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


3.3 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


4.3.8 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 –


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 –


6.1.4 LOC and CSE in the Context of Reward –


6.1.5 Goal Orientation in the Context of Reward –


6.1.6 Support in the Context of Reward –


6.1.7 Organizational Climate in the Context of Reward –


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


Table 6b Goal Orientation as moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative


Table 7a Support as moderator of Intrinsic Reward – Radical Creative Behavior

Relationship

Table 7b Support as the moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative


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)


through Creative Self Efficacy (CSE)

Figure 6 Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior through

Learning Goal Orientation (LGO)


through Performance Goal Orientation (PGO)


Climate for Innovation


Climate for Tradition


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.


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 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).


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




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




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




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 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


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


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


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 **





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


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





125

Table 4

Rewards’ Importance as moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship





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


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





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


2


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





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


2

Intrinsic Rewards 0.19 **

2


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


ΔR² 0.02 * ΔR² 0.00

128

Table 6b

Goal Orientation as moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative Behavior

Relationship





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


2


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





.

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


2


2


Supervisor Support (SS) 0.24 *** Co Workers’ support (CWS) 0.22 ***


ΔR² 0.10 *** ΔR² 0.09 ***

3

Intrinsic Rewards X SS 0.07

3

Intrinsic Rewards X CWS 0.04


ΔR² 0.00 ΔR² 0.00

130

Table 7b

Support as the moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative Behavior

Relationship





Steps and Variables

Incremental

Creative

Behavior

Steps and Variables

Incremental

Creative

Behavior

1

Education -0.04

1

Education 0.04



2


2


Supervisor Support (SS) 0.12 * Co Workers’ support (CWS) 0.07


ΔR² 0.01 * ΔR² 0.00

3

Extrinsic Rewards X SS 0.04

3

Extrinsic Rewards X CWS 0.05


ΔR² 0.01 ΔR² 0.00

131

Table 8a

Innovation Climate as moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship





Steps and Variables

Radical

Creative

Behavior

Steps and Variables

Incremental

Creative

Behavior

1

Education -0.04

1

Education 0.04



2


2


Climate for Innovation (CI) 0.55 *** Climate for Innovation (CI) 0.31 ***


ΔR² 0.34 *** ΔR² 0.10 ***

3

Intrinsic Rewards X CI 0.20 ***

3

Extrinsic Rewards X CI 0.01


ΔR² 0.04 *** ΔR² 0.00

132

Table 8b

Traditional Climate as the moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship





Steps and Variables Radical Creative Behavior

Steps and Variables Incremental

Creative Behavior

1

Education -0.04

1

Education 0.04



2


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 **


ΔR² 0.03 *** ΔR² 0.03 **

133

Table 9a

Combined effects of Moderators on extrinsic rewards – incremental creativity

relationship





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


2


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 ***


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 **


R² Change 0.11 *** R² Change 0.04 *

134

Table 9b

Combined effects of Moderators on intrinsic rewards – radical creativity relationship





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


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





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



CSE 0.12 1.91

Extrinsic Rewards X CSE 0.22 *** 3.63

3



CWS 0.16 * 2.49

Extrinsic Rewards X CWS 0.16 * 2.46

4



CI 0.57 *** 11.18

Extrinsic Rewards X CI 0.13 * 2.59

5



CT -0.02 -0.26

Extrinsic Rewards X CT -0.12 * -2.02





139

Table 13

Moderated Effects of Intrinsic Rewards on Incremental Creative Behavior





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





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


Locus of Control + Supported

8 Extrinsic Rewards


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


Learning Goal Orientation + Not Supported

10b Extrinsic Rewards


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


Support for Creativity + Not Supported


Radical Creativity

Climate for Innovation + Supported



Climate for Innovation + Not Supported


Radical Creativity

Climate for Tradition - Supported



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


Importance of Reward,

GO

GO, Importance of Reward, LOC, CSE

Support, Org.

Climate

Creative Behavior

Extrinsic Rewards

Intrinsic Rewards

Creative Intention

Enjoyment



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


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


Incr

emen

tal C

reat

ive

Beh

avio

r

Low CSE

High CSE


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


Incr

emen

tal C

reat

ive

Beh

avio

r

PGO Low

PGO High


Performance Goal Orientation (PGO)

151

1

2

3

4

5


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


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


Incr

emen

tal C

reat

ive

Beh

avio

rWeakTraditionalClimate

StrongTraditionalClimate


Climate for Tradition

154

Figure 11. Results of Mediated Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative

Behavior

Intrinsic Rewards

Enjoyment


Org. Climate

Goal Orientation, Org. Climate

155

Figure 12. Results of Mediated Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative

Behavior

Extrinsic Rewards

Creative Intention


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


-0.78

-0.16 -0.08 -

0.18 -

0.09 -

0.02 -

0.03 -

0.14 -0.12 -0.10

-0.01


-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


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


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



are worthwhile for me to try hard to perform creatively.

SD D N A SA



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



are worthwhile for me to try hard to perform creatively.

SD D N A SA



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

rewards and creativity: the next stepprr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1280/1/2032s.pdf ·...

Documents