Personality at work : the extent to which LMX quality has an effect on the relationship between openness to experience and individual innovative work behaviour and creativity

(1)

Personality at work

The extent to which LMX quality has an effect on the relationship

between openness to experience and individual innovative work

behaviour and creativity

Faculty of Economics and Business

Amsterdam, June 29, 2015

Thesis seminar Business studies Gwennis Keja, 10200711 Supervisor: Dr. Merlijn Venus Academic year: 2014-2015 Semester 2, Block 3

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Gwennis Keja, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Foreword

This thesis was written for my Bachelor degree in Business studies at the University of Am-sterdam. While writing this thesis I got help from several people and I would like to take the opportunity to thank them. First of all, I want to thank my supervisor, Dr. Merlijn Venus, for supporting me in this challenging process. He got me engaged in this interesting topic and provided me with constructive criticism, feedback, and guidance that I greatly appreciate. Secondly, I would like to thank my father for not only helping with the data collection process by encouraging many others to participate, but also for showing interest in my topic and giv-ing useful suggestions for my thesis. Next, I would also like to thank Pablo Aguirre and Roos Keja for their comments on my writing and especially with helping clarifying the SPSS out-put. Lastly, I would like to thank everyone who agreed to participate in the data collection process and showed interest in my topic.

I hope you find my topic interesting and will enjoy reading my thesis! Gwennis Keja

(4)

Abstract

Although innovative behaviour is becoming increasingly important in today’s dynamic work-ing environment, methods on how to encourage such behaviour have been underresearched. The present study focuses on one of the Big Five traits, hypothesising that openness to experi-ence interacts with engagement of innovative work behaviour and creativity. Moreover, the exchange relationship between a leader and his/her follower is hypothesised to moderate the interactive effects between openness to experience and innovative behaviour. A survey was conducted among 69 dyads, consisting of an employee and his/her direct supervisor, based on supervisory ratings of the employee’s innovative behaviour and employees’ self-ratings of openness to experience and leader-member exchange quality. The hypotheses were rejected, but results showed LMX quality to have an influence on innovative behaviour, indicating that the role of a leader is an important addition to the present study.

(5)

Table of

Innovation in organisations has become an increasingly important aspect due to the progress-ing need to adapt to dynamic workprogress-ing environments. This aspect has become a reoccurrprogress-ing topic among scholars. It has been seen that innovation is essential for successful organisation-al performance, long-term survivorganisation-al, and for becoming a distinct source of competitive ad-vantage (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014). Creative individuals with the right approach to change, who are capable of dealing with adjustments and are competent to make vast deci-sions independently, are of essence in today’s organisations (Janssen, 2001). Researchers have studied different contextual factors and interactions that influence employee creativity. This study will focus on innovation at the individual level, in particular investigating how the contextual factors of personality and leadership interact with employee creativity.

Even though innovation has been shown to be an important quality for organisations, it has been underresearched. Organisations must be able to know how to influence and en-hance creative behaviour in employees. Managers need to be aware of the role they play in encouraging such behaviour. It is also important for the organisation to understand how to in-fluence and develop such roles. In this way they can keep up with dynamic work environ-ments and assure organisational success. It will help organisations in employing the right fit-ting employees who are inclined to engage in creative behaviour. Having the knowledge of what kind of individual is naturally creative can aid managers in the hiring process. They will better understand what potential candidate to look for and can consequently guide the organi-sation into hiring a creative individual that will eventually benefit organiorgani-sational performance in the long run.

Anderson et al. (2014) provide a review of different studies that have investigated the topic of creativity at work. They summarise contextual factors that seem to be influential to the relationship between personality and creativity, indicating in what areas research is lack-ing. Not only do they show that investigations regarding the impact of personality on creativi-ty are in need of more concrete findings, but also that more research on leadership with regard to creativity is necessary as empirical results of previously conducted studies have not been consistent. The current study follows up on the suggestions of Anderson et al. (2014) by ana-lysing the factors of personality and leadership and their interactions with innovation, con-tributing to literature on individual innovation.

An individual’s personality is found to be associated with employee creativity (Rob-ertson & Callinan, 1998). The issue in the past has been to create a reasonable taxonomy for personality structure that is generalisable. The model that now dominates personality research

(7)

is the Big Five model of personality traits (Barrick & Mount, 1991). It is based on the ability of breaking down the concept of personality into five main measurable elements: extraver-sion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Arnold & Randall, 2010; Hough & Furnham, 2003; Judge & LePine, 2006; An-derson et al., 2014). This study will go in-depth on the personality trait of openness to experi-ence as research has shown that individuals with a higher openness to experiexperi-ence are more creative and adapt better to change (Anderson et al., 2014). However, due to inconsistent find-ings, there is more research to be done on this relationship (Anderson et al., 2014).

In addition, Anderson et al. (2014) emphasise the need for more research on supervi-sion and leadership with regard to innovation. Therefore, this study will target this suggestion by incorporating leader-member exchange (LMX) as a moderating variable, looking at how LMX has either an enhancing or undermining effect (or neither) to the relationship between openness to experience and innovation. By doing so, the present study aims to contribute not only to LMX literature, but also to leadership literature in general. LMX is a dyadic exchange relationship that exists between a leader and their follower (Zhang et al., 2012). This relation-ship is established over time resulting from different exchange moments, and subsequently, a unique relationship is formed between the leader and their follower. The quality of LMX can vary from high to low depending on how the relationship develops. What will be considered here is whether a high or low quality LMX can have a moderating effect when investigating the relationship between openness to experience and employee creativity.

Previous studies have not addressed this particular issue. Zhang et al. (2012) found a mediating role of LMX to the interaction between proactive personality and work outcomes. However, as is also the issue with other previous studies, they do not address a single person-ality trait in particular, which Anderson et al. (2014) suggest future research does. Raja and Johns (2010) examined the interaction of the Big Five with job scope in influencing creativi-ty, finding specifically openness to experience to be the only trait to have a positive affect on creativity when job scope was low. What is interesting to note about this study is that they approached each trait individually. What is missing, however, is the leadership variable in the investigated relationship. Madjar, Oldham and Pratt (2002) most likely come closest to the problem addressed here, as they look at the relation of creative personality traits to creative behaviour, analysing, in particular, leadership as a contextual factor. They found a direct in-teraction between leader support and employee creative behaviour. Even though they ana-lysed the essence of supervisory support to encourage creative behaviour, they did not inves-tigate the role of LMX quality specifically.

(8)

In order to provide more information on this topic, this study will investigate how LMX quality affects the impact of employee personality on creativity. Subsequently, this pa-per investigates the main research question: To what extent does LMX quality have a moderat-ing effect on the relationship between ‘openness to experience’ and individual innovative work behaviour and creativity?To answer this question, employees and their direct supervi-sor in different organisations will be asked to complete separate surveys. With the results, the extent to which a moderating relationship exists can be evaluated.

This paper will follow up with a literature review, which will go in-depth on relevant previous research on innovation and creativity in the workplace, personality and openness to experience, and the role of leader-member exchange quality. Drawing upon previous studies, hypotheses will be predicted and presented. Then the research design and methodology are elaborated on, followed by the results of the data collection. Finally, a discussion of the re-search and a short conclusion will be provided.

(9)

2. Literature Review

In this section existing literature in the areas of innovation, creativity, personality, and LMX quality will be reviewed to identify the gap in the literature and to define the research topic more thoroughly. First, research regarding individual innovative behaviour and creativity and its importance in organisations nowadays will be discussed. Then, personality and the person-ality trait of openness to experience in particular will be analysed in-depth along with its rela-tionship to individual innovation and creativity. Next, the variable of LMX quality will be de-fined and explored together with its role as a moderator. Finally, a short conclusion will be given emphasising the purpose of this research.

2.1 Individual Innovative Work Behaviour and Creativity

Previous research has shown the rising level of importance of innovative behaviour and crea-tivity in firms. Innovation is shown to have become increasingly important for organisational success and long-term survival due to rapidly changing working environments as a result of market shifts, technology advancements, and globalisation (Anderson et al., 2014; de Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Janssen, 2001; Anderson, de Dreu & Nijstad, 2004). Creative thinking and creative doing play a big role in day-to-day activities, such as decision-making, process im-provement, and product and/or service innovation. In order to keep up with global competi-tion and environmental uncertainty, organisacompeti-tions seek creative employees who are capable of independently making decisions and taking certain initiatives in addition to fulfilling their formal job requirements (Janssen, 2001). De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) go in depth on the importance of the presence of individual innovation in organisations. They claim that working has been, and still is, shifting to becoming knowledge-based. Because of this, innovative em-ployees are necessary to generate ideas that can be used to improve firm performance by im-proving existing products, creating new products, and developing services and work process-es.

Previous studies have approached the process of defining innovative behaviour and creativity in different ways. It has been found challenging to give a concrete definition as the concepts of innovation and creativity overlap. Overall, the main distinction that is made be-tween the two is that they are different stages in an innovation process where creativity comes first (Anderson et al., 2014; Anderson et al., 2004; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Sanders, Moorkamp, Torka, S. Groeneveld & C. Groeneveld, 2010). In particular, Anderson et al. (2014) give a state-of-the-science literature review on creativity and innovation in organisa-tions. They go in depth on the distinction between workplace innovation and creativity by

(10)

providing an integrative definition. Their definition indicates that the difference between the two is that creativity occurs at the generation stage whereas innovation occurs at the introduc-tion and implementaintroduc-tion stage (Anderson et al., 2014). De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) agree with Anderson et al. (2014) by claiming that creativity and innovation each, respectively, re-fer to idea generation and idea implementation. An accepted definition by West and Farr (1990) identifies workplace innovation as “the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organisation of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, the organisation or wider society” (p. 9). Anderson et al. (2004) use this definition to distinguish between crea-tivity and workplace innovation. They state that one of the differences is that innovation must provide an intended benefit at “one or more levels of analysis: the job role, work group or wider organization (…) this is not necessarily the case for creativity” (p. 148).

It can be seen that what mainly distinguishes the two constructs is that workplace in-novation occurs intentionally and can include both idea generation and idea implementation, whereas creativity can refer to idea generation by itself (Anderson et al., 2004). Sanders et al. (2010) take a process-oriented point of view of the concept of innovative behaviour by stating that innovative behaviour of employees is defined as “the creation, introduction and applica-tion of new ideas within a group or organizaapplica-tion in order to benefit performance” (p. 59).

Overall, previous research has shown that the constructs of innovative behaviour and creativity have overlapping concepts as creativity can be seen as being the idea generation stage of innovative behaviour (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Due to the presence of this overlap, both innovative behaviour and creativity are analysed in this research at an individual employee level.

De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) expand on how innovative behaviour is reflected in organisations and how employees engage in innovative behaviour, differentiating between the idea generation and implementation phase. Employees find new opportunities, identify per-formance gaps or generate problem-solving solutions. Idea generations are found in inconsist-encies and disruptions in existing patterns. As a result, something new emerges in the form of a solution or opportunity (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Flaws in existing working methods and processes, unfulfilled customer needs, or indications that trends may be shifting are all examples of areas where idea-generating opportunities can be found (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). In the idea implementation phase, employees can engage in a strong personal com-mitment to a particular idea and are therefore better able to persuade colleagues of its value. In addition, employees can invest considerable energy and time into developing and testing

(11)

the idea making it more valuable and convincing over time. These are both examples of idea implementation behaviour (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).

Concluding, organisations must be able to find the right employees who can foster creativity and innovation in the workplace in order to create a sustainable competitive ad-vantage and keep up with the many changes that are shifting the working environment. Thereby, it is essential for organisations to know how to influence and enhance such behav-iour in employees. Even though innovation is such an important quality for organisations, the concept of innovation and creativity itself is a complex one that has been underresearched. Thus, it seems increasingly relevant to investigate this subject deeper due to its highly signifi-cant presence in today’s working environment.

2.2 Personality and Openness to Experience

A great amount of research has been done on the complex topic of personality in the work-place and, in particular, how to measure it. The main personality model that is emphasised in this area of research is the ‘Big Five’ model. Its roots come from the lexical hypothesis of Galton (1884), who was one of the first to apply this hypothesis to personality psychology. The model argues, “personality traits are captured in the words that people use to describe one another and are thus encoded in dictionaries” (Hough & Furnham, 2003, p. 134). As a re-sponse to Galton (1884), researchers in the area of personality psychology based their studies on reducing the list of words expressing personality traits (Fiske, 1949; Tupes & Christal, 1961/1992; Norman, 1963). Subsequently, the Big Five model emerged and has grown to be-come widely accepted and respected in the area of personality psychology. 5 main personality traits were identified and agreed upon in this area of research: extraversion, conscientious-ness, agreeableconscientious-ness, neuroticism (or emotional stability), and openness to experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Arnold & Randall, 2010; Hough & Furnham, 2003; Judge & LePine, 2006; Anderson et al., 2014). These 5 traits represent tendencies of behaving in certain ways in dif-ferent contexts. The Big Five model has come closest to allowing personality to be seen as a structured concept that corresponds to our daily use of it as opposed to the broad vague con-cept it used to be. Thereby, creating a reasonable and generalisable taxonomy for personality structure (Arnold & Randall, 2010).

To get a better understanding of how personality can influence creativity, this research will focus on one personality trait that previous research has shown to be more influential to innovative behaviour as opposed to the other four traits. Therefore, there will be a focus on the trait of openness to experience. Barrick & Mount (1991) found that “traits commonly

(12)

as-sociated with this dimension include being imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive” (p. 5). Research has shown that people showing high levels of this trait have a better ability to adjust to organisational change, engage in more creative and artistic behaviour in the workplace, and tend to be more effective leaders (Feist, 1998; Judge & Lepine, 2006). Anderson et al. (2014) go in depth on the importance of crea-tivity and innovation by giving a review of different research done on the topic. Only a small part of the studies particularly investigate the influence of personality on creativity and inno-vative behaviour.

Studies have shown that each trait can enhance or restrict creativity together with the interaction of an additional factor. For example, Raja and Johns (2010) examined how each of the five personality traits interacted with job scope in influencing three dimensions of job per-formance, of which creativity was one. Openness to experience was found, in particular, to be the only trait to have a positive affect on creativity when job scope was low (Raja & Johns, 2010). These results suggest that the less tasks an individual is responsible for, the higher their engagement in creativity.

Madjar et al. (2002) researched the interaction between creative personality traits and creative behaviour by looking in particular at the role of leadership in influencing this interac-tion. What is interesting to note about their results is that they demonstrate “that work and nonwork support made significant, independent contributions to creative performance” (Mad-jar et al., 2002, p. 757). Results showed that a higher level of creative behaviour was engaged in by employees scoring low on creative personality traits, thereby providing evidence that individuals who are not naturally inclined to be creative can be influenced and encouraged to engage in creativity with the right support from their manager (Madjar et al., 2002). This il-lustrates that leadership is an important factor to take into consideration when investigating the effect of personality on encouragement of idea promotion and realisation of employees.

Shalley, Zhou and Oldham (2004) provide further research emphasising the im-portance of both personality and leadership as essential factors in the investigation of individ-ual innovative work behaviour and creativity. They provide a review of empirical research done on the topic of personal and contextual factors that can influence creativity. Personality is the personal factor that stands out in their review. Research shows that each personality trait of the Big Five plays a role in influencing creative behaviour, but that openness to experience is recognised to be the trait to be most highly and significantly correlated with creativity (Shalley et al., 2004; Feist, 1998). Among other contextual factors, such as rewards, evalua-tion, and job complexity, the role of leadership is investigated (Shalley et al., 2004). Overall,

(13)

they found that supervisory support motivates employee engagement in creativity as they will “show concern for employees’ feelings, provide nonjudgmental, informational feedback about their work, and encourage them to voice their own concerns” (Shalley et al., 2004, p. 938). This thereby shows the important role leadership plays in the current investigation of how openness to experience influences individual innovative and creative work behaviour, making it essential to incorporate it into this research.

Due to the variety of factors showing different interaction effects between personality and creativity, it can be seen that this is a complex relationship. In order to understand the ef-fects of individual personality traits on innovative behaviour or creativity, Anderson et al. (2014) give the suggestion to focus on a single personality trait when attempting to identify a new interaction variable effect, as few researchers have approached this topic in such a man-ner. This suggestion was taken into account for this research.

Consequently, following up on previous conducted research on personality and crea-tivity, it is expected that in this study a positive relationship will be found between openness to experience and engagement in individual innovative work behaviour and creativity. There-fore, the following hypothesis will be tested:

Hypothesis 1: Employees who score high on the trait of openness to experience, will also score high on engagement in individual innovative work behaviour and creativity.

Concluding, it is essential for organisations to know how to influence and enhance novative and creative behaviour in the workplace. Organisations have to be aware of the in-fluence personality has on employee behaviour. Moreover, contextual factors exist inside the organisation that can affect the relationship between employee personality and their level of engagement in innovative work behaviour and creativity. The role of a leadership component, in particular a relationship-based component, in enhancing the interaction between personality and individual innovative behaviour and creativity has been investigated through different ap-proaches. However, there is an existing gap. This research will focus on the extent to which leader-member exchange (LMX) quality acts as a moderator on the relationship between openness to experience and innovative work behaviour and creativity.

2.3 LMX Quality

Leader-member exchange quality is an important factor to consider since it can impact the relationship between personality and work behaviour. This adds to the importance for leaders

(14)

to know their role in encouraging creativity and innovation in the workplace. This theory op-erates on a relationship-based approach. Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser (1999) show that LMX theory has changed over the years by giving an overview of the background of the theo-ry and its emergence. They found that the earliest research proposing a theoretical definition of LMX that is most similar to how we know it today came from Graen and Cashman (1975), taking a relationship-based approach to leadership research (Schriesheim et al., 1999).

Following up on several studies done on this topic, nowadays LMX theory is de-scribed as the presence of a dyadic exchange relationship between a leader and a follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). This relationship is established over a pe-riod of time as the result of several exchange process moments: “role taking”, “role making”, and “role routinisation” (Bauer & Green, 1996; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987). Unique relationships are formed between leaders and their followers whose quality can range from low, “characterised by transactional exchange based on employment contract”, to high, “characterised by trust, respect, loyalty, and mutual obligations” (Zhang et al., p.113, 2012). During these initial and subsequent moments of interaction, the relationship between the leader and the followers builds up over time (Zhang et al., 2012). In the role-taking stage, the relationship is tested as the leader assigns a task to the follower and evaluates the response (Zhang et al., 2012). Depending on whether the task is successfully completed, the leader can assign more tasks and responsibilities and, as a result, the dyadic relationship develops as the leader learns how the follower operates and vice-versa (Zhang et al., 2012). They learn about what they can expect from each other and to what extent they can trust each other. Eventually the relationship will move towards the role-making phase where both parties can send roles to each other and evaluate each other’s responses (Zhang et al., 2012). In this way they learn more about each other and build loyalty in their relationship. Lastly, in the role-routinisation phase the relationship comes to a point of formalisation and emotional involvement (Zhang et al., 2012).

The role of a leadership component, in particular an exchange relationship-based component, in enhancing the effect personality has on individual innovative behaviour has not been investigated thoroughly. Overall, the positive impact of LMX on creativity has been shown to exist (Gajendran & Joshi, 2012). De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) discuss how and why a high-quality relationship between a leader and their subordinate can foster individual innovative behaviour and creativity. They state that high-quality exchange relationships facili-tate individual innovation since employees can rely on their supervisor for support in delicate situations even though they are given challenging assignments. They will receive the

(15)

re-sources necessary to carry out an idea and will get the recognition they deserve (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). In this way employees are more likely to engage in creative thinking and innovative behaviour (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Overall, they showed support for lead-ers influencing creative and innovative behaviour of their employees and conclude that this is a topic that should receive more attention from researchers.

Furthermore, Scott and Bruce (1994) looked at individual innovative behaviour and how leadership, individual problem-solving style and work group relations affect it. Their findings show that innovative climate perceptions have a mediating effect on the relation be-tween LMX quality and innovative behaviour. Overall, LMX quality was found to be signifi-cant for employee behaviour (Scott & Bruce, 1994). This finding shows the important role of LMX in organisations, however Scott and Bruce (1994) do not consider personality, which is an important element to study when analysing innovative behaviour at the individual level (Anderson et al., 2014). Liao, Liu, and Loi (2010) did consider personality when they studied the indirect effect between LMX quality and individual creativity via self-efficacy with LMX differentiation acting as a moderator, finding that this was indeed the case. Nevertheless, they do not consider LMX quality as a moderator. Zhang et al. (2012) investigated the influence of LMX on work performance and emphasise the importance of a congruence, or fit, between the proactivity of the employee and the leader in order to achieve employee innovation at an individual level and predict work outcomes (job satisfaction, affective commitment, and job performance). As such, they show that a relationship between a leader and an employee can have an effect on the outcome of the innovative work behaviour of the employee. However, as is also the issue with other previous studies, Zhang et al. (2012) do not address the role of personality in combination with LMX and individual innovation and creativity, which is stat-ed to be an important element to involve (Anderson et al., 2014).

These studies show the importance of leadership when researching the topic of inno-vation and creativity at work. This further implies a leadership factor is essential when inves-tigating personality and creativity at work. At the same time, it can be seen that previous stud-ies do not exactly approach the problem addressed here. What is missing in previous studstud-ies is, firstly, the approach of addressing one personality trait individually, and secondly, incorpo-rating LMX as a moderator. Anderson et al. (2014) explain that more research is necessary on the interaction between leadership and its effect on the relationship between personality and individual creative behaviour due to lack of consistency in results. This suggestion is followed up on, therefore the moderating interaction of LMX quality on the link between openness to experience and individual innovative behaviour and creativity will be researched.

(16)

LMX quality acting as a moderator suggests that it has the possibility to alter the strength of the relationship between personality and employee innovation at work. As is stated in hypothesis 1, this study predicts that high-open employees who have a high quality fit with their supervisors are more likely to proactively bring new ideas to life, share these ideas, and implement them. Thereby, high-open employees tend to engage in higher levels of creativity and innovation. A high-quality LMX is expected to further influence this type of behaviour in high-open employees because such a relationship is based on trust, loyalty, respect and dele-gating responsibility, which in turn, will further encourage the high-open individual to gener-ate, introduce, and implement new ideas. Therefore, high-open creative employees will be given more room for innovative behaviour due to high-quality LMX and as a result will actu-ally engage in more innovative behaviour. In the case of a low quality fit, employees receive little support and trust from their supervisors, and supervisors delegate little responsibility. Subsequently, it is anticipated that high-open employees will be less creative and show little innovative behaviour when LMX is low in comparison to when LMX is high. Therefore, it is expected that the high-open individual is discouraged to generate new ideas in the case of a low-quality fit between the employee and the supervisor. This results in the following hypoth-esis:

Hypothesis 2: A high-quality LMX on the employee side will enhance the relationship be-tween high openness to experience and high individual innovative work behaviour and crea-tivity.

The purpose of this research is to analyse to what extent a moderating relationship exists. Leaders and supervisors need to know how, in particular through a relationship-based ap-proach, they can influence high-open individuals in engaging in innovative behaviour in the workplace. If this is the case, they should be aware of the importance of their role as a leader and the organisation needs to understand how to influence and develop such roles.

2.4 Conclusion

Previous research in the innovation and creativity area has shown the importance of their presence in the workplace nowadays due to the need to adapt to rapidly changing working en-vironments. In order to maintain a long-term competitive advantage, managers need to know how to encourage innovative behaviour and creativity at the individual-level. It is essential for them to know what their role is in enhancing creativity in the workplace. Organisations need

(17)

to become aware of how to develop and influence such roles. Knowing what personality trait to look for in individuals can help managers understand what kind of people are inclined to engage in such innovative and creative behaviour. In this way, managers can guide the selec-tion process by looking for potential high-open candidates that will benefit the organisaselec-tion in the long run.

The current study will attempt to fill this gap in literature by seeking an answer to the following question: To what extent does LMX quality have a moderating effect on the rela-tionship between ‘openness to experience’ and individual innovative work behaviour and cre-ativity? This will be done by looking at each variable (openness to experience, individual in-novative behaviour and creativity, and LMX quality) individually in the workplace and then combining them to analyse whether a moderating interaction is present.

(18)

3. Methodology

In the previous sections, a discussion of existing literature was given regarding the research problem and hypotheses were formulated as a result of this discussion. This section will pre-sent the means through which the hypotheses will be tested. First, the research design with which the hypotheses will be tested are discussed, followed by a discussion of the sample, the data collection process and finally, the measures.

3.1 Research Design

For this research, a questionnaire-based survey is used in order to collect the data necessary to test the hypotheses. Two questionnaires were designed, one for the supervisor and one for the subordinate (see Appendix 1 and 2). This was necessary as the employees’ direct supervisor measured his/her creativity and innovation and LMX quality was self-measured by the em-ployee. A code-system was implemented in order to facilitate pairing the supervisor with the right employee after the data collection. The survey method is appropriate for this study be-cause the research question is investigating whether a relationship exists between three varia-bles and to what extent these relationships exist. A survey is a useful data collection instru-ment for this study because it provides standardised questions and answers, making sure that the comparison of answers of respondents are easy and reliable (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). Furthermore, using a survey as a research design makes it easier to reach a large num-ber of people in a quick and affordable manner (Saunders et al., 2012). A large sample is therefore easier to find, resulting in a greater reliability and generalisability of the findings (Saunders et al., 2012).

Some limitations should be considered when using such a method for data collection. For instance, deciding on the number of questions to incorporate into a survey without losing the interest of the participant. On the one hand, it is important to ask for all the information you need to collect the necessary data whereas, on the other hand, it should be an appropriate length to keep participants interested and focused when filling out the survey (Saunders et al., 2012). When choosing the questionnaire to measure each variable, length and how time con-suming it would be for the respondent were taken into consideration. In this way, it was made most appropriate for the participant, while at the same time being reliable. Furthermore, it is important to consider that results should be generalisable. Therefore, questions have to meas-ure what they intend to measmeas-ure and be comprehended and interpreted similarly by respond-ents (Saunders et al., 2012). This was considered when designing the questionnaire. Measures

(19)

used for each of the three variables have been tested before and have been proven to be relia-ble. This is therefore not an issue for concern in this case.

The questionnaire is self-administered which also has its advantages. First of all, time is used efficiently as questionnaires are completed more quickly when self-administered as all answers are based on ranks or scales. It is a feasible way to collect data and guarantee ano-nymity, as the researcher is not involved in the data collection process directly, but rather only in the process of distributing the questionnaires (Saunders et al., 2012). Additionally, this method reduces participant bias and improves data reliability (Saunders et al., 2012).

3.2 Sample

The supervisor survey was completed by 79 respondents and 80 respondents completed the employee survey. 9 of the responses on the supervisor side resulted in an incomplete pair be-cause his/her employee did not complete the survey. On the employee side, the same could be said about 8 responses. The final sample consists of 69 dyads. Each dyad consists of an em-ployee and his/her direct superior. Some dyads have overlapping supervisors as the managers asked their team to participate in the research. Overall, the sample size is fairly well distribut-ed when looking at gender, age, nationality, sector, whether they work full-time or part-time, level of education, and the number of months the supervisor and employee have worked to-gether.

On the subordinate-side 50.7% was male and 49.3% was female, whereas on the su-pervisor-side 81.2% was male and 18.8% was female. Regarding age, the subordinate-side ranged between 18 and 59 from which 31.9% is 25 or younger, 39.1% is between the ages of 25 and 40, and 29.0% is older than 40. The supervisor-side ranged between the ages of 18 and 63 from which 15.9% is under the age of 30, 52.2% is between the ages of 30 and 50, and 31.9% is older than 50. This shows that the supervisor sample was in general older than the subordinate sample. The most present nationality among the subordinates was Dutch (55.1%), followed by German (20.3%) and Swedish (5.8%). 66.7% of the supervisor sample was Dutch, followed by 13.0% being German and 11.6% being Swedish. Other nationalities found in the final sample were, among others, American, Irish, and Polish. Supervisors were in gen-eral higher educated than their subordinates. 31.0% of the subordinates had a High School degree or lower, 46.4% had a Bachelor degree, and 21.7% reported to have a Master’s or PhD Degree. On the supervisor side, 15.9% had a High School degree or lower, 43.5% graduated with a Bachelor degree, and 40.6% reported to have a Master’s or PhD Degree.

(20)

The amount of months the subordinate and their direct supervisor have been working together ranged between 2 and 168 months. The relationship of 26.0% of the pairs was 10 months or less. Of 31.7% the relationship had existed between 10 and 20 months. Of 19.9% the relationship had existed between 20 and 40 months. Of 21.5% the relationship had existed for longer than 40 months. Participants were found in large internationals, but also in small local businesses, which allowed the sample to be well balanced between the two. In this way a view of both extremes was taken into account. In addition, both manufacturing organisations and organisations providing a service participated, adding an extra dimension to the sample. Departments within each company were also distributed. Once a manager of one department was asked of that particular organisation, he/she spread the word about the research, asking managers from other departments to participate. When the subordinate was asked what sector he/she worked in, the most present sectors were Sales with 12%, followed by a 10% replying with Education, and a 6% replying with Accountancy.

Even though the final sample (N=69) did not meet the target sample size expectations, it was still found to be a fairly representative sample due to its diversity.

3.3 Data Collection

The surveys were administered online, saving money and time, with the use of the software called ‘Qualtrics’. Prior to the data collection process, three people piloted the surveys. This allowed for refinement and the clarification of small misunderstandings. Qualtrics helped fa-cilitate the data collection since it provides several different options for types of questions, which were found to be user-friendly by respondents. In addition, the aforementioned soft-ware allowed the geographical reach to be expanded. The sample was not limited by a type of industry, person, or country as this research is relevant for any working environment where there is room for innovation at an individual level. This research method made it easier to reach numerous people in different geographical locations in a short amount of time. Fur-thermore, the survey was made in both Dutch and English, which, in turn, also expanded the sample size as it increases the response reach.

The sample consisted of dyads, or pairs of an employee and his/her direct superior. Using convenience and snowball sampling, participants were found through personal contacts and word-of-mouth. They were approached with the use of e-mail and Facebook. E-mail seemed to be the most appropriate form of communication since it is a more formal approach compared to Facebook. However, Facebook was useful in setting the first moment of contact with potential participants. Participants were sent an e-mail with a set of instructions, links to

(21)

the surveys, and their individual codes. Each individual in each dyad was given the same code in order to facilitate pairing them together when analysing the results. The code consisted of a number and a letter. Dyads consisting of the same supervisor were given the same number but different letters. In this way, it was easier to keep track of what supervisor was approached or not. In addition, results could be analysed not only by comparing individual dyads but also by comparing supervisors.

However, several limitations were encountered during the data collection process. The biggest issue was finding participants that met the criteria. Finding an employee with a super-visor who were both willing to participate was more challenging than anticipated. A majority of my contacts are not managers and/or are not yet working in general. Therefore, it was diffi-cult to reach the target group because of barriers encountered as a student with limited con-tacts. Usually the supervisor was approached who then, in turn, asked several members of his/her team to participate. It was essential that the instructions for the participants were clear since the questions are quite sensitive, as personal questions regarding personality and satis-faction with their supervisor were asked. For this reason, some were reluctant to participate when asked. Those unwilling to participate gave reasons such as, not having an established enough relationship with their supervisor due to a recent switch in jobs, or because they felt uncomfortable asking their manager/subordinate to participate. Therefore, it was made clear that responses were anonymous and confidential.

Furthermore, another limitation was the speed of the data collection process, which was slower than anticipated. Because of having to give each individual dyad a different code it made it difficult to speed up the data collection process since at least one of the individuals of each pair had to be approached individually. In addition, a majority of the people who agreed to participate in this research took longer than expected to actually complete the sur-vey, resulting in a lengthy response time. This delayed the data collection process and was the reason several reminders were sent throughout the process and a data collection deadline was set.

Lastly, another limitation to keep in mind was time constraints. Of course, if more time was available, more dyads could have been collected consisting of a greater variety, which would have allowed the results to be more concrete. However, despite the time con-straints, an acceptable final sample was eventually still collected.

(22)

The three measures in this research are individual creativity and innovative work behaviour, personality (openness to experience in particular) and LMX quality. There was a focus on looking for the potential moderating interaction of LMX quality on the relationship between openness to experience and individual creativity and innovative behaviour. Demographics, including age, gender, level of education, and whether the participant is working full-time or part-time, are the variables that were controlled for.

3.4.1 Individual Creativity and Innovative Work Behaviour

Individual innovative behaviour and creativity was measured at the individual level, relying on supervisory ratings. Anderson et al. (2014) state that most studies measuring creativity and innovation at the individual level use survey-based questionnaires with an increase in the use of observer ratings, such as supervisory ratings. Janssen (2003) argues “supervisors play a pivotal role in performance appraisal systems and processes in organisations and are therefore the obvious judges for the assessment of innovative performance of employees” (p. 352). Therefore, the measurement relies on supervisory ratings.

Janssen’s (2001) scale of individual innovative work behaviour (IWB) (9 items; α=.920) was used for immediate supervisory ratings. The frequency of the nine innovative work behaviours being exhibited by a particular employee was rated on a 7-point scale rang-ing from 1 (never) to 7 (always) (Janssen, 2000). These items were created specifically to rep-resent Kanter’s (1988) three stages of innovation. Three items refer to idea generation, three items refer to idea promotion, and three items refer to idea realisation (Janssen, 2000). For example, “creating new ideas for difficult issues” is an item referring to idea generation; “mobilising support for innovative ideas” refers to idea promotion; and “transforming innova-tive ideas into useful application” is an item referring to idea realisation (Janssen, 2000). 3.4.2 Openness to Experience

The independent variable, openness to experience, was measured using the Big-Five Invento-ry (BFI) by John and Srivastava (1999) (44 items; α=.728). It measures the Big Five personal-ity traits and only results representing openness to experience were considered and analysed (10 items; α=.768). Goldberg’s (1992) TDA method (100-item questionnaire) and Costa and McCrae’s (1992) NEO-FFI method (60-item questionnaire) are two other common valid methods used to measure the Big Five besides the BFI. However, as both these methods are lengthy it seemed reasonable and realistic to use the BFI.

(23)

The BFI asks participants the extent to which they agree or disagree with a given statement on a scale from 1 [disagree strongly] to 5 [agree strongly]. Each statement refers to a different personality trait and, as a result, the weight of each trait the individual carries can be calculated. For example, “I see myself as someone who is original, comes up with new ideas” measures openness to experience (John & Srivastava, 1999).

3.4.3 LMX Quality

The moderating variable, leader-member exchange quality, was measured using LMX-7 (7 items; α=.779). This is a 7-question survey to measure LMX quality that can be used on both the employee and the leader side. Since this research is about the analysis of individual inno-vative behaviour at the employee side, the LMX-7 was given to employees only and not to their supervisors. In this way, it is understood how the employee views the relationship with their supervisor and how they are influenced by it. According to Schriesheim et al., LMX-7 “has become the most commonly-used measure for LMX operationalisation” (p. 93, 1999).

The LMX relationship is measured by asking the employee to indicate the extent to which they agree with a particular item on a scale from 1 to 5. For example, one of the items is “Regardless of how much formal authority my leader has built into his or her position, my leader will use his or her power to help solve my problems in my work” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

3.4.4 Control Variables

When testing the extent to which a moderating relationship exists between LMX quality and the relationship between openness to experience and individual creativity and innovative be-haviour, several variables were controlled for. These variables include the participant’s gen-der, age, nationality, whether they work part-time or full-time, level of education, the number of months the subordinate and supervisor had been working together, and finally the sector the participant works in.

Gender was measured on the basis of the question: “What is your gender?” where two possible responses were given, ‘male’ or ‘female’. Age was measured using the following question: “What is your age?” to which the respondent could reply by entering their age man-ually. Nationality was measured using the question of “What is your nationality?” to which the respondent could enter their nationality manually. The survey subsequently asked, “Do you work part-time or full-time?” to which the respondent could answer either ‘part-time’ or ‘full-time’. Level of education was measured on the basis of the question: “What is your

(24)

highest level of education” to which the respondent was given three possible answers: ‘High school or lower’, ‘Bachelor degree’, and ‘Master’s or PhD degree’. To measure the length of the working relationship between the subordinate and his/her direct supervisor, the following question was given: “How long have you been working together with your supervisor?” to which the respondent could enter the number of months manually. Finally, the sector was measured on the basis of the question: “What sector do you work in?” to which the respond-ent could manually respond-enter their appropriate sector.

(25)

4. Results

The previous section discussed the design of this research, analysed the sample, described the data collection process, and provided an explanation of the measures in this research. This section will provide the results of the data collection and consequently will show whether the hypotheses were met or not. First, the correlations along with the reliability of scales will be presented and discussed. This is followed by a regression analysis, which will show whether a moderating interaction exists.

4.1 Reliabilities and Correlations

In this section the reliability values and correlations will be discussed touching on their signif-icance and what their results mean with regard to this research. A reliability analysis was first conducted of the measurement scales, followed by tests executed to analyse the correlations between the different variables, which is only possible with reliable measurement scales. An overview of the Cronbach’s alpha of each scale along with all correlations can be found be-low in Table 1.

M SD 1 2 3

1. Openness to Experience 3.6493 0.521 (.768)

2. Individual Innovative Work Behaviour and Creativity 3.4573 0.734 .220 (.920)

3. Leader-member Exchange Quality 4.0083 0.473 .157 .259* (.779)

Table 1: Descriptives and correlations between the variables (Cronbach's alpha on diagonal)

Note: N = 69, *p<.05 (two-tailed)

In order to analyse the data, variables were created consisting of items derived from the ques-tionnaires. By taking the Cronbach’s alpha as an indicator of reliability, an analysis was con-ducted of the measurement scales to assure reliability of the variables (Field, 2009). The scale measure for openness to experience was measured using the ten items of the BFI-44 (John & Srivastava, 1999), which respectively are indicators of this personality trait. An average mean of these ten items was calculated. This value indicates the average level of openness respond-ents have in this sample according to the results (M=3.6493). A second variable was created representing the average level of individual innovative work behaviour and creativity subor-dinates seemed to engage in. This was carried out by calculating the average mean of the re-sponses of nine items of the questionnaires that represent individual innovative work behav-iour and creativity (Janssen, 2001) (M=3.4573). Lastly, a third variable was created represent-ing the average level of LMX quality of participants. This variable was constructed by

(26)

calcu-lating the mean of the responses of the seven items in the questionnaires that are indicators of the level of LMX quality (Grae & Uhl-Bien, 1995) (M=4.0083).

Variables are considered to be reliable when Cronbach’s alpha is above 0.70 (Field, 2009). As can be seen in Table 1, the three variables of openness to experience (α=0.768), in-dividual innovative work behaviour and creativity (α=0.920), and LMX quality (α=0.779), are reliable since their respective Cronbach’s alpha values are above 0.70. This means that the scales used to measure these variables do indeed measure what they intend to measure.

Having assured reliability of measurement scales, correlations between the different variables were conducted and their results were analysed. Openness to experience and indi-vidual innovative work behaviour and creativity are uncorrelated (r=0.220, ns). This was un-expected as this suggests that the level of openness an employee possesses does not relate to his/her level of engagement in individual innovative work behaviour and creativity. Openness to experience and leader-member exchange quality are also uncorrelated (r=0.157, ns), imply-ing that the level of openness of an individual and the quality of the relationship between an employee and his/her direct supervisor are not related. On the other hand, leader-member ex-change and individual innovative work behaviour are correlated (r=0.259, p<0.05). This in-sinuates that the level of quality of the exchange relationship between an employee and his/her direct supervisor is significantly related to the level of engagement in individual inno-vative work behaviour and creativity of the employee.

4.2 Regressions

In order to test the hypotheses of this research several regressions were conducted. Hypothesis 1 is tested in regression model 1 and hypothesis 2 is tested in regression model 2. Table 2 be-low shows the results of the regressions for the two models.

(27)

Individual innovative work behaviour and creativity

(DV)

Coefficient SE Beta Coefficient SE Beta

Constant 3.457 0.085 3.451 0.087

Openness to experience 0.258 0.166 0.184 0.264 0.168 0.188 Leader-member exchange quality 0.356* 0.183 0.230 0.349 0.185 0.225

Interaction LMX_OE 0.157 0.365 0.051

R² 0.100 0.102

R² change 0.100 0.003

Adjusted R² 0.072 0.061

F 3.657** 2.469

Table 2: Regressions for 2 models

Note: N = 69, *p<0.10 **p<0.05 (two-tailed)

Model 1 Model 2

Regression model 1 presents the independent influences of two variables on the dependent variable of individual innovative work behaviour and creativity. The two variables are open-ness to experience and leader-member exchange quality. The hypothesis for regression model 1 was the following,

Hypothesis 1: Employees who score high on the trait of openness to experience, will also score high on engagement in individual innovative work behaviour and creativity.

A positive main effect of openness to experience on innovative work behaviour and creativity was predicted. Regression model 1 indicates that openness to experience and LMX quality account for 10% of the variance of individual innovative work behaviour and creativity (R²=0.100, F(2, 66)=3.675, p<.05). What is interesting to note, but was not predicted, is that in this sample the variables leader-member exchange quality and the level of creative and in-novative behaviour engagement are related. The positive relation with LMX quality seems to be marginally significant (ß=0.230, p<.10). However, against the predictions of hypothesis 1, no significant direct effects were found in regression model 1 on individual innovative work behaviour and creativity from openness to experience (ß=0.184, ns). The failure to find the predicted effect suggests that in this sample an individual’s high openness to experience does not influence this individual’s level of engagement in innovative and creative work behaviour. Consequently, hypothesis 1 is rejected.

Regression model 2 presents the results of both the main effects from regression mod-el 1 and the interaction effects between openness to experience and LMX quality. Modmod-el 2 was predicted to meet the following hypothesis:

(28)

Hypothesis 2: A high-quality LMX on the employee side will enhance the relationship be-tween high openness to experience and high individual innovative work behaviour and crea-tivity.

A significant positive interaction effect of openness to experience and LMX quality on indi-vidual innovative work behaviour and creativity was predicted. Model 2 tests whether the ad-dition of the interaction variable to the existing regression model (model 1) improves the pre-diction of individual innovative work behaviour and creativity. Model 2 therefore tests the extent to which a moderating interaction exists between these variables. This can be analysed by looking at the difference in values of R² (Field, 2009). Regression model 2 insignificantly suggests that 10.2% of the variability in the outcome is accounted for by the predictors (R²=0.102, F(3, 65)=2.469, ns). Even though this value is slightly higher than that of regres-sion model 1, meaning it could explain more variance than model 1, it is insignificant and therefore inconclusive. Adding the interaction effect of openness to experience and LMX quality to the model does not increase the model’s predictive capacity at predicting individual innovative work behaviour and creativity in a statistically significant way. Against the predic-tions of hypothesis 2, no significant interaction effect (ß=0.051, ns) was found in regression model 2. The failure to meet the predicted effects means that no moderating relationship ex-ists in this sample among these three variables. Consequently, no evidence was found to sup-port hypothesis 2 and is thus rejected.

(29)

5. Discussion

This section will discuss the findings of the research, giving an overview of what this research was about, what was expected and what results were revealed. Then, theoretical implications and practical implications will be analysed. This section will conclude with a discussion of the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research.

5.1 Brief Summary

Despite the vastly growing importance of encouraging the engagement in creativity and inno-vation at the individual level in today’s dynamic working environment, this topic has been underresearched. Researchers have provided inconsistent results concerning the relationship between openness to experience and creativity and have not yet examined the moderating in-teraction effect of leader-member exchange quality on the relationship between a single per-sonality trait and innovative and creative behaviour. This study targets this gap in literature.

In the present study, theory on both personality and creativity at work was extended by going in-depth on the personality trait of openness to experience and by integrating this line of research with that of innovation and creativity. This study predicted for high openness to experience to result in high engagement of individuals in innovative and creative behav-iour. This was not the case in this sample, meaning that there are no conclusive results indi-cating that high open individuals engage in greater creative and innovative behaviour as a re-sult of their personality. This was against the predictions made.

The inclusion of a leadership variable was found to be essential when investigating this relationship. Therefore, the concept of leader-member exchange was analysed more me-ticulously to emphasise the relevance of the role of a leader in encouraging creativity in the workplace. It was predicted that LMX quality acts as a moderator when interacting with the relationship between openness to experience and creative behaviour. However, the results de-rived from the data collection were inconclusive, meaning that no moderation interaction was found. Nonetheless, findings revealed LMX quality to be directly related to creativity.

5.2 Theoretical Implications

The findings of this study have several important theoretical implications. First, by integrating LMX quality, research on LMX was extended by studying LMX as a potential moderator to the relationship between openness to experience and creativity, which has not been done be-fore, adding to LMX literature. The present study does not support a moderating relationship. Inconclusive findings could be due to limitations found during the data collection process,

(30)

such as the sample size, but they could also simply indicate that LMX does in fact not act as a moderator. This would suggest that the quality of the exchange relationship between an em-ployee and his/her direct supervisor does not enhance nor undermine the relationship between openness to experience and creative behaviour. These results are to a certain extent compara-ble to those of Madjar et al. (2002), who did not find support for personality as a moderator to the relationship between supervisor support and creativity. Not only does the current study add to LMX literature (Gong et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2012), but also to leadership literature as a whole in the context of personality and work behaviour (Madjar et al., 2002; Shalley et al., 2004). It endorses future research to look for a different leadership contextual factor apart from LMX quality that possibly has the potential to act as a moderator to the relationship be-tween openness to experience and innovative behaviour.

Second, results add to the literature of personality at work. No relation was found be-tween openness to experience and innovative work behaviour and creativity. This contradicts existing research that found openness to experience to be the Big Five trait that is most highly correlated with creative behaviour (Shalley et al., 2004; Feist, 1998). On the other hand, the results found in the current study are in line with Anderson et al.’s (2014) more up to date line of thought. They suggest that many inconsistencies are still present when researching the rela-tionship between personality and creativity (Anderson et al., 2014). The present study there-fore agrees with the second line of research as inconclusive results were found. This suggests that further research is still necessary on the impact of personality on creative work behaviour in order to offer more conclusive theoretical insights on individual innovation and creativity in today’s organisations.

Third, an interesting finding of a positive significant correlation was found between LMX quality and individual innovative work behaviour and creativity. This direct effect sug-gests that the higher the quality of the relationship between an employee and their direct su-pervisor is, the higher the level of engagement in employee innovation and creativity. This is in line with previous conducted studies (Scott & Bruce, 1994; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Liao et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2012; Gajendran & Joshi, 2012), emphasising the importance of leadership or LMX when investigating creativity. The finding that LMX quality does in-deed play a role when investigating the encouragement of creative behaviour enriches LMX literature. This unpredicted finding shows the necessity for finer-grained investigation to ex-pand on this relationship, taking into account potential contextual factors that might influence the interaction as this relationship was the only conclusive finding in the present study.

(31)

5.3 Practical Implications

Findings of the current study suggest an importance of taking into account LMX quality when encouraging creativity in an organisation. This suggests that the relationship between an em-ployee and his/her direct supervisor can influence the creative engagement of this particular employee. Therefore, it is crucial for managers to be aware of their role when it comes to in-fluencing innovative behaviour of their employees. This could help managers who have not put their relationship with their subordinate as a priority to take a different approach by in-vesting more time in elaborating and developing this exchange relationship. Given that crea-tivity and innovation has become a desired quality for employees in organisations nowadays (Anderson et al., 2014), the findings this study provides are important for leaders and organi-sations to take into consideration. When managers do not invest time and effort into the rela-tionship with their subordinate, this, in turn, has the potential to detriment the level of en-gagement in innovative work behaviour and creativity of the employee. Therefore, it is criti-cal for managers to understand their own standing on creativity at work and how they can in-fluence this kind of wanted behaviour and for organisations to know how they can inin-fluence and develop the role of the leader.

A suggestion would be for organisations to focus on the development of relationships between leaders and their subordinates, where necessary. In addition, encouraging feedback-giving on both sides of the relationship could help both the leader and the follower in being more engaged in the development of their relationship and becoming more aware of the state of their interactions and satisfaction with each other. It is therefore the responsibility of the organisation to provide incentives and room for encouragement of the development of this relationship.

5.4 Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations were encountered for the present study. First, a limitation to take into ac-count is the sample. Due to time constraints and difficulties in finding suitable participants, the final sample size was smaller than anticipated (N=69). Moreover, the sample is not ideally diverse when looking at demographics, such as nationality, which decreases the sample quali-ty. This has an impact on the reliability and generalisability of the results. A suggestion would be to test the same hypotheses with a larger sample size. In addition, a larger sample size would provide a greater diversity regarding gender, age, the length of the relationship be-tween the leader and the follower, the sector, and the level of education. With this infor-mation, differences in demographics could be taken into account and how they impact the

(32)

predicted interactions. One could look at the difference between male and female leaders, how their LMX relationship differs, and how this, in turn, impacts the relationship between per-sonality and creativity as a whole. One could look at how results of the findings differ per sec-tor or at how the length of the work relationship between the two individuals can impact the results. Such variables can be taken into account when working with a larger sample, as it will result in a greater diversity, increasing the sample’s reliability and generalisability. Therefore, it can be seen that the relationship between personality and creativity with the LMX interac-tion having a potential impact on this relainterac-tionship is something that has room for further in-vestigation.

Second, the methodology is of a cross-sectional nature, meaning that all data was col-lected at one point in time. This has its advantages especially when dealing with time con-straints, however it also has several drawbacks concerning the measurements of the different variables. Personality generalisation was based on a measurement of a single moment in time, even though personality is something that can differ depending on the mind state of the partic-ipant at the moment they fill in the survey. A longitudinal study could improve the generalisa-tion of personality and thereby improve the reliability of the data. In addigeneralisa-tion, the LMX measurement was most likely also influenced by the cross-sectional nature as the mood of the participant at the moment of response can influence the answers given. A longitudinal study would not only give a better generalisation of the quality of LMX between the two individu-als, but would also result in the capability to measure the development of the LMX quality. This could be an interesting approach to take on LMX as it is a theory based on three phases of role-taking, role-making, and role-routinisation (Bauer & Green, 1996; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987). The movement between phases could be analysed when do-ing a longitudinal study. Furthermore, it would be interestdo-ing to look at innovation as a pro-cess that develops over time. A longitudinal study would be able to take such a view at inno-vation by analyzing the shift over time between the three stages of innoinno-vation (Kanter, 1988). Finally, this study focused on LMX acting as a moderator in the relationship between openness to experience and creativity. However, as LMX did not seem to engage in such an interaction, future research could focus on a different leadership factor as replacement for LMX. Anderson et al. (2014) clearly state more research needs to be done on the influence of supervision and leadership to innovation, in particular, effective leadership styles. Following up on their suggestion, future research could look at transformational leadership as a modera-tor to the relationship between openness to experience and innovation. Studies have shown that transformational leadership is positively related to employee creativity (Gong, Huang, &

(33)

Farh, 2009). However, Anderson et al. (2014) indicate that many studies involving transfor-mational leadership and creativity have shown to be inconclusive. It would therefore be inter-esting to go more in-depth on this aspect of leadership and investigate if transformational leadership acts as a moderator to the interaction between personality and innovation.

Personality at work : the extent to which LMX quality has an effect on the relationship between openness to experience and individual innovative work behaviour and creativity