The influence of motivational factors on exploration and
exploitation
Author Mark Koomen
Student number S2394111
University University of Groningen
Faculty Economics and Business
Master Strategic Innovation Management
Topic Exploration and exploitation
Supervisor J.D. van der Bij
Date 23-6-2014
2
The influence of motivational factors on exploration
and exploitation
M. W. Koomena
J. D. van der Bijb, W. G. Biemansc
a s2394111 MSc BA Strategic Innovation Management
b First supervisor
C Second supervisor
Abstract
3
Introduction
Today`s organizations cannot survive without being ambidextrous (Davis, Eisenhardt, & Bingham, 2009). Ambidexterity refers to the ability of a firm to simultaneously exploit its existing competences (exploitation) and foster innovation to bring forth the products that will enhance future firm competitiveness (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; Levinthal & March, 1993). Tushman & O´Reilly (1996) found that a lot of big companies do not survive in the long run. An explanation why those companies do not survive is because it is difficult to manage radical changes (exploration). Other research stated that most companies struggle because they are seeking trade-offs between the opposing routines and logics underlying exploration versus exploitation (Hannan & Freeman, 1977, Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).
Research on ambidexterity is expanding. The amount of studies in leading management journals that refer to the ambidexterity concept increased to more than 80 in 2009 (Birkinshaw et al., 2009). A lot of those studies focus on ambidexterity on the organizational level. For example, Birkinshaw et al. (2009) explored four tensions on the organizational level and Jansen et al. (2006) examines implications for using formal and informal coordination mechanism. These researches are important in order to get a better understanding of ambidexterity on organizational level. But in the end employees are involved in realizing exploration and exploitation. A few studies suggest that individuals are an important factor to realize organizational ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Mom, van den Bosch & Volberda, 2007). Moreover, the importance of individual ambidexterity depends also on the context. When the context is unpredictable and dynamic, individual ambidexterity is thought to be crucial for success (Davis, Eisenhardt, & Bingham, 2009). Therefore, it is interesting to study how different factors on the individual level influence the different aspects of individual ambidexterity, which in turn influences organizational ambidexterity and long-term firm performances (Tushman & O´Reilly, 1996).
4 motivation on incremental and radical creativity. Incremental creativity is related to exploitation, but is not the same. Gilson & Madjar (2011) measured incremental creativity with different questions than how exploitation is measured in this study. To measure the level of creativity, they asked the participants if the activities involved refinements. Exploitation in this study is more than incremental creativity. In this study exploitation is the second stage of the innovation process (Hammond et al., 2011) which also involves for example implementation. In addition, the question used in this study to measure exploitation involves a wider range of subjects than only how radical the discoveries are (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). Therefore this study fills a gap by not only investigating the influence of intrinsic motivation on exploration, but also the influence of intrinsic motivation on exploitation. The other relationship that is often discussed in the literature is the influence of extrinsic motivation on exploration (Amabile, 1994; Deci & Ryan, 1991: Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Flardi, 1997). But also in this case the influence of extrinsic motivation on exploitation has not been tested. Again, Gilson & Madjar (2011) tested the relationship between extrinsic motivation and radical creativity, even if radical creativity has a lot in common with exploration, it is not the same and Gilson & Madjar (2011) used other questions to measure the construct. Therefore, this study fills another gap by exploring the influence of extrinsic motivation on exploitation. Next to that, this research investigates the influence of the moderator willingness to take risks on the relationships of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and exploitation and exploration. Previous research studied the influence of willingness to take risks on the exploration and exploitation (Gilson & Madjar, 2011), but here a moderator role of willingness to take risk is studied. The reason for choosing willingness to take risks as a moderator is because researchers found that it plays an important role in the creativity process (Hogarth, 1980; Kim, 1990). As already known, exploration is accompanied with more uncertainty than exploitation (March, 1991). And therefore it is interesting to investigate if willingness to take risks has different moderating effects on the different relationships investigated in this study. Following these gaps in the literature the next question has been formulated.
Research Question: What is the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on exploitation and exploration and how is this influence moderated by willingness to take risks?
This research contributes to the innovation literature by providing results of the influence of intrinsic motivation on exploitation. Because previous research focused a lot on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and exploration, it is not clear what the influence of intrinsic motivation is on exploitation because exploitation has different characteristics as compared to exploration. Furthermore, existing research is often about the direct and indirect influence of extrinsic motivation on exploration (Deci, 1977; Amabile, 1994; Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990; Bartis, Szymanski, & Harkins, 1988). But no research is about the relationship between extrinsic motivation and exploitation. This research sheds more light on this relationship.
5 motivational factors may have different kinds of influences on exploitation and exploration. The changes on the level of exploitation and/or exploration, through the different motivational factors, influence the balance between exploitation and exploration and thus individual ambidexterity.
The next section consists of the theoretical background. Thereafter will be described how the information in order to test the hypothesis has been gathered in the methodology section. In order to test the hypotheses a questionnaire has been developed and 97 students completed the questionnaire. Furthermore, the results from the research will be discussed and the last section consist of the discussion.
Background
In this section are first the independent variables intrinsic and extrinsic motivation described. Thereafter, the dependent variables exploration and exploitation are discussed. In addition, the relationships between the dependent and independent variables are hypothesized. Lastly, the moderator is discussed and the moderating effect on the relationships between the independent and dependent variables is hypothesized.
Motivational factors
The two motivational factors used for this study are intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. These factors are different from a social-psychological point of view and from the cognitive style perspective (Amabile, 1983; Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Amabile, 1997), and therefore may have the potential to influence exploitation and exploration in various ways.
Intrinsic motivation is derived from inside a person (Amabile, 1998) and the person secures a high level of attraction while the person is energized by the task itself (Zhou, 1998). Thus, from a social-psychological perspective, a person who is intrinsically motivated in an activity will experience the activity as an end in itself (Amabile, 1983). In addition, a person who is intrinsically motivated tends to prefer complexity and novelty (Pittman, Emergy, & Boggiano, 1982), and tends to seek higher levels of challenge and mastery experience (Zhou, 1998).
6 intrinsic motivation that are not specific to particular classes of activities but are more general for different kind of activities.
In contrast with intrinsic motivation extrinsic motivation comes from outside the person and is based on e.g. reward, recognition, competition and the dictates of other people (Amabile, 2006; Amabile et al., 1994). The motivation does not come from the activity itself (Amabile et al., 1994). A person that is extrinsically motivated will view the activity as a means to some extrinsic goal (Amabile, 1983). In addition, she explains that the more a person is single-mindedly oriented, the less likely it may be that different approaches for a problem will be explored. In contrast to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation can be seen as divided attention to the task itself and task relevant information. Thus, when a person is extrinsically motived, the probability that creativity heuristics of exploration, set breaking and risk taking will be applied decreases.
Other research contributes to this view by arguing that extrinsic rewards have a tendency to be perceived as controlling, and therefore, employees are less likely to be creative (Amabile, 1996; Amabile, Goldfarb & Brackfield, 1990).
Gilson & Madjar (2011) argue that extrinsic motivation may have the potential to discourage deep thinking because it can undermine intrinsic motivation, which is a necessary condition for deep thinking (Amabile, 1996). Extrinsic motivation can facilitate continuous search for adaptions, refinements and improvement (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). Therefore, external motivators may have the potential to discourage deep thinking and stimulate search for adaptions and refinements and improvements. On the other hand, signal theory (Gilson & Madjar, 2011) suggests that a person will focus on the things that are rewarded and valued. Therefore, when a manager rewards employees for creativity, the focus of the employees will be on creativity. For example, Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) found a positive relationship between monetary rewards and creativity.
Exploration and Exploitation
7 1991). The second stage of the innovation process (exploitation) includes, in contrast to the first stage (Hammond et al., 2011), things as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation and execution (March, 1991). It is not related to developing new and novel ideas, but more about small changes to existing practices and products and changes in frameworks and approaches (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). In more detail, an example is that different changes to a product will be assessed and the best option will be implemented (March, 1991). Because exploitation is about relatively small changes compared to exploration, it includes less uncertainty (March, 1991).
Intrinsic motivation and exploration
Previous research has often found a positive influence between intrinsic motivation and exploration (Amabile et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Hammond et al., 2011). An explanation for this positive relationship has to do with the cognitive processing part of intrinsic motivation that facilitates exploration. If intrinsic motivation increases, deeper processing, more experimentation and higher mental persistence occurs (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). And this leads to exploration because for exploration it is for example important to experiment (Hammond et al., 2011). Other researchers endorsed this argument by suggesting that the underlying cognitive processes that are present bypeople who are intrinsically motivated facilitate the kind of cognitive processes that are necessary for exploration (Amabile, 1996; Shally & Perry-Smith, 2011; Unsworth, 2011). Thus, the higher the level of intrinsic motivation, the more likely that exploration will occur.
Next to that, exploration deals with developing new ideas and concepts (Katila & Ahuja, 2002), and intrinsically motived people have a tendency to search for novel solutions for the problems or opportunities (Pittman, Emergy, & Boggiano, 1982). Therefore, the higher the level of intrinsic motivation, the higher the tendency to search for novel solutions for the problems or opportunities which facilitates exploration. Because of the positive results of previous research on the relationship between intrinsic motivation (Amabile et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Hammond et al., 2011) and exploration and the arguments described above (Amabile, 1996; Shally & Perry-Smith, 2011; Unsworth, 2011) the following hypothesis has been formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Intrinsic motivation has a positive influence on exploration
Intrinsic motivation and exploitation
8 Madjor, 2011). The focus is on the level of newness. Exploitation includes also refinement, but it can be described as a process, which includes an implementation stage (Hammond et al., 2011). And therefore the results of Gilson & Madjar (2011) are useful for this study.
An explanation for a positive relationship between these constructs concerns the implementation part of exploitation. The implementation stage can be full of obstacles and challenges. For example, people can provide resistance to change. Therefore it is important for the implementation stage to be persistent (Farr et al., 2003). Intrinsically motivated people meet that requirement because they are persistent (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). Thus, the more a person is intrinsically motivated, the more persistent the person is. Which in turn facilitates exploitation.
Next to that, Gilson & Madjar (2011) argue that intrinsic motivation is not effective for exploitation because exploitation is less dependent on deep cognitive processes, which is a characteristic of intrinsic motivation. This argument does not mean that intrinsic motivation has a negative influence on exploitation, but this argument suggest that there will not be a strong positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and exploitation. Because of the results of the research about the relationship between intrinsic motivation and radical creativity (Gilson & Madjar, 2011) and the explanation that supports the positive relationship about these to constructs the following hypothesis has been formulated:
Hypothesis 2: Intrinsic motivation has a positive influence on exploitation
Extrinsic motivation and exploration
A great deal of the social psychological research states that extrinsic motivation does not contribute to exploration. A lot of researchers discovered through laboratory experiments that extrinsically motivated people are less creative in a variety of tasks (Amabile, 1979, 1982a, 1985, 1987a; Amabile et al., 1994; Amabile & Gitomer, 1984; Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990; Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986; Bartis, Szymanski, & Harkins, 1988; Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984; Kruglanski, Friedman, & Zeevi, 1971), or found a negative relationship between extrinsic motivation and exploration(Amabile et al., 1994) and in another paper Amabile (1983) argues that primarily extrinsic motivation will undermine creativity.
An explanation for this negative relationship is that extrinsically motivated people do not use deep cognitive processes, which is important for exploration (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). In other words, people with a high level of extrinsic motivation are characterized with a low level of deep cognitive processes. This low level of deep cognitive processes has a negative influence on exploration.
9 exploration, but exploration has a lot in common with creativity because they both involve the generation of new products and concepts (Katila & Ahuja, 2002; Amabile, 1997). Deci & Ryan (1985) stated when somebody is distracted by extrinsic concerns, it will be more difficult to produce original ideas. Thus, extrinsic motivation will interfere with the generation of creative responses (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). Therefore the following hypothesis have been formulated:
Hypothesis 3: Extrinsic motivation has a negative influence on exploration
Extrinsic motivation and exploitation
Hypothesis 4 deals with the influence of extrinsic motivation on exploitation. This relationship has not been tested in the innovation literature. Just as with hypothesis 2, current research related to this topic shows a positive relationship between extrinsic motivation and incremental creativity (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). Again, incremental creativity is not the same as exploitation, but they are also not completely different.
An explanation for this positive relationship can be related to signal theory in combination with cognitive style theory. Signal theory suggest that a person will focus on the things that are rewarded and valued (Eisenberger, 1992). When for example, a manager rewards employees for incremental changes to existing products, their focus will remain on this kind of changes (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). And a reward is an extrinsic motivator that increases extrinsic motivation. Since extrinsic motivated people do not use deep cognitive processes (Gilson & Madjar, 2011), the changes will not be as radical as with exploration. Thus, it is expected that extrinsic motivation has a positive influence on exploitation. Therefore the following hypothesis have been formulated:
Hypothesis 4: Extrinsic motivation has a positive influence on exploitation
Willingness to take risks
10 interpret engagement in creativity as too risky and thus will experience some kind of uncertainty. In addition, exploration involves high levels of uncertainty and risks (Madjar et al., 2011). And as already earlier mentioned, creativity has a lot in common with exploration.
It is mentioned earlier that a high level of intrinsic motivation results in a higher level of cognitive processes that leads to exploration. These cognitive processes are deeper processing, more experimentation and higher mental persistence (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). A high level of willingness to take risks facilitates this relationship because the characteristic of willingness to take risks, immediately follow every opportunity, has a positive influence on the cognitive processes of intrinsic motivation, especially more experimentation, that facilitates exploration. And because a high willingness to take risks is associated with a positive attitude towards seizing every opportunity (Madjar et al. 2011), and does not feel some level of uncertainty, it is expected that a high level of willingness to take risks increases the positive influence of intrinsic motivation on exploration.
In contrast, a low level of willingness to take risks is associated with uncertainty avoiding behavior (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). And from a logical point of view the expectation is that uncertainty avoiding behavior decreases the cognitive processes of intrinsic motivation, especially more experimentation, which facilitates exploration. Experimentation involves a level of uncertainty because the outcome is unclear. Therefore, the expectation is that a low level of willingness to take risks weakens the positive influence of intrinsic motivation on exploration.
Hypothesis 5: The level of willingness to take risks positively moderates the intrinsic motivation exploration relationship
11
Hypothesis 6: The level of willingness to take risks positively moderates the intrinsic motivation exploitation relationship
It is expected that extrinsic motivation has a negative influence on exploration because inter alia, extrinsic motivated people have a tendency to see extrinsic rewards as controlling, and therefore they are less likely to have a high level of exploration (Amabile, 1996; Amabile, Goldfarb & Brackfield, 1990). When employees have the feeling that they will be controlled, they do not want to make mistakes and therefore will be cautious. This kind of behavior does not facilitate exploration, but it can be that a high level of willingness to take risks decreases the level of cautions of the employees which has a negative effect on exploration and therefore weakens the negative influence that extrinsic motivation has on exploration. The other way around, a low level of willingness to take risks increases the negative influence of cautions behavior on exploration. Therefore the following hypothesizes have been formulated:
Hypothesis 7: The level of willingness to take risks positively moderates the extrinsic motivation exploration relationship
Extrinsic motivation may discourage deep thinking and stimulate searching for adaption and refinement (Gilson & Madjar, 2011), which is positively related to exploitation. But a high level of willingness to take risks may encourage deep thinking which is positively associated with in exploration instead of exploitation (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). That is why it is expected that a high level of willingness to take risks weakens the positive effect of extrinsic motivation on exploitation. In contrast, a low willingness to take risks does not encourage deep thinking. A low willingness to take risks is associated with uncertainty avoiding behavior. However this consequence will not have a large negative effect between extrinsic motivation and exploitation because extrinsic motived employees will not experience a lot uncertainty with engaging in exploitation activities. The reason therefore is that the changes associated with exploitation are small, such as refinements (March, 1991). Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:
12 Figure 1: The conceptual model
Methodology
Data Collection
13
Measures
In order to measure all the constructs a 5-point Likert-type scale, with possible answers
ranging from 1 to 5, has been used.
Dependent variable. Eleven items were used to assess the two stages of innovation (Hammond et al., 2011). Seven items of exploration were used and four items of exploitation were used. To measure exploration and exploitation, the participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements related to their study or daily live. An example to measure exploration is ´´How often do you look for opportunities to improve things? ´´. An example to measure exploitation is ´´How often do you attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea? ´´
Independent variables. To measure the different kind of motivation for engaging in exploration or exploitation, the questionnaire contains questions about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The questions are derived from the paper of Amabile et al. (1994). They designed the Work Preference Inventory (WPI) to assess individual differences with respect to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The following two questions of the WPI have been used to measure intrinsic motivation: ´´I enjoy trying to
solve complex problems´´ and ´´The more difficult the problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it´´. To
measure extrinsic motivation the following question of the WPI have been used: ´´I am strongly
motivated by the [grades] [money] I can earn´´.
Moderator. To test the moderating effect of willingness to take risks on the relationship between the motivation factors and exploration and exploitation the following question have been used: ´´I like to
play it safe when I’m developing ideas to market this product´´ (Andrews & Smith, 1996).
Control variables. Conti et al. (2001) suggested gender differences in creative ability. Therefore gender have been used as a control variable. Other control variables used in this research are education level, age and experience with innovation processes. To explain why education level may influence innovative performance the reasoning of Amabile`s (1998) componential model of creativity is useful. She argue as individuals gain knowledge, the repository increases. The repository consist of ideas, facts, and cognitive scripts, which is helpful to create ideas for problems.
Analysis
14 and exploitation are respectively .837 and .724. The independent variable intrinsic motivation consist of two questions which loaded on the appropriate factor at .875 and .858. The analysis demonstrated acceptable reliabilities because the Cronbach Alpha is .638. The other independent variable extrinsic motivation consist of one questions which loaded at .995. The moderator willingness to take risks loaded also on the appropriate factor at .997.
Table 1 contains interitem correlations between all variables involved in this study and the descriptive statistics. On the diagonal are the construct reliabilities presented. As revealed by the table, extrinsic motivation has a significant positive influence on exploration (respectively β = ,203; p < .01), which was not expected (hypothesis 3).
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables (N = 97) Me an Stand. Dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.Explor. 3,26 0,59 ,837 2.exploit. 2,55 0,68 ,484** ,724 3.Intrin. mot 3,38 0,62 ,219* ,204 ,638 4.Extr. Mot. 4,13 0,91 ,203* ,144 ,140 5.Willing. 2,84 0,854 -,320** -,018 -,094 ,069 6.Age 19,5 9 1,459 ,250* ,096 ,025 -,123 -,140 7.Education level 1,58 0,497 -,071 -,055 ,107 ,041 ,158 -,351** 8.Gender 1,41 ,495 -,303** -,003 -,018 ,161 ,112 -,242* ,279** 9. Experience innovation process 3,23 0,864 -,425 -,301** -,138 ,030 ,208 -,203 ,123 ,224
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level ** Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level Note: The Cronbach`s coefficient alpha for each measure is on the diagonal in italics; the intercorrelations
among the measures are on the off diagonal.
15 Table 2 Factor loadings with Varimax Rotation
*Items identified as five factors: 1= Intrinsic motivation; 2= Extrinsic motivation; 3= Willingness to take risks;
4= Exploration; 5= Exploitation.
Note: black numbers indicate items that load highly for each of the five factors.
Results
The results of the relationship between the motivational factors and exploration and
exploitation
The results of the regression analysis are reported in table 3. Model 2 of table 3 shows that there is no evidence to support the influence of intrinsic motivation on exploration (β = ,114; p > .05). Therefore hypothesis 1 is not supported. Model 5 of table 3 shows that there is also not enough evidence for the relationship between intrinsic motivation and exploitation (β = ,144; p > .05). Therefore hypothesis 2 is also not supported. In contrast to hypothesis 3, model 2 of table 3 shows a positive influence of extrinsic motivation on exploration (β = ,205; p < .05). It was predicted that extrinsic motivation has a negative influence on exploitation, but model 2 of table 3 shows that there is
16 a positive relationship between those two constructs (Respectively β = ,144; p > .05). But the correlation between extrinsic motivation and exploitation is not significant (hypothesis 4).
The results of the moderating effect of willingness to take risks
As shown in model 3 of table 3, the moderator willingness to take risks has a positive influence on the relationship between extrinsic motivation and exploration (respectively β = 1,358; p < .01), which is unexpected (hypothesis 7). The moderating effect of willingness to take risks on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and exploration is positive, but not significant (respectively β =, 243; p > .05). Thus, there is no evidence that supports hypothesis 5. Model 6 of table 3 shows that the moderating effect of willingness to take risks on the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and exploitation is also not significant (respectively β = -, 819; p > .05, β = 395; p > .05). Therefore, there is not any evidence that could support hypothesis 6 and 8.
Model 3 of Table 3 shows a negative significant correlation between the control variable gender and exploration (respectively β = -.234; p < .05). Therefore, females have a more negative relationship with exploration related to male. Model 3 of table 3 shows also that the other control variable, experience with innovation process, has also a negative relationship with exploration and exploitation (β = -.325; p < .01; -.276; p <.05). Willingness to take risks has a negative influence on exploration (β = -1,472; p < .01).
Table 3: Regression Table
Exploration Exploitation
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
17
Adjusted R2 ,236 ,276 ,334 ,068 ,075 ,060
F-value 7,577 6,407 5,625 2,530 2,138 1,584
*Significant at the .05 level **significant at the .01 level
Discussion
The focus of this study is on the different innovation stages and the way in which the different motivational factors influence these innovation stages. Previous research shows often the influence of intrinsic motivation on exploration (Amabile et al., 1994; Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Hammond et al., 2011), but the influence of the motivational factor on exploitation has not been tested. In contrast with previous research (Amabile et al., 1994; Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Hammond et al., 2011), this study found no evidence for a positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and exploration. Another interesting finding is the positive relationship between extrinsic motivation and exploration, because a lot of studies show a negative relationship between those constructs (Amabile, 1979, 1982a, 1985, 1987a; Amabile & Gitomer, 1984; Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990; Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986; Bartis, Szymanski, & Harkins, 1988; Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984; Kruglanski, Friedman, & Zeevi, 1971).
An explanation for this finding can be related to the different types of extrinsic motivators. Amabile (1993) argues that there are different kind of extrinsic motivators which have different effects on exploration. Extrinsic motivators are divided into enabling extrinsic motivators and controlling extrinsic motivators. The first one can be conducive to exploration, especially if initial levels of intrinsic motivation are high. The second one can be detrimental to exploration. Examples of enabling extrinsic motivators are reward, and recognition (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In this study the subject of the construct extrinsic motivation is ’’getting a grade’’. This could be an enabling extrinsic motivator because someone can experience recognition by others when he has received a high grade.
This motivator can be positively related to exploration because they may support one`s sense of competence without undermining one`s sense of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985). These conditions positively contribute to intrinsic motivation, which has a positive influence on exploration (Amabile, 1993). Thus, some extrinsic motivators contribute positively to intrinsic motivation, which in turn has a positive influence on exploration.
18 leave room for interpretation. This increases the change that the construct is not significant.
Practical implications
Taking the results of this research into account, it is more important for managers to enhance the extrinsic motivation of employees rather than the intrinsic motivation of employees in order to increase exploration. It can be the case that when a manager focus on extrinsic factors, it will increase the intrinsic motivation which has a positive influence on exploration (Amabile, 1993). The extrinsic motivators which managers may focus on are recognition and reward because they have a positive influence on exploration through intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan).
The results of the regression analysis show that extrinsic motivation has a positive influence on one side of ambidexterity. Therefore, extrinsic motivators may be a possibility to achieve a higher level of exploration. This is important because a lot of companies have difficulties with the balance between exploration and exploitation, and have especially difficulties with the changing environment. And that is a reason why companies do not survive in the long run (Tushman & O´Reilly 1996). Therefore, it can be the case that when the level of exploration increases by increasing intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, it will be less difficult for companies to survive.
Theoretical implications
The innovation literature stated that intrinsic motivation facilitates exploration and that extrinsic motivation has no influence on exploration or is detrimental to exploration (Amabile, 2006). In contrast, this research shows that intrinsic motivation has no significant influence on exploration and that extrinsic motivation has a positive influence on exploration. Therefore, the innovation literature learns that extrinsic motivation can be more important for exploration than intrinsic motivation.
Limitations & future research
A limitation is that some constructs consist of one factor because otherwise the Cronbach’s alpha is too low. Further research could gather a larger sample and thus left with more factors per construct. Furthermore, the data is single source. For this study only primary data have been collected. Next to that, the data is only collected from students aged between 18 and 25. The downside of this sample is that the generalizability of the results are limited to the specific population and not to all employees.
For further research it is interesting to research which extrinsic motivational factors facilitate exploration and which one has the strongest influence. Further research could also investigate whether some motivators contribute more to exploration than exploitation or the other way around.
19 exploitation. There are different extrinsic motivators (controlling and enabling) that have a different influence on exploration. But it is unknown if there also are extrinsic motivators that have a negative influence on exploitation.
Reference list:
Albrecht, T. L., & Hall, B. J. (1991). Facilitating talk about new ideas: The
role of personal relationships in organizational innovation. Communication
Monographs, 58, 273–288.
Amabile, T. M., (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376
Amabile, T. M., (1993). "Motivational Synergy: Toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace," Human Resource Management Review. 3 : 185-201.
Amabile, T. M., (1997). Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do. California Management Review, 40, 39-58.
Amabile, T. M., (2006). How to kill creativity, Harvard Business Review, 77–87.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 950-967.
Andrews, J. & Smith, D. C., (1996). In Search of the Marketing Imagination: Factors Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs for Mature Products, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 174-187.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M., (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Conti, R., Collins, M. A., & Picariello, M. E. (2001). The impact of competition on intrinsic motivation and creativity: considering gender, gender segregation and gender role orientation.
Personality and individual differences, 31, 1273–1289.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
20 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.
Perspectives on motivation, 38, 237-288.
Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 27–45.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of Reward on Creativity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 728-741.
Farr, J. L., Sin, H.-P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2003). Knowledge management processes and work group innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed. The international handbook on innovation. New York: Elsevier Science Ltd.
George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management
Annals, 1, 439–477.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academic Management Journal, 20, 685-695.
Gilson. L. L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes.
Psychology of Aesthetics, creativity, and the Arts, 5, 21-28.
Gupta, A. K., Smith K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academic Management Journal, 4, 693–706.
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., & Schwall, A. R. (2011). Predictors of Individual-Level Innovation at Work: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 90-105.
Hogarth, R. (1980), Judgement and Choice. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort–reward fairness and
innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
21 Kim, S. H. (1990), Essence of Creativity. New York: Oxfor University Press.
Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95-112.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organizational science, 2, 71-87.
Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda H. W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal Management Studies, 44, 910–931.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGrawhill.
Osborn, A. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. New York: Schribner`s,
Rogers, C. (1954). Towards a theory of creativity. ETC: A review of general semantics, 187, 21-25.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, & L., Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big Five traits and its relations with authenticity and subjective well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393.
Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the Fantastic Four?
Knowledge combinations and experience in innovative teams. Academy
of Management Journal, 49, 723–740.
Zhou. J. (1998). Feedback Valence, Feedback Style, Task Autonomy, and Achievement Orientation: Interactive Effects on Creative Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261-276.
Appendix:
Vragenlijst
Deze vragenlijst hoort bij het onderzoek voor mijn master thesis aan de Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen. De antwoorden worden alleen gebruikt voor het onderzoek en er zijn geen
goede of foute antwoorden. Kruis bij elk vraag het vakje aan waarvan je denkt dat die het
beste bij je past.
22
Bij voorbaat dank!
Leeftijd:
Opleidings niveau:
Geslacht:
Hoe vaak…
Helemaal
niet vaak
Niet
Vaak
Soms
Vaak
Heel
vaak
1. ...Besteed je aandacht aan dingen die
niet studie gerelateerd zijn?
2. ...Kijk je naar mogelijkheden om dingen
te verbeteren tijdens bijbanen en/of in
het algemeen?
3. ...Overweeg je innovatieve
mogelijkheden tijdens werk, studie of
prive leven?
4. ...Onderzoek je nieuwe producten of
diensten tijdens werk, studie of prive
leven?
5. ...Ga je nieuwe werkmethodes,
-technieken of –instrumenten uitzoeken
tijdens de studie of werk?
6. ...Genereer je originele/creatieve
oplossingen voor problemen tijdens werk,
studie of prive leven?
7. ...Creeer je nieuwe ideeën tijdens werk,
studie of prive leven?
8. ...Vind je nieuwe benaderingen om
taken uit te voeren tijdens werk, studie of
prive leven?
9. ...Mobiliseer je financiële steun voor
innovatieve
ideeën?
10 ...Krijg je toestemming voor nieuwe
ideeën (bijvoorbeeld tijdens innovatieve
projecten op school)?
23
innovatieve ideeën?
12. ...Probeer je mensen te overtuigen
om een innovatief idee te steunen?
13. ...Introduceer je systematisch
innovatieve ideeën in je werkzaamheden
tijdens de studie?
14. ...Lever je een bijdrage aan de
implementatie van nieuwe ideeën tijdens
werk, studie of prive leven?
15. ...Steek je energie in de
(uit)ontwikkeling van nieuwe dingen?
In hoeverre ben je het eens met de
volgende stellingen?
Helemaal
mee
oneens
Niet
mee
eens
soms
mee
eens
Helemaal
mee
eens
16. Ik vind het leuk om complexe
problemen op te lossen.
17. Des te ingewikkelder het probleem,
des te leuker vind ik het om het proberen
op te lossen.
18. Ik wil dat mijn werk me
mogelijkheden bied voor het vergroten
van mijn kennis en vaardigheden.
19. Nieuwsgierigheid is de drijfveer van
veel van wat ik doe.
20. Ik wil plezier hebben in wat ik doe
21. Ik word sterk gemotiveerd als ik
ergens een cijfer voor krijg.
24
