The influence of individual factors, supervision and work ...

The influence of individual factors, supervision and work environment on creative

self-efficacy

Dr Eric Chong

Victoria Management School

Victoria University of Wellington

New Zealand

E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Xiaofang Ma

Victoria Management School

Victoria University of Wellington

New Zealand

E-mail: [email protected]

of 25 ANZAM 2009

mailto:[email protected]

The influence of individual factors, supervision and work environment on creative self-efficacy

ABSTRACT Organisational creativity results from a multitude of factors. These include the abilities and

personality traits of individuals, a collegial work environment and organisational culture

encompassing the management style and practices. Central to this investigation is the individual’s

creative self-efficacy which is an important psychological precursor for sustaining creative

performance. The findings of this research indicate that individual factors, supervision style and work

environment influence creative self-efficacy. Amongst the individual factors, polychronicity, ethnicity

and managerial experience are significantly associated with creative self-efficacy. A work

environment characterised by supportive supervisory style with openness to change and collegial

interaction amongst co-workers are also significant factors in determining the individual’s creative

self-efficacy.

Keywords: Creative ability, individual development, creativity, behaviour (of individuals, groups,

organisations)

ORGANISATIONAL CREATIVITY

Creativity within organisations results from a multitude of factors. Individuals with novel viewpoints

supported by relevant skills and motivation to succeed allow organisations to develop creative value

propositions. The study of sustainable creativity in organisations includes examination of individuals’

cognitive and personality traits (Kirton, 1989, Masten and Caldwell-Colbert, 1987), and the work

group dynamics, supervision, organisational culture and structure (Amabile, et al., 1996, Scott and

Bruce, 1994, Rice, 2006). This study examines the individual’s creative traits and work environmental

factors that supports creative performance. An important personality trait for performance is self-

efficacy or confidence in one’s abilities. Individuals work in environments that define performance

standards and boundaries. The ability to meet these standards and work effectively within established

boundaries contributes to one’s self-efficacy. This study takes a systemic approach where the

environmental factors such as supervision, collegiality and organisational control are examined in

relation to the individual’s creative self-efficacy as well as with one another.

CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY

The concept of creative self-efficacy evolved from separate lines of inquiry into self-efficacy

and creativity. Self-efficacy develops from the acquisition of complex cognitive or social skills

through personal experience and is seen as an important factor in motivational theory. Individuals

evaluate their capabilities first, make choices and then put in the necessary effort to achieve their aims

(Gist and Mitchell, 1992 and Bandura, 1997). The more favourable the perception of one’s ability to

of 25ANZAM 2009

perform a task or the individual’s self-efficacy in that task, the greater the effort expended in its

performance.

Research in creativity covers two related concepts: Creative ability and creative outcome.

Creative ability is demonstrated in the propensity to break away from mental sets by generating novel

ideas, confidence in adopting nonconforming perspectives, taking risks, and acting without

dependence on social approval (Amabile, 1988). Creative outcome is defined as endeavours resulting

in products, ideas, or procedures which are novel and original, and should be useful for an

organisation (Oldham and Cummings, 1996). It is measured through the observation of others

especially direct superiors (Amabile, 1988; Woodman et al., 1993; Oldham and Cummings, 1996;

Tierney and Farmer, 2002). The authors believe that creative ability is a necessary but not a sufficient

requirement for creative outcomes.

Tierney and Farmer (2002) define creative self-efficacy as the belief in one’s ability to

produce creative outcomes. It is this belief that Egan (2005), Choi (2004) and Lemons (2005)

conclude is an important requirement in achieving creative outcomes. Individuals cannot perform

creatively if they do not believe and have confidence in their creative ability. In addition to creative

ability a person’s creative self-efficacy depends on work environmental factors and an individual’s

personality.

Emerging research into creative self-efficacy covers its relationship with creative performance

(Tierney and Farmer, 2002 and 2004, Lopez, 2003 and Choi, 2004), with job complexity and task-

related job self-efficacy (Tierney and Farmer, 2002 and 2004) and its correlation with job tenure,

education and organisation hierarchical level (Amabile, 1988, Tierney et al., 1999 and Redmond et al.,

1993). The results of these studies show that the individual’s job tenure, education, position in

organisation and task-related job self-efficacy are positively related to creative self-efficacy. In this

study we will test whether there is a direct relationship between biographical factors and creative self

efficacy in:

Hypothesis H1: There is a significant relationship between biographical factors such as, ethnicity, job

and managerial experience and education level and an individual’s creative self-efficacy.

of 25 ANZAM 2009

In another line of inquiry researchers such as Baudura (1997), Chen et al. (2000), Stajkovic

and Luthans (1998), Gardener and Pierce (1998) have examined creative self-efficacy as a part of an

individual’s general self-efficacy personality trait. Specific personality traits, including polychronic

tendencies, have been studied as a basis for creativity.

POLYCHRONICITY AND ORGANISATIONAL CREATIVITY

Polychronicity has been described as a personality trait (Kaufman et al., 1991, and Conte et

al., 1999) that results in different preferences individuals have for organising and structuring their

time. It manifests itself in the tendency to engage in more than one activity at the same time (Hall,

1981, 1982, 1983; Hall and Hall, 1987, 1990). This is in contrast to the monochronicity trait where

individuals prefer doing things sequentially based on the available time. Researchers have found that

polychronic individuals tend to be more creative (Hall and Hall, 1990; Bluedorn, 2002).

There appears to be a cultural basis for polychronicity (Manrai and Manrai, 1995).

Polychronic cultures are characterised by the simultaneous processing of several things at once and

time is measured by accomplishing wholes rather than by parts. Indigenous North Americans, French,

Asians, Latin Americans, and Mediterranean peoples have polychronic cultures. Monochronic cultures

are characterised by activities that are processed sequentially one at a time. There is an avoidance of

leaving things unfinished and a tendency to see time as a measurable resource that can be divided into

manageable parts. North Americans and Germans are thought to have monochronic cultures (Hall,

1983 and Hall and Hall, 1990).

Prior research have indicated that certain biographical factors such as the individual’s job

tenure, education and position in an organisation’s hierarchy are positively related to polychronicity

(Solocombe et al., 1999; Hall, 1983; Manrai and Manrai 1995;Conte et al., 1999; Bluedorn, 2000;

Conte, 2000; Kaufman et al., 1991; Palmer and Schoorman 1999).

In an organisational study of polychronic individuals, Bluedorn (1998) found that the ability to

switch between different projects freely entails the use of creative problem-solving processes. His

study revealed a positive relationship between polychronicity and measured creativity in individuals.

This finding is supported by Persing (1999) who proposed that the higher the individual’s

polychronicity, especially in intellectually intensive work, the stronger the individual’s creative output.

of 25ANZAM 2009

Kaufmann-Scarborough and Lindquist (1999) and Slocombe and Bluedorn (1999) concluded that

polychronic individuals exhibited relatively high creative output when they were rotated through

different tasks.

There are positive relationships between creative self-efficacy and creative performance and

between polychronicity and creative outputs. A direct positive relationship between polychronicity and

creative self-efficacy is examined in:

Hypothesis H2: There is a positive relationship between polychronicity and creative self-efficacy in

individuals.

SUPERVISORY SUPPORT AND ORGANISATIONAL CREATIVITY

Researchers have established a connection between supervisors’ behaviour and subordinates’

creative performance. Mumford et al. (2002) showed that employee’s creative performance could be

dramatically improved by supervisors providing revolutionary ideas, useful resources and positive

feedback. Indeed the supervisor’s enthusiasm for creativity is one of the most important personal

qualities to enhance creative performance (Amabile, 1983, 1988). An expression of such enthusiasm

and acceptance for creativity has been defined as an ‘intrinsic motivation orientation’. Tierney et al.

(1999) found that when employees worked with supervisors who possessed a similar intrinsic

motivational orientation, creative performance was enhanced. In addition, if a supervisor has an

innovative cognitive style (Kirton, 1989), such as allowing staff to do things in novel ways, permitting

risk-taking, and giving more autonomy in decisions, creativity will be improved. If the employee also

has a similar innovative cognitive style, both supervisors’ and employees’ creative performance will

be enhanced. This increased performance is the result of employees valuing a work environment with

supportive supervisors whom they trust and work well with.

Scott and Bruce (1994) and Tierney et al. (1999) showed that the quality of supervisor-

subordinate relationships is positively correlated to the employee’s creative and innovative behaviour.

Relationships between supervisors and their subordinates characterised by trust, mutual liking and

respect have been shown to produce higher levels of creative and innovative behaviour from

employees. Furthermore, the supervisor’s expectations of a subordinate’s creative and innovative

of 25 ANZAM 2009

behaviour are positively correlated to the subordinate’s creative and innovative behaviour. Supervisors

who expect subordinates to behave creatively are more likely to have their expectations met.

Numerous studies have indicated that supportive and non-controlling supervisory styles are

important stimuli for employee creativity (e.g. Amabile and Conti, 1999, Amabile et al., 1996, 2004;

Amabile and Gryskiewicz, 1989; Madjar et al., 2002; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Shalley and

Gilson, 2004; Tierney and Farmer, 2002, 2004; Zhou and George, 2003). Amabile et al., (1996) found

that people will produce more creative work when there is a perception of support from their senior

management and direct supervisors. Zhou (1998) suggested that employees’ creative performance

could be enhanced, when supervisors provided feedback to employees in a positive and informal way

and when employees were allowed to have high levels of autonomy. This supported Oldham and

Cummings’ (1996) study which found a negative relationship between supervisors’ controlling

behaviours and employees’ creative output in a manufacturing setting. George and Zhou (2001) and

Zhou (2003) showed that controlling behaviours, such as close monitoring from supervisors, were

negatively related to employee creativity.

The emerging research suggests a positive relationship between creative self-efficacy and

creative performance and a positive relationship between the supervisor’s supportive management

style and creative performance. This study will examine the possibility of a direct positive relationship

between creative self-efficacy and supervisors’ management style in:

Hypothesis H3: There is a positive relationship between creative self-efficacy and a supportive and

non-controlling supervisory management style.

ORGANISATIONAL VARIABLES AND ORGANISATIONAL CREATIVITY

Prior studies have shown that employees’ perception of supervisors’ behaviour is positively

related to employees’ perceptions of organisational environment (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Mumford, et

al., 2002). The organisational environment includes the interaction between workers, risk-taking

orientation, and a trusting and caring atmosphere. The organisational structure can either facilitate or

negate a collegial work environment.

Prior research has identified a strong relationship between organisational structure and

creativity. For example, Kanter (1983, cited in Mclean, 2005) found that matrix structures are

of 25ANZAM 2009

associated with increased autonomy and the belief that new ideas will be accepted. This is supported

by Damanpour’s (1991) who found that the types of organisational structure, such as specialisation,

functional differentiation and open communication channels, were consistently positively related to

creativity. His research proposes that in order to promote creativity, supervisors ought to group

workers based on their expertise and put in place a matrix structure that promotes ongoing

communication between groups.

A study by Fyvie and Ager (1999) found that flat organisational structures were positively

associated with creativity. They attributed this to cross-functional teams, working autonomously and

interacting informally, encouraged a constant flow of information between staff and departments. A

more hierarchical structure which emphasises rules and procedures, on the other hand, inhibits

innovation in the organisations (Fyvie and Ager, 1999; Henry and Walker, 1992).

Organisational structure determines levels of responsibility, decision making authority, and

formal reporting relations with others which could affect an individual’s creative performance (Isaksn

et al., 2001; Ekvall, 1997). Ekvall’s (1997) research of three different types of organisational

structures revealed that rigid reporting structures promoted non-adaptive ways of doing things. A

looser structure with more freedom, higher risk-inclination, and a debating, dynamic and playful

atmosphere tended to stimulate creative performance.

While organisational variables such as structure, interaction amongst co-workers, risk-taking

orientation, and a trusting, caring atmosphere are thought to relate to creative performance there are no

known studies that have explored the relationship between these variables and creative self-efficacy.

This study attempts to address this gap by examining organisational variables in relation to creative

self-efficacy.

Hypothesis H4: There is a significant relationship between organisational structure, interaction with

co-workers, risk-taking orientation, and a trusting, caring atmosphere and the individual’s creative

self-efficacy.

METHODOLOGY

Instrument

of 25 ANZAM 2009

The questionnaire used in this study was derived from multiple sources. The Inventory of

Polychronicity Values (IPV) from Bluedorn, et al. (1999) was used to measure individual

polychronicity. The scale captures the degree an individual does things simultaneously in the

workplace. Tierney and Farmer (2002) three-item scale was used to measure creative self-efficacy.

The measurement of employees’ belief in their ability to be creative at work has been used in studies

by Beghetto (2006) and Jaussi et al. (2007). Supervisory management style was measured using

twelve items developed by Oldham and Cummings (1996). The items were designed to reflect

supportive and non-controlling supervision from the employees’ point of view. The measurement of

organisational variables was taken from Rice (2006). This measured organisational structure, control,

and hierarchy. The items relating to supervisory management style were retained to cross-validate and

possibly provide added insight into the measurement of supportive and non-controlling supervision by

the Oldham and Cummings (1996) instrument. The questionnaire items are listed in Appendix A.

Reliability and validity

In testing the reliability of the instrument an alpha value of 0.8 or greater was used as a

criterion for acceptance of internal consistency (Bryman and Cramer 1990). The Cronbach’s alpha for

polychronicity was 0.98, for supervisory management style was 0.813 and for the creative self-

efficacy was 0.832. The four organisational variables collectively had reliability coefficients below

0.8. Each variable was therefore analysed individually.

Factor analysis was used to test whether the items measured the same concepts. The results

indicated all ten polychronicity items loaded at .8 or higher on one factor achieving the Kaiser

criterion for acceptance (Appendix B – Table 1). All three creative self-efficacy items loadings were

above .85 on one factor (Appendix B – Table 2). Measurements of both polychronicity and creative

self-efficacy had good factorial construct validity and were left unchanged in this study.

The items measuring supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style and

organisational variables had to be adjusted to ensure they described the intended theoretical constructs

developed from literature review. In order to ensure content validity of the only items measuring

supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style with loading >.6 were used and items

measuring organisational variables were analysed individually.

of 25ANZAM 2009

Data collection and sample

A reconstituted draft questionnaire was administered to 27 post-experienced students study.

The pilot study confirmed that the wording of the items were clear and understandable. The original

five-point Likert-type scale for the items was converted to a seven-point scale to simplify comparisons

with other seven-point scaled variables measured in this study.

Data was collected from post-work experienced students from Victoria University of

Wellington. The respondents were from 58 organisations from both public and private sectors.

Questionnaires were distributed in classes as well as through a web-based survey link sent to the

respondents by their lecturers. The content and instructions in the hard copy questionnaire and web-

based survey were identical. Valid responses were received from 44 web-based questionnaires and 79

hard copy questionnaires. The number of males to female respondents was 1:1.24. The biographical

details are in Appendix C. Most respondents (65%) were supervisors or managers with graduate or

post-graduate qualifications (84.5%). A large proportion of them (70.8%) had over 10 years working

experience.

Data analysis and results

The t test was used examine the biographic variables (gender, age, education level, ethnicity,

current job status, number of years working in the organisation, and number of years working in total)

in relation to creative self-efficacy. There was no significant difference in the creative self-efficacy

mean scores between males (n=68) and females (n=55), 35 years and under (n=46) and 36 years and

over (n=77) age groups, under-graduates and graduate degree holders (n=60) and post-graduate degree

holders (n=63), those who have worked less than 2 years in their current organisation (n=64) and those

who have worked 2 or more years in their current organisation (n=59) and, finally, those who have

worked less than 10 years in total (n=36) and those who have 10 or more years in total (n=87).

The sample was divided along ethnic lines into individualistic or collectivistic cultural groups.

The individualistic group (n=91) comprised of New Zealanders of European descent and other

English-speaking nationalities such as Americans, British and Australians. The collectivistic group

(n=32) comprised of Maori/Pacific Islanders, Indian, Chinese and other Asian nationalities. The

of 25 ANZAM 2009

results of the t test, in Appendix E - Table 1, indicates a significant difference in creative self-efficacy

(p<.05) between the two groups.

The respondents were divided into two groups according to their managerial status: those in

non-management positions and those in the management position (supervisor, junior management and

senior management). The results of the t test are in Appendix E – Table 2. The mean scores of non-

managers are significantly lower than the mean of those in managerial positions. It appears that

managers have more creative self-efficacy than non-managers. H1 is therefore partially supported.

Pearson’s correlation was used to analyse whether or not scores in one variable was associated

with scores in another. The correlation matrix obtained for all 21 variables measured is shown in

Appendix D. The results show that the creative self-efficacy is positively correlated to polychronicity

(s.e.= 0.44, p<0.01) supporting H2. The positive correlation between creative self-efficacy and

supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style (s.e.=0.397, p<0.01) supports H3.

Three organisational variables are significantly correlated with creative self-efficacy.

OVItem6, unwillingness to share information with other workgroups, is negatively correlated with

creative self-efficacy (s.e.=-0.177, p<0.05). OVItem8, success requires initiative and providing ideas

in the organisation, is positively associated with creative self-efficacy (s.e. =0.187, p<0.05) and

OVItem10, not changing the way things are done, is negatively associated with creative self-efficacy

(s.e. =-0.271, p<0.01). Apart from these three items, organisational structure variables (OVItems 1-4),

and trusting and caring atmosphere variables (OVItems 12-18) have no significant relationship with

creative self-efficacy. H4 is therefore not supported.

FACTORS INFLUENCING CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY

Regression analysis was used to summarise the nature of the relationship between variables

and for making predictions of likely values of the dependent variable (Cavena, et al., 2001; Bryman

and Cramer, 2001). In this study multiple regression analysis was used to examine the relationship

between individual polychronicity and creative self-efficacy, between supervisors’ supportive and

non-controlling management style and creative self-efficacy, and between the organisational variables

(OV Item 6: unwillingness to share information with others, OV Item 8: success requiring initiative

and providing ideas and OV Item 10: not changing the way things are done) and creative self-efficacy.

of 25ANZAM 2009

Forward regression analysis was used to examine which variables had the most significant impact on

creative self-efficacy.

In the first multiple regression analysis the variables that were significantly correlated with

creative self-efficacy were entered. These variables include OVItem6 (unwillingness to share

information with others), OVItem8 (success requiring initiative and providing ideas), and OVItem10

(not changing the way things are done). In addition, polychronicity and supervisors’ supportive and

non-controlling management style were also entered. The results of the regression of these five

independent variables against creative self-efficacy are in Appendix F. In Table 1, the R Square is

0.209 and, in Table 2, the F value is significant at the 0.01 level. This means that almost 21 percent of

the variance in creative self-efficacy is explained by the five independent variables.

The above results and earlier results of t tests on ethnicity and managerial experience in

relation to creative self-efficacy can be summarised in Figure 1 below.

[Insert Figure 1 here]

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS

The findings show that polychronicity is positively related to creative self-efficacy. It is

possible that creative self-efficacy and performance in the workplace is inhibited by monochronicity.

This could explain why those who are more confident in their creativity appear less capable in

managing their time. A psychological test for polychronicity could indicate whether a person has the

potential for creativity in an organisation.

There appears to be a difference in creative self-efficacy between individuals from

individualistic cultures and those from collectivistic cultures. This could arise from individual or group

cultural orientation. Cultural differences are important when individual or team outputs are of

immediate concern. Although creative self-efficacy is an individual phenomenon, group creativity

may be viewed as more important in certain cultures.

The observed difference in creative self-efficacy between non-managers and managers may

result from the expectation that managers ought to have greater exposure to creative endeavours than

non-managers. Managers have to deal with complex problems and, over time, develop confidence in

dealing with uncertainty and situations requiring creative solutions. Interestingly, the results show that

of 25 ANZAM 2009

higher education and more working experience do not necessarily result in higher creative self-

efficacy. This is contrary to earlier studies. It can be argued that while having higher education and

more working experience can instil some confidence in being creative, a significant amount of

confidence appear to come only from managerial experience.

The observed positive relationship between supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling

management style and creative self-efficacy suggests that managers can achieve creative performance

by creating an environment where employees are given freedom to try new things, are allowed to learn

from mistakes and are encouraged to be creative. The result would be a virtuous cycle where

employees meet expectations of creativity, become more confident in their creative abilities, continue

to perform more creatively reinforcing their supervisors’ management style and increasing

expectations.

There tends to be higher creative self-efficacy in an environment where there is more

interaction with others and taking risk by making changes. In such a collegial environment, there is

more information flow and less concern with new ideas failing. Being open-minded and flexible are

important preconditions for creative self-efficacy. A lack of communication and interpersonal contact

would invariably cause conflict, fear of failure and a tense environment where creativity and creative

self-efficacy will be stifled. However, with more interaction amongst staff and an appropriate level of

risk-taking, there will be more cooperation and motivation to find new and creative ways of doing

things. This is likely to result in higher creative self-efficacy over time.

The supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style has a negative relationship

with hierarchical power in organisations. When supervisors support creativity, they are more likely to

empower employees and encourage them to develop new skills rather than establish controls by

having more hierarchical levels. The supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style

also encourages communication and consultation with others in an organisation. This builds a trusting

and caring atmosphere, where there is more risk-taking with less fear of failure.

While the supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style has a direct

relationship with creative self-efficacy, the research findings do not support a direct relationship

between creative self-efficacy and either organisational structure or trusting and caring atmosphere.

of 25ANZAM 2009

This indicates that a more hierarchical-structured organisation does not have to be less creative and

managers who provide a trusting and caring atmosphere in order to increase employees’ commitment

may not necessarily increase creative performance as well.

This study did not include an analysis of personality traits that could impinge on an

individual’s creative self-efficacy. The research sample comprised of middle-aged individuals with

work experience and who were motivated to pursue university education. The raises the question of

whether the research findings can be generalised to a more diverse population. Future creative self-

efficacy research should include individuals with a wide range of identified personality traits as well

as those with more diverse work experience. Since work environments have a direct bearing on

creative self-efficacy the classification of environments according to job types or industries could have

enriched this study. There seems to be a paucity of studies on quantifying and measuring the creative

self-efficacy concept. Quantifiable measures would allow for more definitive studies of the impact of

independent variables on creative self-efficacy.

of 25 ANZAM 2009

REFERENCES

Amabile, T.M. (1983), The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, pp.357-376.

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

L.L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol.10: 123-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

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

Amabile, T.M. and Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1988), “Creative human resources in Rand D laboratory: how

environment and personality impact innovation”, in Kuhn, R.L. (Ed.), Handbook for Creative and

Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 501-530.

Amabile, T.M., and Conti, H. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during

downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, pp.630-640.

Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B., and Kramer, S.J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work

environment for creativity: perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, pp.5-32.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), Assessing the work

environment for creativity, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 1154-1184.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Beghetto, R.A. (2006), Creative self-efficacy: correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity

Research Journal, 18(4), pp.447-457.

Bluedorn, A. C. (2000), Polychronicity, change orientation, and organizational attractiveness. Thesis

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New

Orleans, April 14-16.

Bluedorn, Allen C. (2002), The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Palo

Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bluedorn, Allen C. (1998). A taste for change: an investigation of the correlates of individuals’

orientation to change. Thesis presented at the Twenty-First Century Change Imperative: Evolving

Organisations and Emerging Networks Conference, MI: Columbia.

Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath T. J., Strube M. J. and Martin G. D., (1999), Polychronicity and the

inventory of ploychronicity values (IPV): the development of an instrument to measure a fundamental

dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Management Psychology, 14 (3/4), pp.205-230.

Bryman, A., and Cramer, D. (1990), Quantitative data analysis for social scientists. London:

Routledge.

Bryman, A., and Cramer, D. (2001), Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows: a

guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.

Cavana, R.Y., Delahaye, B.L., and Sekaran, U. (2001), Applied business research: qualitative and

quantitative methods. Australia: John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd.

of 25ANZAM 2009

Chen, G., Gully, S.M., Whiteman, J., and Kilcullen, R. (2000), Examination of relationships among

trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 85(6), pp.835-847.

Choi, J.N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: the mediating role of

psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16(2/3), pp.187-199.

Conte, J. M. (2000). Examining Relationships Among Polychronicity, Big Five Personality

Dimensions, Absence, and Lateness. Thesis presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for

Industrial and Organisational Psychology, April 14-16, LA: New Orleans.

Conte, J. M., Rizzuto T.E. and Steiner D. D. (1999), A construct-oriented analysis of individual-level

polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (3/4), 269-287.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and

moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp.555-590.

Egan, T.M. (2005). Factors influencing individual creativity in the workplace: an examination of

quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7 (2), pp.160-181.

Ekvall, G. (1997), Organizational conditions and levels of creativity. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 6(4), pp.195-205.

Fyvie, C. and Ager, A. (1999), NGOs and innovation: organizational characteristics and constraints in

development assistance work in the Gambia. World Development, 27(8), pp.1383-1395.

Gardner, D.G., and Pierce, J.L. (1998), Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context:

an empirical examination. Group and Organization Management, 23(1), pp.48-70.

George, J.M., and Zhou, J. (2001), When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to

creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp.687-697.

Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and

malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17(2), pp.183-211.

Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life: The other dimension of Time. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/

Doubleday.

Hall, E. T., and Hall, M. R. (1987), Hidden differences: doing business with the Japanese, NY:

Double-Day.

Hall, E. T., and Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French, and

Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books. (Original work published in 1976.)

Hall, E. T. (1982). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor Books. (Original work published in

1966.)

Henry, J. and Walker, D. (1992), Managing innovation. London: Sage.

Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J., Ekvall, G., and Britz, A., (2001), Perceptions of the best and worst climates

for creativity: preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire. Creativity

Research Journal, 13(2), pp. 171-184.

of 25 ANZAM 2009

Kanter, R.M. (1983), The change masters: innovation for productivity in the American corporation.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kaufman, C. F., Lane, P. M., Lane, and Lindquist, J. D., (1991), Exploring more than 24 hours a day:

a preliminary investigation of polychronic time use. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, pp.392-401.

Kaufman-Scarborough C. and Lindquist J. D. (1999), Time management and polychronicity:

comparisons, contrasts, and insights for the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (3/4),

pp. 288-312.

Kirton, M.J. (1989), Adaptors and innovators at work. In Kirton M.J. (Ed.), Adaptors and innovators:

styles of creativity and problem solving (pp.56-78). New York: Routledge.

Lemons, G.K. (2005). A qualitative investigation of college students’ creative self-efficacy. Published

Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.

Lopez, N.R. (2003). An interactional approach to investigating individual creative performance.

Publised of the degree in Masters of Science, San Jose Ste University.

Madjar, N., Oldham, G.R., and Pratt, M.G. (2002), There’s no place like home? The contributions of

work and non-work creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 45, pp.757-767.

Manrai, L.A. and Manrai, A.K. (1995), “Effects of cultural-context, gender, and acculturation on

perceptions of work versus social/leisure time usage”, Journal of Business Research, 32, pp.115-128.

Masten, W.G. and Caldwell-Colbert, A.T. (1987), Relationship of originality to Kirton’s scale for

innovators and adaptors. Psychological Review, 26, pp.548-565.

Mclean, L.D. (2005), Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: a review of the

literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 7(2), pp.226-246.

Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M. (2002), Leading creative people:

orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, pp.705-750.

Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996), Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), pp.607-634.

Palmer, D. K., and Schoorman F. D., (1999), Unpacking the multiple aspects of time in

polychronicity, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (3/4), pp. 323-344.

Persing, Lynne D. (1999), Managing in polychronic times: exploring individual creativity and

performance in intellectually intensive venues, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(5), pp.358-370.

Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D., and Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: effects of leader

behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55,

pp.120-151.

Rice, G., (2006), Individual values, organizational context, and self-perceptions of employee

creativity: evidence from Egyptian organizations. Journal of Business Research, 59, pp.233-241.

of 25ANZAM 2009

Scott, S.G., and Bruce, R.A. (1994), Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual

innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), pp.580-607.

Shalley, C.E., and Gilson, L.L. (2004), What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual

factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15, pp.33-53.

Slocombe, T. E. and Bluedorn A. C. (1999), Organizational behavior implications of congruence

between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unit polychronicity. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 20, 75-99.

Stajkovic, A.D., and Luthans, F. (1998), Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), pp.240-261.

Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship

to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), pp.1137-1148.

Tierney, P. and Farmer, S. (2004), The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of

Management, 30(3), pp.413-432.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M., and Graen, G.B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee

creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships. Personal Psychology, 52, pp.591-620.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., and Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.

The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), pp.293-321.

Zhou, J. (1998), Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation:

interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, pp.261-276.

Zhou, J. (2003), When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: role of supervisor

close monitoring, developmental feedback and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,

88, pp.413-422.

Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: the role of leader emotional

intelligence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, pp.545-568.

of 25 ANZAM 2009

POLY SS

Collegiality (OV

Items 6, and 8)

CSE Risk/Change

orientation (OV

Item 10) Ethnicity

Managerial

experience

Figure 1

Factors influencing creative self-efficacy (CSE): Polychronicity (POLY), ethnicity and

managerial experience, supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style (SS) and

other organisational variables (OV Items)

of 25ANZAM 2009

APPENDIX A Individual Multi-tasking Style (Polychronicity)

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Agree

Individual Multi-tasking Style

(Polychronicity)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. I like to juggle several activities at the same time.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2. I would rather complete an entire project every day than complete parts of several

project. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3. I believe people should try to do many things at once.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4. When I work by myself, I usually work on one project at a time.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5. I prefer to do one thing at a time.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. I believe people do their best work when they have many tasks to complete.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7. I believe it is best to complete one task before beginning another.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8. I believe it is best for people to be given several tasks and assignments to perform.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. I seldom like to work on many tasks or assignments at the same time.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10. I would rather complete parts of several projects every day than complete an entire

project.

Creative Self-Efficacy

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Agree

Creative Self-Efficacy

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2. I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3. I have a knack for further developing the ideas of others.

Supervisory Supportive and Non-controlling Management Style

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Agree

Supervisory Supportive and Non-controlling Management Style

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. My supervisor helps me solve work- related problems.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2. My supervisor encourages me to develop new skills.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3. My supervisor keeps informed about how employees think and feel about things.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4. My supervisor encourages employees to participate in important decisions.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5. My supervisor praises good work.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. My supervisor encourages employees to speak up when they disagree with a

decision. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7. My supervisor refuses to explain his or her actions (reversed-coded).

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8. My supervisor rewards me for good performance.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. My supervisor always seems to be around checking my work (reversed-code).

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10. My supervisor tells me what shall be

done and how it shall be done (reversed-coded). 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11. My supervisor never gives me a chance to make important decisions on my own

(reversed-coded). 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12. My supervisor leaves it up to me to decide how to go about doing my job.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13. My supervisor always provides me with clear structures when assigning me a

new project. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 14. My supervisor always encourages me to learn new things.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 15. My supervisor frequently consults me to ask for my opinion before making

decisions. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 16. In my organization, managers believe that time spent to reach collective decisions

is valuable time. Organisational Variables

of 25 ANZAM 2009

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Agree

Structure, control, and hierarchy

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. It is very important to follow rules and procedures in my organisation.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2. At my place of work, power is in the hands of relatively few people.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3. My work environment is structured with all activities and projects carefully

planned. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4. Procedures and structures are too formal in my organization.

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Agree

Support, interaction, communication

and consultation (collegiality)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5. In my workgroup, people usually only share information with other team

members if they see that doing so will lead to some personal benefit. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. In my organisation, people do not usually share information with people in other

workgroups unless they see an advantage for their own workgroup. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7. At work, I feel that I have a responsibility to share my expertise with others.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8. Success in my organisation requires initiative and providing ideas, more than

commitment to rules and procedures. Strongly Strongly

Disagree Agree

Risk-taking orientation

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. Top management does not want to take risks in my organization.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10. There is much emphasis in my organization on doing things the way we have

always done them. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11. People are encouraged to take risks in my organisation.

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Agree

Atmosphere

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12. I enjoy doing my work so much that I forget other things.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13. I feel a sense of time pressure in my work.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 14. There is truly an atmosphere of fun and playfulness at my workplace.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 15. There is free and open communication in my organisation.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 16. People are quite concerned about negative criticism of their work in my

organisation. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 17. In my organisation, there is an atmosphere of caring about building up employees’

skill and expertise. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 18. The members of my workgroup feel a strong sense of commitment to working for

our organisation.

of 25ANZAM 2009

APPENDIX B

Table 1

Factor analysis output for the individual polychronicity

Items Factor 1

PolyItem10 .88

PolyItem5 .88

PolyItem1 .88

PolyItem6 .85

PolyItem9 .84

PolyItem4 .84

PolyItem7 .84

PolyItem2 .81

PolyItem8 .80

PolyItem3 .80

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. One factor extracted in 4 iterations.

Table 2

Factor analysis output for creative self-efficacy

Items Factor 1

CSEItem2 .90

CSEItem3 .86

CSEItem1 .86

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

One factor extracted in 7 iterations.

of 25 ANZAM 2009

APPENDIX C

Biographic data (N=123)

Gender %

Female 44.7

Male 55.3

Non-Management 35

Supervisor 4

Junior Management 37.4

Current Job Status

Senior Management 23.6

Under 20 0.8

20-35 36.6

36-50 50.4

51-65 11.4

Age

Over 65 0.8

NZ European/Pakeha 63.4

Maori or Pacific Island 7.3

Indian 6.5

Chinese 5.7

English-speaking nationalities (i.e. Britain,

Australia and North American)

10.6

Ethnicity

Other Asian 6.5

Less than 1 20.3

1- <2 31.7

2-5 25.2

5- <10 14.6

Working experience in

organisation(s) in years

10 and over 8.2

Less than 1 1.6

1- <2 2.4

2-5 8.1

5- <10 17.1

Working experience in

total (years)

10 and over 70.8

High School 9.8

Bachelor’s Degree 33.3

Others (Diploma) 5.7

Honour(s) Degree 10.6

Masters Degree 35.8

Highest attained

education level

Ph. D. Degree 4.8

of 25ANZAM 2009

APPENDIX D

Pearson’s correlations between polychronicity, supportive and non-controlling

management style, creative self-efficacy, and organisational variables

POLY SS CSE

POLY 1 .308(**) .440(**)

SS .308(**) 1 .397(**)

CSE .440(**) .397(**) 1

OVItem1 -.092 -.032 -.134

OVItem2 -.104 -.369(**) -.155

OVItem3 .059 .115 -.008

OVItem4 .021 .074 -.020

OVItem5 -.053 .074 -.049

OVItem6 -.088 -.371(**) -.177(*)

OVItem7 .008 -.177 -.049

OVItem8 .113 .216(*) .187(*)

OVItem9 -.013 .014 -.001

OVItem10 -.247(**) -.333(**) -.271(**)

OVItem11 .037 -.061 .023

OVItem12 -.026 .234(**) .016

OVItem13 -.006 .197(*) -.018

OVItem14 -.046 .089 -.010

OVItem15 -.034 .355(**) .028

OVItem16 -.070 -.131 -.032

OVItem17 .049 .439(**) .011

OVItem18 .098 .393(**) .107

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

POLY= Polychronicity; SS=Supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style;

CSE=Creative self-efficacy; OVItem1 to OVItem18= Organisational variable items.

of 25 ANZAM 2009

APPENDIX E

Table 1

Independent samples t test between ethnicity and creative self-efficacy

Individualistic ethnicities

(n=91)

Collectivistic ethnicities

(n=32)

t value (df=121)

Mean SD Mean SD

16.74 2.716 15.59 2.861 2.019 *

Individualistic ethnicities=NZ European, Other English-speaking nationalities (i.e. North American, British and

Australian)

Collectivistic ethnicities= Maori or Pacific Islanders, Indian, Chinese, other Asian nationalities

* p<.05

Table 2

Independent samples t test between current managerial status and creative self-efficacy

Non-management (n=43)

Junior Management,

Supervisor, Senior

Management (n=80)

t value (df=121)

Mean SD Mean SD

15.49 2.815 16.95 2.652 -2.852 **

** p<.01

of 25ANZAM 2009

APPENDIX F

Table 1

Summary of multiple regressions on organisational variables (OVItem 6, OVItem 8,

OVItem 10), supportive and non-controlling management style, individual

polychronicity and creative self-efficacy

R R Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

.457(a) .209 .205 1.80757

Predictors: (Constant), OVItem10, OVItem8, POLY, OVItem6, SS

Table 2

ANOVA of multiple regressions on organizational factors (OVItem10, OVItem8,

OVItem6), supportive and non-controlling management style, individual polychronicity

and creative self-efficacy

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 1057.580 5 211.516 64.737 .000(a)

Residual 382.274 117 3.267

Total 1439.854 122

a. Predictors: (Constant), OVItem10, OVItem8, POLY, OVItem6, SS

b. Dependent Variable: Creative self-efficacy

of 25 ANZAM 2009

The influence of individual factors, supervision and work ...

Documents

Transcript of The influence of individual factors, supervision and work ...