The Effect of Negative Humour on
Creativity and Innovativeness
Justin J.F. Meier S1892967
23-6-2014
Contents
Abstract ... 2
Introduction ... 2
1. Literature review ... 4
2. Hypotheses and conceptual model ... 6
2.1 Humour classifications ... 6 2.2 Intermediate variables ... 7 2.3 Control variables ... 9 2.4 Conceptual model ... 10 3. Methodology ... 10 3.1 Measures ... 10 3.2 Setup ... 12 3.3 Data collection ... 12 3.4 Data analysis ... 14 3.5 Model ... 15 4. Results ... 17 4.1 Descriptive statistics ... 17 4.2 Bivariate correlations ... 20 4.3 Regression analysis ... 23 4.4 Hypotheses ... 28 5. Conclusion ... 32 5.1 Discussion ... 32 5.2 Managerial implications ... 33
5.3 Limitations and future research ... 34
References ... 36
Appendix A: Variables influenced by negative humour and influencing innovativeness and creativity ... 42
Appendix B: Variable selection criteria and evaluations ... 42
Appendix C: Measurement scale criteria and evaluations ... 44
Appendix D: Original scales ... 46
Appendix E: Final questionnaire ... 48
Appendix F: Factor analyses ... 54
Appendix G: Cronbach’s alpha’s of all variables ... 61
Appendix H: Cronbach’s alpha’s if item deleted ... 61
Appendix I: Models for regression analysis ... 62
Abstract
This thesis describes the research and results of the effects of negative humour on creativity and innovativeness of individuals in their work environment. Humour in the workplace is a topic of increasing interest. Literature shows that humour can have both positive and negative consequences in the workplace, among which influences on creativity and innovativeness. Positive humour styles are proven to positively influence creativity and innovation. However, little is known about the effects of negative humour styles. For this reason the goal of this thesis is to research the topic of negative humour in the workplace in order to obtain a more comprehensive and holistic representation of the subject. Expanding the knowledge about the influence of negative humour on creativity and innovativeness in workplace can help managers to make adjustments in their policies, codes of conduct and leadership style. In this view, they can use or avoid using negative humour to stimulate employees and increase their creativity and innovativeness. This research will focus on the effects of two negative humour styles: aggressive and self-defeating humour. It is hypothesized that the negative humour styles have a negative effect on the creativity and innovativeness of individuals. After an in-depth research in literature, the relations between the use of negative humour styles, creativity and innovativeness were tested among 117 employees from eight different companies within different industries. By means of regression analyses this study empirically examines whether and how the use of negative humour in organisational context can influence the creative and innovative potential of employees. The summary of results suggests that negative humour, when used in mild forms, can have positive consequences for the creativity and innovativeness of individuals. Negative consequences were found in the form of a decrease in job satisfaction when being the victim of negative humour, which in turn affects creativity and innovativeness. Finally managerial implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Introduction
could be translated into people’s professional work environment, it could be a powerful tool to enhance people’s work. By using an appropriate display of humour, a leader can elicit positive outcomes, such as positive emotion states and creativity and innovativeness (Hughes, 2009). This is why workplace humour and organizational creativity and innovativeness are topics of increasing interest. There is a need to understand more about the role of humour in the workplace and how it influences creativity and innovativeness, as innovation and creativity have been offered as important performance outcomes for organizations (Hughes, 2009).
Different forms of humour likely have different effects. The master thesis of Ivar Dechesne (2013) proved that positive humour styles are positively correlated to the creativity and innovativeness of individuals. However, no significant relationship between negative humour, creativity and innovativeness has been found in current literature. Research on the influence of negative humour has been conducted in the psychology field, but it has been explored in the workplace to a little extend; it probably has different workplace effects. In this paper, the influence of negative humour on the creativity and innovativeness of individuals in the workplace is determined, whereas the focus lies on the use of negative humour on the individual level, as humour styles differ between individuals (Martin et al., 2003). This study examines two different forms of negative humour: receiving aggressive humour and sending self-defeating humour. The possible effect of the negative humour styles will be quantitatively tested by distributing questionnaires. Based on the criteria in the Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) (Martin et al., 2003), scenarios that include the two forms of negative humour will be projected on participants of the research. These scenarios form the basis of the questionnaire that is applied.
The relevance of this study lies in researching the possible relationships between negative humour and the innovativeness and creativity of individuals, so that managers can make adjustments in their organisational policies, codes of conduct, and leadership style according to the findings. They can improve the effectiveness of using humour in the workplace, resulting in an increase of the creative and innovative performance of employees.
1. Literature review
1.1 Defining humourIn literature, there is no one clear definition of humour. Humour is “any communicative instance which is perceived as humorous” (Martineau 1972). Perhaps this broad definition is a result of all the different existing forms of humour and people’s varied responses to them. An early humour definition of Freud (1928) describes humour as “a healthy defence mechanism that allows one to avoid negative emotions while maintaining a realistic perspective on a potentially aversive situation.” Davis (1999) defined sense of humour as “one’s ability to take a childlike and playful approach to problems.” Both definitions suggest that humour is a healthy and playful way to cope with situations. According to Martin et al. (2003) humour can be categorized by four humour styles. Two of them are positive (self-enhancing and affiliative humour) and two of them are negative (self-defeating and aggressive humour). Romero & Cruthirds (2006) describe these four humour styles as follows: (1) affiliative humour is non-threatening, non-hostile, and used to enhance social interactions; (2) self-enhancing humour is internally centred and is used as a coping mechanism to buffer against stress; (3) aggressive humour is used to victimize, ridicule or belittle others (e.g. sarcasm or teasing); and (4) self-defeating humour is used to lower one’s own social status to become more approachable (e.g. amusing others by saying denigrating things about oneself). Affiliative humour and aggressive humour are other-directed, while self-enhancing and self-defeating humour are self-directed (Romero & Arendt, 2011).
In psychology literature, it is stated that positive and negative styles differ significantly, with positive humour being more effective at increasing positive emotions than negative humour (Samson & Gross, 2012). For instance, self-esteem is positively correlated with the positive humour styles and negatively correlated with the negative ones (Galloway, 2010). Galloway (2010) formed four clusters with combinations of the four humour styles. He found that people who were clustered as scoring above average on the negative styles and below average on the positive ones can be described as not being open to new experiences, as well as being negative towards themselves and others. Such people might use humour to defend their self-image against perceived threats. Specifically, their use of aggressive humour can devalue those who they perceive as not valuing them. Martin et al. (2003) state that self-defeating humour might help such individuals deny to themselves and others that they harbour feelings of low self-worth. On the other hand, observing other people being ridiculed can make people in cohesive teams more productive, because it is related to conforming behaviours (Janes & Olsen, 2000). As this research concentrates on the use of negative humour styles, the positive humour styles will no further be covered.
1.2 Negative humour
Regarding self-defeating humour, they found that a self-defeating humour style correlates positively with loneliness, shyness, depression, and negatively with self-esteem. Lowered self-esteem may have consequences for the creativity and innovativeness of people. Aggressive and self-defeating humour, the two negative humour styles of the classification of Martin et al. (2003) will be explained in more detail.
1.2.1 Aggressive humour
Martin et al., (2003) state that aggressive humour relates to the use of sarcasm, teasing, ridicule, derision, “put-down,” or disparagement humour; it also includes using humour to manipulate others by means of an implied threat of ridicule. It is a negative style of humour which entails disparaging others in order to bolster the self (Tucker et al., 2013). In general, it relates to the tendency to express humour without regard for its potential impact on others, and includes compulsive expressions of humour in which one finds it difficult to resist the impulse to say funny things that are likely to hurt or alienate others (Martin et al., 2003). In their study of humour styles and divergent thinking, Cayirdag & Acar (2010) found that an aggressive humour style was negatively correlated with fluency and originality of students, and a self-defeating humour style was negatively correlated with fluency scores. Fluency is the total number of the ideas, and originality is the infrequency of the ideas (Cayirdag & Acar, 2010). In this way, they found a negative correlation between aggressive humour and creativity. Dyck & Holtzman (2013) found that higher levels of aggressive humour in males related to higher levels of social support, while higher levels of aggressive humour in females related to lower social support. Although these slopes were not statistically significant, they do imply that there is a difference in the reception of aggressive humour between men and women. On the contrary, Romero & Cruthirds (2006) believe that a mild aggressive humour can have positive functions, because mild aggressive humour can communicate a forceful reprimanding message with a humorous and positive tone, as “it allows one to express a disagreement and conflict without negative affect because the message is delivered in a playful manner”.
1.2.2 Self-defeating humour
emotional distance in relationships, incite negative responses from others, and eventually lead to poor well-being (Dyck & Holtzman, 2013). This poor well-being may result in individuals performing worse in the field of creativity and innovation.
Although the two negative humour styles are positively correlated (Greengross et al., 2012), they will be researched independently to be able to obtain more specific results. In the following sections, the concepts of creativity and innovativeness will be explained.
1.3 Creativity
Creativity is seen as a useful and effective response to evolutionary changes (Runco, 2004). In addition to what may be its most obvious function – as part of the problem solving process – creativity allows individuals to remain flexible (Runco, 2004). “Individuals can be creative in their jobs by generating new ways to perform their work, by coming up with novel procedures or innovative ideas, and by reconfiguring known approaches into new alternatives” (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Employee creativity can be described as the production of new and useful ideas concerning products, services, processes and procedures (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Creativity at work as an individual-level construct is defined as “an approach to work that leads to the generation of novel and appropriate ideas, processes, or solutions” (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). As creativity includes the production of new, useful, and innovative ideas, it is an important precursor for innovation (Chong & Ma, 2010). The innovativeness of individuals will be explained in the next section.
1.4 Innovativeness
The innovativeness of an individual can be explained by their Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB). IWB is defined as an individual’s behaviour that aims “to achieve the initiation and intentional introduction (within a work role, group or organization) of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures” (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). IWB differs from employee creativity because it also includes the implementation of ideas (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010).
2. Hypotheses and conceptual model
2.1 Humour classificationsThe Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) designed by Martin et al. (2003) provides a classification of different humour styles, as does the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale (Thorson & Powell, 1993). As was researched in the master thesis of Dechesne (2013), research should avoid using the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale. This is why this research will use the theories of Martin et al. (2003) as a foundation.
sub hypotheses initiate a direct effect between the two negative humour styles and the creativity and innovativeness of individuals.
Hypothesis 1a: Aggressive humour has a negative effect on the innovativeness and creativity of individuals.
Hypothesis 1b: Self-defeating humour has a negative effect on the innovativeness and creativity of individuals.
2.2 Intermediate variables
Based on a background study in psychology, innovation, management and business literature, a number of variables are selected that possibly mediate the relation between negative humour and creativity and innovativeness. A mediating variable represents the generative mechanism through which the independent variable is able to influence the dependent variable of interest (Baron & Kenny, 1986). As a first step to find the intermediates, a list of variables that are influenced by the receiving of aggressive humour or sending of self-defeating humour is composed. Secondly, a list of variables which influence the innovativeness and creativity of individuals is created. Thirdly, it is determined whether there are matching variables that are both influenced by negative humour and have an influence on innovativeness and creativity. These matches are shown in appendix A. The matching variables include psychological
empowerment, originality, job satisfaction, self-esteem, loneliness, shyness, depression, openness to experience, social support, well-being, and stress.
To select the most appropriate intermediate variables for this research from the possible variables presented in appendix A, a list of criteria has been composed. These criteria and their evaluations are stated in appendix B.
Hampes (2005) states that shyness and loneliness have yielded correlations of ,40 or more. Both these correlating variables will not be included in this research, as they are assumed to have little contribution to managerial concerns. Tucker et al. (2013) state that loneliness is a similar kind of interpersonal dysfunction as social isolation. The more positive form of social isolation, social support, can be seen as the overarching concept. As social support contributes more to managerial concerns and it qualifies for all four criteria, it will be included in this paper.
Originality and openness to experience are not included in this paper, as no strong
relationships with negative humour were found for these two variables in literature. The same accounts for depression. No strong relationship between depression and creativity or innovativeness was found in literature. Weisberg (1994) hypothesized that mania in manic-depressives increased creativity, but he could not support his hypothesis.
Spreitzer (1995) described self-esteem as an antecedent of psychological empowerment. This is why self-esteem will not be included in this research. However, the overlying variable
psychological empowerment will be used as an intermediate variable in the relationship
Job satisfaction is the third and last variable that will be included. Although it has a
correlation with stress, Kawada & Otsuka (2011) state that the job satisfaction score in their paper is the sum of the individual items of stress. That is why job satisfaction can be seen as an overarching variable of job stress. As job satisfaction matches all other three criteria, and only correlates with the underlying variable stress, it is the last variable which will be included. The analysis of possible mediating variables results in job satisfaction,
psychological empowerment, and social support being the most appropriate variables for this
research. These three variables will be discussed in the following sections. 2.2.1 Job satisfaction
Following Shipton et al. (2006), job satisfaction involves cognitive as well as affective elements; it may be seen as “an internal state that is expressed by affectively and/or cognitively evaluating an experienced job with some degree of favour or disfavour”. Thompson & Phua (2012) make a distinction between affective and cognitive job satisfaction, whereas affective job satisfaction implies that “job satisfaction can be considered as a global feeling about a job” and cognitive job satisfaction implies “a constellation of attitudes about various aspects or facets of a job”. In this research, the focus will lie on the change of overall job satisfaction as a result of the use of negative humour. This is why the affective view of job satisfaction will be used, as defined by Thompson & Phua (2012).
People who report greater use of self-defeating humour report lower life satisfaction (Dyck & Holtzman, 2013). Also, self-defeating and aggressive humour is negatively related to relationship satisfaction (Martin et al., 2003). Although literature does not state a clear relation to job satisfaction, these influences of negative humour on life satisfaction can be translated to job satisfaction. Burnette & Pollack (2013) state that life satisfaction and job satisfaction interact, which is based on research and theory demonstrating strong links between personality factors that predict job satisfaction and those that predict life satisfaction. Shipton et al. (2006) found that job satisfaction was a significant predictor of subsequent organizational innovation. This research will not focus on organizational innovation, but on the innovativeness of individuals in an organization. Shipton et al. (2006) propose that if employees experience job satisfaction, they will endorse rather than resist innovation and will implement and generate creative ideas. The following hypotheses are proposed about job satisfaction:
Hypothesis 2a: The receiving of aggressive humour has a negative effect on job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2b: The sending of self-defeating humour has a negative effect on job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2c: Job satisfaction has a positive effect on the innovativeness and creativity of individuals.
2.2.2 Psychological empowerment
competence, self-determination, and impact. Meaning concerns a sense of feeling that one’s work is personally important; competence refers to self-efficacy, or belief in one’s ability to successfully perform tasks; self-determination indicates perceptions of freedom to choose how to initiate and carry out tasks; and impact represents the degree to which one views one’s behaviours as making a difference in work outcomes (Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
Gkorezis et al. (2011) found that the use of a leader’s negative humour has a negative effect on employee’s psychological empowerment. In turn, Zhang & Bartol (2010) found that psychological empowerment is positively related to employee creativity with creative process engagement and intrinsic motivation as mediating factors. This is why the following hypotheses regarding psychological empowerment are posed:
Hypothesis 3a: The receiving of aggressive humour has a negative effect on psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 3b: The sending of self-defeating humour has a negative effect on psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 3c: Psychological empowerment has a positive effect on the innovativeness and creativity of individuals.
2.2.3 Social support
Social support involves some kind of relationship transaction between individuals (Zimet et al., 1988). Schumaker & Brownell (1984) define social support as “an exchange of resources between at least two individuals perceived by the provider or the recipient to be intended to enhance the well-being of the recipient”. Social support in this research will include social support that is provided in the workplace.
Self-defeating humour has been found to negatively affect social support (Martin et al., 2003; Dyck & Holtzman, 2013). Dyck & Holtzman (2013) found a difference in gender regarding self-defeating humour. Higher levels of aggressive humour in males related to higher levels of social support, while higher levels of the humour style in females related to lower social support. Social support, given or received through social networks in the research of Zhou et al. (2009), can facilitate creativity and innovation. Strong ties in these networks of social support enhance creativity (Zhou et al., 2009). The hypotheses regarding social support are:
Hypothesis 4a: The receiving of aggressive humour has a negative effect on social support.
Hypothesis 4b: The sending of self-defeating humour has a negative effect on social support.
Hypothesis 4c: Social support has a positive effect on the innovativeness and creativity of individuals.
2.3 Control variables
2.4 Conceptual model
In the previous section, hypotheses were proposed based on background research in literature. The hypotheses lead up to the following two conceptual models. On behalf of the clarity of this research, one conceptual model is developed for aggressive humour (figure 1) and one for self-defeating humour (figure 2).
Aggressive humour Innovativeness and
creativity of individuals Control variables: - age - gender - education - company - tenure - department - function - form of questionnaire Psychological empowerment Social support Job satisfaction H2a H3a H4a H1a H2c H3c H4c
Figure 1: conceptual model A, including aggressive humour
Self-defeating humour Innovativeness and
creativity of individuals Psychological empowerment Social support Job satisfaction H2b H3b H4b H1b H2c H3c H4c Control variables: - age - gender - education - company - tenure - department - function - form of questionnaire
Figure 2: conceptual model B, including self-defeating humour
3. Methodology
This study investigates the influence of humour in the workplace on the creativity and innovativeness of individuals in an organisation. The first section of the methods describes the steps that are taken to measure, collect and analyse the data. The second section explains how the applied scales in the questionnaire are tested through reliability and factor analysis.
3.1 Measures
3.1.1 Independent variables
Whether people use aggressive and self-defeating humour or not will not be measured. For both humour styles a scenario is developed which involves a situation with the particular humour style. In the questionnaire, three items per scenario are included that measure to what extent the respondents think that the proposed situation involves the concerning humour style. These questions include: (1) to what extent respondents consider that the scenario is an example of the humour style; (2) if they can image being in such a situation; and (3) if they even have been in such a similar situation. In this fashion, different conceptions of the humour styles can be related to the dependent variables.
3.1.2 Dependent variables
Based on ratings of the criteria (appendix C), job satisfaction will be measured with the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIJAS) (Thompson & Phua, 2012). The BIAJS scale offers a brief, systematically validated, and maximally affective job satisfaction measure. Psychological empowerment will be measured with the Psychological Empowerment Scale (Spreitzer, 1995) and social support will be measured with the 2-Way Social Support Scale (Shakespeare-Finch & Obst, 2011). The items on the scales have been changed from measuring the state of the respondents to a form where the items measure an expected change in the behaviour of the respondents according to the scenario. Respondents can indicate on a 5 point Likert scale whether they think that their behaviour changes in a positive or negative fashion.
3.1.3 Innovativeness and Creativity
Innovativeness of individuals is measured with the ten item Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB) scale (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010), which measures the innovative work behaviour of individuals, and the six item Innovative Output scale (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010), which assesses how often employees offer suggestions, contribute to innovations or new product development, or acquire new knowledge. Originally the IWB scale is supervisor-rated. Therefore the scale is altered into a self-reporting scale by changing the opening sentence from “How often does this employee” to a form where the employee can rate its own behaviour. IWB and innovative output are positively related (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Creativity of individuals is measured using the three item creative performance scale by Oldham & Cummings (1996). It measures the creativity, novelty and originality of an individual employee’s work. ‘
For all measurement scales, the items that measure traits have been removed from the scale. This research is trying to determine certain expected states from the respondents in a given situation, not traits. The original items of each scale can be found in appendix D.
3.1.4 Control variables
dummy variables were entered for the different participating companies; and eight dummy variables were entered for the department (Sales, Finance, Marketing, R&D, HR, Management, Consulting, and Other) in which the respondents are active. The first six are the main departments that make up a company and consulting is a different branch that also includes creative and innovative processes.
3.2 Setup
The final questionnaire measures eight variables (aggressive humour, self-defeating humour, creative performance, innovative output, innovative work behaviour, job satisfaction, psychological empowerment, and social support) using a total of 92 questions, excluding control variables. The questionnaire is designed as a situational judgment test (SJT). SJTs measure projected behaviour or what the participant believes he or she would do in a situation (Weekley & Jones, 1999). SJTs are instruments that present respondents with work-related situations and possible responses to the situations (McDaniel et al., 2007). The participants received two scenarios. One scenario describes a situation including aggressive humour and the other a situation including self-defeating humour. The scenarios are based on the measurement criteria of aggressive and self-defeating humour in the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003). Key words from the aggressive and self-defeating humour items in the HSQ were selected and processed in the scenario. The respondents were asked in what way their behaviour, based on the different variables’ scales mentioned above, would change as a result of the scenario. All participants performed self-reporting ratings where they can state whether their behaviour changes from “a lot less” to “a lot more” (on a 5 point Likert scale).
3.3 Data collection
The questionnaire was distributed among eight different companies in different industries, both online and hardcopy. The online survey was chosen as the main mode of data collection, and the hardcopy surveys were complementary modes. In order to see if the different data collection modes affect the results of this research, the control variable form of questionnaire was included.
The participants of this research required a certain level of creativity and innovation at their work. This is why the eight companies were selected based on their organisational vision. All their visions included providing their customers with innovative and creative solutions to their everyday problems. In this way, participants were selected based on their involvement in the creative and innovative processes that their companies perform.
3.3.1 Pilot questionnaire
Four employees, each employed at a different company, and one independent researcher were selected to fill out the pilot questionnaire. The respondents were given space after each set of 15 questions to answer whether all questions were clear or not. If not, they were able to note which questions were unclear and why. The same applies for the scenarios. Respondents were asked after both scenarios if they were clear and were given space to elaborate if not. Respondents were asked to track the time of completing the questionnaire and to give general comments and remarks at the end of the pilot. To avoid possible bias, the respondents of the pilot were excluded from the final study. The results of the pilot questionnaire exposed a few flaws and inadequacies. The form in which the questions were asked was changed from “in such a situation...” to “as a result of such a situation...”. Also a couple of typos were exposed and corrected. The final questionnaire can be found in appendix E.
3.3.2 Procedure
The approached companies were contacted both by telephone and e-mail. Mixing modes used for pre-contact and reminders, and not for the data collection itself, merely has advantages (De Leeuw, 2005). Four companies were willing to participate, three of which are active in the production of discrete technologies and one is a main actor in public transport services. These companies suited this research as they perform creative and innovative processes in order to meet their customers’ demand. Through contacts at each company, online surveys were distributed. Internet or web surveys are very cost and time efficient (De Leeuw, 2005). As it was hard to keep track of the number of employees that the survey was sent to by the contacts, no exact number of distributed questionnaires is available. The four contacts indicated that they would send the survey to 20-40 colleagues. This means that a total of approximately 120 questionnaires was distributed. It resulted in a response of 30 completed questionnaires, which gives a response rate of 30%. In order to obtain a reasonable amount of data, additional data had to be collected. The four companies that participated were asked to remind their employees to fill in the survey and also for the possibility of distributing hardcopy questionnaires among employees. In addition more companies were contacted to contribute to this research either through the online or hardcopy questionnaire. One company from the first group indicated that they were available for receiving me to distribute hardcopy questionnaires. 62 hardcopy surveys were distributed, and 45 completed ones were received. Four more companies were found to distribute the online survey through contacts. They included two consultancy bureaus, one transport service, and one company that is active in the chemical industry. Again, the exact number of distributed surveys was hard to keep track. The four new contacts suggested spreading the survey to
10-20 colleagues, which gives a total approximation of 60. Taking all eight companies together, approximately 180 online surveys were distributed. Adding the hardcopy surveys give a total of 242 distributed questionnaires. 113 respondents started the online survey, and 72 of them completed the survey. The incomplete questionnaires were removed from the data and in the end a total of 117
Company Number of respondents
to a total response rate of 48,3%. Baruch (1999) found an average response rate of 55,6% in his comparative analysis of 175 different studies, meaning that the response rate of this research is below average. The overview of the amount of respondents per company is given in table 1.
3.4 Data analysis
The data was analysed using IBM SPSS version 20. The results of the online questionnaires were automatically listed in Microsoft Excel and the hardcopy surveys were inserted manually in Excel. The results from the questionnaire were checked to ensure the correctness of the data. The results from the items were searched for incorrect inputs by using the validation function of SPSS. All scales and subscales were transformed and computed to separate variable sets in SPSS, in order to analyse each variable from the conceptual model separately.
3.4.1 Scale development
Factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed on items of the variables to assess which items could be included in the scales used for measuring the variables. Hair et al. (1998) state that factor loadings should preferably be above ,40. Peterson (1994) found in his meta-analysis that Cronbach’s alpha scores range from ,70 to ,82. This is why the threshold of the Cronbach’s alpha’s is set to ,70.
3.4.1.1 Aggressive humour
Two out of three items on the scale for aggressive humour exceed the threshold of ,40 (Hair et al., 1998) (appendix F). One scored below the threshold, so it was deleted from the scale. After deleting the item, the scores of both other items remained above ,40 (appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha for the aggressive humour scale was ,79 (appendix G), which exceeds the threshold of ,70 (Peterson, 1994).
3.4.1.2 Self-defeating humour
All three items on the scale for self-defeating humour are higher than the minimum of Hair et al. (1998) (appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha was ,75 (appendix G).
3.4.1.3 Dependent variables
The two different conceptual models (figure 1 & figure 2) measure the same set of dependent variables according to two different scenarios. As both models are analyzed separately, all dependent variables are also analyzed separately according to their model, beginning with model A.
For the creative performance scale, internal consistency was acceptable for two out of three items. The last item scored too low and was removed from the scale, resulting in two items with satisfactory factor loading (appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory after deleting the item, scoring ,76 (appendix G). The internal consistency of the scales innovative output and innovative work behaviour are higher than the acceptable level of ,70 (Peterson, 1994) with a Cronbach’s alpha of ,79 and ,87, respectively (appendix G).
Model B includes the same dependent variables as model A. All items of the job satisfaction scale from model B have an internal consistency above the acceptable level of ,70 (appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha scored ,77 (appendix G). For the psychological empowerment and social support scales, several items scored below ,40. These items were removed, resulting in all factor loading being above the acceptable level (appendix F) and Cronbach alpha’s of ,81 for psychological empowerment and ,90 for social support (appendix G).
For the creative performance scale of model B, internally consistent factor loading were found for all three items (appendix F). However, the Cronbach’s alpha was not satisfactory, scoring ,44 (Appendix G). The Cronbach alpha could only slightly be increased by deleting one of the two items (appendix H), but not enough to pass the threshold. In the original studies of Oldham & Cummings (1996) creative performance has a Cronbach’s alpha of ,78. One possible explanation is that some respondents may not have perceived the terms original, creative and novel as synonyms, as the questionnaire was translated to Dutch. Problems with understanding these terms were not revealed in the pilot questionnaire. However, comments of the final questionnaire mentioned that a number of questions were very alike. It was not mentioned which questions, but it could have been that respondents meant the questions about creative performance. As the original research in which the creative performance scale was developed gives no reason to assume that the scale is unreliable, and as it is the only scale that has a Cronbach’s alpha that scores below the threshold, it will be included in the following analyses. The internal consistency of the innovative output and innovative work behaviour scales are higher than the acceptable level of ,70 (Peterson, 1994) with a Cronbach’s alpha of ,85 and ,84, respectively (appendix G).
3.5 Model
(appendix J & appendix K), except for the control variable tenure (appendix J). The logarithm for tenure was calculated in order to convert its distribution to a normal distribution. Lastly, variables must be measured at interval or ratio levels, as is the case in this research.
Mediation occurs when a predictor variable affects a dependent variable indirectly through an intervening variable, the mediator (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Following Baron & Kenny (1986) three conditions must hold to establish mediation in regression analysis: (1) the independent variable must affect the mediator; (2) the independent variable must be shown to affect the dependent variable; and (3) the mediator must affect the dependent variable. These conditions can be summarized into three regression equations:
Equation 1: regressing the mediator on the independent variable
Equation 2: regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable
Equation 3: regressing the dependent variable on both the independent variable and on the mediator
A conceptual model of the equations is given in figure 3. The mediation model shows how the independent variable’s causal effect can be apportioned into its indirect effect on the dependent variable through the mediator and its direct effect on the dependent variable (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). If all conditions hold in the predicted direction, then the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must be less when the mediating variable is included than without the mediating variable in case of a partial mediating effect (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). In other words, the total effect should be less than the direct effect. Complete mediation holds if the independent variable has no direct effect on the dependent variable anymore when the mediator is included (Baron & Kenny, 1986), meaning that the effect in equation 2’ is equal to zero. In that case, the indirect effect should equal the total effect (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).
Independent
variable Dependent variable
Mediator Equation 1 Equation 3 Equation 2' Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect Independent
variable Dependent variable
Equation 2
A
B
All paths in figure 3 can be quantified with standardized regression coefficients (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Preacher & Hayes (2008) explain that the total effect of the independent on the dependent variable is given in equation 2 (figure 3A). The indirect effect of the independent on the dependent variable through the mediator can be quantified as the product of the standardized β from equation 1 and equation 3 (figure 3B). The direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent is given by equation 2’. Equivalently, equation 2’ is the difference between the total effect of the independent on the dependent variable, and its indirect effect on the dependent variable. These relations can be summarized with as follows:
. When these values are acknowledged, the percentage of the indirect effect of the total effect can be calculated with the following formula:
.
4. Results
In the following section the outcomes of the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations will firstly be explained. Secondly the results of the regression analysis will be discussed and based on the results from the regression the hypotheses will be accepted or rejected.
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for model A (N=117)
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Cronbach’s α
Aggressive humour 1,00 5,00 3,23 ,96 ,79
Creative performance 2,00 5,00 2,97 ,48 ,76
Innovative output 1,83 3,67 2,77 ,41 ,79
Innovative work behaviour 1,67 4,00 2,82 ,51 ,87
Job satisfaction 1,50 3,50 2,59 ,47 ,80
Psychological empowerment 2,00 3,70 2,80 ,31 ,79
Social support 1,90 3,60 2,68 ,36 ,82
Dummy: Gender (male) - - ,72 ,45 -
Age 19,00 62,00 41,48 11,33 - Dummy: Company 1 - - ,42 ,50 - Dummy: Company 2 - - ,19 ,39 - Dummy: Company 3 - - ,09 ,28 - Dummy: Company 4 - - ,09 ,29 - Dummy: Company 5 - - ,06 ,24 - Dummy: Company 6 - - ,04 ,20 - Dummy: Company 7 - - ,04 ,20 - Dummy: Company 8 - - ,07 ,25 - Tenure 1,00 40,00 8,85 8,71 -
Dummy: Department Sales - - ,21 ,41 -
Dummy: Department Finance - - ,07 ,25 -
Dummy: Department Marketing - - ,06 ,24 -
Dummy: Department R&D - - ,21 ,41 -
Dummy: Department HR - - ,03 ,18 -
Dummy: Department Management - - ,27 ,44 -
Dummy: Department Consulting - - ,06 ,24 -
Dummy: Department Other - - ,09 ,28 -
Dummy: Education HBO - - ,44 ,50 -
Dummy: Education WO - - ,37 ,48 -
Dummy: Education Other - - ,19 ,39 -
Dummy: Function (managerial) - - ,38 ,49 -
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for model B (N=117)
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Cronbach’s α
Self-defeating humour 1,00 5,00 3,16 ,83 ,75
Creative performance 2,33 4,00 3,07 ,28 ,44
Innovative output 1,33 4,17 3,11 ,38 ,85
Innovative work behaviour 2,33 4,17 3,18 ,38 ,84
Job satisfaction 2,00 4,25 3,08 ,42 ,77
Psychological empowerment 2,00 4,00 3,13 ,34 ,81
Social support 2,08 4,00 3,21 ,38 ,90
Dummy: Gender (male) - - ,72 ,45 -
Age 19,00 62,00 41,48 11,33 - Dummy: Company 1 - - ,42 ,50 - Dummy: Company 2 - - ,19 ,39 - Dummy: Company 3 - - ,09 ,28 - Dummy: Company 4 - - ,09 ,29 - Dummy: Company 5 - - ,06 ,24 - Dummy: Company 6 - - ,04 ,20 - Dummy: Company 7 - - ,04 ,20 - Dummy: Company 8 - - ,07 ,25 - Tenure 1,00 40,00 8,85 8,71 -
Dummy: Department Sales - - ,21 ,41 -
Dummy: Department Finance - - ,07 ,25 -
Dummy: Department Marketing - - ,06 ,24 -
Dummy: Department R&D - - ,21 ,41 -
Dummy: Department HR - - ,03 ,18 -
Dummy: Department Management - - ,27 ,44 -
Dummy: Department Consulting - - ,06 ,24 -
Dummy: Department Other - - ,09 ,28 -
Dummy: Education HBO - - ,44 ,50 -
Dummy: Education WO - - ,37 ,48 -
Dummy: Education Other - - ,19 ,39 -
Dummy: Function (managerial) - - ,38 ,49 -
4.2 Bivariate correlations
The bivariate correlations between all variables in both models are given in table 4 and table 5. These correlations provide understanding on how all variables mutually relate to each other. In model A, creative performance is significantly correlated to both scales that measure the innovativeness of individuals (,46**, ,48**) (table 4). As creativity is a precursor of innovativeness, these relations seem reasonable. Innovative output and innovative work behaviour are even more strongly correlated (,83**), which can be explained by the fact that they both measure innovativeness. The same account for model B. All three dependent variables are significantly correlated in model B as well.
Aggressive humour correlates significantly with creative performance (,20*) and job satisfaction (-,17*), both at a 95% significance level (table 4). As there is a positive correlation with creative performance, it implies that the more someone feels struck by aggressive humour, the more creative that someone will be. The negative correlation with job satisfaction implies that being the recipient of aggressive humour will damage how satisfied someone is with his job. Self-defeating humour correlates significantly with job satisfaction (,19*) on a 95% significance level and with social support (,27**) on a 99% significance level (table 5). Again, both relations seem to be positive, meaning that the more the humour style of someone is self-defeating, the more that someone will be satisfied with the job or will experience a feeling of support from employees. Furthermore, self-defeating humour correlates positively with innovative output (,22**) and with innovative work behaviour (,23**) (table 5).
Table 4: Bivariate Correlation Matrix model A
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Table 4 continued: Bivariate Correlation Matrix model A
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Creative performance 1,00
2. Innovative output ,46** 1,00
3. Innovative work behaviour ,48** ,83** 1,00
4. Aggressive humour ,20* ,01 ,06 1,00 5. Job satisfaction ,41** ,52** ,57** -,17* 1,00 6. Psychological empowerment ,28** ,63** ,63** -,07 ,60** 1,00 7. Social support ,35** ,59** ,57** -,04 ,55** ,70** 1,00 8. Gender ,01 -,04 -,02 ,00 ,04 -,01 -,07 1,00 9. Age -,05 -,01 ,05 -,21* ,01 ,12 -,02 ,06 1,00 10. Dummy: Company 1 ,21* ,27** ,21* ,03 ,23** ,23** ,27** ,03 -,43** 1,00 11. Dummy: Company 2 ,01 -,05 ,02 ,08 ,07 ,04 -,01 -,14 ,12 -,41** 1,00 12. Dummy: Company 3 -,27** -,28** -,24** ,07 -,29** -,18* -,22** ,12 ,12 -,26** -,15 1,00 13. Dummy: Company 4 -,13 -,06 -,13 ,00 -,10 -,13 -,07 ,07 -,02 -,27** -,16* -,10 1,00 14. Dummy: Company 5 -,10 -,11 -,20* -,15* -,11 -,10 -,07 -,08 -,03 -,21* -,12 -,08 -,08 1,00 15. Dummy: Company 6 -,03 -,05 ,01 -,07 -,06 -,15* -,15 ,04 ,14 -,18* -,10 -,06 -,07 -,05 1,00 16. Dummy: Company 7 -,03 -,05 -,01 -,07 -,06 -,03 -,05 -,06 ,23** -,18* -,10 -,06 -,07 -,05 -,04 17. Dummy: Company 8 ,16* ,11 ,15* ,01 ,09 ,07 ,04 ,02 ,27** -,23** -,13 -,08 -,09 -,07 -,06 18. (Ln) Tenure -,02 -,03 ,12 -,20* ,03 ,06 ,07 -,03 ,71** -,48** ,12 ,15* -,02 ,01 ,22**
19. Dummy: Department Sales -,03 ,06 ,04 -,05 ,18* ,10 ,02 -,18* -,11 ,23** -,14 ,06 -,03 -,13 -,11
20. Dummy: Department Finance ,02 ,08 ,14 ,02 ,04 ,08 ,12 ,02 -,08 ,04 ,04 ,16* -,09 -,07 -,06
21. Dummy: Department Marketing ,06 -,06 -,04 -,08 -,20* -,18* -,13 ,00 -,11 ,15 -,12 -,08 -,08 -,06 ,12
22. Dummy: Department R&D ,15 -,01 -,12 ,18* -,04 -,05 ,05 ,19* -,23** ,36** -,09 -,08 -,03 -,13 -,11
23. Dummy: Department HR ,01 ,05 ,04 ,08 -,01 ,03 ,07 ,01 -,03 -,16* ,39** -,06 -,06 -,05 -,04
24. Dummy: Department Management -,16* -,11 ,01 -,03 -,13 -,05 -,09 ,03 ,37** -,43** ,26** ,09 ,14 -,15 ,16*
25. Dummy: Department Consulting -,10 -,11 -,20* -,15* -,11 -,10 -,07 -,08 -,03 -,21* -,12 -,08 -,08 1,00** -,05
26. Dummy: Department Other ,09 ,14 ,15 -,01 ,23** ,16* ,06 -,01 ,14 -,07 -,15 -,09 ,11 -,08 ,09
27. Education -,26** -,28** -,32** ,21* -,16* -,27** -,23** -,01 ,09 -,35** 0,11 ,22** ,03 ,19* ,08
28. Dummy: Function (managerial) -,09 -,05 ,02 ,03 -,14 -,08 -,15 ,17* ,51** -,34** ,08 ,08 ,11 -,05 ,10
29. Dummy: Questionnaire (online) -,21* -,22** -,14 ,02 -,21* -,24** -,29** ,01 ,44** -,93** ,38** ,24** ,26** ,20* ,17*
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
16. Dummy: Company 7 1,00
17. Dummy: Company 8 -,06 1,00
18. (Ln) Tenure ,17* ,29** 1,00
19. Dummy: Department Sales -,01 -,06 -,22** 1,00
20. Dummy: Department Finance -,06 -,07 -,06 -,14 1,00
21. Dummy: Department Marketing -,05 ,07 -,13 -,13 -,07 1,00
22. Dummy: Department R&D -,11 -,14 -,23** -,27** -,14 -,13 1,00
23. Dummy: Department HR -,04 -,05 -,02 -,10 -,05 -,05 -,10 1,00
24. Dummy: Department Management ,06 ,14 ,44** -,31** -,16* -,15 -,31** -,11 1,00
25. Dummy: Department Consulting -,05 -,07 ,01 -,13 -,07 -,06 -,13 -,05 -,15 1,00
26. Dummy: Department Other ,24** ,16* ,12 -,16* -0,08 -,08 -,16* -,06 -,18* -,08 1,00
27. Education ,05 -,03 ,03 -,24** ,10 ,02 ,03 ,09 ,12 ,19* -,22** 1,00
28. Dummy: Function (managerial) ,10 ,21* ,34** -,28** ,00 ,03 -,23** -,05 ,57** -,05 -,11 -,19* 1,00
Table 5: Bivariate Correlation Matrix model B
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Table 5 continued: Bivariate Correlation Matrix model B
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Creative performance 1,00
2. Innovative output ,46** 1,00
3. Innovative work behaviour ,71** ,64** 1,00
4. Self-defeating humour ,06 ,22** ,23** 1,00 5. Job satisfaction ,41** ,39** ,37** ,19* 1,00 6. Psychological empowerment ,56** ,32** ,50** ,11 ,76** 1,00 7. Social support ,34** ,35** ,29** ,27** ,68** ,67** 1,00 8. Gender ,15 -,14 -,02 ,05 -0,01 ,10 ,08 1,00 9. Age ,00 ,07 -,05 -,18* ,05 ,05 ,05 ,06 1,00 10. Dummy: Company 1 -,08 -,23** -,15 -,08 -,29** -,18* -,25** ,03 -,43** 1,00 11. Dummy: Company 2 ,04 ,17* ,15 ,01 ,27** ,21* ,29** -,14 ,12 -,41** 1,00 12. Dummy: Company 3 -,18* -,08 -,03 ,186* -,15 -,23** -,04 ,12 ,12 -,26** -,15 1,00 13. Dummy: Company 4 -,04 -,03 -,09 -,02 -,01 -,08 -,18* ,07 -,02 -,27** -,16* -,10 1,00 14. Dummy: Company 5 ,11 ,08 ,05 -,02 ,10 ,04 ,08 -,08 -,03 -,21* -,12 -,08 -,08 1,00 15. Dummy: Company 6 ,10 ,18* ,10 -,02 ,03 ,12 ,03 ,04 ,14 -,18* -,10 -,06 -,07 -,05 1,00 16. Dummy: Company 7 ,05 ,05 ,08 ,09 ,20* ,22** ,15 -,06 ,23** -,18* -,10 -,06 -,07 -,05 -,04 17. Dummy: Company 8 ,10 ,05 ,00 -,08 ,03 ,07 ,07 ,02 ,27** -,23** -,13 -,08 -,09 -,07 -,06 18. (Ln) Tenure ,00 ,15 ,01 -,15 ,04 ,04 -,01 -,03 ,71** -,48** ,12 ,15* -,02 ,01 ,22**
19. Dummy: Department Sales ,05 ,05 -,02 ,07 ,01 ,00 -,05 -,18* -,11 ,23** -,14 ,06 -,03 -,13 -,11
20. Dummy: Department Finance ,02 -,01 ,02 ,00 ,01 -,09 -,08 ,02 -,08 ,04 ,04 ,16* -,09 -,07 -,06
21. Dummy: Department Marketing ,03 -,01 -,01 ,07 ,02 ,07 ,08 ,00 -,11 ,15 -,12 -,08 -,08 -,06 ,12
22. Dummy: Department R&D -,17* -,26** -,11 -,06 -,21* -,10 -,11 ,19* -,23** ,36** -,09 -,08 -,03 -,13 -,11
23. Dummy: Department HR -,04 -,06 -,05 ,11 ,13 ,17* ,22** ,01 -,03 -,16* ,39** -,06 -,06 -,05 -,04
24. Dummy: Department Management ,04 ,13 ,09 -,08 -,04 -,01 -,05 ,03 ,37** -,43** ,26** ,09 ,14 -,15 ,16*
25. Dummy: Department Consulting ,11 ,08 ,05 -,02 ,10 ,04 ,08 -,08 -,03 -,21* -,12 -,08 -,08 1,00** -,05
26. Dummy: Department Other ,00 ,10 ,03 ,00 ,16* ,05 ,10 -,01 ,14 -,07 -,15 -,09 ,11 -,08 ,09
27. Education ,04 -,02 ,05 ,14 -,04 -,05 ,03 -,01 ,09 -,35** ,11 ,22** ,03 ,19* ,08
28. Dummy: Function (managerial) -,01 ,01 -,02 ,01 -,01 ,05 ,08 ,17* ,51** -,34** ,08 ,08 ,11 -,05 ,10
29. Dummy: Questionnaire (online) ,08 ,26** ,17* ,08 ,26** ,20* ,30** ,01 ,44** -,93** ,38** ,24** ,26** ,20* ,17*
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
16. Dummy: Company 7 1,00
17. Dummy: Company 8 -,06 1,00
18. (Ln) Tenure ,17* ,29** 1,00
19. Dummy: Department Sales -,01 -,06 -,22** 1,00
20. Dummy: Department Finance -,06 -,07 -,06 -,14 1,00
21. Dummy: Department Marketing -,05 ,07 -,13 -,13 -,07 1,00
22. Dummy: Department R&D -,11 -,14 -,23** -,27** -,14 -,13 1,00
23. Dummy: Department HR -,04 -,05 -,02 -,10 -,05 -,05 -,10 1,00
24. Dummy: Department Management ,06 ,14 ,44** -,31** -,16* -,15 -,31** -,11 1,00
25. Dummy: Department Consulting -,05 -,07 ,01 -,13 -,07 -,06 -,13 -,05 -,15 1,00
26. Dummy: Department Other ,24** ,16* ,12 -,16* -,08 -,08 -,16* -,06 -,18* -,08 1,00
27. Education ,05 -,03 ,03 -,24** ,10 ,02 ,03 ,09 ,13 ,19* -,22** 1,00
28. Dummy: Function (managerial) ,10 ,21* ,34** -,28** ,00 ,03 -,23** -,05 ,57** -,05 -,11 -,19* 1,00
4.3 Regression analysis
The aggressive and self-defeating humour models are both analysed by a multiple linear regression analysis. Both models include one independent variable, three dependent variables, and three intermediate variables, which results in nine different sub-models for regression analysis per model and 18 models in total (appendix I). Each analysis gives insight about the impact each independent variable has on the dependent variable. As is the first step in regression analysis when mediators are included (Baron & Kenny, 1986), the regression of equation 1 (figure 3) will be conducted first, followed by the second and third equation. Results of the first equation are given in table 5 and 6, the outcomes of the second equation are given in table 7 and 8, and the results of the third equation are given in tables 9 to 14.
Table 6: Regression coefficients model A for equation 1
Table 7: Regression coefficients model B for equation 1
Model A1. Job satisfaction A2. Psychological empowerment
A3. Social support
Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Aggressive humour -,17* ,03 -,07 ,23 -,04 ,33 R2 ,03 ,01 ,00 Adjusted R2 ,02 -,00 -,00 F (p) 3,61* (,03) ,57 (,23) ,19 (,33)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)
Model B1. Job satisfaction B2. Psychological empowerment B3. Social support Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Self-defeating humour ,19* ,02 ,11 ,13 ,27** ,00 R2 ,03 ,01 ,07 Adjusted R2 ,03 ,00 ,06 F (p) 4,11* (,02) 1,22 (,15) 8,92** (,00)
Table 8: Regression coefficients model A for equation 2
Table 9: Regression coefficients model B for equation 2
Model A1. Creative performance A2. Innovative output A3. Innovative work behaviour
Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Aggressive humour ,26** ,01 ,03 ,37 ,10 ,15
Dummy: Gender (male) ,05 ,31 -,04 ,34 ,03 ,38
Age ,03 ,42 ,06 ,36 -,08 ,29 Dummy: Company 1 -,01 ,49 ,66* ,03 ,80* ,01 Dummy: Company 2 ,06 ,39 ,00 ,50 ,04 ,42 Dummy: Company 3 -,23 ,07 -,20 ,10 -,24* ,05 Dummy: Company 4 -,07 ,34 ,02 ,46 -,06 ,34 Dummy: Company 7 ,00 ,49 -,05 ,35 -,03 ,41 Dummy: Company 8 ,15 ,15 ,12 ,20 ,11 ,21 (Ln) Tenure ,14 ,17 ,07 ,32 ,30* ,02
Dummy: Department Sales -,04 ,41 -,12 ,23 -,11 ,23
Dummy: Department Finance ,05 ,37 ,04 ,37 ,08 ,26
Dummy: Department Marketing ,04 ,37 -,20* ,05 -,19 ,06
Dummy: Department R&D ,04 ,40 -,21 ,11 -,34 ,02
Dummy: Department HR -,02 ,44 ,04 ,37 -,01 ,45
Dummy: Department Management -,13 ,25 -,17 ,18 -,14 ,21
Dummy: Department Consulting -,03 ,44 -,10 ,26 -,21 ,08
Education -,11 ,17 -,13 ,12 -,06 ,27
Dummy: Function (managerial) -,03 ,40 ,02 ,44 ,00 ,49
Dummy: Questionnaire (online) -,15 ,28 ,39 ,07 ,53* ,02
R2 ,22 ,25 ,33
Adjusted R2 ,07 ,09 ,19
F (p) 1,40 (,07) 1,55* (,04) 2,31** (,00)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)
Model B1. Creative performance B2. Innovative output B3. Innovative work behaviour
Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Self-defeating humour ,08 0,23 ,27** ,00 ,23* ,02
Dummy: Gender (male) ,28** 0,00 -,06 ,27 ,04 ,35
Age -,05 0,38 -,05 ,38 -,13 ,20 Dummy: Company 1 -,10 0,39 -,04 ,45 -,06 ,43 Dummy: Company 2 -,07 0,36 -,13 ,26 -,04 ,43 Dummy: Company 3 -,37** 0,01 -,35** ,01 -,22 ,09 Dummy: Company 4 -,17 0,15 -,26* ,05 -,25 ,07 Dummy: Company 7 -,03 0,42 -,17 ,09 -,03 ,41 Dummy: Company 8 ,01 0,48 -,16 ,13 -,09 ,27 (Ln) Tenure ,02 0,46 ,10 ,24 ,00 ,50
Dummy: Department Sales ,15 0,19 ,00 ,49 -,02 ,45
Dummy: Department Finance ,08 0,29 -,01 ,47 ,01 ,47
Dummy: Department Marketing ,02 0,45 -,08 ,25 -,05 ,34
Dummy: Department R&D -,15 0,20 -,23 ,09 -,09 ,30
Dummy: Department HR -,10 0,21 -,21 ,04 -,18 ,08
Dummy: Department Management ,11 0,28 -,04 ,42 ,05 ,40
Dummy: Department Consulting ,03 0,44 -,16 ,15 -,10 ,27
Education ,10 0,18 -,07 ,27 -,01 ,45
Dummy: Function (managerial) -,16 0,12 -,12 ,18 -,11 ,21
Dummy: Questionnaire (online) ,14 0,30 ,51* ,02 ,35 ,10
R2 ,19 ,27 ,17
Adjusted R2 ,02 ,12 -,01
F (p) 1,14 (,16) 1,78* (,02) ,97 (,25)
Table 10: Regression coefficients model A1 for equation 3
Table 11: Regression coefficients model A2 for equation 3
Model A1.1. Creative performance A1.2. Innovative output A1.3. Innovative work behaviour
Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Aggressive humour ,35** ,00 ,13 ,09 ,21** ,01 Job Satisfaction ,47** ,00 ,47** ,00 ,53** ,00
Dummy: Gender (male) -,02 ,41 -,11 ,11 -,05 ,27
Age ,10 ,24 ,12 ,19 ,00 ,49 Dummy: Company 1 -,33 ,15 ,34 ,14 ,44 ,06 Dummy: Company 2 -,08 ,34 -,14 ,23 -,12 ,24 Dummy: Company 3 -,14 ,17 -,11 ,23 -,14 ,14 Dummy: Company 4 -,06 ,33 ,02 ,45 -,06 ,32 Dummy: Company 7 ,04 ,38 -,02 ,45 ,01 ,46 Dummy: Company 8 ,08 ,28 ,05 ,35 ,03 ,40 (Ln) Tenure ,03 ,42 -,04 ,37 ,17 ,08
Dummy: Department Sales ,05 ,36 -,03 ,42 ,47 ,47
Dummy: Department Finance ,14 ,14 ,13 ,14 ,18 ,05
Dummy: Department Marketing ,27* ,02 ,02 ,43 ,06 ,29
Dummy: Department R&D ,27* ,05 ,02 ,45 ,29 ,29
Dummy: Department HR ,09 ,21 ,15 ,09 ,14 ,14
Dummy: Department Management ,11 ,27 ,06 ,36 ,12 ,22
Dummy: Department Consulting ,10 ,26 ,02 ,44 -,07 ,30
Education -,14 ,09 -,16 ,06 -,10 ,14
Dummy: Function (managerial) -,04 ,38 ,01 ,45 -,01 ,47
Dummy: Questionnaire (online) -,30 ,11 ,24 ,16 ,36* ,05
R2 ,37 ,38 ,50
Adjusted R2 ,23 ,24 ,39
F (p) 2,60** (,00) 2,78** (,00) 4,50** (,00)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)
Model A2.1. Creative performance A2.2. Innovative output A2.3. Innovative work behaviour
Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Stand. β Sig. (1-tailed) Aggressive humour ,26** ,01 ,03 ,34 ,10 ,11 Psychological empowerment ,21* ,02 ,58** ,00 ,56** ,00
Dummy: Gender (male) ,04 ,34 -,06 ,23 ,01 ,47
Age -,02 ,45 -,08 ,26 -,21* ,04 Dummy: Company 1 -,14 ,34 ,31 ,15 ,46* ,05 Dummy: Company 2 -,01 ,48 -,18 ,14 -,14 ,18 Dummy: Company 3 -,24 ,06 -,22* ,04 -,26* ,02 Dummy: Company 4 -,09 ,28 -,06 ,32 -,14 ,13 Dummy: Company 7 -,01 ,47 -,08 ,22 -,06 ,27 Dummy: Company 8 ,10 ,23 ,00 ,50 -,01 ,46 (Ln) Tenure ,13 ,19 ,04 ,39 ,27** ,01
Dummy: Department Sales ,00 ,49 -,02 ,43 -,02 ,44
Dummy: Department Finance ,05 ,36 ,05 ,33 ,08 ,21
Dummy: Department Marketing ,10 ,22 -,04 ,34 -,04 ,36
Dummy: Department R&D ,11 ,27 -,03 ,41 -,17 ,10
Dummy: Department HR -,01 ,46 ,05 ,29 ,00 ,49
Dummy: Department Management -,10 ,29 -,10 ,26 -,07 ,31
Dummy: Department Consulting -,03 ,41 -,12 ,17 -,23* ,03
Education -,08 ,22 -,08 ,21 -,01 ,45
Dummy: Function (managerial) -,01 ,47 ,08 ,23 ,06 ,29
Dummy: Questionnaire (online) -,14 ,29 ,41* ,03 ,55** ,00
R2 ,26 ,49 ,55
Adjusted R2 ,09 ,37 ,46
F (p) 1,58* (,04) 4,26** (,00) 5,61** (,00)
