0 mo
Does hidden information support creativity?
The mediating role of gossip and moderating role of organizational structure in the relation between openness and creativity
Britt Zuidema S3001504
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Department of Human Resource Management & Organizational Behaviour MSc Human Resource Management
June 2017
Supervisor: E. Martinescu
1 ABSTRACT
This research tested relations between the variables openness, gossip, creativity and organizational structure. I propose that higher levels of openness lead to more creativity and that this might be explained by gossip because of gossip’s information providing nature. Besides, this relation might be moderated by organizational structure, in which organic structures support and mechanistic structures suppress creativity. I performed a field study with 110 participants. The results only confirmed the relation between openness and creativity. Gossip had no function between openness and creativity. Organizational structure did not show a relation with creativity in my hypothesised model. But in a supplementary analysis I found an interaction effect of extraversion and organizational structure on creativity. Results of this study are discussed and suggestions for future research are given.
Keywords: openness, gossip, information, creativity, creative processes, mechanistic,
2 INTRODUCTION
Creativity is essential for the long term performance of organizations. Creativity helps
companies to survive in rapidly changing environments because it supports the developing of
products, programmes or services (Lopez Cabrales, Pérez-Luno & Cabrera, 2009). Creative processes are behaviours of the individual which encompass analyzing problems, forming thoughts and solutions, forming hypothesis and sharing thoughts that do not conform to existing norms (Torrance, 1988; 1993). Creative behaviour of the individual might generate competitive advantages for organizations because of an increased ability to react on changes
in the market (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). The availability of information is very important for stimulating creative behaviours because information is used as input for expressing creativity (Gielnik, Frese, Graf and Kampschulte, 2012). Individuals scoring high on the personality trait openness are curious individuals who actively seek information (McCrae & John, 1992). This might be the reason why many researchers found a link between individuals scoring high on openness to experiences and creative behaviour (Baer, & Oldham, 2006; Feist, 1998; King, Walker & Broyles, 1996; Silvia et al., 2008; Sung & Choi, 2009; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001).
A specific way to gather information is gossiping. Gossip is evaluative talk between the sender and the receiver of gossip in absence of the individual being spoken of (Wert & Salovey, 2004). Open individuals can use gossip as an instrument to gather information in response to their intrinsic need to obtain information. Gossip might contribute to creativity because it yields information about the potential usefulness of individuals in a person’s social
3 Turner & Flatcher, 2006). Therefore, gossip might have a mediating role between openness and creativity because of its information providing nature.
Unfortunately, current research found that gossip is detrimental for creative outcomes. Amabile (1998) said that gossip distracts people’s attention from work and therefore diminishes opportunities to focus on new ideas. Isaksen and Lauer (2002) see gossip as an outcome of interpersonal conflict between the sender and the target of gossip. They describe
that when people are in conflict, attention is not on exerting creative behaviours; rather
individuals are busy protecting their positions. However, Isaksen and Lauer (2002) do not talk
about the receiver of gossip and the advantages gossip might bring to them. Andriopoulos
(2001) states that you need trust, safety and freedom of expression in the organizational
culture to promote creativity and negative gossip does not fit in such a culture. Perceiving
others gossiping, jeopardizes trust and safety in the team (Amabile, 1998). It would obstruct people’s intention to have an open flow of communication. Gossiping therefore leads away
people’s focus from thinking of unconventional ideas. Research sees creativity and gossip as
incompatible constructs, but I propose that this does not cover the potential of gossip. It is interesting to research the role of gossip between openness and creativity because of gossip’s
function to gather information and its potential to inspire receivers. In this research, I will
focus on the receiver of gossip because that is the person who seeks and receives new
information.
4 of mechanistic structures – for a lot of interaction between workers and give the freedom to try new things. There might be more gossip in organic structures and less gossip in mechanistic structures that contributes to creativity because mechanistic structures mainly restrict employees to behave in line with procedures, standardization and prescribed methods instead of allowing for exploration and communications as organic structures do.
The abovementioned reasoning for gossip as mediating factor and structure as moderating factor between openness and creativity, led to the following research question: What is the function of gossip in the relation between openness and creativity, and does the
relation between gossip and creativity differ among types of organizational structures?
5 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The relation between openness and creativity
Openness to experiences is one of the five personality characteristics as defined by the Five Factor model (McCrae & John, 1992). The other characteristics that – together with openness to experience – give a description about someone’s personality are: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Openness to experiences can be defined as the reoccurring need to increase and encounter experiences (McCrae, 1993). Open individuals are open-minded persons with wide interests who will actively take initiative to encounter new experiences (Baer, & Oldham, 2006; McCrae & John, 1992). Individuals scoring high on openness exchange more information with others than individuals scoring low on openness
(Matzler, Renzl, Müller, Herting, & Mooradian, 2008). A reason for this is that open individuals are more curious and are therefore actively seeking information to broaden their
perspectives (Cabrera, Collins, and Selgado, 2006). As a result they have great access to various ideas and perspectives.
This availability of various ideas and perspectives might give open individuals an advantage in expressing creative behaviour. Individuals scoring high on openness to experiences are generally more creative (Feist, 1998). Creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas and can be reached by the ability to think divergently, combining previously unrelated processes into something new and better and seeing things from different perspectives (Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Piffer, 2012). Creativity encompasses behaviours of analyzing problems, forming thoughts and solutions, forming hypotheses and sharing thoughts that do not conform existing norms (Torrance, 1993).
6 gave similar reasons as McCrae and Costa (1997) for the creativity of open individuals. Firstly, open individuals are more flexible in espousing ideas because they see more potential in information that others perceive as ‘unusable’. Highly open people are more comfortable in
ambiguous situations and are willing to wait and see what the information means. Less open prefer clarity to ambiguous situations and therefore ‘reject’ information quicker;
ambiguousness makes them feel uncomfortable. Secondly, open persons seek unfamiliar
situations in which their current perception is challenged. For example, open people are more
comfortable in discussing information about others which contradicts their current view. They
do this to provide for their need to experience new situations. They are more willing to expose
themselves to all kinds of emotions, feelings and perspectives in order to improve their own
views. Openness to experience is the catalyst that leads to creative expression and exploration (McCrae, 1987), and therefore I hypothesise:
Hypothesis 1: Individuals who score high on openness to experience express more creative
behaviours.
The effect of openness on gossip seeking
7 social world around us as the content of gossip contains value judgements; it gives us insight in our social worlds (Paine, 1967). Gossip can help receivers to learn about their social environment by providing information that might improve a person’s current view (Baumeister, et al., 2004). Through gossip information about others is validated and spread.
As described before, open individuals hold positive attitudes towards information and seek new information (McCrae & John, 1992). The exchange of information is higher among individuals scoring high on openness than it is among individuals scoring low on this
construct (Matzler et al., 2008). A reason for this is that curiosity and novelty seeking characteristics of open individuals motivates these individuals to actively seek information to
broaden their perspectives (Cabrera et al., 2006). Open individuals might consider gossip as
way of obtaining information because gossip is a way to exchange information (Beersma &
van Kleef, 2012; Dunbar, 1996, 2004). For example, Rosnow (1977) states that gossip can
provide insight in social life.
Gossip contains information about which person might be valuable to work with and
which individual is better to avoid. Foster (2004) and Paine (1967) even state that gossip is the only way to receive information about others because people do not prefer to talk
publically about others. Gossip is unavailable to people who do not participate in the
conversation (Baumeister et al., 2004; Wert & Salovey, 2004). Thus, by talking or asking information gossipers receive unique information about a third person which was otherwise
hard to obtain or even impossible to obtain because it is hidden (Baumeister et al., 2004).
Gossip has a clear purpose to gather information (Beersma & van Kleef, 2012). It gives
receivers new evaluative information and helps them to adjust their vision regarding others.
Although gossip information is not per se reliable as it is second-hand information, open
individuals are not obligated to take the information for granted. Receivers can form their own
8 Open individuals might therefore consider and seek gossip because their main priority is to
gather new information. Individuals might consider both negative and positive gossip because
both types yield information. Having both types of gossip gives receivers more resources to
form an opinion. So, open individuals seek more gossip because they have the desire to obtain
information that can adjust their current vision.
As gossip is an information sharing process, open individuals might be more willing to
exchange gossip because of their curious attitudes. Therefore I hypothesise:
Hypothesis 2: Openness to experience is positively associated with gossip seeking.
The relation between gossip and creativity
Creative processes involve behaviours as analyzing, hypothesizing and forming thoughts to come up with unconventional outcomes that improve current views (Torrance, 1988). These behaviours heavily rely on the availability of information because it is the information itself that is being analyzed, hypothesized about and thought of (Amabile, 1983; Nijstad, Stroebe, & Lodewijkx, 2003). Gielnik et al. (2012) found that low availability of information considerably lowered the production of nonconforming ideas. Creativity is unlikely to exist without information as information is the source of creativity (Amabile, 1983). Gossip is a mechanism that yields information and therefore it is unfortunate previous research sees gossip as detrimental to creativity. The information that is gained from gossip is only available to the receiver and sender of gossip (Fine & Rosnow, 1978; Wert & Salovey, 2004). Gossip information is scarce and might therefore be valuable because it gives an individual the advantage over having specific – otherwise hidden – information. I will argue for two reasons that gossip can contribute to creativity.
9 have access to evaluative information about other people that might be valuable to them (Dunbar, 2004; Paine, 1967). Gossipers can ask who can provide the most correct and highest amount of knowledge or other interesting information. Receivers of gossip are able to draw conclusions about the added value individuals in their social environment can bring to them (Rosnow, 1977). So knowing which colleague is able to provide him with the best resources and which colleague is best to avoid, can help the receiver of gossip approach the people that contribute the most to his ability to exert creativity (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Additionally, the receiver of gossip is probably more efficient in selecting the right resources and he might therefore have more time left to analyze, hypothesize and form thoughts to think of unconventional solutions (Amabile, Hadley & Kramer, 2002).
10 As gossip is a source of information which can contain information that changes
individuals’ thoughts, gossip might contribute to creativity of individuals. Therefore I
hypothesise:
Hypothesis 3: Individuals who seek higher amounts of gossip exert more creative behaviours.
The moderating effect of organizational structure on gossip and creativity
11 Organic structures give individuals the opportunity to contact colleagues to share ideas, discuss information and think of new ideas because of decentralized decision making, low standardization of work and a flat hierarchy. Organic structures not only allow for interaction but force employees to consult each other (Mintzberg, 1979). There is, relatively speaking, a lot of communication – and thus possibility to share gossip information – between workers. Procedures, methods and standardization are not static and allow relatively easily for change in work processes. Organic structures give the freedom to change working methods when new information is found, because employees are generally the ones that take decisions (Burns & Stalker, 1961). This rich availability of interaction opportunities and freedom to try new things gives people lots of chances to use received gossip. The information gossip contains might have a good chance to be exerted in organic structures. Mechanistic structures highly restrict people’s behaviours, due to their centralized decision making, high amount of procedures, high division of labour and high levels of standardization (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Mechanistic structures do not offer opportunities of rich interactions and freedom to try new things and therefore gossip information might not get the chance to be translated into more creative behaviour.
Thus, organic structures offer the opportunity to share and explore new information obtained from gossip while mechanistic structures mainly restrict employees to behave like prescribed procedures, standardization and methods. Therefore, I hypothesise that the relation between gossip and creativity changes under different organizational structures, in which there is more gossip in organic structures that leads to creativity compared to mechanistic structures.
Hypothesis 4: An organic structure – compared to a mechanistic structure – strengthens the
12 The above stated literature gives insight in the possible relations between openness, gossip, organizational structure and creativity. Based on this literature, I assume that these concepts are interrelated. I expect that there is an indirect relation between openness and creativity mediated by gossip that differs between organic and mechanistic structures.
Hypothesis 5: The indirect effect of openness on creativity mediated by gossip is stronger
when exerted in an organic structure compared to a mechanistic structure.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
Openness Gossip Creative
behaviour Organizational
13 METHODS
Sample and procedure
Data was gathered from 110 employees from various organizations in the Netherlands that differ in size and domain of activity. Age ranged from 18 years to 62 years (Mage = 37.13, SDage = 13.83). Fifty-six respondents were female (50.90%) and participants’ mode of education is University of applied science bachelor degree, accounting for 35.1% of the respondents. All participants worked at least 3 months at the company and worked at least 24 hours, with an average of 36.31 hours per week (SD = 7.66).
Participants were approached by email, Facebook and LinkedIn with an invitation to participate anonymously and voluntarily in this study. I used my own network to approach respondents. I avoided using the term ‘gossip’; instead I used ‘informal talk’ to account for the general negative view people have of gossip. Participants answered questions regarding their personality, gossip behavior, creativity and organizational characteristics in an online questionnaire, which took approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Measures
The items used to measure openness, gossip, creativity and organizational structure were originally developed in English and translated in Dutch by myself and checked by a group of students. All items were answered on a seven point Likert-scale, ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. The scale for organizational structure was a seven point bipolar-scale on which the lower values represented a mechanistic structure and the higher values an organic structure. All items – including the Dutch translations – of openness, gossip, creativity and organizational structure can be found in Appendix A.
14 play with ideas, …is curious about many different things, and …is ingenious, a deep thinker. These questions had a reliability of α = .70.
Gossip was measured on an eight-item scale from Beersma and van Kleef (2012)
measuring the extent to which people gossip with the purpose to gather information. For all items was asked: “I talk with my colleague(s) about someone who is not there (colleague X)...”. Example items are: …to check whether my colleague(s) think the same about colleague X (the one we talk about but is not there), ...to check whether my image of colleague X is correct and ...to find out whether my colleague(s) agree with me about colleague X. These questions had a reliability of α = .96.
Creativity was measured on a thirteen-item scale of George and Zhou (2001). For all
items was asked: “How would you rate yourself on the following characteristics?”. Example items are: “Suggests new ways to achieve goals or objectives”, “Comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance” and “Not afraid to take risks”. These questions had a reliability of α = .92.
Organizational structure was measured a five-item bipolar-scale of Khandwalla
(1977). For all items was asked: “Each statement is divided in two extremes. Please indicate which characteristics fit to your organization best.”. Example items are: 1= Tight formal control of most operations by means of sophisticated control and information systems – versus – 7= Loose, informal control; heavy dependence on informal relations and norm of co-operation for getting work done. And 1= Strong emphasis on always getting personnel to follow the formally laid down procedures – versus – 7= Strong emphasis on getting things done even if this means disregarding formal procedures. These questions had a reliability of α = .83.
Control variables that I used were age, gender, gossip motives other than gathering
15 feeling of safety, availability of resources and extraversion. Gossip motives were measured on a thirteen-item scale of Beersma and van Kleef (2012) and had a reliability of α = .90 for
social enjoyment, α = .84 for group protection and α = .89 for negative influence. Gossip in
general was an average of all gossip measures and had a reliability of α = .94. A feeling of
safety was measured on a seven-item scale of Edmondson (1999) and had a reliability of α =
.78. Availability of resources was measured on a five-item scale developed by myself on the
bases of Anderson, Hardy and West (1992) and Jones and McFadzean (1997) and had a
reliability of α = .92. Lastly, extraversion was measured on a five-item scale of John and Srivastava (1999) and had a reliability of α = .80.
Data analysis
16 RESULTS
Descriptives and correlations
Firstly, I have tested for correlations among the main variables. Descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Table 1.
From Table 1 we can derive there was no significant correlation between openness and gossip information gathering (r = -.03, ns), no significant correlation between gossip information gathering and creativity (r = .09, ns), no significant correlation between gossip information gathering and organizational structure (r = .15, ns) and no significant correlation between organizational structure and creativity (r = .07, ns). My overall measure of gossip did not correlate with openness (r = -.10, ns), creativity (r = .04, ns) or organizational structure (r = .07, ns). However, there was a significant correlation between openness and creativity (r = .74, p < .01), which means that more open people engage in more creative behaviours.
17 Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Pearson Correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 Gendera 1,49 - -
2 Age 37,13 13,83 .16 -
3 Availability of Resources 4,52 1,46 .21* .25** -
4 Feeling of Safety 5,04 1,01 .16 .01 .31** -
5 Gossip: group protection 3,28 1,40 -.07 -.17 -.15 -.25** -
6 Gossip: negative influence 2,15 1,03 .05 -.14 -.09 -.23* .56** -
7 Gossip: social enjoyment 3,18 1,50 .02 -.35** -.07 .01 .31** .48** -
8 Gossip: information gathering 4,18 1,40 -.11 -.23* -.05 -.14 .57** .43** .32** -
9 Gossip general 3,37 1,03 -.06 -.30** -.10 -.17 .73** .73** .68** .86** -
10 Openness 5,11 0,81 .14 .07 .39** .29** -.03 -.09 -.18 -.03 -.10 -
11 Creativity 4,77 0,93 .08 .03 .38** .18 .08 .06 -.11 .09 .04 .74** -
12 Organizational Structureb 4,27 1,34 .02 .06 .08 .04 .03 .04 .03 .15 .07 -.02 .07 -
13 Extraversion 5,05 0,95 -.11 -.07 .05 -.03 -.12 .-03 -.04 -.16 -.13 .53** .32** -.02 -
18 Hypothesis testing
After the examination of the correlations, I conducted a regression analysis in which I tested if there is relationship between openness and creativity mediated through gossip information gathering and moderated by organizational structure. The model was significant overall (R2 = .60, F (8,101) = 19.15, p < .00). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Regression Analysis
Dependent variable Gossip: information gathering
Independent variables B SE t Ci [...] Gender -.18 .27 -0.65 [-0.72; 0.36] Age -.02* .01 -2.44 [-0.04; -0.00] Availability of Resources .07 .10 0.67 [-0.14; 0.28] Feeling of Safety -.20 .14 -1.43 [-0.48; 0.08] Openness .02 .18 0.09 [-0.34; 0.38]
Dependent variable Creativity
Independent variables B SE t Ci [...] Gender -.03 .12 -0.28 [-0.27; 0.20] Age .00 .00 0.21 [-0.01; 0.01] Availability of Resources .04 .05 0.92 [-0.05; 0.14] Feeling of Safety -.06 .06 -0.99 [-0.18; 0.06] Openness .84** .08 10.83 [0.69; 0 .99]
Gossip: information gathering .04 .16 0.23 [-0.28; 0.35]
Organizational Structure .03 .15 0.23 [-0.25; 0.32]
Gossip: information gathering * Organizational structure
.01 .03 0.18 [-0.06; 0.07]
Conditional indirect effects
Mechanistic structure .01 [-0.03; 0.05]
Organic structure .00 [-0.03; 0.05]
Note: N= 110; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01; Ci = 95% Confidence Interval
19 For my second hypothesis, which predicted that openness has a positive effect on gossip, my analysis showed no significant effect of openness on gossip, b = .02, SE = .18, ns. Openness did not influence gossip. So, highly open people did not show higher levels of gossip behaviour. Hypothesis 2 is not confirmed.
For my third hypothesis, which predicted that gossip positively influences creativity, my analysis showed no significant relation between gossip and creativity, b = .04, SE = .16, ns. The level of gossip did not influence creativity. People who showed higher levels of gossip behaviour did not show more creative behaviour. Hypothesis 3 is not confirmed.
For my fourth hypothesis, whether or not organizational structure has a moderating effect on the relation between gossip and creativity, my analysis showed no interaction effect of organizational structure and gossip on creativity, b = .01, SE = .15, ns. The relation between gossip and creativity is not moderated by organizational structure. Thus, the relation between gossip and creativity did not become stronger when individuals worked in an organic structure or weaker when individuals worked in a mechanistic structure. Hypothesis 4 is not confirmed.
Hypothesis 5, which predicted that gossip has a mediating role between openness and creativity, and organizational structure has a moderating role on the relation between gossip and creativity, is also rejected. There was no significant conditional indirect effect on creativity for an organic structure (bootstrap indirect effect = .00 [-0.03; 0.05]), nor a mechanistic structure (bootstrap indirect effect = .01 [-0.03; 0.05]). Thus, the overall relation between openness and creativity, mediated by gossip, did not become stronger in an organic structure or weaker in a mechanistic structure.
20 Additional analyses
The model without mediation. In addition to testing my hypothesized conditional
indirect effect, I tested the effect of openness on creativity, moderated by organizational structure. The correlation analysis (see Table 1) showed a significant correlation between openness and creativity, but no correlation with gossip, therefore, a regression analysis without gossip was performed. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Regression Analysis Dependent variable Creativity
Independent variables B SE t Ci [...] Age -.00 .00 -0.22 [-0.01; 0.01] Gender -.04 .12 -0.37 [-0.28; 0.19] Availability of Resources .05 .05 1.06 [-0.04; 0.14] Feeling of Safety -.07 .06 -1.21 [-0.19; 0.05] Openness .70*** .19 3.57 [0.31; 1.09] Organizational Structure -.11 .23 -0.46 [-0.57; 0.35] Openness * Organizational structure .03 .04 0.78 [-0.05; 0.12] Conditional effects Mechanistic structure .80 [0.62; 0.99] Organic structure .89 [0.69; 1.09] Note: N = 110; *** p < .001
To predict whether or not the model without gossip as mediator was significant, I performed a regression analysis (R2 = .59, F (7,102) = 21.48, p < .001). The analysis showed a significant relation between openness and creativity, b = .70, SE = .19, p < .001, but no significant relation between organizational structure and creativity, b = -.11, SE = .23, ns nor was there a significant interaction, b = .03, SE = .04, ns, suggesting that the relationship between openness and creativity did not became stronger in an organic structure or weaker in a mechanistic structure.
Extraversion as independent variable. As there was a significant correlation between
21 on creativity, moderated by organizational structure. One analysis with control variables (see model A in Table 4) and one without control variables (see model B in Table 4).
Table 4: Regression Analysis Dependent variable Creativity
Model A Creativity Model B Independent variables B SE t Ci [...] B SE t Ci [...] Age .00 .00 0.03 [-0.01; 0.01] Gender .06 .16 0.36 [-0.26; 0.38] Availability of Resources .20** .06 3.34 [0.08; 0.32] Feeling of Safety .08 .08 0.96 [-0.08; 0.24] Extraversion -.14 .24 -0.59 [-0.62; 0.33] .02 .26 0.09 [-0.49; 0.54] Organizational Structure -.50† .28 -1.76 [-1.07; 0.06] -.29 .31 -0.97 [-0.90; 0.31] Extraversion * Organizational Structure .11† .05 1.95 [-0.00; 0.22] .07 .06 1.17 [-0.05; 0.19] Conditional effects Mechanistic structure .17 [-0.04; 0.38] .23 [0.01; 0.45] Organic structure .46 [0.23; 0.69] .41 [0.16; 0.66]
Note: N = 110; † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Ci = 95% Confidence Interval
22 (bootstrap indirect effect = .17 [-0.04; 0.38]). This means that extraversion helps people in an organic structure to show more creative behaviour than people who work in mechanistic structures. These marginal significant effects disappeared in the analysis without control variables for organizational structure, b = -.29, SE = .31, ns and the interaction effect of extraversion and organizational structure, b = .07, SE = .06, ns (see model B in Table 4).
Figure 2: Graph Extraversion, Creativity & Organizational Structure
Availability of Resources as mediator. I also tested for the indirect relation between
openness and creativity mediated by availability of resources, because there was a significant correlation between openness and the availability of resources and also between the availability of resources and creativity. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Regression Analysis
Dependent variable Availability of Resources
Independent variables B SE t Ci [...]
Age .02** .01 2.74 [0.01; 0.04]
Gender .35 .25 1.42 [-0.14; 0.85]
Openness .64** .15 4.18 [0.34; 0.94]
Dependent variable Creativity
Independent variables B SE t Ci [...] Age -.00 .00 -0.01 [-0.01; 0.01] Gender -.06 .12 -0.53 [-0.29; 0.17] Openness .82** .08 10.63 [0.67; 0.97] Availability of Resources .04 -.05 0.92 [-0.05; 0.13] Indirect effect Availability or Resources .03 [-0.02; 0.10] Note: N = 110; ** p < .01 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6
Low Extraversion High Extraversion
24 DISCUSSION
Findings
This study researched the relation between openness and creativity. I tested if there was a relation between openness and creativity, if the relation between openness and creativity was mediated by gossip and if organizational structure moderates the relation between gossip and creativity. A field-study was conducted. I found significant effects for the relation between openness and creativity, but I did not find any significant results with respect to my other hypotheses.
Hypothesised model. First of all, I expected that openness would positively predict creativity (hypothesis 1). I indeed found a significant positive effect of openness on creativity. The relation between openness and creativity was already widely researched. Previous research found – in line with what I found – a positive relation between openness and creativity (Baer, & Oldham, 2006; Feist, 1998; King, Walker & Broyles, 1996; Silvia et al., 2008; Sung & Choi, 2009; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001). Thus, the more open an individual is, the more creative behaviour he will show.
Secondly, I expected that openness would be positively related to gossip (hypothesis
2) and gossip would be positively related to creativity (hypothesis 3). I did not find any proof
for these hypotheses. None of the gossip motive variables showed a significant relation with
openness or creativity. The following reasoning might be an explanation for not finding
significant effects in both hypotheses. I argued that open people have a higher desire to obtain
information and that this information in turn leads to more creative behaviour, but being an
open individual does not mean that you succeed in obtaining information. For example, where
openness only tells something about the curiosity in obtaining information, extraversion may
25 Thirdly, I expected that organizational structure would moderate the relation between
gossip and creativity (hypothesis 4), whereby gossip in a mechanistic structure would obstruct
creativity and gossip in an organic structure would support creativity. I did not find support
for this interaction effect. An explanation for the absence of an interaction effect might be that
I did not specify whether I meant an answer for the whole organization or the individual’s direct working environment. The individual might have given an answer which regards the whole organization, but not the direct working environment of the individual himself.
Besides, it is also possible that there was indeed no effect of organizational structure. This
contradicts previous research (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Damanpour, 1991; Hull & Hage, 1982).
Additional analyses. As there was no support for gossip as mediating variable in the
relation between openness and creativity, moderated by organizational structure, I tested the
model without mediation. I did not find a significant interaction effect of organizational
structure on the relation between openness and creativity. Also in this analysis, the way of
measuring organizational structure might be the reason I did not find effects.
Because I am interested in understanding creativity, I performed another analysis in
which I tested the relationship between extraversion and creativity, moderated by
organizational structure. This analysis showed a marginal significant effect of organizational
structure on creativity in which mechanistic structures support creativity. However, this does
not make sense theoretically as mechanistic structures restrict the freedom to explore and
experiment (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Furthermore, I found a positive interaction of
extraversion and organizational structure on creativity, in which extraverted people were able
to show more creative behaviour in an organic structure. This is in line with research of Burns
and Stalker (1991) who state that it is the ability to have interaction in organic structures that
supports creativity. This analysis also showed that the more resources individuals have, the
26 The last model that I explored was the mediation effect of availability of resources in
the relation of openness and creativity. I did not find a full mediation relation, but I did find a
positive effect of openness on the availability of resources. This might be explained by the
idea that the relation between a supervisor and a worker can be seen as an exchange of
resources (Murphy & Ensher, 1999). For example, a manager needs a worker who is
cooperative in supporting organizational effectiveness and an employee needs a manager who
facilitates him to perform tasks. The willingness of the open individual to consider and
support new ideas from the manager might improve the willingness of the supervisor to
provide the worker with resources he needs.
Theoretical implications
27 of information. Research that showed a relation between information and creativity used outcome related information as input and did find positive relations (Bawden, 1986; Jackson et al., 2012).
Although gossip did not support creativity, gossip suppressed creativity neither. The idea of previous research that gossip is harmful to creativity because it has a negative effect on workers in a team, was not confirmed (Andriopoulos, 2001; Isaksen & Lauer, 2002). Perhaps, gossip is not per se detrimental to creativity as gossip also has positive functions to teams. For example gossip makes people more accountable of their work (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2011) and improves internal social networks (Ellwardt, Steglich & Wittek, 2012).
28 information and have larger social networks and therefore might not need official routes to exert creativity (McCrae & John, 1992). Additionally, facilitating behaviours of the manager might also be more important than structural characteristics as workers just simply need time, money, materials, motivation and education to show creative behaviour (Damanpour, 1991).
Practical implications
Over the last decades creativity became more and more important to organizational effectiveness and therefore organizational survival (Lopez Cabrales et al, 2009; Shalley et al., 2004). This research confirmed that highly open people exert more creative behaviours. Hence, managers should pay attention to the personality characteristics of their workers to include team members who score high on openness. Through the use of selection tools (e.g. personality tests) to test external and internal applicants, managers can actively design their teams.
Although gossip did not contribute to the relation between openness and creativity, managers should not neglect other positive functions gossip can serve in a team. For example, gossip gives workers a feeling of responsibility over their work because they know that colleagues have a certain expectation of them (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2011), but gossip also helps building a network across the organization which in turn helps smoothing consultation and decision making processes between workers (Ellwardt et al, 2012). Hence, managers should be aware that gossip can also contribute to overall performance.
29 team with the right knowledge, skills and abilities, but managers should also provide their team with enough time, money, materials, motivation and education to support the creative ability of their workers (Damanpour, 1991).
Limitations and Future research
There are some limitations to this study. Firstly, the number of respondents that participated is quite low (N = 110) and were found only via my own network. It is likely that the respondents are mainly from the northern part of the Netherlands. Results could be different in case of a larger and more varied dataset. Future research should use a larger amount of respondents from a more varied geographical area to increase generalizability.
A second limitation is the use of a self-evaluation in determining respondents’ levels of variables. Mabe and West (1982) argue that individuals are not very accurate in assessing themselves and there is a risk for biased answers. Besides, there is the risk for social-desirable answers, especially in the case of participants determining their own levels of creativity. Other tools can be used to measure creativity, for example peer-ratings and rating by managers in combination with self-ratings to account for biased answers.
30 Fourth, openness was mainly used as independent variable in this study. Although the link between openness and creativity is well established, there are some indications that other personality characteristics might relate to creativity as well. Research of Heinström (2003) found that all Big 5 personality characteristics (extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, consciousness and openness) contribute to obtaining information. And as mentioned before, information is an essential element in the ability to exert creative behaviour (Amabile, 1983). Thus, future research should also include other personality characteristics to see what the influence of other personality characteristics is on creativity. Besides, it might also be interesting to see the effect of personality characteristics as moderating variables in addition to personality solely as independent variable on the relation between openness and creativity as a person’s ability is not just formed out of one personality characteristic (Costa, 1996).
Future research should also look into the possibility that in certain situations creativity is not affected by organizational structure, as previous research repeatedly found effects of organizational structure, but I found results contradicting that vision. It might be interesting to see if there are factors that replace the function of organizational structure on creativity.
Conclusion
31 REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential
Conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (Vol. 87). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard business review, 80, 52-63.
Anderson, N., Hardy, G., & West, M. (1992). Management team innovation. In:
Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organisational creativity: a literature review.
Management decision, 39(10), 834-841.
Andrews, J., & Smith, D. C. (1996). In search of the marketing imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing
Research, 174-187.
Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organisational creativity: a literature review.
Management decision, 39(10), 834-841.
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(4), 963.
Bassett‐Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation.
Creativity and innovation management, 14(2), 169-175.
Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of
General Psychology, 8, 111–121.
Bawden, D. (1986). Information systems and the stimulation of creativity. Information
32 Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip
increases contributions to the group. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
2(6), 642-649.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why people gossip: An empirical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(11), 2640-2670.
Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245-264.
Costa, J. R. (1996). Personality theories: the theoretical context for the five-factor model. The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives, 51.
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2011). Measuring creativity for innovation management. Journal of technology management & innovation, 6(3), 13-30.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of management journal, 34(3), 555-590.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286-307.
Dunbar, R. I. (1996). Groups, gossip, and the evolution of language. In New aspects of human ethology (pp. 77-89). Springer Us.
Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of general psychology, 8(2), 100.
Eder, D., & Enke, J. L. (1991). The structure of gossip: Opportunities and constraints on collective expression among adolescents. American Sociological Review, 494-508.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
33 Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G. J., & Wittek, R. (2012). Who are the objects of positive and
negative gossip at work?: A social network perspective on workplace gossip. Social
Networks, 34(2), 193-205.
Ellwardt, L., Steglich, C., & Wittek, R. (2012). The co-evolution of gossip and friendship in workplace social networks. Social Networks, 34(4), 623-633.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.
Personality and social psychology review, 2(4), 290-309.
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2012). The virtues of gossip: reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(5), 1015.
Fine, G. A., & Rosnow, R. L. (1978). Gossip, gossipers, gossiping. Personality and social
psychology bulletin, 4(1), 161-168.
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains.
Academy of Management review, 21(4), 1112-1142.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review
of General Psychology, 8(2), 78.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: an interactional approach. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 513.
Gielnik, M. M., Frese, M., Graf, J. M., & Kampschulte, A. (2012). Creativity in the
opportunity identification process and the moderating effect of diversity of information. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5), 559-576.
Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational behavior, 24, 41-85.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved from http://afhayes.com/public/templates.pdf on April, 24, 2017.
34 Howard, P.J. & Howard, J. M. (1995). The Big Five quickstart: an introduction to the
Five-Factor Model of Personality for human resource professionals. Charlotte, NC: Centre
for Applied Cognitive Studies.
Hull, F., & Hage, J. (1982). Organizing for innovation: Beyond Burns and Stalker's organic type. Sociology, 16(4), 564-577.
Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K. J. (2002). The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creativity and innovation management, 11(1), 74-86.
Jackson, L. A., Witt, E. A., Games, A. I., Fitzgerald, H. E., von Eye, A., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in human behavior, 28(2), 370-376.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality
theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.
Jones, G., & McFadzean, E. S. (1997). How can Reboredo foster creativity in her current employees and nurture creative individuals who join the company in the future?. Case
Commentary, Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 50-1.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations. In Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of management studies, 25(3), 217-234.
King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of research in personality, 30(2), 189-203.
Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of management review, 25(2), 428-438.
Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 67(3), 280.
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of applied
35 Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Müller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. A. (2008). Personality traits
and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(3), 301-313.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265.
McCrae, R. R. (1993). Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13(1), 39-55.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to
experience. In Hogan, R., Johnson, J. A. & Briggs, S. R. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of personality psychology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of personality, 60(2), 175-215.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations (Vol. 203). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice hall.
Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (1999). The Effects of Leader and Subordinate Characteristics in the Development of Leader–Member Exchange Quality1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 29(7), 1371-1394
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 531-548.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Paine, R. (1967). What is gossip about? an alternative hypothesis. Man, 2(2), 278-285. Piffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity
and general directions for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 258-264.
36 Rosnow, R. L. (2001). Rumor and gossip in interpersonal interaction and beyond: A social
exchange perspective. In Kowalski, R. M. (2001). Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships. American Psychological Association.
Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. & Oldham, G.R., (2004). “The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here?” Journal of Management, 30, 933-58.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., &
Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68.
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2009). Do big five personality factors affect individual creativity? The moderating role of extrinsic motivation. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 37(7), 941-956.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing In: Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives.CUP Archive.
Torrance, E. P. (1993). Understanding creativity: Where to start?. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 232-234.
Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General Psychology, 8, 122–137.
37 APPENDIX A
Openness (John & Srivastava, 1999) I see myself as someone who…
1= Totally disagree, 7= Totally agree
Ik zie mijzelf als iemand die…
1= Totaal oneens, 7= Totaal eens
... is original, comes up with new ideas …met originele en nieuwe ideeën komt
... is curious about many different things …nieuwsgierig is naar veel verschillende dingen ... is ingenious, a deep thinker …vernuftig is en diep nadenkt
... has an active imagination …een rijke verbeelding heeft
... likes to reflect, play with ideas …die reflecteren op prijs stelt en met ideeën speelt
Gossip (Beersma & van Kleef, 2012)
In the following part we would like to ask you about the informal communication you have with your colleagues. The statements refer to informal conversations you may have with a colleague about another colleague who is not present during that conversation. This type of informal communication, in which people talk about someone who is not present occurs very often in the workplace. We will refer to the colleague whom you talk about (but are not present during the conversation) as colleague X. How often do you engage in the following behaviours?
1= Almost never, 7= Very often
I talk with my colleague(s) about someone who is not there (colleague X)...
De volgende vragen gaan over informele communicatie die je met collega’s hebt. De stellingen gaan over informele gesprekken die je kunt hebben met een collega over een andere collega die daarbij niet aanwezig is. Dit type informele gesprekken, waarin mensen praten over iemand die daarbij niet aanwezig is, vindt geregeld plaats op de werkvloer. Met “collega X” bedoelen wij de persoon waarover is gesproken, maar die tijdens dat gesprek niet aanwezig is. Hoe vaak doe je het volgende? 1= Bijna nooit, 7= Bijna altijd
Ik praat met collega’s over een ander persoon die daarbij niet aanwezig is (collega X) om…
Gossip: information gathering
… to check whether my colleague(s) think the same about colleague X (the one we talk about but is not there)
38 ... to compare my ideas about colleague X with my colleague(s)
… mijn ideeën over collega X te vergelijken met mijn collega(’s)
... to check whether my image of colleague X is correct
… te zien of mijn beeld over collega X correct is
... to get to know whether my colleague(s) have the same ideas as I have about colleague X
… te bepalen of mijn collega(’s) dezelfde ideeën hebben als ik over collega X
... to check whether my colleague(s) has the same ideas about colleague X
… te kijken of mijn collega(’s) dezelfde ideeën hebben over collega X
... to check my opinion about colleague X
… mijn mening over collega X te controleren
... to find out whether my colleague(s) agree with me about colleague X
… uit te vinden of mijn collega(’s) het met mij eens zijn over collega X
... to learn whether my colleague(s) and I have the same views
… te achterhalen of mijn collega(’s) en ik dezelfde visie hebben
... to find out whether my ideas about colleague X are correct
… uit te vinden of mijn ideeën over college X correct zijn
Gossip: group protection
... to protect my colleague(s) against colleague X
…mijn collega(’s)te beschermen tegen collega X
... to warn my colleague(s) for the behaviour of colleague X
…mijn collega(’s) te waarschuwen tegen het gedrag van collega X
... to prevent that my colleague(s) would be exploited by colleague X
…te voorkomen dat mijn collega(’s) gebruikt zouden worden door collega X
Gossip: negative influence
... to damage the reputation of colleague X
…de reputatie van collega X te schaden
... to say negative things about colleague X
…negatieve dingen te zeggen over collega X
... to negatively influence the image that my colleague(s) have of colleague X
39 ... to put colleague X in a negative light
...collega X in een negatief daglicht te zetten
... to discuss negative characteristics of colleague X
…de negatieve kenmerken van collega X te bespreken
Gossip: social enjoyment
... to engage in an enjoyable activity
...deel te nemen aan een vermakelijke activiteit
... to have a nice time with my colleague(s)
…een fijne tijd te hebben met mijn collega(’s)
... to engage in a fun activity with my colleague (s)
…deel te nemen aan een gezellige activiteit met mijn collega(’s)
... to kill time with my colleague(s)
…de tijd te doden met mijn collega(’s)
... to have a good time
...een goede tijd te hebben
Creativity (George & Zhou, 2001)
The following questions will ask you what kind of behaviours you show in your work. How often do you engage in the following behaviours?
1= Almost never, 7= Very often
De volgende vragen gaan over gedragingen die jij in je werk kan laten zien. Hoe vaak doe je het volgende?
1= Bijna nooit, 7= Bijna altijd
I suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives
Ik suggereer nieuwe manieren om doelen te bereiken
I come up with new and practical ideas to improve performance
Ik bedenk nieuwe en praktische ideeën om prestaties te verbeteren
I search out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas
Ik zoek nieuwe technologieën, technieken, processen en ideeën uit
I suggest new ways to increase quality
40 I am a good source of creative ideas
Ik ben een goede bron van creatieve ideeën
I am not afraid to take risks
Ik ben niet bang om risico’s te nemen
I promote and champion ideas to others
Ik verspreid ideeën aan anderen
I exhibit creativity on the job when given the opportunity to
Ik uit creativiteit op het werk als het werk het toelaat
I develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas
Ik ontwikkel plannen en een planning voor de implementatie van nieuwe ideeën
I often have new and innovative ideas
Ik heb vaak nieuwe en innovatieve ideeën
I come up with creative solutions to problems
Ik bedenk en uit creatieve oplossingen voor problemen
I often have a fresh approach to problems.
Ik heb vaak een frisse aanpak voor problemen
I suggest new ways of performing work tasks
Ik suggereer nieuwe manieren voor taken
Organizational structure (Khandwalla, 1977)
We would like to know about the characteristics of the company you are working for. The questions refer mainly to the structure of the organization. The scale is per row divided in two extremes. Please indicate which characteristics does fit to your organisation best. For example, your organization consists of 5 management layers. You get the following row with two extremes:
1 the organization has few management layers (less than 3) 7 the organization has a lot management layers (more than 6)
Your best answer would be closer to 7 than 1, because 5 management layers is closer to 6 layers than 3 layers.
41
Bijvoorbeeld: De organisatie waarin jij werkt bestaat uit 5 management lagen. Je krijgt de volgende regel met uitersten:
1 de organisatie heeft weinig management lagen (minder dan 3) 7 de organisatie heeft veel management lagen (meer dan 6).
Het best passende antwoord voor jou zou dan dichter bij het rechteruiterste liggen dan bij het linkeruiterste omdat 5 management lagen dichter bij 6 ligt dan bij 3.
Item 1
1= Tight formal control of most operations by means of sophisticated control and information systems
1= Strakke en formele controle op bijna alle werkprocessen door middel van geavanceerde controle systemen
7= Loose, informal control; heavy dependence on informal relations and norm of co-operation for getting work done
7= Informele controle; werk kwaliteit is sterk afhankelijk van interne relaties en normen van deelgenoten
Item 2
1= Strong emphasis on always getting personnel to follow the formally laid down procedures
1= De nadruk ligt op het ten alle tijden volgen van de regels en procedures; belangrijker om procedures te volgen dan deadlines te halen
7= Strong emphasis on getting things done even if this means disregarding formal procedures
7= De nadruk ligt op het behalen van de deadline; zelfs als hiervoor formele procedures genegeerd moeten worden.
Item 3
1= Strong insistence on a uniform managerial style throughout the business unit
1= Sterke nadruk op een gelijke managementstijl door geheel de organisatie
7= Managers’ operating styles allowed to range freely from the very formals to the very informal
7= Managementstijl mogen breed variëren van formeel tot informeel
Item 4
1= A strong emphasis on holding fast to true and tried management principles despite any changes in business conditions
1= Sterke nadruk op het aanhouden van management principes ondanks veranderingen in de markt
7= A strong emphasis on adapting freely to changing circumstances without too much concern for past practice
42 Item 5
1= Strong emphasis on getting line and staff personnel to adhere closely to formal job descriptions
1= Sterke nadruk om lijnmanagers en werknemers enkel werk te laten doen wat in hun werkomschrijving staat
7= Strong tendency to let the requirements of the situation and the individual’s personality define proper on-job behaviour
7= Sterke neiging om de situatie en persoonlijkheden van individuen de eisen van het werk te laten bepalen
Control variables Age
What is your age? Wat is je leeftijd? Gender
What is your gender? Wat is je geslacht? Male Man, Female Vrouw
Availability of Resources (based on Anderson et al. (1992) and Jones & McFadzean (1997))
Next questions will ask you till what level your manager will support you to develop and test new ideas. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1= Totally disagree 7= Totally agree
De volgende vragen proberen te achterhalen in welke mate je ondersteuning krijgt van jouw leidinggevende om nieuwe ideeën te ontwikkelen en te testen. In welke mate ben je het eens met de volgende stelling?
1= Helemaal oneens 7= Helemaal mee eens
Senior management provides sufficient training
Mijn leidinggevende biedt mij voldoende training aan
Senior management provides sufficient encouragement for developing and testing new ideas
Mijn leidinggevende motiveert mij voldoende om nieuwe ideeën te bedenken en uit te voeren
Senior management provides sufficient time for developing and testing new ideas
Mijn leidinggevende geeft mij voldoende tijd om nieuwe ideeën te bedenken en uit te voeren
Senior management provides sufficient materials for developing and testing new ideas
43 Senior management provides sufficient finances for developing and testing new ideas
Mijn leidinggevende geeft mij voldoende financiële middelen om nieuwe ideeën te bedenken en uit te voeren
Feeling of Safety (Edmondson, 1999)
In the following section we will ask you some questions about the team you are working in. How would you rate the following statements?
1= Totally disagree 7= Totally agree
De volgende set met vragen zullen gaan over het team waarin je werkt. Hoe zou jij de volgende stellingen beoordelen?
1= Helemaal oneens 7= Helemaal mee eens
If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you
Als je een fout maakt in dit team, wordt dit vaak tegen je gebruikt
Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues
Leden van dit team kunnen problemen en lastige zaken benoemen
People on this team sometimes reject others for being different
Mensen in dit team sluiten anderen soms uit omdat ze een andere visie hebben
It is safe to take a risk on this team
Het is veilig om een gok te wagen in dit team
It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help
Het is in dit team moeilijk om teamleden om hulp te vragen
No one on this team, would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts
Niemand in dit team zou mij met opzet tegenwerken
Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized
44 Extraversion (John & Srivastava, 1999)
I see myself as someone who…
1= Totally disagree, 7= Totally agree
Ik zie mijzelf als iemand die…
1= Totaal oneens, 7= Totaal eens
... is talkative …spraakzaam is
