idea implementation (H9d).

Hypothesis 10 (H10). 

Sustainable HRM will be positively related to innovative work behaviour, in terms of idea exploration (H10a), idea generation (H10b), idea championing (H10c), and idea implementation (H10d).

All hypothesised relations are displayed in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

Sample and data collection. As the intention of the paper was to obtain an initial assessment whether sustainable HRM serves as a driver for innovative work behaviour, two ways to reach the respondents (employed people in Lithuania) were chosen. First, questionnaires were distributed via LinkedIn and other social networks. As such, the convenience criterion was chosen as one of the criteria for obtaining the data for the preparatory study. Second, the questionnaires were sent to human resource professionals the authors of the paper collaborated with during the study process, asking them to distribute the questionnaires to the employees of their companies. Thus, target sampling when the appropriate individuals (in this case, HRM practicians) are approached about encouraging others to participate in the study was used. Due to the way of disseminating the questionnaire, it is impossible to estimate the number of persons the questionnaires were sent to and what was the response rate. However, the mentioned two ways allowed to spread questionnaire to the possibly broadest circle of potential respondents. Data collection took approximately 1 month. At the end of the research, 306 questionnaires were collected and, according to the numbers of the employed population in Lithuania, such an amount of responses reflected an acceptable bias of 5.5%, which indicated the reliability of the data. Concerning the respondent profile, data about generation were collected. Generation is defined as an identifiable group that shares birth year, age location, and significant life events at critical development stages. As employees from different generations are believed to have different value systems and react differently to HRM practices, generation was chosen as a control variable [115]. A small number (4.2%) of respondents belonged to generation Z (date of birth 2001 and later), 52.0% were representatives of generation Y (date of birth 1981–2001), 33.3% of those surveyed belonged to generation X (born in 1965–1980), and 10.5% were people from the Baby boom generation (born in 1946–1964) [115].

Measures. Innovative work behaviour. A 10-item scale originally developed by de Jong and den Hartog [15] was used to measure innovative work behaviour, which displays 4 dimensions: Idea exploration, idea generation, championing, and application. Drawing upon Dul, Ceylan, and Jaspers [116], individual employees are best suited to report their own innovative work behaviour because “they are aware of the subtle things they do in their jobs” and because others, as supervisors or colleagues, “do not have full insight into the creative thoughts and activities of an individual” (p. 723). Idea exploration was measured by 2 items. A sample item is “How often do you wonder how things can be improved?”. Idea generation was assessed by 3 items. A sample item is “How often do you generate original solutions for problems?”. Idea championing was measured by 2 items. A sample item is “How often do you attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea?”. Idea implementation was measured by 3 items. A sample item is “How often do you contribute to the implementation of new ideas?”. All the items were scored on a five-point Likert scale with possible answers ranging from 1 = “never” to 5 = “very often”. Cronbach’s alpha was α = 0.731 for idea exploration; α = 0.905 for idea generation; α = 0.764 for idea championing; and α = 0.911 for idea implementation. Cronbach’s alpha for innovative work behaviour was α = 0.949.

Sustainable HRM covers respect-oriented HRM, openness-oriented HRM, and continuity-oriented HRM. Cronbach’s alpha for sustainable HRM was α = 0.941.

Respect-oriented HRM included two dimensions: Participation and health and safety at work. Participation was assessed using a six-item scale developed by Prieto and Pérez-Santana [27]. A sample item is “Employees in this company are allowed to make decisions”. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.888. Health and safety at work were measured using a six-item scale developed by Staniškienė and Stankevičiūtė [117]. A sample item is “The workplaces fulfil safety requirements”. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.840. Cronbach’s alpha for Respect-oriented HRM was α = 0.896.

Openness-oriented HRM included two dimensions, namely work–life balance and diversity management. Work–life balance was measured using a three-item scale proposed by Lee [60]. A sample item is “My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues”. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.847. Diversity management was measured using a three-item scale developed by Lee [60]. A sample item is “Policies and programmes promote diversity in the workplace (for example, recruiting minorities and women, training in awareness of diversity issues, mentoring)”. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.855. Cronbach’s alpha for openness-related HRM was α = 0.849.

Continuity-oriented HRM covered training and development, and career planning. Both practices were measured using items introduced by Diaz-Carrion, López-Fernández, and Romero-Fernandez [42]. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item for training and development is “To offer mentoring programmes as part of the training of employees” The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.859. A sample item for career management is “To give fast track career plans that favour internal promotion within a short time”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.825. Cronbach’s alpha for Continuity-oriented HRM was α = 0.888.

Control variables. Employee generation may influence innovative work behaviour. Therefore, this variable was included as a control variable to measure any effects. Respondents reported their belonging to a particular generation according to the classification proposed by Macky et al. [115].

4. Results

The means, standard deviations for the scales, and correlation matrix are provided in

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Constructs	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Employee generation	2.50	0.739
2. Participation	3.4973	0.86032	−0.256 **
3. Training and development	2.7736	0.80697	−0.165 **	0.598 **
4. Career management	3.1748	0.89355	−0.225 **	0.576 **	0.603 **
5. Work-life balance	3.4858	0.97919	−0.130 *	0.524 **	0.365 **	0.433 **
6. Diversity management	3.5000	0.94058	−0.123 *	0.480 **	0.346 **	0.375 **	0.479 **
7. Health and safety at work	3.1623	0.83621	−0.228 **	0.564 **	0.578 **	0.560 **	0.530 **	0.450 **
8. Respect-oriented HRM	3.3298	0.75011	−0.274 **	0.888 **	0.665 **	0.642 **	0.596 **	0.526 **	0.881 **
9. Openness-oriented HRM	3.4929	0.82540	−0.147 **	0.585 **	0.414 **	0.470 **	0.866 **	0.854 **	0.571 **	0.653 **
10. Continuity-oriented HRM	2.9195	0.75522	−0.209 **	0.654 **	0.939 **	0.840 **	0.434 **	0.397 **	0.634 **	0.729 **	0.484 **
11. Sustainable HRM	3.2079	0.67357	−0.253 **	0.836 **	0.811 **	0.772 **	0.679 **	0.628 **	0.820 **	0.936 **	0.760 **	0.884 **
12. Idea exploration	3.3611	0.88863	−0.099	0.349 **	0.248 **	0.391 **	0.163 **	0.289 **	0.282 **	0.357 **	0.261 **	0.337 **	0.374 **
13. Idea generation	3.2190	1.03508	−0.258 **	0.431 **	0.281 **	0.456 **	0.196 **	0.225 **	0.328 **	0.430 **	0.244 **	0.387 **	0.425 **	0.697 **
14. Idea championing	3.0000	0.99177	−0.255 **	0.412 **	0.406 **	0.437 **	0.212 **	0.234 **	0.405 **	0.462 **	0.259 **	0.465 **	0.476 **	0.679 **	0.770 **
15. Idea implementation	3.0969	1.00111	−0.301 **	0.465 **	0.371 **	0.477 **	0.194 **	0.209 **	0.371 **	0.473 **	0.234 **	0.458 **	0.472 **	0.690 **	0.862 **	0.832 **
16. Innovative work behaviour	3.1670	0.90041	−0.265 **	0.465 **	0.359 **	0.490 **	0.211 **	0.256 **	0.382 **	0.478 **	0.271 **	0.455 **	0.483 **	0.818 **	0.940 **	0.897 **	0.950 **

** p < 0.01. * p < 0.05.

.

As expected, respect-oriented HRM, openness-oriented HRM, and continuity-oriented HRM were related to innovative work behaviour and its dimensions in terms of idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation. The same applies for sustainable HRM and its link to innovative work behaviour and its dimensions (Table 1). To test the study hypotheses, multiple regression analyses were conducted (

Table 2. Regression analysis (1).

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
	Idea exploration Model 1	Idea exploration Model 2	Idea generation Model 3	Idea generation Model 4	Idea championing Model 5	Idea championing Model 6	Idea implementation Model 7	Idea implementation Model 8	Innovative work behaviour Model 9	Innovative work behaviour Model 10
Employee generation	−0.163 ***		−0.252 ***	−0.117 **	−0.255 ***	−0.127 **	−301 ***	−0.161 ***	−0.265 ***	−0.120
Participation		0.224 **		0.320 ***		0.155 **		0.290 ***		0.272 ***
Training and development		−0.124		−0.123		0.112		0.003		−0.034
Career management		0.332 ***		0.338***		0.204 ***		0.293 ***		0.320 ***
Work – life balance		−0.167 **		−0.091		−0.103 *		−0.140 **		−0.139 **
Diversity management		0.099		0.015		0.005		-.038		0.021
Health and safety at work		0.107		0.034		0.162 **		0.096 *		0.105 *
R2	0.026	0.230	0.064	0.289	0.065	0.276	0.090	0.325	0.070	0.319
Total F	8.254 ***	14.845 ***	20.660 ***	17.300 ***	21.149 ***	16.224 ***	30.216 ***	20.505 ***	22.942***	19.924 ***
Adjusted R2	0. 023	0.214	0.061	0.272	0.062	0.259	0.087	0.309	0.067	0.303

*** p< 0.01. ** p < 0.05. * p < 0.1.

,

Table 3. Regression analysis (2).

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
	Idea exploration Model 11	Idea generation Model 12	Idea championing Model 13	Idea implementation Model 14	Innovative work behaviour Model 15	Idea exploration Model 16	Idea generation Model 17	Idea championing Model 18	Idea implementation Model 19	Innovative work behaviour Model 20
Employee generation	−0.058	−0.141 ***	−0.134 *	−0.178 ***	−0.140 *	−0.067	−0.152 **	−0.144 ***	−0.194 ***	−0.153 ***
Respect-oriented HRM	0.263 **	0.302 ***	0.273 ***	0.332 ***	0.321 ***
Openness-oriented HRM	−0.016	−0.026	−0.070	−0.125 *	−0.068
Continuity-oriented HRM	0.166	0.153 **	0.271 ***	0.239 ***	0.225 ***
Sustainable HRM						0.329 ***	0.396 ***	0.440 ***	0.423 ***	0.444 ***
R2	0.168	0.220	0.268	0.291	0.274	0.161	0.210	0.246	0.258	0.255
Total F	15.235 ***	21.258 ***	27.587 ***	30.902 ***	24.467 ***	29.059 ***	40.375 ***	49.465 ***	52.719 ***	51.808 ***
Adjusted R2	0.157	0.210	0.259	0.282	0.265	0.155	0.205	0.241	0.253	0.250

*** p < 0.01. ** p < 0.05. * p < 0.1.

). The results are discussed further.

Hypothesis H1 predicted a positive relationship between participation and innovative work behaviour as well as its four dimensions. Looking at Model 2 (Table 2), it is seen that participation has a direct and significant positive effect on idea generation (0.224, p < 0.05), supporting hypothesis H1a. Accordingly Model 4, Model 6 and Model 8 show that participation has a direct and significant positive effect on idea generation (0.320, p < 0.01), idea championing (0.155, p < 0.01), and application (0.290, p < 0.01). Thus, hypotheses H1b, H1c, and H1d were supported. Further, a positive relationship between participation and innovative work behaviour (0.272, p < 0.01) was found confirming hypothesis H1.

Hypothesis H2 proposed a positive relationship between training and development and innovative work behaviour as well its four dimensions. However, no statistically significant relationships were found in cases of hypotheses H2, H2a, H2b, H2c, and H2d.

Hypothesis H3 concerns career management, predicting that career management is positively related to innovative work behaviour and its four dimensions. As in the case of participation, Model 2, Model 4, Model 6, Model 8, and Model 10 revealed such relationships, accordingly, supporting hypotheses H3a, H3b, H3c, H3d, and H3.

Hypothesis H4 predicted that work–life balance was positively related to innovative work behaviour and its dimensions. However, the results are opposite. The negative effect was found between work–life balance and idea exploration (−0.167, p < 0.05), idea championing (−0.103, p < 0.1), idea implementation (−0.140, p < 0.05), and innovative work behaviour (−0.139 **, p < 0.05). As such, hypotheses H4a, H4c, H4d, and H4 were not supported. In case of work–life balance and idea generation linkage, no statistically significant relationship was found.

Hypothesis H5 explores the relationship between diversity management and innovative work behaviour, including dimensions. The results are similar as in the case of training. Model 2, Model 4, Model 6, Model 8, and Model 10 demonstrated no statistically significant relationships between diversity management and idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, idea implementation, and innovative work behaviour.

Hypothesis H6 concerns health and safety at work in relation to innovative work behaviour and its dimensions. Regarding idea exploration (H6a) and idea generation (H6b), no statistically significant relationships were found. Meanwhile idea championing (0.162, p < 0.05), idea implementation (0.196, p < 0.5), and innovative work behaviour (0.105, p < 0.1) were positively related. Thus, hypotheses H6c, H6d, and H6 were supported.

Hypothesis H7 explores the relationship between respect-oriented HRM and innovative work behaviour, including dimensions. It can be seen from Table 3 that hypotheses H7a, H7b, H7c, H7d, and H7 were supported seeing that a positive relationship was found between respect-oriented HRM and idea exploration (0.263, p < 0.05), idea generation (0.302, p < 0.01), idea championing (0.273, p < 0.01), idea implementation (0.332, p < 0.01), and innovative work behaviour (0.321, p < 0.01).

Hypothesis H8 proposed a positive relationship regarding openness-oriented HRM and innovative work behaviour with its dimensions. However, the results were different. Looking at Model 14, it is seen that openness-oriented HRM negatively affected idea implementation (−0.125, p < 0.1) providing no support for hypothesis H8d. In case of the remaining hypotheses (H8a, H8b, H8c, and H8), no statistically significant relationship was found.

Hypothesis H9 predicted that continuity-oriented HRM was positively related to innovative work behaviour and its dimensions. All hypotheses in this domain were supported, except for hypothesis H9a, where no statistically significant relationship was found between continuity-oriented HRM and idea exploration.

Hypothesis H10 concerns sustainable HRM in relation to innovative work behaviour and its dimensions. All hypotheses were confirmed, supporting the notion that sustainable HRM was positively related to innovative work behaviour (0.444, p < 0.01) and its dimensions, namely idea exploration (0.329, p < 0.01), idea generation (0.396, p < 0.01), idea championing (0.440, p < 0.01), and idea implementation (0.423, p < 0.01).

The general results of tested hypothesis are provided in Figure 2 and the detailed results are presented in Appendix A1.

5. Discussion

The paper aimed at revealing the sustainable HRM as a driver for fostering innovative work behaviour. In addition, the paper was designed to explore the impact sustainable HRM has on different dimensions (stages) of innovative work behaviour. The previous studies have mainly treated innovative work behaviour as a one-dimensional construct [23,25]. In line with more recent studies [18], this paper views innovative work behaviour as consisting of four dimensions, namely idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation. Drawing upon the notion that factors influencing various stages of behaviour may differ [18,94], the paper proposed separate hypotheses in regard to the mentioned four stages.

Tackling sustainable HRM, the ROC model was applied, arguing that sustainable HRM consists of three building blocks, namely respect-oriented HRM, openness-oriented HRM, and continuity-oriented HRM. Participation and health and safety at work have been chosen as practices illustrating respect-oriented HRM. Work–life balance and diversity management reflect openness-oriented HRM. Meanwhile, development and career management refer to continuity-oriented HRM.

Although the main hypothesis concerning the positive relationship of sustainable HRM with innovative work behaviour and its dimensions was supported, the other hypotheses were mostly only partly confirmed. By discussing the results of this research, the preparatory nature of the study should be acknowledged.

The literature argues that employee participation is a current organisational element of modern organisations, which allows individuals to make their voice heard, to take part in the decision-making process, and to engage in innovation [39]. The results supported the notion that participation was a strong predictor of innovative work behaviour and its dimensions (H1). Such results are in line with the findings of Axtell et al. [85], who studied employees of a manufacturing plant and revealed that a higher level of participation was reflected in a higher level of suggestions and their practical implementation. As such, innovative work behaviour is a sort of reward from employees for decision-making opportunities and encouragement to participate. In general, participation manifested in different forms chosen by the employees to secure their interest or contribute to the selection process [118]. Consequently, these goals could be easier to achieve when employees generate, champion, and implement new ideas for products, technologies, and work methods [23]. As theory claims that participation makes individuals feel part of the organisation [39], the research results demonstrated that being part of an organisation boosts the innovative work behaviour.

Based on social exchange arguments, it was expected that employees who perceived training and development programmes as personalised investment in themselves, would feel the need to reciprocate with something of value for the organisation in terms of innovative work behaviour [119]. Contrary to expectations, training and development did not serve as drivers for innovative work behaviour and its dimensions (H2). Thus, the better the employees perceive the training and development opportunities, the less innovative they are. Regarding linkage between employee training and development and innovative work behaviour, the earlier studies belong to two streams providing contradictory results. Papers from the first stream provide empirical evidence that training matters for innovativeness. For instance, according to Birdi, Leach, and Magadley [94], training programmes enhance creative problem-solving skills, idea generation, and implementation at work. Meanwhile, the second stream is not so optimistic about the relationship between training and innovative behaviour. In support of this stream, Veenendaal and Bondarouk [18] even found that development opportunities had a negative effect on idea generation. Accordingly, Jiang, Wang, and Zhao [92] showed that there was no association between training and employee creativity in a business setting in China. The same results were obtained in case of Bos-Nehles and Veenendaal, (2019) when among manufacturing workers the perceived training and development did not affect innovative work behaviour. The current paper supports the latter stream. The possible explanation is that in many organisations sustainability focus on training and development is still missing. The training tends to focus on routine knowledge or skills and performance of current jobs, leaving future skills behind, whereas innovative work behaviour requires to “transcend logical and sequential thinking” [92] (p. 4042).

According to the results, career management drives innovative work behaviour and all its dimensions (H3). This is in line with the findings of Bysted and Jespersen [120] referring to career advancement as a determinant of innovative work behaviour. Lifetime employment and upward career paths are non-existent in a contemporary world [121]. Sustainability lenses require sharing responsibility for career between the employee and employer and applying adequate career management initiatives. Remaining attractive for their current as well for the future employers is an outcome of such career management. Usually, career refers to some extra-role behaviour. Seeing that innovative work behaviour is seen as doing more than is required in a job description, career management could serve as a factor enhancing innovative work behaviour.

Turning to work–life balance, the findings were opposite to what was predicted (H4). Based on previous literature, a positive relationship could be expected between work–life balance and innovative work behaviour. James [122] argues that by increasing work–life balance in organisations, employers can exert a positive impact on innovation environment. In turn, freedom and autonomy experienced by employees enhance the generation of ideas [123]. Overall, problems with work–life imbalance negatively relate to creativity [124]. This research, however, shows that work–life balance has a negative impact on innovative work behaviour and all its dimensions, except for the idea generation, where no statistically significant relationship was found. This could be explained by turning to the nature of work–life balance. The work–life balance phenomenon emerged as a response to different demographic, economic, and cultural changes, such as the increasing integration of women in the workplace or technological advances [99]. Work–life balance refers to the relationship between work and non-work aspects of individuals’ lives, where balance is normally understood as restricting one side (usually work), to have more time for the other [125]. Thus, work–life balance means “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home, with a minimum of role conflict” [126] (p. 751). Given this focus, employees do not feel encouraged to create, introduce, and apply new ideas, since they feel satisfied with what they have in terms of work and non-work aspects. Employees do not demonstrate the behaviours through which they explore opportunities, generate or adopt new ideas, and make subsequent efforts to implement them [16].

Contrary to the expectations, diversity management does not serve as a driver for innovative work behaviour and for all its dimensions (no statistically significant relationship was found) (H5). The explanation for this might be the specific research context. Diversity management does not have long traditions in Lithuania. The reason for this lies in the planned economy and soviet heritage. Only recently, diversity and diversity management have started attracting attention on the business level. This is much related to the shortage of labour force on the labour market [127]. Consequently, until recently, diversity management has not been seen as a sustainable HRM practice for fostering innovative work behaviour.

Turning to health and safety at work (H6), it seems that innovative work behaviour and its two dimensions, namely idea championing and implementation, are driven by this sustainable HRM practice (H6). In general, it is obvious that failing to maintain health and safety in the workplace will lead to legal proceedings. From the management point of view, frameworks, conditions, structures, and processes preserving the health of employees, serve as a resource for encouraging the desired employee behaviours [88]. Turning to research findings, it was revealed that good mental and psychological health as well as safe working conditions encourage the employees to demonstrate innovativeness.

Continuing the discussion whether respect-oriented, openness-oriented, and continuity-oriented HRM practices matter for increasing innovative work behaviour, this research has shown slightly different results than was predicted. It seems that respect-oriented HRM (H7) and continuity-related HRM (H8) practices serve as drivers for innovative work behaviour, while openness-oriented HRM (H9) does not.

Such results are in parallel with the findings of Prieto and Pérez-Santana [27], who examined the role of high-involvement HRM on innovative work behaviour. High-involvement HRM was conceptualised as a three-domain construct: Ability-enhancing HRM practices, motivation-enhancing HRM practices, and opportunity-enhancing HRM practices. Overall, they found that high-involvement HRM boosted innovative work behaviour. However, the findings were different for a particular set of practices: Ability-enhancing and opportunity-enhancing HRM practices were positively related to innovative work behaviours, while there was no support for the relationship between motivation-enhancing HRM practices and innovative work behaviour.

Relying on the notion that respect implies the state of being seen and valued [81], in this paper, respect-oriented HRM covers two practices, namely participation and health and safety at work. The ensured possibility to provide suggestions, discuss work-related issues, take part in decision-making, as well as to have a healthy and safe working environment and conditions show that the organisation “sees and values” its employees. This in turn receives a response from employees by exploring work issues, and generating, championing, and implementing ideas.

It seems that continuity-oriented HRM drives innovative work behaviour and all dimensions, except for idea exploration. Continuity relies on two HRM practices, namely training and development, and career management. Practices that are arranged with the aim to expand employee knowledge and skills needed in the future and to maintain or even raise their employability determine the behaviour in such a way that innovative work behaviour increases.

According to the open system theory, the organisations are open and interact with external environment. Recognising the occurrence of societal issues and trends, openness-oriented HRM was approached as work–life balance and diversity management practices. However, no statistically significant relationship was found between openness-oriented HRM and innovative work behaviour and its dimensions, except for idea implementation. In contrast to expectations, openness-oriented HRM practices have a negative impact on idea implementation leading to the conclusion that organisations’ investments in ensuring work–life balance and diversity management reduce considerable effort and a result-oriented attitude needed to make ideas happen [15]. One possible explanation for such results might be the specific research context as discussed before analysing diversity management. Another explanation may rely on high perceived work–life balance of the respondents, which in turn hinders them from demonstrating innovative work behaviour.

Another aspect requiring discussion is related to multi-dimensionality of innovative work behaviour. The paper relies on the theoretical view that factors influencing the particular dimensions of innovative work behaviour differ [18,26,85]. This theoretical notion receives some empirical support. For instance, based on a longitudinal study, Binnewies and Gromer [26] concluded that idea generation, promotion, and implementation were predicted by different factors. The same findings were shared by Veenendaal and Bondarouk [18] pointing out that behaviours corresponding to the various innovative work behaviour dimensions were fostered by differently perceived HR practices.

The current research supports the view that various factors play different roles in the different stages of innovative work behaviour. For all four dimensions, participation and career management have been found to be beneficial. Health and safety at work promote idea championing and implementation only. In the meantime, work–life balance affects three dimensions negatively: Idea exploration, idea championing, and implementation. Further, respect-oriented HRM serves as a driver for all four dimensions. The same holds for continuity-oriented HRM, except for idea exploration. Openness-oriented HRM drives idea implementation only, but in a negative way. Conclusively, sustainable HRM has been found to be beneficial for all four dimensions of innovative work behaviour.

Finally summing up the discussion, the core message of the paper is that sustainable HRM consisting of three building blocks (respect, openness, and continuity) drives innovative work behaviour. From the theoretical point of view, innovative work behaviour is cognitively and emotionally demanding and requires the employees to invest considerable resources in each stage [16,39]. Based on the research findings, sustainable HRM serves as such resource and provides the necessary support to deal with these challenges because employees who feel included and valued as members of the organisation (respect), who see that the organisation pays attention to the external environment and societal trends, especially in labour market (openness), and who perceive the organisation’s decisions as long term-oriented (continuity), are more engaged in innovative work behaviour.

6. Conclusions

The aim of the paper was to provide an initial assessment whether sustainable HRM is a driver for innovative work behaviour. Sustainable HRM was conceptualised as a construct with three building blocks, namely respect-oriented, openness-oriented, and continuity-oriented HRM. Each of the blocks consisted of two corresponding HRM practices. Innovative work behaviour was perceived as a multi-stage construct (four stages).

Based on the findings, the paper contributes to the existing literature by supporting the two main views and providing empirical illustrations for them. First, the design of HRM practices can serve as a factor in predetermining innovative work behaviour. The findings point out that innovative work behaviour was promoted only by respect- and continuity-oriented HRM, while openness-oriented HRM was not significantly related to innovative work behaviour. However, sustainable HRM designed as a construct of all three blocks was a strong predictor of innovative work behaviour. Second, various dimensions of innovative work behaviour are fostered by different designs of HRM practices. Although idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation were driven by respect- and continuity-oriented HRM, idea exploration was enhanced by respect-oriented HRM only.

The paper has several practical implications. The results provide empirical evidence that it is worth for organisations to implement sustainability in HRM, as sustainable HRM is able to elicit innovative work behaviour. Having this in mind, organisations are encouraged to take one step further in people management by applying employee management, which is focused on respect for the human workforce and is explicitly linked with the external environment of the organisation and in which the interests of the employer, the employee, and the society are aligned. Next, when designing HRM practices, organisations should be aware that innovative work behaviour and its dimensions are promoted by different HRM practices. Having this in mind, organisations are advised to implement and enhance the most beneficial practices. For instance, organisations should be reluctant to provide too many work–life balance or training and development opportunities. Further, by addressing the dimensions of innovative work behaviour, organisations will be able to identify idea explorers, idea creators, idea champions, and implementers among their staff and to identify the roles they lack. Applying sustainable HRM would help increasing the required behaviours. Finally, organisations are invited to seriously consider the most important practices, such as employee participation and career planning seeing that these two HRM practices give huge rise to innovative work behaviour.

The paper has several limitations, which open avenues for future research. The paper uses self-reported measures of the innovative work behaviour of employees. Although prior research has found strong correlations between self-assessment and supervisor assessment [85,128], future research could include a comparison of self-reporting and innovative work behaviour perceived by supervisors. Tackling innovative work behaviour from different stakeholder perspectives might increase the knowledge on innovative work behaviour, its antecedents, and outcomes. Further, the study aimed at obtaining an initial overview concerning the overall working-age population of Lithuania, while linking sustainable HRM and innovative work behaviour. Acknowledging that innovative work behaviour may differ across the occupational groups and contexts, further research is needed for conducting studies in different industries among different occupational, age, and cultural groups. Next, the paper uses a small sample from one country; hence, it has a limitation due to its restrictive generalisability. In order to overcome this factor, future research could be extended to expand the sample to the same country or to the countries with a similar context, such as Eastern European countries.

Finally, the paper includes a limited amount of HRM practices representing respect, openness, and continuity. In order to better illustrate the role of the ROC model for enhancing innovative work behaviour, more HRM practices should be included.

In conclusion, this paper challenges the researchers and managers to move towards more sophisticated assessments as to how sustainable HRM, applying the ROC model, affects innovative work behaviour and its dimensions.