Employee behavior in the fashion industry : the influence of creative organizational reputation on employee performance

(1)

Employee behavior in the fashion industry

The influence of creative organizational reputation on

employee performance

Bachelor Thesis – Business Studies

Amsterdam, July 11, 2013

Student name: Anly Nguyen

Student number: 10001689

Faculty: Economics and Business

Academic year: 2012-2013

(2)

Abstract

One major determinant of an organization’s ability to recruit new employees is organizational reputation. Organizational reputation has been found to be a multidimensional construct. Since this paper is about employee behavior in the fashion industry, the focus is on the creative dimension of organizational reputation. This study argues that a creative organizational reputation influences employee performance in the fashion industry. Furthermore, this paper provides a greater understanding of the moderation effect of monetary rewards and organizational status on the relationship between creative organizational reputation and employee performance. The data was collected by self-administered questionnaires from 64 employees in the Dutch fashion industry. The findings of this study indicate that creative organizations’ employees do not necessarily perform better at the workplace. Moreover, the findings of this study indicate that there is a moderation effect, which indicates that employees working for creative organizations perform better due to monetary rewards and a high organizational status.

(3)

Foreword

This thesis was written for my Bachelor degree in Economics and Business, specialization Business Studies, at the University of Amsterdam. While writing this bachelor thesis I got help from some people that I would like to thank. First of all, I want to thank my supervisor K. Quintelier for her willingness to be my supervisor during this period. She was a very helpful and stimulating supervisor, who helped me with finding useful articles, designing the survey questionnaire, and processing the data. Furthermore, the guidance and suggestions she gave me helped me to come up with some interesting results. Secondly, I want to thank some friends of mine who had distributed the survey questionnaire to acquaintances working in the fashion industry. I do not really have contacts in the fashion industry myself, making it quite difficult to find enough respondents in the fashion industry. Finally, I want to thank the master students for sharing their dataset with me. As mentioned before, it was hard to find enough respondents in the fashion industry, but with the dataset from the master students I was still able to analyze the data with statistical program SPSS.

I really hope you will enjoy reading my thesis about employee behavior in the fashion industry!

(5)

1. Introduction

Creativity is increasingly important in today’s work context because of the uncertainty and the growing demand for flexibility and innovation. Creativity refers to the production of novel and useful ideas (Amabile & Khaire, 2008). Especially in creative industries like the fashion industry producers face extreme uncertainty because their creative goods can be easily copied and consumer demand is fundamentally unknown (Godart & Mears, 2009; Caves, 2003). It has been proved that creativity is an important source of competitive strength for creative organizations and the determinant for developing successful, well-reputed corporate brands (Andriopoulos & Gotsi, 2000).

Organizations that have more favorable reputations attract more employees and often also better-qualified employees (Cable & Turban, 2003; Collins & Han, 2004). Reputation is defined as the public evaluation of a firm relative to other firms (Turban & Cable, 2003; Gatewood et al., 1993). Cable and Turban (2003) assumed that organizational reputation acts as a brand, adding value to a job beyond the attributes of the job itself. However, different individuals may apply different criteria when judging organizational reputations. In the fashion industry for example, managers probably pay more attention to the financial

reputation, while designers may be more motivated to work for organizations with a creative reputation.

Besides organizational reputation monetary rewards and organizational status could also influence applicant attraction and employee behavior. Reward refers to the compensation for services (Hansen et al., 2002). Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) argue that encouragement of creativity, in the form of rewards, strengthens creative motivational orientation. Status refers to the position in a social hierarchy that results from accumulated acts of deference (Sauder et al., 2012). Sauder et al. (2012) suggest that reputable organizations will prefer to interact mainly with others that benefit them, employees therefore will tend to act in the best interest of these organizations. Moreover employees’ demographics like age, gender and residence could also affect an employees’ behavior in organizations.

Many studies have described the effect of organizational reputation on the attraction of applicants. Cable and Turban (2003) suggest that reputation perceptions influence recruitment outcomes because reputations affects job seekers’ perceptions of job attributes and the pride that they expect from membership in a firm. In this study the focus is on the creative

reputation of fashion organizations, and the effect on the performance of creative individuals. The effect of creative organizational reputation on employee performance, and especially in the fashion industry, has not yet been investigated thoroughly before. This study therefore

(6)

aims to contribute to the reputation literature, employee performance literature and to fashion research. It can contribute to knowledge about effective and ineffective ways to motivate creative individuals in the fashion industry to perform better. Moreover, knowing how much organizational reputation affects employee behavior might help top management in the fashion industry to formulate a strategy that improves the reputation.

In order to fill this gap in the literature this study will investigate the effect of creative organizational reputation on employee performance in the Dutch fashion industry. The main research question therefore will be: How does creative organization reputation influence

employee performance in the fashion industry? The sub questions will be: ‘How is this relationship influenced by monetary rewards in the organization?’ and ‘How is this relationship influenced by the status of the organization the employee is working for?’.

Furthermore, this study will take into account that employees’ demographics could also influence the performance of creative organizations’ employees. To provide an answer to these questions, a survey questionnaire will be held among employees and trainees in the Dutch fashion industry. With the results of the survey, an overview of the effects of creative organization reputation on employee performance is presented, which can help managers to determine how to motivate creative individuals in the fashion industry to perform better.

This paper will follow up with a literature review, where previous studies are used to explore the topic. Then, the conceptual model will be presented. After that the research proposal will be explained which contains a research design and methodology. Thereafter, the results will be presented and discussed. Finally, the paper will end with a conclusion with the answers on the research question and the sub questions.

(7)

2. Literature review

In this section the existing literature related to the research problem will be discussed in order to explore the research topic more precisely. First, the determinants organizational reputation, employee performance, monetary rewards and organizational status will be defined and explored. Then, the literature review will end with a short conclusion, which emphasizes the need for this research.

2.1 Organizational reputation

Previous studies indicate that one major determinant of an organization’s ability to recruit new talent is organizational reputation (Cable & Turban, 2003; Turban & Cable, 2003). Applicants are more likely to pursue jobs at reputable organizations, because they use this reputation to make inferences about job attributes and they expect more pride from

membership (Cable & Turban, 2003; Helm, 2011). According to Benjamin and Podolny (1999) individuals want to work for an organization that has a favorable reputation in the eyes of others because their affiliation with the organization can increase their own reputation. Furthermore, Cable and Turban (2003) suggest that applicants are willing to pay premiums to accept jobs at certain organizations because individuals value the pride that they expect from membership in reputable organizations.

Organizational reputation refers to the public evaluation of a firm relative to other firms (Turban & Cable, 2003; Gatewood et al., 1993). Organizational reputation is focused on what is different on comparisons among organizations (Bitektine, 2011). In general, an

organization’s reputation is influenced by factors such as financial performance, company size, media exposure, advertising expenditures, and type of industry (Cable & Graham, 2000; Turban & Cable, 2003). Bitektine (2011) and Ebbers & Wijnberg (2012) both suggest that organizational reputation is a multidimensional construct. Examples of dimensions of reputation are creative, commercial, financial and innovation. It is possible that job seekers and corporate executives have different reputations of the same organization because these groups may apply different criteria when judging organizational reputation (Cable & Turban, 2003). For example, a designer will be attracted to a fashion house because of the creative reputation while a manager could be attracted to the same fashion house because of the financial reputation of that fashion house.

(8)

2.2 Creative organizational reputation

In this study the focus will be on the creative dimension of organizational reputation, because creativity is increasingly important in today’s economy especially creative human capital. Furthermore, this study is about employee behavior in organizations the fashion industry, which often are creative organizations. Creativity refers to the development of ideas about products, practices, services or procedures that are novel and potentially useful to the

organization (Amabile, 1996). In order to be considered creative, a product or an idea must be different from what has been done before (Amabile, 1996). Martins and Terblanche (2003) suggest that the basic elements of organizational culture (shared values, beliefs and behavior expected from members) influence creativity in organizations. Other authors argue that creativity is affected by personal characteristics like personality and cognitive styles, but also by a variety of contextual characteristics like job complexity and relationship with supervisors and colleagues in organizations (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004).

According to Andriopoulos and Gotsi (2001) a creative organization refers to any business entity, whose main source of income comes from the production of novel and appropriate ideas, processes, products or services to tackle clients’ problems or opportunities identified. Creative organizations seek novelty and differentiate products by making them different from others in the same category (Lampel et al., 2000). Creative organizations differ from commercial organizations in that the creative process is less structured and predictable (Sauermann & Cohen, 2000; Lampel et al., 2000). According Cillo and Verona (2008) examples of creative organizations are (haute couture) fashion houses like Dior, Giorgio Armani and Prada because those are specialized in making unique and exclusive clothes. Commercial organizations like Zara, H&M and Benetton are specialized in making fashion attainable for a larger public because it is more affordable and functional (Cillo & Verona, 2008). Based on the definitions of organizational reputation and creative organizations, creative organizational reputation could be defined as: organizations that are known by employees and others for the fact that they produce novel and creative ideas, products or services.

It has been acknowledged that creativity is an important source of competitive strength within organizations in the creative industry and the determinant for developing successful, well-reputed corporate brands (Andriopoulos & Gotsi, 2000). Most creative organizations carry creative people and creative processes, and those who leverage a combination of the two are most successful (Azadegan et al., 2008; Lampel et al., 2000). According to Azadegan et al. (2008) creativity provides a competitive advantage because it is valued, rare, inimitable

(9)

and non-substitutable. Creativity results in innovation, which in turn provide competitive advantages to organizations (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Azadegan et al., 2008). Gaining sustainable competitive advantage from creativity requires organizations to capture and maintain it by hiring and retaining creative individuals (Azadegan et al., 2008). Creative human capital could be an important factor for good performance especially when there is a fit between the creative individual and the creative organization. When the creative individual feels connected to the organizations’ strategy and vision, they will take more responsibility and perform better. According to Andriopoulos and Gotsi (2000) creative organizations’ employees, through their creative performance, have a major role in developing and sustaining a favorable brand reputation for their organization.

2.3 Employee performance

Previous studies only focuses on the effect of organizational reputation on applicant

attraction, but this study will extend and focuses on the effect of organizational reputation on employee performance. Job performance is one of the major criteria in industrial and

organizational psychology, but other forms of employee behavior like Organizational

citizenship behavior have also received much research attention (Lee & Allen, 2002). Existing theory and research suggest that employees’ thoughts about work (cognitions) and their feelings about work (affect) are likely to influence employee behaviors (Lee & Allen, 2002).

The form of employee performance this study focuses on is Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), defined as individual employees’ discretionary behaviors that are helpful but not absolutely required by employers; in other words, things organizations like their employees to do but could not explicitly enforce and for which they could not promise any tangible rewards (Dekas et al., 2013). Examples of organizational citizenship behaviors include helping coworkers, attending functions that are not required, and so on (Lee & Allen, 2002). According to Lee and Allen (2002) employees who feel fairly treated are likely to engage in OCB to maintain equilibrium between them and the organization, and those who feel that they are treated unfairly will withhold OCB behavior. This perspective views OCB as controlled and deliberate behavior that is more influenced by cognitive factors than affective factors (Lee & Allen, 2002). Moreover, Carmeli & Freund (2002) suggest that perceived external prestige, the belief employees’ hold about how others view the organization, is positively linked to organizational citizenship behavior.

Organizational citizenship behaviors have long been considered some of the

(10)

& Mackenzie, 1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors enhance productivity, help organizations compete with limited resources, and lead to greater coordination among employees, lower turnover, organizational adaptability, profitability, and customer

satisfaction (Koys, 2006; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1994). OCBs are increasingly important in the knowledge economy, where roles are less defined and the external environment is rapidly evolving (Dekas et al., 2013). Organizations rely on employees to fill the gap between what they are specifically rewarded for, and the emergent behaviors necessary for the organization to remain competitive (Dekas et al., 2013).

Many studies about organizational citizenship behaviors used similar methods with five main categories of OCBs: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue (Dekas et al., 2013; Organ, 1988). Altruism involves all discretionally behaviors that have the effect of helping a specific other person with an organizationally relevant task or problem (Organ, 1988). Conscientiousness is defined as going far beyond the minimum necessary on job role requirements (Organ, 1988). Sportsmanship refers to the avoidance of complaining, pretty grievances, railing against real or imagined slights, and making federal cases out of small potatoes (Organ, 1988). Courtesy entails touching base with those parties whose work would be affected by one’s decision or commitments (Organ, 1988). Finally, civic virtue involves participating responsibly in the political life of the organization (Dekas et al., 2013). This study focuses on the dimensions altruism, civic virtue and voice. Voice is a new dimension developed by Dekas et al. (2013) and defined as participating in activities, making suggestions, or speaking out with the intent of improving the organization’s products, or some aspect of individual, group, or organizational functioning.

2.4 Monetary rewards

Besides organizational reputation, the determinant monetary rewards could also influence the behavior and performance of employees. According to Herzberg’s (1966) motivator-hygiene theory monetary reward, defined as the financial compensation for services, is an example of a hygiene factor. Herzberg (1966) suggests that hygiene factors are factors like salary and working conditions, which operate primarily as de-motivators if they are insufficient. This means that when the monetary rewards employees earn are insufficient, the employee will be demotivated to perform well. Furthermore, employees are most satisfied and productive when their jobs are rich in motivator factors like recognition and responsibility (Hansen et al., 2002)

According to the intrinsic motivation perspective monetary reward is an example of extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation arises when individuals feel driven by something

(11)

that is apart from the work itself (Amabile, 1993). Intrinsic motivation results from

individuals seeking enjoyment, interest, satisfaction of curiosity, self-expression, or personal challenge in the work (Amabile, 1993). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation are often implicitly viewed as opposite extremes of a single dimension (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). Thus, one could not enjoy a task for its own sake and be motivated by rewards at the same time (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003).

Amabile (1996) argues that rewards serve to control individuals’ behavior, thereby resulting in diminished intrinsic motivation and creativity. Deci and Ryan (1985) also suggest that rewards for an enjoyable task serve as an attempt to control employees’ behavior, which reduces intrinsic task interest. Amabile (1983) assumed that reward reduces intrinsic task interest and focuses attention on the reward at the expense of spontaneous task performance. However, Collins and Amabile (1999) more recently took the broader view that reward can sometimes increase creativity and intrinsic task interest, although they asserted that

decremental effects are the more common.

In contrast, others argue that rewards boost motivation and creative performance, because rewards have informational value and recognize individuals’ personal competencies (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Bear et al., 2003). According to Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) extrinsic reward systems might give employees a chance to control the extrinsic rewards they receive for producing creative work. By participating in such programs,

employees’ feelings of personal control may be enhanced, thereby boosting levels of intrinsic motivation and creative performance (Bear et al., 2003). Furthermore, Eisenberger, Rhoades et al. (1999) indicate that a reward contingency requiring a high level of performance

increased received self-determination and perceived competence, both of which enhanced intrinsic task interest. Moreover, employees’ expectation of financial rewards for high job performance was associated with perceived self-determination that, in turn, was related to heightened intrinsic task interest (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). Haslam et al. (2000) argue that financial reward made some contributions to employee’s performance at work. However, the reward itself must not be too high otherwise employees become shiftless, extravagant and dissolute (Taylor, 1911; Haslam et al., 2000).

According to behaviorists it is important that the rewarded employees understand that reward depends on creative performance, because without an accompanying verbal

explanation the rewarded employee may fail to discriminate that creative performance

produced the reward (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). Establishing purpose and intention to be creative seems to be important for translating intrinsic interest into creative accomplishment

(12)

(Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) indicate that rewards can enhance creativity whenever an individual expects that creativity will produce reward. Moreover, rewards can also enhance creativity through increased intrinsic task interest, because reward for high performance increases perceived self-determination and perceived competence (Eisenberger & Shanock 2003).

2.5 Organizational status

Besides organizational reputation and monetary rewards also organizational status could have an effect on employee performance. Status, for organizations as well as individuals, is broadly understood as the position in a social hierarchy that results from accumulated acts of

deference (Sauder et al., 2012). An organization’s position in the status ordering influences the attention that others pay to quality and their assessment of quality (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999). The status ordering helps to determine which organizations will develop reputations for quality and which will not (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999). Turban and Cable (2003) state that a positive reputation is valuable because it reflects an organization’s social status and can provide information to an organization’s constituents such as consumers, investors, and potential applicants. According to Benjamin and Podolny (1999) in many cases reputation differences may not be ascribable purely to differences in underlying capabilities of

organizations, but may be ascribable to where a organization is located in the social structure of a market and who the organization affiliates with.

Sauder et al. (2012) argue that status can also lower the costs of recruiting and retaining labor of a given quality. When more individuals are willing to work for a certain organization, this organization can be more selective in the hiring process, and hire better qualified employees. These employees will tend to act in the best interest of the organization, because higher status organizations will prefer to interact mainly with others that do benefit them, and less beneficial employees will therefore be replaced (Sauder et al., 2012). Besides that, Benjamin and Podolny (1999) argue that if an individual’s social standing is enhanced by association with a high status product, in this case a high status organization, then the individual should be willing to pay premiums. Moreover, Carmeli and Freund (2002) suggest that status is positively linked to organizational commitment, job satisfaction and

organizational citizenship behavior. Others argue that high status may lead to complacency and self-satisfaction, which will in turn have a negative effect on performance (Bothner et al., 2012). However, evidence of negative effects of status is far scarcer than evidence of the benefits of high status (Sauder et al., 2012).

(13)

2.6 Conclusion

Previous studies about organizational reputation suggest that an organization’s reputation influences applicant attraction, because reputations reflect an organization’s social status and can provide information about the quality of the organization. Besides organizational

reputation, other factors like monetary rewards and organizational status could also influence job seekers or employee behavior. Rewards seem to boost motivation and creative

performance, because they recognize individuals’ personal competencies. Association with a high status organization can improve an individual’s self-image, which in turn can enhance job satisfaction and employee performance.

However, former studies have not focused on the relationship between creative organization reputation and employee performance or other possible influencing factors yet, therefore the current study tries to fill this gap in the literature by attempting to find an answer to the main research question: ‘How does creative organization reputation influence employee

performance in the fashion industry?’ and to the sub questions: ‘How is this relationship influenced by monetary rewards in the organization?’ and ‘How is this relationship influenced by the status of the organization the employee is working for?’. To provide an

answer on this main research question the important determinants creative organizational reputation and employee performance will be explored. Moreover, the determinants monetary rewards and organizational status could also be a major influence and will be explored to answer the sub questions.

(14)

3. Conceptual model

The conceptual model is based on the main determinants creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards, organizational status and their influence on employee performance. This conceptual model will be applied to firms in the fashion industry in the Netherlands. These firms can use the conceptual model to find effective ways to motivate their employees.

3.1 The influence of creative organizational reputation

The determinant organizational reputation refers to the public evaluation of a firm relative to other firms (Turban & Cable, 2003; Gatewood et al., 1993). As mentioned before Cable & Turban (2003) and Helm (2011) suggest that a favorable organizational reputation will be positively associated with employee attraction, because job seekers use reputation to make inferences about job attributes and they expect more pride from membership. Furthermore, Cable and Turban (2003) suggest that applicants are willing to pay premiums to accept jobs at certain organizations because individuals value the pride that they expect from membership in reputable organizations. Organizations that have more favorable reputations not only attract more employees (Cable & Turban, 2003; Collins & Han, 2004) but often also better-qualified employees (Collins & Han, 2004).

However, this study is about the reputation of creative organizations, which refers to organizations that are known by employees and others for the fact that they produce novel and creative ideas, products or services. Andriopoulos and Gotsi (2000) state that creative

organizations’ employees, through their creative performance, have a great role in developing and sustaining a favorable reputation for their organization. They are indicating that

employees working for organizations with a creative reputation have a positive influence on Rewards & Status? Employee Performance Creative Organizational reputation + + Measured at employee level Measured at employee level Measured at employee level

(15)

the organizations reputation, through their creative performance. This study also predicts that there will be a correlation between the determinants employee performance and creative organizational reputation, only with a reverse causality. When employees have a fit with the organization they work for, they will act more responsible towards the organizations vision and strategy and probably perform better. Since employees working in the fashion industry are often creative, these creative employees would probably have a fit with organizations with a creative reputation. Therefore this study predicts that a creative organizational reputation is positively correlated with employee performance, which indicates that a creative organization reputation will motivate creative employees in the fashion industry to perform better.

Hypothesis 1: a creative organizational reputation will be positively related to employee performance.

3.2 The moderation effect of monetary rewards

The determinant monetary reward refers to the financial compensation for services (Hansen et al., 2002). According to Deci and Ryan (1985), individuals view rewards for an enjoyable task as an attempt to control their behavior, which reduces intrinsic task interest. Amabile (1983) also assumed that reward reduces intrinsic task interest and focuses attention on the reward at the expense of spontaneous task performance. However, Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) suggested and that rewards not only enhance employee creativity but also perceived self-determination and perceived competence, which increase enjoyment of a task for its own sake. Moreover, others argue that rewards boost motivation and creative performance,

because rewards have informational value and recognize individuals’ personal competencies (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Bear et al., 2003). Therefore rewards could be an important source of motivation for creative individuals who often work for creative organizations. This study agrees with Eisenberger and Shanock (2003), Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) and Bear et al. (2003), but is more extensive and predicts that there will be a positive interaction between creative organizational reputation and monetary rewards on employee performance, which indicates that larger monetary rewards will more strongly motivate employees working in a creative organization to perform better compared to smaller monetary rewards.

Hypothesis 2: monetary rewards will positively moderate the relationship between creative organizational reputation and employee performance.

(16)

3.3 The moderation effect of organizational status

The determinant status refers to the position in a social hierarchy that results from

accumulated acts of deference (Sauder et al., 2012). As mentioned before Carmeli and Freund (2002) suggest that status is positively linked to organizational citizenship behavior, which indicates that employees perform more organizational citizenship behavior when they are associated with a high status organization. Sauder et al. (2012) argue that reputable and high status organizations will prefer to interact mainly with others that benefit them, and less beneficial employees will be replaced. Employees who work for these organizations therefore will tend to act in the best interest of this organization. Moreover, Benjamin and Podolny (1999) argue that if an individual’s social standing is enhanced by association with a high status product, in this case a high status organization, then the individual is willing to pay premiums. Contrary, others argue that high status may lead to complacency and

self-satisfaction, which will in turn have a negative effect on performance (Bothner et al., 2011). However, evidence of negative effects of status is far scarcer than evidence of the benefits of a favorable organizational status (Sauder et al., 2012). This study agrees with Carmeli and Freund (2002), Sauder et al. (2012) and Benjamin and Podolny (1999) but is more extensive and predicts that there will be a positive interaction between creative organizational reputation and organizational status on employee performance, which indicates that a higher

organizational status will more strongly motivate employees working in an organization with a creative reputation to perform better compared to a lower organizational status.

Hypothesis 3: organizational status will positively moderate the relationship between creative organizational reputation and employee performance.

(17)

4. Methodology

This section will first discuss the research design, namely a questionnaire-based survey. Thereafter the sample used in the survey and the data collection will be discussed, followed by the measurements of the variables creative organizational reputation, employee

performance, monetary rewards and organizational status. Finally, the data analyses will be discussed.

4.1 Research design

For this study a questionnaire-based survey about the variables creative organizational reputation, employee performance, monetary rewards and organizational status is used in order to collect the data needed to test the hypothesis. Furthermore, the survey also contains a number of questions about the employees’ demographics, such as gender, age and residence, and the employees’ professional background. Survey questionnaires are appropriate for this study, because it allows you to collect quantitative data and it can be used to suggest possible reasons for particular relationships between variables (Saunders et al., 2009, p.144). The survey strategy also makes it easy to compare the answers of a large amount of people, because when using a standard survey questionnaire these data are standardized (Saunders et al., 2009, p.144). Furthermore a survey allows the collection of a large amount of data from a sizeable population in a quick and affordable way (Saunders et al., 2009, p.144).

This study used a self-administered questionnaire because self-administered

questionnaires increase the chance of anonymity, which will reduce the subject or participant bias and therefore improve the reliability of the data (Saunders et al., 2009, p.156). Self-administered questionnaires also give respondents the opportunity to answer the questions at the time that is most convenient to them, which can increase the willingness to participate. Furthermore, most of the questions are category or rating questions, which can be completed quickly when participants fill them in themselves. Moreover, the fact that there is no

interviewer who writes down the answers of the respondent also reduces socially responsible answers (Saunders et al., 2009, p.365).

Besides the advantages of a survey strategy, there are also some methodological limitations. One limitation is that with a survey questionnaire, there is only one chance to collect the data because it is often difficult to identify respondents or to return to collect additional information (Saunders et al., 2009, p.366). Therefore designing the questionnaire must be done precisely prior to data collection. Another limitation is that, due to time constraints, this study is cross-sectional with the focus on a particular phenomenon at a

(18)

particular time (Saunders et al., 2009, p.155). Therefore it will not be possible to draw conclusions about causality based on the findings.

4.2 Sample

This study focuses on national and international employees and trainees working in the Dutch fashion industry ranging from PR-employees to fashion stylists and from fashion design students to fashion marketing students. To select the cases from this population a non-probability method is used, where the non-probability of each case being selected from the total population is not known. However, it is still possible to generalize about the population, but not on statistical grounds (Saunders et al., 2009, p.213). The method used in this study is self-selection sampling, since each case is allowed to identify their desire to take part in the Internet survey (Saunders et al., 2009, p.241). However, the fact that people can choose whether they want to participate or ignore the survey invitation can lead to a systematic bias.

To increase the generalizability of the results, this study also aimed for sample size as large as possible (Saunders et al., 2009, p.217). Furthermore, this study also aimed for a sample with a wide range of sectors varied from fashion retailers to fashion brands and from fashion magazines to fashion web shops. The data results would be more reliable and

generalizable when the sample entails employees of different backgrounds and ages.

However, because of the lack of time and money, it was not be possible to draw large samples as used in previous studies. The timeframe of the data collection period for this study was three months. In order to make sure the sample is normally distributed a sample size of at least 100 participants was desirable.

4.3 Data collection

The respondents for the survey questionnaire were recruited in several ways. First, companies in the Dutch fashion industry were randomly selected from a variety ranging from PR

agencies to fashion forums and from fashion magazines to fashion retailers. These companies were approached by an mail invitation or by social media like Twitter, Facebook. The e-mail invitation (Appendix) included a direct web link (hyperlink) for the self-administered questionnaire and a short and clear description, which explains the purpose of the online survey from the University of Amsterdam and the confidential and voluntary nature of participation. The website for the alumni of the Amsterdam Fashion Institute (AMFI) was also used to recruit respondents. Alumni of AMFI use this website to recommend their own fashion lines, websites or other work related to fashion. Furthermore, friends in the fashion

(19)

industry were approached through the social network site Facebook and asked to fill in and also to distribute the survey when they had acquaintances working in the fashion industry. Respondents were also recruited through the profession network site LinkedIn, where it is possible to share the link to the survey with a short description in fashion-related groups. Moreover, some fashion stores were visited to let the employees fill in the survey on an Ipad.

The questionnaire is written in both the Dutch and English language, since this study focuses on national and international employees and trainees in the Dutch fashion industry. To administer the questionnaire an internet-mediated method is used, because this method can reach a lot of respondents in a relatively short time. Besides that, an Internet survey is an easy and appropriate way to contact different companies in the fashion industry for students who do not have many contacts in the fashion world. To develop the self-administered

questionnaire the tool Qualtrics is used. This internet-mediated method also saved a lot time, because the data did not had to be entered manually (Saunders et al., 2009, p.365).

Furthermore, this method saved money as well, since there were no printing costs as with pen and paper surveys. Besides advantages, the internet-mediated method also has some

disadvantages. Collecting data through the Internet can lead to a systematic bias because people engage in self-selection and choose whether they want to participate or ignore the invitation (Wright, 2005).

4.4 Measurements

In the survey the items were administered in Dutch, since this study focuses on employees and trainees in the Dutch fashion industry. However, the questionnaire is also translated in the English language, so international participants are given the opportunity to complete the questionnaire in English. In the survey attribute variables, opinion variables and behavioral variables (Saunders et al., 2009, p.268) are used to measure demographics, respondent’s opinion about creative organizational reputation, and respondent’s organizational performance. All the variables were measured at the employee-level and with borrowed measurements.

This study used rating questions to measure the variables creative organizational reputation and employee performance, because rating questions are appropriate to collect opinion data (Saunders et al., 2009, p.379). Responses for the creative organizational reputation items were given on a 1-5 likert scale (1=’completely disagree’ to 5=’completely agree’) and responses for the employee behavior items on a 1-7 likert scale (1=’never’ to 7=’always’). These rating questions contain an odd number of points on the rating scale,

(20)

which allows the respondent to ‘sit on the fence’ by ticking the middle category (Saunders et al., 2009, p.379). Besides rating questions, this study also used category questions to measure the moderator variables and the control variables. Category questions are questions where only one response can be selected from a given set of categories (Saunders et al., 2009, p.375).

The independent variable creative organizational reputation was measured with five items developed by my thesis supervisor Katinka Quintelier. The respondents who rated these items had to answer questions like: ‘This organization has a reputation of making creative products’ and ‘This organization has a reputation of making innovative products’. The dependent variable employee performance was measured with fifteen organizational citizenship behavior items borrowed from Dekas et al. (2013). The respondents who rated these items had to answer questions like: ‘I attend events that are not required, but help the fashion community’ and ‘I willingly help others solve work-related problems’.

The moderator variables monetary rewards and organizational status were measured with items developed by my thesis supervisor Katinka Quintelier. To measure the variable monetary rewards the salary level of the participant is used. The respondents had to answer the category question: ‘What is currently your monthly (gross) wage in this function?’ 1) less than €1700, 2) €1700-€2399, 3) €2400-€3099, 4) €3100-€3799, 5) €3800-€4499, 6) €4500-€5199, 7) €5200-€5899, 8) €5900-€6599, 9) €6600-€7299, 10) €7300-7999, 11) above €8000. The respondents who rated the organizational status item had to answer the question: ‘Please tell us about the popularity among job seekers of the organization you work for’ 1) no, jobs in this organization are not popular, 2) I have no idea, 3) yes, most jobs in this organization are popular.

Besides the moderator variables other factors may also affect the relationship between creative organizational reputation and employee performance. Therefore the demographic variables age, gender and residence are used as control variables. The control variables were measured with category questions also developed by my thesis supervisor Katinka Quintelier. The respondents had to answer the questions: ‘What is your year of birth? 1) 1999, 2) 1998 – 70) 1930’, ‘What is your gender? 1) male, 2) female’, and ‘In which country do you live most of the time? 1) Afghanistan, 2) Albania – 196) Zimbabwe’.

4.5 Analyses

To test the hypotheses the collected data are analyzed using statistical program SPSS. First the reliability analysis was conducted to test the internal consistency and to see if it was

(21)

necessary to delete an item for the variables ‘creative organizational reputation’ and ‘employee performance’. The reliability analysis was not necessary for the other variables, since those variables only consist of one item. Then the descriptive statistics (the mean and standard deviations) and correlations of the variables creative organizational reputation, employee performance, monetary rewards, organizational status, and control variables were calculated. Thereafter the regression test was conducted to see if the independent variable ‘creative organizational reputation’ predicts the dependent variable ‘employee performance’. Then, it was tested if the control variables age, gender and residence also had an effect on the dependent variable ‘employee performance’ and the independent variables. Furthermore, it was tested if the moderator variables ‘monetary rewards’ and ‘organizational status’ had a moderation effect on the relationship between ‘creative organizational reputation’ and ‘employee performance’. This moderation effect was tested by means of interaction effects between creative organizational reputation and monetary rewards and also between creative organizational reputation and organizational status on employee performance. To compute the interaction variables the variables creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards and organizational status had to be centered first.

(22)

5. Results

The results of the research discussed in the previous section methodology will be provided in this section. First the participants from the survey are described. Then, the reliability of scales is shown by means of the Cronbach’s alpha for the organizational reputation and employee performance items. Thereafter, some descriptive statistics and correlations will be discussed. After that, the results from the regression test will be presented. Finally, the results from one-way ANOVA are presented.

5.1 Participants

A total of 133 employees and trainees agreed to participate in this study. However, from the 133 participants only 64 participants completed the survey questionnaire and 69 participants did not complete the survey questionnaire. From these 69 participants all the creative

organizational reputation items, employee performance items and also the organizational status item were missing. Despite of the little number of participants, these 69 participants therefore had to be excluded from the analyses.

The final dataset therefore included 64 participants (N = 64). These participants were between the ages 20 and 48 with an average of 28.66 years. From the 64 participants 62.5% were female and 37.5% were male. Regarding residence most participants were living in the Netherlands for most of their time (89.1%). The remaining participants mainly live in Denmark (4.7%), but also in the countries Angola, Belgium, Sweden and the United States. Because most participants were Dutch and preferred to fill in the Dutch survey, the Dutch dataset was used.

However, even after excluding the 69 participants there were still some items missing. From participants 8, 37 and 50 the monetary reward item was missing, from participant 48 an employee performance item was missing and from participant 37 a creative organizational reputation item was missing. Because of the little number of total participants, these three participants were not excluded from the analyses. When doing the analyses the ‘exclude cases listwise’ box was checked for the missing items of those participants.

5.2 Reliability

To test whether the items for the variables creative organizational reputation and employee performance are reliable, the reliability analysis was conducted. However, it is not possible to conduct the reliability analysis for the control variables and moderator variables, since these were measured with only one item. The Cronbach’s Alphas of the variables creative

(23)

organizational reputation and employee performance are presented in Table 1. The cronbach’s alpha for creative organizational reputation was highly reliable (α = .856). The employee performance alpha had an excellent reliability (α = .915). The cronbach’s alpha of both variables could not increase (significant) when one of the items would be deleted. However, in this case a higher cronbach’s alpha for the variables creative organizational reputation and employee performance is not really necessary, because the alpha for both variables were significant higher than the required minimum (α = 0.60).

Table 1. Descriptives and correlations between the variables (Cronbach’s Alphas between parentheses)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Reputation 3.413 .943 (.856) 2 Age 15.360 6.050 -.344** . 3 Gender 1.640 .484 .222* -.382*** . 4 Residence 1.110 .321 -.049 -.176 -.051 . 5 Rewards 2.850 2.120 -.247* .577*** -.345** .294* . 6 Status 2.790 .413 .144 .025 -.057 .187 .192 . 7 Performance 5.113 .908 .264* -.212* .248* -.247* -.181 .107 (.915) Note. N=64. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (1-tailed)

5.3 Descriptive statistics and correlations

The descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards, organizational status and employee performance are presented in Table 1. As predicted, the independent variable creative organizational reputation is weakly correlated with the dependent variable employee performance (r = .264, p < .05). This means that employees working for an organization with a creative reputation seem to performing better than employees working for a less creative organization. Furthermore, creative organizational reputation is weakly correlated to monetary rewards in a negative way (r = -.247, p < .05). This indicates that employees working at an organization with a more creative reputation seem to earn less monetary rewards than other employees.

For the first control variable age three correlations were found. The control variable age is moderately correlated with the variable creative organizational reputation in a negative way (r = -.344, p < .01). This indicates that younger employees are often working for a more creative organization. Furthermore, the control variable age is strongly and positively

correlated with the variable monetary rewards (r = .577, p < .001). This means that older employees earn higher monetary rewards than the younger employees in the fashion industry. Moreover, the control variable age is weakly correlated to employee performance in a

(24)

negative way (r = -.264, p < .05). This indicates that younger employees are performing better than the older employees in the fashion industry.

For the second control variable gender also three correlations were found. The control variable gender is weakly and positively correlated with the variable creative organizational reputation (r = .222, p < .05). This indicates that there are more female employees than male employees working for organizations with a creative reputation. The variable gender is also moderately and negatively correlated with rewards (r = -.345, p < .01). This means that female employees earn less monetary rewards than their male colleagues in organizations in the fashion industry. Furthermore, the control variable gender is weakly correlated with employee performance in a positive way (r = .248, p < .05). This indicates female employees are performing better than male employees in the fashion industry.

For the third control variable residence only two correlations were found. A weak and negative correlation was found with the dependent variable employee performance (r = -.247, p < .05). This indicates that employees with a Dutch residence perform better in the fashion industry than employees from abroad. Further, the control variable residence is weakly correlated with rewards in a positive way (r = .294, p < .05). This means that employees with a residence abroad earn higher monetary rewards than employees from the Netherlands in the Dutch fashion industry.

5.4 Regression analysis

The regression results of main effects and interaction effects of the control variables, creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards and organizational status on employee

performance are presented in Table 2. Model 1 shows the main effects of the control variables age, gender and residence on employee performance. Model 2 shows the main effects of creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards and organizational status on employee performance. It was predicted that creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards and also organizational status have a significant positive main effect on employee performance. Model 3 shows the interaction effects of creative organization reputation, monetary rewards and organizational status on employee performance. It was predicted that both the interactions between ‘creative organizational reputation and monetary rewards’ and between ‘creative organizational reputation and organizational status’ have a significant positive effect on employee performance.

(25)

Table 2. Regression results of main effects (model 1&2) and interaction effects (model 3)

Employee performance Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE Beta B SE Beta B SE Beta

Constant 5.415** .699 3.965** 1.075 3.087* .976 Age -.015 .020 -.098 -.006 .024 .145 .019 .022 .125 Gender .374 .251 .200 .353 .256 .222 .404 .233 .216 Residence -.620 .356 -.219 -.697 .369 .218 -.392 .331 -.139 Creative reputation (CR) .169 .130 .215 .167 .119 .174 Monetary rewards (MR) -.003 .069 -.075 -.040 .061 -.093

Organization status (OS) .309 .286 .170 .393 .250 .179

Interaction CR*MR . .133** .039 .411 Interaction CR*OS . .432 .233 .216 R² .124 .178 .400 Adjusted R² .078 .086 .308 R² Change .124 .053 .223 Sig. F Change .054 .331 .000

Note. Dependent variable is employee performance. N=64. *p <.05, **p <.01

The first model does not show any main effects between the control variables and employee performance. Although the control variable residence was significantly and negative correlated with employee performance (r = -.247, p < .05), model 1 only shows a negative but unfortunately not significant main effect.

The second model shows that the variable creative organizational reputation (β = .215, ns) has a positive effect on employee performance, but unexpectedly not in a significant way. This indicates that a creative organizational reputation does not necessarily influence the performance of employees as predicted before, not verifying the first hypothesis. Besides that, the moderator variables monetary rewards (β = .004, ns) and organizational status (β = .124, ns) have a positive effect on employee performance, but also not in a significant way. The findings of the first model indicate that the employees perform better with an certain residence, but a creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards and organizational status do not necessary affect the employees’ performance in the fashion industry.

As predicted, the third model shows a significant and positive interaction between the variables creative organizational reputation and monetary rewards (B = .133, p < .01),

verifying hypothesis 2 the moderating effect of monetary rewards on the relationship between creative organizational reputation and employee performance. Unexpectedly, the second model does not show a significant positive interaction between the variables creative

organizational reputation and organizational status (B = .432, ns), not verifying hypothesis 3 the moderating effect of organizational status on the relationship between creative

organizational reputation and employee performance. These findings indicate that larger monetary rewards more strongly motivate employees working at creative organizations to

(26)

perform better than smaller monetary rewards, but a high organizational status does not necessarily influence the employee performance.

Furthermore, model 3 (R² = .400) explains more variance than model 1 (R² = .124) and model 2 (R² = .178). This indicates that model 3 explains 40.0% of the variance by the

independent variables creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards, organizational status, and control variables. Moreover, the quality of model 3 is good because the R Square Change (R² Change = .223) leads to a significant F Change (Sig F Change = .000) and the Adjusted R Square increases strongly to .308. Therefore it can be concluded that the regression model improves when the interaction variables are included.

(27)

6. Discussion

This section will discuss the research key findings including the hypotheses. The findings are linked to the existing literature by comparing these with previous findings. Furthermore, based on the findings some theoretical contributions and managerial implications are presented. Finally, the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research will be discussed.

6.1 Key findings

The overall findings unexpectedly suggest that a creative organizational reputation does not have a significant main effect on employee performance, although these variables are weakly correlated in a significant way. However, based on these findings the first hypothesis ‘a

creative organizational reputation will be positively related to employee performance’ could

be rejected. This finding is not in line with the prediction of Andriopoulos and Gotsi (2000) that creative organizations’ employees, through their creative performance, have a great role in developing and sustaining a favorable organizational reputation. The reason for the lack of support for this hypothesis could be the fact that the sample was too small, with incorrect outcomes as a result. Another explanation for the lack of support could be the fact that the relationship holds for creative employees in general but not necessarily for creative employees in the fashion industry.

Furthermore, employees working for organizations with a more creative reputation seem to earn less monetary rewards than employees working for organizations with a less creative reputation. This is an assumed direction of causality, which is in line with the suggestion of Cable and Turban (2003) that applicants are willing to pay premiums to accept jobs at certain organizations because these individuals value the pride that they expect from membership. Furthermore, Benjamin and Podolny (1999) suggest that individuals want to work for an organization that has a favorable reputation in the eyes of others because their affiliation with the organization can increase their own reputation. Based on the findings of this study it can be indicated that creative employees are attracted to reputable creative organizations because they expect pride from membership and it increases their own reputation. This is probably the reason why reputable creative organizations can afford it to offer their employees a lower wage than other organizations.

As predicted, larger monetary rewards seem to more strongly encourage employees working in organizations with a creative reputation to perform better compared to smaller monetary rewards. Therefore the second hypothesis ‘monetary rewards will positively

(28)

moderate the relationship between creative organizational reputation and employee performance’ is supported. This finding is an assumed direction of causality, which is in

contrast with the suggestions of Amabile (1983) that reward reduces intrinsic task interest at the expense of spontaneous task performance and of Deci and Ryan (1985) that individuals view rewards for an enjoyable task as an attempt to control their behavior, which reduces intrinsic task interest. Although, Collins and Amabile (1999) more recently took the broader view that rewards can sometimes increase intrinsic task interest and creativity. A reason for these inconsistent results could be the fact that the relationship holds for creative individuals in general but not necessarily for creative employees in the fashion industry. However, the finding of this study is partially in line with the suggestion of Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) that rewards not only enhance employee creativity but also intrinsic task motivation. Besides that, others argue that rewards boost motivation and creative performance, because rewards have informational value and recognize individuals’ personal competencies

(Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Bear et al., 2003). Furthermore, Haslam et al. (2000) also argue that financial reward made some contributions to employee’s performance at work, although the reward itself must not be too high to prevent employees from becoming shiftless,

extravagant and dissolute (Taylor, 1911). Moreover, Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) argue that establishing purpose and intention to be creative is important for translating intrinsic interest into creative accomplishment. Since creative employees often work for creative organizations, monetary rewards could be an important motivation for these employees to enhance their creative performance, but only when these are not too high and when employees are aware of the purpose and intention of the reward.

Unexpectedly, creative employees working for a higher status organization are not necessarily more strongly motivated to perform better in creative organizations compared to employees working for a lower status organization. Therefore the third and last hypothesis

‘organizational status will positively moderate the relationship between creative

organizational reputation and employee performance’ is not supported. This finding is not in

line with the suggestion of Carmeli and Freund (2002) that organizational status is positively linked to organizational citizenship behavior, which indicates that employees perform more organizational citizenship behavior when they are associated with a high status organization. Organizational citizenship behavior is the form of employee performance this study focuses on. Besides that, the finding is also not in line with Sauder et al. (2012) who argue that employees working for high status organizations will act in the best interest of high status organizations, because these organizations prefer to interact only with others that do benefit

(29)

them and less beneficial employees will therefore be replaced. Based on the findings of this study it can be stated that employees working for a high status organization not necessarily tend to act in the best interest of that high status organization, despite the fact that they can be replaced. A reason for the lack of support for this hypothesis could be the fact that the sample was too small, with incorrect outcomes as a result. Another explanation for the lack of support could be the fact that the relationship holds for employees in general but not necessarily for creative employees in the fashion industry.

The control variables age and gender also seem to influence the three variables creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards, and employee performance. Age and gender were both significant correlated with creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards and employee performance. The third control variable residence was significant correlated with the two variables monetary rewards and employee performance. These findings indicate that most employees working in creative organizations in the fashion industry are young women, which is realistic since women are often more interested in fashion than men and young women are better suited for fashion organizations than older women. Besides that, older employees and male employees in the fashion industry often earn higher monetary rewards, which is also realistic since older employees often have more work experience than young employees and male employees often have higher positions than female employees. Furthermore, young employees and female employees often perform better in the fashion industry. As regards to residence, the employees from the Netherlands perform better on average, but earn less monetary rewards on average than those employees from abroad that perform worse. A reason for this contradictory finding about residence could be the fact that different countries have different pay scheme.

6.2 Theoretical contributions and managerial implications

The effect of creative organizational reputation on the performance of employees, and especially in the fashion industry, has not been investigated thoroughly before. This study therefore contributes to the reputation literature, employee performance literature and to fashion research. It was found that a creative organizational reputation is positively correlated with employee performance, however there was no significant main effect found between these two variables. This indicates that employees working for organizations with a creative reputation do not necessarily perform better at work. This finding is not in line with the prediction of Andriopoulos and Gotsi (2000) that creative organizations’ employees, through their creative performance, have a great role in developing and sustaining a favorable

(30)

organizational reputation. Science should use this contrast to focus on the relationship between creative organizational reputation and employee performance.

Furthermore, this study found that employees’ demographics also have an influence on creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards and employee performance. The findings indicate that ‘ perform better in the fashion industry, and employees from the

Netherlands that perform better on average earn less monetary rewards on average than those employees from abroad that perform worse on average. Previous studies have not taken into account that employees’ demographic could also be an important influencing factor. Future research should therefore also focus on employees’ demographics, thereby making it possible to compare the results with regard to the demographics.

Like Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) this study found that larger monetary rewards have a positive effect on the performance of employees, although the focus in this study was on creative organizations’ employees in the fashion industry. Haslam et al. (2000) argue that financial reward made some contributions to employee’s performance at work. Besides that, others argue that rewards boost motivation and creative performance, because rewards have informational value and recognize individuals’ personal competencies (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Bear et al., 2003). At practical level it can be stated that creative organizations in the fashion industry should reward their employees with high monetary rewards to stimulate them to enhance their creative performance. However, the reward itself must not be too high to prevent employees from becoming shiftless, extravagant and dissolute (Taylor, 1911; Haslam et al., 2000). Furthermore it is important that the rewarded employees understand that reward depends on creative performance, because without a verbal explanation the rewarded

employee may fail to discriminate that creative performance produced the reward (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003).

Contrary to Carmeli and Freund (2002) this study did not found that organizational status have a positive influence on the performance of employees in creative organizations. The finding of this study is also not inline with Sauder et al. (2012) who argue that employees working for high status organizations will act in the best interest of the organization, because these organizations will prefer to interact mainly with employees that do benefit them, and less beneficial employees will therefore be replaced. Based on the findings of this study it can be argued that a high organizational status does not necessarily influence the performance of employees in the fashion industry. Science should use this contrast to focus on the

relationship between organizational status and employee performance. However, a high organizational status can lower recruiting cost and retains labor of a given quality (Sauder et

(31)

al., 2012). When more individuals are willing to work for a certain organization, this organization can be more selective in the hiring process, and also hire better qualified employees. At practical level it can therefore be stated that organizations with a creative reputation still should develop and sustain a high organizational status in order to attract better-qualified employees.

It can be concluded that this study contributes to knowledge about effective ways to motivate creative employees in the fashion industry to perform better. The results of this study suggest that managers of creative organizations should financially reward employees for good performance, because high monetary rewards motivates employees in the fashion industry to enhance their creative performance. Despite the fact that a high organizational status does not necessarily influence the employee performance, organizations still should develop and sustain a high organizational status, because organizations with a high status have lower recruiting costs and attract more and better-qualified employees. All of these factors will contribute to achieving and sustaining organizational success in the fashion industry. Furthermore, this study contributes to the reputation literature, employee

performance literature and to fashion research. Unexpectedly there was no main effect found between creative organizational reputation and employee performance, which is not in line with the prediction of Andriopoulos and Gotsi (2000). Moreover, there was no interaction effect between creative organizational reputation and organizational status on employee performance, which is not in line with the prediction of Carmeli and Freund (2002). Science should use these contrasts to focus on the relationship between creative organizational reputation and employee performance and the relationship between organizational status and employee performance. Besides that, science should also pay attention to employees’

demographics since these also have an influence on creative organizational reputation, monetary rewards and employee behavior.

6.3 Limitations and future research

The current study has some limitations. First the scale employee performance was only measured at the employee level, but not at the supervisor or at the colleague level. The scale employee performance would be more reliable if it was also rated at the supervisor and colleague level, because employees are not entirely objective when assessing their own performance. Future research should therefore also include measurements at supervisor and colleague level besides self-rated measurements of employee performance.

Employee behavior in the fashion industry : the influence of creative organizational reputation on employee performance