Determinants of employees' creativity: Modeling the mediating role of organizational motivation to innovate

Yesuf, Yohannes Mekonnen; Getahun, Demis Alamirew; Debas, Asemamaw Tilahun Article Determinants of employees' creativity: Modeling the mediating role of organizational motivation to innovate Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Yesuf, Yohannes Mekonnen; Getahun, Demis Alamirew; Debas, Asemamaw Tilahun (2024) : Determinants of employees' creativity: Modeling the mediating role of organizational motivation to innovate, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ISSN 2192-5372, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, pp. 1-25, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00364-w This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/290332 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Determinants ofemployees’ creativity: modeling themediating role oforganizational motivation toinnovate Yohannes Mekonnen Yesuf1* , Demis Alamirew Getahun2 and Asemamaw Tilahun Debas2 Introduction Organizational success today demands more work due to the uncertain business climate that today’s firms operate in (Siyal etal., 2021). In the current dynamic and intensely competitive world, creativity is a vital source of competitive advantage and long-term success (Hughes et al., 2018). Employee creativity research was in its infancy until recently, with the majority of earlier studies concentrating on organizational innovation. In the new century, employee creativity started to draw more attention (Wang etal., 2022). Employees who are creative at workplace generate ideas that benefit the organization (El-Kassar etal., 2022). Employee creativity may effectively enhance organization development as the key driver of innovation within the organization and because creativity fosters innovation, growth, and competitiveness (Wang etal., 2022), most organizations invest heavily in finding effective ways to encourage employee creativity (Liu etal., 2020). Abstract The study aims to empirically investigate the effects of the work environment and family–work resource spillover on employees’ creativity in agricultural research institutes. Additionally, this research proposes to examine the mediating role of organizational motivation to innovate in the relationships between the work environment and family–work resource spillover on employees’ creativity. Using a sample of 302 researchers from agricultural research institutes in Ethiopia, the hypothesized relationships were tested through the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique. The results reveal significantly positive direct effects of work group support and family–work resource spillover on employees’ creativity. However, the results did not confirm the direct relationships of factors such as sufficient resources, reliable workload pressure, freedom, challenging work, managerial encouragement, and employees’ creativity. The findings of the study contribute to our understanding of work contexts in agricultural research institutes and suggest ways in which administrators can create a conducive working environment to enhance employees’ creativity. Keywords: Creativity, Factors of work environment, Organizational motivation to innovate and family–work resource spillover Open Access © The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. RESEARCH Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00364-w Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship *Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Department of Management, Woldia University, Woldia, Ethiopia 2 Department of Management, School of Management and Public Administration, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia Page 2 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 Research suggests that employees’ creativity are influenced by many determinants including motivation (Liu etal., 2016), creative personal and role identities (Fischer etal., 2019), work contexts (Appu & Sia, 2017), and family–work resource spillover (Tang etal., 2017). Though there has been considerable research on employees’ creativity via psychological, organizational, and work factors in isolation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016), the question remains: how do these determinants work collectively to contribute to employees’ creativity? Despite evidence that these characteristics can all contribute to the creative process, the literature that focuses on these elements often does not take their overall influence into account. Indeed, in their review on creativity and innovation, Anderson etal. (2014) highlighted that the need to further explore employees’ creativity and specifically how these determinants might work in combination towards employees’ creativity. That is, by testing multiple determinants simultaneously. This study applied the modified Amabile (1988) componential theory of creativity and innovation in organizations. Amabile (1988) demonstrated that the theory incorporates individual and organizational factors influencing employees’ creativity at work and organizational innovation. However, Amabile and Pratt (2016) noted a limitation of the componential theory (Amabile, 1988), when implemented in the work context it primarily focuses on internal features within individuals and organizations, neglecting external features outside the organization. Consequently, Amabile and Pratt (2016) introduced external factors to the model. This addition addresses a gap in the creativity literature, as there is limited research investigating factors external to organizations, such as family and friends (Hong etal., 2018; Tang etal., 2017). However, there are several studies that focus on the influence of such as political, economic and technological on creativity and organizational innovation (Serafinelli & Tabellini, 2021). Moreover, a large number of researchers have conducted research studies in exploring the relationship between culture and employees’ creativity (Paletz, 2022; Parveen etal., 2015; Testad etal., 2013). As a result, this study tries to close this gap and investigate the impact of other important external variables that cover elements beyond organizational characteristics that may affect employees’ creativity. It is important to determine whether social elements, such as family–work resource spillover from home to work, which are external variables of the organizational setting, affect employees’ creativity. This study will solve the theoretical gap that presents direct investigation of the impact of family–work resource spillover on workers’ creativity in the setting of developing nations. Furthermore, in terms of the mediating role of organizational motivation to innovate, work motivation is described as the set of internal and external forces that initiate workrelated behavior, and determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration (Fischer etal., 2019; Tan etal., 2019). As a direction for future research, Amabile and Pratt (2016) suggested the improvement and examination of organizational innovation, which includes resources, organizational motivation to innovate and management practices. The authors stated that the motif at the organizational level is the basic orientation of the organization towards creativity. Utilizing a variety of tools and ways to research employees’ creative behavior has also been recommended by reviews of creativity (e.g., Lukes & Stephan, 2017). However, there is also a lack of empirical studies through which the combined influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on employees’ creativity should Page 3 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 be explored (Fischer etal., 2019). This study aims to examine the direct and mediating effects of organizational motivation to innovate for several reasons: First, a broad collection of research demonstrating that, in a variety of contexts, intrinsic motivation generally promotes creative performance (e.g., Bodla & Naeem, 2014; de Jesus etal., 2013; Tan etal., 2019). Only intrinsic task motivation has been the subject of previous studies. In order to enhance creativity and innovation deliberately, extrinsic motivators must also be considered (Fischer etal., 2019). Understanding the impact of organizational drive to innovate as a summed variable on employees’ creativity should be addressed in light of the gaps found from literature evaluations and future research directions. Second, Chen etal. (2021) argued that the frequency and intensity of employee creativity can be influenced by the social working environment. Maybe extrinsic motivation is a factor to boost creativity. For instance, (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012) pointed out that supplying incentives to encourage, motivate and can enhance individual creativity. Finally, creativity also varies greatly in their complexity or level of complication and difficulty, and this variability can affect team processes, reward expectations, and creative outcomes (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012; Malek etal., 2020; Malik & Butt, 2017). Therefore, since Ethiopia is a new context in which agricultural research institute sector adopt several practices of the developed world; creativity studies were rarely empirically examined. This study also examine whether organizational motivation to innovate, extrinsic motivator, influences employees’ creativity directly or indirectly. Theory The dynamic componential model ofcreativity andinnovation inorganizations Creativity is the development of original and practical ideas by an individual or group work by a few individuals (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Liu etal., 2017). Organizational innovation consists of putting such original concepts into practice (Amabile, 1988). Amabile identified three important factors for the development of creativity and innovation (Amabile, 1988). Amabile’s creative and innovative model consists: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills, and intrinsic-task motivation. Creativity is driven by domain-relevant skills such as technical know-how, factual information, and distinctive talent in a certain field. Domain-related knowledge can be creatively produced with the help of creativity-relevant skills. These skills include self-discipline, persistence, social abilities, risk-taking, a variety of experiences, and personal tactics that assist the person in adopting fresh views on a work. The term "intrinsic-task motivation" relates to a person’s initial attitude and perceptions about completing a task. Amabile and Pratt (2016) updated Amabile’s well-known model of creativity and innovation in organizations to include the most recent theoretical advancements on motivational factors and their effects on individual and contextual multi-level approaches. The model includes new study findings on the following topics: the significance of work, work progress, affect, work orientations, external influences, and synergistic extrinsic motivation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). It is frequently suggested that these elements have an impact on innovation and creativity within organizations (Baer, 2012; Davis, 2009; Füzi etal., 2022; Tanjung etal., 2022). Their dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations is a complex, multivariate theory (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Page 4 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 The model is broadly clustered into organizational innovation and individual creativity which are displayed as strongly interdependent (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). In order to create something new, both clusters are described using the same three fundamental multiplicative components: motivation, resources, and processes. Taking acts for satisfaction is one of the three elements of personal creativity (intrinsic motivation), individual skills and knowledge (skills), and thinking abilities and perceptual or cognitive styles (creativity-relevant processes). The three organizational innovativeness components include the openness to take new risks (motivation to innovate), the offering of funds, time, and labor (resources), in addition to relational and transactional incentives (HRM practices). This extensively used model has a solid foundation in the literature and has been used in different circumstances (e.g., Ashford etal., 2018; Fischer etal., 2019). As a result, the study employs this model as our analytical framework. Family‑work enrichment theory andresource spillover An overview of empirical studies on the positive interconnectedness between the family and work roles of an employee, Greenhaus etal. (2006) proposed a process of family– work enrichment. The enrichment process represented “a transfer of positive experiences” from family to work (p. 73). Describing the process from the aspect of resources, Chan etal. (2020) stated that positive experiences first need to develop into the employee’s personal resource, which then spill over across the family–work boundary. Personal resources, as opposed to contextual resources, are resources that are specific to an individual and can therefore cross the line between family and job (Hobfoll, 2002). These resources include physical as well as intangible ones like mental and emotional (Tang etal., 2017). In fact, the available indicators of family–work enrichment mostly capture the transfer of personal resources such as knowledge, happy feelings, and motivation (e.g., Carlson etal., 2019; Chan etal., 2020; Hanson etal., 2006; Lin etal., 2021). Additionally, prior research has shown that family activities, such as taking care of the home and getting enough sleep, enhance employees’ personal resources, such as their capacity for problem-solving and energy, which they bring with them into their work lives (Hobfoll, 2002; Lin etal., 2021). In this study, we cast the spillover of psychological resources as the key predictor of employees’ workplace creativity. Following previous accounts of family–work positive spillover (e.g., Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Hanson etal., 2006; Kapadia & Melwani, 2021), we define family–work resource spillover as the experience of employees with the transfer of psychological resources produced at home to the workplace. Among the transferable resources, psychological resources are the internal resources that give individuals the vigor and zeal to tackle activities (Sonnentag etal., 2020), positive moods (Du etal., 2018) and motivations (Tang etal., 2017). Hypotheses The relationship betweendeterminants ofwork environment andemployees’ creativity Houghton and Dawley (2015) in order to sustain employee creativity and foster organizational innovation, it has been asserted that firms should work to improve the stimulants and remove the barriers. Employees’ creativity is influenced by a number of factors. For example, Suifan etal. (2018) illustrated that work resources can boost creativity. Similarly, (Amabile etal., 1996) stated that human’s creativity may Page 5 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 be psychologically affected by perceptions of the availability of appropriate resources by encouraging attitudes toward the intrinsic worth of the work that has been done. Managerial encouragement is also considered a factor that encourages employees’ creativity. Koseoglu etal. (2017) argued that effective leadership requires managers to be creative, and their creativity can influence their team members’ self-perception and creativity. According to Shalley etal. (2004) leadership must actively encourage, promote, and support creativity in order to make it possible. In terms of work group support, in today’s knowledge-intensive businesses, the majority of projects are carried out by teams of professionals that strive to be both productive and creative when launching new products, services, procedures, or ways of doing business (Amabile etal., 2004). Managers must therefore take into account how employees’ peers affect their creativity (Li etal., 2020). McLean (2005) emphasized that people who stand out as being very creative are frequently deserving of independence and autonomy. Additionally, Al Harbi etal. (2019) illustrated, the development of an organizational environment might be a better approach for encouraging individuals’ creativity where followers might have to expend a great deal of time and effort to develop their intellectual capacity, knowledge, and creative thinking skills. Relating to innovation management capabilities, in order for followers to attain the organization’s common vision and goals, leaders are said to act as an idealized role model, inspire innovative work behavior, offer inspirational motivation, and support and mentor followers (Bednall etal., 2018; Suifan etal., 2018). It has also been noted that in order to motivate people to engage in innovative work behavior, the organizational climate must incorporate specific traits such team cohesiveness, supervisor support, and autonomy (Sönmez & Yıldırım, 2019). Individualized care and support for followers’ needs and requirements on the part of leaders may have a greater impact on followers’ participation in creative endeavors. These leaders continually challenge and question followers’ beliefs and presumptions, which stimulates followers’ intellectual thinking and ultimately motivates followers to participate in the creation and application of ideas. These leaders are skilled at connecting the organizational vision to personal objectives, inspiring followers and boosting motivation (Bednall etal., 2018). It is, therefore, anticipated that leaders in innovation management would be able to motivate employees by linking their future to the direction of the organization and to encourage them to engage in employee creative behaviors by building a strong sense of shared vision and belonging with the organization (Afsar & Umrani, 2020). In terms of organizational motivation to innovate, this includes both organizational encouragement and lack of organizational impediments. Amabile and Pratt (2016) provided several examples of organizational encouragement of creativity: (1) clear organizational goals, (2) value placed on innovation, and (3) support for reasoned risk-taking & exploration. The key function of a vision is the “clarity of and commitment to objectives” (West & Anderson, 1996, p. 682). To unite the team, focus their efforts, and inspire them to continue their creative pursuits, a clear and motivating vision should be created and shared with them (Gordon etal., 2017). Creativity and team innovation also benefit greatly from shared purpose and accountability as well as dedication to team goals and organizational objectives (Tang, 2019). Page 6 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 The creative process can be risky in many ways, including motivational, emotional, cognitive, and economic risks. It is uncertain and uncomfortable activity. To develop something new, one must leave their comfort zone, go against the trend, break with social conventions, and be prepared to fail (Tang, 2019). Others who feel comfortable, trustworthy, and supported by those around them are more likely to take risks. Team members that feel strongly connected to one another and like they belong on the team are more inclined to work together, communicate, and share ideas in organizational settings (Hülsheger etal., 2009). Therefore, it’s critical for team members to establish an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust (Lam etal., 2021) and to create a welcoming and cooperative work environment where team members may interact, encourage one another, and work together to solve problems (Tiwana & McLean, 2005). Therefore, it is anticipated that factors determinants of work context will help to foster employees’ creativity. Hypothesis 1: Determinants of work environment: (a) sufficient resources, (b) realistic workload pressure (c) freedom (d) challenging work (e) work group support (f) managerial encouragement (g) organizational encouragement and (h) lack of organizational impediments are positively related to employees’ creativity. The relationship betweenfamily–work resource spillover andemployees’ creativity Hennessey (2018) clarified that some creativity studies have shown that external factors influence employees’ creativity. However, literature was limited regarding the influence of external factors on creativity (e.g., Chua etal., 2015; Horng & Lee, 2009; Kwan etal., 2018; Li etal., 2018; Tang etal., 2017). According to earlier research, family activities like taking care of the house and getting enough sleep help employees develop their personal resources, such as their energy and problem-solving skills, which they bring with them into their work lives (Tang etal., 2017; Zhu etal., 2018). Employees who have happy home lives are likely to develop significant psychological resources. Resource spillover between family and work is driven and motivated by the accumulation of psychological resources (Akhtar etal., 2015; Greene, 2006; Kapadia & Melwani, 2021; Lin etal., 2021). Positive psychological moods produced in family life can be transferred into work life, which can lead to the spillover of psychological resources. For example, having a high level of energy at home might boost work activities (Mauno & Ruokolainen, 2017). Positive emotional states at home might transfer to the workplace. And, the level of motivation for work can be determined at home and influenced at work (Peña-Sarrionandia et al., 2015). Therefore, it is anticipated that social factors such as family–work resource spillover and employees’ creativity will be positively correlated. Hypothesis 2: family–work resource spillover is positively related to employees’ creativity. The relationship betweendeterminants ofwork environment, creativity andorganizational motivation toinnovate Regarding sufficient resources, Mumford etal. (2017) stated that employees must manage their time and energy more effectively when they engage in creativity-related tasks because coming up with new ideas is a time-consuming and hard task. When there are Page 7 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 sufficient resources, employees do not need to expend their time and effort looking for or asking for more resources from their organization. Instead, they may focus solely on the task at hand, think deeply, and put forth creative ideas without stressing over external constraints because they lack critical resources (Caniëls & Stobbeleir, 2014). Adequate resources are necessary for developing an employee’s creative potential because the development of new ideas is a labor- and resource-intensive task (Zhang etal., 2018). When it comes to realistic workload pressure, Yoo etal. (2019) argue that top management should be encouraged to foster creativity as part of the organizational motivation to innovation (Amabile, 1997), must reduce workload pressure on creative employees. Further, Tang etal. (2020) discovered that the association between employees’ creativity and daily time constraint was partially mediated by challenge appraisal. Related to this, Shao etal. (2019) noticed that employee integrative complexity and workload pressure interact to affect employee creativity in such a way that paradoxical leader behavior has the strongest positive relationship with creativity when workload pressure and integrative complexity are both high. Several researches revealed that the relationship between employee freedom and creativity was mediated by different dimensions of organizational motivation to innovate. For instance, Siregar etal. (2021) determined that the association between job autonomy and innovative work behavior, such as idea generation, was mediated by participation in the workplace. Li etal. (2018) demonstrated that job autonomy initiates the motivational-cognitive processes associated with creativity, and support for supervisory autonomy enhances this relationship by virtue of the sequential mediation effects of intrinsic motivation and cognitive flexibility. Individuals should feel free from threat and work in supportive contexts in order to foster their creative cognitions (Wong etal., 2018). Chae etal. (2015) also argued that decision-making involvement can in fact help people become more creative. Employees’ intrinsic motivation and creative output at work are thought to be significantly influenced by the design of their jobs for a long time (Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). In particular, complex, demanding tasks (i.e., those distinguished by high degrees of autonomy, skill variation, identity, significance, and feedback) are anticipated to support and encourage greater levels of motivation and creativity than are relatively basic & routine activities (Lee, 2018; Liang etal., 2021). Chae and Choi (2018) showed that creative workers look for work challenges; as a result, organizations should give them a productive environment to work in. Chae etal. (2015) conducted a study with the finding that teammate interaction mediated the relationship between job difficulty and employees’ creativity. Regarding work group support, Kim (2019) expressed that employees’ creativity may be significantly and positively influenced by their relationships with others at workplace. There is evidence that such an effect exists because team collaboration will result in the generation of more task-related information than the average team member would possess (e.g., Carmeli etal., 2015). Furthermore, when several ideas come together or when creative content from one field prompts or requires original thought in another, there may be synergistic effects (Zhu etal., 2018). These cooperative structural preconditions imply that creativity is the result of a social system of actors that enhance one another’s creativity as well as the effort of individuals (Shalley etal., 2004). For instance, Carmeli Page 8 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 etal. (2015) discovered a significant association between relational information processing and employee creative behaviors, an active degree of interpersonal conduct that actively seeks out colleagues’ inputs and reacts to employees’ work. When it comes to managerial encouragement, Shalley and Gilson (2004) revealed that managers may affect their workers’ work surroundings to affect the level of creativity at work. Carmeli etal. (2015) claimed that relationships with coworkers could have a considerable, favorable impact on creativity and organizational innovation. Binyamin and Carmeli (2017) study indicated that employee satisfaction, which is defined as ‘a feeling that one is learning and growing personally or professionally at work’. Furthermore, Henker etal. (2015) in their study, it was found the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity was mediated by promotion focus, it relates to the motivation to achieve desired end goals. As a result, it is predicted that organizational motivation to innovate mediates the association between determinants of working environment and employees’ creativity. Hypothesis 3: Organizational motivation to innovate mediates the relationship between determinants of work environment: (a) sufficient resources (b) realistic workload pressure (c) freedom (d) challenging work (e) work group support (f) managerial encouragement and employees’ creativity. The relationship betweenfamily–work resource spillover, creativity andorganizational motivation toinnovate Researchers have focused a lot on how social ties and other relationships affect people have access to resources (Perry-Smith, 2006) in creativity an example would be the development of original and useful ideas (Anderson etal., 2014; Li etal., 2018). This social-ties approach on creativity has mostly adopted an informational stance. For instance, weak relationships have been argued (i.e. low emotional connection, infrequent interactions, and short-lived relationships) allowing access to specific social groups and so that to different information, while close relationships (i.e. relationships with a high degree of emotional closeness, frequency of interaction, and duration) enable access to similar individuals and, thus, similar information (Perry-Smith, 2003). The accessibility of diverse information therefore promotes creativity through unique connections and cognitive recombination (Perry-Smith, 2006; Rodan & Galunic, 2004; Sosa, 2011). It is important that work family researchers start relating their studies to strategically aimed constructs that are of interest to organizational stakeholders (Kossek etal., 2018). Essentially, organizational stakeholders will be more willing to support work family solutions if researchers can show that these "family-focused" activities relate to and encourage characteristics that generate organizational effectiveness and success (Chua etal., 2015; Kossek etal., 2018; Xu etal., 2018), organizations can benefit from familysupportive research in terms of both employee well-being and organizational outcomes (Bagger & Li, 2014). Findings from a recent study that are consistent with this objective (Tang etal., 2017) imply that, under some circumstances, family factors (such as marital satisfaction) can enhance creativity at work through positive spillover. Further, another study Rofcanin et al. (2017) offers positive preliminary support for the association between family supportive influence and job performance. Therefore, it is expected that organizational motivation to innovate mediates the relationship between social factors Page 15 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 In terms of the mediating effects, the result showed no indirect effects of managerial encouragement, via organizational motivation to innovate on creativity (β = − 0.008, t = 0.3.06, p = 0.759). Thus, H1f was not supported. Moreover, (H2) family–work resource spillover has significant and positive effects on employees’ creativity (β = 05.21, t = 7.654, p = 0.000), and the indirect effects of organizational motivation to innovate on creativity between family–work resource spillover and employees’ creativity were significant with (β = 0.349, t = 8.131, p = 0.000) which shows partial mediation in the model. Thus, H2 were supported. Robustness test ofmodel specification Creating methods to assess the robustness of the structural model results is a crucial task. This includes examining nonlinear effects and endogeneity, which are considered essential in PLS-SEM analyses (Hair etal., 2016). Sarstedt etal. (2020) have suggested a method for discovering and treating nonlinear effects and endogeneity that relies on an assortment of latent class processes after reviewing the existing methodologies. The PLS-SEM bootstrap The findings reveal that all factors have a quadratic effect and the Gaussian copula p values are > 0.05. Thus, nonlinear effects and endogeneity test results have strengthened the robustness of the methodology (detailed in Additional file3). Discussion andconclusions The primary objectives of this study were to examine: (a) the direct influence of the work environment and family–work resource spillover on employees’ creativity, and (b) the mediating effect of organizational motivation to innovate in the relationship between the work environment, family–work resource spillover, and employees’ creativity within agricultural research institutes. The hypothesized relationships were tested using the PLS-SEM technique. To assess the mediating effects of organizational motivation to innovate, direct relationships between determinants of the work environment and employees’ creativity were examined. The statistical analysis of this study revealed a direct relationship between organizational motivation to innovate and employees’ creativity. As organizational motivation to innovate acts as the mediator, the direct relationship between organizational motivation to innovate and employees’ creativity led to full, partial, or no mediation effects. According to Fischer etal. (2019) organizations should make an effort to improve the working environment and remove the barriers to maintain employee creativity and foster organizational innovation. Moreover, ElMelegy etal. (2016) stated that leaders should do is create an environment that encourages creativity by removing organizational barriers and putting in place well-organized systems for recognizing and rewarding creative behavior. As a result, the outcome was consistent with prior studies showed positive relationships between employees’ creativity and dimensions of organizational motivation to innovate, for instance reward (e.g., Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001; Eisenberger etal., 2020; Fischer etal., 2019; Yoon etal., 2015), inceptives (e.g., Malik & Butt, 2017; Malik etal., 2019). The statistical analysis of this study showed a non-significant direct relationship between sufficient resources and employees’ creativity. Interestingly, these results contradict findings of Dul and Ceylan (2011), Rasulzada and Dackert (2009) and Sonenshein Page 16 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 (2014) a positive relationship between both variables. However, findings of this research validate no-significant relationship (Mueller & Kamdar, 2011; Ramos etal., 2018; Yeh & Huan, 2017). The findings addressing mediating effects, which demonstrated positive indirect impacts of sufficient resources through organizational motivation to innovate on employee creativity, support the prior argument that sufficient resources alone are insufficient for creativity. In a similar vein, access to resources and entrepreneurial creativity did not seem to be directly associated instead, having an access to resources is just a subdued way to encourage creativity at workplace (Zhou etal., 2008). The findings of this study make it clear that sufficient resources by itself do not foster employee creativity. The availability of organizational motivation to innovate, however, contributes to indirectly improve creativity. The study found that a non-significant direct relationship between realistic work load pressure and employees’ creativity. Moreover, the result of mediating effects showed no indirect effects of realistic work load pressure via organizational motivation to innovate on employee creativity. Thus, H1b hypothesis was not supported. In the literature, various types of work pressure have been examined in relation to employees’ creativity: workload pressure (e.g., ElMelegy etal., 2016; Mumford etal., 2013), time pressure (e.g., Baer & Oldham, 2006), and with both workload and time pressure (Shao etal., 2019). High workload pressure will force employees’ to use simple and ineffective methods that are less creative. As a result of the lack of time for creativity, excessive workload pressure has a detrimental effect (Mumford etal., 2010). On the other hand, Aleksić etal. (2017) has been discovered that there is a positive, negative, or no relationship between creativity and time pressure. There are a few research indicates that when the work’s domain shifts, for instance in high-pressure jobs requiring high creativity, concentrating on important activities enhances employee creativity. Thus, the domain’s nature could be used to explain the present study’s inconsistent results. This may require further investigation. Results of the study demonstrate that direct relationship between freedom and employees’ creativity is a non-significant. These results are consistent with the findings of recent research conducted by (e.g., Naranjo‐Valencia etal., 2011; Zhang etal., 2020). However, these results contradict findings of Wheatley (2011). Moreover, the result of mediating effects showed an indirect effect of freedom via organizational motivation to innovate on employees’ creativity. Several researches revealed that the relationship between employee freedom and creativity was mediated by different dimensions of organizational motivation to innovate. For instance, Siregar etal. (2021) determined that the association between job autonomy and innovative work behavior, such as idea generation, was mediated by participation in the workplace. Li etal. (2018) demonstrated that job autonomy initiates the motivational-cognitive processes associated with creativity, and support for supervisory autonomy enhances this relationship by virtue of the sequential mediation effects of intrinsic motivation and cognitive flexibility. Individuals should feel free from threat and work in supportive contexts in order to foster their creative cognitions (Wong etal., 2018). Chae etal. (2015) also argued that decision-making involvement can in fact help people become more creative. The present study found that a non-significant direct relationship between challenging work and employees’ creativity. On the other hand, the result of mediating effects Page 17 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 showed positive indirect effects of challenging work through organizational motivation to innovate on employee creativity. Thus, H1d hypothesis was supported. Several empirical researches have looked at how challenging work affects employees’ creativity, but the results were inconsistent and inconclusive. For example, while some studies have found a positive relationship between challenging work and employees’ creativity (e.g., Carmeli etal., 2007; Ramos etal., 2018; Zhang etal., 2015), others indicated that challenging work was not associated with employee creativity directly (e.g., Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009; Zhou etal., 2012). The full mediation effects of organizational motivation to innovate on the relationship between challenging work and employees’ creativity, as the findings of the present study, which support the case for assessing the context in which challenging work within the institutes exists. Employees’ intrinsic motivation and creative output at work are thought to be significantly influenced by the design of their jobs for a long time (Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). In particular, complex, demanding tasks (i.e., those distinguished by high degrees of autonomy, skill variation, identity, significance, and feedback) are anticipated to support and encourage greater levels of motivation and creativity than are relatively basic & routine activities (Lee, 2018; Liang etal., 2021). Chae and Choi (2018) showed that creative workers look for work challenges; as a result, organizations should give them a productive environment to work in. The statistical analysis of the study showed a significant direct relationship between work group support and employees’ creativity. In addition, the results indicate that organizational motivation to innovate has a partial mediating effect between the relationships of work group support and employees’ creativity. Empirical studies showed direct positive relationship outcomes (e.g., Farmer & Kung-mcintyre, 2003; Foss etal., 2013; Kremer etal., 2019; Lin & Liu, 2012; Ramos etal., 2018; Tierney & Farmer, 2011) in alignment with findings reported in this study and some showed non-significant associations between work group support and employee creativity (e.g., Foss etal., 2013; Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009). The findings of the partial mediating effect, which demonstrated a positive indirect effect of work group support via organizational motivation to innovate on employees’ creativity, support the argument of some researchers for instance, Carmeli etal. (2015) discovered a significant association between relational information processing and employee creative behaviors, an active degree of interpersonal conduct that actively seeks out colleagues’ inputs and reacts to employees’ work. In conclusion this study finding highlights the need for additional research to examine the conditions in which work group support might foster employees’ creativity, particularly in diverse contexts and by assessing diverse constructs. The present study found that a non-significant direct relationship between managerial encouragement and employees’ creativity. Moreover, the result of mediating effects showed no indirect effects of managerial encouragement via organizational motivation to innovate on employee creativity. The empirical evidence regarding the relationship between the two variables is mixed. For instance, managerial encouragement has drawn significant research attention as a critical element that could positively influence employees’ creativity in contemporary creativity literature (e.g., Chang & Teng, 2017; Chen & Hou, 2016; Khalili, 2016; Kim & Yoon, 2015; Kremer etal., 2019). According to other studies, managers do not significantly impact their employees’ creativity (e.g., Binnewies etal., 2008; Foss etal., 2013). These Page 18 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 inconsistent findings highlight the need for additional study to clarify the nature of this relationship between managerial encouragement and employees’ creativity and offer conclusive evidence. The statistical analysis of this study showed a significant direct relationship between family–work resource spillover and employees’ creativity. The result of mediating effects showed positive indirect effects of family–work resource spillover via organizational motivation to innovate on employees’ creativity. Examining the impact of family–work resource spillover as an external variable on employees’ creativity supports Tang etal. (2017) argument, the psychological resources that an employee brings to work can enhance their creativity. An individual’s momentary thinking and thought-action repertoire are expanded by psychological resources, allowing them to recognize a wide range of alternatives (Fredrickson, 2001). Therefore, the findings provide evidence of family– work resource spillover on the relationship between, not only individual or/ and organizational factors, but also external factors such as family–work resource spillover and employees’ creativity is characterized by the EIAR. In conclusion, the results revealed that family–work resource spillover is an important source of psychological resources that facilitate employees’ creativity at work. According to Amabile and Pratt (2016) suggestion, variables outside of the organizations may have an impact on employees’ creativity, the current study examined the direct and indirect relationship between family–work resource spillover and employees’ creativity. Although no research have yet looked at the association between family–work resource spillover and employees’ creativity, other relevant evidence can help in explaining this finding. Theoretical contributions The study enhances the dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation within organizations by examining the influence of a novel external variable, namely family–work resource spillover, on employees’ creativity. While existing research extensively explores the impact of determinants such as political, economic, and technological factors on creativity and organizational innovation, and numerous studies delve into the relationship between culture and employees’ creativity, there remains a gap in understanding how other significant external variables, beyond organizational characteristics, may influence creative outcomes. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the impact of crucial external variables that extend beyond typical organizational parameters. Specifically, it explores whether social elements, such as family–work resource spillover from home to work, as external variables in the organizational setting, have a discernible effect on employees’ creativity. By examining these dynamics, we contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the factors shaping creative processes within the organizational context. Moreover, the study expands on the examination of both the direct and indirect effects of organizational motivation to innovate, treated as a summated variable. Concerning the mediating role of organizational motivation to innovate, work motivation is defined as the amalgamation of internal and external forces that instigate work-related behaviors. Page 19 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 Practical contributions The empirical results from the PLS-SEM analysis have significant practical and managerial implications for organizations based on how work environment and family–work resource spillover impacts the development of employees’ creativity. First, regarding the relationship between various factors and employees’ creativity, the existing literature has provided inconsistent outcomes. The findings of the present study are relevant because they offer additional evidence of the nature of the relationship in the EIAR context. Second, when considering employees’ creativity, managers must take the required changes into account. Individual preferences, fundamental concerns, and problem-solving approaches can change over time, demanding improvements to ensure the right fit between individuals’ creative potential and their work environment. Limitations andfuture research directions In addition to its contribution to the literature, the present study includes some limitations that expand future research directions. First, because we only collected data through self-reporting in our study, we were unable to get an "outside" or "independent" viewpoint on the opinions of the participants. Participants may describe themselves differently for a variety of conscious and unconscious reasons, making self-reported data susceptible to inaccuracies (Roth etal., 2022). Second, in the current study, the idea of creativity as a single construct relating to idea generation was covered (Amabile etal., 1996, p. 1), while some studies have analyzed and compared various forms of creativity and their affecting elements, such as radical and incremental creativity (Madjar etal., 2011). Thus, there is a need for future studies that examine such types of creativity and their influencing factors. Third, the current study focused only on the individual level Amabile (1997) stated that the model can be applied to individuals and small teams. According to Nijstad and De Dreu (2002) understanding what impedes or encourages creativity and group innovation is crucial since groups are important organizational building blocks in the workplace. It is therefore necessary to analyze the same model using a different unit of analysis, such as a team, in order to better understand the variables that affect group creativity. Finally, the current study contributed to the literature by investigating the impact of family–work resource spillover as an external factor to organizations. However, there remains a need to examine other external factors, such as government rules and regulations, customers, public opinion and globalization. Abbreviations AVE Average variance extracted CA Cronbach’s alpha CR Composite reliability ChallW Challenging Work FaWoSpi Family–work resource spillover ManagEnc Managerial encouragement OrgMoIn Organizational motivation to innovate PLS-SEM Partial list square structural equation modeling RealWLP Realistic work load pressure SuffiR Sufficient resources UoG University of Gondar Page 20 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 WorkGSu Work group supports Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13731- 024- 00364-w. Additional file1. Survey questions. Additional file2. Measurement model. Additional file3. Quadratic effect & Gaussian copula results. Acknowledgements We’d like to express our appreciation to everyone who took part in this survey. We are grateful to Professor Susan Cozzen and Dr. Caleb Akinrinade for providing comments on a prior version of the article, which was submitted as a manuscript. Study Location The study was carried out in Ethiopia; the data were collected from researchers working in the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR). Author contributions YMY was responsible for the theoretical background, research design, survey implementation, data evaluation, and discussion. The first draught of the manuscript was written by YMY. DAG and ATD performed the critical assessment and manuscript edits. The submitted version was read and approved by all writers. DAG and ATD have given their formal permission for the manuscript to be submitted in this format. YMY has taken on the role of informing DAG and ATD on the progress of the editorial review process, the content of reviews, and any revisions made. Funding The UoG funded the study under the postgraduate student research grant. Availability of data and materials Datasets for the study are available, and the same can be obtained from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Received: 10 August 2023 Accepted: 8 January 2024 References Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. (2020). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: the role of motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), 402–428. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EJIM- 12- 2018- 0257 Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage. Akhtar, R., Boustani, L., Tsivrikos, D., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015). The engageable personality: personality and trait EI as predictors of work engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 44–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2014. 08. 040 Al Harbi, J. A., Alarifi, S., & Mosbah, A. (2019). Transformation leadership and creativity: Effects of employees pyschological empowerment and intrinsic motivation. Personnel Review, 48(5), 1082–1099. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ PR- 11- 2017- 0354 Aleksić, D., Mihelič, K. K., Černe, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2017). Interactive effects of perceived time pressure, satisfaction with work-family balance (SWFB), and leader-member exchange (LMX) on creativity. Personnel Review., 46(3), 662–679. Ali, I., Ali, M., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., & Albort-Morant, G. (2019). The role of knowledge spillovers and cultural intelligence in enhancing expatriate employees’ individual and team creativity. Journal of Business Research, 101(June), 561–573. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2018. 11. 012 Amabile, T. (1988). Amabile_A_Model_of_CreativityOrg.Beh_v10_pp123–167.pdf. Research in Organizational Behavior., 10, 123–167. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Management. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 256995 Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. riob. 2016. 10. 001 Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2003. 12. 003 Page 21 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. Appu, A. V., & Sia, S. K. (2017). Creativity at workplace: Role of self-efficacy and harmonious passion. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 17(3–4), 205–219. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJHRDM. 2017. 087112 Ashford, S. J., Caza, B. B., & Reid, E. M. (2018). From surviving to thriving in the gig economy: a research agenda for individuals in the new world of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38(December), 23–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. riob. 2018. 11. 001 Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work : the implementation of creative ideas in organizations Author (s ): MARKUS BAER Source : The Academy of Management Journal , Vol . 55 , No . 5 (October 2012 ), pp . 1102–1119 Published by : Academy of Management Stable URL : The Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119. Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963. Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2014). How does supervisory family support influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors? A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1123–1150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06311 413922 Bednall, T. C., Rafferty, E. A., Shipton, H., Sanders, K., & Jackson, J. C. (2018). Innovative behaviour: how much transformational leadership do you need? British Journal of Management, 29(4), 796–816. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1467- 8551. 12275 Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Niessen, C. (2008). Age and creativity at work: the interplay between job resources, age and idea creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology., 23, 438–457. Binyamin, G., & Carmeli, A. (2017). Fostering members’ creativity in teams: The role of structuring of human resource management processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 18–33. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ aca00 00088 Bodla, M. A., & Naeem, B. (2014). Creativity as mediator for intrinsic motivation and sales performance. Creativity Research Journal, 26(4), 468–473. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10400 419. 2014. 961783 Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 809–830. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0027 652 Caniëls, M. C. J., & Stobbeleir, K. D. (2014). The antecedents of creativity revisited: a process perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management., 23, 96–110. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ caim. 12051 Carlson, D. S., Thompson, M. J., Crawford, W. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2019). Spillover and crossover of work resources: a test of the positive flow of resources through work–family enrichment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 709–722. Carmeli, A., Cohen-Meitar, R., & Elizur, D. (2007). The role of job challenge and organizational identification in enhancing creative behavior among employees in the workplace. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(2), 75–90. Carmeli, A., Dutton, J. E., & Hardin, A. E. (2015). Respect as an engine for new ideas: linking respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among employees and teams. Human Relations, 68(6), 1021–1047. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26714 550256 Chae, H., & Choi, J. N. (2018). Contextualizing the effects of job complexity on creativity and task performance: extending job design theory with social and contextual contingencies. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 316–339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12204 Chae, S., Seo, Y., & Lee, K. C. (2015). Effects of task complexity on individual creativity through knowledge interaction: a comparison of temporary and permanent teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 138–148. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2013. 10. 015 Chan, X. W., Kalliath, P., Chan, C., & Kalliath, T. (2020). How does family support facilitate job satisfaction? Investigating the chain mediating effects of work–family enrichment and job-related well-being. Stress and Health, 36(1), 97–104. Chang, J. H., & Teng, C. C. (2017). Intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for hospitality employees’ creativity: The moderating role of organization-level regulatory focus. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 60, 133–141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhm. 2016. 10. 003 Chen, A. S. Y., & Hou, Y. H. (2016). The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation examination. Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 1–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2015. 10. 007 Chen, Y., Liu, D., Tang, G., & Hogan, T. M. (2021). Workplace events and employee creativity: A multistudy field investigation. Personnel Psychology, 74(2), 211–236. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ peps. 12399 Chua, R. Y. J., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J. F. (2015). The impact of culture on creativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 189–227. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00018 39214 563595 Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 25–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. obhdp. 2008. 04. 001 de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., & Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: A metaanalysis of the studies published between 1990–2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80–84. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10400 419. 2013. 752235 Du, D., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2018). Daily spillover from family to work: A test of the work–home resources model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 237. Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2011). Work environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics, 54(1), 12–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00140 139. 2010. 542833 Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 81(4), 728–741. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037// 0022- 3514. 81.4. 728 Eisenberger, R., Rhoades Shanock, L., & Wen, X. (2020). Perceived organizational support: why caring about employees counts. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 101–124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evorgps ych- 012119- 044917 Page 22 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 El-Kassar, A. N., Dagher, G. K., Lythreatis, S., & Azakir, M. (2022). Antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding: The roles of HR practices, organizational support for creativity, creativity, innovative work behavior, and task performance. Journal of Business Research, 140(February), 1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2021. 11. 079 ElMelegy, A. R., Mohiuddin, Q., Boronico, J., & Maasher, A. A. (2016). Fostering creativity in creative environments: An empirical study of saudi architectural firms. Contemporary Management Research, 12(1), 89–120. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7903/ cmr. 14431 Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press. Farmer, S. M., & Kung-mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: an application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Stable., 46(5), 618–630. Fischer, C., Malycha, C. P., & Schafmann, E. (2019). The influence of intrinsic motivation and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(FEB), 1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 00137 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 31513 12 Foss, L., Woll, K., & Moilanen, M. (2013). Creativity and implementations of new ideas: do organisational structure, work environment and gender matter? International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 298–322. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJGE- 09- 2012- 0049 Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218. Füzi, A., Clifton, N., & Loudon, G. (2022). New in-house organizational spaces that support creativity and innovation: the coworking space. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A Practical Guide To Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph: Tutorial And Annotated Example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 91–109. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17705/ 1cais. 01605 Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism and group creativity 1 forthcoming in. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109. Gordon, E., Haas, J., & Michelson, B. (2017). Civic creativity: Role-playing games in deliberative process. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3789–3807. Greene, J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93–98. Greenhaus, J. H., Powell, G. N., Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies : a theory of workfamily enrichment published by: academy of management Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : When work and family are allies : a theory of work-family enrichment. The Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: an ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 111. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Pearson. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I – method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EBR- 09- 2015- 0094 Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer Nature. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2753/ MTP10 69- 66791 90202 Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. SaGe publications. Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 249. Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: the mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 235–247. Hennessey, B. A. (2018). The Creativity-Motivation Connection. 342–365. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems., 116(1), 2–20. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324. Hong, J., Hou, B., Zhu, K., & Marinova, D. (2018). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and employee creativity: The moderation of collectivism in Chinese context. Chinese Management Studies, 12(2), 268–286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ CMS- 11- 2016- 0228 Horng, J. S., & Lee, Y. C. (2009). What environmental factors influence creative culinary studies? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(1), 100–117. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 09596 11091 09302 14 Houghton, J. D., & Dawley, D. (2015). Narrowing the creativity gap: The moderating effects of narrowing the creativity gap : the moderating effects of perceived support for creativity. The Journal of Psychology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00223 980. 2010. 548412 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. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive metaanalysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0015 978 Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining sample size. Kapadia, C., & Melwani, S. (2021). More tasks, more ideas: the positive spillover effects of multitasking on subsequent creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(4), 542. Page 23 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 Khalid, K., Abdullah, H. H., Kumar, M., & D. (2012). Get along with quantitative research process. International Journal of Research in Management., 2(2), 15–29. Khalili, A. (2016). Linking transformational leadership, creativity, innovation, and innovation-supportive climate. Management Decision, 54(9), 2277–2293. Kim, S. L. (2019). The interaction effects of proactive personality and empowering leadership and close monitoring behaviour on creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(2), 230–239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ caim. 12304 Kim, S., & Yoon, G. (2015). An innovation-driven culture in local government: do senior manager’s transformational leadership and the climate for creativity matter? Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 147–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00910 26014 568896 Koseoglu, G., Liu, Y., & Shalley, C. E. (2017). Working with creative leaders: Exploring the relationship between supervisors’ and subordinates’ creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 28(6), 798–811. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2017. 03. 002 Kossek, E. E., Petty, R. J., Bodner, T. E., Perrigino, M. B., Hammer, L. B., Yragui, N. L., & Michel, J. S. (2018). Lasting impression: transformational leadership and family supportive supervision as resources for well-being and performance. Occupational Health Science, 2(1), 1–24. Kremer, H., Villamor, I., & Aguinis, H. (2019). Innovation leadership: best-practice recommendations for promoting employee creativity, voice, and knowledge sharing. Business Horizons, 62(1), 65–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bushor. 2018. 08. 010 Kwan, L. Y. Y., Leung, A. K., & Liou, S. (2018). Culture, creativity, and innovation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(2), 165–170. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00220 22117 753306 Lam, L., Nguyen, P., Le, N., & Tran, K. (2021). The relation among organizational culture, knowledge management, and innovation capability: its implication for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 66. Lee, J. Y. (2018). The effects of job characteristics on the team creativity of distribution companies: moderating effects of transformational leadership. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5(4), 161–172. Li, W., Bhutto, T. A., Xuhui, W., Maitlo, Q., Zafar, A. U., & Ahmed Bhutto, N. (2020). Unlocking employees’ green creativity: the effects of green transformational leadership, green intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2020. 120229 Li, J., Xia, J., & Zajac, E. J. (2018). On the duality of political and economic stakeholder influence on firm innovation performance: theory and evidence from Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 193–216. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2697 Liang, B., van Knippenberg, D., & Gu, Q. (2021). A cross-level model of shared leadership, meaning, and individual creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(1), 68–83. Lin, S.-H.J., Chang, C.-H.D., Lee, H. W., & Johnson, R. E. (2021). Positive family events facilitate effective leader behaviors at work: a within-individual investigation of family-work enrichment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(9), 1412. Lin, C. Y. Y., & Liu, F. C. (2012). A cross-level analysis of organizational creativity climate and perceived innovation: the mediating effect of work motivation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1), 55–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14601 06121 11928 34 Liu, H. Y., Chang, C. C., Wang, I. T., & Chao, S. Y. (2020). The association between creativity, creative components of personality, and innovation among Taiwanese nursing students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35(January), 100629. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tsc. 2020. 100629 Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Huang, J.-C. (2017). Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: the moderating role of firm ownership Georgia Institute of Technology The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Jia-Chi Huang. Academy of Management Journsl, 60(3), 1164–1188. Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: a meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236–263. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. obhdp. 2016. 08. 001 Lukes, M., & Stephan, U. (2017). Measuring employee innovation: a review of existing scales and the development of the innovative behavior and innovation support inventories across cultures. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 23(1), 136–158. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJEBR- 11- 2015- 0262 Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730–743. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0022 416 Malek, S. L., Sarin, S., & Haon, C. (2020). Extrinsic rewards, intrinsic motivation, and new product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(6), 528–551. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jpim. 12554 Malik, M. A. R., & Butt, A. N. (2017). Rewards and creativity: past, present, and future. Applied Psychology, 66(2), 290–325. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ apps. 12080 Malik, M. A. R., Choi, J. N., & Butt, A. N. (2019). Distinct effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards on radical and incremental creativity: the moderating role of goal orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9–10), 1013–1026. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2403 Manley, S. C., Hair, J. F., Williams, R. I., & McDowell, W. C. (2021). Essential new PLS-SEM analysis methods for your entrepreneurship analytical toolbox. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(4), 1805–1825. Mauno, S., & Ruokolainen, M. (2017). Does organizational work-family support benefit temporary and permanent employees equally in a work-family conflict situation in relation to job satisfaction and emotional energy at work and at home? Journal of Family Issues, 38(1), 124–148. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925 13X15 600729 McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in developing human resources, 7(2), 226–246. Mueller, J. S., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Why seeking help from teammates is a blessing and a curse: A theory of help seeking and individual creativity in team contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 263–276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0021 574 Mumford, M. D., Giorgini, V., Gibson, C., & Mecca, J. (2013). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies and knowledge. Edward Elgar Publishing. Page 24 of 25 Yesufetal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2024) 13:8 Mumford, M. D., Steele, L. M., Mulhearn, T. J., McIntosh, T., & Watts, L. L. (2017). Leader planning skills and creative performance: Integration of past, present, and future. Edward Elgar Publishing. Mumford, M. D., Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Creativity and ethics: the relationship of creative and ethical problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 74–89. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10400 41090 35796 19 Naranjo‐Valencia, J. C., Jiménez‐Jiménez, D., & Sanz‐Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision. Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Creativity and group innovation. Applied Psychology., 51, 400–406. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634. Paletz, S. B. F. (2022). Culture and Creativity in Organizations : New Directions and Discoveries Culture and Creativity in Organizations : New Directions and Discoveries. January. Parveen, S., Senin, A. A., & Umar, A. (2015). Organization culture and open innovation: a quadruple helix open innovation model approach. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(January), 335–342. Peña-Sarrionandia, A., Mikolajczak, M., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Integrating emotion regulation and emotional intelligence traditions: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(FEB), 1–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2015. 00160 Perry-Smith, & S. (2003). The social side of creativity : an examination of a social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106. Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ AMJ. 2006. 20785 503 Purwanto, A., & Sudargini, Y. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis for social and management research: a literature review. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 2(4), 114–123. Ragab, M. A., & Arisha, A. (2017). Research methodology in business: a starter’s guide. Management and Organizational Studies, 5(1), 1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5430/ mos. v5n1p1 Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences. Doi: https:// doi. org/ 10. 4172/ 2162- 6359. 10004 03 Rahi, S., Alnaser, F. M. I., & Abd Ghani, M. (2019). Designing survey research: recommendation for questionnaire development, calculating sample size and selecting research paradigms. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 1157–1169. Ramos, M. A. W., Figueiredo, P. S., & Pereira-Guizzo, C. (2018). Antecedents of innovation in industry. Innovation & Management Review, 15(3), 269–285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ inmr- 05- 2018- 0032 Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to psychological well-being and organizational factors. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2–3), 191–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10400 41090 28552 83 Richter, N. F., Cepeda, G., Roldán, J. L., & Ringle, C. M. (2015). European management research using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Management Journal, 33(1), 1–3. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2022). SmartPLS4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS GmbH. Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541–562. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 398 Rofcanin, Y., Las Heras, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). Family supportive supervisor behaviors and organizational culture: effects on work engagement and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 207. Roth, T., Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2022). Testing creativity and personality to explore creative potentials in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 52(4), 1293–1312. Rowley, J. (2014). Designing and using research questionnaires. Management Research Review., 37, 308. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Moisescu, O. I., & Radomir, L. (2020). Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics, 26(4), 531–554. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13548 16618 823921 Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In Handbook of market research (pp. 587–632). Springer. Serafinelli, M., & Tabellini, G. (2021). Creativity over time and space. SSRN Electronic Journal. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 34685 92 Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2003. 12. 004 Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jm. 2004. 06. 007 Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: the doubleedged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. obhdp. 2019. 01. 008 Siregar, Z. M. E., Sujana, F. R., Pranowo, A. S., & Supriadi, Y. N. (2021). Job autonomy and innovative work behavior of marketing employees in the automotive industry in Indonesia: the mediating role of organizational commitment. Quality - Access to Success, 22(180), 97–102. Siyal, S., Xin, C., Umrani, W. A., Fatima, S., & Pal, D. (2021). How do leaders influence innovation and creativity in employees? The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Administration and Society, 53(9), 1337–1361. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00953 99721 997427 Sonenshein, S. (2014). How organizations foster the creative use of resources. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 814–848. Sönmez, B., & Yıldırım, A. (2019). The mediating role of autonomy in the effect of pro-innovation climate and supervisor supportiveness on innovative behavior of nurses. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(1), 41–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EJIM- 05- 2018- 0088 Sonnentag, S., Eck, K., Fritz, C., & Kühnel, J. (2020). Morning reattachment to work and work engagement during the day: a look at day-level mediators. Journal of Management, 46(8), 1408–1435.