Evidências de validade da escala de suporte organizacional à criatividade no nível da equipe
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20397/2177-6652/2022.v22i3.2249Palavras-chave:
suporte organizacional à criatividade, inovação, adaptação transcultural, validação.Resumo
Objetivo: realizar a adaptação transcultural e avaliar as evidências iniciais de validade da Escala de Suporte Organizacional à Criatividade no nível da equipe (ESOCE), desenvolvida por Madjar, Oldham e Pratt (2002), para o contexto organizacional brasileiro.
Metodologia: O instrumento original passou por retrotradução e validação semântica. Participaram 619 profissionais por meio de um questionário online. Para análise, foram empregadas técnicas psicométricas robustas, de Análise de Rede e Modelagem por Equações Estruturais.
Originalidade/Relevância: O SOCE é um importante preditor da criatividade e inovação nas organizações. No entanto, não foram encontrados estudos no contexto brasileiro que buscassem adaptar e identificar as evidências iniciais de validade dessa escala.
Principais resultados: Os resultados confirmaram que a versão bifatorial da ESOCE – supervisor e colegas - é adequada, apresentando bons índices de ajuste (CFI = 0,97; TLI = 0,94; α = 0,91; VME = 0,80) e invariância quanto à escolaridade. As evidências de validade discriminante e convergente foram verificadas nas relações positivas com o Apoio Social e o engajamento no trabalho. Os resultados obtidos indicam que a ESOCE é uma medida robusta para ampla aplicação no Brasil.
Contribuições teóricas/metodológicas: A utilização da ESOCE em estudos multifatoriais pode aprimorar a compreensão das teorias de criatividade e inovação a depender da influência do SOCE.
Contribuições práticas: Uma ferramenta organizacional compacta que permite medir e acompanhar o grau do SOCE nas equipes.
Palavras-chave: suporte organizacional à criatividade, inovação, adaptação transcultural, validação.
Referências
REFERÊNCIAS
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. https://doi.org/10/gdpcv9
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. https://doi.org/10/gdg5kf
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (Orgs.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Psychological Association.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10/32w
Arafat, S., Chowdhury, H., Qusar, M., & Hafez, M. (2016). Cross Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of Research Instruments: A Methodological Review. Journal of Behavioral Health, 5(3), 129. https://doi.org/10/ggjnsb
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963–970. https://doi.org/10/dd3rdw
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10/gctpgw
Binnewies, C., & Gromer, M. (2012). Creativity and innovation at work: The role of work characteristics and personal initiative. Psicothema, 24(1), 100–105.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Methodology in the social sciences (2nd ed). The Guilford Press.
Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Cousins, R., MacKay, C. J., Clarke, S. D., Kelly, C., Kelly, P. J., & McCaig, R. H. (2004). ‘Management Standards’ work-related stress in the UK: Practical development. Work & Stress, 18(2), 113–136. https://doi.org/10/d9vb2f
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. https://doi.org/10/cjtkx7
Damásio, B. F. (2013). Contribuições da Análise Fatorial Confirmatória Multigrupo (AFCMG) na avaliação de invariância de instrumentos psicométricos. Psico-USF, 18(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10/gdz8fm
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10/bmzkg6
Eisenberger, R., Rhoades Shanock, L., & Wen, X. (2020). Perceived Organizational Support: Why Caring About Employees Counts. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7(1), annurev-orgpsych-012119-044917. https://doi.org/10/gf8k6r
Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10/gdm9tf
Ferreira, M. C., Valentini, F., Damásio, B. F., Mourão, L., Porto, J. B., Chinelato, R. S. de C., Novaes, V. P., & Pereira, M. M. (2016). Evidências adicionais de validade da UWES-9 em amostras brasileiras. Estudos de Psicologia, 21(4). https://doi.org/10/ggvxc8
Ferreira, P. A. P., Freitas, C. P. P. de, Devotto, R. P. de, & Damásio, B. F. (2020). Evidências de Validade da Escala Indicadores das Características do Ambiente Organizacional (ICAO). Revista Psicologia Organizações e Trabalho, 20(3), 1141–1149. https://doi.org/10.17652/rpot/2020.3.18961
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10/cwp
Golino, H. F., & Epskamp, S. (2017). Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0174035. https://doi.org/10/gbjzzb
Johns, G. (2018). Advances in the Treatment of Context in Organizational Research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10/gfxhj2
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The Performance of RMSEA in Models With Small Degrees of Freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10/f7kdvc
Kim, T.-Y., Hon, A. H. Y., & Lee, D.-R. (2010). Proactive Personality and Employee Creativity: The Effects of Job Creativity Requirement and Supervisor Support for Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10/bshkn6
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Organizational Support Theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10/bj5d
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10/ggffq8
Li, C.-H. (2014). The performance of MLR, USLMV, and WLSMV estimation in structural regression models with ordinal variables. Michigan State University.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s No Place like Home? The Contributions of Work and Nonwork Creativity Support toEmployees’ Creative Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757–767. https://doi.org/10/fnsd43
Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 558–578. https://doi.org/10/fg3xqk
Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees’ and customers’ perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 594–604. https://doi.org/10/btzqnp
Mazzucato, M., & Penna, C. (2016). The Brazilian Innovation System: A Mission-Oriented Policy Proposal. Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos. https://www.cgee.org.br/documents/10195/1774546/The_Brazilian_Innovation_System-CGEE-MazzucatoandPenna-FullReport.pdf
Petermann, M. K. H., & Zacher, H. (2020). Agility in the workplace: Conceptual analysis, contributing factors, and practical examples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(4), 599–609. https://doi.org/10/gmskgk
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10/gdqbt6
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http:// www.R-project.org/
Revelle, W. (2018). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University. https://CRAN.Rproject. org/package=psych
Reynolds, E. B., Schneider, B. R., & Zylberberg, E. (Orgs.). (2019). Innovation in Brazil: Advancing Development in the 21st Century (1o ed). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429053092
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10/cdh8c7
Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1282–1290. https://doi.org/10/f4fcsz
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more, Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10/f3r4v8
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10/c45wq2
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed). Pearson Education.
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10/ctx6h7
Van Knippenberg, D. (2017). Team Innovation. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113240
Woznyj, H. M., Dunn, A. M., Shanock, L. R., Heggestad, E. D., Ordóñez, Z., & Uhrich, B. (2017). How Far Can Support Go? Supported Supervisors’ Performance and Subordinate Dedication. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 627–639. https://doi.org/10/gg6dn3
Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 333–359. https://doi.org/10/b7c8
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista Gestão & Tecnologia
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Os direitos, inclusive os de tradução, são reservados. É permitido citar parte de artigos sem autorização prévia desde que seja identificada a fonte. A reprodução total de artigos é proibida. Em caso de dúvidas, consulte o Editor.
