Innovative work behavior (IWB) has emerged as a critical driver of organizational adaptability and long-term success, particularly for SMEs operating in dynamic environments (Chongvisal, 2020; Huegel & Kreutzer, 2020; Viitala et al., 2023). Janssen (2000) defined IWB as the “intentional creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within a work role, group, or organization, in order to benefit role performance, the group, or the organization” (p. 288), emphasizing its purposeful and benefit-oriented nature. Building on this, De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) described IWB as encompassing all individual actions aimed at generating, introducing, and applying ideas, processes, products, or procedures that are new to the relevant unit and intended to benefit it. Together, these definitions highlight IWB as spanning the full innovation cycle, from ideation to implementation (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Janssen, 2000). Cultivating IWB is essential for cultural SME managers facing sector-specific challenges such as rapid technological change and evolving audience expectations.

Several characteristics distinguish IWB from related concepts. First, IWB is discretionary and voluntary. Extending beyond formally prescribed job tasks, it is often considered “extra-role behavior” not explicitly recognized by formal reward systems (Huegel & Kreutzer, 2020; Janssen, 2000). Although organizations depend on it, IWB typically arises from individual initiative (Janssen, 2000). Second, IWB is a complex, multi-stage process involving distinct—though often overlapping and nonsequential—activities (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Huegel & Kreutzer, 2020; Janssen, 2000). Individuals may engage in multiple activities simultaneously (Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Third, IWB is related to but broader than creativity. Whereas creativity centers on the generation of novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996), IWB also includes the promotion and implementation of such ideas (Huegel & Kreutzer, 2020; Mustafa et al., 2024). Finally, IWB differs from general proactive work behavior or personal initiative, as it explicitly incorporates idea generation—an element less central in models of personal initiative, which tend to emphasize implementation (Mustafa et al., 2024). In all cases, IWB is benefit-oriented, seeking to improve outcomes for the individual, group, or organization (Chongvisal, 2020; Janssen, 2000).

The multi-stage nature of IWB has led researchers to conceptualize it in terms of distinct dimensions (Janssen, 2000). Building on these stages, De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) proposed a widely cited four-dimensional model: (a) opportunity exploration (identifying areas for innovation), (b) idea generation, (c) idea championing (gaining support and resources), and (d) idea application or implementation (transforming ideas into practice). Recognizing these phases provides valuable analytical depth, as different antecedents may influence each stage differently (Pajuoja et al., 2025; Viitala et al., 2023). However, empirical studies often report high intercorrelations among these dimensions (Huegel & Kreutzer, 2020; Mustafa et al., 2024). Consequently, many researchers, including the present authors, treat IWB as a unified construct that reflects managers’ overall propensity to develop and apply new ideas within their organizational roles. This unified construct captures cultural SME managers’ capacity to drive innovation by translating creative concepts into tangible outcomes within their specific operational contexts.

Based on this understanding, we hypothesize that psychological, social, political, and digital empowerment influence managers’ overall IWB.

Empowerment is a process that enables individuals and organizations to exercise control over their environment and development (Narayan-Parker, 2002; Zimmerman et al., 1992). Managers’ self-perceptions of empowerment are particularly important, as they directly influence attitudes and actions (Nicholas et al., 2009; Rasoolimanesh & Jaafar, 2017). In this way, empowerment plays a central role in shaping organizational initiatives and fostering innovative work behavior (IWB), especially within cultural SMEs (Del Giudice et al., 2017).

This study adapts established frameworks (Mendoza-Ramos & Prideaux, 2018; Scheyvens, 1999) to examine four empowerment dimensions relevant to cultural SME managers: psychological, social, political, and digital.

Drawing on complexity theory, this study adopts a configurational approach to understanding empowerment in cultural tourism SMEs (Rosenhead et al., 2019). Although the dimensions of empowerment—psychological, social, political, and digital—are defined separately for analytical clarity, they rarely operate in isolation in the complex realities faced by cultural SME managers. Complexity theory holds that organizational outcomes emerge from the interplay of multiple factors, necessitating methods that move beyond analyses of isolated variables.

Neo-configurational theory further suggests that organizational results are shaped by the interaction of causal factors, producing distinct pathways to outcomes (Swiatczak, 2021). This perspective aligns with research showing that organizational dimensions such as culture do not function independently but instead operate in combination to drive effectiveness (Puppatz et al., 2025). Such evidence underscores the importance of treating empowerment dimensions as interconnected elements within complex organizational systems.

A configurational approach identifies factor combinations that enable or inhibit outcomes, emphasizing that configurations—not individual attributes—are critical (Pavlov & Micheli, 2023). This perspective is particularly important for understanding empowerment’s nonlinear and multifaceted nature. For example, digital empowerment may enhance a manager’s ability to leverage social capital (social empowerment) or to participate more effectively in governance processes (political empowerment). Likewise, strong psychological empowerment, expressed as confidence and belonging, may be a prerequisite for managers to capitalize on opportunities afforded by digital or political empowerment. Accordingly, this study argues that it is not the presence or absence of any single dimension but rather the specific configuration of high or low levels across dimensions that fosters—or constrains—innovative work behavior (IWB).

Proposition 1: Specific configurations of psychological, social, political, and digital empowerment are associated with high IWB among cultural SME managers, whereas other configurations correspond with its absence. No single empowerment dimension alone is likely to generate consistently high IWB.

This study employed a cross-sectional survey design using self-administered questionnaires to collect data from managers of core cultural SMEs in Spain. The design provided a snapshot of empowerment configurations and their association with innovative work behavior (IWB). However, because it does not capture processes over time, the cross-sectional nature limits causal inference. Future research using longitudinal or mixed-methods approaches would help explore the temporal development of these relationships and strengthen causal claims.

Purposive sampling was used to target this specialized population, an approach well suited to difficult-to-access professional groups in the cultural sector. Managers were selected because they are central to these enterprises, playing a pivotal role in navigating competitive challenges (Peñarroya-Farell et al., 2023; Schiuma, 2017) and making strategic decisions about business models. To accommodate varied organizational structures, “manager” was operationally defined as any individual with strategic decision-making authority, regardless of job title.

The target population comprised managers whose primary enterprise activity was located in the core cultural sector, as defined by Throsby (2008b) and classified under the following NACE Rev. 2 codes:

Potential participating firms were identified using the Sistema de Análisis de Balances Ibéricos database, a comprehensive source of Iberian company financial information (Informa D&B, 2024). Data were collected between June 27 and July 23, 2024, through an anonymous online questionnaire distributed via personalized email invitations. The survey included a clear explanation of its purpose and structure, enabling participants to provide informed responses on empowerment and IWB in cultural tourism contexts. Ethical protocols were rigorously followed, including explicit informed consent from all participants and full confidentiality of the data.

Of the 1,000 questionnaires distributed, 202 complete and usable responses were obtained, yielding a response rate of 20.2%.

All constructs in this study were measured using multi-item scales adapted from previously validated research. To ensure contextual relevance, each instrument was tailored for managers in Spanish cultural SMEs by revising item wording to reflect both the cultural context and the managerial perspective. Unless otherwise noted, items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Control variables included managers’ age, gender, and education level, as well as the size of the budget under their responsibility.

Although the literature consistently suggested positive associations between empowerment dimensions and innovative work behavior (IWB; Del Giudice et al., 2017), existing theoretical frameworks did not explicitly assume linear causality. Instead, they left open the possibility of more complex interactions.

Empirical observations supported this perspective. Preliminary scatterplot analyses of the relationships among empowerment dimensions and IWB—as well as among the empowerment dimensions themselves—revealed nonlinear patterns (see Appendix B). Conventional linear regression was insufficient in this context because it assumed additive effects (no interactions), constant marginal returns, and symmetrical relationships.

To address these limitations, this study employed the following methods:

This methodological approach was consistent with both theoretical expectations and empirical observations and provided the analytical tools needed to examine empowerment’s relationship to IWB in cultural SMEs.

Table 2 presents the CFA results. The measurement model demonstrated satisfactory fit, with RMSEA = .058 (< .08), CFI = .970 (> .90), IFI = .970 (> .90), and TLI = .964 (> .90) (Byrne, 2013; Hair et al., 2016; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct ranged from .666 to .812, indicating adequate convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). Cronbach’s alpha values for all measures exceeded .70, demonstrating good internal consistency (De Vaus, 2013; Hair et al., 2010).

Taken together, these results confirmed the reliability and construct validity of the study measures and provided a solid foundation for subsequent fsQCA.

Following data calibration, we conducted NCA to examine whether the presence or absence of any single dimension of empowerment was individually necessary for achieving high or low innovative work behavior (IWB). A condition is considered necessary if it is always present when the outcome occurs, with a consistency score close to 1. The literature typically adopts a benchmark of ≥ .90 for necessity (Greckhamer et al., 2018; Ragin, 2008).

As shown in Table 5, none of the conditions reached this threshold. Thus, no single factor can be considered necessary for the outcome. These results suggest that the interplay of factors, rather than the deterministic effect of any one factor, produces the outcome and that multiple strategies may coexist in generating high or low levels of IWB.

This study advances theory by offering a configurational perspective on how multi-dimensional managerial empowerment translates into innovative work behavior (IWB) in cultural SMEs. It highlights equifinality—the synergistic effects of psychological, social, and digital empowerment—while also revealing the unexpectedly complex role of political empowerment. In doing so, it provides a richer and more context-sensitive theoretical account than prior analyses.

First, the findings challenge linear perspectives on the drivers of IWB by demonstrating the configurational complexity of the empowerment–IWB relationship. Moving beyond studies that examine empowerment dimensions in isolation or assume additive effects, this study employed fsQCA to show that high IWB arises not from single factors but from specific combinations of psychological, social, political, and digital empowerment. The identification of three equifinal pathways underscores that managers can achieve innovativeness through different empowerment profiles, highlighting the inadequacy of single-factor explanations. These results align with and extend configurational theories of management (Pavlov & Micheli, 2023), demonstrating their value for understanding micro-level behavioral outcomes such as IWB.

Second, the study illuminates the complex and potentially paradoxical role of political empowerment. Although political connections theoretically provide legitimacy and decision-making access, the empirical evidence showed that high-IWB configurations consistently excluded high political empowerment. Notably, it was absent in two of the three pathways to high IWB and present in one of the two pathways to low IWB. For managers who prioritize cultural authenticity and distinctive cultural tourism experiences, formal political involvement may act as a constraint. Bureaucratic procedures and slow political processes can hinder the agility required for innovation. This tension is compounded by the sector’s emphasis on cultural preservation, which may conflict with the rapid adaptation necessary for digital or market-driven innovation. Furthermore, overreliance on formal political processes may reduce the operational autonomy essential for innovation. In the cultural SMEs examined here, political empowerment thus appeared limiting, functioning as a boundary condition that constrained the dynamism required for innovation.

Finally, this study contributes to the literature on innovation in cultural SMEs and cultural tourism by focusing on managers of core cultural firms (Throsby, 2008b), which face unique innovation challenges. By linking multi-dimensional empowerment directly to managers’ IWB, the study helps fill a gap in understanding the micro-foundations of innovation capability in this sector. The results deepen theoretical insight into why some cultural managers are more innovative than others, shifting attention from firm-level characteristics to individual-level empowerment configurations.

At the same time, the study’s focus on Spanish core cultural SMEs limits the direct generalizability of its findings due to the geographic and sector-specific context. Cross-cultural comparisons would be valuable for examining generalizability, particularly in countries actively developing sustainable cultural tourism. The interplay between digital adoption and cultural authenticity presents distinctive challenges for cultural SMEs, challenges that may not be replicated in non-cultural sectors. While the core principles of managerial empowerment may apply broadly, their specific manifestations and effects are likely to vary across national economic contexts and policy frameworks.

This study offers significant practical guidance for managers of core cultural SMEs. A key insight is that fostering innovative work behavior (IWB) requires nuanced, context-aware strategies that recognize the complex interplay among different forms of empowerment. High IWB consistently emerged from specific combinations of psychological, social, and digital empowerment, underscoring their synergistic nature. Managerial development programs and support initiatives should therefore address these dimensions holistically.

To strengthen psychological empowerment, cultural SMEs can build managers’ confidence and intrinsic connection to cultural value by organizing peer-to-peer learning circles on heritage interpretation, establishing internal recognition awards, and creating impact showcases where managers demonstrate how their work contributes to the broader mission. Social empowerment can be enhanced by encouraging cross-sectoral partnerships—for example, collaborations with technology firms on digital solutions or with universities on research projects—as well as active participation in European cultural networks and collaborative initiatives. Digital empowerment requires going beyond basic IT literacy to focus on the strategic use of digital tools for market engagement, operational efficiency, and stakeholder communication. Practical measures include establishing dedicated innovation labs to evaluate and pilot emerging technologies and offering targeted, skills-based professional development tailored to managers rather than relying solely on generalized staff training. Addressing deficits in social and digital empowerment is especially critical, as these were linked to low IWB in the findings.

Complementary initiatives from policymakers and support organizations are also vital for creating an enabling ecosystem. One of this study’s most complex insights concerns political empowerment: simply expanding managers’ formal influence within existing structures may not stimulate IWB and may even constrain it. Policymakers should instead prioritize operational autonomy, efficient communication channels, and genuinely inclusive participation mechanisms. Beyond formal governance roles, interventions could establish frameworks for shared decision-making that give managers meaningful input into strategic priorities. Initiatives such as innovation challenges with cross-sectoral collaboration components can further motivate managers to develop novel solutions through competition and shared learning. Regulators and policymakers must therefore reflect carefully on governance design to ensure that it empowers rather than restricts cultural managers.

Finally, broader policy measures can reinforce managerial empowerment and address sectoral vulnerabilities. Facilitating access to financing tailored to the intangible assets and project-based nature of cultural SMEs is critical and could involve creative venture funds or tax incentives for cultural R&D. Policymakers can also strengthen networks and collaboration by creating neutral platforms for knowledge exchange, establishing cross-border digital innovation centers with specialized consulting services, and supporting skills-based training developed in partnership with industry leaders. Crucially, these initiatives should remain flexible enough to accommodate national and regional particularities, enabling managers to feel genuinely empowered to innovate.

This study has several limitations, which also suggest directions for future research. First, the use of cross-sectional data limited our ability to establish causal relationships. Although fsQCA enabled the analysis of causal complexity and the identification of conditions associated with outcomes, it could not capture dynamic processes as they unfold over time. Longitudinal designs are therefore needed to trace how changes in managers’ empowerment profiles shape their IWB trajectories and how these relationships evolve.

Second, the study’s focus on managers of core cultural SMEs in Spain provided targeted insights but restricted generalizability. The findings may not extend to other subsectors of the cultural and creative industries or to firms operating under different national and institutional conditions. Comparative research across industries, firm sizes, and countries would help to test the boundary conditions of the empowerment configurations identified here.

Third, the study concentrated exclusively on managers. While managers are central drivers of innovation, future research should also examine empowerment and IWB among non-managerial employees in cultural SMEs. Investigating how managerial empowerment influences the broader organizational climate for innovation would provide valuable insights for multi-level analysis.

Building on these limitations, several avenues for future inquiry emerge. A mixed-methods approach that combines fsQCA with in-depth qualitative case studies could offer richer explanations of how and why certain configurations produce high or low IWB. Future studies might also develop more sophisticated frameworks for diagnosing optimal empowerment strategies based on organizational context, industry characteristics, and innovation requirements. Finally, longitudinal research could explore the long-term effects of different empowerment configurations and generate tools for monitoring and adjusting initiatives through continuous outcomes assessment.