Organisational culture and employee creativity: do emotional intelligence and employee self-efficacy matter?

Employees’ creativity and innovation are now recognized as essential for enhancing organisational performance and are considered core competencies that organisations must develop to survive, grow and achieve a competitive edge in today’s turbulent business environment (Ferreira et al., 2020). By engaging in creative and innovative efforts, employees seek to modify aspects of their work or work products to gain valued benefits for themselves or the organisation. These benefits include improved work performance, increased productivity, enhanced products, optimized production routines, better service delivery and the development of new markets, all of which contribute to achieving organisational objectives and competitive advantage (Ali Taha et al., 2016).

However, integrating cultural elements such as diversity, inclusion, empowerment and autonomy can create an environment where employee creativity thrives, leading to continuous improvement and competitive advantage (Ogbeibu et al., 2021). A diverse and inclusive culture brings together a wide range of perspectives, experiences and ideas (Mayasari and Kemal, 2020). This diversity can be a rich source of creativity as employees draw on different viewpoints to solve problems and develop new products or processes. Empowering employees by giving them autonomy over their work leads to greater creativity (Ogbeibu et al., 2018a, b). When employees feel trusted and have the freedom to explore new approaches, they are more likely to innovate.

Concisely, employee creativity can significantly influence and be influenced by organisational culture (Odetunde and Ufodiama, 2017; Ogbeibu et al., 2018a, b). A culture that encourages creativity fosters an environment where employees feel supported to take risks and think outside the box (Mayasari and Kemal, 2020). Leaders and managers who prioritize and reward innovative ideas, employees are more likely to contribute creatively. Organisations with a culture of open communication create a space where employees feel safe sharing their ideas without fear of judgement (Gorzelany et al., 2021). This openness leads to more collaboration and the blending of diverse perspectives, which can spark creativity. Further, an organisational culture that provides the necessary resources, such as time, funding and tools for experimentation, enables employees to pursue creative projects (Khan et al., 2020a, b). A culture that values continuous learning and development encourages employees to expand their skills and knowledge (Triguero-Sánchez et al., 2022). This commitment to personal and professional growth inspires creative thinking and innovation as employees apply new insights to their work.

Emotional intelligence plays an important role in enhancing the relationship between organisational culture and employee creativity. A culture that supports creativity often involves frequent changes and adaptability (Ali Taha et al., 2016). Employees with emotional intelligence are more adaptable and resilient in the face of change (Silva and Coelho, 2019). They can manage the stress and uncertainty that come with new initiatives, thereby fostering an environment where creativity can thrive. Employees with emotional intelligence are generally self-motivated and can inspire others (Ismael, 2022; Ivcevic et al., 2021). They are likely to engage more deeply with their work and encourage a similar level of engagement among their colleagues (Rahman et al., 2020). This intrinsic motivation is vital for sustaining a creative culture, as it drives employees to go beyond the routine and explore innovative solutions.

Moreover, employees with self-efficacy are better at adapting to and aligning with the organisational culture (Adu and Nawangsari, 2022). When the culture promotes creativity, these employees quickly embrace and contribute to the creative initiatives, setting an example for others to follow (Ogbeibu et al., 2018a, b). On this basis, self-efficacy can significantly influence the relationship between organisational culture and employee creativity. Employees with self-efficacy have a strong belief in their capabilities to achieve tasks and solve problems (Maria et al., 2021). When organisational culture supports creativity, these confident employees are more likely to take initiative and propose innovative ideas, as they trust in their ability to contribute meaningfully. Self-efficacious individuals are more persistent in the face of challenges (Syabarrudin et al., 2020). In a culture that encourages creativity, these employees are more likely to continue working on their ideas despite setbacks, leading to more successful innovative outcomes (Teng et al., 2020). Their resilience helps maintain a steady flow of creativity within the organisation. Employee self-efficacy encourages proactive behavior in the workplace (Karimi et al., 2022). Employees who believe in their abilities are more likely to seek out opportunities to innovate and improve processes. In a supportive organisational culture, this proactive approach can lead to continuous creative efforts and improvements (Lam et al., 2021). Self-efficacious employees set challenging goals for themselves and are committed to achieving them (Syabarrudin et al., 2020). When organisational culture aligns with this drive by setting clear and achievable innovation goals, these employees can excel and contribute high levels of creativity towards meeting those goals.

While there is substantial theoretical support for the impact of organisational culture on employee creativity (Jidan, 2023; Makumbe, 2022; Ogbeibu et al., 2021; Golden et al., 2019; Ali Taha et al., 2016), empirical studies that specifically investigate the moderating roles of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy are limited. Also, existing research often looks at the individual or organisational level separately (Ogbeibu et al., 2021; Golden et al., 2019; Khurosani, 2018). Multi-level studies that simultaneously consider individual (e.g. employee’s emotional intelligence and self-efficacy) and organisational factors (e.g. culture) are needed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between these variables. Further, most studies have been conducted in Western contexts, with limited research in non-Western cultures (Jidan, 2023; Makumbe, 2022; Ogbeibu et al., 2018a, b; Odetunde and Ufodiama, 2017). There is a need for cross-cultural studies to determine whether the relationships hold true across different cultural settings and how cultural variations influence the dynamics between organisational culture, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and creativity. By addressing these research gaps, the current study can provide a more comprehensive understanding of how organisational culture influences employee creativity and the moderating roles of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy.

Having said the above, the study offers valuable contributions by exploring the roles of self-efficacy and emotional intelligence in the relationship between organisational culture and employee creativity within the healthcare sector in Ghana. By examining these personal factors, the research deepens our understanding of how individual traits can interact with an organisation’s cultural environment to influence creative behaviour. This perspective is especially meaningful for organisations aiming to foster creativity, as it highlights the importance of focusing on individual traits that may complement a supportive organisational culture.

This current study adopts the social cognitive theory (SCT) as it offers a comprehensive framework for understanding how organisational culture influences employee creativity by emphasizing the interaction between personal factors, behaviours and environmental influences. SCT’s principle of reciprocal determinism highlights how employee creativity is shaped not only by individual abilities and attitudes but also by the supportive aspects of the work environment (Bandura, 1986). In a setting where the culture encourages innovation and supports risk-taking, employees are more likely to engage in creative behaviours, as they feel empowered to explore new ideas without fear of negative repercussions. Recent studies affirm that a supportive culture enhances employee self-efficacy, which plays a crucial role in fostering creative engagement (e.g. Puente-Diaz and Cavazos-Arroyo, 2019).

Self-efficacy, a core component of SCT, refers to an individual’s belief in their capability to perform specific tasks and achieve goals, including creative ones. A culture that promotes trust, autonomy and flexibility strengthens employees’ creative self-efficacy, encouraging them to persist in generating novel ideas even when faced with challenges. This aligns with current findings that employees with strong creative self-efficacy are more resilient in the face of obstacles, which is essential in dynamic work environments that demand continuous innovation (Puozzo and Audrin, 2021). Additionally, SCT recognizes the role of personal factors like emotional intelligence in influencing how employees perceive and respond to organisational culture. Emotionally intelligent employees, equipped with skills for managing their emotions and understanding those of others, can better navigate the interpersonal aspects of a creative culture. Such individuals often exhibit higher adaptability, allowing them to collaborate effectively and contribute to a culture of creativity (Kim, 2019). This aligns with contemporary research showing that emotional intelligence enhances employees’ engagement with supportive organisational cultures, ultimately boosting creative output (Ng et al., 2020).

The relationship between organisational culture and employee creativity is an interplay that is influenced by various cultural elements within an organisation (Odetunde and Ufodiama, 2017). Research consistently shows the significant impact that organisational culture has on fostering an environment where creativity can flourish (Ogbeibu et al., 2020; Ogbeibu et al., 2018; Ogbeibu et al., 2018; Odetunde and Ufodiama, 2017). For instance, Ali Taha et al. (2016) argue that an organisational culture that promotes openness, risk-taking and the free exchange of ideas is vital for fostering creativity and innovation. Such cultures encourage employees to explore new ideas without the fear of negative repercussions, thus enhancing their creative potential. Similarly, Ogbeibu et al. (2018) highlight the importance of culture within organisational culture. Their research indicates that a benevolent culture, which prioritizes employee well-being and support, can significantly enhance creativity. This nurturing environment helps employees feel valued and secure, allowing them to take creative risks and express their ideas more freely. Likewise, Anitha (2016) highlights that when an organisation cultivates a culture of trust, respect and mutual support, employees are more likely to develop a strong sense of loyalty and commitment to the organisation. Given the pieces of evidence espoused above and drawing on the social cognitive theory, the study hypothesizes that:

Emotional intelligence (EI) has a profound impact on employee creativity, as it enhances interpersonal skills and promotes a supportive work environment (Sapiee et al., 2024). Employees with high EI can better manage their emotions and stress, which positively influences their creative thinking processes (Petrides et al., 2016). Research indicates that EI promotes a positive workplace atmosphere, encouraging open communication and collaboration, which are essential for creativity (Geher et al., 2017). Furthermore, EI helps in recognizing and valuing diverse perspectives, leading to more innovative solutions (Carmeli et al., 2010). A recent study by Ivcevic et al. (2021) highlights that employees with high EI are more adaptable and resilient, enabling them to navigate challenges creatively. EI also aids in the development of trust and psychological safety within teams, which are crucial elements for fostering creativity (Dong et al., 2017). Therefore, cultivating EI within organisations is essential for boosting employee creativity and overall innovation. Hence, it is hypothesized that;

Self-efficacy substantially influences employee creativity by enhancing confidence in one’s creative potential and bolstering the motivation to engage in innovative activities (Chan et al., 2022; Puozzo and Audrin, 2021). Employees with high creative self-efficacy are more likely to persist through challenges and generate original ideas, which is crucial in dynamic and complex work environments (Pretz and Nelson, 2017). For instance, Chan et al. (2022) highlight that self-efficacy fosters a proactive approach to problem-solving, leading to higher creative outcomes, as seen among teachers and their impact on student learning. Moreover, creative self-efficacy interacts with personal and contextual factors, shaping how effectively employees can apply their creative abilities. Kim (2019) found that employees with a strong creative role identity and high self-efficacy performed more creatively in service industries in Iran. However, Lee et al. (2019) identified an important, curvilinear relationship between self-efficacy and creativity, suggesting that excessive self-efficacy, especially under close supervision, might dampen creativity. Therefore, it is hypothesized that;

The role of emotional intelligence as a moderating factor in examined relationships has garnered significant interest in recent research (Pradhan et al., 2016; Khalili, 2017; Shariq et al., 2019). For instance, Khalili (2017) examined how transformational leadership influences organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB), with emotional intelligence as a moderating variable. While the study focuses on OCB rather than creativity directly, it provides insights into how emotional intelligence enhances employees’ responses to leadership styles and organisational culture. Transformational leaders who foster an innovative and supportive culture can inspire greater creativity among employees, particularly those with high emotional intelligence who can effectively internalize and act upon the leader’s vision. Also, Pradhan et al. (2016) discussed the impact of psychological capital on OCB, moderated by emotional intelligence. Their findings suggest that employees with high emotional intelligence are more likely to exhibit positive organisational behaviours, which can include creative activities. The study emphasizes the role of emotional intelligence in harnessing psychological resources to navigate organisational culture and contribute creatively to organisational goals. Sharma et al. (2016) addressed the mediating role of stress between work–family conflict and psychological health, with emotional intelligence as a moderating factor. While this study is more focused on psychological health outcomes, it shows the importance of emotional intelligence in managing stress and maintaining a healthy work–life balance, which can indirectly support creative endeavours by reducing burnout and fostering a more positive organisational environment. Shariq et al. (2019) posit that emotional intelligence enhances employees’ ability to engage in knowledge-sharing practices, which are critical for creativity. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

The moderating role of self-efficacy has been explored in different nexus under various contexts. Literature has indicated that self-efficacy plays a significant moderating role in workplace dynamics, particularly in the context of stress, burnout and organisational commitment. For instance, the belief in one’s capacity to manage work-related challenges can influence the impact of stressors, as demonstrated by Perrewé et al. (2002), who found that high self-efficacy mitigates the effects of role stressors on burnout across diverse regions. In work–family conflict scenarios, self-efficacy serves as a buffer against emotional exhaustion, supporting long-term resilience and well-being (Rubio et al., 2015). Furthermore, Consiglio et al. (2013) highlighted that self-efficacy helps individuals leverage resources and manage demands, thereby reducing burnout and absenteeism. Self-efficacy’s moderating effect extends to organisational contexts, shaping how individuals respond to and engage with organisational culture. Simosi (2012) observed that employees with strong self-efficacy more effectively transfer training skills within supportive organisational cultures. Similarly, Opolot et al. (2024) noted that self-efficacy reinforces organisational commitment, helping individuals align with cultural values even under challenging conditions. Hence, the study hypothesizes that:

Figure 1 represents the hypothesized relationships.

This study is situated in the positivist philosophy, which posits that relational laws are the basis of the objective knowledge sought by a researcher (Acquah et al., 2023). Also, the study used the quantitative analysis approach based on the study’s purpose, basic goals/hypotheses and the scope of the primary data. In respect of the research design, the study used the explanatory study design, which sought to describe why phenomena arise and to forecast future events (Viotti and Kauppi, 2019). The study targeted healthcare professionals from selected public and private hospitals in the Central Region of Ghana. Convenience sampling was employed to select participants from the target population. This method was deemed appropriate given the demanding and time-constrained schedules of the respondents, particularly within the healthcare sector. According to Rahi et al. (2019), convenience sampling is a practical and widely accepted approach in behavioural research when access to the full population is limited or when participants are difficult to reach due to professional obligations. The use of this technique enabled the researcher to efficiently gather relevant data while maintaining alignment with the study’s objectives. The research sample consisted of 235 healthcare workers. A structured questionnaire was used as the study’s main first-hand data collection instrument. The questionnaires were issued to the respondents on a drop-and-pick basis.

To address ensure ethical considerations, informed verbal consent of participants was sought and no respondents were coerced into participating in the study. Where respondents had issues responding to some of the items, active steps were taken to resolve such misunderstandings. Confidentiality, privacy and unanimity were carefully treated by designing a complete structured questionnaire.

A seven-point Likert scale was used to measure the attitude and opinion of the respondents on the items that measured the constructs considered in this study. The items used to measure organisational culture were adapted from Ogbeibu et al. (2020); Suppiah and Singh Sandhu (2011); Kalliath et al. (1999); Quinn and Spreitzer (1997). Also, the items used to measure employee creativity were adapted from Semedo et al. (2016); Zhou and George (2001). Self-efficacy was assessed using the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSES) developed by Chen et al. (2001) while emotional intelligence was measured using the Self-Reported Emotional Intelligence Scale (SREIS; Schutte et al., 1998).

All the variables were assigned codes to facilitate the computation of the data input. Once entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 26), the data were carefully screened to minimise data entry errors. Frequencies for each variable were checked to detect the out-of-range values. Next, processed data were analysed using SMART PLS 4.0. The prepared data file was then converted into “comma-delimited” format “CSV” before the final file was imported into the SMART PLS application for the model configuration (Lew, 2019). This was used to analyse the direct relationship and the moderating effect among the constructs understudy.

The study first assessed all the measurement criteria before the structural equation model was performed. The study evaluated its reflective measurement models by validating the indicator loadings, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity, following the guidelines set by Hair et al. (2019). The rule of thumb is that indicator loadings, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability must be greater than 0.70 to be deemed acceptable (Hair et al., 2019). The results presented in Table 1 indicate that indicator loadings (see Figure 2), Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability meet the minimum threshold of 0.70; hence, the constructs are deemed acceptable. Specifically, the indicator loadings range from 0.722 to 0.858, Cronbach’s alpha from 0.840 to 0.920 and composite reliability from 0.887 to 0.933, respectively. Lastly, the study also employed the average variance extracted metric to validate convergent validity, with a recommended threshold of 0.50 or greater. The findings in Table 1 show that average variance extracted values surpass the threshold, affirming strong convergent validity (ranging between 0.610 and 0.656).

The study’s discriminant validity was assessed by analysing the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio. The HTMT ratio is considered a superior indicator of discriminant validity than Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion (Hair et al., 2019) and is therefore suggested for assessing discriminant validity. Hair et al. (2019) propose a threshold of 0.90 for HTMT correlation values. The correlation between individual constructs and the correlation across different constructs should be around 0.90, particularly when the constructs are comparable (Henseler et al., 2015). The data in Table 2 indicates that all HTMT correlation values fall within the range of 0.90. This indicates that there is no problem with discriminant validity in this study.

Table 3 presents the model’s fit summary, including the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), which is recommended to be below 0.10 or 0.08 (Henseler et al., 2015). An ideal normed fit index (NFI) should be close to 1.00 for optimal model fit. The Chi-square value, calculated by dividing the Chi-square’s estimated value by the degrees of freedom (the total number of observations minus the number of independent variables), should not exceed 3. The reported SRMR values of 0.079 and 0.080 in Table 3 fall under the recommended threshold, indicating a satisfactory fit with minimal differences between the actual and predicted correlations. Moreover, with an NFI value exceeding the minimum requirement of 0.7, the model is considered to have an acceptable fit.

The Q² measures the predictive validity of the model, evaluating its ability to reliably predict outcomes. It particularly quantifies the degree to which endogenous components can accurately predict outcomes. Q² values above 0 indicate that the model has predictive relevance. The Q² values for the model, as shown in Table 4, are 0.566, indicating a strong predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2019). In addition, R² was calculated to assess the model’s ability to explain the data. The results shown in Table 4 demonstrate that the combination of organisational culture, emotional intelligence and self-efficacy explains 59.7% of the variation in employee creativity. According to Cohen (1988), an R² value greater than 26% is considered significant. Therefore, the R² values shown in Table 4 demonstrate the model’s excellent ability to explain and predict.

The results of the hypotheses are presented in Table 5. The results revealed a significant positive relationship between organisational culture and employee creativity (β = 0.472, t-statistic = 7.664, p < 0.000), indicating support for H1 of this study. Furthermore, the results revealed that emotional intelligence positively and significantly relates to employee creativity (β = 0.190, t-statistic = 3.234, p < 0.001), indicating support for H2. Additionally, self-efficacy positively and significantly relates to employee creativity (β = 0.139, t-statistic = 2.316, p < 0.021), indicating support for H3.

The other focus of the study was to examine the plausible moderating role of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy on the relationship between organisational culture and employee creativity. Emotional intelligence did not significantly moderate the nexus between organisational culture and employee creativity (β = −0.049, t-statistic 0.951; p-value > 0.05), indicating non-support for H4 (see Figure 3). However, the findings indicate that self-efficacy significantly moderated the nexus between organisational culture and employee creativity (β = 0.237, t-statistic = 4.509; p < 0.05), indicating support for H5 (see Figure 4).

The study examined different hypotheses by analysing the strength and direction of relationships using the coefficient (β), determining the significance levels through p-values obtained from 5,000 bootstrap samples, assessing multicollinearity using the variance inflation factor (VIF) and evaluating the coefficient of determination (R²) and effect size (f²). Hair et al. (2019) assert that in order for a hypothesis to be considered statistically significant, the T-statistics must surpass 1.96 and the p-values must be lower than 0.05. The strength of the association between latent variables was assessed using effect size. The thresholds for effect size were defined as follows: small (0.0 < effect size <0.15), medium (0.15 < effect size <0.35) and large (effect size >0.35). The findings displayed in Table 5 indicate that the highest inner VIF value is 2.129, which falls below the threshold of 3 (Wong, 2013), suggesting the absence of multicollinearity concerns. In Table (6), the effect size of organisational culture on employee creativity is shown to be medium (f2 = 0.260). Additionally, the effect size of the other relationships shows a small effect size, as shown in Table (6).

The results revealed a significant impact of organisational culture on employee creativity, suggesting that culture shapes how employees approach and engage in creative tasks. This is consistent with Ogbeibu et al. (2018) findings, which highlight that an organisational culture fostering benevolence can amplify creative outcomes by encouraging trust and openness. A supportive culture allows employees to feel safe in expressing new ideas and taking creative risks, which aligns with Ali Taha et al. (2016) work indicating that cultures promoting innovation stimulate creativity and experimentation. Ogbeibu et al. (2018) emphasize that organisational trustworthiness enhances creativity, suggesting that when employees perceive the culture as trustworthy, they are more likely to take initiative and experiment. Ogbeibu et al. (2020) further illustrate that leader support within a positive organisational culture can evoke higher levels of creativity, demonstrating that employees thrive creatively when leaders reinforce cultural values that embrace exploration and flexibility. These findings suggest that cultivating a culture of support, trust and encouragement within the workplace can unlock employee creativity, fostering innovation that benefits the organisation as a whole.

In addition, the results indicate that self-efficacy significantly enhances employee creativity by boosting confidence in creative abilities and motivating innovative actions. This finding aligns with Ma et al. (2022) and Puozzo and Audrin (2021), who argue that self-efficacy not only strengthens creative potential but also fosters resilience in tackling challenges. High self-efficacy allows employees to view obstacles as opportunities, encouraging persistence in generating original ideas. Pretz and Nelson (2017) similarly emphasize the value of self-efficacy in dynamic work environments, where adaptability is essential. Ma et al. (2022) further demonstrates that teachers with high self-efficacy show proactive problem-solving, leading to creative outcomes that benefit student learning. Likewise, Kim (2019) found that employees with strong creative identities and self-efficacy performed more creatively. However, Lee et al. (2019) presented a different view, noting that excessive self-efficacy, especially under strict supervision, can dampen creativity. This suggests that while self-efficacy is a powerful driver of creativity, a balanced level is necessary to maintain creative flexibility, particularly in controlled environments.

Furthermore, the findings indicate that emotional intelligence (EI) significantly enhances employee creativity, aligning with previous research. Geher et al. (2017) emphasize that EI fosters an environment conducive to creative thinking. This is further supported by Petrides et al. (2016), who highlight that individuals with high trait EI are better equipped to manage emotions, which positively influences creative processes. Carmeli et al. (2010) suggest that psychological safety, often enhanced by inclusive leadership, mediates the relationship between EI and creativity. Additionally, Ivcevic et al. (2021) demonstrate that supervisor EI behaviours can directly boost employee creativity. Dong et al. (2017) also note that transformational leadership, which often incorporates EI, enhances creativity through skill development and knowledge sharing.

More so, the results indicate that self-efficacy significantly moderates the relationship between organisational culture and employee creativity, suggesting that individuals with higher self-efficacy are better able to harness cultural influences to generate creative outcomes. This result aligns with Simosi’s (2012) study, which highlights self-efficacy as a key factor in how individuals apply cultural knowledge within organisational settings. Similarly, Opolot et al. (2024) emphasize that self-efficacy strengthens commitment within different cultural contexts, suggesting a robust link between self-confidence and the ability to engage meaningfully with cultural values. Rubio et al. (2015) also highlight the broader role of self-efficacy in mitigating work-related stressors, pointing to its role in enhancing resilience and adaptive responses. Our findings build on these studies by showing that high self-efficacy enables individuals to reinterpret cultural norms and resources in innovative ways.

The study’s findings indicate that emotional intelligence (EI) did not significantly moderate the relationship between organisational culture and employee creativity. This result contrasts with previous research, such as Jafri et al. (2016), which suggested that EI typically enhances creativity in conducive environments. Similarly, Khalili (2017) found that EI strengthens the effects of transformational leadership, indirectly boosting creativity. More so, Sharma et al. (2016) find that EI helps mitigate stress, further enabling creative performance. However, in this study, emotional intelligence does not significantly enhance the proposed relationship. One possible reason for EI’s lack of moderation might be that other factors, such as organisational climate or proactive personality, were not fully aligned to support EI’s influence on creativity. Pradhan et al. (2016) suggest that psychological capital, coupled with EI, impacts organisational behaviours, but this combination might not have been optimal in the current context. Additionally, Sharma et al. (2016) highlight that EI’s effects are more pronounced in managing stress rather than directly fostering creativity.

The study offers significant theoretical implications by advancing our understanding of how individual characteristics, specifically emotional intelligence and self-efficacy, interact with organisational culture to influence employee creativity. Traditionally, research on employee creativity has primarily focused on organisational culture as a standalone factor, emphasizing how supportive environments, innovation-oriented values and collaborative practices contribute to creativity (Ogbeibu et al., 2018a, b; Ali Taha et al., 2016). Previous studies have also acknowledged that personal traits, such as emotional intelligence and self-efficacy, independently impact creativity, highlighting the role of confidence in problem-solving and managing emotional responses in complex environments (Kim, 2019). However, studies addressing the moderating roles of these traits, particularly in healthcare contexts and within developing countries, have been limited. Hence, this current study fills this gap by examining the specific roles of self-efficacy and emotional intelligence as moderators in the relationship between organisational culture and employee creativity. By demonstrating that self-efficacy, but not emotional intelligence, moderates this relationship, the study challenges the assumption that emotional intelligence uniformly enhances creativity across all organisational settings. This insight suggests that while emotional intelligence is beneficial, self-efficacy may play a more central role in contexts where individual confidence in creative abilities is paramount.

In addition, the study’s focus on the healthcare sector in Ghana further addresses a geographic and sectoral gap, as most research in this area has been concentrated in Western and corporate contexts. By including healthcare professionals in Ghana, the study enriches theoretical perspectives by showing how organisational culture and individual traits influence creativity within an essential and resource-constrained sector. This expanded view supports the development of culturally relevant theories on creativity, emphasising that the interaction between organisational culture and individual characteristics may vary depending on regional and sectoral dynamics. This research thus lays a foundation for future studies to explore context-specific factors that shape the nexus between organisational culture, self-efficacy, emotional intelligence and creativity in diverse settings.

The findings present vital implications for the management of healthcare institutions in Ghana and globally, underscoring actionable strategies to enhance employee creativity. First, managers should invest in cultivating emotional intelligence among healthcare workers, as it significantly enhances creative problem-solving in patient care. Implementing targeted emotional intelligence training programmes can improve essential interpersonal skills, empathy and emotional regulation, all of which contribute to innovative responses in complex healthcare situations. Furthermore, by integrating emotional intelligence assessments into recruitment and ongoing training, healthcare organisations can foster a workforce equipped to handle the emotional demands of patient-centred care with greater creativity.

Moreover, self-efficacy emerges as a significant moderator that amplifies the influence of organisational culture on creativity. Healthcare managers should focus on building employee confidence by providing opportunities for continuous professional development, mentorship and constructive feedback systems. Programmes that enable healthcare workers to learn new skills, achieve certifications and receive acknowledgement for their contributions can foster a sense of efficacy, motivating them to apply their skills in innovative ways. Managers could also introduce “innovation labs” where staff can experiment and develop creative solutions in a risk-free environment, encouraging a proactive and confident approach to problem-solving. Finally, although emotional intelligence may not directly moderate the culture–creativity link, creating a culture that values emotional intelligence will positively impact overall creativity. Encouraging emotionally intelligent practices within teams can support better communication, mutual understanding and conflict resolution, all of which contribute to a more creative and cohesive workforce. By addressing these factors strategically, healthcare managers can cultivate an environment that drives continuous innovation, enhancing both patient care and operational outcomes across Ghana’s healthcare sector and beyond.

While this study provides valuable insights into the roles of emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and organisational culture in influencing employee creativity within Ghana’s healthcare sector, several limitations should be noted. First, the study’s cross-sectional design limits its ability to establish causal relationships between the variables. Future research could address this limitation by adopting a longitudinal approach, allowing for a more in-depth understanding of how changes in self-efficacy and emotional intelligence over time impact creativity within varying organisational cultures. Furthermore, while the study explored emotional intelligence and self-efficacy as moderators, it did not consider other potentially influential factors such as job autonomy, leadership styles or resource availability, which could further shape the organisational culture-creativity link. Future research could examine these additional variables to gain a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which creativity flourishes in organisational settings. Additionally, exploring potential curvilinear relationships, as noted in the literature on self-efficacy, could yield insights into whether very high levels of self-efficacy may have diminishing or adverse effects on creativity, particularly in highly structured work environments.

The study reveals the significant influence of emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and organisational culture on employee creativity within Ghana’s healthcare sector. While both emotional intelligence and self-efficacy positively impact creativity, self-efficacy notably strengthens the link between organisational culture and employee creativity. Emotional intelligence enhances creativity individually but does not significantly moderate this relationship. These findings suggest that healthcare organisations should focus on boosting self-efficacy and fostering a supportive organisational culture to drive creativity and innovation among their employees. By promoting continuous development and a culture of openness and collaboration, organisations can encourage creative solutions to enhance healthcare delivery. This research fills a gap by exploring these dynamics in a non-Western context, offering valuable insights for improving organisational performance through creativity in healthcare settings.

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the respondents who devoted time to fill in and return the questionnaires sent to them.