Master Thesis Master of Science Human Resource Management University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business . . I H

H

OW POSITIVE AFFECT LEADS TO INCREMENTAL OR RADICAL

CREATIVITY

.

I

NTRODUCING THE CONCEPTS OF

INTERDEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT CREATIVE PROCESS

ENGAGEMENT

.

Master Thesis

Master of Science Human Resource Management

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Florian von Besser S2726378 Diamantlaan 171 9743 BD Groningen f.j.von.besser@student.rug.nl

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Onne Janssen

A

Synthesizing theories of affect, self-construal, creative process engagement and creativity, this thesis built and will test a theoretical model linking employees’ positive affect to their creativity. This relationship will be tested within a moderated mediation framework. I argue that self-construal will operate as a boundary condition that moderates the indirect relationship between positive affect and different types of creativity (incremental vs. radical) through influencing the engagement in different creative processes (interdependent vs. independent). Specifically, the engagement in interdependent creative processes will mediate the indirect relationship between positive affect and incremental creativity, and this indirect relationship will be more pronounced for employees higher on interdependent self-construal. In contrast, the engagement in independent creative processes will mediate the indirect relationship between positive affect and radical creativity, and this indirect relationship will be more pronounced for employees higher on independent self-construal. To test these hypothesized conditional indirect relationships, data will be collected with an online questionnaire among employees of several German organizations.

I

Today’s organizations in a modern economy operate more and more in complex, dynamic and fast-paced environments. Competing and gaining competitive advantage in such a business environment requires the development of new products, processes and procedures. It has been widely claimed that creativity is a necessary prerequisite for these organizational innovations, enabling growth and following survival (e.g. George, 2007; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). As a consequence, creativity - the development of new and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996) - is increasingly recognized as an important basis for innovation in organizations. Thus, a rising interest in factors influencing creativity has emerged recently (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009), and affect is one of these factors.

Previous research has identified positive affect as a facilitating condition for creativity. Isen (1999) showed that positive affect leads to improvements in creative performance. Further on, Amabile et al. (2005) found a positive linear relationship between positive affect and creativity: a frequent experience of positive affect leads to a higher level of creativity. Bledow et al. (2013) likewise attested this relationship in their research when investigating on affective shifts. According to their findings the positive relationship exists because positive affect influences creativity through a stimulation of cognitive variation (Clore et al., 1994). That is, through positive affect, additional cognitive material gets available for processing, a broader field of attention is formed and cognitive flexibility is increased (Isen, 1999). Although knowledge about the role of positive affect in creativity has been substantially advanced by this research, important questions still remain unanswered.

Past research found that an individual’s self-construal can be used to predict differences in behaviors across a broad range of situations. Individual differences in self-construal may thus operate as a boundary condition that moderates the relationship between positive affect and creative process engagement. An independent self-construal is a bounded and stable self and others are seen as separate from the self. Elements an independent self-construal is composed of include being unique and expressing the self, promoting one’s own goal and using a direct communication style. As a reference, independent self-construals use their own abilities, characteristics or goals rather than referring to the thoughts, feelings or actions of others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In contrast, an interdependent self-construal is oriented externally towards social roles and relationships, fitting in and using an indirect communication (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). These are attributes that might direct an individual towards seeking help in their social context, specifically in a work context, their coworkers.

I further argue that the distinct engagement in independent and interdependent creative processes associates with different types of creativity. Any job may require creativity (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000) but creative ideas can range from suggestions for minor adaptations or changes in how work is done up to absolute breakthroughs that can result in totally new products or work processes (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). Hence, there is a need to investigate whether the different strategies of independent and interdependent creative process engagement will lead to the generation of different types of creativity, namely, incremental and radical creativity. Incremental creativity refers to minor ideas that display simply adaptations and modifications of what is currently done (Gilson et al., 2012), whereas radical creativity refers to breakthrough ideas that are distinguishable different from everything yet existing (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). The purpose of this research is to examine the moderating role of self-construal in the indirect relationship between positive affect and creativity through the intervening mechanisms of independent and interdependent creative process engagement. Specifically, I propose that for independent self-construals positive affect associates with radial creativity through engagement in independent creative processes, whereas for interdependent self-construals positive affect associates with incremental creativity through engagement in interdependent processes. This mediated moderation model is illustrated in figure 1.

different creative process engagement strategies that can be activated by positive affect. Besides, it will be shown that different creative strategies underlie distinct outcomes of incremental and radical creativity. This research also has a practical relevance. It offers organizations more insights in when and why employees produce incremental or radical creativity by identifying positive affect as an antecedent and the different strategies of creative process engagement as process mechanisms in this relationship. This knowledge might help to steer the creative process in a certain direction if there is a need for a certain type of creativity.

Figure 1: Research model in which self-construal moderates the relationship between positive

affect and incremental and radical creativity thought interdependent and independent creative process engagement.

T

H

Positive Affect, Creative Process Engagement, and Incremental and Radical Creativity Positive affect reflects the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active and alert.

People with a high positive affect are described by high energy level, a good concentration and pleasant obligation. On the other hand, individuals with a low positive affect are characterized by sadness and lethargy (Watson et al., 1988). Positive and negative affect fluctuate slowly over time. Fluctuations in positive and negative affect are related to changes in an individual’s attentional focus and mode of thinking (Friedman & Förster, 2010). The fluctuation in positive and negative affect occurs in two distinct dimensions that show a negative correlation (Watson, 1988). This implies that, positive and negative affect can both be present within a time interval; they are independent from each other. But as they are

mutually inhibitory, the concurrent presence of high positive and high negative affect is very rare (Fong, 2006; Schmukle, Egloff, & Burns, 2002). That is, as a trait every individual has both positive affect and negative affect. Some individuals have a high positive and a lower negative affect, while others are characterized by a predominant negative affect (Watson et al., 1988).

In line with Amabile (1983) and others, creativity in this thesis is defined as the generation of novel and useful ideas, solution or products. This definition describes creativity in terms of results, which are judged on the dual standards of novelty or uniqueness and usefulness or value. Previous research suggests that the engagement in creative processes may result in the generation of different types of creative ideas, namely, incremental and radical ideas (Gilsen & Madja, 2011). Incremental creativity can be defined as the generation of new ideas ‘that imply changes in frameworks and approaches and modifications to the

existing practices and products’ (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). Thus, the outcomes of incremental

creativity are modest adaptations and modifications to what is currently done (Gilson et al., 2012). In contrast to incremental creativity, radical creativity refers to ideas ‘that differ

substantially from existing practices and alternatives’ (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). These ideas

are in a way revolutionary and groundbreaking, use new processes or frameworks and often involve taking a risk (Gilson et al., 2012). Hence, incremental and radical creativity are differentiated by the scope of the ideas. Both types of creativity are important for organizations; none of them is in general better than the other (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). Incremental creativity is needed to improve the process and procedures in an organization (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). They might need minor adaptations or simple adjustments but not necessarily a radical change. On the other hand, there is a need for radical creativity for example in the development of new products (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). For fundamental changes in a products technology new knowledge needs to be created if a new product should be developed (Henderson & Clark, 1990; Herrmann et al., 2007).

cognitive context, such that a wider range of elements are treated as relevant to a given problem (Isen, 1999). Second, and more important, positive affect increases cognitive flexibility. For developing creative ideas individuals need to think flexibly and break common ways of thinking (e.g., Duncker, 1945; Smith & Blankenship, 1991; Smith, Ward & Schumacher, 1993). Thereby, the probability increases that cognitive elements will be combined with each other as well as different categories get connected to each other. Positive affect increases cognitive flexibility (cf., Ashby et al., 1999) because it supports individuals to be inclusive in their way of thinking, to shift between cognitive categories, and to discover uncommon perspectives, following the cognitive tuning model and related concepts. Positive affect also promotes creativity because the experience of a positive affect signals that the situation the individual is in is free of problem and safe, as the cognitive tuning model shows (Clore et al., 1994; Schwarz & Bless, 1991). This makes the individual feel comparatively unconstrained, they are more willing to take risks, and they tend to explore uncommon ways and novel possibilities, while relying on heuristic processing styles (Fiedler, 2000; George & Zhou, 2007; Schwarz & Clore, 1988). As creativity can be subdivided in incremental and radical creativity and positive affect leads to higher creativity in general, it seems likely that positive affect also leads to higher creativity at both subtypes of creativity, incremental and radical. Accordingly, I propose the first two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Positive affect is positively related to incremental creativity

Hypothesis 2: Positive affect is positively related to radical creativity

But not only the extent to which an individual engages in the process can differ, also the strategies an individual follows at creative process engagement may differ itself. Thus, I introduce two types of creative process engagement: interdependent creative process engagement and independent creative process engagement.

At interdependent creative process engagement the individual is not involving in creativity-relevant methods or processes alone, but seeks help from others. This is because individuals often fail at developing creative ideas (Fleming, 2001; Simonton, 1984). In addition there is a high uncertainty in the process, whether the individual will find a creative solution or not (Metcalfe, 1986; Metcalfe & Wiebe, 1987). Help-seeking literature shows that thus individual seeks help from others because they realize that they have difficulties solving a creative problem, as their way of thinking does not lead towards a satisfying solution (DePaulo & Fisher, 1980; Lee, 1997, 1999, 2002; Vogel & Wester, 2003). Past research has yielded that seeking help from others is ergo one of the most frequently used strategies when it comes to creative problem solving (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006) on group level. and on the individual level, seeking help from others is positively related to creativity (Mueller & Kamdar, 2011). The focus during the creative process with help seeking is relevant here. Prior an individual’s own solutions were unsuccessful or inadequate, so new solutions need to be found. Therefore not the original problem itself is the main focus anymore, but it is on a progressed phase of the creative process, the solution. Now by seeking help, the individual will get a greater exposure to different ideas which increase the likelihood to create a new solution, but this will only work if the help seeking individual is open to integrate the new information (Amabile, 1996). Gilson and Madja (2011) showed that such a solution focus on a creative problem leads to incremental creativity.

In Addition, when seeking help from others, the individuals’ strategy is more oriented at their group and not solely their own ideas. Such collectivism, like it is found at interdependent creative process engagement, with its emphasis on interdependence and compliance, leads to less original ideas (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). To create radical ideas, there is a need to differ and stand out from the group. But this goes against the interdependent norms of the group at the core. Therefore, more ideas that do not violate the group's norms might appear more socially desirable and thus rather incremental creativity will emerge.

encourages coordination but leads only to incremental creativity (Adler & Chen, 201; Jaussi & Randel, 2014). Following, the third hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: The positive indirect relationship between positive affect and incremental creativity is mediated by interdependent creative process engagement.

Independent creative process engagement can be considered as an individual’s

strategy of pursing their own ideas and goals while involving in creativity-relevant methods or processes (Amabile, 1983; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). This is happening independent from the individual’s social environment and as a result, the individual acts independent from other individuals. This means that the individual tries to handle the creative process, like understanding the problem or searching for information, alone and without seeking help from others.

Independent creative process engagement can be an effective path because collaboration, as it is found at interdependent creative process engagement, might not always be beneficial when it comes to generating creative solutions. For example, when completing a hostile negotiation, groups had a higher creative output than after completing a more cooperative negotiation (Beersma & De Dreu, 2005). Also reduced levels of cohesion and conformity in groups could increase creativity (Nemeth and Ormiston, 2007). All this are aspects that are found rather at independent than at interdependent creative process engagement

Also Goncalo and Staw (2006) argued that harmony, cohesion, compliance and collectivistic values lead to less creativity because they result in conformity. They found that independent operating individuals are more creative then individuals working in collectivistic groups. They argued that highly creative individuals were characterized by independence of judgment, autonomy and self-confidence (Barron & Harrington, 1981), which made it possible for them to break with their social and group context and come up with creative solutions that might not be ready to be socially accepted, that are more unique as well as original and thus rather radical.

individuals’ unique contribution they independently make and is not seen in context with others (Goncalo & Staw 2006). Such a differentiation form other individuals is positively related to behavior that fosters creativity (Janssen & Huang, 2008). More specifically Jaussi and Randel (2014) found that radical creativity emerges if individuals believe in their own ability to generate creative ideas, like it is found at independent creative process engagement.

Because radical creativity significantly deviates substantially from what is currently done, from existing products, and is instead characterized by groundbreaking ideas; individuals need to have confidence, independence, and autonomy which are found at independent creative process Engagement. Hence, I propose the fourth hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The positive indirect relationship between positive affect and radical creativity is mediated by independent creative process engagement.

Self-Construal as a Moderator

Individual differences in self-construal might operate as a boundary condition that influences whether positive affect will activate independent or interdependent strategies for creative process engagement. The concept of self-construal describes the extent to which people see themselves as separate from others or as linked to others. Markus and Kitayama (1991) found that people can be differentiated by their belief they have about the relationship between oneself and others. This concept of self-construal is a combination of thoughts, feelings and actions which affects the individual’s relationship to others and the way of distinguishing oneself from others. Self-construals are distinguished in independent self-construal and interdependent self-self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). They are not entirely fixed and can vary across contexts (Stapel & Koomen, 2001) or within the individuals’ themselves (Singelis, 1994).

These attributes of an interdependent self add up to a highly social behavior, facilitating interaction and cooperation among individuals which is needed for interdependent creative process engagement. Hence I propose that an interdependent self construal directs individuals towards a more interdependent strategy and thus to seek help and cooperation early when engaging in creative processes. Past research also found that the surrounding an individual grows up in has an strong effect on the development of their self-concept (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and that such differences in self-construal can be used to predict a certain behavior across a broad range of situations. Accordingly, I propose the fifths Hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Self-construal moderates the relationship between positive affect and interdependent creative process engagement such that this relationship will be more positive for individuals high rather than low on interdependent self-construal.

In contrast to the interdependent self-construal, individuals with highly developed

independent self-construal define their self on one's unique abilities or attributes, separate

from social context and on the importance of one distinguishing themselves from others. For them, expressing the self, self-actualization and validating one’s internal attributes are sources of self-esteem. As a result, individuals with strong independent self-construals tend to express themselves directly and say what they think. Individuals with a high independent self-construal relate to their own abilities, attributes, characteristics or goals rather than referring to the thoughts, feelings or actions of others when thinking about themselves (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In the same way, they will consider the individual characteristics and attributes of others, rather than relational or contextual factors when thinking about others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

themselves from others, and thereby conformity is decreased. These are all factors that are also found at independent creative process engagement. Thus when an individual engages in creative processes, an independent self-construal will direct the person towards an independent strategy. Following, the sixth hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 6: Self-construal moderates the relationship between positive affect and independent creative process engagement such that this relationship will be more positive for individuals high rather than low on independent self-construal.

Mediated Moderation Model

Wrapping the complete research model up, I propose that positive affect can have an indirect relationship with both incremental and radical creativity because positive affect may motivate employees to engage in interdependent creative processes fostering the generation of incremental ideas or independent creative processes fostering the generation of radical creative ideas. These indirect relationships may be conditional on the moderator variable of self-construal for the first-stage paths from positive affect to interdependent and independent creative process engagement. As such, this moderated mediation model clarifies when (when individuals have interdependent or independent self-construal) and why (because individuals engage in interdependent or independent creative process engagement) positive affect may lead to the generation of incremental or radical creative ideas. Hence, I propose hypothesis seven and eight.

Hypothesis 7: Self-construal moderates the indirect relationship between positive affect and incremental creativity through interdependent creative process engagement such that this indirect relationship will be more pronounced for individuals high rather than low on interdependent self-construal.

M

Sample and Procedures

The sample consists of 99 (63 women and 35 men, 1 not specified; age M = 32.8, SD = 9.86) participants. The participants are employees of several companies in different industries such as fast-moving consumer goods or electronic commerce. The participants for this study were found by using my own professional and social network. They were invited to participate in this survey via email, including an explanation of the studies’ purpose and a link to the online-questionnaire. Before the questionnaire started, all participants read a general introduction that gave them brief information about the questionnaire and the data privacy. After reading and agreeing (by clicking on ‘next’) the questionnaire started. The participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire containing statements about the study variables of positive affect, self-construal, interdependent and independent creative process engagement as well as incremental and radical creativity. The participants were requested to rate the different statements by responding to them on Likert-scales. To protect the participants confidentiality, the survey was anonymous and participation voluntary. As the mother tongue of many participants was German also a German version of the questionnaire was provided next to the English one. The participants could decide by themselves which language they preferred by clicking on a button for the language settings. To ensure a high reliability and validity, translations of the questionnaires that have been established in past research were used.

Measures

Positive Affect. Watson et al.’s (1988) affect measure was used to assess positive affect. Ten positive affect adjectives were rated on a 5-point scale (Cronbach’s α = .85, M = 3.60, SD = .59), reflecting the extent to which the participants had experienced each of the mood states in the past half year. The points on the scale were labeled with ‘not at all’ (1), ‘a little’ (2), ‘moderately’ (3), ‘quite a bit’ (4), and ‘very much’(5). Example items for activating affect are ‘interested’, ‘excited’, ‘enthusiastic’ or ‘proud’. The translated scale by Krohne et al. (1996) was used for the German version of the questionnaire.

items refer to independent and 12 items to interdependent self-construals. ‘I will sacrifice my interest for the benefit of the group I am in’ is an example item for interdependent self-construal (Cronbach’s α = .80) and ‘Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me’ is an example item for an independent self-construal (Cronbach’s α = .77). Participants indicated their agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’). For the German version of the questionnaire the established translation of the scale by Kühnen (1999) was used.

Independent and Interdependent Creative Process Engagement. In order to measure these variables, two already existing scales were adapted. The scale for independent creative process engagement is based on the scale by Zhang and Bartol (2010) and adapted by stressing independent engagement in creative processes without seeking interactions and help from others. A sample item is ‘I individually consult a wide variety of information’. The participants rated the statements on a 5-point Likert-Scale (Cronbach’s α = .91) ranging from1 (‘never’) to 5 (‘very often’). The ‘creative help seeking’ scale developed by Mueller and Kamdar (2011) was used for the measurement of interdependent creative process engagement (Cronbach’s α = .81, M = 4.15, SD = .75). coworkers The scale was adapted by focusing the items on creative problem solving and the help participants seek from their coworkers. One sample item for the coworker scale is ‘I ask my colleagues for assistance in creative problem solving.’. The response format for this scale was a 5-point Likert-Scale ranging from 1 (‘never’) to 5 (‘very often’). As there were no translations of these scales yet, they were translated to German for the German version of the questionnaire.

Incremental and radical creativity. I used the seven items developed by Gilsen et al. (2012) to assess employees’ self-reports for incremental and radical creativity. Three items refer to radical creativity (Cronbach’s α = .78; example item: ‘Discoveries of completely new processes or products’), while four items refer to incremental creativity (Cronbach’s α = .86; example item: ‘extensions build on what is currently done or what is currently offered’). The response format for the items was a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’). Likewise to the two creative process engagement scales, I translated the incremental and radical creativity scales to German as there were no translations of these scales yet.

R

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables (N = 99)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11**

1. Positive Affect 3.60 .59 — .05 -.21* -.14* -.22* .39** .28** -.02 -.03** .01 -.04**

2. Interdependent Self Construal 4.32 .78 — -.11* -.19+ -.09* .05** .08** .01 -.27** -.24* -.30**

3. Independent Self Construal 4.99 .76 — -.09* -.18* .09** .44** -.14 -.13** .11 -.04**

4. Interdependent Creative Process Engagement 3.91 .75 — -.02* .19+* -.07 * .12 -.22** -.01 -.18**

5. Independent Creative Process Engagement 4.84 .87 — .25** .29** .10 -.09** -.07 -.04**

6. Incremental Creativity 3.83 .75 — .26** .17 -.04** -.01 -.13** 7. Radical Creativity 2.88 .76 — .00 -.08** -.03 -.01** Control Variables 8. Gender1 1.36 .48 — -.07* -.07** -.15** 9. Age 32.8 9.86 — .66** -.69** 10. Organizational Tenure2 2.78 1.52 — -.71** 11. Position Tenure2 2.31 1.37 — + p < .10 *p < .05 **p < .01 1 1 = male, 2 = female 2

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 asserts a positive relationship between positive affect and incremental creativity. To test Hypothesis 1 we ran a linear regression. The results showed that positive affect is highly positively related to incremental creativity, β = .39, p = .000 and F (1,97) = 17.76, p = .000. Following Table 1, controlling for age, gender, tenure with current position and tenure with employer only revealed minor changes in the results. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that positive affect is positively related to radical creativity. Like Hypothesis 1, this hypothesis was tested with a linear regression, which yielded a strong positive relationship between positive affect and radical creativity, β = .28, p = .005 and F (1,97) = 8.45, p = .005. As the control variables were not associated with incremental and radical creativity, we did not control for them, according to Becker (2005). Because of the results in the regression analysis, Hypothesis 2 was confirmed as well.

Figure 2. Path of positive affect on incremental creativity mediated by interdependent creative

process engagement.

*p < .05 **p < .01

To test if interdependent creative process engagement mediates the effect of positive affect on incremental creativity (Hypothesis 3), we run a mediation analysis through bootstrapping by using the Process macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2012). In the mediation analysis, positive affect was the independent variable, interdependent creative process engagement the mediator, and incremental creativity the dependent variable. The analysis was controlled for independent creative process engagement and following Becker (2005) for age. There was a statistically significant direct effect of positive affect on incremental creativity and of interdependent creative process engagement on incremental creativity as Figure 5 shows. But

as the results also show there was no significant relationship between positive affect and interdependent creative process engagement. Following also no statistically significant mediation effect could be found. The bootstrapped unstandardized indirect effect was -.04 (SE = .03) and the 95% confidence interval varied from -.120 to .019. Hence, we could not find support for Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4 asserts that the positive indirect relationship between positive affect and radical creativity is mediated by independent creative process engagement. To test this, like for Hypothesis 3, we also run a mediation analysis through bootstrapping by using the Process macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2012). In the mediation analysis, positive affect was the independent variable, independent creative process engagement the mediator, and radical creativity the dependent variable. The analysis was controlled for interdependent creative process engagement, other control variables had no influence on the results. As Figure 3 shows, the effect of positive affect on independent creative process engagement and also effect of independent creative process engagement on radical creativity were both statistically significant. In a bootstrapping procedure, significance of the indirect effect was tested. The bootstrapped unstandardized indirect effect was .06 (SE = .03) and the 95% confidence interval varied from .008 to .147, which means that there was a statistically significant mediation effect, however only a quite weak effect. Because of these results, Hypothesis 4 was confirmed.

Figure 3. Path of positive affect on radical creativity mediated by independent creative

process engagement.

*p < .05 **p < .01

To test Hypothesis 5, asserting a positive relationship between positive affect and interdependent creative process engagement, moderated by self-construal in a way that the

relationship is more positive for individuals high rather than low on interdependent self-construal, we run a moderation analysis using the Process macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2012). In the moderation analysis positive affect was the independent variable, interdependent self-construal the moderator and interdependent creative process engagement the dependent variable. The interaction effect between independent self-construal and positive affect was not significant (β = .05, se = .09, t (95) = .55, p = .58) suggesting that the effect of positive affect on interdependent creative process engagement is not contingent on interdependent-self construal. Hence, Hypothesis 5 was rejected.

Table 2

Regression analysis of the moderation effect of self-construal on Interdependent and Independent Creative Process Engagement

Interdependent Creative Process Engagement

Independent Creative Process Engagement

Coeff. 95% CI Coeff. 95% CI Positive Affect -.16 (.12) -.37, .18 .23* (.11) .01, .44 Interdependent Self-Construal .14 (.12) -.10, .37 -.14 (.12) -.38, .10 Independent Self-Construal .02 (.11) -.21, .24 .13 (.12) -.09, .36 Positive Affect x Interdep. Self-Construal .05 (.10) -.14, .25

Positive Affect x Indep. Self-Construal -.01 (.12) -.24, .22 Control Variables

Age -.28 (.15) -.58, .02 -.09 (.16) -.41, .21

Tenure with Job -.20 (.16) -.51, .12 .03 (.17) -.30, .35 Tenure with Employer .37 (16) .06, .68 -.07 (.16) -.38, .25

*p < .05 **p < .01

Table 3

Regression analysis of the mediation-moderation effect of self-construal on Interdependent Creative Process Engagement Interdependent Creative Process Engagement Incremental Creativity Coeff. 95% CI Coeff. 95% CI Positive Affect -.45* (.42) -1.28, .38 .29** (.07) .16, .43 Self-Construal (Interdependent) -.28* (.13) -1.02, .54

Positive Affect x Int. Self-Construal -.10* (.09) 1-.09, .29

Interdependent Creative Process Engagement .04 (.07) -.09, .18 Indirect effect – Int. Self-Construal low -.01 (.01) -.05, .01 Indirect effect – Int. Self-Construal medium -.001 (.01) -.03, .02 Indirect effect – Int. Self-Construal high .003 (.02) -.02, .09

*p < .05 **p < .01

To test Hypothesis 7, which asserts that self-construal moderates the indirect relationship between positive affect and incremental creativity through interdependent creative process engagement such that this indirect relationship will be more pronounced for individuals high rather than low on interdependent self-construal, we ran a moderated mediation analysis. Results of the regression are summarized in Table 3. There was no significant interaction of self-construal and positive affect, β = .04, 95% CI = -.09 to .18, p = .29. This result implies that the indirect effect of positive affect on incremental creativity through interdependent creative process engagement was not moderated by the self-construal, which contradicts to Hypothesis 7. However, positive affect had a statistically significant effect on incremental creativity, β = .29, 95% CI = .16 to .43, p = .0001. Moreover, the regression analysis yielded evidence that an interdependent self-construal had a positive effect on interdependent creative process engagement, β = .28, 95% CI = .02 to .54, p = .03. Because of the overall results, Hypothesis 7 was rejected.

Table 4

Regression analysis of the mediation-moderation effect of self-construal on Independent Creative Process Engagement

Independent Creative Process Engagement

Radical Creativity Coeff. 95% CI Coeff. 95% CI Positive Affect -.19✝(.10) -.01, .40 .23* (.09) .04, .42 Self-Construal (Independent) .15 (.11) -.06, .36

Positive Affect x Independent Self-Construal -.02 (.09) -.21, .17

Independent Creative Process Engagement .25* (.09) .06, .44 Indirect effect – Inde. Self-Construal low -.05 (.05) -.008, .21 Indirect effect – Inde. Self-Construal medium -.05 (.03) -.003, .14 Indirect effect – Inde. Self-Construal high .04(.04) -.006, .16

✝

Hypothesis 8 predicted that self-construal moderates the indirect relationship between positive affect and radical creativity through independent creative process engagement such that this indirect relationship will be more pronounced for individuals high rather than low on independent self-construal. Similar to Hypothesis 7 we also ran a moderated mediation analysis. Table 4 shows the results of the regression. There was no significant interaction of self-construal and positive affect, β = -.02, 95% CI = -.21 to .17, p = .82. No evidence for a moderation effect of self-construal could be found, as this result implies that self-construal was not a moderator of the indirect relationship between positive affect and radical creativity through interdependent creative process engagement. Notwithstanding a result that can be found again, is that positive affect had a statistically significant effect on radical creativity β = .23, 95% CI = .035 to .42, p = .02. Furthermore, evidence was found that independent creative process engagement had a significant effect on radical creativity β = .25, 95% CI = .06 to .44,

p = .01. Still, because of the overall results, we could not find support for Hypothesis 8.

C

G

D

Previous research found that positive affect stimulates creativity and individuals need to engage in creativity-relevant processes in order to produce creative outcomes. We looked at incremental and radical creativity and were interested in the mechanism through which incremental or radical creativity emerges and why positive affect leads to rather incremental or radical creativity. In an online survey with employees of different organizations, we measured the effects of positive affect and self-construals on creative process engagement and creativity. Based on past research, interactive effects of positive affect and self-construal on creative process engagement were expected. Self-construal was expected to be a moderator in a way that individuals with an interdependent self-construal rather engage in interdependent creative process engagement which then leads to incremental creativity. And on the other hand, individuals with an independent self-construal rather engage in independent creative process engagement which leads to independent creativity.

creativity emerges, radical or incremental, a frequent experience of positive affect will lead in both ways to a higher level of creativity. Thus, positive affect is a facilitating condition for incremental as well as radical creativity.

So far these findings are mostly consistent with what we expected. Interestingly, however, the moderation effect was different from our expectations. Next to the differences in creative process engagement, we also looked at a possible reason for why people with positive affect rather engage in interdependent or independent creative process engagement. We suggested that differences in construal could be the reason for this. We assumed that self-construal moderates the relationship between positive affect and creative process engagement. However, interestingly neither interdependent nor an independent self-construal was found to be a moderator in this relationship as we originally assumed. We only found a marginally significant correlation between interdependent self-construal and interdependent creative process engagement. This means that individuals with an interdependent self-construal might tend to engage in interdependent creative processes. We could also find no support for our overall moderated mediation model. But interestingly there was a strong positive correlation between independent self-construal and radical creativity. So independent self-construal might not moderate the relationship between positive affect and independent creative process engagement, but seems to directly promote radical creativity.

To sum up, the results show that positive affect induced participants to generate more incremental as well as radical creativity, independent creative process engagement mediated the relationship between positive affect and radical creativity, and independent self-construal promoted radical creativity .

Theoretical Implications

One theory, for which our results have implications, is the theory by Amabile et al. (2005) on the relationship between positive affect and creativity. They found a positive linear relationship in which creativity in a work setting increased with a person’s increasing positive affect. Our research expands this theory by looking at incremental and radical creativity instead of creativity in general. We found a positive linear relationship between positive affect and incremental creativity and likewise between positive affect and radical creativity. This extends the knowledge on this relationship by a more detailed view on creativity and shows that positive affect induces both, incremental and radical creativity.

information searching and encoding, and idea and alternative generation. Our findings now extend the knowledge on this process by showing two different strategies for how employees engage in this process. We found evidence that some employees rather engage in interdependent creative process engagement while others use an independent strategy. We could not find support for self-construal being the reason for why employees choose an interdependent or independent strategy. Next to showing that there are different strategies for engaging in creative processes we also found that these different strategies lead to different consequences for the creative outcome. So far, when looking at the creative process, research has mostly focused on the creative performance but not on the different types of creativity. By looking at incremental and radical creativity we found that when an employee engages in interdependent creative process engagement, this results in rather incremental creativity. On the other hand, if an employee chooses an independent strategy, this results in radical creativity. Regarding the connection between the variables, better insights in how and why positive affect promotes radical creativity could be gained by identifying that independent process engagement mediates the relationship between positive affect and radical creativity. And finally independent self-construal was found to promote radical creativity.

Practical Implications

For companies and organizations both types of creativity are important and none of them is in general better than the other (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). There is a need for incremental creativity for example to improve processes in an organization. But on the other hand, for the development of new products there is a need for radical creativity. We found that positive affect is relevant for both types of creativity. Thus our implication for employers and practitioners is that they should create a work environment where employees can experience a frequent positive affect and thereby a basis for the development of creative ideas is created.

promoted and as a consequence rather incremental creativity will emerge. The same applies for radical creativity. Employers can try to promote interdependent creative process engagement, if there is a need for rather radical creativity, by telling their employees to work independent and not directly seek help from others.

Study Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Conclusion

All in all, we can draw the conclusion that positive affect has a positive influence on both types of creativity, incremental and radical. When an employee engages in creative processes, we could find two different strategies that they are following. On the one hand an interdependent strategy (interdependent creative process engagement) which results in incremental creativity and on the other an independent strategy (independent creative process engagement) which results in radical creativity.

R

Adler, P. & Chen, C. (2011). Combining Creativity and Control: Understanding Individual Motivation in Large-Scale Collaborative Creativity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 36 (2): 63 – 85.

Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45: 357 – 376.

Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to "The social psychology of creativity." Boulder, CO: Westview.

Amabile, T., Barsade, S., Mueller, J. & Staw, B. (2005). Affect and Creativity at Work.

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50, 367 – 403

Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529 – 550.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. In M. Rosenzweig & L. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, Vol. 32, 439 – 476

Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: An analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8, 274 – 289.

Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. (2005). Conflict's consequences: Effects of social motives on postnegotiation creative and convergent group functioning and performance. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89, 358 – 374.

Bledow, R., Rosing, K., Frese, M. (2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity.

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56, No. 2, 432 – 450.

Clore, G., Schwarz, N. & Conway, M. (1994). Cognitive causes and consequences of emotion. In Wyer, R. & Srull, T. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition: 323 – 417. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 94 (5), 739 – 756.

DePaulo, B. M., & Fisher, J. D. (1980). The costs of asking for help. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, Vol. 1, 23 – 35.

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, Vol. 58 (5): 1 – 113

Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological

Inquiry, Vol. 4, 147–178.

Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, Vol. 47, 117–132

Fong, G. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creativity action in multiple social domains.

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, 1112 – 1142.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2010). Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136: 875 – 893.

Garcia, R. & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technical innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, Vol. 19, 110 – 132.

George, J. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, 107 – 116.

George, J. (2007). Creativity in organizations. In Walsh, J. & Brief, A. (Eds.), Academy of management annals, 1, 439 – 477.

George, J., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity,

Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605 – 622.

Gilson, L., Lim, H., D’Innocenzo, L. & Moye, N. (2012). One Size Does Not Fit All: Managing Radical and Incremental Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 46 (3), 168 – 191.

Gilsen, L. & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and Incremental Creativity: Antecedents and Processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 5 (1), 21 – 28

Goncalo, J. (2004). Past success and convergent thinking in groups: The role of group-focused attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 385 – 395.

Goncalo, J. & Staw, B. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity.

Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, Bol. 17, 484 – 500

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.

Henderson, R., Clark, K. (1990): Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science

Quarterly; Vol. 35, 9 – 30.

Herrmann, A., Gassmann, O., Eisert, U. (2007). An empirical study of the antecedents for radical product innovations and capabilities for transformation. Journal of Engineering

and Technology Management, Vol. 24, 92 – 120.

Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity.

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52, 280 – 293.

Isen, A. (1999). On the relationship between affect and creative problem solving. In Russ, S. (ed.), Affect, Creative Experience and Psychological Adjustment, 3 – 18.

Jaussi, K. S. & Randel, A. E. (2014). Where to look? Creative self-efficacy, knowledge retrieval, and incremental and radical creativity. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 26 (4).

Krohne, H.W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Version der “Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS).

Diagnostica, 42, 139 – 156.

Lee, F. (1997). When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, Vol. 72, 336 – 363

Lee, F. (1999). Verbal strategies for seeking help in organizations. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 29, 1472 – 1496.

Lee, F. (2002). The social costs of seeking help. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 38, 17 – 35.

Madjar, N., Greenberg, E. & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for Radical Creativity, Incremental Creativity, and Routine, Noncreative Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 (4), 730 – 743

Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, Vol. 98 (2), 224 – 253.

Metcalfe, J. (1986). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 12, 623 – 634.

Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving.

Memory & Cognition, Vol. 15, 238–246.

Mueller, J. & Kamdar, D. (2011). Why Seeking Help From Teammates Is a Blessing and a Curse: A Theory of Help Seeking and Individual Creativity in Team Contexts. Journal

of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 (2), 263 – 276

Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 524 – 535.

Schmukle, S. C, Egloff, B., & Burns, L. R. (2002). The relationship between positive and negative affect in the positive and negative affect schedule. Joumal of Research in

Personality, Vol. 36, 463 – 475.

Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact of a effective states on analytic reasoning. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion

Shalley, C., Gilson, L. & Blum, T. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 43, 215 – 223.

Shalley, C. & Gilson, L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, 33 – 53.

Shalley, C., Zhou, J. & Oldham, G. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, Vol. 30, 933 – 958.

Shalley, C. & Zhou, J. (2008). Organizational creativity research: A historical overview. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity, 95 – 123.

Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Singelis, T. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (5), 580 – 591

Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generations task. Memory and Cognition, Vol. 21, 837–845.

Stapel, D. & Koomen, W. (2001). I, we, and the effects of others on me: Self-construal level moderates social comparison effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 766 – 781

Staw, B., Sutton, R. & Pelled, L. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51 – 71

Vogel, D., & Wester, S. (2003). To seek help or not to seek help: The risks of self-disclosure.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 50, 351 –361.

Watson, D., Clark, L. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, Vol. 54 (6), 1063 – 1070

Zhang, X. & Bartol, K. (2010a). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 (1), 107 – 128.

Zhang, X. & Bartol, K. (2010b). The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. Journal