Evidências de validade da escala de suporte organizacional à criatividade no nível da equipe

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20397/2177-6652/2022.v22i3.2249

Keywords:

suporte organizacional à criatividade, inovação, adaptação transcultural, validação.

Abstract

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.

Author Biographies

Russencleyton Barros Costa, Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia

Analista de Ciência & Tecnologia na Divisão de Inovação Tecnológica

Clarissa Pizarro Freitas, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro

Professora do Programa de Pós-graduação em Psicologia da PUC–RJ

Bruno Figueiredo Damásio, Psicometria Online Academy

Pesquisador, professor e consultor

Leonardo Fernandes Martins, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro

Professora do Programa de Pós-graduação em Psicologia da PUC–RJ

References

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

Published

2022-10-16

How to Cite

Costa, R. B., Freitas, C. P., Damásio, B. F., & Martins, L. F. (2022). Evidências de validade da escala de suporte organizacional à criatividade no nível da equipe. Journal of Management & Technology, 22(3), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.20397/2177-6652/2022.v22i3.2249

Issue

Vol. 22 No. 3 (2022): Julho/Setembro

Section

ARTIGO

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of Management & Technology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: • 1. The author(s) authorize the publication of the article in the journal. • 2. The author(s) ensure that the contribution is original and unpublished and is not being evaluated in other journal(s). • 3. The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts expressed in the texts because they are the sole responsibility of the author(s). • 4. The publishers reserve the right to make adjustments and textual adaptation to the norms of APA. • 5. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work [SPECIFY PERIOD OF TIME] after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. • 6. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. • 7. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html