Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Copyright Warning
Use of this thesis/dissertation/project is for the purpose of private study or scholarly research only. Users must comply with the Copyright Ordinance. Anyone who consults this thesis/dissertation/project is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and that no part of it may be reproduced without the author’s prior written consent.
A STRESS AND COPING
PERSPECTIVE ON CREATIVITY: A
REWARD FOR CREATIVITY POLICY
AS A STRESSOR IN
ORGANIZATIONS
LI FULI
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
SEPTEMBER 2009
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
香港城市大學
A Stress and Coping Perspective on Creativity: A
Reward for Creativity Policy as a Stressor in
Organizations
從壓力和應對的角度理解創新:組織創新獎勵政策作為
一種壓力源
Submitted to Department of Management
管理學系 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 哲學博士學位
by
Li Fuli 李福荔
September 2009 二零零九年九月
I
Abstract
This dissertation explores the underlying mechanisms by which the reward for
creativity policy affects individual behaviors and attitudes in organizations. This research
topic is important because it contributes to the creativity literature and provides practical
implications for practitioners. In this study, the CET model and the transactional model
were proposed based on both the traditional motivation theory (Cognitive Evaluation
Theory, CET) and the newly introduced transactional theory of stress and coping,
respectively. Specifically, the CET model posits that intrinsic motivation mediates the
effects of both the informational and controlling aspects of the policy on individual
behaviors and attitudes. Meanwhile, the transactional model claims that coping strategies
(problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping) mediate the influences of
cognitive appraisal (challenge appraisal of the policy, threat appraisal of the policy, and
creative self-efficacy) on individual behaviors and attitudes. Furthermore, in the specific
context of the policy, the transactional model is expected to have more predictive power
relative to the CET model, and the mediating roles of coping strategies proposed by the
transactional theory are expected to have more predictive power as compared to that of
intrinsic motivation as proposed by CET.
II
The organization, located in the middle part of China, has executed the reward for
creativity policy and was thereby chosen as the appropriate context to test the author’s
hypotheses. The dependent variables included both objective and subjective measures for
creative performance (the amount of reward and perceived creative contribution to the
group) and satisfaction with the policy. The findings showed that in the CET model,
intrinsic motivation only partially mediated the impacts of the informational aspect of the
policy on both the amount of reward and satisfaction with the policy. On the other hand,
in the transactional model, problem-focused coping fully or partially mediated the effects
of the policy’s challenge appraisal and creative self-efficacy on three outcome variables.
At the same time, as a subcategory of emotion-focused coping, blaming fully mediated
the effect of threat appraisal of the policy on both the amount of reward and satisfaction
with the policy. By incorporating all mediators into a single model, the results indicated
that both problem-focused coping and blaming fully replaced the mediating role of
intrinsic motivation in the CET model. Moreover, in the transactional model, the
mediating effects of coping strategies remained unchanged in the presence of intrinsic
motivation. Based on the results, most of the researcher’s hypotheses were supported.
The findings of this dissertation have important theoretical and practical implications for
both theory and practice.
IV
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my great appreciation to my supervisor, Professor Kwok
Leung. During the four years of my PhD study, he has provided considerable guidance on
how to do good research and how to nurture scientific research attitudes. Moreover, if I
feel frustrated when facing difficulties in research, he provides me not only academic
guidance but also psychological encouragement. Here, give my special thanks to him
although I know it is hard to fully express my gratitude to him. His great passion for
research impressed me very much and encouraged me to become a better researcher in
future academic career.
A special note of thanks is given to Mr. Yuanhai Huang. Although he was very
busy on his job, he spent a great deal of time and efforts helping me collect data. I thank
my dear friends and colleagues both in management department of CityU and in
USTC-CityU Joint Advanced Center. I also express my grateful thanks to Xin Lai.
Without his help, I cannot learn effective statistical method and find the best way to
process the data.
I would also like to thank my qualifying panel-Prof. Dean Tjosvold from Hong
Kong Baptist University, Dr. SIA Choon Ling, Dr. Jeanne Fu Ho Ying, Prof. Weixuan
Xu from Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Prof. Zhongsheng Hua from University of
Science and Technology of China, for their constructive and valuable comments that
were beneficial to improve my thesis.
I express my love and gratitude to my family. All my family members have
always supported me and trusted in me. Finally, I dedicate my dissertation to everyone
who has ever helped me and encouraged me.
V
Table of Content
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….1
1.1 Problem Statement……………………………………….....................................1
1.2 Research Questions….…………………………………………………..……...10
1.3 Significance of the Research……………………………………………………12
1.4 Dissertation Structure……...……………………………………………………14
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………....…………………………………17
2.1 Intrinsic Motivation Perspective………………………………………………..17
2.2 Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)…..……………………………………….18
2.2.1 Performance-contingent Reward…………………………………………22
2.3 Experimental Findings for the Effect of Reward on Creativity..…..…………..26
2.4 Field Studies on the Effect of Reward on Creativity ………………...………..29
2.5 General Discussion.…………………………………………………………….30
2.6 The Reward for Creativity Policy and the Transactional Theory.…………….. 33
2.6.1 The Reward for Creativity Policy ………………………….…….……....33
2.6.2 The Transactional Theory………………………....……..….……………35
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES…………………………….46
3.1 The CET Model of the Reward for Creativity Policy……………………….…48
3.1.1 The Effects of the Informational and Controlling Aspects of the Policy on
Intrinsic Motivation …..……………………..…………....….…..………48
3.1.2 The Effects of the Informational and Controlling Aspects of the Policy on
Creative Performance and Satisfaction with the Policy………………….51
3.2 The Transactional Model of the Reward for Creativity Policy.….………….…56
3.2.1 The Effects of Cognitive Appraisal on Creative Performance and
VI
Satisfaction with the Policy………………………………………………56
3.2.2 The Effects of Coping Strategies on Creative Performance and
Satisfaction with the Policy……………..…..…………..………..………64
3.2.3 The Effects of Cognitive Appraisal on Coping Strategies…….……….... 66
3.2.4 Mediation Hypotheses….…………………………………..…………… 68
3.3 Comparisons of the CET Model and the Transactional Model…….…………. 69
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHOD…………………………………………………..72
4.1 Design of the Study…………………………………………..…….…………. 72
4.2 Research Setting and Procedures……………………………..…….…………. 74
4.3 Participants in the Study.……………………………………..…….…………. 79
4.4 Measurements…….…………………………………………..…….…………..82
4.4.1 Scales for the CET Model ….…………………………………..…….…..82
4.4.2 Scales for the Transactional Model …………………………..…………..84
4.4.3 Dependent Variables…….….…………………………………....…….…91
4.5 Summary…………………………….………………………………..…….….94
CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS…………………………………......95
5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis……….………………………………..…….…..95
5.2 Descriptive Statistics……….……………………………………………….…..96
5.3 Hypothesis Tests…………………….………………………………..…….…102
5.3.1 The Amount of Reward as DV………………...……………..…….…104
5.3.2 Perceived Creative Contribution to the Group as DV.…………..……111
5.3.3 Satisfaction with the Policy as DV…………………..…………..……118
5.4 Summary of Results..……………….………………………………..…….…125
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………130
VII
6.1 Summary of Main Findings……………...…………………………..…….…130
6.2 Theoretical Contribution……………………………………………..…….…140
6.2.1 The Application of CET in Field Settings …...…………..…..…….…140
6.2.2 The Application of the Transactional Theory in Creativity Research ..143
6.2.3 Comparison of the CET Model and the Transactional Model…...……144
6.3 Practical Implications..……………………………………………..…...….…145
6.3.1 Implications of the CET Model …...……………………..…..…….…145
6.3.2 Implications of the Transactional Model ……………………………..148
6.4 Future Research………..……………………………………………..…….…151
6.5 Limitations…….………………………….…………………………..…….…154
6.6 Conclusion…….………………………….…………………………..…….…156
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………….158
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………….…..174
VIII
Tables
Table 4.1 Demographics of Sample…………………………………..……………………..81
Table 5.1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Alpha Coefficients of
Variables (N=245)…...……………………………………...………………...98
Table 5.2 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Alpha Coefficients of
Variables (N=141)…...…………………………………………...……….....101
Table 5.3 Results of Regression Analyses for the Amount of Reward (N=141)…..…..106
Table 5.4 Cross-mediating Effects for the Amount of Reward………...…………..…..108
Table 5.5a Mediators in the CET Model for the Amount of Reward.………..…….…..109
Table 5.5b Mediators in the Transactional Model for the Amount of Reward.………...110
Table 5.6 Results of Regression Analyses for Perceived Creative Contribution to the
Group (N=167)…………………………………………………………..…..114
Table 5.7 Cross-mediating Effects for Perceived Creative Contribution to the Group ..115
Table 5.8a Mediators in the CET Model for Perceived Creative Contribution to the
Group ………………………………………..………………………………116
Table 5.8b Mediators in the Transactional Model for Perceived Creative Contribution to
the Group ……….…………………………………………………………...117
Table 5.9 Results of Regression Analyses for Satisfaction with the Policy (N=245)….119
Table 5.10 Cross-mediating Effects for Satisfaction with the Policy………....………..122
Table 5.11a Mediators in the CET Model for Satisfaction with the Policy………...…..123
Table 5.11b Mediators in the Transactional Model for Satisfaction with the Policy…...124
Table 5.12 Summary for the Main Effects……………………………………………...126
Table 5.13 Summary for the Mediation Effects………………………………………...129
IX
Figures
Figure 3.1 The Overall Hypothesized Model of the Reward for Creativity Policy…….47
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Statement
In an increasingly competitive and turbulent business environment, the provision
of innovative products and services has become an urgent need for firms so that they can
enhance their competitive advantage. Given that creative ideas serve as the basic sources
of innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994), considerable research suggests that employee
creativity can play a key role on organizational innovation, effectiveness, and survival
(Amabile, 1996; Nonaka, 1991). Employee creativity is defined as the production of
novel and potentially useful ideas about organizational products, practices, services, or
procedures (Amabile, 1996; Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Zhou & George, 2001). Creativity
can be produced by employees at any level of the organization and in any job, not just in
those that are traditionally regarded as necessitating creativity (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt,
2002; Nonaka, 1991).
When employees generate novel and potentially useful ideas about organizational
practices, services, products, or procedures (Shalley & Gilson, 2004), organizations can
utilize and develop these creative ideas in responding to shifting market conditions and
opportunities in order to become adaptive, growing, and competitive (Nonaka, 1991).
Therefore, the enhancement of employee creativity and organizational innovation is a
2
tremendous challenge faced by organizations nowadays.
In the creativity and innovation literature, most researchers have focused on
personal and contextual factors, or their interactions, which promote or hinder individual
creativity (see review, Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2003), such as
personality, cognitive style, job complexity, rewards, evaluation, time deadline and goals,
relationship with supervisors or coworkers, spatial configuration of work settings, and so
on. Among numerous antecedents of creativity, Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham (2004)
indicated that although the impact of reward on individuals’ creativity has received much
attention (i.e., Amabile, 1996; Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986; Eisenberger &
Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994), the question of whether or not a reward can
facilitate or hinder creativity has spurred debates between social-cognitive psychologists
and behaviorists over the past three decades, especially in the field of experimental
studies.
Social-cognitive psychologists argue that contracting for reward should motivate
individuals to perceive the activity as simply a means to an end, so the type of reward
should be detrimental to intrinsic motivation, thus decreasing creativity (i.e., Amabile,
1996; Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986). In contrast, behaviorists posit that a
reward can have a positive impact on generalized creativity if it is properly administered
3
(i.e., Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994). In addition, several empirical studies have provided
support for the negative effect of reward (i.e., Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986;
Kruglanski, Friedman, & Zeevi, 1971), whereas others have supported the assumption
that it has a positive effect (Eisenberger, Armeli, & Pretz, 1998; Eisenberger & Rhoades,
2001).
Indeed, there is a huge difference in opinion between social-cognitive researchers
and behaviorists in experimental studies regarding the effect of reward on creativity.
However, from a practical sense, practitioners are inclined to support behaviorists’
perspective and believe the positive effect of reward on a variety of work outcomes
including creativity. For instance, the use of reward to enhance creativity has been
advocated in business (e.g., Edwards, 1989; Farr & Ford, 1990) and education settings
(e.g., Funderbunk, 1977; Goetz, 1989). Several compensation programs have been
designed for this aim, such as stock options and gain-sharing plans (Zhou & Shalley,
2003) as well as monetary incentives and recognition (Fairbank & Williams, 2001; van
Dijk & van den Ende, 2002). Furthermore, some field studies have primarily supported
the positive effect of reward-contingency on employee creativity (i.e., Abbey & Dickson,
1983; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Zhou and Shalley (2003) pointed out that to date, few studies have focused on the
4
effect of reward or compensation programs on creativity in organizational settings. They
further suggested that “it is imperative to systematically untangle the complexity of the
impact of rewards on creativity in the workplace” (p. 204-205). Although practitioners
tend to adopt reward with the aim of stimulating creativity, the issue of reward’s actual
effect may be so complicated since it has not been resolved yet in both cognitive and
behavioral laboratory research. Hence, organizations and managers may not only lack a
solid theoretical foundation to clarify whether or not reward would have a positive effect
on creativity, but they may also be uncertain about how reward actually influences
creativity. Therefore, it is particularly important to untangle the complexity of the effect
of reward on creativity in field settings due to these important theoretical and practical
concerns. This dissertation attempts to fill this gap and explore the underlying
mechanisms through which reward takes effect in organizational settings.
The following is an important question that must be answered in exploring the
relationship between reward and employee creativity in organizations: “Which theory can
help explain the mechanisms by which reward affects creativity in field settings?” It
seems plausible that the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (abbr. CET, Deci & Ryan, 1985),
one of the most popular motivation theories, may be used to explain the effect of reward
on intrinsic motivation and creativity. According to CET, all contextual variables (i.e.,
5
reward) have two aspects, informational and controlling, and the effect of reward on
intrinsic motivation and creativity will depend on the relative salience of the
informational and controlling aspects. Specifically, when the controlling aspect of reward
is salient, reward induces a change in the perceived locus of causality from internal to
external, indicating that individuals perceive their feelings or actions as being controlled
by reward itself and feel that their behaviors do not originate from their own thoughts or
actions. Hence, their intrinsic motivation should be diminished, subsequently decreasing
creativity. When the informational aspect of reward is salient, individuals feel that reward
provides relevant information about their personal competence. In this situation,
individuals feel supported and encouraged, and their intrinsic motivation will be
enhanced, subsequently promoting creativity. Hence, if CET could be applied in
organizational settings, it could be reasoned that the relative salience of the informational
and controlling aspects of reward may predict its effect on intrinsic motivation and
subsequently lead to creativity.
However, some scholars argue that the application of CET in experimental studies
may not be the most appropriate for field research. For example, Gagné and Deci (2005)
pointed out the problems with CET as a theory of work motivation: (1) most studies that
tested CET were conducted in experiments rather than field research, and (2) most
6
employees who work in organizations have to earn money, and as such, adopting
monetary rewards is one of the central motivational strategies which seem practical and
appealing, whereas CET suggests the detrimental influence of contingent, tangible
rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Another concern about the inappropriate application of CET is related to the task
characteristics in organizational settings. Most previous experimental studies in support
of CET employed play situations as their research contexts; thus, the influence of reward
may be different in contexts with work task requirements. Work activities in
organizations are different from play tasks because they typically involve employees’
commitment to perform certain tasks that are not totally chosen by the individual
(Eisenberg, 2001).
One more concern has been raised recently, that is, whether intrinsic motivation
has a mediating role (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). Shalley,
Zhou, and Oldham (2004) argued that “…contextual conditions influence creativity via
their effects on employees’ intrinsic motivation. Although this perspective has often been
discussed in the literature (see Amabile, 1996), few studies have directly tested it…few
studies actually measured intrinsic motivation and tested whether it empirically mediates
the context-creativity relation…” (p. 945). Moreover, some studies empirically tested the
7
mediating role of intrinsic motivation, but the results were inconsistent. For instance, in a
field study, Shin and Zhou (2003) found that intrinsic motivation partially mediates the
effect of transformational leadership on creativity, whereas in Shalley and Perry-Smith’s
(2001) experimental study, the results showed that intrinsic motivation does not mediate
the relationship between evaluation and creativity. Although the mediating role of
intrinsic motivation lacks empirical support in experimental settings, the field study by
Shin and Zhou (2003) has yielded support for the role of intrinsic motivation. Hence,
even though experimental work has not provided much supporting evidence for the role
of intrinsic motivation, its mediating effect needs to be investigated in field settings.
Due to several criticisms on CET, this dissertation attempts to apply a new
theoretical perspective, Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional theory of stress and
coping (abbr. the transactional theory), in its effort to explore the underlying mechanism
by which reward takes effect in organizations. The transactional theory has been widely
adopted to investigate differences in peoples’ reactions to stressful life events (e.g.,
Folkman & Lazarus, 1980), illnesses (Smith & Wallston, 1992) and workplace stress
(e.g., Long, Kahn, & Schutz, 1992; Terry, Callan, & Sartori, 1996; Terry, Tonge, &
Callan, 1995), among others. The transactional theory is related to what an individual
actually thinks and does when encountering a specific situation, and it identifies cognitive
8
appraisal and coping processes as the pivotal mediators of stressful person-environment
relationships and their immediate and long-term outcomes (e.g., Folkman, Lazarus,
Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Specifically,
cognitive appraisal is a process through which an individual assesses whether or not a
specific encounter is relevant to his/her well-being, including primary appraisal
(construed the encounter as a challenge or a threat) and secondary appraisal (how
individuals evaluate their options and coping resources for dealing with situational
demands). Coping involves the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to cope with
internal or external demands, including problem-focused (attempts to alter or manage the
stressful person-environment relationship) and emotion-focused coping (attempts to
reduce or manage stressful emotions).
Several field studies have also adopted the transactional theory to explain
workplace stress. For instance, Terry, Callan, and Sartori (1996) tested the utility of the
stress-coping mode of employee adjustment to organizational change and found that
coping responses (problem-focused and emotion-focused coping) mediate the effects of
situational appraisals (appraised stress, situational control, and self-efficacy) on
adjustment (psychological well-being and job satisfaction). Long, Kahn, and Schutz
(1992) found that that the transactional theory is useful in understanding managerial
9
women’s responses to occupational stress (i.e., interpersonal conflict, staff
shortages/overload, time pressures). Furthermore, it was found that the appraisal of work
stress (e.g., loss of respect, threat to goal attainment, episode upsetting, and perceived
control) and coping strategies (e.g., disengagement coping and engagement coping) are
either directly or indirectly related to the outcomes (distress and satisfaction).
In line with the transactional theory, how individuals interpret and cope with an
expected stressor is vital in understanding the effect of the stressor on individuals’
attitudes and behaviors. To elaborate the effect of reward in organizations, based on the
transactional theory, the researcher proposes that a reward for creativity policy be viewed
as one critical work event in relation to people’s well-being, which can be seen as a
stressor in organizations. The reward for creativity policy (abbr. the policy) represents
one type of human resource policy that aims to directly link creative outcomes with
reward. Moreover, the amount of reward received depends on the level of the employee’s
creative performance, which is often used by organizations and managers to stimulate
creativity. Subsequently, how individuals appraise the policy and cope with it may
provide a clear guidance for understanding the underlying mechanisms by which the
policy leads to actual outcomes.
10
To summarize, some research gaps exist in the reward and creativity literature,
especially in field settings. First, the question of whether or not CET can predict the
effect of contextual factors (i.e., the policy) in organizational settings remains
unanswered. Although CET posits that the relative salience of the controlling and
informational aspects of any contextual factor (i.e., the policy) can predict its effect on
intrinsic motivation and subsequently lead to creativity, to the best of the researcher’s
knowledge, scant field research has directly tested these two aspects. Second, as
compared to CET, is there a better theory that can be used to explain the effect of the
policy in organizational contexts? As previously reviewed in the above, several criticisms
have been raised on the potentially inappropriate applicability of CET in field settings
(i.e., less practical and appealing for CET application). Due to these criticisms, the
researcher proposes a new theoretical perspective, the transactional theory, in exploring
the underlying mechanisms through which the policy operates in field contexts.
1.2 Research Questions
In this dissertation, to address the aforementioned gaps and explore how the
policy functions, two types of consequences are taken into account: creative performance
and satisfaction with the policy. According to Sverke, Hellgren, and Näswall (2002),
11
performance and satisfaction can be categorized into long-term/organizational and
immediate/individual reactions. This is because performance may be manifested after a
longer period of time and may be directly related to the organization, whereas satisfaction
can be considered to develop along with a person’s experience and is thus primarily
individually oriented. Following their categorization, this study explores and examines
how the policy influences employees’ creative performance and satisfactory attitudes
toward the policy.
To summarize, the goal of this dissertation is (1) to test whether or not CET can
predict the effects of the policy on employee creativity and satisfaction with the policy in
organizations, (2) due to some criticisms on CET, to adopt a new theoretical perspective,
the transactional theory, for explaining the underlying mechanisms through which the
policy operates, and (3) to identify which theory may better predict the impact of the
policy on employees’ behaviors and reactions. Meanwhile, this study empirically tests a
set of hypotheses on the basis of a theory-driven model and aims to provide organizations
and managers with a clear strategy on whether or not they should use the policy and how
they can do so effectively.
Hence, the key research questions to be addressed by this dissertation are as
follows:
12
1) Does CET predict the effects of the policy on individuals’ behaviors and
attitudes? In other words, can the relative salience of the controlling and informational
aspects of the policy help explain its effects? Furthermore, can intrinsic motivation
mediate the effects of both the informational and controlling aspects of the policy on both
employees’ creative performance and satisfaction with the policy?
2) Due to some criticisms on the application of CET in field settings, the
researcher proposes that the transactional theory may be appropriate for explaining the
effect of the policy in organizations. Subsequently, in line with the transactional theory,
what are the specific underlying mechanisms by which the policy affects both creative
performance and satisfaction with the policy?
3) Which theoretical perspective can be more operative in organizational settings,
CET or the transactional theory?
1.3 Significance of the Research
This dissertation has significance for both academics and practitioners.
First, it benefits academics in the area of reward and creativity by examining whether or
not CET can be applied in field contexts to explain the effect of the policy. Indeed,
several criticisms on the application of CET in organizational contexts have already been
13
made. However, scant field studies have directly provided empirical evidence to show the
predictive power of CET to date. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study may
be the first attempt to directly evaluate and test both the controlling and informational
aspects proposed by CET, which may be helpful in examining the generalization of CET,
especially in field settings. It may help researchers understand whether theory and
practice make a big difference.
Second, it also contributes to the existing literature on creativity not only by
identifying a new theoretical perspective that can be applied in organizational settings but
also by revealing the underlying mechanisms by which the policy takes effect in addition
to the popular intrinsic motivation perspective. In line with the transactional theory, the
researcher proposes that in the context of the policy, individuals appraise the policy as a
challenge or a threat, evaluate their coping resources to exhibit the creative activities
demanded by the policy (creative self-efficacy), and then adopt coping strategies
(problem-focused or emotion focused coping) that consequently lead to the desired
outcomes.
Third and more importantly, after comparing the CET model (proposed by CET)
and the transactional model (posited by the transactional theory), it becomes clear which
theoretical framework may be more operative for explaining the effects of the policy. The
14
better theory is the one which predicts events and phenomena correctly. This realization
has important practical implications for researchers and practitioners. The findings of the
dissertation may provide a clear map for practitioners to understand the underlying
mechanisms through which the policy influences individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. It
is especially helpful in that it assists managers in determining whether the policy is
effective or not, and it may also provide theoretical guidance for actual practice.
1.4 Dissertation Structure
This dissertation consists of six chapters as outlined below.
Chapter ONE presents the problem statement, research questions, significance of
the research, and the dissertation structure.
Chapter TWO describes the theoretical background of the study. First, the
intrinsic motivation perspective and CET are discussed. Second, experimental and field
studies about the effect of reward on creativity are reviewed. Third, a general discussion
is presented, and the general principles of the transactional theory are then introduced.
Chapter THREE posits the research model and hypotheses. First, in line with CET,
the author expects that both the informational and controlling aspects of the policy are
related to both creative performance and satisfaction with the policy, and that intrinsic
15
motivation mediates the effects of both aspects of the policy on outcomes. Second,
according to the transactional theory, the author hypothesizes that (a) cognitive appraisal
(how individuals interpret the policy) and coping strategies (how individuals cope with
the policy) are correlated with both creative performance and satisfaction with the policy,
and (b) coping strategies (problem-focused and emotion-focused coping) mediate the
relationships between cognitive appraisal and both creative performance and satisfaction
with the policy. Third, the researcher attempts to compare the predictive power of CET
with the transactional model, and hypothesizes that the transactional model is expected to
have better predictive power in general and is particularly appropriate for the specific
context of the policy.
As discussed in Chapters FOUR and FIVE, the research method and data analysis
results are presented. Chapter FOUR discusses the research method, including the sample
selection and survey procedure. One organization that has adopted the reward for
creativity policy was selected as the target sample. The employees in the organization
were asked to rate their perceptions of all independent and demographic variables.
Creative performance as the dependent variable was evaluated from two sources:
self-reported evaluation of individuals’ perceived creative contribution to the group and
the amount of reward based on an employee’s creative contribution to the group (sourced
16
from the organization’s objective data). Satisfaction with the policy was rated by the
respondents themselves to indicate the extent to which they were satisfied with the policy.
Chapter FIVE presents the final results.
Chapter SIX summarizes the major findings of this dissertation, addresses its
theoretical contributions and practical implications, and discusses the research limitations
and future research directions.
17
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Intrinsic Motivation Perspective
During the 1970s, investigators such as Deci (1975); McGraw (1978); Condry
(1977); Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973); and Kruglanski et al. (1975) began to
conduct systematic research and provided theoretical and empirical evidence supporting
the idea that for some behaviors, reward is not beneficial and may even be harmful. The
concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were involved in these scholars’ arguments.
Intrinsic motivation refers to “the innate, natural propensity to engage one’s interests and
exercise one’s capacities, and in so doing, to seek and conquer optimal challenges” (Deci
& Ryan, 1985, p.43). When people engage in intrinsically motivated activities, they often
feel enjoyable and excited. Generally, they posited that extrinsic reward for intrinsically
motivated tasks can hinder the occurrence of the rewarded behavior, especially when
reward is subsequently absent. Extrinsic motivation refers to the extent to which an
individual engages in an activity where the reason for doing so is something other than
the interest in the activity itself (Amabile, 1996), such as rewards, promotions, or some
external control.
Intrinsic motivation as a pivotal mediator has been frequently used to explain the
effect of reward on creativity. Individuals who have high intrinsic motivation tend to
exhibit corresponding high levels of creative performance (Amabile, 1996) because
18
intrinsic motivation enhances persistence, cognitive flexibility, risk-taking behavior, and
curiosity when people face barriers (Utman, 1997; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). These in turn
facilitate the development of creative ideas. According to previous theories and research
(Amabile, 1996; Deci & Ryan, 1985), each contextual factor (i.e., reward) affects
creativity via its impact on individuals’ intrinsic motivation to perform a task. Although
this perspective has often been discussed in the literature, few studies have directly tested
the mediating role of intrinsic motivation (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004; Zhou &
Shalley, 2003). Moreover, although some studies have examined the mediating effect of
intrinsic motivation, their results are inconsistent (see Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Shin
& Zhou, 2003)
2.2 Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)
As the mediating role of intrinsic motivation has often been advocated in the
literature (Amabile, 1983, 1996) even though it lacks consistent empirical support
(Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004), one major controversy about the relationship between
reward and creativity involves the positive or negative impact of reward on intrinsic
motivation, which can be explained by Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET, Deci & Ryan,
1985).
19
According to CET, all contextual variables (i.e., reward) have two aspects:
informational and controlling, which will influence intrinsic motivation to the extent that
they affect perceived self-determination and perceived competence. Self-determination is
conceptualized as the capacity to choose and to have those choices rather than have
reinforcement contingencies, drives, or any other forces or pressures as the determinants
of one’s actions (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Perceived competence or self-efficacy is defined
as individuals’ subjective judgments of their capabilities for a particular type of task
(Bandura, 1986). The effects of contextual factors on intrinsic motivation will depend on
the relative salience of the informational and controlling aspects of the contextual factors.
When the controlling aspect is salient, contextual variables (i.e., reward) induce a
change in the perceived locus of causality from internal to external, indicating that
individuals perceive their feelings or actions to be controlled by the contextual factor
itself and feel that their behaviors do not originate from their own thoughts or actions.
Hence, their perceived self-determination is decreased, and as a result, intrinsic
motivation should be diminished. When the informational aspect is salient, individuals
feel that contextual factors provide relevant information about their personal competence
within the context of some self-determination. In this situation, individuals feel supported
and encouraged, and their intrinsic motivation will be enhanced.
20
With the use of the typology of reward contingencies that may signal different
degrees of controlling and informational values, CET analyzes the extent to which reward
tends to be interpreted as a controller or competence affirmation, which subsequently
influences the extent to which reward undermines or enhances intrinsic motivation. Ryan,
Mims, and Koestner (1983) introduced the typology of reward contingencies: (1)
task-noncontingent reward which is given for participating in an experimental session,
independent of what they do in that session, (2) task-contingent reward which is given for
actually doing or completing the task, and (3) performance-contingent reward which is
given for a specified level of effective performance. A task-contingent reward can be
further subdivided into engagement-contingent reward (engagement in the task that does
not require completion) and completion-contingent reward (the actual completion of the
task).
According to CET, various types of reward contingencies tend to influence the
extent to which an aspect of reward is considered more salient, controlling or
informational. Specifically, the task-noncontingent reward does not require performing
the task, or doing the task well, so reward is expected to have no controlling or
informational role. On the other hand, engagement-contingent reward carries little or no
competence affirmation, but people have to perform the task to obtain the reward so the
21
reward is likely to be experienced as controlling. For completion-contingent reward, on
one hand, people have to complete the task to obtain the reward so it is experienced as
more controlling; on the other hand, the reward signals some level of competence after
the task is completed. Nonetheless, averagely across different types of tasks, the
competence-affirming aspect is not so strong relative to the controlling aspect. For the
performance-contingent reward, the reward can convey substantial competence
information when the individual does well to attain a certain level of performance;
however, he/she has to meet some performance standards to get the reward and make the
controlling aspect even stronger. It is expected that the informational aspect of the
performance-contingent reward will offset some of its negative controlling effects.
Based on experimental findings, several meta-analyses have been conducted to
test the effects of various types of reward contingency on intrinsic motivation. In these
experiments, intrinsic motivation was done subsequent to the experimental period when
there was no reward contingency; it was also measured by both self-reported interest and
free-choice behavior in the target activity. Specifically, the task-noncontingent reward
was found to have a nonsignificant effect on both free-choice behavior and self-reported
interest (see meta-analyses, Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;
Tang & Hall, 1995). The task-contingent reward (combining engagement-contingent and
22
completion-contingent reward) had a significant negative effect on both free-choice
behavior and self-reported interest (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). The
performance-contingent reward had a negative effect on free-choice behavior but not on
self-report interest (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).
The above meta-analyses results have primarily supported CET, except for the
performance-contingent reward (partially supported, only for the free-choice measure
rather than the self-report interest). As the result was not consistent for the effect of the
performance-contingent reward on intrinsic motivation, CET also suggests other
moderating conditions for this type of reward. This will be discussed in the following
section.
2.2.1 Performance-contingent Reward
Due to the competing tendencies of the controlling and competence-affirmation
aspects of the performance-contingent reward, CET suggests that other factors may
influence the relative salience of the informational and controlling aspects of such type of
reward, such as whether or not the level of reward possesses “symbolic cue values”
which imply competence information in a situation (Harackiewicz, Manderlink, &
Sansone, 1984).
23
2.2.1.1 Symbolic Cue Value as the Informational Aspect of Reward
Harackiewicz and colleagues (Harackiewicz, 1979; Harackiewicz, Manderlink, &
Sansone, 1984) introduced the concept of cue value, providing an additional element that
could affect the relationship between performance-contingent reward and intrinsic
motivation. They argued that the cue value of a reward induces the individual to be
sensitive to the competence information in a situation, thereby highlighting the
affirmation of competence inherent in a performance-contingent reward given for having
done well. In essence, the cue value can also be said to highlight the informational aspect
and offset the controlling aspect of the performance-contingent reward (Deci, Koestner,
& Ryan, 1999).
Harackiewicz and Sansone (2000) explained that the cue value can affect intrinsic
motivation through the reward process. Specifically, the initial offer of a
performance-contingent reward may lead to positive motivational processes as
individuals perform activities to attain competence. In turn, the receipt of a
performance-contingent reward can symbolize the level of competence and instill
perceptions of accomplishment and pride. A reward has meaning (the “cue”) with respect
to the level of competence it represents and in terms of the value of competence in the
activity. When reward symbolizes higher levels of competence and achievement, its cue
24
value should be greater.
The symbolic cue value means that individuals have the opportunity to receive
reward as the result of a positive evaluation, and this reward represents both the level and
the value of competence in the situation (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000; Sansone &
Harackiewicz, 1998). Here, to some extent, the meaning of the symbolic cue value of
reward may be broader, and it contains reward’s informational aspect as proposed by
CET. It posits that individuals feel that reward provides relevant information about their
personal competence when it is given after the completion of the task. Under this
condition, reward possesses informational value for competence confirmation, thus
enhancing intrinsic motivation.
For symbolic cue value, it can influence intrinsic motivation throughout the
reward process (reward offer, performance period, and reward outcome). In the stage of
reward offer, a performance-contingent reward offer provides an opportunity to obtain
reward that symbolizes the level of competence in the situation, which motivates
individuals to care more about doing well (Harackiewicz & Manderlink, 1984). Hence, in
the subsequent performance period stage, the performance-contingent reward can affect
how individuals approach and perform a task, help them concentrate on attaining
competence, and keep them focused on their performance of the task. In the stage of
25
reward outcome, the symbolic cue value means that the receipt of a
performance-contingent reward provides tangible evidence of excellence in performance,
which may enhance subsequent intrinsic motivation by increasing feelings of
accomplishment, pride, and satisfaction. In the present study, the researcher adopts the
symbolic cue value to represent the informational aspect of the policy that has broader
meanings relative to the informational aspect proposed by CET, which will be discussed
later.
Harackiewicz, Manderlink, and Sansone (1984) conducted an experiment to test
whether or not reward possesses a symbolic cue value. They found that the subjects in the
performance-contingent reward condition enhanced their intrinsic motivation relative to
those in the condition in which they were told that they would be evaluated and were
subsequently given positive feedback but did not receive a reward. The only difference
between these two groups was the presence of reward for surpassing the performance
standard, so they concluded that the finding supported the positive effect of the symbolic
cue value because when reward was absent, the controlling aspect of the evaluation in the
non-reward condition could not be offset. Another study from Harackiewicz (1979)
compared two performance-contingent reward conditions (with norms supplied and no
norms supplied). Under the two conditions, the subjects were told that they would receive
26
a reward if they exceed the performance of the average high school student. In the
norm-supplied reward condition, the participants were informed of the exact performance
standard, whereas in the no norms supplied reward condition, the participants had no idea
about their performance level until they completed the task and received a reward. The
results indicated that the participants in the “no norms supplied” reward condition
decreased their intrinsic motivation more than those in the “norms supplied” reward
condition. Harackiewicz (1979) explained that the participants in the
performance-contingent reward group with normative performance information may have
higher intrinsic motivation because of a greater amount of feedback available to them
during the actual process of doing the task.
2.3 Experimental Findings for the Effect of Reward on Creativity
Both social-cognitive psychologists and behaviorists have conducted several
experimental studies to explore the effect of reward on creativity over the past three
decades, but the findings have been inconsistent. On one hand, social-cognitive
investigators have primarily agreed on the negative effect of reward on intrinsic
motivation and creativity and have supported the relative salience of the controlling
aspect of reward as proposed by CET. On the other hand, behaviorists posit that reward
27
has a positive impact on creativity if it is properly administered (Eisenberger & Cameron,
1996; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994).
Amabile (1983, 1996) proposed that reward is negatively related to perceived
self-determination when it is perceived as a pressure to obtain a particular outcome.
According to the social-cognitive perspective, when individuals interpret that the aim of
reward is to control, it is expected that it is likely to be detrimental to self-determination
and intrinsic motivation, subsequently becoming a hindrance to creativity. Several
experimental studies have provided empirical evidence for the negative role of reward. In
the work of Kruglanski, Friedman, and Zeevi’s (1971), for instance, they gave two
open-ended creativity tasks to Israeli high school students who either have or have not
been promised a reward for their participation. The results indicated that the students
under the no-reward condition exhibited more interest and enjoyment, and their jobs were
rated as more creative than the rewarded subjects. Amabile, Hennessey, and Grossman
(1986) found that children and women adults who performed creative activities to obtain
a reward displayed low levels of creativity relative to those who participated without
receiving a reward. It seems that in line with CET, social-cognitive investigators tend to
support the controlling aspect of reward, which is more salient than its informational
aspect.
28
However, Eisenberger and his colleagues disagreed with the negative impact of
reward (especially performance-contingent reward) on intrinsic motivation and creativity.
The learned industriousness theory (Eisenberger, 1992) is often used to explain the
positive effect of reward, which assumes that reward contingency provides individuals
explicit information on which dimension of performance (i.e., speed, novelty) reward
depends. The proposition of a positive effect of explicit reward on creativity has received
much empirical support from Eisenberger and his coworkers’ experimental findings (i.e.,
Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger, Armeli, & Pretz, 1998; Eisenberger, Haskins,
& Gambleton, 1999; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001).
For instance, in Eisenberger and Armeli (1997)’s first experiment, they found that
subjects who perceived the larger reward for presenting unusual uses for words during
the training session generated more novel performance (originality of the subjects’
drawings) in the drawing task (making pictures from circles) relative to those in the no
reward or small reward condition. In their second experiment, the results indicated that
reward for creative performance increases the subsequent choice to generate original
drawings and that reward for uncreative performance enhances the subsequent choice to
copy the familiar drawing. Another example from Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001)
provided evidence for the positive effect of reward. In the experiment, the college
29
students in both the reward for creative performance group and the no reward group were
asked to produce creative titles for a short story (creativity was defined as novelty
combined with quality as related to how well a person responds to solve the problem).
The results showed that the subjects in the reward for creative performance condition
generated more creative titles relative to those in the no promised reward condition.
2.4 Field Studies on the Effect of Reward on Creativity
Several field studies have also examined the relationship between reward and
creativity, most of which support the positive effect of reward. For instance, Abbey and
Dickson (1983) found that in R&D units, performance-reward dependency is
significantly positively related to three innovation processes, namely, initiation, adoption,
and implementation. Scott and Bruce (1994) found that support for innovation
(reward-innovation dependency as one factor) is significantly positively associated with
employee innovative behavior. Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) reported that employees’
expected reward for high performance is positively related to their intrinsic interest and
perceived self-determination, subsequently enhancing creativity. They explained that the
expected reward for high performance may promote intrinsic interest by enhancing the
symbolic importance of competence performance (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991) and
30
increasing perceived self-determination (Eisenberger, Rhoades, & Cameron, 1999).
2.5 General Discussion
As reviewed in the previous section, previous experimental findings were
inconsistent when it came to evaluating the effect of reward on creativity. Moreover,
practitioners tend to support behaviorists’ perspective and believe that reward can
facilitate creativity. In practice, the use of reward to promote creativity has been
advocated and applied in business (i.e., Farr & Ford, 1990) and education settings (i.e.,
Goetz, 1989). However, Zhou and Shalley (2003) reviewed that to date, few studies have
explored the impact of reward or compensation programs on creativity in field settings;
they then suggested that future research should systematically reveal the complex
mechanisms by which reward affects creativity in the workplace. However, although
practitioners have adopted reward to stimulate creativity, the issue of whether or not
reward has a positive effect may be so complicated since both social-cognitive and
behavioral researchers have not come to an agreement in their laboratory findings. Even
though several field studies have mainly supported the positive effect of reward, how
reward takes effect in practice remains unanswered. Consequently, practitioners may not
only lack a solid theoretical foundation upon which reward can be used in practice but
31
also be uncertain about how reward leads to certain outcomes. Due to these important
theoretical issues and practical concerns, this dissertation attempts to explore the
complexity of the effect of reward on creativity and the underlying mechanisms by which
reward takes effect in field settings.
To realize the research purpose, the pivotal issue that must be addressed is the
determination of which theoretical perspective can be used to explain the underlying
mechanisms by which reward is operative. In the literature, CET, one of the most popular
motivation theories, has been adopted to explain the relative salience of the informational
and controlling aspects of reward on intrinsic motivation and creativity. However, the
majority of studies applying CET were conducted in laboratory settings, so whether it can
be operative in field contexts should be considered with care since several critiques have
been raised on the application of CET in field contexts. The first concern is relevant to
work activities in organizations, which are different from the play tasks used in previous
experiments because employees demonstrate the commitment to perform certain tasks
that are not totally chosen by them (Eisenberg, 2001).
One more concern about the predictive power of CET is relevant to the mediating
effect of intrinsic motivation. Although this has been advocated by researchers (Amabile,
1983, 1996), the question on whether or not intrinsic motivation can mediate the
32
relationship between contextual factors and creativity empirically has been raised
recently (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). Scant empirical
studies have directly examined the mediating role of intrinsic motivation, and even few
studies have tested it with inconsistent results (i.e., Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Shin &
Zhou, 2003). Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) found that intrinsic motivation does not
mediate the effect of expected evaluation on creativity. They explained that in addition to
intrinsic motivation, other intervening mechanisms may mediate the effect of external
factors on creativity such as the individual’s focus of attention when working on the task,
affective state, or domain relevant skills and creativity relevant skills. Meanwhile, they
were also concerned with the relatively small sample size used in the study that may
influence the results of the mediation test. To address this concern, they suggested that
future research should test the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation on another sample
that is larger in size.
Based on the above reasoning, cautionary steps should therefore be taken when
applying CET in field settings. In consideration of these concerns about CET, this
dissertation adopts the new theoretical perspective, the transactional theory, to explore
how reward influences creativity in organizations. This theory posits that how individuals
appraise and cope with a stressful encounter will influence their long-term and short-term
33
outcomes. To elaborate on the impact of reward in organizations, according to the
transactional theory, the researcher argues that a reward for creativity policy may be
considered as one critical work event relevant to people’s well-being, which can be
viewed as a stressor in organizations. The reward for creativity policy directly links
employee creativity with reward, and the amount of reward received depends on the level
of the employee’s creative performance, which is often adopted by practitioners to
stimulate creativity. How the transactional theory may help explain the effect of the
policy will be discussed in the following section.
2.6 The Reward for Creativity Policy and the Transactional Theory
2.6.1 The Reward for Creativity Policy
The economic instrumentality of work signals a relatively unique aspect of work
conditions, with people earning a living to support themselves and their family (Brief &
George, 1995). These economic outcomes influence the other domains of people’s life,
which are central to their psychological well-being (e.g., the family domain; Andrews &
Withey, 1974). For instance, Chacko (1983) concluded that economic job facets (i.e.,
satisfaction with pay and promotion) appear to be more strongly related to life
satisfaction than non-economic job facets (i.e., satisfaction with work itself, co-worker,
34
authority, and responsibility). Diener (1984) also concluded that an overwhelming
amount of evidence indicates a positive relationship between income and subjective
well-being within countries. Similarly, Locke (1976) mentioned that money serves as a
symbol of achievement, a source of recognition, and a way of obtaining other values (e.g.,
leisure). To some people, it represents a status symbol, security, and greater freedom to
act in all areas of life.
It can be reasoned that the economic instrumentality of work may be viewed as an
important job condition relevant to people’s well-being. Compensation, which can be
viewed as one typical example of the economic instrumentality of work conditions, is
expected to be related to well-being. For instance, Timio and Gentili (1976) found that a
statistically significant increase in physiological indicators (i.e., adrenaline and
noradrenaline) is observed for workers under the condition of piece-rate compensation
schemes as compared to salaried and “ordinary” workers.
Brief and Atieh (1987) argued that job conditions related to the economic
instrumentality of work in individuals’ lives can be potential sources of stress, so I argue
that a reward for creativity policy, as one type of compensation scheme that represents
one kind of economically instrumental job condition, is expected to be related to
well-being, and can be perceived as a potential source of stress. The similar logic was
35
also found in George, Brief, Webster and Burke’s (1989) study, in which an incentive
compensation program was identified as an economically instrumental job condition,
which was seen as a potential stressor. It is appropriate to apply the transactional theory
to contexts involving potential sources of stress, because the transactional theory
emphasizes that how individuals appraise a specific stressful encounter is an integral
component of stress and coping processes (e.g., Folkman et al., 1986; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Based on the above reasoning, I argue that the transactional theory can
be applied in the specific context of this study, because a reward for creativity policy can
be viewed as a potential source of stress.
2.6.2 The Transactional Theory
In the transactional theory, stress refers to “a relationship between the person and
the environment that is appraised by the person as relevant to his or her well-being and in
which the person’s resources are taxed or exceeded” (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985, p. 152).
The transactional perspective considers stress as a result of the transaction between the
individual and the environment, and it identifies cognitive appraisal and coping processes
as the two pivotal mediators of stressful person-environment relationships and their
immediate and long-term outcomes.
36
2.6.2.1 Cognitive Appraisal
Cognitive appraisal is a process through which an individual assesses whether or
not a specific encounter is relevant to his/her well-being, including two basic forms:
primary appraisal and secondary appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Primary appraisal
involves how a person judges the nature and meaning of a particular transaction with
regard to his/her well-being, while secondary appraisal refers to the evaluation of coping
resources and the options available for managing a stressful encounter (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984).
Primary appraisal involves a person judging whether an encounter with the
environment carries irrelevant, benign-positive, or stressful implication for his/her
well-being. Specifically, an irrelevant encounter has no importance for one’s well-being,
and the person has no stake in the outcome. In a benign-positive encounter, only a good
outcome is construed. Lazarus and his colleagues categorized challenge, threat, and
harm/loss as stressful appraisals. In harm/loss, some damage has been sustained for the
person, such as the loss of a loved or a valued person. Threat appraisal refers to harms or
losses that have not yet occurred but are expected (potential harms or losses), whereas
challenge appraisal focuses on the potential for growth, mastery, or gain inherent in an
encounter. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), challenge appraisal is often
37
characterized by pleasurable emotions such as eagerness, excitement, and exhilaration,
whereas threat appraisal is often characterized by negative emotions such as fear, anxiety,
and anger.
Although certain contextual demands and pressures lead to stress, individuals will
appraise certain types of events differently (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In other words,
different individuals will interpret or appraise the same encounter in various ways in
terms of its significance on well-being. For instance, an employee may appraise a certain
job condition as a challenge and feel eagerness, excitement, and exhilaration; another
employee may appraise the same condition as potentially harmful and thus feel fear,
anxiety, and anger. Take job promotion as an example, as postulated by Lazarus and
Folkman (1984): job promotion tends to be appraised as having the opportunities to
obtain gains in knowledge and skills, responsibility, recognition, and financial reward;
however, at the same time, it may provide the possibility that the person will be swamped
by new job demands and consequently would not perform well as expected.
In the present study, the reward for creativity policy can be viewed as a stressor,
and in line with the transactional theory, individuals may appraise the policy in different
ways in terms of its significance on their well-being. As harm-loss appraisals relate to
damages that have occurred, the policy seems unable to cause such type of stressful
38
appraisal due to its lagged effect. Hence, in the present study, both challenge appraisal
and threat appraisal (primary appraisal) are taken into account, which may be more
appropriate for the specific context examined in this dissertation.
Specifically, challenge appraisal of the policy refers to the potential growth,
mastery, or gain inherent in the policy. One question may be raised: “What are the
potential benefits or gains inherent in the policy?” Although no extant concepts can be
used directly from previous literature, pay or compensation research may provide some
suggestive hints. For instance, Thierry’s (1992, 2001) reflection theory of compensation
posits that pay has no meaning and informational value in itself, but it acquires a
significance since it relates to other domains that are important to the individual at work;
this is because the pay an individual receives encompasses a variety of meanings that are
vital to the person’s self-identity. According to Thierry (1992, 2001), pay conveys
information about what is happening in other fields, and it has four categories of meaning.
The first is related to motivational meaning, which indicates the extent to which pay is
perceived as instrumental in influencing one’s motives and personal aims. The second
involves relative position meaning that can signal feedback about job performance in
terms of performance in relation to a certain standard or goal and to others. The third is
related to control meaning, which reflects the extent to which the individual has the
39
autonomy to regulate him/herself and others in terms of both organizational hierarchy and
role set. The fourth involves spending meaning, which reflects concrete goods and
services that can be purchased.
The meanings of the challenge appraisal of the policy seem particularly similar to
the first category of pay meaning (motivational meaning) because an individual may
consider the potential gains inherent in the policy as instrumental in the realization of his/
her motives and personal goals. As Thierry (2001) proposes, “pay is meaningful,
according to the first category, to the extent that a person considers pay to be instrumental
to affect his or her motives and personal goals…..Also, the pay a manager or employee
gets for the job level they occupy or for the quality of a particular job performance may
be expected to provide an opportunity for getting recognition” (p. 152-153). For the three
other types of pay meaning, the second dimension of “relative position meaning” is
particularly relevant to the informational aspect of the policy because the policy signals
the competence information for individuals in comparison with others or the normative
standards through a particular reward for creativity, coinciding with the meaning of the
symbolic cue value and containing the informational aspect posited by CET. This will be
discussed later. For the control and spending meanings of pay, it seems irrelevant to the
meanings of concepts that are given emphasis in this research.
40
Hence, in line with Thierry (1992, 2001), the researcher argues that the policy has
a reflection meaning which conveys some opportunities to employees such as getting
recognition or appreciation, personal development, being respected for his/her success,
and so forth, all of which reflect the core contents of the policy’s challenge appraisal.
With regard to threat appraisal of the policy, as Kohn (1993) pointed out,
“Punishment and rewards are two sides of the same coin…not receiving a reward one had
expected to receive is also indistinguishable from being punished…the more desirable the
reward, the more demoralizing it is to miss out” (p. 58). Hence, the potential harms or
losses may also be expected to be inherent in the policy if an individual cannot perform
creative activities well, that is, revealing the weakness in one’s competence, losing one’s
self-respect, or threatening one’s self-esteem.
Meanwhile, secondary appraisal is regarded as the evaluation of the coping
resources and options available for managing a stressful encounter (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). The transactional model posits that if individuals determine that they have a stake
in an environmental encounter, they will be involved in secondary appraisal to change
conditions that are perceived to be undesirable. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) also posited
that the term “primary” and “secondary” does not mean one (i.e., primary) is more
important or precedes the other in time. It is also acknowledged that these two appraisals
41
are not mutually exclusive but rather interact with each other in shaping the degree of
stress. Folkman (1984) defined situational appraisals of control as part of secondary
appraisal, which refer to the individual’s judgment about the possibilities for control in a
specific encounter. He further pointed out that situational appraisals of control are the
outcomes of the person’s evaluations of the situational demands and his/her coping
resources, options, and capability to execute the needed coping strategies, which may
theoretically overlap with Bandura’s (1977) concept of self-efficacy. For instance,
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) conceptualized the individual’s beliefs regarding whether
he/she can successfully perform the desirable behavior to cope with the situation
(perceived situational self-efficacy) as part of secondary appraisal. Given that
self-efficacy beliefs exert an impact on human functioning via motivational, cognitive,
and affective processes that in turn influence individuals’ choices, goals, emotional
reactions, effort, coping, and persistence (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), situational self-efficacy
beliefs may be one of the most important factors during the secondary appraisal process.
Hence, in the specific context of the reward for creativity policy, the present study
conceptualizes creative self-efficacy as part of secondary appraisal and defines creative
self-efficacy as an individual’s beliefs in his/her capabilities to exhibit the creative
activities demanded by the policy.
42
2.6.2.2 Coping Strategies
Coping refers to “the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to master, tolerate, or
reduce external and internal demands and conflicts among them” (Folkman & Lazarus,
1980, p. 223). In the current work, coping is defined independently of its outcomes,
which refers to efforts to cope with demands regardless of whether these efforts lead to
success. One popular and dominant perspective posits that coping has two major
functions: management of the problem (problem-focused coping) and regulation of
emotions (emotion-focused coping) (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Specifically,
problem-focused coping refers to attempts to alter or manage the stressful
person-environment relationship, while emotion-focused coping refers to attempts to
reduce or manage stressful emotions. Problem-focused coping is adopted more frequently
when encounters are appraised as changeable relative to those appraised as unchangeable.
In contrast, emotion-focused coping is used more frequently in unchangeable encounters
than in changeable ones. As Folkman (1984) posited that the cognitive activities
necessary for problem-focused efforts (e.g., problem solving and decision making) will
be interfered by emotions, we believe that problem-focused efforts probably do not
involve intense emotions.
In previous stress studies, examples of typical problem-focused coping strategies
43
include “Tried to get the person responsible to change his or her mind,” “I made a plan of
action and followed it,” or “Stood my ground and fought for what I wanted” (Folkman et
al., 1986). Meanwhile, examples of typical emotion-focused coping strategies include
distancing, avoidance, or positive reappraisal. The sample items include “Looked for the
silver lining, tried to look on the bright side of things,” “Accepted sympathy and
understanding from someone,” or “Tried to forget the whole thing” (Folkman et al.,
1986).
To evaluate various coping strategies, several stress researchers have developed
multiple coping scales such as the Ways of Coping scale (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980), the
revised Ways of Coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), and COPE (Carver, Scheier, &
Weintraub, 1989), among others. A question may be raised about whether or not previous
coping scales can be generalized to all contexts (e.g., the policy in the present study).
Daus and Joplin (1999) argued that “In much of the research to date, coping has been
investigated with unusual populations (e.g., Three Mile Island residents; parachute
jumpers) or as a response to life situations and events generally, rather than to work
situations and events specifically” (p. 18.). To investigate the generalization of coping,
Nelson and Sutton (1990) adopted the coping scales of the Health and Daily Living form
(Moos, Cronkite, Billings, & Finney, 1982) and found that problem-focused or
44
emotion-focused coping fail to explain significant variances in distress or performance
within work settings. They suggested that the coping scales used in stressful life events
may not be appropriate for studying coping in work contexts.
With regard to job stress research, Latack (1986) argued that few empirical
studies have focused on coping in work settings, and hence developed specific coping
scales to measure how a person copes in stressful situations (i.e., role ambiguity, role
conflict, and role overload) in organizations. Sample items of coping developed in
Latack’s research include “Get together with my supervisor to discuss this,” “Try to work
faster and more efficiently,” or “Avoid being in this situation if I can.” Some researchers
argued that coping efforts vary across different types of situations (Keenan & Newton,
1985; Latack & Aldag, 1986) because the coping activities used by employees should
coincide with a variety of work conditions (Havlovic & Keenan, 1995). Based on the
above reasoning, it may not be appropriate to generalize the previous coping scales used
in field research to all stressful conditions in organizational settings.
In the present study, the policy is the specific focused context in organizations. In
line with the popular and dominant perspective, the researcher also identifies
problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping as two categories of coping efforts
when employees gain exposure to the policy. Problem-focused coping focuses on how
45
individuals manage the creativity demand of the policy, while emotion-focused coping
emphasizes how individuals manage or reduce their stress-induced emotions as caused by
the policy.
46
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Two kinds of dependent variables are considered in the present study: creative
performance and satisfaction with the policy. In line with Sverke, Hellgren, and
Näswall’s (2002) proposition that performance and satisfaction can be categorized into
long-term/organizational and immediate/individual reactions, the researcher identifies
creative performance and satisfaction with the policy as two types of potential
consequences when employees react to the policy. This study focuses on the long- and
short-term influences of the policy and makes a distinction between organizational and
individual outcomes. Specifically, creative performance may be manifested after a longer