Master thesis, MscHRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business June 16, 2019
MARK VAN BREUKELEN Studentnumber: s2393085
Koeriersterweg 25-43 9727 AC Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6-30333466
E-mail: m.j.van.breukelen.1@student.rug.nl Supervisor/ university
Y. Shao
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor Miss Yan Shao for giving
me direction and providing me with valuable feedback. Without her support, it would have
been almost impossible to write this thesis. I also wish to thank Tim Vriend for the help with
completing the results section.
TIME ALLOCATION IN A PROCESS TOWARDS INNOVATION: CAN TIME ALLOCATION INCREASE PRODUCT NOVELTY AND USEFULNESS?
ABSTRACT
The process towards innovation can be divided into two stages: idea generation and idea implementation. Recent studies have focused on the separate stages and found that more time in idea generation promotes intrinsic motivation leading to more creative outcomes and too much time in idea implementation might be counterproductive. The debate now turns to look in more detail into the optimal allocation of time between the stages of innovation. Three different time allocations are investigated in experimental set-up. Outcomes of multiple regression analyses suggest that allocating time to less time for idea generation and more time for idea implementation, leads to a higher degree of product novelty and usefulness, which differs from our hypotheses. Next to this, more time for idea generation increased idea
originality and idea originality was found to be important for product novelty. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
Keywords: Time allocation, Innovation, Novelty, Usefulness
INTRODUCTION
Workplace creativity and innovation are crucial for organizational success,
competiveness and long-term survival (Nonaka, 1991; Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy, 2009). For this reason, teams and individuals are expected to focus on creativity and innovation more and more (Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, 2011). Most previous research defined creativity as the generation of novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996, Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, &
Herron 1991; Zhou & Shalley, 2003), whereas innovation is seen as the successful
implementation of these creative ideas within an organization (e.g., West, 2002). Innovation is widely accepted as a process with multiple stages. In the first stage, individuals and teams need to use their creative abilities to develop ideas. Organizations try to harness creative ideas of their employees to create a competitive advantage (Anderson, De Drue, Nijstad, 2004).
Subsequently, in another stage, these ideas will need to be implemented to achieve innovation (Amabile, 1988). Further developing our knowledge about the best circumstances in which innovation thrives, helps managers reducing the sunk costs associated with the failure to implement creative ideas (Levitt, 2002).
Fostering innovation is a challenging endeavor as teams and individuals are
confronted with a variety of constraints that can hinder creative outcomes (e.g., Roskes, 2015;
Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001). One of the most important constraints is time. Most research focuses on only one of the two stages of innovation, either idea generation (e.g., Amabile, Goldfarb & Brackfleld, 1990) or idea implementation (e.g., Gollwitzer, Heckhausen and Steller, 1990). As a result, current research lacks a more holistic view in which, the whole process including both idea generation and implementation are considered. Time schedules are often predetermined in the innovative process. Time will need to be divided in time for idea generation and time for the implementation of the idea. This trade-off between idea generation and idea implementation should be considered with great care.
For idea generation to be successful, individuals need a high amount of time to generate ideas to grant individuals time and space to think creatively (Amabile &
Gryskiewicz, 1987). Research by Deci and Ryan (2000) suggests that being unconstrained by
time during idea generation can positively influence intrinsic motivation. This in turn results
in a higher degree of creativity (Amabile, 1983). As creativity is defined as the generation of
novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996; Amabile, et al., 1996), having more novel and useful
ideas could be an explanation for the fact that some teams produce more innovative outcomes
than others (Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
In idea implementation individuals and teams are trying to reach specific goals which guides and regulates its activity (Locke, 2000). Time constraints will help individuals
reaching these goals by protecting them from distractions during idea implementation (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). This suggests that allocating time to more time for idea generation than for idea implementation can positively influence innovation. However, restricting the time for implementation may also kill the opportunity to implement high quality ideas to achieve innovation. Scholars found that individuals use time in the
implementation stage to modify their generated ideas (Paulus, 2002). Given the ambivalent argument, it is necessary and important to empirically test how time allocation affects final innovation.
Previous research focuses on individual idea generation (e.g., Rietzschel, Nijstad &
Stroebe, 2010) or idea implementation, but currently there is no research available on which allocation time is the most effective for individuals creating novel and useful innovative outcomes, considering both phases of innovation (Rosing, Bledow, Frese, Baytalskaya, Johnson Lascano & Farr, 2018). Thus, our research question is:
“Which allocation of time is most effective to increase innovation during the different phases of the innovation process?”
We expect that having more time for idea generation and less time for idea
implementation leads to more innovation. To test this hypothesis, a laboratory experiment is conducted to investigate the relationship between time allocation and innovation.
The rest of this paper will be structured as follows: First, a review of existing literature on innovation and time constraints is given. Second, the key concepts and the hypotheses are discussed, and a conceptual model is introduced. Next, the proposed methodology to
investigate this gap in literature is stated and the results will be presented. Finally, a
discussion and conclusion will discuss theoretical and practical implications, limitations of the
study and suggestions for future research.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
It is widely acknowledged that innovation is crucial for organizational performance, growth and competitiveness (e.g., Prajogo & Sohal, 2006; Tellis et al., 2009). As a result of global competition, employee creativity is used by firms as a resource for change and innovation (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). This resulted in scholars developing more interest in creativity and innovation (e.g., Baer, 2012; Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez & Farr, 2009). Innovation is seen as a process with multiple stages, in which the different phases of innovation are affected by a variety of individual and contextual variables (Caniëls &
Rietzschel, 2015). Researchers have identified two (e.g., Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall &
Zhao, 2011), three (e.g., West & Farr, 1989; Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003; Rietzschel, 2011), four (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010) or five (Amabile, 1983) different stages in the creativity and innovation process (Caniëls & Rietzschel, 2015). Despite the different views, in most literature idea generation and idea implementation are two distinct phases that are
critical for innovation (e.g., Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson & Harrington, 2000;
Baer, 2012; Bledow et al., 2009). The generation of ideas is frequently seen as the logical and necessary predecessor of idea implementation (Amabile, 1988), but in reality, generation and implementation of ideas are interchangeable (Anderson et al., 2004). However, even if creative ideas are generated, idea implementation is not self-evident (Sohn & Jung, 2010).
In order to identify the circumstances that foster or inhibit the innovative process, one of the most studied subjects is the effect of time constraints in idea generation and
implementation. Nevertheless, research on the effects of different amounts of time at different phases in the innovation process is scarce (Rosing et al., 2018).
Time in idea generation and implementation
In the multistage process of innovation, time is often constrained. If time is
constrained, individuals will have to allocate time in such a way that both idea generation and
idea implementation remain successful. Spending time in one phase, will preclude time in the
other. Some teams fail because they move to quickly to the implementation phase and neglect
taking the time to generate creative ideas, others fail because they focus too much on the
generation of ideas and fail to implement these (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). Although time is
important for both stages of innovation, we argue that if time is given, teams and individuals
should allocate their time in such a way, that more time is used to generate ideas than to
implement these ideas.
Time has shown to be crucial for idea generation (Richtnér & Åhlström, 2010). In idea generation, time is needed to generate ideas because individuals need to be granted time and space to think creatively and useful creativity takes time (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1987;
Gruber & Davis, 1988). When time constraints are in place, individuals are less likely to engage in cognitive tasks (Ordonez & Benson, 1997). Research suggests that teams that want to move quickly to the implementation phase, are more likely to go with their first idea.
Alternatives are rarely considered in these teams, which leads to a decrease in creative
outcomes (Meadow, Parnes & Reese, 1959). Furthermore, experiencing little time constraints is found to improve idea generation (Amabile et al., 1990). This suggests that idea generation, will be positively influenced if time is unconstraint.
In the idea implementation stage individuals need to be limited in time in order to start implementing ideas. To create an innovative product and not merely a novel idea,
implementation activities will need to start at some point during the innovative process (Baer, 2012). Teams that fail to start acting on the generated ideas, will eventually fail to present an innovative outcome at the end of a project (Gersick, 1988). Contradictory to idea generation, the characteristic that defines idea implementation is that individuals and teams try to reach specific goals which guides and regulates its activity (Locke, 2000). Research pointed out that employees that worked under time constraints in creativity projects showed higher levels of
‘activation’ (Gardner, 1990). For the implementation of ideas an action-oriented mindset is required to keep individuals concentrated and focused on goal attainment (Gollwitzer et al., 1990). Limited time is needed because the time constraints make individuals more protected from distractions (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010) and will activate individuals to start
implementing ideas (Baer, 2012). This suggests that idea implementation will be positively influenced if time is constrained.
Building on the definition of innovation as the implementation of novel and useful ideas
(West, 2002), the first hypotheses are created. We hypothesize that the allocation of time to
more time at an earlier stage in the innovation process, instead of at a later stage will be
positive for product usefulness (Hypothesis 1a). Furthermore, we hypothesize that the
allocation of time to more time at an earlier stage in the innovation process, instead of at a
later stage will be positive for product novelty (Hypothesis 2a).
Time allocation on idea feasibility and idea originality
Past research suggests that both novelty and usefulness are important characteristics of innovative outcomes (Amabile, 1983; Anderson, Potočnik, &, 2014). We expect that
influencing time allocation leads to usefulness and novelty when ideas are more feasible and original. Experiencing more time during idea generation can increase the feasibility and originality of ideas because being unconstrained by time results in more individual intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The self-determination theory by Deci and Ryan (2000) states that constraints reduce creative thinking because the external constraint is reducing intrinsic motivation and the perception of control and, therefore, creativity. Early research on creativity by Amabile (1983) argued that engaging in an activity with primarily intrinsic motivation will enhance creativity. Scholars confirmed this and found that more original solutions are generated by individuals that are intrinsically motivated (Grant & Berry, 2011).
This suggests that more time for idea generation leads to more intrinsic motivation and thereby original and feasible ideas. Following this line of argument, we hypothesize that the allocation of time to more time for idea generation will lead to more idea feasibility
(Hypothesis 1b). Next to this, we hypothesize that the allocation of time to more time for idea generation will lead to more idea originality (Hypothesis 2b).
Ideas need to be useful to ensure that a product or service creates value (Montag, Maertz & Baer, 2012). Idea feasibility is needed in order to improve innovation (e.g., Baer, Leenders, Oldham & Valdera, 2010). In similar vein, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1c: Idea feasibility will lead to more product usefulness.
As a result, the allocation of time to more time in idea generation is expected to positively influence the generation of feasible ideas and this may lead to more useful
outcomes. We, therefore, hypothesize: Hypothesis 1d: The relationship between the allocation of time and product usefulness is mediated by idea feasibility.
Idea originality is important for innovation. In explaining the commercial success or
failure of innovations, the degree of novelty and originality is found to be a major factor
(Duhamel & Santi, 2012). Research shows that idea originality is critical for triggering and
sustaining innovation (Olson, Cooper & Slater, 1998). Because of this, we expect that idea
originality can lead to a more novel innovation. We hypothesize: Idea originality will lead to
more product novelty (Hypothesis 2c).
As a result, the allocation of time to more time in idea generation is expected to positively influence the generation of original ideas and this may lead to more novel outcomes. We, therefore, hypothesize: The relationship between the allocation of time and product novelty is mediated by idea originality (Hypothesis 2d).
Taken all together, the following conceptual model is tested in this paper:
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Model
METHOD
The figure below presents three possible time configurations (low-high, high-low and half-half) across the two stages of the innovative process: idea generation and idea
implementation. In current literature it is unclear which configuration is increasing or decreasing the final innovation outcomes of novelty and usefulness.
FIGURE 2
Three possible time allocation in two phases of innovation
Data, Sample and Research Design
The hypotheses were tested in a laboratory experiment conducted in a research lab during the period of February 2019 until March 2019. A sample of 196 students was collected to ensure statistical power. The participants were randomly divided into three groups with different conditions. The first group had four minutes for idea generation and eight minutes for idea implementation, the second group had six minutes for idea generation and six minutes for idea implementation and the third group had eight minutes for idea generation and four minutes for idea implementation. For simplicity purposes, the group with less time for idea generation and more time for idea implementation will be called “LIG”, the group with medium time for idea generation and medium time for idea implementation will be called
“MIG” and the group for high time for idea generation and less time for idea implementation will be called “HIG”. The average age of the participants was 22.09 (SD=2.91) which clearly shows that the sample size was based on young adults, in this case students. 62 percent of the participants were female, 38 percent male and no participants were transgender.
We investigated the distinct effects of different amounts of time in different phases of
innovation (Hypotheses 1a & 2a) and the expected mediation by idea originality and idea
feasibility (Hypotheses 1b, 1c, 1d, 2b, 2c & 2d).
Procedure
The participants were set behind a computer and were first asked to fill in a consent form. After the consent form, the participants were randomly divided into the three
conditions, in which the task was the same. Participants were asked to design a poster as useful and novel as possible within a certain amount of time given the condition the participant was in. All participants received these instructions,
‘‘Poster Design Campaign. Please read the following scenario:
A new animal rights charity named Animal Rights Protection, or in short ARP, is struggling to survive. The charity focuses its attention on a variety of animal rights issues such as wildlife hunting, habitat loss, and stray animal adoptions. The organization needs more volunteers and donations if they want to keep fighting for their beliefs. As a last resort to save their organization, they organize a poster design campaign. You are asked to
participate in this campaign.
In the following, you will have 12 minutes in total to generate and implement your ideas for the poster. You will be provided with colored pencils, pen, pencil sharpener, eraser and paper to design the poster at the implementation stage. The best three posters will be rewarded with an extra 25 euros, on top of the money or research points for participation.”
After a page with instructions, the experiment started with the idea generation phase.
Depending on the condition, the participant had four, six or eight minutes to identify possible poster ideas. The participants were shown the following instructions: “Animal Rights
Protection (ARP) focuses its attention on a variety of animal rights issues such as wildlife hunting, habitat loss, and stray animal adoptions. This organization wants to attract more volunteers and donations.
To design a really good poster for ARP, it is necessary to spend time thinking about different creative ideas. Please generate as many novel, and useful ideas as possible about how a poster for the Animal Rights Protection should look like (an idea may consist of a slogan, and a rough proposal of which elements you are going to include in your poster).
Novel means as unique as possible. Useful means that it can effectively attract more donations and volunteers.”
When the idea generating phase was over, information about the implementation phase
would appear. Participants would receive instructions to grab a box beneath their table. This
contained colored pencils, a pencil sharpener, an eraser, a pencil and two pieces of paper.
After this page, the experiment started with the idea implementation phase. Depending on the condition, the participant had four, six or eight minutes to create a poster. After the
experiment, participants were asked some final questions about perceived stress, experience in experiments and control variables like gender and age.
Measures
Time Allocation. Time allocation was put in place by creating the three different conditions. Participants were randomly divided in conditions with different time allocations.
The conditions were the LIG-condition (4 minutes versus 8 minutes), the MIG-condition (6 minutes versus 6 minutes), and the HIG-condition (8 minutes versus 4 minutes).
Usefulness. Usefulness was measured by scoring the posters that participants
produced on six items generated by Wu, Nijstad and Yuan (2017) all using a three-point scale.
This was done using the consensual assessment technique (Amabile, 1983). To increase the reliability of the subjective opinion of one judge, 30 posters of participants were rated
separately by another independent judge, blind to experimental conditions. The comparison of the scores showed a high reliability on usefulness (α = .95). The rest of the posters were rated by one judge. Items used were for example ‘The poster clearly states that it wants donations or volunteers from the audience’ and ‘Overall, the poster can attract donations or volunteers.’
All the items of the scale can be found in Appendix A.
Novelty. Novelty was measured by scoring the posters that participants produced on six items generated by Wu et al. (2017) all using a three-point scale. This was done using the consensual assessment technique (Amabile, 1983). To increase the reliability of the subjective opinion of one judge, 30 posters of participants were rated separately by another independent judge, blind to experimental conditions. The comparison of the scores showed a high
reliability on novelty (α = .97). The rest of the posters were rated by one judge. Items used were for example ‘The physical appearance of the poster is original’ and ‘The ways of artistic expression of ideas (e.g., hyperbole) are original.’ All the items of the scale can be found in Appendix A.
Idea Originality. The originality of ideas was measured assessing the originality of
ideas generated by participants in the idea generation phase of the experiment. The originality
was measured on a three-point scale (1= the idea is not original at all, 3= the idea is very original). For each of the ideas, a subjective originality score was given by a judge and the average score across all ideas generated by a participant resulted in an originality score for each participant.
Idea Feasibility. The feasibility of ideas was measured assessing the feasibility of ideas generated by participants in the idea generation phase of the experiment. The feasibility was measured on a three-point scale (1 = The poster cannot be easily translated into a poster, the idea is not useful for implementation at all, 3 = The poster can easily be translated into a poster, the idea is very useful for implementation). For each of the ideas, a subjective feasibility score was given by a judge and the average score across all ideas generated by a participant resulted in a feasibility score for each participant.
Gender. Gender was measured by asking participants the question: “What is your gender”. Gender was coded “0” for male, “1” for female and “2” for transgender.
Age. Age was measured by asking participants the question: “What is your age, please enter a number”.
With help of the program SPSS, first a regression analysis was conducted to test the main effects of time allocation on usefulness (Hypothesis 1a) and novelty (Hypothesis 2a).
PROCESS macro Model 4 by Hayes (2017) was used to conduct a multiple regression
analysis to test the expected mediating effects of idea feasibility (Hypotheses 1b, 1c, 1d) and
idea originality (Hypothesis 2b, 2c, 2d) on these relationships. Furthermore, demographic
characteristics of participants are compared.
RESULTS
To get a better understanding of the data, first the descriptive statistics were
investigated. The descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), Cronbach’s alphas and bivariate correlations of the variables used in the models are presented in Table 1. A regression analysis was used to investigate the main effects and in order to test the other hypotheses, PROCESS macro Model 4 was used twice (Hayes, 2017). The first time to test whether time allocation to more time for idea generation resulted in more poster usefulness compared to the group with less time for idea generation (Hypothesis 1a). The second time to test whether time allocation to more time for idea generation resulted in more poster novelty compared the group with less time for idea generation (Hypothesis 2a). The results are presented in Table 2. With the help of PROCESS macro Model 4, the direct effect of time allocation to less time for idea generation on idea feasibility (Hypothesis 1b) was tested. Then the direct effect of idea feasibility on usefulness (Hypothesis 1c) was investigated and the expected mediation effect of idea feasibility (Hypothesis 1d) was discussed. The results are presented in Table 3. Next, the direct effect of time allocation to less time for idea generation on idea originality (Hypothesis 2b) was tested, followed with the direct effect of idea
originality on novelty (Hypothesis 2c). Lastly, the expected mediating effect of idea
originality (Hypothesis 2d) was investigated. The results are presented in Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics
The first interesting observation about the correlations was that Table 1 shows that gender had significant correlations with the average originality of ideas (r=-.21, p=<.01), the novelty of a poster (r=.15, p=<.05) and the usefulness of a poster (r=.21, p=<.01). These relationships between gender and other variables made it interesting to include gender in the regression analysis. Gender was, therefore, used as a covariate. Next to this, time allocation to less time for idea generation had a positive correlation with average originality of the poster (r=.16, p=<.05) and a negative correlation with average usefulness of the poster (r=-.16, p=<.05). The expected relationship between time allocation and the average feasibility of the ideas was not found (r=.04, p>.10). Furthermore, the average novelty of a poster was related to the average originality of a participant’s ideas (r=.19, p=<.01).
TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics
Variable
Mean SD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Age 22.09 2.91 -
2. Gender .63 .49 -.04 -
3. TimeAllocation 1.99 .82 -.05 -.10 -
4. Originality 1.80 .54 -.09 -.21** .16* -
5. Feasibility 2.66 .45 -.10 .11 .04 -.02 -
6. Novelty 1.77 .48 -.07 .15* -.10 .19** .01 (.78) 7. Usefulness 1.79 .45 .04 .21** -.16* -.06 .12 .37** (.66) Notes. N = 192. Cronbach’s alpha’s between parentheses on the diagonal. † p<.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Regression analyses: Main effects
In order to estimate and test hypotheses about a casual influence from time allocation on poster novelty and poster usefulness, regression analyses were conducted. Table 2 below shows that participants assigned to the group with more time for idea generation made significantly less useful posters than participants in the group with less time for idea generation (β = -.15, p = .05). This suggests that Hypothesis 1a should be rejected. When novelty was tested, it was found that participants with more time for idea generation made posters that were less novel. However, this effect was not significant (β = -.10, p = .24), suggesting that Hypothesis 2a is not supported.
TABLE 2
Regression Analyses main effects
Usefulness Usefulness Usefulness Novelty Novelty Novelty Model 1a Model 2a Model 3a Model 1b Model 2b Model 3b Intercept 1.49*** (.25) 2.86*** (.26) 1.55*** (.25) 1.90*** (.27) 1.96*** (.28) 1.94*** (.28) Gender .20** (.07) .19** (.07) .19** (.07) .15** (.07) .14* (.07) .14* (.07) Age .01 (.01) .01 (.01) -.01 (.01) -.01 (.01) -.01 (.01) -.01 (.01)
LIG vs MIG -.04 (.08) -.02 (.09)
LIG vs HIG -.15† (.08) -.10 (.08)
MIG vs LIG .04 (.08) .02 (.09)
MIG vs HIG -.12 (.08) -.08 (.09)
R .22 .26 .27 .16 .19 .19
R2 .05 .07 .07 .03 .04 .04
Notes. N = 192. Standard Errors between parentheses. Models 2a and 2b had low time for idea generation as reference point for dummy variables and Models 3a and 3b had medium time for idea generation as reference point for dummy variables.
a Reference point for dummy variables coded as ‘‘0” (reference category) versus ‘‘1” (non-reference category).
† p<0.10, * p <0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Multiple Regression Analysis: Mediation Effects
In order to test the hypotheses about the mediating roles of the average originality of ideas and the average feasibility of ideas, mediation analyses were conducted using Model 4 in the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2017). The different constructs of the mediation models were tested by a multiple regression analysis. In Table 3 and 4 the results are presented.
First, the mediating effect of idea feasibility was tested. Hypothesis 1b predicted that the allocation of time to more time for idea generation would lead to more idea feasibility.
Models 1a and 1b in Table 3 show that none of the time allocations had a significant effect on the average feasibility of ideas (β = .08, p = .33, β = .05, p = .55 and β = -.03, p = .71), which suggests that Hypothesis 1b should be rejected. Hypothesis 1c predicted that more idea feasibility would lead to more product usefulness. Model 2a in Table 3 presents a non-
significant positive relationship between the average feasibility of ideas and poster usefulness (β = .11, p = .14). This suggests that Hypothesis 1c should be rejected.
Hypothesis 1d predicted that the relationship between the allocation of time and usefulness was mediated by idea feasibility. Model 2a shows that participants in the HIG- group made significantly less useful posters than participants in the LIG-group when the average feasibility of ideas was introduced into the analysis (β = -.16, p =.04). Even though this effect was found to be significant, the other constructs of the mediation are not. Models 1a, 2a, 1b and 2b in Table 3 suggest that no mediating effect of idea feasibility is found and, therefore, Hypothesis 1d is rejected.
Next, the mediating effect of idea originality was tested. Hypothesis 2b predicted that the allocation of time to more time for idea generation would lead to more idea originality.
Models 1a and 1b in Table 4 show that participants in the HIG-group had a marginally significant higher average of idea originality than participants in the LIG-group (β = .18, p = .06). This suggests that Hypothesis 2b should be supported. Hypothesis 2c predicted that more idea originality would lead to more product novelty. Model 2a in Table 4 presents a
significant positive relationship between the average originality of ideas and poster novelty (β
= .22, p < .01). Hypothesis 2c was, therefore, supported.
Hypothesis 2d predicted that the relationship between the allocation of time and
novelty was mediated by idea originality. Even though the effect of average originality of
ideas on poster novelty was found to be significant, the other constructs were only marginally
significant. Models 1a, 2a, 1b and 2b in Table 4 suggest that idea originality was a mediator
for the relationship between time allocation and novelty. To confirm this, the indirect effect stated in the PROCESS output (Hayes, 2017) was considered. The indirect effect of more time for idea generation and less for idea implementation presented a 95 percent confidence interval that did not contain zero [.01,.09]. Since zero was excluded, mediation has occurred for this group comparison. Hypothesis 2d is, therefore, supported.
TABLE 3
Mediation effect of Idea Feasibility on Time Allocation and Usefulness
Usefulness Feasibility Usefulness Feasibility Usefulness Model 0 Model 1a Model 2a Model 1b Model 2b Intercept 1.49*** (.25) 2.86*** (.26) 1.28*** (.33) 2.94*** (.26) 1.24*** (.33) Gender .20** (.07) .10 (.07) .18** (.07) .10 (.07) .18** (.07) Age .01 (.01) -.01 (.01) .01 (.01) -.01 (.01) .01 (.01)LIG vs MIG .08 (.08) -.05 (.08)
LIG vs HIG .05 (.08) -.16* (.08)
MIG vs LIG -.08 (.08) .05 (.08)
MIG vs HIG -.03 (.08) -.11 (.08)
AverageFeasibility .11 (.07) .11 (.07)
R .22 .15 .28 .16 .28
R2 .05 .02 .08 .02 .08
Notes. N = 192. Standard Errors between parentheses. Models 1a and 2a have low time for idea generation as reference point for dummy variables and Models 1b and 2b have medium time for idea generation as reference point for dummy variables.
a Reference point for dummy variables coded as ‘‘0” (reference category) versus ‘‘1” (non-reference category).
† p<0.10, * p <0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
TABLE 4
Mediation effect of Idea Originality on Time Allocation and Novelty
Novelty Originality Novelty Originality Novelty Model 0 Model 1a Model 2a Model 1b Model 2b
Intercept 1.90*** (.27) 2.21*** (.31) 1.48*** (.31) 2.33*** (.31) 1.48*** (.31) Gender .15** (.07) -.22** (.08) .19** (.07) -.22** (.08) .19** (.07)
Age -.01 (.01) -.02 (.01) -.01 (.01) -.02 (.01) -.01 (.01)
LIG vs MIG .12 (.10) -.04 (.08)
LIG vs HIG .18† (.10) -.14† (.08)
MIG vs LIG -.12 (.10) .04 (.08)
MIG vs HIG .06 (.09) -.10 (.08)
Originality .22** (.06) .22** (.06)
R .16 .27 .30 .16 .28
R2 .03 .07 .09 .02 .08
Notes. N = 192. Standard Errors between parentheses. Models 1a and 2a have low time for idea generation as reference point for dummy variables and Models 1b and 2b have medium time for idea generation as reference point for dummy variables.
a Reference point for dummy variables coded as ‘‘0” (reference category) versus ‘‘1” (non-reference category).
† p<0.10, * p <0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Conclusions Hypotheses
Hypotheses Supported/not supported
Hypothesis 1a: The allocation of time to more time at an earlier stage in the innovation process, instead of at a later stage will be positive for product usefulness
Not supported (negative marginally significant effect instead of positive)
Hypothesis 1b: The allocation of time to more time for idea generation and less time for idea implementation will lead to more idea feasibility
Not supported (non-significant effect)
Hypothesis 1c: Idea feasibility will lead to more product usefulness
Not supported (non-significant effect)
Hypothesis 1d: The relationship between the allocation of time and product usefulness is mediated by idea feasibility.
Not supported (non-significant constructs)
Hypothesis 2a: The allocation of time to more time at an earlier stage in the innovation process, instead of at a later stage will be positive for product novelty
Not supported (negative non-significant effect)
Hypothesis 2b: The allocation of time to more time for idea generation will lead to more idea originality
Supported (marginally significant effect)
Hypothesis 2c: Idea originality will lead to more product novelty
Supported (significant effect)
Hypothesis 2d: The relationship between the allocation of time and product novelty is mediated by idea originality.
Supported
DISCUSSION
Previous research on innovation implies that the multi-stage process towards innovation is influenced by time constraints (e.g., Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). However, the information about implementing different amounts of time in different phases of innovation is scarce (Rosing et al., 2018). This paper is aimed at filling this gap in literature and give valuable insights about the most effective way of time allocation in order to create the best innovative outcomes. Three conditions with different time allocations were used to investigate the novelty and usefulness of innovations because these characteristics are vital for innovation (Amabile, 1983; Anderson et al., 2014). The first finding was that an allocation of time to more time for idea implementation led to more useful innovations than an allocation of time to more time for idea generation. This effect was not found for the novelty of innovations.
These findings suggest that merely generating creative ideas is not enough and ideas need to be acted upon in order to create successful innovation (Bledow et al., 2009). Furthermore, females made more novel and useful innovative outcomes than males in all the time allocations. Next, the study showed that the relationship between time allocation and
usefulness is not explained by idea feasibility. This can possibly be explained by the fact that individuals develop more feasible and useful solutions when they are considering the
perspective of others (Grant & Berry, 2011). Since the poster design task was performed alone, individuals could have been less keen to reduce uncertainty by choosing for well- known practices (Mueller, Melwani & Goncalo, 2011), and instead choose for more novel rather than useful outcomes. Furthermore, the relationship between time allocation and novelty is found to be partially explained by the average originality of the ideas. The last is consistent with existing research suggesting that more time for idea generation leads to more original ideas (e.g., Amabile et al., 1990).
Theoretical contribution
This study has contributions for different areas of academic research. First, the study builds on other innovation research that states that resource allocation in projects is directly related to the level of creativity found in this project (e.g., Delbecq & Mills, 1985;
Damanpour, 1991). Our results confirmed that a difference in effectiveness of time allocations
exists, filling a gap in creativity research pointed out by Rosing et al. (2018). Our findings
imply that having less time for idea generation and more time for idea implementation creates
the most novel and useful outcomes. These findings are conflicting with research focusing on idea generation (e.g., Amabile et al., 1990) and idea implementation (e.g., Gollwitzer et al., 1990) separately which suggests that more time for idea generation and less time for idea implementation is most efficient in creating innovative outcomes. A possible explanation for this could be that participants used implementation time to modify the generated ideas. This is in line with research by Schroeder, Van de Ven, Scudder and Polley (1989) that suggests that innovation projects will need to integrate time for setbacks and surprises and that this is critical for the final result. Another explanation could be that intrinsic motivation will increase when less time constraints are presented in idea implementation (Deci & Ryan, 1985), which is needed for creative behavior (Amabile, 1988). The results of this study suggested that more time for idea generation led to more intrinsic motivation resulting in more original ideas.
None withstanding, the study also suggested that more time for idea implementation led to more intrinsic motivation resulting in better implementation of ideas.
Next to this, the study contributes to literature because it provides guidance for time allocation in short-term project. Since Baer and Oldham (2006) showed an inverted U-shaped creative time pressure-creativity relation, we also investigated a medium level with half time for idea generation in explanatory research. No significant difference was found between the medium level and the other two conditions, suggesting that dividing the available time in half is not leading to more novelty and usefulness than the other time allocations. The results implicated that taking away time for idea generation is less harmful in creating innovative outcomes than taking away time for idea implementation.
This study also complements existing research by making the distinction between novelty and usefulness in order to measure individual innovative behavior. Existing literature on novelty and usefulness that sees idea generation and implementation as a process, not only studies the phases of innovation in a group context (e.g., Frost & Egri, 1991), but also looks at a long period of time (Amabile et al., 1996). This research further investigates which time allocation could improve individual innovative behavior when time is limited.
Another contribution to literature is made because the study enriches research on
gender differences in innovative environments. Creativity research has found mixed results
about gender differences, but overall the results tend to favor females (Baer & Kaufman,
2008). This study adds to existing literature that females create significantly more novel and
useful innovative outcomes in different time allocations.
Limitations and future research
The first limitation of the study is that we hypothesized a linear effect, but this effect could also be curvilinear. Scholars argued that the linear perspective neglects to acknowledge that innovations often fail. As a result, teams need to move back and forth between idea generation and implementation and will engage in both activities at the same time (Bledow et al., 2009). The outcomes of our study suggest that people use a part of the implementation time to alter their innovations during the process and trial-and-error occurs. Future research could focus on which time allocation is most preferred by participants. This extension to the research can have implications for organizations, since organizations also need to consider employee satisfaction in decision making processes.
The second limitation of the study is the fact that the data was only collected on posters and other innovations were not investigated. It is possible that other results will be found for a different innovative setting. Research in the automobile industry for example states that it is necessary to center creativity at the beginning of the design process and that altering initial ideas along the way is challenging (Midler, 1995). This implies that it is dependent on the innovative setting if more time for idea generation or implementation is desirable. Future research could help to clarify the allocation of time in different innovative environments.
The next limitation of the study is that only three fixed time configurations were investigated. The results of the study provide information about the most effective time allocation when comparing these three options. However, a different time allocation might be even better. Allocating time to 80 or 90 percent for idea implementation can possibly lead to even more novel and useful outcomes. Future research is needed to investigate the right amount of time for idea implementation is this innovative setting.
Furthermore, it should be noted that we only focused on an individuals' ability to implement an idea, whereas idea implementation in organizations is regularly shown to be a social-political process (e.g., Van de Ven, 1986). Our results might, therefore, not be
generalizable when considering group idea implementation since social skills are vital in group contexts to convince others of ideas (Yuan & Woodman, 2010).
Next, the assumption is made that during the experiment participants followed the
instructions and did not cheat. However, previous research suggests that most individuals,
operating on their own and given the opportunity, will cheat just a little bit (Ariely, 2008). In
the current experimental setup, it is not possible to say with certainty that all participants acted fair during the implementation phase. Four, six or eight minutes were given to
implement ideas and after this a bright red screen popped up with the sentence “please stop now and continue with the rest of the experiment”. The instructions given beforehand clearly stated that it was very important that participants stopped drawing immediately. However, some participants could have ignored this and used a few more seconds to finish the poster, which would influence the data and outcomes. Future research could tackle this problem by using a different experimental set-up in which posters are drawn on a computer and the screen automatically goes to the next page after a set period of time.
Another limitation is the subjectivity of the scores on idea originality, idea feasibility, poster novelty and poster usefulness because these are all measured by opinions of the raters.
The study tried to increase the reliability of the subjective ratings by getting a second reviewer for thirty posters and corresponding ideas. However, one person can still classify an idea as original and feasible while another person would not. This implies that it is possible that other results would have been found with other raters which compromises generalizability.
The final limitation is that the sample we used was strongly skewed for age and gender. Out of 192 respondents only 72 were male, and these males were divided among the three conditions, creating an average of 24 males and 40 females for every condition. The participants were randomly assigned to groups and it is also possible that all the males got into the same time allocation. Earlier research implies that females tend to do better on creativity tasks than males (Baer & Kaufman, 2008). Given the fact that gender has a significant effect in almost all models, it is hard to say if our results would also have been found in groups with more males than females or groups consistent of only males or females.
For this reason, future research is need in order to create more insights in the gender
differences on novelty, usefulness. Next to this, the participants were all students, questioning
the generalizability of these results for individuals of a different age and level of education.
Practical implications
The results found in this study imply that in order to get to a useful outcome, more time is needed for idea implementation than for idea generation. This gives the impression that during the process to usefulness, individuals adapt and change their creation when they are provided with enough time for implementation. A practical implication of this research is that idea implementation is important because the implementation of creative ideas is not self- evident (Sohn & Jung, 2010). Organizations should not preclude too much time from idea implementation because of the changes made on initial ideas in the idea implementation phase.
Allocating more time for idea implementation was positively linked to the novelty of a poster, but negatively linked to idea originality. However, it was also found that a higher average idea originality increased the novelty of the product. This implies that teams should carefully consider the originality of the generated ideas when more time is allocated to idea implementation. This is in line with research by Ferioli, Dekoninck, Culley, Roussel and Renaud (2010) suggesting that the elimination of low-potential ideas can prevent firms from suffering costly investments and failures.
Another practical implication is the importance of gender in the process towards
innovation. Females score significantly higher on novelty and usefulness than males, implying
that females are better at creating innovative outcomes. Organizations could focus on hiring
more females than males when striving for innovation is an organizational goal.
CONCLUSION
Although previous research on idea generation and idea implementation separately suggests that more time for idea generation and less time for implementation would be the most effective time distribution, the opposite effect was found. When individuals had more time for idea generation, the created ideas became more original and individuals with a more original idea made a more novel product. However, this research also found that the
implementation phase is crucial for product novelty. By distributing time to more time for
idea implementation individuals were provided with time to their alter ideas during idea
implementation. As a result, individuals created more useful and novel posters with ideas that
were initially less feasible and original. Therefore, taking away time from implementing ideas
is proven to be more harmful for achieving innovative outcomes than taking away time from
generating ideas. This research emphasizes that careful time allocation is important for every
organization that wants to innovate and regularly faces time pressures and deadlines.
REFERENCES
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 Press.
Amabile, T., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. 1987. Creativity in the R&D laboratory, Technical Report Number 30. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfleld, S. C. 1990. Social influences on creativity:
Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3: 6–21.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154–1184.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B. 2004. The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state of the science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 147–173.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding
framework. Journal of Management, 40: 1297–1333.
Ariely, D. 2008. How honest people cheat. Harvard Business Review, 86(2): 24.
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E.
2000. Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 265–285.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. 2008. Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42: 75–105.
Baer, M. 2012. Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1102–1119.
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. 2006. The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 963–970.
Baer, M., Leenders, R. T. A., Oldham, G. R., & Vadera, A. K. 2010. Win or lose the battle for creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. Academy of
Management Journal, 53: 827–845.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. 2009. A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2: 305–337.
Caniëls, M. C., & Rietzschel, E. F. 2015. Organizing creativity: Creativity and innovation under constraints. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24: 184–196.
Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 555–590.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19: 109–134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55: 68–
78.
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. 2010. Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19: 23–36.
Delbecq, A. L., & Mills, P. K. 1985. Managerial practices that enhance innovation.
Organizational Dynamics, 14(1): 24–34.
Duhamel, F., & Santi, M. 2012. Degree of innovativeness and new product performance.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24: 253–266.
Ferioli, M., Dekoninck, E., Culley, S., Roussel, B., & Renaud, J. 2010. Understanding the rapid evaluation of innovative ideas in the early stages of design. International Journal of Product Development, 12: 67–83.
Frost, P. J., & Egri, C. P. 1991. The political-process of innovation. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 13: 229–295.
Gardner, D. G. 1990. Task complexity effects on non-task-related movements: A test of activation theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45:
209–231.
Gersick, C. J. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 9–41.
Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. 1990. Deliberative and implemental mind- sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1119–1127.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of others is the mother of invention:
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 73–96.
Gruber, H. E., & Davis, S. N. 1988. Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving- systems approach to creative thinking. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of
creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives, 243–270. New York, NY, US:Cambridge University Press.
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. 2011. Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5: 90–105.
Hayes, A. F. 2017. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
Hennessey, B., & Amabile, T. 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 569–598.
Levitt, T. 2002. Creativity is not enough. Harvard Business Review, 80(8): 137–144.
Locke, E. 2000. Motivation, cognition, and action: An analysis of studies of task goals and knowledge. Applied Psychology, 49: 408–429.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. 2011. Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96: 730–743.
Meadow, A., Parnes, S. J., & Reese, H. 1959. Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem solving test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43: 413–416.
Midler, C. 1995. “Projectification” of the firm: The Renault case. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11: 363–375.
Montag, T., Maertz Jr, C. P., & Baer, M. 2012. A critical analysis of the workplace creativity criterion space. Journal of Management, 38: 1362–1386.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. 2011. The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23: 13–17.
Nonaka, I. 1991. The Knowledge Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6): 96–
104.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607–634.
Olson, E. M., Cooper, R., & Slater, S. F. 1998. Design strategy and competitive advantage.
Business Horizons, 41(2): 55–62.
Ordonez, L., & Benson III, L. 1997. Decisions under time pressure: How time constraint affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71: 121–140.
Paulus, P. B. 2002. Different ponds for different fish: A contrasting perspective on team innovation. Applied Psychology, 51: 394–399.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. 2013. The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39: 313–338.
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. 2006. The integration of TQM and technology/R&D
management in determining quality and innovation performance. Omega, 34: 296–
312.
Rietzschel, E. F. 2011. Collective regulatory focus predicts specific aspects of team
innovation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14: 337–345.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. 2010. The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 101: 47–68.
Richtnér, A., & Åhlström, P. 2010. Organizational slack and knowledge creation in product development projects: The role of project deliverables. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19: 428–437.
Rosing, K., Bledow, R., Frese, M., Baytalskaya, N., Johnson Lascano, J., & L. Farr, J. 2018.
The temporal pattern of creativity and implementation in teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91: 798–822.
Roskes, M. 2015. Constraints that help or hinder creative performance: A motivational approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24: 197–206.
Schroeder, R. G., Van de Ven, A. H., Scudder, G. D., & Polley, D. 1989. The development of innovation ideas. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies, 107–134. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. 2001. Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 84: 1–22.
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: 933–958.
Sohn, S. Y., & Jung, C. S. 2010. Effect of creativity on innovation: do creativity initiatives have significant impact on innovative performance in Korean firms? Creativity Research Journal, 22: 320–328.
Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. 2009. Radical innovation across nations: The preeminence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, 73(1): 3–23.
Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management
Science, 32: 590–607.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. 2003. Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29: 729–751.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. 1989. Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social
Behaviour, 4: 15–30.West, M. A. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51:
355–424.
Wu, S., Nijstad, B. A., & Yuan Y. 2017. When and How Newcomers Benefit Team Creativity: A Motivated Information Processing Approach. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 1(1): 15907.Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. 2010. Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 323–342.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. 2003. Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 22: 165–217. Oxford, England:
Elsevier Science.
APPENDIX A Items in scales of poster usefulness and poster novelty
Please score from 1 (low) to 3 (high) the level to which …
Usefulness1. The poster attracts the audience’s attention to animal rights protection issues effectively.
2. The story that the poster delineated is clear and easy to understand.
3. The poster clearly states that it wants donations or volunteers from the audience.
4. The poster includes concrete but necessary information to make it available to donations or volunteers (e.g., contact information: official website, telephone number etc.).
5. The poster evokes the audience’s feelings of sympathy/compassion to animals.
6. Overall, the poster can attract donations or volunteers.
Novelty
