Review Article: 2023 Vol: 27 Issue: 5
The Shakespearean Dilemma of Technostress, Perceived Organizational Support, and Employee Creativity: Investigating the Dark Side of Technology
Raunak Mishra, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode
Anjan Kumar Swain, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode
Citation Information: Mishra, R., & Kumar Swain, A. (2023). The shakespearean dilemma of technostress, perceived organisational support, and employee creativity: investigating the dark side of technology. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 27(5), 1-11.
Abstract
The significance of employee creativity is universal across organisations of varying sizes and types, regardless of their profit orientation. Considerable research has been conducted in the past to evaluate the significance of employee creativity. This research has considered the company's bottom line and the workers' sense of fulfilment in their jobs. This paper analyses how the present state of technostress in the workplace affects employees' ability to think creatively and what it could mean for the future. Our goal was to foretell the result by stressing the connection between the two, elaborating on its potential consequences, and arguing that it would benefit both the entity and the person. By shedding light on the Shakespearean issue that modern workers face at work, these findings contribute to the literature on the darker side of technology. The research highlights the value of recognizing and controlling technostress in fostering innovation in the workplace. To accomplish these goals, data were analysed using the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique using a representative sample of workers from different companies. In addition, we highlight the importance of perceived organisational support as a possible intervention for reducing technostress's inhibitory effect on creative output. The results of this research may be used by businesses to reduce the negative impacts of technostress on employees' ability to think creatively. Increasing workers' sense of belonging at their company may be a powerful tool for combating the destructive effects of technostress and fostering an innovative culture. Overall, this research contributes to the growing knowledge of technostress and employee creativity, providing valuable insights for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand and manage the complex interplay between technology, employee well-being, and organisational outcomes.
Keywords
Dark Side Of Technology, Employee Creativity, Technostress, Perceived Organisational Support.
Introduction
Employee creativity is the capacity to think of something new that may be applied to a problem at work to improve productivity. It is important to remember that Oldham and Cummings (1996) argue that creativity is best studied in achieving goals. Employees' propensity to develop original ideas for the company is often the consequence of some internal motivation. The desire to accomplish their goals drives workers. According to Nohria, Groysberg, and Lee (2008), intrinsic motivation rather than the pursuit of extrinsic rewards drives these goals. The company's desire to compete with rival firms' offerings and win the approval of upper management are two examples of external forces that encourage workers to demonstrate creative problem-solving. Active and passive viewpoints may be distinguished between these external elements that impact the employee's creativity, such as those who aim to acquire favourable judgments and those who avoid unfavourable decisions.
According to a large body of empirical evidence in the organisational behavior psychology literature, salary incentives and awards for creative work are not particularly efficient at encouraging creative activity. Paying workers competitive compensation is crucial for several reasons, not the least of which is that it serves as a powerful incentive for doing excellent creative work. Fostering people's creative abilities promotes cohesiveness in the workplace. It is a kind of direct feedback, and they have addressed the notion with their subordinates many times (Zhao & Rosson, 2007) so that they may address any gaps. The organisation's creative processes and ways of thinking facilitate collaboration among co-workers. Having a strong sense of teamwork within an organisation also boosts the dedication of its members. Even if certain group members do not always work together, they will at least talk to each other. Increased social support is beneficial for the health of any organisation.
Organisations may attract more talented professionals by providing an environment where creative thinkers are valued. They can do a better job of filling openings than anyone else. In addition, another group of academics has studied the relationship between employee creativity and stress. Using a multilevel examination of workplace stress, the author of this paper (Hon, 2013) investigates how a focus on innovation might improve service delivery. According to Naseem (1984), who investigated the connection between occupational stress and creativity in the workplace, emotional intelligence serves as a mediator. As previously mentioned, the challenges and gaps in the literature that the investigations have revealed have compelled IS scholars to investigate whether technostress affects employee creativity. We have also examined the literature on organisations to see how their perception of support might affect the connection between technostress and innovation in the workplace. Recognize the importance of the previous research and literature on employee innovation and technostress. The primary objectives of this study are to answer the following research questions (RQ):
RQ: How will Technostress Impact Employee Creativity in the Organisation in The Presence of Perceived Organisational Support?
Following a discussion of the theoretical framework, in which we explain the connection between technostress and employee creativity, we go on to the next part, which will consist of the available literature? We will also talk about how employees feel about the technological backing their company gives them and how it affects their imagination at work. After that, we will cover the study model and hypotheses, then the methods and outcomes, and finally, in the discussion and conclusion, we will discuss the consequences and future possibilities of this research endeavour.
Literature and Theoretical Background
In this study, we made an effort to assemble a literature review covering 1993 through 2022 on employee creativity, organisational stress, and perceived organisational support. The primary goal of this article review was to compile a database of relevant research on employee creativity, technostress, and perceived organisational support from the following sources. We use the terms "creativity," "employee creativity," "organisational creativity," "creative behaviour," and "creativity and innovation" to search EBSCO Host Database, JSTOR Database, SAGE Database, and Google Scholar for the most relevant and valuable online published papers and cited books on these topics. Employee creativity, workplace creativity, technostress, perceived organisational support, and creative innovation were some of the most popular search terms. After reading the abstracts of 248 scholarly works, 84 were chosen for a more in-depth analysis due to their apparent relation to the primary theme. Existing employees also feel the effects of the creative environment and are more likely to stay on staff. They start to take satisfaction in their work and plan on sticking around for the long run.
The accelerated development of technology has brought numerous advantages to organisations, such as increased efficiency, enhanced communication, and increased productivity. However, this technological advancement has also spawned a negative phenomenon known as technostress. (Tarafdar, Tu, & Ragu-Nathan, 2015) Technostress refers to the adverse psychological and emotional reactions individuals experience when confronted with the demands and challenges of technology. These stressors may negatively impact employee well-being and organisational outcomes. This paper investigates the Shakespearean dilemma of technostress, perceived organisational support, and employee creativity, casting light on the potential adverse effects of technology in the workplace. The overwhelming volume of information and incessant interruptions caused by technology can interfere with cognitive processes and inhibit creative thought (Ayyagari, Grover, & Purvis, 2011). POS refers to employees' perceptions of how much their organisation values their contributions, cares about their well-being, and encourages professional development (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986). Higher levels of POS can reduce the negative impact of stressors and improve employee well-being and performance, according to research (Eisenberger, Stinglhammer, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, and Rhoades, 2002). On the one hand, technology offers unprecedented opportunities for innovation and efficiency, but on the other, it poses challenges and stressors that can inhibit creative thought and well-being (Fugate, Kinick, & Ashforth, 2004). Employees are divided between technology's potential benefits and disadvantages, much like the protagonists in Shakespearean tragedies who must make difficult decisions.
According to researchers (Karkoszka & Honorowicz, 2009), creativity's most crucial aspect is how it affects the final product. Workers who can think creatively and in new ways are more likely to develop original solutions to their problems. Motivated employees are more likely to develop innovative solutions to problems, which may help the business function more smoothly. Many previous studies of organisational behaviour have shown the value of encouraging innovation among employees. In addition, some sources (Rothaus, Morton, & Hanson, 1965) state that workers can better maintain emotional distance from their issues at work if their workplace fosters creativity. Because the problem is not now affecting the employee, this mystery explains why advising friends is more straightforward than dealing with one's troubles. Another research discovered that increasing physical distance between individuals and problems promoted creativity and productivity. Workers encouraged to step back and consider the larger picture are better able to think independently and develop novel solutions to challenges. The authors begin with the interactional model proposed by (Woodman, Sawyer, & Gryphon, 1993), in which the creative process, creative result, person, and circumstance are each discussed separately before being brought together.
In their essay, they discussed the conceptual model of the contextual factor and its direct impact on workers' inventiveness. Both (Chen & Kaufmann, 2008) and (Simonton, 1984) examine how social psychology and interpersonal interaction affect creative output, and their model links social capital to intrinsic motivation, knowledge, and employee creativity. Job complexity, supportive supervision, and controlling supervision are three features of the organisational context that were used to analyse the individual and collective efficacy of employees' creative contributions (Greg, Douglas, Schmidt, Lavender, & Peers, 1996). To better understand how a leader's promotion of creativity tempered the relationship between psychological empowerment and innovation, (Zhang & Bartol, 2010) combined theories of leadership, empowerment, and creativity. We also analysed POS, defined as "the extent to which an employee believes that his or her employer cares about him or her and what he or she brings to the company" (Eisenberger & Huntington, 1986). The two extremes of poorly conceived or expensive POS exist (Akgunduz, Alkan, & Gök, 2018).
Research Model and Hypothesis Development
The literature shows that management scholars are interested in studying the manner in which work in the organisation is linked to stress (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000). Glazer and Beehr (2005) LePine and Van Dyne (1998); Jex and Bliese (1999). Many studies in recent years have focused on topics like workplace stress, innovation within the company, employee behaviour, and the importance of building up employees' psychological capital and psychological safety (Abbas & Raja, 2015). According to a study on technical stress and the physiological effects of using cutting-edge IT, published in 1997 (Arnetz & B.B., 1997; Hon, Chan, & Lu, 2013), technological stress may have positive effects for organisations. The research discussed the correlation between supervisor feedback and employee stress and inventiveness on the job. In light of this research, we provide the following theory on the connection between the source of technostress and the affected worker:
H1: Technostress creator is negatively influencing the employee creativity.
Perceived organisational support acts as a moderator because, according to the literature review conducted by Ibrahim, Isa, and Shahbudin (2016), employees who feel supported by their employers are more likely to be creative, which in turn helps the company's bottom line. The research by Diliello, Houghton, and Dawley (2011) addressed the impact of perceived work-group support on releasing employees' latent creative potential for the benefit of the company. Research on the relationship between POS and technostress demonstrates that the two interact in a moderating, inverse fashion (Wang & Shu, 2008). Our conclusion is that POS will have a chilling effect on the link between technostress and employee innovation, as shown by the research we cited above. Consequently, we hypothesise
H2: Perceived organisational support negativity moderates the relationship between the technostress creator and employee creativity.
To investigate the association between technostress, perceived organisational support, and employee creativity, our study controlled for two crucial variables: employee age and gender. By controlling for these variables, we intended to ensure that any observed effects on employee creativity could be attributed to the investigated factors and not to age or gender. As a consequence, we have a clearer picture of how technostress correlates with workers' perceptions of their employers' encouragement of and appreciation for their inventiveness. In Figure 1 we see the study's theoretical framework.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework.
Methodology and Data Collection
Data for this study was collected through an online survey. The purpose of the survey questionnaire was to collect pertinent data on technostress, perceptions of organizational support, and employee creativity. Using predetermined scales, the survey instrument ensured the validity and reliability of the measurements. Surveys were distributed to employees of multinational companies based in India. A survey to 548 employees were sent to participate in the survey. Purposive sampling was used to choose participants with a high risk of suffering technostress due to their level of technological engagement. The online questionnaire was delivered to participants with a sufficient amount of time for completion, the final count of 484 was received.
Data Analysis
The information was analysed using a structural equation modelling (SEM) approach. In-depth understanding of the underlying structures is made possible by SEM's ability to examine intricate connections between several variables. The authors of this research used structural equation modelling (SEM) to examine how factors like technostress, perceived organisational support, and employee creativity are interconnected. For the SEM study, the researchers used SmartPLS 4, a programme developed for partial least squares (PLS) analysis. Path analysis, model fit evaluation, and latent variable estimation are all possible with SmartPLS 4. The data from the 484 completed surveys was imported into SmartPLS 4 for statistical analysis. Exploratory component analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and path analysis were the statistical procedures used to probe the hypothesised connections between the study's variables of interest. Employees' perceptions of organisational support moderated the direct and indirect impacts of technostress generators on their ability to be creative, as demonstrated by the path analysis. The statistical procedures used to determine the significance and strength of the associations included t-tests and bootstrapping. In order to examine the Shakespearean conundrum of technostress, perceived organisational support, and employee creativity, this research employs powerful statistical methods and the SmartPLS 4 software to guarantee a thorough and methodical examination of the acquired data. Three tables were used to show and assess the data in our study paper. Table 1 shows the Cronbach’s alpha which provided the data reliability and validity. The indicators that were measured here are listed in Table 2. These metrics are used as gauges for the factors like technostress, perceived organisational support, and employee inventiveness that were studied. Table 2 displays these indications, giving a full picture of the analysed dataset and factors. Table 3 also displays the correlation indicators for the data set that was gathered and used. The relationships between the factors we considered are shown out in the following table. Using the correlation indicators, we hope to identify any significant associations or patterns between technostress, perceived organisational support, and employee creativity.
| Table 1 Construct Reliability And Vailidity - Overview |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cronbach's alpha | Composite reliability (rho_a) | Composite reliability (rho_c) | Average variance extracted (AVE) | |
| EC | 0.734 | 0.749 | 0.771 | 0.605 |
| POS | 0.832 | 0.851 | 0.882 | 0.603 |
| TC | 0.792 | 0.805 | 0.857 | 0.547 |
| Table 2 Indicators For The Data Set Used |
|||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | No | Type | Missings | Mean | Median | Scale min | Scale max | Observed min | Observed max | Standard deviation | Excess kurtosis | Skewness | Cramér-von Mises p value |
| Age | 1 | MET | 0 | 40.891 | 42 | 28 | 52 | 28 | 52 | 6.729 | -0.94 | -0.21 | 0 |
| Gender | 2 | 0|1 | 0 | 1.438 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.496 | -1.997 | 0.258 | 0 |
| POS1 | 3 | ORD | 0 | 3.656 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.814 | 2.307 | -1.234 | 0 |
| POS2 | 4 | ORD | 0 | 3.562 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.747 | 2.739 | -1.139 | 0 |
| POS3 | 5 | ORD | 0 | 3.516 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.901 | 0.552 | -0.835 | 0 |
| POS4 | 6 | ORD | 0 | 3.25 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.968 | 0.187 | -0.846 | 0 |
| POS5 | 7 | ORD | 0 | 3.656 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.814 | 2.162 | -1.056 | 0 |
| TC1 | 8 | ORD | 0 | 3.688 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.864 | 1.602 | -0.975 | 0 |
| TC2 | 9 | ORD | 0 | 3.531 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.749 | 2.493 | -1.022 | 0 |
| TC3 | 10 | ORD | 0 | 3.766 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.765 | 3.701 | -1.279 | 0 |
| TC4 | 11 | ORD | 0 | 3.641 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.908 | 0.169 | -0.624 | 0 |
| TC5 | 12 | ORD | 0 | 3.578 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.825 | 1.751 | -1.28 | 0 |
| EC1 | 13 | ORD | 0 | 3.547 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.883 | 0.063 | -0.355 | 0 |
| EC2 | 14 | ORD | 0 | 3.422 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 0.88 | -0.734 | -0.108 | 0 |
| EC3 | 15 | ORD | 0 | 3.703 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.7 | 2.551 | -0.905 | 0 |
| EC4 | 16 | ORD | 0 | 3.641 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 0.817 | -0.321 | -0.292 | 0 |
| EC5 | 17 | ORD | 0 | 3.766 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.805 | 1.435 | -0.828 | 0 |
| Table 3 Correlation Indicators For The Data Set Used |
|||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Gender | POS1 | POS2 | POS3 | POS4 | POS5 | TC1 | TC2 | TC3 | TC4 | TC5 | EC1 | EC2 | EC3 | EC4 | EC5 | |
| Age | 1.000 | ||||||||||||||||
| EC1 | -0.004 | 1.000 | |||||||||||||||
| EC2 | -0.067 | -0.015 | 1.000 | ||||||||||||||
| EC3 | -0.069 | -0.032 | 0.626 | 1.000 | |||||||||||||
| EC4 | 0.087 | 0.159 | 0.540 | 0.497 | 1.000 | ||||||||||||
| EC5 | -0.056 | 0.000 | 0.386 | 0.302 | 0.336 | 1.000 | |||||||||||
| Gender | 0.039 | -0.015 | 0.647 | 0.523 | 0.646 | 0.466 | 1.000 | ||||||||||
| POS1 | 0.072 | 0.100 | 0.536 | 0.563 | 0.448 | 0.430 | 0.514 | 1.000 | |||||||||
| POS2 | 0.095 | 0.005 | 0.453 | 0.499 | 0.543 | 0.398 | 0.632 | 0.329 | 1.000 | ||||||||
| POS3 | -0.011 | 0.188 | 0.498 | 0.531 | 0.424 | 0.438 | 0.623 | 0.551 | 0.517 | 1.000 | |||||||
| POS4 | -0.111 | -0.206 | 0.425 | 0.436 | 0.284 | 0.227 | 0.404 | 0.295 | 0.441 | 0.284 | 1.000 | ||||||
| POS5 | 0.062 | 0.031 | 0.575 | 0.511 | 0.460 | 0.503 | 0.575 | 0.582 | 0.388 | 0.536 | 0.402 | 1.000 | |||||
| TC1 | -0.029 | -0.083 | 0.392 | 0.244 | 0.529 | 0.498 | 0.566 | 0.327 | 0.458 | 0.352 | 0.167 | 0.402 | 1.000 | ||||
| TC2 | 0.005 | -0.136 | 0.180 | 0.257 | 0.336 | 0.298 | 0.289 | 0.235 | 0.371 | 0.216 | 0.385 | 0.094 | 0.266 | 1.000 | |||
| TC3 | -0.010 | -0.076 | 0.479 | 0.379 | 0.416 | 0.386 | 0.506 | 0.338 | 0.450 | 0.395 | 0.324 | 0.351 | 0.313 | 0.229 | 1.000 | ||
| TC4 | 0.277 | 0.002 | 0.354 | 0.357 | 0.379 | 0.153 | 0.378 | 0.505 | 0.312 | 0.190 | 0.142 | 0.215 | 0.229 | 0.254 | 0.360 | 1.000 | |
| TC5 | -0.045 | -0.056 | 0.306 | 0.297 | 0.231 | 0.155 | 0.449 | 0.299 | 0.362 | 0.291 | 0.270 | 0.368 | 0.356 | 0.228 | 0.154 | 0.181 | 1.000 |
Result
The first hypothesis, which states that technostress has a negative effect on employee creativity, is substantiated. The analysis revealed a significant negative association between technostress creator and employee creativity, implying that higher levels of technostress creator are associated with reduced employee creativity. The second hypothesis, which proposed that negative perceptions of organisational support moderate the relationship between technostress and employee creativity, is not supported. The analysis failed to identify a significant interaction effect between negative perceptions of organisational support and the relationship between technostress and employee creativity. Also the perceived organisational support influences employee creativity positively, is validated. The analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between perceived organisational support and employee creativity, implying that higher levels of perceived organisational support are associated with greater employee creativity. In addition, we investigated the impact of age and gender as controlled variables in the model, the results for the same is presented; where age and gender had no effect on the relationships between technostress creator, perceived organisational support, and employee creativity. Therefore, the controlled variables of age and gender had no effect on the model as a whole Figure 2.
Figure 2: Represents The Path Analysis Of The Sem In Smartpls 4
In conclusion, the results of this study support the first hypothesis, suggesting that technostress negatively affects employee creativity. The second hypothesis, however, regarding the moderating function of negative perceived organisational support, was not substantiated. These findings have significant ramifications for businesses seeking to promote employee creativity and manage technostress. It indicates that diminishing technostress creator factors and fostering a supportive organisational environment can have a positive effect on employee creativity. Furthermore, the examination of controlled variables such as age and gender revealed no significant effects on the model's relationships, indicating that the observed effects are predominantly driven by the investigated variables. Organisations can enhance creativity and overall performance by implementing strategies based on an understanding of the factors that influence employee creativity. Future research could investigate additional variables and factors that may shed further light on the intricate relationship between technostress, perceived organisational support, and employee creativity Figure 3.
Figure 3: Represents The Path Analysis Of The Sem In Smartpls With The Controlled Variable Age And Gender.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This research aimed to contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the impact of technology on employee creativity, with a specific focus on the moderating role of perceived organisational support. Given the limited existing research in this area, our study fills a significant gap by shedding light on the direct influence of technology on employee creativity and the critical role organisational support plays. The findings of our research indicate that there is a nuanced relationship between technostress and employee creativity. While a certain stress level is necessary for optimal performance, excessive technostress can harm employee well-being and organisational outcomes. Organisations must recognise and manage technostress effectively to foster a supportive work environment that enhances employee creativity and well-being. In dealing with workplace stress, especially that resulting from technology use, the results of this study provide valuable insights and practical implications for organisations. The ability of managers to support their employees in realising their full creative potential can be affected by a better understanding of how technostress impacts employee creativity and how perceived organisational support moderates this relationship. The implications for the future success and sustainability of organisations are significant. By identifying both challenge and hindrance techno-stressors and investigating their impact on job satisfaction, turnover, and dissatisfaction, we have laid the foundation for further exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of technostress within organisations, particularly in the healthcare sector. In light of our findings, we recommend that future research explore the complex dynamics of technostress and its effects on employee creativity.
Additionally, investigating other potential moderators or mediators in the relationship between technostress and creativity would enhance our understanding of this phenomenon. In particular, further research in the medical field can provide valuable insights into the unique challenges and opportunities associated with technology use in healthcare settings. Overall, this study contributes to the literature on technostress and employee creativity, offering valuable information for organisations to effectively manage stress and support employee creativity in the era of advancing technology.
References
Abbas, M. & Raja, U. (2015). Impact of psychological capital on innovative performance and job stress. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 32(2), 128-138.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
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.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Arnetz, B. B. (1997). Technological stress: psychophysiological aspects of working with modern information technology. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 97-103.
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831-858.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V. & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of applied psychology, 85(1), 65.
Chen, M. H. & Kaufmann, G. (2008). Employee creativity and R&D: A critical review. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(1), 71-76.
Diliello, T. C., Houghton, J. D. & Dawley, D. (2011). Narrowing the creativity gap: The moderating effects of perceived support for creativity. The Journal of Psychology, 145(3), 151-172.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 14-38.
Glazer, S. & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Consistency of implications of three role stressors across four countries. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 26(5), 467-487.
Greg, R., Schmidt, D. C., Lavender, R. G., Schmidt, C. & Peers, P. (1996). Active Object-An Object Behavioral Pattern for Concurrent Programming.
Hon, A. H. (2013). Does job creativity requirement improve service performance? A multilevel analysis of work stress and service environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 161-170.
Hon, A. H., Chan, W. W. & Lu, L. (2013). Overcoming work-related stress and promoting employee creativity in the hotel industry: The role of task feedback from supervisor. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 416-424.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
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.
Jex, S. M. & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: a multilevel study. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 349.
Karkoszka, T. & Honorowicz, J. (2009). Kaizen philosophy is a manner of continuous improvement of processes and products. Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 35(2), 197-203.
LePine, J. A. & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of applied psychology, 83(6), 853.
Naseem, K. (1984). Job stress and employee creativity: The mediating role of emotional intelligence. Stress, 27, 2-1.
Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. & Lee, L. E. (2008). Employee motivation. Harvard business review, 86(7/8), 78-84.
Oldham, G. R. & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Rothaus, P., Morton, R. B. & Hanson, P. G. (1965). Performance appraisal and psychological distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 48.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Artistic creativity and interpersonal relationships across and within generations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(6), 1273.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., & Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2015). Technostress: Negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. Information Systems Journal, 29(2), 408-435.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S. & Ragu-Nathan, B. S. (2011). Crossing to the dark side: examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Communications of the ACM, 54(9), 113-120.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. & Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, 46.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A. & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 21-54.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A. & Sullivan, Y. (2016). Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: An extension and illustration. Venkatesh, V., Brown, SA, and Sullivan, YW “Guidelines for Conducting Mixed-methods Research: An Extension and Illustration,” Journal of the AIS, 17(7), 435-495.
Wang, K. & Shu, Q. (2008, September). The moderating impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship between technostress and role stress. In 2008 19th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (pp. 420-424). IEEE.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E. & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of management review, 18(2), 293-321.
Zhang, X. & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of management journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Zhao, D. & Rosson, M. B. (2007). Facilitating Employee Creativity: What Can We Learn from Online Work Community?
Received: 29-May-2023, Manuscript No. AMSJ-23-13640; Editor assigned: 30-May-2023, PreQC No. AMSJ-23-13640(PQ); Reviewed: 20-Jun-2023, QC No. AMSJ-23-13640; Revised: 26-Jun-2023, Manuscript No. AMSJ-23-13640(R); Published: 06-Jul-2023