research study "cse~work intensity~creativity"

8/12/2019 Research study "CSE~Work Intensity~Creativity"

1/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY.

The interactive effect of core self-evaluation and tendency to work intenselyon creativity and performance

Donna George

Michelle Gomes

Ryan LambieAlex Martynov

Sara Pecorella

Zain SardarMuhammad Obaid Yaqub

Natalia Zaslavsky

HRM 4420 N WI14Dr. Amanda Shantz

April 2nd

, 2014


2/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 1Abstract

This paper investigates the equivocal relationship between core self-evaluations (CSE)

and creativity, and describes how and under what conditions this relationship is optimal for

organizations. We present a conceptual model of CSE and creativity that is moderated by

tendency to work intensely (TWI), and analyze the effect of creativity on four facets of

performance: organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), turnover intentions (TI), work

engagement (WE), and willingness to recommend the organization (WRO). Data gathered from

209 full-time employees revealed that CSE predicted creativity in the simultaneous presence of

high levels of tendency to work intensely (TWI) as a moderator. Conversely, CSE had an

opposite empirical association with creativity at low levels of TWI. Limitations, implications for

research, and practical implications are discussed.


3/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 2The role of personality variables in predicting performance has sparked the interest of

organizational psychologists for many years (Johnson, 2003). Firms interested in creating and

sustaining exceptional performance may be eager to inquire about variables that effectively

predict performance outcomes for which they aspire towards.

Core self-evaluation (CSE) is comprised of a set of fundamental self-beliefs regarding our

capacity to problem solve,worthiness of respect and regard, control of and responsibility for what

happens to us, and proneness to optimism and freedom from doubt (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller,

2011). It may seem safe to assume those who possess this unique, trait-like CSE characteristic are

likely to exhibit higher levels of creativity because of their belief in the likelihood of success. In

support of this line of logic, Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller (2011) found that CSE was positively

associated with job attitudes (domain-specific and generalized self-efficacy) and that domain-

specific self-efficacy in particular was positively associated with creative behaviour (Judge &

Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011). Other research supports an opposite proposition. Silvia and Phillips

(2004) claimed that majority of the time, self-evaluation diminished creativity because of its

interference with the generation of new ideas (Silvia & Phillips, 2004).

The nature of the relationship between core self-evaluation (CSE) and creativity is

ambiguous. Streams of research have confirmed a substantial positive association between CSE

and creativity (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011)whereas others found a substantial opposite

association (Silvia & Phillips, 2004). Current research lacks empirical evidence that specifies

which conditions allow the relationship between CSE and creativity to be enhanced (strengthened

or dampened). Trait activation theory asserts that a traits presence is insufficient in determining

its predictive utility, and that personality variables may be either dormant or operational

depending on cuesprovided by the environment (Byrne, Stoner, Thompson & Hochwarter,

2005, p. 327). In terms of the current study, the CSE trait may remain latent unless its effect is


4/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 3activated by the situation of high TWI. The trait activation theory by Tett and his colleagues

serves as the theoretical foundation for our study (Tett & Burnett, 2003) in that it presents a

model of person-situation interaction specifying the conditions under which particular

personality traits will predict performance in particular jobs (Tett & Burnett, 2003, p. 507).

The goal of the current research study was not to address if CSE has any effect on

creativity, but rather under which circumstances does it affect creativity. Which conditions allow

for CSE and creativity to be positively related and which conditions allow for a negative

relationship? Given the importance of CSE, careful consideration of a moderating variable may

provide a more comprehensive understanding of the association between CSE and creativity. To

account for this ambiguity, we propose that the equivocal relationship between CSE and

creativity is influenced by the moderating variable of tendency to work intensely (TWI).


5/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 4Theoretical Background and Hypothesis

Literature Review

Core self-evaluation.The concept of CSE was initially developed to function as a

predictor of job satisfaction. CSE is a broad, latent, higher-order trait that is denoted by four traits

in the personality literature: self-esteem, the overall value that one places on oneself as a person;

(b)generalized self-efficacy, an evaluation of how well one can perform across a variety of

situations; (c) neuroticism, the tendency to have a negativistic cognitive/explanatory style and to

focus on negative aspects of the self; and (d) locus of control, beliefs about the causes of events

in ones life (Judge, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003, pp. 303-304). An individual with a high CSE

score is well adjusted, positive, self-confident, efficacious, and believes in his or her own

agency (Judge et al., 2003, p. 304). CSE is stable over the life-course with robust and consistent

effects across a variety of work domains (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011). These basic,

fundamental appraisals regarding worthiness, effectiveness, and capability comprise the deeper

level psychological construct of CSE (Judge et al., 2003).

The five-factor model of personality consists of extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, emotional stability (also called neuroticism), and openness to experience

(Byrne, Stoner, Thompson & Hochwarter, 2005, p. 327). The emotional stability (neuroticism)

trait is common to both the five-factor model and the CSE framework (Judge et al., 2003). The

conceptual overlap of emotional stability among both the five-factor model and the CSE

framework suggests that further examination of the CSE concept is warranted.

Creativity.The ferocity of todays competitive business environment requires

organizations to continuously seek methods to improve their products or services (Andriopoulos,

2001). Organizations interested in capitalizing on creativity view development of conditions that


6/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 5will foster creative conditions as long-term investment that starts from the individual and

disseminates throughout the organization (Andriopoulos, 2002).

Farmer, Tierney and Kung-McIntyre (2003) define creativity as the development of new

and practical ideas (Farmer, Tierney and Kung-McIntyre, 2003). This definition is paramount and

common to both Eastern and Western definitions of creativity and is central to the concepts use

in our study. The ability to create and execute novel and useful outcomes is facilitated by self-

confidence, belief that one is in control of implementation, and lack of doubt in the face of

uncertainty (Judge et al., 2011).

In the context of the competitive organizational environment, creation and application of

new ideas is crucial. Personality traits, self-perceptions and self-efficacy may influence creativity

(Diliello, Houghton, & Dawley, 2011). Research has highlighted the importance of establishing

necessary conditions for creative behaviours as well as the need for individual creative skills,

abilities, expertise, and creative self-efficacy (Diliello et al., 2011). Creativityexistsatthree

levels: the work team level, the supervisory level and the organizational level (Diliello et al.,

2011). At the work team level, creativity is enhanced when team members are open to new and

challenging ideas, can effectively communicate these ideas, and successfully manage conflict and

feedback (Diliello et al., 2011). Organizations should facilitate creative work environments so

that new and practical ideas are encouraged (Diliello et al., 2011).

Core self-evaluation and creativity. In examining CSE and creativity, there is lack of

clear empirical evidence that indicates whether CSE is either positively or negatively associated

with creativity. Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller (2011) demonstrated the demand for individuals

who are confident in their own abilities and who believe they can control their own fates (Judge

et al., 2011). People with a positive CSE viewed themselves positively across different situations,

and approached the world with confidence. According to self-verification theory, people with


7/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 6high CSE take on jobs that are perceived as challenging and rewarding as they believe they will

succeed in these roles (Judge et al., 2011). They discovered a positive relation between CSE and

job attitudes (domain-specific self-efficacy and generalized self-efficacy), and established a

correlation between domain-specific self-efficacy as a correlate of creative behaviour at work.

This lends support to CSEs positiveassociation to creative work performance (Judge et al.,

2011). Zhang & Bartol (2010) found that psychological empowerment was positively associated

to both intrinsic motivation (IM) and creative process engagement (CPE) (Zhang & Bartol,

2010). IM and CPE were both positively related to creative behaviours. An aspect of

psychological empowerment, competence, is referred to as self-efficacy in the CSE literature.

This conceptual overlap lends further support to CSEs positive associationwith creativity.

A negative association between CSE and creativity has also been shown to exist. Silvia

and Phillips (2004) sought to identify the nature of the effects of CSE on creativity and claimed

that majority of the time, self-evaluation diminished creativity (Silvia & Phillips, 2004). Self-

evaluation could possibly decrease creativity because it interfered with the critical thinking

process, when an individual usually generated new ideas (Silvia & Phillips, 2004). First, when

self-evaluation is accompanied with the feeling of an inability to succeed, it is thought to be

negatively associated with creativity. Second when individuals thought they were able to

improve, this resulted in a positive trend between self-evaluation and creativity. The authors

research challenged the hypothesis that the relationship between CSE and creativity is

unquestionably positive.

Tendency to work intensely as a moderator.Work effort is the quantity of resources

expended on the job (Yeo & Neal, 2004). Brown and Leighs (1996) conceptualization of effort

consists of three components: duration (or time commitment), intensity (or force), and direction

(Brown & Leigh, 1996, p. 361) with a focus on the time commitment and intensity dimensions


8/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 7which constitute the essence of working hard (Brown & Leigh, 1996, p. 361). Scales of effort

(including time commitment and work intensity) measure tendencies to work long (time

commitment) and hard (intensity) in order to achieve success (Brown et al., 1996). Thus, TWI, a

component of effort, refers to the amount of time and force expended on the job.

Byrne, Stoner, Thompson and Hochwarter (2005) indicate using a three-way interaction

between conscientiousness, effort, and psychological climate in a study of 139 restaurant

employees, that the relationship between conscientiousness and performance is moderated by

work effort (Byrne, Stoner, Thompson & Hochwarter, 2005). The study found a strong positive

relationship between conscientiousness and performance in the high work effortpositive

psychological climate subgroup (Byrneet al, 2005, p. 334).Conversely, they found non-

significant relationships for the low work effortpositive psychological climate groups (Byrne

et al, 2005, p. 334). Conscientiousness is one of the five key traits in the five-factor model (FFM)

of personality. Along with conscientiousness, neuroticism (emotional stability) is also part of the

FFM. When conscientiousness is combined with high levels of expended effort (a component of

effort is work intensity), performance is an outcome (Byrne et al., 2005). Emotional stability is a

dimension of the FFM as well as a central element of the CSE composition. This begs the

question of whether the enhanced conscientiousnessperformance relationship in the presence

of the moderating variable of work effort can be similarly applied to the CSEcreative

performance relationship with work intensity as a moderator. The dual-presence of emotional

stability in the FFM and the CSE composition is a stepping stone to discovering whether or not a

similar enhancing relationship exists with CSE and creativity.

Hypothesis 1a: There is an interaction between core self-evaluation and TWI, such that the

relationship between core self-evaluation and creativity is positive at high levels of TWI.


9/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 8We expect that the effect of CSE will work in the opposite direction at low levels of work

intensity. This essentially means that when levels of CSE are high (similar to the above case) but

tendency to work intensely is low, the opposite outcome occurs. That is, our model predicts a

negative association between CSE and creativity at low levels of TWI.

Hypothesis 1b: There is an interaction between core self-evaluation and TWI, such that the

relationship between CSE and creativity is negative at low levels of TWI.

Creativity and organizational citizenship behaviour. Lee and Allen (2002) describe

organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) as employee behaviour that is not necessarily critical

to the job, but facilitates organizational functioning (Lee & Allen, 2002). Examples of OCB

include attending non-mandatory corporate functions as well as assisting coworkers without

instruction to do so. Although OCB is not supported by organizational rules or reward systems, it

contributes positively to organizational effectiveness (Ryan, 2002). Discretionary helping

behaviours are framed by the context inwhichthis behaviour occurs (Dewett & Denisi, 2007).

OCB can result in employees working overtime and providing innovative solutions to

organizational problems because they are willing to perform tasks that go above and beyond their

basic duties (Xerri & Brunetto, 2013). Furthermore, affective commitment was found to have

been positively associated with an increase in the level of OCB and innovation (Xerri et al.,

2013).

Despite Xerri et al.s(2013) findings, there is a lack of empirical research to support the

relationship between OCB and creativity. We hypothesize a positive relationship between

creativity and OCB. This encompasses OCB directed towards individuals and OCB directed

towards the organization.

Hypothesis 2a: Creativity is positively related to organizational citizenship behaviour


10/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 9Creativity and turnover intentions. Turnover intentions are ones intention to quit. It is

the likelihood that a person will leave his/her job within the foreseeable future (Shalley, Gilson,

& Blum, 2000). Negative perceptions of the job can be associated with TI which raises concerns

regarding both substantive monetary and psychological dimensions of an organization. TIs are a

reflection of the organizational context (culture). A positive work context is comprised of ethical

values and creativity synergies. This tends to result in increased job satisfaction and decreased

turnover intentions (Valentine, Godkin, & Fleischman, 2011). Although some workplaces are

more efficient in creative settings, other workplaces may not respond similarly. Some jobs

require low creativity, and creative jobholders may become frustrated and less satisfied. The key

is complementarity between the work environment and creative job requirements; when there is

greater complementarity, the effect on turnover intentions will decrease (Shalley et al., 2000).

Turnover intention is a facet of employee behaviour that can partially depend on creativity

levels. The hospitality industry has a significant amount of turnover culture and it oftentimes

encompasses poor perceived working conditions relative to pay and temporal and seasonally

challenging nature of the work. Such conditions tend to hold true in the cookery occupation of

this industry, where combinations of extrinsic motivators (working conditions and pay) are the

catalysts to (dis)satisfaction along with occupational-specific intrinsic motivators which impact

chefs job satisfaction(Robinson & Beesley, 2010) . Occupational-specific intrinsic needs

contribute to higher order human needs (i.e. self-respect and achievement). Creativity is therefore

a defining element of the chef occupational culture (Robinson et al., 2010).

Based on the aforementioned research, we hypothesize that creativity and turnover

intentions are negatively related. This means that as creativity increases, the likelihood that an

individual will leave their job within the foreseeable future will decrease.

Hypothesis 2b: Creativity is negatively related to turnover intentions


11/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 10Creativity and work engagement.Organizations typically desire enthusiastic and

dedicated employees who are proactive and demonstrate initiative. Work engagement (WE) is

a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and

absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker, Salanova, 2006, p. 702). Vigor refers to high levels of energy and

mental resilience while working. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in ones work and

experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge. Absorption refers to being fully

concentrated and happily engrossed in ones work, whereby time passes quickly and one has

difficulties with detaching oneself from work (Schaufeli et al., 2006).WE allows firms to

understand how vigorous, dedicated, and absorbed employees are in their work. Engaged workers

are more proactive, take more initiative, feel more positively about the organization and their

own ability, set higher goals, are more enthusiastic about their work, and exhibit less absenteeism

and burnout compared to non-engaged workers (Christian, Garza & Slaughter, 2011).

Research has demonstrated a positive relationship between WE and creativity as engaged

employees experience positive emotions on the job, which results in increases in their

productivity (Christian et al., 2011). When employees are engaged, they show an interest in the

work that is being performed as they are willing to invest themselves in their work. These

individuals will most likely exert themselves to the fullest. This can be explained by an openness

to experiment and create novel and useful ideas and processes. Thus, it is possible that creativity

is more likely to be an outcome. Research has also shown that WE may be a key to performance

(Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010). When individuals exert effort on the job, they also may

experience higher levels of task performance. This is possible because when workers demonstrate

positive and constructive behaviour, they could also be displaying behaviours that signal

openness to develop new and practical ideas.

Hypothesis 2c: Creativity is positively related to work engagement


12/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 11Creativity and willingness to recommend the organization. In much of the current

literature, willingness to recommend the organization (WRO) is considered a positive

organizational outcome. Its importance is attributed to the fact that employee referral is

commonly regarded as the single most effective recruitment method (Breaugh, 2008). WRO

helps the organization identify top talent (Ruiz-Palomino, Martnez-Caas, & Fontrodona, 2013).

Cable and Judge (1996) define WRO asa variable related to personal satisfaction (Cable &Judge, 1996). When satisfied with his or her job, employees may recommend their organization

to friends, relatives, and colleagues(Cable et al., 1996).Cable et al. (1996) also examinedpotential determinants of new employees and job seekers person to organization fit (P-O) and

the significance of person to job fit perceptions in job decision making. They determined that

individuals P-O fit perceptions significantly predict an individuals WRO (Cable et al., 1996).

Consequently, solely looking at management culture interventions on the larger scale is not

enough. Interventions for the individual are important to take into consideration as well.

Ruiz-Palomino et al. (2013) provides insight into how WRO can be measured for research

purposes. The relationship between organizational culture and positive organizational outcomes

(including WRO) were examined. This study demonstrates organizational culture is related to

outcomes such as WRO. More specifically the study shows ethical culture is positively related to

both P-O fit and WRO, and that P-O fit partially mediates the positive relationship between

ethical culture and WRO (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013).

We hypothesize a positive relationship between creativity and WRO. If a positive

relationship between creativity and WRO is found, this may suggest practical benefits to

promoting creativity within the organizational culture.

Hypothesis 2d: Creativity is positively related to willingness to recommend the organization


13/33


14/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 13requested to fill out the questionnaire in private, put it in a sealed envelope. The response rate

was 100%, meaning that each participant has completed the survey.

Measures

Participants rated their own CSE, TWI, creativity, WE, OCB, TI, and WRO using a

seven-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Some of

the items were reverse-phrased and were reversed without any logical changes made to the

responses. Internal consistencies (Cronbachs alpha) and the number of items in the measuring

scale are displayed in Table 1 and all of them are acceptable.

Core self-evaluation. CSE is an independent variable in the model. CSE was measured

using a scale developed by Judge, Bono and Thoresen (2003). A sample item is: I am confident

I get the success I deserve in life.

Tendency to work intensely. TWI is a moderator variable within the model. TWI was

measured using a scale developed by Brown and Leigh (1996). A sample item is: When theres

a job to be done, I devote all my energy to getting it done.

Creativity.Creativity is a dependent variable in our model. Creativity was measuredusing a scale developed by Farmer, Tierney and Kung-McIntyre (2003). A sample item is: I try

new ideas or methods first before using established methods or ideas.

Organizational citizenship behaviour. Two types of organizational citizenship

behaviour (OCB) were included: individual and organizationalOCB. Both types were measured

using a scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002). A sample item for individual OCB is:

Willingly gave your time to help others who had work-related problems. A sample item for


15/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 14organizational OCB is: Attended functions that were not required but that helped the

organizational image.

Willingness to recommend the organization. WRO was measured using a scale with

one of the items being reversed-scored developed by Cable and Judge (1996). A sample item is:

How likely would you be to recommend your organization to your friends as a good place to

work?.

Work engagement. WE was measured using a scale developed by Schaufeli, Bakker and

Salanova (2006). A sample item is: When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.

Turnover Intentions.TI was measured using a scale developed by Boroff and Lewin

(1997). A sample item is: I try new ideas or methods first before using established methods or

ideas.

Control Variables. We control for age and working hours. Age was selected as a control

variable to eliminate its effect on our dependent variable of creativity, as previous studies showed

that age has a large effect on creativity (Binnewies, Ohly and Niessen 2008, pp. 438-457).

Working hours was selected as a control variable, because it was closely related to TWI. As we

wanted to test the exact effect of TWI on creativity, we decided to control for number of working

hours, so it would not affect the overall model.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 reports descriptive statistics and correlations among all study variables. Bivariate

correlations were in the expected direction. In particular, we can state that creativity does not

have significant correlation with CSE. However, it is positively related to OCB, WE and WRO.


16/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 15Our Hypotheses 2a, 2c and 2d proposed that creativity is positively related to OCB, WE and

WRO. As Table 2 reveals, creativity does, in fact, have a significant positive relationship with

these three variables. However, hypothesis 2b, which proposed that creativity was negatively

related to TI, is not supported by the correlation results. The coefficient is negative (-0.04) but

this relationship is not significant at 95% confidence level (p=0.59). Thus, hypotheses 2a, 2c and

2d were supported by the data, while hypothesis 2b was not supported. Due to these four

hypotheses testing the importance of creativity to the organization, we can state that three out of

four hypotheses were supported by the results. Age and working hours are the control variables.

Age is not related to CSE or creativity, however the relationship between age and tendency to

work intensely is statistically significant and shows that the older a person is, the more intense he

will work. Also, despite that working hours, another control variable, is correlated with TWI, the

coefficient of correlation is only 0.20, which represents a small to medium relationship between

the variables. This suggests that these two concepts are not the same.

Regression Model

We tested hypotheses 1a and 1b using hierarchical regression analyses. In the first step,

we entered the control variables (age and working hours). In the second step, we entered the

standardized moderator variable (tendency to work intensely) and predictor (CSE). The

interaction term was entered in the third step. The regression model results of all three models are

summarized in Table 3. If we look at the adjusted R2we can state that 7.3% of the variation of the

dependent variable (creativity) can be explained by our model. Durbin-Watson coefficient is

close to 2 (1.628), which means that the assumptions of the independent errors has not been

violated. Significant F change and R2between model 1, 2, 3 tell us that the model with interaction

effect between CSE and tendency to work intensely fits the data better than without it. It shows,


17/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 16as expected, that model 3 is significant at 5% significance level (p = 0.03) and that tendency to

work intensely is a moderator for CSE and creativity. Beta coefficients of the model 3 predicting

creativity level are plotted in figure 2, showing the relationship between creativity and CSE for

low and high levels of tendency to work intensely. Hypothesis 1a and 1b proposed that there is an

interaction between CSE and tendency to work intensely, such that the relationship between CSE

and creativity is positive at high levels of TWI and negative at low levels of TWI. Both

hypotheses were supported by our model and are clearly demonstrated in figure 2.

Unstandardized beta coefficients in model 3 predict the creativity score using 2 control

variables, predictor, moderator, and interaction effect. As we can find out from table 4, age and

working hours are not significant at 5% significance level and their betas do not affect creativity

(-0.01 and -0.01). Creativity score can be predicted using the formula: Creativity = 4.7 + 0.05 *

CSE score + 0.29 * Tendency to work intensely score + 0.19 * Interaction effect. As we can see

on figure 2, both hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported, as creativity level tends to decrease for

high level of CSE accompanied with low level of tendency to work intensely, and to increase for

high level of CSE and high level of tendency to work intensely. Overall model is significant at

5% significance level. However, we have run the regression without the control variables

included and it was not significant at 5% level (p = 0.57). Possible reasons for this phenomenon

will be discussed more closely in discussion section.

Discussion

The results from our study have expanded the understanding of the relationship between

CSEs and creativity. Our results supported some of the current research that suggests a positive

relationship between creativity and CSEs, and have also provided explanation for why other

academic theories support an opposite relationship. Our results suggested that in order to


18/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 17maximize the creativity of an individual who has high CSE, the individual would also have to

possess TWI. On the other hand, when an individual exhibits low levels of TWI there is an

opposite effect. Our results supported Judge et al.s(2011) theory that domain specific self-

efficacy is positively associated with creativity. However, it extended the theory to suggest that

high TWI needs to be present in order for this positive association to exist. Thus, our results may

have provided an explanation on why Siliva et al. (2004) claimed that CSE interfered with

creativity, because their study did not include TWI. Our results have added to the current research

on the relationship between creativity and CSE and have extended it to include the situational

variable TWI, hoping to bring further clarity to the relationship.

Not only do our results support research surrounding these performance variables, but we

lend support to trait activation theory. High CSE alone cannot sufficiently predict creativity, but

when cues from the environment (i.e. requirement to work intensely) are present, then personality

variables (i.e. CSE) are more likely to have predictive utility (Byrne et al., 2005). This is just one

application of our results to trait-activation theory, and would require further research that

specifically studied our formula against trait-activation theory in order to determine if there is

definitive support. Our results support research suggesting that support on the three levels of the

organization has a positive relationship on self-efficacy and self-perceived creativity. We suggest

that TWI at the individual, work team, and organizational level, would be required to maximize

creativity across these levels (Diliello et al., 2011).

Our research also examined the relationship between creativity and other performance

outcomes. Our results and area of focus only examined if a significant relationship existed

amongst these four outcomes, and did not go further to examine situational variables to determine

if there is a potential for moderation or mediation among these relationships. Our results

supported the hypothesized positive relationship between creativity and OCB, WRO, and work


19/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 18engagement, but did not support the hypothesized negative relationship between creativity and

turnover intentions.

Although these relationships were only studied on a basic level, there are some theoretical

implications. In support of research on organizational culture and performance outcomes, our

results suggested that by supporting a culture that promotes creativity, there is an increased

chance that individuals within that organization are likely to recommend the organization to

others as a positive place to work (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013). Our results supported the research

by Christian et al. (2011) arguing that creativity and work engagement are positively associated.

Practical implications

There are several practical implications of our study for HRM practitioners, and would

benefit managers who are seeking to obtain specific performance outcomes. The implications of

our research can be applied across different functions of an organization, from recruitment and

selection to training and development, to job design, and performance appraisal. Our results

centered on maximizing creativity, the practical application is that our formula stands as a

reference for management whose interest is to maximize creativity within the organization,

starting with the individual.

From a recruitment and selection standpoint, management is looking to hire those who

possess qualities that will potentially result in creativity. Our formula supports the notion to hire

individuals who not only have creative qualities, but also have both strong CSE trait and high

TWI. Our formula suggests that management would also want to use training and development

interventions that develop these qualities within the individual to maximize creativity.

From a job design perspective, our results suggested that management should be looking

to design tasks that would initiate the individual to work intensely on the tasks at hand, for

example providing tasks to the individual that are challenging and stimulate creative thinking.


20/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 19This application also applies to trait activation theory in that CSEs alone does not predict

creativity but when management introduces tasks that stimulate the individual to work intensely,

creativity is more likely to be maximized.

For performance appraisals the concept is the same. Both intrinsically and extrinsically

rewarding employees who display TWI, and also providing workshops and technical training

allows employees to recognize and improve these facets. Our results have given management a

formula to apply to their recruitment, job design, development, and appraisal strategies that will

help maximize creativity within individuals.

As far as our results that showed positive associations of performance outcomes; WRO,

work engagement and OCB, with creativity, the practical implications are less significant. It

would require more in depth testing of the positive relationships to apply our results to

management strategies. Nonetheless we can make limited suggestions to management, informing

them that individuals who are more creative are more likely to be more engaged at work,

recommend the organization, and demonstrate OCB. Also, creativity does not have a significant

impact on employee TI. The importance for management here is that these performance

outcomes are desired (except for TI), so management may want to engage in, and provide

activities that support creativity within organizational culture in order to improve the likelihood

of obtaining desired performance outcomes.

Limitations

Our study had some limitations that bring forth further research. First, the sample size

used in this study was not of significant size, at only 209 participants. This suggests that a larger

sample size may potentially produce more varied results and thus change the results of our study.

In future studies, a larger sample size is suggested to produce more varied results which can be

easily generalized towards a larger population.


21/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 20Second, the composition of the participants may not have been a true random sample of

participants as studies request, thus the group of participants may not have been as differentiated

as expected. Since university students selected the participants, this may have led to a pool of

participants that are quite similar and those individuals may have been precisely selected, which

suggests that the sample studied may not have been random. This limitation may have affected

the findings of the study and suggests that the results of the study may not be replicated or

generalizable when tested on an alternate group of participants or on a larger population. In future

studies, it is suggested to use a proper method to randomly select participants for studies in order

to successfully produce generalized results that can be easily reproduced on a larger population.

Third, our conceptual model excluded in measuring some variables and controls. These

excluded variables may influence our conceptual model, and thus alter our results in such a way

that it produces new associations between variables. If these omitted variables were included in

our conceptual model, more significant and stronger associations could have been found, such as

moderators or mediators of the relationship between CSE and creativity. Our findings could have

potentially altered slightly or even immensely if we had included these omitted variables. As for

omitted controls variables, this may cause biased results and may alter our findings. In future

studies, it is suggested to include more variables in the study in order to eliminate or include

specific variables in the theoretical conceptual model.

The last limitation of our study concerns the restrictions of our cross-sectional study. Our

study was cross-sectional, in that it studies a group of participants where each participant

completes a survey at a single point in time (Rindfleisch, Malter, Ganesan, & Moorman, 2008).

Thus, our cross-sectional study fails to provide causal relationships between variables and also

leads to common method variance, which is due to using a single rater survey method, resulting

in systematic method error (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). Thus, our cross-sectional study limits the


22/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 21results to conclude that there are associations between variables, such that tendency to work

intensely moderates the association between CSE and creativity, creativity is associated with

OCB, WRO and WE, and creativity is not associated with TI. The absence of causality between

variables and common method variance leads to questioning the validity of the results of our

study (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). Additionally, common method variance may have potentially

inflated the associations between the variables studied. In order to ensure validity of our study it

is suggested that future studies utilize a longitudinal study rather than a cross-sectional study, to

combat the lack of causality and common method variance (Rindfleisch et al., 2008).

Future Research

Future research is suggested to provide additional support for our conceptual model. First,

a noteworthy point is that our conceptual model is not significant at 95% confidence level

without the control variables of age and working hours. As noted, control variables were included

in our conceptual model for theoretical reasons, as previous studies have shown that age affects

creativity (Binnewies, Ohly and Niessen 2008), and working hours is closely related to TWI.

This allowed us to omit alternate explanations for the moderation effect of TWI on the

relationship between CSE and creativity. The reasons as to why the model is not significant if the

control variables are not included in the analysis, suggests that age and working hours may in fact

moderate the relationship between CSE and creativity. Further research is advised to study why

the moderation effect of the relationship between CSE and creativity is not significant when the

control variables of age and working hours are omitted from the measures.

Second, as noted earlier, it is also fascinating for future research to compare the results of

this study to a similarly replicated study, whereas the sample size is larger and more diverse. This

of interest because it will produce generalized results that are capable of being replicated by a


23/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 22larger population. This will further the validity of our findings and encourage wide acceptance of

our conceptual model.

Third, future research should involve further testing the conceptual model utilizing a

longitudinal study in place of the current cross-sectional study. A longitudinal study studies a

group of participants over a period of time, and thus provides a sequence of events, which can

reveal causal relationships (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). This research should be conducted because

it will provide additional validity of and confidence in our conceptual model, because it may

reveal causality between the variables in our study, and it will slightly combat common method

variance (Rindfleisch et al., 2008).

Fourth, it is of interest for future research to study a potential mediation or moderation

effect of creativity among the relationship between CSE and the specified performance outcomes

in our conceptual model. A literature review is suggested in order to select whether creativity is a

moderator or mediator in this setting. The purpose of this future research is to further enhance our

conceptual model.

Conclusion

Creativity is a brilliant way for organizations to sustain a competitive advantage in

todaysbusiness environment. Although it may seem natural to assume that individuals who

think more positively about themselves also have the confidence to step outside of the box, some

research suggests that under different circumstances, these individuals are less creative (Silvia et

al., 2004). Our study lends support to the theory of trait activation through the assertion that the

mere presence of CSE is insufficient in determining its predictive utility.

The aim of our study was to address the ambiguous nature of the relationship between

CSE and creativity, and found that the relationship changes depending on the interaction between


24/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 23CSE and TWI, such that individuals who think positively about themselves and also tend to work

more intensely are more creative, and individuals who think positively about themselves but do

not tend to work more intensely are less creative. In other words, for individuals who tend to

work more intensely, as CSE increases, the more creative they are likely to be, whereas for

individuals who tend not to work as intensely, as CSE increases, the less creative they are likely

to be. Thus, the relationship between CSE and creativity is strengthened at high levels of TWI

and dampened at low levels of TWI.


25/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 24References

Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organisational creativity: A literature review.

Management Decision, 39(10), 834-841.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: a metaanalysis.Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of

sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting.Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78(5), 715.

Behling, O., & Starke, F. A. (1973). The postulates of expectancy theory.Academy of

Management Journal, 16(3), 373-388.

Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future

research.Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 103-118.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to

job involvement, effort, and performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 358-

368.

Byrne, Z. S., Stoner, J., Thompson, K. R., & Hochwarter, W. (2005). The interactive effects of

conscientiousness, work effort, and psychological climate on job performance.Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 326-338.

Cable, D.M. & Judge, T.A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decision, and

organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3),

294-311.

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., & Slaughter, J.E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review

and test of its relations with task and contextual performance.Personnel Psychology,

64(1), 89-136.


26/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 25Dewett, T., & Denisi, A. S. (2007). What motivates organizational citizenship behaviours?

Exploring the role of regulatory focus theory.European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 241-260.

Diliello, T. C., Houghton, J. D., & Dawley, D. (2011). Narrowing the creativity gap: The

moderating effects of perceived support for creativity. The Journal of Psychology, 145(3),

151-172.

Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An

application of role identity theory.Academy Of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.

Hilal, H. M. H., Husin, W. N. I. W., & Zayed, T. M. (2013). Barriers to creativity among

students of selected universities in Malaysia.International Journal of Applied Science

and Technology, 3(1), 51-60.

Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality

and individual job performance.Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of

personality in organizations, 83-120.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J.E., & Thoresen, C.J. (2003). The core self-evaluation scale: Development

of a measure.Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-

analytic review.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797.

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). Implications of core self-evaluations for a

changing organizational context.Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 331-341.

Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core self-

evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future

research.Human Performance, 17(3), 325-346.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The


27/33


28/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 27Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job

performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500-517.

Tett, R. P., & Gutterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-

situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation.Journal of Research in

Personality, 34(4), 397-423.

Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G. M., & Kidwell, R. (2011). Corporate Ethical Values,

Group Creativity, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: The Impact of Work Context

on Work Response.Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 353-372.

Xerri, M. J. & Brunetto, Y. (2013). Fostering innovative behaviour: the importance of employee

commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 24(16), 3163-3177.

Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance effects

of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2),

231-247.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:

The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process

engagement.Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.


29/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 28TABLES AND FIGURES


30/33

CORE SELF-EVALUATION, TENDENCY TO WORK INTENSELY, CREATIVITY. 29


31/33


Table 3. Hierarchical linear regression model with creativity as dependent variable


32/33


Figure 1. Conceptual model


33/33


research study "cse~work intensity~creativity"

Documents