Decent work and innovative work behavior of academic staff in higher education institutions: the mediating role of work engagement and job self-efficacy

The paper addresses how decent work (DW), as conceptualized by the ILO and framed within Sustainable Development Goals, affects innovative work behavior (IWB) among academic staff in higher education. In a changing labor landscape shaped by technology, globalization, and demographic shifts, decent work encompasses employment quality, workers’ rights, social protection, and social dialogue. The study notes a gap in micro-level research connecting DW to individual-level outcomes like IWB, especially in higher education and emerging economies. It focuses on Egypt’s higher education context, where academics often face resource constraints, heavy workloads, low compensation (especially in public institutions), and varying access to healthcare and organizational support, all of which may influence engagement and innovation. The research questions examine: (1) whether DW directly affects IWB among academic staff; (2) whether work engagement mediates the DW–IWB link; and (3) whether job self-efficacy mediates the DW–work engagement relationship. The study posits that DW serves as a critical job resource that can increase engagement and efficacy, potentially fostering IWB.

Theoretical background integrates multiple frameworks: Conservation of Resources (COR) theory suggests resources like DW can enable discretionary behaviors such as IWB; Psychology of Working Theory (PWT) conceptualizes DW at the individual level linking work quality to well-being; Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model positions DW facets as resources that boost engagement; Self-Determination Theory (SDT) emphasizes motivation and competence (aligned with self-efficacy) as drivers of engagement. Decent work is defined via five dimensions (Duffy et al., 2016, 2017): physically and interpersonally safe working conditions; hours allowing free time and rest; organizational values aligned with family and social values; adequate compensation; and access to healthcare. The Egyptian higher education context features low average wages in the education sector, resource constraints, high workloads, administrative burdens, and varying healthcare coverage, with relatively low physical injury risk but notable stressors and gendered caregiving pressures. Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) entails idea generation, promotion, and implementation, distinct from creativity alone, and is influenced by contextual factors like compensation, job security, and workload. Prior research shows leadership, organizational culture, and personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy) relate to IWB. Hypotheses: H1 DWE → IWB (positive); H2 DWE → work engagement (positive); H3 work engagement → IWB (positive); H4 work engagement mediates DWE → IWB; H5 DWE → job self-efficacy (positive); H6 job self-efficacy → work engagement (positive); H7 job self-efficacy mediates DWE → work engagement.

Design: Quantitative, cross-sectional survey of academic staff in public and private Egyptian universities. Data collection via anonymous online questionnaire (Google Forms, LinkedIn) from November 2022 to April 2023 using purposive non-probability sampling. Pre-test: Six expert interviews ensured content validity and clarity; minor wording adjustments. Sample: 234 responses received; 10 excluded (6 non-academics; 4 not in Egypt); final N=224. Demographics: 73.21% female; age distributed mainly 21–32; 42.41% Doctorate; 42.41% >10 years experience; positions from Teaching Assistant to Professor; 79.46% private HEIs; 87.95% Cairo. Measures: - Decent Work (Duffy et al., 2017): 15 items across 5 dimensions (safe working conditions, healthcare, adequate compensation, time and rest, organizational values), 7-point Likert (1–7). - Work Engagement (UWES-9; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004): vigor, dedication, absorption; 7-point Likert (0–6). - Innovative Work Behavior (Janssen, 2000): 9 items (idea generation, promotion, realization); Likert labeled 1 "never" to 5 "always". - Job Self-Efficacy (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995): 10 items; 7-point Likert (0–6). Control variables: gender, age, experience, position, education, university type, location. Analysis: PLS-SEM (SmartPLS/PLS approach referenced) with two-stage evaluation. Common method bias assessed via Harman’s single-factor test (first factor 30.63% < 50%). Measurement model: convergent validity (loadings >0.5; composite reliability >0.7; AVE >0.5) and discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker, cross-loadings, HTMT <0.90) satisfied. Multicollinearity: VIF <5; items HC2, IWB7, IWB8 dropped due to VIF. Structural model: path coefficients and bootstrapped significance; mediation tested via indirect effects.

- H1 (DWE → IWB) not supported: β=0.052, t=0.580, p=0.562. - H2 (DWE → Work Engagement) supported: β=0.433, t=7.314, p<0.001. - H3 (Work Engagement → IWB) supported: β=0.304, t=4.416, p<0.001. - H4 (Mediation by Work Engagement between DWE and IWB) supported: significant indirect effect β=0.132, t=3.410, p<0.05; direct effect non-significant; with mediator included, DWE → IWB becomes significant β=0.254, t=2.979, p<0.05, indicating full mediation. - H5 (DWE → Job Self-Efficacy) supported: β=0.295, t=3.765, p<0.001. - H6 (Job Self-Efficacy → Work Engagement) supported: β=0.337, t=4.943, p<0.001. - H7 (Mediation by Job Self-Efficacy between DWE and Work Engagement) supported: indirect effect β=0.098, t=3.151, p<0.05; total effect DWE → WE β=0.526, t=9.091, p<0.001; with mediator DWE → WE remains significant β=0.428, t=7.673, p<0.001 (partial mediation). Measurement properties: Reliability and validity criteria met; HTMT ranged 0.336–0.870; Harman’s single-factor 30.63%. Items HC2, IWB7, IWB8 dropped due to multicollinearity.

Findings indicate that decent work does not directly trigger innovative work behavior among academic staff, likely due to the complex, resource-intensive nature of academic innovation (e.g., need for funding, facilities, technology). However, decent work robustly increases work engagement, which in turn promotes IWB, aligning with COR, JD-R, and social exchange perspectives: when institutions provide fair, safe, adequately compensated work with aligned values and healthcare, academics reciprocate through higher engagement and innovation. Decent work also enhances job self-efficacy, which positively influences engagement; self-efficacy partially mediates the DWE–engagement link, suggesting other mechanisms (e.g., self-esteem) may also operate. The study contributes by positioning DW as an antecedent to IWB via attitudinal/personal resources in higher education in an emerging economy. Practically, universities can strengthen IWB by investing in DW elements (competitive pay, job security, healthcare, respectful climate, work-life balance, participative management, development opportunities), reducing burnout and fostering a culture supportive of innovation and effective digital transformation.

This study examined whether and how decent work influences innovative work behavior among academic staff in Egypt. Using PLS-SEM on 224 academics, results show that decent work does not directly affect IWB but positively affects work engagement, which fully mediates the DWE–IWB relationship. Decent work also increases job self-efficacy, which positively affects engagement and partially mediates DWE’s effect on engagement. The study advances the decent work literature by identifying work engagement and self-efficacy as mechanisms linking DW to innovation-related outcomes in higher education within an emerging economy. For practice, promoting decent work can heighten engagement and, consequently, IWB. Future research should explore additional mediators (e.g., job satisfaction, self-esteem, motivation), potential moderators, longitudinal designs to assess causality, and broader samples and perspectives (including employers).

- Cross-sectional design limits causal inference and allows potential reverse causality (e.g., engagement increasing self-efficacy). - Sample skew: majority female (≈72%) and concentrated in Cairo, limiting representativeness. - Modest sample size (N=224) and convenience sampling constrain generalizability. - Single occupational group (academics) may reduce external validity to other sectors. - Reliance on self-reported measures may introduce common method bias, despite tests. - Future work should include additional mediators/moderators and qualitative employer perspectives, and adopt longitudinal, geographically broader designs.