THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS ON CREATIVITY AT WORK
Master Thesis, Master Human Resource Management Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
6 JANUARY 2014
by
MELANIE CROES Studentnumber: 2038447 Verlengde Meeuwerderweg 201
9723 ZN Groningen tel: +31 6-55579444 email: m.c.croes@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. E. Molleman
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between four types of organizational cultures (supportive, innovative, rule, and goal), two job characteristics (job autonomy and job complexity), and creativity.
Design – An online survey was conducted among all employees of organization X, which yielded 105 valid responses. The data were analyzed using SPSS.
Findings – The results indicate that job autonomy is positively related to creativity. Job complexity is also positively related to creativity when moderating effects are taken into account. Furthermore, three out of the eight interaction effects showed to be significant.
Firstly, innovative culture showed to be positively related to creativity with autonomy as a moderator. Secondly, supportive culture showed to be positively related to creativity with job complexity as a moderator. Finally, a goal culture showed to be positively related to creativity with job complexity as a moderator.
Implications – The findings suggest that it is important for organization X to provide its employees with job autonomy and job complexity. Furthermore, organization X should be aware that their organizational culture does influence creativity. Even though no direct relationship has been established between these two variables, there is an effect when job characteristics are taken into account.
Limitations – This research was conducted in one organization only, which impacts the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, the sample size was too small for the number of predictors to show substantive statistical power.
Key words - creativity, organizational culture, job autonomy, job complexity, job characteristics
INTRODUCTION
Creativity and innovation are the lifeblood of many of today’s most successful organizations (Diliello, Houghton, & Dawley, 2011). Earlier studies show that creative performance is necessary for organizations to gain a competitive advantage and to increase their profitability (Amabile, 1988; Devanna & Tichy, 1990; Shalley, 1995). Therefore, the business models used nowadays by several top organizations are based on creativity and innovation more than ever before (Nussbaum, Berner, & Brady, 2005; McGregor, 2007). An organization cannot be innovative without creative employees, since innovation is, in practice, the implementation of creative ideas (Diliello et al., 2011). Although creativity and innovation are closely related, there is a noteworthy difference between these two concepts. While creativity can be defined as “the ability to produce work that is both novel and appropriate” (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999, p.3), innovation is “a process of developing and implementing a new idea” (Van de Ven &
Angle, 1989, p.12). Von Stamm (2003) asserts that if innovation is putting an idea into practice, creativity is coming up with an idea in the first place. Creativity, therefore, is an essential part of innovation, as it is the origination of the idea behind what is innovated. The present study focuses on creativity.
Earlier research has shown that several aspects of the workplace can promote creative behavior (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). One of the most important aspects that influence creativity is the organizational culture, which can be defined as “a system of shared values and beliefs that produces norms of behavior and establishes an organizational way of life”
(Koberg & Chusmir, 1987, p.397). In order for organizations to be innovative, there must be a culture of encouragement that guides employees towards creativity and the expression of new ideas (Menzel, Aaltion, & Ulijn, 2007; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997; Ahmed, 1998). But ultimately, it is the willingness and ability of each employee to be creative that play a role.
Therefore, it is important to investigate the ways in which the employees perceive the organizational culture, as that is this perception that determines whether or not creativity is encouraged. Hence, this study will focus on the employees’ perceptions of the organizational culture of the company for which they work.
Several models have been developed to assess organizational culture. While various dimensions have been operationalized in these models, these dimensions can generally be divided into four broad categories: people, innovation, outcome, and bureaucratic cultures (Delobbe, Haccoun, & Vandenberghe, 2002). Previous research has focused on determining
which type of organizational culture promotes creative behaviors (e.g., Liao, Chang, Hu, &
Yueh, 2012; Lin & McDonough, 2011; Tesluk, Farr, & Klein, 1997). The general conclusion put forward in these studies is that while organizational cultures privileging ‘people’ and
‘innovation’ react more positively to creativity, organizations favoring ‘bureaucratic culture’
inhibit creativity (e.g., Kirton, 1984; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Liao et al., 2012; Martins &
Martins, 2002; Thomson, 1980).
This study examines the relationship between organizational culture and creativity as perceived by the employees. Organizational culture does not operate with creativity in isolation (Ramarajan & Barsade, 2006), as other variables within the organization can moderate the influence of organizational culture on creativity. One group of these variables pertains to job characteristics, which have proven to be influential factors for both creativity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney & Farmer, 2002) and innovation (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson, & Harrington, 2000; West, Shackleton, Hardy, & Dawson, 2004).
From Amabile’s (1988) model of creativity, job characteristics can be seen as a vital component to be considered when managing creativity. Specifically, it has been suggested that the way jobs are structured contributes to employees’ intrinsic motivation and creative output at work (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Job characteristics play an important role as well, as some level of creativity is required in almost any job. In sum, employees are continuously affected by both the structure and the characteristics of their jobs (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000).
Despite the importance of these two variables, no study, to the best of my knowledge, has been conducted to date which would investigate the effect of these two variables on the relationship between different types of organizational culture and creativity. This study aims, therefore, to fill this gap by focusing on the possible effects of job characteristics on the relationship between culture and creativity. The direct relationship between job characteristics and creativity will also be examined. To limit the scope of the study, the effect of only two specific job characteristics will be studied, namely, job autonomy and job complexity.
Job autonomy has been identified by Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1987) as the most important aspect facilitating employees’ creativity. Autonomy is defined as ‘‘the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence and discretion to the employee in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out’’
(Hackman & Oldman, 1975, p. 162). Several other studies investigated how job autonomy is related to specific work outcomes (e.g. Benson & Lawler, 2005), including creativity. In order for creativity to flourish, employees should have some degree of autonomy regarding the
allocation of their time or the determination of how their work is to be performed (Ford &
Kleiner, 1987).
The second job characteristic that will be studied is job complexity. Jobs high on complexity are defined as “jobs that are mentally challenging, requiring workers to use a number of complex skills” (Chung-Yan & Butler, 2011, p. 279). Complexity is a job characteristic that has consistently been shown to impact creativity (Amabile, 1997; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1997, Shalley et al., 2000).
Complex jobs require flexibility and experimentation, as well as the use of cognitive faculties and processes common to creativity (Campbell, 1988). Many complex jobs include tasks or duties that require or permit the employee to interact with others both within and outside of the organization (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Turner & Lawrence, 1965). These interactions may provide new information to the jobholder and expose him or her to different ideas and perspectives (Oldham & Hackman, 2010).
The present paper reports the results of a case study conducted at organization X. This organization recognizes the importance of innovation in its strategic objectives. Organization X is engaged in different sustainability projects where innovation plays an important role.
Since the organization values innovation, and innovation is the process of implementing creative ideas (Diliello et al., 2011), studying organization X organizational culture can be reasonably expected to cast more light on whether and, if so, how specifically it influences creativity.
The aim of this paper is, firstly, to assist organization X in assessing whether or not its organizational culture, and the aspects of the jobs therein, have a positive influence on the employees’ creativity. Secondly, as the model chosen to assess the organizational culture has not been tested before in relation to creativity, our next aim is to bridge this gap and make thus a contribution to the literature in this area. Thirdly, while prior research has focused on organizational culture and job characteristics as separate factors that impact employees’
creativity (e.g., Liao et al., 2012; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Wadden, 2011), the focus of the present study, is on the joint effect of organizational culture and specific job characteristics on creativity. The above aims allow us to formulate the main research question: ‘To what extent do organizational culture and job characteristics affect creativity at work and do job characteristics moderate the relationship between an organizational culture and creativity?’
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Creativity
Creativity is ‘‘the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain’’ (Amabile, 1996, p. 1).
While the idea should not necessarily be unique, it should be different from what has been done before and fit a goal. A creative idea needs to meet two conditions. Firstly, the product, idea or procedure should be novel or original. Secondly, it should be potentially relevant for, or useful to an organization.
There are some important factors that contribute to creativity, such as expertise, creative thinking skills, and task motivation (Amabile, 1996). Expertise includes “memory for factual knowledge, technical proficiency and special talents in the target work domain”
(Amabile, 1996, p. 6). Creative thinking, is a skill that relates in some way to personality characteristics. Relevant examples of these characteristics are independence, self-discipline, orientation toward risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity, perseverance in the face of frustration, and a relative lack of concern about social approval (Barron, 1955; Feldman, 1980; Golaan, 1963; Hogarth, 1980; MacKinnon, 1962; Stein, 1974). Task motivation, is not a skill in the way that the previous two are, as it has an effect on what a person will actually do. Task motivation can be divided in two types: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. While intrinsic motivation focuses on pleasure and satisfaction gained from a specific activity (Deci, 1975), extrinsic motivation is driven by reasons such as rewards or benefits obtained from performing a specific activity (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Organizational Culture
Quinn (1988) developed a two-dimensional culture model. The first dimension represents the organization’s point of view, which can be focused internally (i.e. on the organization itself) or externally (i.e. on the environment). The second dimension has two opposite poles:
flexibility vs. control. Based on this model, four types of cultures can be distinguished:
support, innovation, rule, and goal orientation cultures (Van Muijen & Koopman, 1994; Van Muijen, 1998). Figure 1 illustrates this model. An organization can also have a blended culture (Van Muijen et al., 1999).
FIGURE 1
The Competing Value Model
Note: from Quin (1988)
A support culture is the one where organizational commitment and informal verbal communication are emphasized and where employees are encouraged to freely express their ideas and feelings towards each other. Furthermore, the decision-making process in a support culture is more informal. Finally, participation, trust, and individual growth are salient. The second type of culture is an innovative culture characterized by new information in the environment, creativity, openness to change, anticipation, and experimentation. There is little control in this type of culture, and commitment and involvement of employees are expected.
The third type of culture is a rule culture in which authority, rationality of procedures, and division of labor are emphasized. A rule culture is characterized by a hierarchical structure, formal authority, and written communication which is filtered from the top down. The fourth and final type of culture is a goal culture in which rationality, performance indicators, accomplishment, accountability, and contingent reward are promoted (Van Muijen et al., 1999).
In the following section, the abovementioned four types of cultures will be discussed in more detail to hypothesize their individual influence on creativity.
Organizational Culture and Creativity
Support culture. Several studies suggest that a support culture will lead to creativity (e.g., Andriopoulos 2001; Martins & Martins, 2002). The openness and trust typical of this type of culture are the basis for a learning- and knowledge-sharing culture (Koberg & Chusmir, 1987). A learning orientation encourages people to develop creative solutions (Gong, Huang
& Farh, 2009; Hirst, Van Knippenberg & Zhou, 2009). Since it is appropriate to consider
employees in this culture as being learning-oriented, the employees are expected to be focused on the development of competence and task mastery, both of which promote intrinsic motivation (Dweck, 1999), an important component of creativity (Amabile, 1998).
Innovative culture. Different studies have shown that innovative culture is characterized by a high level of creativity among employees (e.g., Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez, & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). In this type of culture, risk-taking and nonconformity are organizational goals, which enhances creativity (Steiner & Miner, 1982). In terms of Amabile’s model (1998), creative thinking skills (e.g., risk-taking, independence, tolerance for ambiguity) are encouraged.
Rule culture. A rule culture can be compared to a bureaucracy. In this type of organization, creativity is discouraged and solving problems in safe and predictable ways is encouraged instead (Kirton, 1984; Thomson, 1980). In terms of Amabile’s model of creativity (1998), creative thinking is not expected from the employees. It has been proposed that a rule culture hinders creativity (e.g., Andriopoulos, 2001) due to the excessive centralization and formalization, both of which are the ways of regulating and controlling an employee’s behavior (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, Chen, Sacramento, 2011). Centralization relates to the distribution of power throughout an organizational structure and the way in which the decision-making happens (Hage & Aiken, 1967). An organization is formalized when the rules are specified and procedures are standardized (Hirst et al., 2011). Both centralization and formalization have a negative impact on creativity.
Goal culture. This type of culture exhibits the characteristics of a performance- oriented culture. In this type of culture employees seek to maximize reward, minimize punishment, and use environmental cues to decide which behaviors are appropriate (Seijts, Latham, Tasa, & Latham, 2004). Of all types of rewards, monetary pay is considered a most important factor (Milkovich & Newman, 2004). However, too much emphasis on the extrinsic rewards destroys intrinsic motivation, as the employees’ aim in this culture then becomes pursuing the extrinsic rewards. This has a negative effect on creativity, since it is the intrinsic reward that primarily drives creativity (Amabile, 1998). The negative effect of giving a reward to employees has been demonstrated in a study which shows that the individuals who are given a reward spend less time performing the activity and find less enjoyment in the activity compared to the individuals who are not given a reward (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). Furthermore, if the reward is dependent on the performance, employees have been shown to respond with more caution and uncertainty (Ahmed, 1998), which also leads to less creative behavior because no risks are taken.
From the above, the following hypotheses can be formulated:
H1a: There is a positive relationship between a supportive organizational culture and creativity.
H1b: There is a positive relationship between an innovative organizational culture and creativity.
H1c: There is a negative relationship between a rule organizational culture and creativity.
H1d: There is a negative relationship between a goal organizational culture and creativity.
Job Characteristic and Creativity
Job autonomy. McLean (2005) has shown that an organization that grants its employees with job autonomy regarding the ways in which employees are expected to achieve organizational goals will be more successful in inspiring creativity among its employees than an organization that does not provide such autonomy. This is so because, when employees are given autonomy, they will be more intrinsically motivated (and intrinsic task motivation is a key component of creativity, see Amabile (1988)). If employees are given job autonomy, their ability to make a contribution, their willingness to participate in decision-making, and the opportunity to express their views increase. The more autonomy they are given, the more ownership and empowerment they have. This leads to enhanced enthusiasm, commitment to decisions, and intrinsic motivation, all of which boost creativity (Amabile, 1996).
Job complexity. Several published studies demonstrate that when a job is simple and routine, the job performers exhibit a lower level of creativity compared to the condition when a job is complex and challenging (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). A complex job requires divergent thinking to generate more ideas, and this is positively related to creativity (Woodman et al., 1993). Employees respond positively when faced with new challenges as long as they are provided with sufficient opportunity to generate novel solutions (Ahmed, 1998). The challenge and complexity of job tasks has long been considered an important contributor to employees’ intrinsic motivation and creativity (Amabile, 1996; Boomer & Jalajas, 2002;
Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
From the discussion above, the following hypotheses can be formulated:
H2a: There is a positive relationship between job autonomy and creativity.
H2b: There is a positive relationship between job complexity and creativity.
In what follows, the four cultures will be brought together with job autonomy and job complexity to hypothesize their joined influence on creativity.
Organizational Culture, Job Autonomy, and Creativity
Supportive culture. If employees work in an environment that stimulates learning, they are more likely to be creative if they additionally have the freedom to experiment (i.e. autonomy).
Closely related to this is the strong need for growth pertinent to this culture which influences creativity in a positive way. Autonomy will fortify this relationship as the freedom associated to autonomy will enable employees to work on their personal development. A lack of autonomy reduces opportunities and diminishes employees’ control (Hirst et al., 2011). This nullifies the creative benefits gained from a learning orientation.
Innovative culture. If employees are part of a culture focused on creative thinking, it is likely that autonomy will stimulate employees’ creativity even more because the employees will be in control of their jobs. Job autonomy offers opportunities to experiment at work and thereby gives employees the freedom to generate, communicate, and implement creative ideas (Frese, Teng, & Wijnen, 1999; Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006). In a culture where knowledge and skill acquisition are also important, job autonomy can be expected to positively influence the level of conception of alternative methods (i.e. creativity, see, e.g., Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel 1996; Parker & Axtell, 2001; Wall, Jackson, & Davids, 1992), and, consequently, to have a positive influence on the relationship between innovative culture and creativity. A lack of autonomy will discourage knowledge and skill acquisition because employees will not have the freedom necessary to conceive of their own ideas.
Rule culture. The negative relationship between a rule culture and creativity will be intensified when there is also low job autonomy. Low or nonexistent autonomy implies that employees do not have freedom, independence, or discretion in scheduling their work (Hackman & Oldman, 1975). As this type of culture is already characterized by a hierarchical structure with formal authority and top-down communication, as well as by the strict enforcement of rules and procedures (Van Muijen et al., 1999), the lack of autonomy is likely to make this negative relationship between rule culture and creativity even stronger, as there are two forces blocking creativity: the environment and the job characteristics themselves. On the other hand it is reasonable to assume that if job autonomy is high, the level of formalization will be lower, meaning that employees have some discretion in how they perform their work. Discretion which is a part of job autonomy has been shown to influence creativity positively (Ford & Kleiner, 1987). Therefore, the presence of job autonomy will weaken the negative relationship between a rule culture and creativity.
Goal culture. In a goal culture, reward is contingent upon task performance which undermines intrinsic motivation and, ultimately, creativity. If employees are provided with sufficient freedom and autonomy to determine how they will achieve the set goals (Ahmed, 1998; Menzel et al., 2007), they are more likely to be able to come up with new solutions and further the success of the company (Bessant & Tidd, 2007). Therefore, it can be predicted that autonomy will weaken the negative relationship between a goal culture and creativity.
The above allows us to formulate the following hypotheses:
H3a: Job autonomy moderates the positive relationship between a supportive organizational culture and creativity; the higher the level of autonomy, the stronger this positive relationship will be.
H3b: Job autonomy moderates the positive relationship between an innovative organizational culture and creativity; the higher the level of autonomy, the stronger this positive relationship will be.
H3c: Job autonomy moderates the negative relationship between a rule organizational culture and creativity; the higher the level of autonomy, the weaker this negative relationship will be.
H3d: Job autonomy moderates the negative relationship between a goal organizational culture and creativity; the higher the level of autonomy, the weaker this negative relationship will be.
Organizational Culture, Job Complexity & Creativity
Supportive culture. If the environment stimulates employees’ creativity, complex jobs will motivate the employees to respond positively to this stimulating environment. Employees in such an environment can be considered to have a learning approach. A learning approach is associated with the desire to learn, a drive to achieve, and an involvement in continuous learning (Hogan & Holland, 2003). Complex jobs will make these self-motivating characteristics valuable, because they will encourage greater intrinsic motivation to perform (Oldham & Cummings, 1996), which can be hypothesized to have a positive effect on the relationship between a supportive culture and creativity. If jobs are simple and routine, employees will be more likely to respond less positively, and the positive effect between a supportive culture and creativity will be reduced.
Innovative culture. This environment stimulates creativity, and it is likely that complex jobs will boost employee’s creativity even more for the abovementioned reasons.
Complex jobs can be expected to enhance employees’ excitement about their work activities,
and this excitement is likely to foster creativity. Hatcher, Ross and Collins (1989) found significant correlations between self-reported job complexity and the number of creative ideas the employees submitted to an organization suggestions program. It may also be expected that job complexity will positively influence the relationship between an innovative culture and creativity, as complex jobs promote creative self-efficacy. Creative self-efficacy can be defined as “the belief one has the ability to produce creative outcomes” (Tierney &
Farmer, 2002, p. 1138). In a culture where creative outcomes are a way of life, self-efficacy is crucial. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is a necessary condition for creative productivity and the discovery of “new knowledge”. New knowledge is also an essential part of the innovative culture that leads to creativity. For aforementioned reasons, it is likely that job complexity will have a positive influence on the relationship between an innovative culture and creativity. A lack of job complexity will have a negative effect on this relationship, as simple jobs will diminish creativity in this specific work environment.
Rule culture. In a bureaucratic organization where creativity is blocked due to the number of procedures to be followed and the limited ability of employees to determine how to carry out their jobs (Koberg & Chusmir, 1987), job complexity can play an important role in minimizing this negative effect (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley & Gilson, 2004).
According to Schumann (1993), routinization takes the creativity out of an organization.
However, there is evidencethat routines are more flexible and adaptive than it is generally believed (Feldman, 2000; Nelson & Winter, 1982). Giving more complex jobs to employees in this environment can enhance creativity, as employees with more complex jobs tend to see it as their task to improve working procedures (Frese et al., 1999). When employees are encouraged to detect problems and flaws in their work, they are more likely to conceive novel and useful ideas. Increasing job complexity can be achieved by among others, job rotation.
While it is reasonable to assume that the positive effect that job complexity has on the relationship between rule culture and creativity can be limited by the bureaucratic culture, it still can be expected that job complexity within the predefined functions can have a positive effect on the aforementioned relationship. On the other hand, it is reasonable to think that low job complexity will lead to more routinization which has often been assumed to be detrimental to individual creativity (Ford & Gioia, 2000). It is, therefore, likely that low job complexity will make the negative relationship stronger, as it is expected that employees with low complex jobs will stick to the rules instead of developing new patterns of behavior (Cardinal, 2001).
Goal culture. The relationship between creativity and a goal culture where employees are strongly focused on goal accomplishment, is not likely to be positively influenced by job complexity. Complex jobs enhance creativity because they require novel approaches to problems or the determination for elaboration of optimal solutions that vary across different approaches (Campbell, 1988; Man & Lam, 2003). It needs to be mentally challenging and requires the use of multiple complex skills (Chung-Yan & Butler, 2011). However, when employees are focused on task performance and attaining goals, they will not be as motivated to focus on novel and unique approaches. In this situation, it is likely that they can even experience job complexity as a stumbling block to achieve their goals, as working on complex jobs can be time-consuming, and employees can feel more inclined to spend their time on accomplishing their goals. Amabile, Mueller, Simpson, Hadley, Kramer, and Fleming (2002) found that one of the factors most frequently cited as being necessary for innovation is sufficient time to think creatively and to explore different perspectives. When employees do not feel pressed for time, they are most creative, and more prone to explore and generate new ideas.
The discussion above allows us to construe the following hypotheses:
H4a: Job complexity moderates the positive relationship between a supportive organizational culture and creativity; the higher the level of complexity, the stronger this positive relationship will be.
H4b: Job complexity moderates the positive relationship between an innovative organizational culture and creativity; the higher the level of complexity, the stronger this positive relationship will be.
H4c: Job complexity moderates the negative relationship between a rule organizational culture and creativity; the higher the level of complexity, the weaker this negative relationship will be.
H4d: Job complexity moderates the negative relationship between a goal organizational culture and creativity; the higher the level of complexity, the stronger this negative relationship will be.
All the hypotheses from the preceding sections are represented in the following conceptual model (see Figure 2).
FIGURE 2 Conceptual Model
METHOD
Sample, Research Design, and Procedure
To test the hypotheses outlined above, an online survey was conducted among the employees of organization X. Organization X has a total of 306 employees. An email was distributed among the 279 organization X employees who have an email account with an access link to the survey. However, as not all employees had Internet access, tablets were provided to facilitate filling in the survey. Therefore, considerable effort has been invested into attempting to reach all organization X employees. The survey was anonymous and participation was voluntary. Participants were told that the study measures the influences of creativity at work, no further specification was provided. The survey consisted of 46 items and the participants were instructed to indicate the degree to which they agree with the statements on a Likert scale. The statements were translated to Papiamento (the spoken language in Aruba) by using a double-blind back-translation procedure. The translation to Papiamento was done by a colleague who has good knowledge of this language, while the translation back to English was done by a family member who has a good knowledge of it. Except for some minor lexical differences, the back translation matched the original statements. A total of 125 participants filled in the survey (response rate 40.85%). However, since not all participants answered all the questions, 20 respondents who answered fewer than 50% of the questions were filtered out. After this, 105 responses remained valid for the data analysis. The average age of the participants was 38.92 years; their average tenure – 10.11 years. More than a half of the participants had a MBO (56.3%); 24.9% had a high school diploma, 15.6% a Bachelor Degree, and 3.1% a Master’s Degree. Gender was not requested for anonymity reasons: since a vast majority of organization X employees are male (92%), a female employee could feel that it would be easy to find out who she was.
Measures
Variables operationalized in this study are organizational culture, job autonomy, job complexity, and creativity. The scales used for the items depended on the variable measured.
Furthermore, all items were averaged to form a total score for each measurement. All items can be found in Appendix A.
Organizational culture. The organizational culture was measured by means of 21 items developed by Van Muijen et al. (1999). The supportive, innovative, and goal culture were measured with six items, the rule culture were measured with only three items, as the
other items did not meet the criteria set by Van Muijen et al. (1999). Examples of the items are “How many people who wish to advance are supported by their superiors?” or “How often does the organization search for new opportunities in the external environment?”. The six- point Likert scale ranged from 1 (‘never’ or ‘nobody’) to 6 (‘always’ or ‘everyone’). The Cronbach Alpha for support culture is .85, for innovation culture is .84, for rule culture .79, and for goal culture .87. Thus, for all four scales the reliability was sufficient.
Job autonomy. Nine items were used to measure autonomy. These items were derived from previous research by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), Campion and McClelland (1991), Karasek, Brisson, Kawakami, Houtman, Bongers, and Amick (1998) and Kiggundu (1983). Examples of relevant items include the following statements: “The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own” or “The job allows me to plan how I do my work”. A five-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach Alpha of this measurement was .91.
Job complexity. This variable was measured using four items developed by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) and Campion and McClelland (1991). Sample items include the following statements: “The job requires that I only do one task or activity at a time” or “The tasks on the job are simple and uncomplicated”. Participants were asked to rate the items on a five-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All these items were negatively formulated and recoded before the data were analyzed. This measurement was found to be reliable (Cronbach Alpha .87).
Creativity. Ten items developed by Zhou and George (2011) and three items from Scott & Bruce (1994) were used to measure creativity (see Appendix A). Examples of the items used are “I suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives” or “I promote and champion ideas to others”. The scale was a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 5 (very characteristic). The items formed a reliable representation of creativity (Cronbach alpha .94).
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
The means and standard deviations of all variables are presented in Table1.Table 2 shows the correlation between the variables.
TABLE 1
Means and standard deviations of all variables N Mean Std. Deviation
Age 85 38.92 9.26
Tenure 90 10.11 7.03
Education 96 3.57 1.37
Supportive culture 105 3.59 1.15
Innovative culture 105 3.89 .98
Rule culture 105 3.69 1.15
Goal culture 105 3.59 1.11
Job autonomy 105 3.16 .92
Job complexity 105 3.89 1.05
Creativity 103 3.82 .71
TABLE 2 Pearson Correlation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age
2. Tenure .68**
3. Education .36** .14
4. Supportive culture .13 -.08 -.01 5. Innovative culture -.12 -.24* -.24* .51**
6. Rule culture .01 -.14 -.13 .63** .61**
7. Goal culture -.06 -.26* -.07 .53** .66** .66**
8. Job autonomy .29** .08 .27** .37** .10 .20* .17
9. Job complexity .26* .23* .42** -.13 -.23* -.24* -.27** -.10 10. Creativity .06 -.08 .19 .25* .03 .24* .08 .43** .07
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Hypotheses Testing
Regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses (see Table 3). The control variables age, tenure, and education were not included in the regression analysis because preliminary analysis showed that they have no effect on creativity (Becker, 2005). Inclusion of these control variables despite their not having an effect would complicate detecting relationships (only strong relationships would be identified).
All predictor variables were standardized to avoid multicollinarity problems with the original predictors and the moderator variables. The predictors were entered in the analysis in two steps. Firstly, the six predictor variables were entered (Model 1). Secondly, the eight moderator variables were entered (Model 2). These were constructed by multiplying the predictor variables after standardization. The results of this regression analysis with creativity as dependent variable are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Regression Analysis Creativity
B SE t Sig,
Model 1
(Constant) 2.24 .46 4.90 .01
Supportive culture .03 .08 .32 .75
Innovative culture -.10 .09 -1.10 .27
Rule culture .18 .08 2.20 .03
Goal culture -.03 .09 -.39 .70
Job autonomy .30 .07 4.06 .01
Job complexity .10 .06 1.52 .13
Model 2
(Constant) 1.81 .44 4.17 .01
Supportive culture .06 .80 .78 .44
Innovative culture -.04 .09 -.44 .66
Rule culture .17 .09 2.11 .04
Goal culture -.03 -.09 -.34 .74
Job autonomy .20 . 07 2.75 .01
Job complexity .19 .06 2.75 .01
Supportive by autonomy -.12 -.09 -1.34 .18
Innovative by autonomy .16 -.08 2.00 .05
Rule by autonomy -.00 .10 -.01 .99
Goal by autonomy .10 .08 1.20 .23
Supportive by complexity .14 .08 1.83 .07
Innovative by complexity .03 .08 .35 .73
Rule by complexity -.05 .09 -.51 .60
Goal by complexity -.26 .09 -2.93 .01
Note: unstandardized regression coefficients are presented
The first model in Table 3 shows the main effects (Hypotheses 1 and 2); the moderation effects are shown in the second model (Hypotheses 3 and 4).
Hypothesis 1
Hypotheses 1a-b predicted a positive relationship between creativity and two types of cultures: a supportive and an innovative culture. As shown in Table 3, no significant relationships between a supportive culture and creativity, and an innovative culture and creativity were found (B = .03, p = n.s., and B = -.10, p = n.s., respectively). These predictions were not substantiated by the data analysis. Thus, hypothesis 1a and 1b are not supported.
Hypotheses 1c-d predicted a negative relationship between creativity and two remaining types of culture: a rule culture and a goal culture. Neither of these predictions was supported by the data analysis. As shown in Table 3, there is a positive and significant relationship between a rule culture and creativity (B = .18, p = n.s.); thus, the effect is in the opposite direction from the expectation. With regard to the hypothesized negative relationship between a goal culture and creativity, no significant relationship was established (B = -.03, p
= n.s.). Thus, hypothesis 1c and 1d are not supported.
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2a predicted that there is a positive relationship between job autonomy and creativity, and confirmatory evidence has been obtained for this prediction. As shown in Table 3, there is a significant and positive relationship between job autonomy and creativity (B = .30, p < .01). Thus hypothesis 2a is supported.
On Hypothesis 2b, a positive relationship between job complexity and creativity was expected. As shown in Table 3 (section Model 1), no significant relationship between job complexity and creativity was found (B = .10, p = n.s.). However, if we look at Model 2, there is a significant and positive relationship between job complexity and creativity when the moderator effects are taken into account (B = .19, p < .01). Thus, there is some support for hypothesis 2b.
The remaining two hypotheses (3 and 4) pertain to moderation effects. The significance level of p < .05 is used a bit loosely here because a regression analysis requires at least 15 respondents for each predictor to have sufficient statistical power to detect effects (Pedhazur, 1997). As of now, there are 14 predictors in our model (model 2); thus, at least 210 (15 ×14) responses would be needed for the sample to be representative (against the only 105 respondents in the current dataset). For this reason, only very strong relationships can be detected, while weak to moderate effects may not be significant. Furthermore, it is more
difficult to find statistical power in field studies, because there is more model error than in a laboratory setting. In the latter, the conditions are more controlled (McClelland & Judd, 1993). One way to improve the chances of detecting interactions is to accept higher rates of Type I errors (McClelland & Judd, 1993). For the abovementioned reasons, the threshold significance level was corrected to p < .10. Moreover, in case of hypothesized effects, one- sided significant tests are allowed. This is an extra reason to relax the p-values to p < .10.
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3a predicted that job autonomy moderates the positive relationship between a supportive culture and creativity so that the higher the level of autonomy, the stronger this positive relationship will be. Table 3 shows that there is no significant relationship between this interaction term and creativity (B = -.12, p = n.s.).Thus, hypothesis 3a is not supported.
With Hypothesis 3b, we expected job autonomy to moderate the positive relationship between an innovative culture and creativity so that the higher the level of autonomy, the stronger this positive relationship will be. Table 3 shows there is a positive and significant relationship between this interaction term and creativity (B = .16, p < .05). Figure 3 graphically illustrates this hypothesis. The figure shows the main effect of job autonomy (B = .20, p < .01): the line for high autonomy is above the line for low autonomy. The significant interaction (B = .16, p < .05) indicates that the relationship between an innovative culture and creativity is more positive (less negative) for those who perceive high levels of job autonomy than for those who perceive low levels of job autonomy. Thus, hypothesis 3b is supported by the data analysis,
FIGURE 3
Interaction effect of innovative culture and job autonomy on creativity
Low Innovative culture High Innovative culture
Crestivity
Low Job autonomy High Job autonomy
Hypothesis 3c predicted that job autonomy moderates the negative relationship between a rule culture and creativity, the higher the level of autonomy, the weaker this negative relationship.
This hypothesis was however not substantiated by the data analysis, as no significant relationship between this interaction term and creativity was found (see Table 3, B = -.00, p = n.s.). Thus, hypothesis 3c is not supported.
On Hypothesis 3d, job autonomy was expected to moderate the negative relationship between a goal culture and creativity, the higher the level of autonomy the weaker this negative relationship. Table 3 shows that there is no significant relationship between this interaction term and creativity (B = .10, p = n.s.). Thus, hypothesis 3d is not supported
Hypothesis 4
With Hypothesis 4a we predicted job complexity to moderate the positive relationship between a supportive culture and creativity, so that the higher the level of complexity, the stronger this positive relationship should be. In accordance with this, the data analysis (see Table 3) shows there is a positive and significant relationship between this interaction term and creativity (B = .14, p < .10). Figure 4 graphically illustrates this hypothesis. It shows the main effect of job complexity (B = .19, p < .01): the line for high complexity is above the line for low complexity. The significant interaction (B = .14, p < .10) indicates that the relationship between a supportive culture and creativity is more positive (less negative) for those who perceive high levels of job complexity than for those who perceive low levels of job complexity. Thus, hypothesis 4a is supported.
FIGURE 4
Interaction effect of supportive culture and job complexity on creativity
Low Supportive culture High Supportive culture
Crestivity
Low Job complexity High Job complexity
Hypothesis 4b stated that job complexity moderates the positive relationship between an innovative culture and creativity, and the higher the level of complexity, the stronger this positive relationship is expected to be. Table 3 shows that there is no significant relationship between this interaction term and creativity (B = .03, p = n.s.). Thus, hypothesis 4b is not supported.
Hypothesis 4c predicted that job complexity moderates the negative relationship between a rule culture and creativity, the higher the level of complexity, the weaker this negative relationship. Contrary to the expectation, however, the analysis presented in Table 3 shows that there is no significant relationship between this interaction term and creativity (B = -.05, p = n.s.). Thus, hypothesis 4c is not supported.
Finally, we hypothesized (Hypothesis 4d) job complexity to moderate the negative relationship between a goal culture and creativity so that the higher the level of job complexity, the stronger this negative relationship will be. Table 3 shows that there is negative and significant relationship between this interaction term and creativity (B = -.26, p
< .01.). Figure 5 graphically illustrates this hypothesis. It shows that the main effect of job complexity (B =.19, p < .01), the line for high job complexity is ‘on average’ above the line for low job complexity. This significant interaction (B = -.26, p < .01) indicates that the relationship between a goal culture and creativity is more negative (less positive) for those who perceive high levels of job complexity than for those who perceive low levels of job complexity. Therefore, hypothesis 4d is supported.
FIGURE 5
Interaction effect of goal culture and job complexity on creativity
Low Goal culture High Goal culture
Crestivity
Low Job complexity High Job complexity
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
Findings
The aim of this research was threefold. First, we aimed to explore the relationship between organizational culture and creativity. Secondly, we wanted to investigate the relationships between job characteristics (autonomy and complexity) and creativity. Our third and final objective was to explore the interaction effects (organizational culture and job characteristics) on creativity.
Direct effect of organizational cultures on creativity
With regard to the first aim of this study, all the formulated hypotheses were not confirmed by the data. While positive relationships between a supportive culture and creativity, on the one hand, and between an innovative culture and creativity, on the other hand, were hypothesized, neither of these hypotheses was supported by the data analysis. There was however, a positive correlation between a supportive culture and creativity (r. = 25, p < .05). Thus, the employees who see organizational culture as supportive, also think that they are more creative at work. A possible explanation for these findings is that many factors influence creativity, and that organizational culture alone does not have enough power to have a significant effect. Further on we will see that innovative and supportive organizational cultures with job autonomy or job complexity as moderators do have a positive and significant effect on creativity.
Furthermore, a negative relationship between a rule culture and creativity and between a goal culture and creativity was expected. Even though both hypotheses had to be rejected, a remarkable observation can be made based on the results. Regression analysis shows that rule culture is positively related to creativity. This is remarkable, because the opposite effect was hypothesized. Most previous studies suggest that a rule culture hinders creativity, because problems are solved in a safe and predictable way (Kirton, 1984; Thomson, 1980), and because centralization and formalization — both of which have a negative effect on creativity
— are substantial in a rule culture (Hirst et al., 2011). However, our results contradict this assumption and show instead that instructions and procedures typical of a rule culture do not hinder creativity, at least not in the studied work setting. There are a few studies that suggest that, even though there are rules, people can still be creative (Ohly et al., 2006). A possible explanation for this effect is that because in a rule culture tasks are done faster due to pre- defined procedures, employees will have the time to think about their work and develop new ideas. This may lead to the detection of problems, and, furthermore, to the elaboration of the
new ways to solve these problems (Ohly et al., 2006). This is a completely different way of thinking about a rule culture, suggesting that there are probably more factors at play than it is commonly believed and measured. In the present study, all participants were organization X employees, so it is possible that organization X-specific factor influenced this relationship. An explanation to our result on the positive relationship between a rule culture and creativity is that the employees are creative thinkers, thus their personality are the source of creativity.
According to Amabile (1998), personality is one of the three decisive factors that determine how creative a person is. Furthermore, employees are provided with training and attend workshops, all of which leads to acquiring new knowledge and skills. This knowledge and skills can be used in the work setting to come up with new ideas, elaborate alternative ways of task performance, and so on. These two factors may have played a role in our study, therefore, further research focusing on the effects of personality, and training is needed to see how these factors influence creativity in a rule culture.
Direct effect of job autonomy and job complexity on creativity
With regard to the second aim of this study, a positive relationship was found between job autonomy and creativity. Job autonomy has been shown to be important, because employees who are given autonomy are more intrinsically motivated, and intrinsic motivation is a key component of creativity (Amabile, 1988). Our study has also shown that job complexity is positively related to creativity when the moderating effects are taken into account. Complex jobs require flexibility, experimentation, and the use of cognitive faculties and processes that are common to creativity (Campbell, 1988). Both findings are in line with previous research where a positive relationship between job autonomy and creativity was found as well as between job complexity and creativity (Amabile & Grykiewicz, 1987; McLean, 2005; Shalley
& Gilson, 2004).
Interaction effect on creativity
The final aim of this study was to explore the interaction effects. Three out of eight moderation hypotheses have turned out to be significant. First, we found a significant positive relationship between an innovative culture and creativity with job autonomy as a moderator.
This implies that employees who work in an innovative culture and have higher levels of job autonomy are more creative than those with lower levels of job autonomy. This finding is consistent with previous research which posits that in areas where knowledge and skill acquisition are important, job autonomy positively influences the level of conception of
alternative methods (Frese et al., 1996; Parker & Axtell, 2001; Wall et al., 1992;). One of the manifestations of creativity is coming up with alternative methods.
Secondly, there is a significant and positive relationship between a supportive culture and creativity with job complexity as a moderator. This means that employees who are working in a supportive culture with higher levels of job complexity tend to be more creative compared to employees with lower levels of job complexity. This finding is also consistent with previous research. An important characteristic of supportive culture is learning. People with a learning approach have a drive to achieve and are in the process of continuous learning (Hogan & Holland, 2003). These people are usually intrinsically motivated, and job complexity will further encourage this intrinsic motivation to perform (Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
Thirdly, a negative and significant relationship was found between a goal culture and creativity with job complexity as moderator. The hypothesis was that a goal culture has a negative effect on creativity, and that job complexity will strengthen this negative relationship. Our findings provide confirmatory evidence for this prediction and, additionally, show that a goal culture with job complexity is not a good combination, at least not at organization X although the results show some support for the direct relationship between job complexity and creativity. The best combination is high job complexity with a low goal culture as illustrated in figure 5. This shows, that in some circumstances, job complexity can have a negative effect on creativity, as in this case. A possible explanation is that employees who are focused on task performance and goals will not be motivated to focus on novel or unique approaches, even if they have complex jobs.
Theoretical Implications
This study was designed to contribute to the existing body of research about creativity at work. Even though not all the hypotheses put forward and tested in this study were supported, our study has several important theoretical implications. Firstly, the model chosen to assess organizational culture has not been tested before in relation to creativity. Prior studies focused either on a specific type of culture, or, alternatively, used another model (Joo & Lim, 2009;
Tesluk et al., 1997). Secondly, this research provides reliable and convincing evidence that job autonomy positively influences creativity. This relationship and the positive relationship between job complexity and creativity are providing further confirmation to previous studies.
Thirdly, prior research has focused on organizational culture and job characteristics separately in studying their impact on employees’ creativity (e.g., Liao et al., 2012; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Wadden, 2011). However, the results of the present study show that organizational culture can positively influence creativity with job autonomy or job complexity as moderators, and three out of the eight studied interactions with creativity are supported (please see below for the discussion of possible methodological limitations which may have contributed to the relatively low number of confirmed predictions). Thus, our results convincingly show that culture can have an effect on creativity when other contributing factors are taken into account. Finally, this research has shown that rule organizational culture can positively influence creativity. This finding contributes to the literature by showing that instructions and procedures do not always have a negative effect on creativity. It may be even possible that a specific organization X factor or condition influenced the pattern of the results.
Further research is needed to determine these specific conditions and/or factors.
Practical Implications
Apart from theoretical implications, our study has also some practical implications. Although not all hypotheses were supported, the findings do provide some practical implications for organization X that could probably be generalized to apply to other (similar) organizations.
However, it is important to keep in mind that there could be factors that have impacted the results that are only present at organization X.
If organization X wants their employees to be creative, it is important to give them some degree of job autonomy and job complexity, as these two factors promote creativity.
Autonomy can be provided in different ways, such as in work scheduling, decision-making, and work methods (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Furthermore, the findings show that organizational culture in combination with other factors does impact creativity. Even though the hypotheses related to the direct effects between an organizational culture and creativity were not confirmed, this does not necessarily entail that organizational culture is not important. This is so because, in combination with other factors, organizational culture does have an influence. A few years ago a cultural scan was conducted at organization X in which the then-current and the desired organizational cultures were measured. It stays important to continuously monitor the culture, as the culture is an intangible aspect of the organization and something the company should carefully consider and ascertain to be in line with its goals and strategy.
Our findings also show that goal culture with job complexity is negatively related to creativity, and the higher the level of job complexity, the less positive this relationship is. In a goal culture, targets are the norm. At this moment, organization X is in the process of
implementing a performance management system. Rewards will be related to performance. In this context it is important to take into account the results of this study that indicates that a goal-oriented culture with job complexity as moderator can hinder creativity.
Finally, a remarkable finding of the present study is that at organization X a rule culture does promote creativity. Apparently, despite the existence of clear instructions and strict regulations, people are still creative. Managers in rule cultures should be aware of the fact that creative behavior is compatible with a rule culture. This is a unique contribution to the available literature in the field. However, since further exploration of this finding is still to be undertaken, no concrete suggestions can be formulated at the moment that would help managers effectively implement this result in practice.
Limitations
The first limitation of this study is that the study was conducted in one specific organization, which clearly impacts the generalizability of the results. The second limitation is that the study relies on self-report. Previous research (Zhou & George, 2011) has shown that in the investigation of creative behavior, items rating by a supervisor is a more objective method.
However, due to the time constraints of the organization X managers, this research design was not implemented in the present study. Thirdly, due to the time restrictions, the survey was conducted in a single period where only correlations can be assessed but not causality (Baarda
& De Goede, 1997). Fourthly, the sample size was too small to properly test the moderation hypotheses. In the third model of the regression analysis there were 14 predictors with only 105 respondents. Regression analyses require at least 15 respondents for each predictor (Pedhazur, 1997). Thus, a sample size of 210 or more would be desired. Finally, our sample was not balanced with regard to gender: the vast majority of respondents were male (92% of the organization X employees are men). While most previous studies suggest that gender does not impact creativity, a more balanced group would probably give a more comprehensive picture.
Future Research
The results of this paper provide several directions for future research. The present study was conducted at one organization within a specific time period. Therefore, more research in different organizations is needed in the future to see whether the hypotheses tested in the study hold. Secondly, it is important to take the type of the department and/or the position of an employee into account. People in certain departments and/or functions may exhibit more
creativity. Thirdly, a larger group of participants would be needed in future studies. Fourthly, further research should consider more types of job characteristics as moderating variables.
This study, as well as previous research (McLean, 2005; Shalley & Gilson, 2004) has shown that job autonomy and job complexity positively influence creativity. There are more job characteristics that can be tested in relation with creativity, such as task variety, task significance, task identity, skill variety, and so on (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Finally, the results of this study show that, contrary to what is commonly assumed, rule culture does lead to creativity. Further research would be needed to explore the issue further and to explain how and under which conditions a rule culture leads to creativity.
Conclusion
The main research question of the present study was “To what extent do organizational culture and job characteristics affect creativity at work and do job characteristics moderate the relationship between an organizational culture and creativity?” In the age when innovation is important for the long-term survival of organizations, it is important to understand which factors encourage creative behavior, as creativity is needed for innovation.
While there are many studies on creativity, in the area of organizational culture and creativity more studies need to be carried out to better understand how organizational culture affects creativity. The present study has made an attempt to better understand what influences creativity. Even though several of the hypotheses were not supported, our study does show that organizational culture can have an effect on creativity with job autonomy and job complexity as moderators. Furthermore, it confirms previous research which suggests that job autonomy and job complexity positively influence creativity.
LITERATURE
Ahmed, P.K. 1998. Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal Innovation Management, 1: 30-43.
Amabile, T.M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 10: 123–167.
Amabile, T.M. 1996. A Model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School.
Amabile, T.M. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1): 39-58.
Amabile, T.M. 1998. How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76-87.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academic Management Journal, 39: 1154-1184.
Amabile, T.M., & Gryskiewicz, S.S. 1987. Creativity in the R & D laboratory.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T.J., Mueller, J.S., Simpson, W.B., Hadley, C.N., Kramer, S.J., & Fleming, L. 2002.
Time pressure and creativity in organizations: A longitudinal field study. Working paper.
Andriopoulos, C. 2001. Determinants of organisational creativity: A literature review.
Management Decision, 39(10): 834-840.
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E., & Harrington, E.
2000. Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas.
Journal of Occupational and Organiaztional Pscyhology 73: 265-285.
Baarda, D.B., & De Goede, M.P.M. 1997. Methoden en technieken. Praktische handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van onderzoek.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barron, F. 1955. The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51: 478-485.
Becker, T.E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8: 274-289.
Benson, G.S., & Lawler, E.E. 2005. Employee involvement: Utilization, impacts, and future prospects. In D. Holman, T.D. Wall, C.W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard (Eds.), The essentials of the new workplaces, 153-172. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. 2007. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Chichester: Wiley Boomer, M., & Jalajas, D. 2002. The innovation work environment of high-tech SMEs in
the USA and Canada. R & D Management, 32: 379–386.
Campbell, D.J. 1988. Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13 (1): 40–52.
Campion, M.A., & McClelland, C.L. 1991. Interdisciplinary examination of the costs and benefits of enlarged jobs: A job design quasi experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 186–198.
Cardinal, L.B. 2001. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization Science, 12: 19-36.
Chung-Yan, G.A., & Butler, A. 2011. Proactive personality in the context of job complexity.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 43(4): 279-286.
Deci, E.L. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation. Plenum Press, New York.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and self-determination in human behavior plenum, New York.
Delobbe, N., Haccoun, R.R., & Vandenberghe, C. 2002. Measuring core dimensions of organizational culture: A review of research and development of a new
instrument. Unpublished manuscript, Universite catholique de Louvain, Belgium.
Devanna, M.A., & Tichy, N. 1990. Creating the competitive organization of the 21st Century:
The boundaryless corporation. Human Resource Management, 29: 445-471.
Diliello, T.C., Houghton, J.D., & Dawley, D. 2011. Narrowing the creativity gap: The
moderating effects of perceived support for creativity. The Journal of psychology, 145(3): 151-172.
Dweck, C.S. 1999. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development.
Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press.
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. 2003. Rewards, intrinsic motivation and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2- 3): 121-130.
Feldman, D. 1980. Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Feldman, M.S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change.
Organization Science, 11( 6): 611-629.
Ford, B., & Kleiner, B.H. 1987. Managing Engineers Effectively. Business, 37: 49-52.
Ford, C.M., & Gioia, D.A. 2000. Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial
