Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… AgBioForum, 26(2): 126-135. ©2024 AgBioForum Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company for Agricultural Equipment Sahar Ahmed Kurji College of Administration and Economics, Al-Mustansiriya University. Email: dr_agsahr@uomustansiriyah.edu.iq Fadia Lutfi Abdulwahhab College of Administration and Economics, Al-Mustansiriya University. Email: fadia_alganabi@uomustansiriyah.edu.iq Hadeel Qasim Oleiwi College of Administration and Economics, Al-Mustansiriya University. Email: hadeelqa@uomustansiriyah.edu.iq Introduction Business environments are dynamic and complex by nature, as external environmental changes are both incessant and expeditious, due to triggers such as advancements in technology, globalisation, and shifting needs and desires of consumers (Nudurupati, Garengo, & Bititci, 2021). Such dynamics necessitate that organisations adjust quickly and expeditiously by cultivating innovation cultures in workforce (Tao et al., 2024). Innovative behaviour is defined by introducing, advocating, and implementing valuable and new ideas in pursuit of improving products, processes, and work practices (Tao et al., 2024). Such behaviour remains imperative in guaranteeing organisational long-term viability, as it facilitates its stability, expansion, as well as competitiveness, especially in a rapidly changing market environment. Work prosperity ranks as one such catalyst of innovation that encompasses employees' state of vigour and ceaseless improvement in work (Niessen, Sonnentag, & Sach, 2012). Employees' energy, enthusiasm, and involvement denote vitality, while learning incorporates new knowledge and skill acquisition (Kleine et al., 2023). In combination, such work prosperity dimensions develop an organisational climate that encourages employee support, enhances organisational commitment, as well as encourages expansion and innovation (Dias et al., 2023). This linkage of work prosperity and innovative behaviour (Novaes et al., 2020) undergirds this current study. The present study seeks to explore the impact of work prosperity on enhancing employees' innovative behaviour. To achieve this, work prosperity is considered the independent variable, comprising the dimensions of vitality and learning, while employees' innovative behaviour serves as the dependent variable. The interaction between these two variables forms the central framework of the study. The identification of the research problem stems from the results of a preliminary survey conducted with a subset of the research sample, which led to the formulation of a set of questions that underpin the empirical aspect of the study. In response to these questions, the study adopts a hypothetical model that illustrates the logical relationships between its variables and outlines the main hypothesis, aiming to identify correlations and causal influences between the research variables. The General Company for Agricultural Equipment has been selected as the context for the research. The purposive sample consists of 58 individuals holding managerial positions, specifically department and division directors. A questionnaire, developed from existing scientific literature, was used as the primary tool for data collection, supplemented by personal interviews. To analyse the data, a combination of descriptive and inferential statistical methods was employed using the Smart- PLS-4 statistical software. The statistical analysis yielded several findings, leading to a set of conclusions. It was determined that work prosperity significantly influences the enhancement of employees' innovative behaviour. Based on these conclusions, several recommendations have been made to mitigate the identified challenges, including the promotion of work prosperity, particularly in the areas of vitality and learning, to foster greater innovative behaviour among employees. Keywords: Work Prosperity, Employees’ Innovative Behaviour, General Company for Agricultural Equipment. Innovative behaviour occurs when individuals within the workplace generate and implement new and useful ideas, contributing to the organisation's continuity, development, and competitive ability. Work prosperity guides employees toward goal-oriented activities in response to the changing conditions of the work environment (Hunsaker & Ding, 2022). The innovation capacity of organizations depends heavily on work prosperity because it develops an employee-centred environment which promotes motivation and engagement (Tao et al., 2024). Training opportunities alongside vitality create an employee population that comes forward with fresh solutions and leads problem- solving activities toward more efficient operations and strategic goals (Javed et al., 2021). The nature of technological change and market transformations requires this approach for specific business sectors. Soaring competitive demands create a need for organizations to build a work environment that supports both experimental efforts and team collaboration and knowledge transfer for maintaining their enduring success and stability (Al- Ajlouni, 2021). The understanding of work prosperity essential links to employee job satisfaction and psychological well-being and organizational commitment because these factors greatly affect employee willingness toward innovative practices. The higher the vitality levels among employees will decrease burnout risk while boosting their tendency to perform proactive tasks which advance organizational achievements (Yan & Loang, 2024). The workplace mailto:dr_agsahr@uomustansiriyah.edu.iq mailto:fadia_alganabi@uomustansiriyah.edu.iq mailto:hadeelqa@uomustansiriyah.edu.iq AgBioForum, 26(2), 2024 | 127 Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… achieves higher successes when employees display developed learning orientation which empowers them to apply needed skills and knowledge to execute innovative methods and enhance operational routines. Organisations succeed at external challenges by remaining agile through their continuous development strategy (Kun & Gadanecz, 2022). As a psychological state shaped by the work context, work prosperity becomes more dynamic (Novaes et al., 2020). Employees with positive energy, mental and physical strength, and a sense of learning and skill acquisition are more likely to demonstrate higher job performance and experience less work-related pressure compared to their less vital and less engaged colleagues (Al-Ajlouni, 2021). The present study holds significant value in the academic domain, as it addresses a research gap concerning work prosperity within the Iraqi context, an area that remains underexplored despite abundant international research. Practically, the study provides insights into the current state of work prosperity from the perspective of the research sample and its measurement in the field (Hunsaker & Ding, 2022). Additionally, it offers recommendations that can assist companies in adopting policies and programmes that foster work prosperity, thereby positively influencing the enhancement of employees' innovative behaviour, based on the study's findings. Based upon, the research problem can be framed according to the following questions:  What is the level and nature of the research variables (work prosperity, employees’ innovative behaviour)?  What is the nature of the correlation and influence of work prosperity on promoting employees’ innovative behaviour? This research aims to examine the impact of work prosperity on enhancing employees' innovative behaviour, with the study population comprising the General Company for Agricultural Equipment. The company was selected due to its significance and its pressing need to address competitive and operational challenges through innovation. The study targeted 58 managers, whose perspectives enabled the researchers to explore the interplay between work prosperity and innovation within the organisation. The research also seeks to assess the level and nature of the dimensions of work prosperity—vitality and learning—and their role in fostering employee innovation. A central research question was developed and articulated through a series of sub-questions that frame the research project. These questions underpin the theoretical framework and practical implications of the study, highlighting the scientific and practical importance of understanding work prosperity as a precursor to organisational innovation. The study is systematically structured into four key sections. The first section details the research methodology employed to address the posed questions and achieve the study's objectives. The second section establishes the theoretical framework, defining the concept of work prosperity and reviewing relevant literature on employees' innovative behaviour. The third section focuses on the applied aspect of the research, presenting data analysis and results. Finally, the fourth section synthesises the major findings, theoretical and practical contributions, and offers recommendations for researchers and practitioners. Literature Review Work Prosperity Work prosperity is a relatively new concept within the field of human resource management, closely linked to positive psychology (Kun & Gadanecz, 2022). Organisational productivity has emerged as a major theme, highlighting how fostering an optimal environment that enhances employees’ engagement, performance, and satisfaction positively impacts overall organisational performance (Iqbal, Nazir, & Ahmad, 2022). Management is expected to prioritise employees' health and satisfaction, aiming to optimise them as ‘human capital’ and align with the organisational pursuit of personal happiness and ‘positive psychology’ (Ng et al., 2022). Recent scholarly interest has increasingly focused on work prosperity, recognising it as both a valuable end-user and organisational objective. The concept encapsulates well-being, engagement, and performance within organisational contexts (Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). Work prosperity fosters internal positive energy, a sense of ambition, and the motivation to succeed and seek career advancement. It is considered a vital mechanism to ignite enthusiasm and collaboration among human resources (Donaldson, van Zyl, & Donaldson, 2022). Work prosperity is defined as an individual’s capacity to thrive within a workplace, enhancing their well-being through effective performance. Previous studies frequently define work engagement as a state in which individuals experience positive emotions, happiness, satisfaction, and motivation in their work, further characterised by an energetic and optimistic outlook on life through work (Lin et al., 2020). Work prosperity is understood to be a dynamic state, influenced by the work environment, available resources, and internal employee factors that collectively contribute to its enhancement (Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). Prosperity in the workplace is critical as vitality and learning are key factors in enhancing the performance and well-being of talented employees who navigate intense competition in their work environments (Pfeffer, 2010). Work prosperity is conceptualised as a desirable and positive psychological state in which employees feel energised to learn (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Thriving employees find their current work experiences intrinsically motivating, fostering both personal and professional development. Work prosperity is further defined as a psychological state encompassing vitality and learning (Porath et al., 2012). Similarly, it is characterised as a positive psychological state marked by a shared sense of vitality and learning. Prosperous employees achieve personal growth by maintaining a sense of active engagement and continuously acquiring and applying knowledge (Kleine et al., 2023; Tri & Van Thanh, 2022). These researchers concur with this definition, emphasising its core elements. Spreitzer et al. AgBioForum, 26(2), 2024 | 128 Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… (2005) proposed a two-dimensional model of prosperity, comprising vitality as the first dimension and learning as the second. These dimensions are considered fundamental to achieving work prosperity. Vitality, an affective component, encompasses energy and enthusiasm, while learning, a cognitive component, pertains to both personal and professional development (Porath et al., 2012). Perseverance and development are firmly established as the twin pillars of workplace well-being, serving as essential prerequisites for overall health and human effectiveness (Disabato, Goodman, & Kashdan, 2019; Maya, Anjana, & Nanthini, 2024). Employees must acquire new knowledge while simultaneously maintaining their energy levels. A lack of balance between these elements can lead to significant challenges. For instance, employees who focus on learning new skills may become too fatigued to apply them effectively. Conversely, employees who remain highly motivated to work but lack opportunities for further learning may struggle to advance in their careers due to stagnation (Niessen et al., 2012). The interplay between learning and vitality is crucial for work prosperity, fostering a sense of progress and a prosperous future, which neither vitality nor learning alone can achieve (Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). These elements act as benchmarks for individuals to evaluate and enhance performance, aligning short-term personal growth with long-term organisational goals (Niessen et al., 2012; Périlleux & Charles, 2014). Vitality, representing the emotional dimension, involves energetic behaviours, mental and physical engagement, and enthusiasm for work (Na-Nan et al., 2020; Porath et al., 2012). Learning, the cognitive dimension, is the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills, enabling individuals to adapt, innovate, and achieve goals (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch- Römer, 1993; Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). Together, these dimensions promote self- development and sustainability in work. Employees’ Innovative Behaviour Innovativeness is a fundamental competency for organisational management and success. When time is constrained, and demands are high, traditional strategies and practices become inadequate. Organisations must adopt strategies that drive progress rather than risk stagnation (Behl et al., 2022). Innovative behaviour, a subset of organisational behaviour, is characterised as a discretionary and supplementary activity not formally mandated within work performance, making it unsuitable for direct enforcement upon individuals (Lin et al., 2020). In the workplace, creative ideas reflect the capacity to generate, support, and implement practical solutions that contribute to organisational success. Such behaviour aligns with the contingency paradigm, as organisations must adapt and evolve to survive in changing circumstances. This ensures strategic objectives are met and facilitates effective development (Hughes et al., 2018). Innovative behaviour encompasses all actions through which employees progress the innovation process, ultimately resulting in innovation (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). It is an optional behaviour exceeding predefined roles and is not explicitly recognised or enforced (Sanders et al., 2010). The process of innovation involves multiple stages, including refining identified ideas, securing resources, and addressing prerequisites to realise these ideas in ways that benefit the organisation and society. Promoting innovation allows organisations to improve performance, address emerging challenges, and gain a competitive advantage (Behl et al., 2022). Teamwork together with collaboration form essential elements of innovative behavior. The contact with different workplace perspectives in diverse teams leads employees to develop innovative solutions (García-Sánchez, Siles, & de Mar Vázquez-Méndez, 2021). New ideas develop stronger through cross-functional collaboration since different experts share professional backgrounds which boost solution-finding abilities. Employers who make their workforce participate in continuous learning foster flexible personnel who approach problems in creative ways (Javed et al., 2021). Allowing workers to take part in training sessions along with permitted attendance at industry meetings and approved participation in mentorship programs will activate innovative thinking capabilities that enable organizations to maintain their agile competitive position in evolving markets (Iqbal et al., 2022). Employees’ innovative behaviour involves the intentional initiation and presentation of new, useful ideas within the scope of work, group, or organisation. These ideas pertain to products, services, or work methods and include the necessary actions to develop, introduce, and implement them (Hughes et al., 2018). This view aligns with researchers’ perspectives, emphasising the role of innovation in achieving organisational objectives. Stability and Validity Tests for the Questionnaire Table 1 reports the internal reliability test results using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability coefficient (rho_c). The measures assess the stability quality and reliability of the measurement instrument. Table 2 indicates that Cronbach's Alpha figures of the key variables and their sub- dimensions met the minimum threshold of 0.70, thereby establishing internal consistency. Likewise, AVE figures of all variables and sub-dimensions of variables exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.50, establishing suitable construct validity. The composite reliability figures of all variables and dimensions were also above the threshold of 0.70, indicating high reliability. The results, in aggregate, establish that the instrument shows a suitable level of stability and consistency. Figure 1 illustrates the factor saturation values of the constituent paragraphs for the dimensions and variables, all of which surpassed the acceptable threshold of 0.40 for latent variables. This was achieved using structural equation modelling with partial least squares via the Smart-PLS 4 software, a suitable statistical method for small sample sizes, unlike the Amos program, which necessitates larger samples. AgBioForum, 26(2), 2024 | 129 Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… Table 1: The Values of the Cronbach Alpha Coefficients, the Extracted Mean Variance, and the Composite Stability Coefficient of the Measurement Tool with its Main Variable and Sub-Dimensions. Coefficients Values Number of Items Cronbach's Alpha Value Extracted Mean Variance Values Compound Stability (rho_c) Variables and Dimensions Cronbach's Alpha ♪ Ave ♪ X1 The Dimension of Vitality of Work 5 903 718 0.927 X2 The Dimension of Learning 5 48 0.646 .834 X Work Prosperity 10 8. 0.636 93 Y Employees’ Innovative Behaviour 10 0.943 669 952 Source: The Two Researchers Based on the Results of the Statistical Analysis using the Statistical Program. Figure 1: The Values of the Factor Saturation of the Latent Variables for Each Paragraph through the Smart Pls4 Program. Explanation of the Research Variables, Overview of the Analysis of the Sample Answers and Overall Interpretation In this subsection, the researchers present the findings of the descriptive statistical analysis of the research variables. The respondent response strength matrix in the current study illustrates the sample's level of responses, as recorded by the participants. This matrix provides an estimated balance based on the Likert scale, as detailed in Table 2. Table 2: Respondent Response Strength Matrix on Survey Paragraphs. Category The Value of the Weighted Arithmetic Mean The Strength of the Response to the Questionnaire Paragraphs Respondent Response Level 1st 1 to Less than 1.80 Totally disagree Very Low 2nd 1.8 to Less than 2.6 Disagree. Low Third 2.6 to Less than 3.4 Neutral MODERATE 4th 3.4 to Less than 4.2 Agree High 5th 4.2 to 5 Totally Agree Very high h Source: Karnilev (2002). Description and Diagnosis of the Work Prosperity Paragraphs Table 3: Statistical Measures of the Paragraphs and Dimensions of Work Prosperity N=58. Code Item Arithmetic Mean Standard Deviation Relative Importance Sequence of Paragraphs x11 I feel energized and motivated at my job 3.41 0.918 68.2 3 x12 My job gives me energy and spirit to work 3.43 0.840 68.6% 2 X13 I am happy every new working day at the company 3.47 0.903 69.4 1 X14 My job allows me to be resilient in the face of problems 3.26 0.890 65.2 5 X15 My job allows me to adapt to any changes and developments at work 3.36 852, 67.2% 4 X1 : Overall Rate of Dynamic Dimension Work Prosperity 386 748. 67.7% x21 I'm growing in positive ways 3.72 0.790 74.4% 1 x22 I'm stuck. 2.83 0.729 56.6% 5 x23 I continue to learn more in my job over time 3.52 0.822 70.4% 2 x24 My job offers opportunities to continually improve 3.26 0.947 65.2 4 X25 I find new ways to develop in my job 3.43 0.939 68.6% 3 X2 Overall Rate of Learning Dimension of Work Prosperity $7,780 571 67% X Overall Business Boom Rate 3-369 0.626 67.4% Source: The Results of Statistical Analysis Using SPSS V.28. AgBioForum, 26(2), 2024 | 130 Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… Description of Paragraphs (Dimension of Vitality of Work Prosperity) This dimension was measured using items X11 to X15. Table 3 presents the arithmetic means, standard deviation, and relative importance based on the perspectives of the research sample regarding the vitality dimension of workplace prosperity. The Table 3 indicates an average score of approximately 3.386, which falls within the range of 2.6 to less than 3.4, as outlined in the response strength matrix. This suggests that the overall importance of the sample's responses to these items, particularly with a focus on orientation towards beneficiaries, is moderate and considered less critical. The standard deviation of 0.748 indicates a relatively low dispersion in the responses of the research sample. The relative importance of this variable is 67.7%, reflecting a relatively high level of interest expressed by the respondents concerning this dimension within the company. This dimension, measured using items X21 to X25, shows a general arithmetic mean of 3.352, as presented in Table 3. This falls within the 2.6 to 3.4 range, indicating moderate importance with significant neutrality. The standard deviation of 0.571 suggests small variation in responses. The relative importance is 67%, reflecting a fair concern among respondents about this dimension. Overall, workplace prosperity has a total weighted mean of 3.369, with a standard deviation of 0.626 and relative importance of 67.4%, confirming a moderate level of importance in the sample's responses, as shown in Table 3. Description and Diagnosis of the Paragraphs of Employees’ Innovative Behaviour (The Dependent Variable) This variable was assessed using items Y1 to Y10. Table 4 presents the arithmetic means, standard deviations, and relative importance from the perspective of the investigated sample regarding employees' innovative behaviour. According to Table 4, the averages converge to a general arithmetic mean of 3.385. This value falls within the range of 2.6 to less than 3.4 in the response strength matrix, indicating that the level of responses across all items related to employees' innovative behaviour was slightly positive, reflecting a moderate level of response. The standard deviation of 0.685, which is relatively small, highlights a limited dispersion in the answers of the sample members. The contribution of this variable to the study is 67.7%, suggesting that the majority of responses regarding employees' innovative behaviour leaned slightly towards agreement. This indicates a moderate level of concern among respondents regarding this dimension within the company. Table 4: Statistical Measures of the Employees’ Innovative Behaviour N=58. Code Item Arithmetic Mean Standard Deviation Relative Importance Sequence of Paragraphs Y1 I have the ability to create new ideas in my work 3.84 ,7210 76-44-8 2 Y2 I am interested in analysing developments to look for new ways of working 3.53 777, LLC 70.6% 4 Y3 I have the ability to predict work problems before they occur 2.95 0.660 59% 9 Y4 I try new ideas and methods at work 3.53 0.903 70.6% 5 Y5 I have the ability to think quickly in different circumstances 3.88 0.677 77.6% 1 Y6 I put forward new ideas without hesitation for fear of failure 3.26 0.890 65.2 7 Y7 I am ready to face any new situations that may occur in the work environment 3.57 0.840 71.4% 3 Y8 The management of the company encourages any positive suggestions from others 3.28 1.022 65.6% 6 Y9 Company management encourages individuals who go beyond routine 2.84 0.812 56.8% 10 Y10 The company's management works to urge individuals and encourage them to think outside the scope of their competence 3.16 1.005 63.2% 8 The overall rate of employees’ innovative behaviour 3.385 0.685 67.7% Source: The Results of Statistical Analysis Using SPSS V.28. Testing the Correlation Between the Research Variables The first research hypothesis (H1) posits that there is a statistically significant correlation between workplace prosperity and employees' innovative behaviour. To evaluate the validity of this hypothesis, the Pearson correlation coefficient was employed. This statistical method was used to analyse the primary hypothesis and its sub-hypotheses, as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, and summarised in Table 5. Table 5 reveals a strong and statistically significant correlation between workplace prosperity and employees' innovative behaviour, with a Sig. (2-tailed) value of 0.000 and a confidence level exceeding 99%. The Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.875, as depicted in Figure 2. This finding indicates a very strong direct relationship between workplace prosperity and employees' innovative behaviour at the organisational level. The results suggest that higher levels of workplace prosperity are strongly and positively associated with employees' innovative behaviour, as perceived by the research sample. Consequently, the first hypothesis (H1), which asserts the existence of a statistically significant correlation between workplace prosperity and employees' innovative behaviour, is accepted. The following section provides an analysis of the sub- relationships between the dimensions of workplace prosperity and employees' innovative behaviour in the context of the sub-hypotheses (Gu et al., 2024). AgBioForum, 26(2), 2024 | 131 Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… Figure 2: Model of the Correlation Between the Work Prosperity and Employees’ Innovative Behaviour. Source: Amos V.26 Program Outputs. Figure 3: Model of Correlation Between Work Prosperity and Employees’ Innovative Behaviour. Source: Amos V.26 Program Outputs. Table 5: The Value of the Correlation Coefficient Between Work Prosperity and Employees’ Innovative Behaviour. Hypothesis Code Correlation Coefficient P Value Nature of Relationship H1 X Y 0.875 00 Very Strong H1 1 X Y 0.798 00 Direct Force H1-2 2 X Y 0.872 00 Very Strong Source: SPSS V.28 Outputs. Analysis of the Relationship Between the Vitality Dimension of Work Prosperity and Employees’ Innovative Behaviour Table 5 shows that the correlation coefficient between the vitality dimension of workplace prosperity and employees’ innovative behaviour is 0.798, reflecting a high level of statistical significance (Sig. = 0.000) and confidence intervals exceeding 99%. This finding indicates that as the vitality dimension of workplace prosperity increases, there is a correspondingly strong positive relationship with employees' innovative behaviour. This result supports the first sub-hypothesis derived from the main hypothesis, confirming the existence of a statistically significant correlation between the vitality dimension of workplace prosperity and employees’ innovative behaviour. Analysis of the Relationship Between the Learning Dimension of Work Prosperity and Employees’ Innovative Behaviour Table 5 reveals that the correlation coefficient between the learning dimension of workplace prosperity and employees’ innovative behaviour is 0.872, with a significance level of 0.000 and confidence intervals exceeding 99%. This result indicates that a higher degree of the learning dimension of workplace prosperity is strongly and positively associated with an increase in employees’ innovative behaviour. This finding supports the first sub-hypothesis derived from the main hypothesis, confirming the presence of a statistically significant positive correlation between the learning dimension of workplace prosperity and employees’ innovative behaviour. Testing the Influence Correlation Between the Research Variables To analyse the second main hypothesis, which examines whether workplace prosperity and its sub-dimensions significantly influence employees’ innovative behaviour, structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed using the covariance method via the AMOS v.26 software. This method is particularly effective for representing multiple relationships among variables. The statistical analysis reveals that the explanatory value of workplace prosperity, as indicated by the coefficient of determination (R²), is 76.6%. This suggests that 76.6% of the variation in employees’ innovative behaviour can be AgBioForum, 26(2), 2024 | 132 Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… attributed to workplace prosperity, while the remaining 23.4% is influenced by factors not included in the study model. Furthermore, the independent variable, workplace prosperity, exhibits a strong level of influence on employees’ innovative behaviour, with a standardised regression coefficient of 0.959. This is statistically significant, as the critical ratio (C.R.) is 13.664, exceeding the threshold value of 1.96 at a significance level of 0.000, as shown in Table 6. These results indicate that a positive change of one unit in workplace prosperity results in a 0.959-unit increase in employees’ innovative behaviour. Accordingly, the second main hypothesis is accepted, confirming that there is a statistically significant influence of workplace prosperity on employees’ innovative behaviour (Hunsaker & Ding, 2022). Figure 4: The Influence of the Prosperity of Work on the Innovative Behaviour of Employees. Source: SPSS V.28 Outputs. Table 6: Parameters of Testing the Influence of Work Prosperity and Its Dimensions on Employees’ Innovative Behaviour. Code Regression Weights Standard Error (S.E) Critical Ratio (CR) P- Value Employees’ Innovative Behaviour Y < Work Prosperity X 0.959 0.070 664 *** Employees’ Innovative Behaviour Y < The Vitality Dimension of Work Prosperity X1 0.262 .092 862 0.004 Employees’ Innovative Behaviour Y < The Learning Dimension of Work Prosperity X2 773 0.120 0.433 *** Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusion The research findings indicate that workplace prosperity has a positive but moderate impact on employee performance, suggesting opportunities for improvement to fully realise its potential benefits. The study identifies the learning dimension as the primary driver of workplace prosperity, underscoring its critical role in fostering competitive advantage through the development of employee skills and the acquisition of knowledge. Although employees exhibited positive innovative behaviour, the moderate levels observed suggest untapped potential for further enhancement. The confirmation of the main hypothesis establishes a significant relationship between workplace prosperity and innovative behaviour, offering a clear strategic pathway for organisational development. Notably, the learning dimension exerts a stronger influence on innovative behaviour compared to vitality, although both dimensions remain integral components of workplace prosperity. This highlights the importance of prioritising learning initiatives while maintaining a balanced focus on vitality to optimise innovative outcomes. These findings suggest several key recommendations:  Organisations should prioritise learning and development programmes to enhance workplace prosperity, focusing on building employee skills and knowledge.  Management should implement strategies to elevate both dimensions of workplace prosperity—learning and vitality—from moderate to high levels, fostering a more robust impact on employee performance and innovation.  Human resource policies should be aligned to support continuous learning and innovation, creating an environment that encourages employees to develop new ideas and improve their performance.  Regular assessment of workplace prosperity metrics should be conducted to monitor progress and adjust interventions as needed, ensuring ongoing improvement in these areas. Future research could explore additional dimensions of workplace prosperity and their specific impacts on various aspects of innovative behaviour, particularly across different organisational contexts and industries. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how to optimise workplace prosperity initiatives for maximum organisational benefit. AgBioForum, 26(2), 2024 | 133 Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… Recommendations The present study offers a set of recommendations to enhance workplace prosperity at the General Company for Agricultural Equipment, which, in turn, can influence employees’ innovative behaviour. These recommendations are as follows:  Support the process of building and developing workplace prosperity in both its dimensions (vitality and learning), ensuring they work together under a holistic system (Torlak, Budur, & Khan, 2024). Their combined influence is greater in promoting employees’ innovative behaviour than the influence of each dimension separately, as an individual who thrives at work demonstrates both vitality and learning in their activities.  Given the results of the present study indicating a weak correlation and influence of the vitality dimension compared to the learning dimension, it is necessary to:  Create excitement at work to ensure employees feel positively energised, active, and enthusiastic about their tasks. This self-generated energy can then be transferred to colleagues, leading to improved performance.  Empower employees by granting them sufficient authority to act in relevant matters and ensuring appropriate work conditions are in place.  Organise seminars and workshops to teach employees how to approach work tasks that require higher energy investment and effort, particularly when facing challenges and work pressures.  Provide an appropriate organisational climate (optimal working conditions) that shapes and crystallises employees’ behaviours and attitudes towards their work and the company.  Increase learning by offering training and development programmes for all employees, tailored to their specific needs, to enable necessary changes and improvements in their knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This will help address work challenges and enhance workplace prosperity.  Support and reinforce employees’ innovative behaviour through a motivational system that uses various performance-related incentives to ensure higher efficiency.  Recruit individuals with the necessary behaviours and innovative abilities through tests and interviews designed to differentiate between applicants and select the most suitable candidates. Limitations and Future Research Directions While this study provides valuable insights, it has several limitations that should be considered for future research. The study was conducted solely at the General Company for Agricultural Equipment, with a sample of 58 managers. As such, the findings may not be generalised to other organisations, industries, or cultures. The study's conclusions may differ due to specific variables, such as company size, structure, and market type. Future research should include a broader range of organisations across different industries and cultures, as well as respondents from various organisational levels and departments to improve the validity and generalisability of results. Additionally, this study used a cross-sectional design, which only captured data at one point in time. This limits the ability to assess changes in work prosperity and innovative behaviour over time, especially in response to organisational shifts or technological advancements (Kör, Wakkee, & van der Sijde, 2021). This study analysed work prosperity through vitality and learning, but other dimensions like resilience, engagement, satisfaction, and psychological well-being may also influence innovative behaviour. Future research should incorporate these additional variables for a more comprehensive understanding. The study focused only on managers, excluding other employees whose experiences may differ. Future studies should include employees at various organisational levels to provide a broader, more representative sample and better understand the impact of work prosperity on innovative behaviour across the hierarchy. This study focused on a single organisation, making its findings on work prosperity and innovative behaviour context-specific, influenced by organisational norms, leadership styles, and culture. To validate these results, future research should include cross-sectional studies across different industries and cultures. Exploring how cultural and organisational factors may moderate or mediate the relationship between work prosperity and innovative behaviour would also be valuable. The study’s reliance on questionnaires and personal interviews introduces potential biases, such as socially desirable responses. Future research should incorporate diverse data collection methods to reduce bias and improve accuracy. While this study identified work prosperity as a positive factor influencing innovative behaviour, it did not consider moderating variables such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment, or factors like leadership style and team dynamics. Understanding these mechanisms could further advance knowledge on how and when work prosperity impacts the innovation process. Future research should incorporate mediator and moderator analyses to explore how work prosperity enhances or suppresses innovation. For instance, examining how leadership support strengthens work prosperity or how job stress might diminish it could provide valuable insights. Work prosperity was defined and measured using available resources, technology, promotion, and organisational rewards, and the study followed a static model. However, work processes are dynamic and influenced by employee needs and feedback, which evolve over time. Future research should adopt dynamic modelling techniques or system dynamics to model the interactions of these variables over time, providing a more accurate depiction of organisational behaviour and offering insights into how interventions can sustain work prosperity and innovation in the future (Ajmal, Sareet, & Islam, 2025). Although the study provided general recommendations for the General Company for Agricultural Equipment, AgBioForum, 26(2), 2024 | 134 Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… these were not organisation-specific, and the potential for generalisation to other industries and sectors was not evaluated. Future studies should explore more generic solutions for enhancing work prosperity and innovation, which can be applied across various disciplines. Collaborating with diverse teams from different age groups and countries could also yield more neutral perspectives and broaden the applicability of the findings. Bibliography Ajmal, M., Sareet, Z., & Islam, A. (2025). Unleashing Innovation Through Employee Voice Behavior in the Hotel Industry: The Impact of Ambidextrous Leadership on Innovative Work Behavior. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 8(2), 448-471. doi: https://doi.org/10.11 08/JHTI-08- 2023-0564 Al-Ajlouni, M. I. (2021). Can high-performance work systems (HPWS) promote organisational innovation? Employee perspective-taking, engagement and creativity in a moderated mediation model. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 43(2), 373-397. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2019-0369 Behl, A., Gaur, J., Pereira, V., Yadav, R., & Laker, B. (2022). Role of big data analytics capabilities to improve sustainable competitive advantage of MSME service firms during COVID-19 – A multi-theoretical approach. Journal of Business Research, 148, 378-389. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.009 de Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/14601 060710720546 Dias, Á., Pereira, L., Costa, R. L. d., & Gonçalves, R. (2023). Talent management and organisational commitment: exploring the mediation effects of creativity and proactivity. International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise, 10(3), 290-330. doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIE.2023.131935 Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & Kashdan, T. B. (2019). Is grit relevant to well-being and strengths? Evidence across the globe for separating perseverance of effort and consistency of interests. Journal of Personality, 87(2), 194-211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12382 Donaldson, S. I., van Zyl, L. E., & Donaldson, S. I. (2022). PERMA+4: A Framework for Work- Related Wellbeing, Performance and Positive Organizational Psychology 2.0. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 817244. doi: https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2021.817244 Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 García-Sánchez, A., Siles, D., & de Mar Vázquez-Méndez, M. (2021). Competitiveness and Innovation: Effects on Prosperity. In A. Artal-Tur, A. Correia, & M. P. Jiménez-Medina (Eds.), Tourism Research in Ibero-America (pp. 35-48). Routledge. doi: http://doi.org/10.4324/9781003140788-5 Gu, A., Nawaz, A., Abbas, S., & Lv, B. (2024). Enhancing organizational performance through knowledge- oriented leadership: the neglected role of employee creative work behavior and digital citizenship behavior in IT industry. Kybernetes. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-10-2023-2084 Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lea qua.2018.03.001 Hunsaker, W. D., & Ding, W. (2022). Workplace Spirituality and Innovative Work Behavior: The Role of Employee Flourishing and Workplace Satisfaction. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 44(6), 1355-1371. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1108/ER-01-2021-0032 Iqbal, A., Nazir, T., & Ahmad, M. S. (2022). Entrepreneurial leadership and employee innovative behavior: an examination through multiple theoretical lenses. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(1), 173-190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2020-0212 Javed, B., Fatima, T., Khan, A. K., & Bashir, S. (2021). Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: the role of creative self‐efficacy. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3), 769- 782. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.487 Karnilev, S. S. (2002). Multiple Regression (1st ed.). Publishing Honse Statistic Science Library, Moscow, Russian Federation. Kleine, A.-K., Rudolph, C. W., Schmitt, A., & Zacher, H. (2023). Thriving at work: an investigation of the independent and joint effects of vitality and learning on employee health. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(1), 95-106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X. 2022.2102485 Kör, B., Wakkee, I., & van der Sijde, P. (2021). How to promote managers’ innovative behavior at work: Individual factors and perceptions. Technovation, 99, 102127. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techno vation.2020.102127 Kun, A., & Gadanecz, P. (2022). Workplace happiness, well-being and their relationship with psychological capital: A study of Hungarian Teachers. Current Psychology, 41(1), 185-199. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00550-0 Lin, C. P., Xian, J., Li, B., & Huang, H. (2020). Transformational Leadership and Employees’ Thriving at Work: The Mediating Roles of Challenge- Hindrance Stressors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1400. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01400 https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-08-2023-0564 https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-08-2023-0564 https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-08-2023-0564 https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2019-0369 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.009 https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710720546 https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710720546 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIE.2023.131935 https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12382 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.817244 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.817244 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 http://doi.org/10.4324/9781003140788-5 https://doi.org/10.1108/K-10-2023-2084 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2021-0032 https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2021-0032 https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2020-0212 https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.487 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2022.2102485 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2022.2102485 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102127 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102127 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00550-0 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01400 AgBioForum, 26(2), 2024 | 135 Kurji et al — Evaluation of Work Prosperity on Promoting Employees’ Innovative Behaviour at the State Company… Maya, R., Anjana, V. J., & Nanthini, B. (2024). Perseverance matters: Adult risk attitude toward health and psychological well-being. In M. Garg, D. Kumar, D. Samanta, & A. Sathiyaseelan (Eds.), Impact of Climate Change on Social and Mental Well-Being (pp. 221-233). Academic Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B9 78-0-443-23788-1.00012-9 Na-Nan, K., Kanthong, S., Wongsuwan, N., Pukkeeree, P., & Sa-ngasilp, T. (2020). Concept Model to Measure the Thriving at Work (TAW): Developing and Applying. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), 72. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030072 Ng, T. W. H., Shao, Y., Koopmann, J., Wang, M., Hsu, D. Y., & Yim, F. H. K. (2022). The effects of idea rejection on creative self-efficacy and idea generation: Intention to remain and perceived innovation importance as moderators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(1), 146-163. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2567 Niessen, C., Sonnentag, S., & Sach, F. (2012). Thriving at work—A diary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 468-487. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1002/job.763 Novaes, V. P., Ferreira, M. C., Mendonca, H., & Torres, C. V. (2020). Antecedents and Consequents of Prosperity at Work: A Mediation-moderation Model. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 21, eRAMD200107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590 /1678-6971/eRAMD200107 Nudurupati, S. S., Garengo, P., & Bititci, U. S. (2021). Impact of the changing business environment on performance measurement and management practices. International Journal of Production Economics, 232, 107942. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijpe.2020.107942 Périlleux, T., & Charles, J. (2014). Prosperity in Work. In I. Cassiers (Ed.), Redefining Prosperity (pp. 74- 93). Routledge. doi: http://doi.org/10.4324/9781 315777955-6 Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building Sustainable Organizations: The Human Factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 34-45. doi: https://doi.org/1 0.5465/amp.24.1.34 Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250- 275. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756 Sanders, K., Moorkamp, M., Torka, N., Groeneveld, S., & Groeneveld, C. (2010). How to Support Innovative Behaviour?The Role of LMX and Satisfaction with HR Practices. Technology and Investment, 1(1), 59-68. doi: https://doi.org/10. 4236/ti.2010.11007 Spreitzer, G., & Porath, C. (2012). Creating Sustainable Performance. Harvard Business Review, 90(1), 92-99. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/01/ creating-sustainable-performance Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A Socially Embedded Model of Thriving at Work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537-549. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1287/orsc.1050.0153 Tao, Y., Wang, S., Lin, Y., & Liu, H. (2024). Survive in adversity, preservation in prosperity: how does organization-based self-esteem affect employees’ innovation behavior in the face culture context? Current Psychology, 43(45), 35138-35151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06970-x Torlak, N. G., Budur, T., & Khan, N. U. S. (2024). Links Connecting Organizational Socialization, Affective Commitment and Innovative Work Behavior. The Learning Organization, 31(2), 227-249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-04-2023-0053 Tri, N. M., & Van Thanh, V. (2022). Developing High- Quality Human Resources to Fulfill the Aspirations of Building a Prosperous and Happy Country: Problems and Solutions. Calitatea, 23(191), 223-227. doi: https://doi.org/10.47750/ QAS/23.191.26 Yan, W. Y., & Loang, O. K. (2024). Building a Research Model for the Relationship Between Enterprise Innovation Values and Employees’ Innovation Behavior: With Innovation Self-efficacy as a Mediator. In R. El Khoury (Ed.), Technology- Driven Business Innovation: Unleashing the Digital Advantage, Volume 1 (pp. 55-65). Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51997-0_5 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-23788-1.00012-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-23788-1.00012-9 https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030072 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2567 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.763 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.763 https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMD200107 https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMD200107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107942 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107942 http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777955-6 http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777955-6 https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.1.34 https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.1.34 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756 https://doi.org/10.4236/ti.2010.11007 https://doi.org/10.4236/ti.2010.11007 https://hbr.org/2012/01/creating-sustainable-performance https://hbr.org/2012/01/creating-sustainable-performance https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06970-x https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-04-2023-0053 https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/23.191.26 https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/23.191.26 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51997-0_5