Yesuf et al.

Journal of Innovation and

Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31
[Link] Entrepreneurship

RESEARCH Open Access

Factors affecting “employees’ creativity”:

the mediating role of intrinsic motivation
Yohannes Mekonnen Yesuf1* , Demis Alamirew Getahun1 and Asemamaw Tilahun Debas1

*Correspondence:
makyohannes1@[Link] Abstract
1
School of Management This article examines a particular set of influences on the creativity of individual
and Public Administration, researchers at an Ethiopian agricultural research institute. One set of influences is
University of Gondar, Gondar, "work orientations," and the others are "domain-relevant skills" and "creativity-relevant
Ethiopia
processes." The study posits that another important influence, intrinsic motivation, is
a mediating influence between these factors and creativity. The study moves beyond
past research by examining the influences together in a structural equation model.
The data were collected from 307 researchers working with an agricultural research
institute in different centers in Ethiopia. Partial Least Squares (PLS) path modeling,
SmartPLS3, was used to empirically test the proposed hypotheses. The findings sug-
gested the significantly positive direct effects of creativity-relevant processes, career
orientation, and calling orientation on employees’ creativity. Moreover, the results of
mediating effects showed significant indirect effects of domain-relevant skills, creativ-
ity-relevant processes, career orientation, and job orientation via intrinsic motivation on
enhancing employees’ creativity. However, the results did not confirm the direct effects
of domain-relevant skills and job orientation on employees’ creativity. In addition, the
results did not confirm the hypothesis that the mediator, intrinsic motivation, had a
statistically significant effect on the relationship between job orientation and employ-
ees’ creativity. Finally, for managers and decision-makers who prioritize employees’
creativity, these findings will deepen their understanding of the holistic role of intrinsic
motivation in nurturing employees’ creativity.
Keywords: Creativity, Intrinsic motivation, Domain-relevant skills, Creativity-relevant
process, Job orientation, Career orientation, Calling orientation

Introduction
Creativity is often regarded as a vital source of competitive strength for organizations
(Ferreira et al., 2020), since it has become valued across diverse tasks, professions, and
industries (Kršlak & Ljevo, 2021; Lee et al., 2019; Shalley et al., 2004). Within organi-
zations that value diversity, change, and adaptation in particular, creative employees
are regarded as a valuable resource (Liu et al., 2017). In fact, many academics contend
that organizations seeking to gain a competitive edge must prioritize boosting the crea-
tive performance of their workforce. Employee creativity contributes significantly to
organizational innovation, effectiveness, and survival (Ivcevic et al., 2021). For organi-
zations aiming to lay a strong foundation for creativity and innovation, having creative

© The Author(s) 2023. 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 mate-
rial. 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 [Link]
creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 2 of 20

employees is a crucial requirement (Fuchs et al., 2021). Among the major theories are
the componential theory of creativity and innovation in the corporate setting (Amabile,
1988), the interactionist theory (Woodman, 1993), and the multiple social domains the-
ory (Ford, 1996).
In recent years, researchers have advanced the idea of work orientations from the per-
spective of individual expectations for work and subjective evaluation, which highlights
the person’s subjective perspective and work’s purpose (Fetzer & Pratt, 2020a, 2020b). It
divides work orientation into three categories: job orientation, career orientation, and
calling orientation (Bellah et al., 1996). Although scholars have made some progress on
the concept of work orientation, there are still some limitations. Some scholars argue
that many assumptions about work orientations lack empirical support (Cai et al., 2018)
and claim that the field is largely theoretical (Pratt et al., 2013) and in need of insight into
the mechanisms through which work orientations operate (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Lee
et al., 2019). Given the limitations of earlier research, one goal of this study is to examine
the connection between work orientations and employees’ creativity.
In the literature, the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity is com-
monly stated (Auger & Woodman, 2016; Yuan et al., 2019). Intrinsic motivation is con-
sidered essential for creativity, because without it, instead of knowledge or skills, one
cannot engage in and persist in creative activities (Fischer et al., 2019). Many studies
have focused only on the direct relationship between motivation and employees’ creativ-
ity, such as reward (e.g., Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001; Eisenberger et al., 2020; Fischer
et al., 2019; Yoon et al., 2015). Moreover, previous studies have examined the direct rela-
tionship between many variables and employees’ creativity, with mixed results. There-
fore, additional study is required to investigate potential mediators that may have an
impact on the nature of the relationship (Su et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2019).
The objectives of this study are manifold, and our research contributes to the literature
on personal components of creativity, work orientations, and employees’ creativity by
introducing a unique conceptual model that integrates emerging constructs to explain
how personal factors and work orientations can potentially improve employees’ crea-
tivity. This study also examines the mediating role of intrinsic motivation in increasing
individual creativity when these employees acquire expertise, creative thinking skills,
and career orientation. To the best of our knowledge, no empirical study in the manage-
ment literature has examined the role of personal components of creativity and work
orientations in improving employees’ creativity in the presence of mediation by intrinsic
motivation.

Literature review
Research suggests that employees’ creativity is influenced by many determinants, includ-
ing motivation (Liu et al., 2016), personality and thinking styles (Wu et al., 2014), as well
as creative personal and role identities (Fischer et al., 2019), and work orientation (Liv
et al., 2020). 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
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 3 of 20

their overall influence into account. Indeed, in their review on creativity and innova-
tion, Anderson et al. (2014) highlighted the need to further explore employees’ creativity
and specifically how these determinants might work in combination to foster employees’
creativity. That must be done by testing multiple determinants simultaneously, as this
study does.
An employee’s level of creativity is influenced by the kind and quantity of their knowl-
edge of their field (i.e., domain-relevant skills), as well as the creative process itself (cre-
ativity-relevant processes) (Cai et al., 2019; Tanjung et al., 2022). Domain-relevant skills
pertain to factual knowledge and expertise in a particular field that can be influenced
by formal and informal education, as well as people’s perceptual, cognitive, and motor
skills (Hennessey, 2019). According to Amabile (1983, 1988), the level of training in crea-
tive skills and strategies for producing new ideas, experiences in creative activities, and
possessing particular personality traits are likely to positively affect creativity-relevant
processes, which have to do with the tacit knowledge to generate creative ideas as well as
the cognitive styles and work styles for the production of creative ideas.

The relationship between individual creativity components and employees’ creativity

Based on the revised model of Amabile’s componential model, there are three key com-
ponents of individual creativity: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant process, and
intrinsic motivation.
First, domain-relevant skills have been highlighted by creativity theorists as a crucial
mechanism linking individual and environmental determinants to employee creativ-
ity (Amabile, 1988). Particularly, the abilities that support employee creativity are fre-
quently domain-specific (i.e., the factual knowledge and the technical skills required
in a given domain; (Amabile et al., 1996). Domain-relevant skills provide the cognitive
pathways for problem resolution in addition to aiding in the identification of problems.
The stronger the domain-relevant skills, the greater the number of options for creating
something new or coming up with a novel mix of concepts (Amabile et al., 1996). It fol-
lows that an employee’s abilities in the creative process depend on their domain-relevant
skills (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). An individual who possesses more domain-relevant
skills is more likely to comprehend the underlying causes of issues and to combine and
recombine various knowledge sets to come up with creative ideas (Liu et al., 2017).
Second, at the individual level, creativity-relevant skills are important drivers of crea-
tive performance (Amabile, 1983, 1997). The creativity-relevant process includes both
divergent and convergent thinking skills that are necessary for coming up with unique
and valuable ideas (Birdi et al., 2016). Employees with divergent thinking abilities
might come up with a variety of alternate answers or strategies that are different from
those typically used (Scott et al., 2004). Employees with convergent thinking skills can
assess the merits of novel concepts or identify the source of a problem (Grohman et al.,
2006). According to Fischer et al. (2019), creativity-relevant skills determine the variety
and flexibility of cognitive approaches that employees use to pursue solutions or solve
challenges.
The third, intrinsic task motivation, is characterized by a high regard for individual
investment and involvement (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Numerous meta-analyses have dem-
onstrated a considerably positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and creative
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 4 of 20

performance (Cerasoli et al., 2014; de Jesus et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2016). The dynamic
componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations (Amabile & Pratt,
2016) also underlines this strong relationship theoretically. In addition, Grant and Berry
(2011) discovered that the extent to which work includes helping others has a positive
impact. Therefore, based on the explanation above, it is believed that there is a positive
relationship between individual creative components and employees’ creativity.
H1: individual creativity components: (a) domain-relevant skills, (b) creativity-relevant
processes, and (c) intrinsic task motivation are positively related to employees’ creativity.

The relationship between work orientation and employees’ creativity

Work orientations are “internalized evaluations about what makes work worth doing”
(Pratt et al., 2013, p. 175). Work orientations are similar to our own personal "accounts"
of how we view our work and, more precisely, what we value in it. These accounts
develop as a result of people internalizing social norms that come from many social
forces, such as family, religious institutions, the media, educational institutions, and
other social influences like organizational leaders (Pratt et al., 2013). Consequently, it is
easy to see how job orientation and creativity are related.
The majority of experts acknowledge the three types of work orientation: job, career,
and calling orientations (Willner et al., 2020). Job orientation is a person’s perception
that their relationship with work is one of material exchange, and their intrinsic motiva-
tion is predicated on their capacity to base their effort on the corresponding material
returns and financial gain (Liv et al., 2020). While the career orientation reflects the per-
son’s perception that the goal of their work is to advance their careers, obtain status, etc.,
and pursue greater promotion opportunities (Kolodinsky et al., 2018). Calling orienta-
tion emphasizes that the connection between a person and their work is more based on
their own personal success, fulfillment, and commitment (Liv et al., 2020). Amabile and
Pratt (2016) argues the notion that progress in creative work will be more meaningful,
and thus more motivating, to some workers than others. For this reason, it is important
to understand employees’ work orientations.
H2: work orientation: (a) job, (b) career, (c) calling are positively related to employees’
creativity.

The relationship between individual creativity components, creativity and intrinsic

motivation
According to studies, three things in particular foster creativity: motivation, skills, and
creativity-relevant processes (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Hirst et al., 2009; Richter et al.,
2012). In general, motivation is understood as “the heart of organizational behavior”
(Gagné, 2014, p. 414), the performance and productivity of employees are significantly
impacted by their motivation (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Yuan & Woodman, 2021). Intrin-
sic motivation is affected by both individuals’ domain-relevant skills and creativity-
relevant processes (Newman et al., 2018). Employees who believed that they possessed
more skills in creativity, identifying problems, and introducing and assessing solutions
reported higher levels of patent submissions, besides having a superior quantity and
originality of ideas, as rated by experts (Birdi et al., 2016). Amabile maintained that
intrinsic motivation is the central tenet of creativity; when a task is exciting, engaging,
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 5 of 20

and demanding, employees are more creative (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). It follows that
intrinsic motivation may play a mediating role in the link between individual creativity
components and employees’ creativity.
H3: Intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between individual creativity com-
ponents (a) domain-relevant skills and (b) creativity-relevant process.

The relationship between work orientation, creativity and intrinsic motivation

Amabile and Pratt (2016) argue that work orientations are likely to be associated with
creativity in at least three ways. First, work orientation primarily affects motivation,
which in turn drives the creative process. Second, leaders’ assertions about creativity will
not inspire people unless they perceive their own inventive and creative work as worth-
while (Zhang et al., 2020). This argument goes on to say that how an employee handles
work will largely determine whether they find the organizational leaders’ claims about
how important creativity is to be "meaningful" in the first place and, thus, inspiring (Fis-
cher et al., 2019). Third, work orientations may affect persistence and, thus, the degree to
which people persevere in the progress loop, but some orientations are likely to be more
beneficial in that regard than others. This is similar to meaningful work more generally
(Amabile & Pratt, 2016).
One of our central research objectives was to more fully explore the intrinsic moti-
vation principle, especially given the dearth of research and mixed results of the few
existing studies. For example, Fetzer and Pratt (2020a, 2020b) found that intrinsic moti-
vation did not mediate the effect of career orientation on creativity, but Scandura (2017)
found that intrinsic motivation mediated the effect of career orientation on individual
creativity. More recently, Duan et al. (2020) found that intrinsic motivation only par-
tially mediated the effect of calling orientation on individual creativity. Therefore, it is
expected that intrinsic motivation influences the relationship between work orientation
and employees’ creativity (Fig. 1).
H4: Intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between work orientations (job,
career, and calling) and employees’ creativity.

Methodology
Sample and data
The sample for this study was calculated with a 95% confidence level using Taro Yamane
(Yamane, 1973) formula (EIAR has a total of 1317 researchers, of whom 378 are BSc,
MSc, 797 are DVM, and 136 are PhD). Substitute numbers in the formula; the number
of samples is n = 306.814; however, the sample size formulas indicate the required num-
ber of responses. To account for individuals who cannot be reached, many researchers
commonly add 10% to their sample size. In addition, a 30% increase in the sample size is
frequently used to account for nonresponse (Israel, 1992). Thus, to obtain reliable data,
researchers increased the sample size to 400 respondents.
400 questionnaires were distributed to collect data for this study; 342 of them
were returned, but 35 of them were incomplete. The majority of these respondents
responded to only a few of the survey’s questions and missed the others. 19 cases
with 20% or more missing data were excluded from the analysis. A further 16 cases
demonstrated less than 20% missing data and a very low standard deviation. A closer
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 6 of 20

Individual Components

• Domain-relevant skills

• Creativity-relevant process

Dependent Variable

Intrinsic Motivation Employees’

Creativity

Mediating Variable

Work Orientation

• Job
• Career
• Calling

Independent Variables
Fig. 1 Hypothesized interactions of personal components and work orientations on employees’ creativity

look revealed that these respondents had given the identical answer to nearly every
question on the survey and, therefore, were considered to be of low value and were
also excluded from further analysis. In total, 307 questionnaires were properly filled
out with no missing data.
The study’s target population included all 17 of the EIAR centers. These centers
were chosen for the study, because they reflect the Ethiopian economy’s diverse agri-
cultural institutions. To identify the respective respondents for each of the EIARs a
three multi-stage proportionate systematic random sampling method as proposed
by (Ragab & Arisha, 2017) was used. Purposive sampling was used to choose the
EIAR researchers in the first stage. In the second stage, stratified sampling was
used to establish four strata: first, BSc; second, MSc; third, DVM; and fourth, PhD
degree levels. The third stage entailed proportionate systematic random sampling
depending on the year of experience of employees’. Full-time employees who work 8
h per day are the focus. Employees with varied job titles were included in the sam-
ple to guarantee that a variety of jobs were available to cover various work-related
activities.
In the sample, the majority (63.8%) of the respondents were "men," while 36.2%
were "female." In terms of age, the majority (67.8%) of the respondents were younger
than 35 years. 15.0% were 36–40 years, 14.0% were 41–45 years, and the least, 3.3%,
were above 45 years. About 59.0% of participants had a master’s degree, followed
by 28.7% who hold a bachelor’s degree, 11.7% with a PhD, and 0.7% with a DVM. In
terms of work experience, the majority of respondents (38.1%) were 7 to 9 years, fol-
lowed by 30.3% who were 4 to 6 years, 21.2% who were over 10 years, and the least
(10.4%) were less than 3 years.
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 7 of 20

Instruments and measures

The survey strategy is popular in the social sciences and associated with a deductive
research approach (Rahi, 2017). According to Jenny Rowley (2014), when a researcher
wants to profile a sample in terms of statistics or determine the frequency of beliefs, atti-
tudes, processes, behaviors, experience, or forecast, a questionnaire is utilized. A ques-
tionnaire is the most appropriate method to collect data for this research, because it is
easier to achieve responses from a huge number of employees in a short period (Rahi,
2017; Rowley, 2014). In addition, Sekaran and Bougie (2019) stated that it is easier to
reach people in different geographical areas. As the research method is quantitative, it
is perfect to use a survey questionnaire for inquiry mode (Khalid et al., 2012; Rahi, 2017;
Rahi et al., 2019). The data collected might be observed to generate results that are more
generalizable (Rowley, 2014).
The questionnaire was divided into three main sections:

1) Demographic information: four items contain all the demographic details that distin-
guish between the participants, including gender, age group, educational level, and
years of experience in the functional area.
2) Individual creativity components: Amabile (1988) stated that all three elements of
individual creativity (domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and intrin-
sic task motivation) are crucial. No one element is enough for creativity. Thus, all
factors were assessed as follows: (a) domain-relevant skills: three items developed by
Tierney (1997) were used to measure domain-relevant skills. Employees were asked
about their confidence in their capability to be creative. An example item is “I feel
that I am good at generating novel ideas.” (b) Creativity-relevant processes: five items
developed by Sawyer (1992), four were used to measure creativity-relevant processes.
Employees were asked about their certainty in terms of the procedures they must
use at work. An example item is “I know how to divide my time among the tasks.”
(c) Intrinsic task motivation: four items were developed by Eisenberger and Rhoades
(2001) and adopted to assess the extent to which participants considered their work
interesting, enjoyable, boring, and unpleasant. An example item is “My job is inter-
esting.”
3) Willner et al. (2020) developed work meaning, consisting of five orientations: job
(financial compensation), career (advancement and influence), calling (prosocial
duty), social embeddedness (belongingness), and busyness (filling idle time with
activities). However, research in this field (e.g., Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) has focused
on the tripartite concept (job, career, and calling orientations) developed by Bellah
et al. (1996). (a) The job factor was assessed on a 5-item scale. An example item is “If
I had enough money, I would not look for work.” (b) The career factor was assessed
on a 5-item scale. An example item is “I would like to advance in the professional
hierarchy of my field and receive additional duties and responsibilities.” (c) The call-
ing factor was assessed on a 5-item scale. An example item is “I enjoy talking about
my future work with others” all were adopted from Willner et al. (2020).
4) Six items were developed by Amabile et al. (1996) and used to measure creativity.
An example item is “My area of this organization is creative.” The instrument used a
four-point scale to rate and assesses items based on different factors and creativity.
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 8 of 20

According to Holmes and Mergen (2014), in a four-point scale, the middle option
does not exist. This type of scale is called a ‘forced choice’ method, because the neu-
tral option is deleted (Allen & Seaman, 2007). The main reason for using a four-point
scale is that the KEYS questionnaire uses the same ratings. The researchers were
used: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always.

Statistical procedure
We employed partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS–SEM), a vari-
ance-based structural equation modeling technique. PLS–SEM is based on maximizing
the explained variance of the endogenous latent variables. For exploratory and predic-
tive studies, in particular, it is appropriate (Manley et al., 2021). This study followed the
standard evaluation guidelines for reporting PLS–SEM results (e.g., Hair et al., 2017,
2021; Henseler et al., 2016). PLS–SEM differs from covariance-based structural equation
modeling (CB-SEM) in several important ways. For example, PLS–SEM differs from CB-
SEM in that it does not impose minimal criteria or constrictive assumptions on meas-
urement scales, sample sizes, or distributional assumptions (Hair et al., 2017; Sarstedt
et al., 2021). The following justifications support the use of PLS–SEM in this study:
First, we used personal components and work orientation to predict employees’ crea-
tivity, responding to the call to use PLS–SEM as a prediction-oriented approach (Manley
et al., 2021). Second, the study model shows a relatively complex structure with a num-
ber of manifest latent variables and the presence of multi-dimensionality (i.e., mediators)
in the constructs included in the model (Hair et al., 2017; Sarstedt et al., 2021). Third, it
is believed that the model’s structural relationships are still in the early stages of theory
development or extension, enabling the exploration and development of new phenom-
ena (Richter et al., 2015). Fourth, the latent variable scores were used in the subsequent
analysis of predictive relevance, particularly in the two-stage technique for mediation
analysis (Sarstedt et al., 2020; Wong, 2016). Finally, this study benefited from the advan-
tages of PLS–SEM in terms of less rigorous requirements or restrictive assumptions,
which enabled us to create and estimate our model without imposing additional con-
straints (Hair et al., 2019).

Analysis and results

Under standard evaluation guidelines (Hair et al., 2017), PLS–SEM analysis and inter-
pretation have three stages: (1) assessing the reliability and validity of the measurement
model; (2) assessing the structural model; and (3) assessing the structural equation mod-
eling or global model fit.

Measurement model
A measurement model is a statistical model that links unobservable theoretical
constructs, operationalized as latent variables, and observable properties, i.e., data
about the world. By providing researchers and practitioners with a set of tools for
making explicit and evaluating assumptions, measurement modeling fosters more
transparency and accountability. Direct measurement constructs rely on samples of
behavior, such as responses to test items or observations of behavior, while indirect
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 9 of 20

measurement constructs rely on samples of behavior, such as responses to test items

or observations of behavior (Bandalos, 2018). The evaluation of the measurement
model in PLS–SEM was based on the individual indicator reliability, composite
reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE) and discriminant validity of the
constructs.
To measure the reliability, we have used Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and composite
reliability (CR). The results for CA and CR are presented in Table 1 for calling fac-
tor (0.825, 0.875), career factor (0.902, 0.928), creativity self-efficacy (0.743, 0.852),
creativity (0.894, 0.919), intrinsic motivation (0.814, 0.879), job factor (0.917, 0.937),
and creativity-relevant process (0.955, 0.965), respectively. CA and CR values higher
than 0.70 are considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2011), and this study confirms that
the values are within an acceptable range.
We examined convergent validity to obtain AVE values. As suggested by Henseler
et al. (2016), an AVE value ≥ 0.50, which means that ≥ 50% of the indicator variance
should be accounted for. We looked at convergent validity to get AVE values, and all
of them were greater than the 0.50 criterion (for the calling factor, career factor, cre-
ativity self-efficacy, creativity, intrinsic motivation, job factor, and creativity-relevant
process, respectively, the AVE values were 0.585, 0.720, 0.660, 0.656, 0.645, 0.748,
and 0.671, respectively). Consistent with this recommendation, all constructs had
AVE values that exceeded the 0.50 threshold (see Table 1). We also assessed the For-
nell–Larcker and heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratios to test discriminant valid-
ity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Recently, the HTMT ratio has surpassed Fornell and
Larcker (Henseler et al., 2016). Table 2 shows that the values of Fornell and Larcker’s
tests are larger than the correlations among the variables. As per the Henseler et al.
(2015) criterion, the HTMT values were below the threshold of 0.90 (see the values
in Table 3). These results confirm the discriminant validity of this study.

Assessment of structural model

We assessed the issue of multicollinearity in the data using the variance inflation
factor (VIF). Becker et al. (2015) recommended that the values of VIF must be < 5,
and this study found inner and outer model VIF values within the suggested range,
depicting no issue of multicollinearity in the data (see Tables 4 and 5). Next, the
structural model was evaluated using the standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) values should be lower than 0.08 for a sample size greater than 100 (Hense-
ler et al., 2016). As a result, we found a significant model fit for this study (0.076).
Endogenous latent variables with coefficients of determination (R2) 0.75 or 0.5
can be described as substantial or moderate, respectively (Hair et al., 2010, 2019).
Table 6 shows that R2 (Creativity) = 0.731 and R2 (Intrinsic Motivation) = 0.580, the structural
model had satisfactory in-sample predictive power, consistent with prior research in
this area (Ali et al., 2019; Fischer et al., 2019). Moreover, the value of Q2 should be
higher than zero. Hence, this study’s results were both within the significance level,
and the study model’s predictive relevance was achieved (Falk & Miller, 1992).
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 10 of 20

Table 1 Measurement model

Construct Item code Loading Outer weights CA CR AVE

Calling orientation 0.825 0.875 0.585

CallingF1 0.727 0.213
CallingF2 0.717 0.322
CallingF3 0.732 0.208
CallingF4 0.84 0.254
CallingF5 0.799 0.31
Career orientation 0.902 0.928 0.72
CareerF1 0.81 0.209
CareerF2 0.839 0.237
CareerF3 0.896 0.241
CareerF4 0.8 0.23
CareerF5 0.893 0.26
Domain-relevant skills 0.743 0.852 0.66
CreSeE2 0.886 0.425
CreSeE3 0.817 0.355
CreSeE1 0.726 0.269
Creativity 0.894 0.919 0.656
Creativity1 0.729 0.198
Creativity2 0.861 0.205
Creativity3 0.83 0.221
Creativity4 0.871 0.206
Creativity5 0.813 0.208
Creativity6 0.743 0.198
Intrinsic task motivation 0.814 0.879 0.645
IntTaM1 0.827 0.289
IntTaM2 0.774 0.311
IntTaM3 0.884 0.329
IntTaM4 0.719 0.319
Job orientation 0.917 0.937 0.748
JobF1 0.92 0.234
JobF2 0.848 0.247
JobF3 0.857 0.196
JobF4 0.894 0.308
JobF5 0.802 0.164
Creativity-relevant process 0.835 0.89 0.671
ProCla1 0.843 0.289
ProCla2 0.755 0.288
ProCla3 0.87 0.306
ProCla4 0.803 0.34
Average variance extracted (AVE); Cronbach’s alpha (CA); Composite reliability (CR); Domain-relevant skills (CreSeE);
creativity-relevant process (ProCla); job orientation (JobF); career orientation (CaeerF); calling orientation (callingF); intrinsic
motivation (IntTaM)

Structural equation modeling

The modified model and the hypotheses only included the indirect relationships,
because examining the mediating effects involves first testing the direct relationships.
Thus, the following hypotheses were tested using PLS–SEM.
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 11 of 20

Table 2 Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion)

CallingF CareerF CreSeE Creativity IntTaM JobF ProCla

CallingF 0.765
CareerF 0.753 0.849
CreSeE 0.717 0.554 0.812
Creativity 0.735 0.795 0.595 0.81
IntTaM 0.672 0.72 0.573 0.756 0.803
JobF − 0.072 − 0.052 − 0.114 − 0.014 − 0.088 0.865
ProCla 0.66 0.506 0.668 0.575 0.542 − 0.16 0.819
Domain-relevant skills (CreSeE); creativity-relevant process (ProCla); job orientation (JobF); career orientation (CaeerF);
calling orientation (callingF); intrinsic motivation (IntTaM)

Table 3 HTMT (heterotrait–monotrait ratio)

CallingF CareerF CreSeE Creativity IntTaM JobF ProCla

CallingF
CareerF 0.825
CreSeE 0.896 0.658
Creativity 0.830 0.883 0.712
IntTaM 0.787 0.837 0.722 0.886
JobF 0.104 0.073 0.129 0.073 0.104
ProCla 0.802 0.572 0.831 0.662 0.654 0.175
Domain-relevant skills (CreSeE); creativity-relevant process (ProCla); job orientation (JobF); career orientation (CaeerF);
calling orientation (callingF); intrinsic motivation (IntTaM)

Table 4 Collinearity statistics (outer VIF values)

VIF VIF VIF

CallingF1 2.036 Creativity1 1.676 JobF1 4.941

CallingF2 1.475 Creativity2 4.006 JobF2 2.329
CallingF3 2.009 Creativity3 2.594 JobF3 5.001
CallingF4 3.082 Creativity4 4.148 JobF4 3.739
CallingF5 1.805 Creativity5 2.296 JobF5 4.151
CareerF1 2.127 Creativity6 1.877 ProCla1 2.709
CareerF2 2.238 IntTaM1 4.456 ProCla2 1.513
CareerF3 4.08 IntTaM2 1.603 ProCla3 2.936
CareerF4 1.943 IntTaM3 4.634 ProCla4 1.612
CareerF5 3.807 IntTaM4 1.42
CreSeE1 1.36
CreSeE2 1.711
CreSeE3 1.539
Variance inflation factor (VIF); Domain-relevant skills (CreSeE); creativity-relevant process (ProCla); job orientation (JobF);
career orientation (CaeerF); calling orientation (callingF); intrinsic motivation (IntTaM)

H1: Intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between individual creativity com-
ponents: (a) domain-relevant skills and (b) creativity-relevant processes, and employees’
creativity.
H2: Intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between work orientations (a) job,
(b) career and (c) (calling and employees’ creativity.
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 12 of 20

Table 5 Collinearity statistics (inner VIF values)

CallingF CareerF CreSeE Creativity IntTaM JobF ProCla

CallingF 3.623 3.586

CareerF 2.889 2.318
CreSeE 2.431 2.396
Creativity
IntTaM 2.382
JobF 1.031 1.023
ProCla 2.122 2.088
Variance inflation factor (VIF); Domain-relevant skills (CreSeE); creativity-relevant process (ProCla); job orientation (JobF);
career orientation (CaeerF); calling orientation (callingF); intrinsic motivation (IntTaM)

Table 6 Saturated model results

Construct R2 R2 Adjusted Q2 SRMR
predict

Creativity 0.731 0.726 528

0.076
IntTaM 0.58 0.573 419
Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR); determination of coefficient (R2); cross-validiated redundancy (Q2); intrinsic
motivation (IntTaM)

Fig. 2 Structural model results. Domain-relevant skills (CreSeE); creativity-relevant process (ProCla); job
orientation (JobF); career orientation (CaeerF); calling orientation (callingF); intrinsic motivation (IntTaM)

The sizes and significances of the path coefficients that reflect the hypotheses were
examined. The significance of the path coefficients was calculated using the bootstrap-
ping procedure (with 5000 bootstrap samples). Figure 2 provides the structural model
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 13 of 20

results. Table 7 provides the path coefficients, standard deviation, t-statistics, and p
values.
According to the PLS–SEM findings, (­H1a) testing the direct effects of creative self-
efficacy, which reflects domain-relevant skills, and employee creativity revealed a non-
significant relationship (β = 0.041, t = 0.817, p = 0.414). While the indirect effects of
intrinsic motivation on domain-relevant skills and employee creativity were significant
(β = 0.047, t = 2.122, p = 0.034). It was concluded that intrinsic motivation fully mediated
the relationships between creative self-efficacy, which refracted domain-relevant skills,
and employees’ creativity. Thus, ­H1a was supported.
(H1b) found a significant relationship between process clarity, which reflects creativ-
ity-relevant skills, and employee creativity (β = 0.099, t = 2.429, p = 0.015). In terms of
mediating effects, there were positive indirect effects of process clarity on employee cre-
ativity (β = 0.046, t = 2.082, p = 0.038) which reflects creativity-relevant skills via intrin-
sic motivation. Therefore, it was concluded that intrinsic motivation partially mediated
the relationships between process clarity, which reflected domain-relevant skills, and
employees’ creativity. Thus, ­H1b was supported.
The findings indicate that ­(H2a) job orientation has no significant relationship with
employee creativity (β = 0.061, t = 1.934, p = 0.054). In terms of the mediating effects,
the result showed no indirect effects of job orientation, via intrinsic motivation on crea-
tivity (β = − 0.006, t = 0.528, p = 0.598). Thus, H
­ 2a was not supported. (­ H2b) career ori-
entation has significant and positive effects on employees’ creativity (β = 0.406, t = 7.312,
p = 0.000), and the indirect effects of intrinsic motivation between the career orientation
and employees’ creativity were significant with (β = 0.145, t = 5.005, p = 0.000) which
shows partial mediation in the model. Moreover, (­H2c) calling orientation has signifi-
cant and positive effects on employees’ creativity (β = 0.138, t = 2.056, p = 0.041), and
the indirect effects of intrinsic motivation between the career orientation and employ-
ees’ creativity were significant with (β = 0.052, t = 2.001, p = 0.046), which shows partial
mediation in the model. Thus, both ­H2b and ­H2c were supported.

Conclusions and discussion

The current study investigated the mediating effects of intrinsic motivation and on
employee creativity triggered by employee creativity factors in the EIAR. A few pieces
of literature support the findings of this study about the non-significant direct relation-
ship between domain-relevant skills and their employees’ creativity, despite the claimed
findings being inconsistent. Several empirical studies, for example, have investigated the

Table 7 Hypothesis constructs

Effects Indirect relationships Beta STDEV t-Vales P Values Decision

H1a CreSeE—> IntTaM—> Creativity 0.037 0.018 2.122 0.034 H1a; supported
H1b ProCla—> IntTaM—> Creativity 0.046 0.019 2.082 0.038 H1b; supported
H2a JobF—> IntTaM—> Creativity -0.006 0.012 0.528 0.598 H2a; not supported
H2b CareerF—> IntTaM—> Creativity 0.145 0.029 5.005 0.000 H2b; supported
F2c CallingF—> IntTaM—> Creativity 0.052 0.023 2.001 0.046 H2c; supported
Domain-relevant skills (CreSeE); creativity-relevant process (ProCla); job orientation (JobF); career orientation (CaeerF);
calling orientation (callingF); intrinsic motivation (IntTaM)
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 14 of 20

relationship between domain-relevant skills and employee creativity, with some stud-
ies revealing a positive relationship (e.g., Amabile, 1989; Cai et al., 2019; Da Costa et al.,
2015; Tanjung et al., 2022), and others revealing a non-significant relationship (Muñoz-
Doyague et al., 2008; van Broekhoven et al., 2020). The insignificance of the direct
relationship’s result and the above-reported mixed findings could be attributed to the
influence of other variables on the relationship between the two variables. Eder and Saw-
yer (2008), describing the contradictory findings and the positive and negative effects,
suggested that researchers should keep looking into the work environments that help or
hinder these relationships. This further supported the need to look at the variables that
mediate the connection between domain-relevant skills and employees’ creativity.
The findings of this study revealed that intrinsic motivation fully mediated the rela-
tionship between domain-relevant skills and employees’ creativity. Providing more
evidence for the mediating impact discovered in this study, Dul et al.’s (2011) finding
suggested that although personal traits influence an employee’s creativity, it can also
be strengthened at the workplace. Birdi et al. (2016) further support the finding of full
mediating effects, reporting that, if change is to occur in the workplace, no matter how
smart or knowledgeable an individual is, he or she must be willing to participate in the
creative process. The high motivation enhanced engagement in creativity-related activi-
ties, which in turn improved self-rated creativity (Tan et al., 2019). The findings not only
shed light on mechanisms that underlie the domain-relevant skills linkage, but they
also highlight the importance of intrinsic motivation and employees’ creativity in the
relationships.
The statistical analysis revealed a significant direct relationship between creativity-
relevant processes and employees’ creativity. Results for this hypothesis are in line with
past studies, reporting a positive relationship between creativity-relevant processes
and individuals’ creativity (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Chang et al., 2018; Emami et al.,
2023; Stojcic et al., 2018). Moreover, the results indicate that intrinsic motivation has
a significant mediating effect between the relationships of creativity-relevant skills and
employees’ creativity. This finding confirms the previous research findings (Chen et al.,
2015; Li et al., 2020; Paulus & Nijstad, 2019). Thus, the findings revealed that the mediat-
ing effects demonstrated a significant indirect influence of creativity-relevant processes
on employee creativity via intrinsic motivation.
The statistical analysis showed a non-significant direct relationship between job orien-
tation and employees’ creativity. Furthermore, the results of mediating effects revealed
no indirect effects of job orientation on employee creativity via intrinsic motivation.
Thus, ­H2a hypothesis was not supported. Other factors could alter both the direct and
indirect relationship between those variables, explaining the non-significant relation-
ships discovered in this study. However, it is plausible that if job orientation does emerge
in broader cultural narratives about work, the increased value placed on creativity may
be the trigger for such an orientation. Furthermore, research by Amabile and others has
demonstrated that extrinsic rewards can function in conjunction with intrinsic motiva-
tion or not (Amabile, 1993; Amabile & Pratt, 2016) and that job orientation provides a
lens for understanding the meanings people attach to extrinsic motivation.
The results indicate a significant direct relationship between career orientation and
employees’ creativity. Moreover, the result of mediating effects showed an indirect effect
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 15 of 20

of career orientation via intrinsic motivation on employees’ creativity. In the literature,

there have been conflicting results, with some findings showing a positive relationship
between career orientation and individuals’ creativity (e.g., Scandura, 2017; To et al.,
2015), while others are unable to establish a significant relationship ( e.g., Fetzer & Pratt,
2020a, 2020b; Wang et al., 2022). The findings of the partial mediating effect, which
demonstrated a positive indirect effect of career orientation via intrinsic motivation on
employees’ creativity, support the argument of some researchers that career orienta-
tion by itself is insufficient for an individual’s creativity. The literature provides strong
support for the current study’s findings. For example, Matsuo (2022) stated that when
employees’ feel in charge of their work, they are better able to see problems from many
angles and come up with different ideas when searching for solutions. This is because
developmental occupations and goals support their creative activities.
Finally, the statistical analysis of this study showed a significant direct relationship
between calling orientation and employees’ creativity. In addition, the results indicate
that intrinsic motivation has a partial mediating effect between the relationships of call-
ing orientation and employees’ creativity. A result of the present study regarding the
significant relationship between calling orientation and employees’ creativity is partly
supported in the literature. For instance, Grant and Berry (2011) noted that for those
with kinship or service orientations, engagement with beneficiaries, both inside and out-
side the organization, should be the most significant. The best incentive for people with
passion orientations is the work itself, so reducing barriers that hinder creative employ-
ees from deeply engaging themselves in their work is probably the key (Fetzer & Pratt,
2020a, 2020b). However, no empirical study on the direct relationship between calling
and creativity has been reported in the literature (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Duan et al.,
2020). Thus, this is the first study to have examined these direct relationships based on
the dynamic componential model. Recently, very few studies have examined the mediat-
ing impact of intrinsic motivation on the relationships between calling orientation and
employees’ creativity. Of these studies, some showed results that partly aligned with the
present study. For example, Duan et al. (2020) study found that employees who exhibit
purposeful work and prosocial behavior in the workplace are likely to be relatively driven
to come up with original ideas.

Conclusion, implication, and limitations

Conclusion
Studies are still in the early stages of understanding the importance of work orienta-
tions, their relationship to motivation, and their impact on employee creativity. This
survey aims to contribute to these areas of inquiry. Overall, the quantitative, cross-sec-
tional research findings serve to clarify the impacts of personal components, work ori-
entations, and intrinsic motivation on employees’ creative performance. Based on the
findings and discussion of the same, it is evident that creativity-relevant processes posi-
tively affect employees’ creativity. However, the direct effect of domain-relevant skills
on employees’ creativity was non-significant. The result of this non-significant effect
does not imply that domain-relevant skills are any less significant. Instead, it shows a
less pronounced importance compared to other significant independent variables. We
observed that intrinsic motivation fully and partially mediates the relationship between
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 16 of 20

domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant skills with employees’ creativity, respec-

tively. In addition, our results validate that dimensions of work orientations such as
career and calling orientations have a significant impact on employees’ creativity; this
study’s findings are the first to look at this relationship in the workplace.

Implications
The empirical results from the PLS–SEM analysis have significant managerial and prac-
tical implications for organizations based on how personal factors and work orienta-
tions affect the enhancement of employees’ creativity. First, the findings supported the
positive impact of creativity-relevant skills, career orientation and calling orientation on
employees’ creativity. However, because not every employee has intrinsic task motiva-
tion, employers cannot rely only on an employee’s ability, knowledge, and work orienta-
tion. To promote creativity in a directed manner and make use of these often available
employees’ potential, intrinsic motivators should also be considered. In particular, lead-
ers should understand that enhancing people’s creativity is difficult without motivation
(Deci et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Thus, leaders should pay attention to adopting
organizational policies that foster creativity to achieve their maximum potential ben-
efits. Second, decision-makers need to recognize that employing creative individuals
and expecting creative performance are not adequate for organizations. One of a man-
ager’s main tasks is to encourage the availability of various mechanisms that are related
to employees’ motivation and creativity. Finally, these findings demonstrated the signifi-
cance of intrinsic motivation in the relationships between different factors that foster
employees’ creativity.

Limitations
This study, like any empirical study, contains limitations that provide opportunities for
further research. First, while the majority of the hypothesized relationships are sup-
ported by the empirical findings, the study is still in part exploratory. It should be noted
that the research evidence pointing toward the effect of work orientations on creativ-
ity is fairly new, and, like the research that preceded it, this research may not tell the
whole story. Second, our study relied exclusively on the self-reporting method of data
collection, which did not provide us with an “outside” or “independent” perspective on
participants’ views. Participants may describe themselves differently for a variety of con-
scious and unconscious reasons, making self-reported data susceptible to inaccuracies
(Roth et al., 2022). Third, 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. Fourth,
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, to better understand the variables that affect group creativity. Finally, the role
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 17 of 20

of the extrinsic motivation factor could also be examined to explain individual creativity
in future research. Some other mediating variables could be introduced to better explain
this model.

Abbreviations
AVE Average variance extracted
CA Cronbach alpha
CaeerF Career orientation
CallingF Calling orientation
CB-SEM Covariance based structural equation modeling
CR Composite reliability
CreSeE Domain-relevant skills
EIAR Ethiopia institute of agricultural research
IntTaM Intrinsic motivation
JobF Job orientation
PLS–SEM Partial list square–structural equation modeling
ProCla Creativity-relevant process
UoG University of Gondar
Acknowledgements
We would like to show our gratitude to all participants in this survey. We are very grateful to Professor Susan Cozzen and
Dr. Caleb Akinrinade for their feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript, which was handed in the form of a thesis.
We are also grateful to Mulatu Tilahun for his wonderful support.

Author contributions
The theoretical foundation, research design, survey execution, data evaluation, and discussion were done by YMY. YMY
wrote the first draft of the manuscript. The critical review and manuscript editing were provided by DAG and ATD. DAG
and ATD have provided their written consent to the submission of the manuscript in this form. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.

Funding
This work was supported by UoG through the post graduate students research grant.

Availability of data and materials

Data sets for this 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: 2 September 2022 Accepted: 4 May 2023

References
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.
[Link]
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7), 64–65.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. [Link]
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1),
123–167.
Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. Crown House Publishing Limited, 1989.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the
workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185–201. [Link]
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. [Link]
Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1),
3–15. [Link]
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. [Link]
2016.​10.​001
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 18 of 20

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.
Auger, P., & Woodman, R. W. (2016). Creativity and intrinsic motivation: Exploring a complex relationship. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 52(3), 342–366. [Link]
Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. Guilford Publications.
Becker, J.-M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Völckner, F. (2015). How collinearity affects mixture regression results. Marketing
Letters, 26(4), 643–659.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1996). Habits of the heart: individualism and commitment
in American life: Updated edition with a new introduction. Univ of California Press.
Birdi, K., Leach, D., & Magadley, W. (2016). The relationship of individual capabilities and environmental support with dif-
ferent facets of designers’ innovative behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(1), 19–35. [Link]
org/​10.​1111/​jpim.​12250
Cai, W., Lysova, E. I., Khapova, S. N., & Bossink, B. A. G. (2018). Servant leadership and innovative work behavior in Chinese
high-tech firms: A moderated mediation model of meaningful work and job autonomy. Frontiers in Psychology,
9(Oct), 1–13. [Link]
Cai, W., Lysova, E. I., Khapova, S. N., & Bossink, B. A. G. (2019). Does entrepreneurial leadership foster creativity among
employees and teams? The mediating role of creative efficacy beliefs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2),
203–217.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A
40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. [Link]
Chang, Y.-S., Lin, H.-C., Chien, Y.-H., & Yen, W.-H. (2018). Effects of creative components and creative behavior on design
creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 23–31.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., der Kaap-Deeder, V., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., & Mouratidis,
A. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motiva-
tion and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236.
Da Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: A second order
meta-analysis. Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo y De Las Organizaciones, 31(3), 165–173.
de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., & Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: A meta-
analysis of the studies published between 1990–2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80–84. [Link]
1080/​10400​419.​2013.​752235
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. [Link]
ev-​orgps​ych-​032516-​113108
Duan, W., Tang, X., Li, Y., Cheng, X., & Zhang, H. (2020). Perceived organizational support and employee creativity: The
mediation role of calling. Creativity Research Journal, 32(4), 403–411. [Link]
63
Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers’ creativity and the role of the physical work environment.
Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715–734.
Eder, P., & Sawyer, J. (2008). The power to be creative at work: Examining the componential model of employee creativity.
Eastern Academy of Management Annual Conference in Washington, DC.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 81(4), 728–741. [Link]
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. [Link]
1146/​annur​ev-​orgps​ych-​012119-​044917
Emami, M., Rezaei, S., Valaei, N., & Gardener, J. (2023). Creativity mindset as the organizational capability: the role of
creativity-relevant processes, domain-relevant skills and intrinsic task motivation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration, 15(1), 139–160.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
Ferreira, J., Coelho, A., & Moutinho, L. (2020). Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact
on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Technova-
tion, 92–93(February 2017), 1. [Link]
Fetzer, G., & Pratt, M. G. (2020a). Creativity at work. Creativity at Work, March. [Link]
Fetzer, G., & Pratt, M. G. (2020b). Meaningful work and creativity: Mapping out a way forward. In Creativity at work (pp.
131–142). Springer.
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. [Link]
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. The Academy of Management Review,
21(4), 1112–1142.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. [Link]
Fuchs, M., Fossgard, K., Stensland, S., & Chekalina, T. (2021). Creativity and innovation in nature-based tourism: a critical
reflection and empirical assessment. In Nordic perspectives on nature-based tourism (pp. 175–193). Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Gagné, M. (2014). The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory. Oxford University
Press.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations,
perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96. [Link]
2011.​59215​085
Grohman, M., Wodniecka, Z., & KŁsak, M. (2006). Divergent thinking and evaluation skills: Do they always go together?
Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(2), 125–145. [Link]
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 19 of 20

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., 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.
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.
Hennessey, B. A. (2019). Motivation and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
creativity (pp. 374–395). Cambridge University Press. [Link]
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. [Link]
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based
structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. [Link]
s11747-​014-​0403-8
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team-
learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.
Holmes, D. S., & Mergen, A. E. (2014). Converting survey results from four-point to five-point scale: A case study. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1–2), 175–182.
Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining sample size. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricul-
ture Sciences, EDIS, Florida.
Ivcevic, Z., Moeller, J., Menges, J., & Brackett, M. (2021). Supervisor emotionally intelligent behavior and employee creativ-
ity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(1), 79–91.
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.
Kolodinsky, R. W., Ritchie, W. J., & Kuna, W. A. (2018). Meaningful engagement: Impacts of a “calling” work orientation and
perceived leadership support. Journal of Management and Organization, 24(3), 406–423. [Link]
jmo.​2017.​19
Kršlak, S. Š, & Ljevo, N. (2021). Organizational creativity in the function of improving the competitive advantage of tourism
companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Advanced Research in Economics and Administrative Sciences, 2(1),
81–91. [Link]
Lee, C., Hallak, R., & Sardeshmukh, S. R. (2019). Creativity and innovation in the restaurant sector: Supply-side processes
and barriers to implementation. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31(March), 54–62. [Link]
tmp.​2019.​03.​011
Li, W., Bhutto, T. A., Xuhui, W., Maitlo, Q., Zafar, A. U., & Bhutto, N. A. (2020). Unlocking employees’ green creativity: The
effects of green transformational leadership, green intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Cleaner Production,
255, 120229.
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-ana-
lytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 137, 236–263. [Link]
Liv, H., Xing, Z., Min, Y., & Liu, G. (2020). Everyone is creative? Research on the relationship between the work orientation
and employee creativity. DEStech Transactions on Social Science, Education and Human Science, SSME, 514–524.
[Link]
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. [Link]
Manley, S. C., Hair, J. F., Williams, R. I., & McDowell, W. C. (2021). Essential new PLS-SEM analysis methods for your entrepre-
neurship analytical toolbox. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(4), 1805–1825.
Matsuo, M. (2022). Influences of developmental job experience and learning goal orientation on employee creativity:
Mediating role of psychological empowerment. Human Resource Development International, 25(1), 4–18. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13678​868.​2020.​18244​49
Muñoz-Doyague, M. F., González-Álvarez, N., & Nieto, M. (2008). An examination of individual factors and employees’
creativity: The case of Spain. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 21–33.
Newman, A., Herman, H. M., Schwarz, G., & Nielsen, I. (2018). The effects of employees’ creative self-efficacy on innovative
behavior: The role of entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of Business Research, 89, 1–9.
Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Creativity and group innovation. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
51(3), 400–406. [Link]
Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2019). The Oxford handbook of group creativity and innovation. Oxford Library of Psychology.
Pratt, M. G., Pradies, C., & Lepisto, D. A. (2013). Doing well, doing good, and doing with: Organizational practices for effec-
tively cultivating meaningful work. Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace. [Link]
Ragab, M. A., & Arisha, A. (2017). Research methodology in business: A starter’s guide. Management and Organizational
Studies, 5(1), 1. [Link]
Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instru-
ments development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 06(02). [Link]
2162-​6359.​10004​03
Rahi, S., Alnaser, F. M. I., & Abd Ghani, M. (2019). Designing survey research: recommendation for questionnaire develop-
ment, calculating sample size and selecting research paradigms. Economic and Social Development: Book of
Proceedings, 1157–1169.
Yesuf et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:31 Page 20 of 20

Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team con-
texts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1282–1290.
[Link]
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.
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(3), 308–330.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and well-
ness. Guilford Publications.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Jr., Nitzl, C., Ringle, C. M., & Howard, M. C. (2020). Beyond a tandem analysis of SEM and PROCESS:
Use of PLS-SEM for mediation analyses! International Journal of Market Research, 62(3), 288–299.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In Handbook of market
research (pp. 587–632). Springer.
Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equa-
tion model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 130–142. [Link]
10.​1037/​0021-​9010.​77.2.​130
Scandura, T. A. (2017). Essentials of organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach. Sage publications.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity
Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388. [Link]
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2019). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. Wiley.
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. [Link]
Stojcic, N., Hashi, I., & Orlic, E. (2018). Creativity, innovation effectiveness and productive efficiency in the UK. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 21(4), 564–580.
Su, W., Lyu, B., Chen, H., & Zhang, Y. (2020). How does servant leadership influence employees’ service innovative
behavior? The roles of intrinsic motivation and identification with the leader. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(4),
571–586.
Tan, C. S., Lau, X. S., Kung, Y. T., & Kailsan, R. A. (2019). Openness to experience enhances creativity: The mediating role of
intrinsic motivation and the creative process engagement. Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(1), 109–119. [Link]
org/​10.​1002/​jocb.​170
Tanjung, H., Handoko, Y., Tanjung, I. S., & Yuniarsa, S. O. (2022). Creativity and innovation in small business: A digital system
literature review with round map new normal. Proceeding International Seminar of Islamic Studies, 3(1), 795–802.
Tierney, P. (1997). The influence of cognitive climate on job satisfaction and creative efficacy. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 12(4), 831.
To, M. L., Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Unleashing angst: Negative mood, learning goal orientation, psychologi-
cal empowerment and creative behaviour. Human Relations, 68(10), 1601–1622.
van Broekhoven, K., Cropley, D., & Seegers, P. (2020). Differences in creativity across Art and STEM students: We are more
alike than unalike. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100707.
Wang, W., Kang, S. W., & Choi, S. B. (2022). Servant leadership and creativity: A study of the sequential mediating roles of
psychological safety and employee well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(February), 1–13. [Link]
fpsyg.​2021.​807070
Willner, T., Lipshits-Braziler, Y., & Gati, I. (2020). Construction and initial validation of the work orientation questionnaire.
Journal of Career Assessment, 28(1), 109–127. [Link]
Wong, K.K.-K. (2016). Mediation analysis, categorical moderation analysis, and higher-order constructs modeling in Partial
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): A B2B Example using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 26(1),
1–22.
Woodman, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management, 18(2), 293–321.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work.
Journal of research in personality, 31(1), 21–33.
Wu, C. H., Parker, S. K., & de Jong, J. P. J. (2014). Need for cognition as an antecedent of individual innovation behavior.
Journal of Management, 40(6), 1511–1534. [Link]
Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics: An introduction analysis. Harper & Row.
Yoon, H. J., Sung, S. Y., Choi, J. N., Lee, K., & Kim, S. (2015). Tangible and intangible rewards and employee creativity: The
mediating role of situational extrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 27(4), 383–393. [Link]
1080/​10400​419.​2015.​10882​83
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2021). The multiple ways of behaving creatively in the workplace: A typology and model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(1), 20–33.
Yuan, Y., Wu, M., Hu, M., & Lin, I. (2019). Teacher’s encouragement on creativity, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: The
mediating role of creative process engagement. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(3), 312–324.
Zhang, Z. S., Hoxha, L., Aljughaiman, A., Arënliu, A., Gomez-Arizaga, M. P., Gucyeter, S., Ponomareva, I., Shi, J., Irueste, P.,
Rogl, S., Nunez, M., & Ziegler, A. (2020). Social environmental factors and personal motivational factors associated
with creative achievement: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior. [Link]
463

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.