REWARDS AND CREATIVITY: THE NEXT STEPprr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1280/1/2032S.pdf ·...
Transcript of REWARDS AND CREATIVITY: THE NEXT STEPprr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1280/1/2032S.pdf ·...
REWARDS AND CREATIVITY: THE NEXT STEP
by
Muhammad Abdur Rahman Malik
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Suleman Dawood School of Business,
Lahore University of Management Sciences.
May, 2013
ii
© 2013
Muhammad Abdur Rahman Malik 2013
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iii
ABSTRACT
Though research has shown a consistent and positive relationship between
intrinsic rewards and creative behavior, the research to explore the impact of extrinsic
rewards on creative behavior has yielded mixed and non-conclusive results. The
mechanisms and psychological processes through which rewards affect creative behavior
and the boundary conditions within which rewards trigger creative behavior are largely
unknown. Most of the reward – creative behavior research is based on three assumptions,
a- The relationship between rewards and creative behavior is direct and un-moderated, b-
Rewards have same impact on individuals, irrespective of their dispositional differences
and contextual settings, and c- All types of rewards produce similar type of creative
behavior. This study challenges all of these assumptions and forwards the reward -
creativity research by identifying factors that mediate and moderate the relationship
between rewards and creative behavior.
The results based on the data collected through survey forms from 260 employees
and their supervisors, suggest that rewards affect individuals differently, depending on
their personal dispositions and on contextual factors. The study shows that intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards produce different types of creative behavior. The results also show that
contextual and personal variables such as organizational climate, locus of control and
goal orientation affect the relationship between rewards and creative behavior. Thus, the
study makes it clear that impact of rewards on creative behavior depends on several
personal and contextual factors and ranges from significant positive to significant
negative. The study guides managers about how to use rewards to enhance creative
behavior of their employees, and how to trigger different types of creative behaviors, by
iv
aligning rewards with personal and contextual factors. The study advances the reward -
creativity debate from cognitive – behaviorism dichotomy to the social cognitive
paradigm.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this dissertation, and my PhD would not have been realized without
the help and guidance of many key individuals. There can not be enough words to thank
Dr. Arif N. Butt, my supervisor, for the support, guidance and mentorship that he has
provided during the past few years. He is a very fine administrator, teacher and
researcher, but probably an even better supervisor. It has been (and will always remain)
an honor to be his first PhD student.
I express my appreciation to Dr. Abdul Karim Khan and Dr. Kamran Ali Chatha, my
committee members for their support, feedback and help. My thanks also go out to the
anonymous international reviewers of my dissertation for their suggestions. I also want to
thank my fellow PhD students, the reviewers and participants of the conferences where I
have presented parts of my research for their feedback and appreciation. Finally I want to
mention contributions of Dr. Junaid Ashraf, the Research Director SDSB, and his
assistant Shoaib Khan for performing the thankless and never ending administrative
processes that ensured a timely completion of my PhD.
Lastly I would like to thank my family for their support and encouragement. It would not
be possible for me to keep the persistence and meet the requirements of PhD program
without the prayers of my mother and trust and sacrifice of my wife.
If there is a connection between this world and the hereafter, I am sure that my father
would be a happy person today.
Muhammad Abdur Rahman Malik
Lahore University of Management Sciences
May 2013.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One
1. Introduction
1.1 Statement of Research Problem and Research Question 1
1.2 Research Significance 6
1.3 Definitions 7
1.3.1 Creativity 8
1.3.2 Radical and Incremental Creative Behavior 8
1.3.3 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards 8
1.3.4 Enjoyment 9
1.3.5 Creative Intention 9
1.3.6 Locus of Control 9
1.3.7 Self Efficacy 10
1.3.8 Goal Orientation 10
1.3.9 Organizational Climate 10
1.3.10 Support for Creativity 11
1.4 Arrangement of the Remaining Dissertation 11
Chapter Two
2. Creativity and Reward – Creativity Research 13
2.1 Definition and Measurement of Creativity 13
2.2 Classification of Creativity 15
2.2.1 Incremental and Radical Creativity 15
x
2.3 Relationship between Rewards and Creative Behavior 17
2.4 Relationship between Rewards and Classification of
Creative Behavior 20
2.5 The Cognitive Perspective 22
2.5.1 Over Justification Hypothesis 23
2.5.2 Cognitive Evaluation Theory 23
2.5.3 Intrinsic Motivation Theory 25
2.5.4 Empirical Research Supporting Cognitive Perspective 26
2.6 The Behaviorist Perspective 28
2.6.1 Learned Industriousness Theory 28
2.6.2 Creativity as an Intentional Decision 29
2.6.3 Empirical Research Supporting Behaviorist Perspective 30
2.7 Importance of Rewards 32
2.8 Convergence of Cognitive and Behaviorist Perspective 33
Chapter Three
3. Personal & Contextual Factors and Creativity 37
3.1 Personality and Creativity – Historical Research 37
3.1.1 Personality and Creativity in Pre FFM Period 38
3.1.2 Personality and Creativity in the FFM Period 39
3.2 Personality in Perspective of Rewards –
Creativity Relationship 41
3.2.1 Locus of Control and Self Efficacy 42
xi
3.2.2 Goal Orientation 47
3.3 Environmental Models and Theories of Creativity 52
3.4 Contextual Factors in Perspective of Rewards –
Creativity Relationship 53
3.4.1 Support for Creativity 54
3.4.2 Organizational Climate and Creativity 56
Chapter Four
4. Method 61
4.1 Sample and Data collection 61
4.2 Biases in Survey based Research 64
4.3 Measures 65
4.3.1 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards for Creativity 65
4.3.2 Enjoyment in the task 66
4.3.3 Importance of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards 66
4.3.4 Creative Intention 67
4.3.5 Creative Self Efficacy 67
4.3.6 Locus of Control 67
4.3.7 Goal Orientation 68
4.3.8 Support for Creativity from Supervisor and Coworkers 69
4.3.9 Organizational Climate 69
4.3.10 Incremental and Radical Creative Behavior 70
4.3.11 Control Variables 70
xii
4.4 Analysis and Hypotheses Testing 70
Chapter Five
5. Analysis and Results 73
5.1 Data Validation 73
5.2 Rewards and Creative Behavior – Direct Effects 74
5.3 Mediation of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship 75
5.4 Rewards’ Importance as Moderator of Reward –
Creative Behavior Relationship 78
5.5 LOC and CSE as Moderators of Reward – Creative
Behavior Relationship 80
5.6 Goal Orientation as Moderator of Reward –
Creative Behavior Relationship 81
5.7 Support as Moderator of Reward – Creative
Behavior Relationship 83
5.8 Organizational Climate as Moderator of
Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship 85
5.9 Post hoc Analysis 89
Chapter Six
6. Discussions, Implications and Limitations 95
6.1 Discussions of the Results 95
6.1.1 Rewards and Creative Behavior – Direct Effects 97
xiii
6.1.2 Mediation of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship 99
6.1.3 Rewards’ Importance in the Context of Reward –
Creative Behavior Relationship 100
6.1.4 LOC and CSE in the Context of Reward –
Creative Behavior Relationship 101
6.1.5 Goal Orientation in the Context of Reward –
Creative Behavior Relationship 102
6.1.6 Support in the Context of Reward –
Creative Behavior Relationship 105
6.1.7 Organizational Climate in the Context of Reward –
Creative Behavior Relationship 106
6.2 Theoretical Contributions 108
6.3 Practical Implications 113
6.4 Limitations 118
6.5 Future Research Directions 119
Tables 121
Figures 144
References 156
Appendix 1 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis 176
Appendix 2 The Questionnaires 179
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Inter scale correlations
Table 2 Regression Results for Direct Effects of Rewards on Creative Behavior
Table 3a Mediating Effects of Intrinsic Rewards on Radical Creative Behavior
Table 3b Mediating Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Incremental Creative Behavior
Table 4 Rewards’ Importance as moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
Table 5 LOC and CSE as moderators of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative
Behavior Relationship
Table 6a Goal Orientation as moderator of Intrinsic Reward – Radical Creative
Behavior Relationship
Table 6b Goal Orientation as moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative
Behavior Relationship
Table 7a Support as moderator of Intrinsic Reward – Radical Creative Behavior
Relationship
Table 7b Support as the moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative
Behavior Relationship
Table 8a Innovation Climate as moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
Table 8b Traditional Climate as the moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
Table 9a Combined effects of moderators on Extrinsic rewards – Incremental
Creativity Relationship
xv
Table 9b Combined effects of Moderators on Intrinsic rewards – Radical Creativity
Relationship
Table 10a Enjoyment and Creative Intention as the mediators of relationship between
Intrinsic Rewards and Radical Creative Behavior
Table 10b Enjoyment and Creative Intention as the mediators of relationship between
Extrinsic Rewards and Incremental Creative Behavior
Table 11 Moderated Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Radical Creative Behavior
Table 12 Predictors of Radical Creative Behavior
Table 13 Moderated Effects of Intrinsic Rewards on Incremental Creative Behavior
Table 14 Interactional effects of Intrinsic Rewards and LOC & CSE
Table 15a Summary of Hypotheses and Results related to Direct effects of Rewards
on Creative Behavior
Table 15b Summary of Hypotheses and Results related to Mediated effects of
Rewards on Creative Behavior
Table 15c Summary of Hypotheses and Results related to Moderated effects of
Rewards on Creative Behavior
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Rewards, Motivation and Behavior
Figure 2a, b Frameworks for Mediated and Moderated Effects
Figure 3 Moderation of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative Behavior
Relationship through Rewards’ Importance
Figure 4 Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative Behavior
through Locus of Control (LOC)
Figure 5 Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative Behavior
through Creative Self Efficacy (CSE)
Figure 6 Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior through
Learning Goal Orientation (LGO)
Figure 7 Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative Behavior
through Performance Goal Orientation (PGO)
Figure 8 Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior through
Climate for Innovation
Figure 9 Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior through
Climate for Tradition
Figure 10 Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative Behavior
through Climate for Tradition
Figure 11 Mediated Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior
Figure 12 Mediated Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative
Behavior
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Capability to visualize and materialize creative solutions, flexibility to adapt to
changing situations and taking the fullest advantage of human imagination have become not
only the sources of competitive advantage for organizations, but also the predictors of their
survival and success (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Cooper & Jayatilaka, 2006).
Consequently, high research attention has been focused towards identifying various
predictors of creative behavior. Creativity research has attracted a huge research focus and
has generated more than 9000 studies during the last four decades (Prabhu, Sutton & Saucer,
2008), however, there are still unanswered questions and issues that the creativity researchers
are facing. One such issue is concerned with the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on
creative behavior of employees (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1998). Another area that warrants
more research effort is classification of different types of creative behavior and identification
of their predictors (Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Unsworth, 2001). The purpose of this study is to
address both of these issues and to try to answer some of the unresolved questions. In the
following section these two research avenues are briefly introduced and the research
questions for this study are formulated.
1.1 Statement of Research Problem and Research Questions
The debate regarding the impact of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards on creative
behavior is quite old (Cummings, 1965). There are two research streams that have tried to
explain the impact of rewards on creative behavior. Cognitive perspective subscribes that key
predictor of creative behavior is intrinsic motivation and that high level of intrinsic
2
motivation results in higher levels of creative behavior (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe,
1994). The cognitive research stream considers that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic
motivation (Amabile, 1985) and suggests that the impact of extrinsic rewards on creative
behavior is generally negative. Several empirical studies have supported this view and have
shown that extrinsic rewards lower intrinsic motivation as well as creative behavior (Amabile,
1979; Amabile, 1985). On the other hand, behaviorist research suggests that repeated
trainings and positive consequences can reinforce human behavior such as force, frequency
and novelty (Skinner, 1938). This view suggests that as creativity is a behavioral dimension,
appropriate intrinsic and extrinsic rewards can enhance creative behavior (Eisenberger &
Cameron, 1998). Thus the behaviorist perspective has advocated the application of extrinsic
rewards and has considered these rewards as a tool for enhancing creative behavior
(Eisenberger, Armeli & Pretz, 1998). Some empirical studies have supported this view and
have shown that extrinsic rewards can enhance intrinsic motivation as well as creative
behavior (Eisenberger et al., 1998; Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). Thus, although a general
consensus has emerged regarding the positive effects of intrinsic rewards on creative
behavior, the impact of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior is highly contested.
The conflicting findings of cognitive and behaviorist research streams are confusing
for researchers and managers. On one hand, research has clearly signified the value of
creative behavior for organizational and personal success; however on the other, it has failed
to predict - with confidence - the effects of various rewards on creative behavior of
employees. Thus a high research priority should be to explore the impact of these rewards on
creative behavior and also to identify factors that affect this relationship.
3
One of the basic purposes of this study was to clarify the ambiguous relationship
between rewards and creative behavior. One step that can bring more clarity to the reward
creativity debate is the study of underlying processes through which rewards affect creative
behavior of employees. A better understanding of these processes can not only add to the
body of knowledge in the reward – creativity research paradigm, but also can help
researchers to understand and hypothesize the specific direction in which different types of
rewards may affect creative behavior. Despite of the importance of studying these underlying
processes, previous research has considered reward – creative behavior relationship as a
black box and very little research effort has been directed towards studying the underlying
processes that connect rewards with creative behavior. The list of all such factors that can
mediate the relationship between rewards and creativity is inexhaustible. Thus the first
research question of this study was to identify some of the underlying processes through
which rewards affect creative behavior. In other words, the first aim of this study was to
identify some of the factors that mediate the reward – creative behavior relationship.
Research Question 1: What are some of the processes that mediate the relationship between
rewards and creative behavior?
Although the findings of cognitive and behaviorist research streams are at sharp
contrast to each other, they share some similar characteristics. Both of these research streams
have explored only the direct and un-moderated effects of extrinsic rewards on creative
behavior (i.e. Amabile, 1985; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). This could be the result of
research findings that show a consistent and direct relationship between intrinsic rewards and
4
creative behavior (i.e. Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 2001). Probably most of researchers have
expected a similar relationship between extrinsic rewards and creative behavior. Another
similarity between cognitive and behaviorist research is the expectation that extrinsic rewards
affect individuals in a similar fashion, irrespective of their dispositional characteristics and
contextual settings. There are only very few studies in the reward – creativity research that
have explored the possibility of varying effects of rewards on individuals, based on their
individual differences.
The debate regarding the comparative strength of personal and contextual factors as
the predictor of human behavior (i.e. Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989) is almost settled. It is
now generally accepted that human behavior is better predicted by considering the interaction
between personality traits and contextual factors (Sternberg, 2006). This approach suggests
that interaction between personality and context can explain human behavior more
effectively than either of these two alone (House, Shane & Herold, 1996). As creativity is a
behavioral dimension, it is safe to believe that it is also evoked by interaction of personal and
contextual factors. However, to date, the research exploring the interaction between rewards
and personal (or contextual) factors is extremely scarce. Creativity research has shown that in
certain situations, the reward – creative behavior relationship become positive and significant
(i.e. Eisenberger, Pierce & Cameron, 1999) whereas in others, the same relationship has
emerged as negative and significant (i.e. Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999). This situation points
towards presence of moderators that moderate the relationship between rewards and creative
behavior. Although reward – creative behavior research has attracted a lot of research interest
in general, the research to identify the moderators of reward – creative behavior relationship
is extremely scarce. The research to identify the moderators of this relationship is limited on
5
specific aspects of extrinsic rewards such as their significance, contingency and importance
(Yoon & Choi, 2010; Eisenberger et al., 1999). In the existing reward – creativity literature,
the research to identify the moderators of reward – creative behavior relationship (other than
the reward related aspects discussed above) is extremely scarce. The second purpose of this
research was to fill this gap and to identify some of the personal and contextual factors that
interact with rewards to produce creative behavior. Thus the second research question for the
current study is:
Research Question 2: What are some of the personal and contextual factors that moderate the
relationship between rewards and creative behavior?
Creativity has historically been considered as a unidirectional construct (Gilson &
Madjar, 2011, Unsworth, 2001). This narrow conception is one of the reasons of conflicting
research findings about the predictors and consequences of creative behavior (i.e.
Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Deci et al., 1999). However, recently, the creativity researchers
have focused on differentiating creative behavior in distinct types (i.e. Taggar, 2002; Gilson
& Madjar, 2011) and exploring the specific predictors of each type of creative behavior (i.e.
Madjar, Greenberg & Chen, 2011).
The third and final aim of this study was to explore the predictors of two distinct
types of creative contributions i.e. radical and incremental, in perspective of the reward –
creative behavior debate. In other words, the study aimed to explore the relationship between
the two types of rewards (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic) and the two types of creative behavior
(i.e. radical and incremental). The study also aimed to explore the boundary conditions in
6
which these predictors operate. This was reflected in the third research question of the
current study.
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between different types of rewards (intrinsic
and extrinsic) and different types of creative behavior (radical and incremental), and under
which conditions these rewards invoke creative behavior?
1.2 Research Significance
This study has two major aspects that contribute significantly to the creativity
research. First, it bridges the cognitive and behaviorist perspectives by showing the
conditions under which the impact of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior is positive (or
negative). The study suggests that personal and contextual factors moderate the reward –
creative behavior relationship and these factors determine the nature of impact that rewards
exert on creative behavior. It is important to mention that individual differences have never
been shown as the moderators of reward - creative behavior relationship in previous research
and thus this opens a new avenue in creativity research. Although the general cognitive –
behaviorist debate has embraced the social cognitive (or cognitive – behaviorism) paradigm
(Bandura, 1986), the reward – creative behavior debate is still focused on cognitive –
behaviorism dichotomy. This study is an effort to take the reward – creative behavior debate
to the next level, by combining cognitive (such as mental processes and cognitive styles) and
social (such as support and climate) elements in a framework to determine the impact of
rewards on human behavior.
7
Second, as creativity has largely been considered as a unidimentional construct, very
little research interest has been directed towards exploring the predictors of different type of
creative behaviors (Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Unsworth, 2001). This study adds to the body of
knowledge by connecting two distinct types of rewards i.e. extrinsic and intrinsic, with two
distinct type of creative behavior i.e. radical and incremental, and also by defining the
boundary conditions within which these rewards invoke specific types of creative behavior.
This is one of the earliest studies in the reward – creative behavior research paradigm that has
operationalized creative behavior as multidimensional construct and has linked specific
rewards with specific type of creative behavior.
The research findings of the current study would be significant for managers in three
ways. First, it would help them in designing incentive schemes and contextual conditions
under which they can use rewards to enhance creative behavior of their employee. Second,
the results of this research would help managers to understand how personal and contextual
factors interact with each other to produce creative behavior and hence, it will help them to
create the environment which compliments the personal dispositions of its employees.
Finally, it would inform managers about the specific personal and contextual factors that
affect the incremental and radical creative outcomes, hence enabling them to utilize the
resources of organizations more efficiently and to achieve the type of creative behavior
which the organization requires.
1.3 Definitions
In this section the definitions of psychological constructs that are used in the current
study are presented.
8
1.3.1 Creativity
There are several definitions of creativity, however, for the purpose of this
dissertation, creativity is defined as an outcome - in the form of a product, service, procedure
or process - which is novel as well as useful (Amabile, 1983; Amabile 1996a). Creativity can
be operationalized as idea generation, behavioral exhibition or individual difference.
However, for this study, creativity is conceptualized and operationalized as ‘creative
behavior’, thus although theoretically distinct, the words ‘creativity’ and ‘creative behavior’
are used interchangeably throughout this dissertation.
1.3.2 Radical and Incremental Creative Behavior
Gilson and Madjar (2011) defined radical creative behavior as behaviors that “differ
substantially from existing practices and alternatives”. Such behavior results in “new and set-
breaking frameworks or processes”. The same authors defined incremental creative behavior
as behaviors that result in “changes in frameworks and approaches and modifications to the
existing practices and products.”
1.3.3 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards
Intrinsic motivation is defined as the desire of performing an activity as an end in
itself, to have the enjoyment of performing the activity without any expectation or desire of
extrinsic reward (Lepper, Grene & Nisbett, 1973; Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994).
The rewards that induce intrinsic motivation in individuals are termed as intrinsic rewards.
On the other hand, extrinsic motivation refers to the desire of performing an activity to
achieve an outcome, other than the activity itself. The rewards that induce extrinsic
motivation in individuals are referred to as extrinsic rewards.
9
Rewards (especially extrinsic rewards) can enhance creative behavior only when it is
clear to the recipients that rewards are dependent on exhibition of creative behavior. There
is also sufficient research evidence that rewards’ contingency is a basic requirement for the
conversion of rewards into creative behavior (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). Without this
reward contingency, the relation between rewards and creative behavior is insignificant
(Eisenberger et al., 1998). Thus this study employs the approach suggested by Yoon and
Choi (2010), which is to replace intrinsic and extrinsic rewards with ‘intrinsic rewards for
creativity’ and ‘extrinsic rewards for creativity’. Throughout this study the word ‘rewards’
(both intrinsic and extrinsic) refers to the rewards that are contingent on creative behavior.
1.3.4 Enjoyment
Enjoyment is defined as the degree to which performing an activity is perceived as
providing pleasure and joy in its own right aside from performance consequences (Venkatesh,
2000; p 351).
1.3.5 Creative Intention
Creative intention is defined as “the degree of motivation an individual has to engage
in creative behavior within a given setting” (Choi, 2004).
1.3.6 Locus of Control
Locus of control refers to “the perception about who is in control of events around
us” (Rotter, 1966). Research on LOC has revealed that individuals can be classified in two
categories i.e. internals and externals. Internals or the individuals with an internal LOC
attribute their success and failures to their own capabilities and have high expectations about
their control on the situations and events that affect them. Externals – the individuals with
10
external LOC – perceive external factors as controlling the events around them and have a
low sense of self control (Rotter, 1966).
1.3.7 Self Efficacy
Self efficacy (SE) has been defined as an individual’s belief in his / her capabilities to
meet a situational demand (Wood & Bandura, 1989). High self efficacy does not indicate the
presence of capabilities but rather a perception about the presence of such capabilities. Thus,
individuals with high SE have a strong belief in their capabilities and competence.
1.3.8 Goal Orientation
Elliott and Dweck (1988) defined goal orientation as “individual’s response to
achievement setting” and proposed it as the major determinant of achievement pattern. Goal
orientation has also been defined as the orientation which “determines individuals’
interpretation and response to achievement situations” (Elliott & Church, 1997). In other
words, goal orientation of individuals predicts their behavior in achievement situations such
as failures and successes. Goal orientation has been classified in two types, i.e. learning goal
and performance goal orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). The primary goal of individuals
with a learning orientation is to increase their competence whereas the primary goal of
individuals with a performance goal orientation is to demonstrate their ability and to avoid
negative judgments about their competence.
1.3.9 Organizational Climate
Litwin and stringer (1968) defined organizational climate as “a set of measurable
properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people who live
and work in this environment” (p 1). Researchers have classified organizational climate in
11
different types such as climate for innovation, climate for tradition, climate for quality and
climate for welfare etc. (Patterson et al., 2005).
1.3.10 Support for creativity
Support for creativity is defined as “the extent to which individuals aid and encourage
employees' creative performance” (Madjar, Oldham & Pratt, 2002). Madjar et al. (2002)
classified support for creativity in two distinct types, i.e. support for creativity from
supervisors and support for creativity from coworkers. The current study also employed the
same operationalization of support for creativity.
1.4 Arrangement of the Remaining Dissertation
This dissertation is being arranged in six chapters. This, the first chapter introduced
the research problem, identified the research questions, presented the significance of study
and provided the definitions of psychological constructs used in the subsequent chapters. The
second and third chapters are dedicated for review of the relevant literature.
The second chapter deals with definition and classification of creativity. It further introduced
the reward – creative behavior debate and links this debate with the classification of creative
behavior. Finally, it reflects on the cognitive processes through which rewards invoke
creative behavior in individuals.
The third chapter starts with an overview of the personality and creativity literature
and the relationship between the two. The chapter then moves towards the debate regarding
the impact of reward on creative behavior and links several personal and contextual factors
with this debate. At the end of this chapter a framework is constructed, using the hypotheses
developed in chapter two and three. The framework connects the three research questions (i.e.
12
classification of creative behavior, mediators of reward – creative behavior relationships and
the moderators of reward – creative behavior relationship) with each other.
The fourth chapter discusses the methods that are used to test the framework
constructed in the third chapter. It presents the details of sampling plan and data collection
processes. The measures used to operationalize the constructs and tools used to analyze the
data are also discussed.
The fifth chapter is dedicated for the presentation of results. It starts with data
validation and then moves on to test the hypotheses one by one. Finally it addresses the
questions that the results have invoked.
The last chapter discusses the results in detail. It highlights the theoretical and
practical implications of the findings and finally presents the limitations of the current study.
13
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
CREATIVITY AND REWARD – CREATIVITY RESEARCH
Guilford (1950) pointed out in his presidential address to the American
Psychologist Association that creativity was an important area of study, but largely
neglected in the scientific research. This has resulted in much research interest and effort
towards studying the individual and contextual predictors of creative behavior (Shalley,
Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Creative research has generated more than 9000 studies during
the last four decades (Prabhu et al., 2008), however there are several unanswered
questions and issues that the creativity researchers are facing. One such issue is defining
creativity.
2.1 Definition and Measurement of Creativity
For psychometric work, any variable requires an unequivocal definition and a
reliable and valid measure (Batey & Furnham, 2006). This is exactly the point where the
problem for creativity researchers starts. Defining creativity is a complex task, as
creativity can be defined in terms of thought process (such as divergent thinking), in
terms of behavior (such as finding new ways of doing repeated tasks) and also in terms of
a final product (such as inventing a new machine). Mooney (1963) has noted four
significantly different approaches, with which creativity can be defined. These four
approaches are:
1- The environment in which the creation comes about or the creative environment,
2- The output of creativity, or the creative product,
14
3- The process of creativity, or the creative process, and
4- The person who is creative, or the creative personality.
Based on these four approaches, Taylor (1988) identified 50 different definitions
of creativity proposed over the last five decades. He suggested that these definitions are
so different that a highly creative person according to one definition might not be
considered as creative with respect to another definition. Batey and Furnham (2006)
remarked that creativity has been defined in so many diverse ways that it has almost
ceased to mean anything. These researchers identified eight different methods used in
research to operationalize individual creativity. These eight methods were divergent
thinking tests, attitudes and interest inventories, personality inventories, biographical
inventories, judgments of products, ratings of eminence, self-reported creative activities
and ratings by peers, teachers, and supervisors (Batey & Furnham, 2006). One can easily
appraise that some of the methods view creativity as a cognitive process, others view it as
a behavior or attitude and yet others consider it as a personality trait and as individual
difference. Focusing on these issues, Simonton (1999) noted that a single definition of
creativity which could satisfy all of the diverse approaches is difficult to achieve and
Sternberg (1999) suggested that the “essence of creativity cannot be captured in a single
variable” (p. 84).
Despite the issues in defining creativity, there are some definitions that are widely
used and accepted. I use one such definition of creativity which defines creativity as an
outcome - in the form of a product, service, procedure or process - which is novel as well
as useful (Amabile, 1983; Amabile 1996a). This definition is comparatively broader than
many of the other definitions, as it incorporates several aspects of creativity by including
15
the outcomes (whether a product or service) as well as the process of reaching to that
outcome (such as exhibiting creative behavior) in the realm of creativity. This makes the
definition equally valid in varying contexts where the creative outcome is apparently
different from each other, and hence, this definition has been frequently used by
creativity researchers (i.e. Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Shalley, Gilson & Blum, 2000; Fong, 2006; Gilson & Madjar, 2011).
2.2 Classification of Creativity
Creativity has been classified in several different ways, such as on the basis of
level of analysis (i.e. team versus individual creativity (Taggar, 2002)), on the basis of the
nature of creative outcome (i.e. incremental versus radical creativity (Gilson & Madjar,
2011)) and on the basis of relationship with existing paradigm (i.e. replication, re-
direction and re-initiation (Sternberg, 2006)). I will briefly discuss one of these
classifications that is relevant for the present framework, i.e. incremental and radical
creativity.
2.2.1 Incremental and Radical Creativity
Creativity has generally been defined as production of an idea, a process or a
product that is both novel and useful (Amabile, 1996a). One criterion that has frequently
been used to classify creativity is the extent to which the idea, product or process is novel
(Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). The ‘novel-ness’ may range from a minor adaptation to
“set-breaking heuristics and radical breakthroughs” (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). Somewhat
similar distinction is present in the innovation literature which defines ‘exploration’ and
‘exploitation’ differently (e.g. Dewar & Dutton, 1986; March, 1991). Exploration is
16
termed as turning towards new practices and ideas, something which is entirely new and
different from the past, whereas exploitation is used to describe progression of current
practices, small gains in efficiency and performance, and improvements in existing
products (March, 1991). Benner and Tushman, (2003) noted that these are different types
of creative contributions and one is not superior to the other. Both of these contributions
are critical for organizational success and are key drivers of performance.
Research on counterfactual mindsets (i.e. Kray, Galinsky & Wong, 2006) also
supports the distinction between incremental and radical creative behavior. Persons with
counterfactual mind-sets are defined as the ones who frequently compare reality with
what might have been, and frequently ask ‘what if’ type of questions (such as, ‘if I had
married that other person, what would have happened’). In a study to explore the effects
of counterfactual mind-sets on the cognitive processes and creative behavior, Kray et al.
(2006) found that individuals with counterfactual mind-sets performed better on ‘creative
association’ tasks (creative tasks requiring ‘thinking inside the box’) whereas they
performed poorly on ‘creative generation’ tasks (creative tasks requiring ‘thinking
outside the box’). The distinction between creative association and creative generation is
similar to that between incremental and radical creative behavior. Creative generation and
radical creative behavior correspond to creating something new, totally different from the
existing products and processes whereas both creative association and incremental
creative behavior refer to minor adaptations and building on the existing products and
processes (March, 1991).
Radical and incremental creativity may be viewed as two ends of a single
continuum, with several points between the two extremes. This idea is strengthened by
17
the propulsion model of creativity (Sternberg, 2006) that classified creative contributions
in eight different types divided in three categories. On one end are the contributions that
accept the current paradigm, such as ‘replication’ and ‘redefinition’. These types of
creative contributions are quite close to what was termed as incremental creativity by
Gilson and Madjar (2011). On the other end of Sternberg’s classification are creative
contributions such as redirection, reconstruction and re-initiation that reject the current
paradigm. These are close to what has been defined as radical or breakthrough creativity.
The radical and incremental creative behaviors are useful in different stages of
problem solving process and are triggered by different set of predictors. In one of the
very few empirical studies to differentiate between radical and incremental creative
behavior, Gilson and Madjar (2011) showed that radical creative behavior is useful in the
early part of problem solving such as problem identification and construction, whereas,
incremental creative behavior is more useful at the later part of problem solving process
such as at the solution identification and execution stage. In an empirical study to identify
the predictors of incremental and radical creative behavior, Madjar et al. (2011) found
that willingness to take risk and career commitment were strongly related with radical
creative behavior, whereas presence of creative coworkers and organizational
identification were more strongly related with incremental creative behavior.
2.3 Relationship between Rewards and Creative Behavior
In this rapidly changing world, flexibility to adapt to new environments and
providing innovative solutions to the customers are becoming major competitive
advantages and the most important predictors of organizational success and survival
18
(Cooper & Jayatilaka, 2006; Hunter, Bedell & Mumford, 2007; Mumford & Gustafson,
1988). This has resulted in a high research interest towards studying various predictors of
creative behavior. An area which has gathered a lot of research interest within the
creativity research paradigm is the impact of extrinsic rewards (such as verbal
encouragement, tangible rewards and recognition) in comparison with intrinsic rewards
(such as feeling involvement and playfulness in activity and getting fun and self
satisfaction from it) on creative behavior. Intrinsic rewards induce intrinsic motivation,
referred to the desire of performing an activity as an end in itself, to have the enjoyment
of performing the activity without any expectation or desire of extrinsic reward (Lepper
et al., 1973; Amabile et al., 1994). On the other hand, extrinsic rewards induce extrinsic
motivation, referred to the desire of performing an activity to achieve an outcome, other
than the activity itself. Deci and Ryan (1985) suggest that extrinsic motivation results
from the perception of an instrumental connection between the behavior and some
extrinsic rewards, whereas in case of intrinsic motivation, there is no connection between
behavior and any external reward (Cooper & Jayatilaka, 2006). Figure 1 clarifies the
distinction between rewards, motivators and motivation.
Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are two important types of motivators (Eisenberger
& Shanock, 2003). These rewards induce certain type of motivation (i.e. intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, respectively) in individuals and this motivation leads towards the
exhibition of certain type of behavior, such as creative behavior (Deci et al., 2001). The
present study has explored the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and
creative behavior, however it should be kept in mind that this relationship works through
the inducement of certain type of motivation in the individuals (Wiersma, 1992). As
19
rewards are not psychological constructs, the relationship at the theoretical level exists
only between motivation and individual behavior and not between specific rewards and
behavior. The relationship between rewards and behavior exists at the observable /
empirical level (Deci et al., 1999).
The debate regarding the impact of rewards on creative behavior is probably as
old as the research on creativity itself (Cummings, 1965). There are two distinct research
streams that connect extrinsic rewards with creative behavior, though in somewhat
conflicting manner. The first is the cognitive perspective, sometimes referred as
‘romanticism’ (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). This view subscribe that the fundamental
pre-requisite and key predictor of creative behavior is intrinsic motivation and that high
level of intrinsic motivation results in higher level of creativity. Most of the researchers
converge on this point, i.e. high intrinsic motivation in an activity leads to creative
behavior, however the role of extrinsic motivation (and rewards that induce this
motivation) is the departing point of the two research streams. The cognitive research
stream suggests that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation which is the key to
creative behavior (Amabile, 1985) and thus the role of extrinsic rewards is viewed as
detrimental to creative behavior. This view holds the position that extrinsic rewards, with
a few exceptions (i.e. verbal and unexpected rewards) are generally detrimental for
creative behavior (Deci et al., 1999). On the other hand is the behaviorist research stream
which assumes that any performance dimension such as rate, force and novelty can be
reinforced, using intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Skinner, 1938). This view suggests that
repeated training and reinforcement can control human behavior and as creativity is a
behavioral dimension, it can also be controlled and enhanced by using appropriate
20
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. This research stream suggests that with the help of
properly administered extrinsic rewards, creative behavior can be enhanced and the
negative effects of external rewards on creative behavior are not generalizable to every
situation (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1998). The behaviorist perspective encourages the use
of extrinsic rewards and views these rewards as a tool for enhancing creative behavior
(Eisenberger et al., 1998).
2.4 Relationship between Rewards and Classification of Creative Behavior
In the above sections, I have briefly summarized the apparently conflicting
research findings of cognitive and behaviorist researchers. One possible reason of the
inconsistent research findings is forwarded by Unsworth (2001). She proposed that the
creative outcome can differ because of the reason behind the creative behavior and
because of different starting points of the creative process. Gilson and Madjar (2011) also
proposed that the established view of creativity as a unidimensional construct without
considering various types of creative behavior could be a potential source of error and it
is possible that both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards trigger creative behavior – but of
different types.
Human behavior that is driven by intrinsic interest in an activity has higher level
of involvement in that activity compared to the behavior that is initiated by extrinsic
rewards (Amabile 1996a). It suggests that intrinsic rewards produce the type of creative
behavior that requires higher level of involvement. In contrast, extrinsic rewards cannot
produce high involvement in the activity and thus can produce the type of creative
behavior which is less dependent on involvement. High level of involvement in an
21
activity produces breakthrough and novel ideas and the type of creative behavior that is
resulted from such cognitive processes is generally radical in nature (Gilson & Madjar,
2011). In contrast, incremental creative behavior is produced when there is less
involvement in the activity and the ideas produced are based on replication and
redefinition of the current practices. Based on the same grounds, Gilson and Madjar
(2011) suggested that the relation between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior
is much stronger than that between extrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior.
Similarly the relation between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior is
stronger than that between extrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior. Gilson, Lim,
D'Innocenzo and Moye (2012) also suggested that the persistence and absorption that
radical creative behavior requires can come from intrinsic interest in the activity and not
from extrinsic rewards. Presence of high intrinsic rewards results in increased risk taking
behavior, increase persistence to face unfavorable evaluations and hence facilitates the
exhibition of radical creative behavior (Gilson et al., 2012). Thus it appears that the deep
level of involvement that comes from intrinsic rewards in an activity trigger creative
behavior that is radical in nature, whereas extrinsic rewards produce creative behaviors
that are less radical and are incremental in nature. Using the same logic, I hypothesize
that:
Hypothesis 1: Intrinsic rewards for creativity trigger radical creative behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Extrinsic rewards for creativity trigger incremental creative
behavior.
22
Although motivation and creativity literature – in general - suggests a significant
link between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior and between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior, some real life examples suggest otherwise. The
careers of many great scientists and mathematicians showed that anticipated rewards
enhanced creative behavior to the extent that it resulted in major breakthroughs.
Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) cited an example of famous scientist, James Watson, the
co-discoverer of molecular mechanism of human heredity transfer, for whom the desire
to win a nobel prize was instrumental in returning him back to work from the extended
periods of diversion. In this case, the desire of getting an extrinsic reward triggered
radical creative behavior. Thus, although I hypothesize that the relation between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior would be stronger than that between extrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior, I do not exclude the possibility of extrinsic
rewards leading towards radical creative behavior and this remains an exploratory part of
the current study.
In the next sections I will explore the cognitive and behaviorist perspectives and
the theories underlying these perspectives in detail.
2.5 The Cognitive Perspective
More than five decades back, Crutchfield (1961) proposed that intrinsic rewards
facilitate creative thinking and extrinsic rewards inhibit it (Kasof, Chuansheng, Himsel &
Greenberger, 2007). There is a lot of empirical research that backs this view (Cooper &
Jayatilaka, 2006; Conti, Collins & Picariello, 2001; Deci et al., 2001). Cognitive
researchers maintain that under normal working conditions in our institutions such as
23
schools, colleges and industry, extrinsic rewards inhibit creative behavior. These theorists
have proposed several theories to explain how extrinsic rewards negatively affect creative
behavior. Some of these are discussed here.
2.5.1 Over Justification Hypothesis
Most of the cognitive research stems from the ‘Over justification’ hypothesis
presented by Lepper et al. (1973). It suggests that individuals, while performing an
activity, attribute their behavior either to internal (intrinsic) or to external (extrinsic)
factors. Further, it suggests that in the presence of extrinsic factors, the tendency of
attributing an action to the internal factors is reduced. In these situations, individuals feel
less personal interest, less competence and more behaviorally controlled (Cooper &
Jayatilaka, 2006). Hence even when performing an interesting activity, individuals would
be less intrinsically motivated, if extrinsic rewards are present or if those individuals have
previously worked under the pressure of extrinsic rewards. Over justification hypothesis
become the foundation stone for several theories such as cognitive evaluation theory and
intrinsic motivation theory.
2.5.2 Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Deci (1971) argued that there are some activities that are intrinsically rewarding and
hence no extrinsic rewards are required to perform those activities. This was an important
step towards the development of Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET). Later, Deci and
colleagues (Deci, 1971; Deci & Cascio, 1972; Deci, Nezlek & Sheinman, 1981) explored
the question that ‘what would be the impact of extrinsic rewards on these intrinsically
rewarding activities’. These reserchers found negative effects of extrinsic rewards on
these activities (Deci, 1971; Deci & Cascio, 1972). Several extrinsic rewards (threat,
24
deadlines, competition, and climate) were shown to negatively affect intrinsic interest in
the activity. Discovering the negative effects on extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation
proved to be the second and decisive step in the formulation of CET.
Deci and Ryan (1980) proposed CET which suggests that extrinsic rewards affect
intrinsic motivation through the mechanisms of self determination and competence. This
theory suggests that rewards that induce the perceptions of lowered self control and
reduced self competence negatively affect intrinsic motivation. For cognitive theorists,
these two dimensions, especially the first one (controlling) are present in almost every
extrinsic reward, as rewards are perceived as a means to control human behavior. Hence
the rewards that signal an external control (as opposed to internal control) and in-
competency, lower the perceptions of self control and competence, and are considered to
be detrimental to intrinsic motivation as well as for creative behavior (Deci et al., 2001).
Although cognitive researchers recognize that some extrinsic rewards (such as verbal
encouragement) can enhance creative behavior (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri & Holt, 1984,
Deci et al., 2001), in most of the cases researched by cognitive researchers, the overall
effect of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior is negative. The most damaging rewards
are found to be performance contingent rewards, when the participants fail to get the
maximum reward (Deci et al., 2001) and hence the reward signals in-competency on part
of the receiver.
Early cracks in CET started appearing in the 1980s. Several studies showed that
negative effects of rewards are limited only to those activities that require a high level of
intrinsic interest whereas other activities are not affected negatively by extrinsic rewards.
In one of the earliest meta analysis on the effects of extrinsic reward, Rummel and
25
Feinberg (1988) showed that although the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation is negative, the impact is positive for job performance. In subsequent
experiments, conducted by behaviorist researchers (i.e. Eisenberger & Cameraon, 1996;
Eisenberger, Pierce & Cameron, 1999), several other conditions were identified in which
the negative effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation can be avoided. Some
studies even reported positive effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation and
creative behavior (i.e. Eisenberger et al., 1998). This raised serious doubts about the
external validity of CET and it started to lose its appeal as well as explaining power.
Eventually, Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed the self determination theory (SDT),
acknowledging that some extrinsic rewards are internalized in a way that these can
enhance intrinsic motivation and creativity (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
2.5.3 Intrinsic Motivation Theory
Intrinsic motivation theory suggests that the intrinsically motivated individuals
are deeply involved in the activity for the sake of the activity itself. These individuals are
not concerned primarily about external factors, outside of the activity and hence they are
more playful with ideas and materials. In the absence of extrinsic rewards such as
deadline and rewards to complete the activity, they are free and willing to explore
different and divergent aspects of that activity (Amabile et al., 1994). The theory further
suggests that these individuals are more prone to taking risks as they are not distracted by
the thoughts of negative outcomes. These individuals see the activity not as a means to a
desirable end but as the end in itself and not as work but as play. This deep involvement,
playfulness, enjoyment and indulging in divergent ideas facilitates the exhibition of
creative behavior (Amabile et al., 1994). Ruscio, Whitney and Amabile (1998) presented
26
an interesting example of rats exploring the maze field. When their exploration is not for
the sake of searching an exit, but just for the pleasure of exploring the maze field, they
are more likely to discover those unobvious exits which other rats - that are searching for
the easiest escape - are not able to locate.
Thus intrinsic motivation theory suggests that the presence of intrinsic rewards to
perform an activity results in a higher level of enjoyment, involvement and interest in that
activity and these cognitive states lead towards exhibition of creative behavior. In other
words, enjoyment, involvement and interest mediate the relationship between intrinsic
rewards and creative behavior. Although these three cognitive states (enjoyment,
involvement and interest) are significantly related with intrinsic rewards, two of these (i.e.
involvement and interest) are also related with extrinsic rewards, though less significantly
(Amabile et. al, 1994). Hence, enjoyment is the only cognitive state that is triggered
exclusively from intrinsic rewards and not from extrinsic rewards. Thus I formulate the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Enjoyment in performing an activity will mediate the positive and
significant relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior.
2.5.4 Empirical Research Supporting Cognitive Perspective
Research, supportive of the inhibiting creativity perspective is in abundance (Jung,
2000; Amabile, Hennessey & Grossman, 1986). In one of the studies, Deci (1971) found
that in the presence of financial rewards, intrinsic motivation to perform an activity
decreases, however, verbal reinforcement and positive feedback enhanced intrinsic
motivation. In another experiment, Amabile (1979) studied the effects of external
27
evaluation on the artistic creativity of college students. She found that the non evaluation
group performed significantly higher on judged creativity and was more intrinsically
motivated than the evaluation group. In another experiment, young adults were asked to
write two brief poems (Amabile, 1985). After writing the first poem, extrinsic feelings
were induced in half of the participants and intrinsic feelings in the others, and both were
asked to write another poem. Researchers found that there was no significant difference
in the first poems, however after the motivational manipulation, the creativity of subjects
in which intrinsic feelings were induced significantly increased whereas creativity of the
extrinsically charged group dropped even below than its initial level.
Some meta-analyses also support this perspective. In one of the earlier meta-
analysis, Rummel and Fienberg (1988) viewed 45 studies published between 1971 and
1985. They found that of the 88 effects studied, 83 showed that extrinsic rewards
undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). Wiserma (1992) found through a
meta-analysis that on one hand extrinsic rewards undermine creative behavior while on
the other, they enhance performance and efficiency. In a meta-analysis of 128 studies,
Deci et al. (1999), found that all tangible extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic
motivation significantly.
The cognitive researchers suggest that extrinsic rewards can enhance efficiency
and performance for those activities that do not require divergent thinking and path
breaking ideas, such as day to day operations. However as creativity by definition is
divergent thinking and breaking established norms, external rewards downplay those
tasks that require creativity and innovation (Amabile et al., 1986). Amabile et al. (1986)
also cited the examples where extrinsic rewards are found to negatively affect the tasks
28
involving memory, attention and verbal learning. On the basis of these arguments,
cognitive theorists propose that in industrial and educational organizations, only those
rewards should be offered that highlight the importance of intrinsic motivation. Amabile
(1996b) suggested that:
“If managers operate on the simplistic “scientific management”
notion that extrinsic motivation is always necessary and always
positive, they can wander into a hopeless quagmire. It is extremely
difficult to establish extrinsic reward systems that elicit exactly the
behaviors that are desired; these systems are almost always
flawed” (p 9).
2.6 The Behaviorist Perspective
The other research stream reflects on the issue from a behaviorist perspective. The
basic behavior theory assumes that any performance dimension such as rate, duration,
force, variability and novelty etc. can be reinforced, using internal and external rewards
(Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Fundamental to this view is the utilitarian perspective of
human nature which holds that behavior can be strengthened and reinforced through
positive consequences (Skinner, 1938). This view also holds that as creativity is a
behavioral dimension, it can also be reinforced using appropriate intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards, (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Several theories, stemming from the
behavioral theory support this perspective.
2.6.1 Learned Industriousness Theory
A theory that predicts the positive effects of rewards on creative behavior is
‘Learned Industriousness theory’ (Eisenberger 1992). This theory assumes that people
29
subconsciously learn the dimension of performance (accuracy, productivity, creativity
etc) that is generally rewarded. Later, under reward conditions, these people focus their
efforts on that dimension whereas other performance dimensions get secondary
consideration (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). The behaviorist theorists hold opinion that
in most of organizational settings, the rewards are generally contingent on efficiency and
not on creativity. Hence under rewards conditions, people tend to focus on increasing
their productivity and efficiency whereas creativity gets only a secondary importance.
Sometimes the cognitive resources are so engaged in enhancing the efficiency that
creativity is sacrificed and it fell below its normal level. Eisenberger and Cameron (1998)
suggested that it is an easily avoidable situation and by changing the reward contingency
to creativity, the negative effects of rewards on creative behavior can easily be avoided.
Through several experiments, Eisenberger and colleagues showed that when rewards are
contingent on creative behavior, the impact of extrinsic rewards is positive on job
performance, job motivation, intrinsic motivation as well as on individual creativity
(Eisenberger et al., 1998).
2.6.2 Creativity as an Intentional Decision
Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) suggested that creativity is an intentional
decision. They proposed that if extrinsic rewards are perceived as important by the
receivers and are contingent on creative behavior, they produce an intentional decision
(intention) to behave creatively. Intrinsic rewards on the other hand, do not produce an
intentional decision of being creative to get the rewards, as people indulge in the activity
not to get the rewards but for fun and enjoyment in the activity (Amabile, et. al, 1994),
which further leads to creative behavior.
30
Sternberg (2006) in the ‘Investment Theory’ of creativity suggested that creativity
is not just a skill or ability but also a decision and attitude towards life. His basic premise
was that “creativity is in large part a decision that anyone can make but that few people
actually do make because they find the costs to be too high” (Sternberg, 2006: p 97). This
view also proposed that creative behavior is intentional and any factor (including
extrinsic rewards) that helps to build this intention can enhance creative behavior.
Choi (2004) proposed that creative behavior is mediated through ‘creative intention’ and
‘creative self efficacy’. In other words, extrinsic rewards initiate a desire and intention to
exhibit creative behavior, in order to get the rewards. This intention results in a conscious
effort to produce creative behavior. This phenomenon points towards a difference
between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in triggering creative behavior. Intrinsic rewards
generate creative behavior at subconscious level through the feelings of enjoyment and
involvement whereas extrinsic rewards generate creative behavior by initiating a
conscious desire to behave creatively. Thus, I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4: Creative intention will mediate the positive and significant
relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior.
2.6.3 Empirical Research Supporting Behaviorists Perspective
Several empirical studies and meta-analyses support the behaviorist perspective
(Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Choi, 2004; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). In most of
these studies, either it was explicitly stated that the reward was contingent on creative
performance or the creative performance was reinforced by awarding divergent thoughts
prior to the experiment. Eisenberger et al. (1998), in a study of fifth and sixth grade
children, explicitly announced before the experiment to half of the participants that the
31
rewards were contingent on novelty and creativity of their performance. The other
participants were not told about the reward. The researchers found that the group to
which reward was promised performed significantly higher on the creativity dimension
than the group to which no reward was offered. In another experiment, reported in the
same study, half of the participants were given training of divergent thinking through an
unusual task and were verbally appreciated for their divergent thinking ability. The other
half of the participants were given a usual task and were appreciated for common and
routine thinking. Later on, all the participants were asked to perform a creative task. The
researchers found that the first group (that was earlier awarded for divergent thinking)
exhibited significantly higher level of creativity than the group that was awarded for
usual and non divergent thinking. These experiments suggest that extrinsic rewards can
enhance creative performance in two situations. Either it is to be explicitly informed that
the reward is contingent on divergent thinking or the divergent thinking should be
reinforced with the help of prior rewards or activities (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003).
Behaviorist theorists propose that as most of the studies performed by cognitive
researchers did not fulfill either of these conditions, they failed to capture the positive
effects of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003).
Behaviorist theorists suggest that as the reward contingency can be easily manipulated in
common day activities, extrinsic rewards can play an important role in promoting
creative behavior in schools, colleges and industries (Eisemberger & Aselage, 2009).
Eisenberger and Cameron (1998) suggest that the negative effects of rewards on creative
behavior occur under ‘highly restricted’ and ‘easily avoidable’ conditions and that the
positive effects of rewards on creative behavior are ‘readily attainable’. Eisenberger &
32
Shanock (2003) are of the view that the careers of many great scientists and
mathematicians show that anticipated rewards often increase creativity. Yuan and
Woodman (2010) also found that outcome expectations and employee reputation of being
innovative relates positively with creative behavior, suggesting a link between extrinsic
rewards and creative behavior.
In a meta-analysis of 20 studies, Winston and Baker (1985) found compelling
evidence that if creative behavior is previously awarded, the future rewards can
effectively enhance divergent thinking (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). Another meta-
analysis by Eisenberger et al. (1999) found that when the criterion of reward distribution
was creativity, rewards significantly increased intrinsic motivation to involve in that
activity. These research findings suggest that extrinsic rewards can play an important role
in fostering creativity and that the detrimental effects of rewards are more limited than
the common belief (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Bandura, criticizing the general
condemnation of extrinsic rewards suggested that:
“Indiscriminate indictment of positive incentives as underminers of
interest reflects for the most part, the triumph of doctrine over
evidence” (Bandura, 1997; p 211).
2.7 Importance of Rewards
Expectancy theory suggests that rewards can influence human behavior only
when rewards are perceived as important by the individuals to whom these are offered
(Vroom, 1964). Schwab, Olian-Gottlieb and Heneman (1979) showed that when the
rewards were highly valued by the performers, the relationship between reward and
33
performance became stronger. Yoon and Choi (2010) showed that the effects of extrinsic
rewards on creative behavior were significant only when the rewards were perceived to
be important. This is probably true for all types of rewards, as rewards (either intrinsic or
extrinsic) affect human behavior only when these are perceived to be important and
meaningful. As every individual pursue different goals and put different weight to
various rewards (Luna-Arocas & Tang, 2004), it is reasonable to believe that the same
reward may affect different individuals differently depending upon the importance that
the individuals place on that reward. In other words, importance of rewards moderates the
relationship between rewards and human behavior, such as creativity. Hence I
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5: Importance of intrinsic rewards moderates the relationship
between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior such that the relationship
between rewards and creativity is stronger when the rewards are perceived to be
important.
Hypothesis 6: Importance of extrinsic rewards moderates the relationship
between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such that the
relationship between rewards and creativity is stronger when the rewards are
perceived to be important.
2.8 Convergence of Cognitive and Behaviorist Perspective
After taking strict positions in the past, cognitive and behaviorist researchers have
recently explored some common grounds. Behaviorists have found instances when
extrinsic rewards failed to enhance creative behavior and instead suppressed it, wherever
34
cognitive theorists theorized situations in which extrinsic rewards can enhance creative
behavior.
Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) found that when the reward was too big and
salient, it undermined creative behavior of students. They suggested that such rewards
shifted the attention and focus from the activity and thus inhibited creative behavior.
Eisenberger et al. (1998) also found that when the rewards were not contingent on
creative behavior, they also failed to enhance creative behavior.
Deci et al. (2001) suggested that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are
interrelated and all kinds of extrinsic rewards do not necessarily undermine intrinsic
motivation. SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) incorporates the basic elements of CET, but is
much broader in its scope. SDT blurs the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation by suggesting that some forms of extrinsic rewards have the same effect on
behaviors (such as creative behavior) as the effects of intrinsic rewards. SDT suggests a
dichotomy between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation, the former
enhancing creative behavior whereas the later suppressing it. SDT also explains the
process through which some forms of extrinsic rewards become identical as autonomous
rewards, i.e. internalization of extrinsic factors (such as rules) so that the external factor
becomes an integral part of one’s identity and personality (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Some researchers have proposed that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are two
independent and theoretically distinct constructs. These can attain high or low values
independent of each other, thus an increase in one is not essentially at the cost of the
other. Amabile et al. (1994), after studying extrinsic and intrinsic motivational levels in
35
hundreds of individuals, suggested that individuals can be divided in four types: “dually
motivated, intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated and unmotivated” (p 966).
Amabile (1985) suggested that there is the possibility of synergetic interaction between
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. She proposed that intrinsic motivation is more
important in some stages of the creative process such as problem presentation and idea
generation while extrinsic motivation may be more important in stages such as working
out fine details and idea communication. Amabile (1993) also suggested that extrinsic
motivation can combine synergistically with intrinsic motivation if the initial level of
intrinsic motivation in an activity is high.
A similar idea is forwarded by Kasof et al. (2007) who suggested that the journey
leading to creativity is not entirely made up of interesting and favorable situations in
which intrinsic reward can acquire driving seat. They proposed that at least some part of
the journey is unappealing where intrinsic interest cannot be the sole driver to continue
the creative journey and that extrinsic rewards play a more important role in those parts
of the creative journey. Hence they are of the view that the task of making a creative
product is dependent upon both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Intrinsic rewards are more
important for getting high involvement in the interesting tasks while extrinsic rewards are
important in passing by the tough and unappealing hurdles. They suggested that this
interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards is the strongest driver of creative
behavior. Gerrard, Poteat and Ironsmith (1996) found that the children with high
intrinsic as well high extrinsic interest were rated highest in creativity, suggesting an
interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.
36
Despite of these insights, the mainstream approach of cognitive and behaviorist
researchers is still that the former see most of extrinsic rewards as undermining intrinsic
motivation (and thus creativity) whereas the latter believes extrinsic rewards, if applied
correctly, as creativity enhancers.
37
CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
PERSONAL & CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND CREATIVITY
Early conceptions of creativity drew on mystical interpretations and saw creativity
as a divine intervention (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). This conception changed gradually
and creativity became an individual trait and people focused their attention towards
genetics and heredity (Galton, 1869/1962). Development of personality inventories
advanced personality – creativity research, however, researchers soon realized that the
relationship between personality and creativity is largely moderated through contextual
factors (Batey & Furnham, 2006). This conception resulted in opening a new era of
creativity research, in which several theorists proposed ‘environmental models of
creativity’ (Amabile, 1996a). I have discussed these research streams one by one in the
following sections, and then have linked these research streams with the reward –
creativity debate, introduced in the second chapter.
3.1 Personality and Creativity – Historical Research
The efforts to predict creative behavior through individual differences are quite
old (Meehl, 1962: Mednick, 1962; Wallach, 1970). Before the formation of the five
factor model of personality (FFM), the efforts to link creativity and personality were
generally non conclusive. The period is referred as the period, “when we had no
personalities” (Goldberg, 1993). With no established scale to measure personalities,
various researchers operationalized personality variables inconsistently and sometime in
38
contradictory fashion (Batey & Furnham, 2006). In the following sections, I discuss the
research findings related to personality – creativity research in pre and post FFM period.
3.1.1 Personality and Creativity in Pre FFM Period
One of the relatively sound measures of personality in the pre FFM era was
Eysenck’s personality scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). It identified three personality
dimensions, i.e. extroversion, emotional stability and psychoticism. Research suggested
the third dimension (psychoticism) to be related with creativity. Interestingly, the same
personality dimension of psychoticism was empirically shown to be related with
psychopathology (Batey & Furnham, 2006). Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) suggested this
dimension to be related to illusive thinking and over inclusiveness, two phenomena that
they proposed as common predictors of creativity and psychopathology. Some
researchers also found significant correlations between individual creativity and
schizophrenia / bipolar disorder (Mechl, 1962; Nettle, 2006). Despite these findings,
theorists were not able to propose a definite and conclusive link between personality and
creative behavior. Martindale and Dailey (1996) concluded that no significant relation
exists between creativity and any of the three dimensions of Eysenck personality scale,
however they suggested confluence between different dimensions to be related with
creativity.
Another personality dimension that has been frequently associated with creative
behavior is intelligence. The relationship between intelligence and creativity has long
attracted researchers (Dearborn, 1898; Colvin & Meyer, 1906; Chasell, 1916), however
they didn’t discover any definite or established relationship between the two. Creativity
has been considered as a subset of intelligence (Guilford, 1975), as a distinct but related
39
criterion (Barron & Harrington, 1981) and even as an unrelated construct (Wallach &
Kogan, 1965). These findings were dependent on the method with which intelligence and
creativity were operationalized. When creativity was measured through real life
professional achievements, it correlated moderately with intelligence, however when it
was measured through self or others reported tests, its correlation with intelligence was
low and insignificant (Ivcevic, Brackett & Mayer, 2007). This relationship was also
dependent on the domain in which creativity was measured. Gilhooly, Wynn and Osman
(2004) found the correlation between creativity and intelligence to be 0.33 (and
significant) when studied in a sample of military officers, however this correlation
dropped to -0.08 (and insignificant) when the sample consisted of architects. The
threshold theory (Torrence, 1962; Guilford, 1981) is probably the best generalization of
the relationship between creativity and intelligence. It suggests that at low levels of
intelligence, there is little variation in creativity and both are highly related (low
intelligence is accompanied by low creativity). However at higher levels of intelligence
(above 120 IQ points, Guilford, 1981) variation in creativity is high and there is no
definite relation between the two.
3.1.2 Personality and Creativity in the FFM Period
Establishment of the FFM advanced the efforts to link personality and creativity.
The five factor model is now considered to be the most accurate representation of human
personality and is believed to be universal in nature (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Out of the
five dimensions, openness to experience (O) has been consistently proved to be a
predictor of creative behavior, however the link between other dimensions and creative
behavior is problematic (Gelade, 1997; George & Zhou, 2001; King, Walker & Broyles,
40
1996). The relationship between different personality traits and creative behavior has
been found to be inconsistent and even contradictory. Neuroticism (N), for example, has
been shown to positively relate with artistic creativity but negatively related with
employees’ creativity. Some theorists even suggested that the personality research is
largely flawed and nothing more than a mirage (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989). They
found that one reason for the inconsistent relation between personality and creativity was
the effect of different occupational domains and environmental factors on creativity. For
example, conscientiousness (C) has been shown to be positively related with individual
creativity in organizational contexts but negatively with artistic creativity. Similarly the
relation of extraversion (E) with creativity of sales persons was found to be positive
whereas its impact on employees doing routine jobs (such as assembly line workers) was
negative (Feist, 1998; Soldz & Villant, 1999; King et al., 1996).
Table from Batey and Furnham (2006)
41
Batey and Furnham (2006) summarized the research findings related to personality –
creativity research as mentioned in the above table.
With the repeatedly failing attempts to predict creative behavior with the help of
established personality inventories, the creative theorists gradually turned their focus
towards other avenues such as cognitive styles (i.e. Kirton, 1994), environmental factors
(i.e. Anderson & West, 1998) and interactional models (Amabile, 1996a). Researchers
such as Kirton (1994) and Allinson and Hayes (1996) developed inventories to
operationalize cognitive styles and linked cognitive styles with creative behavior. Other
researchers developed environmental models and used them to predict creative behavior
(Anderson & West, 1998). Some other researchers developed models including both
contextual and individual factors to predict creative behavior (Sternberg, 2006). These
models suggest that both personality and environmental factors interact with each other to
trigger creative behavior.
The following section links the personality research with the reward – creativity
debate.
3.2 Personality in Perspective of Rewards – Creativity Relationship
Attempts to predict creativity using individual differences employed personality
inventories such as FFM and EPS, however these attempts failed to find any direct and
un-moderated relation between the two (Batey & Furnham, 2006). The next phase of
research efforts used factors other than these personality inventories to explore the
relationship between personality and creativity. In the first part of this section I have
discussed the research findings relating two personality dimensions i.e. locus of control
42
(LOC) and self efficacy (SE). These two personality factors have been selected to address
concerns raised by cognitive theorists that extrinsic rewards hinder intrinsic motivation
and creativity because they engender perceptions of external control and incompetence
(Gagne & Deci, 2005). If individuals possess traits that assure stable levels of self-control
and competence, then they are likely to become immune to the negative consequences of
extrinsic rewards. Personality research has recognized that locus of control and self-
efficacy belief offer stable levels of self-control and competence perceptions.
Although both of these factors have been shown to be associated with creativity in
previous research (Choi, 2004; Jaswal & Jerath, 1991; Prabhu et al., 2008; Richmond &
Serna, 1980), previous research has studied only the direct effects of these personality
traits on creative behavior of employees. In the second part of this section, I have
discussed the relationship between goal orientation and creativity, a new but promising
research avenue.
3.2.1 Locus of Control and Self Efficacy
Locus of control refers to the perception about who is in control of events around
us (Rotter, 1966). Research on LOC has revealed that individuals can be classified in two
categories i.e. internals and externals. Internals or the individuals with an internal LOC
attribute their success and failures to their own capabilities and have high expectations
about their control on the situations and events that affect them. Externals – the
individuals with external LOC – perceive external factors as controlling the events
around them and have a low sense of self control (Rotter, 1966).
One of the earliest studies exploring the relationship between LOC and creativity
showed that children with an internal LOC scored higher in creative tasks than the
43
children with an external LOC (DuCette, Wolk & Friedman, 1972). Several other
researchers explored the relation between LOC and creativity, however they yielded
mixed and even conflicting findings. Jaswal and Jerath, (1991) found that internality is
significantly related with creative behavior for persons with high intelligence, but not for
less intelligent people. Cohen and Oden (1974) found a positive relationship between
LOC and creative behavior for female students but negative for male students, whereas
Richmond and Serna (1980) found a negative relation between LOC and creative
behavior in college students. These studies suggested that although a direct relation
between LOC and creative behavior does not exist, LOC is related to creative behavior
through some other mechanisms.
CET and SDT point towards a potential relationship between LOC and creative
behavior, in the perspective of reward – creative behavior relationship. Both of these
theories suggest that extrinsic rewards impact (intrinsic motivation and) creative behavior
through two mechanisms, i.e. perceptions of self control and self competence. These
theories suggest that the factors which lower the perception of self control affect
creativity negatively whereas the factors that enhance the perception of self control have
a positive effect on creativity (Gagne & Deci, 2005). These theories also suggest that
extrinsic rewards lower the perceptions of self control and self competence, and thus
these theories view extrinsic rewards as detrimental to creative behavior. Personality
theories, on the other hand, suggest that impact of contextual factors (such as presence of
extrinsic rewards) on human behavior somewhat depends on individual differences due to
different perception and attribution (Ajzen, 1991). Hence, it is reasonable to believe that
presence of extrinsic rewards may induce different perceptions in different individuals
44
and that these rewards affect individuals differently. Thus, personal traits that inoculate
individuals against the perceptions of lowered self competence and control, can make
them immune to the negative effects of extrinsic rewards, as suggested by cognitive
researchers.
The definition of LOC suggests that individuals differ in their perceptions about
control over the events in their life. Some people are more inclined towards attributing
external factors to be controlling their behavior whereas others perceive a greater sense of
self control over their behavior. It suggests that the influence of external factors on the
perceptions of self control may depend somewhat on the LOC of individuals. The same
event which induces a feeling of lowered self control in one individual can fail to produce
similar perception in another. In other words, individuals with an external locus of
control are more likely to view external factors (such as extrinsic rewards) as controlling
their behavior than the individuals with internal locus of control. It follows that the
impact of extrinsic rewards is more likely to be negative on individuals with an external
locus of control because of the perception of lowered self control. In the absence of this
lowered perception of control, the impact of extrinsic rewards on individuals could be
positive because of the formation of a strong creative intention to act creatively. Thus I
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 7: LOC moderates the relationship between extrinsic rewards and
incremental creative behavior such that the relationship between rewards and
creativity is negative for individuals with external LOC and positive for
individuals with internal LOC.
45
SE has been defined as an individual’s belief in his / her capabilities to meet a
situational demand (Wood & Bandura, 1989). High self efficacy does not indicate the
presence of capabilities but rather a perception about the presence of such capabilities.
Individuals with high SE have a strong belief in their capabilities and competence and are
somewhat inoculated against the feelings of lowered self competence that extrinsic
rewards may induce.
The relation between self efficacy (SE) and creative behavior is somewhat similar
to that between LOC and creative behavior. Internal LOC inoculates individuals against
the perceptions of lowered self control, whereas high SE inoculates individuals against
the perceptions of lowered self competence.
A few researchers have studied the relationship between SE and creative behavior
(Choi, 2004; Gong, Huang & Farh, 2009; Xiaoling, Jinghuan, Yuxia & Guirong, 2009),
however, most of the research focus has been on studying the direct or mediated effects
of SE on creative behavior of employees. There is no study in reward – creativity
research that has studied self efficacy as the moderator of rewards – creative behavior
relationship. Prabhu et al. (2008) hypothesized extrinsic motivation to moderate the
relationship between SE and creative behavior. Their results showed that at a higher level
of extrinsic motivation, SE and creative behavior were unrelated to each other, however,
at a lower level of extrinsic motivation, there was a significant positive relationship
between SE and creative behavior. These researchers termed this as moderation of the SE
- creative behavior relationship through extrinsic motivation, however, it may also be
seen as moderation of extrinsic motivation – creative behavior relationship through SE.
46
Cognitive evaluation and self determination theories suggest the later to be more
plausible.
CET suggests that extrinsic rewards negatively affect employees’ creativity by
diminishing their sense of self-competence. This negative intermediate process is
unlikely to materialize for employees with a high level of self-efficacy, which may hold
off efficacy threat by extrinsic rewards (Putwain, Kearsley, & Symes, 2011). Instead,
individuals with confidence in their efficacy to perform creatively may interpret extrinsic
rewards for creativity as an opportunity to achieve extra incentives by performing tasks in
which they excel (Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009). Thus, individuals with a strong self-
efficacy will engage in more creative behaviors in the presence of extrinsic rewards. This
process will neutralize the negate effects of extrinsic rewards on employees’ creativity.
By contrast, individuals with low self-efficacy are likely to fall victim to extrinsic
rewards that may highlight their incompetence. They view the situation as a threat that
imposes demands they cannot fulfill (Dewett, 2007; Putwain et al., 2011). Thus, negative
effects of extrinsic rewards on creativity are more likely to occur among individuals with
weak self-efficacy; whereas extrinsic rewards may lead to positive outcomes of enhanced
creativity for individuals with high efficacy, as suggested by behavioral theorists
(Eisenberger & Cameron, 1998).
Researchers have found that self efficacy related to a specific domain better
predicts domain relevant behavior than the generalized self efficacy (Choi, 2004). In line
with this view, I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 8: Creative SE moderates the relationship between extrinsic rewards
and incremental creative behavior such that the relationship between rewards
47
and creativity is negative for individuals with low creative SE and positive for
individuals with high creative SE.
Locus of control and creative SE impacts the perceptions of self control and self
competence, which, according to CET, determine the impact of rewards on creative
behavior. When individuals are under the influence of extrinsic rewards, the perceptions
of self control and self competence are at greater stake as extrinsic rewards can lower the
perceptions of control and competence (Gagne & Deci, 2005). However, when
individuals are performing an activity under the influence of intrinsic rewards they are
involved in the activity for the sake of the activity itself. Thus in the absence of extrinsic
rewards, there are fewer chances of weakening of the perceptions of self control and self
competence. Thus I suggest that LOC and SE moderate the relationship between extrinsic
rewards and creative behavior but not between intrinsic rewards and creative behavior.
3.2.2 Goal Orientation
Elliott and Dweck (1988) defined goal orientation as an ‘individual’s response to
achievement setting’ and proposed it as the major determinant of achievement patterns.
Goal orientation has also been defined as the orientation which ‘determines individuals’
interpretation and response to achievement situations’ (Elliott & Church, 1997). In other
words, goal orientation of individuals predicts their behavior in achievement situations
such as failures and successes. Goal orientation has been classified in two types, i.e.
learning goal and performance goal orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). The primary
goal of individuals with a learning orientation is to increase their competence and these
48
individuals are not negatively affected by failures and unfavorable evaluations. The
primary goal of individuals with a performance goal orientation is to demonstrate their
ability and hence these individuals seek to avoid negative judgments and try to gain
favorable judgments about their competence. They are more concerned with the
evaluation of their competence than the competence itself (Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Elliott
& Dweck, 1988). Individuals with a learning goal orientation prefer to indulge in tasks
that can develop their abilities, as for these individuals ability is a fluid concept and can
be enhanced with proper efforts. Individuals with a performance orientation prefer such
activities that can confirm their abilities. For them ability is as fixed as a trait, that cannot
be changed (Vandewalle, 2001).
The conception of goal orientation as a predictor of creative behavior is new and
thus the research on goal orientation – creative behavior relationship is relatively scarce.
Hirst, Knippenberg and Zhou (2009) proposed that learning orientation develops intrinsic
interest in the activity and motivates individuals to acquire domain relevant skills. As
both domain relevant skills and intrinsic motivation are regarded as predictors of creative
behavior (Amabile, 1983; 1996a), it is reasonable to expect a positive relationship
between learning orientation and creative behavior. Working on same grounds, some
researchers have found a significant and positive relationship between learning goal
orientation and creative behavior (i.e. Gong et al., 2009; Hirst et al., 2009).
Some researchers have proposed that the relation between goal orientation and
creative behavior is not direct. Moss and Ritossa (2007) proposed that goal orientation
moderates the relationship between leadership style and followers’ creativity. Young
(2005) suggested that enjoyment, excitement and engagement in activity are more likely
49
to motivate individuals with a learning orientation. It is important to note that enjoyment,
excitement and engagement in an activity indicate the presence of intrinsic rewards in the
activity (Amabile et. al, 1996; Ruscio, Whitney & Amabile 1998). Therefore, intrinsic
rewards are more likely to motivate individuals with LGO than the individuals with a
PGO. It signals that there may be positive synergical effect between intrinsic rewards and
LGO, and that these two may interact with each other to predict creative behavior.
Individuals with a high LGO have a knack to learn and explore new ideas
(Vandewalle, 2001). When this tendency is reinforced with the presence of extrinsic
rewards for creativity, individuals may perceive a better fit between their personal
dispositions and contextual demands. For these employees, the contextual stimuli and
their dispositional inclination will both act to enhance their creative behavior. Hence the
creativity of employees with a high LGO would be higher in the presence of extrinsic
rewards than in the absence of such rewards. However, the presence of rewards for
creativity may initiate a contradiction for employees with a low LGO, as they will find
the contextual forces and their personal disposition acting against each other. For
employees with a very low LGO, the motivation that rewards for creativity produce
might become insufficient to overcome the resistance against the exhibition of creative
behavior, offered by their personality. Hence, employees with a low LGO will not
respond positively to rewards. Thus I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 9a: Learning orientation moderates the relationship between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior such that the positive relationship between
rewards and creativity is stronger for individuals with a high learning orientation
than individuals with a low learning orientation.
50
Hypothesis 10a: Learning orientation moderates the relationship between
extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such that the positive
relationship between rewards and creativity is stronger for individuals with a
high learning orientation than individuals with a low learning orientation.
Researchers have explored that a negative relationship exists between learning goal
orientation and performance goal orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). There is also some
research evidence, though limited, that confirms a negative or insignificant relationship
between performance goal orientation and creative behavior (Borlongan, 2008; Janseen
& Yperen, 2004). However, the role of goal orientation as the moderator of reward –
creative behavior has never been studied in the previous research.
Creative behavior may result in outcomes that are unpredictable and such behavior
may also trigger resistance and unfavorable evaluations from others (Dewett, 2007; Jo &
Lee, 2012). Thus creativity research has established that exhibition of creative behavior
requires high risk taking behavior and tolerance for ambiguity (Sternberg, 2006).
Individuals with a high PGO, however, avoid risk taking and negative evaluation and
prefer tasks in which they are confident of their success (Vandewalle, 2001). Thus
individuals with a high PGO will not respond positively to rewards for creative behavior,
as exhibition of creative behavior is something against their personal disposition. Their
preference of avoiding risks and uncertainty may nullify the motivation that rewards
induce to exhibit creative behavior. Thus for the individuals with a high PGO, the
cognitive processes that restrain creative behavior are higher and can suppress the
motivation that drives creative behavior. On the other hand, the presence of rewards may
51
trigger creative behavior in individuals with a low PGO, as the restraining forces (such as
uncertainty and risk avoidance) are relatively lower for these individuals and the
motivation to behave creatively triggered by rewards is more likely to overcome these
restraining forces. Hence, the relationship between rewards and creativity would be
positive for employees with a low PGO, and negative for employees with a high PGO.
Thus I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 9b: Performance goal orientation moderates the relationship between
intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior such that the positive relationship
between rewards and creativity is stronger for individuals with a low
performance orientation than individuals with a high performance orientation.
Hypothesis 10b: Performance goal orientation moderates the relationship
between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such that the
positive relationship between rewards and creativity is stronger for individuals
with a low performance orientation than individuals with a high performance
orientation.
It is important to note that performance goal orientation is further divided in two
categories (VandeWalle, Cron & Slocum, 2001), i.e. proving goal orientation (focus on
getting positive feedback by demonstrating one’s capabilities) and avoiding goal
orientation (focus on avoiding negative feedback by hiding one’s low capabilities). These
two orientations may have different effects on the reward – creative behavior relationship,
however there is no clue in the existing literature about the nature of this association. The
current study will explore the specific effects of these orientations on the reward –
52
creative behavior relationship, however this part of the study would be exploratory in
nature.
3.3 Environmental Models and Theories of Creativity
In the componential model of creativity (Amabile, 1983; 1996a), Amabile
proposed that exhibition of creative behavior requires three components to be in place.
Two of them are related to the individual (creativity relevant skills and domain specific
skills) and the third one with the environment (task motivation). Thus she suggested that
individual skills can successfully translate into creative behavior, only if the situation
provides sufficient motivation for the employee to work on the task. In the next step,
Amabile and her colleagues (Amabile et al, 1996) proposed five dimensions of work
environment that provide motivation for the transformation of creative skills into creative
behavior. These five dimensions are encouragement (+), autonomy (+), resources (+),
pressure (-) and organizational impediments, such as red tape and conservatism (-).
West and colleagues (Anderson & West, 1998; West et. al, 2003) proposed a four
dimensional model of climate for creativity. They suggested participative safety (+),
support for innovation (+), challenging objectives (+) and task orientation (+/-) as the
four dimensions of climate that are important for creative behavior. Some other theorists
have presented specific environmental factors that can foster creative behavior such as
emotional ambivalence (Fong, 2006), task rotation and polychronicity (Madjar & Oldham,
2006) and evaluation and goal setting (Shalley, 1995).
Sternberg (2006), combining these views presented a six factor model of
creativity. He proposed that creative behavior is the product or confluence of these six
53
factors and absence of a single element out of these six will result in low creativity. The
six elements are intellectual abilities, knowledge, style of thinking, personality,
motivation and - last but not the least – the environment. In other words, Sternberg
suggests that creative behavior is invoked by the interaction of environmental and
personality factors in a way that either of these two is insufficient to produce creative
behavior in the absence of other.
Hunter et al., (2007) examined the effect of climate on creativity through a meta
analysis. They identified fourteen different environmental dimensions that affect creative
behavior. These dimensions are positive peer group, positive relationship with supervisor,
resources, challenge, mission clarity, autonomy, positive interpersonal exchange,
intellectual stimulation, top management’s support, reward orientation, flexibility,
product emphasis, participation and organizational integration.
The debate about the number of environmental dimensions relevant for creativity
is unsettled. However, there is consensus among creativity scholars that in addition to
personal skills and individual differences, environmental factors are important to predict
creative behavior in an organizational context.
3.4 Contextual Factors in Perspective of Rewards – Creativity Relationship
Sternberg (2006) in his six factor model of creativity suggested that creative
behavior is the product or confluence of these six factors and absence of even a single
element out of these six will result in low creativity. Thus, the model points towards the
presence of interactional effects or synergies among these factors. Each factor
complements and strengthens the effects of others on creative behavior of individuals.
54
The six factors can be classified in three groups, i.e. personal factors, contextual factors
and motivational factors. These three factors interact with each other to predict creative
behavior. I have discussed the interaction between rewards and personal factors in the
above section. In this section I have proposed that intrinsic and extrinsic rewards also
interact with contextual factors to predict creative behavior.
3.4.1 Support for Creativity
There are several models identifying contextual factors related to creativity. One
factor that has appeared in almost all of the models, in one form or the other, is ‘support
for creative behavior’. The four dimensional model of climate for creativity (Anderson &
West, 1998; West et. al, 2003) suggested ‘support for innovation’ as one of the dimension
important for creativity. The five dimensional model of work environment (Amabile et al,
1996) proposed ‘encouragement’ to be one of these dimensions. Hunter et al. (2007), in
their meta analysis found fourteen different environmental dimensions that affect creative
behavior, one of the dimensions being management’s support.
In this study, support has been conceptualized as ‘behavioral support’ that the
employees receive, and not as any material or financial support. Support for creative
behavior can come from two constituencies, i.e. supervisors and coworkers (Madjar,
Oldham & Pratt, 2002). Most of the previous research has only studied the direct effects
of support on creative behavior of employees (Madjar et al., 2002; Oldham & Cummings,
1996), whereas support as the moderator of the relationship between rewards and creative
behavior has never been studied previously.
Support can moderate the relationship between rewards and creative behavior
because of two reasons. First, because of high interaction with coworkers and supervisors,
55
support for creativity from coworkers and supervisors sets an environment that
employees perceive as non-controlling. Research has shown that rewards for creativity
that are offered in a non-controlling environment become more effective in triggering
creative behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Second, support from coworkers and
supervisors creates an environment that is non-threatening and individuals feel
comfortable, protected and secure in such an environment. In such environments,
individuals are more prone to take risks to try new ideas and the predictors of creative
behavior such as motivation (triggered by intrinsic and extrinsic rewards) and personal
dispositions become more effective in initiating creative behavior (Sternberg, 2006). It
follows that there is synergical interaction between rewards and supportive environment
and that these rewards become more effective in enhancing creative behavior, when
creative behavior is also encouraged among group members. In the absence of such
support from group members and supervisors, rewards may become inefficient and fail to
produce any change in employees’ behavior. Sternberg (2006) argued that:
“One needs an environment that is supportive and rewarding of
creative ideas. …without some environmental support the creativity
that a person has within him or her might never be displayed” (P 89).
In the absence of support for creativity and in hostile environments, where
creative behavior is not valued, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards may fail to enhance
creative behavior. In such environments employees feel threatened to take risks and may
consciously decide not to exhibit creative behavior, despite the presence of rewards for
creativity. Thus it is evident that ‘support’ has not only direct effects on creative behavior,
56
but its presence (or absence) also affects the relationship between rewards and creative
behavior. Thus I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 11: Support for creativity moderates the relationship between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior such that the relationship between rewards
and creativity is stronger in the presence of high support.
Hypothesis 12: Support for creativity moderates the relationship between
extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such that the relationship
between rewards and creativity is stronger in the presence of high support.
3.4.2 Organizational Climate and Creativity
Organizational climate affects individual’s beliefs and perceptions about
environmental characteristics that shape their expectations (Hunter et al., 2007). Litwin
and Stringer (1968) defined organizational climate as:
“…the term organizational climate refers to a set of measurable properties
of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people
who live and work in this environment and assumed to influence their
motivation and behavior” (p 1) .
Organizational climate and culture are two related but distinct concepts. Culture is
an organizational level concept and is more or less homogeneous throughout the
organization. Unlike culture, climate is relatively a localized phenomenon and can
significantly vary within an organization. Further, climate depends on the specific
dimension such as climate for creativity, climate for service, climate for safety etc., such
that different climate dimensions represent totally different phenomena (Hunter et al.,
57
2007). Differentiating between organizational climate and culture, Hofstede (1998)
proposed that climate, unlike culture, was closely related with individual motivation. As
the framework for this study includes intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, climate is used as
the moderator of reward – creativity relationship, in this study.
Several researchers have attempted to develop a taxonomy of organizational
culture and climate and to study their influences on organizational processes (Anderson
& West, 1998; Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1968).
Patterson et al. (2005) have developed a multidimensional instrument for measuring
individual perceptions regarding organizational climate, based on four major approaches
to organizational psychology (i.e. human relations, internal process, open system and
rational goal approach). Their ‘organizational climate measure’ consists of seventeen
climate dimensions that affect organizational productivity. The seventeen dimensions are:
autonomy, integration, involvement, supervisory support, training, welfare, formalization,
tradition, innovation & flexibility, outward focus, reflexivity, clarity of organizational
goals, efficiency, effort, performance feedback, quality, and pressure to produce. Two of
the climate dimensions are particularly relevant for creativity, i.e. ‘innovation and
flexibility’ and ‘tradition’.
The dimension of ‘innovation and flexibility’, as the name indicates, is directly
related to individual creative behavior. This dimension indicates an organizational
orientation of support for new idea generation (West & Farr, 1990) and accepting and
appreciating change (King & Anderson, 1995), which are pre-requisites for creative
behavior. Based on the research suggesting a positive association of this orientation with
creative behavior and Sternberg (2006)’s confluence theory, proposing interaction (or
58
moderation) between contextual and motivational factors to produce creative behavior, I
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 13: The climate for innovation and flexibility moderates the
relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior such that the
relationship between rewards and creativity is stronger when the organizational
climate is perceived to have a favorable climate for innovation and flexibility.
Hypothesis 14: The climate for innovation and flexibility moderates the
relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such
that the relationship between rewards and creativity is stronger when the
organizational climate is perceived to have a favorable climate for innovation
and flexibility.
Tradition (or traditionalism) as a dimension of organizational climate is well
established (Pugh et al., 1968). The orientation to uphold traditions suggests that there are
established ways and norms to perform tasks and that these norms are highly valued
(Kristeller, 1983). Creativity, on the other hand requires openness to new experiences and
divergent thinking (McCrae, 1987). Thus, tradition is upholding existing practices
whereas creativity is replacement of existing practices with new ones and hence quite
contrary to traditionalism. This suggests a negative relationship between tradition and
creative behavior, which has been explored and confirmed by previous researchers
(Amabile et. al, 1996). Tradition and creativity have been shown as contrary to each other
also at the individual level (Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004). This suggests that exhibition of
creative behavior is unlikely when the organizational climate is strongly oriented towards
59
upholding traditions. It can be inferred that drivers of creative behavior, such as rewards,
will become relatively ineffective in a traditional climate, as such climate will build
perceptions and expectations that creative behavior is undesired. On the other side, in
organizations with a low traditional climate, the perception about undesirability of
creative behavior would be low. In such organizations, the exhibition of creative behavior
becomes a personal decision and presence of rewards for creativity can trigger creative
behavior as such behavior is not perceived to be against the organizational climate. Based
on the research suggesting a negative association of this climate dimension with creative
behavior and Sternberg (2006)’s confluence theory, proposing interaction between
contextual and motivational factors to produce creative behavior, I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 15: Individual perceptions of climate for tradition moderate the
relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior such that the
relationship between rewards and creativity is weaker when the organizational
climate is perceived to have a strong preference for upholding traditions.
Hypothesis 16: Individual perceptions of climate for tradition moderate the
relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such
that the relationship between rewards and creativity is weaker when the
organizational climate is perceived to have a strong preference for upholding
traditions.
I have suggested in this chapter that personality and contextual factors moderate
the relationship between rewards and creative behavior. In previous chapters, I
hypothesized that reward - creative behavior relationship is also mediated through
60
creative intention and enjoyment. It is difficult to determine at this stage that the
moderation of reward – creative behavior relationship occurs between rewards and
intention/enjoyment or between intention/enjoyment and creative behavior. However,
based on personality theories such as theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) it can be
argued that personality factors are associated more closely with cognitive processes
whereas contextual factors play their role when these cognitive processes invoke certain
behavioral intentions. This part of research is exploratory in nature and I will check
moderation by personality and contextual factors at all possible stages of reward –
creative behavior relationship. Combining the hypotheses developed, two frameworks
(one for mediated and the other for moderated effects) are shown in figure 2a and 2b.
61
CHAPTER 4: METHOD
The current study was confirmatory in nature as it tested the hypotheses generated
through the literature review. The constructs used in the study were quantifiable and have
frequently been operationalized in previous research studies. Thus the current study
employed quantitative techniques to collect and analyze data. The data were collected
through a survey questionnaire that used established scales with proven reliability and
validity. Data were collected first from the employees and then at a later time from their
supervisors. Thus the present study can be categorized as survey based quantitative
research, using primary data.
In the initial section of this chapter, I have explained the data collection procedure
and the sampling plan. In the next section I have discussed the biases associated with
survey based research and the method employed in the current study to minimize these
biases. Finally I have mentioned the measures used to operationalize the constructs and
tools used to analyze the data.
4.1 Sample and Data Collection
The population for the current study consisted of employees, working on full time
basis, in either the private or public sector. Two methods were employed for data
collection. First, data were collected from employees attending various executive training
programs in two private universities located in Lahore, Pakistan. Secondly, onsite
administration of the survey questionnaire was conducted in selected organizations. In
both forms of data collection, participants were first informed about research objectives
62
and were also informed and assured about the data confidentiality protocol. Data were
collected from two sources, i.e. from employees and from their supervisors. The
dependent variables (radical and incremental creativity) were operationalized through
supervisors’ reports whereas all other constructs were operationalized through self
reports.
For onsite administration, the self report questionnaire and supervisor’s
questionnaire were identically numbered before administration. Three documents i.e. self
report questionnaire, supervisor’s questionnaire and a blank identification sheet were
handed over to the employees. The employees were requested to return the filled self
reported questionnaire directly to the researchers and to hand over the supervisor’s
questionnaire to their supervisors, along with the identification sheet (provided with the
questionnaire). The questionnaire that was to be filled in by the supervisors also
contained instructions for the supervisors. The supervisors filled the questionnaire and
removed the identification sheet from it. Filled questionnaires were collected directly
from the supervisors at a later visit.
Data were also collected from the participants of executive training programs at
two local universities. For these participants, the supervisors were not present during the
data collection process. The participants were requested to hand over the supervisors’
questionnaire (with identification sheet) to their supervisors after the program. The
supervisors were requested through a letter attached with the supervisor’s questionnaire
to post / e-mail the responses to researchers, mentioning the identification number written
on the questionnaire.
63
The required sample size was calculated using the number of items and constructs
in the questionnaire. Researchers have suggested various rules of thumb to calculate the
sample size based on the numbers of items and constructs. An approximate method to
calculate sample size is to have two (or greater) datasets for every item in the
questionnaire (Kline, 2000) or to have fifteen (or more) datasets for every construct
(Pedhazur, 1997). The number of items in the questionnaire was 75 whereas there were
17 constructs, and thus the appropriate sample size was between 150 and 255. To be on
the safer side, the higher of these two was selected as the sample size. The final data
using on site administration and executive training programs (after eliminating the
missing responses) contained responses of 272 employees from 113 organizations (54%
manufacturing, 37 % services and 9 % others). The sample had a low female
representation (19 %), however, this was not alarming as the overall employment rate of
females is low in Pakistan. Average education, experience and age of respondents were
13.4, 16.2 and 39.8 years respectively, whereas standard deviation of education,
experience and age of respondents were 1.6, 9.4 and 9.9 years respectively . The number
of participants belonging to one organization ranged from 1 to 13 (mean = 2.4). The
functional background of respondents was diverse, such as teaching, planning, HRM,
marketing and operations etc and they were at several different hierarchical levels,
ranging from clerical staff to senior managers. Although it was told to the respondents
that they could remain anonymous (by not filling their names in self report
questionnaires), 180 out of 272 employees filled their names, indicating a high level of
trust on the process. The demographics of these 180 employees were not statistically
64
different from the 92 employees who did not mention their names (p value of ANOVA
for age, education and experience is 0.92, 0.44 and 0.54 respectively).
4.2 Biases in Survey based Research
Sampling errors are classified in two categories. First is to sample a non
representative group which is very different from the population. Second is to have a
homogeneous sample with minimum variation in the constructs of interest. With the first
type of problem, the external validity of results comes in question whereas the second
type of problem results in too low power of test for finding any significant relationship.
To deal with these issues, participants in the current study were selected from actual
employees working in organizations involved in creative tasks. Secondly, to maximize
the variation in variables under study, employees from different occupational groups,
different industries, different hierarchical levels and different demographical background
were selected.
The variables under study included personality traits and behavioral dimensions.
Historically, the research on such variables has been marred with issues related to
common source error and social desirability bias. Self reports as reliable means of
personality measurement have long been criticized (Murray, 1938). Murray, one of the
earliest critiques of the use of self reports for personality measurement suggested that
“…children perceive inaccurately and are very little conscious about their inner states.
Many adults are hardly better” (Murray, 1938, p 25). To minimize social desirability bias,
it was optional for the participants to disclose their identities and complete anonymity
and data confidentiality was assured. To deal with common source error, cognitive and
65
non observable personality traits (such as creative intention and enjoyment) were directly
collected from the participants whereas behavioral variables such as incremental and
radical creative behaviors were measured from participants’ supervisors. This method is
inline with the finding that self reports are a better indicator for cognitive, non observable
personality traits and perceptions, whereas others’ reports are better indicator of
behavioral measures and observable personality traits (Hogan, Hogan & Roberts, 1996;
Johnson, 1997). Researchers have considered these steps as sufficient to minimize social
desirability and common source biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003;
Conway & Lance, 2010).
4.3 Measures
The questionnaires were administered in English, as it is Pakistan’s official
language and is widely used in both the public and private sector. The following scales,
taken from the literature, were used to operationalize the constructs. The questionnaires
are given as appendix 2.
4.3.1 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards for Creativity
Extrinsic and intrinsic rewards for creativity were measured with eight and seven
item respectively, of the self report scales, developed by Yoon and Choi (2010). The
items to operationalize extrinsic rewards were based on the measures developed by Deci
et al., (1999) and Ryan and Deci (2000). The items to operationalize intrinsic rewards
were based on the measures developed by Baer, Oldham and Cummings (2003). This
scale was validated on a South Korean sample, which made this scale more relevant for
research in Pakistan, keeping in view the similar cultural elements in both countries such
66
as high power distance, low individualism, high uncertainty avoidance and medium
masculinity. South Korea is the second closest country to Pakistan on Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions (Hofstede, 1980). One sample item to measure extrinsic rewards for
creativity is “when I perform creative work, it will affect my promotion”. One sample
item to measure intrinsic rewards for creativity is “I feel satisfaction when I perform
creatively”. During exploratory factor analysis, two items of the scale measuring intrinsic
rewards for creativity did not load at the relevant factor and were dropped from all further
analyses. Thus the final scale for intrinsic rewards consisted of six items. Both scales
exhibited high reliability figures (α = 0.86 for extrinsic and α = 0.77 for intrinsic
rewards).
4.3.2 Enjoyment in the task
Work preference inventory (Amabile et al., 1994) is one of the widely used scales
to operationalize motivational orientations and to measure task characteristics (such as
enjoyment and challenge in task). Four items of this self report scale, measuring
‘enjoyment in a task’ were used in the current study. One sample item from this scale is
“I enjoy doing work that is so absorbing that I forget about everything else”. This scale
has found to be reliable in several studies (i.e. Choi, 2004) and the reliability of this scale
with the current sample was also satisfactory (α = 0.70).
4.3.3 Importance of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards
The importance of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards was measured with a six item
self report scale (three items each for importance of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards)
developed by Yoon and Choi (2010) on a South Korean sample. One sample item from
the scale to measure importance of extrinsic rewards is “extrinsic rewards such as
67
financial incentives, promotions, and respect that I can get from my creative performance
are so important that they influence me to change my task behavior”. One sample item
from the scale to measure importance of intrinsic rewards is “Intrinsic rewards such as
enjoyment, autonomy, and self-achievement that I can get from my creative performance
are worthwhile for me to try hard to perform creatively”. Both scales exhibited high
reliability with the current data (α = 0.85 for extrinsic and α = 0.73 for intrinsic rewards).
4.3.4 Creative Intention
Creative intention was measured by the three item self report scale developed by
Choi (2004). The scale is particularly helpful - due to its short size - to keep the length of
the current questionnaire within reasonable limits. One sample item from this scale is “I
am strongly motivated to offer new and constructive ideas to my colleagues”. The scale
exhibited satisfactory reliability (α = 0.70).
4.3.5 Creative Self Efficacy
Researchers have found that self efficacy related to a specific domain better
predicts domain relevant behavior than generalized self efficacy (Choi, 2004). In line
with this view, I used creative self efficacy (CSE) instead of generalized self efficacy. To
operationalize CSE, the three item self report scale developed by Tierney and Farmer
(2002) was used. One sample item of the scale is “I feel that I am good at generating
novel ideas”. The scale exhibited just an acceptable level of reliability (α = 0.70).
4.3.6 Locus of Control
LOC was measured with the nine pairs of self report items taken from Rotter
(1966). These items are in the form of pairs and the respondents have to select one item
from each pair. One of the two items represents an internal LOC whereas the other
68
represents an external LOC. The number of internal LOC items selected by a respondent
represents his / her LOC with a high score representing an internal LOC. This scale has
also been frequently used in previous research (i.e. Allen, Weeks & Moffitt, 2005). One
item that represented external LOC is “Many times I feel that I have little influence over
the things that happen to me”, whereas one item that represented internal LOC is
“People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make”. This was a dichotomous scale
and thus its reliability was calculated with the KR-20 method (Kuder & Richardson,
1937), using the following formula:
KR-20 = N / (N - 1)[1 - Sum(piqi)/Var(X)]
[where, Sum(piqi) = sum of the product of the probability of alternative responses and
Var(X) = composite variance]. The reliability of this scale came out to be 0.69, which is
considered as satisfactory (Kuder & Richardson, 1937).
4.3.7 Goal Orientation
Goal orientation was measured with thirteen items self report scale developed by
Vandewalle (1997), which has frequently been used (i.e. Brett & Vandewalle, 1999; Hirst
et al., 2009). The scale has three sub scales i.e. learning, prove and avoidance orientation
with five, four and four items respectively. One sample item from learning orientation is
“I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from”. One
item from prove orientation is “I like to show that I can perform better than my co-
workers”. One item from avoidance goal orientation is “Avoiding a show of low ability is
more important to me than learning a new skill”. During exploratory factor analysis, one
item of learning orientation did not load at the relevant factor and was dropped from all
further analyses. Thus the final scale for learning orientation consisted of four items. All
69
three scales exhibited satisfactory reliability (α = 0.71 for learning, 0.82 for prove and
0.81 for avoidance goal orientation).
4.3.8 Support for Creativity from Supervisor and Coworkers
Support for creativity was measured with the six item self report scale developed by
Madjar et al., (2002). Three items each correspond to support from supervisors and
support from coworkers. One item from supervisor support is “my supervisor is always
ready to support me if I introduce an unpopular idea or solution at work”. One item from
coworkers’ support is “my coworkers are almost always supportive when I come up with
a new idea about my job”. The scales exhibited satisfactory reliability (α = 0.74 for
support from supervisor and 0.78 for support from coworkers).
4.3.9 Organizational Climate
Organizational climate was measured with the self report scale developed by
Patterson et al, (2005). Although this is a new scale, it has been used very frequently and
has been cited for more than 150 times after its development in 2005. The complete scale
consists of seventeen climate dimensions from which two dimensions were selected on
the basis of relevance to the current study. These two dimensions (i.e. innovation and
tradition) were operationalized with six and four items respectively. One item from
climate of innovation is “people in this organization are always searching for new ways
of looking at problems”. One item from climate of tradition is “the way this organization
does things has never changed very much”. Both scales demonstrated satisfactory
reliability (α for tradition = 0.79; α for innovation and flexibility = 0.88).
70
4.3.10 Incremental and Radical Creative Behavior
A six item scale was used to measure incremental and radical creative behavior,
developed by Madjar et al., (2011) based on measures developed by Madjar et al., (2002),
Oldham and Cummings (1996) and George and Zhou (2001). The scale employed three
items each to operationalize radical and incremental creative behavior. Supervisors’
reports were used to tap these constructs. One sample item from the radical creative
behavior scale is “this person suggests radically new ways for doing his/her work”. One
item from the incremental creative behavior scale is “this person easily modifies
previously existing work processes to suit current needs”. Both scales demonstrated
satisfactory reliability (α for radical creative behavior = 0.81; α for incremental creative
behavior = 0.69).
4.3.11 Control Variables
Education (measured with number of schooling years) and experience (total
working experience in number of years) were used as the control variables. These
individual variables were not related to the hypotheses developed for the present study,
however these have been reported in previous studies (i.e. Hirst et al., 2009) to affect
creative behavior significantly.
4.4 Analysis and Hypotheses Testing
The statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for analysis of data.
The analysis started with exploratory factor analysis to ascertain the validity of
constructs. In the next stage of data analysis calculation of internal consistency
71
(Cronbach alpha) and inter scale correlations were observed. Finally outliers were
identified and data normality was checked.
There were three types of hypotheses. The first type of hypotheses (H1 and H2)
suggested a significant relationship between rewards and creative behavior. These
hypotheses were tested using inter scale correlations and regression analysis to check for
the effects of the independent variables (intrinsic and extrinsic rewards) on the dependent
variables (incremental and radical creative behavior).
The second type of hypotheses (H3 and H4) suggested the mediation of the
reward – creative behavior relationship. As both of the independent and mediator
variables were operationalized using self reports at the same point in time, confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was performed to check the validity of these constructs. The
mediation hypotheses were checked using the four step procedure suggested by Mathieu
and Taylor (2006). The first step of this procedure is to check the direct effects of the
predictor variable on the outcome variable. In the second step, the effects of the predictor
variable on the mediating variable were explored. In step 3, the effects of the mediating
variable on outcome variable were examined. In the last step, the change in the
significance of the relationship between independent and dependent variables was
observed after introducing the mediator variable in the regression equation. The
bootstrapping method suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008) was employed to check
for multiple mediation.
The third type of hypotheses suggested the moderation of the reward – creative
behavior relationship through several personal and contextual factors. To test these
hypotheses the three step procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used. In
72
the first step of this procedure, control variables and dependent variable were entered into
the regression equation. In step 2, independent and moderating variables were added
whereas in step 3, the interaction term (independent variable X moderating variable) was
added into the regression equation. The change in delta R square determined the presence
and significance of moderation. To reduce the problem of multicollinearity, all variables
involve in the interaction terms were centered.
The presence of moderation was also checked graphically, using the subgroup
analysis method suggested by Anderson (1986) and by employing simple slope analysis
(Aiken & West, 1991). This analysis divided the sample in two groups (i.e. high and
low) based on the value of moderating variable and the relation between independent and
dependent variables was separately plotted for the two groups.
Results of data analysis are presented in the next chapter.
73
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Data Validation
The statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for analysis of data.
Before entering the data into SPSS, the questionnaires were checked for missing values
and all datasets with missing values were separated and were not used. The sample size
after removing the data sets with missing values was 272. The first step to validate data
was to look for data entry errors, missing data, abnormal trends, and presence of outliers.
The entire data was compared with the original questionnaires to ascertain data entry
errors. No such error was found. No data set with missing values was observed (as the
data were already filtered for missing values before data entry). During the next stage,
normality tests were performed, which showed some skewness in the constructs of
intrinsic rewards and creative intention. Although it is normal for SPSS to show data
abnormality for large datasets, I performed outlier analysis to make sure that abnormal
responses were screened out. All responses that contained values (for any construct)
farther than three standard deviations from the mean were searched. Twelve such
responses were identified and removed from the data set. In a data set containing 272
responses on 17 constructs, presence of 12 outliers (0.25 %) is not abnormal. This
method to exclude outliers has previously been used by several researchers (i.e. Ulzen,
Semin, Oudejans & Beek, 2008; Zhang & Wang, 2005). After removing these responses,
the sample size was reduced to 260.
Before testing the hypotheses, it was essential to test the distinctiveness of
measures in respondents’ minds. This was particularly important as several of the
74
measures were operationalized using self reported scales and some of the scales were
relatively new and untested in Pakistan. Thus all of the self reported items that were
operationalized using a Likert scale were checked for distinctiveness using exploratory
factor analysis of all 60 items relating to 14 constructs. Sixteen factors with eigen values
greater than one emerged. All items, except three (two related to intrinsic rewards and
one related to learning goal orientation), loaded on their relevant factors. After removing
these three items, exploratory factor analysis was performed again after fixing the
number of factors at 14 (equal to the number of constructs). All items loaded at their
respective factors. These three items were eliminated form all further analyses. The
fourteen factors explained 65% of the variation. This analysis provided some validity to
the distinctiveness of the constructs in respondents’ minds. The results of the factor
analysis, factor loadings, variance explained by each factor and eigen values are shown in
Appendix 1.
Table 1 shows inter scale correlations, scale reliabilities, means and standard deviations.
5.2 Rewards and Creative Behavior – Direct Effects
The correlation matrix (Table 1) shows that radical creative behavior was
significantly related with intrinsic rewards (r = 0.24; p < 0.001) but not with extrinsic
rewards (r = -0.02; p = 0.74). Further, incremental creative behavior was more strongly
related with extrinsic rewards (r = 0.12; p = 0.06) than with intrinsic rewards (r = -0.03; p
= 0.62). Thus the data suggested that intrinsic rewards were more significantly related
with radical creative behavior than with incremental creative behavior, and extrinsic
rewards were more significantly related with incremental creative behavior than with
radical creative behavior. Regression analysis was used to check for the direct effects of
75
rewards on creative behavior. These effects (standardized beta weights and adjusted R
square) are shown in Table 2.
Step 1 and 2 suggested that control variables (education and experience) and
extrinsic rewards have no effect on radical creative behavior. Step 3 suggested that
intrinsic rewards were a significant predictor of radical creative behavior (b = 0.24; p <
0.001). These results remained consistent when intrinsic and extrinsic rewards were
entered simultaneously in the regression equation to predict radical creative behavior
(Step 4). Step 5 and 7 suggested that control variables (education and experience) and
intrinsic rewards have no effect on the incremental creative behavior. Step 6 suggested
that extrinsic rewards were a significant predictor of incremental creative behavior (b =
0.12; p < 0.05). These results remained consistent when intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
were entered simultaneously in the regression equation to predict incremental creative
behavior (Step 8). Thus regression analyses also supported Hypotheses 1 and 2,
suggesting that extrinsic rewards have significant effects on incremental creative
behavior whereas intrinsic rewards have significant effects on radical creative behavior.
Table 2 shows the adjusted R square and standardized beta weights for the regression
equations of the eight steps discussed above.
5.3 Mediation of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship
Both independent and mediating variables were tapped though self reports filled
at the same time. Thus, before checking the mediation hypotheses, the validity of these
variables were assessed through CFI by comparing the fit indices of single factor models
with the corresponding multiple factor models. This analysis was done for both intrinsic
76
rewards – enjoyment and for extrinsic rewards – creative intention pairs. Results
suggested that the two factor model consisting of extrinsic rewards and creative intention
had better fit indices (X2 = 73.6, df = 34, CFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.90, RMSEA =
0.07) than the corresponding single factor model (X2 = 139, df = 34, CFI = 0.89, GFI =
0.91, AGFI = 0.84, RMSEA = 0.11). Similarly, the two factor model consisting of
intrinsic rewards and enjoyment had better fit indices (X2 = 36.4, df = 19, CFI = 0.97, GFI
= 0.97, AGFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06) than the corresponding single factor model (X2 =
99, df = 19, CFI = 0.84, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.82, RMSEA = 0.13). Finally, a four factor
model with both independent variables and mediating variables also showed a better fit
(X2 = 232.2, df = 148, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.04) than the
corresponding single factor model (X2 = 707.2, df = 151, CFI = 0.63, GFI = 0.76, AGFI =
0.66, RMSEA = 0.12). These indices clearly indicated a preference for two factor and
four factor models over the corresponding single factor models.
Hypothesis 3 suggested the mediation of intrinsic rewards – radical creative
behavior relationship through enjoyment in the activity. This hypothesis was checked
utilizing the four step process recommended by Mathieu and Taylor (2006). The first step
required significant effects of independent variable (intrinsic rewards) on the dependent
variable (radical creative behavior). Model 1 of Table 3a shows that intrinsic rewards
were a significant predictor of radical creative behavior. The second step required the
independent variable (intrinsic rewards) to have significant effects on the mediator
variable (enjoyment in the activity). The second model of Table 3a shows that this
condition was also satisfied, as intrinsic rewards significantly predicted enjoyment in the
activity (β = 0.28; p < 0.001). The third step required significant effects of the mediator
77
variable (enjoyment in the activity) on the dependent variable (radical creative behavior).
The third model of Table 3a shows that enjoyment significantly predicted radical creative
behavior, thus this requirement was also fulfilled. In the last step, the effects of predictor
and mediating variables (intrinsic rewards and enjoyment in activity) on the dependent
variable (radical creative behavior) were tested simultaneously. It was found that (Model
4, Table 3a) although the direct effects of the independent variable (intrinsic rewards)
reduced significantly in the presence of mediator variable (enjoyment in activity),
intrinsic rewards remained a significant predictor of radical creative behavior. A
comparison between step 3 and 4 suggested that the independent variable (intrinsic
rewards) explained more than 50 % additional variation in the dependent variable (radial
creative behavior), that is beyond the variation explained by mediator variable
(enjoyment). The change in R square (between Model 3 and 4) was highly significant (p
= 0.008 for change in R2
Hypothesis 4 suggested that the relationship between extrinsic rewards and
incremental creative behavior would be mediated through creative intention of
employees. This hypothesis was tested utilizing the same process mentioned for H3,
above. This hypothesis was not supported as neither of step 2, 3 or 4 was supported
(shown in Table 3b). Thus creative intention did not mediate the relationship between
extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior. Table 3b shows the adjusted R
). Thus it can be inferred that the relationship between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior is partially mediated through enjoyment in the
activity. Table 3a shows the adjusted R square and standardized beta weights for the
regression equations to check mediation hypothesis.
78
square and standardized beta weights for the regression equations to check the mediation
hypothesis.
The mediation hypotheses were also tested using the procedure suggested by Preacher
and Hayes (2008). The results obtained using a bootstrapping sample size of 1000 and the
bootstrapping bias corrected at the 95% confidence interval, replicated the results
achieved by regression analysis. Enjoyment came out to be a significant mediator of the
relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior. Lower and upper
confidence intervals of indirect effects of intrinsic rewards on radical creative behavior
through enjoyment came out to be 0.06 and 0.47 respectively. Creative intention,
however, did not mediate the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental
creative behavior. Lower and upper confidence intervals of indirect effects of extrinsic
rewards on incremental creative behavior through creative intention came out to be -0.01
and 0.05 respectively.
5.4 Rewards’ Importance as a Moderator of the Reward - Creative Behavior
Relationship
Several of the hypotheses suggested the presence of moderators of the reward –
creative behavior relationship. To test these hypotheses the three step procedure
suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used. In the first step of this procedure,
control variables and dependent variable were entered into the regression equation. In
step 2, independent and moderating variables were added whereas in step 3, the
interaction term (independent variable X moderating variable) was added into the
regression equation. The change in R square between step 2 and 3 determined the
79
presence and significance of moderation. All variables involved in interaction terms were
centered to reduce the problem of multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991).
Hypothesis 5 suggested that the importance of rewards would moderate the
relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior. This hypothesis was
tested through regression analysis using the method discussed above. Interaction term
was added after controlling for the main effects. Results showed that the interaction term
was not significant and intrinsic rewards were the only significant predictor of creative
behavior. Addition of interaction term did not increase R square significantly (β = 0.01; p
= 0.81). Thus hypothesis 5 was not supported.
Hypothesis 6 suggested that importance of extrinsic rewards would moderate the
relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior. This
hypothesis was also tested through a regression analysis. Results showed that the
interaction term was positive and significant predictor of creative behavior. Addition of
interaction term significantly changed the R square (β = 0.12; p = 0.05). Figure 3
graphically represents this relationship, employing analysis based on subgroups of
moderating variables formed at one SD above and below the mean values (as suggested
by Anderson, 1986). Simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that one of the
slopes was significant (β = 0.24, t = 2.66, P < 0.01 for high importance; β = 0.01, t =
0.01, p = 0.99 for low importance of rewards).
Thus, extrinsic rewards enhanced incremental creative behavior only for those
employees who perceived these rewards to be important. The impact of these rewards
was insignificant on the behavior of employees who perceived these to be of low
importance. Thus hypothesis 6 was supported. Table 4 shows the standardized beta
80
weights, significance of beta weights, adjusted R square and change in R square for the
regression equations to test these moderation hypotheses (H5 and H6).
5.5 LOC and CSE as Moderators of the Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
Hypothesis 7 suggested that locus of control would moderate the relationship
between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior of employees. This
hypothesis was also tested through a regression analysis. Results showed that the
interaction term was positive and significant predictor of creative behavior. Addition of
an interaction term significantly changed the R square (β = 0.14; p = 0.02). Figure 4
graphically represents this relationship, employing analysis based on subgroups of
moderating variables formed at one SD above and below the mean values (as suggested
by Anderson, 1986). Simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that one of the
slopes was significant (β = 0.20, t = 2.58, p < 0.01 for internal LOC; β = - 0.07, t = - 0.80,
p = 0.43 for external LOC). Thus, extrinsic rewards enhanced creative behavior of only
those employees that had strong internal LOC, and not of employees who had an external
LOC. The impact of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior of employees with external
LOC was negative but statistically insignificant.
Hypothesis 8, which suggested the moderation of the extrinsic reward –
incremental creative behavior relationship through creative self efficacy was also
supported, as shown in Fig 5. Addition of the interaction term significantly increased R
square (β = 0.13; p = 0.04). Thus presence of extrinsic rewards enhanced creative
behavior of employees with higher creative self efficacy, whereas the impact of extrinsic
81
rewards on creative behavior of employees with low creative self efficacy was negative,
but not statistically significant. Simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that
one of the slopes was significant (β = 0.24, t = 2.96, p < 0.01 for high CSE; β = - 0.01, t =
- 0.24, p = 0.89 for low CSE). Table 5 shows the standardized beta weights, significance
of beta weights, adjusted R square and change in R square for the regression equations to
check hypotheses 7 and 8.
5.6 Goal Orientation as a Moderator of the Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
Hypothesis 9a suggested that learning goal orientation would moderate the
relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior such that the positive
relationship between rewards and creative behavior would be stronger in the presence of
high learning goal orientation (LGO). Hypothesis 9b suggested that performance goal
orientation (PGO) would moderate the relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical
creative behavior such that the positive relationship between rewards and creative
behavior would be stronger in the presence of a weak PGO. These hypotheses were
checked in two steps first for LGO and then for PGO, using regression analysis. Results
(Table 6a) suggested that LGO moderated the relationship between intrinsic rewards and
radical creative behavior, however PGO was not found to be a significant moderator of
the intrinsic rewards – radical creative behavior relationship. Thus hypothesis 9a was
supported but hypothesis 9b was not supported. Intrinsic rewards significantly enhanced
radical creative behavior for employees with a strong LGO. The relationship between
intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior for employees with weak LGO was
82
positive, but not statistically significant. An interaction term consisting of intrinsic
rewards and LGO increased R square significantly (β = 0.12; p = 0.04). Figure 6
graphically represents this relationship, employing analysis based on subgroups of
moderating variables formed at one SD above and below the mean values (as suggested
by Anderson, 1986). Simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that one of the
slopes was significant (β = 0.33, t = 3.75, p < 0.01 for strong LGO; β = 0.13, t = 1.79, p =
0.07 for weak LGO). Thus, intrinsic rewards significantly enhanced radical creativity for
employees with a strong LGO, and not of employees who have a weak LGO.
Interaction consisting of intrinsic rewards and PGO did not increase R square
significantly. Thus, PGO has no significant effect on the relationship between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior. Table 6a shows the standardized beta weights,
significance of beta weights, adjusted R square and change in R square for the effects of
goal orientation on intrinsic reward – radical creative behavior relationship.
Hypothesis 10a suggested that learning goal orientation (LGO) would moderate
the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such that
the positive relationship between rewards and creative behavior would be stronger in the
presence of strong LGO. Hypothesis 10b suggested that Performance goal orientation
(PGO) would moderate the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental
creative behavior such that the positive relationship between rewards and creative
behavior would be stronger for individuals with a weak PGO. These hypotheses were
also checked in two steps, first for LGO and then for PGO, using regression analysis.
Results suggested that the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental
creative behavior was not moderated through LGO. The interaction term was not a
83
significant predictor of creative behavior, nor did its introduction change R square
significantly (β = 0.06; p = 0.37). Thus hypothesis 10a was not supported. The results
however showed that PGO moderated the relationship between extrinsic rewards and
incremental creative behavior, but in opposite to the hypothesized direction. The addition
of an interaction term significantly increased R square (β = 0.33; p < 0.01). Figure 7
graphically represents this relationship, employing analysis based on subgroups of
moderating variables formed at one SD above and below the mean values (as suggested
by Anderson, 1986). Simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that one of the
slopes was significant (β = 0.42, t = 5.77, p < 0.01 for strong PGO; β = - 0.14, t = - 1.54,
p = 0.13 for weak PGO).
Thus, extrinsic rewards enhanced incremental creative behavior only for
employees with a strong PGO, and not of employees who have a weak PGO. Table 6b
shows the standardized beta weights, significance of beta weights, adjusted R square and
change in R square for the effects of goal orientation on the extrinsic rewards –
incremental creative behavior relationship.
5.7 Support as Moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship
Hypothesis 11 suggested that support for creative behavior would moderate the
relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior such that the
relationship would be stronger in the presence of support than in its absence. Support for
creativity was operationalized considering support from two different constituencies, i.e.
support from supervisor (SS) and support from coworkers (CWS). Thus this hypothesis
was tested in two steps. First, the effects of SS on the intrinsic rewards - radical creative
84
behavior relationship were assessed and then the effects of CWS were assessed on the
same relationship.
The first regression analysis showed that an interaction term consisting of
intrinsic rewards and SS was not statistically significant and did not increase R square
significantly (β = 0.07; p = 0.22). The second regression analysis showed that interaction
term consisting of intrinsic rewards and CWS was also not statistically significant (β =
0.04; p = 0.54). In both cases the effects of support from supervisor and coworkers
enhanced creative behavior (as hypothesized) but the increase was not statistically
significant. Intrinsic rewards significantly enhanced radical creative behavior regardless
of the support from supervisor or coworkers, however the positive effects of intrinsic
rewards on creative behavior were more prominent when there was high support for
creativity. Table 7a shows the standardized beta weights, significance of beta weights,
adjusted R square and change in R square for the regression equations.
Hypothesis 12 suggested that support for creativity would moderate the
relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such that the
relationship would be stronger in the presence of support than in its absence. This
hypothesis was also checked in two steps. First the effects of SS on the relationship
between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior were assessed and then the
effects of CWS on the same relationship were assessed. Results showed that neither of SS
and CWS moderated this relationship as both interaction terms were insignificant (for
interaction term consisting of extrinsic rewards and SS, β = 0.04; p = 0.48; whereas, for
interaction term consisting of extrinsic rewards and CWS, β = 0.05; p = 0.47). Table 7b
shows the standardized beta weights, significance of beta weights, adjusted R square and
85
change in R square for the effects of support on extrinsic reward – incremental creative
behavior relationship.
5.8 Organizational Climate as a Moderator of the Reward - Creative Behavior
Relationship
Hypothesis 13 suggested that the climate for innovation and flexibility (CI) would
moderate the relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior such
that this relationship would be stronger when the organization has a climate favorable for
innovation and flexibility.
This hypothesis was checked using regression analysis. Results suggested that the
climate for innovation and flexibility did moderate the relationship between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior. The interaction term increased R square
significantly (β = 0.20; p < 0.01). Figure 8 graphically represents this relationship,
employing analysis based on subgroups of moderating variables formed at one SD above
and below the mean values (as suggested by Anderson, 1986). Simple slope analysis
(Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that one of the slopes was highly significant whereas the
other was not statistically significant (β = 0.46, t = 7.51, p < 0.01 for strong CI; β = 0.04,
t = 0.43, p = 0.67 for weak CI). Thus, intrinsic rewards enhanced radical creative
behavior significantly when the organizational climate favors innovation and flexibility,
and not otherwise.
Hypothesis 14 suggested that the climate for innovation and flexibility (CI) would
moderate the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior
such that this relationship would be stronger when the organization has a climate
86
favorable for innovation and flexibility. This hypothesis was checked using regression
analysis. Results suggested that climate for innovation and flexibility did not moderate
the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior, as the
interaction term did not increase R square significantly (β = 0.01; p = 0.99). Table 8a
shows the standardized beta weights, significance of beta weights, adjusted R square and
change in R square for the effects of innovation climate on reward – creative behavior
relationship.
Hypothesis 15 suggested that the climate for tradition would moderate the
relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior such that this
positive relationship would be weaker when the organizational climate has a strong
preference for upholding traditions. This hypothesis was checked using regression
analysis. Results suggested that climate for tradition did moderate the relationship
between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior. The interaction term increased R
square significantly (β = -0.22; p < 0.01). Figure 9 graphically represents this
relationship, employing analysis based on subgroups of moderating variables formed at
one SD above and below the mean values (as suggested by Anderson, 1986). Simple
slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that one of the slopes was significant
whereas the other was not statistically significant (β = 0.01, t = 0.01, p = 0.99 for strong
CT; β = 0.31, t = 4.83, p < 0.01 for weak CT). Thus, intrinsic rewards enhanced radical
creative behavior only when the organizational climate is not very strongly oriented
towards upholding traditions. In organizations with climate favoring traditionalism,
intrinsic rewards can not produce radical creative behavior.
87
Hypothesis 16 suggested that the climate for tradition would moderate the
relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such that this
relationship would be weaker when the organizational climate has a strong preference for
upholding traditions. This hypothesis was checked using regression analysis. Results
suggested that climate for tradition did moderate the relationship between extrinsic
rewards and incremental creative behavior. The interaction term increased R square
significantly (β = -0.14; p < 0.01). Figure 10 graphically represents this relationship,
employing analysis based on subgroups of moderating variables formed at one SD above
and below the mean values (as suggested by Anderson, 1986). Simple slope analysis
(Aiken & West, 1991) revealed that one of the slopes was significant whereas the other
was not statistically significant (β = - 0.02, t = - 0.29, p = 0.77 for strong CT; β = 0.26, t =
3.30, p < 0.01 for weak CT). Thus, extrinsic rewards enhance incremental creative
behavior only when the organizational climate is not very strongly oriented towards
upholding traditions. In organizations with climate favoring traditionalism, extrinsic
rewards can not produce incremental creative behavior. Table 8b shows the standardized
beta weights, significance of beta weights, adjusted R square and change in R square for
the effects of traditional climate on reward – creative behavior relationship.
The moderating effects of all personality variables were simultaneously analyzed
on the extrinsic rewards – incremental creativity relationship. Similarly, the effect of all
contextual variables was analyzed on the extrinsic rewards – incremental creativity
relationship. Table 9a shows the results of these two regression analyses. When all
personality related moderators, i.e. LOC, CSE, PGO and LGO (along with the control
variables, independent variables and interactional terms) were entered simultaneously in
88
the regression equation with incremental creativity as the dependent variable, only one
interaction term (Extrinsic Rewards X PGO) came out to be the significant predictor of
incremental creative behavior. When all contextual moderators i.e. support from
coworkers, support from supervisor, climate for innovation and climate for tradition
(along with the control variables, independent variables and interactional terms) were
entered simultaneously in the regression equation with incremental creativity as the
dependent variable, only one interaction term (Extrinsic Rewards X CT) came out to be
the significant predictor of incremental creative behavior, whereas another term
(Extrinsic Rewards X SS) was marginally significant.
The same analysis as mentioned in the above paragraph was repeated for the
relation between intrinsic rewards and radical creativity. Table 9b shows the results of
these two regression analyses. When the personality related moderators, i.e. PGO and
LGO (along with the control variables, independent variables and interactional terms)
were entered simultaneously in the regression equation with radical creativity as the
dependent variable, both of the interaction terms (Intrinsic Rewards X PGO and Intrinsic
Rewards X LGO) came out to be the significant predictor of incremental creative
behavior. When all contextual moderators i.e. support from coworkers, support from
supervisor, climate for innovation and climate for tradition (along with the control
variables, independent variables and interactional terms) were entered simultaneously in
the regression equation with radical creativity as the dependent variable, only one
interaction term (Intrinsic Rewards X CI) came out to be the significant predictor of
incremental creative behavior, whereas another term (Intrinsic Rewards X CT) was
marginally significant.
89
5.9 Post hoc Analysis
Goal orientation was operationalized using learning and performance goal
orientations. Some researchers (i.e. Vandewalle, 1997) have further classified
performance goal orientation in two types, i.e. prove goal orientation (PvGO; the
orientation to prove one’s ability) and avoidance goal orientation (AGO; the orientation
to avoid negative evaluation). Data showed that AGO has a negative (and significant)
correlation with both radical and incremental creative behavior. PvGO was positively
(and significantly) related with incremental creative behavior, and unrelated to radical
creative behavior. I also checked the effects of these two subtypes of performance goal
orientation on the creative behavior of employees, by using regression analysis. Results
suggested that these two goal orientations have different effects on creative behavior,
such as PvGO significantly enhanced the effects of extrinsic rewards on incremental
creative behavior (t = 4.04 (the t statistics becomes significant when it is equal to or more
than 2)), whereas AGO has no effect on the extrinsic rewards – incremental creative
behavior relationship (t = 0.83). Thus, it can be concluded that prove and avoidance goal
orientations are theoretically distinct constructs that affect reward – creative behavior
relationship differently, both in magnitude and direction.
The hypothesis suggesting the mediation of the intrinsic rewards – radical creative
behavior through enjoyment was supported, and enjoyment was found to partially
mediate the relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior. In the
post hoc analysis, I checked for the presence of mediated moderation by exploring the
effects of all moderators (CSE, LOC, support, reward importance, goal orientation and
organizational climate) on predictor – mediator (intrinsic reward – enjoyment) and
90
mediator – dependent variable (enjoyment – radical creative behavior) relationships, as
suggested by Muller, Judd and Yzerbyt (2005).
This mediated moderation analysis showed that one interaction term consisting of
intrinsic rewards and traditional climate significantly predicted enjoyment (t = -2.65).
Thus, intrinsic rewards produced enjoyment only when organizational climate was not
favoring traditionalism. When organizational environment was strongly oriented towards
traditionalism, intrinsic rewards in an activity did not produce enjoyment. The analysis
further showed that three interaction terms (consisting of enjoyment and LGO (t = 3.59),
enjoyment and AGO (t = -2.47), and enjoyment and innovation climate (t = 4.84))
significantly predicted radical creative behavior. Thus, enjoyment in the activity
produced radical creative behavior when the employees had a high LGO accompanied
with a low AGO and when the organizational climate favored innovation. Figure 11
represents the mediated moderation of the intrinsic rewards – radical creative behavior
relationship.
The hypothesis suggesting the mediation of the extrinsic rewards – incremental
creative behavior relationship through creative intention was not supported. Although
extrinsic rewards significantly predicted incremental creative behavior, the effects of
extrinsic rewards on creative intention were not significant. I checked for the presence of
mediated moderation by exploring the effects of all moderators (CSE, LOC, support,
reward importance, goal orientation and organizational climate) on the predictor –
mediator (extrinsic reward – creative intention) and mediator – dependent variable
(creative intention – incremental creative behavior) relationships, as suggested by Muller
et al., (2005). This mediated moderation analysis showed that several interaction terms
91
(consisting of independent and moderating variables) were significant predictors of the
mediating variable. The factors that significantly moderated the relationship between
extrinsic rewards and creative intention included traditional climate (t = -2.24), climate
for innovation (t = 2.26), coworkers’ support (t = 2.82), and locus of control (t = 3.35).
Thus extrinsic rewards triggered creative intention for employees with an internal locus
of control but only when the organizational climate favored innovation over
traditionalism and when coworkers’ support was high. In other situations extrinsic
rewards did not create an intention to behave creatively. The analysis showed that
extrinsic rewards have no direct effects on creative intention and these rewards affected
creative intention only through interactional effects.
The analysis also showed that the mediating variable (creative intention) has no
direct effects on the dependent variable (incremental creative behavior). However, the
interaction term consisting of creative intention and traditional climate significantly
predicted incremental creative behavior (t = -3.02). Thus creative intention produced
creative behavior only when organizational climate did not favor upholding traditions. In
a climate favoring traditionalism it was hard for employees to exhibit creative behavior,
even when they have a clear intention to behave creatively. Figure 12 represents the
mediated moderation of the extrinsic rewards – incremental creative behavior
relationship.
Although not hypothesized, I checked for the presence of multiple mediators
using the procedure suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Thus both enjoyment and
creative intention were tested as mediators of the relationship between intrinsic rewards
and radical creative behavior and of the relationship between extrinsic rewards and
92
incremental creative behavior. Results showed that the relationship between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior was mediated through enjoyment but not through
creative intention. Results further showed that the relationship between extrinsic rewards
and incremental creative behavior was neither mediated by creative intention, nor by
enjoyment. Thus, the results for multiple mediation analysis strongly correspond with the
results achieved through regression analysis. The results of multiple mediation analysis
are shown in Table 10a and 10b.
There are some examples in the creativity literature (i.e. Eisenberger & Shanock,
2003), suggesting that extrinsic rewards can also lead towards radical creative behavior.
However, the present data did not show direct effects of extrinsic rewards on radical
creative behavior. Thus, although not hypothesized, the moderated effects of extrinsic
rewards on radical creative behavior of employees were also analyzed. For this, all of the
hypothesized moderators of the reward – creativity relationship were tested for extrinsic
rewards – radical creativity relationship, one by one. Results supported that extrinsic
rewards can produce radical creative behavior in some specified situations. Several of the
interaction terms (consisting of extrinsic rewards and personal / contextual variables)
significantly predicted radical creative behavior. The terms along with their t statistics
and standardized beta weights are shown in Table 11.
Thus, data suggested that radical creative behavior can be triggered by both the
direct effects of intrinsic rewards and the moderated effects of extrinsic rewards. I further
analyzed the data to see which of these two (direct effects of intrinsic rewards or
moderated effects of extrinsic rewards) were a stronger predictor of radical creative
behavior. For this, I entered the moderated effects of extrinsic rewards and the direct
93
effects of intrinsic rewards in the regression equation simultaneously to see which has a
larger affect on radical creative behavior. The standardized beta weights of direct effects
of intrinsic rewards and moderated effects of extrinsic rewards on radical creative
behavior are shown in Table 12. Data suggested that the direct effects of intrinsic rewards
were a consistent and significant predictor of radical creative behavior. In four (out of the
five) regression models, the effects of intrinsic rewards were more significant than the
interaction terms consisting of extrinsic rewards and moderator variables. In one
regression model the direct effects of intrinsic rewards and moderated effects of extrinsic
rewards were comparable in magnitude (Table 12). Thus it can be concluded that, overall,
intrinsic rewards were stronger predictor of radical creative behavior than the moderated
effects of extrinsic rewards.
The data suggested that extrinsic rewards can trigger radical creative behavior in
some specific situations. The next logical question that arose was that if intrinsic rewards
could generate incremental creative behavior? The current data suggested that there were
no direct effects of intrinsic rewards on incremental creative behavior. Thus, I checked
for the moderated effects of intrinsic rewards on the incremental creative behavior of
employees, to ascertain that if intrinsic rewards can initiate incremental creative behavior
in specific situations or if intrinsic rewards always trigger radical creative behavior.
Results suggested that intrinsic rewards triggered incremental creative behavior in two
situations. First, intrinsic rewards resulted in incremental creative behavior for employees
with a low avoidance goal orientation, and second when the organizational climate favors
innovation over tradition. The significant terms along with their t statistics are shown in
Table 13.
94
Finally, to ascertain that the effects of LOC and CSE were specific for the
extrinsic reward – incremental creative behavior relationship (as hypothesized), I checked
for the moderation effects of CSE and LOC on the intrinsic rewards – creative behavior
relationship. Results show that neither LOC nor CSE moderated the relationship between
intrinsic rewards and creative behavior (whether radical or incremental). The t statistic
and beta weights of the interaction terms are given in the Table 14. Thus the data
supported that LOC and CSE played important role only in the perspective of extrinsic
rewards and these were not relevant for intrinsic rewards – creative behavior relationship.
95
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
The last chapter of this dissertation consists of four sections. In the first section,
the results are discussed in detail. In the second and third sections, the theoretical and
practical implications of the results are presented, and finally in the last section, some of
the limitations of the present study are pointed out.
6.1 Discussions of the Results
The present study advances the research stream that has explored the effects of
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on creative behavior. The results suggest that the
relationship between intrinsic rewards and creative behavior is direct and un-moderated
and intrinsic rewards are a consistent predictor of creative behavior. Cognitive
researchers suggest that when individuals perform an activity under the influence of
intrinsic rewards, they exhibit behavior that is highly creative (Amabile at al., 1994). The
current study has empirically verified this assertion by showing that high intrinsic
rewards in performing an activity almost always result in exhibition of creative behavior.
Thus the current study verifies the finding of cognitive research stream which suggests
intrinsic rewards as the main driver of creative behavior (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 2001).
The study takes a step in the forward direction by showing a psychological process (i.e.
enjoyment) that mediates the relationship between intrinsic rewards and creative
behavior. Thus it suggests that intrinsic rewards to perform an activity make that activity
a source of enjoyment for the employees, and these employees exhibit highly creative
behavior when they start enjoying their tasks. The study also suggests that intrinsic
96
rewards are more strongly related with radical creative behavior than with incremental
creative behavior. The study identifies some personal and contextual factors that
strengthen the positive effects of intrinsic rewards on radical creative behavior. Thus it
suggests the situations when the relationship between intrinsic rewards and creative
behavior becomes stronger and more significant.
The relationship between extrinsic rewards and creativity is interesting but
complex. Most of the previous research has studied only the direct effects of extrinsic
rewards on creative behavior. Some studies have reported positive effects (i.e.
Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996) whereas others have reported insignificant or negative
effects of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior (i.e. Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999).
However, regardless of results, almost all of the previous research stops at this point. The
present study moves a step forward by considering the interactional effects of individual
and contextual factors on the extrinsic rewards – creative behavior relationship. The
present study verifies the behaviorist research stream that extrinsic rewards should not be
viewed as inhibiting creativity in all situations (Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009). It
confirms that importance and contingency of extrinsic rewards are crucial in determining
the effects of rewards on creative behavior (Yoon & Choi, 2010). Using the theories
(such as cognitive evaluation theory and self determination theory) developed by
cognitive theorists (i.e. Gagne & Deci, 2005), the present study suggests that the negative
effects of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior are not generalizable to every individual.
The study identifies several personal and contextual factors that interact with extrinsic
rewards to trigger creative behavior. These factors include personal dispositions of
employees such as locus of control, creative self efficacy and goal orientation as well as
97
contextual factors such as support for creativity and climate for creativity. The study also
suggests that extrinsic rewards are more strongly related with incremental creative
behavior than with radical creative behavior.
Detailed discussions of results follow.
6.1.1 Rewards and Creative Behavior – Direct Effects
The results suggest that intrinsic rewards are strongly related with radical creative
behavior, whereas the impact of these rewards on incremental creative behavior is not
significant. The results also indicate that extrinsic rewards have a much stronger effect on
incremental creative behavior than on radical creative behavior. This is one of the most
important findings of this study, as previous reward – creativity research has considered
creativity as a unidimentional construct and has largely ignored the idea that both
extrinsic and intrinsic rewards can generate creative behavior, but of different types. This
is one of the earliest studies in the reward - creativity research that has identified two
distinct types of creative behaviors and has linked these behaviors with different type of
rewards. Although this is a new finding, it makes a lot of sense.
The deep level of involvement, commitment and persistence that radical creative
behavior requires is probably difficult to be triggered through extrinsic rewards.
Individuals for whom the primary motive of exhibiting creative behavior is to get some
extrinsic rewards tend to search for the easiest and quickest way to exhibit creative
behavior. Normally the outcome of this process is a small modification and improvement
that has been termed as incremental creativity. Post hoc analysis of the data shows
another difference between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in producing radical creative
behavior. The relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior is
98
largely un-moderated and direct. Thus intrinsic rewards do not require any specific
personal or situational help to produce radical creative behavior, although some factors
(such as learning goal orientation and climate for innovation) enhance the positive effects
of intrinsic rewards on radical creative behavior. Extrinsic rewards on the other hand, can
also produce radical creative behavior, but only in some specific situations, i.e. when
there is high support for creative behavior available and when the climate favors
innovation over traditionalism.
Predictors of incremental creative behavior are different from that of radical
creative behavior. Intrinsic rewards do not trigger incremental creative behavior in most
of the situations. However in the presence of high avoidance goal orientation and in a
climate that favors traditionalism, intrinsic rewards end up in producing incremental
creative behavior. The relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative
behavior is significant and extrinsic rewards trigger incremental creative behavior more
frequently than triggering radical creative behavior. Several personal and contextual
factors moderate the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative
behavior, such as high importance of rewards, internal locus of control, high creative self
efficacy, high performance goal orientation and low traditionalistic environment. The
effects of extrinsic rewards on the creative behavior of employees are positive in the
presence of these personal and contextual factors and become negative or insignificant in
their absence. Thus on the one hand, the relationship between intrinsic rewards and
radical creative behavior is largely un-moderated and direct, but on the other, the
relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior is moderated by
several personal and contextual variables. Looking only for direct effects is an important
99
reason that the reward - creativity research has largely ignored the positive effects of
extrinsic rewards on creative behavior (Amabile, 1985; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996).
6.1.2 Mediation of the Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship
Hypotheses 1 and 2 suggest that enjoyment would mediate the relationship
between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior whereas creative intention would
mediate the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior.
The former hypothesis was supported whereas the later was not. Enjoyment came out to
be a partial mediator of the intrinsic reward – radical creative behavior relationship.
Although intrinsic motivation theory (Amabile, 1994) suggests that intrinsic rewards
produce a higher level of enjoyment and involvement in the activity, which in turn
generate creative behavior, this is one of the first studies to empirically verify this
relationship.
Mediation of the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative
behavior through creative intention was not supported, however, post hoc analysis
provided some reasons for it. Several personal and contextual factors (such as
performance goal orientation, coworkers’ support, locus of control and organizational
climate) moderate the relationship between extrinsic rewards and creative intention. Thus
extrinsic rewards trigger creative intention only when these personal and contextual
factors are in place and not otherwise. Similarly, the relationship between creative
intention and incremental creative behavior is not direct and is moderated by
organizational climate. Thus the mediation hypothesis was not supported as the
independent variable (extrinsic rewards) has only moderated effects (and not direct
effects) on the mediator variable (creative intention). Similarly the mediator variable
100
(creative intention) has only moderated effects (and not direct effects) on the dependent
variable (creative behavior).
6.1.3 Rewards’ Importance in the Context of Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
It was hypothesized that the importance of rewards would moderate the relation
between rewards and creative behavior. Results showed that although the importance of
extrinsic rewards moderated the relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental
creative behavior, the relationship between intrinsic rewards and radial creative behavior
was not moderated through the importance of intrinsic rewards. Thus, the study finds an
important distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as the predictors of creative
behavior. Extrinsic rewards enhance creative behavior only when these are considered
important by the employees to whom these rewards are being offered, however, intrinsic
rewards enhance creative behavior irrespective of their importance. Possibly the
importance and relevance of extrinsic rewards vary from person to person, however
intrinsic rewards such as getting a sense of satisfaction, fulfillment and competence are
meaningful and important for almost every individual. Probably this is the reason that
respondents rated the importance of intrinsic rewards significantly higher than the
importance of extrinsic rewards. Thus, another important difference between intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards is that the relationship between intrinsic rewards and creative behavior
is direct and un-moderated, whereas extrinsic rewards trigger creative behavior almost
always in interaction with personal and contextual factors.
101
6.1.4 LOC and CSE in the Context of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship
Another important finding of this study is the moderation of extrinsic rewards –
incremental creative behavior relationship through locus of control and creative self
efficacy. Both locus of control and creative self efficacy significantly moderated the
extrinsic rewards – creative behavior relationship. It suggests that the impact of extrinsic
rewards on creative behavior varies from person to person. This is one of the earliest
studies that has hypothesized and shown this interactional effect. Extrinsic rewards
enhanced incremental creative behavior for employees with an internal locus of control
and high creative self efficacy. For employees with external locus of control and low
creative self efficacy, the impact of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior was negative.
Interestingly, this interactional effect supports both cognitive and behaviorist research
simultaneously. On the one hand it supports the argument forwarded by cognitive
evaluation theory that the negative effects of extrinsic rewards are because of the lowered
perceptions of self control and self competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985), while on the other
hand, it supports the behaviorist assertion that extrinsic rewards must not be seen as
detrimental to creative behavior in every situation and for every individual (Eisenberger
& Shanock, 2003).
The study shows that individuals with a strong internal LOC and high CSE are not
negatively affected by extrinsic rewards, but on the contrary, extrinsic rewards enhance
creative behavior of individuals with these personal dispositions. These individuals don’t
view extrinsic rewards as controlling their behavior, or as a signal of their incompetence.
Instead, the employees view these rewards as a challenge and opportunity, and as a
reward for their competence. Thus, results show that extrinsic rewards can enhance
102
creative behavior of employees, if the perceptions of lowered self control and
competence are avoided. Individuals with internal LOC and high CSE are inoculated
against the potential toxic effects of extrinsic rewards, thus providing “readiness” to
benefit from extrinsic rewards without experiencing the negative psychological
consequences of extrinsic rewards.
Post hoc analysis confirmed that LOC and CSE are important only in the perspective of
the extrinsic rewards – creative behavior relationship. Although internal LOC and high
CSE reversed the negative effects of extrinsic rewards on incremental creative behavior,
both LOC and CSE were insignificant in the perspective of the intrinsic rewards –
creative behavior relationship.
6.1.5 Goal Orientation in the Context of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship
It was hypothesized that goal orientation would moderate the relationship between
rewards and creative behavior. There were four hypotheses suggesting this moderation.
The first hypotheses suggested that learning goal orientation would moderate the
relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior in a way that this
relationship would be stronger in the presence of a strong learning goal orientation. This
hypothesis was supported as data suggested that strong LGO strengthened the positive
effects of intrinsic rewards on radical creative behavior. The relationship between
intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior for employees with weak LGO was
positive but not statistically significant. The next hypothesis suggested that performance
goal orientation would moderate the relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical
creative behavior in a way that this relationship would be stronger in the presence of a
weak PGO. This hypothesis was not supported as the interactional term was not
103
significant. Data suggested that the effects of intrinsic rewards on radical creative
behavior were positive for all employees, irrespective of their PGO.
The third hypothesis suggested that LGO would moderate the relationship
between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior in a way that this
relationship would become stronger in the presence of high LGO. This hypothesis was
not supported. The effects of extrinsic rewards on incremental creative behavior were not
dependent on the LGO of employees.
The last hypothesis suggested that PGO would moderate the relationship between
extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior in a way that this relationship would
become stronger in the presence of weak PGO. This hypothesis was not supported, and in
fact, data suggested the opposite to be true. In the presence of extrinsic rewards,
employees with a strong PGO exhibited a significantly higher level of incremental
creative behavior than employees with a low PGO. Thus, the role of PGO as something
opposed to creative behavior (Borlongan, 2008; Janseen & Yperen, 2004) should be
reconsidered. The role of PGO is insignificant in the perspective of radical creative
behavior, but it plays an important role in perspective of incremental creative behavior.
When employees have a strong desire to perform and to demonstrate their abilities, they
may become more creative as an exhibition of creative behavior helps in demonstrating
their abilities. However, when creative behavior is triggered by a desire to display one’s
ability and not by intrinsic interest in the activity, the type of creative behavior is
incremental and not radical.
Post hoc analyses explained a reason of why literature has previously reported
negative or insignificant association of PGO with creative behavior. Performance goal
104
orientation is further classified in two types, i.e. prove and avoidance goal orientation.
Data suggested that these two orientations were not positively related with each other.
The correlation between these two orientations was negative and significant. Post hoc
analysis also suggested that impact of these two orientations on creative behavior was in
the opposite direction. Thus operationalizing performance goal orientation of employees
by averaging their prove and avoidance orientations is not theoretically justified. Two
employees with a similar level of performance orientation may behave very differently if
one is high on avoidance and the other is high on proving orientation. Thus, I suggest that
goal orientation should be operationalized using all three orientations i.e. learning, prove
and avoidance.
Finally, it appears that LGO plays a more important role in the exhibition of
radical creative behavior and not for incremental creative behavior. In other words,
employees can exhibit radical creative behavior only if they have a strong LGO and not
otherwise. However, LGO is not a necessary condition for the exhibition of incremental
creative behavior, and employees can exhibit incremental creative behavior, even if they
are low on LGO. Thus goal orientation of employees is a very important disposition in
the context of the reward – creative behavior relationship. A high LGO enhances the
effects of intrinsic rewards on radical creative behavior, but is insignificant in the
perspective of the extrinsic rewards – incremental creative behavior relationship. A high
PGO enhances the effects of extrinsic rewards on incremental creative behavior, but is
insignificant in the perspective of the intrinsic rewards – radical creative behavior
relationship.
105
6.1.6 Support in the Context of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship
It was hypothesized that support for creativity would moderate the relationship
between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior as well as that between extrinsic
rewards and incremental creative behavior. Both of these hypotheses were not supported.
There could be several reasons for it. First, the relationship between intrinsic rewards and
creative behavior is largely direct and un-moderated. Data suggest that high intrinsic
rewards almost always triggers creative behavior, irrespective of personal and contextual
factors. Employees with high intrinsic interest in the activity pursue the activity for its
own sake and feel enjoyment and satisfaction by performing that activity. They do not
require any external support for performing that activity and are not distracted by absence
of such support. Thus it is not surprising that the relationship between intrinsic rewards
and radical creative behavior is not moderated through support for creativity. Further,
data suggested that employees did exhibit higher radical creative behavior in the presence
of support than in its absence. Thus, support from both coworkers and supervisor did
enhance the positive effects of intrinsic rewards on radical creative behavior, however the
increase was not statistically significant.
The relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior was
not moderated by support for creativity. This is a bit surprising as the literature pointed
out that support would enhance the effects of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior. One
possible reason for this finding is that support is just one of the several contextual factors
and thus its impact is not large enough to reach the level of statistical significance.
Employees under the influence of extrinsic rewards may require a favorable environment
to exhibit creative behavior, but support is only one element that makes the
106
environmental conducive for exhibition of creative behavior. This argument is
strengthened by the fact that although support was not found to moderate the relationship
between extrinsic rewards and creative behavior, climate for tradition was found to
moderate this relationship significantly. Another reason that support did not moderate the
relationship between extrinsic rewards and creative behavior might be the fact that when
employees have made a conscious decision of behaving creatively to get some extrinsic
rewards, they may be less distracted by absence of support. Extrinsic rewards may
provide sufficient motivation to these employees, so they are not dependent on the
support from colleagues and supervisors. Finally, the relationship between extrinsic
rewards and creative behavior is dependent on so many other factors (such as rewards’
importance, LOC, CSE, goal orientation, and organizational climate) that one factor out
of several contextual factors failed to reach the level of statistical significance.
Although the moderation of the reward – creative behavior relationship by
support for creativity was not supported, support for creativity still appeared to be
important in the context of the reward – creative behavior relationship. Post hoc analysis
showed that extrinsic rewards triggered radical creative behavior when there was high
support for creativity from the coworkers. Post hoc analysis also revealed that extrinsic
rewards generated a creative intention to behave creatively, only when the support for
creativity was high.
6.1.7 Organizational Climate in the Context of Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
Four hypotheses suggested that the relationship between rewards and creative
behavior would be moderated by organizational climate. Two hypotheses correspond to
107
the moderation of the intrinsic rewards – radical creative behavior, whereas the other two
pointed towards the moderation of the extrinsic rewards – incremental creative behavior.
Out of these four hypotheses, three were supported, thus organization climate appeared to
be a consistent moderator of the reward – creative behavior relationship. It confirmed
Sternberg’s assertion that without some environmental support, the potential for
creativity that an individual holds might never be displayed (Sternberg, 2006).
The relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior was
moderated through both climate for innovation and climate for tradition. Thus, data
suggested that organizational climate played an important role in the exhibition of radical
creative behavior. In other words, employees exhibit radical creative behavior only when
the organizational climate favors innovation over traditionalism. In organizations where
following traditions is favored over innovation, employees don’t exhibit radical creative
behavior, even if they find high intrinsic rewards in performing the activity. The
importance of climate for innovation to enhance radical creative behavior is also evident
from the post hoc analyses that show extrinsic rewards to trigger radical creative
behavior, when organizational climate is very strongly inclined towards innovation. Thus
an important finding of the present study is that organizations that wish to enhance
radical creative behavior must establish an environment that clearly supports innovation
and creativity. In the absence of such an environment, both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards
will become ineffective in producing radical creative behavior.
Results also show that climate for tradition moderated the relationship between
extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior. Employees exhibited incremental
creative behavior in the presence of extrinsic rewards only when the climate was not
108
inclined towards traditionalism. In organizations with climate clearly supporting
traditions, extrinsic rewards became ineffective to produce incremental creative behavior.
The relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior was not
moderated by climate for innovation. Thus climate that clearly favors innovation is not a
necessary condition for the exhibition of incremental creative behavior. Incremental
creative behavior only requires traditionalism to be low, without asking for a highly
innovative climate.
The results therefore suggest that both incremental and radical creative behavior
requires a climate that is low on traditionalism. In addition to this, radical creative
behavior also requires a climate that clearly favors innovation. Employees under the
influence of extrinsic rewards may only require absence of opposing forces such as
upholding traditions, to exhibit incremental creative behavior, whereas employees that
exhibit radical creative behavior require the absence of opposing forces in the
environment as well as the presence of supporting forces, such as climate for innovation.
Thus exhibition of radical creative behavior is somewhat more demanding as far as
organizational climate is concerned.
6.2 Theoretical Contributions
The current study started with the objective of filling some gaps in the rewards –
creativity literature by answering three research questions. These questions were related
to the identification of the mediators of the rewards – creativity relationship,
identification of the personal and contextual moderators of the rewards – creativity
relationship, and identification of a connection between specific types of rewards and
109
specific types of creative behaviors. This study has significantly advanced the rewards –
creativity research in all of these three dimensions. To answer the first research question,
results show that the relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creativity is
partially mediated by enjoyment in the activity. Although the hypothesis regarding the
mediation of extrinsic rewards – incremental creativity through creative intention was not
supported, post hoc analysis revealed that this relationship is moderated by several
personal and contextual variables. The second research question was satisfied as several
personal and contextual variables, such as LOC, CSE, goal orientation and organizational
climate were found to moderate the relationship between rewards and creative behavior.
Finally, the third research question was answered as data showed a strong relationship
between intrinsic rewards and radical creativity and between extrinsic rewards and
incremental creativity.
The current study also advances rewards – creativity research at the theoretical level. It
created a conversation between two well established theories that have never
communicated with each other previously (i.e. theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991))
and cognitive evaluation theory (Deci and Ryan, 1980)). By joining the elements of these
two theories, the present study developed an insight and suggested that the presence of
rewards will affect individuals differently, based on their individual differences. The
current study also created a conversation between the confluence theory of creativity
(Sternberg, 2006) and the previous reward – creativity research and by using this
combination, suggested that the effects of rewards on creative behavior of individuals
will also depend on the contextual factors. Results supported both of these assertions.
110
Joining existing theories to produce some new insights is one of the most important
theoretical contributions of this study.
Creativity covers a broad conceptual domain and hence some of the creativity
researchers have identified the need to classify creative behavior into different types
(Sternberg, 1999; Unsworth, 2001). Classification of multidimensional constructs (i.e.
organizational commitment, organizational justice) in different categories has greatly
helped in identification of their predictors (Gilson et al., 2012), and hence classification
of creative behavior in distinct types can yield similar benefits for creativity research. The
current study advances the theoretical frontiers of rewards – creativity research by
classifying creative behavior in two distinct types and by identifying the predictors of
each type of creative behavior. This is one of the earliest studies in the reward – creativity
research to operationalize creative behavior as a multidimensional construct and to
identify predictors of each type of creative behavior. Self determination theory suggests
that extrinsic rewards can enhance creative behavior only when the rewards are
internalized by the receivers (Gagne & Deci, 2005). The present study advances this
theoretical perspective by showing that external rewards can also enhance creative
behavior when the receivers have an internal LOC and a strong CSE, and in an
organizational climate that favors creativity over traditionalism.
The theoretical contributions that the present study offers can be discussed under
five categories. These are:
1. Identification of mediators of the relationship between reward and creative behavior,
2. Identification of moderators of the relationship between reward and creative behavior,
3. Bridging the cognitive and behaviorist research streams,
111
4. Identification of factors that trigger radical and incremental creative behavior,
5. Clarification about the mutual relationship of three goal orientations.
First, most of the previous reward – creativity research has tried to find the effects
of rewards on creative behavior of employees and students, without exploring the
psychological processes through which rewards trigger creative behavior. There are very
few studies that have actually tried to identify the mediators of the reward – creativity
relationship (i.e. Choi, 2004). The current study tried to open the reward – creativity
black box and hypothesized that creative intention would moderate the relationship
between extrinsic rewards – incremental creative behavior, whereas enjoyment would
mediate the relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior. One of
these two hypotheses got empirical support, showing that intrinsic rewards lead towards
enjoyment which in turn triggers creative behavior.
Second, this study takes a step further towards explaining the reason for
inconsistent findings of the cognitive and behaviorist research streams. Although reward
– creative behavior research has attracted a lot of research interest in general, the research
to identify the moderators of the reward – creative behavior relationship is extremely
scarce. The research to identify the moderators of this relationship is limited to specific
aspects of extrinsic rewards such as their significance, contingency and importance
(Yoon & Choi, 2010; Eisenberger et al. 1999). In the existing literature, the studies to
identify the moderators of reward – creativity relationship are extremely scarce. Most of
such studies have focused entirely on the reward related aspects discussed above. This
study suggests that efforts to explore direct and un-moderated effects of extrinsic rewards
on creative behavior are unproductive. A better approach is to identify the conditions
112
within which extrinsic rewards can affect creative behavior positively and negatively.
The results of the present study also suggest that personality factors play an important
role in determining the impact of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior.
Third, this study takes the reward – creativity debate that has been framed earlier
as a behaviorist – cognitive dichotomy to the next level, by showing that this relationship
is affected by both social and cognitive factors. The current study shows that either of the
cognitive or behaviorist perspectives alone can not effectively predict the effects of
extrinsic rewards on creative behavior. This study verifies the cognitive assertion of the
inhibiting nature of extrinsic rewards by showing that the negative effects of extrinsic
rewards on creative behavior work through the perceptions of lowered self control and
lowered self competence. The study also supports the behaviorist appeal of not viewing
extrinsic rewards as detrimental for creativity in every situation and for every individual,
by showing specific contingencies when extrinsic rewards affect creative behavior of
employees positively. This study shows that theoretical elements from cognitive and
behaviorist streams can be combined synergically, thus creating models that are more
effective in predicting creative behavior. Thus the study tries to integrate the cognitive
and behaviorist views regarding the effects of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior.
Fourth, and probably most important, the current study did not operationalize
creative behavior as a unidimentional construct, as has been done in most of the previous
reward - creativity research. The study suggests that both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards
can trigger creative behavior, but of different types and shows that intrinsic rewards
trigger radical creative behavior whereas extrinsic rewards trigger incremental creative
behavior. This is one of the very few studies in the reward – creativity research stream
113
that not only hypothesized and found support for the idea of dual types of creative
behavior, but also identified several personal and contextual factors that affect this
relationship.
Finally, the present study suggests that prove, avoid and learning goal orientations
are three distinct types of goal orientations. Previous research practice of combining
prove and avoid orientations in one broad category is unwarranted and a possible source
of conflicting research findings regarding the role of performance goal orientation in
evoking creative behavior.
6.3 Practical Implications
The present study provides five important managerial implications. It helps
managers to:
1- Create an environment that facilitates the conversion of intrinsic rewards into
creative behavior
2- Create an environment that facilitates the conversion of extrinsic rewards into
creative behavior
3- Trigger either of incremental or radical creative behavior, as per organizational
requirements, by aligning some personal and contextual factors.
4- Create a better person – job fit, so that personal dispositions of employees are
inline with the type of creative behavior required by their jobs and organizations.
5- Identify those personality traits that are apparently unrelated to creativity but
actually are important in the perspective of the rewards – creative behavior
relationship.
Now I will discuss these one by one.
114
First, the study shows that although the relationship between intrinsic rewards and
radical creative behavior is direct and unmoderated, there are some personal and
contextual factors (such as learning goal orientation and organizational climate) that
strengthen this relationship. Thus it helps managers to reap the maximum benefits of
employees’ intrinsic interest and suggests how to help and support employees so the
intrinsic rewards are actually converted into radical creative behavior.
Second, the study points out some personal and contextual factors that are crucial
in determining the direction and magnitude of effects that extrinsic rewards exert on
employees’ creative behavior. The results point out that creative behavior can not be
enhanced simply by offering extrinsic rewards to employees. Such rewards can enhance
creative behavior only when the contextual and individual factors are also aligned with
the rewards, otherwise the rewards can backfire and can become a hurdle for employees
to exhibit creative behavior.
The study suggests that extrinsic rewards should be offered in a way that these
appear to be non- controlling and do not undermine the perception of competence of
employees. Further, before using extrinsic rewards to enhance creative behavior, the
managers should first strengthen the perception of control and competence of their
employees using small rewards that are offered frequently, are based on relatively easier
targets, and are contingent on creative behavior. Extrinsic rewards will become more
effective when offered after strengthening employees’ perceptions of control and
competence and are offered after considering the importance of these rewards for
employees.
115
The managers should also focus their attention on creating an environment in
which creative behavior is expected from everyone. Results show that both intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards trigger creative behavior when organizational climate does not favor
traditionalism, and in organizations where traditions are respected and followed, both
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards become ineffective. Thus any attempt to enhance creative
behavior of employees using extrinsic and intrinsic rewards must be coupled with efforts
to create a supporting and favorable environment.
This study classified creative behavior in two distinct types, i.e. incremental and
radical creative behavior. Both of these types of creative behaviors are important and one
is not superior to the other. Organizations may value one of these, as per their specific
situation and requirements. Third, and probably the most important implication of this
study is to guide managers about the predictors of these two types of creative behaviors.
Thus it enables managers to trigger the specific type of creative behavior that the
organization requires. The findings of this study regarding the predictors and moderators
of these two types of creative behavior can be summarized as below:
1- When an organization requires radical creative behavior:
The managers have to identify that the tasks for which radical creativity is required are
intrinsically rewarding or not. If the activities are intrinsically rewarding, the managers
have to:
• Create a climate that favors innovation over traditionalism.
• Assign tasks to employees with a strong learning orientation.
If the tasks are not intrinsically rewarding, the managers have to try to build intrinsic
rewards in the activity through trainings and guidance, as intrinsic rewards are the
116
strongest predictor of radical creative behavior. However, if it is not possible, the
managers have to:
• Offer extrinsic rewards that are considered important by the employees.
• Create a climate that favors innovation over traditionalism.
• Try to enhance the creative self efficacy of employees by encouraging the
employees and strengthening their belief in their abilities through positive feedback.
• Ensure that there is high support for creativity and that creative behavior is
appreciated and rewarded.
2- When an organization requires incremental creative behavior:
The managers have to identify that the tasks are intrinsically rewarding or not. If the
activities are intrinsically rewarding, the managers have to:
• Select those employees who have a low avoidance goal orientation.
• Make it clear to employees that which type of creative behavior is required.
If the tasks are not intrinsically rewarding, the managers have to:
• Create a climate that is not inclined towards traditionalism.
• Offer appropriate extrinsic rewards that are considered important by the employees.
• Try to enhance the creative self efficacy of employees by encouraging the
employees and strengthening their belief in their abilities (Bandura, 1997).
• Try to create internal locus of control in employees by giving them the confidence
that they can control their behavior. This can be done by giving them relatively
easier targets at the start, appreciating them, giving them necessary support to
achieve their goals and celebrating small successes.
117
• Identifying employees with a strong performance goal orientation and assigning
them the tasks for which incremental creative behavior is required.
The above discussion suggests how to create an environment to achieve specific
types of creative behaviors. Managers can use the results of this study in a related but
different manner. The study can help managers to assess and create a better person - job
fit to achieve higher levels of creative behavior.
The study suggests that employees with strong performance goal orientation are
more suitable for tasks requiring incremental creative behavior, especially when extrinsic
rewards are present. Similarly, employees with a strong learning goal orientation are
more suitable for radical creative behavior, especially when intrinsic rewards are present.
Employees with high creative self efficacy and internal locus of control are more suited
to work in situations where extrinsic rewards are present, as these individuals are
somewhat inoculated against the harmful effects of extrinsic rewards on creative
behavior. Finally, employees with low creative self efficacy and external locus of control
are not suited to work in situations where high extrinsic rewards are present, as these
individuals are prone to experience the negative effects of extrinsic rewards on creative
behavior. Thus in addition to creating an environment that suits the generation of a
specific type of creative behavior, managers can match individuals with tasks and jobs, to
enhance their creative behavior. Although there are several theories suggesting how to
improve the person – job fit, this is one of the earliest studies of person – job fit in the
context of reward – creative behavior relationship.
118
Managers normally perceive only those individual traits as relevant for enhancing
creative behavior that have direct effects on the creative behavior of employees. Some of
these traits are divergent thinking, openness to experience and creative IQ. Individual
traits such as LOC are not considered to be related with their creative behavior. This
study suggests that managers should consider locus of control and creative self efficacy
as relevant and important personal traits in the perspective of the reward – creative
behavior relationship. There is hardly any study in the previous reward – creativity
literature that has suggested these traits (especially locus of control) to play any role in
the perspective of reward – creative behavior relationship. Employees with these two
traits are very desirable for organizations that give a lot of emphasis on offering extrinsic
rewards to enhance performance and creative behavior of employees.
6.4 Limitations
The results of this study should be interpreted, considering the following
limitations. First, although selecting respondents from several industries enhances the
generalizability of the findings, but simultaneously it may ignore any pattern specific to
different industries. The current dataset was not large enough to enable any industry
specific analysis and thus, there may be some industry specific patterns that were not
captured in the present study. Second, the high correlation between intrinsic rewards,
importance of intrinsic rewards and CSE raises some issues about multicollinearity. High
correlation between these constructs, however, is not unusual and researchers have
reported highly significant correlation among these constructs previously (Yoon & Choi,
2010). Further, to minimize multicollinearity during the regression analysis, all variables
119
involved in interaction terms were centered, as suggested by Aiken & West (1991).
Exploratory factor analysis also supports the distinctiveness of these constructs.
6.5 Future Research Directions
The present study provides several directions for the future researchers. First, the
list of mediators and moderators in inexhaustible, and the present study has identified
only a few mediators and moderators of reward – creativity relationship. Partial
mediation of reward – creativity relationship also points out in the similar direction. Thus
future researchers can identify other psychological processes that mediate and moderate
the relationship between rewards and creative behavior.
One of the hypotheses which were not supported corresponds to the moderation of
reward – creativity relationship through support for creative behavior. Post hoc analyses
however suggest that support plays an important role in enhancing creative behavior.
Future research can shed more light on the role of support in the perspective of the
relationship between rewards and creative behavior.
The current study explored the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on
creative behavior of employees. The results are comparable to results of studies that have
studied the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on creative behavior of
individuals (i.e. Amabile, 1985; Cooper & Jayatilaka, 2006; Deci & Ryan, 2001). Thus
the current study suggests that extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are closely associated with
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Future researchers may also focus on the reward –
motivation relationship by exploring the processes through which these rewards invoke
120
motivations in individuals and thus identify the conditions in which rewards become
more or less effective to invoke motivation.
Although the research design and sampling procedure are in accordance with the
suggestions of Conway & Lance (2010) and Podsakoff et al., (2003), future researchers
can explore the possibility of using a two wave longitudinal design to measure the self
reported constructs with a time lag. Hence instead of the cross sectional data from
employees, a two phased data collection design can further reduce multicollinearity.
The current data was nested in a sense that employees are nested in their
supervisors and the supervisors (and employees) are nested in the organizations. There
were 260 employees and 223 supervisors in the sample. Out of the 260 pairs, 203
supervisors – employees were linked through a one to one relationship and only 20
supervisors were linked with more than one employee. This data was not sufficient for
multilevel analysis, however, future researchers can also consider the possibility of
conducting multi level analysis. This was one of the earliest studies to find mediators and
moderators of the reward – creative behavior relationship and needs validation by future
researchers in different contexts.
121
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Inter scale correlations
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 LOC 4.76 1.78 .70
2 CSE 3.77 0.56 10 .70
3 Support Supervisor 3.65 0.74 01 06 .74
4 Support Co Worker 3.49 0.76 -06 20** 44** .78
5 Intrinsic Rewards 4.33 0.46 -05 24** 15* 15** .77
6 Extrinsic Rewards 3.24 0.66 13* -08 -04 01 08 .86
7 Intrinsic Reward Imp 4.10 0.66 -06 21** 12 18** 32** 06 .73
8 Extrinsic Reward Imp 3.85 0.84 18** 03 02 -01 04 06 16** .85
9 Creative Intention 4.22 0.51 -09 29** 24** 29** 42** -04 29** 00 .70
10 Enjoyment 4.05 0.59 -06 22** 16** 21** 28** -08 36** 05 36** .70
11 Learning GO 4.01 0.42 12 05 14* 03 17** 05 10 04 15* 13* .71 12 Prove GO 3.10 0.64 12* 10 02 01 -01 -
47** -08 12* 01 05 02 .82
13 Avoiding GO 2.06 0.55 -15* -06 -16** -16* -
25** -01 -12 -20** -14* -06 -
24** -
28** .81
14 Climate Innovation 3.01 0.72 11 -07 13* 16* -14* 07 -04 11 -09 09 24** 14* -
29** .88
15 Climate Tradition 3.43 0.67 -10 06 05 11 28** -02 21** -05 17** 19** 04 -
27** -05 -39** .79
16 Radical Creativity 2.83 0.81 24** 18** 26** 24** 24** -02 10 07 22** 22** 32** 10 -
57** 50** 05 .81
17 Incremental Creativity 2.87 0.44 23** 07 12 07 -03 12 -05 05 -03 -02 06 50** -
37** 32** -47** 24** .69
Decimals are omitted in the correlations. Reliabilities (cronbach alpha) are given at the diagonal
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
122
Table 2
Regression Results for Direct Effects of Rewards on Creative Behavior
Step and Variables Radical Creative Behavior Incremental Creative Behavior
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Education -0.04 0.04 Job Experience -0.01 0.01
2 Education -0.04 0.04 Job Experience -0.01 0.02 Extrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior -0.02 0.12 †
3 Education -0.04 0.04 Job Experience 0.01 0.01 Intrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior 0.24 *** -0.03
4 Education -0.04 0.04 Job Experience -0.01 0.02 Extrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior -0.04 0.12 † Intrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior 0.25 *** -0.04 Adjusted R Square 0.01 0.01 0.05 ** 0.05 ** 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
123
Table 3a - 1 Effects of Intrinsic Rewards on Mediating and Dependent Variables
Models and Independent Variables
Radical Creative
Behavior Enjoyment
Model 1 Model 2
1
Education -0.04
Job Experience 0.01
Intrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior 0.24 ***
2
Education 0.06
Job Experience -0.01
Intrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior 0.28 ***
Adjusted R Square 0.05 ** 0.07 **
Table 3a - 2 Combined Effects of Independent and Mediating variables on Dependent Variable
Models and Independent Variables
Radical Creative
Behavior
Radical Creative
Behavior
Model 3 Model 4
3
Education -0.06
Job Experience -0.01
Enjoyment 0.22 ***
4
Education -0.05
Job Experience 0.01
Enjoyment 0.17 **
Intrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior 0.20 **
Adjusted R Square 0.04 ** 0.07 **
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
124
Table 3b - 1 Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Mediating and Dependent Variables
Models and Variables
Incremental
Creative Behavior Creative Intention
1 2
1 Education 0.04
Job Experience 0.02
Extrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior 0.12 †
2 Education 0.09
Job Experience -0.07
Extrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior -0.06
Adjusted R Square 0.01 0.01
Table 3b - 2 Combined Effects of Independent and Mediating variables on Dependent Variable
Models and Variables
Incremental
Creative
Behavior
Incremental
Creative
Behavior
3 4
3 Education 0.05
Job Experience 0.01
Creative Intention -0.04
4
Education 0.04
Job Experience 0.02
Creative Intention -0.03
Extrinsic Rewards for Creative Behavior 0.11 †
Adjusted R Square 0.01 0.01
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
125
Table 4
Rewards’ Importance as moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Steps and Variables
Radical
Creative
Behavior
Steps and Variables
Incremental
Creative
Behavior
1
Education -0.04
1
Education 0.04
Job Experience -0.01 Job Experience 0.01
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.01
2
Intrinsic Rewards 0.24 ***
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.11
Importance of Intrinsic Rewards 0.03 Importance of Extrinsic Rewards 0.04
Adjusted R² 0.05 Adjusted R² 0.02
ΔR² 0.05 *** ΔR² 0.01
3
Intrinsic Rewards X Importance of Intrinsic Rewards
0.01
3
Extrinsic Rewards X Importance
of Extrinsic Rewards 0.12*
Adjusted R² 0.05* Adjusted R² 0.03
ΔR² 0.00 ΔR² 0.01*
126
Table 5
LOC and CSE as moderators of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative Behavior
Relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Steps and Variables
Incremental
Creative Behavior
Steps and Variables
Incremental
Creative Behavior
1
Education 0.04
1
Education 0.04
Job Experience 0.01 Job Experience 0.01
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.00
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.09
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.12 †
Locus of Control (LOC) 0.24*** Creative Self Efficacy (CSE) 0.10
Adjusted R² 0.05** Adjusted R² 0.01 †
ΔR² 0.05** ΔR² 0.01 †
3
Extrinsic Rewards X LOC 0.14*
3
Extrinsic Rewards X CSE 0.13 *
Adjusted R² 0.07** Adjusted R² 0.02 *
ΔR² 0.02* ΔR² 0.01 *
127
Table 6a
Goal Orientation as moderator of Intrinsic Reward – Radical Creative Behavior
Relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Steps and Variables
Radical
Creative
Behavior
Steps and Variables
Radical
Creative
Behavior
1
Education -0.04
1
Education -0.04
Job Experience -0.01 Job Experience -0.01
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.00
2
Intrinsic Rewards 0.19 **
2
Intrinsic Rewards 0.18 **
Learning Goal Orientation
(LGO) 0.29 ***
Performance Goal Orientation
(PGO) -0.32 ***
Adjusted R² 0.12 *** Adjusted R² 0.15 ***
ΔR² 0.12 *** ΔR² 0.15 ***
3
Intrinsic Rewards X LGO 0.12 *
3
Intrinsic Rewards X PGO 0.10
Adjusted R² 0.14 *** Adjusted R² 0.15 ***
ΔR² 0.02 * ΔR² 0.00
128
Table 6b
Goal Orientation as moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative Behavior
Relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Steps and Variables
Incremental
Creative
Behavior
Steps and Variables
Incremental
Creative
Behavior
1
Education 0.04
1
Education 0.04
Job Experience 0.01 Job Experience 0.01
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.00
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.12
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.23 **
Learning Goal Orientation
(LGO) 0.06
Performance Goal Orientation
(PGO) 0.26 ***
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.06 **
ΔR² 0.00 ΔR² 0.06 ***
3
Extrinsic Rewards X LGO 0.06
3
Extrinsic Rewards X PGO 0.33 ***
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.16 ***
ΔR² 0.00 ΔR² 0.10 ***
129
Table 7a
Support as the moderator of Intrinsic Reward – Radical Creative Behavior Relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
.
Steps and Variables
Radical
Creative
Behavior
Steps and Variables
Radical
Creative
Behavior
1
Education -0.04
1
Education -0.04
Job Experience -0.01 Job Experience -0.01
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.00
2
Intrinsic Rewards 0.21 **
2
Intrinsic Rewards 0.21 ***
Supervisor Support (SS) 0.24 *** Co Workers’ support (CWS) 0.22 ***
Adjusted R² 0.10 *** Adjusted R² 0.09 ***
ΔR² 0.10 *** ΔR² 0.09 ***
3
Intrinsic Rewards X SS 0.07
3
Intrinsic Rewards X CWS 0.04
Adjusted R² 0.10 *** Adjusted R² 0.09 ***
ΔR² 0.00 ΔR² 0.00
130
Table 7b
Support as the moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative Behavior
Relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Steps and Variables
Incremental
Creative
Behavior
Steps and Variables
Incremental
Creative
Behavior
1
Education -0.04
1
Education 0.04
Job Experience -0.01 Job Experience 0.01
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.00
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.12
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.12
Supervisor Support (SS) 0.12 * Co Workers’ support (CWS) 0.07
Adjusted R² 0.01 Adjusted R² 0.00
ΔR² 0.01 * ΔR² 0.00
3
Extrinsic Rewards X SS 0.04
3
Extrinsic Rewards X CWS 0.05
Adjusted R² 0.01 Adjusted R² 0.00
ΔR² 0.01 ΔR² 0.00
131
Table 8a
Innovation Climate as moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Steps and Variables
Radical
Creative
Behavior
Steps and Variables
Incremental
Creative
Behavior
1
Education -0.04
1
Education 0.04
Job Experience -0.01 Job Experience 0.01
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.00
2
Intrinsic Rewards 0.32 ***
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.10
Climate for Innovation (CI) 0.55 *** Climate for Innovation (CI) 0.31 ***
Adjusted R² 0.34 *** Adjusted R² 0.10 ***
ΔR² 0.34 *** ΔR² 0.10 ***
3
Intrinsic Rewards X CI 0.20 ***
3
Extrinsic Rewards X CI 0.01
Adjusted R² 0.38 *** Adjusted R² 0.10 ***
ΔR² 0.04 *** ΔR² 0.00
132
Table 8b
Traditional Climate as the moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Steps and Variables Radical Creative Behavior
Steps and Variables Incremental
Creative Behavior
1
Education -0.04
1
Education 0.04
Job Experience -0.01 Job Experience 0.01
Adjusted R² 0.00 Adjusted R² 0.00
2
Intrinsic Rewards 0.25 ***
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.11 *
Traditional Climate (CT) -0.02 Traditional Climate (CT) 0.48 ***
Adjusted R² 0.05 ** Adjusted R² 0.22 ***
ΔR² 0.05 *** ΔR² 0.22 ***
3
Intrinsic Rewards X CT -0.22***
3
Extrinsic Rewards X CT -0.14 **
Adjusted R² 0.08 *** Adjusted R² 0.25 ***
ΔR² 0.03 *** ΔR² 0.03 **
133
Table 9a
Combined effects of Moderators on extrinsic rewards – incremental creativity
relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Steps Personality Variables
Incremental Creative Behavior
Steps Contextual Variables Incremental
Creative Behavior
1
Education 0.04
1
Education 0.04
Experience -0.01 Experience -0.01
Adjusted R² - 0.01 Adjusted R² -0.01
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.20
2
Extrinsic Rewards 0.10
LOC 0.20 Co Worker Support (CWS) 0.04
CSE 0.05 ** Supervisor Support (SS) 0.10
LGO 0.07 ** Climate for Innovation (CI) 0.13 *
PGO 0.26 *** Climate for Tradition (CT) -0.43 ***
Adjusted R² 0.10 *** Adjusted R² 0.26 ***
R² Change 0.12 *** R² Change 0.27 ***
3
Extrinsic Rewards X LOC 0.03
3
Extrinsic Rewards X CWS 0.10
Extrinsic Rewards X CSE 0.09 Extrinsic Rewards X SS -0.13
Extrinsic Rewards X LGO -0.0 Extrinsic Rewards X CI -0.09
Extrinsic Rewards X PGO 0.30 *** Extrinsic Rewards X CT -0.17 **
Adjusted R² 0.19 *** Adjusted R² 0.28 ***
R² Change 0.11 *** R² Change 0.04 *
134
Table 9b
Combined effects of Moderators on intrinsic rewards – radical creativity relationship
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Steps Personality Variables Radical Creative Behavior
Steps Contextual Variables Radical Creative Behavior
1
Education -0.04
1
Education -0.04
Experience -0.01 Experience -0.01
Adjusted R² -0.01 Adjusted R² -0.01
2
Intrinsic Rewards 0.20 **
2
Intrinsic Rewards .244 ***
PGO 0.10 Co Worker Support (CWS) .037
LGO 0.29 *** Supervisor Support (SS) .125 *
Adjusted R² 0.13 *** Climate for Innovation (CI) .596 ***
R² Change 0.15 *** Climate for Tradition (CT) .212 ***
Adjusted R² 0.40 ***
R² Change 0.41 ***
3
Intrinsic Rewards X PGO 0.07
3
Intrinsic Rewards X CWS -0.008
Intrinsic Rewards X LGO 0.14 * Intrinsic Rewards X SS 0.093
Adjusted R² 0.15 *** Intrinsic Rewards X CI 0.133 *
R² Change 0.02 Intrinsic Rewards X CT -0.116
Adjusted R² 0.43 ***
R² Change 0.04 **
135
Table 10a
Enjoyment and Creative Intention as the mediators of relationship between Intrinsic
Rewards and Radical Creative Behavior
Product of Coefficients Bootstrapping Bias Corrected 95% CI
Point Estimate SE t p Lower Upper
Enjoyment 0.57 0.26 2.15 0.03 0.03 0.44
Creative Intention 0.55 0.33 1.68 0.09 -0.03 0.59
136
Table 10b
Enjoyment and Creative Intention as the mediators of relationship between Extrinsic
Rewards and Incremental Creative Behavior
Product of Coefficients Bootstrapping Bias Corrected 95% CI
Point Estimate SE t p Lower Upper
Enjoyment -0.02 0.15 -0.10 0.92 -0.03 0.04
Creative Intention -0.08 0.17 -0.44 0.66 -0.01 0.06
137
Table 11
Moderated Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Radical Creative Behavior
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Interaction term Standardized Beta
Weights T statistic
1 Extrinsic Rewards X Reward’s Importance 0.25 *** 4.03
2 Extrinsic Rewards X LOC 0.05 0.76
3 Extrinsic Rewards X CSE 0.21 ** 3.39
4 Extrinsic Rewards X LGO -0.07 -1.2
5 Extrinsic Rewards X PGO 0.10 1.65
6 Extrinsic Rewards X Supervisor’s Support 0.09 1.52
7 Extrinsic Rewards X Coworkers’ Support 0.15 * 2.31
8 Extrinsic Rewards X Climate for Innovation 0.13 * 2.34
9 Extrinsic Rewards X Climate for Tradition -0.15 * - 2.42
138
Table 12
Predictors of Radical Creative Behavior
Steps and Independent Variables Standardized
Beta
Weights T statistic
1
Intrinsic Rewards 0.24 *** 3.71
Extrinsic Rewards -0.03 -0.52
Extrinsic Rewards’ Importance -0.02 -0.26
Extrinsic Rewards X Extrinsic Rewards’ Importance -0.12 * -2.02
2
Intrinsic Rewards 0.22 *** 3.67
Extrinsic Rewards -0.04 -0.62
CSE 0.12 1.91
Extrinsic Rewards X CSE 0.22 *** 3.63
3
Intrinsic Rewards 0.22 *** 3.64
Extrinsic Rewards -0.05 -0.81
CWS 0.16 * 2.49
Extrinsic Rewards X CWS 0.16 * 2.46
4
Intrinsic Rewards 0.33 *** 6.57
Extrinsic Rewards -0.10 -1.94
CI 0.57 *** 11.18
Extrinsic Rewards X CI 0.13 * 2.59
5
Intrinsic Rewards 0.24 *** 3.71
Extrinsic Rewards -0.03 -0.52
CT -0.02 -0.26
Extrinsic Rewards X CT -0.12 * -2.02
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
139
Table 13
Moderated Effects of Intrinsic Rewards on Incremental Creative Behavior
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Interaction term Standardized Beta
Weights T statistic
1 Intrinsic Rewards X Reward’s Importance -0.07 -1.03
2 Intrinsic Rewards X LOC 0.08 1.40
3 Intrinsic Rewards X CSE 0.10 1.45
4 Intrinsic Rewards X LGO 0.01 0.07
5 Intrinsic Rewards X PGO 0.11 1.67
6 Intrinsic Rewards X AGO -0.14 * -2.46
7 Intrinsic Rewards X Supervisor’s Support 0.07 1.10
8 Intrinsic Rewards X Coworkers’ Support 0.06 0.98
9 Intrinsic Rewards X Climate for Innovation 0.23 *** 3.69
10 Intrinsic Rewards X Climate for Tradition - 0.19 ** -3.26
140
Table 14
Interactional effects of Intrinsic Rewards and LOC & CSE
Interaction term Dependent variable Standardized Beta T statistic
1 Intrinsic rewards X LOC Incremental Creativity 0.08 1.40
2 Intrinsic rewards X LOC Radical Creativity 0.09 1.60
3 Intrinsic rewards X CSE Incremental Creativity 0.10 1.45
4 Intrinsic rewards X CSE Radical Creativity 0.03 0.42
† p < .05 (one-tailed test)
* p < .05 (two-tailed test)
** p < .01 (two-tailed test)
*** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
141
Table 15 a
Summary of Hypotheses and Results related to Direct effects of Rewards on Creative
Behavior
Hyp. Independent Variable Dependent Variable Results
1 Intrinsic Rewards Radical Creativity Supported
2 Extrinsic Rewards Incremental Creativity Supported
142
Table 15b
Summary of Hypotheses and Results related to Mediated effects of Rewards on Creative
Behavior
Hyp. Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Mediating
Variable Results
3 Intrinsic Rewards Radical Creativity Enjoyment Supported
(Partial mediation detected)
4 Extrinsic Rewards Incremental
Creativity Creative Intention Not Supported
143
Table 15c
Summary of Hypotheses and Results related to Moderated effects of Rewards on Creative
Behavior
Hyp. Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Moderating Variable
Dir. Results
5 Intrinsic Rewards
Radical Creativity
Importance of Int. Rewards + Not Supported
6 Extrinsic Rewards
Incremental Creativity
Importance of Ext. Rewards + Supported
7 Extrinsic Rewards
Incremental Creativity
Locus of Control + Supported
8 Extrinsic Rewards
Incremental Creativity
Creative Self Efficacy + Supported
9a Intrinsic Rewards
Radical Creativity
Learning Goal Orientation + Supported
9b Intrinsic Rewards
Radical Creativity
Performance Goal Orientation - Not Supported
10a Extrinsic Rewards
Incremental Creativity
Learning Goal Orientation + Not Supported
10b Extrinsic Rewards
Incremental Creativity
Performance Goal Orientation -
Supported
(but in ‘ + ’ direction)
11 Intrinsic Rewards
Radical Creativity
Support for Creativity +
Not Supported
(In hypothesized direction but statistically insignificant)
12 Extrinsic Rewards
Incremental Creativity
Support for Creativity + Not Supported
13 Intrinsic Rewards
Radical Creativity
Climate for Innovation + Supported
14 Extrinsic Rewards
Incremental Creativity
Climate for Innovation + Not Supported
15 Intrinsic Rewards
Radical Creativity
Climate for Tradition - Supported
16 Extrinsic Rewards
Incremental Creativity
Climate for Tradition - Supported
144
+/- +/-
Figure 1. Rewards, motivation and behavior
Intrinsic Rewards
Motivators
Motivation
Behavior (such as
Creativity)
Extrinsic Rewards
145
Figure 2a. The Framework for Mediated Effects
Figure 2b. The Framework for Moderated Effects
Extrinsic Rewards
Intrinsic Rewards
Radical Creative Behavior
Incremental Creative Behavior
Importance of Reward,
GO
GO, Importance of Reward, LOC, CSE
Support, Org.
Climate
Creative Behavior
Extrinsic Rewards
Intrinsic Rewards
Creative Intention
Enjoyment
Radical Creative Behavior
Incremental Creative Behavior
Creative Behavior
146
1
2
3
4
5
Low High Extrinsic Rewards
Incr
emen
tal C
reat
ive
Beh
avio
rLow RewardImportance
High RewardImportance
Figure 3. Reward Importance as Moderator of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative
Behavior Relationship
147
1
2
3
4
5
Low HighExtrinsic Rewards
Incr
emen
tal C
reat
ive
Beh
avio
r
ExternalLOC
Internal LOC
Figure 4. Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative Behavior through
Locus of Control (LOC)
148
1
2
3
4
5
Low HighExtrinsic Rewards
Incr
emen
tal C
reat
ive
Beh
avio
r
Low CSE
High CSE
Figure 5. Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative Behavior through
Creative Self Efficacy (CSE)
149
1
2
3
4
5
Low HighIntrinsic Rewards
Rad
ical
Cre
ativ
e B
ehav
ior
Weak LGO
Strong LGO
Figure 6. Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior through Learning
Goal Orientation (LGO)
150
1
2
3
4
5
Low HighExtrinsic Rewards
Incr
emen
tal C
reat
ive
Beh
avio
r
PGO Low
PGO High
Figure 7. Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative Behavior through
Performance Goal Orientation (PGO)
151
1
2
3
4
5
Low HighIntrinsic Rewards
Rad
ical
Cre
ativ
e B
ehav
ior
WeakInnovationClimate
StrongInnovationClimate
Figure 8. Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior through Climate
for Innovation
152
1
2
3
4
5
Low HighIntrinsic Rewards
Rad
ical
Cre
ativ
e B
ehav
ior
WeakTraditionalClimate
StrongTraditionalClimate
Figure 9. Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior through Climate
for Tradition
153
1
2
3
4
5
Low HighExtrinsic Rewards
Incr
emen
tal C
reat
ive
Beh
avio
rWeakTraditionalClimate
StrongTraditionalClimate
Figure 10. Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative Behavior through
Climate for Tradition
154
Figure 11. Results of Mediated Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative
Behavior
Intrinsic Rewards
Enjoyment
Radical Creative Behavior
Org. Climate
Goal Orientation, Org. Climate
155
Figure 12. Results of Mediated Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative
Behavior
Extrinsic Rewards
Creative Intention
Incremental Creative Behavior
LOC Org. Climate
Support
Org. Climate
156
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human
decision 50(2), 179-211.
Allen, D. G., Weeks, K. P., & Moffitt, K. R. (2005). Turnover intentions and voluntary
turnover: The moderating roles of self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive
personality, and risk aversion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 980.
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of
intuition‐analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management studies,
33(1), 119-135.
Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of External Evaluation on Artistic Creativity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), 221 - 233.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer -
Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and Creativity: Effects of Motivational Orientation on
Creative Writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 393-399.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational Synergy: Towards new Conceptualizations of
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace. Human Resource
Management Review, 3(3), 185-201.
Amabile, T. M. (1996a). Creativity in Context. Colorodo, USA: Westview Press.
157
Amabile, T. M. (1996b). The Motivation for Creativity in Organizations. Harvard
Business School. Retrieved from
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14102400/144322029/name/creativity.pdf
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing The
Work Environment For Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5),
1154-1184.
Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social Influences on
Creativity: The Effects of Contracted-for Reward. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50(1), 14-23.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work
Preference Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
Anderson, C. H. (1986). Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analysis: A Useful Tool for
Retail Management Decisions. Journal of Retailing, 62, 186-203.
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation:
development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235-258.
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. (2006). The curvilinear relations between experienced creative
time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and
support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963-970.
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: when does it
really matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 569-586.
158
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thoughts and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual
Review of Psychology, 32(1), 439-476.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality: A Critical
Review of the Scattered Literature. Genetic, Social & General Psychology
Monographs, 132(4), 355-429.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in Middle and Secondary
Students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447-457.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process
management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management
Review, 28(2), 238-256.
Bink, M. L., & Marsh, R. L. (2000). Cognitive Regularities in Creative Activity. Review
of General Psychology, 4(1), 59-78.
Borlongan, M. D. D. (2008). Goal orientation-creativity relationship : Openness to
experience as a moderator. Master's Theses, Paper: 3501, San Jose State
University
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3501.
159
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal Orientation and Goal Content as Predictors
of Performance in a Training Program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6),
863-873.
Chassell, L. M. (1916). Tests for originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(6),
317-328.
Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and Contextual Predictors of Creative Performance: The
Mediating Role of Psychological Processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16(2/3),
187-199.
Cohen, S., & Oden, S. (1974). An examination of creativity and locus of control in
children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human
Development, 124(2), 17-185.
Colvin, S. S., & Meyer, I. F. (1906). Imaginative Elements in the Written Work of School
Children. Pedagogical Seminar, 13(1), 84-93.
Conti, R., Collins, M. A., & Picariello, M. L. (2001). The impact of competition on
intrinsic motivation and creativity Personality and individual Differences, 30,
1273-1289.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors
regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 25, 325-334.
Cooper, R. B., & Jayatilaka, B. (2006). Group Creativity: The Effects of Extrinsic,
Intrinsic, and Obligation Motivations. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 153-
172.
160
Crutchfield, R. (1961). The creative process. Paper presented at the Conference on ‘‘The
Creative Person’’ (pp. VI-1–VI-16). Lake Tahoe, CA: University of California
Alumni Center.
Crutchfield, R. (1962). Conformity and creative thinking. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell & M.
Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 120-140).
New York: Atherton.
Cummings, L. (1965). Organizational climates for creativity. The Academy of
Management Journal, 8(3), 220-227.
Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects
in organizational research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 385-400.
Dearborn, G. V. (1898). A study of imaginations. American journal of Psychology, 9(2),
183-190.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115.
Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 113-120.
Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1972). Changes in Intrinsic Motivation as a Function of
Negative Feedback and Threats. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological
Association Meeting; Massachusetts, USA., Massachusetts, USA.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of
Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
161
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic
Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again. Review of Educational
Research, 71(1), 1-27.
Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and
intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40(1), 1-10.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational
processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 13, pp. 39-80). New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental
innovations: An empirical study. Management Science, 32(4), 1422–1433.
Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in
an R&D environment. R&D Management, 37(3), 197-208.
DuCette, J., Wolk, S., & Friedman, S. (1972). Locus of control and creativity in black
and white children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 88(2), 297-298.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement Motivation. In E. M. Hetherington
(Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Social and Personality Development (Vol.
4, pp. 643-691). New York: John Wiley.
Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99, 248-267.
162
Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can Salient Reward Increase Creative Performance
Without Reducing Intrinsic Creative Interest? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72(3), 652-663.
Eisenberger, R., Arrneli, S., & Pretz, J. (1998). Can the Promise of Reward Increase
Creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 704-714.
Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on experienced
performance pressure: positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 95-117.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental Effects of Reward. American
Psychologist, 51(11), 1153-1166.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1998). Reward, Intrinsic Interest, and Creativity: New
Findings. American Psychologist, 53, 676-679.
Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of Reward on Intrinsic
Motivation - Negative, Neutral and Positive. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 677-
691.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental Effects of Reward on Creativity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 728-741.
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity: A
Case Study of Conceptual and Methodological Isolation. Creativity Research
Journal, 15(2/3), 121.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1),
218-232.
163
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A
natural science approach. . New York: Plenum Press.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.
Fong, C. T. (2006). The Effects of Emotional of Emotional Ambivalence on Creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1016-1030.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Galton, F. (1962). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London:
Macmillan/Fontana. (Original work published 1869).
Gelade, G. A. (1997). Creativity in conflict: The personality of the commercial creative.
The Journal of genetic psychology, 158(1), 67-78.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness
are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 513-524.
Gerrard, L. E., Poteat, G. M., & Ironsmith, M. (1996). Promoting Children's Creativity:
Effects of Competition, Self-Esteem, and Immunization. Creativity Research
Journal, 9(4), 339.
Gilhooly, K., Wynn, V., & Osman, M. (2004). Studies of Divergent Thinking. Paper
presented at the British Psychological Society, London.
164
Gilson, L. L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and
processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 21-28.
Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., D'Innocenzo, L., & Moye, N. (2012). One Size Does Not Fit
All: Managing Radical and Incremental Creativity. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 46(3), 168-191.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
psychologist, 48(1), 26-34.
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation,
transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of
employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-
778.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The Necessity of Others is the Mother of Invention:
Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking, and Creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 54(1), 73-96.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444 - 454.
Guilford, J. P. (1975). Creativity: A quarter of century of progress. In I. A. Taylor & J.
W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 37-59). Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company.
Guilford, J. P. (1981). Higher-order structure-of-intellect abilities. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 16(4), 411-435.
Hill, A., Tan, A. G., & Kikuchi, A. (2008). International High School Students’
Perceived Creativity Self-Efficacy. The Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem
Solving, 18(1), 105-115.
165
Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D. V., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee
creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values (Vol. 5): Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the
concepts. Organization Studies, 19(3), 477-493.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and
employment decisions: questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51(5),
469-477.
Horan, R. (2007). The Relationship between Creativity and Intelligence: A Combined
Yogic-Scientific Approach. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2/3), 179-202.
House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the Death of Dispositional
Research are Vastly Exaggerated. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1),
203-224.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for Creativity: A
Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90.
Ivcevic, Z., Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2007). Emotional Intelligence and
Emotional Creativity. Journal of Personality, 75(2), 199-236.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of
leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job
satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368-384.
166
Jaswal, S., & Jerath, J. M. (1991). Need for achievement and locus of control as
predictors of creativity among males at two levels of intelligence. Journal of
Personality and Clinical Studies, 7(2), 137-145.
Jo, N. Y., & Lee, K. C. (2012). The Effect of Organizational Trust, Task Complexity and
Intrinsic Motivation on Employee Creativity: Emphasis on Moderating Effect of
Stress. Human Centric Technology and Service in Smart Space, 199-206.
Johnson, J. A. (1997). Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality.
In R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology
(pp. 73-93). San Diego: Academic Press.
Jung, D. I. (2000). Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Their Effects on
Creativity in Groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185-195.
Kasof, J., Chuansheng, C., Himsel, A., & Greenberger, E. (2007). Values and Creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 19(2/3), 105-122.
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of
individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of
technological and administrative innovations. The Academy of Management
Journal, 24(4), 689-713.
King, L. A., Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model.
Journal of Research in Personality, 30(2), 189-203.
King, N., & Anderson, N. (1995). Innovation and change in organizations. London:
Routledge.
Kirton, M., & Kirton, M. J. (1994). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and
problem solving: Routledge London.
167
Kline, P. (2000). A Psychometrics Primer. London, UK.: Free Association Books.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's
behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on
intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233-248.
Kray, L. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Wong, E. M. (2006). Thinking Within the Box: The
Relational Processing Style Elicited by Counterfactual Mind-Sets. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 33-48.
Kristeller, P. O. (1983). " Creativity" and" Tradition". Journal of the History of Ideas,
44(1), 105-113.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test
reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151-160.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic
interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the overjustification hypothesis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Harvard:
Division of Research Graduate School of Business Administration Harvard
University.
Luna-Arocas, R., & Tang, T. L. P. (2004). The Love of Money, Satisfaction, and the
Protestant Work Ethic: Money Profiles Among Univesity Professors in the USA
and Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 329-354.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental
creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0022416.
168
Madjar, N., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). Task Rotation and Polychronicity: Effects on
Individuals' Creativity. Human Performance, 19(2), 117-131.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There's no place like home? The
contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees' creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757-767.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
Martindale, C., & Dailey, A. (1996). Creativity, primary process cognition and
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(4), 409-414.
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for
mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(8), 1031-1056.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience.
Journal of of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258-1265.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological
Review, 69(3), 220-232.
Meehl, P. E. (1962). Schizotaxia, schizotypy, schizophrenia. American psychologist,
17(12), 827-838.
Mooney, R. L. (1963). A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the
identification of creative talent'in Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and
Development, ed. CW Taylor and F. Barron. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barrons (Eds.),
169
Scientific Creativity: its recognition and development (pp. 331- 340). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Moss, S. A., & Ritossa, D. A. (2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association
between leadership style and follower performance, creativity and work attitudes.
Leadership, 3(4), 433-456.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and
mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6),
852-863.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration,
application, and innovation. Psychological bulletin, 103(1), 27-43.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nettle, D. (2006). Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets, visual artists, and
mathematicians. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 876-890.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual
Factors at Work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,
Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: links to
managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(4), 379-408.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and
Prediction. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
170
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(879).
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and Certain Personality Traits:
Understanding the Mediating Effect of Intrinsic Motivation. Creativity Research
Journal, 20(1).
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for
Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of
organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 65-105.
Putwain, D. W., Kearsley, R., & Symes, W. (2011). Do creativity self-beliefs predict
literacy achievement and motivation? Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3).
Richmond, B. O., & de la Serna, M. (1980). Creativity and locus of control among
Mexican college students. Psychological Reports, 46(3), 979-983.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28.
Rummel, A., & Feinberg, R. (1988). Cognitive evaluation theory: A meta-analytic review
of the literature. Social Behavior and Personality, 16(2), 147-164.
Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Looking Inside the Fishbowl of
Creativity: Verbal and Behavioral Predictors of Creative Performance. Creativity
Research Journal, 11(3), 243.
171
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1),
54-67.
Schwab, D. P., Olian-Gottlieb, J. D., & Heneman, H. G. (1979). Between-subjects
expectancy theory research: A statistical review of studies predicting effort and
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 86(1), 139-147.
Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with
confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230-255.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model
of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal,
37(3), 580-607.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects Of Coaction, Expected Evaluation, And Goal Setting On
Creativity And Productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483-503.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching Creativity Requirements
and the Work Environment: Effects on Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 215-223.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of
management, 30(6), 933-958.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity and genius. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook
of personality theory and research (pp. 629-652). New York: Guilford.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
172
Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five Personality Traits and the Life Course:
A 45-Year Longitudinal Study* 1,* 2. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2),
208-232.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of
General Psychology, 3(2), 83-100.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-
98.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and
paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (pp. 1-19).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative
resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315-330.
Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), The concept of creativity: Contemporary Psychological
Perspectives (pp. 99-121). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. F. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and
relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6),
1137-1148.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ulzen, N. R. v., Semin, G. R., Oudejans, R. R. D., & Beek, P. J. (2008). Affective
stimulus properties infuence size perception and the Ebbinghaus illusion.
Psychological Research, 72, 304-310.
173
Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26(2),
289-297.
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation
instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995-1015.
VandeWalle, D. (2001). Why wanting to look successful doesn’t always lead to success.
Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 162-171.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum Jr, J. W. (1999). The influence of
goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal
field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 249-259.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum Jr, J. W. (2001). The role of goal orientation
following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 629-640.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control,
Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model.
Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.
Vroom, V. R. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1211-1272). New York: Wiley.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the
creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 19, 173-188.
174
West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A., & Haward, B.
(2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. Leadership
Quarterly, 14(4-5), 393-410.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and
organizational strategies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Wiersma, U. J. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 101-
114.
Winston, A. S., & Baker, J. E. (1985). Behavior analytic studies of creativity: A critical
review. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 191 - 205.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(407-415).
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
Xiaoling, W., Jinghuan, Z., Yuxia, C., & Guirong, L. (2009). The Relationships among
Primary Students' Family Environment, Creative Self-efficacy and Creativity.
Psychological Exploration, 5.
Yoon, H. J., & Choi, J. N. (2010). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards and Creativity in the
Workplace: Reward Importance as a Moderator. Paper presented at the Academy
of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal Canada.
Young, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in
facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 25-40.
175
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of
performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal,
53(2), 323-342.
Zhang, J., & Wang, H. (2005). The effect of external representations on numeric tasks.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(5), 817-838.
176
Appendix 1 – CFA Results
Factors
Items ER IC IR AGO TC ER Imp PGO CwS Enj SS LGO IR Imp CI CSE
Eigen Value 6.20 5.85 5.08 2.94 2.35 2.19 2.36 1.82 1.32 1.45 1.76 1.39 1.06 1.24
Variance Explained 10.87 10.27 8.91 5.16 4.12 3.84 4.14 3.19 2.32 2.54 3.08 2.45 1.86 2.18
Creative Self Efficacy (CSE) 1 -0.09 -0.05 0.10 -0.01
-0.02 -0.06 -
0.01 -
0.02 0.18 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.76
Creative Self Efficacy (CSE) 2 0.01 -0.07 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.12 -0.03 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.83
Creative Self Efficacy (CSE) 3 -0.03 0.03 0.15 0.03 -0.05 0.06 0.08 0.19 -
0.13 -
0.05 -
0.03 0.06 0.13 0.71
Supervisor's Support (SS) 1 -0.03 0.01 0.11 0.09 -0.12 -0.07 -
0.05 0.18 0.03 0.73 0.10 0.05 0.04 -0.02
Supervisor's Support (SS) 2 -0.07 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.01 -0.07 -0.06 0.18 0.06 0.80 0.00 -0.04 0.06 0.00
Supervisor's Support (SS) 3 0.06 -0.03 -0.04 0.11 -
0.02 0.13 0.03 0.37 0.14 0.60 0.14 0.01 0.10 -0.01
Coworkers' Support (CwS) 1 -0.04 0.19 0.14 -0.07 0.05 -0.01 -
0.01 0.74 0.04 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07
Coworkers' Support (CwS) 2 -0.05 0.16 0.02 0.08 0.08 -0.06 0.00 0.67 -0.02 0.28 -
0.01 0.09 0.17 0.18
Coworkers' Support (CwS) 3 0.14 0.03 -0.02 0.07 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.79 0.05 0.13 -
0.12 0.11 0.09 0.04
Intrinsic Rewards (IR) 1 0.09 -0.21 0.49 0.12 -0.17 0.05 -
0.11 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.16 0.06 0.05 0.19
Intrinsic Rewards (IR) 3 0.14 -0.13 0.73 0.08 0.04 -0.05 0.03 0.03 -0.04 0.01 -
0.03 0.02 0.14 0.02
Intrinsic Rewards (IR) 4 0.08 -0.03 0.71 0.04 0.13 -0.03 0.09 -0.08 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.16 0.20 0.08
Intrinsic Rewards (IR) 5 -0.03 -0.02 0.72 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.05 -0.03 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.13 0.09
Intrinsic Rewards (IR) 6 -0.05 -0.07 0.71 0.11 0.08 0.03 -0.05 0.13 0.15 -
0.10 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.03
177
Extrinsic Rewards (ER) 1 0.75 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.07 -
0.17 0.15 0.10 -0.14 0.04 -0.04 -
0.13 0.04
Extrinsic Rewards (ER) 2 0.76 -0.14 0.05 -
0.02 0.06 0.07 -0.14
-0.04
-0.15
-0.04 0.00 0.02 0.06 -
0.10
Extrinsic Rewards (ER) 3 0.74 0.11 0.07 -
0.07 0.16 0.16 -0.10
-0.14
-0.12 0.19 -
0.04 0.09 -0.02 0.02
Extrinsic Rewards (ER) 4 0.76 0.06 0.03 0.01 -
0.05 -0.01 -0.09
-0.21
-0.01 0.30 -
0.06 -0.03 -0.01
-0.05
Extrinsic Rewards (ER) 5 0.69 0.15 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.12 -
0.13 -
0.02 0.02 0.06 -0.12 0.14 0.01 0.00
Extrinsic Rewards (ER) 6 0.70 0.02 0.01 0.07 -
0.17 -0.10 -0.05 0.09 0.04 -
0.21 0.09 0.10 -0.09
-0.05
Extrinsic Rewards (ER) 7 0.64 -0.02 -
0.04 0.06 -0.13 -0.08 -
0.23 0.21 0.03 -0.11 0.14 -0.06 0.05 0.01
Extrinsic Rewards (ER) 8 0.48 -0.05 -
0.07 0.01 -0.29 -0.12 -
0.19 0.08 0.03 -0.31 0.17 -0.15 0.08 -
0.02
Intrinsic Rewards' Importance (IR Imp) 1 0.07 0.01 0.17 0.07 0.09 0.06 -
0.12 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.81 0.03 0.03
Intrinsic Rewards' Importance (IR Imp) 2 -0.01 0.05 0.12 0.08 -
0.05 0.04 -0.05 0.05 0.18 -
0.05 0.02 0.75 0.14 0.08
Intrinsic Rewards' Importance (IR Imp) 3 0.08 -0.14 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.73 0.06 0.07
Extrinsic Rewards' Importance (ER Imp) 1 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.06 -
0.09 0.84 -0.07
-0.02 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.08 -
0.05 -
0.02
Extrinsic Rewards' Importance (ER Imp) 2 -0.01 0.07 -
0.04 0.11 -0.02 0.87 0.13 0.01 -
0.03 0.01 -0.06 0.07 -
0.02 -
0.02
Extrinsic Rewards' Importance (ER Imp) 3 0.12 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.85 0.06 0.01 0.02 -
0.08 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
Creative Intention (CI) 1 0.07 -0.08 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.01 -
0.07 0.22 0.10 -0.02 0.02 -0.11 0.73 0.10
Creative Intention (CI) 2 -0.03 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 -
0.01 0.16 0.13 0.22 0.72 0.07
Creative Intention (CI) 3 -0.17 -0.13 0.29 0.05 -
0.02 -0.04 -0.09 0.15 0.19 0.07 0.04 0.15 0.62 0.14
Enjoyment (Enj) 1 -0.01 0.12 0.13 -
0.11 0.26 -0.10 0.20 -0.08 0.42 0.01 0.05 0.24 0.41 0.05
Enjoyment (Enj) 2 -0.04 0.09 0.09 0.17 -
0.02 -0.03 -0.11
-0.01 0.75 0.05 -
0.05 0.10 0.01 0.14
Enjoyment (Enj) 3 -0.04 0.01 0.17 -
0.12 0.10 0.05 0.13 0.29 0.69 0.13 0.04 0.15 0.03 0.09
Enjoyment (Enj) 4 0.00 0.17 0.05 -0.17 0.20 0.11 0.08 -
0.08 0.64 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.24 -0.04
178
Learning Goal Orientation (LGO) 1 -0.01 0.06 0.04 0.18 0.01 0.08 -0.06
-0.04 0.05 -
0.01 0.78 -0.03 0.10 0.03
Learning Goal Orientation (LGO) 2 0.07 0.15 -0.12 0.19 0.03 -0.07 0.04 -
0.05 0.05 0.09 0.61 0.04 0.06 0.02
Learning Goal Orientation (LGO) 4 -0.09 0.17 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.12 -0.06
-0.06 0.69 0.06 -
0.03 0.05
Learning Goal Orientation (LGO) 5 0.08 0.08 0.14 -0.12 0.10 0.02 0.00 -
0.09 0.02 0.17 0.70 0.07 0.04 0.00
Prove Goal Orientation (PGO) 1 -0.34 -0.02 0.04 0.16 -0.18 0.03 0.65 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.07 -0.15 0.01 -
0.05
Prove Goal Orientation (PGO) 2 -0.24 0.00 -0.01 0.13 -
0.19 0.10 0.75 -0.05 0.10 -
0.09 0.06 -0.08 -0.04
-0.02
Prove Goal Orientation (PGO) 3 -0.30 0.10 -0.03 0.19 -
0.15 0.00 0.71 0.03 0.04 -0.02 0.03 -0.01 -
0.01 0.08
Prove Goal Orientation (PGO) 4 -0.22 0.10 0.06 0.17 -0.10 0.03 0.71 0.07 -
0.13 -
0.03 -
0.09 0.03 -0.02 0.10
Avoidance Goal Orientation (AGO) 1 0.02 -0.18 -0.11
-0.74 0.09 -0.10 -
0.08 -
0.12 0.08 -0.01 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.01
Avoidance Goal Orientation (AGO) 2 -0.01 -0.15 -0.12
-0.65
-0.08 -0.14 -
0.13 0.08 -0.02
-0.21
-0.15 -0.14 -
0.03 -
0.07
Avoidance Goal Orientation (AGO) 3 -0.06 -0.11 -0.08
-0.78
-0.16 -0.08 -
0.18 -
0.09 -
0.02 -
0.03 -
0.14 -0.12 -0.10
-0.01
Avoidance Goal Orientation (AGO) 4 -0.02 -0.21 -0.13
-0.74
-0.11 -0.02 -
0.18 0.06 0.00 -0.06
-0.06 0.00 -
0.10 0.00
Climate for Innovation (IC) 1 -0.03 0.83 -0.03 0.12 -
0.01 0.06 0.10 -0.04
-0.05 0.03 0.08 -0.01 -
0.01 -
0.01
Climate for Innovation (IC) 2 0.01 0.83 -0.08 0.08 -
0.03 0.13 0.11 0.10 -0.02
-0.01 0.06 -0.09 -
0.01 0.05
Climate for Innovation (IC) 3 0.07 0.73 -0.15 0.13 -
0.05 -0.06 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.04 -0.01
-0.04
Climate for Innovation (IC) 4 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.12 -0.22 -0.04 -
0.01 0.09 0.14 0.04 0.10 -0.07 -0.01
-0.13
Climate for Innovation (IC) 5 0.06 0.77 -0.02 0.08 -
0.24 0.03 -0.09 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.06 -
0.05 0.00
Climate for Innovation (IC) 6 -0.01 0.66 -0.09 0.09 -
0.23 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.03
-0.01
Climate for Tradition (TC) 1 0.05 -0.22 0.07 0.03 0.72 -0.04 -0.15 0.09 0.11 -
0.05 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.12
Climate for Tradition (TC) 2 0.01 -0.28 0.01 0.06 0.74 0.02 -0.17 0.05 0.03 -
0.01 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.06
Climate for Tradition (TC) 3 -0.01 -0.29 0.16 0.11 0.64 -0.10 -0.23 0.05 0.11 -
0.10 0.03 0.05 0.04 -0.16
Climate for Tradition (TC) 4 -0.15 -0.19 0.28 0.18 0.53 -0.02 -0.20 0.17 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.13 -
0.12 -
0.08
179
Appendix 2: The Questionnaires
A: The Self Reported Questionnaire
Part 1
Select one statement from each pair given below; which better represents your thoughts.
Click on the selected statement or put an ‘x’ in the box.
1 Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck
People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
2
Becoming a success is a matter of hard work; luck has little or nothing to
do with it.
Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right
time.
3 In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.
4
As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces
we can neither understand, nor control.
By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control
world events.
5
Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by
accidental happenings.
There really is no such thing as "luck."
6
In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good
ones.
Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all
180
three.
7
With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do
in office.
8
Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to
me
It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important
role in my life.
9
What happens to me is my own doing.
Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life
is taking.
Part 2 Please put a cross in the box that expresses you best for a given statement. Put a cross in if you strongly disagree and think that the statement is definitely false. Put a cross in if you disagree and think that the statement is mostly false. Put a cross in if you are neutral to the statement and think that it may be equally true or false. Put a cross in if you agree and think that the statement is mostly true. Put a cross in if you strongly agree and think that the statement is definitely true.
10 I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas. SD D N A SA
11 I have confidence in my ability to solve problems
creatively. SD D N A SA
12 I have a knack for further developing the ideas of others. SD D N A SA
13 My supervisor discusses with me my work-related ideas in SD D N A SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
181
order to improve them.
14 My supervisor is always ready to support me if I introduce
an unpopular idea or solution at work. SD D N A SA
15 My supervisor gives me useful feedback about my ideas
concerning the workplace. SD D N A SA
16 My coworkers other than my supervisor are almost always
supportive when I come up with a new idea about my job. SD D N A SA
17 My coworkers other than my supervisor give me useful
feedback about my ideas concerning the workplace. SD D N A SA
18 My coworkers other than my supervisor are always ready
to support me if I introduce an unpopular idea or solution
at work.
SD D N A SA
19 I feel satisfaction when I suggest a new solution. SD D N A SA
20 I feel competent about my creative performance at work. SD D N A SA
21 I feel satisfaction when I perform creatively. SD D N A SA
22 Creative performance helps me in personal growth. SD D N A SA
23 I feel achievement when I suggest new task ideas. SD D N A SA
24 I feel confident when I perform creativity at work. SD D N A SA
25 I come to confirm my ability when I produce creativity. SD D N A SA
26 When I perform creativity, I can have financial reward
such as incentives or bonus. SD D N A SA
27 When I perform creative work, it will affect my promotion. SD D N A SA
28 If I suggest new ideas for tasks, it can influence the
performance evaluation. SD D N A SA
29 I can get recognized by my supervisor when I suggest new
ideas for the task. SD D N A SA
30 My coworkers will recognize me when I perform creativity
at work. SD D N A SA
31 When an employee produces creative performance, a
company offers some treats such as a celebration dinner. SD D N A SA
182
32 When I perform creativity at work, my company will offer
corresponding benefits in return. SD D N A SA
33 When I perform creativity at work, my supervisors or top
management compliments me publicly. SD D N A SA
34 Intrinsic rewards such as enjoyment, autonomy, and self-
achievement that I can get from my creative performance
are quite meaningful to me.
SD D N A SA
35 Intrinsic rewards such as enjoyment, autonomy, and self-
achievement that I can get from my creative performance
are worthwhile for me to try hard to perform creatively.
SD D N A SA
36 Intrinsic rewards such as enjoyment, autonomy, and self-
achievement that I can get from my creative performance
are so important that they influence me to change my task
behavior.
SD D N A SA
37 Extrinsic rewards such as financial incentives, promotions,
and respect that I can get from my creative performance
are quite meaningful to me.
SD D N A SA
38 Extrinsic rewards such as financial incentives, promotions,
and respect that I can get from my creative performance
are worthwhile for me to try hard to perform creatively.
SD D N A SA
39 Extrinsic rewards such as financial incentives, promotions,
and respect that I can get from my creative performance
are so important that they influence me to change my task
behavior.
SD D N A SA
40 I am strongly motivated to offer new and constructive
ideas to my colleagues. SD D N A SA
41 I am willing to use and practice my creativity during my
work. SD D N A SA
42 I have clear intentions to work creatively at my workplace. SD D N A SA
183
43 What matters most to me is enjoying what I do. SD D N A SA
44 No matter what the outcome of a project, I am satisfied if I
feel I gained a new experience. SD D N A SA
45 I enjoy doing work that is so absorbing that I forget about
everything else. SD D N A SA
46 It is important for me to be able to do what I most enjoy. SD D N A SA
47 I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I
can learn a lot from. SD D N A SA
48 I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and
knowledge. SD D N A SA
49 I enjoy challenging and difficult tasks at work where I’ll
learn new skills. SD D N A SA
50 For me, further development of my work ability is
important enough to take risks. SD D N A SA
51 I prefer to work in situations that require a high level of
ability and talent. SD D N A SA
52 I like to show that I can perform better than my co-
workers. SD D N A SA
53 I try to figure out what it takes to prove my ability to others
at work. SD D N A SA
54 I enjoy it when others at work are aware of how well I am
doing. SD D N A SA
55 I prefer to work on projects where I can prove my ability to
others. SD D N A SA
56 I would avoid taking on a new task if there was a chance
that I would appear rather incompetent to others. SD D N A SA
57 Avoiding a show of low ability is more important to me
than learning a new skill. SD D N A SA
58 I’m concerned about taking on a task at work if my
performance would reveal that I had low ability. SD D N A SA
184
List of Constructs and Corresponding Items
No. Construct Corresponding Items
1 Locus of Control 1 - 9
2 Creative Self Efficacy 10 - 12
3 Support for Creativity from Supervisor 13 - 15
4 Support for Creativity from Coworkers 16 - 18
5 Intrinsic Rewards for Creativity 19 - 25
59 I prefer to avoid situations at work where I might perform
poorly. SD D N A SA
60 Senior management like to keep to established, traditional
ways of doing things. SD D N A SA
61 The way this organization does things has never changed
very much. SD D N A SA
62 Management are not interested in trying out new ideas. SD D N A SA
63 Changes in the way things are done here happen very
slowly. SD D N A SA
64 New ideas are readily accepted here. SD D N A SA
65 This company is quick to respond when changes need to be
made. SD D N A SA
66 Management here are quick to spot the need to do things
differently. SD D N A SA
67 This organization is very flexible; it can quickly change
procedures to meet new conditions and solve problems as
they arise.
SD D N A SA
68 Assistance in developing new ideas is readily available. SD D N A SA
69 People in this organization are always searching for new
ways of looking at problems. SD D N A SA
185
6 Extrinsic Rewards for Creativity 26 - 33
7 Importance of Intrinsic Rewards 34 - 36
8 Importance of Extrinsic Rewards 37 - 39
9 Creative Intention 40 - 42
10 Enjoyment 43 - 46
11 Learning Goal Orientation 47 - 51
12 Prove Goal Orientation 52 - 55
13 Avoidance Goal Orientation 56 - 59
14 Traditional Climate 60 – 63
15 Innovation Climate 64 – 69
Note: Based on EFA results, item number 20, 25 and 49 were omitted from analyses.
186
B: The Supervisor Reported Questionnaire
Please put a cross in the box that expresses this employee best for a given statement. Put a cross in if you strongly disagree and think that the statement is definitely false. Put a cross in if you disagree and think that the statement is mostly false. Put a cross in if you are neutral to the statement and think that it may be equally true or false. Put a cross in if you agree and think that the statement is mostly true. Put a cross in if you strongly agree and think that the statement is definitely true.
List of Constructs and Corresponding Items
No. Construct Corresponding Items
1 Radical Creativity 1 - 3
2 Incremental Creativity 4 - 6
1 This person is a good source of highly creative ideas. SD D N A SA
2 This person demonstrates originality in his/her work. SD D N A SA
3 This person suggests radically new ways for doing his/her
work. SD D N A SA
4 This person uses previously existing ideas or work in an
appropriate new way. SD D N A SA
5 This person is very good at adapting already existing ideas. SD D N A SA
6 This person easily modifies previously existing work
processes to suit current needs. SD D N A SA
SD
D
N
A
SA