2012 MarkusBaer PuttingCreativity AOM

PUTTING CREATIVITY TO WORK: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CREATIVE IDEAS IN
ORGANIZATIONS
Author(s): MARKUS BAER
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, No. 5 (October 2012), pp. 1102-1119
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23412455
Accessed: 01-12-2018 10:01 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Journal
This content downloaded from 112.78.150.154 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:01:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
® Academy of Management Journal
2012, Vol. 55, No. 5, 1102-1119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.54B5/amj.2009.0470
PUTTING CREATIVITY TO WORK: THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF CREATIVE IDEAS IN ORGANIZATIONS
MARKUS BAER
Washington University in St. Louis
The production of creative ideas does not necessarily imply their implementation. This
study examines the possibility that the relation between creativity and implementation
is regulated by individuals' motivation to put their ideas into practice and their ability
to network, or, alternatively, the number of strong relationships they maintain. Using
data from 216 employees and their supervisors, results indicated that individuals were
able to improve the otherwise negative odds of their creative ideas being realized when
they expected positive outcomes to be associated with their implementation efforts and
when they were skilled networkers or had developed a set of strong "buy-in"
relationships.
"Ideas are useless unless used" (Levitt, 1963: 79). unfold, work on creativity has proliferated over the
Although few would dispute the validity of this past decades (see George [2008] and Shalley, Zhou,
statement, studies that directly examine the condiand Oldham [2004] for recent reviews). This body
tions that determine when creative ideas are con of work has provided valuable insights into the
verted into actual innovations, that is, implefactors that shape the production of novel, useful
mented or used, are relatively rare. This lack of ideas in organizations. However, because idea im
systematic attention is especially surprising given
plementation, in contrast to creativity, is primarily
that innovation, particularly in dynamic contexts,a social-political process (e.g., Frost & Egri, 1991;
is widely recognized as being critical to the growthVan de Ven, 1986), the implications of this work for
and competitiveness of organizations (e.g., Roth scholars'
& understanding of when creative ideas are
Sneader, 2006; Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy, 2009) ultimately implemented are limited.
and, as a consequence, has been of longstanding Although a growing body of work examines in
interest to scholars and practitioners alike (e.g.,
novation more directly (see Anderson, De Dreu,
Damanpour, 1991; Kanter, 1983; Peters & Waterand Nijstad [2004] and Hülsheger, Anderson, and
man, 1982; Rogers, 2003; Schumpeter, 1942). Salgado [2009] for recent reviews), this research
Individual innovation refers to the "developmentalso suffers from a number of limitations. First,
and implementation of new ideas by people who despite acknowledging that innovation encom
over time engage with others within an institu
passes both creativity and idea implementation and
tional context" (Van de Ven, 1986: 591). Creativity
that each activity may be shaped by different per
can be viewed as the first stage of an innovation sonal and contextual forces, numerous studies have
process. Creativity refers to the development of
not made this distinction between idea generation
ideas that are both novel and useful, either in the
and implementation, either in their conceptual ar
short or the long term (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Oldham
guments or in their empirical analyses (e.g., Scott &
& Cummings, 1996), whereas idea implementation
Bruce, 1994; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Second,
describes the process of converting these ideas into
those efforts that have distinguished between idea
new and improved products, services, or ways of
generation and implementation have typically fo
doing things (e.g., Kanter, 1988; West, 2002; Wood
cused not so much on the creativity of employees'
man, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Thus, innovation
ideas but rather on their quantity (e.g., Axtell, Hol
can be conceptualized as encompassing two differ
ent activities: the development of novel, usefulman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson, & Harrington,
ideas and their implementation. 2000; Frese, Teng, & Wijnen, 1999). However, the
Presumably reflecting the importance of the ini nature of the relation between the mere production
of ideas and implementation may be qualitatively
tial development of new ideas for innovation to
different from the link between creativity and im
plementation. Finally, research on the emergence
of change agents (e.g., Howell & Higgins, 1990;
Editor's note: The manuscript for this article was ac
cepted for publication during the term of AM/s formerKanter, 1983) and the ways in which they attract
editor-in-chief, R. Duane Ireland. the attention of important decision makers (e.g.,
1102
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's expr
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
2012 Baer 1103
Dutton & Ashford, 1993) has provided importantability) or, alternatively, the strength of their actual
insights into the tactics that surround the imple
relationships (number of strong buy-in ties) as joint
mentation of innovation in organizations. How moderators of the link between creativity and imple
ever, this work typically has ignored the outcome
mentation. This logic is consistent with the notion
side of this process—that is, the extent to which that
the performance (P) can be thought of as a multipli
various actions of change agents actually result in function of both motivation (M) and ability (/I)
cative
implementation of new initiatives. Thus, under of the form (P = f[M X A]) (Vroom, 1964).
standing of the factors determining the extent toThe contributions of this study are twofold. First,
which individuals are able to improve the odds inof
examining creativity vis-à-vis implementation,
successfully realizing their ideas still remains in than the mere production of ideas irrespec
rather
complete. Given the overall state of the researchtive
on of their novelty and usefulness, the present
individual innovation, it appears then that Van de provides important insights into the link be
study
Ven's observation (1986) that the conversion of tween the nature of people's ideas and the extent to
ideas into actual innovations is one of the central which these ideas are ultimately realized. Second,
problems in the study of innovation appears to be this study is the first to theorize and test the effects
as true today as it was more than a quarter century of creativity, individuals' instrumentality beliefs
ago. The goal of the present study was to tackle thisregarding implementation, and the ability to culti
issue by addressing the limitations of this previousvate and use social networks (consisting of strong
research. buy-in ties) in jointly shaping idea implementation.
Acknowledging that idea generation and imple Thus, the current research provides an important
mentation are two distinguishable elements of the first step toward identifying the conditions that
innovation process, the current study examines the determine whether creative ideas are ultimately
relation between these two activities. In contrast to converted into innovations. I assume a person-cen
some earlier work, however, the focus here is not tric perspective on innovation, thereby offering a
on the extent to which individuals develop ideas, valuable complement to previous work, which has
irrespective of their novelty and usefulness, but often dismissed the importance of personal factors
rather on the overall creativity of these contribu for implementation in favor of more macrolevel
tions. Given this focus, it is argued that ideas that drivers (e.g., Axtell et al., 2000; Axtell, Holman, &
are useful yet novel are likely to produce uncer Wall, 2006). Although there is evidence supporting
tainty and, as a result, are likely to be met with the importance for innovation of a range of differ
skepticism and hesitation (e.g., Janssen, Van de ent personal factors, such as risk taking and
Vliert, & West, 2004; Levitt, 1963; Wolfe, 1995). achievement (Howell & Higgins, 1990), the contri
Thus, although there may be forces in an organiza bution of the present study lies in identifying the
tion that promote the implementation of creative most critical factors and then hypothesizing and
ideas (e.g., an organizational mandate to be inno testing how they jointly shape implementation.
vative), the very nature of these ideas is likely to
generate reluctance about their implementation. As
a result, it is suggested that the generation of cre LITERATURE OVERVIEW AND
ative ideas by no means guarantees their imple THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
mentation (Sohn & Jung, 2010). Previous Research on Individual Innovation
Idea implementation, however, is largely a social
political process (e.g., Van de Ven, 1986; Yuan & Research on innovation has flourished in recent
Woodman, 2010). Consequently, people—provided decades. Despite the widespread agreement that
they are motivated to engage in the risky endeavor of creativity and implementation are two distinguish
pursuing their ideas and provided they possess the able activities of an innovation process with poten
abilities or social relationships that allow them to tially different antecedents (e.g., Axtell et al., 2000),
involve and draw upon the resources of important this growing body of work has not always made this
supporters in their organization—should be able to distinction. Indeed, both earlier research and more
influence this social-political process, thereby im recent efforts have treated creativity and imple
proving the otherwise negative odds that their cre mentation as indicative of the same underlying
ative contributions will eventually be realized (e.g., concept—innovation. A variety of factors have
Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Kanter, 1983). Reflecting this been identified as important antecedents to this
logic, the present examination considers both peo umbrella concept, including climate and culture
ple's motivation to engage in idea implementation (e.g., Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004; Scott & Bruce,
(implementation instrumentality) and their ability to 1994), leadership (e.g., Janssen, 2005; Janssen &
cultivate and use their social networks (networking Van Yperen, 2004; Yuan & Woodman, 2010), group
1104 Academy of Management Journal October
characteristics (e.g., Hülsheger et al., 2009), job re 2001; Kanter, 1988). For example, work on "issue
quirements (e.g., Bunce & West, 1994; Janssen, selling," a perspective that highlights the impor
2000: 2001), and personal attributes (e.g., Bunce & tance of change agents and their actions in bringing
West, 1995; Ng, Feldman, & Lam, 2010). Although certain issues to the attention of top management
this research has made important strides toward (Dutton & Ashford, 1993), has both theoretically
providing a comprehensive understanding of the and empirically examined the actions that consti
contextual and individual factors that shape inno tute issue -selling (Dutton, Ashford, O'Neill, & Law
vation in organizations, in treating innovation as a rence, 2001) and the contextual forces that affect a
unitary concept it reveals little about the link be person's willingness to engage in issue selling in
tween creativity and implementation and the con the first place (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dut
ditions affecting it. ton, 1998; Dutton, Ashford, O'Neill, Hayes, &
Not all empirical research on innovation has fol Wierba, 1997). This research has developed a rich
lowed this path, however. A few investigations portrait of the issue-selling process and the condi
have considered creativity and implementation as tions that shape it, but it has paid relatively scant
separate activities and examined their unique an attention to the outcomes of this process—that is,
tecedents (e.g., Axtell et al., 2006; Clegg, Unsworth, whether a person's attempts to effect change (i.e., to
Epitropaki, & Parker, 2002; Frese et al., 1999). This get a new idea heard and implemented) are suc
research has generally concluded that personal and cessful or not. The sparse knowledge that does exist
job variables promote the suggestion of ideas, about whether certain behaviors enhance the prob
whereas organizational variables contribute to their ability of successfully selling an issue comes from
implementation. For example, Axtell et al. (2000) qualitative work (e.g., Dutton et al., 2001).
showed that although autonomy and self-efficacy From previous research, then, it is not at all clear
were most strongly related to idea generation, par how (1) creativity relates to idea implementation,
ticipation in decision making and support for in (2) what factors are most likely to improve the
novation emerged as the most powerful predictors otherwise probably negative odds of creative ideas
of implementation. actually being implemented, and (3) how these fac
Although this work has significantly advanced tors combine to jointly shape idea implementation.
understanding of the factors that differentially pro The remainder of this introduction addresses these
mote idea generation and implementation, the fac three points.
tors that shape the relation between creativity and
idea implementation still remain largely unknown.
Creativity and Idea Implementation
This is because research in this vein has typically
focused not on the nature of employees' ideas—that Previous research has consistently documented
is, the creativity of ideas—but rather on their quan that the production of ideas is a positive predictor
tity. For example, Frese et al. (1999) conceptualized of idea implementation (Axtell et al., 2000, 2006;
and measured creativity as referring to the number Frese et al., 1999). For example, in their study of
of ideas employees generated and suggested, irre design engineers in two large aerospace companies,
spective of whether these ideas were novel and Clegg et al. (2002) found a positive association of
useful. In keeping with the notion that unless cre .57 between the number of ideas employees had
ative ideas have been generated, implementation suggested and the extent to which these ideas were
cannot occur, this work generally has shown posi eventually implemented. However, the link be
tive associations between suggestions and imple tween creativity and implementation may not be as
mentation—relations that are often quite substan positive and straightforward as this earlier work
tial. However, creativity implies not only the implies. Indeed, a number of commentators have
generation of ideas but also that these ideas satisfy cautioned that creativity and idea implementation
the criteria of novelty and usefulness (e.g., Baer, may be only loosely coupled. According to these
2010; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Thus, although voices, the production of creative ideas is far more
informative, research that has separated innovation prevalent than their conversion into actual innova
into suggestions and implementation provides only tions (e.g., Levitt, 1963; West, 2002). The reason for
limited insights into the conditions that shape the this rather loose connection between creativity and
relation between idea creativity, rather than idea implementation may be found largely in the nov
quantity, and implementation. elty dimension of the concept of creativity. Al
Research on how people effect change in organ though usefulness is a necessary requirement for
izations also has made important advances in illu ideas to be considered creative, the skepticism and
minating the dynamics that surround idea imple resistance with which new ideas are often met is
mentation in organizations (e.g., Howell & Shea, likely to be attributable more to variations in nov
2012 Baer 1105
elty rather than to differences in usefulness. Thus, Taken together, the above points suggest that al
as long as the usefulness criterion is satisfied, the though the generation of ideas is a prerequisite for
novelty aspect is likely to be the reason why the their ultimate implementation, creativity may exhibit
production of creative ideas does not invariablya qualitatively different relation with implementa
result in their ultimate implementation. tion. Specifically, rather than facilitating idea imple
As creative ideas imply departures from or extenmentation, an idea's high degree of creativity, in the
sions of existing products, services, or ways of do absence of certain mitigating factors, should make it
ing things, uncertainty is a signature feature of most less likely that the idea finds its way into practice.
creative ideas (e.g., Kanter, 1988; Pelz, 1985; Wolfe, However, in circumstances in which people are
1995). Unfortunately, uncertainty often provokes driven to pursue their ideas and possess the abilities
disputes caused by differences in viewpoints or social relationships that allow them to involve and
among those who are affected by the ideas, anddraw upon the resources of important supporters in
such conflicts, in turn, may result in unnecessary their organization, the odds of creativity resulting in
delays in implementation or its ultimate failureidea implementation should increase. This line of
(Frost & Egri, 1991; Green, Welsh, & Dehler, 2003). argumentation suggests that the effects of creativity
Moreover, pressing for the implementation of new on implementation depend on the presence (or ab
ideas typically implies challenging establishedsence) of certain moderating factors. In addition, it
power structures in an organization, which causes suggests that to comprehensively describe the effects
resistance (Janssen et al., 2004; Kanter, 1988). In of creativity on implementation, it is necessary to
contrast to ideas of limited novelty, which typicallyconsider all of these factors in concert. It is to this
can be accommodated within existing structures,discussion that I now turn.
creative ideas tend to be associated with more sub
stantive changes—changes in roles, power, and sta
Implementation Instrumentality and Networking
tus—and, as a consequence, they have a greater
Ability as Moderators of the Creativity
likelihood of being rejected (Damanpour, 1988;
Implementation Relation
Green, Gavin, & Aiman-Smith, 1995). Regardless of
how promising an idea may be, its implementation Innovation is a risky endeavor. For example,
will likely conflict with some interests and jeoparJanssen (2003) showed that innovative behavior,
dize some alliances (Kimberly, 1981). Thus, theespecially among employees who were deeply in
opposition that creative ideas likely encounter may volved in their jobs, often created conflict with
have less to do with their merit than with the or coworkers that, in turn, resulted in less satisfactory
ganizational and personal consequences they im relationships with those individuals. In addition,
ply (Wolfe, 1995). ideas may fail to produce anticipated returns; as a
Given their potential to elicit controversy and to consequence, people may suffer losses of reputa
alter the dynamics in an organization, creative tion as well as a withdrawal of the trust of friends
ideas, compared to ideas that are more mundane,and sponsors (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Given
are naturally disadvantaged in harvesting the re these prospects, people are unlikely to mobilize
sources (funds, materials, etc.) necessary for their sponsorship and obtain advocacy in an effort to
implementation (Damanpour, 1988; Norman, sway important resource allocation decisions un
1971). However, because a decision to allocate or less they believe that such efforts offer significant
redirect resources often involves multiple constit returns (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Indeed, people
uents who are likely to disagree about the value of have long been known to act upon the expected
an idea, especially one that is novel and inherently consequences of their actions (Vroom, 1964). Thus,
ambiguous, this process is open to social-political the extent to which individuals expect positive out
maneuvers, and sponsorship and advocacy are nat comes to be associated with their implementation
ural mechanisms for influencing decisions in such efforts—a concept referred to as implementation
circumstances (Green et al., 2003). As Kanter noted, instrumentality—is likely to serve as an important
"The features of successful ideas have more to do moderator of the relation between creativity and
with the likelihood of gathering political support idea implementation.
than with the likelihood of the idea to produce Miron et al. (2004) provided some indirect evi
results" (1988:186). Thus, individuals who are able dence for implementation instrumentality serving
to mobilize the support of key allies should be in a as a potential moderator of the association between
position to sway important resource allocation de creativity and innovation. These authors showed
cisions in their favor, thereby improving the odds that creative individuals were rated as more inno
that even their more creative ideas may be realized vative when they were also highly determined to
(Howell & Higgins, 1990; Van de Yen, 1986). realize their ideas. Yuan and Woodman (2010) ob
tained additional support for the logic that "out coalitions is critical for successful innovation. Al
come expectations" are powerful motivating forces though these previous efforts have not explicitly
shaping innovative behavior. These authors argued addressed the role of networking ability in regulat
and showed that innovation is determined, at least ing, alongside motivation, the relation between cre
partially, by both performance and image outcome ativity and actual idea implementation, they nev
expectations, defined as employees' beliefs that ertheless have highlighted the importance of
their innovative efforts will bring about perfor individuals' abilities to craft and utilize effective
mance improvements and also result in certain im social networks in an effort to effect change in
age gains (or risks). Similar to the notion of out organizations.
come expectations as conceptualized by Yuan and Although I expected both implementation instru
Woodman (2010), implementation instrumentality mentality and networking ability to be integral to
captures the extent to which employees believe overcoming the unfavorable odds that truly cre
that their innovative efforts will result in certain
ative ideas are likely to face when being considered
(desirable) outcomes. In contrast to the outcome for implementation, the realization of ideas that are
expectations concept, however, implementation in of limited creativity should depend to a lesser ex
strumentality focuses on the outcomes expected to tent on the presence of these moderating factors.
be associated with idea implementation specifi Given that ideas of limited creativity (ideas that are
cally, rather than on innovation more generally, more mundane) tend to preserve the status quo
and it captures not only the more extrinsic out rather than challenge it (Subramaniam & Youndt,
comes (e.g., image gains) of individuals' implemen 2005), they tend to be naturally favored and, as a
tation efforts but also the intrinsic benefits flowing result, more likely to harvest the resources needed
from such efforts.
for their implementation. In other words, motiva
Although the expectation of positive outcomes tion and networking ability are expected to offer
being associated with their implementation efforts
fewer advantages when creativity is relatively low,
may motivate people to seek the support and obtain
and the fate of ideas is less likely to depend on their
the advocacy necessary to improve the odds of their
creators mobilizing trusted allies and obtaining of
creative ideas being put into practice, the ability to
important resources such as sponsorship and
network is equally important to successfully navi
advocacy.
gate the social-political process of innovation (e.g.,
Overall, then, these arguments suggest that cre
Kanter, 1983). Mobilizing sponsorship and advo
ativity should combine with both implementation
cacy requires that individuals have cultivated the
instrumentality and networking ability to jointly
types of social relationships—close connections to
affect idea implementation. In the absence of both
trusted friends and allies—that provide access to
such assets (Obstfeld, 2005). Thus, without the motivation and ability, idea implementation
should become less likely as creativity increases.
ability to develop close connections and forge ben
Thus, when implementation instrumentality and
eficial alliances, the motivation to implement may
not improve the odds of realizing creative ideas networking ability are both low, the relation be
tween creativity and implementation is expected to
after all. Networking ability, defined as the extent to
which people are skilled in developing and using be negative. Relative to people who lack the moti
social networks to effect change at work (Ferris et vation to implement their ideas and the ability to
cultivate and use their social networks, those who
al., 2005; Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Doug
las, & Lux, 2007), may therefore be expected to are motivated or possess the requisite networking
regulate the extent to which implementation in abilities should be more likely to realize their cre
strumentality allows employees who develop cre ative ideas, with the best odds belonging to those
ative ideas to improve the odds of these ideas ulti employees who are both driven to implement their
mately being realized. ideas and gifted at networking. However, even un
Previous theoretical and qualitative research has der these optimal circumstances, it may not be
provided some support for the importance of the possible to achieve implementation rates for highly
ability to involve others and build coalitions in creative ideas that are higher than those that can be
selling issues and ideas to decision makers in or expected for less creative ideas, which are likely to
ganizations. For example, Dutton and Ashford get implemented without much opposition any
(1993) theorized that assembling an alliance of po way. Thus, although high levels of both moderating
tential supporters should allow issue sellers to bet factors should significantly improve the odds of
ter attract the attention of top management. Simi highly creative ideas finding their way into prac
larly, on the basis of her qualitative work, Kanter tice, this does not necessarily imply that the rela
(1983) concluded that the ability to build effective tion will be positive. Thus,
2012 Baer 1107
Hypothesis la. Implementation instrumental occasionally be in a position to offer their network

contacts something tangible in exchange for thei
ity and networking ability jointly moderate the
relation between creativity and implementa buy-in, more often than not such exchanges involv
tion; relative to individuals who lack imple less tangible assets—support in the future in ex
mentation instrumentality and ability to net change for the contacts' sponsorship now (Kanter
1983). Such implicit agreements, however, requir
work, the relation should be less negative for
those who possess either instrumentality or thethe existence of mutual trust and norms of recipro
ity, assets that are more likely to be developed
ability to network, and least negative for those
when the ties connecting individuals to their
who possess both instrumentality and net
working ability. buy-in contacts are strong rather than weak (Col
man, 1988; Obstfeld, 2005; Podolny & Baron, 1997).
Thus, the number of strong buy-in ties may b
Strong Social Ties as Alternative Moderator to
expected to improve the odds that motivated ind
Networking Ability
viduals are able to implement their creative ideas
Given that part of individuals' success at imple Taken together, these arguments suggest that cre
ativity should combine with both implementatio
menting their creative ideas is rooted in their abil
ity to forge the type of social relationships thatinstrumentality and the number of strong buy-i
provide access to resources such as sponsorship ties to jointly affect idea implementation. In th
and advocacy, these social ties may also be considabsence of both the motivation to pursue ideas and
ered as a potential moderator (along with imple multiple strong relationships, idea implementation
mentation instrumentality) of the link between should
cre become less likely as creativity increases
ativity and idea implementation. Thus, when implementation instrumentality and
Networking ability is likely to allow peoplethe to number of strong buy-in ties are both low, the
relation between creativity and implementation i
cultivate different types of social relationships and
network constellations depending upon the needs expected to be negative. Relative to people who
of the circumstances in which they operate (Ferrislack implementation instrumentality and possess
only a few strong buy-in ties, those who are mot
et al., 2005, 2007). In other words, when people are
primarily concerned with being able to access a
vated or who possess many strong ties should be
wide range of different information, networking more likely to realize their creative ideas, with the
ability may translate into very different types ofbest odds belonging to those employees who bot
relationships than they do when employees are are motivated to implement their ideas and have
primarily concerned with getting new initiatives cultivated a large number of strong buy-in relation
implemented. Thus, examining the nature of ships. the Thus,
relationships through which networking ability
Hypothesis lb. Implementation instrumental
exerts its moderating effect (alongside instrumen
ity and strong buy-in ties jointly moderate the
tality) on the link between creativity and imple
relation between creativity and implementa
mentation provides some clarification as to the so
tion; relative to individuals who lack imple
cial-structural mechanism involved during idea
mentation instrumentality and possess rela
implementation.
tively few strong buy-in ties, the relation
The social ties that are the focus of the present
should be less negative for those who possess
examination are individuals' buy-in relationships,
either high levels of instrumentality or many
which are ties to others whose backing may allow
strong ties, and least negative for those who
successful pursuit of initiatives within their organ
possess both high levels of instrumentality and
ization (Podolny & Baron, 1997). Resources such as
many strong ties.
sponsorship and advocacy typically flow from
buy-in networks primarily consisting of strong ties
(i.e., ties to close colleagues or friends) (Coleman, METHODS
1988; Granovetter, 1973; Perry-Smith & Shalley,
Research Setting and Participants
2003). Hence, the number of strong buy-in ties is
considered as a potential moderator regulating the Hypotheses were tested in a sample of employee
joint effects of creativity and implementation in
from a large global agricultural processing firm
strumentality on idea implementation. Employees from different divisions, including
To mobilize sponsorship and advocacy, individ counting, finance, processing, and R&D, and fro
uals may approach a wide range of contacts, different
in hierarchical levels (nonsupervisory e
cluding subordinates, peers, managers of related ployees, supervisors, etc.) were approached for par
functions, and others. Although individuals may ticipation. Information on individuals' creativit
implementation instrumentality, networking abil substantial departures from existing product an

ity, and buy-in networks was assessed via web service lines"; "developed ideas that make existin
based surveys from participating employees. To knowledge about current products/services obs
avoid problems of common source variance, I ob lete"; "developed breakthrough ideas—not mino
tained information on implementation via supervi changes to existing products/services." In keepin
sor ratings. Finally, background information was with research using self-reports of creativity (e.g.,
obtained from archival records. A human resource Axtell et al., 2000; Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009
management liaison identified all potential partic employees indicated the extent to which each o
ipants and their supervisors and provided a list ofthe three statements was characteristic of the work
their names along with basic demographic informa they had produced over the past year using a scale
tion. In total, 531 employees and 111 supervisors ranging from 1 ("not at all characteristic") to 7
were identified. ("extremely characteristic"). I averaged the three
Out of the 531 employees invited to participate in items to create a scale (a = .87).
the study, a total of 238 completed all sections of the Implementation instrumentality. According to
survey, for a response rate of 45 percent. In the em Vroom (1964), perceived instrumentality refers to
ployee sample, 151 people were men and 87 were the degree to which a person sees an outcome (e.g.,
women, and 94 percent were white. The mean age the implementation of an idea) as leading to the
was 40.58 years (s.d. = 11.52), and average company attainment of other, second-level outcomes (e.g.,
tenure was 8.16 years (s.d. = 7.95). The median num praise, monetary rewards). Although expectancy
ber of years of post-high school education was theory requires that the instrumentality scores be
4 years (i.e., bachelor's degree). Out of the 111 super weighted by the valence (i.e., desirability) of each
visors invited to participate in the study, a total of 98 secondary outcome and then be multiplied by the
provided employee ratings, for a response rate of 88 probability that a certain action (typically referring
percent. Of the supervisor sample, 86 were male, 25 to a person's level of effort) will indeed be followed
were female, and 92 percent were white. The mean by the outcome in question, research has shown
age was 46.55 years (s.d. = 8.57), and average com that weighting instrumentality perceptions by va
pany tenure was 14.39 years (s.d. = 9.10). lence adds little to the predictive power of the
Characteristics of employee respondents and non theory (Mitchell, 1974; Nadler & Lawler, 1983).
respondents were generally similar. Specifically, Thus, unweighted instrumentality scores were
there were no significant differences in terms of age used in the present study.
(f[488] = .02, p > .05), gender (/[l] = .89, p > .05), Typically, the second-level outcomes that follow
or race (^[1] = .28, p > .05). However, there were the outcome in question are selected by researchers
significant differences on company tenure (f[523] = and then presented to employees for rating. Natu
2.81, p < .01); the average tenure of respondents rally, this carries the risk that some outcomes may
(mean = 8.16 years) was significantly lower than the be irrelevant to the employee, whereas other, rele
average tenure of nonrespondents (mean = vant outcomes may be omitted (Van Eerde & Thi
10.17 years), suggesting that shorter-tenured individ erry, 1996). To ensure that all outcomes were in
uals may have been overrepresented in my sample. deed relevant to the sample under investigation,
Because a number of supervisors of nonparticipating after selecting items from the extant literature (e.g.,
employees had provided ratings of implementation, Kanter, 1983), I discussed the list of outcomes with
it was possible to establish whether respondents and representatives from each of the participating divi
nonrespondents differed in terms of their engagement sions and made adjustments based on their com
in this activity. No significant differences emerged for ments. Nine outcomes were selected, and represen
this variable (f[405] = -0.22, p > .05). tatives indicated that these outcomes constituted a
The final sample size dropped from 238 to 216 comprehensive list of relevant consequences of
because, for 22 participating employees, it was not idea implementation at the organization.
possible to obtain the necessary ratings. The ratings To derive the instrumentality scores, I asked par
for this final sample were provided by 87 supervi ticipants to report the extent to which they per
sors, each of whom rated a median number of 2 ceived each of the nine outcomes to be associated
employees. with the pursuit of idea implementation. Specifi
cally, employees first read the item stem, "Here are
Measures
some things that could happen to people if they
tried to turn their ideas into a new product, pro
Creativity. This was measured with three items cess, or procedure that is actually brought to market
derived from those developed by Subramaniam or implemented at [organization]. How likely is it
and Youndt (2005): "developed ideas that imply that each of these things would happen if YOU
2012 Baer 1109
triedranged from to im
1 ("never") to 7 ("always"), supervi
responded
sors rated the frequency with which an employee's t
ideas had reached certainfro
ranged stages of implementa
likely"): "M
tion: "Please rate the frequency with which, in the
work"; "I
past, employee's ideas (1) have been approved for w
who further development; (2) have been transformed
can ge
into usable products, processes, or procedures; (3)"
increase";
will get th
have been successfully brought to market or have
thing wort
been successfully implemented at [organization]." I
new averaged responses to create an indicator of idea
things
"I will
implementation [a = .95).1enc
(reverse-sco
To establish convergent validity for this measure,
to tackle
I asked participants to describe a few ideas they o
averaged
had worked on in the past and to estimate the a
Networkin
extent to which each idea had been successfully
six-item n
implemented: "Think about the last 2-3 ideas that
Skillyou haveInven
developed (alone or in collaboration with
items inclu
others but with major input from you) and that you
and tried to get implemented at [organization]. How
networ
"I have dev
successful were these implementation efforts in
and each case?" The item was rated on a scale ranging
associat
when from 1 ("notIat all successful—idea
real was never con
rated on
sidered for implementation") to 7 ("extremelya suc
cessful—idea was brought toto
agree") market or imple
(a = .89). mented"). About 60 percent of participants provided
Strong ties. Employees first received a name gen information on this measure. To derive an indicator
erator question: "Most people turn to others for of implementation from the employee perspective, I
support when they try to get something done in averaged scores across all ideas reported by each par
their organization, such as implementing a new ticipant (a = .88). Providing evidence of convergent
idea or changing a work procedure. Please write validity, this indicator of implementation signifi
down the names, nicknames, or initials of all peo cantly and positively correlated with the measure of
ple whose support you can count on to move your implementation provided by supervisors (r = .26, p <
ideas forward" (e.g., Rodan & Galunic, 2004). In .01), with the size of the correlation being comparable
view of discussions with representatives from the to those in previous research (e.g., Janssen, 2000,
participating divisions, I limited the number of 2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994).
contacts participants could list to 15. However, par Control variables. According to Ibarra (1993),
ticipants could add additional contacts if they felt both personal sources of power, such as education
it was necessary, and two participants did so. The and experience (e.g., tenure), and structural
number of buy-in contacts reported ranged from 1
to 17, and the average was 4.79 (s.d. = 3.78).
After listing their buy-in contacts, participants 1 Most supervisors rated only two employees on their
responded to a set of name interpreter questions for idea implementation. However, problems associated
each contact. In accordance with the theoretical
with nonindependence of observations may still arise.
arguments, I operationalized tie strength via (emo
Although the parameter estimates in Table 2 are accurate,
tional) closeness (Granovetter, 1973): "How close Bliese and Hanges (2004) noted that in models including
are you with each person?" (1 = "acquaintance," 2 only individual-level variables (as is the case here), po
= "distant colleague," 3 = "friendly colleague," 4 tential nonindependence may result in too many type II
= "close colleague," 5 = "very close colleague"). errors—a loss of power. Given the significance of the
To construct a measure of strong ties, I categorized present findings, however, any loss of power is unlikely
to have affected the results. Nevertheless, I repeated all
ties into strong (i.e., close colleague and very close
analyses adjusting standard errors for correlations of er
colleague) and weak (i.e., acquaintance, distant col
ror terms due to clustering within supervisors. Results of
league, and friendly colleague) ties and then these analyses were virtually identical to those presented
counted the number of strong ties (Marsden & in Table 2, supporting the conclusion that the present
Campbell, 1984; Perry-Smith, 2006). findings were not significantly affected by nonindepen
Implementation. This was measured via three dence and are likely to be conservative estimates of the
items developed for this study. On a scale that true effect.
sources, such as subunit membership and formal negative for those who are either motivated
rank, affect the process of bringing new ideas into skilled networkers, and least negative for th
use. Following this model and accounting for the who are both motivated and skilled at craftin
possibility that any observed effects may be par effective social relationships. Consistently wi
tially attributable to these variables (e.g., Cross & this hypothesis, the creativity by implementat
Cummings, 2004; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; instrumentality by networking ability three-way
Obstfeld, 2005; Unsworth, Wall, & Carter, 2005), I teraction entered in the last step of model 1
included the following as control variables: educa negative and statistically significant (ß = -.18,
tion (years of post-high school education), tenure .05). Table 2 presents results of the regress
(years in organization), divisional membership (a analyses.
series of dummy variables with "audit" as the de Providing initial support for Hypothesis la, sim
fault group), and position (1 = "nonsupervisory/ ple slope analyses indicated that the relation be
individual contributor," 2 = "supervisor/coordina tween creativity and implementation was only neg
tor and/or technical expert," 3 = "manager/ ative and statistically significantly different from
director," 4 = "senior management"). In addition, zero when employees lacked both the motivation to
to control for the possibility that effects might be implement their ideas and the ability to network (ß
due not to the creativity of employees' ideas but = -.90, f[190] = -1.85, p < .05). In all other cases,
rather to the number of ideas generated, I also in the slopes between creativity and implementation
cluded frequency of idea generation as a control did not differ statistically significantly from zero
variable. Using a response scale ranging from 1 (ßs = -.22, -.08, .04; fs[l90] = -1.01, -0.36,
("once a year or less") to 5 ("every week"), employ 0.38; all p's > .05) for low instrumentality/high
ees indicated how often, on average, they came up ability, high instrumentality/low ability, and high
with a new idea. instrumentality/high ability, respectively). These
slopes are displayed in Figure 1.
RESULTS Hypothesis la further postulates that the slopes
for the relation between creativity and implemen
Table 1 summarizes means, standard deviations, tation generated when either instrumentality or
and correlations among the study variables. networking
The ability is low are different (i.e., less
relation between creativity and implementation negative) from the slope generated when both
was statistically nonsignificant (r = .13, p >instrumentality
.05), and ability are low. In addition,
providing some support for the notion that the Hypothesis
pro la says that the slope existing when
duction of creative ideas does not invariably resultboth instrumentality and ability are high signifi
in their implementation. cantly differs (i.e., is less negative) from the
slopes when either or both of these factors were
Hypothesis la states that implementation instru
low. To accurately test Hypothesis la, I used the
mentality and networking ability jointly moderate
slope difference test proposed by Dawson and
the relation between creativity and implementation
in such a way that, relative to individuals who
Richter (2006). In support of the hypothesis, re
lacked both implementation instrumentality sults
andof this test showed that the slopes for the
the requisite networking skills, the relation relation
is less between creativity and implementation
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among All Variables8

Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Education 4.49 2.44

2. Position 0.79 0.72 -.01
3. Tenure 8.24 8.01 -.31** .19**
4. Number of ideas 2.43 1.07 .19** .23** -.08
5. Creativity 2.47 1.30 .22** .24** -.05 .41**
6. Implementation instrumentality 4.25 1.07 .00 .01 -.08 -.06 .01
7. Networking ability 4.07 1.12 -.13 .19** .15* .07 .17* .23**
8. Strong ties 2.20 2.25 -.16* .10 .13 .12 .26** "o o h-> CO
9. Implementation 3.62 1.43 .03 .10 .05 .11 .13 .05 .02 .07
a n = 207 (listwise deletion).

* p < .05
** p < .01
2012 Baer 1111
TABLE 2
Results of Regression Analyses for Implementation"

Model 1 Model 2
Variables Entry P Final fS Entry (i Final (i
Control variables
Accounting 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13
Finance 0.29** 0.29** 0.29** 0.30**
Processing 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05

R&D 0.30** 0.27* 0.30** 0.28*
Sales 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08
Education 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01
Position 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.07

Tenure 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07
Number of ideas 0.15* 0.12 0.15* 0.15*

A R2 0.11 0.11
AF 2.73** 2.73**
Main effects
Creativity 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.05
Implementation instrumentality 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.08
Networking ability 0.01 0.00
Strong ties 0.04 0.09

A R2 0.01 0.01
AF 0.40 0.52
Two-way interactions
Creativity X implementation instrumentality 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.06
Creativity X networking ability -0.06 -0.04
Creativity X strong ties -0.02 0.01
Implementation instrumentality X networking ability -0.01 0.01
Implementation instrumentality X strong ties 0.02 0.12

A R2 0.00 0.00
AF 0.29 0.07
Three-way interactions
Creativity X implementation instrumentality X networking ability-0.18* -0.18*
Creativity X implementation instrumentality X strong ties -0.25**

A R2 0.03 0.04
AF 5.58* 9.65**
0.15 0.16
2.29*
a n = 207 (listwise deletion). Divisional membership coded as a series of dummy variables with audit as the default group.
* p < .05
** p < .01
generated when either instrumentality or ability difference emerged between the slope for high
was low were indeed statistically significantly instrumentality and high ability and the slope for
less negative (i.e., the difference was positive) high instrumentality and low ability (t[190] =
than the slope when both factors were low .67, p > .05). Thus, support for Hypothesis la
(fs[190] = 2.41 and 1.84, p's < .01 and .05 for was only partial.
high instrumentality/low ability and low instru Hypothesis lb states that implementation in
mentality/high ability, respectively). Table 3 strumentality and strong buy-in ties jointly mod
presents the results of paired tests of slopes (f s). erate the relation between creativity and imple
Also supportive of the proposed pattern of rela mentation in such a way that, relative to the
tions, results revealed that the slope generated relation for individuals who lack both instrumen
when both instrumentality and ability were high tality and many strong buy-in ties, the relation is
was statistically significantly less negative than less negative for those who are either motivated
both the slope representing low values on both or possess many strong ties, and it is the least
variables (#[190] = 2.10, p < .05) and the slope negative for those who are both motivated and
representing low instrumentality and high ability possess many strong ties. In keeping with this
(t[l90] = 1.63, p < .05). However, failing to sup hypothesis, the creativity by implementation in
port Hypothesis la, no statistically significant strumentality by strong tie three-way interaction
Academy of Management Journal
FIGURE 1
Interaction Effect of Creativity, Implementation Instrumentality, and Networking
Ability on Implementation
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
*\
_ 9 _ Low implementation instrumentality/

Implementation 3,00
low networking ability
2.50 , High implementation instrumentality/

low networking ability
2.00 Low implementation instrumentality/

high networking ability
1.50
, High implementation instrumentality/
high networking ability
1.00
Low High
Creativity
entered in the last step of model 2 was negative ative and statistically significantly different from
and statistically significant (ß = -.25, p < .01) zero when employees lacked both the instrumen
(see Table 2).2 tality to implement their ideas and numerous
Providing initial support for Hypothesis lb, sim strong buy-in ties [ß = —.55, f[190] = -2.02, p <
ple slope analyses indicated that the relation be .05). In all other cases, the slopes between creativ
tween creativity and implementation was only neg ity and implementation did not significantly differ
from zero (/3s = -.10, -.12, .01; fs[190] = -0.50,
-0.91, and 0.10, all p's > .05), for low instrumen
2 Providing additional support for Hypothesis lb, re
tality/high strong ties, high instrumentality/low
peating this analysis using a measure of the number of
strong ties, and high instrumentality/high strong
weak ties (i.e., acquaintances, distant colleagues, and
friendly colleagues) did not produce a statistically signif ties, respectively). These slopes are displayed in
icant three-way interaction [p > .05). Figure 2.
TABLE 3
Results of f-Tests of Slope Differences
Slope Pairs Networking Ability Strong Ties
0.67 1.65*
Implementation instrumentalityhigh and networking ability/strong tieshigh vs.
implementation instrumentalityhigh and networking ability/strong tieslow
1.63* 0.79
Implementation instrumentalitylow and networking ability/strong tieshigh
2.10* 2.48**
implementation instrumentalitylow and networking ability/strong tieslow
0.61 -0.11
Implementation instrumentalityhigh and networking ability/strong tieslow vs.
implementation instrumentalitylow and networking ability/strong tieshigh
2.41** 2.32*
Implementation instrumentalityhigh and networking ability/strong tieslow vs.
Implementation instrumentalitylow and networking ability/strong tieslow
1.84* 2.78**
Implementation instrumentalitylow and networking ability/strong tieshigh vs.
implementation instrumentalitylow and networking ability/strong tieslow
* p < .05
** p < .01
2012 Baer 1113
FIGURE 2
Interaction Effect of Creativity, Implementation Instrumentality, and Strong Ties on
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
Low implementation instrumentality/

Implementation 3 qq
low strong ties
2.50 High implementation instrumentality/

low strong ties
2.00 —*r~ Low implementation instrumentality/

high strong ties
1.50
a High implementation instrumentality/
high strong ties
1.00
Low High
Creativity
Hypothesis lb further postulates that the slopes ties was high (£[190] = 0.79, p > .05). Thus, Hy
for the relation between creativity and implemen pothesis lb was only partially supported.3,4
tation generated when either instrumentality or
strong ties is low are significantly different (i.e.,
less negative) from the slope created when both 3 Repeating all analyses substituting number of ideas
instrumentality and strong ties are low. In addition, for creativity did not produce any significant three-way
interactions (all p's > .05).
Hypothesis lb states that the slope when both in
4 Given that networking ability should partially deter
strumentality and strong ties are high significantly mine the extent to which individuals are able to cultivate
differs (i.e., is less negative) from the slopes when networks of strong buy-in ties, I also examined the pos
either or both of these factors are low. In support of sibility that the moderating effect of networking ability
the hypothesis, results of Dawson and Richter's on the joint association between creativity and instru
(2006) test showed that the slopes for the relation mentality, and implementation, was mediated by the
between creativity and implementation when ei number of strong buy-in ties (see Grant and Berry [2011]
ther instrumentality or strong ties was low were for another case in which one moderating variable medi
indeed statistically significantly less negative than ates the effect of another). Providing initial support for
this logic was a positive relation between networking
the slope when both factors were low (fs[190]
ability and strong ties (r = .18, p < .01). In addition,
= 2.32 and 2.78; p's < .05 and < .01, for high simultaneously entering the three-way interaction in
instrumentality/low strong ties and low instrumen volving networking ability and the three-way interaction
tality/high strong ties, respectively) (see Table 3). involving strong ties into an equation predicting imple
Also supportive of the proposed pattern of rela mentation (controlling for all relevant two-way interac
tions, results revealed that the slope when both tions) revealed that the mediating interaction involving
instrumentality and strong ties were high was sta strong ties remained statistically significant [ß = —.20, p
tistically significantly less negative than the slope < .05), while the previously significant interaction in
when both factors were low (f[190] = 2.48, p < .01) volving networking ability became nonsignificant {ß =
— .14, p > .05). The indirect effect was statistically sig
and than the slope for high instrumentality and low
nificant according to Sobel's (1982) test (z = 2.04, p <
strong ties (f[190] = 1.65, p < .05). However, failing
.05), supporting the notion that networking ability (in
to support Hypothesis lb, no statistically signifi concert with creativity and implementation instrumen
cant difference emerged between the slope when tality) only impacted implementation to the extent that it
both instrumentality and strong ties were high and allowed actors to develop and maintain strong buy-in
the slope when instrumentality was low and strong relationships.
DISCUSSION portant than the motivation to implement ideas.

The difference between networking ability and
The findings of this study provide general sup
number of strong ties may explain this discrepancy.
port for the proposed framework. Consistently with
Although both concepts are functionally equivalent
Hypothesis la, results indicated that although cre
in capturing the potential of employees to mobilize
ativity may often be negatively received, squelch
support and obtain advocacy, the number of strong
ing its chances for successful implementation,
ties is ain
more direct indicator of access to such
dividuals can significantly improve their odds ofthan the more distal measure of network
resources
implementing creative ideas when they areing highly
ability. The finding that the moderating effect of
motivated to move their ideas forward to realiza
networking ability was mediated by the moderating
tion and/or when they are skilled networkers. In effect of strong ties (see footnote 5) supports this
support of the arguments presented earlier, a lack conclusion. Thus, although both concepts are func
of implementation instrumentality and networking tionally equivalent and are empirically related, the
ability indeed significantly hampered the imple fact that the number of strong buy-in ties is a more
mentation of creative ideas. However, the lack of
proximal indicator of access to sponsorship and
difference between the slope representing high im advocacy than networking ability may have re
plementation instrumentality and networking abil sulted in stronger findings for this measure and the
ity and the slope for high instrumentality but low conclusion that motivation may have only limited
networking indicates that once employees were marginal benefits as compared to the number of
motivated to push their ideas toward implementa close buy-in relationships.
tion, networking ability was of little importance.
These results suggest that although a lack of both
Theoretical Contributions
implementation instrumentality and networking
ability significantly reduces the likelihood that cre The findings presented here contribute to the inno
ative ideas will be implemented, once individuals vation literature in a number of ways. First, they
gain implementation instrumentality, networking contribute to the emerging stream of research recog
ability has only limited marginal benefits. nizing that creativity and idea implementation are
Further solidifying the general framework pro two different activities within the innovation process.
posed here, results for Hypothesis lb indicated Although some previous work has treated creativity
that, similarly to networking ability, the number of and implementation as reflective of the same under
strong buy-in ties combined with implementation lying concept or has focused on idea generation, not
instrumentality to jointly affect the relation be creativity, as a predictor of implementation (e.g., Ax
tween creativity and implementation. In keeping tell et al., 2000; Clegg et al., 2002; Frese et al., 1999;
with earlier arguments, individuals who reported Janssen, 2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994), the results of the
low levels of implementation instrumentality and present study suggest that when creativity is defined
who had cultivated only few strong buy-in relation in terms of the nature of people's ideas, not their
ships were significantly less likely to see their cre quantity, creativity and implementation are neither
ative ideas come to fruition than individuals who synonymous nor necessarily positively related. In
were highly motivated to engage the implementa fact, results of the regression analyses revealed that
tion process, who had cultivated a larger net of although number of ideas and implementation were
strong buy-in relationships, or both. However, the positively related, as expected, creativity and imple
lack of difference between the slope depicting high mentation were significantly negatively related when
levels of both implementation instrumentality and both instrumentality and networking ability/strong
strong ties and the slope depicting high strong ties ties were low. Thus, in contrast to previous research,
but low instrumentality indicates that once the the findings of this study suggest that the mere pro
number of strong ties reached a certain count, im duction of creative ideas does not ensure that these
plementation instrumentality was of limited addi ideas are eventually implemented.
tional benefit. These results suggest that although a In addition to highlighting that creativity and
lack of both implementation instrumentality and a implementation are only loosely connected, the
sufficient number of strong buy-in ties significantly present study also advances knowledge of the na
reduces the likelihood that creative ideas will be ture of this connection by suggesting that the link
realized, once individuals have established a criti between creativity and implementation cannot be
cal mass of close buy-in relationships, motivation properly understood without considering the si
has only limited marginal benefits. multaneous influence of both personal and rela
This conclusion is contrary to the earlier findings tional contingencies. Supporting this general
suggesting that networking ability may be less im framework, findings suggest that the motivation to
2012 Baer 1115
erator of the link between creativity and idea

implement
or, alterna
implementation.
work relat
that jointly
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
ideas are e
into Despite
the these contributions, the study is not
fu
current fi
without its limitations. First, I have interpreted re
lack sults
of in accordance with the hypothesized
bot causal
network
order, whereby creativity along with instrumental ab
the ity and networking ability or numerous strong
implem
hand, buy-in ties result poss
in different levels of idea imple
mentation. The cross-sectional nature ofide
plement my study
design, however, limits the ability to determine
significant
causality. For example,
when indiv it is possible that the im
plementation of creative ideas influences a per
velopment
implementa
son's instrumentality in pursuit of the realization of
tivation
ideas in the future, which is likely to affect not an
only
though subsequent levels of implementation pr but also the
spective on innovation has acknowledged the subsequent production of creative ideas. In addi
importance of involving others during innovation tion, it is conceivable that engaging in idea imple
processes and discussed some of the factors exam mentation also shapes a person's future networking
ined here (e.g., Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Frost & ability and access to sponsorship via strong buy-in
Egri, 1991; Kanter, 1983), the present study extends ties. Thus, future studies employing longitudinal
this work by identifying the factors that are most designs are now needed not only to examine the
critical to ensuring others' involvement and by ex relations posited in the present study but also to
amining how these factors, along with creativity, explore potential reciprocal relations.
jointly shape actual idea implementation. In addition, examining only one organization may
Finally, consistently with accounts highlighting limit the generalizability of the results presented
the importance of outcome expectations in affect here. Naturally, it is possible that different results
ing employee innovation (Farr & Ford, 1990; Frese may have been obtained if organizations from a wide
et al., 1999; Yuan & Woodman, 2010), the results of range of industries had been included. Although I
the present study suggest that the implementation sampled locations from all major divisions (even
of creative ideas is not only influenced by intrinsic those that are not traditionally considered hotbeds of
motivational considerations (e.g., sense of accom innovation) of a large, global organization, it is nev
plishment, increased autonomy), which have been ertheless possible that the results, because of poten
the focus of previous research in the area of creativ tially idiosyncratic features of the focal organization,
ity (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, are not generalizable to organizations in other indus
1996), but also by extrinsic motivational consider tries or organizations in general. Future research sam
ations, such as monetary, career, and reputational pling a wide range of organizations in different indus
benefits.5 As hypothesized, however, these motiva tries is needed to addresses this issue.
tional forces did not directly shape idea implemen Next, I focused on individuals' ability to culti
tation but only did so in conjunction with the cre vate network relationships as a means to mobilize
ativity of people's ideas as well as certain abilities the support and advocacy needed to bring creative
or relational features. Thus, in addition to high ideas to fruition. Although innovation in organiza
lighting the benefits of both intrinsic and extrinsic tions has often been characterized as a social-polit
interests for innovation in the workplace, the ical process (e.g., Van de Ven, 1986; Yuan & Wood
findings of this study extend earlier work by advo man, 2010), thereby justifying this focus on social
cating and demonstrating the validity of a more skills, idea implementation may be impacted not
nuanced perspective separating creativity from im only by individuals' ability to network but also by
plementation and considering motivation as a mod their ability to design or structure ideas in such a
way that they are particularly likely to be imple
mented. Domain-relevant skills have been sug
5 Additional analyses separating implementation mogested to be integral to the development of creative
tivation into its extrinsic and intrinsic components reideas (Amabile, 1996), and such skills may also be
vealed that both motivational orientations produced sim relevant when actors attempt to implement their
ilar patterns of results. contributions. Future research therefore may want
Academy of Management Journal October
to capture expertise, technical skills, (e.g., Amabile,

and other 1996; rel
Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997;
evant talents in addition to networking Eisenberger,skills
Armeli,when
& Pretz, 1998), creating outcome
examining the factors that enhance the conversion
expectations with respect to implementation activi
of new ideas into innovations. ties that satisfy both intrinsic and extrinsic motives
Finally, the current examination assumed a perappears to be equally as important. Thus, managers
son-centric perspective on innovation in organizaneed to develop an intimate understanding of their
tions. In contrast to previous work, which has high employees to discern, among the wide range of po
lighted the importance of organizational variablestentially relevant intrinsic and extrinsic factors, those
as antecedents to idea implementation (e.g. Axtellthat are likely to motivate each individual's imple
et al., 2000, 2006), the focus of this study was onmentation efforts. Once these are identified, manag
personal (motivation, ability) and relational ers need to establish a systematic approach to reward
(strength of buy-in ties) factors. Although the reing such efforts in a balanced manner.
sults support the importance of these more micro To promote networking ability and the cultiva
influences, it may nevertheless be possible that tion of strong ties to players willing to support
more macro elements, such as organizational andothers' implementation efforts—the second neces
team support for innovation, may additionally reg sary condition improving the odds of creative ideas
ulate the link between creativity and implementabeing eventually realized—managers may want to
tion. Although the present findings are encouragingfocus their efforts not only on selecting individuals
in suggesting that when employees are savvy netwho fit a certain personality profile (e.g., extra
workers and driven to implement their ideas, even verted, agreeable) or who are skilled networkers but
their most creative ideas (those with the greatestalso on providing individuals with opportunities
potential to disrupt the status quo) are as likely toallowing them to develop their networking skills
be implemented as their less controversial contri (Ferris et al., 2007). For example, providing indi
butions, it may be possible that certain contextualviduals with role models promoting the emulation
factors further enhance the chances of creative of certain behaviors, such as networking, may be
ideas ultimately making it into practice. Consider one way. Assigning talented and socially savvy
ing both personal/relational and organizational fac mentors who observe employees' behaviors and, at
regular time intervals, provide developmental feed
tors may therefore prove to be a fruitful avenue for
future research. back may be another way for an organization to
cultivate networking skills among its workforce.
Together with initiatives aimed at enhancing indi
Practical Implications
viduals' implementation instrumentality, such ef
These limitations notwithstanding, the results of forts are then likely to improve the odds that even
this study have some interesting practical implica creative ideas are eventually realized.
tions. One of these is that, because the odds of imple
menting creative ideas can be rather small, organiza
tions and managers need to be aware that some of Conclusions
their potentially most productive ideas may never be
Throughout this article, I have argued that the
realized and that social-political dynamics, rather
relation between the creativity of ideas and their
than issues related to the ideas themselves, may be
implementation may be less straightforward than
responsible (Levitt, 1963; Mintzberg, 1983). Although
the relation between idea quantity and implemen
there may be good reasons for organizations to focus
tation. The findings of this study support this argu
their efforts on contributions of lower creativity,
mentation and suggest that unless actors are moti
given the potential for more highly creative ideas to
vated to push for the realization of their ideas and
cause conflict and create disruptions, the results of
skilled at developing strong buy-in relationships,
this study suggest that the implementation of creative
creativity is likely to be lost.
ideas is a fragile endeavor that requires systematic
attention to a number of conditions if it is to be
successfully executed. REFERENCES
To promote the development of instrumentality
Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO
perceptions associated with implementation activi
ties, managers need to establish a systematic ap Westview.
proach to acknowledging and rewarding their em Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. 2004.
ployees' implementation efforts. Although the The routinization of innovation research: A con
benefits of providing both intrinsic and extrinsic re structively critical review of the state-of-the-science
wards in stimulating creativity are well documented Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 147-173
2012 Baer 1117
managers. Strategie Management

Ashford, S.Journal,
J
J. E. 1998.
425. O
impression m
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., & Lawrence,
sues.
Admin
K. A. 2001. Moves that matter: Issue selling and
Axtell, organizational
C. change. AcademyM.,
of Management
Waterson, Journal, 44: 716-736. P
innovation:
Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. 1997. Can salient reward
mentation o
increase creative performance without reducing in
Organizatio
trinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,
Axtell, C., 72: 652-663. Ho
vation: A ch
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., & Pretz, J. 1998. Can the
and Organiz
promise of reward increase creativity? Journal of
Baer, M. Personality and Social 2010
Psychology, 74: 704-714.
creativity: A
Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. 1990. Individual innovation. In
sion.
Journ
M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and cre
Bliese, ativity
P.at work: Psychological
D., and organizational
and toostrategies: 63-80. Chichester,
cons UK: Wiley.
though they
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hoch
search Methods, 7: 400-417.
water, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink,
Bunce, D., & West, M. A. 1995. Self-perceptions and D. D. 2005. Development and validation of the Po
perceptions of group climate as predictors of indi litical Skill Inventory. Journal of Management, 31:
vidual innovation at work. Applied Psychology: An 126-152.
International Review, 44: 199-215.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., B
Bunce, D., & West, M. 1994. Changing work environ R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. 2007. Political sk
ments: Innovating coping responses to occupation organizations. Journal of Management, 33:
stress. Work and Stress, 8: 319-331. 320.
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. 2002. Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. D. 1999. Helping to
Implicating trust in the innovative process. Journal improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, suggestions in companies. Journal of Organiza
75: 409-422. tional Behavior, 20: 1139-1155.
Frost,
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation P. J., & Egri, C. P. 1991. The political process of
of human
capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95
innovation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
S120. Research in organizational behavior, vol. 13: 229
295. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. 2004. Tie and network
correlates of individual performance in knowledgeGeorge, J. M. 2008. Creativity in organizations. In J. P.
intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Academy of Manage
47: 928-937. ment annals, vol. 1: 439-477. New York: Erlbaum.
Damanpour, F. 1988. Innovation type, radicalness, and

Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Amer
ican Journal
the adoption process. Communication Research, 15: of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
545-567.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of
others
Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A metain the mother of invention: Intrinsic and
prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and cre
analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.
Academy of Management Journal, 34: 555-590. ativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 73
96.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. 2006. A significance test
Green, S.in
of slope differences for three-way interactions G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. 1995.
Assessing
moderated multiple regression analysis. Journal of a multidimensional measure of radical
Applied Psychology, 91: 917-926. technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on En
gineering Management, 42: 203-214.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issue to top
management. Academy of Management Review, Green, S. G., Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. 2003. Advo
18: 397-428. cacy, performance, and threshold influences on de
cisions to terminate new product development.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., &
Academy of Management Journal, 46: 419-434.
Wierba, E. E. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle
managers assess the context for selling issues
Howell,
to J.top
M., & Higgins, C. A. 1990. Champions of tech
Academy of Management Journal
nological innovation. Administrative Science Levitt, T. 1963. Creativity is not enough. Harvard Busi
Quarterly, 35: 317-341. ness Review, 41(3): 72-83.
Howell, J. M., & Shea, C. M. 2001. Individual differences, Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. 1984. Measuring ties
environmental scanning, innovation framing, and strength. Social Forces, 63: 482-501.
champion behavior: Key predictors of project perfor
Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power in and around organiza
mance. Journal of Product Innovation Manage
ment, 18(1): 15-27. tions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. 2004. Do personal char

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Saigado, J. F. 2009.
acteristics and cultural values that promote innova
Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A com
tion, quality, and efficiency compete or complement
prehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of
each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior,
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1128
25: 175-1999.
1145.
Ibarra, H. 1993. Network centrality, power, and innova

Mitchell, T. R. 1974. Expectancy models of job
tion involvement: Determinants of technical and ad tion, occupational preference and effort: A th
ministrative roles. Academy of Management Jour cal, methodological, and empirical appraisa
nal, 36: 471-501. chological Bulletin, 81: 1053-1077.
Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort Mumford, M., & Gustafson, S. 1988. Creativity syn
reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Jour Integration, application, and innovation. Psy
ical Bulletin, 103: 27-43.
nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol
ogy, 73: 287-302. Nadler, D. A., & Lawler, E. E. 1983. Motivation: A diag
Janssen, O. 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in nostic approach. In R. Hackman, E. Lawler, & L.
the curvilinear relationship between job demands, Porter (Eds.), Perspectives on behavior in organi
zations: 67-73. New York: McGraw Hill.
and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy
of Management Journal, 44: 1039-1050. Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. 2010.
Janssen, O. 2003. Innovative behaviour and job in Psychological contract breaches, organizational
commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A
volvement at the price of conflict and less satisfac
tory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupa latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Ap
tional and Organizational Psychology, 76: 347 plied Psychology, 95: 744-751.
364.
Norman, R. 1971. Organizational innovativeness: Prod
uct variation and reorientation. Administrative Sci
Janssen, O. 2005. The joint impact of perceived influence
and supervisor supportiveness on employee innova ence Quarterly, 16: 203-215.
tive behavior. Journal of Occupational and OrgaObstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens
nizational Psychology, 78: 573—579. orientation, and involvement in innovation. Admin
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & West, M. 2004. The bright istrative Science Quarterly, 50: 100-130.
and dark side of individual and group innovation: A Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativ
special issue introduction. Journal of Organiza ity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Acad
tional Behavior, 25: 129-145.
emy of Management Journal, 39: 607-634.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. 2004. Employees' goal Pelz, D. C. 1985. Innovation complexity and the sequence
orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, of innovating stages. Science Communication, 6:
and the outcomes of job performance and job satis 261-291.
faction. Academy of Management Journal, 47:
368-384. Perry-Smith, J. E. 2006. Social yet creative: The ro
social relationships in facilitating individual cre
Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters: Innovation for
ity. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 85—
productivity in the American corporation. New
York: Simon & Schuster. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. 2003. The social
creativity: A static and dynamic social network
Kanter, R. M. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom:
spective. Academy of Management Review
Structural, collective, and social conditions for in 89-106.
novation in organization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cum
mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Peters, T., & Waterman, R. 1982. In search of exce
vol. 10: 169-211. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Lessons from America's best-run companies
York: Harper Row.
Kimberly, J. R. 1981. Managerial innovation. In P. Nys
trom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organiza Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. 1997. Resources and
tional design: 84-104. New York: Oxford University ships: Social networks and mobility in the wor
Press. American Sociological Review, 62: 673-693.
2012 Baer 1119
Rodan,Ulisworth, K. L.,
S.,Wall, T. D., & Carter, &
A. 2005. C
ture: requirement:
How A neglected construct in k the st
employee creativity?
agerial Group & Organizati
perf
Managemen
agement, 30: 541-560.
Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central

Rogers, E. problems in the man
M
Free Press. agement of innovation. Management Science, 32:
590-607.
Roth, E. A., & Sneader, K. D. 2006. Reinventing innova
tion at consumer goods companies. http://www. Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. 1996. Vroom's ex
mckinseyquarterly.com/home.aspx. Accessed Octo models and work-related criteria: A meta-a
ber 2, 2008. Journal of Applied Psychology. 81: 575-58
Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism, and de Vroom, V. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wi
mocracy. New York: Harper & Brothers. ley.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of inno West, M. A. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds:
vative behavior: A path model of individual innova An integrative model of creativity and innovation in
tion in the workplace. Academy of Management work groups. Applied Psychology: An Interna
Journal, 37: 580-607. tional Review, 51: 355-424.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. 2009. Interactive Wolfe, R. A. 1995. Human resource management innova
effects of growth need strength, work context, and job tions: Determinants of their adoption and implemen
complexity on self-reported creative performance. tation. Human Resources Management, 34: 313
Academy of Management Journal, 52: 489-505. 327.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The effects Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993.
of personal and contextual characteristics on creativ Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad
ity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Man emy of Management Review, 18: 293-321.
agement, 30: 933-958.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. 2010. Innovative behavior
Sobel, M. E.. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect ef in the workplace: The role of performance and image
fects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt outcome expectations. Academy of Management
(Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982: 290-315. Journal, 53: 323-342.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
AÀ
Sohn, S. Y., & Jung, C. S. 2010. Effect of creativity on
innovation: Do creativity initiatives have significant
impact on innovative performance in Korean firms? Markus Baer ([email protected]) is ail associate professor
Creativity Research Journal, 22: 320-328. of organizational behavior at the Olin Business School,
Washington University in St. Louis. He earned his Ph.D.
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. 2005. The influence
from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His
of intellectual capital on the types of innovative current research examines the determinants and out
capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48:
450-463.
comes of the various activities (i.e., problem formulation,
idea generation, solution implementation) underlying
creativity
Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. 2009. and innovation in organizations.
Radical
innovation across nations: The preeminence of cor
porate culture. Journal of Marketing, 73(1): 3-23. M

2012 MarkusBaer PuttingCreativity AOM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 MarkusBaer PuttingCreativity AOM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 MarkusBaer PuttingCreativity AOM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUTTING CREATIVITY TO WORK: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CREATIVE IDEAS IN

PUTTING CREATIVITY TO WORK: THE IMPLEMENTATION

Hypothesis la. Implementation instrumental occasionally be in a position to offer their network

implementation instrumentality, networking abil substantial departures from existing product an

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among All Variables8

1. Education 4.49 2.44

5. Creativity 2.47 1.30 .22** .24** -.05 .41**

6. Implementation instrumentality 4.25 1.07 .00 .01 -.08 -.06 .01

a n = 207 (listwise deletion).

Results of Regression Analyses for Implementation"

Variables Entry P Final fS Entry (i Final (i

Processing 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05

Position 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.07

Number of ideas 0.15* 0.12 0.15* 0.15*

Implementation instrumentality 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.08

Networking ability 0.01 0.00

Strong ties 0.04 0.09

Creativity X networking ability -0.06 -0.04

Creativity X strong ties -0.02 0.01

Implementation instrumentality X networking ability -0.01 0.01

Implementation instrumentality X strong ties 0.02 0.12

Creativity X implementation instrumentality X strong ties -0.25**

_ 9 _ Low implementation instrumentality/

2.50 , High implementation instrumentality/

2.00 Low implementation instrumentality/

Results of f-Tests of Slope Differences

Slope Pairs Networking Ability Strong Ties

Interaction Effect of Creativity, Implementation Instrumentality, and Strong Ties on

Low implementation instrumentality/

2.50 High implementation instrumentality/

2.00 —*r~ Low implementation instrumentality/

DISCUSSION portant than the motivation to implement ideas.

erator of the link between creativity and idea

to capture expertise, technical skills, (e.g., Amabile,

managers. Strategie Management

International Review, 44: 199-215.

Damanpour, F. 1988. Innovation type, radicalness, and

Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. 2004. Do personal char

Ibarra, H. 1993. Network centrality, power, and innova

Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central

You might also like

5. Creativity 2.47 1.30 .22 .24 -.05 .41**