TYPE OF CREATIVE IDEA AND LEADER ENDORSEMENT: DIFFERENT TYPES, DIFFERENT FINDINGS? THE ROLE OF IDEA EVALUATION AND PERSONAL

TYPE OF CREATIVE IDEA AND LEADER ENDORSEMENT: DIFFERENT TYPES, DIFFERENT FINDINGS? THE ROLE OF IDEA EVALUATION AND PERSONAL

NEED FOR STRUCTURE

Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

February 4, 2018

ALINE BIERHOFF Student number: 2358514

Riouwstraat 26A 9715BW Groningen tel.: +49 (0)172 5311 793 e-mail: a.bierhoff@student.rug.nl

Supervisor Prof. Dr. O. Janssen

Co-assessor Dr. Tim Vriend

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Onne Janssen who provided me with valuable feedback on earlier versions of this paper which led to considerable

improvement of my research and who supported and guided me during the master thesis

process. Special thanks go to my fellow student and dear friend Karoline Mackeben for her

comfort and constant, honest input and for her patience and overall company during the whole

HRM master’s program.

TYPE OF CREATIVE IDEA AND LEADER ENDORSEMENT: DIFFERENT TYPES, DIFFERENT FINDINGS? THE ROLE OF IDEA EVALUATION AND PERSONAL

NEED FOR STRUCTURE

ABSTRACT

In an online field study (N = 94 leaders), we aimed at extending previous research by investigating the moderating role of the cognitive individual difference variable Personal Need for Structure (PNS) in leader evaluation in terms of originality and usefulness and leader endorsement of incremental and radical creative ideas voiced by subordinates.

Unexpectedly, results revealed no moderation of PNS. However, a negative association was found between radical ideas and leader endorsement and usefulness evaluations seemed to matter in determining leader endorsement. Further, leaders tended to evaluate radical ideas as more original but less useful than incremental ideas. These findings highlight the crucial role of the usefulness dimension of creativity in leaders’ evaluations and considerations to endorse creative ideas. Practical-wise, incrementally voiced ideas seem to have a higher chance of being endorsed by leaders. Additional implications for both management and employees are discussed and directions for future research are advised.

Keywords: Radical ideas, incremental ideas, idea evaluation, Personal Need for

Structure

TYPE OF CREATIVE IDEA AND LEADER ENDORSEMENT: DIFFERENT TYPES, DIFFERENT FINDINGS? THE ROLE OF IDEA EVALUATION AND PERSONAL

NEED FOR STRUCTURE

INTRODUCTION

“In limits, there is freedom. Creativity thrives within structure.” (Julia Cameron).

Already 60 years ago, Guilford (1950) sent an appeal to Academia to increase research on creativity. Today’s society is predominantly characterized by velocity, constant technological interventions and by emphasizing individuals’ or companies’ unique qualities in order to create competitive advantage. To fulfil this aspiration, the job market requires individuals who can think creatively and out of the box (Guilford, 1950). Hence, creative ideas have an enormous economic value nowadays with some companies even deliberately targeting leaders with inspiration and vision, both attributes associated with creative personalities. Researchers from various fields of expertise have recognized the crucial role of creativity and up until today, numerous studies have been conducted exploring factors and conditions related to creative performance, especially in organizations (e.g., Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986; Baer & Oldham, 2006; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001).

A majority of these studies focused on how creativity and creative thought can be

stimulated and fostered in individuals and teams (Amabile, 1983; De Dreu, Nijstad,

Bechtoldt, & Baas, 2011; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001; Stroebe, Nijstad, & Rietzschel,

2010). Nevertheless, only few studies examined how leaders respond to creative input voiced

by employees (e.g., Sijbom, Janssen, & Van Yperen, 2015; Sijbom Roy, Janssen, & van

Yperen, 2015; Sijbom, Janssen, & Van Yperen, 2016). Interestingly, although creativity as a

whole receives much attention from scholars in the sense that the concept is described as

being inevitable through guiding change in a positive direction, most generated ideas are

rejected on a daily basis (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). This tendency contradicts the

previously mentioned increasing interest in fostering creative performance in employees.

Considering that a leader’s scope of responsibility exceeds stimulating creative thought in subordinates in the sense that leaders are often the ones making final decisions of whether or not a voiced idea is included in the project at hand (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), biased or impaired idea evaluation can have profound consequences for organizational success (Detert & Burris, 2007). Therefore, the present study aims at shedding light on the underlying processes involved in idea evaluation and leader endorsement.

In this context, Sijbom et al. (2015) explored under which circumstances leaders adopt (rather than oppose) radical creative ideas which are characterized by challenging the status quo and introducing new, ground-breaking practices (Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, 2011).

They found that whether radical creative ideas voiced by employees were opposed or adopted was contingent on the leader’s achievement goal orientation (performance vs. mastery). While this study looked at radical ideas only, actually, a distinction can be made between

incremental and radical creative ideas (Gilson & Madjar, 2011), the former being

characterized by only slight modifications to already existing and established frameworks or practices. So far, literature on the receptiveness to incremental creative ideas in contrast to radical creative ideas is still scarce (Damanpour, 1988; Kim, Hahn, & Yoon, 2015). The present study intends to add valuable insights to this body of literature as the concept of creativity might be more complex than previously thought.

Novelty goes hand in hand with uncertainty (Argyris, 1957; Likert, 1967). Taking into

account our natural tendency to avoid change and ambiguity (Jones, 2001), the facet of radical

creative ideas to introduce conceptually new ways of doing things might trigger negative

leader reactions towards those ideas voiced by employees. Additionally, leaders are regarded

as protectors of current organizational paradigms (Sijbom et al., 2015) and might therefore not

appreciate ideas that call the status quo into question. This makes it probable that leaders

might evaluate incremental ideas more favourably in terms of their originality and usefulness

since well-established practices are not challenged. Schema congruity theory functions as a theoretical basis for this line of thought (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989) by stating that how an object (e.g. an idea) is evaluated depends on the degree of perceived congruence between the object at hand and the existing cognitive schema a leader possesses.

In other words, generally, the more incongruent the existing cognitive schema and the respective object, the more negative leaders tend to evaluate the object (idea).

However, individuals might differ in the need to actually rely on these developed

cognitive scripts. Since we all possess unique cognitive processes which are, in turn, directly

linked to creative thought and subsequent behaviour (Feist, 2010), this study investigates one

particular individual difference variable at the cognitive level, namely Personal Need for

Structure (PNS), which is frequently examined in research on creative performance

(Rietzschel, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2007). Typical characteristics of individuals high in PNS

include avoiding ambiguity and novelty and having a strong preference for order as well as a

penchant for simplifying tasks they encounter (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993; Rietzschel,

Slijkhuis, & Van Yperen, 2014; Slijkhuis, Rietzschel, & Van Yperen, 2013). Specifically,

those individuals tend to sort information in a manageable way by relying on existing

schemata, prototypes and available cognitive scripts (Moskowitz, 1993). Given that they are

prone to breaking down the cognitive load they are facing, we argue that those individuals

will be especially likely to differ in the extent to which they evaluate, and subsequently

endorse, radical vs. incremental creative ideas compared to individuals scoring relatively low

on PNS. That is, based on schema congruity theory and the characteristics of individuals high

in PNS, we expect leaders high (rather than low) in PNS to be especially prone to experience

schema incongruity when facing radical ideas voiced by employees. Contrarily, they are

exceedingly likely to evaluate incremental (rather than radical) ideas as creative in terms of

their usefulness and originality since these incremental ideas do not fundamentally deviate

from the protected status quo and can rather smoothly be incorporated in existing cognitive frameworks.

Next to providing a valuable contribution to the paucity of research focusing on leaders’

reactions to creative ideas, this study is one of the first to investigate the interaction of a cognitive variable (PNS) and type of idea when examining leaders’ evaluations of creative ideas. By differentiating between both radical and incremental ideas and the two hallmarks of creativity (originality and usefulness), it adds to previous research on the general concept of creativity to uncover so far unknown mechanisms related to different types if ideas. Further, this paper contributes to research on the link between cognition and behaviour by also

investigating the relationship between cognitive idea evaluation and subsequent endorsement behaviour.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Idea composition, evaluation, and endorsement

Incremental vs. radical creative ideas and idea evaluation. According to Guilford, the

concept of creativity is defined in terms of people’s personalities since ‘…creativity refers to the abilities that are most characteristic of creative people.’ (Guilford, 1950: 444). Contrarily, the social psychologist Amabile took a more functional approach: ‘A product or response will be judged as creative to the extent that (a) it is both a novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response to the task at hand and (b) the task is heuristic rather than algorithmic.’

(Amabile, 1983: 360). In accordance with this definition of creativity, we chose the dimensions of originality and usefulness as a framework for idea evaluation in the present study. It was found that these factors combined constitute the most prevailing dimensions covering the majority of creativity definitions (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004; Woodman et al., 1993).

Numerous studies have been conducted approaching creativity from various angles,

thereby using the term creativity undifferentiated (Friedman & Förster, 2001; Mueller,

Wakslak, & Krishnan, 2014; Roskes, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2012). Recently, some scholars started distinguishing between types of ideas, including radical and incremental creative ideas (Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Madjar et al., 2011). Incremental ideas are also called “adaptive”

since they entail only minor changes to existing schemata and modify present practices only slightly (Madjar et al., 2011). Radical ideas are conceptualized as deviating considerably from current processes and introducing revolutionary products or procedures, thereby

fundamentally challenging the status quo (Nord & Tucker, 1987). The discovery of distinct types of creative ideas hints at creativity ranging from minimal adjustments to ground- breaking, substantial changes. The extent to which individuals engage in radical or

incremental creative performance strongly depends on a coaction of personality factors and social influences (Madjar et al., 2011). For instance, the quality of enjoying to take risks was found to stimulate radical idea generation whereas being surrounded by creative colleagues was positively related to incremental idea generation (Madjar et al., 2011). This variety in factors determining whether individuals rather generate radical or incremental creative ideas, is a good reason to assume that our response to these distinct types of ideas also differs.

Indeed, the ability to generate original ideas was found to be related to the ability to evaluate original ideas (Basadur, Runco, & Vega, 2000).

Generally, novel ideas are characterized by being unstructured and not dependable (Amabile, 1996). Novelty implies that current ways of thinking and acting need to be accommodated in terms of developing new scripts and schemata to fit the novel situation (Jones, 2001). Moreover, novel approaches come along with a heightened chance of failure and uncertainty (Argyris, 1957; Likert, 1967) which leads us to suggest that individuals do not embrace those changes easily. According to schema congruity theory (Mandler, 1982;

Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989), the relation between an existing cognitive schema and an external object (e.g. an idea) can be understood in terms of the degree of perceived mismatch.

That is, as incongruity between an existing schema and an object (e.g. an idea) increases, the

evaluation of the respective object turns out to be more negative. These cognitive schemata contain an established framework of thoughts and routines and a well-incorporated status quo which is maintained and protected by the leader. The greater the incongruity between a leader’s held schema and the external object (e.g. an idea), the more negative the evaluation of this object.

One general finding in the literature on resistance to change is that we tend to avoid ambiguity, which is defined as being uncertain about the outcome of a particular situation (Curley, Yates, & Abrams, 1986). In line with this, people have a strong preference for familiarity in terms of applying well-known processes and relying on habits which are rather solid. According to Jones (2001), this is due to our disposition to avoid change by sticking to our original, native behaviour. While all kinds of people tend to be rather resistant to change, our study will focus on the role of leaders in particular since they frequently participate in making key decisions regarding modifications to and the development of the overall

organizational strategy (McManus, Holtzman, Lazarus, Cangemi, Burga, Miller, & Fitzgerald, 2008). Leaders do not only substantially impact subordinates’ voice behaviour, they also hold hierarchical positions which enable them to decide whether or not to forward voiced ideas by subordinates to higher-level management (Detert & Burris, 2007). In short, leaders fulfil a principle role in a settled and well-functioning firm which makes them gatekeepers or

protectors of the running system and existing conditions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Operating

in this core position might entail supporting ongoing operational methods with little interest in

changing functional ways of thinking or acting. In this context, Hambrick, Geletkanycz, and

Fredrickson (1993) described several determinants for why especially higher-level managers

tend to favour and safeguard the status quo over valuable, novel ideas. They mentioned the

mere (psychological) ownership effect which is defined as ‘a state in which individuals feel as

though the target of ownership (or a piece of that target) is theirs (i.e., it is ‘MINE’)’ (Pierce,

Kostova, & Dirks, 2003: 86) and which is part of leaders’ self-concepts. Given the

organizational context for the present study, the target of ownership can take the form of the job itself, a project, or a particular strategy, for instance (Dawkins, Tian, Newman, & Martin, 2017). Dealing with a fixed set of procedures on a daily basis for a lengthened amount of time, increases leaders’ commitment to these procedures. Therefore, established frameworks are anchored in leaders’ self-concepts.

However, unfamiliar creative ideas voiced by subordinates often call current routines into question which may be perceived as criticism towards leaders themselves and as questioning the key position they hold, leading to negative reactions towards subordinates’ creative ideas (Burris, 2012; Isaakyan, Sherf, Tangirala, & Guenter). Taken together, our tendency to prevent change and ambiguity contradicts crucial characteristics related to novelty which implies distancing oneself from known practices and tolerating insecurity. Given that incremental ideas represent only slight modifications to existing practices whereas radical ideas differ extensively from the present paradigm and, as a result, require the development of new ways of thinking, the two types of ideas seem to differ in how much uncertainty is

introduced to a situation. In accordance with schema congruity theory, we argue that leaders will be less likely to evaluate radical ideas voiced by employees as creative in terms of their originality and usefulness since they are ambiguous, question set structures and challenge the existing framework including practices and theories advocated by the leader. Accordingly, cognitive schemata held by the leader would not be in congruence with the ground-breaking aspect of radically new ideas (Damanpour, 1988). In contrast, incremental ideas are more feasible and fit nicely into the cognitive schemata of protected, well-established practices and can be smoothly assimilated without threatening leader authority. As a consequence, leaders are more likely to evaluate incremental ideas voiced by employees as creative in terms of their usefulness and originality as extant beliefs and the prevailing system can be maintained.

We hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1. The type of employees’ creative ideas (radical vs. incremental) has a positive relationship with leader evaluation of these ideas such that incremental (rather than radical) creative ideas result in more positive idea evaluation in terms of originality and usefulness.

From idea evaluation to idea endorsement

As soon as ideas are novel and useful, they are perceived as creative (Amabile, 1996).

This definition indicates that idea evaluation is determined by our perception which takes place on a cognitive level whereas endorsement, marked by scrutinizing voiced ideas further in terms of providing supplementary resources to their development, is behavioural in nature (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Following the nature of creative thought, Feist (2010) proposed that our genetic predisposition has a direct influence on our brain structures which results in differences in cognitive personality traits. In turn, these differences are reflected in creative thought and along with it, in behaviour. Hence, cognitive processes are directly linked to creative thought and subsequent behaviour. Put differently, cognitive traits and with it, our interpretation of what happens around us, precede behaviour. In line with that train of thought, the so-called sense making perspective on creativity (Madjar et al., 2011) constitutes that any time we face a situation, we first engage in interpreting it to make sense of it. In turn, this affects our motivation to act and stimulates us to formulate goals for proximate behaviour.

Particularly, we derive meaning from our cognition by acting upon the cognitive evaluation we formed. As such, we are more likely to endorse others’ creative ideas if we previously evaluated them as creative (original and useful; Ford, 1996).

Linking this positive relationship between personal cognitive evaluation and subsequent

behaviour and the variety in abilities which characterize a creative personality (Guilford,

1950), it is reasonable to assume that some leaders might be more likely to endorse ideas

voiced by subordinates depending on those leaders’ prior evaluation of the ideas’ originality

and usefulness. In sum, we suggest that a leader’s cognitive evaluation of an idea (originality

and usefulness) will influence the leader’s likelihood of endorsing the respective idea in the same direction.

Specifically, we propose:

Hypothesis 2. Leader evaluations of the originality and usefulness of employee creative ideas are positively related to leader endorsement of these ideas.

Personal Need for Structure as a Moderator

Even though research points to all individuals being rather reluctant to radically novel ideas (Jones, 2001), it might be that some individuals are more susceptible to experience schema incongruity than others. Personal Need for Structure (PNS) is a cognitive individual difference variable which comes along with a desire for clarity, certainty, and which refers to individual variation in the need to structure the complexity in one’s environment. Individuals high in PNS act upon set schemata and prefer information similar to these schemata. A low tolerance for ambiguity and novelty is another attribute characterizing those individuals (Chabassol & Thomas, 1975). Generally, people high in PNS are associated with lower levels of creative performance since they tend to freeze on previously made decisions and dislike not knowing which strategy will be applied to arrive at a solution (Leicht, Crisp, & Randsley de Moura, 2013; Rietzschel et al., 2007; Slijkhuis et al., 2013). Consequently, since we all differ in our chronic need to simplify the world and information around us, it is probable that this translates into differences when it comes to our cognitive evaluations and subsequent behaviour.

So far, research focused on how PNS hampers creative performance. Nevertheless, this seems to be only half of the story. In a recent investigation of the association between PNS and creative performance, Rietzschel and colleagues (2007) found that participants high in PNS were able to produce more creative output by approaching the task at hand in a

structured way but only when they scored low on Personal Fear of Invalidity, namely when

they embraced rather than worried about making a false decision. Similarly, Rietzschel et al.

(2014) demonstrated that the creative performance of participants high in PNS increased given a high task structure. Hence, taking both additional personality characteristics into account and paying attention to how tasks are presented to respondents high in PNS, seems to be crucial when examining their potential level of creative performance. Our study extends these findings by looking at how PNS interacts with type of idea (radical vs. incremental) when predicting idea evaluation and subsequent endorsement.

To link back to schema congruity theory (Mandler, 1982), some individuals (e.g. those high in PNS) might evaluate a certain type of idea (radical vs. incremental) as more creative than others based on their level of vulnerability to experience schema incongruity. In the marketing context, one article looked at the moderating role of PNS on the evaluation of radically vs. incrementally new products and it was found that consumers high in PNS

evaluated incrementally new products as more favourable than consumers low in PNS (Kim et

al., 2015). In accordance with this finding, we suggest that especially leaders high in PNS will

evaluate ideas as original and useful given that they are incremental in nature. Since the urge

to break down information into manageable pieces to fit current cognitive frameworks may

function as an additional factor strengthening the aversion to radically new ideas, we assume

primarily leaders high in PNS to be notably susceptible to experience schema incongruity

given radical ideas which differ considerably from protected cognitive schemata. In contrast,

based on the aforementioned characteristic of individuals high in PNS to avoid ambiguity, we

expect those leaders to evaluate incremental ideas voiced by employees as creative in terms of

their originality and usefulness. Minor modifications, which constitute incremental ideas, are

rather similar to and compatible with existing frameworks and can be easily incorporated

since the structure of these ideas is in congruence with the cognitive schemata held by the

leader. Hence, the incremental idea might be evaluated as rather creative since the protected

status quo can be maintained and established frameworks will not be challenged.

In particular, we propose that:

Hypothesis 3. Leader PNS moderates the relationship between type of employee creative ideas (incremental vs. radical) and leader evaluations of these ideas such that incremental ideas are evaluated as more original and more useful than radical ideas especially by leaders high (rather than low) in PNS.

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, stating that idea evaluation on a cognitive level

(originality and usefulness) will determine leaders’ subsequent endorsement behaviour, one of the pioneers in PNS research, Moskowitz, stated that individuals high in PNS tend to

assimilate their behaviour or judgment of a target to lately activated constructs (Moskowitz, 1993). Following this, leaders might assimilate their endorsement behaviour to most prevalent and lately activated cognitive constructs, namely to their previous evaluation of the respective idea’s originality and usefulness. Based on the rationale that behaviour follows from our prior interpretation of what we encounter (Feist, 2010; Madjar et al., 2011), we suggest leaders’

behaviour in terms of idea endorsement to align with the direction of their prior cognitive evaluation of the voiced idea’s usefulness and originality.

In particular, we propose that:

Hypothesis 4. Leader PNS moderates the indirect relationship between type of employee creative ideas (incremental vs. radical) and leader endorsement of these ideas through leader evaluations of these ideas such that incremental ideas are

endorsed more than radical ideas because of more positive evaluations of incremental

ideas by leaders high (rather than low) in PNS.

METHODOLOGY Sample and Procedure

Participants were 225 leaders who filled in the online survey. In total, 131 participants were excluded from further analysis either due to missing data, due to a consistent response pattern in terms of selecting the same response category on all response scales, or due to not passing the attention check. Hence, our final sample was reduced to 94 participants (44 males, 50 females, response rate: 41.8%). On average, respondents’ ages ranged from 17 to 63 (M

= 32.24, SD

= 11.25). The majority of respondents was either German (29.8%) or Dutch (28.7%) and held a Bachelor’s (34%) or Master’s degree (33%). Of all 94 leaders, 23.5%

worked in the IT, 7.5% in the Educational or Marketing sector (4.3%), and their average tenure in a leading position was 41.19 months (SD

= 64.68). On average, participants held their current position for 28,54 months (SD

= 34.88). Compared to 29.8% who hold a temporary contract, 68.1% of our participants worked on a permanent contract.

Participants were recruited from various organizations by the researchers. Next to snowball sampling, the platform LinkedIn and the researchers’ personal networks were used to acquire suitable respondents. They were either contacted via email, telephone or in person.

In a second step, all leaders received an email from the researchers including the link to an online questionnaire. Confidentiality was guaranteed to all respondents and participation was entirely voluntary. Selection criteria for leaders to be suitable to participate in our online study included being in a leading position for at least one year and to be responsible for at least five employees (e.g., team leader, project leader, department manager).

To avoid response bias, our study was ostensibly introduced as an examination of leaders’

opinions on various leadership aspects. Preceding the informed consent, respondents were

ensured to be eligible to drop out of the study at any point in time and were briefed about the

length of the survey which took about 20 minutes to complete. In the following, participants

were instructed to take on the role of a manager while filling in the survey. First, they watched

a video containing the description of a fictitious company and its current performance appraisal procedure summarized in a list with crucial guideline criteria constituting the

procedure (e.g., managers nominate candidates for promotion). In this context, we included an attention check which requested the leaders to recall several crucial aspects about the

previously presented procedure. Next, to activate a leader’s mindset, respondents were asked to actively sort bullet points belonging to a team meeting in a way in which they would actually set up the meeting. They were then randomly presented with one of two scenarios which either entailed a radical or an incremental idea voiced by a subordinate (Monique) in terms of an actual voice message and a subsequent email containing the identical content as included in the voice message to make sure participants truly understood what was put forward. Subsequently, questions pertaining to the manipulation check were added and respondents were asked to evaluate the presented idea’s usefulness and originality as well as to answer questions related to idea endorsement and leaders’ personal need for structure. At the end of the survey, all respondents received some questions about demographic variables (e.g., nationality, work sector) and were fully debriefed in an ethical manner. Leaders were asked to fill in the online survey within one week.

Since this study was part of a collaborative effort with other researchers, additional questionnaires were included. Nevertheless, these will not be further elaborated upon below since only a selected number of variables were of interest for the present study.

Measures and Manipulation

Independent variable: type of creative idea. Our independent variable (radical vs.

incremental creative idea) was manipulated using an experimental task paradigm as part of the

online survey. Participants took on the role of a leader and had to actually evaluate a voiced

idea which is part of the general leadership process. In order to manipulate our independent

variable type of idea, we made use of self-written scenarios to introduce two separate

conditions (radical vs. incremental idea). In particular, we focused on the context of

performance appraisals which are widely used in the organizational context to evaluate employee performance (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Therefore, we expected different organizations to be familiar with the procedure. The variable was manipulated by two

scenarios in total. Both scenarios took the form of hypothetical situations and focused on how to treat the current performance appraisal procedure in the fictitious company presented at the beginning of the survey in a video. It either consisted of adding one specific aspect (soft skills) to the existing promotion procedure (incremental) or of proposing to fundamentally change the current procedure in terms of introducing a new structure and basing it on different building blocks (e.g., employees can apply for promotions themselves; radical; see Appendix B for a full description of the scenarios).

Manipulation check. As a manipulation check, five items were used which measured

the extent to which leaders actually perceived the proposed idea as radical or incremental (Appendix C). We included items resembling “To what extent does the voiced idea differ from what we use to do in our company DEAL?” and “To what extent does the voiced idea require major changes in existing practices at DEAL?”. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with the statements on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all/incremental; 5 = To a great extent/radical). Respective items were recoded before averaging all five items into one manipulation check score (M = 4.38, SD = 1.14, α = .78).

Dependent variable: Idea endorsement. Idea endorsement was measured using the

endorsement scale developed by Burris (2012). It contained five items, a representative item from this scale being “How likely is it that you will support this person’s comments when talking with your supervisors”. Answers were given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely/strongly disagree) to 5 (very likely/strongly agree). All items were averaged to form a single score for idea endorsement (M = 5.62, SD = .99, α = .90).

Mediating variables: Originality and Usefulness. To assess leaders’ evaluation of

creative ideas in terms of their originality and usefulness, two subscales of the Creative

Product Semantic Scale (CPSS; Besemer & O’Quin, 1989) were administered. To capture the originality dimension of creativity, the subscale to measure the evaluation of novelty in terms of originality was used. The original scale consisted of five bipolar items. However, the internal consistency of the items revealed a relatively low reliability coefficient (α = .30).

After discarding one item (“Original – Conventional”), Cronbach’s α increased to .80.

Representative items of that scale are “Predictable – Novel” and “Usual – Unusual”. To rate the bipolar adjectives that each item was composed of, leaders were given a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ineffective/useless; 7 = effective/useful). All 4 remaining items were averaged to form a single originality score (M = 3.88, SD = 1.14).

To assess leaders’ ratings of idea usefulness, the subscale Resolution was used which contained five items in total. Typical items from that scale are “Ineffective – Effective” and

“Useless – Useful”. To rate the bipolar adjectives, leaders were given a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ineffective/useless; 7 = effective/useful). Respective items were recoded before averaging all items into a single usefulness score (M = 5.33, SD = 1.03, α = .89).

Moderating variable: Personal Need for Structure. To measure Personal Need for

Structure, the PNS scale developed by Thompson, Naccarato, Parker, and Moskowitz (2001) was used. It consisted of 12 items and example items are “It upsets me to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it” and “I enjoy being spontaneous”. Respondents were asked to indicate their answers on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not apply to me at all) to 6 (absolutely applies to me). Reversed items were recoded before averaging all 12 items to form one personal need for structure score (M = 4.06, SD = .99, α = .86).

Control variables. We controlled for gender and tenure in the most recent leading position

(in months). Previously, these variables were found to impact whether an idea was

implemented or not (Baer, 2012). We included type of contract and leader educational level

(e.g., Master’s degree) since prior research found that the level of education correlates with

creative performance (Amabile, 1983; Marrocu & Paci, 2012). To avoid the influence of confounding variables, we further controlled for leader level of creativity. It was measured by the 13-items scale developed by Zhou and George (2001) and ratings were given on a seven- point scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). All 13 items were averaged to form one leader level of creativity score (M = 3.81, SD = .66, α = .92).

Data Analysis

To test hypotheses 1 to 3, namely the main effects of type of idea (radical vs. incremental) on idea evaluation in terms of originality and usefulness and of idea evaluation on leader endorsement as well as to test the two-way interaction effect of type of idea and personal need for structure (PNS) on the mediating variables originality and usefulness, hierarchical

multiple regression analyses were conducted. Centralized scores of our independent variables were used to avoid multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). In the first step of the hierarchical regression, the individual effects of our variables of interest were checked. To test the

predicted two-way interaction effects, the second step consisted of entering the cross-product terms of two of our predictors. As the method of analysis to test hypothesis 4, we conducted a moderated-mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro model nr. 7 (Hayes, 2012).

RESULTS Preliminary Analyses

Prior to our main analysis, assumptions of multiple regression analysis were checked and our data were reviewed for outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). A visual inspection of boxplots and Q-Q plots revealed no violation against linearity, normality or homosteasticity.

An independent samples t-test was conducted to check whether the manipulation

check was successful. Results indeed revealed that the manipulation succeeded (F(1, 92) =

3.335, p < .001, two-tailed, 95% CI [-1.47, -.64]; Table 1). Those participants who were

presented with the radical idea scenario perceived the voiced idea as more deviant from

current practices and harder to implement compared to those who were presented with the

incremental idea scenario (see Table 1). This indicated that our type of idea manipulation had an effect on our participants in the desired direction.

For the control variables and our variables under investigation, means, standard

deviations, intercorrelations and Cronbach’s alpha are summarized in Table 2. We predicted a positive association between type of creative idea (radical vs. incremental) and idea

evaluation in terms of originality and usefulness (H1). Against our prediction, type of idea (radical vs. incremental) did neither reveal a substantial relationship to idea evaluation in terms of originality (r = .17, p = .102) nor in terms of usefulness (r = -.13, p = .206). In accordance with Hypothesis 2, a significant positive relationship was found between idea evaluation and leader endorsement but only in terms of usefulness (r = .58, p ˂ 0.01), not regarding originality (r = .03, p = .806) indicating that the direction of leaders’ cognitive evaluation of idea usefulness seems to be in line with their subsequent endorsement behaviour. No substantial association was found between type of creative idea (radical vs.

incremental) and personal need for structure (r = .12, p = .254). In line with our expectations, a significant negative association was revealed between type of creative idea and leader endorsement (r = -.32, p ˂ 0.01), indicating that radical creative ideas were endorsed less than incremental creative ideas.

As displayed in Table 2, none of the included control variables revealed a significant relationship with any of our main study variables. Therefore, they were excluded from further analysis.

Hypothesis Testing

Test of hypotheses 1 and 2. Table 3 displays the results of the hierarchical regression

analyses conducted to examine hypotheses 1 to 3. A positive relationship between type of

creative idea (radical vs. incremental) and idea evaluation in terms of originality and

usefulness was predicted as stated in hypothesis 1. Both originality and usefulness (idea

evaluation) were regressed on type of creative idea. In line with the correlation analysis result,

both proposed main effects did not yield significance for a two-tailed test (b = .40, SE

= .23, t

= 1.70, p = .09; b = -.36, SE

= .21, t = -1.71, p = .09; Table 3). Nevertheless, since our hypothesis specified the direction of the effects, a one-tailed test was used in which only the statistical significance in the direction of interest was tested. Interestingly, our hypothesized main effects were both significant when using a one-sided test (p < .05) suggesting that leaders tend to evaluate radical ideas as more original but less useful than incremental ideas.

Hypothesis 2 stated that idea evaluation (originality and usefulness) was positively associated with leader endorsement of these ideas. Leader endorsement was regressed on both originality and usefulness (see Table 3). Originality did not yield a significant result (b = -.03, SEb = .09, t = -.34, p = .74). However, in support of our second hypothesis, evaluation of idea usefulness was a significant predictor of subsequent leader endorsement of these ideas (b = .53, SEb = .08, t = 6.35, p < .01). Leaders seem to focus on and to be determined by their usefulness evaluations (rather than originality evaluations) in their decisions whether or not to endorse voiced creative ideas.

Since a significant negative correlation was revealed between type of idea and leader endorsement, leader endorsement was regressed on type of idea to test for the main effect.

Indeed, type of idea explained a significant proportion of variance in leader endorsement (b = -.61, SEb = .20, t = -3.13, p < .01; Table 3). Put differently, radical creative ideas were endorsed less by leaders than incremental ideas.

Test of hypothesis 3. We assumed the positive association between type of creative

idea (radical vs. incremental) and idea evaluation in terms of originality and usefulness to be

stronger for leaders high in PNS (Hypothesis 3). In the second step of the hierarchical

regression analysis, the interaction term between type of idea and PNS was entered to the

model for both originality and usefulness (see Table 3). Contradictory to our hypothesis, type

of creative idea was not more positively related to idea evaluation for leaders who score

relatively high (rather than low) on PNS. The interaction term did not explain a significant

proportion of variance in idea evaluation in terms of both originality (b = .21, SEb = .27, t = .77, p = .44) and usefulness (b = .22, SEb = .23, t = .95, p = .35). In other words, leaders who score relatively high on PNS were not more likely to evaluate incremental ideas voiced by employees as more original and useful compared to radical ideas.

Test of hypothesis 4. To test our fourth hypothesis, model 7 from the PROCESS macro for SPSS was used (Preacher & Hayes, 2012) testing moderated mediation. Idea evaluation (originality and usefulness) was predicted to mediate the two-way interaction between type of creative idea (radical vs. incremental) and PNS on leader endorsement. As illustrated in the upper part of Table 3 and contrary to our assumption, the regression results did not meet one of the criteria of mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). More specifically, the two-way interaction between type of idea (radical vs. incremental) and PNS was not related to the mediating variables, namely idea evaluation (originality and usefulness). Thus, the

proposed moderated mediation of PNS on the indirect effect of idea evaluation (originality and usefulness) on the relationship between type of idea and leader endorsement was not supported. Put differently, leaders who score relatively high (rather than low) on PNS were not more likely to endorse incremental creative ideas based on their cognitive evaluation of these ideas compared to radical creative ideas.

Nevertheless, even if the interaction term of type of idea and PNS was non

signification which excluded moderated mediation, the conditional indirect effects of

usefulness on the relationship between type of idea and leader endorsement suggested a

mediation effect of usefulness. To further explore the mediating role of usefulness, PROCESS

macro model 4 was used. Table 4 summarizes both the direct path between type of idea and

leader endorsement and the indirect path mediated by usefulness. Even if the direct effect of

type of idea on usefulness was shown to be only marginally significant for a two-tailed test, it

was significant for a one-tailed test (p < .05) suggesting a mediating effect of usefulness on

the relationship between type of idea and leader endorsement. Put differently, the results seem

to suggest that leaders in particular focus on usefulness evaluations in their considerations to endorse creative ideas.

Supplementary Analysis

To further explore the relationships between our variables, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted testing the moderating role of PNS on the direct effect of type of idea on leader endorsement using PROCESS macro model 1 (Preacher & Hayes, 2012). The interaction term of type of idea and PNS did not explain a significant proportion of variance in leader endorsement (b = .16, SEb = .23, t = .70, p = .48) proposing that leaders high in PNS were not especially likely to endorse incremental (rather than radical) creative ideas.

DISCUSSION

Research into creativity has a long history. While so far, the primary focus was on how to foster creative performance in employees (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2011), there remains a paucity of research on leaders’ reactions to creative ideas voiced by employees (Sijbom et al., 2015). This study aimed at contributing to this line of research by taking a closer look at the cognitive mechanisms involved in idea evaluation while simultaneously distinguishing between types of creative ideas (incremental vs. radical). We proposed that incremental (rather than radical) creative ideas result in more positive idea evaluation by leaders in terms of these ideas’ originality and usefulness. Further, we assumed that these cognitive

evaluations of the originality and usefulness of creative ideas are positively related to leader endorsement of these ideas. Moreover, we predicted that especially those leaders who score relatively high on personal need for structure will evaluate incremental ideas as more original and useful than radical ideas. Finally, we hypothesized that leaders high (rather than low) in PNS will endorse incremental ideas more than radical ideas because of more positive cognitive evaluations of incremental ideas in terms of originality and usefulness.

We found partial support for our hypotheses. Results for hypothesis 2 are in line with

the sense making perspective on creativity and with literature on the link between cognition

and behaviour (Madjar et al., 2011). Indeed, leader endorsement of creative ideas followed from their prior personal interpretation of that respective idea on a cognitive level. However, this seems to depend on the creativity dimension. As such, endorsement followed in the direction of leaders’ evaluations of the voiced idea’s usefulness but not originality. As our results indicate, usefulness considerations overruled originality considerations in determining leader decisions to endorse creative ideas. The seemingly crucial role of usefulness is in line with Plucker et al. (2004) and the standard definition of creativity (Diedrich, Benedek, Jauk,

& Neubauer, 2015) postulating that usefulness is an inevitable dimension when it comes to measuring creativity across definitions. Moreover, the finding that only usefulness but not originality predicted subsequent leader endorsement gives credence to the notion of both constructs being independent from each other and distinguishable aspects of creativity (Sullivan & Ford, 2010).

The direct positive link between incremental creative ideas and leader endorsement in the sense that leaders were more likely to endorse incremental (rather than radical) ideas, is in accordance with literature on uncertainty and radical innovation (O'Connor & Rice, 2013).

Naturally, radical creative ideas are characterized by introducing uncertainty and major changes. In a longitudinal study, it was demonstrated that, in contrast to incremental innovation, radical innovation failed because it resulted in higher uncertainty among managers. Likewise, it has been argued that radical ideas challenge existing practices and trigger resistance in fellow workers (Janssen, Van de Vliert, & West, 2004).

Even if the one-tailed test revealed significant effects for the relationship between type

of idea and leader evaluation in terms of originality and usefulness, this did not apply to the

two-tailed test. In investigating the reasons for why we did not find support, we take a closer

look at the cognitive aspect of idea evaluation which might be more complex than previously

shown. We reasoned that, according to schema congruity theory, the greater the perceived

incongruence between an existing schema and the external object at hand (e.g., radical ideas

voiced by employees), the more negative the evaluation of this object will be. Obviously, perceived incongruence did not lead to a negative evaluation of radical ideas in terms of originality and usefulness. Looking at the structure of cognitive schemata, it becomes clear that with each additional year that we live, our cognitive structures become more prevailing through the constant interaction of experiences and learning and through knowledge and skills we acquire. In other words, they develop over time and are rather stable (Izard, Kagan, &

Zajonc, 1988). Since schemata are built over years to guide our interpretation of the external world and are partly innate (Plant & Stanton, 2013), some people might have developed positive associations with change and regular amendments to the status quo. Consequently, it is well possible that reading and hearing a radical idea from an employee once is simply not sufficient to modify existing cognitive patterns and might even be evaluated as positive.

Another explanation focuses on the employee who voiced the idea. Most likely, the judgment of an idea is not completely detached from the individual who voiced it. Thus, when judging creative ideas, the level of familiarity with the person who voiced the idea might play a role.

Research on this topic argues in favour of existing cognitive schemata for interpreting

personal information and suggests that the level of familiarity determines cognitive processes in terms of transferring thoughts about the person to information given by that person (Kuiper, 1982). Following this, it is probable that the fact that our fictitious employee did not have a true relationship with our participants, resulted in not triggering any specific thoughts in our participants on whether the idea was original and/or useful.

Concerning hypothesis 3, one reason for why PNS did not have a magnifying effect on the relationship between type of idea and idea evaluation may be that confounding variables were present. As Campbell and Goodstein (2001) observed in the context of product

evaluation, those products which were perceived as congruent with existing schemata were

selected over moderately incongruent ones. However, only when perceived risk was high

rather than low. On a similar note, Rietzschel and colleagues (2007) found that whether PNS

was negatively related to creative performance depended on participants’ scores on a second personality variable, namely personal fear of invalidity. Thus, it is possible that the effect of PNS in the present study was inhibited by another lurking variable and that the role of

potential contextual and personality variables in the context of idea evaluation might be more complex than expected.

The fact that no (moderated-) mediation effect was found for the dimension of originality, may be explained by research on the so called cognition-behaviour gap. In one study, intention and behaviour correlated differently with variables which were presumed to correlate rather similarly with both, suggesting the influence of unconscious, automatic processes which may serve as a reason for why certain behaviours are less intentional than assumed (Welsh & Ordóñez, 2014). Hence, following the finding of Reynolds, Leavitt, and DeCelles (2010) that implicit schemata are capable of influencing behaviour in a certain direction, decision making might not be a fully deliberate, reasoned process. Through the influence of mechanisms on an unconscious level, the decision to endorse a perceived original idea or not might not ultimately be related to recently activated constructs as suggested by Moskowitz (1993). Consequently, activation might have occurred on an unconscious level without any conscious effect. Finally, one meta-analysis proposed the influence of various moderators in the relation between cognition and behaviour (Cooke & Sheeran, 2004).

According to the authors, certainty was a strong moderator of whether cognitive evaluation resulted in a specified behaviour, the reason being more stable attitudes which resulted from feeling certain about something. Thus, the finding that the dimension of originality did not predict subsequent leader endorsement might be explained by additional moderators.

Theoretical Implications

Our results give credence to literature on the existence of different types of creative

ideas. So far, research largely concentrated on creative ideas as a whole. Few studies

examined conditions under which incremental and radical idea generation is stimulated

thereby neglecting whether the same holds for idea evaluation, especially of incremental ideas (Madjar et al., 2011; Sijbom et al., 2015). The present study adds valuable insights to this line of research by showing that incremental rather than radical creative ideas are endorsed by leaders and extends similar findings limited to the marketing context to the general business context (Kim et al., 2015).

Given that leaders’ personal mental schemata in terms of the evaluation of idea usefulness directly influenced subsequent leader endorsement behaviour, our study adds to literature on the link between cognition and behaviour by stressing that leaders’ existing mental frameworks affect follow-up behaviour (Ford, 1996). Nevertheless, this might not hold for all dimensions of creativity. According to the novelty-based definition of creativity, idea evaluation should be based on the evaluation of the originality dimension only when it comes to idea creativity (Diedrich et al., 2015; Kudrowitz & Wallace, 2013). Our findings put this notion into perspective by showing that as soon as it was distinguished between incremental and radical creative ideas, the criterion of originality did not reveal any significant results.

Considering the one-tailed significant effect of type of idea on usefulness and a highly significant relationship between usefulness and leader endorsement, the present study further contributes to research on creativity dimensions. Interestingly, the seemingly predominant role of usefulness evaluations (over originality evaluations) in leader considerations to endorse creative ideas, challenges the finding that usefulness was negatively related to

creativity and that originality rather than usefulness is argued to be the superordinate criterion when determining creativity (Diedrich et al., 2015). Obviously, under certain conditions, e.g., when distinguishing between types of ideas, usefulness can overrule originality when

determining leader endorsement decisions.

Practical Implications

From a practical perspective, our study results provide implications for both managers and

employees. Even if it is impossible to draw any conclusions about causality, our findings

strongly suggest that the way in which an idea is voiced can decide whether it will be forwarded and further supported or not. As demonstrated by fellow scholars, the way a creative idea is composed can influence leaders’ receptivity to this idea (Sijbom, Janssen, &

Van Yperen, 2015). In line with our finding that radical ideas were less endorsed by leaders, we suggest to pay attention to how a creative idea is communicated to higher managerial levels. Namely, to rather phrase a complex and ground-breaking idea in terms of consecutive steps which change the current procedure stepwise. The more incrementally the deviant idea is presented, the higher the chance for employees that the idea is further supported.

One essential task of managers is decision making and this, in turn, involves relying on cognitive frameworks. Our findings indicate that leaders are likely to base their decision of whether to endorse a creative idea on their evaluation of the idea’s usefulness. This suggests that leaders apply their already established cognitive schemata when judging creative ideas. In the same vein, previous research highlighted that many potential creative ideas are not taken further due to leaders relying on their personal mental framework when evaluating them (Hambrick et al., 1993). Apparently, cognition seems hard to change and the same idea might elicit diverse opinions depending on leaders’ mindsets. One way to avoid personal bias could be to shift the decision of whether to forward creative ideas voiced by employees to a

collaborative setting. Available literature on the topic of shared decision making supports this stance by showing that qualitatively good decisions are based on collaborative efforts

including diverse perspectives instead of on a single opinion (Hofmann, 2015).

Finally, on a related note, since no significant results were found for the dimension of

originality when it comes to subsequent leader endorsement, it might be helpful to clearly

define which aspects of a creative idea are valuable and essential for the project at hand in

order to support it. Clear expectation management of which aspect to pay attention to when

being confronted with a creative idea may prevent discarding ideas which might be valuable

to a certain extent. Idea evaluation is a process which can be learned, thus, training

responsible managers in this regard is essential especially in highly creative work

environments to avoid flaws in idea evaluation (Hofmann, 2015; Van Yperen & Orehek, 2013).

Limitations, Strengths, and Future Directions

To give fellow researchers the chance to replicate and extend our findings, several limitations need to be taken into account when interpreting our study outcomes. Given our quasi-experimental study design, no conclusions about causality can be drawn. Respondents received a link to the online survey which reflects the limited control we had over additional contextual variables which might have influenced the answers given. A more causal path could be pursued through a purely experimental study design, for instance.

A second limitation is that all study variables were measured at the same point in time due to the used cross-sectional design. With the aid of a longitudinal study, for example, a clearer insight could be gained into how the variables are related, e.g., throughout different career paths. For instance, it would be interesting to see whether a change due to promotion from a low responsibility position to a high responsibility position influences leader idea evaluation and endorsement. Likewise, deliberately manipulating the number of employees who voice creative ideas might provide insight into how easily existing schemata can be modified.

Finally, given the rather large number of participants who had to be discarded from further analysis, a lack of power was present in our study. Using a larger sample to examine and replicate the present findings might be valuable especially concerning the latter part of our research model.

Besides the mentioned limitations, the present study serves as an initial attempt to take a

closer look at leaders’ reactions to two separate types of ideas with a specific focus on the role

of a cognitive variable, namely personal need for structure. Further, the survey was composed

of various different measures (e.g., leader endorsement, PNS) which diminished the chance of participants figuring out our hypotheses or research purpose.

Third, our research was conducted in the field by simultaneously including an

experimental task paradigm. In this way, it adds both to the internal and external reliability of our study. A representative sample including leaders from various work sectors was used given the real life setting our survey was distributed in. Additionally, future research could differentiate between work sectors in which creativity is rather vital and those in which it is rather irrelevant. In this way, new patterns of the associations between our variables of interest might be uncovered.

We propose several directions for future research. In line with the premise that a variety of factors determine whether individuals are more prone to generating radical rather than incremental creative ideas (Madjar et al., 2011), we reasoned that the same might hold for our responses to creative ideas. Given that research into idea evaluation is still scarce, it would be valuable to explore if findings related to idea generation also hold for idea evaluation. One noteworthy study in this context examined the role of regulatory focus in relation to both idea generation and evaluation (Herman & Reiter-Palmon, 2011). The researchers demonstrated that indeed, depending on the type of regulatory focus participants possessed (promotion vs.

prevention), idea generation and evaluation strongly differed, especially in terms of the

dimension of originality. By uncovering the similarities and differences in idea generation and evaluation, more light could be shed on underlying mechanisms accompanying idea

evaluation in general.

The mediating variable in the present research covered two dimensions of creativity,

namely originality and usefulness. Nevertheless, studies on creativity vary regarding the

choice of factors determining when an idea is considered ‘creative’. For instance, some

writers included novelty as a main criterion whereas others focused on an idea’s applicability

and implementability only (Dean et al., 2006; Redmond et al., 1993). It would be interesting

to see whether other dimensions like idea relevance (degree of efficiency for the task at hand) or thoroughness (level of detail to which idea is worked out) revealed different results given that it was found that combined multi-dimensional measures of creativity, including sub- dimensions, provide a more concrete picture of the nature of creative ideas which might, in turn, result in more sophisticated managerial decisions depending on which dimension is most relevant for the idea at hand (MacCrimmon & Wagner, 1994).

Cultures do not only differ in their norms and values but also in their conceptualization of creativity (Hofstede, 2010). For example, some scholars point to directive leadership leading to less creative performance in Western contexts whereas it enhanced creative output in Eastern countries. Similarly, in general, social contexts characterized by disruption are positively related to creativity in Western countries while a negative association was found in Eastern contexts (De Dreu, 2010). The scope of our study was limited to Western countries including Germany and the Netherlands. Therefore, extending our findings to Eastern countries might reveal interesting outcomes given the mentioned fundamental differences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures.

The focus of the present research lay on the influence of leader characteristics only, namely on leaders scoring high vs. low on personal need for structure. Nevertheless, as Belschak, Muhammad, and Hartog (2016) demonstrated, attention should also be paid to employee characteristics. In their study on employer-employee trust, it was found that a decrease in trust between the two resulted from a mismatch due to both scoring relatively high on the same dark personality trait (Machiavellianism). It might be valuable to check for both leader and employee characteristics when it comes to idea evaluation to avoid qualitatively lower judgments due to inhibiting, although covered, clashes between personality traits.

CONCLUSION

Even though nowadays research into creativity flourishes, most available literature

concentrated on how to stimulate creative performance in employees thereby neglecting to

examine leaders’ responses to creative ideas voiced by subordinates. The present research made an initial attempt to uncover mechanisms involved in idea evaluation especially on a cognitive level. We added crucial insight into research on different types of creative ideas with our findings suggesting that voicing an idea in an incremental (rather than radical) way comes along with a heightened chance of the idea being endorsed by leaders. Further, the usefulness dimension of creativity seemed to overrule the originality aspect when determining if leaders endorse an idea and radical ideas were evaluated as more original and less useful compared to incremental ideas.

Given that leaders often play a principle role in making key decisions including whether

to forward a voiced idea or not, we hope the current research inspired future researchers to

further explore which mechanisms determine leader idea evaluation in order to get an even

more holistic picture of influential variables on the relationships between different types of

creative ideas, leader evaluation and endorsement of creative ideas.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential

conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 357-376.

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: 14-23.

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.

317. Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press.

Argyris, C. 1957. Personality and organization. New York: Harper & Row.

Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. 2006. The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 963-970. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.91.4.963

Baer, M. 2012. Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1102–1119.

doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0470

Baron. R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 1173-1182.

Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. 2000. Understanding how creative thinking skills,

attitudes and behaviors work together: A causal process model. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 34: 77–100.

Belschak, F. D., Muhammad, R. S., & Hartog, D. N. 2016. Birds of a feather can butt heads:

When machiavellian employees work with machiavellian leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3251-2

Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. 1989. The Development, Reliability, and Validity of the Revised Creative Product Semantic Scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2: 267-278.

Burris, E. R. 2012. The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 851-875.

doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0562

Campbell, M. C., & Goodstein, R. C. 2001. The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research, 28: 439–449.

Chabassol, D. J., & Thomas, D. 1975. Needs for structure, tolerance of ambiguity and dogmatism in adolescents. Psychological Reports, 37(2): 507-510.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1975.37.2.507

Cooke, R., & Sheeran, P. 2004. Moderation of cognition-intention and cognition-behaviour relations: A meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 43(2): 159-186.

doi:10.1348/0144666041501688

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity: 190–212. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F., & Abrams, R. A. 1986. Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 38(2): 230- 256. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90018-X

Damanpour, F. 1988. Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process. Communication research, 15(5): 545-567.

Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. 2017. Psychological ownership: A