Regulatory focus, job stressors and idea evaluation: How well can leaders evaluate creative ideas?
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor: T. Vriend
ABSTRACT
In the past years a lot of attention has been given to understand organizational creativity. A lot of creative ideas are evaluated in accurate by leaders as not original or not usable and
therefore not implemented, which can thwart organizational creativity. However, most research has focused on the idea generation process instead of the idea evaluation process, therefore research remains scarce. Nowadays stressors enhance in organizations, which increase tensions in resource allocation. Leaders can experience these stressors as challenging or threatening and have to make decisions about which resources they allocate to which desired end-states. One motivational theory about end-states is regulatory focus and it is suggested that regulatory focus, an individual difference characteristic, benefits accurate idea evaluation. This study investigated how different regulatory systems perceive stressors and how this influences idea evaluation. We argue that a promotion focus benefits idea evaluation because these leaders perceive stressors as challenging and that prevention focus thwarts idea evaluation because these leaders perceive stressors as threatening. Hypotheses were tested using regression analysis. No significant results supported our initial hypotheses but additional findings showed that leaders who strive for gains were more accurate in the evaluation of creative ideas presented by their subordinates.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays increasingly competitive and rapidly changing environment (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis & Strange, 2002) has enforced companies to foster an organizational climate that encourages and supports creative problem solving (Allen, Smith & Da Silva, 2013). In the past years a lot of attention has been given to understand organizational creativity, which identified different cognitive processes associated with creative problem solving (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Although all of these cognitive processes are important, most research has focused on the idea generation process (Mueller, Wakslak & Krishnan, 2014; Mumford, Lonergan & Scott, 2002; Steele, Johnson & Medeiros, 2018). However, being creative does not stop with idea generation. It is important that creative ideas are recognized, and that creative ideas are valued or appreciated. This process occurs as idea evaluation and in this process ideas are judged on different dimensions (i.e., originality and usefulness) and
compared to some standard or benchmark and/or to each other (Mumford, Lonergan, & Scott, 2002). The generation of creative ideas by employees is essentially useless if these ideas subsequently die a silent death because they are evaluated in accurate as not creative and therefore not implemented.
in which creative ideas were first not recognized and unwisely rejected. For example, J.K Rowling ‘s Harry Potter was turned down by a long list of publishers before the boy wizard became one of the greatest phenomena in children’s literature, with sales of more than 400 million copies worldwide. Not only history is plagued with in-accurate idea evaluation, also companies in the present are plagued with in-accurate idea evaluation. For example, many leaders in organizations are exposed to creative ideas presented by employees. However, many of them fail to notice these sources of competitive advantage (Zhou, Wang, Song & Wu, 2017). Thus, according to Zhou et al. (2017) being able to evaluate creative ideas accurately and react upon it is crucial for organizations. Because creative ideas often get evaluated inaccurately and therefore don’t get implemented a lot of generated creative potential, valuable for organizations, gets lost (Herman & Reiter-Palmon, 2011; Zhou et al., 2017). Therefore, more research is urgently needed to investigate the idea evaluation process.
Since research about idea evaluation is very scarce, it is fruitful to explore research in aligning domains, such as creativity. Creativity is a social process since it is the product of social systems making judgments about ideas because without some form of public
recognition ideas will not result in creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998). Creativity is constructed trough an alignment of interactions between individuals (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998). When leaders evaluate ideas as non-creative, there isn’t alignment, which means there is a difference in the perception of leader’s creativity and of others. It is important to know why this difference exists since this could be a sign that an idea is evaluated inaccurately, which thwarts idea implementation, and results in a loss of generated creative potential (Herman & Reiter-Palmon, 2011; Zhou et al., 2017).
Because of globalization, diversity, rapid technological innovations, scarce resources and competition the work environment, where organizations are operating in, changes
Tynan, Leon & Jeung, 2017). ‘’Competing demands occur when management, depending on the use of limited resources or attention, requires more to be done than available resources suggest it is possible to do’’ (Gaim, Wåhlin, Cunha, & Clegg, 2018:2). Especially nowadays leaders face more job stressors than ever before, which makes it an important topic to
examine (Sparks et al., 2001; Harms et al., 2017). Since leaders do not have an infinite set of resources and, especially due to the high levels of demands and responsibilities associated with their position (Lovelace, Manz, and Alves, 2007), they are required to make resource allocation (investment) decisions to accomplish their goals (Halbesleben et al. 2014). It could be that some leaders allocate more resources to idea evaluation, depending on their traits, which means that some leaders could be more motivated to evaluate ideas accurately than others. They simple don’t have enough resources to be always motivated.
According to LePine, Podsakoff and LePine’s (2005) individuals can perceive these competing demands as challenge stressors, which are “stressors that individuals tend to appraise as potentially promoting their personal growth”, or as hindrance stressors, which are “stressors that individuals tend to appraise as potentially constraining their personal growth and work-related accomplishments” (Sacramento, Fay & West, 2011:142).
Especially cognitive appraisals in the human brain play an important role in
determining how employees perceive these job stressors (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis & Gruen, 1986). Some people are more focused on positive outcomes, and form challenge appraisals when they believe they can cope with the stressor and some people are more focused on negative outcomes and form hindrance appraisals when they believe the stressor is out of their control.” (Liu & Li, 2018; LePine et al., 2005).
individuals manifests itself in two ways, through a promotion or prevention focus and each system could perceives contextual factors in de workplace differently. The promotion focus is associated with advancements, accomplishment and gains and the prevention focus is
associated with safety, protection and non-losses (Higgins and Crowe, 1997). It could be that because a promotion focus is focused on gains, those leaders experience challenge stressors and are motivated to allocate their recourse in order to accomplish the positive outcomes associated with idea evaluation (Hobfoll, 1989; Dorsch, Tornblom & Kazemi, 2016; Liu et al., 2017). This might result in a higher motivation for an accurate idea evaluation. In contrast, because a prevention focus is focused on losses, those leaders experience hindrance stressors and are motivated to allocate resources in order to to reduce losses that could occur with idea evaluation (Hobfoll, 1989; Dorsch, Tornblom & Kazemi, 2016; Liu et al., 2017). Therefore they might be less motivated to evaluate ideas accurately and spare resources to allocate them for less riskier investments.
However, till now no study has examined this underlying processes in this relationship yet and studies in the creativity domain has found inconsistent results (Sacramento et al., 2011). Therefore, we aim to fill this void in the literature by examining the relationship between regulatory focus and idea evaluation with the mediating effect of the challenge hindrance framework of job stressors. It is important to understand how different regulatory systems perceive job stressors and if this can cause a difference in the perception of leader’s creativity and others (i.e. inaccurate idea evaluation) or an alignment in the perception of leader’s creativity and others (i.e. accurate idea evaluation) and eventually can increase
perspective of few existing studies on idea evaluation by explicitly examining the mediating influence of the challenge hindrance framework of job stressors between regulatory focus and idea evaluation.
Additionally, by understanding the specific process how leaders evaluate creative ideas of others, management could focus more on the implementation of creative ideas instead of spending time on the generation of ideas which die a silent dead. In this manner less
generated creative potential gets lost and this could enhance organizational creativity in a more efficient manner. More organizational creativity will help organizations to compete, grow and lead in nowadays turbulent and competitive environment, since creativity is a major driver of these important activities in an organization (Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999).
Present paper is structured as follows: We start by the main concepts of this study. The relationships between these concepts are explained by presenting a theoretical
framework. Hereafter, the method section will be presented which includes the collected data, the procedure and the measurements of this research. Next, The results from the statistical analyses will follow. Finally, in the discussion and conclusion section, we will explain the theoretical and managerial implications, limitations and future research directions and present a final conclusion of this study.
In the past years a lot of attention has been giving to understanding organizational creativity. “Creativity refers to the generation of original and useful solutions in response to complex, ambiguous, ill-defined problems” (Watts, Mulhearn, Todd & Mumford, 2017: 83).
Researchers argue that creative problem solving within organizations consists out of different processes such as (a) problem identification and construction, (b) idea generation, (c) idea evaluation, and (d) the idea implementation (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004; Herman & Reiter-Palmon, 2011: Watts et al., 2017). Once employees have generated ideas, the next step involves leader’s evaluating the ideas generated and selecting the best idea. As stated above not every generated idea reaches the implementation phase and generated creative potential often gets lost before implementation. The evaluation process may explain much of this gap between the exposure to a creative idea and its implementation (Watts et al., 2017).
Watts et al. (2017) describe the process of idea evaluation in the following way: Idea evaluation begins with forecasting or prediction of the likely outcomes and consequences of implementing the idea within high levels of demands and responsibilities in a particular context. The projected outcomes of an idea are then assessed to a set of performance
standards applicable to the setting. The assessment of the proposed idea will eventually lead to a decision to implement the idea, drop the idea, or change the idea to reach the outcomes with regards to the standards being used in the evaluation. Without some form of public recognition ideas are not creative (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998) and to asses creative ideas leaders can judge on originality and usefulness. So “during idea evaluation ideas are judged on different dimensions (i.e originality and usefulness) and are compared to some standard or benchmark and/or to each other” (Herman & Reiter-Palmon, 2011:14).
accurately: sometimes highly creative ideas are not recognized because they are inaccurate evaluated as unoriginal, not useable, or both (Zhou et al., 2017).
Zhou et al. (2017) argue that recognizing originality in ideas is the most important aspect of creativity perception. Therefore, we focus in this study on the originality dimension of idea evaluation. Since Csikszentmihalyi (1998) argues that an idea is creative when there is alignment between the social system in the workplace, we define idea evaluation as the alignment between leader’s and peer’s judgments of the originality of presented ideas by subordinates ( Csikszentmihalyi, 1998; Herman & Reiter-Palmon, 2011). High levels of agreement between rater’s scores and other’s scores are thought to indicate the accuracy of rater’s subjective judgments during idea evaluation (Putman & Paulus, 2009; Fleenor et al., 2010).
Noticed before since research is scarce, it is fruitful to explore idea evaluation in the creativity research domain. According to Basadur et al., (2000) the ability to generate creative ideas (i.e. creativity) is related to the ability to evaluate ideas. The greater amount of
ideational skills necessary in the generation of more creative ideas appears to be directly associated with greater evaluation skills in the recognition of creative ideas (Basadur et al., 2000). Additionally, findings of a study by Silvia (2008) indicated that generation skills and evaluation skills are correlated traits so that individuals high in generation skills tend to be high in evaluation skills as well. Therefore we associate idea evaluation with creativity and use insights in creativity research in order to explain the underlying process of idea
evaluation.
Job stressors
2015) they experience job stressors. These stressors occur as leaders have to decide how much time, energy and effort go into one demand versus the other and tensions arise over resource allocation (Gaim et al., 2018; golparvar et al., 2015). Researchers argue that
individuals react on those stressors in different ways depending on their personality traits, and could perceive them either positive (i.e. challenging) or negative (i.e. threatening) (Liu & Li, 2018).
Stressors have different outcomes depending on the way they are coped with. For example, Baer (1998) argues that job stressors increase creativity, while Amabile, Gold-farb and Brackfield (1990) argue that job stressors decrease creativity. LePine et al., (2005) argue that the way individuals experience stressors is critical for understanding its effect on job outcomes and developed the challenge-hindrance framework in order to understand the influence of stressors on job outcomes. It is suggested that the impact of job stressors can best be understood by distinguishing between challenge stressors and hindrance stressors (LePine et al., 2005). Challenge stressors are conditions in the work environment that are demanding but attainable for employees (Liu & Li, 2018). They refer to job stressors that benefit individual’s career development such as work overload, time pressure, job duties and responsibilities (Liu & Li, 2018). Sacramento et al. (2011:142) define challenge stressors as “stressors which are those that people tend to appraise as potentially promoting their personal growth”. Challenge stressors trigger positive emotions, which result in a positive state
accomplishments”. Hindrance stressors trigger negative emotions, which result in a negative state (LePine et al., 2005).
Job stressors and idea evaluation
Since no study has examined this relationship yet, research in the creativity domain has given us some insights on the effect job stressors of on idea evaluation. According to Amabile, Mueller, Simpson, Hadley, Kramer and Fleming (2002) models have underlined the importance of contextual factors in the work place, such as job stressors, among the construct creativity. However, contradictory predictions about the positive or negative effects of job stressors are reflected in the theoretical literature (Byron, Khazanchi & Nazarian, 2010).
Challenge stressors. Results on the effect of challenge stressors are quite inconsistent (Amabile et al., 2002; De Dreu & West, 2001; Ohly & Fritz, 2010). For example, according to De Drue and West (2001) there is no significant relationship between challenge stressors and creativity. However, Amabile et al. (2002) found that time pressure has a direct negative effect on creative cognitive processing and that it therefore has a negative effect on the generation of creative ideas. On the other side, results of a study conducted by Ohly and Fritz (2010) suggest that higher levels of perceived challenge stressors for example, more pressure on a workday, is associated with more creative behavior on the same day.
challenge stressors have a generalized positive effect on creativity (LePine et al., 2005). We argue that there is a positive relationship between challenge stressors and idea evaluation since, as discussed above, the ability to evaluate ideas is related to creativity (Basadur et al., 2000). Challenge stressors have a positive effect on creative thinking (LePine et al., 2005), which makes individuals better at recognizing originality in ideas so more accurate in idea evaluation. Based on the preceding arguments and research evidence above the following hypothesis is established:
H1: Challenge stressors are positively related to an accurate evaluation of creative ideas.
Hindrance stressors. Prior studies on the effect of hindrance stressors have shown that these stressors consistently impaired creativity (Aryee, Zhou, Sun & Lo, 2009; Probst, Stewart, Gruys & Tierney, 2007; Zhou, 2003). For example, Zhou (2003) found that when there was a lot of organizational politics, employees became less creative. Individuals in a negative state experience their current environment as problematic, which reduces risk-taking with their available resources and results in less creative thinking (Tamir, 2005; Friedman & Förster, 2002). Since hindrance stressors result in a negative state, we believe hindrance stressors also impair creativity (LePine et al., 2005). Since, as discussed above, the ability to evaluate ideas is related to creativity (Basadur et al., 2000) we argue that there is a negative relationship between hindrance stressors and idea evaluation. For example, when leaders are facing hindrance stressors, they become less creative, which makes it harder to recognize the originality of an idea and become in accurate in the evaluations of ideas presented by their subordinates. Based on preceding arguments and research evidence above the following hypothesis is established:
Regulatory focus theory
As discussed earlier, due competing demands leaders have to prioritize end results and make decisions on the allocation of resources in order to reach these end results (Gaim et al., 2018). Leaders have specific motivations to decide which resources are used for which end results. One motivational theory that is focused on end states is regulatory focus theory (Higgens and Crowe, 1997). It argues that individuals have two different self-regulatory systems, namely a promotion and a prevention system. Higgins and Crowe (1997:117) state, “a self-regulatory system can have either a desired or an undesired end-state functioning as the reference value”. According to them, the self-regulatory system is motivated to move the current self-state closest to the desired end-state and as far away as possible from the undesired end-state. Each system is associated with different motivational styles and cognitive strategies in order to accomplish the desired end state (Higgins and Crowe, 1997).
(Higgins & Crowe, 1997). Especially, individuals having a prevention focus strive to ensure the absence of the negative outcomes that are presented in their minimum goals and want to correct rejections and avoid making mistakes (Higgins & Crowe, 1997; Zhou et al., 2017). Those individuals tend to be cautious to assure safety or non-losses and experience their goal-related emotions in terms of nervousness or safeness. Visually, a prevention focus could be imagined as an arrow pointing from the self, in the opposite direction of feared mistakes or failures (Miller & Markman, 2007). This strategic approach is emphasized as avoidance oriented motivation style (Jung & Yoon, 2015).
Regulatory focus and job stressors
As we know each individual differs in knowledge, abilities, skills, and personality. These differences affect how employees appraise job stressors (Liu & Li, 2018). According to Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis and Gruen (1986) especially cognitive
appraisals in the human brain play an important role in determining how employees perceive job stressors. When individuals face job stressors they first evaluate if they have anything at stake in the encounter. Secondly, after reflection, individuals evaluate the controllability and the uncertainty that comes along with it and their potential to deal with the job stressors (Folkman et al., 1986; LePine et al., 2005). Liu and Li (2018:143) state “employees form challenge appraisals when they believe they can cope with the stressor and employees form hindrance appraisals when they believe the stressor is out of their control.”
than leaders having a prevention focus because they are striving for such outcomes.
Especially, since challenge stressors are demanding but yet attainable and a promotion focus motivates by goals that present hopes or aspirations and focuses on positive outcomes (Higgins & Crowe, 1997; Zhou et al., 2017), those people are more motivated to cope with the demands that come along with challenge stressors, because they believe that if these demands are met, valued outcomes will occur (LePine et al., 2005). If we look at a resource perspective, Halbesleben et al. (2015) argue that leaders do not have an infinite set of
resources and because of the changing work environment they are required to make resource allocation (investment) decisions to accomplish their goals. Individuals who reach for positive outcomes believe they will create resource surpluses and become motivated to accomplish goals while simultaneously retaining and increasing their valued resources (Hobfoll 1989). In other words, promotion focused leaders allocate more resources to cope with these stressors and see them as a challenge in order to reach positive outcomes (Hobfoll, 1989; Dorsch, Tornblom & Kazemi, 2016). Therefore we believe that a promotion focus is positively associated with challenge stressors and the following hypothesis is established:
H3: Promotion focus is positively related to challenge stressors.
Prevention focus. In contrast, individuals having a prevention focus want to correct
rejections, avoid making mistakes and are motivated by goals concerning protection, safety and the minimization of risks (Higgins & Crowe, 1997; Zhou et al., 2017). They are afraid for possible mistakes and could be more attracted towards hindrance stressors since they believe the stressor is out of their control. Those leaders perceive these kinds of stressors as
experience stressors as a treat and rather spare resources in order to allocate them to less riskier investments (Hobfoll, 1989; Dorsch, Tornblom & Kazemi, 2016). Therefore we believe that a prevention focus is positively associated with hindrance stressors and the following hypothesis is established:
H4: Prevention focus is positively related to hindrance stressors.
Regulatory focus and idea evaluation
Lam and Chiu (2002) found, while not intended to investigate idea evaluation, that strongly promotion focused individuals rated their ideas as more creative compared to weaker promotion focused individuals, and suggested that regulatory focus may influence idea
evaluation. After this finding, only Herman and Reiter-Palmon (2011) have evaluated directly whether regulatory focus influences the process of idea evaluation and suggest that motivation is an important influencer on idea evaluation. Therefore, since research on the relationship between regulatory focus and idea evaluation is so scarce, we have to search for explanations in aligning research domains, such as creativity.
Promotion focus and idea evaluation. In Herman and Reiter-Palmon’s (2011) study, results indicated that individuals having a promotion focus were accurate in their evaluations of originality. These results are also in line with previous research from Friedman and Forester (2001) who earlier suggested that promotion focus is positively related to originality.
Research about rater’s accuracy could help explaining this relationship. Fleenor et al. (2010) argue that rater’s accuracy is influenced by different factors such as characteristics of the rater, rater–ratee interactions and expectations, contextual factors and motivation.
Therefore motivation plays a key role in making accurate judgments of others ideas. There are positive consequences associated with the evaluation of others ideas, such as the achievement of rewards (Harris, 1994; Kaufman, Plucker & Baer, 2008). According to Sijbom, Janssen and Van Yperen (2015) leaders can use creative ideas as an opportunity, to show their competence in managing employee input of creativity in order to enhance innovation in their unit. So, a possible example of a reward could be: a accurately evaluated creative idea leads to an implemented idea, which in turn may improve innovation. We argue that leaders having a promotion focus, who suppose to be eager in attaining advancement or gains, are more motivated to evaluate ideas accurate since they believe creative input can be used for positive outcomes.
Some interesting insights were found when further exploring the relationship between promotion focus and creativity. Firstly, Lam and Chiu (2002) found that individuals having a promotion focus increase fluency in the generation of creative ideas. Since the ability to generate creative ideas (i.e. creativity) is related to the ability to evaluate ideas (Basadur, 2000), we argue that individuals having a promotion focus are also more accurate in the evaluation of ideas. Secondly, Zhou et al. (2017) researched the recognition of novelty (i.e. originality) in creative ideas generated by others and suggest that individuals having a
promotion focus were accurate at recognizing original ideas. Furthermore, individuals having a promotion focus are inclined to construe information at an abstract, high construal level (Mueller et al., 2014). According to Mueller et al. (2014) idea generation seems to benefit from this, because a high construal level is associated with an abstract mindset and broad attentional scope, which seems to prepare one best for understanding originality. We argue that the comprehension of originality is necessary for an accurate evaluation of this
promotion focus. Based on the preceding arguments and research evidence above the following hypothesis is established:
H5: Promotion focus is positively related to an accurate evaluation of creative ideas idea evaluation.
Prevention focus and idea evaluation. In contrast to people having a promotion focus, people having a prevention focus were less accurate their evaluations of originality (Herman and Reiter-Palmon, 2011).
Looking at research about rater’s accuracy in order to explore this relationship, we found the following: Besides the positives consequences associated with idea evaluation, there are a number of negative consequences associated with the evaluation of subordinates ideas, for example, damage to the subordinate-leader relationship, criticism for the rater’s evaluation and eventually bad outcomes if the idea is evaluated inaccurate as creative (Harris, 1994; Kaufman, Plucker & Baer, 2008). We argue that leaders having a prevention focus, who strive to ensure the absence of negative outcomes and avoid making mistakes, could be less motivated because of negative consequences associated with idea evaluation, which influences cognitive processes needed for evaluation in such a way that idea evaluation becomes inaccurate
Additionally, research in the creativity domain found the following outcome:
Evaluating ideas is also about focusing on goals (Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997). Leaders having a prevention focus, with regards to idea evaluation, will focus on current operative goals (Jung & Yoon, 2015; Licuanan, Dailey & Mumford, 2007). Licuanan, Dailey and Mumford (2007:10) state that “by evaluating ideas with respect to current goals and
ideas”. Failing to recognize arising opportunities will result in leaders underestimating idea originality (Licuanan, Dailey & Mumford, 2007). We argue that an underestimation of idea originality will also result in an inaccurate idea evaluation. Therefore leaders having a prevention focus could be in-accurate in the evaluation of creative ideas. In contrast to
promotion focus, individuals having a prevention focus are inclined to construe information at a concrete and detailed, low construal level, which seems to undermines ones understanding for originality (Mueller et al., 2014). As stated above, we argue that the comprehension of originality is necessary for an accurate evaluation of this dimension. Therefore, we could argue an accurate idea evaluation is impeded by prevention focus. Based on the preceding arguments and research evidence above the following hypothesis is established:
H6: Prevention focus is negatively related to an accurate evaluation of creative ideas.
The mediating role of job stressors
In summary, present study examines the relationship between regulatory focus, job stressors according to the challenge-hindrance framework and idea evaluation. We believe that leaders having a promotion focus evaluate ideas presented by employees accurate because they are more attractive to challenge stressors, which in turn enhances creativity and thereby idea evaluation. Looking at this relationship from a conservation of resource
allocate more resources to idea evaluation and perceive stressors as a challenge, which provides higher chances on an accurate idea evaluation (Hobfoll, 1989; LePine et al., 2005; Dorsch, Tornblom & Kazemi, 2016). Therefore the following hypothesis is established:
H7: Challenge stressors mediate the positive relationship between promotion focus and an accurate evaluation of creative ideas.
In contrast, individuals having a prevention focus are focused on the negative
outcomes of idea evaluation. They don’t want to make mistakes and see stressors as a threat, whereby they can choose to allocate resources for other less risky purposes (i.e minimize resource losses) which gives them a small chance on an accurate idea evaluation. (Hobfoll, 1989; LePine et al., 2005; Dorsch, Tornblom & Kazemi, 2016).
We believe that leaders having a prevention focus evaluate ideas presented by employees in-accurate because they are more attractive to hindrance stressors, which in turn impair
creativity and thereby hinders idea evaluation (See figure 1 below for the conceptual model). Therefore the last hypothesis is established:
H8: Hindrance stressors mediate the negative relationship between promotion focus and an accurate evaluation of creative ideas.
--- Insert Figure 1 about here
--- METHOD Procedure
measured. Besides this, the questionnaire included some control variables, demographics and other variables that were included for the purpose of papers from other students. Leaders were contacted through email with the invitation to participate together with minimal 5 and
maximal 10 subordinates. Email addresses were gathered by MSc HRM students using their personal network and social media channels such as Facebook and LinkedIn. For approaching leaders, a cover letter was made that was used trying to get leaders (and their subordinates) interested in participating in this research. In this letter we guaranteed confidentiality and informed participants about the length of the survey (approximately 20 minutes). Once leaders agreed to participate with their team, the digital questionnaires were send There were different versions of the questionnaire. One for participating leaders and one for participating subordinates, in which they were asked to evaluate their own regulatory focus, experience of stressors and evaluations of creative ideas from their self and others.
Sample
In total, data was gathered from 50 teams, with 50 participating leaders and 282 subordinates. After deleting missing or incomplete answers necessary for this study a sample size of 36 leaders and 177 subordinates was left.
(2.80%), 23 obtained a HBO-degree (63.90%), 8 obtained a University degree (22.20%) and lastly, 4 leaders obtained a PhD degree (11.10%).
The response rate for subordinates was 62.80%. 72 subordinates were male (40.70%) and 105 subordinates were female (59.30%). The subordinates were of ages ranging from 22 years to 66 years (M = 40.00, SD = 11.27) and worked on average 10 years in the company (M=10.53, SD=9.92). The distribution of the education level was as following: 5 subordinates obtained only a high school degree (2.80%), 46 obtained vocational training (26.00%), 86 obtained a HBO-degree (48.60%), 36 obtained a University degree (20.30%) and lastly, 4 subordinates obtained a PhD degree (2.30%).
MEASURES
Variables
Regulatory focus. Promotion focus (α = 0.76) was measured using a 9 item scale adapted from Vriend & Hamstra, Said, Janssen, Jordan, & Nijstad (in preparation). The scale was adapted to fit the context of this research and promotion focus was measured in terms of gains, advancements and ideals. An example item is: “At work, I constantly strive to gain desirable outcomes”. The response options range from 1 (fully disagree) to 5 (fully agree). Prevention focus (α = 0.83) was measured using a 9 item scale adapted from Vriend & Hamstra, Said, Janssen, Jordan, & Nijstad (in preparation). The scale was adapted to fit the context of this research and prevention focus was measured in terms of non-losses, security and ought. An example item is: “At work, I constantly strive to avoid risks”. The response options range from 1 (fully disagree) to 5 (fully agree).
indicate to what extent they give you stress in your work. – The number of projects of tasks that I have”. The response options range from 1 (not al all) to 5 (extremely). Hindrance stressors (α = 0.71) were measured using a 5-item scale based on the measure of Lepine et al. (2005). An example item is: “For each of the following, please indicate to what extent they give you stress in your work. – The degree to which politics rather than performance affects organizational decisions”. The response options range from 1 (not al all) to 5 (extremely).
Idea Evaluation. In order to measure idea evaluation leaders were asked “how new and original are the creative ideas of the following people usually”? Additionally, all peers in the same team were asked the same questions about their colleagues. The response options range from 1 (never new and original) to 5 (almost always new and original). The same rating scales were used both by the leaders and the peers so that accuracy of the evaluation can be
determined. To assess the idea evaluation accuracy the value of the leader’s evaluations were subtracted from the values provided by the peer. According to Fleenor et al. (2010) difference scores are commonly used in the in SOA research to assess degree of agreement as well as to test how rating agreement related to important outcomes. These values were squared so that larger differences reflected less accurate evaluations by the leaders. That is, evaluations were considered less accurate whether the leaders inflated or deflated his or her evaluation
compared to the peers since Csikszentmihalyi (1998) argues that an idea is creative if people agree about it.
Control Variables
education were used in these analyses as controls. Gender was measured using one item: “What is your gender?” The response options range from 1 (male) to 2 (female). Age was measured using one item: “In which year were you born?” Lastly, education was measured using 1 item: “What is your highest education?” The response categories were: 1 (Elementary school), 2 (High school), 3 (Vocational training), 4 (University of applied Science), 5
(University) and 6 (PhD).
Data Analysis
Firstly, we prepared the dataset for statistical analysis in SPSS Statistics 25 by deleting missing data and outliers in the dataset. Secondly, bivariate correlations were calculated using STATA between the variables of the research model. Thirdly, linear regressions have been done using STATA. During the linear regressions we clustered for 36 leaders in order to adjust the standard error for more reliable results.
Since we have measured variables fur the purpose of other studies, we have done supplementary analysis in order to find additional findings. Firstly, we included, besides originality, the dimensions of idea evaluation namely usefulness in our analysis since earlier research suggest that regulatory focus can have different effects on the different dimensions of idea evaluation(Herman and Reiter-Palmon). Also, for these dimensions we calculated correlations and we performed linear regressions.
RESULTS Correlations
Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations coefficients of our measures for the study variables are found in Table 1.
--- Insert Table 1 about here ---
Some interesting findings are discussed below. Surprisingly, we found no significant correlations between our study variables. Promotion focus was not significant correlated to either challenge stressors (r = -.11, p = n.s) or idea evaluation (r = .09 p = n.s). Prevention focus was not significant correlated to either hindrance stressors (r = -.08, p = n.s) or idea evaluation (r = -.05, p = n.s). However, we do found significant correlations. We found a negative significant correlation between prevention focus and challenge stressors (r = -.18, p < .05). Additionally, we found a positive significant correlation between prevention focus and promotion focus (r = 0.36, p < .01) and between challenge and hindrance stressors (r = .71, p < .01).
focus than less educated leaders. Furthermore, a negatively and significantly correlation between education and hindrance stressors was found (r = -.25, p < .01), indicating that higher educated leaders experience less hindrance stressors. Lastly, we found a negative and significantly correlation between age and challenge stressors (r = -.27, p < .01), meaning that older leaders experience less challenge stressors.
Hypothesis testing
As discussed above we conducted linear regression analyses to examine the hypothesized effects between the study variables. Results are found in Table 2.
--- Insert Table 2 about here ---
Hypothesis 1 suggested that a promotion focus is positively related to idea evaluation. However, results of the performed regression analysis showed a non-significant effect of promotion focus on idea evaluation (B = .28, p = n.s) Therefore this hypothesis could not be supported by data and is not confirmed.
Hypothesis 2 stated that a prevention focus is negatively related to idea evaluation but we did not found a significant effect on the negative relationship between prevention focus and idea evaluation (B = -.18, p = n.s). Therefore the hypothesis could not be supported by data conducted from the performed regression analysis and is not confirmed.
However, results of the performed regression analysis showed a non-significant effect of prevention focus on hindrance (B = -.17, p = n.s). Therefore the hypothesis could not be supported by data and is not confirmed.
Hypothesis 5 suggested that challenge stressors are positively related to idea evaluation but we did not found a significant effect on the negative relationship between prevention focus and idea evaluation (B = -.02, p = n.s). Therefore the hypothesis could not be supported by data conducted from the performed regression analysis and is not confirmed.
Hypothesis 6 predicted that hindrance stressors are negatively related to idea evaluation. This hypothesis cannot be supported since results of the performed regression analysis showed a non-significant effect on the relationship between hindrance stressors and idea evaluation (B = .08, p = n.s).
Hypothesis 7 proposed that challenge stressors mediate the positive relationship between promotion focus and an accurate idea evaluation. However, since there were no significant results between promotion focus and challenge stressors, nor challenge stressors and idea evaluation, mediation did not exists. Therefore the hypothesis was not supported by data and cannot be confirmed.
Hypothesis 8 stated that hindrance stressors mediate the negative relationship between promotion focus and an accurate idea evaluation. Despite this, since there were no significant results between prevention focus and hindrance stressors, nor hindrance stressors and idea evaluation, mediation did not exists. Therefore the hypothesis was rejected since it can not be supported by data.
Supplementary analyses
Additionally, we calculated correlations between variables that weren’t part of our initial research model. Besides the originality dimension of idea evaluation we choose to examine correlations of our study variables with the usefulness dimension of idea evaluation and the dimensions of promotion and prevention focus. Results are shown in Table 3.
--- Insert Table 3 about here --- Linear regressions
Firstly, we tested on idea evaluation in terms of usefulness in order to examine
additional effects of the study variables. We found that promotion focus was positively related with idea evaluation (usefulness) (B = .40, p < .05). Detailed results are found in Table 4.
--- Insert Table 4 about here ---
Secondly, we tested idea evaluation (originality) and idea evaluation (usefulness) on different dimensions of promotion and prevention focus. Results are found in Table 5.
--- Insert Table 5 about here ---
evaluation (originality) (B=-.43, p < .05), that leader’s ideals were positively related to idea evaluation (usefulness) (B = .53, p < .01). Of the control variables, education was positively related to idea evaluation (originality) (B = .21, p < .05), indicating that higher educated leaders were less accurate in evaluating originality in creative ideas, and age was positively related to idea evaluation (usefulness) (B = .03, p < .05), meaning that older leaders were less accurate in evaluating useful creative ideas presented by their subordinates.
DISCUSSION General discussion and findings
Previous research suggests that idea evaluation is an understudied construct of the creative process in organizations (Zhou et al. 2017). The primary objective of the current study was to provide insights into the relationship between regulatory focus and idea
evaluation from a leaders perspective. This study investigated the mediating role of challenge stressors on the relationship between promotion focus and idea evaluation and the mediating role of hindrance stressors on the relationship between prevention focus and idea evaluation. However, no significant main effects were found for our hypotheses and therefore could not be supported. This study implies that promotion focus does not influence idea evaluation, is not related to challenge stressors, challenge stressors do not influence idea evaluation and that challenge stressors do not behave as a mediator between these variables. Additionally, this indicates that prevention focus does not influence idea evaluation, is not related to hindrance stressors, hindrance stressors do not influence idea evaluation and that hindrance stressors do not behave as a mediator between these variables. These insignificant results can be explained due limitations of our study which we discuss below.
explanation could be that leaders striving for ideals are so focused on these outcomes that they become blinded to any obstacles or concerns that might come along with the presented ideas by subordinates and that striving for these outcomes will come at the expense of the feasibility of the ideas that are evaluated. Secondly, results indicated that a leader who strives for gains evaluate creative ideas in terms of originality more accurate. Since ideals and gains are dimensions of promotion focus. This is in line with the study of Herman and Reiter-Palmon (2011) who also found that individuals higher in promotion focus are less accurate in their evaluations of usefulness, but more accurate in their evaluations of originality.
Additionally, we found that leaders who were more striving for security and vigilance were less accurate in the evaluation of originality in creative ideas presented by their subordinates. This is also in line with earlier research, since security and vigilance reduce risk taking which benefits the recognition of originality in ideas (Dorsch, Tornblom & Kazemi, 2016).
Also some surprisingly results were found. Additionally, we found that leaders who are striving for ideals are less accurate in the evaluation of originality in creative ideas presented by their subordinates. Since ideals is a dimension of promotion focus, this is not in line with previous research suggesting that individuals higher in promotion focus are more accurate in their evaluations of originality (Herman-Reiter and Palmon, 2011). Additionally, results indicated that leader’s ideals were positively related to idea evaluation (usefulness) as well. Since idea evaluation consists out of these dimensions we argue that leader’ striving for ideals will not be successful at an accurate evaluation, in general, since ideals are positively related to both dimensions. Since ideals are a dimension of promotion focus, it is clear that promotion focus does not always lead to creative thinking. In contrast, results indicated that leaders who were striving for gains became more accurate in the evaluation of the usefulness and in the evaluation of originality of creative ideas presented by their subordinates.
(usefulness), so it is unexpected that leaders who strives for gains can evaluate ideas more accurate in terms of usefulness (Herman-Reiter and Palmon, 2011). Lastly, this study showed that leaders striving for gains were more accurate on both dimensions. So. findings show that different dimensions of promotion or prevention focus can be either positively or negatively related to idea evaluation, depending on which creative dimension is assessed.
Furthermore, results of control variables indicated that higher educated people were less accurate in evaluating originality in ideas. This is surprisingly, since leaders with more education are likely to also have higher levels of analytic and cognitive abilities necessary to recognize novelty in ideas (Fleenor et al., 2010).
Implications for Theory and practice
Limitations and future research
When evaluating present study, several limitations need to be taken into account. Firstly, the sample size of present study was rather small which decreased chances of significance. Due to the changing environment only more job stressors will occur in organizations, which could have an impact on regulatory focus and idea evaluation (Sparks, et al., 2001; Harms et al., 2017). Future research is needed to verify whether findings of this study and earlier research among idea evaluation can be replicated in larger samples in order to gain more insights in the link between regulatory focus and idea evaluation and if job stressors are part of this link.
Secondly, we used online questionnaires to measure variables of multiple studies, which involved more than average effort for participants to finish. Many participants failed to answer all questions or quitted the questionnaire before finishing, which is one reason for the small sample size. The researchers received feedback that the questionnaire was long and that it took consuming time and effort to finish it. Future research could use scenario-based experiments instead of online questionnaires in order to actually rate presented ideas in order to achieve more reliable results. Also we need to take a common method bias into account, since variations in responses could be caused by the instrument rather than the actual predispositions of the respondents that the instruments attempts to uncover.
Thirdly, measurement of an accurate idea evaluation using differences between leader’s and peer’s scores is rather subjective. It is more reliable to measure differences in rating scores by subtracting scores by expert scores.
Lastly, although previous research examined the benefits of promotion focus on idea evaluation, the function of prevention focus is understudied and has resulted in contradictory findings. This is especially due the different dimensions usefulness and originality. Future research could further explore these tensions between originality and usefulness among idea evaluation.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion present study has examined the relationship between regulatory focus and idea evaluation with the mediating influence of job stressors in terms of the challenge-hindrance framework. It was suggested that a promotion focus benefits an accurate idea evaluation because these individuals perceive stressors as challenging and that a prevention focus thwarts idea evaluation because they perceive stressors as threatening. However this study found no evidence to support this. However, a significant and positive result was found for leaders who strive for gains and accurate idea evaluation. Future research may want to perform a scenario-based study with expert judgments and a larger sample size in order to find an explanation why leaders often evaluate creative ideas inaccurate, since it thwarts organizational creative, which is necessary in nowadays competitive environment in order to survive. More research is urgently needed on the process of idea evaluation.
REFERENCES
Allen, S.L., Smith, J.E., & Da Silva, N. (2013). Leadership Style in Relation to
Organizational Change and Organizational Creativity; Perceptions from Nonprofit Organizational Members. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24(1), 23-42.
Amabile, T.M., Goldfarb, P ., & Brackfield, S. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evalutoin, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Resourch Journal, 3(1), 6-21.
Amabile, T. M., 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. Harvard Business School Working Paper Series, No. 02-073.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147-173.
Aryee, S., Zhou, Q., Sun, L. Y., & Lo, S. (2009). Perceptions of politics, intrinsic motivation and creative performance: Evidence from the service sector. Academy of
Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1–6).
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 201–212.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity, 313–336.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(2), 117-132.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
Dorsch, M. J., Törnblom, K. Y., & Kazemi, A. (2017). A Review of Resource Theories and Their Implications for Understanding Consumer Behavior. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(1), 5-25.
Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2002). Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on personal initiative. Journal of occupational health psychology, 7(3), 221.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(5), 992
Friedman.,R.S & Forster. J (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-13.
Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N., Cunha, M. P., & Clegg, S. (2018). Analyzing competing demands in organizations: a systematic comparison. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), 1-6.
Gamache, D. L., McNamara, G., Mannor, M. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1261-1282.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 227-271.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V.(1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186–199.
Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364.
Harms, P. D., Credé, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., & Jeung, W. (2017). Leadership and stress: A meta-analytic review. The leadership quarterly, 28(1), 178-194.
Harris, M. M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20(4), 735-756.
Herman, A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011). The Effect of Regulatory Focus on Idea Generation and Idea Evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1),13-20.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513.
Jung, H.S., & Yoon, H.H. (2015). Understanding regulatory focuses: The role of employees’ regulatory focus in stress coping styles, and turnover intent to a five-star hotel. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(2), 283-307.
Lam, T. W. H., & Chiu, C. Y. (2002). The motivational function of regulatory focus on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 138– 150.
LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883-891.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775.
Licuanan, B. F., Dailey, L. R., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Idea evaluation: Error in evaluating highly original ideas. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(1), 1-27.
Liu, C., & Li, H. (2018). Stressors and stressor appraisals: The moderating effect of task efficacy. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 141-154.
Liu, L., Wang, L., Ren, J., & Liu, C. (2017). Promotion/prevention focus and creative performance: Is it moderated by evaluative stress?. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 185-193.
Mahfood, V. W., Pollock, W., & Longmire, D. (2013). Leave it at the gate: Job stress and satisfaction in correctional staff. Criminal Justice Studies, 26(3), 308-325.
Miller, A. K., & Markman, K. D. (2007). Depression, regulatory focus, and motivation. Personality and individual differences, 43(3), 427-436.
Mueller, J. S., Wakslak, C. J., & Krishnan, V. (2014). Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 51, 81-87.
Mumford, M. D., Lonergan, D. C., & Scott, G. (2002). Evaluating creative ideas: Processes, standards, and context. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across The Disciplines,
22, 21-30.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543–565
Probst, T. M., Stewart, S. M., Gruys, M. L., & Tierney, B. W. (2007). Productivity,
counterproductivity and creativity: The ups and downs of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 479–497.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55-77.
Sijbom, R. B., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2015). Leaders’ receptivity to subordinates’ creative input: The role of achievement goals and composition of creative input. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 24(3), 462-478.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most creative ideas?. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3),
139.
Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace. Journal of occupational and organizational
psychology, 74(4), 489-509.
Steele, L. M., Johnson, G., & Medeiros, K.E. (2018). Looking beyond the generation of creative ideas: Confidence in evaluating ideas predicts creative outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 21-29.
Tamir, M. (2005), “Don’t worry, be happy? Neuroticism, trait-consistent affect regulation, and performance”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89(3), 449 461.
motivation. Personality and individual differences, 43(3), 427-436.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M., & Graen, G.B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel psychology, 52, 591- 620.
Urbach, T., Fay, D., & Lauche, K. (2016). Who will be on my side? the role of peers’ achievement motivation in the evaluation of innovative ideas. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25 (4), 540-560.
Vriend, T., Hamstra, Said, Janssen, Jordan, & Nijstad (in preparation).
Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Todd, E. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). 5. Leader idea evaluation and follower creativity: Challenges, constraints, and
capabilities. Handbook of Research on Leadership and Creativity, 82-99.
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 422–423.
Zhou, J., Wang, X. M., Song, L. J., & Wu, J. (2017). Is it new? Personal and contextual influences on perceptions of novelty and creativity. Journal of Applied
