Exploring the Relationship Between Creativity and Organisational Resilience in Service Organisations

Abstract

In the contemporary dynamic world, where unforeseen situations are increasingly routine for organisations and the successful integration of new technologies is inevitable, creativity and resilience have emerged as essential characteristics of modern organisations. To explore the links between creativity and organisational resilience, the following scientific problem is proposed: what is the relationship between creativity and organisational resilience in service organisations? A quantitative study was conducted to address this problem. Data was collected from Lithuanian service sector organisations using an online survey questionnaire. During the survey, 446 respondents from various organisations in the service sector completed questionnaires distributed via an electronic platform. The hypothesis was tested using Spearman’s rank correlation, descriptive statistics (mean, mode, median, standard deviation) and independent-sample t-tests to assess statistically significant differences between respondents’ positions. The study found that organisations that actively cultivate and sustain a culture of creativity are more resilient—both in their day-to-day operations and when confronted with unexpected challenges or threats. This study further demonstrated that creativity within an organisation is related to resilience through human interactions, particularly within the dimensions of social relationships and psychological well-being. The resilience of an organisation was also found to be strongly influenced by the quality of relationships, mutual trust, and collaboration between employees and managers. These findings affirm the importance of creativity, which is fostered through social connections, in strengthening the resilience of organisations.

1. Introduction

In the contemporary world, the pace of scientific development, while bringing substantial progress, poses numerous challenges. These are not confined to technological changes; they also include natural disasters driven by global warming, pandemics, economic crises, and military conflicts. In this dynamic environment, organisations must conduct their daily activities and be prepared to respond appropriately to unexpected situations. Research on organisational resilience, viewed through the lens of creativity, represents a relatively new and relevant area of study. At present, there is still a lack of detailed research examining whether creativity in organisations contributes to strengthening organisational resilience and how various factors that promote creativity can determine resilience in critical situations. The value of the services sector is undeniably significant, accounting for around 70% of national economies.1 As the delivery of services relies on social interaction, the creativity and adaptability of employees become exceptionally important within this sector especially under rapidly changing circumstances.

Although previous studies have suggested that creativity enhances resilience and resilience, in turn, enhances creativity (Musa & Enggarsyah, 2025), creativity is often directly linked to innovation (Pörzse et al., 2012; Mafabi et al., 2015). However, there is still a lack of empirical evidence on the mechanisms through which creativity affects organisational resilience. In view of this, the following research question was formulated: what is the relationship between creativity and organisational resilience in service organisations? The study aims to analyse how creativity-related factors can be leveraged to strengthen organisational resilience. This study contributes to the literature on organisational resilience and creativity by expanding our understanding of how these phenomena are perceived at different levels of the organisational hierarchy. Unlike most previous studies, which tend to analyse organisational resilience as a homogeneous organisational trait, this study emphasises a comparison of the perspectives of managerial and non-managerial employees. The results complement the concept of organisational resilience by showing that the role of managers is not limited to making structural or strategic decisions, but also shapes the assessment of the organisation’s ability to adapt.

Although creativity and organisational resilience have been examined in previous studies, but their interrelationship in a general context has not yet been sufficiently analysed, despite the importance of these factors for organisations in constantly changing conditions. With this in mind, this study developed and empirically validated a questionnaire that allows for a systematic assessment of the impact of creativity in the service sector on organisational resilience by integrating the concepts of creativity and organisational resilience into a single measurement instrument. The validity of the questionnaire is based on expert assessment and the results of exploratory research and can be applied by other researchers.

2. Theoretical Framework

The concept of organisational creativity refers to novel and useful ideas or solutions developed by one or more individuals in the work environment (Klijn & Tomic, 2010). Fernández-Díaz et al. (2021) define it as the ability to question established, valuable, or novel elements (process) in order to discover new solutions (product) that are more adaptable, viable, and useful in a given context (environment). Andriopoulos (2001) identified essential organisational factors that develop creativity in the work environment at the team and individual levels: organisational climate, leadership style, organisational culture, resources and skills, organisational structure, and systems. The

Table 1. Factors determining creativity at different levels.

Level	Factors	Sources
Individual	Sensitivity to problems, high appreciation of aesthetic qualities, broad interests, attraction to complexity, energy, independence, intuition, self-confidence, playfulness, creative well-being, and the capacity to reconcile seemingly opposing or contradictory traits within one’s self-awareness, curiosity, perseverance, causal thinking, a sense of justice.	Barron and Harrington (1981); Rice (2006).
Group	Open working groups with rotational systems, informal relations among team members, a climate conducive to creativity, support for leaders, cooperation, psychological safety, opportunities for self-expression, reduction in conflict and criticism, diversity across functional or specialist fields.	Woodman et al. (1993); Choi and Thompson (2005); Mathisen et al. (2004); Nemeth et al. (2004); Kratzer et al. (2005); Wilkins and London (2006).
Organisation	Organisational culture, availability of resources, remuneration policy, organisational mission and strategy, organisational structure, use of technology, non-hierarchical structure, flexible working arrangements, allocation of time and resources to experimentation, competence development opportunities/learning culture, recognition of innovative efforts, information sharing.	Tekla (1995); Ramus (2001); Sundgren et al. (2005); Klijn and Tomic (2010)

below illustrates factors determining creativity at different levels.

The concept of organisational resilience does not have a single, universal definition. Rather, it is a complex and multifaceted concept that integrates multiple levels, dimensions and forms (Bhamra et al., 2011; Ruiz-Martin et al., 2018; K. J. Burnard & Bhamra, 2019; Brueller et al., 2019).

Table 2. Concepts of organisational resilience.

Defined as an Organisation’s:	Definition	Source
Capacity	The ability of an organisation to maintain a positive adaptability and in difficult situations to emerge stronger and more resourceful.	Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003)
Function	The organisational functions of situational awareness and the capacity to manage key vulnerabilities in order to adapt within a complex, dynamic and interconnected environment.	Seville et al. (2006)
Emergent property	A characteristic of an organisation related to its innate and adaptive attributes that enable the organisation to take a proactive approach to reducing threats and risks.	K. Burnard and Bhamra (2011)
Ability	The capacity of a company to effectively absorb shocks, develop responses tailored to the specific situations, and undertake transformational activities to exploit disruptive events that might otherwise threaten the survival of the organisation.	Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011).
Ability	The ability of an organisation to effectively absorb shocks, develop situation-specific responses, and undertake transformational activities that leverage disruptive events that may threaten the survival of the organisation as opportunities for growth.	Akgün and Keskin (2014)
Capacity	An organisation’s ability to anticipate disruptions, adapt to events, create long-term value, and thrive in an ever-changing environment.	Quendler (2017)
Combination of qualities or abilities	A measurable combination of characteristics, abilities or capabilities that enables an organisation to withstand known and unforeseen disruptions and continue operating.	Ruiz-Martin et al. (2018)
Capacity	A procedural, dynamic and ecosystem-based capacity that is activated by individuals (individual resilience) and processes (systemic resilience) when facing adversity, which restores balance and adaptive recovery through the activation of subjective or internal elements or resources and objective or external mechanisms that can be strengthened or renewed during the process, ensuring the sustainability of resilient outcomes and the continued strengthening of resilience.	Goldschmidt et al. (2019)
Ability	The ability of an organisation to absorb the effects of disruptions and to restore functional capacity across all operations in the shortest possible time at minimal costs (financial, human, operational, etc.).	Kamissoko et al. (2021)

presents definitions of the concept of organisational resilience discussed in the scientific literature.

In line with the definitions of organisational resilience outlined in Table 2, the term resilience is typically understood as a capacity or ability. Common denominators shared across various concepts include situational anticipation, adaptability, responsiveness to change, and sensitivity to the external environment. Increasingly, emphasis is placed on the proactive nature of resilience and the capacity of organisations to perform more effectively following a crisis. Resilience is thus perceived as a broad and multidimensional construct that encompasses technical, organisational, social, and economic dimensions and integrates the stability of physical systems, organisational decision-making processes, social relationships, and the management of economic losses. An organisation’s ability to remain resilient during a crisis varies across different levels—ranging from the individual (micro) psychological response to the organisational (macro) level processes. The interaction among these levels demonstrates that resilience is not determined solely by individual effort or structural capacity, but rather by the integrated functioning of systems operating across all levels of the organisation.

Sociotechnical theory emphasises the importance of the interaction between social and technical elements in an organisation in order to improve organisational performance (Kemp et al., 2024). In this regard, creativity, by integrating social (skills, interpersonal relationships) and technical aspects (infrastructure, technologies, processes), plays an important role in strengthening the resilience of an organisation.

The critical importance of resilience for the success of an organisation in the service sector has been confirmed in several studies (Le & Le, 2024; Ofori, 2024). The importance of creativity in service provision manifests itself in several ways: creativity can help the service sector adapt to the ever-changing needs of customers who require an individualised approach (Chen et al., 2026); the creative contribution of employees drives innovation, which improves service delivery and the overall efficiency of the organisation (Tyagi et al., 2023).

The interrelationship between creativity and resilience has been explored from multiple perspectives. For instance, Pörzse et al. (2012) and Zutshi et al. (2021) provide empirical evidence supporting the positive influence of creativity on organisational resilience. Furthermore, recent research highlights the bidirectional relationship between the two phenomena (Musa & Enggarsyah, 2025). Research highlights the importance of humanity and mindfulness development, supportive and caring as well as collaborative leadership, psychological safety, a positive microclimate, and process flexibility for creative effectiveness, which in turn fosters organisational resilience and innovativeness (Flatau-Harrison et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Yu & Xiang, 2024; Sinniah et al., 2022; Shojaee et al., 2025; Sharma & Mehta, 2025; Succar et al., 2025; Nanda, 2025; Thielmann et al., 2025). Although prior studies provide a theoretical basis for assuming a positive relationship between creativity and resilience, this relationship remains theoretically ambiguous. According to socio-technical systems theory, creativity can enhance resilience through the interaction of social and technical elements. However, it can also undermine system stability and the coordination of actions. Therefore, this study seeks to evaluate how creativity affects organisational resilience and to identify the mechanisms through which creativity influences resilience.

Hypothesis:

H₀. 

Organisational creativity has no significant effect on organisational resilience.

H₁. 

Organisational creativity has a significant impact on organisational resilience.

3. Materials and Methods

This research work utilised a questionnaire survey method, using a structured instrument composed of three sections: organisational creativity scale (17 statements), organisational resilience scale (9 statements), and demographic information. A five-point Likert scale was used to assess the levels of organisational creativity and resilience, where 1 represented strongly disagree and 5 represented strongly agree. Following expert evaluation and pilot testing, the statements on both scales were reviewed, refined, and adjusted for clarity and validity. The instrument developed in the initial stage was evaluated by eight experts. A criteria-based selection process was applied to the expert evaluation, according to which the experts had to meet the following criteria:

An organisation leader with at least five years of leadership experience in an organisation that can be considered resilient and/or creative.

A scientist with scientific publications in the fields of creativity or organisational resilience.

After expert evaluation, the questionnaire was revised and a pilot study was conducted to test the internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire. In the pilot study, 34 respondents completed the questionnaire. Based on their responses, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for each scale of the questionnaire. In summary, all scales showed sufficient internal consistency and reliability. The final version of the questionnaire was then distributed to respondents for completion. The scales, statements, and corresponding encodings are presented in

Table 3. Organisational creativity scale.

Organisational Creativity		Sources
OC1	My organisation encourages innovation	Gupta and Banerjee (2016); Andriopoulos (2001); Martins and Terblanche (2003); Cropley (2009); Mai and Nguyen (2023); Bhattarai et al. (2024); Stenmark (2005).
OC2	In my organisation, mistakes are seen as a learning opportunity
OC3	Different opinions are accepted in my organisation
OC4	Initiative is accepted and encouraged in my organisation
OC5	Learning is encouraged in my organisation
OC6	In my organisation, cooperation and sharing of information between different departments is encouraged
OC7	In my organisation, managers trust employees
OC8	In my organisation, work processes and procedures are flexible
OC9	In my organisation, the remuneration policy encourages initiative
OC10	Creativity training is held in my organisation
OC11	Innovative working and learning methods are applied in my organisation
OC12	My organisation invests in new technologies
OC13	My organisation encourages the generation of new ideas to solve everyday problems
OC14	In my organisation, managerial communication motivates creative problem solving
OC15	Creativity in my organisation is considered a priority at the managerial level
OC16	The organisation creates conditions for creative thinking and experimentation
OC17	Creative thinking in an organisation is considered an important value

and

Table 4. Organisational resilience scale.

Organisational Resilience		Sources
OR1	My organisation, as a whole, operates successfully	Bui et al. (2019); Seville et al. (2006); Taylor (2021); Gray and Jones (2018); Franken (2019).
OR2	In my organisation, everyone knows their responsibilities and performs them well
OR3	My organisation, in the event of an unexpected crisis situation, is able to respond promptly
OR4	My organisation, in an unforeseen crisis situation, is able to allocate financial resources to resolve the issues that have occurred as a result
OR5	My organisation, which has unexpectedly found itself in a crisis situation, has enough employees to perform the necessary functions
OR6	My organisation, which has suddenly found itself in a crisis situation, is able to quickly reorganise its work processes
OR7	In my organisation, when faced with an unexpected crisis situation, employees are not afraid to turn to managers
OR8	During crises at work, I feel the support and help of managers
OR9	The organisation is able to ensure business continuity during unforeseen events

below.

The organisational creativity scale comprises 17 statements used to assess organisational resilience factors at the organisational level. Table 4 presents the organisational resilience scale, consisting of nine statements.

Selection of the study. The sample was selected using a probability simple random sampling method. According to the data of the official statistics portal, there are about 1,300,000 employees in Lithuania. The service sector accounts for about 70 percent of the Lithuanian economic structure. According to the chosen V. Panniotto formula, it is necessary to interview 399 employees for a representative study.

Organisations were randomly selected from the entire population, giving them equal opportunities to enter the study. The study involved organisations operating in the service sector and employees working in those organisations at the time. Respondents who did not meet these criteria were excluded from the analysis. Participation by all respondents was anonymous and voluntary. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study and other conditions.

The questionnaire was distributed electronically in May–June 2025, distributing in-formation to service-sector organisations via associations of these organisations and directly through individual organisations. The survey covered a wide range of service sector employees—healthcare, logistics, insurance, banking, education, public transport, public administration, catering, beauty, hotels, legal services, ship and building construction, public services, stevedoring, tailoring, finance, transport, social, information technology, accounting, business administration, project management, tourism, culture, and event organisation. The study population consisted of 446 service sector employees.

The survey questionnaire was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Klaipėda University (approval code: MTEK-11, approval date: 9 May 2025). Participation in the study was voluntary, and the consent of all respondents was obtained before completing the online questionnaire. Respondents were guaranteed anonymity, as no personally identifiable information was collected. The data collected was used for scientific purposes only and stored in accordance with data protection regulations.

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the internal consistency of the scales is presented in

Table 5. Assessment of the internal consistency of the questionnaire scale.

Scale	Cronbach’s Alpha	Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardised Items	N of Items
Organisational Creativity (OC)	0.955	0.956	17
Organisational Resilience (OR)	0.901	0.902	9

. For organisational creativity, the alpha is 0.955, and for organisational resilience, 0.901. This supports the appropriateness of the scales, given that the alpha value for the questionnaire is greater than 0.7. The internal consistency of the scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which met the recommended threshold and indicates satisfactory reliability, thus reducing random measurement errors. In order to reduce possible general methodological bias, the following measures were applied: voluntary participation and anonymity. General methodological bias cannot be completely ruled out, as the data was collected using self-report questionnaires at a single point. This circumstance is recognised as a limitation of this study.

Data analysis. SPSS version 27 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was used to process the research data. The hypothesis was tested using Spearman’s rank correlation. To describe the scales, the means, mode, median, and standard deviation were calculated. Statistically significant differences in opinions were evaluated by comparing the data with the positions held by the respondents. For this purpose, an independent samples t-test was employed to compare means across more than two independent samples; samples are considered to differ statistically significantly if p ≤ 0.05.

The sample includes the demographic characteristics of the study population. The study population consisted of 446 service-sector workers (20.4% male; 78% female; 1.6% undisclosed). The largest age group was 40–49 years (36.3%). About 90% of respondents held a higher education qualification. The most common lengths of service were 2–5 years (25.6%) and 10–20 years (24.2%). Most respondents were employed in large organisations (36.3%), followed by those in medium-sized organisations (28.5%), small organisations (22.4%), and very small organisations (12.8%).

4. Results

In processing the data for the quantitative study, the means (M), mode (MO), and standard deviation (SD) were calculated. The calculated values for organisational creativity are presented in Figure 1.

The values provided allow us to conclude that most of the organisation’s statements on creativity are evaluated favourably, ranging from 2.94 to 4.06 points. The highest-rated statements are “Learning is encouraged in my organisation” (M-4.06), “In my organisation, cooperation and sharing of information between different departments is encouraged” (M-3.97), “My organisation encourages innovation” (M-3.84), and “In my organisation, managers trust employees” (M-3.79). The lowest-rated statements are “Creativity training is held in my organisation” (M-2.94), “Creativity in my organisation is considered a priority at the managerial level” (M-3.33), and “Innovative working and learning methods are applied in my organisation” (M-3.38).

Variance indicators range from 0.92 to 1.23. The biggest gaps in the assessment of statements are “Creativity training is held in my organisation” (SD-1.225) and “Creativity in my organisation is considered a priority at the managerial level” (SD-1.082). The results suggest that respondents’ experiences differ most in these areas—in some organisations these measures are applied, while in others there is a lack of them.

The calculated values for organisational resilience—mean (M), mode (MO), and standard deviation (SD)—are presented in Figure 2.

The means of organisational resilience data range from 3.51 to 4.01, indicating that the assessment of organisational resilience is sufficiently high and ranks higher than the organisation’s creativity.

The highest-rated statements are “My organisation, as a whole, operates successfully” (M-4.01), “The organisation is able to ensure business continuity during unforeseen events” (M-3.99), “In my organisation, when faced with an unexpected crisis situation, employees are not afraid to turn to managers” (M-3.88), and “During a crisis at work, I feel the support and help of managers” (M-3.81).

The lowest-rated statements are “My organisation, which has unexpectedly found itself in a crisis situation, has enough employees to perform the necessary functions” (M-3.51), “My organisation, which has unexpectedly found itself in a crisis situation is able to quickly reorganise work processes” (M-3.62), and “My organisation, in an unforeseen crisis situation, is able to allocate financial resources to resolve the issues that have occurred as a result” (M-3.72). None of the low-rated statements are related to the social dimension, instead being related to the functional and resource dimensions. This demonstrates that the human, financial, and process flexibility aspects need to be strengthened.

The values of the standard deviation in this case are relatively consistent—ranging from 0.813 to 1.014—which indicates a degree of unanimity in the respondents’ opinions.

Considering the vital significance of the relationship between managers and non-executive employees for the object under study, it is appropriate to assess how these two groups of respondents (manager/non-manager) evaluate the organisation’s creativity and resilience.

To assess statistically significant differences in organisational creativity and resilience scales, the Independent Samples Test was applied. This test aimed to determine whether employees in managerial and non-managerial positions have different views on the aspects of creativity and organisational resilience. During the analysis, the statements on the scales were compared according to the positions held by the respondents, and the significant results were highlighted in bold. The data are presented in

Table 6. Assessment of organisational creativity scale in relation to the positions held by respondents.

OC Statements	Responsibilities	N	Mean	Sig. (p Value)	Mean Difference
OC1	M	152	3.95	p > 0.05 = 0.087	0.175
	N	294	3.78		0.175
OC2	M	152	3.70	p > 0.05 = 0.518	0.221
	N	294	3.48		0.221
OC3	M	152	3.86	p < 0.05 = 0.049	0.328
	N	294	3.53		0.328
OC4	M	152	3.82	p > 0.05 = 0.173	0.207
	N	294	3.62		0.207
OC5	M	152	4.21	p > 0.05 = 0.789	0.234
	N	294	3.98		0.234
OC6	M	152	4.13	p > 0.05 = 0.173	0.247
	N	294	3.88		0.247
OC7	M	152	3.89	p > 0.05 = 0.323	0.150
	N	294	3.74		0.150
OC8	M	152	3.63	p > 0.05 = 0.378	0.132
	N	294	3.50		0.132
OC9	M	152	3.49	p > 0.05 = 0.520	0.327
	N	294	3.17		0.327
OC10	M	152	3.06	p > 0.05 = 0.221	0.182
	N	294	2.88		0.182
OC11	M	152	3.49	p > 0.05 = 0.563	0.174
	N	294	3.32		0.174
OC12	M	152	3.79	p < 0.05 = 0.020	0.252
	N	294	3.54		0.252
OC13	M	152	3.76	p < 0.05 = 0.027	0.260
	N	294	3.50		0.260
OC14	M	152	3.60	p > 0.05 = 0.546	0.316
	N	294	3.28		0.316
OC15	M	152	3.47	p > 0.05 = 0.871	0.209
	N	294	3.26		0.209
OC16	M	152	3.66	p > 0.05 = 0.057	0.427
	N	294	3.23		0.427
OC17	M	152	3.69	p < 0.05 = 0.022	0.357
	N	294	3.33		0.357

Note: M—Managerial positions; N—non-managerial positions.

.

A t-test of independent samples demonstrated that respondents in managerial positions were significantly more supportive of statements related to the openness, innovation, and creativity of the organisation than employees in non-managerial positions. When evaluating the statement “Different opinions are accepted in my organisation” (OC3), it was found that managers agree with this statement more (M-3.86) than non-managerial employees (M-3.53), and the difference is statistically significant (p = 0.049). A similar trend is evident when evaluating the statement “My organisation invests in new technologies” (OC12) (M-3.79); managers tend to approve of this statement more than employees in non-managerial positions (M-3.54), with significance (p = 0.020).

Additionally, managers are more supportive of the statement that the organisation encourages the generation of new ideas to solve everyday problems (OC13) (M-3.76 and M-3.50; p = 0.027) and the statement that creative thinking is considered an important value in the organisation (OC17) (M-3.69 and M-3.33; p = 0.022). These results suggest that managers are more aware of or have personal experience of the organisation’s efforts to promote creativity, innovation, and openness to different opinions. The data are presented in

Table 7. Assessment of organisational resilience scale in relation to the positions held by respondents.

OR Statements	Obligations	N	Mean	Sig. (p Value)	Mean Difference
OR1	M	152	4.07	p > 0.05 = 0.111	0.100
	N	294	3.97		0.100
OR2	M	152	3.73	p > 0.05 = 0.757	−0.083
	N	294	3.81		−0.083
OR3	M	152	3.84	p < 0.05 = 0.000	0.111
	N	294	3.72		0.111
OR4	M	152	3.89	p < 0.05 = 0.000	0.272
	N	294	3.62		0.272
OR5	M	152	3.58	p > 0.05 = 0.067	0.103
	N	294	3.48		0.103
OR6	M	152	3.70	p < 0.05 = 0.025	0.126
	N	294	3.58		0.126
OR7	M	152	4.06	p < 0.05 = 0.049	0.267
	N	294	3.79		0.267
OR8	M	152	3.94	p > 0.05 = 0.253	0.196
	N	294	3.74		0.196
OR9	M	152	4.13	p > 0.05 = 0.613	0.200
	N	294	3.93		0.200

Note: M—Managerial positions; N—non-managerial positions.

and the significant results were highlighted in bold.

Analysis of organisational resilience scale showed that managerial staff (M-3.84) rate the organisation’s ability to respond to crises more favourably (p = 0.000) than employees in non-managerial positions (M-3.72). An even more pronounced difference was observed for the statement “My organisation, in an unforeseen crisis situation, is able to allocate the financial resources to resolve the issues that have occurred as a result” (M-3.89 and M-3.62; p < 0.001). Additionally, managers were more in agreement that the organisation is able to quickly reorganise work processes in crisis situations (M-3.70 and M-3.58; p = 0.025) and that employees are not afraid to turn to managers in the face of an unexpected crisis (M-4.06 and M-3.79; p = 0.049).

For the testing of hypotheses, the Spearman rank correlation was chosen because this non-parametric coefficient is suitable for ordinal variables and allows estimation of the strength and direction of the relationship between the statements on each scale. The Spearman correlation does not require normally distributed data, making it particularly appropriate for the analysis of rank variables. Since the aim is to estimate the relationship between rank variables, the Spearman correlation is the most appropriate method. It allows determination of both the direction and strength of the association, corresponds to the nature of the ranking data, and does not require assumptions of normality.

We use the p-value to assess hypotheses. If the p-value is greater than 0.05, we cannot reject the null hypothesis and must conclude that the correlation coefficient is not statistically significant. If the p-value is less than or equal to 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the correlation coefficient is statistically significant. If the correlation is not statistically significant, it indicates that there is no relationship between the variables.

Spearman’s correlation on the scales “Organisational Creativity” and “Organisational Resilience” yielded a p-value of p < 0.05 (0.000) for all statements. Taking this into account, it is concluded that the statements on the organisational creativity and resilience scales are statistically significant; therefore, H₁ is accepted and H₀ is rejected.

H₀. 

Organisational creativity has no significant effect on organisational resilience. p-value > 0.05.

H₁. 

Organisational creativity has a significant impact on organisational resilience. p-value < 0.05.

The established correlation coefficients between the statements range from a weak rs = 0.178 to a strong relationship rs = 0.653. The strongest correlations are observed between: (OR7) “In my organisation, when faced with an unexpected crisis situation, employees are not afraid to turn to managers” and (OC7) “In my organisation, managers trust employees” (rs = 0.650), and (OA8) “During crises at work, I feel the support and help of managers” and (OC7) “In my organisation, managers trust employees” (rs = 0.653). Other strong relationships are also evident: (OC3) “Different opinions are accepted in my organisation” and (OR7) “In my organisation, when faced with an unexpected crisis situation, employees are not afraid to turn to managers” (rs = 0.538); and (OR7) “In my organisation, when faced with an unexpected crisis situation, employees are not afraid to turn to managers” and (OC8) “In my organisation, work processes and procedures are flexible” (rs = 0.538).

The weakest links are found between (OC10) “Creativity training is held in my organisation” and (OR4) “My organisation, in an unforeseen crisis situation, is able to allocate financial resources to resolve the issues that have occurred as a result” (rs = 0.178). The (OC10) relationships are comparatively weak within the context of the other statements (rs = 0.178–0.380). Also weak is (OC5), which is related to the processes and functioning of the organisation and resources in times of crisis. The results reveal that organisational creativity is related to organisational resilience, especially in the context of social relationships.

5. Discussion

The results of this study revealed that creativity strengthens organisational resilience by enabling the adaptive alignment of social and technical subsystems, which is a core principle of socio-technical systems theory. Our results, along with findings from other studies (Richtnér & Löfsten, 2014; Musa & Enggarsyah, 2025), indicate that organisations with creative traits are better equipped to cope with challenges, address problems, and maintain stability in crisis situations. This finding suggests that creative processes, practices, and cultures may be important mechanisms that help organisations adapt, recover, and thrive during times of crisis. It should be noted that in service organisations, where work processes are closely related to social interactions and service recipients, and disruptions require rapid coordination of human and technological elements, creativity acts as a factor that facilitates flexible problem solving and process redesign.

The results show that creativity within an organisation influences resilience through human interactions, particularly within the domains of social relationships and psychological well-being—align closely with those of other scholars. Awe and Church (2021) found that mutual trust and social interaction are crucial for fostering creativity and flexibility. Similarly, Park et al. (2024) highlighted that resilience is often developed through stable interpersonal relationships, which are essential for fostering creativity. The importance of a supportive learning environment in strengthening organisational resilience was mentioned by Mohammad et al. (2024). Sinniah et al. (2022) and Shojaee et al. (2025) indicated the importance of process flexibility for enhancing organisational resilience. From a slightly different perspective, our findings reveal that promoting creativity and co-learning alone does not guarantee functional resilience, as resilience is determined primarily by social and interpersonal factors rather than by formal structural or procedural mechanisms. Our results enable us to argue that the resilience of an organisation is mainly determined by the quality, trust, and cooperation of relationships between employees and managers.

The results of this study indicate that, in the organisations studied, employees favour the level of creativity within the organisation. They foster a culture of learning and collaboration that enables the exchange of knowledge, innovation, and trust-based relationships between employees and managers. From these results, we can conclude that creativity in an organisation is expressed through informal activities that strengthen a culture of trust and the ability to adapt to change. The lowest estimates highlight areas that should be strengthened, such as creativity training, the implementation of innovative working methods, and the recognition of creativity as a strategic priority for managers. This suggests that creativity remains largely an activity of individual employees or departments, rather than a strategic goal and practice of the entire organisation.

The finding from this study reveal that managers tend to evaluate their own ability to address crises more positively than employees do, suggesting a perceptual gap in responsiveness. These results indicate that employee trust in managers, and managers’ trust in employees, is closely related to resilience in crises. It can be said that organisations where managers trust employees tend to have staff who feel supported in times of crisis and are not afraid to seek help. The results emphasise the importance of a culture of trust and flexible processes for organisational resilience and the ability to respond creatively to unexpected challenges. This is consistent with earlier studies (Song & Meier, 2022), which show that managers often overestimate their leadership effectiveness compared to employees’ perceptions, resulting in perception gaps that may influence job satisfaction and organisational loyalty. Consequently, these discrepancies must be recognised and addressed, as leadership responsiveness and self-awareness are essential for strengthening organisational cohesion. Conversely, it is important to acknowledge that managers, as those bearing responsibility, typically possess greater knowledge and access to information about crisis management; their trust and confidence in the organisation’s success are therefore vital for ensuring its survival.

An independent t-test to assess the attitudes of employees in managerial and non-managerial positions toward organisational resilience in various situations found that managers are generally more likely to rate their organisations as capable of responding appropriately to unexpected challenges. Although the differences in some statements are not statistically significant, general trends show that leadership positions are associated with greater confidence in an organisation’s ability to adapt and respond in times of crisis. Based on the results, it can be said that employees in managerial positions tend to view their organisations as more resilient to unexpected challenges—especially in aspects of managing financial resources, transforming processes, and communicating during crises. These results suggest that managers have a better view of the organisation’s internal ability to respond to crises and are more confident in the stability of its operations and the interaction between employees and managers in difficult circumstances. Liu et al. (2024) underscore the pivotal role of leadership in fostering a creative and resilient organisational culture.

On both the creativity and resilience scales, employees in leadership positions evaluate the organisation’s performance more positively than those who do not lead. Managers are more confident in an organisation’s ability to be open to innovation, to encourage creativity, and to respond effectively to crises, which may relate to their greater awareness of strategic decisions, a broader understanding of organisational processes, and personal responsibility for organisational change.

Our study contributes to the field of creativity and organisational resilience research by presenting findings within a clearly defined socio-technical context. Guided by Homer and Lim (2024)’s argument that theory development requires the integration of empirical practice and theoretical explanation, this study seeks to explain the key mechanisms through which creativity influences organisational resilience. Building on the context-sensitive theory advanced by Homer and Lim (2024), this study situates the analysis within a specific empirical setting, revealing how creativity operates in different service-sector organisations in Lithuania. This contextualised approach shows that the positive impact of creativity is not automatic but depends on its ability to foster coordination and alignment within socio-technical systems.

Implications for Theory. The theoretical contributions of this study complement the existing scientific literature by emphasising the interdependence of creativity and resilience as organisational capabilities, in which relationships and cultural interactions play a fundamental connecting role.

Implications for Practice. The strong link between creativity and resilience, in interaction with trust, open communication, and mutual support, highlights the importance of fostering a collaborative atmosphere within an organisation. With this in account, resilience-building initiatives should include not only technical preparedness but also practices that promote collaboration and psychological safety. Managers should prioritise teamwork, knowledge sharing across departments, and leadership that encourages autonomy, dialogue, and mutual support. Informal learning opportunities can be important in this case: mentoring and social relationships that strengthen trust and cooperation, thus supporting creativity and resilience in everyday activities and unexpected critical situations.

Policy Implications. The strong relationship between creativity and resilience suggests that resilience-building efforts should not focus solely on crisis response infrastructure but also on policies that foster organisational cultures of learning, collaboration, and idea generation. Policies that incentivise innovation-friendly workplace environments, such as grants for creative problem-solving initiatives, tax benefits for training, or recognition programmes for employee-driven innovations, may indirectly enhance resilience capacity across the sector.

Study Limitations and Future Research. This study showed that formal measures (training, management strategies) were rated lower than informal and social measures (cooperation, trust in managers) in service-sector organisations. However, it is important to note the possible limitations of this study. First, this study was limited to the service sector, and the use of a convenience sampling strategy may limit the generalisability of the study results beyond the participating organisations. In the future, similar studies could be extended to other sectors, such as manufacturing, and explore probability sampling or cross-country comparisons to increase external validity. Second, the study design limits conclusions to correlational relationships; direct causal relationships cannot be established. Longitudinal or qualitative studies would be needed to investigate whether changes in creativity predict subsequent changes in resilience. Finally, all data were collected based on self-reported assessments, which may lead to social desirability bias. Including data from various sources, such as manager assessments, performance indicators, or behavioural observations, could strengthen the reliability. Future research could also explore in greater depth what specific actions strengthen a culture of trust and collaboration, and how different communication styles of managers can reduce differences in employees’ attitudes toward creativity and resilience.

6. Conclusions

Organisations that actively develop and sustain a culture of creativity tend to report higher levels of resilience—both in their day-to-day operations and when confronted with unexpected challenges or threats. The results revealed that organisational creativity is related to organisational resilience, especially in the context of social relationships. Although training initiatives that promote creativity and learning are valuable, they are not the most decisive factors in ensuring organisational resilience. Strengthening organisational resilience in the service sector should be based not only on technical and formal measures but also on a socio-technical environment that supports creativity. Organisations are encouraged to consistently promote trust-based collaboration, open communication, and informal learning practices that enable creative solutions and adaptive responses. At the policy level, it is advisable to support initiatives that strengthen organisational learning and innovation cultures, thereby indirectly enhancing the resilience of the entire service sector.