Master Thesis Human Resource Management &
Strategic Innovation Management
The constraints-creativity paradox: the mediating role of
intrinsic motivation and job clarity
OSCAR TE BRUMMELSTROETE
First supervisor: Y. Shao (HRM) Second supervisor: I. Estrada (SIM)
January 23, 2017
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Human Resource Management / Strategy Innovation Management Muurstraat 3a, 9712 EM Groningen, The Netherlands
+(31) 6 300 88 480
ABSTRACT
Creativity in organizations has always been of great interest for both academics and corporations given its great potential. The effect of organizational constraints on creativity is one of the interesting debates that is going on. Currently, mixed results exist in the literature field on the effect of constraints on creativity. This study addresses those mixed results by proposing that the type of creativity determines the outcome whether constraints either stimulate or inhibit creative outputs. We theorize that organizational constraints have a negative effect on radical creativity via a mediation relationship with intrinsic motivation and that constraints have a positive effect on incremental creativity via a mediation relationship with job clarity. Drawing data from 210 participants leads to several relevant conclusions. Constraints can indeed have a positive effect on creativity. Also analyses show that organizational constraints can be divided in several types. Furthermore, the importance of intrinsic motivation on creativity is underlined in this research.
INTRODUCTION
Workplace creativity is considered to be one of the critical factors to maintain organizational competitiveness, effectiveness and survival (Amabile, 1996, George 2007, Nonaka, 1991). Creativity is often conceptualized as the production of new and useful ideas of organizational products, services, processes and procedures (Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Zhou, 1998). Creative ideas drive organizational adaptability and innovation (Shalley & Zhou, 2008), which becomes increasingly important given today’s complex, dynamic business environment. Since empirical evidence suggests a positive relation between creativity and increasing competitiveness/organizational innovations (Shalley et al., 2004; Shalley & Zhou, 2008; Wang & Wu, 2012), there lies great interest for scholars and managers regarding this topic.
Given the significance of creativity, there is a big discussion in literature regarding how creativity can best be fostered. One of the big debates in literature is about the relationship between organizational constraints and creativity as the empirical research yields inconsistent results about this relationship. Organizational constraints, first described by Peters and O’Conner (1980), refers to conditions at work for an individual’s performance on job tasks, which for example include task preparation/training, equipment, job-relation information. Some studies suggest that creativity can best be fostered by having a low amount of constraints and that high organizational constraints may hamper creativity (e.g. Shalley et al., 2004; Amabile et al., 2004). The suggested reason is that organizational constraints may inhibit intrinsic motivation, which is a strong predictor of many creative task performances. This line of research implies that reducing constraints and increasing autonomy for employees are crucial to achieve creativity. This reasoning is conforming the well-known Google-approach.
These conflicting findings regarding the effect of constraints on creativity call for more research endeavour. Fujii (2015) and Rosso (2014) refer to these conflicting findings as the paradox of constraints on creativity. The understanding of when constraints benefit or hamper creativity is thus of great significance in guiding managerial practices in fostering creativity.
The current study aims to offer an explanation accounting for the inconsistent empirical results in the literature by stressing the role of creativity type. Following the arguing of Madjar et al. (2011) and Gilson et al. (2012) we argue that the nature of creativity type (radical and incremental creativity) determines the effectiveness of constraints in fostering creative outputs. Radical creativity refers to ideas that differ substantially from organizations existing business practices (Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Ettlie et al., 1984) and incremental creativity involves minor modifications and focuses on existing business practices. According to Gilson and Madjar (2011), radical creativity is driven by intrinsic motivation whereas incremental creativity is linked to extrinsic motivation, solution driven and developed on basis of concrete practices. We consequently argue that organizational constraints can have a negative impact on radical creativity through a decrease in their intrinsic motivation. When it comes to incremental creativity constraints do not necessarily have to be detrimental for creative outputs. Instead, organizational constraints might even promote creative outputs considering the nature of incremental creativity, because organizational constraints may help to clarify task goals and means, which possibly result in an increase of incremental outputs.
Moreover, the current examination of the constraints-creativity link can offer valuable insights considering implications for managers. Managers should take the creativity type into account when it comes to constructing organizational constraints. Also, since radical and incremental creativity is strongly linked to radical and incremental innovations, this study can thus provide relevant insights regarding stimulation of innovation. In conclusion this study yields both theoretically and practically valuable information regarding the paradox of constraints on creativity.
THEORY & HYPOTHESES
2.1. Creativity and constraints
Workplace creativity is the creation of a product, service, procedure or process that is valuable and useful, created by individuals working together in a complex social system (Woodman et al., 1993). Other authors define it simpler as the generation of new and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996; West, 2002). Although there are dozens of definitions more out there, common agreement lies on two dimensions. Creativity has to do with novelty and quality (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). Novelty refers to the newness of the idea and implies distinctiveness compared to earlier ideas. Quality has to do with the usefulness of the idea. If ideas do not have potential to be commercialized they are not useful and thus not creative. Creativity is theoretically different from the concept innovation (Amabile, 1988). Innovation is often conceptualized as a process of idea generation and idea implementation (Damanpour, 1991), while creativity refers to the process of idea generation only. Creativity is regarded as the very first step to realize innovation (Baer, 2012; Ghosh, 2015) and must be seen as the seed of innovation (Amabile, 1996; Sarooghi et al., 2015).
action. This includes task preparation/training, time availability, equipment, supplies, job-relation information, budgetary support, required services from others and physical aspects of the work environment (Peters & O’Connor, 1980). To conclude with, Spector and Jex (1998) describe organizational constraints as situations/things that prevent employees from translating ability and effort into high levels of creativity. The definitions described above have a rather negative sense or meaning, as they already presume a negative relation between creativity and constraints. For the sake of neutrality and considering the frequently positive findings regarding organizational constraints, a more neutral definition, which focuses on the content of constraints instead of its outcomes, is needed. A more recent definition argued by Zhou (2016) describes constraints as limiting factors originating from the organization such as fundamentals, customers and resources. Because this definition does not withhold any negative consequences it is far more suited in this study.
While some researchers already distinguished in type of constraints (e.g. Baer & Oldham, 2006; Rosso, 2014, Gilson et al., 2005, West 2002), still in much literature organizational constraints are treated as a unitary concept (e.g. Britt et al. 2012; Caniëls & Rietzschel, 2015, Clark & Walsh, 2016, Kuyumcu & Dahling, 2014, Pindek & Spector, 2016a, 2016b). Those type of studies do not make a distinction is type or types of constraints. Rosso (2014) however mentions that organizational constraint can be divided into product constraints and process constraints. While product constraints constrain in terms of the outcome of a task, process constraints are limiting possible approaches.
free of limitations or constraints. Constraints decrease the perceived freedom, thus undermining intrinsic motivation and creative performance. The type of constraints varies over the studies; mainly, but not exclusively, bureaucracy, time pressure and lack of money are mentioned to have a negative relationship with creativity.
On the other hand, a growing amount of research indicates that creativity, both on the individual and team level, can benefit from organizational constraints (e.g., Gilson et al., 2005; Costello & Keane, 2000; Stokes, 2001; Stokes, 2005, Moreau & Dahl, 2005; Baer & Oldham, 2006; Weiss et al., 2011; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997, West & Sacramento, 2012, Choi et al., 2009). The circumstances under which constraints and also the specific type of constraint(-s) differ in these studies, a common implication however is that organizational constraints do not necessarily hamper creativity. Baer and Oldham (2006) for example found a curvilinear (inverted-U shape) relationship between time constraints and creativity while Stokes (2001) stresses that constraints can lead to variability. Also Gilson et al. (2005) found that teams that used standardized routines were more capable of being creative than teams who did not used these standardized routines. Constraints seem to be useful since it makes problems less complex. A total absence of constraints tends to be de-energizing for employees. For example, Google is thought to be a company that provides their employees with masses of autonomy; but even they have their limits. Former Google spokesman, Marissa Myer, entitles one of the most important principles of innovation as ‘creativity loves constraints’ (Mayer, 2006). Myer states: ‘People think of creativity as this sort of unbridled thing, but engineers thrive on
constraints. They love to think their way out of that little box...’ (Salter, 2008).
In conclusion, the empirical research shows that constraints can both stimulate and hamper creativity. The remaining question, however, is when and how constraints stimulate or hampers creativity. In the current research, we propose the necessity to distinguish types of creativity (incremental versus radical creativity) when investigating the effects of organizational constraints. Besides, we consider intrinsic motivation as the mediating mechanism underlying the link between organizational constraints and radical creativity and job clarity as the mediating mechanism underlying the link between organizational constraints and incremental creativity.
While prior literature treated creativity as a unitary construct, some recent research argues that creativity cannot be seen as a single variable construct, but instead should be seen a multidimensional construct given its complexity (Sternberg, 1999; Madjar et al. 2011). It is suggested that distinguishing radical and incremental creativity can contribute deep insights to the creativity phenomenon and resolve some inconsistent findings in creativity literature (Madjar et al. 2011; Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Tang & Ye, 2015; Venkataramani et al., 2014). Radical creativity is defined as changes that sweep away much of the firm’s existing investments in knowledge, technical skills, designs, production techniques, plan and equipment’s (Utterback, 1994), while incremental change is more based on improving existing methods and/or products. It is ‘doing what we do, but better’ (Tidd, 2006).
Radical creativity is based on different set of engineering and complete new principles (e.g., Dess & Beard, 1984; Dewar & Dutton, 1986); it is disruptive in nature rendering current equipment and the connected competencies obsolete (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). Along with the definition, this implicates that radical creativity requires out-of-the-box thinking. To achieve radical change an organization needs to break through routines and do things in a complete different manner. Radical creativity is also strongly related to exploration in the ambidexterity theory (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997; Benner & Tushman, 2003). Exploration is associated with the creation of new product possibilities through discovery, experimentation, play, risk taking and flexibility (March, 1991).
Radical creativity and organizational constraints. Extant literature suggests
a negative direct relationship between organizational constraints and radical creativity. Madjar et al. (2011) argue that if resources as material, time and financial means are constraining, this may limit radical creativity. Also it is known that large firms face serious difficulties implementing radical ideas (Stringer, 2000). Established firms, compared with small and medium enterprises (SME’s), are relatively weak in realizing radical creativity (Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000). Empirical research mentions structural inertia and bureaucracy as the main reasons (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Bruneel et al., 2012). Studies like these suggest that established, relative large, firms existing routines and bureaucratic rules hamper the development of radical creativity. Structural inertia is a construct that may theoretically be reconcilable with organizational constraints. Structural inertia refers to the tendency for firms to maintain the status quo and an inability to change existing patterns and routines (Schwarz, 2012). Also bureaucracy can be seen as a form of an organizational constraint (Caniëls & Rietzschel, 2015). Since organizational constraints force employees to follow a certain cognitive path, expected is that constraints hamper radical creativity. By having organizational constraints flexibility decreases and especially design constraints can inhibit out-of-the-box thinking. To realize radical creativity a company needs to take risk, search for new knowledge and experiment, organizational constraints could possibly counteract on this. Hence:
H1: Organizational constraints are negatively associated with radical creativity.
Mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Organizational constraints also are
constraints like time and money might reduce the enactment potential, implying a lower level of intrinsic motivation. Hence:
H1a: Organizational constraints have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation
Radical creativity encompasses a great number of complexities and difficulties. It requires deeper processing and more mental persistence when facing obstacles inherent in the process (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). To cope with these challenges it is of great essence that employees possess intrinsic motivation. Gilson et al. (2012) already found that intrinsic motivation is more strongly related to radical creativity than to incremental creativity. Intrinsic motivation seems to be a critical factor for radical ideas in terms of absorption and persistence (Gagné & Deci, 2005). It ensures individuals to focus on spontaneity and exploration. Intrinsic motivation drives experimentation and risk taking, which is essential for radical creative performance. Finally, also Gilson and Madjar (2011) found that radical creativity is more linked to intrinsic motivation while incremental creativity is more linked to extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation seems to be a key driver in stimulating radical creativity. Hence:
H1b: Intrinsic motivation is positively linked to radical creativity
Combining hypothesis H1a and H1b, we hypothesize the following:
H1c: Intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between organizational constraints and radical creativity
Organizational constraints and incremental creativity. Regarding
not so problematic compared to radical creativity. On the contrary, the frequently positive effects found for organizational constraints (e.g., Gilson et al., 2005; Costello & Keane, 2000; Stokes, 2001, Baer & Oldham, 2006; Weiss et al., 2011) and the proposition of the first hypotheses might even suggest that these results reflect on incremental creativity. Furthermore, Gilson and Madjar (2011) state that incremental creativity ideas are more solution-driven and developed on basis of concrete practices. Incremental creativity can be seen as finding a solution ‘within the box’ (Madjar et al. 2011). Employees are therefore bounded to established rules and procedures. Christensen and Raynor (2003) state that most incremental ideas require few resources for their implementation. So a restriction of resources, in form of organizational constraints, does not per se have to be harmful regarding incremental creativity. Additional time and support can be of little benefit (Madjar et al. 2011) when it comes to incremental creativity. Benner and Tushman (2003) also found that process management can be beneficial for incremental idea implementation. In their article Benner and Tushman clearly mention the distinctive steps of process management namely: mapping, improving and adhering (2003:240). Process management seems to have some similarities between certain types of organizational constraints (e.g. task preparation/training and job-relation information). Hence:
H2: Organizational constraints are positively associated with incremental creativity.
Mediating role of job clarity. While at the radical level a mediation effect is
to which the goals and means of a job is pre-defined and structured. In this research, we propose that organizational constraints can promote job clarity. Since organizational constraints set clear boundaries for expected outcomes availability of resources, it helps individuals to set clear goals and focus on a limited number of options in the tasks. We therefore hypothesize:
H2a: Organizational constraints have a positive effect on job clarity
Clear goals and means are productive for algorithmic tasks such as incremental creative tasks. Vandenbosch & Gallagher (2004: 198) suggested that constraints can put boundaries on possible goals and solutions, which reduces problem complexity and energizes employees. Since employees are considering incremental creativity bounded to an established design, we expect that job clarity can have a positive influence on incremental creative outputs. Incremental changes are not related to exploration but exploitation; some clearance regarding ends and means is therefore likely to positively influence incremental creative outputs. We thus hypothesize:
H2b: Job clarity is positively linked to incremental creativity
Combining hypothesis H4a and H4b, we hypothesize the following:
H2c: Job clarity mediates the relationship between organizational constraints and incremental creativity
A graphical representation of both conceptual models can be found below:
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Sample and procedure
The data was collected via Qualtrics through Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk). We only allowed people who are currently working in an organization to participate in this survey as we measure a number of job related variables. To assure the responses were provided with enough attention, we used attention check questions to rule out participants who did not pay sufficient attention to the questionnaire. Participants who competed the whole survey received a financial compensation of 1.50 USD. All participants were required to report organizational constraints, intrinsic motivation, job clarity and evaluate their own incremental and radical creativity. Also, for the sake of explorative research, some other personality and contextual measures were included. After excluding five participants who failed to correctly answer the attention check questions, 210 usable participants remained. The data was gathered at one point in time and participants are employed in the United States of America and Canada. A total of 111 men (52,86 percent) and 99 women (47,14 percent) participated in this study. The youngest participant is 22 and the oldest 65, while the average age is 36. Most participants (102) possess a bachelor degree, the rest of participants have a master degree (43), practical degree (19), high school graduates (42) or a PhD (2) and other (2). The diversity in professions is great. Accountants, project managers, IT-related and healthcare workers are some random examples. A greater view can be given on base of the business sector. The most participants are working in sales and services (tertiary sector, 116). Also many people are employed in information services (quaternary sector, 70). The primary (3) and secondary sector (21) is less represented.
3.2 Measurements
Organizational constraints. In existing literature constraints are often
are based on the article of Peters & O’Connor (1980) about situational constraints and responses can be given on basis of a five-point scale ranging from ‘less than once per month or never’ (1) to ‘several times per day’ (5). Example questions are: How often
do you find it difficult or impossible to do your job because of information
availability/equipment availability? Because the tone-setting in this measurement
scale implies a negative impact on constraints, some adjustments have been made for the sake of neutrality. The question setting has been changed according the definition of Zhou (2016) to: The following are factors in the organization that can potentially
limit the approaches/method you take and the outcomes your produce when you perform your task. Please think about your daily job and indicate the extent to which you encounter the following factors?
The factors that are used are: time, money, equipment, human resources, information, work rules and procedures, requirements for task outcomes, customer needs and business needs, which are adapted from Spector and Jex (1998). These factors capture both process-related and product-related constraints suggested by Rosso (2014). The adjusted measurement scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of .84.
Radical and incremental creativity. The measures of the two main types of
creativity are based on Madjar et al. (2011). A total of six items are used to assess the extent to which generated ideas are perceived incremental or radical. A seven-point Likert-scale was used ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7). An example item for incremental creativity is “I use previously existing ideas or work in
an appropriate new way” and an example item for radical creativity is “I am a good source of highly creative ideas”. The internal consistency, referring to the Cronbach’s
alpha, of both items is on a high level. The Cronbach’s alpha for incremental creativity is .81 and for radical creativity .83.
Intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation was measured by using three items
on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7). The measurement is developed by Shalley (1995) and Tierney et al. (1999). Empirical evidence showed that this measurement is highly reliable with a coefficient alpha of .85. One of the questions for this measurement is: ‘I enjoy trying to come up
Job clarity. We measured job clarity in terms of unclear ends (five items) and
unclear means (four items) on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7). An example question of unclear ends is ‘Often,
you are unable to anticipate what the end results of your efforts at work will be’ and
an example question of unclear means is ‘ It is often difficult to determine how to
reach work goals or objectives’. The measurements are developed by George & Zhou
(2001). The reported Cronbach’s alpha by George and Zhou (2001: 517) was .68 for unclear ends and .74 for unclear means. The measured coefficient alpha in this study is .78 for unclear ends and .88 for unclear means. We reversed the score of eight items so that the scores on unclear ends and means are not in opposite direction as job clarity. Nine items were averaged to form the measure of job clarity with a Cronbach’ alpha of .88.
Control variables. We controlled gender, age and highest completed
education. These variables are perceived as potential confounds for the employee level creativity (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Zhou & Shalley, 2008). Also the exact measurements of these control variables can be found in the Appendix. Besides these individual level factors, also the business sector will be included as a control variable. The theorization of organizational constraints on creativity might differ per industry sector. For this reason the business sector will be controlled when testing the hypotheses. There will be differentiated by primary sector (raw materials), secondary sector (manufacturing), tertiary sector (sales and services) and the quaternary sector (information services like education and government).
3.3 Analysis
To test both our conceptual models, PROCESS by Hayes (2013) was used. We standardized all independent variables, mediators and control variables. Also an exploratory factor analysis was performed on organizational constraints to check for distinctive dimensions on this construct.
RESULTS
4.1 Exploratory factor analysis
The results of the factor analysis can be found in table 1. The table displays two components that are measured. This implies that the organizational constraints can be divided in two separate measurements. The items time, money, equipment and human resources can be grouped together, while information, work rules and procedures, requirements for task outcomes, customer and business needs also can be grouped together. The distinction between those two types in organizational constraints can be named product versus process constraints (Rosso, 2014). Process constraints (time, money, equipment and human resources) are limiting possible approaches and product constraints (information, work rules and procedures, requirements for task outcomes, customer needs, business needs) constrain in terms of the outcome.
These two broad categories of constraints that arise out of the factor analysis must be taken into account when testing hypotheses. Different types of constraints can have different effects on the proposed hypotheses. This can have major consequences for theoretical and managerial implications. Therefore hypotheses will be tested in three separate ways: Primarily, the hypotheses will be tested by treating organizational constraints as a unitary construct. After these results, also a distinction will be made based on the categories described above. The independent variable organizational constraints will be split up into process-constraints and product-constraints. The exact same regression tests are then repeated so there can be checked for deviations. If relevant deviations occur, they are reported.
4.2 Descriptives
(organizational constraints), mediating variables (intrinsic motivation and job clarity) and control variables (age, gender, education and business sector). An interesting correlation is the one between radical creativity and organizational constraints (r = .167, p < .05). This correlation is not in line with the theorized hypotheses. No correlation was found between organizational constraints and incremental creativity. Intrinsic motivation was significantly correlated with radical creativity (r= .62, p < .01) and incremental creativity (r= .46, p < .01). These results are in line with the hypotheses that intrinsic motivation plays a more important role in radical creativity than incremental creativity. Also the correlation between organizational constraints and job clarity was significant (r = -.19, p < .01). However, this relationship is the opposite of what we expected. Finally, there is also a significant correlation between incremental and radical creativity (r = .51, p < .01).
4.3 Hypotheses testing
The effects on radical creativity
reasoning; the bootstrap confidence intervals overlap zero (boot z = .1021, 95%, CI = -.0153, .2234).
The effects on incremental creativity
Regarding the second conceptual model the regression results can be found in table 4. Hypothesis 2 proposes organizational constraints to negatively influence the amount of incremental creativity. The results delineate an insignificant relationship (B = -.066, p > .05). The effect of organizational constraints on job clarity, as theorized in hypothesis 2a, is expected to be positive. The outcome however is not as expected (B = -.167, p < .05), when controlling for age, gender, education and business sector. The regression results prove organizational constraints to negatively influence the amount of job clarity. When testing the relationship between job constraints on incremental creativity (hypothesis 2b) a negative insignificant relationship can be derived (B = -.082, p > .05), when there is controlled for age, gender, education and business sector. Since hypothesis 2 and 2b derive highly insignificant results these hypotheses cannot be confirmed. Also hypothesis 2a cannot be accepted since a relation that is the opposite as theorized results. The insignificant results on incremental creativity and a relation that is opposite as expected give a good indication that the mediation effect as theorized in hypothesis 2c cannot be confirmed. The regression results confirm this reasoning since confidence intervals overlap zero (boot z = .0137, 95%, CI = -.0082, .0507). To conclude, there is no proof that job clarity mediates the relationship between organizational constraints and incremental creativity.
Relevant differences when using organizational constraints types
differences when using process constraints. Also when using product constraints instead of organizational constraints no deviations find place.
DISCUSSION
The goal of this study is to test the effects of organizational constraints on creativity. We propose that the type of creativity determines whether constraints either stimulate or hamper creative outputs. For radical creativity, we found insignificant results regarding hypothesis 1 and 1a. Organizational constraints are found not to be negatively related to both radical creativity and intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 1b, in which intrinsic motivation is expected to positively influence radical creativity, can be confirmed. Finally, no evidence was found for a mediation effect as theorized in hypothesis 1c.
For incremental creativity, we found insignificant results regarding hypothesis 2 and 2b meaning that the effect of organizational constraints and job clarity on incremental creativity cannot be confirmed. Hypothesis 2a, which theorizes the effect of organizational constraints on job clarity, yields significant results. However, this relation is the opposite as is expected since it has a negative unstandardized coefficient. Also, no evidence was found for a mediation effect as theorized in hypothesis 2c.
Finally, if regression analyses are repeated with process and product constraints deviations occur when using process constraints. Hypothesis 1 and 1a become a positive significant relationship, which is the opposite as theorized. For the other hypotheses and for product constraints no relevant differences occur. All in all, the results of this study are mixed. Significance levels regarding incremental creativity are not sufficient to draw conclusions. Also some relationships are not as expected. Results do confirm the importance of intrinsic motivation regarding radical creativity.
5.1 Theoretical implications
of recent literature (e.g. Britt et al. 2012; Caniëls & Rietzschel, 2015, Clark & Walsh, 2016, Kuyumcu & Dahling, 2014, Pindek & Spector, 2016a, 2016b) still treats organizational constraints as a unitary construct. This study suggests that organizational constraints could be divided into the categories of product versus process constraints, as they tend to have different effects on the same performance criterion. Future research should therefore consider splitting organizational constraints into distinctive categories, since this could explain inconsistent results that were found.
Secondly, this study confirms that organizational constraints do not necessarily have to be perceived as a negative predictor. This study has shown that organizational constraints can have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation. To be more specific, process constraints are found to have a positive influence on the intrinsic motivation of that employee. Therefore this study counters on the ‘intrinsic motivation perspective’ developed by Amabile (1988) and studies following this line of reasoning (e.g. Shalley, Zhou & Oldham; 2004; Amabile et al., 2004). Although this work of Amabile used to be the dominant perspective in creativity literature, more recent studies shed new light on the constraints-creativity paradox. This study is consistent with this more new literature, confirming that organizational constraints can actually have a positive effect. Noted must be that this only holds for process constraints. Product constraints are not found to have a positive effect on creativity.
Besides, this study confirms the important role of intrinsic motivation in creative activities. Especially radical creativity benefits greatly of employees who are intrinsically motivated. This result is in line with work of Amabile (1988). Although no evidence for a mediation effect could be found, intrinsic motivation certainly is a key driver for radical creativity. The hypothesis regarding organizational constraints and job clarity could not be confirmed. Instead a negative effect was found. A possible explanation is that organizational constraints thrive in a situation where means and ends are unclear.
5.2 Managerial implications
unitary construct. Instead managers are required to carefully investigate separate organizational constraints and critically assess their impact. A distinction on process versus product constraints is relevant when organizations are constructing their constraints. For example, if an organization strives for more radical creativity a certain amount of process constraints is expected to have a positive effect. Product constraints on the other hand might, despite its insignificant results, might not be so beneficial. Managers should reconsider the different mechanisms that certain types of organizational constraints withhold.
Furthermore, as this study intended to demonstrate, the importance of intrinsic motivation is stressed within this research. Radical creativity is found to be highly related to intrinsic motivation. Managers therefore must realize that intrinsic motivation is of great relevance for incremental but especially radical creativity.
Finally, the results of this study indicate that organizational constraints negatively affect the amount of job clarity. Although this is not what theoretically was expected, since organizational constraints set clear boundaries for outcomes and processes and thus likely result in more clarified means and ends, it does indicate that employees perhaps do not always perceive constraints as illustrative. It is therefore critical that managers pay sufficient attention, when constructing organizational constraints, to make the exact meaning of these constraints completely clear. For example, if work rules and procedures or requirements for task outcomes are not clear communicated to employees, organizational constraints could have a reversed effect. Organizational constraints could then potentially cause means and ends to become unclear instead of clear.
5.3 Limitations
should consider not measuring creativity solely on a self-rated base, but instead also include the perception of relevant stakeholders. This could lead to better estimated levels of radical and incremental creativity.
Secondly, the use of Mturk as a platform to distribute online questionnaires is contentious. The primary, and probably only, reason why people participated in this research is a small financial reward. Although there were several control questions added to the survey to exclude participants with wrong intentions, the possibility remains that no representative data was gathered. A better alternative would be to distribute surveys via managers within companies. Participants then do not have a financial incentive for filling in the questionnaire. This could potentially reduce biases. A recommendation for future research would therefore to use data directly gathered from employees, and not via a platform in which participants are motivated by financial incentives.
Third, there is a good indication that participants are unable to distinguish properly between radical and incremental creativity. The Harman's Single Factor Test by forcing six items to load one factor indicates the two concepts are not distinguishable as the one factor explained 56 percent of the variance. Also the correlation between incremental and radical creativity was extremely high (r = .51, p < .01). This limitation is possibly also accountable for the insignificant results regarding the hypotheses about incremental creativity. To avoid such an issue, future research could consider avoiding self-reported creativity at the incremental level or developing an alternative measurement for incremental creativity.
5.4 Conclusion
conclusions. This study therefore suggests that future research in the field of the constraints-creativity paradox should use measures of distinctive types of creativity and organizational constraints. These measures can help to explain inconsistent results and reduce ambiguity. Also for future research, by not solely using self-reported creativity the measurement of creativity can be improved and more reliable and significant results can be derived.
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Explanatory factor analysisTABLE 1. Rotated component matrix for organizational constraints Component 1 2 Time .540 Money .766 Equipment .815 Human Resources .578 Information .675
Work rules and procedures .771 Requirements for task
outcomes .827
Customer needs .580
Business needs .744
