Autonomy and feedback on innovative work behavior: The role of resilience as a mediating factor in Indonesian Islamic banks

Abstract

Autonomy, resiliency, and feedback must be prioritized for individuals in industries where behavioral innovation is required, and performance reviews of those employees should reflect this. It is difficult to do either empirical, qualitative, or conceptual research that can disclose such creative work habits in the banking business, but this research endeavors to achieve that. In order to evaluate 258 first-line managers from five regional and private Islamic banks in Indonesia, a literature-based framework has been constructed. The path model supports the idea that autonomy and resiliency foster innovative behavior at work. Resilience, autonomy, flexibility, and feedback are also significantly associated; however, feedback has not been linked to innovative work behavior. This study may be helpful to Islamic banking managers and specialists who want to learn more about innovative work behavior. While discussing this study’s composition, researchers offered valuable suggestions. Implications, limitations, and prospective avenues are discussed after the research results.

Keywords:

• autonomy
• feedback
• resilience
• innovative work behavior
• banking sector

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Popularity has grown for the term “innovative workplace behavior,” yet it is used in a variety of settings. It is amazing to observe how everyday tasks can lead to behavioral breakthroughs. This area of study focuses on how individuals choose to behave and the evidence they give to support their beliefs, particularly when those assumptions entail the exercise of independence and tenacity on the job. This study models the relationship between the resilience, autonomy, and feedback of banking personnel and their innovative work behavior in Indonesian Islamic banks. To stimulate future research on this topic and make this model accessible to a wider audience, we made it mandatory on purpose. We recognize that feedback (perception) may be harsh regardless of applause or criticism since people with autonomy believe they are doing the needful accordingly.

1. Introduction

Innovation in the workplace is the implementation of novel concepts, services, products, business processes, or methods within an established organization. Employees that are satisfied with their jobs are more likely to come up with creative solutions to common problems. These improvements can benefit current products or services, solve previously experienced problems, and help businesses grow (Sudibjo & Prameswari, 2021). Innovative ideas are critical to determining the success of a company. In a competitive world, companies strive to reinvent themselves; thus, they want their employees to be innovative. Innovative ideas create innovation when adequately invested in deliberate action, as many corporations view their human dimensions as intangible assets (Strobl et al., 2020). In the banking and finance sector, employees are encouraged to think outside the box when adapting processes and technology to meet evolving business needs (see, for example, Islamic Banking; Lyons et al., 2007). Since innovative/creative behavior in the workplace is complex, more research is required. The topic would benefit from broader sharing of pertinent information (M. Ahmad et al., 2022a).

The service industry has realized the value of encouraging employees’ innovation. However, the process through which workers are inspired to be inventive remains largely unexamined. In addition, the banking service sector in developed nations has come to appreciate the value of creative thinking among its workforce (N. Ahmad et al., 2022b). Banks must reconsider their service distribution approaches, spend more on technology, and standardize back-office activities to improve (Romānova & Kudinska, 2016). Management and leaders always keep exploring how to accomplish proactive, continuous innovation. Innovative services, products, work processes, and the capacity to employ technology in human resources to obtain a competitive edge are examples of innovation in business. Innovative approaches to concerns of rapid expansions are helpful for organizations to adapt to new opportunities and difficulties (McLean, 2005). Individuals’ innovative abilities help organizations have a flexible workforce; thus, firms should focus on frameworks that comprehend people. An employee’s creative potential can detect innovative job behavior in the workplace. The impact of job design on work outcomes is critical in organizational innovation research (Hernaus et al., 2019). The behavioral model shows that workplace and individual aspects, including Autonomy, feedback, and resilience, are related to employees’ innovative work behavior. On the other hand, job complexity and ambiguous characteristics, uncertainty, and role overload hinder innovative work behavior (Clarke & Higgs, 2020). The leading causes of many work-related attitudes, actions, and antisocial behavior are work overload and uncertainty, producing stress that results in poor performance and job unhappiness (Abbas et al., 2020a). Well-being and resilience are essential to managing unwanted behavior through empowerment (Abbas, 2022; Abbas et al., 2021a, 2020b; Dodge et al., 2012; Dolan & Metcalfe, 2012). Resilience is required to keep inner motivation and support during organizational change (Carter & Youssef‐Morgan, 2019). The literature has noted that leadership frameworks use various strategies for managing people as individuals to address these problems (Abbas et al., 2021c, 2022f; Ekowati et al., 2022; Langfred & Rockmann, 2016; Liden et al., 2014; Wojtczuk-Turek & Turek, 2015). The relevance of the organization’s function and environment in managing employees’ behavior in a diverse workplace is established in the literature. Studies of individuals, according to scholars, tend not to overlook the role of resilience and autonomy in deciding their success at work, especially when innovativeness is necessary (Bryan et al., 2017; Cherry et al., 2018).

Our study offers three crucial things related to job feedback aspects and feedback on employee resilience. There is a direct connection between autonomy and feedback in the workplace and creative problem-solving in the first place (e.g., Aldabbas et al., 2020). Second, there has been a lack of attention paid to the function that the factors that explain innovative work behaviors have in the explanation process (e.g., Aldabbas et al., 2021). Third, it will show resilience as a mediator in the association between Autonomy, feedback, and innovative behavior (e.g., J. R. Kuntz et al., 2017b).

This study conforms to the framework’s construction and supporting literature to create hypotheses about the framework’s postulated structure. Following that, the statistical procedures and methodologies, as well as the outcomes, are presented. The relevant section of this paper also discusses the study’s practical and societal consequences and the work’s theoretical extension regarding the model’s future implications.

2. Review of literature

2.1. Autonomy and resilience

How managers frame information and events can affect whether people feel autonomous (Hodson, 1991). It is sometimes called moral Autonomy and refers to the individual’s opinions about right and wrong actions, e.g., self-regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2006). Western ethics and political philosophy share Autonomy as a universal state or condition of self-governance (Osuji, 2018). It is the ability to live one’s life according to reasons, beliefs, or desires that are indeed one’s own (Zhang et al., 2017). The moral compass provided by Autonomy prevents people from abusing their independence. The belief in one’s freedom depends on the availability of alternatives. Suppose individuals are guilty of something by taking advantage of their freedom. Regardless of the ethical challenges they face at work, they should know the consequences of their actions (Riivari & Lämsä, 2019).

According to research, cultural liberty provides opportunities for self-realization and new functioning methods that oppose commercial and management limitations (Banks, 2010). It enables those with critical dispositions to reject disagreeable controls and set in motion processes of conflict that may result in changes in the conduct and experience of work for all parties involved. Over the last decade, critical attention has been paid to creative liberty related to cultural production. In creative work, there is widespread consensus that legal labor process restrictions have a limited impact (Beirne et al., 2017).

Oldham states that when employees work in well-designed jobs, employees will become more resilient to external threats and difficulties. The characteristic job model identifies Autonomy as a critical ingredient for motivating work (Oldham & Da Silva, 2015). Employees can perform work under their obligations and responsibilities, and the results depend on the efforts and initiatives they take due to autonomy. The capacity of a system to recover quickly from disruptive events is referred to as its resilience. The system’s Autonomy has everything to do with its ability to provide for itself, resources, and governance. The absence of friction, or the degree to which a system is peaceful, is a measure of harmony (Wong, 2008). Resilience can manage the effects of person and system involvement and autonomy support performance on disruptive behavior. Higher participation and autonomous support can reduce risk. Controlled regulation and effort are also protective (Beirne et al., 2017).

Feedback drives people to reflect on how they finish work and develop new tactics. Without this freedom, people rarely think about how they complete an assignment, e.g., as Campbell’s claim as cited in (Liu & Li, 2012). Managers today understand that innovation necessitates a high degree of job autonomy for their staff. The result is a work climate that fosters curiosity, promotes independent thinking, and allows employees to experiment with and try novel problem-solving. These approaches may help reduce the fear of failure (Lifshitz-Assaf et al., 2019). Why feedback is vital in an organization that supports innovation and creativity is difficult to answer (Blanton et al., 1997). Excellent feedback helps strengthen the manager-employee relationship while exposing staff to new ideas (Chen & Ha, 2019). Because of its intricate association, management must solicit feedback for a better management learning system (Winstone et al., 2021).

The theory is consistent with earlier studies demonstrating that an autonomous environment mandating self-regulation is associated with resilience. It is defined as a person’s ability to adapt and succeed in unfavorable conditions. Hence hypothesis one has established that Autonomy and resilience have a significant association.

2.2. Feedback and resilience

Feedback must be direct and unambiguous, not prejudiced or demeaning. An effective management system must be expected to positively affect employees’ productivity (Sakellarios et al., 2022). According to the findings of a study, more resilient leaders have a lower risk of experiencing burnout. In addition, having a high level of resilience makes it possible for individuals to cope with challenging conditions (Abbas, 2022). It is essential to link feedback to attainable learning objectives when given (Rajak et al., 2019). It ought to be responsive, thorough, objective, and behavior-based, providing individuals with specific guidance on improving themselves (Mu’alimin, 2019). The most acceptable feedback identifies problem areas and offers concrete solutions (Jug et al., 2019). It is good to strike a decent balance between support and criticism. The ultimate goal is to boost individuals’ self-esteem and clarify what they should do next to progress (Lu et al., 2018).

Based on the above literature direction, it has been established that feedback and resilience are positively associated with hypothesis two.

2.3. Autonomy and innovative work behavior

Innovative work behavior (IWB) is a complicated pattern of activity displayed by employees that results in the generation, introduction, and use of novel ideas (Knol & Van Linge, 2009). As a result, the IWB provides skills for competitive advantage while also ensuring organizational viability and sustainability (Jaskyte, 2004). Employee autonomy refers to the freedom to operate conveniently for them, allowing for the possibility of innovation (Chung-Yan, 2010). Workplace autonomy will seem different based on the organizational processes and the company’s type of operations (Ryan & Deci, 2006). Workforce optimization is a prime business strategy combining company performance factors with those of human resource administration. It automates operations, improves openness, equality, and data visibility, ensures regulatory compliance, and resolves workforce shortages, improving innovative work behavior (Vovk et al., 2021). The workplace atmosphere should be optimized for inclusive management and everyone’s considerate behavior (Abbas et al., 2022a, 2022d). Creating a brainstorming wall that encourages individualism could be the beginning of incorporating innovative behavior into the workplace (Baruah & Paulus, 2019). It would allow for proposals that may be put into action and the beginning of little protests against uncomfortable things on the job. Individual freedom and comfort should dictate whether or not certain things are prohibited or permitted (Battistelli et al., 2019). When it comes to fostering comfortable working relationships, a mentor could always be beneficial. It facilitates communication when someone has to bounce thoughts off of someone else. Therefore, choosing a colleague with whom one feels comfortable and wishes to engage on a project is authorized without labeling (Odongo et al., 2018). Inspire employees to do new things by presenting ideas unconventionally, sharing inspiring articles, or putting heads together and discussing ideas (Brimhall, 2019). Individuals can use this method to create a space for self-reflection and meditation, or they can use it to recognize and reward those who think beyond the box, which also allows them to develop socially (Abbas et al., 2021b).

The literature reviewed above leads us to believe that individuals grow in social and psychological maturity once individual freedom and an employee culture of Autonomy are established. It inculcates innovative work behavior; thus, hypothesis three was established.

2.4. Feedback and innovative work behavior

Innovative behavior in the workplace becomes employee behavior that requires the courage to produce, introduce, and implement useful new things (J. De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Most organizations do not formally demand this innovative behavior from their employees. The growth of innovative work behavior in most organizations is left to the willingness of employees. The inventive participants felt that arranging feedback is vital and should be done after deciding to pursue an innovative idea to optimize its efficacy (De Spiegelaere et al., 2016). Leaders can provide feedback individually, but they may also delegate this responsibility to others (for example, subordinates; J. P. De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). The inventive participants agreed that ensuring that those developing and implementing new services or processes receive feedback on an initial version of the concept will increase the quality of the concepts (Sagnak et al., 2017). The innovation process, especially idea formation, can be stimulated by increasing job control and problem demands (Holman et al., 2012). Autonomy gives responsibility to work more independently. Feedback will help managers improve the process of completing work demands, increasing abilities, and creating a positive outlook (Devloo et al., 2011).

Based on the above literature direction, it has been established that feedback and innovative work behavior are positively associated with hypothesis four.

2.5. Resilience and innovative work behavior

Resilience is an individual’s resilience to face challenges or adversity due to skills and knowledge involving various individual, social and environmental roles. Employee resilience does arise when facing a crisis and in the face of events that usually occur at work, which indicates ability and motivation. Systemic and interpersonal support provided by the organization will reinforce employees’ performance. Employee resilience does arise when facing a crisis and in the face of events at work, which indicate ability and motivation (J. Kuntz et al., 2017a). Employee resilience is a set of initiative-taking and learning behaviors that facilitate change and innovation while supporting employee well-being (Denovan & Macaskill, 2017). Employee resilience contributes to systemic management and organizational survival and shows individual and organizational adaptation (Mitsakis, 2020). Resilience is positively associated with innovative behavior and supports past findings regarding the role of psychological factors (Avey et al., 2011). It encourages employee creativity, which results in innovative behavior. Organizations can conduct efforts to increase innovative employee behavior by providing support through improving job design. Human psychological mechanisms are complicated, and no single framework exists to manage diversity effectively. Resilience is a constructive reaction to dealing with environmental conditions and obstacles at work that can cause stress while maintaining high efficiency (Wojtczuk-Turek & Turek, 2015).

The above literature helps us conclude hypothesis five, that resilience and innovative work behavior have a positive relationship.

Hence, we can reach and build on the research model, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.

2.6. The objective, rationale, and significance of this study

Researchers have looked into the digitization trend in the Indonesian economy since technological disruption causes significant changes in corporate processes, and research becomes inevitable in Indonesia (Abbas et al., 2020b). Experts are considering the role of banks in the Indonesian financial markets since Indonesia’s banking sector has high growth potential (Nurwulandari et al., 2022). The government expects Islamic banks to innovate more and increase their market share from a social perspective, e.g., Islamic society (Maham et al., 2020). Consumer behavior changes require banks to be more innovative and adaptive to digital technology (El Junusi, 2020). This study undoubtedly complements previous studies that focus more on innovative work behavior in the manufacturing industry. One of the weaknesses Islamic banks face in Indonesia is increasing competitiveness; therefore, research that could produce competent human management is vital. The resilience possessed by managers makes it possible to maintain emotional health, which will support and enable managers to act according to their goals to embrace future opportunities. Since psychological abilities can influence outcomes, they can be assumed to mediate innovative work behavior. Therefore, the present study investigates the effect of job autonomy and feedback as work factors and resilience as individual factors on innovation in Islamic banks.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and data collection

This study examined the effect of Autonomy, feedback on innovative work behavior, and the role of resilience as a mediator. Hypothesis testing in this study was carried out using a quantitative approach by relying on a self-report questionnaire. Instruments used in the study were then distributed to the first-line managers of Islamic bank branches. Questionnaires were distributed with the help of the Human Resource Department and personal contacts. Two hundred fifty-eight data were received from Islamic banks in Indonesia. The first-line manager was chosen because, in addition to leading and supervising operational activities, he or she can contribute to the organization’s strategic direction. Data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling (SEM). SPSS 26.0 was used to screen and handle the data; Smart-PLS 3.3 was used to determine the Structure Equation Modeling and hypotheses determined by path analysis. It was decided to use a cross-sectional design for this study, which provides significant advantages for academicians conducting research for academic purposes. Cross-sectional studies allow researchers to collect data at a specific time and are cheaper and faster than other types (Wang & Cheng, 2020).

Cross-sectional studies, like longitudinal studies, allow researchers to collect data from many people and examine their differences. When conducting cross-sectional studies, recording a particular point in time is essential. National censuses, for example, provide a snapshot of the state of affairs in a particular country at a particular period. In order to ensure that the self-report results are accurate, it is necessary to conduct a standard method bias test on them. This research was conducted. It was considering literature in mind (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Those who answered the questionnaire did so anonymously. The questions in each variable were separated by including a comprehensive introduction to each topic. Because the pieces were assigned numbers randomly, there was no way to tell which item represented which factor ahead of time. As a result, all responses are entirely random and true to form because respondents provide the exact answer they had in mind. The statistically significant VIF threshold of 3.3 suggested by Hair and Kock was considered (J. Hair et al., 2017; Kock, 2015). As yet another crucial aspect to consider when establishing SEM Validity, it is recommended that the SRMR be less than 0.08 for a satisfactory model fit. In order to do good structure equation modeling in order to test the hypothesis, these measures were kept in mind

Table 1 provides information regarding the demographic characteristics of the respondents to this study, shown below.

Table 1. Demographics of Respondents

Characteristic	Frequently	%
Gender
Male	150	58
Female	108	42
Age Group
Less than 30	18	7
30 to 40	124	Most
41 to 50	83	32
Above 50	34	13
Qualification
Undergraduate	232	90
Masters	23	9
PhD	3	1
Experience
Less than 5	85	33
6 to 10	39	15
Above 10	134	52

N = 258

Respondents were allowed to provide informed consent regarding whether or not their involvement in this study would be used for academic reasons. As a result, responses were anonymized, and no personal information or data was gathered. As a result, only the bare minimum of personal information was intended to be collected. Age, gender, experience, and qualifications are commonly inquired about to determine the trends of the sampling population. According to the demographics of respondents, 58 percent of those who participated in the survey were male. In comparison, 42 percent of those who participated in the study were female.

There were 350 questionnaires sent out, and 294 responses were collected. After weeding out the visible outliers and those with missing data, 258 usable surveys were finally processed for data analysis. Participants under the age of 30 were 18 years old, accounting for 7% of the total population in the study. Most participants in this study were between 30 and 50 and held an undergraduate degree. Most responders had 5 to 10 years of experience, which was the most common. From this perspective, we may conclude that the respondents to this survey were mature and experienced individuals willing to participate.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Autonomy and feedback

The autonomy and feedback measures were adopted (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). The nine statements include three statements concerning work methods, three concerning work schedules, and the next three concerning decision-making in work. Sample question of an item includes “Job provides an opportunity to use initiative or personal judgment in carrying out work.” A sample feedback measure contains questions like “Coworkers provide feedback regarding my work.”

3.2.2. Resilience

The resilience variable was measured using a 9-item statement (Näswall et al., 2015). The item sample contains the statement, “I work effectively with others to handle unexpected challenges at work.”

3.2.3. Innovative work behavior

Innovative work behavior was measured using nine-item statements (Janssen, 2000). The same items include questions “I am looking for new methods, techniques, and or instruments that are useful as an effort to improve or improve work.”

4. Results

SEM is a sophisticated multivariate tool used to assess and interpret complex causal links in scientific investigations (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kock, 2017; Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). Because they assess both direct and indirect effects on pre-assumed causal linkages, structural equation models (SEMs) differ from other modeling approaches (Schreiber et al., 2006). The factor loading represents the variance explained by the variable on a given factor. As a general rule of thumb, 0.6 is considered acceptable in the SEM technique (Hair et al., 1998). In contrast, a factor loading of 0.70 or higher indicates that the factor removes sufficient variance from the variable under consideration (Hair et al., 2021). The threshold mentioned above conditions calculates all factor loadings. The second table, through Cronbach’s alpha and composite dependability, represents a scale item’s internal consistency measure’s validity and reliability ,e.g., Table 2. The recommended threshold of CR or Alpa indices should be above .70 (Christmann & Van Aelst, 2006). In addition, a traditional statistical test theory recommends testing the average extracted variance (AVE). Measures how much variance a construct captures compared to the measurement error variance. It has been advised that the threshold be set at.50 or higher (Hair et al., 2011).

Table 2. Validity and Reliability

Factors	Item Code	Loading	Alpha /CR	AVE
Autonomy	Au1	0.73	0.907/ 0.923	0.572
	Au2	0.75
	Au3	0.69
	Au4	0.78
	Au5	0.78
	Au6	0.79
	Au7	0.77
	Au8	0.72
	Au9	0.80
Feedback	Fb1	0.70	0.752 /0.842	0.571
	Fb2	0.81
	Fb3	0.73
	Fb4	0.78
Resilience	Re1	0.70	0.882/ 0.905	0.517
	Re2	0.68
	Re3	0.77
	Re4	0.74
	Re5	0.76
	Re6	0.74
	Re7	0.68
	Re8	0.60
	Re9	0.78
Innovative Work Behavior	iwb1	0.63	0.928/ 0.940	0.638
	iwb2	0.78
	iwb3	0.77
	iwb4	0.81
	iwb5	0.86
	iwb6	0.85
	iwb7	0.81
	iwb8	0.83
	iwb9	0.83

SRMR (0.073) < 0.08

The dissimilarity of a test or measure to another measure whose underlying construct is conceptually distinct from the one being compared. It has been characterized as demonstrating a lack of discriminant validity. In contrast, the second part of construct validity is convergent validity. Divergent validity, or divergence validity, is another term for this phenomenon that has been presented in the following Table 3. Indicators of discriminant validity may be from 85 to 90 (Gold et al., 2001; Kline, 2011). Suppose both types of validity are demonstrated in a study. In that case, the model can be regarded as having great construct validity and excellent model validity (Hamid et al., 2017).

Table 3. Discriminant Validity

Factors	1	2	3	4
1. AU	0.756
2. FB	0.607	0.756
3. IWB	0.526	0.469	0.799
4. RES	0.544	0.621	0.678	0.719

AU: Autonomy; FB: Feedback; RE: resilience; IWB: Innovative work behavior

Path analysis is a method for determining and measuring the effects of a collection of factors operating on a specified outcome via many causal routes. Path analysis is both a forerunner and a subset of structural equation modeling. Table 4 below provides information on the path analysis and determination of hypothesis results obtained from this study.

Table 4. Path Coefficients

Path →	Β ± St. Dev	t-values	p- values
Autonomy → Innovative Work Behavior	0.234 ± 0.057	4.074	0.001
Autonomy → Resilience	0.267 ± 0.059	4.547	0.001
Feedback → Innovative Work Behavior	−0.026 ± 0.064	0.407	0.684
Feedback → Resilience	0.459 ± 0.056	8.210	0.001
Resilience → Innovative Work Behavior	0.567 ± 0.061	9.338	0.001

Under path analysis, the first hypothesis was developed to evaluate the relationship between Autonomy and innovative work behavior. Acceptance of our hypothesis has a statistically significant positive link, as evidenced by path coefficients of 0.234, t-values greater than 2.57, and p-values <0.001.

The second hypothesis was designed to determine whether or not Autonomy and Silence are associated with one another. There is a positive and statistically significant association between the two variables when the path coefficients are 0.267, the t-values are more than 2.57, and the p-values are < 0.001.

The third hypothesis was developed, stating that feedback and innovative work behavior are statistically significant factors. Obtained coefficients of this path appeared to be too minor and unimportant to be used to support the validity of the relationship. The rejection is confirmed by a − 0.026, t-values < 1.65, and p-values > 0.05.

The fourth hypothesis investigated the relationship between feedback and resilience and found a positive correlation. The hypothesis is proved based on coefficients of 0.459, t-values > 2.57, and p-values < 0.001. The factor feedback appeared to have a stronger association than another outcome of Autonomy, which was also an exogenous variable.

Lastly, it was decided to test the fourth and final hypothesis: silence and inventive work behavior are positively associated factors. This model discovered that the path coefficients 0.567, t-values < 2.57, and p-values <0.001 were more substantial than the produced coefficients. It demonstrates that silence can result in innovative work behavior when autonomous work is carried out in conjunction with feedback.

R Square statistics show how exogenous variables explain endogenous variation (Cohen, 2013). Considering Cohen’s recommendation, R square values above .40 or higher should be positive and significant. It is advised that the f square and the Q square be discussed together ,e.g, Table 5. The second parameter measures a structural model’s predictive significance for forecasting indicators of endogenous constructions. Our study Q square posits predictive significance of the model of this study, e.g., well above 0. When an exogenous variable is removed from the model, the f Square represents the change in the R Square. The f square, considering the above recommendations, represents the effect size that advocates a good effect, e.g., a value of less than 0.02 indicates a little effect, and greater than 0.15 indicates a medium effect. Indices more significant than 0.35 indicate a strong effect (Benitez et al., 2020).

Table 5. Effect Size

F 2	IWB	Resilience
Autonomy	0.063	0.08
Feedback	0.001	0.235
Resilience	0.362
R 2	R Square	R Square Adjusted
Innovative Work Behavior	0.495	0.489
Resilience	0.432	0.427
Q2	SSO	SSE	Q^2 (=1-SSE/SSO)
Innovative Work Behavior	2322	1598.66	0.312
Resilience	2322	1820.746	0.216

5. Discussion

The key to increasing a company’s competitive edge in heavy competition is encouraging productivity. Today, it is imperative that banks reward their employees for displaying creative attitudes and behaviors. Because bank employees must creatively communicate with consumers, businesses that emphasize the importance of human interaction will succeed (Shah et al., 2021). Approaches that enable us to understand bank personnel’s thoughts and actions are essential (Noble-Nkrumah et al., 2022). Autonomy at work has been shown to encourage creative approaches to problem-solving, as shown in this study. According to prior studies, employees with more discretion at work are more likely to use innovative workplace behaviors to resolve challenges (Beirne et al., 2017; De Spiegelaere et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017). Oldham and Da Silva (2015) have viewed the importance of job design to encourage positive responses from employees. Innovative employee behavior to support organizational sustainability is highly beneficial to the organization. A positive view of the feedback from superiors and coworkers will help individuals evaluate their work and provide resilience in facing challenges. This view aligns with the concept of resilience development, where resilience will grow and be maintained if employees learn to overcome challenges. Positive affective allows first-line managers to overcome difficulties and grow despite threats from external sources. These findings suggest that the breadth of scheduling tasks, determining work methods, and making decisions will encourage positive affective states (Avey et al., 2011; Carter & Youssef‐Morgan, 2019; Chen & Ha, 2019). The existence of job autonomy will increase the perception of managers of Islamic banks in a more positive way that can stimulate them to show innovative behavior (Battistelli et al., 2019; Clarke & Higgs, 2020; Nurjaman et al., 2019).

Acceptance of feedback will increase motivation and involvement in innovative actions not directly but through resilience and Autonomy (Beirne et al., 2017; Wong, 2008). The effect of feedback on innovative work behavior is not known why it has an insignificant effect. Acceptance of these results could be argued that feedback depends on individual factors, which affect attitudes and performance results (Chen & Ha, 2019; Jug et al., 2019). This acceptance is also consistent with early feedback studies, which suggested that feedback’s direct relationship to behavior was often contradictory (Anseel et al., 2007). This study also suggests the significant effect of resilience on innovative work behavior. This result suggests that managers who often face difficulties and failures in continuous innovation should rely on resilience. It will help individuals apply innovative approaches that are a lesson for strong managers who will encourage themselves to take risks and exhibit innovative behavior (Peterson, 2009).

In addition, this study suggests the critical role of resilience in mediating Autonomy and feedback on innovative work behavior. This result follows what was conveyed by researchers that personal psychological resources will affect individual outcomes (Kör et al., 2021). The importance of resilience in mediating this feedback will complement, e.g., (Pati & Garud, 2020).

6. Conclusion

According to the consistency of earlier work, autonomy is a subset of human drive that has the potential to inspire creative activity (Beirne et al., 2017; Chung-Yan, 2010; Lifshitz-Assaf et al., 2019; Noble-Nkrumah et al., 2022; De Spiegelaere et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017). However, research advocates that the association between innovative behavior at work and feedback is strengthened when trust is present, e.g., (Bak, 2020). Work behavior innovation models also show a negative relationship between preferring routines and having control over decisions, e.g., (Battistelli et al., 2013). These findings suggest that innate human psychology allows people to choose what is best for them, e.g., (Abbas et al., 2022c). Since feedback is often unfavorable (since others cannot understand how one takes the meaning of autonomy to exercise at work), individuals may oppose it. Studies of responses to popular opinion and acuity, whether in the form of self-defeating criticism or uplifting affirmation, are still opening the debate, .e.g (Busemeyer et al., 2021). These shreds of evidence remind us to seek a better understanding of what the general public believes about feedback. According to the findings of this study, we may agree with the claim that the increasing complexity of the modern workplace has made it harder to obtain definitive judgments. Human behavior, planning, and reaction to situations depend on given conditions, changing trends, the perception of individuals, and other organizational structural variables, e.g., (Abbas, 2022).

Nonetheless, our research demonstrates that it is possible to balance the need for autonomy at work with the need for innovative conduct on the job. Thus, it is essential to put out the effort required to promote resilience, e.g., (Beirne et al., 2017; Bryan et al., 2017; Cherry et al., 2018; Denovan & Macaskill, 2017; Mitsakis, 2020; Sakellarios et al., 2022). Feedback informs people if they misuse their freedom, helping them stay consistent. Feedback affects users’ progress differently and has perks and cons (Bong & Park, 2022; Liu et al., 2022). Through psychological rapprochement and checks and balances, believers can maintain their code of behavior. Resilience can inspire new work initiatives, e.g., (Ratten, 2022). This interconnectedness means the organization must provide appropriate work designs, especially Autonomy, to help managers do their jobs. While constructive criticism might benefit by instilling resilience, it can also make creative pursuits more fraught with anxiety.

7. Practical Implications

The complexity of human nature, psychology, and the circumstances in which people can act is staggering. Research shows that these advancements are continuing and creating new research frontiers (Abbas et al., 2022c). This paper, for instance, adds to the literature on job autonomy and feedback as part of work composition. Results promote creative and original approaches to work and demonstrate that the role of feedback is peculiar under the expectation of creative and original approaches to work. A further contribution is investigating how employees’ study for resilience plays a role in mediating the connection between various occupational factors and creative activity on the job. Because there is a predetermined set of procedures that must be followed, the banking business often does not provide much room for innovation except within given boundaries.

Consequently, it would be beneficial to perform similar initiatives with different customers consistently; autonomy and resilience would lead to innovative behavior. Given the greater significance of social factors in bank customer relationship management, it is likely to see how market sales could apply identically (Famiyeh et al., 2018). It further argues that a structure of the view and human values are of the utmost importance since social variables are another complication (Abbas et al., 2022b, 2022e). This leads us to conclude that creativity requires imagination, focus, and interest. Feedback is unlikely to be viewed favorably or as a method that will please employees. Employees’ patience would wear thin if constantly criticized, as the ability to be creative is another hallmark of intrinsic motivation. The ability to think and feel creative while returning to the exact location and performing the same task again is feasible.

The Islamic banking system is on track to fill its niche in the present market (Abrar et al., 2022; Sharofiddin et al., 2018). In order to achieve prolonged economic growth, which cannot be sustained without innovation and a resolute workforce, they must answer the entire banking difficulties and issues. Islamic banks adhere to strict norms based on Islamic religious law, a feature of the service industry during its commercial operations (Zehra et al., 2022). For Islamic banks to become more competitive, the workforce must be able to respond to technological advancements in all parts of their operations. Thus, a resilient workforce that resolves pressure when they receive autonomy is the ultimate requirement, e.g., the result of this study. This might indicate that positive reinforcement for autonomy is required for innovativeness is viable option for practice. Hence not just avoiding potentially unpleasant but novel workplace conduct can be promoted. First-line managers’ resilience as a positive psychological resource is intended to be developed and strengthened by receiving feedback on their work results. Feedback offered to first-line managers at banks is frequently related to disparities in meeting targets and non-compliance with rules. The outcomes of this study imply that feedback is not directly associated with developing creative workplace practices.

8. Limitations and Future Research

Previous research suggests that autonomy, a subset of human motivation, might encourage creativity, which is confirmed in our research. We reckon these results could be double-checked in future research to confirm them further. Innate human psychology permits people to determine what is best for them. It further states that people may dislike criticism if there is a lack of trust because others do not grasp how they define job autonomy. Our research proposes balancing work autonomy with innovation. Future feedback research may consider this idea. Since all organizations need innovation, this research could be undertaken without discriminating organizational ownership in Islamic and commercial banks during this model to validate its findings. The feedback not immediately related to creative work behavior could be studied for better and more profound knowledge from an individual behavior point of view. This idea could be crucial because feedback and positive individual behavioral aspects can impact innovative work behavior. Therefore, a future study can focus on counterproductive feedback related to the direct behavior evaluation outcome, e.g., direct feedback. Professional and personal aspects of one’s life can affect their propensity to innovate in their work. The concept of trust that encompasses resilience could aggregate all the facets of psychological aptitude that can be developed inside an organization. In further research, the concept of psychological empowerment may be investigated with feedback to gain a deeper comprehension of these factors’ reciprocation. On the other hand, this study has a few limitations, such as its focus on demographics and the fact that it is empirical. This research framework can be used to determine if public or private management alone is preferable.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning this article’s research, authorship, and publication.

Correction

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Acknowledgements

Informed consent was obtained from all respondents. The respondent’s personal information and personal data were not obtained. Any information that could expose a respondent’s or organization’s identity was anonymized by following the criteria stated in the Declaration of Helsinki 1964.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the DRPM Kemendikbudristek RI (Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology) Under grant number (525/UN3.15/PT/2021)

Notes on contributors

Fendy Suhariadi

Fendy Suhariadi is the director of the Doctoral Program in Human Resource Development at Universitas Airlangga’s Postgraduate School in Surabaya, Indonesia. His research laboratory is now undergoing the registration process at the Postgraduate School, Airlangga University. Several Doctoral Students from Industry are conducting research under his supervision in an effort to provide high-quality work that advances industry and academia.