Enhancing Creativity at Work: The Role of Openness, Job Complexity, and Intrinsic Motivation

Enhancing Creativity at Work: The Role of Openness, Job Complexity, and

Intrinsic Motivation

Supervisor: Dr. Bart Verwaeren

MSc Human Resource Management (HRM) Faculty of Economics and Business

Enhancing Creativity at Work: The Role of Openness, Job Complexity, and Intrinsic Motivation

ABSTRACT

This thesis examined the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between openness to experience and employee creativity. Previous studies mainly found a positive relation between the two variables and further, that both intrinsic motivation and job complexity are linked to creative performance. Individuals who score high on openness will be more enthusiastic about their job if it is challenging enough and ultimately, they will perform more creatively. Therefore, I hypothesised that the effect of the openness-creativity relationship is mediated by an

employee’s intrinsic motivation. The indirect relationship, in turn, is moderated by job

complexity, meaning that the level of motivation depends on an individual’s job characteristics. In order to test the hypotheses, I conducted an online survey with 350 employed participants which measured openness to experience, employee creativity, intrinsic motivation, and job complexity. The results indicate an influence of intrinsic motivation, whereas the role of job complexity needs further clarification. This research makes both theoretical and practical contributions by clarifying the factors which affect employees’ willingness to engage creatively based on their personality. The study offers future implications that companies should consider to achieve or maintain a competitive advantage.

Keywords:

Enhancing Creativity at Work: The Role of Openness, Job Complexity, and Intrinsic Motivation

The attention of researchers in the past was drawn to creativity which in itself is seen as the first step of innovation and focusses on idea generation. It is crucial for firms to continuously introduce and implement innovations in order to keep up with the market and thereby, remain competitive. Especially employee creativity is a key factor for achieving competitive advantage, as employees are the ones who determine the products or services of a company through their creativity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). In general, employee creativity refers to employees who propose novel and useful products at work (Amabile, 1988). A firm needs to ensure that employees make creative contributions by hiring individuals with creative potential as well as by structuring the employee’s work in such a way that it brings out the creative potential

(Cummings & Oldham, 1997). The potential for creativity can be predicted by personality, as there are personal attributes that are more conducive to creativity than others. For this reason, employees have differing potential in making creative contributions at work. The five-factor model of personality presents five personality traits (i.e., openness to experience,

conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism), of which research results suggest that they interact with contextual factors to either enhance or restrict creativity

(Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014). However, given that there is still a lack of research in this area, I will examine the following research question: How do individual differences affect creativity in the work environment?

Most notably, “openness to experience”, which is defined as “the extent to which

strongly related to creativity. Despite this link, the effect of openness to experience is not as straightforward as one would expect it to be. Due to the shared characteristics of openness and creativity, it is often assumed that openness leads to creativity. Indeed, research has found a generally positive relationship between these two variables. For instance, McCrae (1987) established this relationship with the fact that people who score high on openness may develop cognitive skills which are associated with creative thinking. Feist (1998) further explained that both constructs address the uniqueness of an individual. While the personality trait is about the uniqueness of an individual’s ability to create new ideas and products, creativity is about the uniqueness of the individual’s ideas and behaviour. Recent literature, however, has found that this relationship is usually much more complex. Particularly with regard to employee creativity, it is important to distinguish between general creativity and creativity at work, as well as to recognise that the performance may vary depending on the context and influencing factors. In general, the creative potential of an employee can only be successfully used for creative outputs if a context is created in which this potential is promoted (Cummings & Oldham, 1997). George and Zhou (2001) argued that openness and creativity interact with feedback valence and the nature of a task to influence creativity. Nevertheless, research that addresses these underlying mechanisms of the relationship between openness to experience and employee creativity is rare.

In order to clarify why and when openness has a positive effect on creativity, it is important to understand the underlying mechanisms of this relationship. Possibly one

reasonable to assume that people who are open are more enthusiastic about their job and perform more creatively due to their inherent strive for the unknown and new experiences. However, to date, there has been little empirical work on intrinsic motivation as a mediator (Tan, Lau, Kung, & Kailsan, 2019). Empirical research has yielded mixed results, in the fact that the positive effects of intrinsic motivation were not always replicated (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Grant & Berry, 2011).

As intrinsic motivation also incorporates contextual factors (e.g., job complexity), it is suggested that openness to experience will be positively related to intrinsic motivation, in particular if a job is challenging enough (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Furthermore, contextual factors describe dimensions of the work environment that as such have the potential to influence creativity (Shalley et al., 2004). Depending on these factors, an individual decides to generate creative efforts over time. Especially people high in openness are constantly looking for

challenging and complex jobs, which make them enthusiastic about their work and enhance their motivation to complete their tasks (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). While job complexity is recognised as a contextual factor, the impact of it as a moderator in the indirect relationship of openness and creativity through intrinsic motivation has not been investigated yet.

Since no consistent theoretical framework exists, I aim to develop such a framework with my research. Hereby, I further make both a theoretical and an empirical contribution, given the lack of studies investigating how openness is linked to the creative behaviour of employees. Addressing this ambiguity, I will focus on intrinsic motivation as a mediator and explore how job complexity moderates the relationship of openness to experience and intrinsic motivation.

practical relevance, as job complexity and its link to the person-environment-fit can give organisations future insight about how to create a match to achieve desirable outcomes (e.g., performance, satisfaction) and ultimately, competitive advantage.

Based on the arguments above, this thesis will deal with the following questions: (a) How does the outcome of the positive relationship between openness to experience and employee creativity change when it is mediated by intrinsic motivation? (b) To what extent is intrinsic motivation in turn moderated by job complexity?

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The Relationship Between Openness to Experience and Employee Creativity

Given the different perspectives in various fields, the concept of creativity has been defined in a number of ways in earlier creativity research. For instance, personality psychologists understand creativity as a characteristic of a person, while psychologists in experimental

aesthetics consider it a product (Prabhu, Sutton, & Sauser, 2008). Over the years, however, a consensus developed on the appropriateness of the definition among creativity researchers. Most researchers today have adopted the definition of Amabile (1988), which defines creativity as a process. This terminology refers to the product or the outcome of a product development process (e.g., Amabile 1983, 1988; Shalley, 1991; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). In accordance with these previous studies, I define employee creativity as the creative performance of an individual in the sense of proposing new and useful products at work (Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996).

dimensions are related differently to employee creativity in companies when the situation

supports the operation of this trait. According to Feist (1998), one of the dimensions most closely related to creativity is “openness to experience”. This dimension describes the extent to which an individual is broad-minded, curious, imaginative, and original (McCrae, 1987). Individuals with a high level of openness to experience are highly motivated and constantly looking for diverse experiences. They actively search for unknown situations, which are characterised by a high degree of novelty and through which they have access to several ideas and perspectives (McCrae & Costa, 1997). In the past, it has been observed that openness is often positively linked to creativity (Conner & Silvia, 2015; Feist, 1998; Ivcevic & Brackett, 2015; Van Tilburg,

Sedikides, & Wildschut, 2015). According to Cummings and Oldham (1997), there are certain personality descriptors of creative people (e.g., attraction to complexity, tolerance of ambiguity) which fit with the characteristics of people high in openness. However, there have also been studies showing rather weak relationships, suggesting that the link may differ depending on contextual factors (Burke & Witt, 2002). Even though the intensity of the relationship has varied in past findings, I propose the following:

Hypothesis 1. Openness to experience enhances employee creativity.

The Role of Intrinsic Motivation as a Mediator

Past work has found a direct link between intrinsic motivation and creative performance (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Researchers consider intrinsic motivation as another key

Csikszentmihalyi (1988, p. 337) supported the relevance by stating that “for no matter how original one might be, if one is bored by the domain, it will be difficult to become interested enough in it to make a creative contribution.” This statement further underlines that intrinsic motivation is formed by both the work environment (e.g., job characteristics; Amabile, 1996) and interrelated psychological mechanisms (Grant & Berry, 2011), meaning that intrinsic motivation incorporates contextual as well as personal characteristics. Researchers found three different psychological mechanisms: First, when individuals are intrinsically motivated, they experience positive affect which, among other things, expands their attention to include a wider range of ideas and hence, ultimately stimulates creativity. Second, with being intrinsically motivated, their eagerness to learn will increase their cognitive flexibility, risk-taking, and openness to complexity. Third, persistence is supported by fostering positive affect, confidence, and interest and thus, individuals are being encouraged to stick with challenging, complex, and new tasks (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Gagné & Deci, 2005). These three psychological mechanisms show that intrinsic motivation can encourage individuals to persist with and focus on challenging and unknown activities.

Previous research was able to find interrelation between openness to experience, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. On the one hand, research found that high levels of openness to experience lead to high levels of intrinsic motivation (Entwistle, 1988). This link is based on common properties which characterise openness and intrinsic motivation of individuals. For instance, openness to experience involves several characteristics describing a person who is continuously striving for unknown and different perspectives and thus, forming the interest in an activity itself (Watanabe & Kanazawa, 2009). On the other hand, research showed that

that intrinsic motivation influences the decision to trigger and maintain creative efforts over time. Intrinsically motivated people are more willing to discover new things and take greater risks (Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfleld, 1990). Therefore, creativity is partly the result of personality and the corresponding intrinsic motivation.

Overall, the level of creativity depends on the level of an individual’s motivation. If employees are more enthusiastic about their work, it increases their creativity. However, the level of motivation can negatively impact their creativity if employees are not enthusiastic about their work and rather demotivated. The ability to produce novel products depends ultimately on whether a person is intrinsically motivated. Thus, intrinsic motivation is considered “the most important determinant of the difference between what a person can do and what he or she will do” (Amabile, 1983, p. 366). For the aforementioned reasons, I assume that intrinsic motivation acts as a mediator between the openness-creativity relationship:

Hypothesis 2. Intrinsic motivation mediates the positive relationship of openness to experience and employee creativity.

The Role of Job Complexity as a Moderator

motivation, satisfaction, and productivity of employees. This is in line with person-environment fit theory, which highlights the benefits of a consistent fit, such as increased performance, satisfaction, and low stress. There are two distinct forms of fit: Firstly, the fit between an individual’s needs and values and the opportunities provided by the environment. Secondly, the fit between the demands of the environment and the individual’s skills needed to meet the demands (French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974). It becomes apparent that working environments can differ in terms of the required amount and type of work, as well as the employees in their ability to comply with these requirements. This is not always compatible, as shown by the fact that reducing the requirements of the environment to ensure a better fit may result in the individual being unable to grow and develop (Caplan, 1983). However, further development and challenge is especially important for the interrelation between openness to experience, intrinsic motivation, and employee creativity.

Further acknowledging the importance of congruence within the working environment, the theory of job characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) builds on a fit between

characteristics of the job and characteristics of the jobholder. The model identifies the interaction between core job characteristics that initiate critical psychological states, which, in turn, result in several positive personal and work outcomes (e.g., high internal work motivation, high general job satisfaction). In general, complex jobs are characterised by the following five factors of job complexity: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. These factors influence three pivotal psychological statuses: variety, identity, and significance. This means that they influence the extent to which an employee sees his work as meaningful; autonomy

work are the characteristics skill variety, task identity, and task significance, while autonomy is leading to the feeling of responsibility and feedback determines the knowledge of results (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Therefore, in my research, I will focus on the following

characteristics: skill variety, autonomy, and feedback. These three appear to be most directive outcomes from a theoretical standpoint (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Liu, Chen, & Yao, 2011).

In order for a job to be highly motivating, the job needs to rank high in all of the three examined psychological states. However, besides the job characteristics, it is also important to consider a jobholder’s characteristics. A highly motivating job will not trigger positive responses from all individuals. Previous results showed that professional skills are positively linked to individual creativity. Firstly, skill variety has been found to increase intrinsic motivation and, in turn, contribute to creativity. Secondly, people with a high degree of autonomy are more

creative. Lastly, feedback increases creativity as it increases intrinsic motivation. Contrary to these positive effects, a restrictive or more simple job negatively affects motivation and creativity. I argue that the openness-creativity relationship is mediated by intrinsic motivation. Job complexity can alter the effect of this mediated relationship. I further suspect that the relationship between openness to experience and intrinsic motivation can lead to a different outcome depending on the job. Consequently, I propose the following:

The proposed hypotheses are displayed in the following conceptual model:

METHODS

Research Setting, Participants, and Procedure

Research Setting. To test the hypotheses, a quantitative research was conducted via an

online survey. Qualtrics was used for setting up the questionnaire and the link was then shared on a platform for crowdsourced data collection, namely Prolific. Prolific was chosen as this platform offers access to a broader population compared to the classic laboratory experiments with students. With the focus not only on students, but also on working individuals, a wide range of jobs and types of organisations are available. This further supports the generalisability.

Participants. Every individual in a permanent, full-time employment relationship could

participate in the survey. As the questionnaire was designed in English, participants needed sufficient English proficiency. In total, 350 people filled out the questionnaire. Among the 350 participants were 214 women, 135 men, and one respondent who answered “rather not say”. The

Intrinsic Motivation Employee Creativity Openness to Experience Figure 1

age of the participants ranged from 20 to 76 years and the mean age of the sample was 40.31 years (SD = 10.89). Almost half of the respondents (47.7%) had a bachelor’s degree, followed by those who had less than a college degree (27.1%), a master’s degree (20.3%), and an advanced graduate degree (4.9%). The sample composed of 47.7% nonsupervisory/individual contributors, 34.6% supervisors/coordinators and/or technical experts, 13.7% managers/directors, and 4% of the individuals were in the senior management. The participants’ average tenure was 7.22 years (SD = 6.48).

Procedure. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire online and

individually. The questionnaire included items assessing demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, educational level, and job), employment variables (i.e., occupational title, job tenure, position, job family, organisation, and job industry) as well as openness to experience, intrinsic motivation, individual creativity, and job complexity as primary measures. The duration for filling out the questionnaire was on average ten minutes per respondent. For the data analysis, regression analyses were performed using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro for SPSS.

Measures

All measures used five-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) unless otherwise indicated. The specific measures are described below, along with their Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Items of the respective measures were averaged into an overall scale score. The Appendix shows the items for my primary measures.

Openness to experience. To measure the level of openness to experience, I used a

1992). The scale composed of ten items, including six reverse scored. Sample items were “Enjoy hearing new ideas.” and “Rarely look for a deeper meaning in things.” (reverse scored)

(Cronbach’s α = .88).

Job complexity. Consistent with prior research of Tierney and Farmer (2002), I based job

complexity on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Roos & Treiman, 1980), nowadays replaced by the Occupational Information Network (O*NET), as it includes the factor of creativity as a job requirement. The O*NET further displays the capacity of “complex problem solving” which represents the level of “identifying complex problems and reviewing related information to develop and evaluate options and implement solutions” (Fleisher & Tsacoumis, 2012, A-2). This value was used to indicate job complexity as it is in congruence with the previously described theory. In order to determine the value, participants were asked during the survey to give their occupational title, which I then entered in the O*NET, finally choosing the most applicable entry.

Additionally to the O*NET, I added the scale of Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) to the survey to assess job complexity in an alternative objective way. The scale is composed of four items of which all are reverse scored, including “The job requires that I only do one task or activity at a time.” and “The job comprises relatively uncomplicated tasks.” (Cronbach’s α = .87).

Intrinsic motivation. For the measurement of employees’ intrinsic motivation, the

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items included “The content of my job is actually kind of fun.” and “I feel driven to do my job because I genuinely like the tasks I work on.” (Cronbach’s α = .93).

Employee creativity. A possible scale for measuring employee creativity through

self-assessment is the eleven-item scale of “creative process engagement” from Zhang and Bartol (2010). Respondents were asked the following question: “In your job, to what extent do you engage in the follow actions when seeking to accomplish an assignment or solve a problem?”. They indicated their response on a five-point scale (1 = “never”, 2 = “rarely”, 3 =

“occasionally”, 4 = “frequently”, 5 = “very frequently”). Sample items were “Think about the problem from multiple perspectives.” and “Consider diverse sources of information in generating new ideas.” (Cronbach’s α = .90).

Control variables. Following previous creativity research, to reduce the potential that

other variables which are likely to affect creativity will confound the hypothesised relations, I included the following control variables (e.g., Tierney & Farmer, 2002; Baer, 2010): education (1 = “less than college degree”, 2 = “bachelor’s degree”, 3 = “master’s degree”, 4 = “advanced graduate degree (e.g., PhD.)”); job position (1 = “nonsupervisory/individual contributor”, 2 = “supervisor/coordinator and/or technical expert”, 3 = “manager/director”, 4 = “senior

RESULTS

The descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables in this study are presented in Table 1. Removing respondents who failed the attention check from the sample did not change the results noticeably and thus, the results from the initial sample will be reported. As responses were forced for all questions, no missing values were found. Furthermore, all primary variables were inter-correlated with each other. This indicates that my assumptions based on the

theoretical background are supported.

In this study, I examined whether the impact of openness to experience on employee creativity is mediated by an employee’s intrinsic motivation, which, in turn, depends on his job characteristics. In order to test this moderated mediation model, I used the SPSS PROCESS macro (Model 7) by Hayes (2013), whereby openness to experience was the predictor, employee creativity was the outcome variable, intrinsic motivation was the mediator, and job complexity was the moderator. I tested the model with two different approaches for the moderator (i.e., job

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Edu_Ba 0.48 0.50 — 2. Edu_Ma 0.20 0.40 -.48** _— 3. Edu_Adv 0.05 0.22 -.22** _-.11* _— 4. Pos_S 0.35 0.48 .06 .07 -.03 — 5. Pos_M 0.14 0.34 .00 .03 .06 -.29** _— 6. Pos_SM 0.04 0.20 -.05 .08 .02 -.15** _{-.08 —} 7. Tenure 7.22 6.48 -.03 -.09 .01 .00 .06 .08 — 8. Demands 2.54 0.53 .04 -.02 .02 .07 .11* _{.04 .23}** _— 9. Openness 3.72 0.72 .01 .17** _{.05 .08 -.09 .07 -.03 -.04 —} 10. JC O*NET 58.91 11.72 .07 .21** _.14* _.14* _.24** _.28** _{.03 .11}* _.13* _— 11. JC Scale 3.71 0.95 .02 .17** _{.09 .06 .10 .11}* _{.04 .30}** _.24** _.35** _— 12. Motivation 4.70 1.38 -.03 .07 -.01 .10 .00 .09 .01 -.10 .20** _.15** _.20** _— 13. Creativity 3.65 0.60 .04 .08 .12* _.20** _{.01 .06 -.07 .16}** _.36** _.23** _.32** _.37** _— Notes. N = 350. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Edu_Ba = education bachelor’s degree; Edu_Ma = education master’s degree; Edu_Adv = education advanced graduate degree; Pos_S = job position supervisor; Pos_M = job position manager; Pos_SM = job position senior management; Tenure = job tenure; Demands = job demands; Openness = openness to experience; JC = job complexity; Motivation = intrinsic motivation; Creativity = employee creativity.

complexity O*NET and job complexity scale) to review if there are differing results. Since the results were mainly consistent, I will only report the values of the job complexity O*NET below for results that did not deviate. Moreover, five thousand bootstrap samples were used to establish a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) for assessing the significance of indirect effects. Effects are considered statistically significant if the p-value is below .05 and the CI does not include zero. Table 2 provides the results of the regression analyses.

In Hypothesis 1, I proposed in line with previous findings that openness to experience enhances employee creativity. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the effect of openness on employee creativity was found significant (B = .23, SE = .04, t(339) = 5.8, p < .001, 95% CI [.15, .30]).

Table 2 Regression Analyses

Intrinsic Motivation Employee Creativity

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 a

Intercept 5.24 (.38)*** 3.46 (.62)*** 5.44 (.38)*** 3.03 (.16)*** 2.33 (.18)*** 2.38 (.18)*** Edu_Ba .00 (.18) -.15 (.18) -.15 (.18) .14 (.07) .09 (.07) .07 (.07) Edu_Ma .18 (.22) -08 (.23) -.09 (.23) .19 (.09)* .06 (.08) .03 (.09) Edu_Adv -.03 (.36) -.30 (.37) -.29 (.37) .44 (.15)** .36 (.13)** .31 (.14)* Pos_S .42 (.17)* .33 (.17) .32 (.17) .24 (.07)** .17 (.06)** .15 (.06)* Pos_M .27 (.23) .20 (.24) .17 (.24) .09 (.10) .09 (.08) .06 (.09) Pos_SM .82 (.39)* .52 (.40) .53 (.40) .28 (.16) .12 (.14) .04 (.15) Tenure .01 (.01) .01 (.01) .01 (.01) -.01 (.01) -.01 (.00)* -.01 (.00)* Demands -.33 (.14)* -.32 (.14)* -.32 (.14)* .18 (.06)** .23 (.05)*** .23 (.05)*** Openness .33 (.10)*** .33 (.10)** .23 (.04)*** .23 (.04)*** JC O*NET .01 (.01) .01 (.01) .003 (.00) Interaction -.01 (.01) .003 (.00) Intrinsic Motivation .14 (.02)*** R2 _{.04 .08*** .08** .11*** .31*** .31***} ∆R2 _{.04 .00 .20 .09}

Conditional Indirect Effects Conditional Effects

-1 SD (JC O*NET) .06 (.02) .19 (.06)***

+1 SD (JC O*NET) .03 (.02) .26 (.06)***

Notes. N = 350. Standard Errors between parentheses. Edu_Ba = education bachelor’s degree; Edu_Ma = education master’s degree; Edu_Adv = education advanced graduate degree; Pos_S = job position supervisor; Pos_M = job position manager; Pos_SM = job position senior management; Tenure = job tenure; Demands = job demands; Openness = openness to experience; JC = job complexity; SD = standard deviation.

a _{shows results of JC O*NET moderating the relationship of openness to experience and employee creativity}

The direct effect also remained significant after removing the covariates (i.e., education, job position, job tenure, and job demands) (B = .24, SE = .04, t(347) = 6.12, p < .001,

95% CI [.17, .32]).

In Hypothesis 2, I proposed that intrinsic motivation mediates the positive relationship of openness to experience and employee creativity. The results from the analysis demonstrated the significant relationship of openness and intrinsic motivation (B = .33, SE = .10, t(338) = 3.19, p < .01, 95% CI [.13, .53]). Moreover, the output of the dependent outcome variable showed that intrinsic motivation is also a predictor of employee creativity (B = .14, SE = .02, t(339) = 6.72, p < .001, 95% CI [.10, .18]). The indirect effect, however, was only significant on the low level (minus one SD = -11.72) and average level of job complexity. The high level (plus one SD = 11.72) was not significant since the CI included zero, meaning that mediation needs to be tested separately and Hypothesis 2 can only be partially supported (B = .03, BootSE = .02,

95% CI [-.01, .07]).

In Hypothesis 3, I proposed that job complexity moderates the relationship between openness to experience and intrinsic motivation. The analysis output reported that job complexity measured by the O*NET was not a significant predictor of intrinsic motivation (B = .01, SE = .01, t(338) = 1.74, p = .08, 95% CI [-.00, .03]). In contrast, job complexity based on the scale showed a significant effect (B = .30, SE = .08, t(338) = 3.58, p < .001,

95% CI [.14, .46]). Despite the significant effect of the latter, the interaction of openness and job complexity was in both cases not significant and therefore, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. There was no significant moderation effect, meaning that Hypothesis 3 was not

of moderated mediation was not significant, as the CI included zero (Index = -.00, BootSE = .00, 95% CI [-.00, .00]), and hence, no moderated mediation exists either.

As there was no indicator for moderated mediation when using the PROCESS Model 7, I checked if there is statistical evidence for job complexity moderating the relationship of

openness to experience and employee creativity (PROCESS Model 8; Hayes, 2013). The result for this analysis is displayed in column “Model 6” of Table 2. In the case of job complexity O*NET, the report showed that job complexity was not a predictor of employee creativity (B = .00, SE = .00, t(337) = 1.30, p = .20, 95% CI [-.00, .01]), whereas for job complexity scale the result was significant (B = .08, SE = .03, t(337) = 2.33, p < .05, 95% CI [.01, .14]).

Nevertheless, there was still no significant interaction index in either approach in this model (B = .00, SE = .00, t(337) = .90, p = .37, 95% CI [-.00, .01]). This finding was also displayed in the index of moderated mediation, which was identical to the result in the previous analysis (Index = -.002, BootSE = .00, 95% CI [-.00, .00]).

level as well as manager and senior management job positions. Accordingly, the nature of the relationship depends on the control variables.

The results of the above-mentioned analyses demonstrated that the moderating effect of job complexity was not significant. In addition, while the effects on intrinsic motivation and creativity were also not significant when testing with job complexity O*NET and covariates, the effects through job complexity scale were significant with and without covariates. Removing the control variables in the O*NET approach led to significant effects. Based on these differing findings, I conducted an exploratory analysis with PROCESS Model 4 from Hayes (2013) to investigate whether job complexity serves as an independent variable instead of my previously assumed function as a moderator. Varying results were collected when testing with and without control variables. Without covariates, the effects of job complexity O*NET and scale were significant in this role and therefore, job complexity can be seen as a predictor of intrinsic motivation (B = .02, SE = .01, t(348) = 2.75, p < .01, 95% CI [.005, .03]) and employee creativity (B = .01, SE = .00, t(347) = 6.87, p < .001, 95% CI [.11, .19]). However, when controlling for the covariates, job complexity O*NET did not fulfil the role of a significant independent variable anymore (B = .00, SE = .00, t(339) = 1.63, p = .10, 95% CI [-.00, .01]).

DISCUSSION

enhances employee creativity. Moreover, intrinsic motivation is a predictor of employee creativity but the mediation effect (Hypothesis 2) is questionable as the indirect effect was not significant on all levels. The results further showed that openness is a predictor of intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 3, which suggested that job complexity moderates the relation of openness and intrinsic motivation, was not supported. Although the results of the two job complexity measurements differed, no interaction between job complexity and openness was found in either case. There was neither a significant moderation effect nor a moderated

mediation effect. The additional analysis confirmed these results and demonstrated beyond the fact that job complexity scale is a predictor for employee creativity, but not job complexity O*NET. Furthermore, the role of intrinsic motivation as mediator could be validated. Finally, my exploratory analysis indicated that, depending on the control variables, job complexity could serve as an independent variable predicting intrinsic motivation and creativity.

This study contributes to the creativity literature in different ways. The positive relationship between openness of experience and creativity is replicated and the possible underlying mechanisms are examined in more detail. Job complexity was measured using two different methods, one by self-assessment (scale) and one by objective data (O*NET). Among other things, the collection and measurement methods can be limitations to my study which will be discussed later on.

Theoretical Contributions and Implications

found that intrinsic motivation serves as a mediator in the relationship between openness and creativity. In fact, intrinsic motivation had a significant impact on the creativity of employees. Following Csikszentmihalyi (1988), the degree of enthusiasm an individual has for an activity is crucial for making creative contributions. The confirmed theory stresses again the importance of individuals taking pleasure in their work in order to be able to make creative contributions at work. The findings of Entwistle (1988), which found a significant effect of openness to

experience on intrinsic motivation, were also supported. This reveals the connection between the two variables, which suggests that people who are high in openness hold characteristics that shape interest in the activity itself. In particular, these individuals are constantly looking for new perspectives and challenges, which increase their motivation to be creative.

To examine the function and impact of job complexity, I used two different approaches in my study. The measurement of job complexity with a scale and through self-reporting was a subjective measure from the perspective of the participants, while the measurement through the O*NET website was objective. If both approaches led to identical results, this could have been used positively by future research. In case of the needs of a specific target group, researchers could then use the measurement with O*NET instead of on-site participants and at the same time make use of multisource data. However, with regard to my results, it turned out that the

might rather serve as an independent variable. Without control variables both approaches showed significance, with control variables solely the job complexity scale. Based on these outcomes, it can be concluded that the relationship of the variables is dependent on other factors. While moderators strengthen or weaken an existing connection, independent variables have an independent connection to other variables. This shows that in the case of job complexity, for example, not only individual tasks have an influence, but also entire jobs. In this context, it is important to consider both the person-environment-fit and the theory of job characteristics (French et al., 1974; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Especially the latter shows that a match can result in high motivation. In summary, if the requirements of the working environment do not match the skills a person needs to meet the requirements, then that person will ultimately not be able to use his or her creative potential.

Finally, previous literature suggests that complex jobs offer more opportunities to reflect creativity and that this can encourage employees to contribute creatively, as individuals with creative traits are attracted to complexity (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Nonetheless, this has not been supported by my findings. Despite the significant effects of job complexity on intrinsic motivation and employee creativity, the link between job complexity and openness was missing. My results showed no interaction between the two variables.

Practical Contributions and Implications

This study offers valuable practical implications for organisations and their employees. Creativity is increasingly linked to entrepreneurial skills (Zare & Flinchbaugh, 2019).

generation of novel ideas (e.g., Schmidt, Soper, & Bernaciak, 2013). In line with these recent research findings, my results suggest that the development of employee creativity depends on the work context and that the employees’ intrinsic motivation also plays a crucial role. The outcomes of my analysis, in which job complexity was the independent variable, intrinsic motivation was the mediator, and employee creativity was the dependent variable, showed that the direct and indirect effects were significant in cases of the job complexity scale approach. Accordingly, the means of generating creative and novel ideas lie with the employees and their work activities. Shalley, Gibson, and Blum (2000) also found in their study that employees who are challenged by their work are more likely to overcome cognitive thinking and find novel and more creative solutions. Considering job complexity and the relation to person-environment-fit is of both theoretical and practical relevance. It provides employers with insights on how to establish a match in the future so that desirable outcomes can be achieved. These outcomes enhance

employee creativity as well as both employee performance and satisfaction and ultimately, bring a competitive advantage for the organisation. In consequence, it can be expected that the working environment of jobs that involve creativity should be appropriately structured in order to

establish a context that facilitates creative performance. It is important for employers to take this into account to ensure sustainable success.

Study Limitations and Future Research

can also lead to more correlating answers. It is possible that people are biased when they report their own experiences and therefore, they may adjust them to social desirability. Even though the self-report in my study was an adequate measurement to understand the mechanisms of

individual creativity, future researchers should consider using a variety of measurements such as peer evaluation or supervisor reviews.

In the same vein as the measurement method, the use of a quantitative survey method can be a limitation. Quantitative research, through careful design of experiments, ensures that

collected data is more reliable and less open to challenge. The analysis is straightforward and is therefore less prone to error and subjectivity in the interpretation of results. However, according to Zhou and Hoever (2014), concerns have been expressed in the past that this survey method is predominant in creativity research and hence, it is recommended to investigate creativity in the workplace with other methodological approaches (e.g., qualitative or mixed). The use of these approaches can help to gain a better insight into the subjective perceptions of creativity and/or the processes of creative work within an organisation, especially through case study designs.

personality and creativity, more frequent measurements over longer periods of time may be necessary.

In addition to the aspects mentioned so far, future research may also deal with further topics. First, the focus of this research was explicitly on individual creativity. However, there is still a need for deeper investigation of potential precursors and interactions with respect to creativity in teams, groups and organisations (Anderson et al., 2014). To explore this, it may be necessary to consider several levels of creativity simultaneously. Through multi-level analysis, researchers can shed light on how an individual’s creativity can depend on factors at other levels and thus, extend the understanding of the underlying mechanisms (Yoo, Jang, Ho, Seo, & Yoo, 2019). Second, future research could further study the relationships and influences of job complexity. It would be interesting to find out why exactly the two measurement approaches yield different results and why there was no interaction between openness to experience and job complexity. Requesting further job characteristics from the participants, such as activities, could lead to a clearer classification of the job on O*NET, which, in turn, could result in altered outcomes. Finally, an additional research proposal would be to investigate how the variables I used influence other outcomes such as the organisational context and not just the job itself. Peer or supervisor reviews could help to further outline the value of creativity for individual and organisational performance.

CONCLUSION

“openness” and the creativity of an employee. Moreover, the mediating role of intrinsic

motivation in the openness-creativity relationship was supported, whereas the moderating role of job complexity in the indirect relationship was not. The results therefore contribute to resolve empirical controversies about whether intrinsic motivation serves as a mediator, while providing further stimuli for exploring the precise role of job complexity and the working context.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential

conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357.

Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in

organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 367-403.

Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfleld, S. C. 1990. Social influences on creativity:

Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity research journal, 3(1), 6-21.

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of

management, 40(5), 1297-1333.

Baer, M. 2010. The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of applied psychology, 95(3), 592.

Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. 2011. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual review of psychology, 62, 391-417.

Burke, L. A., & Witt, L. A. 2002. Moderators of the openness to experience-performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 712-721.

Campbell, D. J. 1988. Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of management

Caplan, R. D. 1983. Person-environment fit: Past, present, and future. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.),

Stress research. New York: Wiley.

Conner, T. S., & Silvia, P. J. 2015. Creative days: a daily diary study of emotion, personality, and everyday creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 463.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised neo personality inventory (neo pi-r) and neo

five-factor inventory (neo-ffi). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In Sternberg RJ (Ed.), The nature of creativiv: Contemporarypsychoflperspeclives, (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cummings, A., & Oldham, G. R. 1997. Enhancing creativity: Managing work contexts for the high potential employee. California Management Review, 40(1), 22-38.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. 1989. Self-determination in a work organization.

Journal of applied psychology, 74(4), 580.

Dewett, T. 2007. Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R&D Management, 37(3), 197-208.

Entwistle, N. 1988. Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 21-51). New York: Plenum Press.

Feist, G. J. 1998. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality

Fleisher, M. S., & Tsacoumis, S. 2012. O* NET analyst occupational skills ratings: Procedures

update. Raleigh, NC: National Center for O* NET Development.

French, J. R. P., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. 1974. Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G.V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg & J. E. Adams (red.), Coping and Adaptation. New York: Basic Books.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: an interactional approach. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 513.

Goldberg, L. R. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7-28.

Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of management

journal, 54(1), 73-96.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Ipip.ori.org. n.d. The Items in Each of the Preliminary IPIP Scales.

Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. A. 2015. Predicting creativity: Interactive effects of openness to experience and emotion regulation ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the

Arts, 9(4), 480.

Liu, D., Chen, X. P., & Yao, X. 2011. From autonomy to creativity: A multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 294.

McCrae, R. R. 1987. Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 52(6), 1258.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. 1997. Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Hrsg.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825-847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of applied psychology, 91(6), 1321.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 607-634.

Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. 2008. Creativity and certain personality traits:

Roos, P. A., & Treiman, D. J. 1980. Worker functions and worker traits for the 1970 U.S. census classification. In A. R. Miller, D. J. Treiman, P. S. Cain, & P. A. Roos (Eds.), Work, jobs,

and occupations: A critical analysis of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles: 336-389.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Schmidt, J. J., Soper, J. C., & Bernaciak, J. 2013. Creativity in the entrepreneurship program: A survey of the directors of award winning program. Journal of Entrepreneurship

Education, 16, 31–44.

Shalley, C. E. 1991. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied psychology, 76(2), 179.

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

Management Journal, 43(2), 215-223.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?. Journal of

management, 30(6), 933-958.

Tan, C. S., Lau, X. S., Kung, Y. T., & Kailsan, R. A. L. 2019. Openness to experience enhances creativity: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation and the creative process

engagement. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(1), 109-119.

Van Tilburg, W. A., Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. 2015. The mnemonic muse: Nostalgia fosters creativity through openness to experience. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 59, 1-7.

Van Yperen, N. W., & Janssen, O. 2002. Fatigued and dissatisfied or fatigued but satisfied? Goal orientations and responses to high job demands. Academy of Management

Journal, 45(6), 1161-1171.

Watanabe, S., & Kanazawa, Y. 2009. A test of a personality-based view of intrinsic motivation. Japanese Journal of Administrative Science, 22(2), 117-130.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of management review, 18(2), 293-321.

Yoo, S., Jang, S., Ho, Y., Seo, J., & Yoo, M. H. 2019. Fostering workplace creativity: examining the roles of job design and organizational context. Asia Pacific Journal of Human

Resources, 57(2), 127-149.

Zare, M., & Flinchbaugh, C. 2019. Voice, creativity, and Big Five personality traits: a meta-analysis. Human Performance, 32(1), 30-51.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of management journal, 53(1), 107-128.

APPENDIX

ITEMS FOR PRIMARY MEASURES

Openness to experience (from Ipip.ori.org [n.d.], based on the work of Goldberg [1999], Costa and McCrae [1992])

Respondents answered the following question: “Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following items. “I …”” (1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “somewhat disagree”, 3 = “neither agree nor disagree”, 4 = “somewhat agree”, 5 = “strongly agree”; - keyed items are reverse scored)

+ keyed

1. Believe in the importance of art. 2. Have a vivid imagination.

3. Carry the conversation to a higher level. 4. Enjoy hearing new ideas.

- keyed

5. Am not interested in abstract ideas. 6. Do not like art.

7. Avoid philosophical discussions.

8. Rarely look for a deeper meaning in things. 9. Am not interested in theoretical discussions. 10. Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.

Job complexity (from Morgeson and Humphrey [2006])

Respondents answered the following question: “In your job, to what extent are the tasks complex and difficult to perform?” (1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “neither agree nor disagree”, 4 = “agree”, 5 = “strongly agree”; all reverse scored)

1. The job requires that I only do one task or activity at a time. 2. The tasks on the job are simple and uncomplicated.

Intrinsic motivation. (from Dewett [2007], based on the work of Amabile [1996] and Deci and Ryan [1985])

Respondents answered the following question: “Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that each statement currently describes your self-orientation.” (1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “somewhat disagree”, 4 = “neither agree nor disagree”, 5 = “somewhat agree”, 6 = “agree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

1. I do my work largely because I enjoy the tasks I do. 2. The content of my job is actually kind of fun.

3. I like the actual work that I do more than most people in the company. 4. I consider myself lucky to be able to do the specific type of work that I do. 5. I feel driven to do my job because I genuinely like the tasks I work on. 6. My work is usually very intrinsically fulfilling.

Employee creativity (measured through “creative process engagement” from Zhang and Bartol [2010])

Respondents answered the following question: “In your job, to what extent do you engage in the follow actions when seeking to accomplish an assignment or solve a problem? “I …”” (1 = “never”, 2 = “rarely”, 3 = “occasionally”, 4 = “frequently”, 5 = “very frequently”)

1. Spend considerable time trying to understand the nature of the problem. 2. Think about the problem from multiple perspectives.

3. Decompose a difficult problem/assignment into parts to obtain greater understanding. 4. Consult a wide variety of information.

5. Search for information from multiple sources (e.g. personal memories, others’ experience, documentation, Internet, etc.).

6. Retain large amounts of detailed information in my area of expertise for future use. 7. Consider diverse sources of information in generating new ideas.

8. Look for connections with solutions used in seeming diverse areas.

9. Generate a significant number of alternatives to the same problem before I choose the final solution.