EXTREME OPPOSITES?
A RESEARCH AT AN ENERGY COMPANY ON THE EFFECTS OF
STANDARDIZED AND CREATIVE BEHAVIOR ON PERFORMANCE
Master thesis, MscBA, specialisation Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
August 2007
CAROLINE ROOS
Student number: 1576607 Astraat 8a, 9718 CR GroningenTel: + 31 (0) 6 289 16 838 E-mail: c.t.roos@rug.nl
Supervisor University Dr. O. Janssen Supervisor field of study
Drs. Ing. H. Velt
Acknowledgments: helpful comments on earlier drafts of this thesis were given by my fellow students in the MscBA/ Change Management program, Annemarie Jorna. I thank Onne Janssen, especially for his time and patience and for helping me understand SPSS, and Hannes Velt, for providing me access to the right people and documents and for his support. I also would like to thank Mariët Hiemstra for
Standardized and creative behavior: complementary or
two extreme opposites?
ABSTRACT
This research examines standardized and creative behavior in relation to performance. The performance indicators that are used are overall performance and quality. The stimulation of both behaviors is suggested to be influenced by the LMX with role expectations as a moderating variable. These relationships are tested among 118 employees at an energy company. The results showed a positive relationship between the LMX and standardized behavior. Role expectations only functioned as a mediating variable instead of a moderating variable. There was evidence provided for a positive relationship between creative behavior and overall performance. Standardized behavior related positively to overall performance and quality. This suggests that standardized and creative behavior can complement each other.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT... 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 3
INTRODUCTION... 4
LMX and the influence of role expectations
... 4
The organization
... 6
The conceptual model
... 6
THE THEORY SECTION... 8
Working method - the Lean approach
... 8
Leader-member exchange
... 9
Standardized behavior
... 11
Creative behavior
... 12
THE METHODS SECTION... 14
Sample and participants
... 14
Measures and internal reliability
... 14
THE RESULTS SECTION ... 17
Response bias
... 17
Exploratory Factor Analysis
... 19
Statistics and Correlations
... 20
Hypotheses testing
... 21
THE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION SECTION ... 25
Limitations
... 26
Theoretical and practical implications
... 27
Conclusion
... 28
INTRODUCTION
“Creativity can solve almost any problem. The creative act, the defeat of habit by originality, overcomes everything” (George Lois, 1960). Gilson and Shalley (2004: 33) state that “individual creativity provides the foundation for organizational creativity and innovation and these have been linked to performance and survival. Therefore, it is important, if not critical that employees are creative in their work”.
“Any move toward standardization is a move into the right direction” (Dave Williamson,1990). Reading this statement, it seems to indicate that standardization is a useful and advantageous tool. According to Gilson, Mathieu, Ruddy, and Shalley (2005: 522), an essential component of standardization is “the use of statistical tools to monitor and analyze work processes, so that problems can be highlighted, mistakes can be learned from, and consistent work quality will be achieved”. So, creativity and standardization are both contributing to higher performance and/or higher quality. These two terms seem to be contradictory, since standardization has as main purpose to ‘minimize variance’ and the purpose of creativity is to ‘enhance variation’ (Gilson et al., 2005: 523). However, Gilson et al. provide evidence that standardization and creativity are complementary. The study by Gilson et al. (2005: 530) even indicates “teams should be encouraged to be creative in tandem with using standardized work in order to maximize both performance and customer satisfaction”.
The subject of the combination of creativity and standardization has not been widely discussed in the literature. Gilson et al. (2005) have made a start with exploring the combination of standardized and creative behavior within teams and have related these different behaviors to performance, but they have probably been the first to have done research on this topic. Besides that, many articles (Baer & Oldham, 2006; Mumford, 2000; Oldham, Shalley & Zhou, 2004; Shalley, 1995) focus on determining antecedents and motivational mechanisms underlying creativity, but not on the results of creativity, nor on the link between creativity and performance. Organizations are usually focused on high results and therefore it would be interesting for them to examine the link between creativity and performance.
LMX and the influence of role expectations
has with its employee can be measured with the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) (Cleyman et al., 2001). An LMX is based on the idea that “leaders develop separate relationships with each of their employees through a series of work-related exchanges. A high LMX tends to have a positive relationship with performance, as will be further explained in the theory section. The question here should be if an LMX could support or stimulate standardized and creative behavior. In other words, does a high LMX lead to a higher performance of standardized and creative behavior? Although this link can be examined, the outcome probably does not give any information on how to establish or improve this relationship. The establishment of an LMX between supervisor and the employee consists of a role-making process in which both have role expectations towards each other (Ford & Greguras, 2006). “Essentially, supervisors communicate role expectations to subordinates through work assignments. To the extent that subordinates comply with these role expectations, supervisors reciprocate by providing work-related resources” (Ford & Greguras, 2006: 434-435). Role expectations actually form the basis for the LMX and influence the LMX as well (Ford & Greguras, 2006). The next question that could be posed is if these specific role expectations could reinforce the influence of the LMX on standardized and creative behavior. When these questions have been answered, it would be interesting to pose the following question: what is the eventual effect of standardized and creative behavior on the performance?
The links between standardization and quality, and between standardization and performance have been addressed more often than the topic discussed in the previous paragraph (Chou, Chen, & Hsieh, 2002; March, 1991). Chou et al. (2002: 901) found that “as long as work processes at the input and transformation stages can be standardized, the quality of outputs will be consistent. This consistency has shown to be positively related to customer service quality perceptions”. Furthermore, job standardization helps to eliminate uncertainty and variability which eventually leads to congruent service (Chou et al., 2002). In line with these findings, March (1991: 83) found that a reduction of variability in tasks leads to consistent average handling times and quality levels required for the job. According to the German Institute for Standardization standards “present less of a hindrance to innovative projects, provide benefits as strategic market instruments, increase the competitive advantage and reduce costs” (Wingo, 2001: 14), which eventually leads to better performance. An open question is how standardized and creative behaviors would relate to certain effectiveness variables, such as quality and overall performance.
position in performance or that the two behaviors combined can result in a win-win situation. Answering this question can give direction to organizations in how to deal with both behaviors.
The organization
In practice, it turns out that organizations often are emphasizing standardized and creative behavior. A marketing department usually requires creative behavior, while production work requires standardized behavior. This is also the case at the energy company. The energy sector has become very dynamic, since the liberalization of the energy market in 2004. This liberalization has led to a shift in the operational goals of energy companies. The costs and the customer satisfaction have become two increasingly important goals since then. It has not been easy to establish this change in focus quickly and therefore, this energy company has implemented the Lean approach in 2005. Lean is a method that has its roots in ‘continuous improvement’. This approach stimulates both standardized and creative behavior; it tries to optimize and standardize as much as possible. On the other hand this approach also relies on creative behavior; on certain moments employees have to diverge from the regular patterns and they are also stimulated to think of better and new ways to perform their work as efficient as possible.
The energy company is a very ambitious organization and has set high targets for the future. The purpose is to continuously improve the processes so that customer satisfaction will increase and costs will decrease. But how can they improve the processes? There are many answers possible, but the two most applicable are standardized and creative behavior. This is because the energy company works with Lean and this approach is based on standardized and creative behavior.
The conceptual model
creative behavior. The right side of the figure focuses on the effect that standardized and creative behavior have on the two different performance indicators. In this cases standardized and creative behavior are the mediating factors in the model.
The research will be performed on the individual level. This is because the LMX is based on the unique relationship that every supervisor has with each individual employee. Furthermore, standardized and creative behavior have both an individual component which influences and stimulates the behavior(s) of the colleagues.
The relationships between the leader-member exchange, role expectations, standardized and creative behavior, and effectiveness are presented in the conceptual model (Figure 1).
THE THEORY SECTION
This section will start with an introduction of the Lean approach. Furthermore, it includes some brief descriptions of the main terms that are used in this research. The focus will be on ‘leader-member exchange’, ‘role expectations’, ‘standardized behavior’, and ‘creative behavior’. After that, hypotheses will be built and formulated that represent the conceptual model.
Working method - the Lean approach
A system that has a great link with standardized and creative behavior is the ‘Lean approach’. Lean is an approach that promises to “cut costs, improve quality, stabilize operations, and matches supply with demand. Moreover it promises to end fire fighting for good and to establish continuous improvement” (Drew, McCallum, & Roggenhofer, 2004: 2). When thinking about Lean, it might associate this approach with Toyota, the car manufacturer. Toyota is the foremost example of successfully implementing Lean and benefiting from continuous improvement of the Lean-method on its production processes (Drew et al., 2004: 4). However, implementing Lean in a service organization is something that might not be a very natural choice, as it is usually associated with production environments. Eventhough, the energy company took the “gamble”. They started implementing Lean in March 2005 and since then the whole organization is working with this approach. Lean is being embraced and provides a lot of benefits for the organization, which include the standardization of processes through which it is possible to have an overview of the performance per team, the quality of work, and the time that was needed to achieve these results. Another advantage of Lean is the ability to come up with creative ideas in order to improve work processes and eliminate waste. The eventual purpose of Lean is to create a new mindset so that people think of improvement continuously.
satisfaction rose quickly as well, but now that the large improvement projects have been done, the figures remain on the same level and do not increase (quickly) anymore, which can be demotivating. Despite the disadvantages mentioned above, Lean still is the basis for the working method at this energy company. Because of past successes many employees still believe in Lean and Lean could be implemented successfully again with employees having the “Lean” frame of mind. Since it combines standardized and creative behavior, it would be useful to see the effects of both behaviors, so that (necessary) improvements can be made and people can be triggered for the right purpose again; a high performance. However, examining the effects of standardized and creative behavior on performance is not the only element that should be investigated. It is also important to explore how standardized and creative behavior can be stimulated and influenced as well. A supervisor can practice influence on the relationship it has with its employee and on the behavior he or she shows. This relationship is described by the leader-member exchange.
Leader-member exchange
The leader-member exchange model describes the unique relationship that a supervisor has with its subordinate. Every employee develops its own role within an organization and this role is mostly being influenced by the employee’s supervisor, because, as mentioned earlier, he or she is the only person who has legitimate authority over a person. This process is described by the Leader-Member Exchange model (LMX). “A high quality exchange between a leader and a subordinate can be described as a partnership characterized by reciprocal influence, mutual trust, and support” (Cleyman, Jex & Love, 1995: 159).
What then is exactly the impact of this LMX? Several authors have found that the higher the quality of the LMX, the higher the performance of the employee (Chen, 1996, Gerstner & Day, 1997, Judge & Ferris, 1993). “The principle is that positive, beneficial actions directed at subordinates by their supervisors contribute to the development of high-quality exchange relationships that create obligations for the subordinates to reciprocate in equally positive ways” (Chen, Lam & Zhong, 2007: 204).
Ford & Greguras (2006: 435) relate the LMX and the quality as follows: “as the amount of social exchanges between a subordinate and a supervisor increases, the quality of the LMX probably becomes stronger”. So, the LMX is a tool to measure the positive or negative interaction that a leader or supervisor has with its subordinate.
subordinates” (Deluga, 1994: 316). Especially the term ‘conscientious’ shows resemblance with standardized behavior. This suggests that a high LMX could be positively related to standardized behavior. Tierney (1996: 301) found that “by developing a high quality exchange with subordinates, the leader may create a climate characterized by trust, commitment and a sense of fairness that motivates subordinates to engage in behavior extending beyond their formal job role”. Since creative behavior is usually not included in the formal job role, these findings suggest that a high LMX could influence the performance of creative behavior. Besides this argument, having a good relationship with the supervisor usually contributes positively to the attitude and the behavior of the subordinate, since he/she feels more comfortable to express standardized and creative behavior openly. These suggestions concerning both behaviors result in the following two hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): A high LMX is positively related to standardized behavior
Hypothesis 2 (H2): A high LMX is positively related to creative behavior
Leader member exchange and role expectations. When the quality of the LMX is high, then the
behavior ”. If it works the same with standardized behavior, then this would mean that standardized behavior also increases when simple, verbal instructional sets are given.
In short, when stronger role expectations of the supervisor are communicated to employees then this would result in (higher) performance of standardized and creative behavior.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Stronger rather than weaker role expectations for standardization will intensify the relationship between LMX and standardized behavior
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Stronger rather than weaker role expectations for creativity will intensify the relationship between LMX and creative behavior
Standardized behavior
If there is one person who can be called the ‘father of standardization’, then it would be Frederick Taylor (1911). Taylor is famous for his scientific management approach in which he stresses the importance of standardized work procedures in order to increase the efficiency of an organization (Burnes, 2004). Standardization means that it describes in detail how work practices should be performed and it is desirable that employees will follow these fixed procedures (Gilson et al., 2005: 523). As indicated earlier, the core of standardization is to “minimize variance to ensure consistent operations”. According to March “as work is standardized, variability is reduced in the time required to accomplish tasks and in the quality of task performance” (March, 1991: 83). So, standardization contributes to the stability of the time and quality needed for the job to perform. It is essential in expressing standardized behavior that “people follow standard documented process in order to ensure quality documentation and reduce time to market” (Cooper, 1995: 49). According to Dean and Bowen, these effects should contribute to performance (Gilson et al., 2005: 522). The reasons that employees are stimulated to work with standardized procedures is because it “minimizes ambiguity, manages complexity, avoids costly mistakes and ensures that accurate work strategies are followed”. These procedures will finally help to guarantee a high-quality service (Olian & Rynes, 1991). Blind (2002: 1985) has made a list with results of standardized behavior, including “higher and more reliable products, more compatibility, easier handling standard products, high economy of scale, more efficient diffusion process and smoother maintenance and repair”. In short, standardized behavior means that employees follow fixed procedures. These procedures are created in order to minimize variance and ambiguity, manage complexity, avoid costly mistakes, and to ensure quality and accurate work strategies.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Standardized behavior leads to higher overall performance
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Standardized behavior leads to higher quality of work
Creative behavior
Creative behavior is a term that is used frequently and will often be associated with artistic people. However, as already mentioned in the introduction, creative behavior in the business world is essential for organizations to survive. Florida and Goodnight (2005: 125) see “the creative capital as the most important asset of a company” and Blum, Gilson and Shalley (2000: 219-220) consider enhancement of creative performance “as critical for remaining competitive in a rapidly changing environment and for improving the overall innovativeness of a firm”.
Blum et al. (2000: 215) have defined creative behavior as follows: “it involves the production, conceptualization, or development of novel and useful ideas, processes or procedures by an individual or by a group of individuals working together”. The creative behavior that is mentioned here can be placed in the context of business creative behavior, which means that an idea should be “appropriate, useful and actionable and it must somehow influence the way business gets done” (Amabile, 1998: 78). Gilson and Shalley (2004: 34) come up with a similar definition. They define creative behavior as “the production of novel, potentially useful ideas about organizational products, practices, services or procedures”.
The purpose of creative behavior according to Gilson et al. is to “enhance variation to optimize fit between team efforts and outcomes” (Gilson et al., 2005: 523). Creative behavior should not be confused with innovation; creative behavior is focusing on the creation of new ideas on the individual level, while innovation has to do with implementing these ideas on the organizational level (Madjar, Oldham & Pratt, 2002).
So, creative behavior includes producing, conceptualizing and/or developing new ideas within an organization in order to enhance variation to optimize fit between team efforts and outcomes.
support this idea. The diversity among individuals may reach outstanding levels of creativity in problem solving and decision making, which can eventually lead to higher quality of work and overall performance. Therefore, the same hypotheses as for standardized behavior have been composed:
Hypothesis 7 (H7): Creative behavior leads to higher overall performance
Hypothesis 8 (H8): Creative behavior leads to higher quality of work
THE METHODS SECTION
The eight formulated hypotheses were tested in a survey conducted among employees and their supervisors employed at the energy company.
Sample and participants
The participants for this study are all employees working at the energy company. Because this division has been one of the first service centers that started with the implementation of Lean it is interesting to see how employees of this division balances between standardized and creative behavior. It is also a very suitable sample group, since both behaviors are largely present at this division, because Lean requires the performance of standardized and creative behavior. The questioned employees all perform various jobs varying from call centre work to invoicing. In order to get a high response, a brief article has been placed in the newsletter. The 25 teams, including their supervisors, have been informed in their daily meetings about the purpose of this research and about the importance of their participation. After this presentation they received the survey by email. Both supervisors and team members were asked to fill out their names, since the data of the team member had to be linked to the data provided by their supervisor. However, the data were treated confidentially. In total 348 employees were asked to fill out the survey in which they reflected on ‘relation with supervisor (LMX)’, ‘role expectations of the supervisor’, ‘creative behavior’ and ‘standardized behavior’. 215 employees have responded, a response rate of 62 percent. The 24 supervisors were asked to rate the employees on ‘performance of the job’, ‘creative behavior’ and ‘standardized behavior’. In total 176 employees were rated, a response rate of 51 percent. The total match of employee respondents and supervisor respondents gave an n =
118, a response rate of 34 percent. Of these respondents, 66 percent was female and 34 percent was
male. The age varied from 15 to 54 with an average between 25 to 34 years. The average employment in years was 2 to 4 years and their average education level was college education / university degree.
Measures and internal reliability
Leader-member exchange was assessed using the Dutch 7-item scale of Van Breukelen en Konst
(1996) which was based on measurements used in prior research (e.g. Liden & Graen, 1980; Scandura & Graen, 1984; Wayne et al., 1997). Respondents indicated the extent to which the items characterized the quality of the exchange relationship with their supervisor (see Results section for items). The response format was a five-point scale varying from 1, ‘totally disagree’ to 5, ‘totally agree’. The internal reliability of the scale was high (α =. 93).
Role expectations for standardized and creative behavior. The 6-item scale (see Results section) to
asses these role expectations were developed for this study. Three items describe the role expectations that a supervisor has towards the employee in relation to creative behavior and the other three items describe role expectations in relation to standardized behavior. All six items were answered using a five-point scale varying between 1, ‘totally disagree’ to 5, ‘totally agree’. The internal reliability of ‘role expectations’ for the scales of creative behavior and standardized behavior were both high, respectively α = .87 and α = .88.
Creative behavior. Both the employee and the supervisor assessed creative behavior. The reasons for
taking both the assessments of the employees and the supervisors into account are because on the one hand employees have more time and a better insight in their own (standardized and creative) behavior. On the other hand, supervisors have the ability to compare the behavior of the various employees amongst each other. The questions on the self reports of creative behavior are assessed on a 8-item scale (see Results section) based on the survey of Zhou & George (2003). The supervisor reports on creative behavior were assessed on a 5-item scale, based on the same survey (Zhou & George, 2003). To distinguish between both items, the behavior of the employee is called ‘self reports creative behavior’ and the rating of the supervisor is named ‘supervisor reports creative behavior’. Both questions are based on the five-point scale varying from 1, ‘totally disagree’ to 5, ‘totally agree’. Employees had to answer questions on how creative and innovative they are at work. The internal reliability of the scale of the self reports and the supervisor reports were both very high (α = .94 and α = .90).
Standardized behavior. Standardized behavior has been assessed the same way as creative behavior; it
is judged by both the employee as the supervisor for the same reasons as mentioned at creative behavior. An 6-item scale (see Results section) has been used to determine the standardized behavior of the employee and a 4-item scale has been used for the supervisor reports on standardized behavior. The labeling for these items is the same as for creative behavior; the behavior of the employee is called ‘self reports standardized behavior’ and the rating of the supervisor is named ‘supervisor reports standardized behavior’. All questions have been based on a five-point scale varying from 1, ‘totally disagree’ to 5, ‘totally agree’. The basis for the questions was provided by Zhou & George, 2003, but then the questions were changed to standardized behavior. The scales of ‘self reports standardized behavior’ and ‘supervisor reports standardized behavior’ scored high on internal reliability (α = .77 and α = .86).
Overall performance on the job. ‘Overall performance’ is assessed using a 4-item scale (see Results
what extent the supervisor can relate the items to the performance of the employee. All four questions are answered with a five-points scale. The internal reliability of the scale on performance was high (α = .91).
Quality. The energy company provided the measures for quality. With their tools the quality of each
employee was measured. Two quality levels were distinguished, one with fatal mistakes and one with non-fatal mistakes. The fatal mistakes are mistakes that have an impact on the customer and therefore these figures are seen as the most important ones to base the level of quality on. The quality measures are given in percentages and the energy company has set the norm for quality on 98%. The scale is from 1-100 percent. The quality is measured over the last eight and sixteen weeks. The internal reliability of the scale of quality was high (α = .90).
Demographic variables. As it could be possible that demographic variables relate to the tested item,
four covariates ‘age’ (1 = 15-24 years, 2 = 25-34 years, 3 = 35-44 years, 4 = 45-54 years, 5 = 55-64 years), ‘gender’(1 = male, 2 = female), ‘employment in years (1 = 0-2 years, 2 = 2-4 years, 3 = 4-6 years, 4 = 6-8 years, 5 = more than 8 years)’, and ‘education level’ (varying from primary school tot university level) were included as a control tool as well.
THE RESULTS SECTION Response bias
There were in total 215 responses of the employees and 176 responses of the supervisor. The combination of self reports matching the supervisor reports gave a total response of 118. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied for the covariates, leader-member exchange, role expectations, self scores on creative behavior and self scores on standardized behavior to test whether the scores on these variables of included respondents differed from those of the excluded respondents. The results of the MANOVA did not demonstrate significant differences, minimizing concern for potential sampling bias.
TABLE 1
Leader-Member Exchange
My supervisor knows my needs and problems at work well .64 - .04 .26
My supervisor has confidence in my capabilities .78 - .01 .10
My supervisor will invest in solving problems when they occur .97 .03 - .20
I can count on the support of my supervisor, even if that results in problems .79 - .07 .06
I have confidence in my supervisor and I will defend his/her decisions when
he/she is absent .85 .02 .05
My supervisor listens well if I have ideas on changes about work .83 .05 .07
My supervisor and I are a good match .93 .06 - .05
Role expectations standardization
My supervisor…
Expects me to perform my work according to fixed standards
and procedures - .05 .88 .05
Thinks that standard work methods and standard procedures are
important for me to perform successfully .07 .85 .10
Expects me to apply standard procedures as much as possible
when solving problems .02 .93 - .09
Role Expectations creativity
My supervisor…
Expects me to be creative at work .15 - .04 .82
Thinks that creativity is important for me to perform successfully .03 - .03 .91
Expects me at work to develop new and original ideas for the solution - .05 .14 .85
of problems
Eigenvalue 6.52 1.33 2.17
Percentage of variance explained 50.18 10.23 16.66
¹
Items are quoted from the used survey. Boldface indicates a significant loadingResults of Principal Components Analysis of Leader-Member Exchange, Role Expectations for
Creativity and Role Expectations for Standardization
¹
1 2 3 Items
Results of Principal Components Analysis of Self Reports Creative Behavior, Self Reports Standardized Behavior, Supervisor Reports Creative Behavior, Supervisor Reports Standardized Behavior ¹
TABLE 2
Self reports creative behavior
I suggest new ways to reach targets .73 .15 .07 .13
I come up with new and practical ideas to improve performance .79 .11 - .04 .09
I think of new work methods, techniques and ideas .83 .07 .05 .00
I initiate new ways to improve quality .83 .06 .05 .04
I am a good source for creative ideas .86 - .06 - .16 - .02
I promote and defend new ideas against others .82 .02 - .13 .02
I come up with creative solutions for problems .83 - .01 .03 - .04
I propose new ways for the performance of duties .86 .03 .09 - .12
Self reports standardized behavior
I accomplish the duties very carefully according to the prescribed work procedures .08 - .08 - .16 .77
I improve my work performance by applying the prescribed work methods and
work procedures consequently .13 - .07 - .05 .82
I know to develop the quality of my functioning by carefully sticking to the
valid rules, procedures and prescriptions .05 - .03 - .02 .85
I sometimes neglect the performance of work procedures and work methods
in my job to which I should normally stick to² - .00 - .02 .23 .51
I fall short of the performance of standard procedures and standard methods at work² .14 - .11 .18 .50
I base the solutions of problems on the appliance of standard procedures - .23 .14 - .05 .59
Supervisor reports creative behavior
This employee….
Suggests new ways to reach targets .12 .82 .12 .01
Comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance .13 .78 .13 .02
Is a good source for creative ideas - .02 .88 - .08 - .04
Promotes and defends new ideas against others .13 .72 .00 .02
Comes up with creative solutions for problems - .06 .84 - .03 - .06
Supervisor reports standardized Behavior
This employee…
Accomplishes the duties very carefully according to the prescribed
work procedures .04 - .13 .85 - .02
Improves its work performance by applying the prescribed work methods and
work procedures consequently - .02 .08 .84 - .03
Neglects sometimes the performance of work procedures and work methods
in its job to which he/she should normally stick to² - .04 .02 .81 .05
Falls short of the performance of standard procedures and standard methods
at work² - .05 .19 .80 - .01
Eigenvalue 6.72 1.71 3.56 3.19
Percentage of variance explained 29.22 7.41 15.48 13.88
1 2 3 4
Items
Factors
Overall Performance
This employee…
Is in its functioning a role model .92 - .07
Is in its work successful .91 .01
Is overall in its work effective .89 - .02
Has a high performance level .83 .10
Quality
What is the quality percentage of the last 8 weeks? - .07 .98
What is the quality percentage of the last 16 weeks? .10 .92
Eigenvalue 3.61 1.40
Percentage of variance explained 60.15 23.32
Exploratory Factor Analysis
The measures’ discriminant validity was assessed by performing an exploratory factor analysis. The first variables that have been tested are the LMX, the role expectations towards creative and towards standardized behavior filled out by the employees (Table 1). The items of the scales have been submitted to a principal components analysis with oblique rotation. In total three factors have been distinguished by the factor analysis with an eigenvalue greater than 1 which explains 77,07 per cent of the variance. The items loaded on its appropriate factors with bold loadings higher than .64 and cross loadings lower than .26.
Table 2 shows the factor structure of the next exploratory factor analysis containing items of ‘self reports creative behavior’, ‘self reports standardized behavior’, ‘supervisor reports creative behavior’, and ‘supervisor reports standardized behavior’. These items have been submitted to a principal components analysis with oblique rotation. In total four factors have been distinguished by the factor analysis with an eigenvalue greater than 1. They explain 65,96 per cent of the variance. The items loaded on its appropriate factors with bold loadings higher than .50 and the cross loadings lower than .23.
The last items that have been tested are the variables overall performance and quality. These variables are the two performance indicators and are therefore measured separately. Both variables have been submitted to a principal components analysis with oblique rotation. Table 3 shows that two factors have been distinguished with an eigenvalue greater than 1. They explain 83,47 per cent of the variance. The items show appropriate factor loadings higher than .83 and cross loadings lower than .10.
Results of Principal Components Analysis of Overall Performance and Quality
1 2 Items
Factors
TABLE 4
Univariate Statistics and Pearson Correlations among the Variables
1) Age 2,16 0.94 2) Gender 1,66 0.47 .18* 3) Employment 2.48 1.34 .58** .26** 4) Education 3.86 0.72 - .24**- .10 - .35** 5) Leader-Member Exchange 4.20 0.78 - .00 - .07 - .14 .09 6) Role Expectations Creativity 4.10 0.75 .21 .06 .01 .02 .59** 7) Role Expectations Standardization 4.04 0.77 .26** .09 .10 .16 .27** .31** 8) Self reports Creative Behavior 3.73 0.71 - .02 - .21**- .04 .23* .32** .39** .06 9) Self reports Standardized Behavior 3.83 0.66 .18 .12 .02 - .12 .51** .32** .47** .15 10) Supervisor reports Creative Behavior 3.29 0.77 - .10 - .22* - .16 .24** .18* .08 - .15 .39** - .10 11) Supervisor reports Standardized Behavior 3.88 0.72 - .03 - .03 - .19* .12 .27** .06 - .07 .04 .15 .26** 12) Overall Performance 3.34 0.77 - .10 - .11 - .16 .08 .31** .22* - .13 .20* .06 .53** .65** 13) Quality 94.74 5.93 .03 - .04 .03 - .04 .12 .16 .01 .04 .18* .11 .29** .36** Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Statistics and Correlations
Hypotheses testing
Testing of the eight hypotheses was done by performing linear regression analyses on all items. There were three steps performed. The first step was applying the covariates (age, gender, employment and education) as control variables to check for relationships with the four mediating behaviors. At the second step the LMX and role expectations creativity and standardization were entered in the analysis, with the role expectations as a moderating variable. The third step that has been added is the cross-product term of LMX and role expectations, in order to discover any interaction between these two variables.
The LMX, the role expectations for standardization and creativity were related to the mediating variables ‘self reports creative behavior’, ‘self reports standardized behavior’, ‘supervisor reports creative behavior’, and ‘supervisor reports standardized behavior’ (Table 5) to test the first four hypotheses. Second, the mediating behaviors were related to the outcome variables of ‘quality’ and ‘overall performance’ to test the four other hypotheses. The results are presented in Table 6.
LMX, role expectations – standardized and creative behavior (H1 – H4) The measurement of
the first four hypotheses was done applying both self reports and supervisor reports for standardized and creative behavior. The results for the linear regression are presented in Table 5 and the two behaviors (self report and supervisor reports) are the mediating variables. In the first step of the regression analysis, control variables were entered yielding significant relationships of gender with both self-reports (b = -.23, p < .01) and supervisor reports of creative behavior (b=. -18, p < .10). Significant relationships of education with both self reports (b = .23, p < .01) and supervisor reports of creative behavior (b = .20, p < .05) were also yielded. These findings suggest that male and higher educated employees show higher levels of creative behavior. No other significant relation can be noticed between the behaviors and the covariates.
The covariates did not show any significant relation with self reports and supervisor reports of standardized behavior. The LMX is strongly and positively related to both the self report (b = .46,
p < .001) and supervisor reports (b = .27, p < .01). These relationships provide evidence to confirm
hypothesis 1 (H1).
The relationship between role expectations standardization exists for self reports on standardized behavior (b = .30, p < .001), but this relationship does not appear for supervisor reports standardized behavior. The role expectations that supervisors show towards their employees are positively associated with standardized behavior that employees say to express. However, this association disappears if the supervisors rate their employees on standardized behavior. So, as expected, the positive relationship is significant for self reports standardized behavior.
behavior was not significant for both self reports and supervisor reports. This would mean that stronger or weaker role expectations do not have an effect on standardized behavior and therefore hypothesis 3 (H3) can be
rejected.
TABLE 5
Results of Regression Analyses
1) Age .00 .09 - .01 .15 Gender - .23** .11 - .18+ .04 Employment .10 - .05 - .02 - .22+ Education .23** - .09 .20* .03 2) Leader-Member Exchange .12 .46*** .15 .27** 3) Role Expectations Creativity .35*** .01 Role Expectations Standardization .30*** - .15 4) Leader-Member Exchange x Role Expectations Creativity .05 .03 Leader-Member Exchange x .08 - .04 Role Expectations Standardization Δ R square .10* .09*** .07*** .00 .06 .27*** .08*** .00 .10 .02 .00 .00 .05 .05* .02 .00 + p < .10 (two-tailed test)
Step and Variables
Self Reports Creative Behavior Self Reports Standardized Behavior Supervisor Reports Creative Behavior Supervisor Reports Standardized Behavior 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 * p < .05 (two-tailed test) ** p < .01 (two-tailed test) *** p < .001 (two-tailed test)
intensify the relationship between LMX and creative behavior and therefore hypothesis 4 (H4) can be rejected.
Standardized and creative behavior – overall performance and quality (H5 – H8) The remaining
four hypotheses were also tested by performing linear regression analyses on all items. Again three steps were performed. The first step was applying the covariates (age, gender, employment and education) as control variables to check for relationships with the two performance indicators. At the second step the four mediating variables were included. The third step that has been added is the cross-product term of standardized and creative behavior (self reports and supervisor reports), in order to discover any interaction between these two variables.
The mediating variables ‘self reports creative behavior’, ‘self reports standardized behavior’, ‘supervisor reports creative behavior’, and ‘supervisor reports standardized behavior’ were related to ‘overall performance’ and ‘quality’. Table 6 shows the results for the regression analysis on both indicators, overall performance and quality. The covariates age, gender, education and employment, are applied again . In contrast to the results of the first four hypotheses, there is no correlation between any of the covariates and overall performance and quality.
The self reports and supervisor reports standardized behavior are related to overall performance. It was hypothesized that standardized behavior is positively related to overall performance. The self reports standardized behavior in relation to performance are not significant, but they are strongly significant for supervisor reports standardized behavior (b = .56, p < .001). Self reports standardized behavior do not relate to overall performance, but the supervisor ratings of the employee on standardized behavior showed a strong relationship with overall performance. Hypothesis 5 (H5) can therefore be confirmed for supervisor reports standardized behavior.
Self reports and supervisor reports standardized behavior have also been compared to quality, based on the hypothesis that standardized behavior will lead to higher quality. There are again differences between the self scores and the supervisor scores. The relation between the self reports standardized behavior and quality is significant, but very weak (b = .19, p < .10,). The correlation .10 is marginal, but this correlation is only tested on a positive relationship (one tailed) and therefore significant. There is a high correlation between supervisor reports standardized behavior and quality (b = .31, p < .001). The hypothesis that standardized behavior will lead to higher quality of work (H6) can be confirmed, although the correlation is stronger for supervisor reports than for self reports.
7 (H7), creative behavior leads to higher overall performance, can be confirmed, although this relationship is stronger for supervisor reports than for self reports.
It was hypothesized that creative behavior leads to higher quality of work (H8). No significant relationships were yielded, not for self reports creative behavior nor for supervisor reports creative behavior. Therefore hypothesis 8 can be rejected.
TABLE 6
Results of Regression Analyses
Step and Variables Overall Performance Quality
1) Age .02 - .07 - .01 - .02
Gender - .03 - .02 - .07 - .05
Employment - .15 .02 .05 .10
Education - .02 - .11 - .01 - .05
THE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION SECTION
The aim of this research has been to examine the relationship between standardized and creative behavior and performance, and also to discover the influence that LMX and role expectations could have on the expression of these behaviors. This research has found some interesting relationships. First of all it can be concluded that the self reports and the supervisor reports of standardized and creative behavior differ from each other. As will be discussed later, both scores yielded different results as well. This is in line with the arguments provided for applying both scores, as indicated in the methods section. Interpretations of behavior are different by employees than by supervisors (Janssen, 2000). As expected, the results of the survey showed that there is a positive relationship between the LMX and standardized behavior. A high quality of the leader-member exchange will in general lead to a higher level of standardized behavior. An explanation for this relationship could be that standardized behavior is more difficult to persist and that a high quality of relationship with the supervisor stimulates the employee to stick to standard procedures. Furthermore, a high leader member exchange indicates a better (information) exchange of the required work (procedures) between the supervisor and employee and therefore the employee might develop this behavior. The assumption was that stronger role expectations could intensify the relationship between LMX and standardized and creative behavior. This interaction was not found, but role expectations on itself are positively related to the self reports of standardized and creative behavior. This means that stronger role expectations towards both behaviors lead to a higher level of standardized and creative behavior, irrespective of the quality of the LMX. A reason for this could be that the expression of creative behavior requires more risk, since it deviates from the regular patterns. When supervisors express their expectations towards creative behavior, employees are probably more willing to show this behavior than when no attention is given to this behavior. Standardized behavior usually does not require risks, but after a while people will develop their own working method, so therefore role expectations for standardized behavior need to be clearly expressed as well. This reasoning is in line with what Yaconi (2001: 1189) found: “People occupy positions in society in which their behavior will be more determined by what is expected from that position than by their own personal characteristics. Organizational behavior is not only driven by formal arrangements, but also by pressures for compliance emanated from role-set expectations”. However, this relationship could only be distinguished for the self scores of standardized and creative behavior. The role expectations did not show any relation with the supervisor reports of both behaviors. A reason could be that, even though supervisors express their expectations toward their employees, the increase in performance of these behaviors is not recognized by the supervisors, while the employees do experience the influence of these role expectations or at least they think they do.
between creativity and performance was assumed to exist and not investigated. This relationship is now found. Standardized behavior appears to be positively related to overall performance, but then only for the supervisor reports. This means that high ratings on standardized behavior, judged by the supervisor, influence the overall performance in a positive way. The last correlation that was found is the one between standardized behavior and quality. As expected, this relationship was present for self reports and supervisor reports. It is interesting that standardized behavior can be related to both performance indicators, since they have both been measured very differently. A higher level of standardized behavior leads in general to a higher quality of work. This is also what Chen et al. (2002: 901) found: “The degree of job standardization is an essential basis for continuously improving quality”. A reason that creative behavior only correlates with overall performance and not with quality, could be because the quality level at the energy company is measured based on how employees apply the standard procedures on a case. If creative behavior is applied, it deviates from standard procedures which could result in lower quality.
It was expected that standardized and creative behavior would lead to higher overall performance and higher quality. Standardized behavior is strongly related to overall performance and quality, and creative behavior correlates highly with overall performance, which means that both behaviors reinforce each other for this performance indicator. The fact that there is a strong relation between the supervisor reports of both behaviors and the two performance indicators is very positive, since supervisors are able to compare the employees against each other. The questions that were posed for measuring overall performance required the supervisor to rate the employees in relation to the others. It can be concluded that employees who show standardized and creative behavior the most, generate the best results.
Limitations
Although a multivariate analysis of variance has been applied, there is still bias in the fact that this part of the organization is mainly concerned with production work. Employees that are working on projects or on the more ‘creative parts’ of the organization and are also working with Lean, could have produced different results. Also the researched division as part of an energy company is a very specific sector. This means that the results could be different for other kind of companies or even for other divisions within the energy company.
Another limitation is that this research is performed at one specific moment. The correlational evidence does not necessarily reflect the causality as it is presented in the model (Janssen, 2000). The conceptual model gives one direction, but the relationship between LMX, standardized and creative behavior, and performance could as well be bi-directional. A high LMX leads in this case to standardized behavior, but it could also be that the performance of standardized behavior contributes to a higher LMX. The same line of reasoning could be used for standardized and creative behavior in relation to the performance indicators. Standardized and creative behavior are supposed to lead to higher overall performance, but it could also be that higher overall performance forms a basis for the performance of standardized and creative behavior. Experimental or longitudinal research needs to be done in order to find the exact evidence for this causation.
Although it would have been desirable to see the actual effects of standardized and creative behavior on customer satisfaction and on the cost-to-serve (the energy’s company main goals), it is hardly possible to examine these effects. These results were difficult to measure, since customer satisfaction is an external factor that could not be directly linked to individual performance. The cost-to-serve is an internal factor, but lower costs are realized by many teams and not by one individual and therefore it was difficult to examine this link as well. The assumption is made that improvement of quality of work leads to higher customer satisfaction and to lower costs (Gilson et al., 2005). This is also supported by Chen, Chou and Hsieh who say that “high service quality can increase customer satisfaction, reduce customer complaints and service costs, secure greater market share and attain maximum possible profits” (Chen et al., 2002: 900). This has not been the main focus of this paper, but it is likely that a high overall performance and high quality contribute to the cost reduction and to the customer satisfaction. Further research could be done to examine this link.
Theoretical and practical implications
Prior research has examined the relationship between standardized and creative behavior in relation to team performance and customer satisfaction (Gilson et al., 2005), concluding that standardized and creative behavior are complementary behaviors. This research has focused on standardized and creative behavior in relation to individual performance. The findings have reinforced the conclusion of Gilson et al. (2005) that standardized and creative behavior are complementary and even more, it has shown that this is also the case for individual performance and for individual quality. A team can compensate for people that do not perform that well, individuals cannot. This is a major contribution to theory, because these results contradict every research that states that organizations should choose for either standardized behavior or creative behavior.
Supervisors should be stimulated to improve or keep their (good) relationship with their employees, since this contributes positively to standardized behavior. Training supervisors could help them to show their expectations clearly and communicate effectively with their employees. As already suggested in the discussion, the stimulation of employees to perform standardized behavior probably requires more effort and therefore a high quality of this relationship (LMX) is of more value to the performance of standardized behavior than of creative behavior. A higher quality of the LMX could be achieved by a high quality information exchange between the employee and the supervisor (Cleyman et al., 1995). So, organizations can achieve better results of standardized behavior when the quality of the LMX is high. Another assumption that was made is that stronger role expectations would intensify the relationship between the LMX and both behaviors. Although this relationship was not found, high role expectations on itself cause an increase in both behaviors, perceived by the employees. If organizations, and then specifically supervisors, express their expectations towards their employees, these behaviors increase as well. Supervisors could for example express their expectations regularly in meetings with their employees. It is explained now how organizations can stimulate standardized and creative behavior, but the interest for organizations is whether both behaviors generate real results. Standardized behavior is positively related to overall performance and quality and creative behavior is positively related to overall performance. Both behaviors should be stimulated, because creative behavior contributes to overall performance and standardized behavior to both. Lean is based on the idea that standardized and creative behavior go hand in hand and that is now proven to be true. This is in line with the findings of Gilson et al. (2005) who found a significant relationship between standardized and creative behavior and therefore concluded that they complement each other. Stimulation of both behaviors could be done by expressing role expectations during special Lean sessions. These sessions are scheduled for letting employees think of ways to perform more effectively.
Conclusion
LITERATURE
Amabile, T. M. 1998. How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76: 76-87
Baer, M. & Oldham, G. R. 2006. The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91: 963-970.
Blind, K. 2002. Driving forces for standardization at standardization development organizations.
Applied Economics, 34: 1985-1998.
Blind, K. 2005. Explanatory factors for participation in formal standardisation processes: empirical evidence at firm level. Economic Innovation New Technology, 15: 157-170.
Blum, T. C., Shalley, C. E. & Gilson, L. L., 2000. Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 215-223
Breukelen van, J. W. M. & Konst, D. F. M. 1996. De leader-member-exchange leiderschapstheorie: iets anders of meer van hetzelfde? Gedrag en Organisatie, 1: 1-16.
Bunderson, J. S. & Vegt van der, G. S. 2005. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 532-547.
Burnes, B. 2006. Managing Change. England: Prentice Hall
Chen, C. M., Chou, C. H. & Hsieh, A. T. 2002. Job Standardization and service quality: a closer look at the application of total quality management to the public sector. Total Quality Management, 13: 899-912.
Chen, Z., Lam, W. & Zhong, J. A. 2007. Leader-member exchange and member performance: a new look at the individual- level negative feedback-setting behavior and team-level empowerment climate.
Chiu, W., Huang, X. & Janssen, O. submitted 2007. How psychological empowerment moderates and individual differentiation mediates the relationship between collegial trust and individual creativity in teams.
Cleyman, K. L., Jex, S. M. & Love, K. G. 1995. Employee grievances: an application of the leader-member exchange model. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3: 156-174.
Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. 2001. Business Research Methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
Cooper, R. G. 1995. Developing new products on time, in time. Research-technology Management, 38: 49-57.
Cummings, A. & Oldham, G. R. 1996. Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33: 607-634.
Cummings, L. L., Hinton, B. L. & Gobdel, B. C. 1975. Creative Behavior as a Function of Task Environment: Impact of Objectives, Procedures, and Controls. Academy of Management Journal, 18: 489-499.
Deluga, R. J. 1994. Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67: 315-326.
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R. & Quinn, R. E. 1995. Paradox and performance: toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organizational Science, 6: 524-540.
Drew, J., McCallum, B. & Roggenhofer, S. 2004. Journey to lean, making operational change stick. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Erez, M., Latham, G. P. & Locke, E.A. 1988. The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of
Management Review, 13: 23-39.
Erez, M., Mion, E. & Naveh, E. 2003. Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25: 175-199.
Gaddis, B., Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M. & Strange, J. M. 2002. Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and relationships. The leadership quarterly, 13: 705-750.
Gilson, L. L. & Shalley, C. E. 2004. A Little Creativity Goes a Long Way: An Examination of Teams' Engagement in Creative Processes. Journal of Management, 30: 453-470.
Gilson, L. L. & Shalley, C. E. 2004. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The leadership quarterly, 15: 33-53.
Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Ruddy, T .M. & Shalley, C. E. 2005. Creativity and standardization: complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48: 521-531.
Greguras, G. J. & Ford, J. M. 2006. An examination of the multidimensionality of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader-member exchange. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 79: 433-465.
Griffin, R. W., Sawyer, J. E. & Woodman, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Academy of Management Review, 18: 293-321.
http://thinkexist.com/search/searchquotation.asp?search=standardization - 25/04/2007 http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1960.html - 12/03/2007
Janssen, O. & Yperen van, N. W. 2004. Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 47: 368-384.
Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 287-302.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R. & Pratt, M. G. 2002. There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 45: 757-767.
Mumford, M. D. 2000. Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation. Human
Resource Management Review, 10: 313-351.
Norušis, M. J., 2002. SPSS 11.0, Guide to Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Oldham, G. R., Shalley, C. E. & Zhou, J. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? Journal of management, 30: 933-958.
Olian, J. D. & Rynes, S. L. 1991. Making total quality work: Aligning organizational processes, performance measures and stakeholders. Human Resource Management, 30: 303-333.
Salancik, G. R. 1977. Commitment is too easy! Organizational Dynamics, 6: 62-80.
Shalley, C. E., 1995. Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 483-503.
Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 315-330.
Tierney, P. 1996. A longitudinal assessment of LMX on extra-role behavior. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 298-302.
Vegt, van der. G. 1998. Patterns of interdependence in work teams. Proefschrift Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen.
Wingo, W. 2001. Standards Update. Global Design News, 5: 14.
