Unleashing Employee Creativity: What Matters Most in Sustaining Creativity Engagement?

Unleashing Employee Creativity: What Matters Most in Sustaining Creativity Engagement?

Article and Author Information

Eric Doctors (MSLOC 2013) wrote this article in March 2013 for the Capstone 3 Research Analysis and Interpretation course. This executive summary is the culmination of a nine-month capstone research project. Eric is a Senior Learning & Development Manager, Latin America for AbbVie, a global biopharmaceutical company. Eric is a strategic leader passionate about working with high performing organizations to bring out the best in people.

Abstract

Employees make valuable creative contributions in a wide variety of ways ranging from breakthrough discoveries to incremental improvements in processes. This study focuses on understanding how to optimize sustainable employee creative contributions by examining the relationships between organizational, managerial, and employee factors both in the preparation phase for being creative and when employee creativity is interrupted. A model of sustainable employee creativity was developed for the study to account for the interplay of these factors in the dynamic creative process. The findings of this study show that an integrated view of the factors in creativity preparation and persistence is validated and that what appears to matter most in overcoming creativity interruptions is individualizing and sustaining organizational support for creativity. Additionally, the study recommends that practitioners should individualize approaches to creativity management to account for the right levels of support throughout the creativity process.

Why Does Being Creative At Work Matter?

Businesses have long been concerned with boosting employee creativity to achieve better results. Initially, they placed the emphasis on understanding what individual attributes are required for individuals to be creative, but over time they focused more on creating organizational and team structures to support creativity performance (Amabile, 1988 and Drazin, Glynn, and Kazanjian, 1999). Over time creativity management broadened to consider what organizations can do to establish the right conditions for employees to be creative (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996, Ford, 1986, and Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), what managers can do to manage employees for creative performance (Mumford, 2000), and what can be done to enhance employee-specific factors to improve creative performance such as creative self-efficacy, problem solving skills, and adaptation ability (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Most recently, employee creative performance is viewed as a complex and dynamic construct that situated within the creative process and involves the interaction of organizational, managerial, and employee factors (Basadur & Basadur, 2011 and Tierney & Farmer, 2011).

There continues to be considerable interest in improving employee creativity, driven by the shift in market forces and business models that requires a global talent pool which can deliver a variety of creativity outputs, ranging from radical to incremental (Madjar, Chen, & Greenberg, 2011). As organizations have streamlined to become leaner and more efficient, the leading edge of competitive advantage is hiring the best talent and having them perform at the highest level inclusive of making whatever creative contribution may be needed (Madjar, et al., 2011). The notion that creative performance is the bastion of research and development departments, mass media, or advertising agencies has been replaced by a demand that all workers contribute creatively to meet the creative demand of their particular jobs (Madjar, et al.).

Research by Cohen-Meitar, Carmeli, & Waldman, (2009) has shown that employees can find meaningfulness in creative work and that meaningful creative work can increase work satisfaction and engagement, and by extension, employee performance and retention. This is especially true if employees believe that they can and will be creative in their work (Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2007). Considering that all employees can add value creatively, organizations should do what they can to equip employees to persist creatively. Thereby, taking full advantage of the natural flow of employee creativity to reap the benefits of higher creativity performance, the right creativity performance and self-sustaining creativity performance.

So, given the breadth and depth of knowledge on how to improve employee creativity, why aren't organizations seeing the desired levels of creative performance? Organizations hire the right people, put them in the right jobs, improve their skills support them in being creative, and reward them when they deliver results, but continue to ask how they can do better in this area. Perhaps they are asking the wrong questions.

Breaking Down The Barriers To Creativity

What if organizations assume that all their employees have sufficient creative capabilities and ask what they can do to unleash employee creativity? This leads to a different set of questions:

  • What are the primary challenges to being creative in our organization and in specific jobs?
  • How can we better prepare and support employees to persist creatively?
  • How do we get out of the way and allow natural creative capacity to flow?

Viewing employee creativity as a complex and dynamic process involving the interplay of many factors (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, Ford, and Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian) and that individualized approaches for managing creativity are needed is confirmed by a large body of research that suggests that there are organizational, managerial and employee factors that all dynamically contribute to sustaining employee creativity throughout the creativity process (Basadur & Basadur, Oldham & Cummings, Zhang & Bartol, 2010, Choi, Anderson, & Veillette, 2009, and Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall & Zhao, 2011). While much of the creativity management literature focuses on hiring the most creative people, preparing them to perform creatively and ensuring a supportive environment to yield desired creative performance, there is now an emerging line of inquiry that suggests that if all employees, even those deemed to be more creative, need to have more personal agency to be able to consistently persist creatively (De Stobbelier, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011 and Tierney & Farmer, 2011). Understanding how these factors interrelate throughout the creative process will reveal how to individualize approaches to creativity performance that can be used to activate employee involvement in their own creativity performance.

Additionally, many past studies have tended to focus on understanding creativity performance for those who are expected to be creative such as R&D professionals, consultants, and media and advertising employees with only a few studies considering creativity performance for those job types with lower creative requirements or for individuals with lower creativity characteristics. Therefore, to gain a comprehensive understanding of creativity performance for all types of employees requires looking as broadly as possible across the entire spectrum of employee job types and industries to determine if there are distinguishing relationships and characteristics that can be used to achieve sustainable creativity for all. Understanding how the factors in the dynamic creative process differ by types of employees will help to address the concern that many employees may choose not to be creative or opt out of being creative if they have lower job requirements or expectations to do so. Furthermore, finding out what employees believe is most helpful in preparing them to be creative, what gets in the way of being creative and what motivates them to remain engaged creatively will provide insights about democratizing creativity performance.

A Model of Sustainable Creativity

A path to understanding how to unleash employee creativity is to look at the dynamics of sustaining employee creativity throughout the creativity process: from preparation to engagement to interruption to reengagement. Within this thinking frame, the organizational, managerial and employee factors are all expected to play roles in the preparation and persistence aspects of creativity performance that are involved in ensuring sustained employee creativity. The Sustainable Employee Creativity Model, developed for this study, attempts to represent the interplay of these factors throughout the creativity process.

Figure 1

Creativity Preparation Factors

The following preparation factors are thought to contribute collectively to preparing employees to sustain creatively.

Perceived Organizational Support For Creativity

Organizations who establish a culture that affirms creativity as a value of the organization, communicates these values, and then institutes a culture that reinforces these values tend to see employees who are more engaged in creativity and have managers who are more effective at creativity management (Choi, et al., 2008).

Manager Expectations For Creativity

Managers play a pivotal role in shaping employees creative performance. The role of the manager in communicating the organizational, as well as the manager's own, expectations of employee creativity determines to a large extent how the employee will translate these expectations into desirable creative work (Tierney & Farmer, 2004). It is through communicating to employees the expectation of being creative in their work that the manager is building employee creative self-efficacy and establishing a positive set of conditions for discussing creativity work in the future when the employee may encounter challenges to being creative (Tierney & Farmer, 2011).

Creative Self-Identity

Everyone has their own level of creative self-identity, and higher levels are shown to be a predictor of increased creative performance (Jaussi, Randel & Dionne). Some of us think of ourselves as highly creative and look for opportunities both at work and away from work to be creatively expressive and others of us, for whatever reason, have less interest, identity or belief that we are creative (tierney & Farmer, 2011).

Self-Expectations For Creativity

A good indicator of future creativity performance and of the internalization of other creativity preparation factors is the employee's self-expectations for being creative (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). These self-reported expectations tell a story of how the employee combine and actualize both their own needs and the external expectations to be creative.

Creativity Readiness

The preparation factors are thought to combine to contribute to a level of employee readiness to persist creatively which in the model are measured by both creative self-efficacy and creativity readiness to persist creatively.

Creative Self-Efficacy

Creative self-efficacy which plays a significant role throughout the creative process can be defined as the level of confidence in performing successfully creatively (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). While creative self-efficacy can ebb and flow as employees encounter challenges to working creatively, when it is higher there is a much greater likelihood that employees will perform better creatively.

Creativity Readiness

Ideally, the organizational, managerial and employee preparation factors will work in concert to achieve high levels of readiness for creative work regardless of the variability of levels of these factors. Creativity readiness is defined as the employee's self-assessment of their level of readiness to successfully navigate future challenges to their creative work.

Creativity Interrupters

Once the employee is engaged in creative work, they could be interrupted by a number of factors:

  • Lack of organizational support
  • Lack of manager preparation of the employee to persist
  • Lack of manager support for creative work
  • Lack of employee preparation to persist
  • Lack of skill to perform creative tasks

Creativity Execution Factors

Finally, the employee will either find a way to persist creatively or not and their willingness to do so involves all the factors of preparation as well as several creativity execution factors.

Manager Creativity-Supportive Behavior

Managers can support creative work and influence employee's creative performance by how they model performing their own creative work, provide social cues and signals about how they interpret organizational expectations for creativity and how they react to other's creativity (Tierney & Farmer, 2004). They can give encouraging, or discouraging, feedback to employees at key junctures in the creative process. This feedback can be very influential in employees persisting creatively even when they have higher levels of creative self-identity and self-efficacy (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010).

Creative Work Involvement

Employees who find different ways to be creative, whether it is by demonstrating originality their work, trying out new ideas and approaches to solving problems, identifying opportunities for new products/processes, or generating novel, but feasible work-related ideas, they are much more likely to stay engaged creatively regardless of the challenges thrown their way (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv).

Future Creativity Engagement

When thinking about how employees experience creative work, they are much more likely to persist creatively if they want to remain creative even when they are bombarded with obstacles to doing so. Expecting to reengage creative may well be a an outgrowth of other factors in the model such as high creative self-efficacy, a great manager who gives all the right support or a work environment where employees see a positive culture that encourages experimentation and sets cultural norms for persisting creatively.

Looking For Strong Relationships

Given the dynamic and complex nature of the creativity process, to understand how employees experience creativity preparation and persistence required asking as broad a cross-section of employees as possible how they perceived the experience each of the components of preparing and persisting creatively.

  • For employees who believe they have more organizational support to sustain creatively, how do they perceive the role of that support when they encounter obstacles to being creative?
  • When there is less preparation and support, how does that relate to the employee's own creativity characteristics?
  • For employees who believe they are and can be creative, what do they think about the preparation and support they receive? Does it make any difference in their willingness to be creative or not?
  • When creativity characteristics are lower or expectations of creativity are lower, are they more likely to be interrupted creatively?
  • Do employees perceive any of the available support or their own personal agency as playing a critical role in sustaining their creativity?

The Unleashing Employee Creativity Survey was designed for this study was designed to ask respondents to self-assess their perceptions about all of factors in the model by responding to questions that look at how employees perceive the role of the factors in their creativity preparation and persistence and to give examples of what was most helpful in preparing them to be creative and provide stories of when they were interrupted creatively.

Everything Matters, But Some Things Matter More

There were a total of 164 survey respondents who were relatively well demographically distributed across a number of respondent categories (see the Portrait Of The Survey Respondents in the Appendix). Overall, respondents indicated that all the factors in the model played a role in sustaining their creativity, but that some of the factors were perceived to play bigger roles. Looking at the relationships between the factors, revealed that respondents had varying degrees of the strength of relationships, suggesting that certain combinations of factors may be more significant in achieving sustainable creativity. Interestingly, it was in the answers to the open-ended questions about what most helpful in preparing to be creative and describing a time that they were interrupted, that respondents gave real insights into their deepest held beliefs about which factors in sustaining creativity matter most to them.

To determine the role of the factors in the model and the strength of the relationships among the factors, each of the factors in the model were analyzed by aggregating the questions associated with each factor and combining them into a single variable. The validity of each of these variables was confirmed by looking at the internal consistency of responses to the questions. Mean values of the aggregated responses for each variable were calculated to assess how strongly the respondents felt about the role of the factor in the model. These mean values indicated that respondents had fairly high levels of belief that each of factors played a role in preparing them to persist creatively as predicted in the model and that gave a profile of the respondents as believing that they generally thought that they had relatively high levels of creativity characteristics. The strength of relationships between the factors were determined by looking at how closely each of the factors in the model were correlated with each other. Additionally, the correlations were examined according to the demographics to determine if there were any unique relationships by demographic breakdowns. Lastly, the answers to the open ended questions were coded to group responses that cited similar key words and descriptions to determine frequency of responses. Quotes without attribution were selected to reinforce findings from the data analysis. (See Appendix - Summary of Data Analysis)

The Interrelatedness Of Creativity Preparation And Persistence

When asked about the factors in the model related to creativity preparation, respondents view their own creative self-identity and self-expectations for creative work as being present to a considerable extent and their manager's expectations for them being creative to a slightly lesser extent. Similarly, respondents' only partially agreed that there was adequate organizational support for their creativity.

Looking for what relationships might exist among the preparation factors, respondents said that the strongest relationships exist between manager expectations for creativity and the two factors of perceived organizational support for creativity and self-expectations for creativity. And, the weakest relationship was, by far, between perceived organizational support for creativity and creative self-identity.

Even accounting for the one weak relationship among the preparation factors, all the factors appear to play positive roles in the preparation process. Respondents reported that they believe they have creative self-efficacy and are well prepared to overcome creativity interruptions.

Figure 2

Creativity Preparation Help

When asked about what was most helpful in preparing to be creative at work, respondents cited a broad range of reasons.

Chart 1

How Does Preparation Result in Execution?

So how do employees think that the preparation to be creative relates to actually doing creative work? Although there were consistently good relationships among almost all the creativity preparation and execution factors in the model, suggesting that each of the factors is supposed to have been helpful in preparing to execute, some were found to have stronger relationships than others and nearly all had at least a moderate relationship.

The stronger relationships between perceived organizational support and manager expectations and manager creativity-supportive behavior may hint at the need for alignment between organizational and managerial factors to better prepare employees. The stronger relationship between the two factors of creative self-expectations and creative self-efficacy and creative work involvement was expected and reaffirms that if employees have higher personal creativity factors they tend to be more creative in their work. And the stronger relationship between creativity readiness and future creativity engagement reinforces the underlying premise in the model that preparation plays a significant role in sustaining creativity.

The fact that respondents reported that there was a weaker relationship between manager creativity-supportive behavior and creative self-identity and self-efficacy suggests that employees with higher levels of creativity characteristics may not need their manager to play as big a role in their sustaining creativity. Similarly, the relatively weak relationship between perceived organizational support and creative work involvement may indicate that those more engaged with their creative work may not be looking for the organizational support...it may not matter as much to them and therefore is perceived to play less of a role.

Figure 3

Telling The Interruption Story

Overall, respondents reported that they could be interrupted to varying extents by the lack of any of the organizational, managerial and employee factors. Lack of organizational support was shown to have a slightly higher level of interruption and lack of skill to perform creative tasks was shown to have a slightly lower level of interruption.

Analyzing the potential relationships between each of the creativity interrupters and each of the factors in the model brings to light a number strong connections.

  • Lack of organizational support is well aligned with lower levels of perceived organizational support, as would be expected, and with lower levels of manager creative-supportive behavior. Conversely, this interrupter was not nearly as well aligned with lower levels of all the employee creativity characteristics: creative self-identity, creativity self-expectations, creative self-efficacy, and creative work involvement.
  • Lack of manager support to prepare the employee to do creative work is well aligned with lower levels of both manager factors of expectations for creative work and creativity-supportive behavior.
  • Lack of preparation to overcome creativity was similarly aligned with all the factors in the model, but only at very minimal levels.
  • Lack of skill to complete creative tasks is moderately well aligned with lower levels of creative self-identity, self-expectations for creative work, creative self-efficacy, creative work involvement and future creativity engagement.
Figure 4

When respondents were asked to describe a time when their work was interrupted, there were four types of interruption stories.

Chart 2

Interpretation and Recommendations

To effectively prepare employees to persist creatively, employees need to have positive perceptions of organizational support for creativity, manager expectations of creativity, creativity self-identity, and self-expectations for creativity. While there is evidence that each of these factors contribute in their own way to being better prepared to overcome interruptions to creativity, when employees positively experience these factors in combination, they believe that are even more prepared and report higher levels of creative self-efficacy. There is some evidence to suggest that when employees report that they have higher creative self-identity and self-expectations for creativity, they are both well prepared to be creative and immunized against lower perceptions of organizational and manager preparation factors.

Based on employee descriptions of what is most helpful in preparing them to be creative, there are some distinguishing features of each of these preparation factors. Interestingly, employees seem most concerned about the features of perceived organizational support. Employees report that some aspects of the organizational support have a bigger impact on helping them be better prepared creatively and that leaders and managers play important roles in creating and maintaining the right environment:

  • Fostering and celebrating creative thoughts and ideas
  • Promoting risk-taking and experimentation
  • Establishing trust
  • Enabling autonomy

Another key insight is how employees describe the various background and experiences they have outside and inside work that all mix together to prepare the employee to be creative. Their descriptions give a view into how employees see these experiences as not just something acquire prior to being hired but as occurring dynamically throughout the creative process. They are articulating a dance that occurs between preparation, execution, interruption, re-preparation, reengagement, and execution that further elaborates the Sustainable Employee Creativity Model.

"Taking time to reflect or pause; looking for connections outside work that might offer new perspectives or ideas."

"In order to be successful in the workplace, I am required to find ways to adapt my education and skills to roles and industries completely unassociated with my field of study."

"Having an understanding of what's been done before - both internally and externally - to be able to push that farther or take elements from those practices and enhance them in a different environment."

"Open to thoughts from others and being collaborative in approach."

How well employees seek out these experiences and are able to integrate them into performing creatively appears to be an important consideration of sustaining creativity. They could well be critical ingredients in having higher levels of creative self-identity and self-expectations for creativity as well as creative self-efficacy.

Limiting creativity interruption is less about making sure employees have the necessary skills to complete creative tasks and more about sustaining creative work involvement and the manager and organizational support for creative work. Principally, they are asking for more dedicated time to be creative with an appreciation for the natural conflicts of routine work, less adherence to the established work processes and solutions, and the freedom and flexibility to do creative work the way that works for them. That said, employees are reporting that this support is more about giving them personal agency in order to be fully creative as opposed to close management of their creative work.

Translate, Confirm And Attend To Organizational Support

How employees perceive organizational support matters a great deal to sustaining creativity. When employees believe it is present they not only believe they will be creative, but they believe their manager will support them and they will reengage creatively after they are interrupted. When there is a lack of support for creativity they are more inclined to be interrupted creatively. Therefore, organizations need to ensure that both managers and employees have the necessary support to be creative and understand how to use it in their particular job situation.

Manager and Employee Creativity Preparation Checklist

  • Put in place meaningful and consistent organizational support for creativity. Just saying that you think it is important is not enough. It needs to be visible, tangible, and culturally relevant to each employee in each part of the organization; e.g., the R&D department needs one type of support and operations need another, but both need to feel like their leaders will prioritize creative work and give them the right tools, resources and environment to be successful creatively.
  • Ensure that managers understand how organizational support converts into individual employee creative job expectations and that they can effectively translate these expectations for their employees.
  • Have the manager work on establishing a trusting relationship beginning in the creativity preparation phase through how they assist the employee in preparing and then throughout the execution phase by playing close attention to the tone and content of their interactions with the employee.
  • Help employees to interpret and apply the organizational expectations and support features to their own job by having them articulate what they expect creatively, what they think the creative expectations and opportunities are of their job and how they believe it will add the most value.
  • Individually tailor the organizational supports that the employee most needs based on their reported creative preparation needs. Individual needs could vary from learning how they can establish more autonomy, establishing parameters for more dedicated creative work time or coaching on how to balance work priorities.

Foster Creative Personal Agency

Based on the findings of this study, organizations need to go beyond hiring the "right" people who are most likely to be creative and developing the innovation skills of subsets of employee groups. Knowing how to increase creativity performance among all employee groups for all job types regardless of the expectations to be creative in their jobs is a bigger task and a bit less obvious. All employees seem to benefit from a combination of organizational and managerial support throughout the creativity process. Ideally, these supports should all be in service of enhancing the employee's sense of creative personal agency to enable employees to more effectively navigate potential interruptions.

Manager & Employee Creative Personal Agency Checklist

  • Manager help the employee to assess what they can "own" to persist creatively. This can best be accomplished by taking an inventory of what the employee believes will interrupt and then identifying tactics the employee can use to address these interruptions as they occur.
  • Employee honestly self-assess what will interrupt them by developing a personal picture of their creative work process. This could be accomplished by the employee creating a visual or written representation of their anticipated creative process highlighting the creative work they expect to do, the inventory of creativity interruptions, and the tactics for addressing these interruptions.
  • The manager help the employee discover the conditions and resources they need to be creative and then support them in establishing those conditions.
  • Establish an ongoing feedback loop for the employee to share what they are experiencing in their creative work. The manager can coach the employee on revisions in their tactics and the employee can request additional support and test their ideas.

Study Limitations

While the Sustainable Employee Creativity Model included many factors known to play roles in the creativity process, many additional factors could have been considered in the model and, by extension, in the study. These factors were excluded from the study because the study had to be contained to a limited number factors in order to be practically executed. The researcher also thought that they were sufficiently represented by other factors or they were not believed to play as significant roles in sustaining creativity as the factors selected for the study. Exclusion of these factors may have resulted in an incomplete analysis of the model. Potential additional factors:

  • Preparation: cognitive skills, adaptation ability, image expectations, and peer expectations for creativity.
  • Execution: creativity process skills such as problem identification, team process skills such as communication and knowledge sharing, psychological safety, leader-member exchange, and feedback-seeking behavior.

An important aspect of this study was determining the relative strength of relationships between all the factors. Although this yielded some useful insights, there could be more complex relationships that the study did not look at such as are there combinations of factors that when combined in different ways at different stages of the creativity process are found to determine creativity sustainability in meaningful ways. Additionally, what is meant by the strength of relationship is still not fully understood. The study looked at relative strength, but did not answer what strong vs. weak means in terms of sustaining creativity.

Lastly, this study did not examine any of the causal aspects in the model to understand why the factors play varying roles in creativity sustainability. The qualitative data did provide some insights about what the respondents believed about their own creativity experiences and suggest some possible reasons for why sustainability may be higher or lower, but the study did not attempt to validate these insights in any way.

Some Questions Still To Answer

The results of this study supports the assertion that each of the preparation and execution factors in The Sustainable Employee Creativity Model play important roles in sustaining employee creativity and that the model effectively describes how the factors interrelate. The findings of the study reveal that the model does not fully describe the creativity sustainability process and should be enhanced to re-characterize the cycle of sustainability as consisting of phases of preparation, execution, interruption, re-preparation, reengagement, and execution. This leads to an addition to the Sustainable Employee Creativity Model of a repreparation and reengagement set of activities that represents the ongoing cycle that employees traverse as they are interrupted and then adjust their efforts to persist creatively.

Figure 5

This view of the model recommends future studies should explore what is going on in this ongoing cycle of repreparation and reengagement. Understanding how the various factors in the model change as employees go through this ongoing cycle, will help guide more precise approaches to boosting employee creative performance.

Although there were not as many respondents as hoped to credibly analyze the factors in the model among demographic categories, there are some features of the data results that point to potential underlying demographic differences. One such difference is looking how some of the relationships between factors in the model become much stronger the longer employees are in their jobs; they experience more alignment between the factors in helping them sustain creatively. The following chart shows that something is happening among the respondents after 1-2 years in their jobs for a number of the factor relationships in the model. For each of the relationships shown, there is a substantial increase in the strength of the relationship at about the two-year mark.

Figure 6

This potential finding reinforces the enhancement of the model in suggesting that as employees cycle through their creative work over time they become better at navigating the challenges to being creative and make better use of preparation and support factors. It would be useful to collect a much larger sample of employees across job tenure and to look more precisely at how employees creative sustainability changes over the course of their careers and to determine what factors are more important at various career stages:

  • Do perceptions of organizational support for creativity take a certain amount of time to be fully understood by employees and integrated into their creative work?
  • Does job tenure reflect that employees are developing a repertoire of creative work experience that allows them to validate their preparation approach and adjust through some form of trial of error?

Additional analysis of the relationships by demographic categories indicates that there are high levels of variability of strength of relationships for many of the factors when looking at industry and job type. Further study of how these demographic variations among the factor relationships is needed in order to arrive at any conclusions.

This study validates and extends past research that employee creativity occurs within a dynamic model and that organizational, managerial, and employee factors can combine in a variety of ways to yield desired creativity performance. While there is evidence that having the right organizational supports for creativity and enabling personal agency may make the biggest impact, the results of the study show that employees are fairly resilient even when they are interrupted and they have high expectations of future creativity engagement. To sift through the potential complexity that all things are worth trying to boost creativity performance and arrive at a more streamlined and focused set of approaches to managing creativity, future studies should explore under what conditions is employee resiliency highest and how to enable a self-sustaining cycle of creative work.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J, & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

Basadur, M. & Basadur, T. (2011). Where are the generators? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 29–42.

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive Leadership and Employee Involvement in Creative Tasks in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250–260.

Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35–48.

Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., & Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: The insulating role of creative ability. Group & Organization Management, 34(3), 330–357.

Cohen-Meitar, R Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2009). Linking Meaningfulness in the Workplace to Employee Creativity: The Intervening Role of Organizational Identification and Positive Psychological Experiences. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 361–375.

De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 811–831.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286–307.

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creativity action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142.

George, J. M., & Jing Zhou. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605–622.

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.

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(1), 90–105.

Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E. & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I Am, I Think I Can, and I Do: The Role of Personal Identity, Self-Efficacy, and Cross-Application of Experiences in Creativity at Work. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2/3), 247–258.

Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730–743.

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3), 313.

Oldham, G. R. & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.

Scott, S., & Bruce, R. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion Process and Employee Creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413–432.

Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277–293.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.

Zhang, X. & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.

Appendix

Portrait of Survey Respondents

Appendix 1

Summary Data Analysis

Appendix 2

Qualitative Data Summary

Appendix 3

Contact Us

Master's in Learning & Organizational Change

First Floor, Annenberg Hall
2120 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL 60208
Northwestern University

Phone: 847/491-7376

Email: msloc@northwestern.edu