THE MODERATING ROLE OF LEADER POSITIVE FEEDBACK IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED COMPETITIVE CLIMATE AND INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY
by Ilya Mikhaylov
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Master thesis. Human Resources Management
August, 2011
Helperwestsingel 88 9721 BH Groningen
(06)26712489
Supervisor:
Darja Carl
1
ABSTRACT
Creative performance of employees is crucial for companies in order to remain
competitive. This study is focused on the relationships between perceived competitive climate, individual creativity and the moderating role of leader’s positive feedback. It was hypothesized that a negative relationship exists between perceived competitive climate and individual
creativity, and a positive relationship is expected between leader’s positive feedback and individual creativity. Additionally leader’s positive feedback is expected to moderate the
relationship between perceived competitive climate and creativity. These hypotheses were tested among 205 employees of 15 Russian companies from various industries. The data was collected via an online questionnaire. The analyses have shown that perceived competitive climate has a significant negative association with individual creativity, at the same time leaders positive feedback showed a significant positive relationship with individual creativity. However there is no evidence for the moderating role of positive feedback on the relationship between perceived competitive climate and individual creativity. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
Key words: perceived competitive climate, positive feedback, creativity
2
INTRODUCTION
Russian economy had changed dramatically over the last 20 years. Due to massive expansion of transnational companies and recreation of former USSR production plants the overall level of market competition has risen significantly. Maintaining position in the market requires innovative and creative thinking to reach sustainable growth, and to remain competitive (Amabile, 1998; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003). In addition, changes in business environment force companies to continuously introduce new products and services in order to survive (Florida, Cushing, & Gates, 2002). Therefore, companies are becoming highly reliant on creative
performance of their employees. Management now faced with a new challenge of enhancing and maintaining creative performance of subordinates under modern highly pressured work
environments.
Impact of competition on creativity has drawn attention of many previous studies.
Unfortunately, empirical results in this area are inconclusive and form and strength of the relationship between competition and individual creativity remains unclear. Scholars identified possible negative (e.g. Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986), positive (e.g. Hsieh, 2008), or inverted U-shaped (eg. Conti et al, 2001) relationship. Amabile (1982) was the first showed that competition can have negative effect on creative performance. And more importantly this study provided support of intrinsic motivation hypothesis of creativity, which was widely confirmed in future empirical research (Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;
Conti et al, 2001). Basically, this hypothesis states that high intrinsic motivation is conductive to creativity, while extrinsic motivation is detrimental. Several studies confirmed that competition reduces intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1981), and therefore creative performance.
People vary greatly on their perceptions. It is important to emphasize that this study
focuses on employee perceptions of competitive climate, rather than on competition itself and
how this perceptions affect their creative behavior. According to Brown et al. (1998), differences
3
in perceptions of organizational environment can result from individual differences among employees (eg. personality traits, values, etc.), different situations within the same organization (eg. managerial practices), or interaction of them. Contextual variables are believed to be more effective predictors of creative work performance above and beyond any role that personality might play (Zhou, 1998). Following this argument I focus on possible moderation role of leader’s positive feedback in relationship between perceived competitive climate and individual creativity.
THEORY
Competition is the simultaneous demand by two or more parties for limited
environmental resources. The aim of this paper is to clarify the relationship between perceived competitive climate and individual creativity, and to find whether this relationship depends on how much positive feedback is received from the leader. It is important to emphasize that this study focuses on employee perceptions of competitive climate, rather than on competition itself.
People’s perceptions vary greatly, and therefore, the same organizational environment can trigger different behavioral responses to creativity in different individuals.
Perceived competitive climate and individual creativity
Perceived competitive climate has been defined as the degree to which an employee perceives organizational rewards to be contingent on comparisons of his or her performance against that of their peers (Kohn, 1992). More generally, this psychological concept refers to employees perception of their organizational environment (Brown, Cron & Slocum, 1998).
According to Brown et al. (1998) variation in perceptions of psychological climate might result
from two general influences and their interaction. First of all, individual differences among
employees, such as differences in backgrounds, personalities, and experiences can create
perceptual and interpretational biases leading to different perceptions (e,g,, James, James, and
Ashe 1990). At the same time, contextual factors, for instance, managerial practices, which differ
4
within the same organization, also have a significant impact on ones perceptions of the
environment (Dansereau. Graen. and Haga 1975; Podsakoff et al, 1995). Individual perceptions are subjective, meaning that different people may perceive the same environment differently.
Hence, the impact of the same level of competition in an organization on ones creative performance will vary from individual to individual.
Creativity was defined by Hennessay & Amabile (2010) as the generation of products or ideas that are both novel and appropriate. Many organizational researchers on creativity have emphasized the need to identify and understand which organizational contextual variables affect individual creativity (Amabile, 1988; Cummings & Oldham, 1997; Woodman et al., 1993).
Amabile (1983) argued that the components of creativity include task relevant skills, creative- relevant skills and motivation. Expertise and creative thinking are usually viewed as inherent individual “raw materials” while, motivation determines what an individual will actually do (Amabile, 1982). Following this argument, motivation is often viewed by scholars as the most important determinant of creativity (Hsieh, 2008).
In general, work motivation can be divided into two distinct types: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1993, 1997; Deci, 1975; Deci ε Ryan, 1985; Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980). These two motivations can cause different effects on the subjective feeling toward the work, eagerness to do the work, and the performance (Amabile, 1997). Intrinsic motivation refers to the motivational state in which an individual is attracted to and energized by the task itself instead of by some external outcomes that might be obtained through doing the task. This type of motivation is strongly related to creativity (Conti et al, 2001). Intrinsically motivated individuals are deeply involved in the activity at hand because they are free of extraneous goals.
By utilizing ideas and materials, and exploring new cognitive pathways, their creativity is
aroused and promoted (Amabile et al, 1990). Moreover, it was found that, an intrinsically
motivated individual tends to be more cognitively flexible (McGraw & Fiala, 1982; McGraw &
5
McCullers, 1979), to prefer complexity and novelty (Pittman, Emergy, & Boggiano, 1982), and to seek higher levels of challenge and proficiency (Pittman et al., 1982). Alternatively,
extrinsically motivated individuals perform a task in order to get something else, such as contingent rewards. This type of motivation is usually believed to be detrimental for creativity (Amabile, 1993, 1996; Amabile, Hennessey & Grossman, 1986; Ruscio, Whitney & Amabile, 1998). Competition is often viewed as a constraint that inhibits creativity by diminishing intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1983; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989). Deci et al. (1981) argued that facing competitive environment individuals are likely to shift their attention from the task itself towards winning the competition. As a result, motivation becomes extrinsic, leading to lower levels of creative performance.
Creative tasks require close attention and great cognitive effort and often demand adopting or creating unconventional solutions (Zhou, 1998). However, every individual has limited amount of cognitive resources. According to distraction arousal theory (Teichner, Arees,
& Reilly, 1963), an employee will devote some of his cognitive resources to deal with highly competitive work environments, leaving less resources available to deal with a task itself (Byron et al., 2010). The reduction of cognitive resources available may also result in the use of simpler cognitive strategies, such as using a narrow attentional focus (Eysenck, 1995). Hence, employees can be expected to be less creative (Baron, 1986; Drwal, 1973).
Taking into account everything mentioned above, we can assume that employees who perceive organizational climate as highly competitive are less creative. Therefore, following hypothesis is stated:
H1: Perceived competitive climate is negatively related to employee’s creative
performance.
6
Positive feedback and individual creativity
Feedback is the information provided by others, such as supervisors or coworkers, regarding the quality of one’s performance, relatively to normative criteria (Sansone,
1986).Thus, positive feedback can be defined as the positive outcome of the comparison between an individual's performance and normative criteria. Several studies have shown that positive feedback if used under proper conditions may facilitate creative performance by enhancing intrinsic motivation (eg. Amabile, 1983; Deci & Ryan, 1985). For instance, Zhou (1998) demonstrated that individuals who received positive feedback which was constructive, informative and supportive showed greater creativity than individuals in the no- or negative feedback condition.
Cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) posits that there are two psychological antecedents of intrinsic motivation: perceived competence and self-determination. Perceived competence refers to an individual's belief that he or she is capable of doing a task. Self- determination refers to an individual's perception that he is the driving force behind successful performance of the task. An employee is expected to be intrinsically motivated in the situation when he feels that he is able to do the task well and/or he has control over the process and the outcome of the task. Receiving positive feedback from the supervisor affects both perceived self- competence and self-determination (Deci et al., 1981). Therefore employee intrinsic motivation may be enhanced, leading to better creative performance. Alternatively, as a result of lack of positive feedback, the individual will not feel competent and having control over his work, consequently will be less creative than those who receive positive feedback. (Zhou, 1998).
Therefore we can hypothesize:
H2: Positive feedback is positively related to employee creative performance
7
The moderating role of positive feedback on the relationship between perceived competitive climate and creativity
Competitive organizational climate is usually associated with increased stress for the employee (Fletcher et al, 2008). Stress can be defined in terms of “disruption of the equilibrium of the cognitive-emotional-environmental system by external factors” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). These external factors, traditionally called stressors, may also lead to equilibrium of the cognitive and environmental system, or a state of well-being. This depends on the individual’s performance capacities, for instance, the available coping resources at a given time (Karen et al., 2001). Therefore, it is usually preferred to use the term stressor only when an external factor has the potential to exert a negative influence on most people in most situations. In this paper I will use these definitions.
To discover potential relations between positive feedback and perceived competitive climate it might be useful to refer to the Job Demands–Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). The main assumption of the Job Demands–Resources model is that every occupation has its own specific risk factors associated with job-related stress. These factors can be classified in two general categories. Job demands refer to those “physical, social or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological or psychological costs” (Demeroutti et al., 2001).
Job resources are “those physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that may be functional in achieving work goals, reduce job demands and its associated costs, and stimulate personal growth and development” (Demeroutti et al., 2001). The essence of the Job Demands–Resources model is that employees who face high demands may exhaust their mental and physical resources, which can lead to stress and result in burnout (i.e. a job stress
syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal
accomplishment) or health problems (Demeroutti et al., 2003). At the same time the presence of
adequate resources can reduce the negative impact that job demands have on employee well-
8
being and work engagement (Dwyer, 2006). Following this view perceived competitive climate are an aspect of job demands, while leader’s positive feedback is an aspect of job resources.
In line with Kahn and Byosiere (1992), the Job Demands–Resources model states that job resources can reduce the tendency of organizational properties to generate specific stressors by buffering the effects of these stressors (Demerouti & Bakker, 2008). In other words, job resources may reduce negative impact of stressful environments by altering perceptions and cognitions evoked by those stressors. In particular, receiving positive feedback from leaders, especially when perceived competition is high, might help employees to cope better with stress.
As a result, the negative impact of competition will be reduced, avoiding burnout and, hence, the negative effect on creative performance.
To summarize, positive feedback from the leader may play an important role in
relationship between perceived competitive climate and individual creativity. When the pressure from competitive climate is high, positive feedback from the manager helps employees to cope with stress resulting from competitive pressure, which avoids burnout and, at the same time, increases work engagement. Therefore, following hypothesis is stated:
H3: Positive feedback will moderate the relation between perceived competitive climate and individual creativity, such that for high levels of leader positive feedback perceived
competitive climate will be associated with higher creativity, comparing to low level of positive feedback.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model displaying the three hypotheses
H1
H2 H3
Perceived competitive
climate Individual creativity
Positive feedback
9
METHOD
Research setting and participants
This study was conducted in 15 large, multinational companies, representing different industries. All of them are situated in the Saint-Petersburg area, Russia. I used an internet-based survey tool to collect the data. The entire survey was translated from English into Russian and then translated back into English by two independent bilingual individuals to ensure equivalency of meaning (Brislin, 1980). The survey consisted of two questionnaires: one for employees, another for their respective supervisors.
Participants were young employees, taking part in companies’ traineeship programs, whose work requires a substantial amount of creativity in order to be effective. Using contact information obtained from each company’s human resources departments, we sent an e-mail, along with an URL survey link, to 228 employees. The 209 usable employee and 44 supervisor survey responses received constituted a 91 percent response rate. Finally, I was able to match 205 usable responses from both direct supervisors and employees. Four employee questionnaires were excluded due to incomplete information. The number of employees evaluated by each supervisor varied from two to six, with most supervisors rating five employees.
The average age of the participants comprising the final sample was 24.5 years. The average team tenure was 15.9 months. Among 205 respondents, 53.2 percent were male; 90.7 percent had university degrees; 98.5 percent were Russian citizens.
Measures
The survey was conducted in Russian. The employee questionnaire consisted of 13 items
including six demographical items and seven items relating to perceived competitive climate and
positive feedback. Leaders were asked to fill in the questionnaire, which asked to evaluate their
team member’s creativity with four items for each team member and six items for the team
10
leaders’ demographics. The specific measures are described below. Perceived competitive climate and positive feedback were measured in the employee questionnaire, creativity in the supervisor questionnaire.
Perceived competitive climate. To measure perceived competitive climate I adopted
Kohn’s (1992) measure for structural competitiveness, as the extent to which employees perceive their organizational status and well-being as dependent on performance ratings related to peers.
This variable was measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to
“strongly agree” (7) with a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0,875. The scale consisted of four items, for instance “My manager frequently compares my results with those of other employees” or “My coworkers frequently compare their results with mine”.
Positive feedback. Questions to measure perceived positive feedback were taken from
Van den Broeck’s (2008) measurement item for job resources. The variable was measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Positive feedback was assessed on a 3-item scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0,853 including, for example “I get mainly positive feedback on my work method” or “I get mainly positive feedback on the results of my work”.
Employee creativity. The creativity measure was taken from Tierney et al. (2003). This
construct was measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to
“strongly agree” (7). Employees’ creativity was rated by the team leader on a 4-item scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0,934. These items questioned to what extent presented statements characterize this particular employee at work, e.g. “Seeks new ideas and ways to solve problems”, “Generates ground-breaking ideas related to the field”.
Control variables. Additionally, I collected data for control variables likely to provide alternative explanations for creativity, as suggested by previous research (e.g. Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Tierney et al., 2003): age, gender, educational level and team tenure. Age was
11
measured in years. Gender was measured as a dichotomous variable coded as 1 for male and 0 for female. For educational level we used 5-point scale (1 = “high school”, 5 = “doctorate”).
Company and team tenure was measured as the number of months that an employee had been in the company/team.
Data analysis
To carry out the analysis for this study I used SPSS software. First, normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and multicollinearity of the dataset were checked. Then, I applied reliability analysis to calculate a Cronbach’s alphas to ensure reliability of scales.
Hypotheses have been tested using hierarchical multiple regression analyses. The
dependent variable was individual creativity. To test moderating effect, the interaction term was computed by multiplying the perceived competitive climate (independent variable) and positive feedback (the moderator). After that, control variables, the independent variable and the
moderator have all been standardized in order to diminish multicollinearity between the interaction term, the moderator and the independent variable (Siero, Huisman, & Kiers, 2007).
Variables have been entered into the regression analysis in three hierarchical steps. Firstly, the
control variables were entered. On a second step I entered positive feedback and perceived
competitive climate. Finally, the interaction term - perceived competitive climate multiplied by
positive feedback - was entered to analysis.
12
RESULTS
Table 1 summarizes the means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and correlations between the dependent, independent and control variables. As predicted, perceived competitive climate showed significant negative correlation with creativity (r=-.52, p<.01).
Positive feedback was also significantly related to creativity, but in a positive direction (r=.41, p<.01). There were no substantial correlation between positive feedback and perceived
competitive climate (r=-.07, p= n.s.). In terms of control variables, age showed a significant positive correlation with perceived competitive climate (r=.16, p<.05), meaning that with increasing age, employees perceive organizational climate as more competitive.
TABLE 1
Means. Standard Deviations. Cronbach’s Alphas and Correlations among variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Percieved
competitive climate
3.62 1.22 (.88)
2.Positive feedback 4.79 1.20 -.07 (.85)
3. Creativity 4.24 1.20 -.52** .41** (.93)
4.Age 24.5 1.36 .16* .08 -.07 -
5.Education 2.06 .33 -.13 -.03 -.014 -.33** -
6.Gender .46 .50 .001 .10 .063 -.18* .07 -
7.Team tenure 16.31 5.51 -.06 -.06 .018 .45** -.01 -.10 - Note. N=205. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are presented in the parentheses on the diagonal.
** p < .01, * p < .05
Hypothesis testing
Multiple regression analysis was applied to test the hypothesis. Multiple regression analysis involves a number of assumptions which must be met in order to be allowed to perform analysis (de Vries & Huisman, 2008; Field, 2009). Firstly, the sample must be large enough such that it can be generalized to a broader population. In general, sample has to have at least 8 cases per independent variable. This study has 7 independent variables, including 5 control variables;
therefore sample must consist of at least 56 cases. This assumption is met, since the sample for
this study has 205 cases. Secondly, data was checked for existence of outliers. No extreme
outliers were identified; therefore this assumption is also satisfied. Next, normality of the sample
13
was checked by using box-plots. This analysis showed that this assumption is met, as well.
Finally, linearity, homoscedacticity and no multicollinearity of the data was checked. These assumptions were checked respectively by analyzing residual scatterplots for both linearity and homoscedasticity; and by examining the variance inflation factor and tolerance values (de Vries
& Huisman, 2008; Field, 2009). All assumptions were met.
Results of regression analysis with dependent variable creativity can be found in Table 2.
In Step 1 standardized control variables (age, gender, educational level and team tenure) were added to the regression equation. This model explained 1.2% of the variance in creative
performance. In the second step standardized independent variable perceived competitive climate and the moderator positive feedback were added to the equation. In Hypothesis 1 we stated that perceived competitive climate is negatively related to creative performance. Our findings supported this hypothesis: perceived competitive climate was significantly negatively related to creative performance (b = -.60, p <.01). This model explains 40.9% of the variance in creative performance. In Hypothesis 2 I suggested that positive feedback is positively related to
individual creativity. This hypothesis was also supported: positive feedback was significantly
negatively related to individual creativity (b = .47, p <.01). Hypothesis 3 suggested that positive
feedback moderates the relationship between perceived competitive climate and individual
creativity, such that for high levels of leaders positive feedback perceived competitive climate
will be associated with higher creativity, comparing to low levels of positive feedback. To test
third hyposithis, it was necessary to enter the interaction term (perceived competitive climate
multiplied by positive feedback) into the regression equation in step 3 .Unfortunately, results
indicate that moderation hypothesis could not be supported in the current study (b = -.06, p =n.s.)
14 TABLE 2
Results of Multiple Regression Analyses, Dependent Variable - Creative Behavior
Variables
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Age, gender, education and team
tenure
Age, gender, education, team tenure, positive
feedback and perceived competitive climate
Age, gender, education, team tenure, positive feedback, perceived competitive climate
and positive feedback * perceived competitive climate
1.Age -.12 -.07 -.06
2.Education -.05 -.10 -.10
3.Gender .07 .03 .03
4.Team tenure .16 -.26 -.25
5.Perceived competitive
climate -.60*** -.59***
6.Positive feedback .47*** .46***
7.Perceived competitive climate * positive feedback
-.06
R2 .01 .42*** .42***
Note. N = 205. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients
*** p < .001, **p< .01 , *p<.05
DISCUSSION
In this study I examined the relationships between perceived competitive climate,
leader’s positive feedback and individual creativity. The results of the correlational study among 205 employees from Russian companies showed two expected main effects. However, the moderating hypothesis was not confirmed.
Main findings
The first hypothesis investigated the relationship between perceived competitive climate and individual creativity. As predicted, statistical analysis showed existence of a significant negative relationship. Employees who perceive organizational environment as highly
competitive were rated as less creative by their supervisors. This result supports existing findings
of studies relating to the intrinsic motivation hypothesis (eg. Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman,
1986; Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998). Creative tasks require exploration of new methods
and ideas, and there is no straightforward way to successful performance. Facing competitive
environments, an individual is likely to shift his attention from the task itself towards winning
15
the competition. Even though this may make an individual work harder and faster, his attention is likely to be distracted, leading to a rigid approach to the task by using more algorithmic methods (Zhou, 1998). Consequently, the individual produces less original ideas than he might without the need to compete.
The second hypothesis predicting a positive relationship between positive feedback and individual creativity was also confirmed by the statistical analysis. Results suggest that
employees who receive positive feedback on their performance from the leader are generally rated highly on creativity. This is consistent with the pattern of results obtained in some previous studies on intrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci, 1971, 1972). Positive feedback received from a direct supervisor indicates that an employee is competent. According to cognitive evaluation theory, it enhances employees’ perceived competence and self-determination, which leads to greater intrinsic motivation and therefore greater creativity.
In contrast to the expectations, results did not show moderating effect of leader’s positive feedback on the relationship between perceived competitive climate and individual creativity.
This finding contradicts previous research on the Job Demands-Resources model (Demeroutti et al., 2003). One of the main assumptions of this model is that job resources (eg. feedback and social support), may buffer the impact of job demands on employee work-related wellbeing (e.g.
competitive climate), reducing negative effects of stressors on employee motivation and likelihood of burnout. Most studies in this area suggest all kinds of resources can have a buffering effect by definition (Bakker et al., 2005). However, later studies (eg. Shimada et al., 2010) showed that some job resources may play a more significant role than others depending on specific job characteristics. For instance, positive feedback from the leader is more important for the jobs where performance cannot be measured objectively, and hence the individual needs some additional information on how well is he doing compared to others. At these jobs positive comparison with a normative criterion is likely to reduce pressure from competition.
Alternatively, for jobs with objective measures of job performance, for example sales,
16
information on quality of work from a supervisor is less important than an objective measure.
This study included participants from different occupation, this fact might lead to an unexpected results.
Finally correlation analysis indicated significant positive relationships between age and perceived competitive climate. Positive relationships suggest that older workers perceive
organizational environment as more competitive than younger workers do. It can be explained by overall composition of participants. All participants taking part in companies’ traineeship
programs, which aimed to attract the most talented young employees right out of the university.
Being older than 24 years in this circumstance means that one failed to find a good job or get relevant experience after graduation. Older workers may feel more pressured since this program might be their last chance to get a good job. Moreover, expectations from those employees are higher due to their age.
Strengths and limitations of this research
This study naturally is subject to some limitations. First of all, although conducted in different companies and industries, the participant sample of this study is highly homogeneous, meaning that all participants were trainees; moreover, it was conducted in Russia with mostly Russian citizens participating. Therefore, it cannot be generalized to a wider population, e.g.
Russian employees, and taking into account cultural factors it cannot be generalized in other nationalities. Additional studies with more varied participant samples are needed to get more generalizable results. Further limitations include lack of variables measured. Creative behavior is viewed as a result of a complex interaction between personal and situational factors (George &
Zhou, 2001). Additional measures of organizational context, as well as personal traits, could bring more insights to this topic. Finally, we asked supervisors to rate all of their team members’
creative performance. This was only source of data for creativity. The questionnaire was
structured in such a way that ratings had to be filled in a row. This could lead to a subconscious
17
comparison, meaning that supervisors rate employees based on the rating of previous employees, reducing the objectivity of the assessment to some extent.
One strength of this study is the high participation rate of the online questionnaire. I sent 228 invitations to participate in survey and got 209 completely filled questionnaires back, this corresponds with a participation rate of 91%. With such high participation rate, we can properly generalize (Peter, 1979) the outcomes of this sample to all Russian trainees. Additionally, in this study we used two sources of measurement: managers were asked to rate the creativity of their subordinates and employees responded on their perceptions of competitive climate and the amount of positive feedback they receive from the supervisor. This aimed to minimize common methods bias due to a single rater, such as social desirability and leniency (Meade, Watson &
Kroustalis, 2007).
Managerial Implications
Employee creativity is an important factor of success for companies in order to remain competitive. Therefore, managers should be aware of how the organizational environment and managerial practices may affect employee’s willingness and ability to be creative. Nowadays, many companies, such as Microsoft or Google, are stimulating their employees creativity by offering prizes or additional benefits. Workers have to compete with each other to strive for limited resources under the banner of incentive. This study showed that managers have to put close attention to how employees perceive these programs. If the competitive aspect is too salient, it is likely to result in lower levels of creativity. Since, workers will focus their attention on receiving benefits, rather than on production of novel and appropriate ideas. In addition, role of the positive feedback should not be underestimated. When employee receives positive
evaluation of his work from the supervisor, it affects his perceived competence – belief that he is
capable of doing a task – and leads to greater creativity. This aspect is especially important for
Russian managers, who, due to cultural and historical features, tend to limit the amount of
feedback given to subordinates.
18
Theoretical implications
This study provided additional evidence for the negative influence of competition on individual creative performance, as well as the affirmative role of leader positive feedback.
Importantly, that it is the first academic study on this topic conducted on the territory of Russian Federation and possibly all of the former USSR. This fact highlights the importance of this study. Unfortunately, the moderator effect of positive feedback on these relationships remains unclear. Future research should pay attention to specific circumstances and personality traits and allow for a more complex analysis in statistical terms.
In conclusion it can be said that the one of the initially asked research questions of how
positive feedback affects the relationship between the perceived competitive climate and
individual creative behavior could not be answered in this study. However, this does not imply
that these relationship does not exist, which is why further and more extensive research needs to
be done in this particular field to obtain more precise results.
19
REFERENCES
Abra, J. (1993). Competition: Creativity‟ s vilified motive. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 119, 291-343.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovations in organizations. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior,10: 123–167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity, Harvard Business Review, 76 (5): 77-87.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon H. Lazenby, J. & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5): 1154-1184.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). Dual processes at work in a call centre:
An application of the Job Demands – Resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 393–417.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T., Schaufeli, W.B., & Schreurs, P. (2003). A multigroup analysis of the Job Demands – Resources model in four home care organizations.
International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 16–38.
Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 1–39.
Brislin, R.W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H.C.
Triandis & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp.389- 444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, S.P. & Cron, W.L. & Slocum, J.W. (1998). Effects of Trait Competitiveness and Perceived Intraorganizational Competition on Salesperson Goal Setting and Performance.
Journal of Marketing, 62. 88–9.
Byron, K. & Nzarian, D. & Khazanchi, S. (2010). The Relationship between Stressors and Creativity: Meta-Analysis Examining Competing Theoretical Models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1). 201-212.
Conti, R., Collins, M. A., & Picariello, M. L. (2001). The impact of competition on intrinsic motivation and creativity: considering gender, gender segregation and gender role orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1237-1289.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Betley, G., Kahle, J., Abrams, L., & Porac, J. (1981). When trying to win:
Competition and intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 79-
83.
20
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627- 668.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2000). A model of burnout and life satisfaction among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 454–464.
Drwal, R. L. (1973). The influence of psychological stress upon creative thinking. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 4, 125–129
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage
Florida, R., Cushing, R. and Gates, G. (2002). ‘When Social Capital Stifles Innovation’, Harvard Business Review. 80 (8): 20
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hsieh, A. & Tarng, (2008) Clarifying the relationship between competition and employee creativity.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.
James, L.R. & James, L.A. & Ashe, D.K. (1990). The Meaning of Organizations: The Role of Cognition and Values. Organizational Climate and Culture. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.
Jung, D.I., Chow, C. & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 525-544.
Karasek, R.A. (1998). Demand/Control Model: A social, emotional, and physiological approach to stress risk and active behaviour development. In J.M. Stellman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety. Geneva: ILO
Kohn, A. (1992). No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Journal of Management, 21 (3).
422-70.
McGraw, K. O. (1978). The detrimental effects of reward on performance: A literature review and a prediction model. In M. R. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward (pp. 33-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McGraw, K. Q, & Fiala, J. (1982). Undermining the Zeigarnik effect: Another hidden cost of reward. Journal of Personality, SO, 58-66.
McGraw, K. Q, & McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 285- 294.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
21
