2015 - I Want To Be Creative, But

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20
I want to be creative, but … preference for

creativity, perceived clear outcome goals, work
enjoyment, and creative performance
Darija Aleksić, Matej Černe, Anders Dysvik & Miha Škerlavaj
To cite this article: Darija Aleksić, Matej Černe, Anders Dysvik & Miha Škerlavaj (2015): I want
to be creative, but … preference for creativity, perceived clear outcome goals, work enjoyment,
and creative performance, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2015.1077809
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1077809
Published online: 14 Aug 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 179
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
Download by: [RMIT University] Date: 29 February 2016, At: 15:05

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1077809
I want to be creative, but … preference for creativity, perceived clear outcome goals, work
enjoyment, and creative performance
Darija Aleksića, Matej Černea*, Anders Dysvikb and Miha Škerlavajb
a
Department of Management and Organisation, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 17, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia; bDepartment
of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour, BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, Oslo, 0484, Norway
(Received 9 April 2014; accepted 24 July 2015)
In today’s quickly changing work environment, many individuals want to be creative at their workplace, but only some of
them succeed at manifesting these tendencies. In three studies, using both field and experimental data, we focused on
transforming individuals’ preference for creativity, defined as an inclination for liking and wanting to be creative, into actual
creativity. We first conducted a pilot Study 1 to establish discriminant validity to related constructs and provided initial
evidence on predictive and incremental validity of the preference-for-creativity scale. Next, we performed a field Study 2,
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 15:05 29 February 2016
where we found that transforming preferences for creativity into supervisor-rated creativity is contingent upon employees’
perceptions of clear outcome goals. Clear outcome goals fostered individuals’ preference for creativity to result in higher
levels of supervisor-rated creative behaviour—a finding that was replicated in an experimental Study 3. Furthermore, we
explored whether work enjoyment mediated the moderated relationship between preference for creativity and creative
outcomes. The results supported our mediated moderation model, whereby the manipulation of clear goals led to higher
work enjoyment, influencing individuals’ preference for creativity to result in higher ratings of their creative outcomes.
Keywords: preference for creativity; creativity; perceived clear outcome goals; work enjoyment
In today’s quickly changing work environment, organiza- individual level of analysis. Among the available findings,
tions depend on employees to come up with solutions to personality theories of creativity pin traits that are bene-
complex and non-routine challenges (Cascio, 1998). ficial for creative endeavour (e.g., Barron & Harrington,
Innovation, or capitalization on creative output in the 1981). Individual-level research on creativity also includes
form of implemented solutions (Amabile, 1996), therefore an investigation of the cognitive process associated with
represents a micro-level basis for innovation at the orga- creativity (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Connor Boes, &
nizational level and, in turn, to firm performance. Runco, 1997; Simonton, 2000), intelligence (Guilford,
Nowadays employees are expected to be more creative, 1967; Sternberg, 1985), and expertise (Reilly, 2008), as
as professional, managerial, and administrative work is well as motivational factors (Amabile, 1985).
becoming more complex and knowledge intensive (Berg, Nevertheless, this string of research would benefit from
2014). Nevertheless, while some individuals at work want extending to account for the tangible outcomes of prefer-
to choose to come up with something new and simple, ence for creativity at work.
why do some of them succeed at manifesting these ten- To the best of our knowledge, there is a paucity of
dencies at work while others do not? studies at the intersection of personality and cognition
The majority of the existing organizational creativity theories of creativity and organizational creativity
research has highlighted the important interplay between research. This is unfortunate because individuals’ inclina-
personal and contextual factors at work that are beneficial tion to want to be creative at work, stemming from the
for fostering creativity (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & individual preference development process, may be an
Herron, 1996; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; important individual characteristic in describing the extent
Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). While these studies to which employees actually want to be creative when
have increased our knowledge of the work setting best working on complex tasks.
suited for creativity, transforming individuals’ inclination In this paper, we offer a new theoretical perspective on
for creativity into actual creativity or output appears to creativity by formally defining preference for creativity as
remain a predominantly under-researched process at the individuals’ inclination of liking and wanting to be
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
© 2015 Taylor & Francis

2 D. Aleksić et al.
creative in performing a complex task. In defining prefer- in their work and forget everything that is happening
ence for creativity, we relate to economics-based prefer- around them because they enjoy the activity so much
ence development literature (Slovic, 1995; Tversky & (Bakker, 2005; Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989).
Thaler, 1990) and argue that it is an intention to choose Work enjoyment as the core dimension of flow promotes
based on cognition and reasoning, not just affect. individuals’ focus on and self-motivation for a task, mak-
Preference development is a constructive, context-depen- ing individuals more likely to seek novelty and opportu-
dent but relatively stable process (Druckman & Lupia, nities for action (Ceja & Navarro, 2011), which should
2000; Tversky & Thaler, 1990). The likelihood and fre- thus encourage creativity (Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1999).
quency of preferring to be creative is based upon consis- We tested our hypotheses using a three-study multi-
tent patterns of an individual’s cognitive processes method approach (in two field and one experimental study
(Brandts & Charness, 2000) through which they evaluate settings). In what follows, we first define preference for
fit in terms of knowledge, skills, information from the creativity and then explain how it predicts actual creativ-
context, and affect related to creativity. In turn, this ity. Next, we develop a basic moderating hypothesis of
represents a stepping stone for one to be creative at clear outcome goals on the relationship between prefer-
work. Out first intended theoretical contribution is to ence for creativity and actual creativity, followed by a
introduce the concept of preference for creativity and complex mediating moderation hypothesis of work enjoy-
investigate whether preference for creativity relates to ment as a mediator in the moderating role of clear out-
actual creativity. come goals. The empirical part mirrors this conceptual
Second, we rely on goal-setting theory (Locke, 1968) design. We first explain how preference for creativity
and aim to provide increased insight into the first phases differs from related constructs and establish discriminant
of creative idea generation, that is, transforming wanting (from creative personality, openness, need for cognition,
to be creative (preference for creativity) to actual creativ- ideational behaviour, adaptation-innovation, creative pro-
ity. We base our theorizing on goal-setting theory (Locke, cess engagement, creative role identity, and creative self-
1968) to examine moderating the role of the degree to efficacy) and predictive validity of preference for creativ-
which individuals perceive their goals to be clear. The ity in Study 1, examine the moderating role of clear out-
basic assumption of a goal-setting model of behaviour is come goals in field Study 2 (Hypothesis 1), and finally,
that outcome goals, that is, what an individual is trying to test the mediated moderation in experimental Study 3
accomplish, are immediate regulators of human behaviour (Hypotheses 2a–2c).
(Erez, Earley, & Hulin, 1985). We propose that the more
individuals perceive their outcome goals to be clear, the
more likely that individuals’ preference for creativity
Theory and hypothesis
should result in creative performance. This is so because
when goals are perceived to be clear they succeed in Preference for creativity
helping focus employees’ attention towards goal-relevant In general, choices reflect individual preferences (Drolet,
activities. Luce, & Simonson, 2009). As creativity is often a choice
Our third and final intended contribution is to explore (Ford, 1996), whether or not individuals opt for wanting or
whether individual work enjoyment—a facet of flow liking to be creative may therefore in part depend on their
(Bakker, 2008; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975)—mediates the preference development. This is a constructive, context-
combined roles of preference for creativity and perceived dependent process (Tversky & Thaler, 1990), built up in
goal clarity as predictors for creativity. Flow is defined as the process of elicitation over a longer period of time.
an extremely intrinsically enjoyable experience when an People discover and are able to describe their preferences
individual engages in an activity with total involvement by evaluating how their past choices have strengthened or
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1991). There is limited research weakened their way of life (Wildavsky, 1987). Thus, based
available on how work enjoyment facilitates the creative on experience, an individual will develop similar prefer-
process in the work domain. This is important because it ences and likely make similar choices in similar situations
enables an in-depth understanding of the work environ- in the future.
ment suitable for individuals to express their creative As we define preference for creativity as individuals’
preference, as the work enjoyment dimension of flow inclination for liking and wanting to be creative when
could act as a crucial but understudied explanatory given the opportunity, it has to be emphasized that to
mechanism stemming from goal clarity and transforming express this preference by means of choice is purposeful
preference for creativity into actual creativity. If indivi- behaviour (Slovic, 1995). Therefore, cognition and also
duals want and intend to be creative, chances are that they therefore reasoning may form an important basis for the
should subjectively perceive the experience as pleasurable preference for creativity. Before individuals can like or
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997a). Individuals who experience want to be creative, they must have adequate knowledge,
flow at work are more likely to be completely absorbed information, and experience, built up in the preference
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 3
development process. In addition to this, high preference start enjoying it for its own sake. In turn, their creative
for creativity requires good information processing, behaviour should be recognized by their colleagues and
problem solving, and other cognitive skills related to supervisors at work. Therefore, an inclination to be crea-
creativity. tive should lead to higher levels of actual supervisor-
Furthermore, preferences are also formed from indivi- reported creativity.
duals’ interactions with their broad social context—from
living with other people and using these relations as a
social filter to developing preferences throughout the Perceived clear outcome goals as a moderating construct
course of life within specific cultural and institutional in the relationship between preference for creativity and
arrangements (Wildavsky, 1987). They generally come actual creativity
from proximity to others with similar preferences Because individuals who have developed their preference
(Sherkat & Wilson, 1995) and emerge from interactions for creativity should also frequently opt for creative beha-
between individuals and their narrow and broad environ- viour, it is interesting to examine what influences this
ments (Druckman & Lupia, 2000). Social context (at work relationship. Creativity, as any behaviour, will ultimately
and beyond) throughout the lifetime plays an important be constrained by the setting (Wildavsky, 1994), and this
role in the development of preference for creativity paper focuses on such boundary conditions. Creativity
because it provides information about likely consequences forms from individual inclinations that are established
of the choice. Individuals will more likely want to be towards the very beginning of the creative process, in
creative (have a high preference for creativity) if they the construction of their creative preference. Individual
obtain information from the context about the conse- creative behaviour is about developing solutions to job-
quences of being creative and cognitively process it, that related problems (Shalley, 1991). Therefore, if individuals
is, evaluate the positive and negative aspects of it. are provided with a context that is supportive of such
Based on the aforementioned points, the preferences endeavours (see, e.g., Amabile, 1996; Oldham &
for creativity are relatively stable, stored in memory and Cummings, 1996), they should transform their preference
drawn on when making decisions (Druckman & Lupia, for creativity to exhibit higher levels of actual creativity.
2000). This is so because individuals’ preferences are Yet whether individuals who want to be creative exhibit
developed based on a consistent pattern (Brandts & higher levels of creativity can depend on the appropriate
Charness, 2000) of their dominant way of thinking, goals set. Namely, goal-setting theory suggests a positive
responding to particular stimuli with similar feelings relationship between goals and performance (Locke, 1968),
repeatedly, and constantly responding to situations in a as goals present an end state towards which an individual
similar manner. Accordingly, preferences serve as a cog- strives as well as serve as immediate regulators of action
nitive marker that reminds individuals how to interact with and human behaviour (Erez & Kanfer, 1983). However,
various aspects of their environment (Druckman & Lupia, goals are often perceived by individuals as vague and
2000). Actually choosing to be creative, as the outcome of unclear (Ellström, 2001), and as such they may inhibit
preference for creativity, is therefore the result of evalu- individuals’ preference for creativity resulting in actual
ated judgement through which individuals have cogni- creativity. This is because perceived unclear goals prevent
tively assessed whether they liked or disliked something, individuals from knowing exactly what they are striving to
past experiences, and (the fit with) the environment achieve. For example, individuals can like and want to
(Druckman & Lupia, 2000). Such individuals at work choose to be creative in achieving given goals; however,
frequently want to conduct the task creatively. Thus, if they perceive a given goal as unclear, they do not know
employees with high preference for creativity are also exactly what is needed for the goal accomplishment and
likely to opt for creative behaviour, similar to the case what is valued by the organization (Vancouver & Schmitt,
for individuals with highly creative personality (Barron & 1991). Individuals who do not know what is expected of
Harrington, 1981). Through the preference development them on a task cannot direct all their attention and effort
process, employees acquire adequate knowledge and towards the generation of creative and appropriate
information needed to conduct creative tasks, including responses (Shalley, 1995). According to Csikszentmihalyi
the information on the value of creative behaviour in their (1990, p. 4), “for the activities that are creative or open-
environment. Only when employees have the necessary ended in nature, a person must develop a strong sense of
knowledge and know that creative behaviour is desired what he/she intends to do or negotiate goals and rules
they develop higher levels of preference for creativity, during the activity.” Thus, we expect that perceived clear
likely cognitively deciding to devote time and effort to goals would increase the level of creative behaviour that
conduct the task creatively. Based on their positive experi- should result from individuals’ preference for creativity.
ence, employees perceive creative behaviour as useful and Although perceived unclear goals may direct indivi-
valuable, and therefore continue to devote their time and duals’ attention to some degree (Litchfield, 2008),
effort to conduct tasks creatively, and may eventually even research has shown that when goals are perceived as
clear and easy to understand and directed towards creative for the sake of the activity itself (Lepper, Greene, &
behaviour, there is a correlation with higher levels of Nisbett, 1973), whereas flow describes the quality of sub-
creativity (Shalley, 1995). Perceived clear goals are mea- jective experiences (how people sense intrinsic motiva-
surable, unambiguous, and helpful in absorbing uncer- tion) (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992).
tainty and creating focus (Doran, 1981; McGrath, 2001; According to Bakker (2005), flow is characterized by
Yemm, 2013). Perception of clear goals increases arousal, absorption, work enjoyment, and intrinsic work motiva-
focuses attention on the given goals, and provides infor- tion. Absorption refers to a state of total concentration,
mation about desirable behaviour (Heath, Larrick, & Wu, where awareness is narrowed down to the activity itself,
1999). Therefore, individuals who want to be creative and where everything else is forgotten and all distractions are
know what is expected of them (i.e., have perceived clear excluded from consciousness (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991);
goals) focus their attention on finding creative solutions to thereby, individuals are totally immersed in their work
reach the given goals. Linking out two overarching (Bakker, 2008). Individuals who experience flow at work
theories (goal-setting and flow theory), flow-at-work usually enjoy their work and feel happy; therefore, they
research has also shown that perceived clear goals “make positive judgments about the quality of their work-
promote flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991, ing life” (Bakker, 2008, p. 401). Furthermore, intrinsic
1997b; Mills & Fullagar, 2008) and thereby creativity motivation refers to “performing a certain work-related
(Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, & Randall, activity with the aim of experiencing the inherent pleasure
2005; Sosik et al., 1999; Wu, Lin, & Lin, 2011). and satisfaction in the activity” (Bakker, 2008, p. 401).
Therefore, by providing clear goals towards which the Csikszentmihalyi (1975) used the term “enjoyment” to
individuals are helped to direct their energy and focus describe flow experience. In the lives of average adults,
(Shalley & Gilson, 2004), supervisors meet a critical con- the great majority of flow experiences, and thereby enjoy-
dition for fostering higher levels of employee creativity ment, come from work (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre,
(Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1987). We propose that per- 1989). Individuals who often experience flow become
ceived clear goals positively moderate the relationship highly motivated to work (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre,
between preference for creativity and actual creativity. 1989; Sosik et al., 1999) and find enjoyment in their work;
they feel happier and are able to work actively for a longer
Hypothesis 1: Perceived clear outcome goals moderate period of time (Csiksczentmihalyi, Kolo, & Baur, 2004).
the relationship between preference for creativity and Because flow is perceived as a positive phenomenon,
actual creativity. The higher the perceived outcome many scholars and practitioners share a strong interest in
goal clarity, the more positive the relationship. The
lower the perceived outcome goal clarity, the more finding factors that promote flow (Csikszentmihalyi &
negative the relationship. Nakamura, 1989; Demerouti, 2006; Jackson, Thomas,
Marsh, & Smethurst, 2001; Kowal & Fortier, 1999;
Novak, Hoffman, & Duhachek, 2003; Salanova, Bakker,
& Llorens, 2006).
The explanatory mechanism of work enjoyment Several studies have demonstrated that perceived clear
We propose that flow in the form of work enjoyment goals are positively associated with experiencing flow and
mediates the moderating effect of perceived clear goals thereby with work enjoyment (Csiksczentmihalyi et al.,
on the relationship between preference for creativity and 2004; Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009; Salanova et al., 2006)
actual creativity. We first explain why perceived clear because flow is likely to occur when an individual is faced
goals encourage flow in terms of work enjoyment and with a task that he/she perceives has clear goals that
then examine why work enjoyment experience strengthens require specific responses (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b).
the relationship between preference for creativity and Individuals who perceive goals to be clear and who
actual creativity. know exactly what they need to do will be fully concen-
According to Csikszentmihalyi (1991, p. 4), flow is “a trated on the implementation of a pursued goal
state in which people are so involved in an activity that (Csiksczentmihalyi et al., 2004; Mills & Fullagar, 2008).
nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so Furthermore, when individuals know exactly what they
enjoyable that people will do it even at a great cost, for need to achieve they will be able to make positive judge-
the sheer sake of doing it.” It is a state of complete ments about the quality of their working life. Thereby,
absorption in activity, characterized by the total concen- they should experience higher levels of work enjoyment.
tration on an activity and an extremely intrinsically enjoy- Thus, perceived clear goals encourage individuals to
able experience of total engagement and involvement experience work enjoyment because they highlight aspects
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Ghani & Deshpande, 1994; of individuals’ work roles to which they should attend
Pearce, Ainley, & Howard, 2005). As such, it is closely (Locke & Latham, 1990) and provide clear information
related to intrinsic motivation; however, intrinsic motiva- about what individuals should do. Therefore, individuals
tion represents a motivation to engage in an activity purely can develop a proper skill set to address the given goals,
which enhances the quality of their work experience. influences creativity. Positive effect and exploratory beha-
Shortly after experiencing work enjoyment, an individual viour (which are also consequences of the experience of
feels the positive effects of the performed activities work enjoyment) enable individuals to identify creative
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b; Mathwick & Rigdon, 2004), solutions, thus leading to creativity (Amabile et al., 2005).
such as higher self-esteem, productivity (Wells, 1988), Therefore, experiencing work enjoyment will promote
positive mood, higher levels of satisfaction, constant individuals who want to be creative (i.e., those who have
search for challenges (Ceja & Navarro, 2011), positive a higher preference for creativity) to actually perform their
emotions (Eisenberger et al., 2005), exploratory behaviour work task in a creative manner, as work enjoyment leads
(Ghani & Deshpande, 1994), creativity (Larson, 1988), to greater effort and persistence. Individuals who often
feelings of well-being, and many others. Perceived clear experience enjoyment at work have a need to constantly
goals promote work enjoyment, as one of the core dimen- seek challenges and are flexible, curious, and open to new
sions of flow, and thereby promote the positive conse- possibilities, as well as enjoy experimenting with new
quences of flow. Individuals who often experience work ideas (Ceja & Navarro, 2011; Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).
enjoyment will connect their work with all these positive Therefore, flow experience in terms of enjoyment—in
consequences of flow and should be happier at work and this respect similar to intrinsic motivation (Dysvik &
enjoy their work more. Thus, we predict that individuals Kuvaas, 2011)—prompts a faster transition from the inten-
who have clear outcome goals will be more likely to tion to carry out an activity to its actual implementation
experience work enjoyment. (Baumann & Scheffer, 2011). Fullagar and Kelloway
(2009) found that students who experienced flow were
Hypothesis 2a: Perceived clear outcome goals are posi- happier about, more attentive to, excited about, and
tively associated with work enjoyment. involved in their tasks. The aforementioned point is espe-
cially related to the work enjoyment dimension of flow. A
We further propose that work enjoyment, in turn, will high level of work enjoyment as one of the core dimen-
strengthen the association between preference for creativ- sions of flow leads to a positive mood that enhances
ity and actual creativity. We base this hypothesis on flow creative thinking (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009). We thus
theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Flow was found to be a expect that work enjoyment will encourage individuals
central component that affects work and other domains of who want to be creative to demonstrate creative beha-
highly creative individuals (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997a). viours more frequently.
“Individuals who develop their talent and creativity are
those who continue to follow their sense of enjoyment in Hypothesis 2b: Work enjoyment moderates the relation-
chosen activities” (Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Shneider, ship between preference for creativity and actual crea-
& Shernoff, 2003). Enjoyment, an important component tivity. The higher the work enjoyment, the more positive
of flow (Bakker, 2008), is thus in itself a predictor of the relationship.
creative behaviour.
Flow promotes a sense of enjoyment at work, focus on Our preceding two hypotheses propose that the perception
a given task, and intrinsic motivation, thereby stimulating of clear goals promotes work enjoyment, as one of the
individual creativity (Sosik et al., 1999). It is also connected characteristics of flow (Hypothesis 2a), and that work
with exploratory behaviour (Ghani & Deshpande, 1994) enjoyment strengthens the association between preference
(defined as curiosity), increased interest in learning, and for creativity and actual creativity (Hypothesis 2b).
exploratory thinking (Hoffman & Novak, 1996). Curiosity Together, these two hypotheses predict that flow experi-
is the key characteristic of creative individuals because it ence mediates the moderating effect of clear goals on the
steers them towards novelty and challenges that trigger relationship between preference for creativity and actual
exploratory behaviour (Wu et al., 2011). For creativity to creativity (Hypothesis 1), constituting a case of mediated
be facilitated to a higher extent, individuals should benefit moderation (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). The type of
from enjoying being curious (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997a), as mediated moderation that we expect is present when (a)
is the case with artists, musicians, and dancers, which are a variable (clear outcome goals) moderates the relationship
frequently deemed to be among the most creative profes- between an independent variable (preference for creativ-
sions. We predict that work enjoyment, stemming from ity) and a dependent variable (creativity), as in Hypothesis
clear outcome goals, will in turn encourage individuals to 1; (b) the moderating variable (clear goals) causes a med-
engage in creative behaviour. iating variable (flow experience), as in Hypothesis 2a; and
Flow in terms of work enjoyment results in positive (c) the mediating variable (flow experience) moderates the
effects (Chen, 2006; Eisenberger et al., 2005; Ghani & relationship between an independent variable (preference
Deshpande, 1994), which are important conditions for for creativity) and a dependent variable (creativity), as in
higher levels of creativity (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Hypothesis 2b; thereby transmitting the moderating effect
Staw, 2005). Thus, we assume that work enjoyment of the original moderator (Grant & Berry, 2011). Having
and liking to be creative). The same is true for openness,

Clear goals
one of the Big Five personality dimensions (Barrick &
H2a
Mount, 1991; McDougall, 1932) that has been associated
with creativity (Feist, 1998), and need for cognition,
H1 H2c Work
enjoyment which can also be linked with creative personality
(Dollinger, Leong, & Ulicni, 1996).
H2b When preference for creativity is high (i.e., an indivi-
Preference dual has developed strong inclinations to be creative), an
Creativity individual will more likely choose to be creative, and
for creativity
creative personality (similar to openness or need for cog-
nition) will be positively related to actual creativity.
Figure 1. Research model with hypotheses. However, when preference for creativity is low (i.e.,
weak inclination towards creativity), a creative personality
might or might not manifest in creative output. It is choice
already proposed these relationships, we present our for- (Gardner, 1958) and a process occurring over time
mal hypothesis for mediated moderation: clear outcome (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981) that ultimately trigger
goals strengthen the association between preference for actual behaviour, depending upon a favourable or unfa-
creativity and actual creativity by encouraging work vourable context. Creative personality does help and is a
enjoyment, a dimension of flow experience. predictor of actual creativity, but it may ultimately prove
to be missing an element of preference (an individual’s
Hypothesis 2c: Work enjoyment mediates the moderat- evaluative judgement of the sense of liking something, as
ing effect of perceived clear outcome goals on the asso- developed over the course of time and influenced by
ciation between preference for creativity and actual previous experiences) and is also influenced by the
creativity. When outcome goals are perceived to be
clearer, they stimulate work enjoyment, which results immediate context at work. This is supported by the line
in creativity. of thought taken by the interactionist perspective on crea-
tivity: creative personality traits only result in actual crea-
We conducted three studies to test our hypotheses. The tivity when the situation allows for the manifestation of
first pilot field Study 1 established discriminant validity of the trait’s influences (George & Zhou, 2001). The context
the preference-for-creativity construct from related con- at work thereby provides the opportunity for creative
structs. The second field Study 2 examined the relation- personality traits to be more apparent, interacting with an
ship between preference for creativity and the moderating inclination to be creative (preference for creativity) to
role of clear goals (H1). Manipulating clear goals in stimulate higher levels of actual creativity.
experimental Study 3 replicated the test of Hypothesis 1 Preference for creativity may emerge from social inter-
and examined the explanatory mechanism of the flow action within a cultural/institutional context (Wildavsky,
dimension of work enjoyment following the mediated 1987). Individuals’ preferences in general can change over
moderation approach (H2a–2c). Figure 1 presents our time as social relationships are altered throughout the
model with hypotheses. course of life (Loveland, 2003). In line with this thinking,
creative preference development is more of a context-
dependent process dependent both on the general context
(family, friends, interactions, etc., as well as personality,
Pilot Study 1: establishing discriminant, predictive, naturally), as well as the work context (leadership, cli-
and incremental validity of the preference-for- mate, co-workers, etc.). As such, albeit occurring over the
creativity construct course of a lifetime, creative preference changes over time
We argue that preference for creativity is an intention more rapidly than creative personality or personality traits
different than creative personality, creative role identity, that could be associated with creativity (e.g., openness,
creative process engagement, or creative self-efficacy. need for cognition).
Whereas prior research tended to focus on conditions In the next paragraph, we delve into delineating pre-
that maximize the creativity of individuals with creative ference for creativity from two rather general (as opposed
personalities (e.g., Oldham & Cummings, 1996), creative to context-specific) inclinations towards creative beha-
personality (i.e., dispositional creativity) simply denotes viour: ideational behaviour (Runco, Plucker, & Lim,
an individual characteristic that may, under the influence 2001) and adaptation-innovation (Kirton, 1976).
of appropriate formative factors (such as family or social Ideational behaviour, as denoted by its label, focuses on
support for creativity, the extent to which creativity is the process of ideation, treating ideas as products of crea-
valued in a particular environment, rewards for creativity, tive thinking (Guilford, 1967). This behaviour clearly
etc.), manifest in preference for creativity (i.e., wanting reflects the individual’s use of, appreciation of, and skills
with ideas (Runco et al., 2001), though it deals with about inaccurate reporting due to honesty and social desir-
divergent and creative thinking in a general manner, not ability inherent to any self-reporting (Heidemeier &
necessarily pertaining to a particular work domain. Moser, 2009). Most of the studies that applied creative
Similarly, Kirton’s (1976) adaptation-innovation deals self-evaluations have focused on actual exhibition of crea-
with behavioural distinctions between adaptors (those tive behaviour at work, although as Reiter-Palmon et al.
who do things better, generally in an adaptive manner) (2012) reported, some have also labelled these scores as
and innovators (those who do things differently, generally creative involvement. Nevertheless, the basic and most
in a creative manner). Once more, adaptation-innovation crucial difference between preference for creativity and
relates to a general setting, in- or outside of the work actual creativity is that preference denotes a step before
domain, whereas preference for creativity is shaped by actual exhibitions of creative behaviour. Preference
the context-at-work factors and focuses on the potential describes an idea or an inclination to be creative. This is
choice to apply creativity when dealing with tasks at work. not, however, the same as actually demonstrating creative
We now move on to discuss how preference for crea- behaviours. These arguments should also hold for not only
tivity differs from three phenomena that are closer to being other-rated creativity but also creative behaviour measured
context-at-work-dependent. Creative role identity might with self-evaluations that sometimes exhibit low correla-
be closest to the preference for creativity as it denotes tions with other-reported or objective measures of creative
self-attributed meaning to the role of performing creatively behaviour (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2012). Those self-reports
in the workplace (Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-Mcintyre, measure (or should measure) the extent to which employ-
2003). As such, for employees with high creative role ees perceive that they actually exhibit creative behaviour,
identity, personal creativity is an essential central part of not just their preference for it (i.e., wanting to be creative
“who they are.” However, based on the role identity when given the opportunity to do so within a particular
theory, creative role identity is highly contingent upon work setting). Even if this might already be more related
the context (Farmer et al., 2003) and is thus much more to operationalization rather than conceptualization or the-
dependent upon work-related environmental factors, such orizing, we wanted to emphasize this point.
as leadership and immediate social and task-related influ- We present the aforementioned variables that could be
ences, than preference for creativity. The latter is a built- closely associated with preference for creativity on a con-
up, context-dependent process. However, preference for tinuum ranging from being personality based (disposi-
creativity can be manifested to a higher extent than crea- tional) to depending heavily upon the context (Figure 1).
tive role identity when personal creative purposeful beha- The variable with the strongest dispositional attributes
viour is high, even if not all elements of the immediate with respect to individual inclinations towards creative
working context are favourable to such behaviour. An behaviour in general is creative personality. Wanting or
example for such an occurrence would be when leader liking to be creative (preference for creativity) is a step
or co-worker creativity expectations or rewards are not away from creative personality towards the influence of
present, which would not be the case with creative role context, which is why it is more likely to also be perceived
identity (Farmer et al., 2003). by others. It describes preference for creativity at work
The creative process engagement construct describes a more generally than creative self-efficacy, which is more
practical state of employee involvement in creativity-rele- related to a psychological relationship (self-esteem or lack
vant methods or processes (Zhang & Bartol, 2010a, 2010b), thereof) with a specific given task or one’s work role
including problem identification, information searching, (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Preference for creativity is
and encoding, idea, and alternative generation. As such, it only context dependent as much as the context (at work
represents the next step from a psychological state of liking or the general context) helps shape the preference con-
and wanting to be creative and acts as its manifestation, struction, which is more likely to occur in the process
depending upon personal and environmental conditions. On before the actual carrying out of the task. Thus, more
the other hand, creative self-efficacy, that is, employees’ general features of the context (Wildavsky, 1987) elicit
belief that they can be creative in their work roles the construction of preference for creativity above and
(Tierney & Farmer, 2002), relates to individuals’ self-con- beyond (and, most importantly, chronologically before)
fidence and self-esteem. It denotes belief and confidence the context of a work environment. Preferences are con-
that they can be creative if they want to, rather than simply sequences of people being classified into cultural biases,
liking and wanting to be creative. which are shaped by their broad social contexts
Preference for creativity is also different from actual (Wildavsky, 1987, 1994).
exhibited creativity, even if this is self-evaluated. Previous Creative identity, on the other hand, is much more
studies have used self-evaluations to predict creative beha- context(at-work)-dependent; it relates to a specific creative
viour (e.g., Carmeli, Gelbard, & Reiter-Palmon, 2013; role an employee performs at work (Farmer et al., 2003).
Reiter-Palmon, Robinson-Morral, Kaufman, & Santo, The most context-dependent construct might be creative
2012; Zhou, Shin, & Cannella, 2008), despite the concerns process engagement, which depends both on the person
Creative
behaviour
(self-or other-
Creative Context-at- evaluated)
Personality- personality / work-
based dispositional Creative self- Creative role Creative dependent
Preference
creativity, for creativity efficacy identity process
openness, engagement
need for Creative output
cognition
Ideational
behaviour
General
attitudes or
Adaptation- behaviour (not
Innovation necessarily
within the
work domain)
Figure 2. Variables closely associated with preference for creativity on a continuum ranging from being personality based to depending
heavily upon the context at work, or being general (unrelated to the work domain).
and, heavily, on the context (Zhang & Bartol, 2010a, previous research) from English into Slovenian and back
2010b). Naturally, we are aware of the fact that the pre- into English.
ference for a creativity construct partially overlaps with
the aforementioned phenomena. It would be unrealistic to
claim that it is completely different, but Figure 2 serves as Preference for creativity
a simplification of real-world phenomena that are closely We used a scale developed by Zhou & George, 2001) and
related to each other but still different at their cores, as adapted it to express preference for this behaviour by
explained earlier. including the phrase “I like to . . .” or “I want to” at the
beginning of each item. To avoid overlap with innovation
implementation, in line with the implicit advice from
Sample Montag, Maertz, and Baer (2012), we only used eight
items concerning the generation of novel and useful
To establish discriminant, predictive, and incremental
ideas, not their implementation. We adapted those items
validity of the preference-for-creativity construct from
for employee self-reporting and for tapping into the pre-
related constructs—that is, creative personality, openness,
ference for creativity (sample items included, “I want to
need for cognition, ideational behaviour, adaptation-inno-
suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives,” and “I
vation, creative process engagement, creative self-efficacy,
like to be a good source of creative ideas”) (α = .93).
and creative role identity—we first conducted a pilot study
on a panel sample (n = 129). The employees held a variety
of different jobs with various creative requirements, con- Creative personality
stituting a varied sample with respect to their creativity.
Creative personality was measured with five items aimed
About 41% of the respondents were male, and about 37%
at measuring dispositional creativity (Kirton, 1976). A
were younger than 26 years old (M = 30.23, SD = 6.32).
sample item included: “I have a lot of creative
Forty-five per cent of the respondents reported less than 7
ideas” (α = .80).
years of work experience (M = 4.34, SD = 6.45), and 67%
reported less than 3 years of working with this particular
supervisor (dyad tenure; M = 3.23, SD = 3.01).
Openness
Openness was measured using a 10-item scale from the
Big Five personality dimensions questionnaire (John &
Measures Srivastava, 1999) (α = .61), for example, “I see myself
We used a translation/back-translation procedure (Brislin, as someone who[. . .]is curious about many different
1986) to translate the items (which we adopted from things.”
Need for cognition creative employee is an important part of my iden-

Need for cognition was assessed using an 18-item version tity” (α = .93).
of the need for cognition scale developed by Cacioppo,
Petty, and Feng Kao (1984) (α = .64). A sample item
would be: “I like to have the responsibility of handling a Creative process engagement
situation that requires a lot of thinking.” The measure for creative process engagement was an 11-
item scale developed by Zhang and Bartol (2010b).
Sample item: “I spend considerable time trying to under-
Ideational behaviour stand the nature of the problem” (α = .93).
Ideational behaviour was measured with a 24-item scale
developed by Runco et al. (2001) (α = .94). Surveyed
Perceived clear outcome goals
items included: “I like to play around with ideas for the
fun of it.” We used four items from Jackson and Eklund’s (2004)
Event Experience Scale (FSS-2) that tap into how employ-
ees perceive given outcome goals to be clear or unclear,
and we adapted the items to concern general experiences
Adaptation-innovation
in the workplace (α = .94). Items included: “At work [. . .]
Adaptation-innovation was assessed with 11 items with I know clearly what I want to do,” “I have a strong sense
factor loadings over .60 from Kirton’s (1976) adaptors- of what I want to do,” “I know what I want to achieve,”
innovators scale. To assess the innovators, we used four and “My goals are clearly defined.”
items that Kirton (1976) found loaded on the innovators
factor (α = .88). A sample item would be: “I . . . cope with
several new ideas at the same time.” Creative behaviour
We used a scale developed by Zhou & George, 2001) and
adapted it to reflect self-reported creative beha-
Creative self-efficacy viour (α = .96).
Creative self-efficacy was assessed using a three-item
scale developed by Tierney and Farmer (2002).
Representative items include: “I have confidence in my Results
ability to solve problems creatively” (α = .88).
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for all variables
analysed in Study 1. To evaluate the discriminant validity
(meaning that a latent variable was able to account for more
Creative role identity variance in the observed variables associated with it than (a)
To measure creative role identity, we used Farmer et al. measurement error or similar external, unmeasured influ-
(2003) three-item scale. Sample items included: “To be a ences; or (b) other constructs within the conceptual
Table 1. Study 1: means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Preference for creativity 5.6933 .89221 (.93)

2 Creative personality 5.5711 .91306 .71** (.90)
3 Openness 5.0370 .63800 .60** .52** (.61)
4 Need for cognition 4.0986 .40633 .38** .38** .36** (.64)
5 Ideational behaviour 4.8086 .94722 .55** .57** .63** .35** (.94)
6 Innovators (from Kirton’s 4.9595 .92621 .46** .58** .56** .02 .53** (.88)
adaptation-innovation
scale)
7 Creative self-efficacy 5.7183 .87588 .50** .42** .48** .11 .56** .49** (.88)
8 Creative role identity 5.4057 1.15458 .53** .49** .46** .27** .59** .50** .65** (.93)
9 Creative process 5.5120 .85993 .54** .63** .33** .27** .38** .44** .39** .36** (.93)
engagement
10 Clear outcome goals 5.5788 1.21888 .16 .29** .10 −.04 .10** .39** .17 .05 .37** (.94)
11 Creative behaviour 5.4101 .96010 .66** .58** .36** .26** .37** .38** .57** .52** .68** .53** (.96)
Notes: n = 129. Coefficient alphas are given on the diagonal in parenthesis.

**p < .01.
Table 2. Study 1: hierarchical linear regression analysis results for self-reported creative behaviour as the dependent variable.
Model 1 Model 2
B SE β t B SE β t
Openness −.059 .119 −.039 −.499 −.017 .089 −.011 −.192

Preference for creativity .369 .091 .343** 4.057 .331 .068 .308** 4.841
Need for cognition −.010 .156 −.004 −.062 −.036 .116 −.015 −.308
Ideational behaviour −.183 .082 −.181* −2.223 −.102 .062 −.101 −1.638
Innovation (KAI) −.096 .083 −.093 −1.163 −.261 .065 −.252** −4.008
Creative personality .068 .096 .064 .703 .097 .072 .092 1.345
Creative process engagement .460 .080 .412* 5.779 .270 .062 .242** 4.344
Creative self-efficacy .302 .085 .276* 3.567 .197 .065 .180** 3.058
Creative role identity .126 .065 .152* 1.934 .272 .051 .327** 5.273
Clear outcome goals .306 .037 .389** 8.309
Interaction effects
Preference for creativity × unclear outcome goals −.199 .047 −.193** −4.208
R2 (F, df) .66 (25.850, 119) .82 (47.659, 117)
Notes: n = 129.
**p < .01, *p < .05.
framework (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)), we compared the construct vis-à-vis related constructs, as well as its pre-
average variance extracted (AVE) of preference for creativ- dictive and incremental validity, on a panel pilot sample
ity with the shared variance between constructs (preference using cross-sectional data. We then moved on to apply the
for creativity and other constructs). The AVE of preference construct and test the first hypothesis related to the mod-
for creativity was .64, which exceeded shared variance that erating role of perceived clear outcome goals in the rela-
this construct exhibited with creative personality (.50), tionship between preference for creativity and supervisor-
openness (.36), need for cognition (.14), ideational beha- reported creative behaviour in field Study 2.
viour (.25), adaptation-innovation (.21), creative process
engagement (.29), creative self-efficacy (.25), creative role
identity (.28), and even self-reported creative behaviour Sample
(.36), providing evidence of discriminant validity.
Empirical data were collected in two waves and two levels
To evaluate the predictive and incremental validity of
(from 165 employees and their 24 direct supervisors) in
the preference-for-creativity scale, we used simple hierarch-
September and October 2011 at a Slovenian manufactur-
ical regression analysis with creative behaviour as the
ing firm that produces steel constructions and employs
dependent variable (Table 2). In Model 1, we inserted
about 450 people. The company provides original and
preference for creativity along with all other related con-
complete solutions, which include façades and walls,
structs. All the context-at-work-dependent variables were
roofs, eco-solutions for diminishing power usage, modular
significantly positively related to creative behaviour (crea-
units, steel constructions of every kind, noise-attenuation
tive process engagement, creative self-efficacy, and creative
systems, and fire protection systems.
role identity), and the two general creative behaviour vari-
Most of the employees were in possession of an email
ables were in fact negatively related to creative behaviour
address and could be divided into specific work groups
(ideational behaviour and Kirton’s adaptors-innovators).
with direct supervisors. Those who were included in our
Preference for creativity demonstrated incremental validity
sample, which totalled 267 employees, held a wide variety
in predicting creative behaviour beyond the aforementioned
of jobs, including knowledge-intensive jobs, clerical jobs,
variables (β = .34, p < .01). In Model 2, we provided an
production jobs, etc. On average, just below seven
initial test for the moderating role of clear outcome goals on
employees responded per group, and the number of direct
the relationship between preference for creativity and crea-
reports per group supervisor who answered ranged from 2
tive behaviour, which we subsequently tested in Study 2.
to 18. Taking into consideration only the 24 groups that
The interaction between preference for creativity and clear
participated in the survey, this accounted for a 61.79%
outcome goals was significant (p < .01).
response rate for supervisors’ direct reports (the within-
group response rates ranged from 15% to 100%). About
66% of the participants were male, and about 41% were
Study 2: methods younger than 26 years (M = 38.87, SD = 7.09). Of the
In Study 1, we provided initial empirical evidence for respondents, 53.9% reported less than 7 years of work
discriminant validity of the preference for creativity experience (M = 6.49, SD = 5.91), and 46.7% reported
less than 3 years of working with this particular supervisor for another variable for which we controlled: whether
(dyad tenure; M = 3.72, SD = 3.70). employees had any managerial duties. We also controlled
for dyad tenure (how long an employee had been working
under the supervision of a particular direct supervisor)
Measures because the length of the supervisor–subordinate relation-
Preference for creativity ship can impact perceptions regarding work (Fagenson-
Eland, Marks, & Amendola, 1997). These control vari-
As in Study 1, we used eight items concerning the gen-
ables were reported by the employees.
eration of novel and useful ideas from a scale developed
In order to reduce the potential influence of common
by Zhou and George (2001), and we adapted them to
method bias, we used multisource data and two separate
reflect preference for this behaviour by including the
online questionnaires to collect it: one for employees and
phrase “I like to” or “I want to” at the beginning of each
another for supervisors who evaluated the employees’
item (α = .91).
creativity—the dependent variable in our study. As the
data on predictor and moderation variables (preference
Perceived clear outcome goals for creativity and clear goals) were both employee-based,
we followed expert advice (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
As in Study 1, we used four items from Jackson Podsakoff, 2012). Data were collected in two waves, the
and Eklund’s (2004) Event Experience Scale (FSS-
second about 3 weeks after the first. The items used in our
2) (α = .74). study were part of a large-scale questionnaire; therefore, it
is unlikely that respondents were able to guess the purpose
of the study and therefore force their answers to be
Creative behaviour
consistent. We also reverse-coded some items in the
As in Study 1, we used eight items from a scale developed questionnaire.
by Zhou and George (2001) (α = .97). The supervisors
assessed creativity for each employee.
Results
Control variables Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics for all vari-
We controlled for age (which has been indicated to affect ables analysed in Study 2. We first observed the factor
creativity, but does so differently across various domains, structure of the focal variables. The expected three-
e.g., Jones & Weinberg, 2011) and gender (studies have factor solution (preference for creativity, clear goals,
pointed to large differences in the creative achievement of and creative behaviour) displayed a good fit with the
men and women in many fields, e.g., Baer & Kaufman, data (χ2 [167] = 283.9, CFI = .954, SRMR = .051,
2008), as well as for employee education (e.g., Fasko, RMSEA = .065). The factor loadings ranged from .72
2001) and work experience. Work experience, in particu- to .94 for preference for creativity items, .63 to .84 for
lar, is a valuable control because employees who have perceived clear outcome goals items, and .66 to .80 for
been performing a particular task for a longer period of creative behaviour items.
time may perceive its difficulty or their creativeness in The employees in our sample were nested within
executing it differently (Amabile, 1998). This also is true groups led by their supervisors. As each supervisor
Table 3. Study 2: means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Agea 2.19 1.151 —

2 Genderb 1.66 .475 −.04 —
3 Education 3.61 .881 −.38** .01 —
4 Work experience 6.49 5.91 .42** −.19* −.31** —
5 Dyad tenure 3.72 3.69 .27** −.32** −.14 .61** —
6 Managerial duties 1.38 .79 −.00 .02 .21** .02 −.03 —
7 Preference for creativity 5.79 .85 −.07 .12 −.07 −.08 −.12 −.03 (.91)
8 Clear outcome goals 5.33 1.06 .01 −.09 −.09 −.04 −.09 −.17* .37** (.74)
9 Creativity 4.28 1.43 −.10 .17* .01 −.04 −.06 .06 .23** −.04 (.97)
Notes: n = 165. Coefficient alphas are given on the diagonal in parenthesis.
a
Age was classified into five classes: 1 = up to 26, 2 = 27–35, 3 = 34–43, 4 = 44–53, and 5 = 54 and older.
b
1 = “female”; 2 = “male.”
**p < .01, *p < .05.
Table 4. Study 2: HLM results for creativity as the dependent

variable.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Unclear

outcome goals
Intercept 4.33** (.14) 3.66** (.62) 3.46** (.60)
Age −.01 (.07) .03 (.08) Clear outcome
goals
Gender .47* (.21) .50* (.20)
Education −.08 (.10) −.05 (.11)
Work experience −.01 (.02) −.02 (.02)
Dyad tenure .01 (.03) 02 (.03)
Managerial duties .17 (.12) .23† (.14)
Clear outcome goals .10 (.12) .15** (.05)
Preference for .49** (.16) .30 (.20)
creativity Figure 3. Study 2: relationship between preference for creativ-
Interaction effects ity and supervisor-rated creativity by level of clear outcome
Preference for .34** (.12) goals.
creativity × clear
outcome goals
Pseudo R2 a .13 .18 exhibited a non-significant relationship with creative beha-
Deviance 580.09 581.39 579.05 viour when the level of clear outcome goals was low
Notes: n = 165. Robust standard errors are presented next to fixed effects (gradient = .64, t = 1.75, p < .10) but a significantly
in parenthesis. Values in bold are relevant to the tests of the hypotheses. positive relationship when it was high (gradient = 2.34,
a
We report Snijders and Bosker’s (1999) overall pseudo R2 for each t = 2.543, p < .05), thus supporting Hypothesis 1.
model. These estimates are based on proportional reduction of Level 1
and Level 2 errors owed to predictions in the model.
**p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10.
Study 3: methods
To strengthen causal inferences and to rule out alternative
provided ratings of creative behaviour for multiple explanations, as well as to address the limitations of Study
employees, this violated the independence assumption. 2 (mostly related to cross-sectional data), we conducted an
We therefore applied random coefficient modelling using experimental study in which participants generated crea-
hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) software package tive outputs to solve a business problem. Drawing upon
version 7.0 (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) with restricted the results of our second study, the goal of our third study
maximum likelihood estimation to test our hypotheses. was to test the results we obtained using a different
Such an approach allowed us to model the non-indepen- method, controlling for the task, and to use multiple
dence in our dependent variable by partitioning its var- experts to rate the creative outcomes instead of creative
iance into a within-supervisor and between-supervisor behaviour. Additionally, we wanted to examine the expla-
component. We present these results in Table 4. In the natory mechanism of work enjoyment, one of the dimen-
first step (Model 1), we examined the intercept-only sions of flow that we proposed would mediate the
model. In Step 2 (Model 2), preference for creativity relationship between preference for creativity and creative
(γ = .49, p < .01) was entered (in addition to all control outcomes, moderated by perceived clear outcome goals.
variables), as was the clear goals variable (γ = .10, ns).
Out of the control variables, only gender related signifi-
cantly to creativity, indicating that women in our sample Sample
exhibited, on average, higher levels of creative behaviour We conducted a laboratory experiment with 139 first-year
than men. undergraduates within an Organizational Behaviour course
To test Hypothesis 1, which predicted that the positive at a Slovenian university. The age of the participants
relationship between preference for creativity and actual ranged from 18 to 25 years, and the mean age was
creativity is contingent upon perceived clear outcome 19.65 years (SD = 1.10). Fifty-three per cent of the parti-
goals, we created an interaction term (preference for crea- cipants were male and 73% had some work experience
tivity × clear outcome goals) and entered it into the regres- such as student or summer jobs. To encourage participants
sion equation in Step 3 (Model 3). The results showed that to take the task seriously, we informed them that their
the interaction term was significant (γ = .34, p < .01), solutions would be evaluated by experts in creativity
indicating that clear outcome goals prevent preference for (Grant & Rothbard, 2013). They were given extra points
creativity from resulting in supervisor-rated creative beha- in their course for participation. Before they began the
viour (Figure 3). To test this interpretation, we conducted study, they also reported their preference for creativity
a simple slope analysis: we statistically compared the using items from Zhou and George (2001) that are used
slopes of both lines to zero. Preference for creativity to measure creative idea generation. Such items were
adapted to relate to their preference for this behaviour and —that is, clear goals in the first group and unspecific goals
aligned with our approach in Study 2. According to their in the second—and the members were given instructions
responses, the participants were assigned to three class- that corresponded with a particular goal setting. To ensure
rooms in terms of their preference for creativity (low, that participants in the clear and unclear goal conditions
moderate, or high) prior to the study. would experience different degrees of goal clarity, we
used Latham, Erez, and Locke’s (1988) manipulation for
goal setting. We gave participants in the clear goal condi-
Design and instructions tion a brief description of the outcome that was expected
The experiment thus used a three-by-two (low prefer- from each team member (what they should do but not how
ence for creativity/moderate preference for creativity/ they should do it; e.g., for those addressing the financial
high preference for creativity × clear outcome goals/ aspect we said, “Describe in detail how you will make
unclear outcome goals) between-subjects factorial money from the project”). For the unclear outcome goal
design. The participants within all three classrooms condition, we gave participants vague goals (e.g., “Do
(low/moderate/high preference for creativity) were then your best to address the financial aspect of the project,”
randomly assigned to two conditions in terms of the cf. Whitney, 1994).
clear goal manipulation prior to the experiment (clear
outcome goals condition/unclear outcome goals condi-
tion). We introduced the study by explaining that we Clear outcome goal manipulation
were interested in studying how people solve business For clear goal manipulation, these instructions included
problems. The experiment began by presenting a project the following: (Each team member had to achieve a given
scenario to the participants. The participants were goal for his own role.) For example:
assigned the role of a company’s project managers. In
the scenario, the organization had applied for a new Finances. “A financial manager should consider options
project, and a project team of six students was about how this project will generate money and choose
assembled. It should be noted that the teamwork was the best one while also exploring some of the more
only part of the design and that the generation of ideas unconventional ways of earning money. What are the
possible ways to generate money from the project in a
occurred individually. Such a design was used only more unconventional way? Your goal is to come up with
because students always worked in teams in this course one unconventional way of earning money from the
and we did not want to change methods of coursework project and describe it in detail.”
to incur unintended consequences on work climate. The Attractiveness. “A marketing manager should consider
general instructions for all conditions were as follows: options for the best ways of promoting a project and
choose the best one while also exploring some of the
more unconventional ways of promoting the project.
Our organization is applying for a new project called the What are the possible unconventional ways to promote
Island in the Slovenian Sea. The aim of the project is to the project? Your goal is to come up with one unconven-
generate unconventional ideas for the different business tional slogan that will attract the target consumers and
aspects of this imaginary island, which would help to describe it in detail.”
attract more tourists to the Slovenian Sea. Your task as a Safety. “A safety manager should consider options about
team is to come up with new ideas for different aspects the best ways of taking care of safety on the island,
of the new project and thereby to develop a draft busi- concerning crime, terrorism, and health issues, and
ness plan that would specify how you would implement choose the best option while also exploring some of
ideas for each aspect of the business plan. the more unconventional ways of dealing with safety
issues. What are the possible unconventional ways to
Each participant in a project team was randomly assigned deal with security issues on the island? Your goal is to
a particular role (each student had to work on and provide come up with and describe in detail one unconventional
way that you will use to address safety issues on the
solutions for different aspects of the given project: island.”
finances, attractiveness, safety, feasibility, acceptance, Feasibility. “A feasibility manager should consider
and impact of the project on the satisfaction of the resi- options about where and how this project will obtain
dents and visitors). The scenario consisted of a single startup capital for the implementation of the project and
session (40 min). choose the best source while also exploring some of the
more unconventional ways of getting startup capital.
What are the possible unconventional ways to obtain
startup capital? Your goal is to come up with and
Outcome goal manipulation describe in detail one unconventional way that you will
Prior to beginning our experiment, we introduced our get startup capital for the island.”
Acceptance. “An acceptance manager should consider
manipulation of clear and unclear outcome goals, each in options about the influence of the project on the envir-
two conditions. The manipulation consisted of two coher- onment and choose the best one while also exploring
ent aspects from which a specific goal setting was derived some of the more unconventional ways of reducing
negative impacts of the project on the environment. Table 5. Study 3: means and standard deviations by condition.
What are the possible unconventional ways to deal
with environmental issues? Your goal is to come up Clear outcome Work Creative
with and describe in detail one unconventional way Condition goals enjoyment output
that you will address the environmental issues on the
island.” Unclear outcome 4.95 (1.23) 4.62 (1.12) 3.07 (1.19)
Impact of the project on the satisfaction of residents and goals (n = 68)
visitors. “A satisfaction manager should consider options Clear outcome goals 5.49 (.92) 5.14 (.99) 4.44 (1.42)
about the best ways to ensure the satisfaction of all the (n = 71)
actors (visitors and employees on the island, as well as
local people) on the island and choose the best one while Note: Standard deviations are given in parenthesis.
also exploring some of the more unconventional ways of
achieving a high degree of satisfaction of all actors.
What are the possible unconventional ways to deal Manipulation checks
with satisfaction issues? Your goal is to come up with
and describe in detail one unconventional way that you In terms of manipulation checks, a multivariate analysis of
will address the satisfaction issues on the island.” variance (MANOVA) showed the expected main effects of
the clear/unclear outcome goal manipulation on perceived
clear goals, F(1,137) = 8.71, p < .01.
Unclear outcome goal manipulation
Conversely, we induced an unclear outcome goal manip-

Hypotheses tests
ulation using the following instructions:
Turning to creative output as the dependent variable,
“Do your best to come up with and describe in detail one Table 5 lists creativity means in differential goal clarity
unconventional way that you would address the financial conditions, F(1,138) = 24,81, p < .01. The MANOVA also
aspect/attractiveness/safety/feasibility/acceptance/impact revealed an interaction effect of the clear outcome goal
of the project on the satisfaction of the residents and manipulation and preference for creativity on creative out-
visitors of the project.”
put that was marginally significant, F(4,135) = 2.80,
Please note that the roles (finances, attractiveness, etc.)
were randomly assigned to the participants. p = .06 (Figure 4). This provides some support (albeit
only at the 94% confidence level) for Hypothesis 1.
Manipulation check
Testing the relationships by including controls
After the participants completed the task, we assessed
perceived clarity of outcome goals using four items (the In addition, we also performed a MANCOVA where we
same as in Study 2) from the Event Experience Scale from controlled for the type of subtasks (because our experi-
Jackson & Eklund, 2004) as a manipulation check. The mental design included participants performing different
participants also reported on the work enjoyment dimen- types of subtasks), extrinsic motivation (because the state-
sion of flow as their state during the task using a scale by ment we used to induce the participants to take the task
Bakker (2008), concentrating on the task at hand from seriously might have had differential effects on various
Jackson and Eklund’s (2004) Event Experience Scale participants’ extrinsic motivation), and concentration on
(FSS-2) and seven items for extrinsic motivation from the task at hand (the potential mismatch between skills and
Vallerand et al. (1992). Each individual’s creative output different subtasks should be reflected in individuals’ con-
was assessed by three independent raters blind to the centration on the task at hand). The MANCOVA (control-
manipulations and the purpose of the study (experts and ling for type of subtasks, extrinsic motivation, and
evaluators in the field of creativity) on a scale from concentration on the task at hand) revealed that the inter-
“1 = not at all creative” to “7 = very creative.” The three action effect of the clear outcome goal manipulation and
raters’ reliability (ICC2 = .76) and agreement (average the preference for creativity on creative output was sig-
deviation = .78) were within conventional guidelines nificant, F(2,137) = 3.07, p = .05. This provides additional
(LeBreton & Senter, 2008). We thus averaged their ratings and more robust support for Hypothesis 1.
into a measure of overall creativity for the participants’
outputs.
Mediated moderation test
We first used Edwards and Lambert (2007) mediated
moderation procedures and found that (a) the interaction
Results between preference for creativity and clear goals in pre-
Means and standard deviations for each condition are dicting work enjoyment was significant and (b) work
presented in Table 5. enjoyment was a significant predictor, and the coefficient
Table 6. Study 3: mediated moderation analyses for work enjoyment as the explanatory mechanism.
Work enjoyment Creativity
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Variables b SE β t b SE β t b SE β t b SE β t
Work enjoyment .25* .12 .20 2.31

Preference for creativity .27** .10 .24 2.88 .15 .11 .14 1.39 −.21 .15 −.14 −1.36 −.25 .15 −.17 −1.65
Clear outcome goals .40** .09 .38 4.50 .38** .08 .39 4.55 .17 .12 .12 1.39 .06 .13 .04 .47
Preference for creativity × clear .05† .03 .15 1.69 .26** .04 .56 5.87 .25** .04 .53 5.57
outcome goals
R2 .32** .34** .28** .31**
F(df) 32.67** (136,2) 23.03** (135,3) 17.78 (135,3) 15.09 (134,4)
ΔR2 .02* .03*
Notes: Values in bold are relevant to tests of our hypotheses.
**p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10.
General discussion
The results of field Study 2 showed that transforming
creative ideas into supervisor-rated creativity depends on
employees’ perceptions of clear goals regarding the out-
come of conducting their complex tasks. Perceived unclear
outcome goals seem to prevent individuals’ preference for
creativity to result in creative behaviour at work, whereas
their perceptions of outcome goals as clear resulted in
higher levels of supervisor-rated creative behaviour. By
way of our experiments conducted in Study 3, we replicated
and found additional support for this moderation and, draw-
ing on flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992, 1997a), tested
a mediating explanatory mechanism of work enjoyment.
Our results supported the proposed moderated mediation
model, whereby the manipulation of clear goals led to
individuals’ preference for creativity to result in higher
work enjoyment and, in turn, superior ratings of their
Figure 4. Study 3: creative output in different experimental creative outcomes.
conditions.
on the interaction term decreased (Table 6). We then used Theoretical contributions
Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro to examine whether par- Our studies make two distinct contributions to the creativ-
ticipants’ reports of work enjoyment mediated the moder- ity literature. Our first contribution is related to providing
ating effect of perceived clear outcome goals on the conceptual insight into the initial phases of creative idea
relationship between preference for creativity and creative generation, that is, transforming wanting to be creative
output. Applying bootstrap procedures to construct 95% (preference for creativity) into creative behaviour. This
bias-corrected confidence intervals around the indirect study is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to use
effects of both levels of clear outcome goals (Edwards & the economics-based preference development literature
Lambert, 2007), the confidence interval for the indirect (Druckman & Lupia, 2000; Slovic, 1995; Tversky &
effect of preference for creativity on creative output Thaler, 1990). We did so in order to identify, define, and
through work enjoyment was significant and excluded conceptualize a novel antecedent of creativity with regard
zero for clear outcome goals (.18, p = .028), as well as to preference for creativity. We also proposed and demon-
for unclear outcome goals (.10, p = .05), which indicated strated in pilot Study 1 that preference for creativity differs
that work enjoyment mediated the relationship between from creative personality, openness, need for cognition,
preference for creativity and creative output within the ideational behaviour, adaptation-innovation, creative pro-
clear goal outcome conditions, supporting Hypotheses cess engagement, creative self-efficacy, and creative role
2a–2c. identity. We have shown that it demonstrates sufficient
predictive and incremental validity above and beyond creativity, be it in terms of creative behaviour or creative
those constructs. outcomes. Therefore, our research has important implica-
We then drew on goal-setting theory (Lee, Locke, & tions for human resource selection processes, job design,
Latham, 1989) to examine contextual boundary conditions and leadership training. If managers are interested in
for transforming individuals’ preference for creativity into boosting creativity, they should not only pay attention to
actual creativity with respect to how individuals perceive creative personality when selecting employees; they
their goals to be clear or unclear. Our Studies 2 and 3, should also consider whether their work environment
using both field and experimental data, indicate a crucial will interact to further stimulate a high level of individual
role of perceived clear outcome goals for individuals pre- preference for creativity. Namely, a proper fit between
ferring to be creative and working on a complex task to individuals’ general and work context will be more likely
produce behaviour or outcomes that are other-rated as to lead to preference for creativity manifesting in actual
creative. This is in line with previous research on creativ- creativity. Managers should be aware that without main-
ity that showed the importance of explicit instructions for taining high preference for creativity from their employees
divergent thinking (Runco, Illies, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005; (e.g., providing them with relevant information for indivi-
Shalley, 1991). We extended this line of research and duals to become aware of their creative preferences) and
showed how the contextual factor of clear outcome goals enabling creativity to thrive, actual creativity will most
can be seen as an intervention that further fosters creative likely not materialize, even if they select individuals with
behaviour when individuals like and want to choose to be highly creative personalities.
creative at work. The key element in this postulation is not only select-
Our second contribution to the creativity literature is ing the individuals that exhibit the highest preference for
the in-depth examination of the explanatory micro- creativity, but also accounting for their potential work
mechanism in the moderating role of perceived clear enjoyment, a dimension of flow at work. What is even
goals. In order to foster high levels of creativity at more important is that such employees perceive and
work, a focused, goal-oriented approach is apparently understand the outcome goals for their complex tasks as
required. Complementing goal-setting theory and flow clear. Managers should therefore help their employees to
theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992, 1997b) helped to clearly understand what is expected of them in terms of
explain how, for the employees who are successful in their task outcome.
transforming their preference for creativity into superior Perceived clear outcome goals should result in the
supervisor-rated creative performance, clear goals result employees’ activation of work enjoyment, facilitating the
in work enjoyment. This dimension of flow enables an transformation of creative ideas into other-rated creativity.
in-depth understanding of the psychological mechanism Individuals who enjoy creative work on complex tasks
that enables individuals to express their creative prefer- (i.e., exhibit work enjoyment, a flow dimension) seem to
ences, contributing to achieving their own purpose and benefit from perceiving clear outcome goals by being
meaning at work, as well as the organization’s, with ensured of expectations and then beneficially capitalizing
higher levels of creative performance from the employ- on their preference for creativity and work enjoyment.
ees. Complementing social and contextual theories of Ultimately, increased understanding of these conditions
creativity (Amabile, 1996; Amabile et al., 1996; West, could contribute to achieving individuals’ own purpose
2002; Woodman et al., 1993), we have shown that clear and meaning at work, as well as the organization’s, with
goals contribute to work enjoyment, which leads indivi- higher levels of creative performance from its employees.
duals to greater effort and persistence and thereby helps
individuals to overcome the potential risks associated
with wanting to be creative. The employees who enjoy Limitations and future research directions
their work are highly motivated to engage in creative Despite the aforementioned contributions, our research is
behaviour and thereby actually transform creative ideas not without limitations. Our first limitation is related to the
to other-rated creative outcomes. It is not total control field Study 2. Even though we collected data in two waves
that is suitable for creative ideas manifesting in creative separated by a couple of weeks, the data that we gathered
output but rather guidelines in terms of clear outcome were ultimately cross-sectional, which is why we could
goals (as perceived by the employees) that enable work not infer causal claims but only test their implications
enjoyment to emerge. based on correlational analyses. Our experimental Study
3 did, of course, help alleviate those concerns and
addressed potential speculations that the causality between
Practical implications the variables in the field study model (preference for
Our two studies have shown that clear outcome goals act creativity, goal clarity, and actual creativity) could be
as a tangible managerial remedy that contributes to trans- circular instead of linear. Nonetheless, future longitudinal
forming individuals’ creative preference into actual field research which could test the implications of
causality in real life and examine a temporal dimension, mind when interpreting and comparing the results of both
that is, how perceived clear outcome goals help stimulate studies, which can be viewed as both a limitation and also
work enjoyment and consequently creativity over time, is as a strength because it enables greater generalizability of
warranted. results across different goal types.
Second, although we provided evidence that prefer- Fourth, by focusing only on perceived outcome goals,
ence for creativity differs from creative personality, open- we have only tapped into one dimension of job design and
ness, need for cognition, ideational behaviour, adaptation- individual context at work. Other variables identified in
innovation, creative process engagement, creative self- flow theory which correlate with work enjoyment, such as
efficacy, and creative role identity, a limitation is the fact feedback (Jackson & Eklund, 2004), self-monitoring, or
that we did not measure intrinsic motivation for creativity resiliency, could play an equally important role in influen-
(having strong interest in creativity for the sake of crea- cing the transformation of preference for creativity into
tivity itself; Collins & Amabile, 1999; Mumford, 2003) in other-rated creativity at work. Future research could thus
any of our studies. Therefore, we have not directly eval- concentrate on other boundary conditions of the main
uated similarity/difference with preference for creativity. examined relationship postulated here.
Although it is beyond the scope of our paper to delineate Fifth, our research only focused on the outcomes of
preference for creativity from intrinsic motivation for crea- preference for creativity, that is, examining how it can be
tivity, we assume that intrinsic motivation for creativity manifested in creative behaviours. The assumption for
does share conceptual similarities with preference for such an investigation is that some (or a lot of) people
creativity, but it might be that it is more personality- that work on complex tasks and wish to exhibit creative
based. This is supported by the fact that intrinsic motiva- behaviour exist in companies, that is, that the preference
tion was also found to exhibit higher correlations with a development process for those people has occurred out-
personality dimension of need for cognition (.69 in side of the workplace. Although this is a safe assumption
Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994, as opposed to in light of recent businesses’ focus on creativity and
the correlation of .39 that we have found between prefer- innovation in the current economy, future research could
ence for creativity and need for cognition). This provides a also explore the antecedents of individuals’ preference for
starting point to question the validity of commonly used creativity, be it in the form of personal characteristics or
measures of intrinsic motivation for creativity, which is contextual factors related to individuals’ general
likely not without limitations, as it might be based more environment.
on the personality factors rather than the more context- Sixth, a limitation of our Study 3 was also related to
dependent preference development process. However, this our experimental design. We used the group design only
is still only a speculation, and future research that would as the part of the design, though the generation of creative
further conceptually distinguish preference for creativity ideas occurred individually. We used group/team design
from intrinsic motivation for creativity and evaluate their only because our participants always worked in teams in
potentially differential sets of predictors and outcomes is the course where we performed the experiment and we did
warranted. A related limitation (of our pilot Study 1) could not want to change methods of coursework to incur unin-
also be seen in the relatively low reliability alpha scores tended consequences on work climate. Thus, we had to
for some of the constructs that we distinguished preference have different types of subtasks. This needs to be kept in
for creativity from, in particular for two personality indi- mind when interpreting the results of Study 3.
cators: openness and need for cognition (α = .61 and .64,
respectively). This could be due to a relatively small
sample size for a study with as many variables as we Disclosure statement
tackled. Therefore, future research could go further to No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
establish predictive validity of preference for creativity
above and beyond other constructs by applying larger
sample sizes and research designs above the convenience
References
sample that we used in our pilot Study 1.
Third, an overall limitation of our studies is the oper- Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of
motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of
ationalization of the perceived clear outcome goal con- Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393–399.
struct and whether this phenomenon is personally/ doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.393
internally generated or externally assigned. In Study 2, Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO:
due to its operationalization and measurement in the Westview Press.
field, it seems that the perceived outcome goal clarity Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business
Review, 76, 76–87.
variable was more related to the internal understanding Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M.
of the respondents, whereas in the experimental Study 3, it (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science
was clearly externally set. This thus needs to be kept in Quarterly, 50, 367–403. doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. Csiksczentmihalyi, M., Kolo, C., & Baur, T. (2004). Flow: The
(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. psychology of optimal experience. Australian Occupational
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184. Therapy Journal, 51, 3–12.
doi:10.2307/256995 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: The
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1987). Creativity in the experience of play in work and games. San Francisco, CA:
R&D laboratory. Technical Report 30. Greensboro, NC: Jossey-Bass.
Center for Creative Leadership. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. experience. Prague, Czech Republic: Lidové Noviny.
(1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of experience: Steps toward enhancing the quality of life. New
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967. York, NY: Harper Collins.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1992). Optimal experience: Psychological
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in crea- studies of flow in consciousness. New York, NY: Cambridge
tivity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–105. University Press.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997a). Creativity: Flow and the psychol-
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their stu- ogy of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper
dents: The crossover of peak experiences 1. Journal of Perennial.
Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997b). Finding flow: The psychology of
Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: engagement with everyday life. New York, NY: Harper
Construction and initial validation of the WOLF. Journal Collins.
of Vocational Behavior, 72, 400–414. doi:10.1016/j. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience
jvb.2007.11.007 in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality Psychology, 56, 815–822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.815
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of
Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/peps.1991.44.issue-1 intrinsic motivation: A study of adolescents. Research on
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and Motivation in Education, 3, 45–71.
personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476. Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance:
doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255 The moderating role of conscientiousness. Journal of
Baumann, N., & Scheffer, D. (2011). Seeking flow in the Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
achievement domain: The achievement flow motive behind doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.266
flow experience. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 267–284. Dollinger, S. J., Leong, F. T. L., & Ulicni, S. K. (1996). On traits
Berg, J. M. (2014). The primal mark: How the beginning shapes the and values: With special reference to openness to experience.
end in the development of creative ideas. Organizational Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 23–41. doi:10.1006/
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 1–17. jrpe.1996.0002
Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2000). Hot vs. cold: Sequential Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a SMART way to write manage-
responses and preference stability in experimental games. ment’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70, 35–36.
Experimental Economics, 2, 227–238. doi:10.1023/ Drolet, A., Luce, M. F., & Simonson, I. (2009). When does
A:1009962612354 choice reveal preference? Moderators of heuristic versus
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research goal-based choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 36,
instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field 137–147. doi:10.1086/596305
methods in cross-cultural research. Cross-cultural research Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation.
and methodology series (Vol. 8, pp. 137–164). Thousand Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 1–24. doi:10.1146/
Oaks, CA: Sage. annurev.polisci.3.1.1
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2011). Intrinsic motivation as a
efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of moderator on the relationship between perceived job auton-
Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. doi:10.1207/ omy and work performance. European Journal of Work and
s15327752jpa4803_13 Organizational Psychology, 20, 367–387. doi:10.1080/
Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2013). 13594321003590630
Leadership, creative problem-solving capacity, and creative Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating
performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework
Resource Management, 52, 95–121. doi:10.1002/hrm.v52.1 using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12,
Cascio, W. (1998). The virtual workplace: A reality now. The 1–22. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1
Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 37, 32–36. Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., &
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow experiences at work: For high
workplace: Characterizing within individual variability using need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior,
a complexity science approach. Journal of Organizational 26, 755–775. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379
Behavior, 32, 627–651. doi:10.1002/job.v32.4 Ellström, P.-E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems
Chen, H. (2006). Flow on the net-detecting web users’ positive and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12,
affects and their flow states. Computers in Human Behavior, 421–435. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1006
22, 221–233. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.07.001 Erez, M., Earley, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). The impact of
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and crea- participation on goal acceptance and performance: A two-
tivity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. step model. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 50–66.
297–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.2307/256061
Erez, M., & Kanfer, F. H. (1983). The role of goal acceptance in John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxon-
goal setting and task performance. Academy of Management omy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In
Review, 8, 454–463. L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Fagenson-Eland, E. A., Marks, M. A., & Amendola, K. L. (1997). Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York,
Perceptions of mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational NY: Guilford Press.
Behavior, 51, 29–42. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1997.1592 Jones, B. F., & Weinberg, B. A. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role iden- 108, 18910–18914. doi:10.1073/pnas.1102895108
tity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618–630. Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and
doi:10.2307/30040653 measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research doi:10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622
Journal, 13, 317–327. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_09 Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants of
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific flow: Contributions from self-determination theory. The
and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 355–368. doi:10.1080/
Review, 2, 290–309. doi:10.1207/pspr.1998.2.issue-4 00224549909598391
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in Larson, R. (1988). Flow and writing. In M. Csikszentmihalyi &
multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience:
21, 1112–1142. Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 150–
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models 171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving
and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382–388. scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments
doi:10.2307/3150980 by the antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham dispute

Fullagar, C. J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Flow at work: An regarding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied
experience sampling approach. Journal of Occupational and Psychology, 73, 753–772. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.753
Organizational Psychology, 82, 595–615.Wiley Online LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions
Library. doi:10.1348/096317908X357903 about interrater reliability and interrater agreement.
Gardner, R. A. (1958). Multiple-choice decision-behavior. The Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.
American Journal of Psychology, 71, 710–717. doi:10.2307/ doi:10.1177/1094428106296642
1420328 Lee, T. W., Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1989). Goal setting
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience theory and job performance. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Goal con-
and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An cepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:
interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
513–524. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513 Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining
Ghani, J. A., & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of
the experience of optimal flow in human–computer interac- the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality
tion. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 381–391. doi:10.1080/ and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137. doi:10.1037/h0035519
00223980.1994.9712742 Litchfield, R. C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is based view. Academy of Management Review, 33, 649–668.
the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.32465708
perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and
Journal, 54, 73–96. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085 incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human
Grant, A. M., & Rothbard, N. P. (2013). When in doubt, seize the Performance, 3, 157–189. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4
day? Security values, prosocial values, and proactivity under Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting &
ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, Forthcoming, 98, task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
810–819. doi:10.1037/a0032873 Loveland, M. T. (2003). Religious switching: Preference develop-
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New ment, maintenance, and change. Journal for the Scientific Study
York, NY: McGraw-Hill. of Religion, 42, 147–157. doi:10.1111/jssr.2003.42.issue-1
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and Mathwick, C., & Rigdon, E. (2004). Play, flow, and the online
conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. search experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 324–
Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Wu, G. (1999). Goals as reference 332. doi:10.1086/422111
points. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 79–109. doi:10.1006/ McDougall, W. (1932). Of the words character and personality.
cogp.1998.0708 Journal of Personality, 1, 3–16. doi:10.1111/jopy.1932.1.
Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job issue-1
performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capa-
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 353–370. city, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia Journal, 44, 118–131. doi:10.2307/3069340
computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2008). Motivation and flow:
The Journal of Marketing, 60, 50–68. doi:10.2307/1251841 Toward an understanding of the dynamics of the relation in
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2004). The flow scales manual. architecture students. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 533–
Morgantown: WV Fitness Information Technology. 556. doi:10.3200/JRLP.142.5.533-556
Jackson, S. A., Thomas, P. R., Marsh, H. W., & Smethurst, C. J. Montag, T., Maertz, C. P., & Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis
(2001). Relationships between flow, self-concept, psycholo- of the workplace creativity criterion space. Journal of
gical skills, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 38, 1362–1386.
Psychology, 13, 129–153. doi:10.1080/10413200175 Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we
3149865 going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity
Research Journal, 15, 107–120. doi:10.1080/ Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, devel-
10400419.2003.9651403 opmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55,
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Duhachek, A. (2003). The influ- 151–158. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.151
ence of goal-directed and experiential activities on online flow Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American
experiences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 3–16. Psychologist, 50, 364–371.
Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis:
Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling.
Management Journal, 39, 607–634. doi:10.2307/256657 London, UK: Sage.
Pearce, J. M., Ainley, M., & Howard, S. (2005). The ebb and Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Leadership
flow of online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, style, anonymity, and creativity in group decision support
745–771. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(04)00036-6 systems: The mediating role of optimal flow. The Journal of
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Creative Behavior, 33, 227–256. doi:10.1002/jocb.1999.33.
Sources of method bias in social science research and recom- issue-4
mendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativ-
Psychology, 63, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych- ity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social
120710-100452 Psychology, 49, 607–627. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its
models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). potential antecedents and relationship to creative perfor-
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. mance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148.
Reilly, R. C. (2008). Is expertise a necessary precondition for doi:10.2307/3069429
creativity?: A case of four novice learning group facilitators. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 59–76. doi:10.1016/j. and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
tsc.2008.02.002 doi:10.1126/science.7455683
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O’Connor Boes, J., & Tversky, A., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Anomalies: Preference
Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem construction and creativity: reversals. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4, 201–
The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. 211. doi:10.1257/jep.4.2.201
Creativity Research Journal, 10, 9–23. doi:10.1207/ Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M.,
s15326934crj1001_2 Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The academic motiva-
Reiter-Palmon, R., Robinson-Morral, E. J., Kaufman, J. C., & tion scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation
Santo, J. B. (2012). Evaluation of self-perceptions of crea- in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
tivity: Is it a useful criterion? Creativity Research Journal, 52, 1003–1017. doi:10.1177/0013164492052004025
24, 107–114. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.676980 Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory
Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Explicit examination of person-organization fit: Organizational goal
instructions to be creative and original: A comparison of congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44, 333–352.
strategies and criteria as targets with three types of divergent doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00962.x
thinking tests. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Wells, A. J. (1988). Variations in mothers’ self-esteem in daily
Solving, 15, 5–15. life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 661–
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development 668. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.661
and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational beha- West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds:
vior. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 393–400. An integrative model of creativity and innovation
Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology-an
work: Evidence for an upward spiral of personal and orga- International Review, 51, 355–387. doi:10.1111/
nizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22. apps.2002.51.issue-3
doi:10.1007/s10902-005-8854-8 Whitney, K. (1994). Improving group task performance: The role
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity of group goals and group efficacy. Human Performance, 7,
goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. 55–78. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0701_5
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185. doi:10.1037/ Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institu-
0021-9010.76.2.179 tions: A cultural theory of preference formation. The American
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, Political Science Review, 81, 3–22. doi:10.2307/1960776
and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Wildavsky, A. (1994). Why self-interest means less outside of a
Management Journal, 38, 483–503. doi:10.2307/256689 social context: Cultural contributions to a theory of rational
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to choices. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 131–159.
know: A review of social and contextual factors that can doi:10.1177/0951692894006002001
foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33– Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward
53. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004 a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of Management Review, 18, 293–321.
personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where Wu, S., Lin, C. S., & Lin, J. (2011). An empirical investigation
should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958. of online users’ keyword ads search behaviours. Online
Sherkat, D. E., & Wilson, J. (1995). Preferences, constraints, and Information Review, 35, 177–193. doi:10.1108/
choices in religious markets: An examination of religious 14684521111127998
switching and apostasy. Social Forces, 73, 993–1026. Yemm, G. (2013). FT essential guide to leading your team: How
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, to set goals, measure performance and reward talent. Upper
E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms Saddle River, NJ: FT Publishing International.
from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010a). The influence of creative
Quarterly, 18, 158–176. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860 process engagement on employee creative performance and
overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. Journal Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to
of Applied Psychology, 95, 862–873. doi:10.1037/ creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of
a0020173 Management Journal, 44, 682–696. doi:10.2307/3069410
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010b). Linking empowering Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., & Cannella, A. A. (2008). Employee self-
leadership and employee creativity: The influence of perceived creativity after mergers and acquisitions: Interactive
psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and effects of threat—opportunity perception, access to resources,
creative process engagement. Academy of Management and support for creativity. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Journal, 53, 107–128. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037118 Science, 44, 397–421. doi:10.1177/0021886308328010

2015 - I Want To Be Creative, But

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 - I Want To Be Creative, But

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

2015 - I Want To Be Creative, But

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

I want to be creative, but … preference for

Darija Aleksić, Matej Černe, Anders Dysvik & Miha Škerlavaj

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1077809

Published online: 14 Aug 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 179

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [RMIT University] Date: 29 February 2016, At: 15:05

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

and liking to be creative). The same is true for openness,

Need for cognition creative employee is an important part of my iden-

Table 1. Study 1: means, standard deviations, and correlations.

1 Preference for creativity 5.6933 .89221 (.93)

Notes: n = 129. Coefﬁcient alphas are given on the diagonal in parenthesis.

Openness −.059 .119 −.039 −.499 −.017 .089 −.011 −.192

**p < .01, *p < .05.

Table 3. Study 2: means, standard deviations, and correlations.

1 Agea 2.19 1.151 —

Table 4. Study 2: HLM results for creativity as the dependent

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Unclear

Conversely, we induced an unclear outcome goal manip-

Work enjoyment Creativity

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Work enjoyment .25* .12 .20 2.31

jvb.2007.11.007 in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social

doi:10.2307/3150980 by the antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham dispute

You might also like