P-ISSN 2664-0422 Pakistan Social Sciences Review Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.

4
O-ISSN 2664-0430 http://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2022(6-IV)05 [41-51]

RESEARCH PAPER
Impact of Organizational Support on Employee Creativity and
Innovative Work Behavior: Mediation of Employee Creativity
Sohail Ijaz 1 Sadaf Nawaz*2
1. Lecturer, Government Associate College, Tibba Sultanpur, Punjab, Pakistan
2. MPhil Scholar, Department of Psychology, Institute of Southern Punjab, Multan, Punjab, Pakistan
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Organizations are facing turbulent environment due to advancement in technology,
globalization and intense competition. In order to survive in this competitive business
world, organizations are forced to innovate and respond to the changing environment.
To line with this, this study aims to find the impact of organizational support on
employee creativity and innovative work behavior in the banking sector of Pakistan. For
this purpose data was collected from 267 employees working in the banking sector of
Pakistan. Data was collected by using self-administered structured questionnaire. Data
was analyzed by using SMART PLS. The measurement model confirms the validity and
reliability of the measures. The structural model provides that organizational support
has positive and significant impact on the employee creativity and innovative work
behavior. Moreover, employee creativity mediates the relationship between
organizational support and innovative work behavior. Research implications and
limitations have also been discussed.

Banking Sector, Employee Creativity, Innovative Work Behavior, Organizational

KEYWORDS
Support
Introduction

Organizations are facing turbulent environment due to advancement in

technology, globalization and intense competition. In order to survive in this competitive
business world, organizations are forced to innovate and respond to the changing
environment. In other words, innovation is widely acknowledged tool to survive and
improve performance, especially in the dynamic environment. However, this innovation
in the organization cannot be possible without the involvement of the employees (Chen
& Kaufmann, 2008; Van Dijk, & Van Den Ende, 2002). Employees in the organization play
critical role in improving the level of innovation in the organization. Employees are the
source of innovative activities in the organization. Innovative behavior of the employees
is the key to trigger innovative activities in the organization. Innovative work behavior
is referred to the employees’ behavior focusing on generating and implementing the
novel ideas in the workplace (Beheshtifar & Zare, 2013; Shafi, Lei, Song, & Sarker, 2020;
Tian, Wang, & Rispens, 2021).

Considering the importance of innovative work behavior, organizational

researchers focused their attentions to factors which determine innovative work behavior
(Dul, & Ceylan, 2011). Such factors includes leadership, rewards, innovative culture, and
passion for innovation, performance expectations and organizational support (Kwan,
Zhang, Liu, & Lee, 2018; Shafi, Lei, Song, & Sarker, 2020; Miao, & Cao, 2019). However,
the relationship between these antecedents and innovative work behavior remains
inconclusive and characterized by several gaps.
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

Social exchange theory provides that employer and employees enter in the
reciprocal relationship (Cook, Cheshire, Rice, & Nakagawa, 2013; Cropanzano, &
Mitchell, 2005). According to social exchange theory, when organization take cares of its
employees then employees feel obliged to show greater efforts and repay the
organization. Similarly, organization support to the employees enable the employees in
triggering innovative work behavior by generating and implement new ideas, and
completing their tasks in new and better ways (Hughes, Lee, Tian, Newman, & Legood,
2018).

Similarly, Duan, Tang, Li, Cheng, & Zhang (2020) provided that organizational
support fosters employee creativity and this employee creativity in turn leads to
innovative work behavior of the employees. Organizational support positively influence
the attitudes and behavior of the employees, including employee creativity and
innovative work behavior (Akgunduz, Alkan, & Gök, 2018).

Despite the strong theoretical foundation and empirical evidences of the

relationship between organizational support, employee creativity and innovative work
behavior, relationship between these variables remains inconclusive, especially from the
context of developing world. Therefore, there is need to validate the social exchange
theory and empirically test the relationship between .organizational support, employee
creativity and innovative work behavior.

Literature Review

Employee Creativity

Creativity is related to the generation of new and useful ideas to improve the
performance. Employee creativity is an important behavior which referred to ability of
employees to generate new ideas and provide novel solutions of the problems which are
appropriate, useful and fit for the purpose (Dul, & Ceylan, 2011; Oldham, & Cummings,
1996). Creativity is related to originality of ideas which are unique, novel and unusual.
Similarly, creativity of employees is associated with the pro-active personality and
creativity requires imagination and curiosity to provide novel solutions of the problems
(Kim, Hon, & Lee, 2010). Creative behavior of employees enable the organization to bring
innovation in the organization, and to adapt and innovate according to changing needs
of the market. Creative behavior enables to play active role to bring change in the
organization (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009)

Innovative Work Behavior

Innovative work behavior (IWB) is defined as “the intentional creation,

introduction and application of new ideas within a work role, group, or organization, in
order to benefit role performance, the group, and or the organization” (Janssen, 2000).
Innovative work behavior is an important antecedent of innovation related activities in
the organization. Employee creativity is related to the generation of novel ideas to
innovate and solve the problems. And innovative work behavior goes beyond the
employee creativity i.e. simply generating the novel ideas, by including the application
of these novel ideas. In other words, innovative work ideas is the practical
implementation of employee creativity (Van Dijk, & Van Den Ende, 2002; Widmann,
Messmann, & Mulder, 2016).

42
 Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

There are two main directions in the literature in innovative work behavior. On
stream considers the innovative work behavior as single dimension and the other stream
considers the innovative work behavior as multi-dimension construct. In the multi-
dimension construct, innovative work behavior is divided in to dimensions i.e. idea
generation and idea implementation (Akhavan, Hosseini, Abbasi, & Manteghi, 2015; De
Jong, & Den Hartog, 2008).

Perceived organizational support, employee creativity and innovative work behavior

Attitudes and behaviors of the employees are shaped by various factors,

including individual, group and organizational factors (Oldham, & Cummings, 1996).
Ambile (1996) put forwarded two main types of factors i.e. individual and organizational
factors as antecedent of employee creativity and innovative work behavior. However,
organizational factors, as antecedent of employee creativity and innovative work
behavior, have gain much attention in the last two decades (Cai, Khapova, Bossink,
Lysova, & Yuan, 2020). In organizational factors, perceived organizational support is
considered as an important predictor of positive attitudes and behaviors of the
employees (Choi, Anderson, & Veillette, 2009). Employee creativity and innovative work
behavior are considered as important behaviors of the employees. The social exchange
theory provides the theoretical justification of the relationship between perceived
organizational support, employee creativity and innovative work behavior (Volery, &
Tarabashkina, 2021). According to social exchange theory, employers and employees
enter in the reciprocal relations. It provides that when employers take care of employees
and extend support to the employees then employees feel the sense of obligation to repay
the organization by putting extra efforts. The support by the organization enable the
employees to contribute the organization by generating and implementing the novel
ideas to solve the problems. In other words, organizational support is an important
antecedent of creative and innovative behaviors of the employees (El-Kassar, Dagher,
Lythreatis, & Azakir, 2022; Volery, & Tarabashkina, 2021).

More specifically, organizational support up turns the desire of employees to

exhibit creative behavior. Organizational support triggers employee creativity.
Similarly, Zhang, Bu, & Wee, (2016) provides that the perceived organizational support
is an important antecedent of employee creativity. Perceived organizational support
provides a sense of importance and consideration to the employees which triggers
employee creativity. In the similar way, organizational support sends positive signals to
the employees and employees reciprocate by showing innovative behavior (Hughes,
Rigtering, Covin, Bouncken, & Kraus, 2018). Also, employee creativity is considered as
important predictor of innovative work behavior. Consider amount of evidence provides
that organizational support triggers employee creativity (Duan, Tang, Li, Cheng, &
Zhang, 2020; Ibrahim, Isa, & Shahbudin, 2016; Zhang, Bu, & Wee, 2016) and in turn,
employee creativity leads to innovative work behavior (Bagheri, Akbari, & Artang, 2020).
In other words, employee creativity acts as linking variable in between organizational
support and innovative work behavior. Volery & Tarabashkina, (2021) provides that
organizational support has indirect impact on innovative work behavior through
employee creativity.

From the above discussion, following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: organizational support has positive impact on employee creativity.

H2: organizational support has positive impact on innovative work behavior.

43
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

H3: employee creativity mediates the relationship between organizational support and
innovative work behavior.

Material and Methods

The population of this study is comprised of employees of banking sector of

Pakistan. Data was collected from a sample of 267 employees working in banking sector
of Pakistan. The study is quantitative in nature and data was collected by using
structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was adapted from the previous studies.
Collected data was analyzed by using PLS SEM. The measure of organizational support
was adapted from the study of Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986).
Original scale is containing 36 items but in this study a shorter version of organizational
support having eight items have been used. In the same way, innovative work behavior
was measured with six items from the study of De Jong and Den
Hartog (2010). The employee creativity has been assessed by using 13 items by following
Zhou, & George, (2001).

Data Analysis

Analysis was performed through PLS-SEM (Ringle et al., 2015). PLS can handle
complex models, including formative and reflective measurement models (Hair et al.,
2017). In the current study, all constructs are reflective. The measurement model was
used to estimate the reliability and validity, whereas the path coefficient was evaluated
via a structural model. Firstly, the items loading was evaluated using the recommended
criterion of greater than 0.60. Items having loading below 0.60 were dropped from the
advanced analysis, more specifically, OS7, OS8, EC10, EC13, and IWB1. It indicates that
all items of the study were valid.

In the following step, Cronbach’s alpha statistic was employed to estimate the
internal consistency, the recommended value must be greater than 0.70 and the finding
shows that all values were above than recommended arrange from 0.775 to 0.894, thus,
internal consistency is established. Moreover, another criterion composite reliability for
internal consistency with a threshold value greater than >0.7 was used. The obtained
values were between 0.840 to 0.912 shown in table I. The average Variance Extracted
(AVE) test was suggested for the evaluation of convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). It measures how one construct measure is positively related to other. The
acceptable range of AVE is >0.50 (Hair et al., 2017). Results show that AVE statistics are
in an acceptable range, hence the convergent validity was established in this study.

Figure I: Measurement Model

44
 Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

Table 1
Reliability and Validity of constructs
Variables Items Loading Cronbach Alfa CR AVE
Employee creativity EC1 0.643 0.894 0.912 0.487
EC11 0.626
EC12 0.700
EC2 0.723
EC3 0.778
EC4 0.763
EC5 0.711
EC6 0.713
EC7 0.645
EC8 0.669
EC9 0.687
Innovative work behavior IWB2 0.793 0.865 0.902 0.649
IWB3 0.782
IWB4 0.843
IWB5 0.793
IWB6 0.816
Organization support OS1 0.671 0.775 0.840 0.468
OS2 0.649
OS3 0.670
OS4 0.775
OS5 0.678
OS6 0.654

Next, construct validity was estimated to ensure that every studied construct is
distinct from other variables in the study (Bagozzi & Phillips, 1991). The Fornell-Larcker
test (Fornell and Larcker’s, 1981; Hair et al. 2017) and heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio
(Henseler et al., 2015) and via cross-loadings were used to estimate the construct validity.

Discriminant validity was evaluated via the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Hence, the square root of AVE values must be greater than the correlation
between studied constructs. Table II indicates that discriminant validity was approved.

Table 2
Fornell-Larcker Test
1 2 3
E.Creativity 0.698
IWB 0.640 0.806
OS 0.475 0.409 0.684

Another, HTMT criterion was also used to evaluate the correlation between
constructs, and the HTMT value must be less than 1 (Haider et al., 2018). Table III shows
that HTMT values were less than 0.80; therefore, discriminant validity was approved.

Table 3
HTMT test
1 2 3
E. Creativity
IWB 0.718
45
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

OS 0.542 0.487

The third criterion for discriminant validity was checked via cross-loading. The
test shows that items loading must be greater than cross-loading (Götz et al. 2010). Table
IV shows that discriminant validity was established.

Table 4
Cross loading
E. Creativity IWB OS
EC1 0.643 0.462 0.411
EC11 0.626 0.438 0.296
EC12 0.700 0.457 0.306
EC2 0.723 0.507 0.356
EC3 0.778 0.514 0.379
EC4 0.763 0.416 0.403
EC5 0.711 0.416 0.318
EC6 0.713 0.453 0.380
EC7 0.645 0.394 0.232
EC8 0.669 0.462 0.216
EC9 0.687 0.361 0.290
IWB2 0.534 0.793 0.384
IWB3 0.435 0.782 0.310
IWB4 0.500 0.843 0.315
IWB5 0.496 0.793 0.294
IWB6 0.590 0.816 0.337
OS1 0.206 0.295 0.671
OS2 0.257 0.190 0.649
OS3 0.313 0.268 0.670
OS4 0.342 0.262 0.775
OS5 0.423 0.297 0.678
OS6 0.347 0.336 0.654

Collinearity was calculated through bootstrapping test in the structural model.

This means a greater correlation among studies constructs (Hair et al., 2017). The variance
inflation factor (VIF) criterion was employed to evaluate the collinearity, and
recommended value is that it must be below 5. A result indicates that the values fall
between the acceptable range of 1.00 to 1.291, and hence there was no collinearity.

Further, path coefficients were evaluated via the PLS algorithm, and significance
was calculated by applying bootstrap standard error. A t-value greater than 1.96 (p < .05)
shows that there is a significant correlation. Further, the coefficient of determination (R2)
was estimated. Table V presents the R2 value that indicates the degree of variance
explained by the predictors. As such, R2 results 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 are inferred as weak,
moderate, and substantial respectively (Hair et al. 2014). More particularly, predictor
organizational support explained the variance level in employee creativity is weak and
innovative work behavior is substantial.

46
 Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

Table 5
Summary of Structural Model Assessment
R2 t-value p-value Assessment
E. Creativity 0.226 3.912 0.000 weak
IWB 0.424 8.168 0.000 substantial

The relationship between organizational support and employee creativity

(β=0.475, p< 0.01). The relationship between organizational support and innovative work
behavior (β= 0.409, p< 0.01). The relationship between employee creativity and
innovative work behavior (β= 0.576, p< 0.01) shown in table 6.

Figure II: Structural Model

Hair et al., (2017) proposed the criterion for mediation analysis, that the indirect
path must be significant.

Table 6
Hypothesis Evaluation
S. t- P- Decisions
Hypotheses Β
error value value Supported
E.Creativity -> IWB 0.576 0.057 10.178 0.000 Yes
OS -> E.Creativity 0.475 0.059 8.084 0.000 Yes
OS -> IWB 0.409 0.057 7.123 0.000 Yes
OS -> E.Creativity-> IWB 0.273 0.043 6.363 0.000 Yes

The H1 indicates that there is a significant and positive relationship between

organizational support and employee creativity (β=0.475, p< 0.01), which means H1 is
supported. Further, H2 indicates that there is a significant and positive relationship
between employee creativity and innovative work behavior (β=0.576, p< 0.01), further,
H3 was that employee creativity mediates the path between organization support and
innovative work behavior (β=0. 273, p< 0.01), hence H3 supported.

Conclusion

This study found the direct impact of organizational support on employee

creativity and innovative work behavior, and indirect impact of organizational support
on innovative work behavior through employee creativity. The findings indicate that
organization support is an important predictor of employee creativity and innovative
work behavior. Moreover, employee creativity mediates the relationship between
47
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

organizational support and innovative work behavior. The findings of the study validate
the social exchange theory on the employees working in Pakistan, particularly banking
sector of Pakistan.

More specifically, organizational support play important role in improving the

creativity of the employees. Employees tend to show creative behavior when they feel
that organization provide support to employees. The findings are in line with the
previous studies in the literature on the relationship between organizational support and
employee creativity. … Akgunduz, Alkan, & Gök, (2018) provides that organizational
support is an important determinant of employee creativity. Employee creativity
contributes toward transforming the organizations into creative organizations.
Employees are important sources of new, unique and useful ideas, which help the
organization in implementing novel solutions of the problems.

Similarly, organizational support is an important predictor of innovative work

behavior. The extended support by the organization help the employees in generating
and implication of creative ideas. Organizational support make the employees to exert
extra efforts which result into generating and practicing the novel ideas to solve the
problems. Employees play pivotal role in bringing innovation in the organization. This
innovative work behavior contribute toward triggering innovation related activities in
the organization.

Finally, employee creativity connects the organizational support with innovative

work behavior. Organizational support triggers employee creativity in the organization
which in turn lead to innovative work behavior. Employee creativity is mainly related to
the generation of novel ideas which are useful in solving the problems, and innovative
work behavior is about practicing the novel ideas. Organizational support helps the
employees to think out of the box and generate novel ideas and practicing these novel
ideas to solve organizational problems.

Organization support is critical for creativity and innovation of the employees.

Organizations should give value to the employees in order to trigger creative and
innovative behavior of the employees. The feelings, that organization cares about the
well-being of the employees and value the contribution of their employees, lead toward
creativity and innovation among employees. The findings suggest the managers to extent
support to their employees for increasing the level of creativity and innovation in the
organization.

The findings of the study are from the employees of banking sector which may
not be applicable to other sectors. Therefore, future studies should focus on the other
sectors. Similarly, results are based on the data collected through self-administered
questionnaire which may provide biased responses. Therefore, future studies should
apply tri-angulation in data collection to avoid self-administered response bias.
Additionally, organizational support and innovative work behavior have been taken as
uni-dimensional constructs in this study, future studies should consider the dimensions
of these variables to find the specific role of organizational support on various
dimensions of organizational support and innovative work behavior.

48
 Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

References

Akgunduz, Y., Alkan, C., & Gök, Ö. A. (2018). Perceived organizational support,
employee creativity and proactive personality: The mediating effect of meaning of
work. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 34, 105-114.

Akhavan, P., Hosseini, S. M., Abbasi, M., & Manteghi, M. (2015). Knowledge-sharing
determinants, behaviors, and innovative work behaviors. Aslib Journal of Information
Management, 67(5), 562.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to The Social Psychology of

Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bagheri, A., Akbari, M., & Artang, A. (2020). How does entrepreneurial leadership affect
innovation work behavior? The mediating role of individual and team creativity self-
efficacy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(1), 1-18.

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in
organizational research. Administrative science quarterly, 421-458.

Beheshtifar, M., & Zare, E. (2013). Employee creativity: A compulsory factor in

organizations. Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business, 5(2), 242-
247.

Cai, W., Khapova, S., Bossink, B., Lysova, E., & Yuan, J. (2020). Optimizing employee
creativity in the digital era: Uncovering the interactional effects of abilities,
motivations, and opportunities. International journal of environmental research and
public health, 17(3), 1038.

Chen, M. H., & Kaufmann, G. (2008). Employee creativity and R&D: A critical
review. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(1), 71-76.

Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., & Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee
creativity in organizations: The insulating role of creative ability. Group &
Organization Management, 34(3), 330-357.

Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory.
In Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61-88). Springer, Dordrecht.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary

review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.

De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Innovative work behavior: Measurement and
validation. EIM Business and Policy Research, 8(1), 1-27.

De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity
and innovation management, 19(1), 23-36.

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.

49
Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2011). Work environments for employee

creativity. Ergonomics, 54(1), 12-20.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied psychology, 71(3), 500.

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, 1-10.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1),
39-50.

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation,
transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of
employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.

Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation models
using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp.
691-711). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Haider, S., Jabeen, S., & Ahmad, J. (2018). Moderated mediation between work life
balance and employee job performance: The role of psychological wellbeing and
satisfaction with coworkers. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las
Organizaciones, 34(1), 29-37.

Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-
SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate
Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123.

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.

Ibrahim, H. I., Isa, A., & Shahbudin, A. S. M. (2016). Organizational support and
creativity: The role of developmental experiences as a moderator. Procedia Economics
and Finance, 35, 509-514.

Kim, T. Y., Hon, A. H., & Lee, D. R. (2010). Proactive personality and employee creativity:
The effects of job creativity requirement and supervisor support for
creativity. Creativity research journal, 22(1), 37-45.

Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., Liu, J., & Lee, C. (2018). Workplace ostracism and employee
creativity: An integrative approach incorporating pragmatic and engagement
roles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(12), 1358.

Miao, R., & Cao, Y. (2019). High-performance work system, work well-being, and
employee creativity: Cross-level moderating role of transformational
leadership. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(9), 1640.

50
 Pakistan Social Sciences Review (PSSR) Oct-Dec 2022, Vol. 6, No.4

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 607-634.

Ringle, C., Da Silva, D., & Bido, D. (2015). Structural equation modeling with the
SmartPLS. Bido, D., da Silva, D., & Ringle, C.(2014). Structural Equation Modeling with
the Smartpls. Brazilian Journal Of Marketing, 13(2).

Shafi, M., Lei, Z., Song, X., & Sarker, M. N. I. (2020). The effects of transformational
leadership on employee creativity: Moderating role of intrinsic motivation. Asia
Pacific Management Review, 25(3), 166-176.

Tian, W., Wang, H., & Rispens, S. (2021). How and when job crafting relates to employee
creativity: the important roles of work engagement and perceived work group status
diversity. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(1), 291.

Tri, H. T., Nga, V. T., & Sipko, J. (2019). Predicting overall Staffs’ Creativity and
Innovative Work Behavior in Banking. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the
Knowledge Society, 14(2), 188-202.

Van Dijk, C., & Van Den Ende, J. (2002). Suggestion systems: transferring employee
creativity into practicable ideas. R&D Management, 32(5), 387-395.

Volery, T., & Tarabashkina, L. (2021). The impact of organisational support, employee
creativity and work centrality on innovative work behaviour. Journal of Business
Research, 129(1), 295-303

Widmann, A., Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2016). The impact of team learning
behaviors on team innovative work behavior: A systematic review. Human Resource
Development Review, 15(4), 429-458.

Zhang, L., Bu, Q., & Wee, S. (2016). Effect of perceived organizational support on
employee creativity: Moderating role of job stressors. International Journal of Stress
Management, 23(4), 400.

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging
the expression of voice. Academy of Management journal, 44(4), 682-696.

51