Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas

(1)

June

2013

1

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013)

Employee Voice of Radical and

Incremental Creative Ideas

Arjen P. Hofman

*

A

BSTRACT

In this research, the role of employees’ creative process engagement (CPE) in their voice of creative ideas towards their supervisor was investigated. A moderated mediation model was proposed specifying that (a) generation of creative ideas mediates the relationship between CPE and voice of creative ideas, (b) employees’ cognitive style moderates the first-path from CPE to creative idea generation and (c) voice instrumentality moderates the second path from generation to voice of creative ideas. Using a sample of 169 employees under the supervision of 51 different supervisors collected at a local governmental organisation in The Netherlands, it was found that CPE is positively related to generation of radical as well as incremental creative ideas. However, this relationship was moderated by cognitive style, such that the path from CPE to generation of radical creative ideas was more pronounced for employees with an innovation cognitive style, whereas the relationship between CPE and generation of incremental creative ideas was more pronounced for employees with an adaptation cognitive style. Furthermore, generation of radical and incremental creative ideas was found to be positively related to voice of, respectively, radical and incremental creative ideas. Voice instrumentality did not significantly moderate this relationship between generation and voice of creative ideas.

(2)

June

2013

2 T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

1. Introduction 3

2. Theoretical framework 6

CPE and Creative Idea Generation: The Moderating Role of Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation Style 6 Creative Idea Generation and Employee Voice: The Moderating Role of Voice Instrumentality 9

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas 11

3. Methodology 12

Research Setting, Procedure and Participants 13

Measures 14

Data Analysis 16

4. Results 17

Handling of Missing Data 17

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations 17

Tests of Hypotheses 21 5. Discussion 28 Theoretical Implications 29 Practical Implications 30 Potential Limitations 32 Conclusion 33 6. References 34 7. Appendix 38

_{Arjen P. Hofman (1873083) is a master student Human Resource Management (HRM) at the}

(3)

June

2013

3 1. I

NTRODUCTION

In 2007, the fire fighters operative at the fire department of a Dutch municipality invented a mobile road-surface cleaner. Individual fire department employees not infrequently experienced dangerous situations and public ridiculing when manually cleaning the road with brushes, water and soap after a car-accident. As a result, the employees decided they had enough of this. Stimulated by a creativity-encouraging initiative launched by the municipality, the workers collectively developed the idea of this automatic road-surface cleaner and incorporated it in the trailer of the fire truck. This creative invention led to increased worker safety, decreased traffic congestion and the elimination of public ridiculing. In the following years, after the idea proved extremely successful, the initiators saw their creative idea implemented in practically every fire department in The Netherlands.

This example reveals the crucial role of creativity and innovation, not only for the organisation where it appears, but also potentially for other organisations with similar goals or practices. Nowadays, both the concepts of creativity and innovation are increasingly recognised to be underpinning factors in an organisation’s success and crucial for an organisation’s effectiveness, survival and competitiveness (e.g., Amabile, 1988, 1996; George & Zhou, 2002; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Nonaka, 1991; Zhou, 1998). Creativity refers to the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or by a group of individuals working together (Amabile, 1988; Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000; Zhou & Shalley, 2003), whereas innovation refers to the translation of these creative ideas into action (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). As a consequence, abundant research has been conducted addressing personal and contextual factors that may encourage or discourage creativity within organisations (Amabile, 1997; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Wu et al., 2008; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). However, questions still remain unanswered about how, when, and why employee engagement in creative processes may result in the generation of qualitatively different creative ideas – i.e. incremental and radical creative ideas. Additionally, the question whether the nature of the ideas affects an individual’s tendency to express and share these ideas with others is yet to be answered as well.

(4)

June

2013

4

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) the reasoning of scholars that suggests that there is value in understanding the way in which individuals come to develop creative ideas (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Drazin, Glynn & Kazanjian, 1999; Mainemelis, 2001; Mumford, 2000; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). As a result of this approach, I use the Creative Process Engagement (CPE) construct by Zhang and Bartol (2010) to address the creative idea development process engaged in by individuals. CPE can be defined as employee involvement and engagement in creativity-relevant cognitive processes, including (1) problem identification, (2) information searching and encoding, and (3) idea and alternative generation (Amabile, 1983; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).

CPE has been identified as a critical cognitive factor in individual creativity (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). However, the question of how CPE may result in the production of qualitatively different creative ideas - radical versus incremental ideas – has been excluded from consideration. Radical creative idea development, on the one hand, can be defined as “the development of creative ideas that differ substantially from an organisation’s existing practices” (Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Ettlie, Bridges, & O’Keefe, 1984), whereas incremental creative ideas, on the other hand, can be defined as “the development of creative ideas that imply few changes in frameworks and offer only minor modifications to existing practices and products” (Madjar, Chen, & Greenberg, 2011). In this research, I will address this gap in the literature by conceptualising the relationship between CPE and the generation of radical and incremental creative ideas, respectively, dependent on the cognitive adaptation-innovation style of an individual (Kirton, 1976; Miron, Erez & Naveh, 2004). According to Kirton’s (1976) theory on adaptive and innovative cognitive styles, every person can be located on a continuum from being adaptive to being innovative, respectively referring to a tendency to ‘do things better’, and to ‘do things differently’. The respective score on the continuum, referring to an individual’s cognitive style, is expected to influence the creativity-relevant cognitive process through which individuals generate either radical or incremental creative ideas.

(5)

June

2013

5

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) encountered in their day-to-day work practices. However, in most cases, these individually developed creative ideas, being either radical or incremental, can only become useful if they are expressed towards and shared with – throughout this research paper referred to as ‘voiced to’ – supervisors within the organisation, who have the authority and opportunity to implement changes. Alternative cases, in which potential consequences of the creative idea for the organisation are so minimal that the supervisor can be circumvented by idea initiators without any difficulties, are left out of consideration for this paper. Research has shown that employee voice is a key driver of high-quality decisions and organisational effectiveness (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Morrison & Milliken, 2000), but an individual employee’s tendency to voice creative ideas is dependent on different aspects of the individual’s social environment. As addressed by the systems perspective on creativity (Csikszentmihayli, 1990), creativity is not the product of single individuals, but rather of social systems making judgments about the individual’s product. Accordingly, the influence of social factors on an individual’s voice of radical and incremental creative ideas, respectively, is of particular interest in this research. The influence of these social factors is conceptualised and measured by means of voice instrumentality, a construct based on an adaptation of the ‘implementation instrumentality’ construct developed by Baer (2012). Voice instrumentality embodies the means that stimulate or withhold an individual to voice creative ideas, including among others recognition and expected resistance. These different dimensions together are assumed to affect an individual’s willingness to voice generated creative ideas.

In brief, the contribution that this research claims to make to the literature on creativity is twofold. Firstly, a distinction is made between radical and incremental creative idea development as a result of creative process engagement by individual employees. This relationship is assumed to be moderated by the cognitive adaptation-innovation style of the individual. Secondly, the moderating effect of voice instrumentality on the relationship between creative idea generation and employee voice is examined for both radical and incremental ideas, respectively. Translated into research questions, the contribution that this research makes can be defined as the provision of answers to the following questions;

(6)

June

2013

6

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) (2) How and to what extent is the generation of incremental and radical creative ideas related to voice of these respective ideas, and how is this relationship moderated by voice instrumentality?

2. T

HEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

CREATIVE PROCESS ENGAGEMENT AND CREATIVE IDEA GENERATION:THE

MODERATING ROLE OF COGNITIVE ADAPTATION-INNOVATION STYLE

As described earlier in the introduction of this paper, creative process engagement (CPE) is defined as employee involvement and engagement in creativity-relevant cognitive processes, including (1) problem identification, (2) information searching and encoding, and (3) idea and alternative generation (Amabile, 1983; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). However, the third component of CPE is left out of consideration for this research, as this component is closely related to the next step in this research, where creative idea generation by individuals is addressed and differentiated into radical and incremental creative ideas. The first component of the construct, problem identification, is likewise the first step in the creative process (Basadur, Runco & Vega, 2000; Finke, Ward & Smith, 1992; Lubart, 2001; Mumford et al., 1991), where problems identified by individuals can be characterised on a continuum from well- to ill-defined (Dillon, 1982). Well-defined problems typically have a known goal and methodology or way to reach an answer, as well as one single correct answer, whereas ill-defined problems are characterised by multiple goals and methodologies, and multiple possible and acceptable solutions (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Due to this ambiguity embedded in ill-defined problems, a potential for creative idea generation arises (Mumford et al., 1991; Schraw, Dunkle & Bendixen, 1995), which is of interest in this research.

(7)

June

2013

7

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) score on this construct relates to lesser effort in identifying problems and a less extensive information search and encoding. The more an employee engages in the components of the creative process described above, the more likely he or she is to develop and generate creative ideas to solve the respective identified problems. In contrast, an employee who scores low on CPE, and who thus puts little effort into the creativity-relevant cognitive process that precedes creative idea generation, is likely to accept the current situation as it is and not to bother improving or changing the current way of doing things.

Previously conducted research has found that an individual’s cognitive style may influence an individual’s creativity (Amabile, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). An individual’s cognitive style is an individual’s natural orientation or preferred means of problem solving (Kirton, 1976; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). More specifically, cognitive style refers to an individual’s preferred way of gathering, processing, and evaluating information (Hayes & Allinson, 1998). As lined out by Hayes and Allinson, individuals’ cognitive styles “influence how people scan their environment for information, how they organize and interpret this information, and how they integrate their interpretations into the mental models and subjective theories that guide their ideas” (1998, p. 850). Consequently, I assume that the cognitive style of the individual employee moderates the relationship between CPE and creative idea generation.

(8)

June

2013

8

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) Based on Kirton’s continuum of adaptive and innovative cognitive styles (1976), every person can be placed at one point on the continuum with as one extreme the adaptor and as the other extreme the innovator. Employees scoring high on this continuum are referred to as innovators, tending to develop radical creative ideas which challenge the existing structure of the organisation. Innovators tend to do things ‘differently’, are very original in conducting their work practices, but also seem to be undisciplined, impractical, unsteady and incapable of adhering to detailed work (Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004). Meanwhile, employees scoring low on this continuum are referred to as adaptors, inclined to develop incremental creative ideas that only slightly change the organisation within its current structure. Adaptors can be characterised as precautious, reliable, efficient, methodological, disciplined, focused on accuracy and detail, and conforming. As such, adaptors tend to reduce problems by introducing improvements focused on increased efficiency and the maintenance of maximal continuity and stability (Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004). Taken together, the distinction between innovators and adaptors lies mainly in three personal characteristics, namely, originality in idea generation, conformity to rules and group norms, and attention to detail (Kirton, 1976; Janssen, De Vries, & Conzijnsen, 1998; Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004).

(9)

June

2013

9

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) continuum will show a stronger relationship between CPE and the generation of incremental creative ideas. Consequently, I will test the following hypotheses;

HYPOTHESIS 1: Creative process engagement is positively related to the generation of both radical creative ideas (H1a) and incremental creative ideas (H1b).

HYPOTHESIS 2: Cognitive adaptation-innovation style moderates the relationship between CPE and creative idea generation. CPE is more positively related to the generation of radical creative ideas when employees have an innovation cognitive style (H2a), whereas CPE is more positively related to the generation of incremental creative ideas when employees have an adaptation cognitive style (H2b).

CREATIVE IDEA GENERATION AND EMPLOYEE VOICE:THE MODERATING ROLE OF

VOICE INSTRUMENTALITY

Now that I have addressed the distinction between radical and incremental creative idea development resulting from creative process engagement and different employee cognitive orientations, I will move on to the second contribution of this research. As assumed in the introduction of this paper, after an idea is generated, it can only become valuable when this idea is voiced. Employee voice of creative ideas is defined as the sharing of creative ideas by an individual employee with his or her supervisor, with the intention to have these ideas utilised and implemented within the organisation. As long as a creative idea is merely a thought held by an individual employee, the idea will not be implemented and the potential benefits of the idea cannot be realised. Prior research on employee voice has shown positive effects of employees voicing their ideas on decision quality (Nemeth, 1997), team performance (Dooley & Fryxell, 1999), and organisational performance (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Consequently, it is of critical interest to organisations that creative ideas developed by individual employees are voiced. Logically, individual employees who generate more creative ideas, being either radical or incremental, are more likely to also voice more creative ideas of this particular kind. Therefore, I hypothesise the following;

HYPOTHESIS 3A: Employees’ generation of radical creative ideas is positively related to their voice of radical creative ideas.

(10)

June

2013

10

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) However, employees are well aware of the personal risks involved in speaking up (Milliken, Morrisson, & Hewlin, 2003), and may worry about the related risks to their image, interpersonal relationships, or career development (Klaas & DeNisi, 1989; Krefting & Powers, 1998). As a consequence, employees weigh the perceived advantages and disadvantages of voicing their creative ideas. Therefore, the relationship between creative idea generation and employee voice of these creative ideas must be researched.

I assume the relationship between creative idea generation and voice of creative ideas to be moderated by the previously introduced construct of voice instrumentality, an adaptation of Baer’s ‘implementation instrumentality’ construct (2012). Voice instrumentality can be defined as people’s motivation to engage in voicing creative ideas. The individuals’ instrumentality beliefs regarding voice are assumed to affect their voice behaviour. Voice instrumentality captures the extent to which employees believe that voicing their ideas will result in certain, desirable, outcomes. Hence, voice instrumentality focuses on the outcomes expected to be associated with coming up with creative ideas. Thereby, it captures not only the more extrinsic outcomes (e.g. image gains) of individuals’ voice efforts, but also the intrinsic benefits from such efforts (e.g. feeling of accomplishment). Consequently, I assume that an individual who perceives the instrumentality of voicing his creative idea to be high will be more inclined to voice this respective creative idea. Specifically, this employee would expect to be intrinsically and/or extrinsically motivated by voicing his or her creative idea, and to encounter little resistance by doing so. On the contrary, I assume that an individual who perceives the instrumentality of voicing his creative idea to be low will be less tended to voice this creative idea. As a result, when the individual employee perceives voice instrumentality to be low, creative ideas, being radical as well as incremental, are likely not to be voiced to the employee’s supervisor. Consequently, these creative ideas will remain merely creative thoughts held by these respective individuals. Accordingly, the large potential annexed to voicing creative ideas (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Dooley & Fryxell, 1999; Nemeth, 1997) diminishes and the innovativeness of the organisation is at risk. As a result, I will test the following two hypotheses in this research;

(11)

June

2013

11

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) HYPOTHESIS 4B: Voice instrumentality moderates the relationship between generation and voice of incremental creative ideas, such that this positive relationship becomes stronger when voice instrumentality for incremental creative ideas is high rather than low.

Furthermore, I assume that the strength of the moderating role of voice instrumentality differs for the different types of creative ideas. For voicing a generated radical creative idea, I expect it to be more essential for an employee to have confidence that voicing this idea pays off than it is for voicing incremental creative ideas. The reason for this is that I assume that radical creative ideas that are intended to break with existing practices and procedures and to change parts of or the entire organisational structure may have more radical consequences. Consequently, voicing of these radical creative ideas may, for example, bring along a larger potential risk for the individual voicing the idea and more resistance among colleagues and supervisors, as their job security and power position may be at risk as a result of the radical creative idea. Therefore, a higher rate of voice instrumentality is assumed to be required for outweighing the potential negative consequences and overcoming this resistance. As a consequence, I assume the positive moderation effect of ‘voice instrumentality’ to be stronger for voicing generated radical creative ideas than for voicing generated incremental creative ideas. Accordingly, the hypothesis that I will test in this research is the following;

HYPOTHESIS 5: The positive moderation effect of voice instrumentality is stronger for the relationship between generation and voice of radical creative ideas than for the relationship between generation and voice of incremental creative ideas.

EMPLOYEE VOICE OF RADICAL AND INCREMENTAL CREATIVE IDEAS

(12)

June

2013

12

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) engagement may lead to voice of incremental creative ideas. Accordingly, to test this moderated mediation model, I formulated the following, final hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS 6A: The indirect relationship between creative process engagement and voice of

radical creative ideas is mediated by generation of radical creative ideas and moderated by cognitive adaptation-innovation style for the path from creative process engagement to generation of radical creative ideas and by voice instrumentality for radical creative ideas for the path from generation to voice of radical creative ideas.

HYPOTHESIS 6B: The indirect relationship between creative process engagement and voice of incremental creative ideas is mediated by generation of incremental creative ideas and moderated by cognitive adaptation-innovation style for the path from creative process engagement to generation of incremental creative ideas and by voice instrumentality for incremental creative ideas for the path from generation to voice of incremental creative ideas.

Figure 1 – Conceptual Model in which Radical and Incremental Creative Idea Generation

(13)

June

2013

13 3. M

ETHODOLOGY

RESEARCH SETTING,PROCEDURE AND PARTICIPANTS

The hypotheses were tested in a survey among employees working at a local governmental organisation in The Netherlands. Participants in the survey are professional-level employees on part-time as well as full-time contracts, who perform a wide range of jobs in different functions throughout the organisation. Importantly, due to regionalisation and privatisation in the nearby future respectively, the fire department as well as the neighbourhood maintenance department was left out of consideration.

The data were gathered by means of quantitative surveys distributed among employees throughout the organisation. The surveys were distributed via the intranet of the organisation, for which respondents were given 3 weeks to finalise the questionnaires. Items in the scales included in the questionnaires addressed the variables Creative Process Engagement (CPE), cognitive adaptation-innovation style, radical and incremental creative idea generation, voice instrumentality, and self-reports of voice of radical and incremental creative ideas. All items were taken from the original scales and translated into the language of the respondents, being Dutch. Accordingly, the translated questions are to be found in the appendix of this paper it its entirety.

In order to encourage participation, participants were provided a chance to win a dinner voucher and, additionally, the head of the HR department as well higher management of the organisation has actively supported the study and has encouraged employee participation. Thereby, several management meetings were attended in order to provoke interest in the research among supervisors. To supervisors, the prospect of a detailed analysis of the creative potential of the organisation as well as its current utilisation was offered to stimulate their cooperation in stimulating employee participation.

(14)

June

2013

14

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) Possible explanations for the arguably low response rate are the high frequency at which employees are exposed to questionnaires of all kinds and the high work pressure perceived by employees and supervisors due to the downsizing developments the organisation currently faces. Additionally, an influencing factor may be the perceived non-anonymity of the questionnaire, due to the request made to employees to provide their names as well as the name of their direct supervisor. The reason for this was that employee responses were intended to be coupled to supervisor responses. However, supervisor participation was too limited to lead to significant results, resulting in the necessity to utilise employees’ self-reports of their voice of radical and incremental ideas as the dependent variables, rather than supervisor ratings of employee voice of these respective ideas.

MEASURES

In the following section, the operationalisation of the different constructs is discussed and representative items of the scales used are presented. The items comprising the scales are discussed in the following paragraphs. All response formats are adapted into a 6-point scale in order to avoid a centre tendency among respondents while maintaining varied and nuanced response possibilities.

CREATIVE PROCESS ENGAGEMENT (CPE): Individual differences in the level of creative

process engagement were assessed by means of the scale developed by Zhang and Bartol (2010). The scale contains the dimensions ‘problem identification’, ‘information search and encoding’, and ‘idea generation’, and as mentioned before, the latter dimension will be left out of consideration for this research. Representative items on the scale are “When I encounter a problem in my work, I spend considerable time trying to understand the nature of the problem” (problem identification), and “When I delve into a problem, I consult a wide variety of information” (information search and encoding). Participants answered the 8 items on a scale ranging from 1 (“never”) to 6 (“very frequently”).Reliability analysis of the scale showed a reasonable Cronbach’s alpha of .85.

(15)

June

2013

15

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) (“entirely agree”). Representative items are, respectively, “In general, I have a lot of creative ideas” (creativity), “In general, I am thorough when solving problems” (attention-to-detail), and “In general, I try not to oppose team members” (conformity). Additionally, one item was added to the original scale; “In general, I prefer creating something new over improving something existing.” For this construct, Cronbach’s alpha is .86.

RADICAL AND INCREMENTAL CREATIVE IDEA GENERATION: The generation of radical creative ideas, rather than incremental creative ideas, was measured by means of a questionnaire developed by Gilson and Madjar (2011). Respondents were presented 8 different items, addressing the generation of radical and incremental creative ideas. Consequently, the respondents were asked to rate these descriptions on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (very frequently). Sample items include, “How often do you develop creative ideas that can be characterised as refinements of how things are currently done at the organisation?” (incremental) and “How often do you develop creative ideas that can be characterised as discoveries of completely new processes or products in comparison to what the company currently does?” (radical). Reliability analysis showed a high Cronbach’s alpha for the scales for both radical and incremental creative idea generation, being respectively α = .94 and α = .91.

(16)

June

2013

16

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) showed to be reasonable, with indices of .79 for the radical scale, and .82 for the incremental scale.

EMPLOYEE VOICE OF RADICAL AND INCREMENTAL CREATIVE IDEAS: For this variable, the individual employees were asked to reflect on their own voice behaviour regarding creative ideas using a 6-item scale based on measures developed and validated by Gilson and Madjar (2011) and Baer (2012). The participants were asked how frequently they voice radical and incremental creative ideas to their direct supervisor, using a scale ranging from 1 (“never”) to 6 (“very frequently”). Items included in this scale were “How often do you voice creative ideas to your supervisor that substantially deviate from current work procedures, processes, products or services?”(employee voice of radical creative ideas), and “How often do you voice creative ideas to your supervisor that are considered improvements to existing procedures, processes, products or services?”(employee voice of incremental creative ideas). The Cronbach’s alpha of these scales shown by reliability analyses are .91 for the items addressing employee voice of radical creative ideas, and .96 for the items addressing employee voice of incremental creative ideas.

CONTROL VARIABLES: As control variables, gender (1, ‘male’, 2, ‘female’), age (in years), and tenure for the organisation as well as for the employee’s direct supervisor (in years and months) were included in the analyses. These demographics may affect employees’ engagement in creative processes and frequency of generating creative ideas, as well as their tendency to voice these creative ideas to their supervisors.

DATA ANALYSIS

(17)

June

2013

17

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) department or section influences, the multilevel regression analyses were conducted using the mixed models module within SPSS, distinguishing between teams of employees operating under different supervisors.

For the radical track of the research model, the indirect effect of CPE on voice of creative ideas was tested to be conditional on cognitive innovation style for the path from CPE to radical creative idea generation and on voice instrumentality for radical ideas for the path from generation to voice of radical creative ideas. Likewise, for the incremental track of the model, the indirect effect of CPE on voice of creative ideas was tested as being conditional on cognitive adaptation style for the path from CPE to incremental creative idea generation and on the moderator of voice instrumentality for incremental ideas for the path from generation to voice of incremental creative ideas. Monte Carlo samples (Selig & Preacher, 2008) were used to evaluate the conditional indirect effect of CPE on employee voice of radical and incremental creative ideas as mediated by generation of, respectively, radical and incremental creative ideas. To reduce any potential multicollinearity when testing interaction effects, we standardised all of the predictor variables.

4. R

ESULTS

HANDLING OF MISSING DATA

Fortunately, the amount of missing data in the research conducted was minimal. However, for some variables, a few missing data were encountered, due to respondents’ inattentiveness and reluctance to rate certain statements. As a result, in these sporadic cases, the missing data were replaced with the mean of the variable in order to avoid eliminating responses and to be able to conduct the research properly.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS

(18)

June

2013

18

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas (2013) research, some significant relationships were found. Interestingly, the control variable gender showed to be significantly and negatively correlated to cognitive adaptation-innovation style (r = -.15, p = .046), radical creative idea generation (r = -.16, p = .037) and voice of radical creative ideas (r = -.17, p = .027), indicating that men have a more innovative cognitive style, generate more radical creative ideas, and are subsequently more tended to voice these radical creative ideas to their direct supervisors. Additionally, the control variable age depicted a significant and positive correlation with cognitive adaptation-innovation style (r = .21, p = .007). From this value, it can be concluded that older employees are more likely to have an innovation cognitive style.

(19)

Table 1 – Univariate Statistics and Pearson Correlations among the Variables

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

1. Gender 1.54 .50

2. Age 44.82 10.78 -.253**

3. Organisational tenure 12.59 9.75 -.169* .607**

4. Tenure under supervisor 3.01 3.71 -.076 .160* .275**

5. Creative Process Engagement 4.13 .69 -.132 .067 .011 -.026 6. Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation

Style 3.42 .68 -.154

*_.207**_-.020 _{-.035 .290}**

7. Radical Creative Idea Generation 2.57 .98 -.161* _.107 _-.064 _{-.097 .389}**_.578**

8. Incremental Creative Idea

Generation 3.53 .83 -.067 -.060 -.095 .004 .370

** _.122 _.318**

9. Voice Instrumentality of Radical

Creative Ideas 3.73 .48 -.047 .114 .018 -.030 .079 .125 .051 .039 10. Voice Instrumentality of

Incremental Creative Ideas 3.86 .48 -.032 .052 -.031 .014 .101 .134 .014 .132 .807

**

11. Employee Voice of Radical

Creative Ideas 2.35 .88 -.170

* _.089 _-.030 _{-.061 .355}**_.482**_.756**_.304**_.231**_.161*

12. Employee Voice of Incremental

Creative Ideas 3.11 .95 .060 -.079 -.102 .056 .319

(20)

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

1. Gender 1.54 .50

2. Age 44.82 10.78 -.253**

3. Organisational tenure 12.59 9.75 -.169* .607**

4. Tenure under supervisor 3.01 3.71 -.076 .160* .275**

5. Creative Process Engagement 4.13 .69 -.132 .067 .011 -.026 6. Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation

Style 3.42 .68 -.154

*_.207**_-.020 _{-.035 .290}**

7. Radical Creative Idea Generation 2.57 .98 -.161* .107 -.064 -.097 .389** .578** 8. Incremental Creative Idea

Generation 3.53 .83 -.067 -.060 -.095 .004 .370

** _.122 _.318**

9. Voice Instrumentality of Radical

Creative Ideas 3.73 .48 -.047 .114 .018 -.030 .079 .125 .051 .039 10. Voice Instrumentality of

Incremental Creative Ideas 3.86 .48 -.032 .052 -.031 .014 .101 .134 .014 .132 .807

**

11. Employee Voice of Radical

Creative Ideas 2.35 .88 -.170

* _.089 _-.030 _{-.061 .355}**_.482**_.756**_.304**_.231**_.161*

12. Employee Voice of Incremental

Creative Ideas 3.11 .95 .060 -.079 -.102 .056 .319

**_.262**_.357**_.487** _.106 _.188*_.493**

(21)

June

2013

21

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas

TESTS OF HYPOTHESES

In Table 2, the results of two multiple regression models are shown for the radical track. These statistics show the mediator variable model with radical creative idea generation as the dependent variable, as well as the dependent variable model with employee voice of radical creative ideas as the dependent variable. Similarly, in Table 3, these same statistics are provided for the incremental track of the model, with incremental creative idea generation as the dependent variable in the mediator variable model, and employee voice of incremental creative ideas as the dependent variable in the dependent variable model. Additionally, the

conditional indirect effects of CPE on employee voice of radical and incremental creative

ideas, respectively, are reported in these tables. These indirect effects represent the association between these variables, mediated by radical and incremental creative idea generation, respectively, under the condition of different values of the individual’s cognitive adaptation-innovation style. The second moderator included in the research model, voice instrumentality, did not reach significance for the relationship between radical creative idea generation and employee voice of radical creative ideas as well as for the relationship between incremental creative idea generation and employee voice of incremental creative ideas.

Table 2 – Results of Mediated Moderation Analysis for Voice of Radical Creative Ideas

Mediator Variable Model: Generation of Radical Creative Ideas

Predictor Y SE T p

Intercept 2.53 .07 38.87 .000

Gender -.07 .06 -1.10 .273

Age .02 .08 .26 .795

Organisational tenure -.07 .08 -.89 .375

Tenure under Supervisor -.06 .06 -1.00 .321

Creative Process Engagement (CPE) .26 .06 4.12 .000 Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation Style

(CAIS) .49 .06 7.62 .000

(22)

June

2013

22

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas -2 Restricted log likelihood 411.22

Dependent Variable Model: Voice of Radical Creative Ideas Predictor Y SE T P Intercept 2.33 .05 49.96 .000 Gender -.03 .05 -.76 .451 Age -.04 .06 -.78 .434 Organisational tenure .03 .06 .46 .646

Tenure under supervisor .00 .05 .06 .953

(CAIS) .03 .06 .60 .551

CPE * CAIS .07 .04 1.66 .098

Radical Creative Idea Generation (RCIG) .61 .06 10.82 .000 Voice instrumentality for Radical Creative

Ideas .15 .04 3.40 .001

RCIG * Voice Instrumentality .05 .04 1.30 .195

-2 Restricted log likelihood 317.82

Conditional Indirect Effect of CPE on Voice of Radical Creative Ideas at Low and High Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation Style

95% Confidence Intervala Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation Style

Indirect Effect Lower Limit Upper Limit Low .09 -.016 .203 High .23 .136 .324

(23)

June

2013

23

Table 3 – Results of Mediated Moderation Analysis for Voice of Incremental Creative Ideas

Mediator Variable Model: Generation of Incremental Creative Ideas

Predictor Y SE T P

Intercept 3.56 .06 56.52 .000

Gender -.04 .06 -.56 .574

Age -.04 .08 -.50 .617

Tenure under Supervisor .04 .06 .57 .568

(CAIS) .01 .06 .20 .841

CPE * CAIS -.12 .05 -2.22 .028

Dependent Variable Model: Voice of Incremental Creative Ideas

Predictor Y SE T P

Intercept 3.08 .07 47.35 .000

Gender .11 .06 1.79 .076

Age -.09 .08 -1.09 .280

Tenure under supervisor .09 .06 1.36 .175

Creative Process Engagement (CPE) .13 .07 1.94 .055 Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation Style .20 .07 2.96 .004

CPE * CAIS .11 .06 1.84 .069

Incremental Creative Idea Generation

(24)

June

2013

24

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas Voice instrumentality for Incremental

Creative Ideas .08 .06 1.22 .224

ICIG * Voice Instrumentality -.01 .06 -.18 .858

Conditional Indirect Effect of CPE on Voice of Incremental Creative Ideas at Low and High Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation Style

95% Confidence Intervala Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation Style Indirect

Effect Lower Limit Upper Limit Low .08 .032 .148 High .03 -.003 .082

a_{Based on 20,000 Monte Carlo samples.}

To predict radical creative idea generation, the mediator variable model included the earlier mentioned control variables gender and age of the employee, and tenure for the organisation as well as the direct supervisor. Additionally, the model included the independent variable of creative process engagement, the moderator of cognitive adaptation-innovation style, and the interaction of these two variables. Comparably, for the prediction of incremental creative idea generation, an identical method was pursued with the same control variables, independent variable and moderator variable as for the radical track of the model.

(25)

June

2013

25

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas significantly and positively related to radical creative idea generation (γ = .37, t = 4.09, p < .001). Meanwhile, in case of an adaptation cognitive style of the employee, this same significant relationship was shown, although here the relationship was found to be less positive and less significant (y = .15, t = 2.01, p < 0.05). These findings are supportive of Hypothesis 2a, which suggests that cognitive adaptation-innovation style moderates the relationship between CPE and creative idea generation, such that CPE is more positively related to the generation of radical creative ideas when employees are high rather than low on cognitive adaptation-innovation style.

Figure 2 – Generation of Radical Creative Ideas Predicted by the Two-way Interaction

between Creative Process Engagement and Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation Style

(26)

June

2013

26

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas generation on CPE, under the conditions of an employee’s innovation style (1 S.D.) and an employee’s adaptation style (-1 S.D.). As shown in Figure 3, under the condition of an innovation style of the employee, CPE and incremental creative idea generation were not significantly correlated (y = .16, t = 1.69, n.s.). On the other hand, in case of an adaptation cognitive style of the employee, these variables did show a highly significant, positive relationship (y = .40, t = 5.30, p < .001). These findings lend full support for Hypothesis 2b, which suggests that cognitive adaptation-innovation style moderates the relationship between CPE and creative idea generation, such that CPE is more positively related to the generation of incremental creative ideas when employees are low rather than high on cognitive adaptation-innovation style, indicating an adaptation cognitive style.

Figure 3 – Generation of Incremental Creative Ideas predicted by the two-way interaction

between Creative Process Engagement and Cognitive Adaptation-Innovation Style

In order to predict employee voice of radical creative ideas, the dependent variable

model included, again, the control variables, CPE as the independent variable, cognitive

(27)

June

2013

27

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas prediction of employee voice of incremental creative ideas, the same variables were included, provided that incremental creative idea generation was included as the mediator variable, and the interaction was calculated of incremental creative idea generation with voice instrumentality for incremental creative ideas.

As shown in Table 2, radical creative idea generation is significantly and positively related to employee voice of radical creative ideas. Consequently, these findings are supportive of Hypothesis 3a predicting that employees who generate more radical creative ideas would eventually voice more radical creative ideas to their supervisors. Furthermore, the two-way interaction effect of radical creative idea generation and voice instrumentality for radical creative ideas shows to have a positive effect on employee voice of radical creative ideas as well. However, this positive relationship did not reach significance. Therefore, the findings of this research do not support Hypothesis 4a, suggesting that voice instrumentality positively moderates the relationship between radical creative idea generation and employee voice of radical creative ideas.

Similar to the relationship between radical creative idea generation and employee voice of radical creative ideas, Table 3 shows a significant and positive relationship between incremental creative idea generation and employee voice of incremental creative ideas. These results support Hypothesis 3b, which suggests a positive relationship between these two variables. Meanwhile, the two-way interaction effect of incremental creative idea generation and voice instrumentality for incremental creative ideas was slightly negatively but not significantly associated with employee voice of incremental creative ideas. Therefore, Hypothesis 4b was not supported by the findings of this research.

(28)

June

2013

28

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas Furthermore, Tables 2 and 3 also display the conditional indirect effects of CPE on employee voice of radical and incremental creative ideas, respectively. For these indirect effects, the first stage moderator of cognitive style was manipulated as being either high (1 S.D.) or low (-1 S.D.), while the second stage moderator, voice instrumentality, was not manipulated as its moderating effects showed not to be significant. As expected for the radical track of the model, when the first stage moderator of cognitive style was high, depicting an innovation cognitive style, the indirect effect of CPE on employee voice of radical creative ideas through radical creative idea generation showed to be substantially more positive (1 S.D.; indirect effect = .23; 95% CI = .136 to .324) than when the cognitive style of the individual was low (-1 S.D.; indirect effect = .09; 95% CI = -.016 to .203). These findings are partly supportive of Hypothesis 6a, which suggests that an innovation cognitive style leads to more radical creative idea generation, and consequently more employee voice of radical creative ideas. Meanwhile, the moderating effect of voice instrumentality for radical creative ideas hypothesised in Hypothesis 6a was left out of consideration as it did not reach significance.

Similarly, the results for the incremental track of the model, as depicted in Table 3, show a higher indirect effect of CPE on employee voice of incremental creative ideas when the first stage moderator, cognitive style, shows an adaptation style (-1 S.D.; indirect effect = .08; 95% CI = .032 to .148), in comparison to when the first stage moderator shows an innovation cognitive style (1 S.D.; indirect effect = .03; 95% CI = -.003 to .082). Again, these findings are partly supportive of Hypothesis 6b, indicating that individuals with an adaptation cognitive style are more likely to generate and consequently voice incremental creative ideas. Meanwhile, voice instrumentality for incremental creative ideas was left out of consideration as it did not significantly moderate the relationship between incremental creative idea generation and employee voice of incremental creative ideas.

5. D

ISCUSSION

(29)

June

2013

29

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas were examined using data from a survey among functionaries operative at a local governmental organisation in The Netherlands.

The findings presented in this paper indeed show that CPE is positively related to the generation of both radical and incremental creative ideas. Furthermore, it can be concluded from the results that an innovation cognitive style leads to a tendency among employees who engage in the creative processes of problem identification and information search to generate radical creative ideas, whereas an adaptation cognitive style leads to a tendency to generate incremental creative ideas. In its turn, as hypothesised, radical creative idea generation was significantly and positively related to employee voice of radical creative ideas, while this relationship was positively yet not significantly moderated by voice instrumentality. Meanwhile, the same significant and positive relationship was found between incremental creative idea generation and employee voice of incremental creative ideas, while voice instrumentality showed to be insignificantly moderating this relationship. Finally, the results support the moderated mediation model of the radical track by showing that CPE was positively associated with employee voice of radical creative ideas through radical creative idea generation under the condition of an innovation cognitive style of the employee. Meanwhile, the findings also supported the incremental track of the model by depicting that CPE was positively related with employee voice of incremental creative ideas through incremental creative idea generation under the condition of an adaptation cognitive style of the individual.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

(30)

June

2013

30

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas style and perceived instrumentality of these different types of ideas. This study contributes to these voids identified in prior research.

As such, the present results have several theoretical implications. Firstly, the findings presented in this research confirm the outcomes of previous research indicating that employees who are more engaged in creative processes are likely to generate more creative ideas (Amabile, 1983; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Results of this research add to this proposition that this positive relationship between CPE and creative idea generation is moderated by an individual’s cognitive adaptation-innovation style. The moderating effect of the individual’s cognitive style can be assumed as such, that individual employees with an innovation cognitive style are more likely to generate radical creative ideas, whereas employees with an adaptation cognitive style are more likely to generate incremental creative ideas, which is in accordance with prior research (Kirton, 1976; Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004). Therefore, a distinction must be made in the type of creative ideas, being radical or incremental, that are being generated as a result of higher engagement in creative processes.

(31)

June

2013

31

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Besides theoretical implications, the results presented in this paper have some practical implications for employees and supervisors. As becomes apparent from the findings, individual employees have different levels of engagement in creative processes. Consequently, the findings show that employees who are more engaged in these processes will generate and subsequently voice more radical and incremental creative ideas. Besides that this is beneficial for organisations, as a creative workforce is crucial to its success (e.g., Amabile, 1988, 1996; George & Zhou, 2002; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Nonaka, 1991; Zhou, 1998), engagement in creative processes can have positive consequences for individual employees as well. Among others, it leads to appraisal from supervisors and peers, a feeling of accomplishment, and more identification with the organisation, as well as the perspective of receiving financial incentives or a promotion. Therefore, enhanced employee engagement in creative processes is potentially rewarding for both the individual employee as the organisation as a whole.

Individual employees who voice creative ideas, being either radical or incremental in nature, may give rise to a degree of active opposition or increased workload, as supervisors and colleagues are likely to resist or discount their ideas. The findings of this paper suggest that a higher level of voice instrumentality perceived by individual employees raises their tendency to voice creative ideas to their supervisor with the intention to have these ideas implemented in the organisation. Additionally, the presented findings suggest that the influence of voice instrumentality is more substantial in the case of radical creative idea generation, rather than for incremental creative idea generation. As noted before, prior research has shown positive effects of employees voicing their creative ideas on decision quality (Nemeth, 1997), team performance (Dooley & Fryxell, 1999), and organisational performance (Argote & Ingram, 2000). It is therefore redundant to argue that it is to the advantage of organisations to optimise the perceived voice instrumentality among employees in order to stimulate employee voice.

(32)

June

2013

32

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas supervisors can be trained specifically in their receptivity to creative ideas from employees under their supervision. In this way, supervisor attitudes can be altered in such a way that employees perceive a higher voice instrumentality and are, thus, more tended to voice their radical or incremental creative ideas. Consequently, management can contribute to a better, more efficient organisation with a more committed and motivated workforce by improving the voice instrumentality perceived by employees.

In brief, the findings of this research show that management has to a certain extent control over employee voice of creative ideas, by improving the receptivity of supervisors within the organisation. However, importantly, the effect of this improved receptivity, in other words, increased voice instrumentality perceived by employees, is suggested to be larger for radical creative ideas than for incremental creative ideas.

POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS

As with any research, the findings presented in this paper need to be considered in the light of the limitations associated with the design of this study. These limitations are discussed in the section below.

Firstly, all scores on variables included in this research are derived from one single source, being the employees filling out the questionnaires. Therefore, a common source bias exists for this research, which needs to be taken into consideration. Potentially, these self-reports are subject to bias or misrepresentations by the individuals, potentially leading to inflation of correlations. In turn, this common source bias could be avoided by asking the direct supervisors for their perception of individual employees’ voicing of radical and incremental creative ideas. Unfortunately, due to restricting factors at the organisation used for this research, these supervisor ratings have not been obtained for this study. Therefore, this approach could be pursued in future research.

(33)

June

2013

33

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas Thirdly, it cannot be ascertained that the findings presented are representative for any individual at any time, as the sample used for this research is rather small and condensed in one Dutch local governmental organisation at one single point in time. It is, therefore, not certain that individuals employed for another organisation would respond similarly to the statements posed. Besides, no generalisations over time can be made based on the results, as no longitudinal research was conducted. Accordingly, generalisation of the present results to individuals with different backgrounds, personalities and experiences, in different types of organisations, and at different points in time, awaits further empirical examination.

Fourthly, the definition of employee voice - the sharing of creative ideas by an individual employee with his or her supervisor, with the intention to have these ideas implemented within the organisation - in this paper is restricted to employee voice to supervisors. However, in certain cases, employees may prefer to voice their creative ideas to peers or friends or at internal or external social media instead. In these particular cases, supervisor support is not considered to be necessary for the implementation of the creative idea, wherefore the exclusion of these cases can be regarded as a limitation of this paper.

Finally, the relationships between the different variables identified in this research are correlated, rather than causal. In other words, theoretically, an increase in employee voice of radical creative ideas may lead to an increase in the engagement in creative processes by an individual, rather than the reverse. Despite that this reversed causality seems improbable based on common sense, longitudinal research assessing the relationships proposed and found in this study would provide an additional and stronger support for the reported effects in this research.

CONCLUSION

(34)

June

2013

34

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas creative ideas. Meanwhile, the results indicate that employees with an adaptation cognitive style who are highly engaged in creative processes are inclined to generate more incremental creative ideas and consequently voice these creative ideas to their direct supervisor. However, opposing the assumptions beforehand, voice instrumentality of incremental creative ideas did not show to moderate or affect this relationship.

6. R

EFERENCES

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

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

Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.

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

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.

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150–169.

Argyris, C, & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Baer, M. (2012). Putting Creativity to Work: The Implementation of Creative Ideas in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119.

Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work together: A causal process model. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 34, 77–100.

Bink, M. L., Marsh, R. L. (2000). Cognitive regularities in creative activity. Review of

General Psychology, 4, 59–78.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. Theories of Creativity, 190–212. Newbury Park, C.A: Sage.

(35)

June

2013

35

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32, 1422–1433.

Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 97–111.

Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1999). Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision making-teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 389–402.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M., & Kazanjian, R. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–307.

Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30, 682–695.

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687–697.

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

Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in organization. Human Relations, 51(7), 847–871.

Janssen, O., Vries, T. de, & Cozijnsen, A. J. (1998). Voicing by adapting and innovating employees: an empirical study on how personality and environment interact to affect voice behavior. Human Relations, 51(7), 945–967.

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 61(5), 622–629.

(36)

June

2013

36

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas Krefting, L. A., & Powers, K. J. (1998). Exercised voice as management failure: Implications of willing compliance theories of management and individualism for de facto employee voice.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 11, 263–277.

Lubart, T. I. (2001) Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity

Research Journal, 13, 295–308.

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

Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767.

Mainemelis, C. (2001). When the muse takes it all: A model for the experience of timelessness in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 548–565.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. Journal of Management

Studies, 40, 1453–1476.

Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and personal values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706–725.

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation.

Human Resources Management Review, 10, 313–351.

Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.

(37)

June

2013

37

Employee Voice of Radical and Incremental Creative Ideas Nemeth, C. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management

Review, 40(1), 59–74.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem solving perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 55–77.

Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org/.

Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523–538.

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

Journal, 43, 215–224.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here? Journal of Management,

30(6), 933–958.

VVV Zwolle. (2012). Zwolle – A contemporary Hanseatic City in a historical setting. Available: http://www.vvvzwolle.nl/en. Last accessed 20th Dec 2012.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulative focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 587–602.