Creativity performance and emotions

Creativity refers to an individual’s ability to generate new or original ideas, gain insights, recombine existing knowledge, or invent products recognized by experts as having scientific, aesthetic, social, or technological value [4,37]. Employee creativity performance is typically defined as the generation of novel and valuable ideas, perspectives, and problem-solving approaches [38,39]. Emotions are characterized as the attitudes, experiences, and behavioral patterns individuals exhibit in response to perceived external stimuli and are commonly used to explain individual behavior [40]. Organizations are environments saturated with emotions, which permeate the entirety of the work process for employees. Among the various factors predicting employee creativity, emotions are both widely acknowledged and subject to significant debate [41,42].

The central controversy in this research question revolves around the influence of positive and negative emotions on creativity performance [43]. Some scholars argue that positive emotions can significantly enhance creativity [44,45]. For instance, Isen [46] induced positive affect in college students through methods such as small gifts and comedy clips, observing that these students generated more novel and appropriate word associations, thus confirming a positive correlation between positive affect and individual creativity. Madjar and Oldham found that a positive mood mediated the relationship between supportive work/non-work environments and creativity [47]. Additionally, Davis conducted a meta-analysis of 62 experiments and 10 field studies, revealing that among positive, neutral, and negative moods, a positive mood most significantly fosters creativity [48]. However, the impact of positive emotions also depends on the type of creative task [35,49,50]. In contrast, other scholars contend that negative emotions can also enhance creativity. For example, Ludwig’s research on 1,005 outstanding individuals from various professions in the 20th century found a significant positive correlation between depressive emotions and creative achievement [51]. Furthermore, Benoit and Miller demonstrated that fear can enhance creativity perception [15]. Similarly, W. Liu and Xiang showed that negative emotions such as disappointment and shame can positively impact learning and knowledge growth, which benefits creative performance [16].

The organizational field has yet to reach a consensus on the correlation between emotions and creative performance. This lack of agreement largely arises from the fact that employees’ creative endeavors occur within the context of their daily work routines, which are intricately intertwined with broader life objectives such as personal interests, aspirations, recognition, advancement opportunities, and interpersonal dynamics. These activities are enduring, multifaceted, and influenced by contextual elements. Consequently, research exploring the link between emotions and creative performance can only yield conclusive insights when conducted within the specific context of an organization. Findings from studies conducted in other contexts may only suggest the potential relationship between these variables.

Autonomy-supportive environment

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship between environmental factors and individual behavior [52]. At the core of SDT is the concept of autonomy support, which refers to the ability of authority figures, such as leaders, to consider others’ viewpoints, provide meaningful information and choices, and foster self-determination [29]. This definition outlines four key requirements for authority figures: first, to offer clear explanations for expected behaviors; second, to empathize with others’ perspectives; third, to promote opportunities for choice and initiative; and finally, to minimize controlling behaviors (Landry R, Joussemet M, Koestner et al. [Unpublished]).

Building on this theoretical foundation, Deci and Ryan classified environments into autonomy-supportive and controlling categories based on their effects on individual behavior [22]. Autonomy-supportive environments encourage individuals’ autonomous actions and provide supportive conditions, whereas controlling environments impose external constraints and coercive elements on individuals’ behavior. These environments exert distinct influences on individuals’ psychological experiences and behaviors. Autonomy-supportive environments facilitate the internalization of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, while controlling environments undermine intrinsic motivation and hinder the internalization of extrinsic motivation. According to this theory, the fulfillment of individuals’ needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy serves as the criteria for distinguishing between autonomy-supportive and controlling environments. The concept of autonomy support not only underscores the importance of autonomy as one of the three basic needs for individual development but also highlights the constructive role of environmental support in this development [53], establishing a close link between individual needs and the environment. SDT posits that individuals are inclined to engage in work and tasks that align with their values and interests, yet their motivation and behavior are also influenced, to some extent, by the social environment [33]. Following the logic of SDT, in a controlling organizational environment, employees’ internal motivation and desires are suppressed, negatively impacting their performance and adaptation. Conversely, in an autonomy-supportive organizational environment, employees’ internal motivation and desires are nurtured, leading to improved performance and individual development.

Autonomy support and basic psychological needs

Autonomy-supportive environments are integral to the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, a cornerstone of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [29]. SDT posits that the fulfillment of three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—plays a fundamental role in motivating individuals and shaping their behavior. These needs represent the core connection between individuals and their external environment. When the environment supports the satisfaction of these needs, it fosters intrinsic motivation, enhances engagement, and improves performance [29].

The need for autonomy is the desire to feel in control of one’s actions and to have the freedom to make choices [54]. Autonomy-supportive environments, where individuals are encouraged to make decisions independently, are believed to fulfill this need and foster autonomous motivation, which is associated with positive outcomes such as higher job satisfaction and enhanced creativity [29].

The competence need refers to the experience of feeling effective in one’s activities and having opportunities to exercise and express one’s abilities [29]. Autonomy-supportive environments play a crucial role in fulfilling this need by providing optimal challenges and constructive feedback, which help individuals feel competent and achieve success. Research has shown that when employees perceive their work environment as supportive of their competence, they are more likely to engage in creative tasks and demonstrate improved performance [29]. Specifically, the presence of autonomy support enhances the competence need by offering challenges that are appropriately matched to individual abilities and providing feedback that fosters a sense of mastery. A study by Van den Broeck et al. further demonstrated that autonomy-supportive climates are positively related to the satisfaction of both competence and autonomy needs, which, in turn, lead to higher levels of intrinsic motivation and better work performance [55].

Relatedness refers to the need to feel connected to others, to build meaningful relationships, and to experience a sense of belonging [29]. Autonomy-supportive environments contribute to the satisfaction of this need by fostering a sense of respect, trust, and collaboration among individuals. When these relatedness needs are met, individuals are more likely to experience positive emotions and increased motivation, which in turn can enhance their creative performance and overall well-being [29]. By creating opportunities for meaningful interpersonal interactions and promoting mutual respect, autonomy-supportive environments facilitate the fulfillment of relatedness needs. Niemann et al. further demonstrated that organizational environments that support autonomy also promote greater satisfaction of relatedness needs, leading to improved employees’ well-being and enhanced creative performance [56].

Deci and Ryan argue that these three psychological needs are universal and innate, and individuals are motivated to seek environments that satisfy them [29]. A supportive social environment that promotes the satisfaction of these needs can lead to positive outcomes, including increased intrinsic motivation, personal growth, and enhanced work performance. Research by Baard et al. found that managers who create autonomy-supportive environments help employees satisfy their basic psychological needs, leading to higher work engagement, greater happiness, and improved performance compared to controlling environments [57].

Basic psychological needs and emotions

Basic psychological needs are defined as the extent to which the external environment meets individuals’ fundamental psychological needs [58]. Ryan and Deci emphasized the importance of recognizing both the independent functional value of the three basic psychological needs and their dynamic interplay [33]. The satisfaction of these needs is closely linked to the experience of emotions, and previous research has explored the association between the satisfaction of basic psychological needs and both positive and negative emotions. Ryan et al. suggested that greater satisfaction of autonomous psychological needs is associated with increased positive emotions, vitality, and self-esteem, as well as reduced negative emotions and physiological symptoms [59]. A heightened sense of relatedness can also promote physical health. Myers demonstrated that individuals who feel satisfied in their interpersonal interactions tend to be happier and healthier compared to those who do not [60]. In addition to autonomy and relatedness, the satisfaction of competence needs also plays a crucial role in emotional experiences. According to Eddie et al., competence needs are activated when individuals perceive challenges and are able to successfully overcome them. This success triggers positive emotions, such as pride, satisfaction, and confidence, which further enhance intrinsic motivation [61]. When individuals feel competent, their sense of achievement and mastery grows, leading to a positive emotional state that encourages engagement in more challenging tasks and continued growth. These emotions are particularly relevant in contexts where individuals’ sense of competence is nurtured by an autonomy-supportive environment, as the environment provides feedback and optimal challenges that facilitate the satisfaction of competence needs [62].

Furthermore, when the three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are satisfied, individuals report heightened feelings of psychological well-being, joy, and strong engagement in activities. However, when these needs are unsatisfied or partially met, individuals experience negative emotions such as uncertainty, doubt, anger, and fear, and may also suffer from diminished vitality and physical discomfort [63]. Thus, the interplay between these needs, their satisfaction, and the emotional outcomes highlights the importance of an autonomy-supportive environment in promoting positive emotional experiences and enhancing overall motivation.

While Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship between autonomy support, psychological needs, and emotional outcomes, alternative theories offer different insights into the interplay between emotions and creativity. For instance, Affective Events Theory (AET) emphasizes the role of workplace events in triggering emotional responses, which then influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors, including creativity [64]. AET posits that emotions are not only consequences of job events but also key drivers of subsequent work behaviors, thus suggesting that both positive and negative emotions can serve as catalysts for creative thinking, depending on the specific work context.

Additionally, Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions suggests that positive emotions expand individuals’ thinking and problem-solving capacities, leading to increased creativity [65]. This theory contrasts with SDT by focusing primarily on positive emotions, arguing that they foster a broadened cognitive state that is conducive to novel ideas and flexible thinking. On the other hand, theories such as The Affect-Cognition-Behavior Model propose that emotions serve as an immediate, adaptive response to environmental stimuli that may affect creativity in complex ways [65]. According to Isen, positive emotions often facilitate cognitive flexibility, while negative emotions may enhance critical thinking and attention to detail, potentially improving the quality of creative performance.

Furthermore, The Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), a sub-theory of SDT, emphasizes that external factors, including rewards and feedback, can influence intrinsic motivation and emotional responses, which in turn affect creativity [66]. CET suggests that while autonomy support might generally enhance intrinsic motivation and positive emotions, external constraints or controls might lead to frustration and a decrease in creativity. This contrasts with SDT’s broader view of autonomy support fostering positive emotions and creativity in all contexts, highlighting the importance of considering the role of external factors in shaping emotional responses and creative performance.

In sum, while SDT offers a robust framework, integrating these alternative theories and perspectives provides a more nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between emotions and creativity. These competing models highlight that emotions—both positive and negative—can have diverse effects on creativity, depending on individual, contextual, and environmental factors.

Autonomy support and creative performance

Existing research has identified several environmental factors that influence employees’ creative performance. These factors include supportive and conducive work environments, which encompass elements such as leadership support [67], collegial collaboration [35], an organizational innovation climate [5], expectation management [68], the establishment of creative objectives [69], and the provision of feedback [70], among others. Among these factors, the autonomy-supportive environment stands out as one of the most extensively explored in the research literature.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that autonomy-supportive environments within organizations foster individuals’ intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, and, in various contexts, enhance job performance. For instance, teachers’ autonomy support positively predicted metacognition, creative thinking, and self-efficacy, with self-efficacy being positively predicted by metacognition and creative thinking [71]. Research indicates that teams led by autonomy-supportive leaders exhibit high levels of trust in the organization and overall job satisfaction [72]. Additionally, Pajak and Glickman observed that autonomy-supportive management practices cultivate trust and loyalty among employees [73]. In a study conducted by Deci and Ryan [74], annual performance evaluation indicators were collected through a questionnaire survey, and Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was used to examine the SDT model. The results revealed that employees’ self-determined orientation and leaders’ autonomy support independently predicted employees’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which, in turn, influenced employees’ job performance and well-being. Although this study did not specifically focus on creativity, its findings align closely with the patterns observed in performance evaluations.

Deci and Ryan emphasize in SDT the pivotal role of leaders’ direct attention to employees’ need for autonomy in shaping environments that foster creativity and individual factors [74]. Within autonomy-supportive environments, individuals demonstrate enhanced cognitive flexibility and experience more positive moods, leading to heightened creativity [22]. Christina et al. assert that most studies provide evidence supporting the positive association between supportive leadership styles and creativity [75]. For instance, Amabile highlights the significant role of autonomy-supportive work environments in nurturing individual creativity within her theory of creativity components [4]. Oldham and Cummings found that autonomy-supportive supervisory styles have a more beneficial impact on subordinates’ creative performance compared to controlling supervisory styles [76]. Gong et al. revealed that leaders’ empowerment encourages individuals to leverage their knowledge and experiences, thereby enhancing their independent and critical thinking abilities [77]. Zhou demonstrated that a highly autonomous environment fosters the generation of creative ideas [70]. Frese found that the more supervisors encourage employees, the more creative suggestions employees offer to the organization [78]. Ford and Kleiner discovered that employees need autonomy in determining how to allocate their work time and conduct their tasks to explore new ideas and foster creativity [79]. Deci et al. observed that under autonomy support, individuals invest more energy in activities, leading to higher levels of creativity [80]. Through a series of experimental studies, both Oldham and Cummings [76] and Zhou [70] found that a supportive, autonomy-oriented leadership style encourages employees to flexibly and persistently acquire innovative ideas and solutions. Additionally, an autonomy-supportive environment promotes the manifestation of employee creativity [81,82]. Conversely, numerous studies have indicated a negative correlation between supervisors’ controlling behaviors (e.g., close supervision) and employee creativity [83]. Researchers have found that when individuals’ work styles are restricted and controlled, and autonomy is diminished, their creativity declines [35].

Mediating effect of emotions on the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance

Emotional transmission is an additional pathway through which environmental factors, such as autonomy support, influence employees’ creative performance, alongside task motivation mediation [84]. However, research to date has not fully elucidated the emotional dynamics that convey information about autonomy-supportive environments. Only a few studies have indirectly shed light on the impact of autonomy-supportive environments on emotions and creative performance.

Several studies have examined the moderating role of supervisor supportiveness in the relationship between employees’ emotional states and creative performance. Supervisor supportiveness, as defined by George and Zhou [85], involves providing inspirational feedback, nurturing fairness in interpersonal interactions, and earning trust from employees. In environments with high levels of supervisor supportiveness, when creative employees initially experience elevated positive emotional states, subsequent negative emotions become strongly positively correlated with creativity. Conversely, when supervisor supportiveness is low, there is no significant correlation between negative emotions and creativity, even if initial positive emotional scores are high. These findings highlight the significant impact of autonomy-supportive environments on employee emotions and, consequently, creative performance. Deci et al. found through experimental research that an autonomy-supportive management style is associated with higher job satisfaction and improved emotional states across various aspects of work and the work environment [86]. For instance, managers who present job prospects in a non-controlling manner, offer choices, and encourage self-motivation—rather than exerting pressure—foster greater job satisfaction among employees, enhance trust in company management, and evoke other positive work-related emotions, ultimately improving job performance. Breaugh demonstrated that experiencing autonomy in the workplace can increase employee job involvement and performance [87]. Vallerand et al. showed that when subordinates perceive leaders as autonomy-supportive, they exhibit greater job satisfaction, fewer absences, and improved physical and emotional well-being [88].

Mediating effect of basic psychological need satisfaction on the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance

Autonomy-supportive environments, which facilitate the satisfaction of individuals’ basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), have been shown to enhance intrinsic motivation and creative performance. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posits that these needs are essential for fostering autonomous motivation, which is linked to greater psychological well-being and improved performance outcomes [29,67]. Research indicates that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs mediates the relationship between environmental factors, such as autonomy support, and various outcomes, including creativity [59].

The need for autonomy refers to the experience of volition and choice, which is often fulfilled in environments that promote self-direction and personal agency [55]. When autonomy is supported, individuals tend to feel more intrinsically motivated, leading to higher creative performance [35]. Similarly, competence needs are satisfied when individuals feel effective and capable in their tasks, which is particularly relevant in creative work that involves problem-solving and innovation [29]. The satisfaction of competence needs enhances self-confidence and promotes persistence in creative endeavors, leading to higher creative performance [60].

Furthermore, the relatedness need, which pertains to the desire for meaningful social connections and a sense of belonging, also plays a critical role in fostering creativity. When employees perceive their work environment as supportive and collaborative, they are more likely to experience satisfaction of their relatedness needs, which, in turn, can enhance their creativity [35,69]. Therefore, the fulfillment of these three basic psychological needs is crucial in understanding how autonomy-supportive environments contribute to creative performance.

Several studies have demonstrated that the satisfaction of these psychological needs acts as a mediator between autonomy support and creative performance. For instance, research by Van den Broeck et al. revealed that autonomy-supportive climates were positively related to the satisfaction of both competence and autonomy needs, which, in turn, enhanced intrinsic motivation and work performance [56]. Additionally, Baard et al. emphasized that when employees’ basic psychological needs are satisfied, they experience increased engagement and creativity in the workplace [31]. Given the importance of these needs, it is essential to examine how their satisfaction mediates the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance.

Aims and hypotheses

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of employee emotions on creative performance within an autonomy-supportive organizational environment and to develop a model that elucidates the process through which emotions influence creative performance. This study aims to provide insights into how organizational environments and emotional states can be optimized to enhance employees’ creative performance. The primary hypotheses of this investigation are as follows.

The perspective of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) suggests that the degree of need satisfaction is determined by the interaction between individuals and their social environment, serving as direct or interactive predictors of personality traits, behavior, or psychological states [74]. This implies that the influence of social environmental factors on individual personality traits, behavior, or psychological states may not be direct but could be mediated through the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Ryan and Deci emphasized that when the social environment fulfills basic psychological needs, individuals are more likely to internalize and integrate various aspects of the social world, including external motivations [89]. Conversely, when the social environment hinders the satisfaction of these needs, the efficiency of internalization is compromised. Therefore, this study infers that the impact of an autonomy-supportive work environment on work emotions is likely mediated through the satisfaction of individual basic psychological needs. In other words, the influence of an autonomy-supportive work environment on work emotions is expected to be mediated by the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. If managers’ autonomy support better meets employees’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, it will lead to greater job satisfaction, improved performance, enhanced persistence, positive acceptance of organizational changes, and better psychological adaptation. An autonomy-supportive environment facilitates the fulfillment of employees’ psychological needs. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1a: Autonomy support is positively associated with basic psychological needs satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1b: Autonomy support is negatively associated with basic psychological needs frustration.

Eddie et al. explored the relationship between the satisfaction of basic psychological needs and specific emotions [61]. They used questionnaires to measure psychological needs (competence and relatedness) and emotions (five negative emotions: anger, sadness, fear, guilt, and shame; and one positive emotion: joy), and analyzed the associations between psychological needs and emotions. The findings revealed that competence and relatedness needs were negatively correlated with anger and sadness, positively correlated with joy, and unrelated to guilt and shame. Additionally, the competence need was negatively correlated with fear, and negative emotions were negatively correlated with the satisfaction of competence and relatedness needs. Previous research indicates that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs elicits positive emotions, while the thwarting of these needs triggers negative emotions. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2a Basic psychological needs satisfaction is positively associated with positive emotions.

Hypothesis 2b Basic psychological needs frustration is positively associated with negative emotions.

The generation of both positive and negative work emotions is influenced by a dynamic interaction between organizational factors and individual psychological needs. According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT), autonomy-supportive organizational environments that facilitate the satisfaction of employees’ basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are critical to fostering intrinsic motivation and positive emotions. When organizational environments nurture these needs, employees are more likely to experience enhanced feelings of satisfaction, pride, and self-efficacy, which in turn promote positive work behaviors such as creativity, engagement, and overall well-being [31,33]. In these supportive settings, employees perceive themselves as competent and autonomous, which strengthens their emotional investment in tasks and increases the likelihood of experiencing positive emotions such as joy, enthusiasm, and fulfillment [25,57].

On the other hand, in environments that lack autonomy support, employees may face frustration in fulfilling their psychological needs. When individuals perceive their needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness as unmet or thwarted, they are more likely to experience negative emotions such as stress, anxiety, frustration, and disengagement. These negative emotions can reduce motivation and undermine their creative performance, leading to lower job satisfaction and poorer overall well-being [63,73]. Furthermore, the frustration of these needs often triggers defensive behaviors, such as withdrawal or reduced effort, which can impair productivity and innovation [90].

Recent studies have provided compelling evidence that the satisfaction or frustration of these needs serves as a mediating mechanism through which autonomy support influences emotional outcomes in the workplace. For example, a study by Vansteenkiste et al. demonstrated that when employees’ psychological needs are satisfied through autonomy-supportive leadership, they experience higher levels of positive emotions, such as vitality and enthusiasm, which directly enhance their performance [25]. Conversely, the frustration of these needs leads to increased negative emotions, such as irritability and dissatisfaction, which can hinder both personal well-being and organizational performance [91].

The fulfillment or frustration of basic psychological needs plays a crucial role in shaping emotional responses, which in turn impact creative performance. Therefore, investigating the mediating role of need satisfaction is essential for understanding how organizational autonomy support can influence both positive and negative emotions in employees. Based on this theoretical framework, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3a The satisfaction of basic psychological needs mediates the relationship between autonomy support and positive emotions.

Hypothesis 3b The frustration of basic psychological needs mediates the relationship between autonomy support and negative emotions.

Amabile et al. concluded that supportive leadership styles more effectively promote employee creativity compared to controlling leadership styles, which undermine it [84]. Zhou argued that when evaluative feedback on initial tasks is provided in a developmental, informational manner, employees’ creative performance improves. Conversely, when leaders adopt a controlling style, employee creativity decreases [70]. In autonomy-supportive environments facilitated by leaders and the broader work context, employees are exposed to supportive, developmental, and informational cues. These cues contribute to the satisfaction of psychological needs, foster internal motivation, and ultimately stimulate creativity. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4 Autonomy support positively correlates with creativity performance.

Baard et al. observed that autonomy-supportive leadership facilitates the fulfillment of employees’ basic psychological needs, leading to increased work engagement, higher levels of happiness, and better performance compared to leaders with controlling styles [57]. Moreover, Deci et al. found that perceived autonomy support, as experienced by employees in both state-owned enterprises in Bulgaria and the United States, satisfies employees’ basic psychological needs, elevates work enthusiasm and self-esteem, and reduces job anxiety [29]. These findings suggest that managers who provide methodological guidance in problem-solving, attend to employees’ psychological needs, and foster positive emotions can enhance work performance. Some research found that negative emotions, compared to positive and neutral ones, can be more conducive to creative performance [14–16]. In line with previous research [51], negative emotions, such as anxiety or stress, may serve as a catalyst for creative thinking in certain environments. Specifically, in autonomy-supportive contexts, negative emotions might mediate the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance, as they can drive deeper emotional engagement and cognitive reflection, ultimately enhancing creativity. Therefore, if the autonomy-supportive environment cultivated by managers better satisfies employees’ intrinsic needs, it will lead to increased job satisfaction, perseverance, improved psychological adaptation, heightened positive emotions, reduced negative emotions, enhanced acceptance of organizational changes, and better performance. An autonomy-supportive environment benefits employees’ emotional states and creative performance. Consequently, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5a Positive emotions mediate the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance.

Hypothesis 5b Negative emotions mediate the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance.

The theoretical framework of this study is illustrated in Fig 1. Autonomy support in the workplace—including leadership support, colleague support, resource support, and customer support—facilitates the fulfillment of employees’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This, in turn, enhances employees’ positive work emotions and fosters creative performance.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Conceptual model of the study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322184.g001

Participants and procedures

The data collection process followed the principles of random sampling, involving 283 employees. This approach ensured a wide range of perspectives and experiences from different regions. Our sample included individuals from 23 companies across 63 departments, allowing us to represent various organizational structures and industry sectors. By incorporating such a diverse group, we aimed to enhance the generalizability of our findings and address potential concerns regarding the representativeness of the sample. Data collection took place between July and September 2023. In this study, data were collected using paper-based questionnaires. Regarding the study design, it adopts a cross-sectional approach, as data were gathered at a single point in time. Participants completed questionnaires assessing demographics, emotions, basic psychological needs, and autonomy support based on their experiences over the preceding week. Simultaneously, corresponding managers evaluated their subordinates’ creative performance during the same period. All participants provided informed consent to complete the questionnaires and were assured of their right to withdraw at any time if they felt discomfort. Upon completion, participants received small tokens of appreciation.

The sample size for this study was initially estimated using the formula for sample size calculation in proportion-based studies:

Where:

n is the required sample size,

Z is the Z-value corresponding to a 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96),

P is the estimated population proportion, assumed to be 0.5,

E is the margin of error, set to 0.05 (5%).

Based on this formula, the required sample size was calculated to be 385 participants. However, due to practical constraints (such as limited access to participants, time restrictions, and non-response rates), the final sample size collected was 283 valid responses. While this is below the calculated sample size, it still provides a sufficient basis for analysis. The data collected is expected to yield reliable and generalizable results within the study’s scope, given the relatively small margin of error and acceptable confidence level. Of the 283 participants, 258 submitted valid responses, resulting in a response rate of 91.2%. Among these, 205 responses were deemed usable, representing 72.4% of the total participants.

Regarding demographic characteristics, 42.4% of the participants were female, and 57.6% were male. In terms of age distribution, 60.5% were under 30 years old, 33.7% were aged 30–40, 4.4% were aged 41–50, and 1.4% were 51 or older. Regarding educational background, 12.7% had an associate degree or lower, 42.0% had a bachelor’s degree, 43.9% had a master’s degree, and 1.4% held a doctoral degree or higher. In terms of employment duration, 78.0% had less than ten years of experience, 16.6% had ten to twenty years, and 5.4% had over twenty years of experience. Table 1 presents detailed data on these sample characteristics.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Demographic characteristics (n = 205).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322184.t001

Measures

Descriptive statistics and correlations

As shown in Table 2, the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for the variables are presented. First, this paper examined the relationship between autonomy support and basic psychological needs. Consistent with the tenets of Self-Determination Theory, psychological need satisfaction exhibited a positive correlation with perceived work autonomy support (r = 0.597, p < 0.01), while psychological need frustration showed a negative correlation with perceived work autonomy support (r = −0.420, p < 0.01), thus supporting Hypothesis 1a and Hypothesis 1b.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficient.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322184.t002

Second, this paper assessed the relationship between emotions and basic psychological needs. Psychological need satisfaction demonstrated a positive correlation with positive emotions (r = 0.461, p < 0.01) and a negative correlation with negative emotions (r = −0.307, p < 0.01). Conversely, psychological need frustration exhibited a positive correlation with negative emotions (r = 0.489, p < 0.01) and a negative correlation with positive emotions (r = −0.326, p < 0.01), thereby supporting Hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis 2b.

Third, this paper examined the relationship between perceived work autonomy support and creative performance, revealing a positive correlation (r = 0.148, p < 0.05), which supports Hypothesis 4. Additionally, this paper observed positive correlations between creative performance and positive emotions (r = 0.205, p < 0.01), and negative correlations with negative emotions (r = −0.137, p < 0.05). Creative performance also exhibited positive correlations with psychological need satisfaction (r = 0.156, p < 0.05) and negative correlations with psychological need frustration (r = −0.162, p < 0.05). The Pearson correlation coefficients between the variables range from 0.3 to 0.6, representing moderate effect sizes. These statistical findings provide a solid foundation for further causal relationship analysis.

Mediation analysis

Mediation analysis using the stepwise regression method.

To investigate whether basic psychological need satisfaction mediates the relationship between autonomy support and positive emotions, this paper followed the framework proposed by Baron and Kenny, which outlines the steps for testing mediation effects [99]. First, in Step 1, autonomy support was found to be significantly associated with positive emotions (β = 0.417, p < .01). In Step 2, autonomy support significantly predicted basic psychological need satisfaction (β = 0.597, p < .01). Finally, in Step 3, this paper included both autonomy support and basic psychological need satisfaction in the model to assess the mediating effect. In this step, autonomy support continued to predict positive emotions (β = 0.220, p < .01), but there was a significant decrease from β = 0.417, p < .01 to β = 0.220, p < .01. Therefore, this paper concluded that basic psychological need satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between autonomy support and positive emotions. These results are detailed in Table 3, partially supporting Hypothesis 3a.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. The Mediating Effects of Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction on Perceived Work Autonomy Support and Positive Emotions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322184.t003

While the results provide partial support for Hypothesis 3a, with basic psychological need satisfaction mediating the relationship between autonomy support and positive emotions, we also observed unexpected findings that warrant further discussion. Specifically, while we hypothesized that need satisfaction would fully mediate the relationship, the results indicate a partial mediation effect. This suggests that other factors, potentially unexamined in this study, could be influencing the relationship between autonomy support and positive emotions.

It is possible that individual differences, such as personality traits or prior experiences, may moderate this relationship in ways not captured by our model. Moreover, situational factors within the work environment, such as organizational culture or the nature of tasks, might play a role in how autonomy support translates into emotional outcomes. Future research could explore these additional variables to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms at play.

Additionally, the partial mediation may indicate that while basic psychological needs are crucial, they do not fully account for the emotional responses triggered by autonomy support. This raises important questions about the nature of autonomy support and the complex ways in which it influences employee emotions, suggesting that other emotional or cognitive processes might be involved.

Next, this paper investigated whether basic psychological need frustration mediates the relationship between autonomy support and negative emotions in a similar way to positive emotions. In Step 1, autonomy support was found to be significantly associated with negative emotions (β = −0.229, p < .01). In Step 2, autonomy support significantly predicted psychological need frustration (β = −0.420, p < .01). Finally, in Step 3, this paper included both autonomy support and psychological need frustration in the model to assess the mediating effect. In this step, autonomy support no longer predicted negative emotions (β = −0.028, p > .05), with a significant decrease from β = −0.229, p < .01 to β = −0.028, p > .05. Therefore, this paper concluded that psychological need frustration fully mediates the relationship between autonomy support and negative emotions. These results are detailed in Table 4, supporting Hypothesis 3b.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. The Mediating Effects of Basic Psychological Needs Frustration on Perceived Work Autonomy Support and Negative Emotions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322184.t004

However, although the statistical results show that the mediation effect is significant, it is important to consider the practical significance of the findings. The decrease in the path coefficient from β = −0.229 (p < .01) to β = −0.028 (p > .05) suggests that the effect of autonomy support on negative emotions diminishes significantly when psychological need frustration is introduced as a mediator. This indicates that psychological need frustration plays a crucial role in explaining the relationship between autonomy support and negative emotions.

Nevertheless, the small effect size observed in Step 3 (β = −0.028) raises important questions about the practical implications of this finding. While statistically significant, such a small effect size may have limited practical significance in real-world organizational settings. This suggests that although psychological need frustration is a significant mediator, its actual impact on negative emotions may be relatively modest. Future research could explore the contextual factors or other moderating variables that might amplify or attenuate this effect, providing a more nuanced understanding of how autonomy support influences negative emotions in organizational contexts. In sum, while the statistical findings support the full mediation model, further investigation is necessary to assess the practical relevance of these effects, particularly in terms of their real-world applicability and impact.

To examine whether positive emotions mediate the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance, this paper followed Baron and Kenny’s framework [99]. In Step 1, autonomy support was found to be significantly associated with creative performance (β = 0.148, p < .05). In Step 2, autonomy support significantly predicted positive emotions (β = 0.417, p < .01). Finally, in Step 3, both autonomy support and positive emotions were simultaneously included in the model to assess the mediating effect. In this step, autonomy support no longer predicted creative performance (β = 0.076, p > .05), indicating a significant decrease from β = 0.148, p < .05 to β = 0.076, p > .05. Therefore, this paper concluded that positive emotions fully mediate the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance. These results are outlined in Table 5, supporting Hypothesis 5a.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. The Mediating Effects of Positive Emotions on Perceived Work Autonomy Support and Creative Performance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322184.t005

However, while the statistical findings support the conclusion of full mediation, the decrease in the path coefficient from β = 0.148 (p < .05) to β = 0.076 (p > .05) warrants further consideration, particularly in relation to the effect size. Although the mediation effect was statistically significant, the relatively small effect size (β = 0.076) in Step 3 raises questions about the practical implications of this finding. This suggests that the mediation effect of positive emotions, while significant, may have limited practical impact in organizational contexts, particularly when the effect size is small.

The relatively small change in the effect size from Step 1 to Step 3 also indicates that while positive emotions play a crucial role in mediating the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance, other factors not included in the model may contribute to creative performance. Future research could explore additional variables, such as personality traits or organizational climate, which could either amplify or attenuate the effect of autonomy support on creative performance through positive emotions.

In terms of practical significance, while the mediation effect is statistically robust, the modest effect size suggests that the real-world implications may be smaller than expected. Organizations may benefit from autonomy-supportive environments, but the impact on creative performance may be less pronounced than suggested by the statistical results alone. Future studies could also investigate the contextual factors that may influence the strength of this effect, such as industry type or the nature of creative tasks, to better understand the practical relevance of autonomy support for enhancing creative performance.

To assess whether negative emotions mediate the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance, this paper followed the same procedure as with positive emotions. In Step 1, autonomy support was found to be significantly associated with creative performance (β = 0.148, p < .05). In Step 2, autonomy support significantly predicted negative emotions (β = −0.229, p < .01). In Step 3, both autonomy support and negative emotions were included in the model to examine the mediating effect. In this step, autonomy support no longer predicted creative performance (β = 0.123, p > .05), indicating a significant decrease from β = 0.148, p < .05 to β = 0.123, p > .05. Thus, this paper concluded that negative emotions fully mediate the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance. These results are detailed in Table 6, supporting Hypothesis 5b.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. The Mediating Effects of Negative Emotions on Perceived Work Autonomy Support and Creative Performance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322184.t006

While these results suggest a full mediation effect of negative emotions, it is important to consider the statistical significance of the findings and their practical implications. The significant decrease in the path coefficient from β = 0.148 (p < .05) to β = 0.123 (p > .05) raises questions about the robustness of the mediation effect. While the initial association between autonomy support and creative performance was statistically significant, the effect size decreased substantially in the final model, leading to the non-significant path (β = 0.123, p > .05). This suggests that the impact of negative emotions as a mediator might be weaker than anticipated, which could affect the practical relevance of this mediation model.

The decrease in effect size highlights a potential gap between statistical significance and practical significance. Although the statistical results suggest a full mediation effect, the modest effect size in the final step (β = 0.123) suggests that the actual impact of negative emotions on the relationship between autonomy support and creative performance may be relatively small. This calls for a more nuanced interpretation of the findings, particularly in organizational contexts where the practical implications of mediation effects can be influenced by factors such as organizational culture, task complexity, and individual differences.

Mediation analysis using the SEM method.

Baron and Kenny’s stepwise regression method provides a foundational approach to testing mediation; however, it has certain limitations, such as its reliance on sequential significance testing and its inability to directly estimate indirect effects. In contrast, structural equation modeling (SEM) offers a more robust alternative by enabling the simultaneous estimation of direct, indirect, and total effects within a single comprehensive model. To further validate the mediation effects described above and to examine the comprehensive framework illustrating how a supportive environment influences creative performance through affective mechanisms, SEM was employed. This method addresses the limitations of stepwise regression while providing a more nuanced understanding of the relationships among the variables.

Given the prior completion of confirmatory factor analysis on latent variables such as positive and negative affect, SEM was selected as the appropriate method for exploring the causal pathways among these variables. The AMOS structural equation modeling software package was used to construct this integrated model, demonstrating the affective mechanisms through which the autonomy-supportive environment impacts creative performance. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the fit of the measurement model. The results revealed an adequate fit, as indicated by the following fit indices: the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ²/df) was 1.83, which is below the threshold of 5, suggesting a favorable model fit; the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.066, below the acceptable threshold of 0.08, indicating a good fit; and the Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and Relative Fit Index (RFI) were 0.90, 0.95, 0.95, 0.95, and 0.90, respectively, all of which meet or exceed the threshold of 0.90, indicating satisfactory fit.

The structural equation model, based on the proposed framework, is presented in Fig 2. The model was tested to explore the relationships among autonomy support, basic psychological needs satisfaction, frustration, emotions, and creative performance. The results of the structural equation modeling revealed the following relationships: path coefficients were 0.50 (p < 0.01), −0.54 (p < 0.01), 0.24 (p < 0.01), 0.20 (p < 0.05), 0.37 (p < 0.01), and −0.31 (p < 0.01), all of which were statistically significant. These results provide robust support for the proposed model.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. The integrated model of the mechanism.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322184.g002

To investigate the mediating effects of positive and negative emotions, we tested the indirect relationships between autonomy support and creative performance. These results further support the theoretical framework and the proposed hypotheses 5a and 5b.

Practical implications

This research highlights the significant role of autonomy-supportive environments in enhancing employees’ positive emotions and creative performance. For leaders, this suggests several practical strategies. First, they can foster such environments by offering flexible working hours, enabling remote work options, and cultivating a culture of open discussion and brainstorming [110]. During the initial stages of problem-solving, it is crucial for leaders to refrain from intervening, allowing employees the freedom to express their creative ideas. As the process progresses, leaders should provide the necessary resources and emotional support to ensure that these ideas are effectively implemented. This approach is particularly advantageous for innovative companies that depend on active participation in critical thinking and collaborative brainstorming [111]. For example, providing comfortable workspaces and opportunities for informal interactions can help create an environment conducive to idea exchange and intellectual collaboration.

Furthermore, it is essential to understand that while stressful work environments can also lead to creative performance, they tend to be more suitable for tasks that operate within defined frameworks. In contrast, environments that support autonomy and creativity are better for tasks requiring innovative thinking and problem-solving.

Leaders should also focus on satisfying employees’ intrinsic psychological needs by enhancing their autonomy support. Previous studies indicate that autonomy-supportive behaviors by leaders fulfill employees’ psychological needs, while controlling behaviors diminish motivation and satisfaction [101]. Therefore, effective management should recognize and respect employees’ thoughts and feelings, encourage decision-making, and promote self-initiative to boost creative performance. Tailoring incentive measures to different emotional profiles is key, as positive emotions in autonomy-supportive environments are strongly linked to enhanced creative performance. On the other hand, controlling and pressure-driven management approaches should be avoided, as they may lead to negative emotions that hinder creativity.

To enhance creativity and overall performance within teams, it is essential for managers to foster autonomy-supportive environments and prioritize employees’ emotional well-being. It is crucial to create an emotionally supportive work environment where employees feel comfortable expressing their emotions. Managers can achieve this by being attentive to employees’ emotional states and providing the necessary support, whether through open communication channels, offering emotional resources, or providing stress-relief activities. Supporting employees’ emotional health reduces frustration and promotes overall well-being, which, in turn, enhances their performance and creativity. Autonomy and emotional well-being are closely linked to trust within teams. By cultivating a culture of trust and mutual respect, managers can encourage employees to take creative risks and collaborate effectively. Teams that trust one another are more likely to share innovative ideas and provide constructive feedback, creating a cycle of positive reinforcement for creative thinking. Providing regular feedback and recognition for creative efforts reinforces autonomy and boosts employees’ emotional satisfaction. When employees know their ideas and contributions are valued, they feel more motivated to continue engaging in creative problem-solving. By implementing these strategies, managers can create a work environment that nurtures both autonomy and emotional well-being, ultimately driving higher levels of creativity and improved team performance.

In sum, by creating an autonomy-supportive work environment, leaders can facilitate employees’ emotional well-being and foster higher levels of creativity. This study provides actionable insights that can help organizations improve their management practices and achieve better creative outcomes.

Limitations

While this study provides valuable insights into employee emotions and their relationship with perceived autonomy support, several limitations should be addressed in future research. Firstly, incorporating additional measures, such as enthusiasm, could offer a more comprehensive understanding of employee motivation dynamics.

Secondly, this study utilized a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to infer causality or capture changes over time. Future research could employ longitudinal designs to examine how enthusiasm and autonomy support evolve, providing a deeper perspective on their interplay.

Thirdly, while this study focused on employee-reported autonomy support, future investigations could include the perspectives of principals or supervisors, offering a more nuanced understanding of the organizational dynamics influencing employee motivation and autonomy. Addressing these avenues would enhance the robustness and applicability of findings across diverse organizational contexts.

Fourthly, while autonomy-supportive environments are generally beneficial for fostering intrinsic motivation and enhancing employee performance, it is important to recognize their potential drawbacks when over-relied upon. Specifically, an excessive focus on autonomy may lead to role ambiguity or a lack of clear direction within organizations, as employees may struggle to balance their personal autonomy with organizational expectations. In such environments, the absence of sufficient guidance or structure can undermine organizational cohesion, potentially affecting teamwork and collective goals. Moreover, the excessive freedom provided in highly autonomous settings could negatively impact employees’ sense of security or stability, as they may feel disconnected from the broader organizational objectives or experience uncertainty in their roles. This balance between autonomy and structure is critical for maintaining both individual motivation and organizational alignment. We believe this discussion adds depth to our analysis and presents a more nuanced perspective on the limitations of autonomy-supportive environments.