Interactive effect of supervisory styles and careerist orientation on enhancing creativity

Abstract

This study addresses a crucial theoretical gap by investigating how supervisors’ supervisory styles and subordinates’ careerist orientation jointly influence subordinate creativity. It examines the direct impact of two supervisor styles—supportive and noncontrolling supervision—on subordinates’ creativity and the moderating role of careerist orientation. Data were collected via surveys from nonprofit Nepalese NGOs, resulting in 499 responses. The study used AMOS for data purification and hierarchical regression for hypothesis testing by employing positivist methodology and deductive reasoning. Results reveal that supportive behavior positively impacts subordinates’ creativity, while noncontrolling supervision has a negative impact. Moreover, the study uncovers nuanced differences: supportive supervision positively affects creativity for individuals with low career orientation; however, this effect diminishes for those with high career orientation. Similarly, the positive impact of noncontrolling supervision on creativity is pronounced for low career orientation employees, but it turns harmful for high career orientation individuals. These findings hold implications for theoretical understanding and practical implementation, offering insights into the complex interplay between supervisory styles, careerist orientation, and creativity. The study contributes to future research directions and managerial strategies for fostering creativity.

Keywords:

• Creativity
• careerism
• Nepalese evidence
• controlling supervision
• noncontrolling supervision

JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES:

• L20
• L25
• L30
• M12

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Santiago Gutierrez-Broncano, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

SUBJECTS:

• Human Resource Development

1. Introduction

The organization’s and its employees’ success is essential for a competitive advantage in the turbulent world. Besides various factors, employees’ creativity is one of the crucial factors in ensuring such success. In today’s rapidly evolving knowledge-based economy, marked by substantial technological, cultural, demographic, and economic shifts, fostering employee creativity has become paramount for organizations. This effort is aimed at nurturing employees, bolstering the fundamental capabilities of the company, and enabling organizations to endure and sustain a viable competitive edge in the global market (Gu et al., 2015). Therefore, every organization’s primary concern is to enhance and nurture employees’ creativity to ensure sustainable competitive advantage in a competitive world (Huang, 2024; Kooli et al., 2022; Messabia et al., 2022; Yesuf et al., 2024). As Tang (2010) asserted, invention constitutes an ongoing process or a lifelong endeavor for individuals and organizations, embodying a collective challenge embraced by all. The attainment of collective creativity within an organization contributes to its transformation into an innovative entity, as posited by March (1991). Zhou and Shalley (2003) emphasized that novelty and originality in goods, functions, and services are pivotal drivers for organizations’ enduring survival and prosperity over the long term. Hence, the search for sources of creativity under different contexts is always demanded by both academicians and practitioners.

Traditionally, individuals maintained enduring affiliations with employers, wherein they traded organizational allegiance for job security, yet the contemporary landscape presents a contrasting scenario. Instances of strategic realignment, business restructuring, and downsizing as responses to financial constraints have become commonplace due to the relentless global competition (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). This trend has been further accentuated by the flattening of organizational hierarchies, resulting in curtailed avenues for regular advancement. Faced with intensified international rivalry, numerous enterprises opted for widespread layoffs of professional personnel, prompting heightened work instability (Witte, 1999). In the wake of organizational downsizing and restructuring, individuals who observed waning job security began questioning the worth of steadfast allegiance to a solitary employer. As a result, a significant portion of the workforce adopted a more self-oriented career approach, adopting an instrumental stance wherein their present employment served as a stepping stone toward a more promising position (O’Connor & Crowley-Henry, 2020). Consequently, the conventional nature of employer-employee relationships has shifted toward a transactional paradigm (Jain & Sullivan, 2020), where employees trade short-range acts for growth-enriching experiences that augment their employment potential (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). Thus, employees’ career orientations have emerged as a pivotal consideration when intervening to foster their creative capacities.

Supervisors in organizations are crucial in determining the working environment. Their behavior with subordinates, attitudes towards power relationships, vision, mission, cooperation and support, etc., are determinants of subordinates’ retention and contribution to the organization. More specifically, supervisors can influence employee creativity directly or indirectly by fostering a work environment in which creativity is encouraged rather than stifled. Earlier research has revealed that supervisory and leadership behaviors influenced workplace creativity substantially (Zhou, 2003). Autocratic and controlling leadership styles hinder workers’ intrinsic motivation, which is influenced by various leadership styles, with democratic and participatory leadership styles being particularly effective in enhancing intrinsic motivation and promoting innovation, as highlighted by Ryan and Deci (2000). However, supervisory style and its impacts might be inconsistent due to other contextual factors (e.g. culture, understanding level of subordinates, time, etc.) (Bhattarai & Budhathoki, 2023); therefore, it is always challenging to generalize the concept. Consequently, a study to measure the role of a supervisor’s supportive and noncontrolling behavior in creating their subordinate’s creativity under different contexts is always demanding and necessary.

Acknowledging the paramount significance of inventiveness within working environments, researchers have dedicated considerable consideration to comprehending the thought of conducting extensive research endeavors for deeper insights (Shalley et al., 2004). The concept of creativity has been extensively examined at the individual level, embracing many aspects, such as qualities, talents, and experiences that incorporate both cognitive factors (such as skills and abilities) and non-cognitive features (such as behavior), with these investigations supplementing each other to enhance comprehension of this intricate phenomenon. However, the nature of creativity remains elusive and complicated (Jain & Jain, 2016). Xie and Paik (2019) highlight that cultural factors, such as collectivism, power distance, and avoiding doubt have a mixed effect on creativity and new ideas, thus curtailing the generalizability of studies across different cultural contexts. Consequently, a coherent theoretical framework encompassing the impact of employee creativity within organizational settings has been lacking (Jain & Jain, 2016). Therefore, a comprehensive exploration of creativity through diverse perspectives becomes imperative. Furthermore, existing creativity research has predominantly focused on isolating individual or contextual factors, neglecting the combined impact of these things on staff creativity (Sagiv et al., 2010). However, the current body of research does not examine the direct and interactive impacts of supervisory styles, specifically those characterized as supportive and noncontrolling, in conjunction with careerist orientations, on the augmentation of subordinate creativity. This study seeks to address this gap by investigating whether the creative output of subordinates is influenced by the supportive and noncontrolling behaviors exhibited by their leaders. Additionally, the study aims to discern the differential effects of these supervisory styles on employees with high and low careerist orientations.

Hence, in response to the scenario mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, this study aims to measure the number of objectives representing the empirical evidence from Nepalese Nongovernment organizations. Firstly, the impact of supportive and noncontrolling supervisors’ role to enhance their subordinates’ creativity. Secondly, the interactive effect of supportive supervision and careerist orientation on creativity. Thirdly, the interactive effect of noncontrolling supervision and careerist orientation on creativity. Lastly, there are different effects of supportive and noncontrolling supervision on the employees’ creativity with high levels and low levels of careerist orientation.

To fulfill the study’s objectives, this research commences with an introduction section elucidating the significance of the study. The subsequent section provides a comprehensive review, both theoretically and empirically, to substantiate the formulated hypotheses. The methodology section outlines the data collection process, ensuring reliability and validity. The results section presents empirical evidence derived from the collected data. Moving forward, the discussion section delves into the similarities and differences between the current study’s findings and other pertinent theories and empirical evidence. The final section encapsulates the conclusion, delineates the study’s limitations, and outlines directions for future research.

2. Review of literature

2.1. Creativity

Employee creativity is a pivotal facet of human capital, involving the generation of novel and valuable concepts. An organization’s competitive advantage in the 21st century hinges on its capacity to identify and harness the innovative ideas generated by highly creative individuals (Carraher Wolverton et al., 2023). According to Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1990), creativity is distinguished by generating pragmatic and advantageous innovations, including novel products, services, ideas, events, or pathways. These innovations frequently originate from collaborative endeavors within complex social structures. Creativity, based on personal and cultural factors, allows people to turn dreams into reality (Tan, 2007). Novelty is ascribed to an idea when it deviates from established practices within an organization or industry. At the same time, value is attributed to ideas whose outcomes are adaptable to real-world contexts (Godart et al., 2015). This multifaceted construct hinges on three primary constituents: knowledge, the ability to think creatively, and the drive (Amabile, 1988). Recognizing its paramount significance, organizations proactively seek strategies to nurture employee creativity within the workplace (Son & Kim, 2016). A team member with a heightened capacity for generating new, innovative, and valuable ideas is more inclined to foster their unique contributions, subsequently enriching group and organizational innovation endeavors.

2.2. Supervisory style

This study examines supportive and noncontrolling supervisory styles, considering their strong association with subordinates’ creativity and innovation (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). A supportive supervisor emphasizes fostering relationships and displaying genuine concern for subordinates’ psychological well-being and preferences (Fan et al., 2019). This relational approach strives to enrich connections through cooperation, assistance, and identification (Gruzdev et al., 2020), prioritizing the interpersonal aspect of supervisory interactions.

Furthermore, supportive supervisors share novel ideas, deliver constructive feedback, and enhance subordinates’ skills by offering comprehensive support (Khuram et al., 2021). Rooted in Organizational Support Theory (OST), the provision of support from the organization generates a sense of reciprocal commitment in employees, motivating them to contribute toward the accomplishment of organizational goals and objectives (Eisenberger et al., 1986), with the manager or supervisor serving as an integral component of this organizational support framework.

Similarly, a noncontrolling supervision style establishes an environment wherein employees feel secure and empowered to explore novel insights, thanks to the autonomy granted and the encouragement of change (Jeong et al., 2017). In contrast, autocratic and controlling leadership hinder intrinsic motivation among employees, while democratic and participative leadership styles bolster this innate drive, nurturing inspiration and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). By adopting a noncontrolling supervision approach, organizations can foster creativity within their workforce (Chong & Ma, 2010) instead of controlling supervision, which is anticipated to curtail creative performance (McLean, 2005). Consequently, it is highly plausible that a noncontrolling supervision style will effectively cultivate employee creativity (Chong & Ma, 2010).

2.3. Theoretical underpinning

The Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, articulated by Hobfoll (1989) and Hobfoll et al. (2018), furnishes a robust theoretical framework for examining the supervisory styles of supportiveness and noncontrolling behavior and their implications for subordinates’ creativity. COR theory posits that individuals are driven by the pursuit of acquiring, maintaining, and safeguarding resources, with stress arising from the perceived threat or actual loss of these resources. Resources encompass tangible assets (e.g. time, money, physical energy) and psychosocial elements (e.g. social support, self-esteem, a sense of control). Individuals motivated to conserve and invest resources regard social support, autonomy, and positive relationships with supervisors as crucial workplace resources. Given the pivotal role of supervisors in resource provision or depletion, supportive supervision and noncontrolling behavior emerge as resources contributing positively to the well-being and functioning of subordinates (Hobfoll et al., 2018).

Supportive supervision, entailing the provision of resources, such as encouragement, positive feedback, and assistance, is aligned with the COR theory’s premise. Individuals perceiving increased support are less likely to undergo resource depletion, thus fostering a greater inclination to invest in creative pursuits. Furthermore, supportive supervision is posited to cultivate a positive emotional state, establishing an environment conducive to creativity.

Noncontrolling supervision, consistent with the COR theory’s emphasis on autonomy and control, corresponds to the provision of resources. According to Hobfoll (1989) and Hobfoll et al. (2018), individuals thrive in environments affording control and autonomy. Noncontrolling supervision is envisioned to diminish the perception of resource threat, enabling subordinates to invest more in creative thinking without the apprehension of resource loss. In synthesizing these concepts, the COR theory provides a comprehensive lens for understanding how supportive and noncontrolling supervisory behaviors contribute to subordinates’ creativity in the workplace.

2.4. Supervisory styles and creativity

Supportive supervisors demonstrate genuine care for the well-being of their employees, fostering an atmosphere of open communication and actively aiding in enhancing skills and abilities (Deci & Ryan, 1987). In doing so, they cultivate a work environment that places a premium on innovation, intrinsic motivation, and collaborative resolution of challenges while dismantling rigid protocols that might hinder creative thinking (Chong & Ma, 2010). Establishing trust between supervisors and their subordinates becomes a driving force for psychological safety, ultimately amplifying performance and creativity (Madjar & Ortiz-Walters, 2009). Notably, Sun et al. (2012) and Zhang and Bartol (2010) state that leadership styles characterized by transformational and empowering qualities play a pivotal role in nurturing psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation, consequently positively influencing employees’ creativity. The convergence of these theoretical insights and empirical findings significantly underscores the indispensable nature of supervisory support as a catalyst for fostering employee creativity.

On the other hand, in a different scenario, when supervisors take on a controlling stance, they meticulously oversee employee activities, make choices independently from employee input, provide feedback in a directive manner, and apply force on employees to adhere to particular thoughts, emotions, or actions (Deci et al., 1999). This type of supervision, characterized by control, has a detrimental impact on intrinsic motivation and redirects employees’ attention away from their tasks, focusing it on external factors (Deci et al., 1999). This decrease in inherent reason is anticipated to impact creative performance negatively. Conversely, a noncontrolling approach to supervision fosters an environment where employees feel secure and empowered to explore new perspectives, as it grants them autonomy and encourages adaptability (Chong & Ma, 2010). Supporting this notion, Li et al. (2021) proposed that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision counterbalance each other in impeding employees’ proactive engagement by amplifying their perception of helplessness. Across three distinct studies, the outcomes consistently reveal that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision mitigate each other’s influence in curbing subordinate proactive behaviors (Li et al., 2021). From these insights, it can be inferred that refraining from excessive control over subordinates’ work behaviors can serve as a wellspring for cultivating their creativity within the workplace.

Moreover, Becker et al. (2022) stated that supervisory style can directly influence employees’ innovation performance. Likewise, Zhou (2023) investigated the positive impact of supportive and controlling supervision by considering the influence of personal characteristics on employees’ innovative behavior. Similarly, Yang et al. (2022) tested the positive impact of the directive and supportive supervisory style on innovative performance in the context of graduate students. Moreover, Nguyen et al. (2023) revealed that transformational leadership had a positive influence on both employee creativity and organizational innovation, whereas transactional leadership had a negative impact on both, with employee creativity acting as a partial mediator. In a related study, Nguyen et al. (2024) emphasized the strong impact of Creative leadership on employee creativity, showcasing distinct effects of transformational and transactional leadership, which were further moderated by organizational innovation. In the same track, Rasheed et al. (2024) demonstrated a significant positive impact of transformational leadership and delegation style on innovation capability and green purchasing, contrasting with Iqbal et al. (2023) findings that servant leadership exerted a greater influence on innovation, particularly influenced by affective commitment for transformational leadership and creative self-efficacy for servant leadership. In the same way, Song et al. (2023) illustrated how ethical and servant leadership supports social workers’ innovation, showing variation based on organizational climate, while Sürücü (2024) provided evidence of the positive impact of green inclusive leadership on green creativity. Additionally, Nauman et al. (2024) identified that supervisors’ knowledge-hiding behavior negatively impacted employee creativity, while Hilton et al. (2024) emphasized a robust positive relationship between transformational and ethical leadership dimensions and employees’ job involvement, creating an environment conducive to generating new ideas.

In addition to examining leadership and supervisory styles, Yesuf et al. (2024) identified factors, such as workgroup support, managerial encouragement, organizational support, absence of internal obstacles, and positive family-work resource spillover as significant contributors to enhancing employees’ creativity. These factors, directly or indirectly linked to a supportive and empowering work environment, play a crucial role in fostering creativity. Similarly, Ayinaddis (2023) tested that organizational encouragement, supervisor support, resource availability, and a lack of organizational barriers positively impacted organizational creativity and innovation, while demanding work had a detrimental effect. By expanding upon the prior detailed examination of theoretical models (e.g. Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018) and actual results, this study formulates a hypothesis that underscores the pivotal role of supervisory styles, specifically those characterized by supportiveness and noncontrolling attributes, in nurturing employee creativity within the professional setting. Hence, grounding on this premise, the study posits the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Supportive supervision is a source of subordinates’ creativity. It means an increase in the supervisors’ supportive behavior positively impacts their subordinate’s creativity.

Hypothesis 2: Noncontrolling supervision is a source of subordinate’s creativity. It means an increase in supervisor’s noncontrolling behavior positively impacts their subordinate’s creativity.

2.5. Careerist orientation

Careerist orientation is defined as the inclination to pursue advancement in one’s career through avenues not solely dependent on performance achievements (Feldman & Weitz, 1991). Individuals with a career-oriented mindset believe progress can be achieved more effectively through non-performance-related methods (Aryee & Chen, 2004). Employees with a career orientation tend to consider safeguarding their interests as essential rather than relying on the potential alignment with the organization’s long-term career planning (Adams et al., 2013). This inclination is encapsulated by several underlying themes, as identified by Feldman and Weitz (1991), with the notion of the long-term contradiction between personal and organizational objectives being particularly relevant in the context of this study. This is because the perception of personal and corporate goals as fundamentally mismatched implies that individuals must take personal responsibility, aligning with the essence of the protean career concept.

In the contemporary landscape of escalating global competition, the norm of strategic refocusing, business reengineering, and downsizing during financial constraints has become routine (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). As time has progressed and employment relationships have gradually eroded, individuals have assumed more excellent agency in steering their career trajectories, ultimately reducing the organization’s involvement as a collaborator in career management (Baruch, 2004). It has been contended by Feldman and Weitz (1991) that a careerist orientation detrimentally impacts work attitudes due to its tendency to accentuate the deficiencies within the work environment. Given that no workplace is devoid of imperfections, unfavorable incidents or the absence of desirable attributes strengthens the negative work attitudes and behaviors among individuals who demonstrate a marked careerist orientation. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced as a result of the heightened careerist direction.

2.6. Role of careerist orientation in the relationship between supervisory style and creativity

Rousseau (1990) highlights that individuals with a high careerist orientation have a distinctive approach to their professional trajectory, characterized by an inclination to work with numerous organizations throughout their career rather than committing to one or two. They actively seek and explore diverse career prospects across various employment contexts, perceiving their tenure at a specific organization as a means to enhance their opportunities elsewhere (Rousseau, 1990). For these individuals, their career serves as a means to an end, with their current job being viewed as a stepping stone toward more favorable positions. Moreover, individuals exhibiting strong career-oriented tendencies are likelier to change companies and attain promotions (Feldman & Weitz, 1991). Such individuals adopt a short-term perspective in their roles, often pursuing a high-risk strategy where they make significant strides and then transition to new opportunities. This approach is characterized by limited attachment to colleagues, supervisors, or organizational loyalty, factors that might otherwise promote longevity.

In light of evolving job dynamics, individuals with a careerist orientation tend to possess less favorable attitudes toward their employers due to their inclination for transactional and short-term interactions with organizations. Arthur et al. (2016) noted that this includes decreased organizational commitment levels. Consequently, it follows that individuals with high careerist orientation and those with low careerist orientation exhibit dissimilar levels of creativity. This discrepancy arises from variations in their job focus, life and organizational attitudes, attachment to roles and organizations, and their strategic approach to career development.

Furthermore, the progression of creativity is not an isolated phenomenon but is perpetually entwined with the social framework within which an individual operates (Amabile, 1988). Similarly, Huang et al. (2023) state that physical and non-physical environments positively influence employees’ individual and team behaviors, with individual behavior contributing to enhanced creativity while team behavior positively influences organizational innovation. This intricate interplay involves the dynamic influence of personal attributes, situational factors, the work environment, job specifics, and their collective impact. The alignment between these multifaceted elements and an employee’s traits becomes crucial; a harmonious and favorable match can catalyze heightened employee creativity, as Shalley et al. (2004) emphasized.

Ethical leadership has been shown to foster job autonomy, leading to increased individual creativity. This relationship is further influenced by employee proactivity, particularly among highly proactive individuals, and personal characteristics also play a significant role in shaping individual creativity (Tetteh et al., 2023). Concurrently, Cai et al. (2024) highlight the impact of transactional leadership on workplace learning and green knowledge management, moderated by the use of social networking sites in influencing employee green creative behavior. Career-oriented employees emphasize the importance of networking for career advancement, indicating a strong connection between networking activities and career progress. Additionally, Ackah et al. (2024) note that female leaders display a heightened preference for leadership roles and actively drive innovation in organizational processes and products, underscoring the potential differences in creativity and innovation based on personal characteristics. Devi (2024) examines the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee creativity, finding that knowledge sharing moderates this association. Entrepreneurial leaders, as identified by Islam and Asad (2024), stimulate employee creativity, especially when coupled with high creative self-efficacy and effective knowledge sharing. Likewise, Zhang and Xu (2024) further explore the interplay between supervisor leadership styles and employee personality traits, demonstrating that proactive personalities, combined with transformational leadership and ethical standards, foster employee radical creativity, with creative self-efficacy mediating this relationship. Hence, it is realistic that subordinate characteristics play significant roles in the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate’s creativity, and an employee’s career orientation can be one of the individual characteristics generally exhibited in the workplace.

Thus, the central assertion of this study rests on the notion that employee creativity is shaped by the interplay of personal factors, like careerist orientation, and contextual influences, such as supervisory style. This perspective aligns with Jansen and Kristof-Brown’s (2006) framework of person-environment fit theory and empirical evidence (Bhattarai & Budhathoki, 2023), which advocates an interactionist paradigm elucidating how contextual factors can interact with individual traits, yielding positive outcomes when alignment is optimal. Consequently, the study posits that the impact of employees’ supervisory style—precisely, supportive and noncontrolling supervision—on their creativity may diverge depending on their level of careerist orientation. Guided by these theoretical premises and empirical foundations, the study formulates the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Employees’ careerist orientation moderates the positive impact of supportive supervision on creativity. It means supervisor support impacts the employees’ creativity, but the level of influence (or direction) differs for employees with high and low career orientations.

Hypothesis 4: Employees’ careerist orientation moderates the positive impact of noncontrolling supervision on creativity. It means noncontrolling supervision impacts the employees’ creativity, but the level (or direction) of effects is not the same for employees with high and less career orientation.

3. Methods

This study embraces the positivist research philosophy, rooted in the belief that researchers can adopt a ‘scientific’ perspective to observe social behavior objectively, as Travers (2001) advocates. According to Hughes and Sharrock (1997), it is plausible to measure social behavior independently of context, treating social phenomena as objective entities. Positivist researchers in business and management predominantly employ deductive reasoning and quantitative methods (Bhattarai, 2023; Bhattarai & Budhathoki, 2023). Consequently, aligning with the positivist research philosophy and a deductive reasoning approach, this study utilizes a quantitative research method, collecting cross-sectional data through surveys. Quantitative research methods, as highlighted by Burns (2000) and Hughes (2006), serve to confirm or refute hypotheses and establish causal relationships.

3.1. Measures

An eight-item Likert-type scale, formulated by Oldham and Cummings (1996), was employed to evaluate the extent of supportive supervision. Sample items included: ‘My supervisor encourages me to develop new skills’ and ‘My supervisor encourages employees to voice their disagreements with decisions’. Noncontrolling supervision was evaluated with a four-item scale from Oldham and Cummings (1996). Sample items were: ‘My supervisor entrusts me with the authority to decide how to perform my job’ and ‘My supervisor gives me opportunities to make significant decisions independently’. A seven-point Likert scale was used to measure all items within these variables.

Careerist Orientation was assessed using a brief five-item scale devised by Feldman and Weitz (1991). Example items encompassed: ‘Ultimately, what benefits you in your organization may not align with the organization’s best interests’ and ‘I do not consider myself a devoted organization member’. Likewise, creativity was evaluated using a set of six items, with four of them adapted from Farmer et al. (2003), and two were introduced to ensure relevance within the study’s context. The additional items were: ‘This employee suggests innovative approaches to address existing challenges’ and ‘This employee consistently puts forward creative and practical recommendations to enhance productivity’. Every item about all constructs was rated on a five-point Likert scale, with a rating of one indicating strong disagreement and five denoting strong agreement.

3.2. Sampling and data

To capture the perceptual and cross-sectional data, two sets of questionnaires, Set-A and Set-B, were developed and surveyed. Set-A comprised the items measuring supportive supervision, noncontrolling supervision, careerist orientation, and demographic information. The Set-B contained the items measuring the subordinate’s creativity. Set-A was distributed to the subordinates, and Set-B was distributed to the supervisors. While distributing the questionnaire, precaution was ensured to match the supervisors and subordinates. Questionnaires were distributed to the employees and supervisors working in Nepal’s non-government organizations (NGOs) established for social work without profit. A list of NGOs headquartered in Kathmandu Valley was taken from the regulator agencies (i.e. the Social Welfare Council). From the list, 25 NGOs were selected randomly to survey their employees (subordinates and supervisors). The survey was conducted in January 2023. In total, 700 paired questionnaires were disseminated with assistance from the human resource departments of the relevant NGOs. Among the filled-up and returned questionnaires, 499 (71.29% of the distributed questionnaire) paired questionnaires were useable for further analysis. Regarding sampling adequacy, Bentler and Chou (1987) proposed a guideline of five cases per observed variable, while Nunnally (1978) suggested a rule of thumb of 10 cases for each observed variable. Hence, in the current study, an analysis was conducted on 499 cases involving 23 observed variables and four constructs.

In Nepal, NGOs operate as nonprofit entities dedicated to benevolent causes, relying on charity and donations for their financial sustenance. The shared objective of these organizations is to provide free support to underprivileged individuals or communities, offering assistance outside the mainstream (Bhattarai & Budhathoki, 2023). Therefore, their primary focus is on addressing the needs of underprivileged communities at the grassroots level. These organizations are officially registered under the Association Registration Act of 1977 and are subject to regulation by the Social Welfare Council of Nepal.

While the overarching framework for the operations of NGOs is standardized, encompassing procedures, regulations, monitoring, evaluation, and accountability, the specific areas of their work may vary. These areas span diverse sectors, such as education, healthcare, human rights, environment and conservation, livelihood and economic development, social welfare and empowerment, disaster response and preparedness, agricultural and rural development, children and youth development, anti-trafficking initiatives, and cultural preservation.

Operating at the grassroots level brings numerous unforeseen challenges and issues, often rendering standard procedures inadequate for the unique societal context. In response to such circumstances, it becomes imperative for employees to adopt a more creative and innovative approach to tackling various social problems as dictated by the specific context. Simultaneously, the organization must ensure that the working environment is conducive to creativity, providing support without imposing excessive control, thereby fostering an atmosphere that encourages innovative problem-solving.

3.3. Measurement model

Using ‘Analysis of Momentum Structure’ (AMOS) Version 25, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the data’s goodness of fit with the proposed model of the study. Measures were taken to ensure a satisfactory goodness of fit index. Initially, all items that measured latent constructs like supportive supervision, noncontrolling supervision, careerist orientation, and creativity were incorporated into the model. However, one item related to supportive supervision exhibited a loading below .60 and was subsequently removed from the model following Awang’s (2015) recommendation. Following this, Modification Indices were scrutinized, leading to the identification of two pairs of error terms. These error term pairs—one from the construct of supportive supervision and another from creativity—were allowed to covariate by setting them as ‘free parameters of the estimates’.

Consequently, as depicted in Table 1, it was found that CMIN = 555.29, DF = 200, CMIN/DF = 2.776, CFI = .979, RMSEA = .050, and Pclose = .433. These values indicated the achievement of a good model fit index, reaching the threshold proposed by Gaskin and Lim (2016) and Hu and Bentler (1999). A measurement model is regarded as excellent if the CMIN/DF is between 1 and 3, CFI is >.95, RMSEA is <.060, and Pclose is >005 (Gaskin & Lim, 2016; Hu & Bentler, 1999), as shown in Table 1. After ensuring the measurement model, data were imputed to calculate regression in hierarchical regression analysis.

Table 1. Indicators of the model fit.

Measure	Estimate	Standard cut-off point	Remarks
CMIN	555.294	–	–
DF	200	–	–
CMIN/DF	2.776	1–3	Got excellent
CFI	.979	>.95	Got excellent
RMSEA	.050	>.06	Got excellent
PClose	.433	<.05	Got excellent

Source: Author’s calculation.

3.4. Reliability and validity

In alignment with Peterson and Kim’s (2013) perspective, this study adopts ‘Composite Reliability’ (CR) instead of Cronbach’s Alpha to assess reliability. As illustrated in Table 2, the CR values for all constructs surpassed the recommended threshold of .60 (Awang, 2015). Similarly, the ‘Average Variance Extracted’ (AVE) exceeded the .50 threshold for each variable (Awang, 2015). Thus, the measurement indicators employed in the current study assured reliability.

Table 2. Research variable’s reliability and validity.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	1	2	3	4
(1) Supportive supervision	.91	.58	.03	.93	(.76)
(2) Non-controlling supervision	.97	.89	.16	.97	.17***	(.94)
(3) Careerist orientation	.95	.81	.16	.96	.18***	.40***	(.90)
(4) Creativity	.97	.84	.05	.98	.10*	−.21***	^−.13**	(.92)

* , **, *** Represents the statistical significant at .10, .01, and .001 level of significance, respectively. Value in parenthesis represents the square root of the AVE of the corresponding variable’s.

Source: Author’s calculation.

The constructs’ Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values surpass the threshold set by Hair et al. (2010) at 0.50, as demonstrated in Table 2. Additionally, in line with guidelines established by Awang (2015), the statistical significance of every item in the measurement model was upheld. Consequently, the measurement tools employed in this study confirm their convergent validity.

Likewise, the predictor variables displayed correlation coefficients below the predefined threshold of .85, as Awang (2015) advised. The ‘Average Variance Extracted’ (AVE) for each construct surpassed the ‘Mean Shared Variance’ (MSV), which is consistent with the criteria stated by Hair et al. (2010). Moreover, adhering to the recommendations put forth by Gaskin and Lim (2016), the inter-construct correlations linked to each component were lower than the square root of the AVE. Hence, the measurement approach utilized in this study strongly supports its ability to establish discriminant validity.

3.5. Common methods variance

The possibility of inflated correlations between variables, known as common method variance (CMV), arises when data is collected using self-reported questionnaires (Podsakoff et al., 2003), potentially leading to inaccurate hypothesis acceptance or rejection. Three corrective measures, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003), were incorporated during questionnaire development to mitigate this. Firstly, distinct respondents assessed dependent and independent variables—supportive supervision, noncontrolling supervision, and careerist orientation-evaluated by subordinates, while supervisors appraised their subordinates’ creativity. Secondly, twelve items (three from each variable) were reverse scored to counter potential response biases by rephrasing negative phrasing. Lastly, opinions assessing different variables were intermingled for participants who could not identify the associated variables of a statement. After employing these strategies, a one-factor test of Harman was conducted to gauge CMV. The analysis indicated that the initial single factor explained 27.55% of the variance, well below Cho and Lee’s (2012) 50% threshold. This demonstrates that CMV’s impact is not substantial in this study, ensuring the data’s reliability for further analysis.

4. Results

As illustrated in Table 3, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted, accounting for the impact of demographic variables (i.e. sex, age, service years, job contracts, position). Influenced by demographic factors, the model’s variance explained a mere 1% (ΔR² = .010, p > .05) of the variance, remaining statistically insignificant. Following this, and after demographic variables’ control, the coefficient depicting the supervisor’s supportive behavior in predicting their subordinate’s creativity displayed a positive and statistically significant value (B = .26, p < .01), contributing to an additional 2.10% (ΔR² = .210, p < .001) increment in the model’s variance—consequently, Hypothesis 1 garnered support. Similarly, accounting for the respondent’s demographic factors, the coefficient related to the supervisor’s noncontrolling supervision exhibited a negative and statistically significant value (B = −.21, p < .01), leading to a further 4.70% (ΔR² = .047, p < .001) augmentation in the model’s variance. Consequently, Hypothesis 2 was contradicted.

Table 3. Regression results.

		Creativity
Stage 1	Control variables	Model 1	Model 2
	Sex	.02	.02
	Age	.11	.11
	Service years	.05	.05
	Job contract	−.09	−.09
	Position	−.08	−.08
	Change in R square (ΔR^2)	.010	.010
Stage 2	The direct effect of the independent variable
	Supportive supervision	.26***
	Noncontrolling supervision		−.21***
	Change in R square (ΔR^2)	.021**	.047**
Stage 3	The direct effect of the moderator variable
	Careerist orientation	−.18***	−.065
	Change in R square (ΔR^2)	.026***	.003
Stage 4	Interactive effect of the dependent and independent variables
	Supportive supervision × careerist orientation	−.27***
	Non-controlling supervision × careerist orientation		−.43***
	Change in R square (ΔR^2)	.022**	.378***

** indicates the statistical significance at a .01 level of significance.

*** Denotes the statistical significance at a .001 level of significance.

Source: Author’s calculation.

Similarly, as detailed in Table 3, after adjusting for respondents’ demographic variables and the influence of the supervisor’s supportive supervision, the coefficient representing employees’ careerist orientation in predicting their subordinate’s creativity was observed to be negative and statistically significant (B = −.18, p < .01), contributing to an additional 2.60% (ΔR² = .026, p < .001) augmentation in the model’s variance. On the contrary, after accounting for respondents’ demographic variables and the effect of the supervisor’s noncontrolling behavior, the coefficient of employees’ careerist orientation in predicting subordinate’s creativity was statistically insignificant (B = −.065, p > .05), further contributing only 2.60% (ΔR² = .003, p > .05) variation to the model.

As delineated in Table 3, after accounting for demographic variables, supervisor’s supportive behavior, and employee’s careerist orientation, the coefficient capturing the interactive impact of supportive supervision and careerist orientation in predicting subordinate creativity emerged as statistically significant (B = −.27, p < .001), resulting in an added 2.20% variation (ΔR² = .022, p < .001) to the model. As a result, Hypothesis 3 garnered support. Similarly, with control of demographic variables, supervisor’s noncontrolling behavior, and employee’s careerist orientation, the coefficient representing the interactive effect of noncontrolling supervision and careerist orientation in predicting subordinate creativity also emerged as statistically significant (B = −.43, p < .001), contributing to a further 3.78% variation (ΔR² = .378, p < .001) to the model. Thus, Hypothesis 4 also received empirical validation.

The criterion employed to gauge the interactive impact of independent and moderating variables on dependent variables is the statistical significance of the alteration in R2 resulting from the inclusion of the interaction term. However, the change in R² estimates the interaction’s average effect size (Witt et al., 2000) and does not reflect the precise interaction effects under different situations (Bhattarai, 2021). Therefore, to see the accurate forms of the interactive effect size of supervisory style (supportive and noncontrolling supervision) and careerist orientation on creativity, the interactive effect was shown in Figures 1 and 2, as suggested by Aiken and West (1991).

Figure 1. Interactive effect of supportive supervision and careerist orientation on creativity. CO: careerist orientation; SS: supportive supervision.

Source: Author’s calculation.

Figure 2. Interactive effect of noncontrolling supervision and careerist orientation on creativity. NCS: non-supporting supervision; CO: careerist orientation.

Source: Author’s calculation.

As depicted in Figure 1, the lines representing low and high careerist orientations on the graph do not run parallel. This indicated that the effect of a supervisor’s supportive behavior on a subordinate’s creativity is not the same for employees with high and low career orientations.

High careerist orientation representing graphic line is almost straight. It indicated that highly career-oriented employees’ creativity is not impacted due to their supportive behavior. However, low careerist orientation representing the graphic line is steeper and moving upward. It indicated a positive impact of the supervisor’s supportive supervision on their subordinates’ creativity.

Moreover, Figure 1 depicted that at a low level of supervisor’s supportive behavior, highly careerist-oriented employees’ creativity is higher than low careerist-oriented employees. But at a high level of supervisor’s supportive behavior, low careerist-oriented employees’ creativity is higher than highly careerist-oriented employees.

As depicted in Figure 2, the lines representing low and high careerist orientations do not run parallel. This observation suggests that the influence of a supervisor’s noncontrolling conduct on a subordinate’s creativity differs for individuals with varying degrees of career orientation. The graphical lines representing high and low careerist orientation are oriented in opposite directions. Low careerist orientation representing graphic line was moving upwards and indicated the positive impact of supervisors’ noncontrolling supervision on their subordinate’s creativity. However, high careerist orientation representing graphic lines was moving downwards and demonstrated the adverse effects of supervisors’ noncontrolling supervision on their subordinates’ creativity. Likewise, at a low level of noncontrolling supervision, highly career-oriented employees’s creativity was higher than that of low career-oriented employees. However, at the high level of noncontrolling supervision, low careerist-oriented employees’ creativity was higher than high careerist-oriented ones.

5. Discussion

This study was carried out to measure the direct and interactive impacts of supportive and noncontrolling supervisors’ roles to enhance their subordinates’ creativity. Empirical evidence of this study revealed several results regarding the association of supervisory style (i.e. supporting supervision and noncontrolling supervision), careerist orientation, and creativity. As hypothesized, this study measured a supervisor’s supporting leadership’s positive and statistically significant impact on a subordinate’s creativity. It indicated that if the employee’s supervisor(s) supports the subordinate’s work activities, such supportive behavior enhances their creativity. These results align with the findings of Madjar and Ortiz-Walters (2009), who demonstrated that trust in supervisors was associated with heightened psychological safety among employees, consequently leading to improved employee performance and creativity. Likewise, the study’s findings resonate with prior research in cooperative contexts, indicating that leadership support through collaboration, participation, and transparency positively influences creativity and contributes to the sustainability, viability, modernization, efficiency, and socio-economic soundness of cooperatives (Messabia et al., 2022, 2023). Similarly, this result supports the number of prior studies by Alblooshi et al. (2021), Arici and Uysal (2022), Bagheri et al. (2022), Bhutto et al. (2021), Fan et al. (2019), Gruzdev et al. (2020), Hilton et al. (2024), Nguyen et al. (2024), Rasheed et al. (2024), Sun et al. (2012), and Sürücü (2024), who have explained the direct or indirect role of a supervisor’s supportive and cooperative behavior enhances the subordinate’s creativity. Moreover, these results corroborate the research conducted by Elshaer et al. (2023), which demonstrated that servant leadership behavior, characterized by a heightened focus on followers’ needs and goals (Jiménez-Estévez et al., 2023), positively influenced extra-role behavior in the form of brand citizenship behavior. Hence, the consistency of findings reveals that the positive impact of a supervisor’s supportive supervision on their subordinate’s creativity is generalizable under different contexts.

Secondly, this study revealed noncontrolling supervision’s negative and statistically significant impact on creativity. This indicated that if the supervisor does not control (or grant autonomy) the subordinate’s work activities, the subordinate’s creativity would be decreased. This result is the reverse of the hypothesized relationship direction. It identified a unique and unexpected trend that contrasts with the prevailing literature on the positive impact of noncontrolling supervision on creativity. The result contradicts this study’s proposed hypothesis and many other studies’ findings. For example, Chong and Ma (2010) state that a noncontrolling supervision style facilitates an environment where employees feel secure and unrestrained in exploring novel ideas through the provision of autonomy and the encouragement of change, thereby significantly fostering employee creativity. Similarly, Li et al. (2021) posited that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision mutually counteract each other’s influence in suppressing followers’ proactivity, achieved through an elevation in their perceived powerlessness. These conclusions align with the results from the three studies mentioned above, collectively suggesting that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision diminish each other’s impact on impeding proactive behaviors among subordinates (Li et al., 2021). This indicates that noncontrolling management could be functional for employee outcomes and creativity. However, the study found that supervisors’ noncontrolling supervision decreased the subordinate’s creativity.

One of the possible causes of negative impact could be related to factors like psychological safety and risk aversion. Employees might feel more comfortable and motivated to express their creativity when they perceive a degree of control or supervisor guidance. Hence, a noncontrolling supervising environment and freedom may not be favorable for employees who feel psychologically unsafe and are risk averse. Moreover, another possible cause could be the leadership expectations within the Nepalese context. Nepalese employees might prefer a more directive approach from their supervisors due to cultural norms or a desire for clear guidance. In a noncontrolling supervising environment, employees might feel a lack of direction, control, support, etc., which might cause insecurity in their career and ultimately decrease creativity., scholars Fan et al. (2019), Gruzdev et al. (2020), and Sun et al. (2012) have claimed and tested in this study as well that supervisor’s support and guidance positively impacts on subordinate’s creativity. This study revealed the results as an opportunity to challenge existing theories and stimulate further studies under different contexts. In particular, further investigation regarding noncontrolling supervision and creativity might be more fruitful if carried out under different contexts incorporating the employees’ perception of psychological safety, risk aversion leadership expectation, culture, etc.

Thirdly, as hypothesized, this study revealed that the interactive effect of the supervisory style (i.e. supportive and noncontrolling supervision) and careerist orientation on creativity was statistically significant. This means the relationship between supervisory style (i.e. supportive and noncontrolling supervision) and creativity was moderated by careerist orientation. It indicated that the impact of supervisory style (i.e. supportive and noncontrolling supervision) on creativity would be different for employees with high and low careerist orientations. Rousseau (1990) asserts that individuals with robust careerist exposure do not envision confining their career to a solitary organization or a couple thereof. Instead, they anticipate engaging with numerous employers throughout their professional journey, actively seeking and delving into diverse career prospects spanning various employment scenarios. Notably, those with a high career orientation often perceive their current association with a specific organization as a stepping stone toward more promising opportunities with alternative employers (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Employees oriented towards their careers often regard their current work as a means to an end; they view their present job as a stepping stone towards attaining a more desirable position in the future. Therefore, it is understandable that career-oriented people do not focus on their current job’s growth and development; they are taking their current job just a step toward another job and organization. However, creativity needs employees’ dedication, involvement, continuity, trial and error efforts, teamwork cooperation, etc. Hence, employees’ careerist orientation may play a vital role in the relationship between supervisory style (i.e. supportive and noncontrolling supervision) and creativity. As such a relationship was never tested before, these results open the avenue for further studies under different contexts from different perspectives before generalizing the theory tested in this research.

Moreover, regarding the interactive effect of supervisory style (i.e. supportive and noncontrolling supervision) and careerist orientation on creativity, this study revealed novel and exciting findings that for highly career-oriented employees, supportive supervision did not affect their creativity. Still, supportive supervision positively impacted creativity for employees with low career orientation. It indicated that if the employees are low career-oriented, the supervisor’s supportive behavior can be a source of their creativity. Still, in the case of employees having high career orientation, employees’ creativity could not be increased by increasing the supervisor’s supportive behavior. Individuals characterized by a robust careerist orientation in their work approach are not primarily focused on maximizing their performance; instead, they aim to achieve an adequate level of performance that allows career-oriented strategies like networking and self-promotion to propel them further in their career trajectory (Feldman & Weitz, 1991). Luthans (1988) adds to this understanding by investigating advancement-driven managers’ behavioral patterns, noting that promoted managers frequently allocate less time and attention to traditional managerial activities, such as planning, controlling, decision-making, motivation, and staff development. Instead, they give more time to socializing and engaging in political interactions. Moreover, less career-oriented employees see the future and career in their current job and organization; therefore, supervisor support is a source of inspiration for novel and creative work. Highly career-oriented employees focus only on jumping to another position and organization, and they don’t see the contribution of their performance and creative work to their career advancement. This is another theoretical contribution revealed by this study, and there is potential for further studies to be conducted in various contexts, contributing to the refinement and extension of the existing theory.

Likewise, another exciting finding was a positive relationship between noncontrolling supervision and creativity for employees with low career orientation. But this relationship becomes just the opposite for employees with high career orientation, i.e. for the employees with high career orientation, the impact of noncontrolling supervision on creativity was negative. This result indicated that the supervisor’s noncontrolling supervision can only enhance the subordinate’s creativity for those low career-oriented employees. However, to highly career-oriented employees, the supervisor’s non-control behavior (autonomy) is harmful to improve their creativity. One of the possible causes for such opposite direction of result (i.e. the impact of noncontrolling supervision on creativity) between highly careerist and low careerist people could be the employees’ ‘growth needs strength’. Hackman and Oldham (1980) posit that employees’ desires for growth and development within their roles can vary. Individuals with a personal growth orientation are strongly inclined toward learning, pursuing personal development, fostering growth, and achieving a sense of accomplishment within their designated job tasks. Noncontrolling supervision sees them as space or opportunities to explore and learn. Highly career-oriented employees don’t see personal growth and achievement within their current employment and always see something easy outside their current jobs. They see the noncontrolling environment as an opportunity to search for another job and ignore the current position and organization. Therefore, noncontrolling supervision may positively impact low careerist-oriented employees’ creativity and harm high careerist-oriented employees. In this regard, Shalley et al. (2009) discovered that the concept of ‘growth need strength’ exerts a positive direct impact on creativity, and contextual factors further modulate this influence. Their study suggests that the complexity of the job environment plays a moderating role in this relationship. Consequently, an individual’s level of growth need strength emerges as a pivotal factor in determining creativity, with higher growth need strength significantly correlating with enhanced creative outcomes (Jain & Jain, 2016).

Another possible cause for such a reverse result between high careerist-oriented and low careerist-oriented employees in terms of creativity due to noncontrolling supervision could be the employees’ involvement in workplace politics. The theme underscoring the significance of political behavior as a component of corporate advancement is an inevitable aspect within organizations (Bhattarai, 2023). Most managers are interested in corporate politics, which pertains to allocating limited resources amid uncertain conditions. Notably, individuals with a careerist orientation often resort to political behavior as a substitute for on-the-job competency. Careerists tend to engage more readily in political activities within an environment characterized by noncontrolling supervision. However, the involvement of employees in political endeavors typically comes at the expense of their creativity and performance. Conversely, those with a non-careerist inclination tend to perceive corporate politics as an unwanted, though frequently encountered, barrier to on-the-job performance and overall organizational effectiveness (Feldman & Weitz, 1991). Therefore, they aren’t involved in workplace politics and concentrate on creativity and performance.

The finding revealed and described in this study, where the relationship between noncontrolling supervision and creativity differs based on employees’ career orientation, is quite exciting and opens up several avenues for discussion and analysis in research. Therefore, further study could be carried out from multiple perspectives and model diversification to refine the theory before generalization. In particular, consideration of employees’ ‘need growth strength’ and involvement in workplace politics could be incorporated into the model while studying the supervisory freedom of the employees and its impact on creativity and other employee outcomes. Furthermore, most studies have operated under the assumption that creativity is invariably positive and essential for the advancement and prosperity of both employees and organizations. As a result, organizations tend to view creative traits, skills, and mindsets as beneficial. However, Gino and Ariely (2012) posit that possessing a creative disposition and viewpoint can facilitate individuals in rationalizing their actions, subsequently driving unethical behavior—a facet of creativity often referred to as the ‘dark side’ of creativity. Employees, creative skills are not always used for good things; it is a chance to use such skills for harmful things, especially those that can be beneficial for the person but detrimental to the organization.

Therefore, further studies could explore the dark sides of creativity while enhancing the employees’ creativity.

6. Conclusion

This study measured the direct impact of a supervisor’s supervisory style (supportive and noncontrolling supervision) on a subordinate’s creativity. Moreover, this study measured the interactive effect of supervisory styles (supportive and noncontrolling supervision) and careerist orientation on subordinates’ creativity. This study addresses a significant theoretical gap by investigating the interplay between supervisors’ supervisory styles, subordinates’ careerist orientations, and the augmentation of subordinates’ creativity within Nepalese Non-government organizations. The findings underscore that supervisors’ supportive behavior fosters subordinates’ creativity, highlighting the pivotal role of encouragement and guidance. Conversely, the study reveals that supervisors’ noncontrolling supervision negatively impacts creativity, stressing the need for a reasonable balance between autonomy and direction. Notably, the study unveils the moderating effect of employees’ careerist orientation, indicating that tailored approaches are imperative. For those with low career orientation, supportive supervision significantly bolsters creativity, while its impact is inconsequential for those highly oriented. Similarly, noncontrolling supervision had a favorable effect on creativity among employees with low careerist orientation. However, for employees with a strong career orientation, noncontrolling supervision had an opposing impact on the creativity of their subordinates. This duality in response underscores the importance of considering individual orientations while intervening in employees’ creativity.

7. Limitation and further study

Despite the valuable insights gained from this study, there are certain limitations to consider. Firstly, though reliability and validity were ensured, the study relies on perceptual cross-sectional survey data, which may introduce common method bias and subjectivity (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The cross-sectional nature of the data collection may also control the establishment of causal relationships (Lai et al., 2013). Additionally, examining only two supervisory styles may overlook the potential influence of other leadership styles on subordinate creativity. For example, such a style can be the servant leadership. Servant leadership stands out in leadership theories due to its distinction in prioritizing followers’ needs, while other leadership styles emphasize organizational performance and benefits (Elshaer et al., 2023). As emphasized by Eva et al. (2019), prioritizing the development and fulfillment of followers has been identified as superior to others in enhancing positive employee outcomes. Therefore, the supervisor’s concern for the subordinate’s needs may also influence the subordinate’s extra-role behavior, such as creativity and innovation. Moreover, there might be other factors not incorporated in this study that might influence the employee’s creativity, like organizational culture (Lam et al., 2021), job resources and demand (Ghafoor & Haar, 2022), person-environment fit (Bhattarai, 2023), psychological safety of the employees (Ahmad et al., 2022), feedback and reward system, etc. Moreover, the focus on nonprofit Nepalese NGOs may limit the generalizability of the findings to other organizational contexts. Future research should address these limitations to enhance the robustness and applicability of the findings.

Future research could explore additional dimensions of supervisory behaviors (e.g. servant leadership, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, etc.) and consider diverse organizational settings to advance the understanding of the interplay of supervisory styles, careerist orientation, and creativity. Longitudinal studies would enable examining causal relationships and changes over time (Lai et al., 2013). Further investigation into the role of organizational culture (Diamond, 1991) and climate could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing creativity. Additionally, exploring the influence of individual differences beyond careerist orientation, such as personality traits (Edwards & Abbott, 1973), could offer a more nuanced perspective. Comparative studies across different cultural and socio-economic contexts would contribute to the generalizability of findings. Lastly, interventions and strategies organizations can employ to leverage supervisory styles for fostering creativity could be a valuable avenue for future research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ganesh Bhattarai

Ganesh Bhattarai is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Management, Tribhuvan University, where he earned his PhD in Management. He holds an M.Phil. in Management from Kathmandu University School of Management. His research areas encompass corporate politics, organizational dynamics, human resource management, and general management. With over 15 years of university teaching experience in various academic capacities, Dr. Bhattarai is a published author who has contributed numerous articles in his field.

Dipendra Karki

Dipendra Karki is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Management at Tribhuvan University, Nepal. He earned PhD in Finance from Kathmandu University School of Management. His research and teaching interests include Global Finance, Behavioral Finance, Financial Economics, and Securities Valuation. Dr. Karki is a published author who has written several articles and books.

Bharat Rai

Bharat Rai is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Management, Tribhuvan University, where he earned both an MPhil and PhD in Marketing Management. With over 15 years of teaching and research experience, his expertise lies in consumer behavior, buying behavior, marketing strategy, product development strategy, and marketing management. Dr. Rai has contributed extensively to his field, publishing numerous articles.

Prem Bahadur Budhathoki

Prem Bahadur Budhathoki obtained his Master of Philosophy in Finance from Purbanchal University of Nepal. Currently serving as an associate professor at the Faculty of Management, Tribhuvan University, he brings over 20 years of combined teaching and research experience. His research focuses on financial management within business organizations, behavioral finance, and organizational management.