Muñoz-Pascual and Galende (2017) found that human resources such as knowledge, joint motivation, and relationships have a direct and positive influence on creativity and innovation (Bornay-Barrachina et al., 2012; Paiva et al., 2024; Torres-Moraga and Vidal-Buitano, 2022).

Intrinsic motivation can be managed among company employees (Schlechter et al., 2015; Steele et al., 2016). Extrinsic motivation is even easier to manage among them (Vidal-Salazar et al., 2016).

Most studies have jointly analysed the two types of motivation or given special relevance to extrinsic incentives (Sung et al., 2017; Vidal-Salazar et al., 2016). This research could help determine whether both are individually important for the development phase of new ideas or also for the development of new product innovations (Curado et al., 2017; Muñoz-Pascual and Galende, 2017).

Authors such as Amabile (1998) and Schlechter et al. (2015) believe that both types of motivation are important (Cerasoli et al., 2014) because there may be synergies between them that help in the generation of new ideas and innovation. Amabile (1998) argued that money, recognition, et cetera, increase self-esteem and, therefore, boost intrinsic motivation.

Some authors have suggested that intrinsic motivation is a key resource for the development of creativity and innovation (Meisler, 2014; Schoen, 2015; Wine et al., 2012). Confidence, self-fulfilment, and a sense of accomplishment, et cetera can enhance individuals’ creativity (Hewett and Conway, 2016; Paiva et al., 2024; Tang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2015). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1. Intrinsic motivation positively affects creativity.

Other authors such as Amabile (1998), Schlechter et al. (2015), and Vidal-Salazar et al. (2016) have suggested that extrinsic motivation (i.e. motivation that is externally generated in individuals) can also be a source of new ideas and innovation outcomes. This is because once the members of organizations have their basic needs met, they can dedicate their efforts to intensely searching for new ideas (Malik et al., 2015). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2. Extrinsic motivation positively affects creativity.

The creativity of individuals (driven by motivation) can lead to new outcomes in product innovation (Frederiksen and Knudsen, 2017; Hunter et al., 2007; Kwon et al., 2015; Litchfield et al., 2015). As previously mentioned, authors such as Amabile et al. (2007) stated that creativity can generate any type of technological innovation. Van de Ven (1986) pointed out that creativity is one of the factors that facilitate innovative processes. Therefore, we propose the following research hypothesis:

H3. Creativity positively affects product innovation.

Finally, creativity can be defined as the generation of original ideas in practices, products, services, and procedures that are new and useful for organizations (Tether, 2003; Zahra and George, 2002; Zhou and Shalley, 2003). Some authors (e.g. Torrance, 1974) have identified four characteristics of a creative person in an organization: fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality. Creativity is affected by motivation, among other practices (Sujatha et al., 2023). However, very few authors have studied individual creativity (Caniëls et al., 2014; Heffernan et al., 2016). This paper, supported by the dynamic capacities approach, focuses exclusively on creativity. Therefore, this paper not only assesses direct effects but also indirect effects that could help understand the relationship between creativity, motivation, and innovation (Caniëls et al., 2014; Heffernan et al., 2016).

Regarding the possible direct relationships that can occur between both types of motivation and product innovation, some authors have been concerned with assessing motivation and monetary incentives (Huselid, 1995). However, they have not focused on intrinsic motivation.

Authors such as Wine et al. (2012), Meisler (2014), and Akgün et al. (2007) have argued that innovation must originate intrinsically in individuals, emphasising individuals’ attributes or an organization’s members’ behaviour (personality, values, satisfaction, commitment, and personal objectives, etc.) (Camani, 2023; Carter et al., 2021; Sarks, 2006) of the members of organizations.

Prajoso and Ahmed (2006) affirmed that internal stimuli could be managed toward innovative behaviours. Other authors, such as Aiman-Smith et al. (2005) stated that if individuals could make decisions and take risks within companies, they would be more motivated to innovate. Specifically, Cabello-Medina et al. (2006) indicated that commitment, involvement, and participation of members contribute to generating technological innovation and, to a greater extent, product innovation.

Recently, some authors have highlighted the role played by the internal behaviours of individuals in the development of any type of technological innovation (Chen et al., 2004; Moon and Kym, 2006). Conversely, authors such as Huselid (1995), Un and Cuervo-Cazurra (2004), and Vidal-Salazar et al. (2016) have observed that economic rewards influence the will of individuals to generate new ideas and new products. Further, Hegde and Shapira (2007) pointed out that certain aspects of extrinsic motivation, such as career plans, promotion, job flexibility, and financial compensation help in the development of innovations. Specifically, Un and Cuervo-Cazurra (2004) indicated that compensation and salary levels positively influence product innovation. In this sense, Simon et al. (2003) stated that it is necessary to establish different systems of motivation and compensation for employees, depending on the type of work and the type of innovations they develop. Other authors, such as Lloréns et al. (2005), pointed out that the management of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation could influence the generation of product innovation. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H4. Intrinsic motivation positively affects product innovation.

H5. Extrinsic motivation positively affects product innovation.

Van de Ven (1986) affirmed that the contexts, cultures, and human capacities supporting the attainment of innovative success are among the factors facilitating innovative processes. Specifically, Salman and Saives (2005) reported that human capacities could help achieve innovative success. Further, Akgün et al. (2007) found that the EI of individuals could positively influence technological innovation and, specifically, product innovation. High EI can help people elucidate their tastes and preferences and, consequently, be guided toward innovative processes (Hu and Kaplan, 2015; Santa et al., 2023; Wilderom et al., 2015).

Therefore, the following hypothesis concerning moderating relationship is proposed:

H6. EI has a moderating effect on the relationship between intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and creativity (H1 and H2), on the relationship between creativity and product innovation (H3), and the relationship between intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and product innovation (H4 and H5).

Figure 1 shows the proposed research model (Shalley et al., 2004).

The hypotheses were tested through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The population under study comprised highly innovative Spanish companies that obtained aid from the Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI) from 2017 to 2019 to finance research, development, and innovation (R&D&I) projects. Consequently, 1446 highly innovative Spanish companies from 14 economic sectors were assessed. Our analysis focused only on companies that had received financing from CDTI to carry out R&D&I projects.

Two hundred and forty-five valid questionnaires were obtained, representing a 16.94% response rate with a sampling error of +/- 5.71% at 95% confidence level. The questionnaires were administered online using the SurveyMonkey platform. The duration of the surveys was approximately 20 min, and the respondents were CEOs of organizations. The questionnaire was originally written in English, then translated into Spanish by a certified translator, and then back‐translated into English. The questionnaire was highly comprehensive, providing specific, in-depth qualitative and quantitative analysis to ensure robust insights, transparency, and reproducibility of the study.

Before the survey was designed, a pretest was done with five esteemed scholars and managers who helped draft the final version. Subsequently, firms were contacted via telephone to introduce the study, followed by a mass mailing of the survey. The respondents are the CEOs of each firm. CEOs were selected because they have a realistic view of motivation. Motivation management is a strategic aspect of creativity and PIP.

This study seeks to measure the impact of motivation on creativity and PIP. CEOs have to be consulted on employees’ motivation, creativity, EI, and PIP from a management perspective. Because there are two types of variable analyses (perceptions about employees’ motivation, EI, creativity, and organizational PIP), the most appropriate respondents are CEOs because they have insights into employees’ inner lives, without being employees, and they know how their company is faring concerning PIPs. CEOs gave us a direct, realistic view of their employees and organizations. Furthermore, by indirectly asking CEOs about their employees’ internal concerns, we guarantee real, objective, and unconditional answers (Crespo et al., 2022; Inostroza et al., 2023; Inostroza and Espinosa-Méndez, 2022; Wayne et al., 1997). Our final sample of 245 highly innovative Spanish companies is composed of 14 industry categories (Table 2).

Sample representativeness was assessed using two methods.

A one-way ANOVA did not identify significant differences between early and late responses based on size and age. Therefore, the null hypothesis, which states there are no differences between the mean number of employees (1672; p = 0.199) and ages of companies (0.041; p = 0.840) between the first 50 questionnaires received and the last 50 received was rejected. It may be concluded that there is no common method bias, and the sample suitably represents the population.

This study is based on two types of measures:

These measures were used to assess the constructs to ensure consistency and were designed based on scales validated by literature (Table 3), depending on the type of the construct to be evaluated.

The CEO of each company responded to each part of the questionnaire. Notably, the measures above were carefully designed to evaluate the CEOs’ perceptions or organization levels as appropriate.

Table 3 summarises the measurement scales used in the model.

As shown in Table 3, all the scales used were validated by the literature and adapted to our studies on the CEO’s perceptions about the motivation, EI, and creativity of their employees. It should always be understood that all the scales are perceptual measures and that the answers could differ if employees were directly asked about their motivation, EI, or creativity. The objective of the present study was to evaluate these variables from an external and objective perspective, beyond the employee perspective which had been analysed in the first phase (Muñoz-Pascual and Galende, 2017).

CEOs have the management tools to transform people within organizations and it is vital to know not only the motivation, EI, or creativity of employees from their first-person perspective but also the perspectives of their managers, who have to be fully aware of the conditions of the people within their organizations.

As shown in Table 3, the motivation variable has two factors: the first is extrinsic. To measure this factor, the measurement scale adapted to our study required CEOs to indicate their perceptions of their employees concerning aspects related to salaries, work–life balance, and promotions, among others. Therefore, this part of the measure did not assess CEOs’ human resource management practices and what they do in their companies. Instead, the part assessed CEOs’ perceptions of their employees’ attitudes towards these factors. Although CEOs have direct knowledge about the human resource conditions and policies in their organizations, we attempted to adapt De Saá-Pérez and Díaz-Díaz’s (2010) approach to our model.

The second factor of the motivation variable is related to intrinsic motivation. Our work adapted the strategic human resources practices framework proposed by Cheng and Huang (2009) to evaluate CEOs on aspects related to intrinsic motivation such as satisfaction, trust, and involvement of their employees. Based on this framework, CEOs can reveal the most intimate conditions of their employees from their (CEOs’) perspective and undertake management measures directly related to human resource practices.

Regarding the creativity variable, this study adapted Torrance’s (1974) measurement tool. This tool is based on the observation of creativity in various phases and makes assumptions of creativity on a direct individual level. Muñoz-Pascual and Galende (2017) made a direct application of this tool to employees, but the objective of the present study is to observe CEOs’ perceptions of the creativity of their employees. In this sense, Torrance’s (1974) measurement tool has been rigorously adapted to questions and items on perceptions of each phase.

Regarding the EI variable, Salovey et al.’s (1995) measurement tool was adopted to assess CEOs’ perceptions of whether their employees have high or low EI. Similar to how employee creativity is measured through CEOs’ perceptions, we adopted Salovey et al.’s (1995) test questions and items to evaluate CEOs’ perceptions but retained the themes and items in the original test. Salovey et al.’s (1995) test has already undergone several adaptations and has even been translated into many languages. For example, Fernandez-Berrocal et al. (1998) made an important adaptation and summary by reducing the original scale from 48 items to 24 while maintaining its essence and thematic lines and translating it into Spanish. In our case, after an in-depth study to adapt the scale to the CEOs’ perceptual measures, we retained the first phase (factor 1), that is, emotional attention, as a relevant and independent part to capture insights into how CEOs’ perceive their employees’ feelings, what affects or influences them, et cetera. Using a metaphor from medicine, this phase is akin to initial contact with a patient. In our model, the following phases (2 and 3) of Salovey et al.’s (1995) model could be merged into a single factor (2) because the clarity and repair phase pertain to the diagnosis and treatment of a patient.

In our case, we needed CEOs to have clear perceptions about how their employees feel and, secondly, about their employees’ emotional vision (clarity) and mission (repair). In short, our phase 2 would correspond to the diagnosis and treatment phase which would include aspects such as knowing if the employees express themselves authentically and what affects them or if they know if their employees resort to support figures such as coaches, et cetera.

Finally, CEOs have the greatest knowledge about their organizations’ innovation outcomes. CEOs rely on real measurements and organisational values (Cheng and Huang, 2009; Wang and Ahmed, 2002). In short, CEOs, whether merely perceptually or in reality, have the greatest and most objective knowledge about the conditions of their employees and organizations.

It was necessary to perform a series of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with each construct (Hair et al., 2004). The normality of the factors referring to the dependent variables was determined before the interpretation of the results. This approach ensured that the residuals of the relationships would meet the necessary assumptions. We assessed normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and obtained satisfactory results. The correlation matrix is presented in Table 4. All correlation coefficients were below 0.8; therefore, multicollinearity was unlikely to be a concern.

This model assessed the effect that ambidextrous management of motivation had on creativity and product innovation.

Table 5 shows the results of the estimated structural model. As the table shows, the model reflected the direct effect of each type of motivation on product innovation and assessed the indirect effect that motivation would have on innovation based on the creativity of company employees. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation had a significant positive effect on creativity (with a confidence level greater than 99%). This result confirmed hypotheses H1 and H2. Additionally, creativity significantly explained the results of product innovation (with a confidence level greater than 99%). Therefore, hypothesis H3 was also confirmed.

The results indicate the intrinsic motivation of individuals was relevant to the direct development of product innovation. Therefore, hypothesis H4 was confirmed. Additionally, the development of intrinsic motivation led companies to obtain excellent results in terms of product innovation. Conversely, concerning extrinsic motivation, the results indicate the great importance that extrinsic motivation had in the development of product innovations. Hence, hypothesis H5 was also confirmed.

The general fit of the structural model proposed for the types of motivation, creativity, and product innovation was adequate. The χ² statistic was 1068.913 (degrees of freedom = 294; p = 0.000), and χ²/df had a value of 3.636, which is not much greater than 3.0 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). The comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.851, and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) coefficient was 0.835. These scores are close to 0.9, indicating a good fit. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.074, which is less than 0.08, indicating a good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). The model exhibited a satisfactory overall fit in its final result.

We conducted a multi-group analysis using structural equations to incorporate into the model the power that could be exercised by individuals who had strong emotional training, that is, individuals who knew how to channel, analyse, and transmit their emotions as a means to be successful in terms of creativity and product innovation. We thus made a distinction between collaborators who had a great capacity to detect and show their emotions (n = 136) and those who did not have this capacity well developed (n = 109). As can be observed, the presence of EI strengthened most relationships, which was particularly visible among companies with emotionally intelligent staff. Therefore, hypothesis H6 was largely fulfilled and partially confirmed (Table 5).

The general fit of the model with the inclusion of EI was also good. The χ² statistic was 1570.439 (degrees of freedom = 588; p = 0.000), and the χ²/df ratio was 2.671, which lies between 0 and 3 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). The CFI was 0.890, and the TLI was 0.868. These scores are close to 0.9, indicating a good fit. The RMSEA was 0.083, a value close to 0.08 and, therefore, indicating a good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). Thus, the structural model incorporating motivation, creativity, product innovation, and EI exhibited a good overall fit in its final results.

Some authors such as Sung et al. (2017) have considered economic incentives and extrinsic motivation as sources of innovation within companies. The present study went one step further and examined the distinct roles played by the two major types of motivation among individuals within organizations. On the one hand, as expected, both types of motivation have important effects on the development of creativity and product innovation. Individuals need certain external incentives (adequate remuneration, career development plan, job security, etc.) that will foster tranquillity and stability in a job position. This fact can help develop new ideas and carefully thought-out solutions within organizations. Nevertheless, it is necessary for employees to have high levels of trust, commitment, belonging, accomplishment, and achievement, that is, intrinsic motivation (Steele et al., 2016).

Therefore, if companies are capable of establishing incentive systems and identifying the concerns or tastes of their employees, it will be easier to achieve the company objectives in terms of creativity and, consequently, in innovation, in this case – product innovation (Schlechter et al., 2015; Vidal-Salazar et al., 2016).

Additionally, in the proposed model, creativity had a direct and immediate effect on product innovation (Muñoz-Pascual and Galende, 2017). Therefore, motivation based on trust, satisfaction, or self-fulfilment, et cetera, is a key resource that companies can use to successfully achieve product innovation (Vidal-Salazar et al., 2016).

Authors such as Wine et al. (2012), Do Paco and Nave (2013), and Meisler (2014) argued that when individuals’ qualifications are low, implying less responsibility and control over their tasks, extrinsic motivation might have a greater influence on the development of new ideas and innovation. Conversely, if employees have higher qualifications and responsibilities, intrinsic motivation influences creativity and innovation.

The results of the present study align with these observations. When the direct effect that extrinsic motivation has on product innovation was assessed, the effect of the intensity was less powerful. Therefore, it seems that the proper management of employees’ intrinsic motivation can lead to successful innovation. Conversely, although the management and accumulation of extrinsic motivation are relevant in the development of new ideas within organizations and can be channelled into product innovations, the effect of extrinsic motivation loses power.

In conclusion, the study results indicate that the accumulation and ambidextrous management of motivation (both intrinsic and extrinsic) within organizations can lead to the creation of new ideas and the development of product innovation. At the first level, the direct relationships between the two types of motivation and creativity showed how both types of motivation were clear sources of new ideas (Schlechter et al., 2015; Vidal-Salazar et al., 2016). At the second level, the direct relationships between creativity and product innovation were also strongly supported. Additionally, the inclusion of a dynamic and changing concept within organizations, such as the EI of individuals, reflects how directors and managers should be aware that more than motivation management is needed.

Finally, to fully validate and understand the consistency of our results, it is important to note that the measurement scales of the variables motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic), creativity, and EI have been designed and adapted to measure the perceptions that CEOs have about these variables of their employees. Therefore, the results obtained, taking into account the measurement of the variables based on the CEOs’ perception of their employees in terms of motivation, creativity, and EI combined with CEOs’ real knowledge about PIP, provide a valid and consistent understanding of the tested model.

It is necessary to determine which contribution may be more appropriate in each situation to promote innovative activity. In this sense, directors and managers should master the ambidextrous management of motivation, to determine exactly which one will lead to consistent innovative success. The present study will help directors and managers understand the importance of accumulating and managing extrinsic motivation―the most tangible and observable part of motivation. Extrinsic motivation is easier to observe, achieve, and implement among employees, takes a shorter time to implement, and has short-term results. Moreover, this study helps directors and managers perceive the importance of developing dynamic or intangible behaviours and capacities (i.e. intrinsic motivation), which stem from the strength and internal experience of individuals, serving as the cornerstone of long-term value creation.

One of the greatest problems managers face is activating intrinsic motivation among employees. Activating extrinsic motivation is very easy – everyone knows how to raise employees’ salaries, give a couple of days off, and even give a ‘pat on the back’; however, it is not so simple to make employees feel truly appreciated and a part of a project in which they can develop their professional careers and be satisfied. The present study posits that emotional management can be of great help. It can be observed how EI contributes to achieving extraordinary results in terms of innovation in highly innovative Spanish companies.

Directors and managers should be aware that all the resources and efforts expended for the development of creativity and EI of their employees are not an expense but a long-term investment. This investment should be made continuously if the former want the latter to enter a cycle of innovation, be a pioneer, and set trends within their field of activity or within the markets in which they operate. Directors and managers should pay special attention to the development of their employees’ EI, allowing the former and the latter to show and express their feelings, tastes, and preferences and recognize those of others (Humphrey, 2012). If this outcome is achieved so that individuals arise who can easily show their emotions, feelings, tastes, and preferences, directors and managers will be able to channel and encourage this driving force toward obtaining the objectives and results of innovation (engagement) (Eldor and Harpaz, 2016; Momm et al., 2015; Zhong et al., 2016).

According to Gratton and Ghoshal (2003), human capital is composed of three dimensions: intellectual capital, emotional capital and social capital. This paper seeks causal relations to identify how motivation can be fostered. Hence, we posit that motivation is a cornerstone of emotional capital to achieve creativity and PIP. Therefore, this study identifies two distinct types of motivation (emotional capital) as antecedents of creativity and PIP of a firm.

This paper broadens the present understanding of motivation, making several contributions. We identify two motivations that lead to creativity and PIP. Additionally, this study not only seeks PIP antecedents but also establishes causal configurations that can lead to creativity and PIP. Furthermore, the study answers the question: Can an employee’s emotional level characteristics (low or high) facilitate creativity and PIP?

In short, this study allows CEOs and managers to gain insights into their employees’ motivation, creativity, and EI vis-à-vis the development of product innovation. Furthermore, the study is done from a real and subjective perspective based on the perceptions of CEOs, enabling them to become personally aware and ensure their decisions regarding human resources management are aligned with their observations and knowledge. This outcome will be of great value to organizations since it is managers who analyse actual situations and direct them.

Finally, we present some practical recommendations and specific strategies that can be implemented by managers and members of organizations seeking to foster creativity and innovation among employees. For example, they can create a meaningful work environment, promote learning and personal development, recognize and value contributions, implement reward systems, set clear and measurable objectives, create internal competition, integrate both forms of motivation, avoid overdependence on extrinsic rewards, continually evaluate and adjust, provide adequate resources, and encourage collaboration and diversity.

In summary, the effective management of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is key to success in innovation and new product development. By creating a work environment that values and promotes both internal and external rewards, employers and managers can encourage their employees to be more creative and contribute ideas that drive a company’s growth and competitiveness. Incorporating EI into motivation strategies can significantly enhance creativity and innovation. By recognizing and managing emotions, entrepreneurs and managers can create a more balanced and satisfying work environment, where employees feel intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to contribute new ideas and develop innovative products.

Different sources of information (primary and secondary) were used, largely eliminating the risk of biases arising from the use of a single source (common method bias). However, some of the variables were based on perceptual measures, introducing a degree of subjectivity. Therefore, future studies can do data collection using two sets of participants, on the one hand, the directors and managers of companies, and, on the other, company employees (Lemmetty et al., 2020).

Additionally, the study focused only on companies that had received financing from the CDTI to carry out R&D&I projects (highly innovative Spanish companies). It is, therefore, necessary to apply the study model to a range of companies that do not meet this criteria and other sectors and countries. Further research on a wider range of companies and some specific in-depth qualitative questions would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study.