COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY AND CREATIVITY PERFORMANCE:
ENHANCING INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY THROUGH CREATIVE
SELF-EFFICACY AND PARADOXICAL LEADER BEHAVIOR.
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
2
COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY AND CREATIVITY PERFORMANCE:
ENHANCING INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY THROUGH CREATIVE
SELF-EFFICACY AND PARADOXICAL LEADER BEHAVIOR.
ABSTRACT
Organizational environments are becoming increasingly dynamic and complex, obliging organizations to be creative. Although previous research uncovered cognitive complexity as a predictor of individual creativity, the question why and when the potential benefits of cognitive complexity can transfer to creativity remains unclear. We propose that creative self-efficacy mediates the relationship between cognitive complexity and employee creativity. Besides, we suggest that paradoxical leader behavior (PLB) is an important boundary condition that enhances the level of cognitive complexity for creativity. A sample of 389 employee-leader paired data was collected from organizations in the Netherlands, Bulgaria and Germany to test our hypotheses. The results suggest no direct effect between cognitive complexity and creative performance, however, cognitive complexity influences creative performance indirectly through creative self-efficacy. More importantly, the relationship between cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy is stronger when leader paradoxical behavior is high. This research strives to contribute to creativity and PLB theory. The implications, limitations and future directions were discussed.
3
INTRODUCTION
In today’s fast and globalized economy, the environment in which organizations operate are continuously becoming more turbulent, complex and dynamic (Zhang, Waldman, Han & Li, 2015). ‘Disruption’ and unprecedented change becomes a business usual, obliging organizations to be more innovative (Powell, 2014). Employee creativity, defined as the generation of new and useful ideas (Feist, 1998; Zhou & Shalley, 2003), is perceived as a key solution for adapting in complex, dynamic environments and a necessary strategy for the achievement of competitive advantage (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004) and organizational survival (Amabile, 1988; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993; Sacramento, Fay & West, 2013). To meet organizational creativity demands, it is indicated that an idea or product must be original yet appropriate (Joo, Yang & McLean, 2014). Employee creativity is seen as the number one skill for the 21st century (Powell, 2014), but in contrast also seen as ‘one of the major Human Resource challenges for organizations in this century’ (Jafri, Dem, & Choden, 2016: 54), which subsequently indicates the importance to study employee creativity. The challenge in creativity management in an organizational setting is due to inherent tensions and paradoxes (Miron-Spektor, Gino, & Argote, 2011), which requires employees to ‘integrate conflicting agendas and contradictory demands’ (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011: 1). Therefore, extensive understanding of employee creativity is important for creativity management for employees.
4 manner’ (Tuckman & Rutgers, 1966: 381). Cognitive complexity is related to an individuals’ ability to understand the environment, and it enables employees to adjust their behavior in different contexts (de Vries, Walter, van der Vegt & Essens, 2014). Although previous research has uncovered cognitive complexity as a predictor of individual creativity (Tuckman & Rutgers, 1966; Charlton & Bakan, 1989), to our knowledge, the question why and when the positive effect of cognitive complexity transfers to creative performance remains unclear.
Creative self-efficacy has received more attention over the last few years, as moderator and mediator in relation to creativity (Puente-Díaz, 2015). Tierney & Farmer (2002) constituted creative self-efficacy as the employees belief that they can be creative in their work role. In relevance with the inherent tensions within creativity, we emphasize that this entails the belief that one can produce original and novel, yet useful and applicable outcomes. This encompasses that a certain repertoire of skills and experience is necessary to function as internal cue for efficacy beliefs (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). We propose that employees with high levels of cognitive complexity are more self-efficacious, as they are associated with good learning ability and effective adaption to complex environments (Tadmore & Tetlock, 2006;
Gong et al., 2009), which generates the necessary skills and experience in the creativity domain. The belief that individuals develop about their creative capabilities can subsequently function as motivation to engage in actual creative behavior (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, 2011). Together, the two relationships stated above define the mediating effect of creative self-efficacy between cognitive complexity and creative performance of the employee.
5 cognitive complex thinking style, because it allows cognitive complex employees to explore tensions (Tett & Guterman, 2000). The relationship between cognitive complexity and creativity is therefore expected to be more positive when the paradoxical leader behavior is high.
In sum, this research attempts to investigate the relation between cognitive complexity, creative self-efficacy and the creative performance of the employee in an organizational setting, and investigates paradoxical leader behavior as a boundary condition in the link between cognitive complexity and employee creative self-efficacy. The purpose of this study is to gain insights in the development of employee creativity, in order to enhance management for creativity performance. By doing so, we are able to gain insights in the question why and when cognitive complexity influences the creativity performance of the employee, thus contributing to the paradoxical leader behavior literature and creativity literature.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
6 Baas, & Giacomantonio, 2010). The two dimensions (originality and feasibility) of creativity often conflict with each other, and in experimental research, the originality and usefulness of an idea are often negatively correlated (r = -.42; Nijstad et. al, 2010). In line with the definition of creativity, creativity management in organizational settings is ‘rife with tensions and paradox’ (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011: 1). Miron-Spektor and colleagues (2011) exemplify that employees are expected to think outside the box, but at the same time expected to offer a solution or product that can be implemented given organizational constrains. Therefore, creativity performance in an organizational setting is coherent with paradox and tension between achieving originality and novelty and the appropriateness and usefulness of the idea or product, thus concerned with uncertainty and risk.
Cognitive complexity as a predictor of creativity
7 combination of these two terms evidently defines cognitive complexity, which is shortly described as ‘extent to which the individual perceives his or her world and those in it in a highly differentiated and integrated manner’ (Tuckman & Rutgers, 1966: 381). It indicates that ‘the decision-maker carefully weighs all the relevant perspectives on an issue and then integrates them into a coherent position’ (Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2003: 781) Individuals with low levels of cognitive complexity are only able to consider one viewpoint, maintained with dogmatic tenacity (Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2003).
Employees being capable of embracing the inherent tension within creativity eventually have higher possibility to perform creative in an organizational setting (Tuckman & Rutgers, 1966), as they understand and accept the two dimension of creativity. This relationship with cognitive complexity has been investigated before, and Tuckman & Rutgers (1966) describe this as follows: “The anticipated relationship between integrative complexity and creativity was based on the fact that the former is a measure of the extent to which the individual separates (i.e., differentiates) and recombines (i.e., integrates) inputs in a variety of ways, while the latter is a measure of the extent to which the individual’s thinking embraces novelty and speculation and leads to the production of unusual but relevant responses’ (Tuckman & Rutgers, 1966: 371). To perform a complete and comprehensive research, the positive relationship presented above will be re-tested, which is specified in the first hypothesis.
8 The mediating role of creative self-efficacy
To understand and oversee why and when cognitive complexity leads to creative performance, we argue that a mediator is accountable for this relationship. As shortly introduced before, we suggest that this mediator is the creative self-efficacy of the employee because previous research indicated that individuals perform more creatively when they have high creative self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2002; Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Puente-Díaz, 2015), and our assumption that high levels of creative self-efficacy can derive from cognitive complexity.
Cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy. To elaborate on the relationship
between cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy, it must be mentioned that people differ in their level of cognitive complexity. This difference is referred to on a scale from simple to complex, or low levels of cognitive complexity to high levels. In the rest of this research, the mentioning of ‘cognitive complexity’ refers to high levels, unless indicated otherwise.
9 more on the content and degree of specificity of creative performance in an organizational setting, we elucidate the definition of creative self-efficacy constructed by Tierney and Farmer (2002) as the belief that one has the ability to produce original and novel, yet useful and appropriate outcomes in an organizational setting. This captures the risk and uncertainty involved with creativity in organizations.
Tierney and Farmer (2002, 2011) relied on the self-efficacy model by Gist en Mitchell (1992) to discuss why predictors are related to creative self-efficacy and how they can influence creative self-efficacy. This theoretical model emphasizes ‘how individuals formulate and change efficacy judgments over time and experience in work settings’ (Tierney & Farmer, 2011: 278). It is stated that employees use different types of cues to determine their individual capacity level in the relevant domain (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), namely self-based internal efficacy determinants and contextual determinants. This model is also used as conceptual framework to guide the selection and explanation for our determinant. Arsing from this we argue that cognitive complexity serves as a determinant for creative self-efficacy, because it provides internal cues that employees use to determine their personal capacity level for performance in the creativity domain, exemplified below.
10 closure (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011), which entails that they eliminate ambiguity. This implies they are less capable to adapt to new, complex situations.
In line with learning research, Tadmore and Tetlock (2006) associate cognitive complexity also with the acquisition of knowledge and skills. They emphasize that repeated encounters with dissonance-provoking problems or situations result in a learned-adaptive technique for conflict resolution. Stated differently, experience helps to develop useful cues for similar dissonance-evoking situations (Tadmore & Tetlock, 2006). Cognitive complexity enables people to ‘juxtapose contradictory elements, understand their sources and search for ways to amalgamate them’ (Tetlock, Armor, & Peterson, 1994; Miron-spektor et al., 2011: 3), which reflects their learning ability. This is a contrasting view with low levels of cognitive complexity, which is inclined with less capability to perceive differences among factors and underutilization of available information in decision making (Miron-Spektor et al. 2011). Theorist imply that their thinking style is concerned with a one-sided view, maintained with dogmatic tenacity (Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2003), encompassing less ability to reconsider and change mind. This can be connected to lower levels of learning ability.
11
outcomes, as those experiences and skills provide them with internal cues for their ability to accomplish a creative task in an organizational setting (Gong et al., 2009).
To recapitulate, we argue that high levels of cognitive complexity serve as a powerful cue for creative self-efficacy, because it is associated with effective adaptations in uncertain situations and the acquisition of knowledge and skills (Tadmore & Tetlock, 2006), which makes them more self-efficacious in the domain of creativity (Gong et al., 2009) and consequently enhances their creative self-efficacy. This is formally stated as:
Hypothesis 2a: Cognitive complexity is positively related to the creative self-efficacy of employee; high cognitive complexity leads to high creative self-efficacy of the employee.
Creative self-efficacy and creativity performance. The perspective of Social
12 requirements, which is enhanced by the momentum of high creative self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Elaborating on these findings, high creative self-efficacy provides an internal and sustainable force (Bandura, 1977; Tierney & Farmer, 2002) that is associated with motivation and based on coping efforts and persistence levels, that assures the belief one can deal with the challenges of creativity.
To re-consider and re-confirm the specified positive relation between creative self-efficacy and creative performance in this research, we include the following hypothesis to replicate previous findings:
Hypothesis 2b: Creative self-efficacy is positively related to creative performance; High creative self-efficacy leads to high creative performance.
A combination of the two hypotheses above explains a mediating relationship between the three variables cognitive complexity, creative self-efficacy and creative performance of the employee in an organizational setting. This mediating relationship aims to explain different levels of creative performance amongst employees, which results in the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2c: The relation between cognitive complexity and creative performance of the employee is mediated by the creative self-efficacy of the employee.
The moderating effect of paradoxical leader behavior
13 factors. Theorists indicated leadership style as a contextual factor that can influence creativity related activities (Amabile, Barsade, Mualler, & Staw, 2005; Shalley & Gilson, 2002). As shortly stated before, Zhang et al. (2015: 539) proposed the concept of Paradoxical Leader Behavior (PLB) as ‘leader behaviors that seem competing, yet are interrelated, intended to meet organizational, structural and follower demands simultaneously over time’, in which they emphasize on PLB in the management of people. This theory is build around the Eastern mindset, in which a ‘both-and’ view suggests that all universal phenomena have competing tendencies, which relates to the core of paradox; ‘two opposites coexist and should be dealt with as a pair’ (Zhang et al., 2015). We argue that cognitive complexity can enhance individuals’ creative self-efficacy especially under the supervision of paradoxical behavior of the leader, which can be explained by two supportive theories.
14 al., 2015: 539). We therefore propose that PLB can create an environment that is supportive for people with cognitive complexity, because it provides opportunity to use and experience advanced cognitive complex thinking and integrating paradoxes.
The Trait Activation Theory (TAT) focuses on person-situation interaction and explains that behavior is based on response to trait-relevant cues that are found in situations (Tett & Guterman, 2000; Filip, Chasteen, Day & Christiansen, 2006). A clear example given by Tett and Giterman (2002) describes that people high on aggression do not always behave aggressively, but that it shows only in certain situations. This means traits are latent constructs (Tett & Giterman, 2002). PLB encompasses strategy that accepts and integrates competing demands and yields situations which ‘continuously grant employees the discretion to blend the rules’ (Zhang et. al. 2015: 541). This allows employees with high cognitive complexity to explore different ways in dealing with tensions, in other words, it activates cognitive complex thinking style. Controversy, leadership styles based on the contingency approach are more focused on treating distinctions and tensions separately. We suggest that the situations provided due to PLB can activate the cognitive complexity of employees (Smith & Lewis, 2011), because it does not treat paradoxes as a threat, but as one whole (Zhang et al., 2015) and capitalizes the cognitive complexity of employees as a resulting behavior. Together, P-E fit and TAT can support and capitalize cognitive complexity, which enables the development of higher levels of creative self-efficacy. This is formally hypothesized as:
Hypothesis 3: The relation between cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy will be stronger and positive when the paradoxical leader behavior is high, rather than low.
15 that paradoxical leader behavior moderates the link between cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy of the employee. This results in a conditional indirect effect (Figure 1), concluded as:
Hypothesis 4: Paradoxical leader behavior moderates the relation between cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy of the employee. Cognitive complexity is more positively linked to creativity performance when the paradoxical leader behavior is high.
FIGURE 1
Moderated mediation research model H4 H3 + H2 c H2 a + + H2 b H1 Control variables
The background of individuals is indicated as influence on the creativity performance (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Tsai, 2013). In the current study, multiple control variables will therefore be included in the research. The relative relationship between variables will be tested and understanding the relationship between the variables is consequently easier. Since the main relationships that are tested are on an individual level, the considered control variables are also on an individual level, meaning that all control variables are related to the employees.
16
Age. The effects of advancing age on creativity are inconsistent. Early study
exemplifies that creativity might just change over time, which is not dependent on the increase of age (Abra, 1989). While it is often assumed that increase in age declines the level of creativity, a negative stereotype, recently more and more studies argue that there is no notable difference in the level of creativity due to increase in age (Reed, 2005; Chan, Hui, Cheng & Ng, 2013). To assure that age does not affect the relationships tested in this research, age will be measured as control variable.
Gender. Differences between male and female are revealed (Bear & Kaufman, 2008;
Tsai, 2013), but most often the results are mixed or not significant (Kemmelmeier & Walton, 2016). Previous research provides little evidence for who is more creative, but mostly man are stated to be more creative. It is argued that gender differences in creative performance are influenced by context (Kemmelmeier & Walton, 2016). To gain more clarity about the effects of gender, the variable will be included in this research.
Educational level. Educational level is a frequently tested background variable. Tsai
(2013) elucidates that academic performance can become a ‘roadblock for creativity’, while Mednick and Andrews (1967) conclude that ‘intelligence and creativity are relatively independent’. Again, the results of the effects of this variable can acquire more clarity in the inconsistent evidence.
Tenure. As indicated by Ng and Feldman (2013), older workers automatically have a
17
METHOD
Sample and procedure
To test the above hypotheses, we collected data from organizations in the Netherlands, Germany and Bulgaria, operating in various sectors (e.g. educational, governmental and commercial institutions or organizations). The data collection was a part of the Master program Human Resource Management on the University of Groningen. We approached leaders and their subordinates in order to collect paired data through an online questionnaire. The questionnaires were provided in Dutch, English, German and Bulgarian to prevent language barrier. The original English measurement instruments were translated and back-translated, the double-blind back-translation method, to assure that all translated instrument measures were equivalent. To protect confidentiality, the questionnaire was anonymous and participation was voluntary. The leader was asked to rate the creative performance of the employee under his/her direct supervision and the employees were instructed to evaluate the leader on leadership behavior and rate themselves, their work and work environment on several areas.
For this research, 94 leaders were approached for participation. The approach of 94 leaders (N=194) and 620 employees (N=620) yielded to a response of 87 leaders (81,31%) and 389 employees (62,74%). Concisely, this results in a sample of 389 employee-leader paired data (N=389). The responding employees consisted of 46,8% male (N=182) and 47,8% female (N=186) participants – 5,4% missing data – with an average age of 38 years (SD=11.32). The educational level of the employees ranged from primary school to a doctor’s degree with a median of 4.88, which closely corresponds to a bachelor’s degree1
. The mean tenure of the employees was 9 years and 8 months (SD=9.72; N=366). For the leaders, the
1
18 mean tenure 12 years and 8 months (SD=9.66). All leaders filled in the questions about their tenure, gender, age and educational level. The respondent group consisted of 64,4% male (N=56) and 35,6% female (N=31) leaders. The mean age of the leaders was 43 years (SD=10.29). Their educational level ranged from primary school to a doctor’s degree with a median of 5.68, which closely corresponds with a master’s degree.
Measure
Cognitive complexity. To test the cognitive or integrative complexity of the employee,
measurement derived from the ‘integrative complexity measurement of leaders’ from Zhang et. al. (2015) was used. Their measure is based on ‘a traditional method of content analysing open-ended responses and the method of item ratings’ (Zhang et al., 2015: 555). Zhang et al. (2015) formulated a coded measure of integrative complexity. It consists of a two-dimensional measure for integrative complexity; in which five items for differentiation and six for integration. An example of an item in the dimension differentiation is: “I understand how there can always be divergent viewpoint on certain issues” and for integration; “When there are different perspectives on an issue, I often point out the common areas of overlap that may serve to bridge these differences.” All items were translated into Dutch, German and Bulgarian, and were measured with a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “very strongly disagree” to 7 “very strongly agree”. The measurement is based on the individual level, and the internal consistency of the scale was high with Cronbach’s Alpha being .85 (α = .85).
Creative self-efficacy. The creative self-efficacy of the employees was measured using
19 for “very strongly agree”. The items were translated into Dutch, Bulgarian and German, and the measurement was based on individual level. The internal consistency of the scale was high with Cronbach’s Alpha being .88 (α = .88).
Creative performance. Fifteen items were used to measure the creative performance
of the employee. The leader was asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale to rate creativity, on the field of originality, “the novelty and rarity of an idea, measured in terms of infrequency of the idea compared to other ideas” (Mayseless, Eran & Shamay-Tsoory, 2015), feasibility and overall creativity with 1 indicating “not true at all” and 7 indicating “absolutely true”. The items were based on the creativity scale of Sacramento, Fay & West (2013). The original creativity instrument mainly focussed on originality with 4 items and tested feasibility with 2 items and overall creativity with 1 item. 8 items were added to realize equal weight for all components of creativity, namely the originality, feasibility and overall creativity (Appendix A). An example of a specific item is: “In the last working week, this person…. (1) Demonstrated originality in his/her work. (2) Contributed ideas that balance originality and feasibility well”. The internal consistency of the scale was high with Cronbach’s Alpha being .97 (α = .97), and the measurement was based on individual level.
Paradoxical leader behavior. The paradoxical behavior of the leader was measured by
20 treating subordinates uniformly, while allowing individualization; (4) enforcing work requirements, while allowing flexibility; and (5) maintaining decision control, while allowing autonomy. An example of an item in dimension (5) is; “Recognizes the distinction between supervisors and subordinates, but does not act superior in the leadership role”. The internal consistency of the scale was high with Cronbach’s Alpha being .92 (α = .92).
Control variables. In this research, age, gender, tenure and educational level of the
employees were used as control variables. Age and tenure were included because literature describes a negative stereotype for older workers with long organizational tenure, implying they might engage in less innovative and creative behavior. Gender was included in this research, because of existing uncertainties about the effects of gender on creative behavior. Furthermore, in the theory section we discussed that educational level might influence the creative performance of employees. Therefore, educational level was included to demonstrate the influence of educational level on creative performance.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics were examined before testing the hypotheses; the mean and standard deviation are shown in table 1. The correlation between the variables has been checked. As can be seen in table 1, the variable cognitive complexity is positively correlated with creative self-efficacy (r = 0.38, p<.01). Furthermore, a positive correlation has been found between creativity performance and creative self-efficacy (r = 0.21, p<.01). Finally, creativity is positively correlated with cognitive complexity (r = 0.13, p<.05).
21 negatively related to creativity (r = -.17, p<.01). Gender is also not significantly related with creative self-efficacy (r = -.31, p>.05), but has a high significant positive relation with creativity of the employee (r = .14, p<.01). Tenure is negatively and not significant related to creative self-efficacy (r = -.04, p>.05), yet, negatively and significantly related to creativity of the employee (r = -.11, p<.05). The relation between educational level and creative self-efficacy is positive but not significant (r = .04, p>.05), but is positively related to creativity performance of the employee (r = .23, p<.01). All variables show a significant correlation with creativity, and therefore will be controlled for in further analysis.
Factor analysis
22 TABLE 1
Means, Standard deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities of all study variables
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Cognitive Complexity 5.20 .70 (.85)
2. Creative Self-efficacy 5.24 .94 .38* (.88)
3. Creativity 4.82 1.17 .13** .21* (.97)
4. Paradoxical Leader Behavior 5.16 .84 .19* .09 .12** (.92)
5. Age 38.28 11.31 -.02 -.01 -.17* -.14* -
6. Gender 1.51 .50 -.18* -.03 .14* .10 -.09 -
7. Tenure 9.66 9.72 -.03 -.03 -.11** -.12** .67* -.08 -
8. Educational level 4.88 1.41 .04 .04 .22* .07 -.08 -.03 -.12** -
Note: N ranges from 360 to 389 due to missing data. * P < 0.01 (2-tailed)
23 Hypotheses testing
All analysis performed in this research was focused at the individual level, the level of employees. However, the employees were embedded in teams and their creativity level was rated by their leader. This inherently meant that the influence of team-level factors needed to be ruled out. An one-way ANOVA test determined that team membership had a significant effect on the creativity measure (F(86,302) = 2.51, p<.001). The investigation of the covariance parameter estimates of the random intercept confirmed that a large amount of the variation of creativity was accounted by team level factors (29.16%, p <.001). Based on these findings we concluded the necessity of using Multilevel Analysis to test the hypotheses, since this type of analysis allows us to rule out the influence of team membership.
24 TABLE 2
Factor Analysis results of the Cognitive Complexity and Creative Self-efficacy scales
Component
1 2 3
Cognitive complexity – Differentiation
2. I understand how there can always be divergent viewpoints on certain issues.
.85
3. I often recognize how multiple, potentially competing, perspectives have validity.
.73
6. I tend to be receptive to different points of view on an issue. .73 4. I try to view issues from multiple perspectives. .72
1. I believe in the value of dissent. .70
5. I believe there are no clear right and wrong, or good and bad, ways of doing things.
.46
Creative self-efficacy
4. I'm good at finding creative ways to solve problems. .86 2. I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively. .86 1. I feel that I'm good at generating novel ideas. .86 3. I have a knack for further developing the ideas of others. .74 Cognitive complexity – Integration
10. I incorporate the multiple, sometimes conflicting, opinions of people to propose a new solution.
.79
9. I highlight connections between seemingly conflicting perspectives raised by people on an issue.
.76
8. When there are different perspectives on an issue, I often point out the common areas of overlap that may serve to bridge these differences.
.73
7. I believe that trade-offs can be avoided when making decisions; in other words, everybody can win.
.64
11. I tend to suggest new solutions that take into consideration the different viewpoints raised by people.
.62
25 educational level of the of the employees were included covariates. The results of the analysis are presented in table 3.
In this study, we expected a positive relationship between the cognitive complexity of the employee and the employee’s creative performance (hypothesis 1). In other words; cognitive complexity leads to high creativity of the employee. The analysis showed a slightly negative effect, but this relation was not significant (b = -.02, p>.10), meaning that hypothesis 1 was not supported.
In hypothesis 2a we expected that the cognitive complexity of the subordinate would be positively related to the creative self-efficacy. Stated differently; cognitive complexity leads to high creative self-efficacy of the employee. The results of the analysis showed a positive effect in this relationship (b = .35) which was highly significant (p<.001), meaning that hypothesis 2a was supported.
Hypothesis 2b posited that creative self-efficacy has a positive effect on creative performance of the employee, thus high creative self-efficacy leads to high creative performance. The results depicted a significant positive effect (b = .26, p<.001). Hypothesis 2b was therefore also supported.
26 TABLE 3
Mixed Model – Multilevel analysis for Creativity and Creative Self-efficacy
Predictor Creativity Creativity Creative self-efficacy Creativity
Control variables Age -.02** -.02** - -.02** Gender .27** .26** - .25** Tenure 7.03 .00 - .00 Educational level .17† .16† - .16† Independent variables Cognitive complexity -.02 .35† -.02
Paradoxical leader behavior .01 .05
Creative Self-efficacy .26† .26†
Interaction terms
CC X PLB .16 † -.03
BIC 1115.21 1106.85 968.44 1117.60
CC = cognitive complexity, CSE = creative self-efficacy PLB = paradoxical leader behavior.
† p < 0.001
27 Hypothesis 3 suggested a moderating effect of paradoxical leader behavior on the relationship between cognitive complexity and creative performance of the employee. Results of the analysis presented a positive and significant interaction effect of cognitive complexity and paradoxical leader behavior on creative self-efficacy (b = .16, p<.001). The moderation effect described in hypothesis 3 was therefore also supported.
Hypothesis 3 and 4 suggested the conditional indirect effect that cognitive complexity would be positively related to employee creativity because of creative self-efficacy and that paradoxical leader behavior moderated the link between cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy of the employee. Therefore, a moderated mediation analysis was performed by using model 7 in the SPSS PROCESS procedure of Hayes (2012). The independent variable was cognitive complexity and the creativity of the employee was applied as the dependent variable. The creative self-efficacy of the employee was used as mediator and paradoxical leader behavior as a first-stage moderator. The previous mentioned control variables age, gender, tenure and educational level of the employee were included as covariates. The Index of moderated mediation is presented in table 4, and the results of the analysis are shown in table 5. To perform complete analysis, hypotheses 3 and 4 will be tested.
28 complexity, is higher when the paradoxical leader behavior is high. The level of creative self-efficacy at low cognitive complexity is lower when the paradoxical leader behavior is high.Therefore, it can be concluded that hypotheses 3 was supported.
FIGURE 2
Interaction of paradoxical leader behavior and cognitive complexity on creative self-efficacy
TABLE 4
Index of Moderated Mediation Mediator
Index SE (boot) Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
29 TABLE 5
Effects of Moderated Mediation Analysis (Independent variable: Cognitive complexity)
Independent variable
Dependent variable
Creative Self-efficacy Creativity
Coefficient T Coefficient T - Cognitive Complexity .39† 7.92 .02 .27 - Paradoxical leader behavior .00 .06 - - - Interaction .16† 3.69 - - - Creative Self-efficacy - Age (employees) - .00 - .23 .24† -.02** 3.67 -2.40 - Gender (employees) -.18 -1.80 .33* 2.76 - Educational level (employees) .01 .42 .17† 4.20 - Tenure (employees) -.00 -.41 .00 .52 Conditional indirect effect Effect
Bootstrap confidence interval Lower level Upper Level - Paradoxical leader behavior high .13 .07 .21 - Paradoxical leader behavior low .05 .01 .11
Note: N is 360 due to missing data
† P < 0.001
* P < 0.01 ** P < 0.05
30 paradoxical leader behavior (b = .05). Also, mediation was significant for both high and low paradoxical leader behavior (See table 3). The results therefore suggest that also hypotheses 4 was supported; The indirect effect of cognitive complexity on creativity is stronger when the paradoxical behavior of the leader is high, rather than low.
Control variables
The results of the control variables are included in table 5. Age was slightly negative and significantly related to creativity performance of the employee (r = -.02, p<.05). Therefore it can be concluded that increase in age results in a minor decrease in creative performance of the employee. Gender is significantly related to creativity with a positive relation(r = .33, p<.01), which indicates that women are assessed to be slightly more creative than male employees. The relation between tenure and creativity could not be confirmed. The relation is not significant, and notable it that there is no relationship detected at all (r =.00, p>.10). The relation between educational level and creativity is highly significant and positive (r = .17, p<.001). From this effect it can be concluded that the educational level of the employees influences their creativity performance, in other words, high educational level ensures higher creativity.
DISCUSSION
Findings
31 employee, and that paradoxical leader behavior moderated the relationship between cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy in a positive manner.
The results indicate that cognitive complexity is not directly related to the creativity performance of the employee (H1), however, findings do reveal that creative self-efficacy mediates the relation between cognitive complexity and creativity performance positively (H2c). Moreover, results show that the cognitive complexity of the employee leads to higher levels of creative self-efficacy (H2a) and that high creative self-efficacy has a positive effect on the creative performance of the employee (H2b). Furthermore, the results correspond with the expected moderating effect of paradoxical leader behavior. The positive relation between cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy became stronger when paradoxical behavior of the leader was high (H3). Finally, findings reveal that the indirect positive effect of cognitive complexity on the creativity performance of the employee was stronger with the influence of the paradoxical leader behavior (H4), more specifically, when paradoxical leader behavior was high, the indirect effect of cognitive complexity on creativity was stronger than when paradoxical leader behavior was low.
In sum, findings indicate that paradoxical leader behavior affects the overall creativity performance of employees with high levels of cognitive complexity within an organizational setting in a positive manner, through an increase of the creative self-efficacy of the employees.
Theoretical and practical implications
32 levels of creative performance amongst employees. It indicates that a having high creativity performance can originate from high levels of cognitive complexity.
Second, this research complements pas research by building on the growing net of antecedents for creative self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, 2011; Puente-Díaz, 2015), which is key in understanding the development of creative efficacy beliefs and subsequently the development of creativity performance. This finding provides cognitive complexity as factor that causes differences in creative efficacy views (Tierney & Farmer, 2011), and contributes to understanding of psychological constructs in organizational settings (Puente-Díaz, 2015). The finding implies the importance for organizations and managers to consider psychological differences of employees in management for creativity. This is crucial for attempts of organizations to innovate (Tierney & Farmer, 2011) and perform creatively.
33 Finally, the study is based on big multi-sector field dataset. Employees and their direct leader from 53 organizations of three European countries (Netherlands, Germany and Bulgaria) participated, with a number of 389 employee-leader paired data. Zhang et al. (2015) emphasized the importance of PLB study in Western culture. This research meets this appeal and adds to PLB theory in Western culture (Zhang et al. 2015). Another strength is that, to our knowledge, this study is unique in the sense that previous research did not elaborate on PLB as a moderating effect. This study therefore adds important findings related to leadership theories.
Limitations and directions for future research
Despite the merits, we have several limitations in the current research. The primary limitation of this research is that measurements took place at one particular time. This means our results and findings are based on the situation captured at time of measurement, and that we cannot establish the causal link between the variables. To gain more insights in the causalities between variables, we suggest future research to perform experimental research. In the same vein, cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy can be influenced by many contextual and personal factors (Tierney & Farmar, 2002, 2011; Puente-dìaz, 2015; Miron-Spektor et al., 2011). In addition to this, paradoxical behavior of the leader can vary in extent or intensity (Zhang et al., 2015). Elaborating on this, longitudinal research can provide more generable conclusions about the effect that PLB can have on employees (Zhang et al., 2015) and the relationship between cognitive complexity and creative self-efficacy.
34 more positive or negative way, for instance a high stress-level can negatively influence the evaluation capacity of the leader (Srinivas & Motowidlo, 1987). We encourage future research to adopt more extensive measurements which can indicate the creativity performance more generally.
Besides solving the methodological limitations, there are interesting paths to study and investigate in future research. This study shows that PLB can benefit some employees more than others. In relevance of leadership and PLB literature, we emphasize that it is necessary to gain more knowledge regarding the positive and negative consequences that PLB can have on employees.
Scholars may also extend our model by taking an interactionist, multilevel approach (Zhou & Hoever, 2014). Since employees do not work in isolation, many contextual and personal factors can influence development of creative efficacy beliefs and creative performance. This research elaborates on the influence of a leadership style, but an organizational context is more complex than that. The multilevel approach can realize a more complete and realistic view on the results of our research, by including contextual, personal and situational factors like organizational culture (Puente-dìaz, 2015), team characteristics (Tierney & Farmer, 2011) or the creativity requirements of the job.
CONCLUSION
36
REFERENCES
Abra, J. 1989. Changes in creativity with age: data, explanations, and further predictions. The
International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 28(2): 105-126.
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10: 123-167.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 367-403.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of though and action: A social cognitive theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward an unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84: 191-215.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and co. Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. 2003. Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal
of Applief Psychology, 88(1): 87-99.
Batey, M. & Furnham, A. 2006. Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 132(4): 355–429.
Chan, K., Hui, A., Cheng, S. T., & Ng, Y. L. 2013. Perceptions of age and creativity in the workforce. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(4): 256–272.
Charlton, S. & Bakan, P. 1989. Cognitive complexity and creativity. Imagination, Cognition
and personality, 8: 315 – 322.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. 2001. Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational research methods, 4: 62-83.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M. & Giacomantonio, M. 2010. Processing modes and creativity. Why (not)? Psychological Inquiry, 21(3): 201–208.
37 Duffy, R. D., Autin, K. L. & Bott, E. M. (2015). Work violation and job satisfaction: Examining the role of work meaning and Person-Environment Fit. Career
Development Quarterly, 63(2): 126–140.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality & Social Psychology Review, Vol. 2 (4), 290-310
Ford, C., & Gioia, D. 2000. Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26: 705-732.
Filip, L., Chasteen, C. S., Day, E. A. & Christiansen, N. D. 2006. Large-scale Investigation of the Role of Trait Activation Theory for Understanding Assessment Center Convergent and Discriminant Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 (2), 247 – 258 Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. 2004. A manual for repertory grid technique. (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley
Gist, M. E. 1987. Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12: 472-485.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17: 183-211.
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 765-778.
Hayes, A. F. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76: 408–420.
Hayes, A. F. 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Hiel, van, A., & Mervielde, I. 2003. The measurement of cognitive complexity and its relationship with political extremism. Political psychology, 24(4): 781-801.
Jafri, H., Dem, C., & Choden, S. 2016. Emotional intelligence and employee creativity: Moderating Role of Proactive Personality and Organizational Climate. Business
Perspectives & Research, 4(1): 54-66.
Joo, B., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. 2014. Employee creativity: the effects of perceived learning culture, leader-member exchange quality, job autonomy and proactivity.
38 Kelly, G. A. 1995. The psychology of personal constructs. A theory of personality. New
York, NY, 1.
Kemmelmeier, M. & Walton, A. P. 2016. Creativity in men and women: Threat, other-interest, and self-assessment. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1): 78–88.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person– organization, person– group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281–342.
Kovářová, M., & Filip, M. 2015. Integrating the differentiated: A review of the personal construct approach to cognitive complexity. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 28(4): 342-366.
Mayseless, N., Eran, A., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. 2015. Generating original ideas: the neural underpinning of originality. NeuroImage, 116: 232-239.
Mednick, M. T., & Andrews, F. M. 1967. Creative thinking and level of intelligence. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(4): 428-431
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102: 246 –268.
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., Argote, L. 2011. Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2): 229–240.
Ng, T. W. H. & Feldman, D. C. 2013. A meta-analysis of the relationships of age and tenure with innovation-related behavior. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 86(4): 585–616.
Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. 2010. The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.
European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1): 34-77.
Powell, F. 2014. Developing creativity in the world of work. New Zealand Management, 61(5): 24-25.
39 Reed, I. C. (2005). Creativity: Self-perceptions over time. The International Journal of
Aging & Human Development, 60(1): 1–18.
Rhodes, M. 1961. An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7): 305-310.
Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. 2013. Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, 121(2): 141-157.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. 2004. What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership quarterly, 15(1): 33-53.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of
Management, 30(6): 933–958.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36:381-403.
Srinivas, S., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1987. Effects of raters’ stress on the dispersion and favourability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2): 247-251.
Tadmor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. E. 2006. Biculturalism a model of the effects of second-culture exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 37(2): 173-190.
Tetlock, P. E., Armor, D., & Peterson, R. S. 1994. The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66(1): 115-126.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 500–517.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34: 397–423.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. 2002. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1137-1148.
40 Tuckman, B. W., & Rutgers, U. 1966. Integrative complexity: its measurement and relation to
creativity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 26(6), 369-382.
Tsai, K. C. 2013. Examining Gender differences in Creativity. The International Journal of
Social Sciences, 13(1): 115–122.
Vries, de, T. A., Walter, F., Vegt, Van der, G. S., & Essens, P. J. 2014. Antecedents of individuals' interteam coordination: Broad functional experiences as a mixed blessing.
Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1334-1359.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 293-321.
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. 2015. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management
Journal, 58(2), 538-566
Zhou, J. & Shalley, C. E. 2003. Research on employee creativity: a critical review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, 22: 165-217.
Zhou, X., & Hoever, I. J. 2014. Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection.
The Annual Review of Organizaional Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1:
41
APPENDIX A – Creativity measurement instrument
Employee Creative Performance
Based on Sacramento, Fay & West (2013). Internal consistency (α = .97).
At work, ……(name employee)
Not true at all Not true Slightly not true Neutral Slig htly true True Absolutely true
1. Suggested many ideas o o o o o o o
2. Actively suggested new possibilities for the project / work activities
o o o o o o o
3. Demonstrated originality in his/her work
o o o o o o o
4. Suggested new ideas concerning
varied aspects of the Project / work o o o o o o o
5. Suggested very diverse ideas o o o o o o o
6. Suggested feasible ideas for the
project/ work activities o o o o o o o
7. Suggested ideas that take various constraints (e.g. time, resources) into consideration
o o o o o o o
8. Suggested ideas that can easily be implemented with available resources
o o o o o o o
9. Suggested ideas that can effectively improve the current work process or products
o o o o o o o
10. Generated valuable ideas that
42 Continued creativity measurement
At work, ……(name employee)
Not true at all Not true Slightly not true Neutral Slightly true True Absolutely true
11. Generated novel, but operable
work-related ideas o o o o o o o
12. Contributed ideas that were not
only original, but also feasible o o o o o o o
13. Is able to combine being
practical with being original o o o o o o o
14. Suggested original ideas that departures from what is currently done but with potential to be successfully implemented
o o o o o o o
15. Suggested new ideas that can be implemented without big challenges in human resources, time and technological changes
