*Innovation – Research and Development for Human, Economic and Institutional Growth*

#### **Table 1.**

*Demographics information.*

significant levels of collinearity. We may also draw the conclusion that the reflecting measurement model was successful as a result. **Appendix C** provides proof that the AVE for each of the reflective constructs is larger than the variance shared with the other components, supporting the discriminant validity (see **Appendixes D**, **F** and **Tables D1**, **F1**) of reflective measures [66–74, 76]. An additional alternative approach (such as a cross-loading matrix) (see **Appendix E** and **Table E1**) revealed that all the indicators of measures loaded more strongly on their intended constructs than in others, which further supported discriminant validity [13, 15, 67, 74–77]. In order to evaluate discriminant validity, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio values were also examined (see **Appendixes D**, **F** and **Tables D1**, **F1**). According to [66–74, 76], HTMT is defined as the ratio of the average heterotrait-heteromethod correlation to the average monotrait-heteromethod correlation.

*Innovative Behaviour Mediates in the Relationship between Employee Creativity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111861*


**Table 2.** *Direct and indirect hypotheses.*

The findings of HTMT ratios show in **Table F1** (see **Appendix F**) that they are less than 0.85 [66–74, 76]. The study's findings thus supported the first-order reflective constructs of EC, IB and OI.

#### **4.6 Structural model evaluation**

The direct and indirect effects of H1–H4 are shown in **Table 2** (see **Appendix I** and **Figure I1**). The findings support the following hypotheses: H1: employee creativity has a significant positive relationship with innovative behaviour (b = 0.57, t = 10.82); H2: employee creativity (EC) has a significant positive relationship with organisational innovation (b = 0.19, t = 3.89); H3: innovative behaviour has a significant positive relationship with organisational innovation, regarding contribution; and H4: innovative behaviour significantly mediated in the relationship between EC and OI. As a result, this research supports the contribution that IB mediated the relationship between EC and OI. H1, H2, H3 and H4 are thus supported (see **Appendix I** and **Figure I1**).

As a result, the findings emphasise the need for better working conditions in terms of the creativity and innovative skills needed for organisational innovation. It is also important to provide a conducive working environment, along with inherent motivators, as this may demonstrate a positive relationship between employees' creativity and innovative behaviour for enhancing innovation.

#### **4.7 Assessment of R2 and Q2**

The research study assessed the model's in-sample fit, and we discovered that the endogenous constructs (organisational innovation) gained R2 values (R2 = 0.499) and F2 values (0.46) (see **Appendixes A**, **B** and **Tables A1**, **B1**) [66, 67]; this means that employee creativity and innovative behaviour (R2) have a closed to moderate effect on organisational innovation, which can be viewed that IB has a mediation effect on the relationship between EC and OI. To illustrate the interpretation (organisational innovation), we focus our study on the major target construct of the model, but we also provide the predictor estimate statistics for the other endogenous constructs. Furthermore, we discover that every indicator produces Q2 prediction values greater than 0 (see **Appendix J** and **Figure J1**) [66, 67]. This implies that the statistical output of the existing indicator data is improved by a theoretically designed route model. We may thus infer that our model is very predictable [66, 67].
