Model for social intelligence and teachers’ innovative work behavior: serial mediation

Abstract

Social intelligenceis the capacity, capability, or ability to build relationships with others effectively; therefore, its existence is vital for an organization’s members, including teachers, in the school organization context. Therefore, this study explores the link between social intelligence and creativity, teaching self-efficacy, affective commitment, and innovative work behavior in Indonesian teachers, estimates the strength of these relationships, and finds a relevant new empirical model. A Likert-scale questionnaire was used to collect research data from 496 teachers. Structural equation modeling supported by descriptive and correlational analyses revealed that social intelligencehad a significant relationship with teachers’ creativity, teaching self-efficacy, affective commitment, and innovative work behavior. Additionally, creativity, teaching self-efficacy, and affective commitment were significantly linked to teachers’ innovative work behavior. Social intelligence had the strongest association with self-efficacy. Finally, a new empirical model of the link between social intelligence and teachers’ innovative work behavior with the serial mediation of creativity, teaching self-efficacy, and affective commitment was developed. Accordingly, social intelligence improvement can potentially increase teachers’ creativity, teaching self-efficacy, affective commitment, and innovative work behavior, which are worthy of discussion and priority by researchers, academics, and practitioners for developing social intelligence in various fields and contexts.

Keywords:

• Social intelligence
• creativity
• teaching self-efficacy
• affective commitment
• innovative work behavior
• teachers

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Tina C. Montreuil, Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

SUBJECTS:

• Educational Psychology
• Work & Organizational Psychology
• Teachers & Teacher Education
• School Leadership, Management & Administration

1. Introduction

Social intelligence (SI) is essential capital for individuals to build social relations in various life contexts. Without SI, individuals experience obstacles in carrying out daily activities at school (campus), in offices, and in the community. Scholars have highlighted that people with high SI have a strong tendency to manage their feelings well so they can create a good mood for others and easily blend with society (Goleman, 2006; Albrecht, 2009). SI affects employee productivity (Ukala, 2019), performance (Koolor & Seifollahi, 2018; Lathesh & Seifollahi, 2018), and organizational performance (Ebrahimpoora et al., 2013). It is also related to organizational citizenship behavior (Mirsafian, 2018; Oshi et al., 2021; Mohamed, 2021), job satisfaction (Alifuddin & Widodo, 2021), and workplace spirituality (Promsri, 2019). In addition, SI can influence leadership in dealing with certain cases in specific situations (Yukl, 2013), giving managers the capability to recognize, understand, and solve problems due to old mindsets, limited trust, uncomfortable interactions, and poor communication (Patel & Poston, 2021) and is linked with organizational learning (Torabi, 2021). Rezaei and Jeddi (2020) also claim that SI can mitigate stress and increase life satisfaction; in an educational context, SI predicts students’ learning performance (Scherbakov, 2021) and enhances university academic performance (Kularajasingam et al., 2022). SI is also a determinant of volunteer activities (Onufriieva et al., 2020) and the reduction of bullying behaviors among students (Jueajinda et al., 2021).

Traditionally, SI refers to the ability to build relationships with others effectively (Robbins & Judge, 2019). It concerns understanding interactions with superiors, colleagues, family, and friends (DuBrin & Andrew, 2009), and the capacity to get along with others (Sanwal & Sareen, 2023). SI also refers to the ability to choose an appropriate response to stimuli in a social environment (Northouse, 2019). SI is described as an objective, careful, and accurate introduction to a situational context to find the best solution for a particular situation (Rahim, 2014; Rahim et al., 2018). Albrecht (2009) mentioned five indicators of SI: situational awareness, presence, authenticity, clarity, and empathy. Situational awareness is the capacity to recognize situations in the social context and how these situations shape people’s behavior. Presence is an impression or message that is intended for others through certain behaviors. Authenticity is an act based on ethical and honest personal values. Clarity is the capacity to explain ideas clearly and effectively so that they have a real impact. Finally, empathy is the ability to build rapport with others – the capability to earn respect and the willingness of others to cooperate. This is crucial for Indonesian teachers with diverse socio-cultural backgrounds, which include 1340 ethnic groups. They have unique socio-cultural conditions, which are different from one another. This is the colored social interaction between teachers and students, especially teachers who work in schools located on Java Island, which is the area of this study. Java Island is the center of government and industry in Indonesia; therefore, people from other islands migrate massively to Java for work, business, and study purposes. Thus, there is an accumulation of people from various ethnic groups, including schools, on Java Island. Consequently, both teachers and students come from different socio-cultural backgrounds and have diverse social interaction characteristics. This requires a high SI value.

Recent studies have convincingly indicated that SI is related to creativity, teaching self-efficacy (TSE), affective commitment (AC), and innovative work behavior (IWB). Amalia et al. (2023) demonstrated that SI affects creativity. Furthermore, Sethi and Sharma (2023) show that SI influences self-efficacy. Alifuddin and Widodo (2021) found that SI predicts AC. In addition, although it is relatively limited and requires further investigation, SI also has a relationship with IWB. Ahmad et al. (2020) show that social brain power, as an indicator of SI, affects innovative behavior. Interestingly, other studies have shown that creativity, TSE, and affective commitment affect IWB. For instance, Alt et al. (2023) and Raihan and Uddin (2023) proved that creativity influences innovative behavior. Iqbal et al. (2023) and Lu et al. (2023) claim that self-efficacy significantly affects innovative behavior. Bak (2020) and Sinaga et al. (2021) demonstrated that AC is linked to IWB. The results of these studies provide opportunities for the mediating roles of creativity, TSE, and affective commitment in the context of the relationship between SI and IWB. This implies that when creativity, TSE, and AC are high, they have a probability of mediating the relationship between SI and IWB. However, several studies have reported inconsistent results. For example, Kinga and István (2012) found that SI has no significant relationship with creativity. Jadoa and Faridi (2022) also indicated that self-efficacy affects SI. In addition, social awareness, as an indicator of SI, has no significant effect on organizational identification as part of affective commitment (Develí et al., 2022). Nawaz (2019) also revealed the contradictory fact that IWB affects affective commitment as an indicator of organizational commitment. This can lead to research gaps that require further in-depth investigation. Based on this urgency, this study aimed to investigate the link between SI and creativity, TSE, AC, and IWB in Indonesian teachers; estimate the strength of their relationships; and find a relevant new empirical model. Therefore, in line with the goals, there are several hypotheses (H) can be formulated: (H₁) SI relates to the teachers’ creativity; (H₂) SI relates to teachers’ TSE; (H₃) SI relates to the teachers’ AC; (H₄) SI relates to the teachers’ IWB; (H₅) Creativity relates to teachers’ IWB; (H₆) TSE relates to teachers’ IWB; and (H₇) AC relates to teachers’ IWB. Proving these hypotheses has the opportunity to eliminate research gaps and can strengthen theoretical buildings based on empirical data, making it possible to find new empirical models of the causal relationship between SI and IWB with the mediation mechanisms of creativity, TSE, and AC.

2. Literature review 

2.1. Social intelligence and creativity

Among other factors, SI is related to creativity. Nejad et al. (2019) demonstrate that SI is related to creativity, whereas Hahn et al. (2011) indicate that SI influences the creative process. Furthermore, another research shows that SI affects creative behavior (Kriemeen & Hajaia, 2017) and creative performance (Rahim, 2014). This indicates that SI is crucial for creativity. In reality, creativity is not only important to people’s activities but also has the power to influence the success of those activities on an individual level. For instance, Rohmaniyah and Nurhayati (2017) proved that creativity influences performance. Other studies indicated that creativity leads to organizational citizenship behavior (Deng & Guan, 2017) and teachers’ professional competence (Vaganova et al., 2019; Widodo, 2021). Creativity also affects creative thinking (Al-Zu’bi et al., 2017) and academic achievement (Gajda et al., 2017). This indicates that creativity is important in an individual’s life.

Creativity reflects the generation of ideas and products from both novels (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2019). Creativity is the actual manifestation of knowledge in producing novelty or original evidence (Corazza & Lubart, 2021) and the capability to build new concepts or generate original ideas (Carter, 2014). According to Miao and Cao (2019), creativity reflects the ability to produce new ideas and methods, including the use of new technology and procedures to achieve goals. In the teaching context, creativity is the teacher’s capacity to reconstruct new or original ideas that are relevant to the materials, approaches, methods, techniques, and styles used in the learning process (Widodo & Gunawan, 2021). Bessant and Tidd (2018) mentioned types of creativity, including pattern recognition, divergent and convergent thinking, associations, and incremental and radical thinking.

Creativity can be measured using several indicators, including fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, and redefinition (Guilford, 1950; Widodo & Gunawan, 2021). These five indicators can be driven by SI. For example, teachers with high situational awareness, reflected in their capacity to understand situations in a social context, tend to have fluency and flexibility in various realities. Likewise, teachers who have a high level of authenticity, which is reflected in their actions from honesty and ethical motives, and who behave according to personal values ​​that are acceptable to others can stimulate the originality of new ideas and works produced. For example, they do not plagiarize. Teachers with strong clarity, reflected in their capacity to explain ideas clearly and effectively so that they have a real impact, also tend to be proactive in elaborating and redefining reality to discover new things.

2.2. Social intelligence and teaching self-efficacy

Social intelligence is also related to self-efficacy. Several studies have indicated that SI influences teaching self-efficacy (Mohamed, 2021; Mohammdipouya et al., 2018; Khalegkhah et al., 2019). This indicates that SI, as reflected in situational awareness, presence, authenticity, clarity, and empathy can enhance TSE. Self-efficacy is essential and determines the dynamics of individual activities and can even help improve the quality of life of individuals. Self-efficacy is the capital that increases motivation, realizes prosperity, and encourages individual achievement in various aspects of life (Saremi & Rezeghi, 2015). For example, teachers with high self-efficacy can excite the classroom atmosphere, thereby encouraging students to participate intensively in the learning process (Zee & Koomen, 2016). When teachers associate certain teaching behaviors with success, their self-efficacy increases. In contrast, when teachers’ teaching behaviors are associated with failure, their self-efficacy decreases (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). That is, self-efficacy is related to essential aspects of real life, including teacher behavior, and belief in the ability to achieve a goal (self-efficacy) is a vital driver of successful teacher learning (La Velle, 2021).

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their capacity to perform certain tasks or jobs to achieve expected performance (Bandura, 1997), his/her skills to display certain behaviors according to task success criteria (Colquitt et al., 2019), and the capacity to do something in the context of a specific situation (Lussier, 2016). In the context of teachers, self-efficacy can be viewed from the perspective of teaching efficacy, namely, the teacher’s belief in his ability to teach, which positively impacts student learning activities (Widodo, 2021), including the teacher’s belief in influencing students to learn well, not least for students who have difficulty following lessons and are not motivated to learn (Guskey & Passaro, 1994).

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) describe TSE as teachers’ self-beliefs regarding their capacities to achieve educational outcomes according to standards and targets, with three indicators: efficacy of teaching strategies, classroom management, and student engagement. In the dynamics of teacher activities in schools, TSEs’ indicators can be stimulated by teachers’ SI. For instance, situational awareness, authenticity, clarity, and empathy are essential modalities for teachers to create solid self-confidence in managing classes and establishing good relationships (engagement) with students.

2.3. Social intelligence and affective commitment

Social intelligence is also linked to AC. Alifuddin and Widodo (2021) demonstrated that SI influences AC. Similar studies have indicated that SI is related to AC as an indicator of organizational commitment (Tamunosiki-Amadi et al., 2020; Mohadesi, 2021). They view SI as a determinant of teachers’ AC. In reality, AC is essential for both individuals and organizations. Several studies have indicated that AC is related to various aspects of an individual’s life-related work or organization. For instance, AC significantly influences work engagement (Choi et al., 2015), job satisfaction (Lambert et al., 2020; Loan, 2020), and proactive work behavior (Luu, 2021). AC also affects productivity (Gvpn et al., 2019) and performance (Sungu et al., 2019; van Waeyenberg et al., 2020), including extra-role performance (Wang et al., 2020) and organizational performance (Princy & Rebeka, 2019; Ulabor & Bosede, 2019). Moreover, AC mitigates burnout and turnover intention (Enginyurt et al., 2016; DiPietro et al., 2020). In marketing studies, AC is linked to electronic word-of-mouth (Mohammed & Al-Swidi, 2020) and customer orientation (Lombardi et al., 2019). This confirms that AC positively impacts individuals, which has implications for organizations. 

In the organizational context, commitment is the intensity of employees identifying themselves with the organization, a strong willingness to actively participate, and a willingness to do what is best for the organization (Newstrom, 2015; Noe et al., 2019). In addition, AC is an employee’s emotional attachment to organizational values, which reflects the level of liking for the organization and the quality of reciprocal relationships with the organization (Wang et al., 2020). AC is generally actualized in the form of positive emotions that exert extra effort on an ongoing basis as a manifestation of a strong desire to remain part of the organization (Ivancevich et al., 2018).

According to Meyer and Allen (1991), AC marks employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement withan organization. These three indicators can be stimulated through SI. For example, teachers with higher situational awareness, manifested in their ability to understand social context situations, tend to have strong emotional attachments and identification with the organization. Likewise, teachers with adequate clarity, reflected in their ability to convey ideas clearly and effectively, will be actively involved in various organizational activities.

2.4. Social intelligence and innovative work behavior

Social intelligence is also related to IWB. Koolor and Seifollahi (2018) found that SI impacts innovative performance. Ahmad et al. (2020) also demonstrated that social brain power, as an indicator of SI, influences innovative behavior. Fubara (2020) claims that social awareness, as an indicator of SI, affects organizational innovativeness. This indicates that SI is an antecedent of teachers’ IWB. In practice, IWB is crucial for both the individual and the organization. At the individual level, innovation manifested in IWB is related to organizational citizenship behavior (Hwang & Choi, 2017) and performance (Berisha et al., 2020; Atatsi et al., 2021). Furthermore, at the organizational level, innovation leads to organizational performance, success, and effectiveness (Marín-Idárraga & Cuartas-Marín, 2019; Jankelová et al., 2021). Moreover, employee conduct and attitudes regarding their jobs impact an organization’s ability to compete and survive (Akçin et al., 2018; Elidemir et al., 2020). Employees with high IWB are valuable assets that can be relied upon to create and facilitate innovative processes, enable more effective dyadic communication processes, and offer problem-solving schemes or solutions for the betterment of the organization (Messmann & Mulder, 2015; Widmann et al., 2019). Moreover, innovation is an important determinant of enterprises (Anderson et al., 2018). It also improves public services and problem-solving capacity in the public sector (Vries et al., 2016). This indicates that innovation, including IWB, is essential for individuals and organizations, primarily teachers, in the school context.

IWB is an expression of thinking outside the box by introducing new alternatives such as approaches, methods, techniques, or procedures (Prieto & Pérez-Santana, 2014). Thus, IWB seeks to promote new ideas for problem-solving (Tan et al., 2021). This is a relatively complex behavior that is not limited to producing new ideas but also promotes those ideas until they are realized (Stoffers et al., 2020). As Yuan and Woodman (2010) state, IWB recognizes or implements new ideas, products, processes, and procedures within a work context. This includes identifying problems and opportunities, seeking innovative alternative solutions, suggesting the use of these innovations, and implementing them (Spiegelaere et al., 2016). IWB also reflects social interaction and the realization of ideas for innovation (Widmann et al., 2019). Furthermore, IWB can be described as behavior that generates, promotes, implements, and realizes new ideas to improve individual and organizational performance and support sustainable development (Hansen & Pihl-Thingvad, 2019; Saether, 2019).

Kleysen and Street (2001) mention five indicators that can be used to measure IWB: opportunity exploration – noticing, seeking, recognizing, and gathering information related to opportunities; generativity – generating, categorizing, associating, and combining ideas and information; informative investigations – formulating, experimenting, and evaluating ideas and solutions; championing – mobilizing resources; persuading and influencing; encouraging and negotiating; taking risks; and application – implementing, modifying, and routinizing. The five IWBs’ indicators can be developed or increased through SI. As an illustration, teachers with high situational awareness, reflected in their capacity to understand situations in the social context, tend to explore opportunitiesas reflected in noticing, seeking, recognizing, and gathering information related to opportunities. Likewise, teachers with strong clarity, who reflect on their capacity to explain ideas clearly and effectively so that they have a real impact, also tend to be able to conduct informative investigations manifested in formulating, experimenting, and evaluating ideas and solutions. It can also help teachers easily implement, modify, and routinize various methods, approaches, and strategies for teaching tasks.

2.5. The link between creativity, teaching self-efficacy, affective commitment, and teachers’ innovative work behavior

Previous studies have indicated that creativity is related to IWB. Generally, studies have shown that creativity is related to innovation (Sosa &Connor, 2018; Neto et al., 2019; Mazla et al., 2019; Snow, 2019; Juliana et al., 2021; Setyaningrum & Muafi, 2022). However, research that specifically explores how creativity affects IWB is not easy to find; however, similar studies are also not difficult to obtain. For instance, studies have revealed that creativity self-efficacy influences IWB (Afsar &Masood, 2017; Newman et al., 2018; Zocche et al., 2018; Akbari et al., 2020). Other studies claim that creativity influences innovative behavior (Tsegaye et al., 2020; Kim, 2020; Suendarti et al., 2020; Widodo & Gustari, 2020; Asbari et al., 2021; Hussain & Wahab, 2021). This indicates that high creativity can increase IWB. For instance, teachers with high levels of fluency and flexibility tend to easily explore opportunities related to teaching tasks. Likewise, teachers with strong elaboration and redefinition tend to easily actualize generativity, such as processing information and ideas about teaching into opportunities worth realizing to improve the teaching process.

Another study showed that TSE affects IWB. For example, Shahzadi and Khurram (2020) and Gkontelos et al. (2023) found that self-efficacy is related to IWB. Other researchers have indicated that creativity self-efficacy affects IWB (Afsar & Masood, 2017; Akbari et al., 2020; Arain et al., 2019; Santoso & Furinto, 2019; Oppi et al., 2020). Furthermore, Rietzschel et al. (2016) claim that personal characteristics and self-efficacy influence IWB, while Suendarti et al. (2020), Wilaphan et al. (2023), and Ma et al. (2023) demonstrated that self-efficacy leads to innovative behavior. This confirms that adequate TSE can stimulate IWB. For example, teachers with adequate teaching strategies tend to easily apply concepts or new ideas, especially by implementing, modifying, and routinizing them. Additionally, teachers with strong beliefs can manage the class and establish good relationships with students, which can facilitate the championing of their teaching goals.

Finally, new studies have shown that AC might be related to IWB in addition to being influenced by SI. For instance, studies show that AC is linked to IWB (Akhtar et al., 2019; Bak, 2020; Sinaga et al., 2021; Choi et al., 2023). Similar studies have demonstrated that AC influences innovative behavior (Nazir et al., 2018; Odoardi et al., 2019; Jalil et al., 2021; Ganji et al., 2021). Tang et al. (2019) also proved that organizational commitment impacts innovation behavior, while Nguyen and Ngo (2020) and Damasceno et al. (2021) indicated that AC is related to innovation. This indicates that a high AC can drive IWB. As an illustration, teachers with a high level of identification with school organizations tend to find it easy to explore opportunities to improve their teaching strategies for school success. Likewise, teachers with a high degree of involvement in various school activities will efficiently conduct informative investigations, champion, and apply multiple opportunities to improve teaching practices that can help enhance school output qualities.

A critical review of the various literature above shows the current solid relationship between SI and creativity, TSE, AC, and IWB as well as the influence of creativity, TSE, and AC on IWB. However, beyond that, other evidence shows that SI has no significant effect on creativity, and AC, along with self-efficacy, impacts SI. Even though it is relatively limited, these contradictory facts invite new investigations to ascertain whether the causal relationship between SI, creativity, TSE, AC, and IWB is proven to be strong (significant), including the possibility of discovering new models as a consequence. Therefore, this study focuses on issues with the following questions: (1) How is SI related to teacher creativity, TSE, AC, and IWB? (2) How is the relationship between creativity, TSE, and AC with teacher IWB? (3) How do creativity, TSE, and AC mediate the causal relationship between SI and teacher IWB? A conceptual/theoretical framework is visualized in Figure 1 as a guide to answering these questions. Arrows with continuous lines in the figure indicate direct influence, while dotted lines indicate indirect influence (mediation).

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

3. Research methods

3.1. Approach and design

This study used a quantitative approach rooted in the positivistic views of Comte, Mill, and Durkheim (Neuman, 2014). The aim was to describe and explain the correlations between the variables. Each research variable is described objectively so that the impact of one variable on others can be observed using data, facts, or information collected through surveys (McMillan & Schumacher, 2014). Under these conditions, this study used a causal design operationalized in a structural equation model (SEM). The aim was to identifya causal relationship between exogenous (SI) and endogenous (creativity, AC, and IWB) variables and among endogenous variables.

3.2. Procedure and materials

This study was conducted through a survey using a questionnaire designed on a Likert scale with five answer options ranging from strongly disagree/never (score 1) to strongly agree/always (score 5). The survey was conducted online using Google Forms and distributed through WhatsApp. The researcher created a questionnaire using theoretical indicators. The indicators of SI included situational awareness (SA), presence (Pres), authenticity (Auth), clarity (Clar), and empathy (Empa) (Albrecht, 2009). Those of creativity included fluency (Fluen), flexibility (Flex), originality (Orig), elaboration (Elab), and redefinition (Redef) (Guilford, 1950). The indicators of TSE comprised efficacy for teaching strategies (ETS), classroom management (ECM), and student engagement (ESE) (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Those of AC were emotional attachment (Attac), identification (Ident), and involvement (Invol) (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Finally, the indicators of IWB were opportunity exploration (Opex), generativity (Gene), informative investigation (Infin), championing (Cham), and application (Appli) (Kleysen & Street, 2001). The choice of these indicators was based on the consideration that researchers often use them as variable measurement parameters and are appropriate for the conditions and characteristics of teachers in Indonesia. For SI, creativity and IWB consisted of ten items, while TSE and AC consisted of nine items. To ensure that all items were valid, the research instrument was tested using 30 preliminary samples. The corrected item-total correlation coefficient for all items was > .361, indicating validity (Widodo, 2021).

3.3. Participants

This study included 496 participants. They were junior high school teachers from the provinces of Jakarta, Central Java, West Java, and Banten, Indonesia the four provinces, from which eight districts were selected randomly. Six schools were selected in each district, each consisting of three public schools and three private schools, with a total of 48 schools. The number of teachers from these 48 schools was 962; 496 voluntarily filled out a questionnaire during the study (Widodo, 2021); therefore, they were designated as research participants. The majority were women (68.55%), aged 26–35 years (36.09%), had a bachelor’s degree (89.72%), and were married (78.02%). In addition, they have teaching experience ≤ five years (30.04%). These profiles are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Profiles of research participants.

Profile	No. of participants	Percentage
Gender
Male	156	31.45
Female	340	68.55
Age
≤ 25 years	46	9.27
26–35 years	179	36.09
36–45 years	118	23.79
46–55 years	118	23.79
≥ 56 years	35	7.06
Education
Diploma (D3)	21	4.23
Bachelor (S1)	445	89.72
Postgraduate (S2)	30	6.05
Status
Married	387	78.02
Unmarried	109	21.98
Experience
≤ 5 years	149	30.04
6–10 years	98	19.76
11–15 years	104	20.97
≥ 16 years	147	29.64

3.4. Data analysis

The data analysis began with a common method bias (CMB) analysis to detect the possibility of data bias. Descriptive and correlational analyses describe each variable’s condition and explain the relationships between the variables. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used as the primary analysis to assess the theoretical model and confirm the hypothesis supported by the Sobel test (Z) to examine the possibility of an indirect (mediation) relationship between the research variables (Abu-Bader & Jones, 2021). SPSS 26 and danielsoper.com were used to conduct CMB, descriptive, correlational, and Sobel test analyses, while LiSrel 8.80 was utilized to conduct SEM analysis.

4. Results

4.1. Common method biases analysis

Popular cross-sectional survey research using self-report questionnaires leaves a crucial issue for CMB (Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2012). CMB is the difference between the observed relationship and the true correlation between variables (constructs) generated by common method variance (CMV). According to Malhotra et al. (2017), CMV tends to occur in cross-sectional survey-based studies. Many researchers have identified two main approaches to control or minimize CMV: procedural and statistical improvements. Procedural efforts are related to research design, particularly questionnaire development and respondent selection. Procedural improvements were carried out before collecting the research data, while statistical improvements were applied after data collection and involved working on certain data statistics (Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Tehseen et al., 2017). To investigate this possibility, this study used two approaches. Following the researchers’ recommendation, particularly Rodríguez-Ardura and Meseguer-Artola (2020) and Masrek and Heriyanto (2021), this study used three procedures to reduce CMV: (1) formulating statements and alternative answers (responses) for predictor variables and criteria variables are different; (2) using an introduction to the questionnaire with explanations or instructions that make the respondents feel comfortable, by including the sentences, ‘there is no right or wrong answer/response’ and ‘the data collected will be safe, protected, and only used for research purposes’; and (3) the questionnaire was first tested on two groups of people, namely five experts as assessors and 30 people (pilot samples) who had the same or homogeneous characteristics as the participants of this study. Expert judgments were used as input to improve the formulation of statement items. The improved items were tested on 30 valid pilot samples. While statistical mechanisms for enhancement were implemented using Harman’s single-factor test (Malhotra et al., 2017), the total variance extracted by a single factor was 46.078% < 50%. In this investigation, no CMV (CMB) was detected (Kock, 2020; Widodo et al., 2023).

4.2. Descriptive and correlational analysis

According to the descriptive analysis results presented in Table 2, the mean value was typically greater than the standard deviation. This demonstrates appropriate data representation. In addition, the results of the correlation analysis indicated that the relationship between all the indicators was significant (p .01), indicating that all indicators were interdependent.

Table 2. Descriptive and correlation analysis.

Variables	Mean	Std. Dev	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
SI
1. SA	7.63	1.981	1.00
2. Pres	7.93	2.021	.82**	1.00
3. Auth	8.35	1.732	.79**	.84**	1.00
4. Clar	7.85	2.110	.81**	.82**	.81**	1.00
5. Empa	7.72	2.007	.79**	.78**	.81**	.84**	1.00
Creativity
6. Fluen	8.12	1.538	.59**	.62**	.67**	.64**	.58**	1.00
7. Flex	8.31	1.468	.61**	.65**	.65**	.66**	.58**	.79**	1.00
8. Orig	7.86	1.738	.59**	.64**	.65**	.64**	.59**	.83**	.84**	1.00
9. Elab	8.19	1.561	.60**	.67**	.65**	.64**	.58**	.79**	.83**	.88**	1.00
10. Redef	8.32	1.517	.59**	.69**	.67**	.65**	.59**	.75**	.80**	.79**	.88**	1.00
TSE
11. ETS	12.10	2.721	.68**	.72**	.72**	.74**	.68**	.61**	.64**	.57**	.61**	.65**	1.00
12. ECM	12.29	2.603	.72**	.77**	.77**	.77**	.71**	.66**	.62**	.64**	.64**	.66**	.77**	1.00
13. ESE	11.92	3.001	.69**	.74**	.72**	.80**	.74**	.67**	.65**	.65**	.65**	.61**	.83**	.83**	1.00
AC
14. Attac	13.86	1.367	.29**	.37**	.36**	.36**	.43**	.37**	.31**	.35**	.34**	.36**	.26**	.31**	.31**	1.00
15. Ident	13.41	1.488	.23**	.27**	.29**	.34**	.35**	.26**	.26**	.27**	.30**	.33**	.19**	.28**	.23**	52**	1.00
16. Invol	12.71	1.580	.28**	.36**	.36**	.41**	.42**	.37**	.35**	.39**	.40**	.34**	.30**	.42**	.41**	42**	.59**	1.00
IWB
17. Opex	7.80	1.768	.52**	.54**	.49**	58**	.54**	.47**	.47**	.49**	.43**	.41**	.49**	.51**	.53**	42**	.31**	.42**	1.00
18. Gene	8.12	1.498	.52**	.59**	.57**	55**	.54**	.50**	.55**	.55**	.53**	.50**	.42**	.48**	.48**	45**	.38**	.39**	.53**	1.00
19. Infin	8.06	1.508	.43**	.49**	.52**	48**	.48**	.47**	.48**	.48**	.50**	.50**	.59**	.52**	.47**	32**	.26**	.27**	.53**	.55**	1.00
20. Cham	8.66	1.479	.36**	.49**	.50**	.46**	.44**	.54**	.57**	.53**	.53**	.55**	.52**	.48**	.53**	49**	.30**	.40**	.47**	.57**	.53**	1.00
21. Appli	7.84	1.667	.50**	.50**	.47**	.58**	.56**	.50**	.46**	.52**	.48**	.46**	.50**	.54**	.60**	33**	.25**	.37**	.57**	.55**	.45**	.49**	1.00

** p < .01.

4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results showed a loading indicator (first order) and item (second order) of > .3 (Table 3). This shows that all indicators and items, as manifestations of latent variables, are valid (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Additionally, the coefficient of alpha (a) and the value of construct reliability (CR) were both greater than .70, and the value of the variance extracted (VE) was greater than .50. This demonstrates acceptable reliability and convergence (Hair et al., 2018).

Table 3. Results of the measurement model.

Variables	Indicators	Items	Factor Loading		α	CR	VE
			Item	Indicator
SI	SA	I treat students according to their personal characteristics.	.85	.95	.970	.969	.758
		I accommodate the aspirations of students in the learning process.	.88
	Pres	I use words according to the student’s linguistic capacity.	.87	.95
		I use specific intonation to give stress when communicating.	.89
	Auth	I speak the truth.	.82	.98
		I teach based on ethical values ​​that match my personal values.	.87
	Clar	I explain each issue in as much detail as possible.	.90	.97
		I use a persuasive way to convey ideas.	.93
	Empa	I appreciate student opinion.	.88	1.00
		I pay special attention to students who have difficulty following lessons.	.81
Creativity	Fluen	I can perform a variety of tasks.	.91	.90	.977	.979	.822
		I use various ways to achieve work targets.	.94
	Flex	I can understand the leader’s mindset that contrasts with mine.	.91	.96
		I can understand other people’s thoughts from different perspectives.	.79
	Orig	I try to explore new ideas to facilitate task completion.	.91	.96
		I use a new way that can make a problem-solving easier.	.96
	Elab	I explore each part of the task in detail.	.84	1.02
		I adopt various approaches to increase the work quality.	.92
	Redef	I am critical of the acquisition of new knowledge.	.92	.92
		I replace conventional ways of working with new, more effective approaches.	.95
TSE	ETS	I believe I can apply teaching approaches appropriately.	.83	.94	.935	.950	.680
		I believe I can use teaching media effectively.	.76
		I believe I can solve various teaching problems completely.	.82
	ECM	I believe I can create a conducive classroom atmosphere for the learning process.	.84	.96
		I believe I can create dynamic class conditions.	.75
		I believe I can accommodate the aspirations of students in the learning process.	.88
	ESE	I believe I can establish good relations with students.	.89	1.02
		I believe I can build dialogic communication with students	.79
		I believe I can be part of a respected student community.	.85
AC	Attact	I am ready to help achieve school goals.	.47	.87	.897	.869	.542
		I am willing to work overtime even though I do not get additional compensation.	.40
		I am willing to work hard beyond what a teacher should do.	.91
	Ident	I feel proud to be part of the school.	.85	1.13
		I will be a part of the school forever.	.51
		I will take good care of the school’s reputation.	.74
	Invol	I work according to the standard operating procedure that applies at school.	.80	.75
		I am actively involved in various school activities.	.45
		I am proactive in doing my best for the betterment of the school.	.63
IWB	Opex	I actively pay attention to every opportunity that promises to improve the teaching system.	.71	.93	.898	.881	.530
		I collect new opportunities that have the potential to improve the teaching system.	.71
	Gene	I categorize various information to generate prospective new opportunities.	.57	1.17
		I point out new opportunities that promise to improve teaching practice.	.56
	Infin	I formulate ideas for new teaching strategies that teachers can use.	.54	1.05
		I actively conduct experiments to improve teaching effectiveness.	.51
	Cham	I am proactive in mobilizing school resources optimally to improve teaching quality.	.78	.85
		I actively influence the school members to improve the quality of learning.	.69
	Appli	I am active in implementing totally new teaching approach ideas.	.76	.82
		I proactively modify learning activities if necessary.	.66

4.4. Goodness of fit

The goodness of fit (GoF) index generally includes 11 measurement criteria. The results indicated that eight indices were good, while the other three were poor, namely, chi-squared, sigma, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Table 4). In many instances, the chi-square test is susceptible to large sample sizes (more than 200) (Hair et al., 2018). This study included 496 teachers. Consequently, the chi-square test, sig. probability, and RMSEA value in this study did not satisfy these criteria (Poor). However, it was deemed acceptable (valid) because most of the criteria (eight out of 11) were tested to satisfy the specifications.

Table 4. Goodness of fit statistics.

Goodness of Fit Index	Cut of Value	Result	Information
Absolute fit measures
Chi-square	χ2 < χ2 table	1074.37	Poor
Sig. probability	P > .05	00	Poor
GFI	≥.09	.83	Good
RMSEA	≤.08	.100	Poor
Incremental fit measures
NFI	>.90	.97	Good
NNFI	≥.90	.97	Good
AGFI	≥.90	.98	Good
CFI	≥.90	.97	Good
RFI	≥.90	.96	Good
Parsimonyfit measures
Normed chi-square	1–2 or < 3	2.16	Good
PNFI	0–1	.84	Good

4.5. Hypothesis testing

The results of the hypothesis test depicted in Figures 2 and 3 and summarized in Table 5 demonstrate that all hypotheses were supported (t value > t table at p = .01 and .05). SI had a significan relationship with creativity (γ = .77, p<.01), TSE (γ=.90, p<.01), AC (γ=.53, p<.01), and IWB (γ=.22, p<.05). Besides, creativity also had a significant relationship with IWB (β = .27, p < .01), TSE had a significant relationship with IWB (β=.19, p<.05), and AC had a significant relationship with IWB (β=.33, p<.01). However, SI and TSE showed the strongest relationship (.90). This indicates that SI is an essential antecedent of TSE and shows substantial empirical evidence because it had a path coefficient value close to the maximum score (1.0).

Figure 2. Standardized structural model.

Figure 3. T value structural model.

Table 5. Hypothesis testing results.

Hypothesis	γ/β	T value	Decision
H1: SI (X) and creativity (Y1)	.77**	17.70	Supported
H2: SI (X) and TSE (Y2)	.90**	21.40	Supported
H3: SI (X) and AC (Y3)	.53**	9.42	Supported
H4: SI (X) and IWB (Y4)	.22*	2.09	Supported
H5: Creativity (Y1) and IWB (Y4)	.27**	5.06	Supported
H6: TSE (Y2) and IWB (Y4)	.19*	2.06	Supported
H7: AC (Y3) and IWB (Y4)	.33**	6.72	Supported

* p< .05;. **p< .01.

Table 6 substantiates the results of the mediation relationship analysis. This indicates that the indirect relationship between SI and IWB mediated by creativity, TSE, and AC was significant, with β=.21 (p<.01) for creativity, β=.17 (p<.01) for TSE, and β=.18 (p<.01) for AC. Creativity had a greater mediating role than TSE and AC. This indicates that creativity is more dominant in mediating the relationship between SI and IWB than between TSE and AC.

Table 6. Mediation relationship analysis.

Mediation relationship	β	Z value	Decision
SI (X) and IWB (Y4) mediated by creativity (Y1)	.21**	15.58	Supported
SI (X) and IWB (Y4) mediated by TSE (Y2)	.17**	17.51	Supported
SI (X) and IWB (Y4) mediated by AC (Y3)	.18**	8.87	Supported

** p< .01.

5. Discussion

This study found that SI is significantly related to teacher creativity, TSE, AC, and IWB. This confirms that SI is an essential antecedent of teacher creativity, TSE, AC, and IWB. Specifically, teachers with high SI tended to be creative, indicating that SI can stimulate teachers’ creativity. This empirical finding aligns with those of previous studies (Amalia et al., 2023; Kriemeen & Hajaia, 2017; Nejad et al., 2019), which confirm that SI is related to creativity. In reality, SI is required by teachers to stimulate their creativity. For instance, situational awareness can improve teachers’ fluency and flexibility in dealing with and responding to various stimuli that arise in schools. Situational awareness, manifested in the capacity to understand situations in the social context, becomes important capital for teachers to map various problems related to teaching and those from students. Authenticity, actualized in actions from honesty, ethical motives, and behaving according to personal values that are acceptable to others, can also help teachers generate new ideas and original work that are far from being manipulated and imitated. Clarity, reflected in the capacity to explain ideas clearly and effectively so that they have a real impact, can also trigger teachers to be proactive in elaborating and redefining reality to discover new things. Therefore, improvements in SI can enhance teachers’ creativity.

This study also revealed that SI was significantly linked to TSE. This empirical evidence suggests that teachers with high SI have strong TSE. Hence, SI encourages the emergence of teachers’ TSE. This finding concurs with those of previous studies (Mohamed, 2021; Mohammdipouya et al., 2018; Khalegkhah et al., 2019; Sethi & Sharma, 2023). SI can help teachers build confidence in their teaching ability. For example, situational awareness can stimulate teachers to strongly believe in their ability to formulate and apply appropriate teaching strategies. Additionally, social awareness and presence can make teachers confident that they can manage their classes well. Furthermore, empathy and authenticity can encourage teachers to strongly believe that they can build solid engagement with their students. Thus, SI indicators consisting of situational awareness, presence, authenticity, clarity, and empathy (Albrecht, 2009) can be used to build teachers’ confidence in their capacity to perform teaching tasks.

This study also demonstrated that SI is related to AC. Furthermore, it indicated that a higher SI among teachers could drive their AC. This is consistent with previous studies, which showed that SI significantly influences AC (Alifuddin & Widodo, 2021; Tamunosiki-Amadi et al., 2020; Mohadesi, 2021). Situational awareness can encourage teachers to identify themselves easily in school organizations. Clarity and empathy can also stimulate teachers to feel attached to and actively engage in multiple school activities. This implies that a high SI can enhance AC.

In addition, this study proved the link between SI and IWB. This shows that high SI can enhance IWB. This is consistent with previous studies showing that SI affects IWB (Koolor & Seifollahi, 2018; Ahmad et al., 2020). This indicates that SI influences teachers’ use of IWB. For example, situational awareness can help teachers easily explore opportunities. Likewise, clarity can encourage teachers to carry out informative investigations quickly, allowing them to easily implement, modify, and routinize various teaching task methods, approaches, or strategies.

This study provides additional evidence. For instance, creativity is related to teachers’ IWB. Thus, creativity can stimulate teachers’ IWB. This is consistent with scholars’ claims that creativity can influence IWB (Kim, 2020; Suendarti et al., 2020; Widodo & Gustari, 2020; Asbari et al., 2021; Hussain & Wahab, 2021; Alt et al., 2023; Raihan & Uddin, 2023). Creativity strongly influences IWB. For instance, fluency and flexibility make it easy for teachers to explore open opportunities to solve various school issues. Likewise, strong elaboration and redefinition make it difficult for teachers to actualize their potential generativity by generating, representing, categorizing, associating, and combining ideas and information about various problems in school that require quick solutions. Therefore, creativity can increase IWB.

Other evidence showed a significant relationship between TSE and IWB, indicating that TSE is an essential factor in IWB. Hence, teachers with solid TSE tend to have high IWB. This confirms scholarly studies that have found that TSE impacts IWB (Shahzadi & Khurram, 2020; Oppi et al., 2020; Iqbal et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2023). In practice, TSE is required to develop IWB. For example, the efficacy of teaching strategies makes it easier for teachers to apply concepts or new ideas. Furthermore, teachers with solid beliefs about managing classes and establishing good relationships with students can achieve their teaching goals.

Another empirical evidence is the significant relationship between AC and IWB, indicating that teachers with solid AC tend to have high IWB. Therefore, AC potentially improves IWB. This finding concurs with other studies (Bak, 2020; Sinaga et al., 2021; Nazir et al., 2018; Odoardi et al., 2019; Jalil et al., 2021; Ganji et al., 2021). In practice, AC can drive IWB. For instance, a high level of identification with a school makes it easier for teachers to explore opportunities. Similarly, a high degree of involvement in various school activities will efficiently facilitate informative investigations, championing, and applying new ideas or solutions.

Finally, this study also revealed new empirical facts about the mediating role of creativity, TSE, and AC in the constellation of relationships between SI and teacher IWB. The mediating role of creativity was stronger than that of TSE and AC. These findings confirm a new empirical model of the relationship between SI and IWB mediated by creativity, TSE, and AC. The model, verified and justified through SEM analysis, was fit and significant. This evidence is consistent with previous studies, which found that SI influences creativity (Amalia et al., 2023), self-efficacy (Sethi & Sharma, 2023), AC (Alifuddin & Widodo, 2021), and IWB (Ahmad et al., 2020), and creativity, TSE, and AC affect IWB (Alt et al., 2023; Iqbal et al., 2023; Sinaga et al., 2021; Gkontelos et al., 2023; Wilaphan et al., 2023; Ma et al., 2023; Choi et al., 2023). Additionally, the study refutes conflicting findings by Kinga and István (2012), who found no significant relationship between SI and creativity; Jadoa and Faridi (2022), who found that self-efficacy impacts SI; Develí et al. (2022), who found that SI has no impact on AC; and Nawaz (2019), who showed that IWB impacts AC. Therefore, the research findings offer a theoretical contribution to the study of IWB from the perspectives of SI, creativity, TSE, and AC. This theoretical contribution is particularly useful in educational psychology, educational management, human resource management, and organizational behavior. In addition, it offers useful recommendations for putting education into practice, particularly for boosting teacher IWB through SI, using the serial mediation mechanisms of creativity, TSE, and AC. The empirical model produced by this study deserves to be discussed critically and in depth before being adapted, modified, and adopted by academics, researchers, and practitioners in the future.

6. Limitations and future research

This study has the following limitations: (1) it did not control for variables that could have influenced the relationship between SI and creativity, TSE, AC, and IWB; (2) it does not account for all theoretical indicators available in the literature; (3) it only uses single data obtained through self-assessment (report); and (4) it does not explore empirical facts on why SI is related to IWB, especially the mediating role of creativity, TSE, and AC, as well as the strong relationship between SI and TSE. Future research should address these limitations. For example, future research should control for several variables that have the potential to interfere with the relationship between SI and creativity, TSE, AC, and IWB, such as the internal and external locus of control, and personality-based introverts and extroverts. Controlling these two variables through initial screening allows more accurate and specific research results to be obtained. Future research can also accommodate theoretical indicators not included in this study so that research results can be obtained that can enrich or provide a different nuance to this study. Additionally, the use of other data sources such as colleagues, principals, and students should be considered. Finally, using mixed (qualitative and quantitative) methods to elaborate on facts that cannot be revealed quantitatively must be avoided in order to obtain complete and comprehensive research results.

7. Conclusions

SI is essential capital for individuals to build social relations; therefore, it is believed to make a real contribution to the lives of individuals and organizations.’ The results of this study confirmed this hypothesis. SI is significantly related to creativity, TSE, AC, and IWB among Indonesian teachers. SI has been proven to have the strongest relationship with TSE. Additionally, creativity, TSE, and AC are significantly associated with teachers’ IWB. Finally, SI also has a significant indirect relationship with teachers’ IWB, mediated by creativity, TSE, and AC. These findings promote a novel empirical model regarding the link between SI and IWB, which is mediated by creativity, TSE, and AC. Creativity plays a greater mediating role than TSE and AC; therefore, it plays a more dominant role than TSE and AC. Consequently, TSE and creativity deserve emphasis in the context of their relationship with IWB, and any attempt to debate or adapt the new empirical model proposed in this study must account for their existence.

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization, R.A. and W.W.; methodology, W.W. and S.S.; data analysis and interpretation, W.W. and S.S.; drafting, R.A. and W.W; revision, R.A.; and final approval of the published version, R.A. and W.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors did not receive direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Rita Aryani

Rita Aryani holds a doctorate in Educational Management from Jakarta State University. She teaches in the Postgraduate Program of Panca Sakti University in Bekasi. She actively contributes publications on educational management, vocational education, and organizational behavior in both national and international journals. The works in the book include Information Technology-Based Education Management (2020) and Education Management in the Era of Society 5.0 (2022).

Widodo Widodo

W. Widodo has a doctorate in Educational Management from Jakarta State University. He is a senior lecturer at the Postgraduate Faculty of Universitas Indraprasta PGRI Jakarta. He also actively writes articles in national and international journals on educational management, psychology, HRM, and organizational behavior. The works in the book include The Popular and Practical Research Methodology (2019) and Foundation of Modern Education (2020).

Susila Susila

S. Susila has a Human Resources Management doctorate from Jakarta State University. He is the principal of SMKN 4 Pandeglang, Banten. He also actively writes articles in various national and international journals on school management, HRM, and organizational behavior.