Affiliations: [a] Business Faculty, City University of Macau, Macau, China | [b] Department of Radiology, Saga Medical School, Saga, Japan
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Nomiyama Keita, Department of Radiology, Saga Medical School, Saga, 849-8501, Japan. E-mail: alice6821@126.com.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:With the social environment requirements for innovation and creativity, requirements for enterprises’ innovation and creativity are also higher. However, research on the working pressure and innovation behavior of enterprise managers is rare. OBJECTIVE:To explore the relationship between the working pressure of managers and creative organizational behavior, provide a reference for the development of corporate innovation activities, thereby improving corporate organizational creativity. METHODS:Managers in enterprises under social networks’ background are selected as research objects to study the relationship between their working pressure and creative organizational behavior. First, the theory of pressure cognition activation is elaborated. The challenge pressure, hindrance pressure, and organizational creativity are selected as the basis, and the reliability and validity of the corresponding scale tools are analyzed and tested. Second, based on the relationship among challenging working pressure, hindrance working pressure, and organizational, creative behavior activities, two hypotheses are proposed, which are expressed as Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, respectively. Finally, according to the managerial working pressure in organizational, creative behavioral activities, two kinds of hypotheses are proposed, which are represented by Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4, respectively. RESULTS:The results show: The selected scale tools have good reliability and validity. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficients corresponding to challenge pressure, hindrance pressure, and organizational, creative behavior activities are all above 0.85. The challenge pressure has a significantly positive impact on organizational creativity (P < 0.01), while the hindrance pressure has a significantly negative impact on organizational creativity (P < 0.01); therefore, Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 are verified. The organizational support for creative behavior activities has a dual adjustment impact. In addition to negatively regulating the positive path of managers’ working pressure on work engagement, organizational support also positively regulates the positive path of managers’ work engagement on organizational creativity. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 are verified. CONCLUSIONS:The above results provide a theoretical reference for a profound understanding of the relationship between working pressure and creative behavior and the improvement of the creative ability of enterprises.
