Copyright Warning

Use of this thesis/dissertation/project is for the purpose of private study or scholarly research only. Users must comply with the Copyright Ordinance. Anyone who consults this thesis/dissertation/project is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and that no part of it may be reproduced without the author’s prior written consent.

A STRESS AND COPING

PERSPECTIVE ON CREATIVITY: A

REWARD FOR CREATIVITY POLICY

AS A STRESSOR IN

ORGANIZATIONS

LI FULI

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

SEPTEMBER 2009

CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

香港城市大學

A Stress and Coping Perspective on Creativity: A

Reward for Creativity Policy as a Stressor in

Organizations

從壓力和應對的角度理解創新：組織創新獎勵政策作為

一種壓力源

Submitted to Department of Management

管理學系 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 哲學博士學位

by

Li Fuli 李福荔

September 2009 二零零九年九月

I

Abstract

This dissertation explores the underlying mechanisms by which the reward for

creativity policy affects individual behaviors and attitudes in organizations. This research

topic is important because it contributes to the creativity literature and provides practical

implications for practitioners. In this study, the CET model and the transactional model

were proposed based on both the traditional motivation theory (Cognitive Evaluation

Theory, CET) and the newly introduced transactional theory of stress and coping,

respectively. Specifically, the CET model posits that intrinsic motivation mediates the

effects of both the informational and controlling aspects of the policy on individual

behaviors and attitudes. Meanwhile, the transactional model claims that coping strategies

(problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping) mediate the influences of

cognitive appraisal (challenge appraisal of the policy, threat appraisal of the policy, and

creative self-efficacy) on individual behaviors and attitudes. Furthermore, in the specific

context of the policy, the transactional model is expected to have more predictive power

relative to the CET model, and the mediating roles of coping strategies proposed by the

transactional theory are expected to have more predictive power as compared to that of

intrinsic motivation as proposed by CET.

II

The organization, located in the middle part of China, has executed the reward for

creativity policy and was thereby chosen as the appropriate context to test the author’s

hypotheses. The dependent variables included both objective and subjective measures for

creative performance (the amount of reward and perceived creative contribution to the

group) and satisfaction with the policy. The findings showed that in the CET model,

intrinsic motivation only partially mediated the impacts of the informational aspect of the

policy on both the amount of reward and satisfaction with the policy. On the other hand,

in the transactional model, problem-focused coping fully or partially mediated the effects

of the policy’s challenge appraisal and creative self-efficacy on three outcome variables.

At the same time, as a subcategory of emotion-focused coping, blaming fully mediated

the effect of threat appraisal of the policy on both the amount of reward and satisfaction

with the policy. By incorporating all mediators into a single model, the results indicated

that both problem-focused coping and blaming fully replaced the mediating role of

intrinsic motivation in the CET model. Moreover, in the transactional model, the

mediating effects of coping strategies remained unchanged in the presence of intrinsic

motivation. Based on the results, most of the researcher’s hypotheses were supported.

The findings of this dissertation have important theoretical and practical implications for

both theory and practice.

IV

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my great appreciation to my supervisor, Professor Kwok

Leung. During the four years of my PhD study, he has provided considerable guidance on

how to do good research and how to nurture scientific research attitudes. Moreover, if I

feel frustrated when facing difficulties in research, he provides me not only academic

guidance but also psychological encouragement. Here, give my special thanks to him

although I know it is hard to fully express my gratitude to him. His great passion for

research impressed me very much and encouraged me to become a better researcher in

future academic career.

A special note of thanks is given to Mr. Yuanhai Huang. Although he was very

busy on his job, he spent a great deal of time and efforts helping me collect data. I thank

my dear friends and colleagues both in management department of CityU and in

USTC-CityU Joint Advanced Center. I also express my grateful thanks to Xin Lai.

Without his help, I cannot learn effective statistical method and find the best way to

process the data.

I would also like to thank my qualifying panel-Prof. Dean Tjosvold from Hong

Kong Baptist University, Dr. SIA Choon Ling, Dr. Jeanne Fu Ho Ying, Prof. Weixuan

Xu from Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Prof. Zhongsheng Hua from University of

Science and Technology of China, for their constructive and valuable comments that

were beneficial to improve my thesis.

I express my love and gratitude to my family. All my family members have

always supported me and trusted in me. Finally, I dedicate my dissertation to everyone

who has ever helped me and encouraged me.

V

Table of Content

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….1

1.1 Problem Statement……………………………………….....................................1

1.2 Research Questions….…………………………………………………..……...10

1.3 Significance of the Research……………………………………………………12

1.4 Dissertation Structure……...……………………………………………………14

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………....…………………………………17

2.1 Intrinsic Motivation Perspective………………………………………………..17

2.2 Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)…..……………………………………….18

2.2.1 Performance-contingent Reward…………………………………………22

2.3 Experimental Findings for the Effect of Reward on Creativity..…..…………..26

2.4 Field Studies on the Effect of Reward on Creativity ………………...………..29

2.5 General Discussion.…………………………………………………………….30

2.6 The Reward for Creativity Policy and the Transactional Theory.…………….. 33

2.6.1 The Reward for Creativity Policy ………………………….…….……....33

2.6.2 The Transactional Theory………………………....……..….……………35

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES…………………………….46

3.1 The CET Model of the Reward for Creativity Policy……………………….…48

3.1.1 The Effects of the Informational and Controlling Aspects of the Policy on

Intrinsic Motivation …..……………………..…………....….…..………48

3.1.2 The Effects of the Informational and Controlling Aspects of the Policy on

Creative Performance and Satisfaction with the Policy………………….51

3.2 The Transactional Model of the Reward for Creativity Policy.….………….…56

3.2.1 The Effects of Cognitive Appraisal on Creative Performance and

VI

Satisfaction with the Policy………………………………………………56

3.2.2 The Effects of Coping Strategies on Creative Performance and

Satisfaction with the Policy……………..…..…………..………..………64

3.2.3 The Effects of Cognitive Appraisal on Coping Strategies…….……….... 66

3.2.4 Mediation Hypotheses….…………………………………..…………… 68

3.3 Comparisons of the CET Model and the Transactional Model…….…………. 69

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHOD…………………………………………………..72

4.1 Design of the Study…………………………………………..…….…………. 72

4.2 Research Setting and Procedures……………………………..…….…………. 74

4.3 Participants in the Study.……………………………………..…….…………. 79

4.4 Measurements…….…………………………………………..…….…………..82

4.4.1 Scales for the CET Model ….…………………………………..…….…..82

4.4.2 Scales for the Transactional Model …………………………..…………..84

4.4.3 Dependent Variables…….….…………………………………....…….…91

4.5 Summary…………………………….………………………………..…….….94

CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS…………………………………......95

5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis……….………………………………..…….…..95

5.2 Descriptive Statistics……….……………………………………………….…..96

5.3 Hypothesis Tests…………………….………………………………..…….…102

5.3.1 The Amount of Reward as DV………………...……………..…….…104

5.3.2 Perceived Creative Contribution to the Group as DV.…………..……111

5.3.3 Satisfaction with the Policy as DV…………………..…………..……118

5.4 Summary of Results..……………….………………………………..…….…125

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………130

VII

6.1 Summary of Main Findings……………...…………………………..…….…130

6.2 Theoretical Contribution……………………………………………..…….…140

6.2.1 The Application of CET in Field Settings …...…………..…..…….…140

6.2.2 The Application of the Transactional Theory in Creativity Research ..143

6.2.3 Comparison of the CET Model and the Transactional Model…...……144

6.3 Practical Implications..……………………………………………..…...….…145

6.3.1 Implications of the CET Model …...……………………..…..…….…145

6.3.2 Implications of the Transactional Model ……………………………..148

6.4 Future Research………..……………………………………………..…….…151

6.5 Limitations…….………………………….…………………………..…….…154

6.6 Conclusion…….………………………….…………………………..…….…156

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………….158

APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………….…..174

VIII

Tables

Table 4.1 Demographics of Sample…………………………………..……………………..81

Table 5.1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Alpha Coefficients of

Variables (N=245)…...……………………………………...………………...98

Table 5.2 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Alpha Coefficients of

Variables (N=141)…...…………………………………………...……….....101

Table 5.3 Results of Regression Analyses for the Amount of Reward (N=141)…..…..106

Table 5.4 Cross-mediating Effects for the Amount of Reward………...…………..…..108

Table 5.5a Mediators in the CET Model for the Amount of Reward.………..…….…..109

Table 5.5b Mediators in the Transactional Model for the Amount of Reward.………...110

Table 5.6 Results of Regression Analyses for Perceived Creative Contribution to the

Group (N=167)…………………………………………………………..…..114

Table 5.7 Cross-mediating Effects for Perceived Creative Contribution to the Group ..115

Table 5.8a Mediators in the CET Model for Perceived Creative Contribution to the

Group ………………………………………..………………………………116

Table 5.8b Mediators in the Transactional Model for Perceived Creative Contribution to

the Group ……….…………………………………………………………...117

Table 5.9 Results of Regression Analyses for Satisfaction with the Policy (N=245)….119

Table 5.10 Cross-mediating Effects for Satisfaction with the Policy………....………..122

Table 5.11a Mediators in the CET Model for Satisfaction with the Policy………...…..123

Table 5.11b Mediators in the Transactional Model for Satisfaction with the Policy…...124

Table 5.12 Summary for the Main Effects……………………………………………...126

Table 5.13 Summary for the Mediation Effects………………………………………...129

IX

Figures

Figure 3.1 The Overall Hypothesized Model of the Reward for Creativity Policy…….47

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

In an increasingly competitive and turbulent business environment, the provision

of innovative products and services has become an urgent need for firms so that they can

enhance their competitive advantage. Given that creative ideas serve as the basic sources

of innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994), considerable research suggests that employee

creativity can play a key role on organizational innovation, effectiveness, and survival

(Amabile, 1996; Nonaka, 1991). Employee creativity is defined as the production of

novel and potentially useful ideas about organizational products, practices, services, or

procedures (Amabile, 1996; Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Zhou & George, 2001). Creativity

can be produced by employees at any level of the organization and in any job, not just in

those that are traditionally regarded as necessitating creativity (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt,

2002; Nonaka, 1991).

When employees generate novel and potentially useful ideas about organizational

practices, services, products, or procedures (Shalley & Gilson, 2004), organizations can

utilize and develop these creative ideas in responding to shifting market conditions and

opportunities in order to become adaptive, growing, and competitive (Nonaka, 1991).

Therefore, the enhancement of employee creativity and organizational innovation is a

2

tremendous challenge faced by organizations nowadays.

In the creativity and innovation literature, most researchers have focused on

personal and contextual factors, or their interactions, which promote or hinder individual

creativity (see review, Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2003), such as

personality, cognitive style, job complexity, rewards, evaluation, time deadline and goals,

relationship with supervisors or coworkers, spatial configuration of work settings, and so

on. Among numerous antecedents of creativity, Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham (2004)

indicated that although the impact of reward on individuals’ creativity has received much

attention (i.e., Amabile, 1996; Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986; Eisenberger &

Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994), the question of whether or not a reward can

facilitate or hinder creativity has spurred debates between social-cognitive psychologists

and behaviorists over the past three decades, especially in the field of experimental

studies.

Social-cognitive psychologists argue that contracting for reward should motivate

individuals to perceive the activity as simply a means to an end, so the type of reward

should be detrimental to intrinsic motivation, thus decreasing creativity (i.e., Amabile,

1996; Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986). In contrast, behaviorists posit that a

reward can have a positive impact on generalized creativity if it is properly administered

3

(i.e., Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994). In addition, several empirical studies have provided

support for the negative effect of reward (i.e., Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986;

Kruglanski, Friedman, & Zeevi, 1971), whereas others have supported the assumption

that it has a positive effect (Eisenberger, Armeli, & Pretz, 1998; Eisenberger & Rhoades,

2001).

Indeed, there is a huge difference in opinion between social-cognitive researchers

and behaviorists in experimental studies regarding the effect of reward on creativity.

However, from a practical sense, practitioners are inclined to support behaviorists’

perspective and believe the positive effect of reward on a variety of work outcomes

including creativity. For instance, the use of reward to enhance creativity has been

advocated in business (e.g., Edwards, 1989; Farr & Ford, 1990) and education settings

(e.g., Funderbunk, 1977; Goetz, 1989). Several compensation programs have been

designed for this aim, such as stock options and gain-sharing plans (Zhou & Shalley,

2003) as well as monetary incentives and recognition (Fairbank & Williams, 2001; van

Dijk & van den Ende, 2002). Furthermore, some field studies have primarily supported

the positive effect of reward-contingency on employee creativity (i.e., Abbey & Dickson,

1983; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994).

Zhou and Shalley (2003) pointed out that to date, few studies have focused on the

4

effect of reward or compensation programs on creativity in organizational settings. They

further suggested that “it is imperative to systematically untangle the complexity of the

impact of rewards on creativity in the workplace” (p. 204-205). Although practitioners

tend to adopt reward with the aim of stimulating creativity, the issue of reward’s actual

effect may be so complicated since it has not been resolved yet in both cognitive and

behavioral laboratory research. Hence, organizations and managers may not only lack a

solid theoretical foundation to clarify whether or not reward would have a positive effect

on creativity, but they may also be uncertain about how reward actually influences

creativity. Therefore, it is particularly important to untangle the complexity of the effect

of reward on creativity in field settings due to these important theoretical and practical

concerns. This dissertation attempts to fill this gap and explore the underlying

mechanisms through which reward takes effect in organizational settings.

The following is an important question that must be answered in exploring the

relationship between reward and employee creativity in organizations: “Which theory can

help explain the mechanisms by which reward affects creativity in field settings?” It

seems plausible that the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (abbr. CET, Deci & Ryan, 1985),

one of the most popular motivation theories, may be used to explain the effect of reward

on intrinsic motivation and creativity. According to CET, all contextual variables (i.e.,

5

reward) have two aspects, informational and controlling, and the effect of reward on

intrinsic motivation and creativity will depend on the relative salience of the

informational and controlling aspects. Specifically, when the controlling aspect of reward

is salient, reward induces a change in the perceived locus of causality from internal to

external, indicating that individuals perceive their feelings or actions as being controlled

by reward itself and feel that their behaviors do not originate from their own thoughts or

actions. Hence, their intrinsic motivation should be diminished, subsequently decreasing

creativity. When the informational aspect of reward is salient, individuals feel that reward

provides relevant information about their personal competence. In this situation,

individuals feel supported and encouraged, and their intrinsic motivation will be

enhanced, subsequently promoting creativity. Hence, if CET could be applied in

organizational settings, it could be reasoned that the relative salience of the informational

and controlling aspects of reward may predict its effect on intrinsic motivation and

subsequently lead to creativity.

However, some scholars argue that the application of CET in experimental studies

may not be the most appropriate for field research. For example, Gagné and Deci (2005)

pointed out the problems with CET as a theory of work motivation: (1) most studies that

tested CET were conducted in experiments rather than field research, and (2) most

6

employees who work in organizations have to earn money, and as such, adopting

monetary rewards is one of the central motivational strategies which seem practical and

appealing, whereas CET suggests the detrimental influence of contingent, tangible

rewards on intrinsic motivation.

Another concern about the inappropriate application of CET is related to the task

characteristics in organizational settings. Most previous experimental studies in support

of CET employed play situations as their research contexts; thus, the influence of reward

may be different in contexts with work task requirements. Work activities in

organizations are different from play tasks because they typically involve employees’

commitment to perform certain tasks that are not totally chosen by the individual

(Eisenberg, 2001).

One more concern has been raised recently, that is, whether intrinsic motivation

has a mediating role (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). Shalley,

Zhou, and Oldham (2004) argued that “…contextual conditions influence creativity via

their effects on employees’ intrinsic motivation. Although this perspective has often been

discussed in the literature (see Amabile, 1996), few studies have directly tested it…few

studies actually measured intrinsic motivation and tested whether it empirically mediates

the context-creativity relation…” (p. 945). Moreover, some studies empirically tested the

7

mediating role of intrinsic motivation, but the results were inconsistent. For instance, in a

field study, Shin and Zhou (2003) found that intrinsic motivation partially mediates the

effect of transformational leadership on creativity, whereas in Shalley and Perry-Smith’s

(2001) experimental study, the results showed that intrinsic motivation does not mediate

the relationship between evaluation and creativity. Although the mediating role of

intrinsic motivation lacks empirical support in experimental settings, the field study by

Shin and Zhou (2003) has yielded support for the role of intrinsic motivation. Hence,

even though experimental work has not provided much supporting evidence for the role

of intrinsic motivation, its mediating effect needs to be investigated in field settings.

Due to several criticisms on CET, this dissertation attempts to apply a new

theoretical perspective, Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional theory of stress and

coping (abbr. the transactional theory), in its effort to explore the underlying mechanism

by which reward takes effect in organizations. The transactional theory has been widely

adopted to investigate differences in peoples’ reactions to stressful life events (e.g.,

Folkman & Lazarus, 1980), illnesses (Smith & Wallston, 1992) and workplace stress

(e.g., Long, Kahn, & Schutz, 1992; Terry, Callan, & Sartori, 1996; Terry, Tonge, &

Callan, 1995), among others. The transactional theory is related to what an individual

actually thinks and does when encountering a specific situation, and it identifies cognitive

8

appraisal and coping processes as the pivotal mediators of stressful person-environment

relationships and their immediate and long-term outcomes (e.g., Folkman, Lazarus,

Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Specifically,

cognitive appraisal is a process through which an individual assesses whether or not a

specific encounter is relevant to his/her well-being, including primary appraisal

(construed the encounter as a challenge or a threat) and secondary appraisal (how

individuals evaluate their options and coping resources for dealing with situational

demands). Coping involves the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to cope with

internal or external demands, including problem-focused (attempts to alter or manage the

stressful person-environment relationship) and emotion-focused coping (attempts to

reduce or manage stressful emotions).

Several field studies have also adopted the transactional theory to explain

workplace stress. For instance, Terry, Callan, and Sartori (1996) tested the utility of the

stress-coping mode of employee adjustment to organizational change and found that

coping responses (problem-focused and emotion-focused coping) mediate the effects of

situational appraisals (appraised stress, situational control, and self-efficacy) on

adjustment (psychological well-being and job satisfaction). Long, Kahn, and Schutz

(1992) found that that the transactional theory is useful in understanding managerial

9

women’s responses to occupational stress (i.e., interpersonal conflict, staff

shortages/overload, time pressures). Furthermore, it was found that the appraisal of work

stress (e.g., loss of respect, threat to goal attainment, episode upsetting, and perceived

control) and coping strategies (e.g., disengagement coping and engagement coping) are

either directly or indirectly related to the outcomes (distress and satisfaction).

In line with the transactional theory, how individuals interpret and cope with an

expected stressor is vital in understanding the effect of the stressor on individuals’

attitudes and behaviors. To elaborate the effect of reward in organizations, based on the

transactional theory, the researcher proposes that a reward for creativity policy be viewed

as one critical work event in relation to people’s well-being, which can be seen as a

stressor in organizations. The reward for creativity policy (abbr. the policy) represents

one type of human resource policy that aims to directly link creative outcomes with

reward. Moreover, the amount of reward received depends on the level of the employee’s

creative performance, which is often used by organizations and managers to stimulate

creativity. Subsequently, how individuals appraise the policy and cope with it may

provide a clear guidance for understanding the underlying mechanisms by which the

policy leads to actual outcomes.

10

To summarize, some research gaps exist in the reward and creativity literature,

especially in field settings. First, the question of whether or not CET can predict the

effect of contextual factors (i.e., the policy) in organizational settings remains

unanswered. Although CET posits that the relative salience of the controlling and

informational aspects of any contextual factor (i.e., the policy) can predict its effect on

intrinsic motivation and subsequently lead to creativity, to the best of the researcher’s

knowledge, scant field research has directly tested these two aspects. Second, as

compared to CET, is there a better theory that can be used to explain the effect of the

policy in organizational contexts? As previously reviewed in the above, several criticisms

have been raised on the potentially inappropriate applicability of CET in field settings

(i.e., less practical and appealing for CET application). Due to these criticisms, the

researcher proposes a new theoretical perspective, the transactional theory, in exploring

the underlying mechanisms through which the policy operates in field contexts.

1.2 Research Questions

In this dissertation, to address the aforementioned gaps and explore how the

policy functions, two types of consequences are taken into account: creative performance

and satisfaction with the policy. According to Sverke, Hellgren, and Näswall (2002),

11

performance and satisfaction can be categorized into long-term/organizational and

immediate/individual reactions. This is because performance may be manifested after a

longer period of time and may be directly related to the organization, whereas satisfaction

can be considered to develop along with a person’s experience and is thus primarily

individually oriented. Following their categorization, this study explores and examines

how the policy influences employees’ creative performance and satisfactory attitudes

toward the policy.

To summarize, the goal of this dissertation is (1) to test whether or not CET can

predict the effects of the policy on employee creativity and satisfaction with the policy in

organizations, (2) due to some criticisms on CET, to adopt a new theoretical perspective,

the transactional theory, for explaining the underlying mechanisms through which the

policy operates, and (3) to identify which theory may better predict the impact of the

policy on employees’ behaviors and reactions. Meanwhile, this study empirically tests a

set of hypotheses on the basis of a theory-driven model and aims to provide organizations

and managers with a clear strategy on whether or not they should use the policy and how

they can do so effectively.

Hence, the key research questions to be addressed by this dissertation are as

follows:

12

1) Does CET predict the effects of the policy on individuals’ behaviors and

attitudes? In other words, can the relative salience of the controlling and informational

aspects of the policy help explain its effects? Furthermore, can intrinsic motivation

mediate the effects of both the informational and controlling aspects of the policy on both

employees’ creative performance and satisfaction with the policy?

2) Due to some criticisms on the application of CET in field settings, the

researcher proposes that the transactional theory may be appropriate for explaining the

effect of the policy in organizations. Subsequently, in line with the transactional theory,

what are the specific underlying mechanisms by which the policy affects both creative

performance and satisfaction with the policy?

3) Which theoretical perspective can be more operative in organizational settings,

CET or the transactional theory?

1.3 Significance of the Research

This dissertation has significance for both academics and practitioners.

First, it benefits academics in the area of reward and creativity by examining whether or

not CET can be applied in field contexts to explain the effect of the policy. Indeed,

several criticisms on the application of CET in organizational contexts have already been

13

made. However, scant field studies have directly provided empirical evidence to show the

predictive power of CET to date. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study may

be the first attempt to directly evaluate and test both the controlling and informational

aspects proposed by CET, which may be helpful in examining the generalization of CET,

especially in field settings. It may help researchers understand whether theory and

practice make a big difference.

Second, it also contributes to the existing literature on creativity not only by

identifying a new theoretical perspective that can be applied in organizational settings but

also by revealing the underlying mechanisms by which the policy takes effect in addition

to the popular intrinsic motivation perspective. In line with the transactional theory, the

researcher proposes that in the context of the policy, individuals appraise the policy as a

challenge or a threat, evaluate their coping resources to exhibit the creative activities

demanded by the policy (creative self-efficacy), and then adopt coping strategies

(problem-focused or emotion focused coping) that consequently lead to the desired

outcomes.

Third and more importantly, after comparing the CET model (proposed by CET)

and the transactional model (posited by the transactional theory), it becomes clear which

theoretical framework may be more operative for explaining the effects of the policy. The

14

better theory is the one which predicts events and phenomena correctly. This realization

has important practical implications for researchers and practitioners. The findings of the

dissertation may provide a clear map for practitioners to understand the underlying

mechanisms through which the policy influences individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. It

is especially helpful in that it assists managers in determining whether the policy is

effective or not, and it may also provide theoretical guidance for actual practice.

1.4 Dissertation Structure

This dissertation consists of six chapters as outlined below.

Chapter ONE presents the problem statement, research questions, significance of

the research, and the dissertation structure.

Chapter TWO describes the theoretical background of the study. First, the

intrinsic motivation perspective and CET are discussed. Second, experimental and field

studies about the effect of reward on creativity are reviewed. Third, a general discussion

is presented, and the general principles of the transactional theory are then introduced.

Chapter THREE posits the research model and hypotheses. First, in line with CET,

the author expects that both the informational and controlling aspects of the policy are

related to both creative performance and satisfaction with the policy, and that intrinsic

15

motivation mediates the effects of both aspects of the policy on outcomes. Second,

according to the transactional theory, the author hypothesizes that (a) cognitive appraisal

(how individuals interpret the policy) and coping strategies (how individuals cope with

the policy) are correlated with both creative performance and satisfaction with the policy,

and (b) coping strategies (problem-focused and emotion-focused coping) mediate the

relationships between cognitive appraisal and both creative performance and satisfaction

with the policy. Third, the researcher attempts to compare the predictive power of CET

with the transactional model, and hypothesizes that the transactional model is expected to

have better predictive power in general and is particularly appropriate for the specific

context of the policy.

As discussed in Chapters FOUR and FIVE, the research method and data analysis

results are presented. Chapter FOUR discusses the research method, including the sample

selection and survey procedure. One organization that has adopted the reward for

creativity policy was selected as the target sample. The employees in the organization

were asked to rate their perceptions of all independent and demographic variables.

Creative performance as the dependent variable was evaluated from two sources:

self-reported evaluation of individuals’ perceived creative contribution to the group and

the amount of reward based on an employee’s creative contribution to the group (sourced

16

from the organization’s objective data). Satisfaction with the policy was rated by the

respondents themselves to indicate the extent to which they were satisfied with the policy.

Chapter FIVE presents the final results.

Chapter SIX summarizes the major findings of this dissertation, addresses its

theoretical contributions and practical implications, and discusses the research limitations

and future research directions.

17

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Intrinsic Motivation Perspective

During the 1970s, investigators such as Deci (1975); McGraw (1978); Condry

(1977); Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973); and Kruglanski et al. (1975) began to

conduct systematic research and provided theoretical and empirical evidence supporting

the idea that for some behaviors, reward is not beneficial and may even be harmful. The

concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were involved in these scholars’ arguments.

Intrinsic motivation refers to “the innate, natural propensity to engage one’s interests and

exercise one’s capacities, and in so doing, to seek and conquer optimal challenges” (Deci

& Ryan, 1985, p.43). When people engage in intrinsically motivated activities, they often

feel enjoyable and excited. Generally, they posited that extrinsic reward for intrinsically

motivated tasks can hinder the occurrence of the rewarded behavior, especially when

reward is subsequently absent. Extrinsic motivation refers to the extent to which an

individual engages in an activity where the reason for doing so is something other than

the interest in the activity itself (Amabile, 1996), such as rewards, promotions, or some

external control.

Intrinsic motivation as a pivotal mediator has been frequently used to explain the

effect of reward on creativity. Individuals who have high intrinsic motivation tend to

exhibit corresponding high levels of creative performance (Amabile, 1996) because

18

intrinsic motivation enhances persistence, cognitive flexibility, risk-taking behavior, and

curiosity when people face barriers (Utman, 1997; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). These in turn

facilitate the development of creative ideas. According to previous theories and research

(Amabile, 1996; Deci & Ryan, 1985), each contextual factor (i.e., reward) affects

creativity via its impact on individuals’ intrinsic motivation to perform a task. Although

this perspective has often been discussed in the literature, few studies have directly tested

the mediating role of intrinsic motivation (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004; Zhou &

Shalley, 2003). Moreover, although some studies have examined the mediating effect of

intrinsic motivation, their results are inconsistent (see Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Shin

& Zhou, 2003)

2.2 Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)

As the mediating role of intrinsic motivation has often been advocated in the

literature (Amabile, 1983, 1996) even though it lacks consistent empirical support

(Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004), one major controversy about the relationship between

reward and creativity involves the positive or negative impact of reward on intrinsic

motivation, which can be explained by Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET, Deci & Ryan,

1985).

19

According to CET, all contextual variables (i.e., reward) have two aspects:

informational and controlling, which will influence intrinsic motivation to the extent that

they affect perceived self-determination and perceived competence. Self-determination is

conceptualized as the capacity to choose and to have those choices rather than have

reinforcement contingencies, drives, or any other forces or pressures as the determinants

of one’s actions (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Perceived competence or self-efficacy is defined

as individuals’ subjective judgments of their capabilities for a particular type of task

(Bandura, 1986). The effects of contextual factors on intrinsic motivation will depend on

the relative salience of the informational and controlling aspects of the contextual factors.

When the controlling aspect is salient, contextual variables (i.e., reward) induce a

change in the perceived locus of causality from internal to external, indicating that

individuals perceive their feelings or actions to be controlled by the contextual factor

itself and feel that their behaviors do not originate from their own thoughts or actions.

Hence, their perceived self-determination is decreased, and as a result, intrinsic

motivation should be diminished. When the informational aspect is salient, individuals

feel that contextual factors provide relevant information about their personal competence

within the context of some self-determination. In this situation, individuals feel supported

and encouraged, and their intrinsic motivation will be enhanced.

20

With the use of the typology of reward contingencies that may signal different

degrees of controlling and informational values, CET analyzes the extent to which reward

tends to be interpreted as a controller or competence affirmation, which subsequently

influences the extent to which reward undermines or enhances intrinsic motivation. Ryan,

Mims, and Koestner (1983) introduced the typology of reward contingencies: (1)

task-noncontingent reward which is given for participating in an experimental session,

independent of what they do in that session, (2) task-contingent reward which is given for

actually doing or completing the task, and (3) performance-contingent reward which is

given for a specified level of effective performance. A task-contingent reward can be

further subdivided into engagement-contingent reward (engagement in the task that does

not require completion) and completion-contingent reward (the actual completion of the

task).

According to CET, various types of reward contingencies tend to influence the

extent to which an aspect of reward is considered more salient, controlling or

informational. Specifically, the task-noncontingent reward does not require performing

the task, or doing the task well, so reward is expected to have no controlling or

informational role. On the other hand, engagement-contingent reward carries little or no

competence affirmation, but people have to perform the task to obtain the reward so the

21

reward is likely to be experienced as controlling. For completion-contingent reward, on

one hand, people have to complete the task to obtain the reward so it is experienced as

more controlling; on the other hand, the reward signals some level of competence after

the task is completed. Nonetheless, averagely across different types of tasks, the

competence-affirming aspect is not so strong relative to the controlling aspect. For the

performance-contingent reward, the reward can convey substantial competence

information when the individual does well to attain a certain level of performance;

however, he/she has to meet some performance standards to get the reward and make the

controlling aspect even stronger. It is expected that the informational aspect of the

performance-contingent reward will offset some of its negative controlling effects.

Based on experimental findings, several meta-analyses have been conducted to

test the effects of various types of reward contingency on intrinsic motivation. In these

experiments, intrinsic motivation was done subsequent to the experimental period when

there was no reward contingency; it was also measured by both self-reported interest and

free-choice behavior in the target activity. Specifically, the task-noncontingent reward

was found to have a nonsignificant effect on both free-choice behavior and self-reported

interest (see meta-analyses, Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;

Tang & Hall, 1995). The task-contingent reward (combining engagement-contingent and

22

completion-contingent reward) had a significant negative effect on both free-choice

behavior and self-reported interest (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). The

performance-contingent reward had a negative effect on free-choice behavior but not on

self-report interest (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).

The above meta-analyses results have primarily supported CET, except for the

performance-contingent reward (partially supported, only for the free-choice measure

rather than the self-report interest). As the result was not consistent for the effect of the

performance-contingent reward on intrinsic motivation, CET also suggests other

moderating conditions for this type of reward. This will be discussed in the following

section.

2.2.1 Performance-contingent Reward

Due to the competing tendencies of the controlling and competence-affirmation

aspects of the performance-contingent reward, CET suggests that other factors may

influence the relative salience of the informational and controlling aspects of such type of

reward, such as whether or not the level of reward possesses “symbolic cue values”

which imply competence information in a situation (Harackiewicz, Manderlink, &

Sansone, 1984).

23

2.2.1.1 Symbolic Cue Value as the Informational Aspect of Reward

Harackiewicz and colleagues (Harackiewicz, 1979; Harackiewicz, Manderlink, &

Sansone, 1984) introduced the concept of cue value, providing an additional element that

could affect the relationship between performance-contingent reward and intrinsic

motivation. They argued that the cue value of a reward induces the individual to be

sensitive to the competence information in a situation, thereby highlighting the

affirmation of competence inherent in a performance-contingent reward given for having

done well. In essence, the cue value can also be said to highlight the informational aspect

and offset the controlling aspect of the performance-contingent reward (Deci, Koestner,

& Ryan, 1999).

Harackiewicz and Sansone (2000) explained that the cue value can affect intrinsic

motivation through the reward process. Specifically, the initial offer of a

performance-contingent reward may lead to positive motivational processes as

individuals perform activities to attain competence. In turn, the receipt of a

performance-contingent reward can symbolize the level of competence and instill

perceptions of accomplishment and pride. A reward has meaning (the “cue”) with respect

to the level of competence it represents and in terms of the value of competence in the

activity. When reward symbolizes higher levels of competence and achievement, its cue

24

value should be greater.

The symbolic cue value means that individuals have the opportunity to receive

reward as the result of a positive evaluation, and this reward represents both the level and

the value of competence in the situation (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000; Sansone &

Harackiewicz, 1998). Here, to some extent, the meaning of the symbolic cue value of

reward may be broader, and it contains reward’s informational aspect as proposed by

CET. It posits that individuals feel that reward provides relevant information about their

personal competence when it is given after the completion of the task. Under this

condition, reward possesses informational value for competence confirmation, thus

enhancing intrinsic motivation.

For symbolic cue value, it can influence intrinsic motivation throughout the

reward process (reward offer, performance period, and reward outcome). In the stage of

reward offer, a performance-contingent reward offer provides an opportunity to obtain

reward that symbolizes the level of competence in the situation, which motivates

individuals to care more about doing well (Harackiewicz & Manderlink, 1984). Hence, in

the subsequent performance period stage, the performance-contingent reward can affect

how individuals approach and perform a task, help them concentrate on attaining

competence, and keep them focused on their performance of the task. In the stage of

25

reward outcome, the symbolic cue value means that the receipt of a

performance-contingent reward provides tangible evidence of excellence in performance,

which may enhance subsequent intrinsic motivation by increasing feelings of

accomplishment, pride, and satisfaction. In the present study, the researcher adopts the

symbolic cue value to represent the informational aspect of the policy that has broader

meanings relative to the informational aspect proposed by CET, which will be discussed

later.

Harackiewicz, Manderlink, and Sansone (1984) conducted an experiment to test

whether or not reward possesses a symbolic cue value. They found that the subjects in the

performance-contingent reward condition enhanced their intrinsic motivation relative to

those in the condition in which they were told that they would be evaluated and were

subsequently given positive feedback but did not receive a reward. The only difference

between these two groups was the presence of reward for surpassing the performance

standard, so they concluded that the finding supported the positive effect of the symbolic

cue value because when reward was absent, the controlling aspect of the evaluation in the

non-reward condition could not be offset. Another study from Harackiewicz (1979)

compared two performance-contingent reward conditions (with norms supplied and no

norms supplied). Under the two conditions, the subjects were told that they would receive

26

a reward if they exceed the performance of the average high school student. In the

norm-supplied reward condition, the participants were informed of the exact performance

standard, whereas in the no norms supplied reward condition, the participants had no idea

about their performance level until they completed the task and received a reward. The

results indicated that the participants in the “no norms supplied” reward condition

decreased their intrinsic motivation more than those in the “norms supplied” reward

condition. Harackiewicz (1979) explained that the participants in the

performance-contingent reward group with normative performance information may have

higher intrinsic motivation because of a greater amount of feedback available to them

during the actual process of doing the task.

2.3 Experimental Findings for the Effect of Reward on Creativity

Both social-cognitive psychologists and behaviorists have conducted several

experimental studies to explore the effect of reward on creativity over the past three

decades, but the findings have been inconsistent. On one hand, social-cognitive

investigators have primarily agreed on the negative effect of reward on intrinsic

motivation and creativity and have supported the relative salience of the controlling

aspect of reward as proposed by CET. On the other hand, behaviorists posit that reward

27

has a positive impact on creativity if it is properly administered (Eisenberger & Cameron,

1996; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994).

Amabile (1983, 1996) proposed that reward is negatively related to perceived

self-determination when it is perceived as a pressure to obtain a particular outcome.

According to the social-cognitive perspective, when individuals interpret that the aim of

reward is to control, it is expected that it is likely to be detrimental to self-determination

and intrinsic motivation, subsequently becoming a hindrance to creativity. Several

experimental studies have provided empirical evidence for the negative role of reward. In

the work of Kruglanski, Friedman, and Zeevi’s (1971), for instance, they gave two

open-ended creativity tasks to Israeli high school students who either have or have not

been promised a reward for their participation. The results indicated that the students

under the no-reward condition exhibited more interest and enjoyment, and their jobs were

rated as more creative than the rewarded subjects. Amabile, Hennessey, and Grossman

(1986) found that children and women adults who performed creative activities to obtain

a reward displayed low levels of creativity relative to those who participated without

receiving a reward. It seems that in line with CET, social-cognitive investigators tend to

support the controlling aspect of reward, which is more salient than its informational

aspect.

28

However, Eisenberger and his colleagues disagreed with the negative impact of

reward (especially performance-contingent reward) on intrinsic motivation and creativity.

The learned industriousness theory (Eisenberger, 1992) is often used to explain the

positive effect of reward, which assumes that reward contingency provides individuals

explicit information on which dimension of performance (i.e., speed, novelty) reward

depends. The proposition of a positive effect of explicit reward on creativity has received

much empirical support from Eisenberger and his coworkers’ experimental findings (i.e.,

Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger, Armeli, & Pretz, 1998; Eisenberger, Haskins,

& Gambleton, 1999; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001).

For instance, in Eisenberger and Armeli (1997)’s first experiment, they found that

subjects who perceived the larger reward for presenting unusual uses for words during

the training session generated more novel performance (originality of the subjects’

drawings) in the drawing task (making pictures from circles) relative to those in the no

reward or small reward condition. In their second experiment, the results indicated that

reward for creative performance increases the subsequent choice to generate original

drawings and that reward for uncreative performance enhances the subsequent choice to

copy the familiar drawing. Another example from Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001)

provided evidence for the positive effect of reward. In the experiment, the college

29

students in both the reward for creative performance group and the no reward group were

asked to produce creative titles for a short story (creativity was defined as novelty

combined with quality as related to how well a person responds to solve the problem).

The results showed that the subjects in the reward for creative performance condition

generated more creative titles relative to those in the no promised reward condition.

2.4 Field Studies on the Effect of Reward on Creativity

Several field studies have also examined the relationship between reward and

creativity, most of which support the positive effect of reward. For instance, Abbey and

Dickson (1983) found that in R&D units, performance-reward dependency is

significantly positively related to three innovation processes, namely, initiation, adoption,

and implementation. Scott and Bruce (1994) found that support for innovation

(reward-innovation dependency as one factor) is significantly positively associated with

employee innovative behavior. Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) reported that employees’

expected reward for high performance is positively related to their intrinsic interest and

perceived self-determination, subsequently enhancing creativity. They explained that the

expected reward for high performance may promote intrinsic interest by enhancing the

symbolic importance of competence performance (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991) and

30

increasing perceived self-determination (Eisenberger, Rhoades, & Cameron, 1999).

2.5 General Discussion

As reviewed in the previous section, previous experimental findings were

inconsistent when it came to evaluating the effect of reward on creativity. Moreover,

practitioners tend to support behaviorists’ perspective and believe that reward can

facilitate creativity. In practice, the use of reward to promote creativity has been

advocated and applied in business (i.e., Farr & Ford, 1990) and education settings (i.e.,

Goetz, 1989). However, Zhou and Shalley (2003) reviewed that to date, few studies have

explored the impact of reward or compensation programs on creativity in field settings;

they then suggested that future research should systematically reveal the complex

mechanisms by which reward affects creativity in the workplace. However, although

practitioners have adopted reward to stimulate creativity, the issue of whether or not

reward has a positive effect may be so complicated since both social-cognitive and

behavioral researchers have not come to an agreement in their laboratory findings. Even

though several field studies have mainly supported the positive effect of reward, how

reward takes effect in practice remains unanswered. Consequently, practitioners may not

only lack a solid theoretical foundation upon which reward can be used in practice but

31

also be uncertain about how reward leads to certain outcomes. Due to these important

theoretical issues and practical concerns, this dissertation attempts to explore the

complexity of the effect of reward on creativity and the underlying mechanisms by which

reward takes effect in field settings.

To realize the research purpose, the pivotal issue that must be addressed is the

determination of which theoretical perspective can be used to explain the underlying

mechanisms by which reward is operative. In the literature, CET, one of the most popular

motivation theories, has been adopted to explain the relative salience of the informational

and controlling aspects of reward on intrinsic motivation and creativity. However, the

majority of studies applying CET were conducted in laboratory settings, so whether it can

be operative in field contexts should be considered with care since several critiques have

been raised on the application of CET in field contexts. The first concern is relevant to

work activities in organizations, which are different from the play tasks used in previous

experiments because employees demonstrate the commitment to perform certain tasks

that are not totally chosen by them (Eisenberg, 2001).

One more concern about the predictive power of CET is relevant to the mediating

effect of intrinsic motivation. Although this has been advocated by researchers (Amabile,

1983, 1996), the question on whether or not intrinsic motivation can mediate the

32

relationship between contextual factors and creativity empirically has been raised

recently (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). Scant empirical

studies have directly examined the mediating role of intrinsic motivation, and even few

studies have tested it with inconsistent results (i.e., Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Shin &

Zhou, 2003). Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) found that intrinsic motivation does not

mediate the effect of expected evaluation on creativity. They explained that in addition to

intrinsic motivation, other intervening mechanisms may mediate the effect of external

factors on creativity such as the individual’s focus of attention when working on the task,

affective state, or domain relevant skills and creativity relevant skills. Meanwhile, they

were also concerned with the relatively small sample size used in the study that may

influence the results of the mediation test. To address this concern, they suggested that

future research should test the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation on another sample

that is larger in size.

Based on the above reasoning, cautionary steps should therefore be taken when

applying CET in field settings. In consideration of these concerns about CET, this

dissertation adopts the new theoretical perspective, the transactional theory, to explore

how reward influences creativity in organizations. This theory posits that how individuals

appraise and cope with a stressful encounter will influence their long-term and short-term

33

outcomes. To elaborate on the impact of reward in organizations, according to the

transactional theory, the researcher argues that a reward for creativity policy may be

considered as one critical work event relevant to people’s well-being, which can be

viewed as a stressor in organizations. The reward for creativity policy directly links

employee creativity with reward, and the amount of reward received depends on the level

of the employee’s creative performance, which is often adopted by practitioners to

stimulate creativity. How the transactional theory may help explain the effect of the

policy will be discussed in the following section.

2.6 The Reward for Creativity Policy and the Transactional Theory

2.6.1 The Reward for Creativity Policy

The economic instrumentality of work signals a relatively unique aspect of work

conditions, with people earning a living to support themselves and their family (Brief &

George, 1995). These economic outcomes influence the other domains of people’s life,

which are central to their psychological well-being (e.g., the family domain; Andrews &

Withey, 1974). For instance, Chacko (1983) concluded that economic job facets (i.e.,

satisfaction with pay and promotion) appear to be more strongly related to life

satisfaction than non-economic job facets (i.e., satisfaction with work itself, co-worker,

34

authority, and responsibility). Diener (1984) also concluded that an overwhelming

amount of evidence indicates a positive relationship between income and subjective

well-being within countries. Similarly, Locke (1976) mentioned that money serves as a

symbol of achievement, a source of recognition, and a way of obtaining other values (e.g.,

leisure). To some people, it represents a status symbol, security, and greater freedom to

act in all areas of life.

It can be reasoned that the economic instrumentality of work may be viewed as an

important job condition relevant to people’s well-being. Compensation, which can be

viewed as one typical example of the economic instrumentality of work conditions, is

expected to be related to well-being. For instance, Timio and Gentili (1976) found that a

statistically significant increase in physiological indicators (i.e., adrenaline and

noradrenaline) is observed for workers under the condition of piece-rate compensation

schemes as compared to salaried and “ordinary” workers.

Brief and Atieh (1987) argued that job conditions related to the economic

instrumentality of work in individuals’ lives can be potential sources of stress, so I argue

that a reward for creativity policy, as one type of compensation scheme that represents

one kind of economically instrumental job condition, is expected to be related to

well-being, and can be perceived as a potential source of stress. The similar logic was

35

also found in George, Brief, Webster and Burke’s (1989) study, in which an incentive

compensation program was identified as an economically instrumental job condition,

which was seen as a potential stressor. It is appropriate to apply the transactional theory

to contexts involving potential sources of stress, because the transactional theory

emphasizes that how individuals appraise a specific stressful encounter is an integral

component of stress and coping processes (e.g., Folkman et al., 1986; Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984). Based on the above reasoning, I argue that the transactional theory can

be applied in the specific context of this study, because a reward for creativity policy can

be viewed as a potential source of stress.

2.6.2 The Transactional Theory

In the transactional theory, stress refers to “a relationship between the person and

the environment that is appraised by the person as relevant to his or her well-being and in

which the person’s resources are taxed or exceeded” (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985, p. 152).

The transactional perspective considers stress as a result of the transaction between the

individual and the environment, and it identifies cognitive appraisal and coping processes

as the two pivotal mediators of stressful person-environment relationships and their

immediate and long-term outcomes.

36

2.6.2.1 Cognitive Appraisal

Cognitive appraisal is a process through which an individual assesses whether or

not a specific encounter is relevant to his/her well-being, including two basic forms:

primary appraisal and secondary appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Primary appraisal

involves how a person judges the nature and meaning of a particular transaction with

regard to his/her well-being, while secondary appraisal refers to the evaluation of coping

resources and the options available for managing a stressful encounter (Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984).

Primary appraisal involves a person judging whether an encounter with the

environment carries irrelevant, benign-positive, or stressful implication for his/her

well-being. Specifically, an irrelevant encounter has no importance for one’s well-being,

and the person has no stake in the outcome. In a benign-positive encounter, only a good

outcome is construed. Lazarus and his colleagues categorized challenge, threat, and

harm/loss as stressful appraisals. In harm/loss, some damage has been sustained for the

person, such as the loss of a loved or a valued person. Threat appraisal refers to harms or

losses that have not yet occurred but are expected (potential harms or losses), whereas

challenge appraisal focuses on the potential for growth, mastery, or gain inherent in an

encounter. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), challenge appraisal is often

37

characterized by pleasurable emotions such as eagerness, excitement, and exhilaration,

whereas threat appraisal is often characterized by negative emotions such as fear, anxiety,

and anger.

Although certain contextual demands and pressures lead to stress, individuals will

appraise certain types of events differently (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In other words,

different individuals will interpret or appraise the same encounter in various ways in

terms of its significance on well-being. For instance, an employee may appraise a certain

job condition as a challenge and feel eagerness, excitement, and exhilaration; another

employee may appraise the same condition as potentially harmful and thus feel fear,

anxiety, and anger. Take job promotion as an example, as postulated by Lazarus and

Folkman (1984): job promotion tends to be appraised as having the opportunities to

obtain gains in knowledge and skills, responsibility, recognition, and financial reward;

however, at the same time, it may provide the possibility that the person will be swamped

by new job demands and consequently would not perform well as expected.

In the present study, the reward for creativity policy can be viewed as a stressor,

and in line with the transactional theory, individuals may appraise the policy in different

ways in terms of its significance on their well-being. As harm-loss appraisals relate to

damages that have occurred, the policy seems unable to cause such type of stressful

38

appraisal due to its lagged effect. Hence, in the present study, both challenge appraisal

and threat appraisal (primary appraisal) are taken into account, which may be more

appropriate for the specific context examined in this dissertation.

Specifically, challenge appraisal of the policy refers to the potential growth,

mastery, or gain inherent in the policy. One question may be raised: “What are the

potential benefits or gains inherent in the policy?” Although no extant concepts can be

used directly from previous literature, pay or compensation research may provide some

suggestive hints. For instance, Thierry’s (1992, 2001) reflection theory of compensation

posits that pay has no meaning and informational value in itself, but it acquires a

significance since it relates to other domains that are important to the individual at work;

this is because the pay an individual receives encompasses a variety of meanings that are

vital to the person’s self-identity. According to Thierry (1992, 2001), pay conveys

information about what is happening in other fields, and it has four categories of meaning.

The first is related to motivational meaning, which indicates the extent to which pay is

perceived as instrumental in influencing one’s motives and personal aims. The second

involves relative position meaning that can signal feedback about job performance in

terms of performance in relation to a certain standard or goal and to others. The third is

related to control meaning, which reflects the extent to which the individual has the

39

autonomy to regulate him/herself and others in terms of both organizational hierarchy and

role set. The fourth involves spending meaning, which reflects concrete goods and

services that can be purchased.

The meanings of the challenge appraisal of the policy seem particularly similar to

the first category of pay meaning (motivational meaning) because an individual may

consider the potential gains inherent in the policy as instrumental in the realization of his/

her motives and personal goals. As Thierry (2001) proposes, “pay is meaningful,

according to the first category, to the extent that a person considers pay to be instrumental

to affect his or her motives and personal goals…..Also, the pay a manager or employee

gets for the job level they occupy or for the quality of a particular job performance may

be expected to provide an opportunity for getting recognition” (p. 152-153). For the three

other types of pay meaning, the second dimension of “relative position meaning” is

particularly relevant to the informational aspect of the policy because the policy signals

the competence information for individuals in comparison with others or the normative

standards through a particular reward for creativity, coinciding with the meaning of the

symbolic cue value and containing the informational aspect posited by CET. This will be

discussed later. For the control and spending meanings of pay, it seems irrelevant to the

meanings of concepts that are given emphasis in this research.

40

Hence, in line with Thierry (1992, 2001), the researcher argues that the policy has

a reflection meaning which conveys some opportunities to employees such as getting

recognition or appreciation, personal development, being respected for his/her success,

and so forth, all of which reflect the core contents of the policy’s challenge appraisal.

With regard to threat appraisal of the policy, as Kohn (1993) pointed out,

“Punishment and rewards are two sides of the same coin…not receiving a reward one had

expected to receive is also indistinguishable from being punished…the more desirable the

reward, the more demoralizing it is to miss out” (p. 58). Hence, the potential harms or

losses may also be expected to be inherent in the policy if an individual cannot perform

creative activities well, that is, revealing the weakness in one’s competence, losing one’s

self-respect, or threatening one’s self-esteem.

Meanwhile, secondary appraisal is regarded as the evaluation of the coping

resources and options available for managing a stressful encounter (Lazarus & Folkman,

1984). The transactional model posits that if individuals determine that they have a stake

in an environmental encounter, they will be involved in secondary appraisal to change

conditions that are perceived to be undesirable. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) also posited

that the term “primary” and “secondary” does not mean one (i.e., primary) is more

important or precedes the other in time. It is also acknowledged that these two appraisals

41

are not mutually exclusive but rather interact with each other in shaping the degree of

stress. Folkman (1984) defined situational appraisals of control as part of secondary

appraisal, which refer to the individual’s judgment about the possibilities for control in a

specific encounter. He further pointed out that situational appraisals of control are the

outcomes of the person’s evaluations of the situational demands and his/her coping

resources, options, and capability to execute the needed coping strategies, which may

theoretically overlap with Bandura’s (1977) concept of self-efficacy. For instance,

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) conceptualized the individual’s beliefs regarding whether

he/she can successfully perform the desirable behavior to cope with the situation

(perceived situational self-efficacy) as part of secondary appraisal. Given that

self-efficacy beliefs exert an impact on human functioning via motivational, cognitive,

and affective processes that in turn influence individuals’ choices, goals, emotional

reactions, effort, coping, and persistence (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), situational self-efficacy

beliefs may be one of the most important factors during the secondary appraisal process.

Hence, in the specific context of the reward for creativity policy, the present study

conceptualizes creative self-efficacy as part of secondary appraisal and defines creative

self-efficacy as an individual’s beliefs in his/her capabilities to exhibit the creative

activities demanded by the policy.

42

2.6.2.2 Coping Strategies

Coping refers to “the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to master, tolerate, or

reduce external and internal demands and conflicts among them” (Folkman & Lazarus,

1980, p. 223). In the current work, coping is defined independently of its outcomes,

which refers to efforts to cope with demands regardless of whether these efforts lead to

success. One popular and dominant perspective posits that coping has two major

functions: management of the problem (problem-focused coping) and regulation of

emotions (emotion-focused coping) (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Specifically,

problem-focused coping refers to attempts to alter or manage the stressful

person-environment relationship, while emotion-focused coping refers to attempts to

reduce or manage stressful emotions. Problem-focused coping is adopted more frequently

when encounters are appraised as changeable relative to those appraised as unchangeable.

In contrast, emotion-focused coping is used more frequently in unchangeable encounters

than in changeable ones. As Folkman (1984) posited that the cognitive activities

necessary for problem-focused efforts (e.g., problem solving and decision making) will

be interfered by emotions, we believe that problem-focused efforts probably do not

involve intense emotions.

In previous stress studies, examples of typical problem-focused coping strategies

43

include “Tried to get the person responsible to change his or her mind,” “I made a plan of

action and followed it,” or “Stood my ground and fought for what I wanted” (Folkman et

al., 1986). Meanwhile, examples of typical emotion-focused coping strategies include

distancing, avoidance, or positive reappraisal. The sample items include “Looked for the

silver lining, tried to look on the bright side of things,” “Accepted sympathy and

understanding from someone,” or “Tried to forget the whole thing” (Folkman et al.,

1986).

To evaluate various coping strategies, several stress researchers have developed

multiple coping scales such as the Ways of Coping scale (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980), the

revised Ways of Coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), and COPE (Carver, Scheier, &

Weintraub, 1989), among others. A question may be raised about whether or not previous

coping scales can be generalized to all contexts (e.g., the policy in the present study).

Daus and Joplin (1999) argued that “In much of the research to date, coping has been

investigated with unusual populations (e.g., Three Mile Island residents; parachute

jumpers) or as a response to life situations and events generally, rather than to work

situations and events specifically” (p. 18.). To investigate the generalization of coping,

Nelson and Sutton (1990) adopted the coping scales of the Health and Daily Living form

(Moos, Cronkite, Billings, & Finney, 1982) and found that problem-focused or

44

emotion-focused coping fail to explain significant variances in distress or performance

within work settings. They suggested that the coping scales used in stressful life events

may not be appropriate for studying coping in work contexts.

With regard to job stress research, Latack (1986) argued that few empirical

studies have focused on coping in work settings, and hence developed specific coping

scales to measure how a person copes in stressful situations (i.e., role ambiguity, role

conflict, and role overload) in organizations. Sample items of coping developed in

Latack’s research include “Get together with my supervisor to discuss this,” “Try to work

faster and more efficiently,” or “Avoid being in this situation if I can.” Some researchers

argued that coping efforts vary across different types of situations (Keenan & Newton,

1985; Latack & Aldag, 1986) because the coping activities used by employees should

coincide with a variety of work conditions (Havlovic & Keenan, 1995). Based on the

above reasoning, it may not be appropriate to generalize the previous coping scales used

in field research to all stressful conditions in organizational settings.

In the present study, the policy is the specific focused context in organizations. In

line with the popular and dominant perspective, the researcher also identifies

problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping as two categories of coping efforts

when employees gain exposure to the policy. Problem-focused coping focuses on how

45

individuals manage the creativity demand of the policy, while emotion-focused coping

emphasizes how individuals manage or reduce their stress-induced emotions as caused by

the policy.

46

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Two kinds of dependent variables are considered in the present study: creative

performance and satisfaction with the policy. In line with Sverke, Hellgren, and

Näswall’s (2002) proposition that performance and satisfaction can be categorized into

long-term/organizational and immediate/individual reactions, the researcher identifies

creative performance and satisfaction with the policy as two types of potential

consequences when employees react to the policy. This study focuses on the long- and

short-term influences of the policy and makes a distinction between organizational and

individual outcomes. Specifically, creative performance may be manifested after a longer