Ideas that matter: The relationship between self

I

Faculteit Psychologie en Pedagogische Wetenschappen

Academiejaar 2011-2012

Eerste Examenperiode

Ideas that matter: The relationship between

self-regulatory processes and creative

performance on real-world projects

Masterproef neergelegd tot het behalen van de graad Master in de Psychologie,

Afstudeerrichting Bedrijfspsychologie en Personeelsbeleid

door

Lien Vossaert

Promotor: Assistent Prof. Dr. R. Bledow

Acknowledgments

First of all, I would like to thank my promotor Ronald Bledow. With great

expertise, passion for scientific research, and a lot of patience he guided me through all

the stages of this master dissertation. Besides providing me with valuable insights, he

enabled and stimulated me to adopt the self-regulatory principles underlying this master

dissertation. In addition, I am thankful for the trust he put in me.

Second, I am grateful to all the participants and organizations who were willing

to invest time in this research. Without their help an empirical study would not have

been a possibility. In the same way, I would also like to thank Yasmine for the fruitful

cooperation and my parents for their worthy assistance and enthusiasm during the

period of data collection.

Third, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me. During my

whole academic career I felt strengthened in my ambitions, but especially these last

months when I needed it most. My parents enabled and stimulated me to pursue my

dreams, my brother granted me access to a lot of valuable information, and my friends

provided me with the necessary emotional support to bring this master dissertation to an

end. Special thanks goes out to Niels, for his invincible belief in me.

III

Abstract

Enhancing employee’s creative performance is crucial for organizations to increase

organizational flexibility and, thereby, remain competitive. Building on personality-

systems-interaction theory, this thesis aims to provide answers to the fundamental

question ‘When do people succeed and when do they fail in reaching creative

performance?’. A focus on intra-individual self-regulatory processes, which were often

neglected in past research, is proposed to provide answers to this overarching question.

The self-regulatory processes of self-determination, planning, and an iterative approach

are hypothesized to enhance employees’ creative performance. In addition, it is

proposed that the adoption of the self-regulatory strategy of planning is most beneficial

in environments with high exploitation demands. Hypotheses were tested in a study

with 104 employees, working on 202 real-world projects in a variety of professions and

industries. Results of multilevel modelling confirmed the positive relationships between

the proposed self-regulatory processes and creative performance. Being self-determined

on a project, planning the different steps throughout the project, and reworking

previously made decisions were all incrementally related to creative performance on

that project. Planning was found to relate most to creative performance when a person’s

job comprises a balanced amount of exploitation and exploration demands. The study

holds implications for employees and supervisors on how to facilitate creative

performance.

Dutch Summary/Nederlandse Samenvatting

Het optimaliseren van de creatieve prestatie van individuele medewerkers is belangrijk

om de flexibiliteit en competitiviteit van een organisatie te kunnen garanderen.

Vertrekkende vanuit ‘personality-systems-interaction theory’, tracht deze thesis

antwoorden te bieden op de fundamentele vraag ‘Wanneer slagen en wanneer falen

mensen in het bereiken van creatieve prestatie?’. De focus ligt op intra-individuele

zelfregulerende processen, die in voorgaand onderzoek naar creatieve prestatie vaak

werden genegeerd. Zelfgedetermineerd zijn, het maken van plannen, en het toepassen

van een iteratieve benadering worden verwacht positief gerelateerd te zijn met creatieve

prestatie. Er wordt vooropgesteld dat het maken van plannen het meest gerelateerd is

aan creatieve prestatie in functies die hoge ‘exploitation’ taakeisen bevatten. In deze

functies ligt de focus op de verdere uitbouw van bestaande processen. De hypotheses

werden getoetst in een studie met 104 medewerkers, die werkten op 202 projecten in

een variëteit van beroepen en sectoren. Aan de hand van ‘multilevel modelling’ werd er

bevestiging gevonden voor de vooropgestelde positieve relaties tussen de

zelfregulerende processen en creatieve prestatie. De mate van zelfdeterminatie op een

project, de mate waarin plannen werden gemaakt gedurende een project, en de mate

waarin voorafgaandelijk genomen beslissingen werden herwerkt waren allen

incrementeel gerelateerd aan de creatieve prestatie op het project. In de aanwezigheid

van een gebalanceerde hoeveelheid aan ‘exploration’ en ‘exploitation’ taakeisen was het

maken van plannen het meest gerelateerd met creatieve prestatie. In deze jobs is het

ontwikkelen van nieuwe processen even belangrijk als het verder uitbouwen van reeds

bestaande. Uit deze studie vloeien implicaties voort over hoe organisaties en

medewerkers creatieve prestatie kunnen optimaliseren.

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

Self-regulatory processes and creative performance ................................................... 3

Self-regulation ................................................................................................................ 3

Personality-systems-interaction theory .......................................................................... 3

Self-regulatory processes ............................................................................................... 5

Self-determination and creative performance ................................................................ 7

Planning and creative performance .............................................................................. 10

An iterative approach and creative performance ......................................................... 16

An overview of the research model ............................................................................. 20

Method ............................................................................................................................ 20

Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 21

Sample .......................................................................................................................... 21

Measures ...................................................................................................................... 23

Control variables .................................................................................................. 23

Creative performance ........................................................................................... 23

Self-regulatory processes ..................................................................................... 24

Self-determination .................................................................................... 24

Planning ................................................................................................... 24

An iterative approach ............................................................................... 24

Factor analysis ......................................................................................... 24

Exploitation and exploration demands ................................................................ 25

Analyses ....................................................................................................................... 25

Results ............................................................................................................................. 26

Descriptive statistics and correlations .......................................................................... 26

Test of hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 26

Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 31

Implications .................................................................................................................. 35

Theoretical ........................................................................................................... 35

Practical ............................................................................................................... 36

Employees ................................................................................................ 36

Managers/organizations ........................................................................... 38

Limitations ................................................................................................................... 39

Future research ............................................................................................................. 41

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 42

References....................................................................................................................... 43

1

In order for companies to survive and grow in today’s turbulent business

environments, they need to adjust to shifting market conditions and capture emerging

opportunities (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Employees who demonstrate

creativity in their work are a crucial perquisite to ensure this organizational flexibility

(Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Nonaka, 1991; Oldham, 2002).

Displaying creativity in one’s work entails producing original and potential useful ideas

about organizational processes, practices, services, or products (Shalley & Gilson,

2004). Despite the importance of creative ideas, ideas alone are not sufficient (West,

2002). Creative ideas have to be implemented in order to lead to added value for the

organisation. When an employee succeeds in both the development of an original idea

and, subsequently, also the implementation of that idea, that employee attains high

creative performance. The concept of creative performance can, thus, be distinguished

from creativity, as it also incorporates the act of implementation. Enhancing creative

performance is an important strategy – both for individual employees and the

organization in a whole – to be able to realize individual and company goals (Kanter,

1988; Nystrom, 1990). Employees, however, do not always consistently attain high

levels of creative performance in their work. In some projects they successfully reach

creative performance, while in other projects they might fail in realizing that objective.

But, when do people exactly succeed and when do they fail in reaching creative

performance?

Characteristics of individuals, teams, and organizations have been under scrutiny

to explore their relationship to the creative process. Research, for instance, indicates that

organizational and team leaders can stimulate creative performance by establishing a

culture that tolerates idea failure (West & Richter, 2008). In addition, the creative

process can also be enhanced by instituting creativity as a job requirement and by

supporting and rewarding creative ideas (Eisenberger, Rhoades, & Cameron, 1999;

Shalley & Gilson, 2004). At the team level, the selection of team members in terms of

diversity of educational background, demographics, and knowledge has been found to

stimulate the development of creative ideas (Shin & Zhou, 2007). Dispositional traits

such as openness to experience and learning orientation relate to employee creativity, at

the individual level (George & Zhou, 2001; Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). Despite this

emerging body of research on factors related to the creative process, guidelines on

2

reaching success in creative performance can only be formulated to a limited extent

(Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr, 2009).

Most research on the creative process has focused on the development of

creative ideas, namely creativity, and neglected the importance of idea implementation

(Mumford, 2001). Moreover, the lion’s share of variables that have been related to the

creative process are either within the control of the leaders of an organization (e.g.,

structure of the organization), within the control of the team leaders (e.g., leadership

style), or not readily changeable (e.g., culture of an organization). Even at the individual

level, most research has focused on characteristics that are fixed and change little over

time (e.g., dispositional traits). Little attention has been paid to the relationship between

creative performance and within-person processes that vary over time, such as self-

regulatory processes (Drazin, Kazanjian, & Glynn, 2008; Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, &

Hall, 2010; Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998). However, researchers acknowledge

that various cognitive processes arise during the creative process (Amabile & Mueller,

2008; Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999; Drazin et al., 2008) and that employees can

regulate certain processes to reach a goal (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Kuhl & Fuhrman,

1998). As creative tasks are challenging ventures, that most often fail without the

necessary amount of self-regulation, research should take a self-regulatory view on

creative performance into account. Most findings on cognitive processes, such as self-

regulatory processes, are, however, based on experimental studies on psychology

students. In order to generalize findings of laboratory studies and to identify the self-

regulatory processes that underlie actual creative achievements in real-world settings,

field research is crucial.

By focusing on the self-regulatory underpinnings of creative performance on

real-world projects, this thesis aims to contribute to answering the question ‘When do

people succeed and when do they fail in reaching creative performance?’, while taking

the previously addressed gaps in literature into account. More specifically, the self-

regulatory processes of self-determination, planning, and an iterative approach are

brought into relation with creative performance. These relationships are tested in a study

of employees working on real-world projects in a diverse range of professions and

industries. Practical guidelines, on how to enhance creative performance on real-world

projects, are formulated and future research opportunities are discussed.

3

Self-regulatory Processes and Creative Performance

Self-regulation

Self-regulation can be described as purposive processes originated from the self,

by which corrective adjustments of thoughts and behaviours take place (Carver &

Scheier, 1998). In the literature on self-regulation, people are viewed as goal-oriented

systems who take actions in accordance with their goals and adjust their actions by

means of feedback control. Successful self-regulation enables people to suppress short-

term attractions for long-term goals, to resist the pleasure of instant fulfilment for

delayed gratification, and to endure the frustration that can be accompanied with

persisting during hard work or in the face of challenges (Bauer & Baumeister, 2011).

Research indicates that effective self-regulation not only underlies psychological well-

being (Baumann, Kaschel, & Kuhl, 2005) and health-promoting behaviours (Fuhrman

& Kuhl, 1998), but also employee socialization (Ashford & Black, 1996) and high job

performance (Porath & Bateman, 2006; VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999).

The view of self-regulation theory, that individuals are capable to enhance their

own performance by formulating standards and keeping track of their progress toward

these standards, provides the theoretical foundation of this thesis (Carver & Scheier,

1981; Vohs & Baumeister, 2004). This view entails an active vision on people and

suggests that they can regulate their own behaviour in order to enhance creative

performance. Most research on creative performance, in contrast, does not focus on

what people can do themselves to optimize their own creative performance, but on

external influences (for exceptions see e.g. Byrne, Shipman, & Mumford, 2010, De

Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011, and Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004).

However, as the path to high creative performance is a challenging one with many

potential obstacles, a self-regulatory view is valuable and should be taken into account

by research on creative performance. Before reviewing the literature on the self-

regulatory underpinnings of creative performance, a theoretical model of self-regulation

is introduced.

Personality-Systems-Interaction Theory

The literature on self-regulation beholds many different theoretical constructs

and models, but little coherence (Cervone, Shadel, Smith, & Fiori, 2006). In reaction to

4

this state of the field, Kuhl (2000a) developed personality-systems-interaction (PSI)

theory, as a broad theoretical framework in which currently available knowledge on

psychological functioning can be integrated (Kuhl, 2000a, 2000b; Kuhl & Koole, 2004).

In this theory, psychological functioning is seen as the interplay of different

psychological systems. This theory incorporates the dynamics of both cognitive and

affective processes, which are crucial for self-regulation (Bledow, Rosing, & Frese, in

press). The basic assumption of PSI-theory is that psychological performance consists

of three broad hierarchical levels of regulatory processes. At the lowest level, behaviour

is guided by elementary sensations (e.g. object recognition), which lead to the

enactment of automatic behavioural programs. At the mid-level, positive and negative

affect systems regulate approach and avoidance behaviour. Finally, at the highest level,

complex cognitive systems guide behaviour. All three levels interact with each other to

regulate behaviour. This thesis will focus on the highest level of regulatory processes to

identify those factors underlying success in creative performance and to formulate

guidelines for creative performance on real-world projects.

The high complex level of regulatory processes can be divided into two different

macro-systems: a thinking system and a feeling system. Both systems contribute to

competence in self-regulation. The thinking system supports goal maintenance, by top-

down coordination of behavioural processes. It enables one to stay focused on working

toward a goal, while suppressing other context-driven thoughts and actions. In addition,

it is responsible for the generation of plans for goal-oriented action and the monitoring

of one’s progress towards one’s goals. The feeling system, on the other hand, guards the

integrity of the self and is, therefore, crucial for self-maintenance. It enables access to

integrated self-representations of the preferences, beliefs, and attitudes of a person that

are opportune in a given situation and provides a person with the knowledge base from

which new associations can be formed and in which new information can be integrated.

Despite the fact that there is some evidence relating these systems to specific regions of

the brain, they are defined in terms of their psychological functions and should not be

comprehended as structural entities (Baumann, Kuhl, & Kazen, 2005). Both systems are

assumed to be mutually inhibitory and operate in different modes of processing,

congruent with and supportive of their functions.

5

I adopt the terms ‘reflective’ and ‘intuitive’ processing proposed by Kahneman

and Frederick (2002) to refer to the different modes of processing in which these

systems operate. The thinking system operates in a reflective mode of processing. This

mode of processing is analytic and reason-oriented of nature and occurs in a controlled,

effortful, slow, and sequential manner. It regulates behaviour by conscious appraisal of

events and enables both the conscious activation of difficult goals and the inhibition of

premature actualization of these goals. The feeling system, on the other hand, operates

in a intuitive mode of processing, which is holistic and affective of nature. This intuitive

mode of processing occurs in an automatic, associative, fast, and parallel manner. It

regulates behaviour unconsciously based on past experiences and enables the integration

of information arising in different modalities of the body and mind (e.g. needs), thereby,

allowing for the constitution of extended ‘cognitive-emotional maps’ (Kuhl, 2000a).

These ‘cognitive-emotional maps’ guide further activity within the feeling system.

Based on PSI-theory, I will identify and discuss three self-regulatory processes that

underlie creative performance.

Self-regulatory Processes

The first self-regulatory process on which I will focus is self-determination.

Self-determination relates to the feeling system of PSI-theory, as it is a self-maintenance

process. It implies pursuing those activities that spur from choice and self-expression

and it leads to a feeling of authenticity (Deci & Ryan, 1985). An important part of self-

determined motivation is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation constitutes

motivation that is driven purely by an interest or enjoyment in the task itself (Deci,

1975). Nevertheless, people can also act self-determined on tasks that are not strictly

intrinsically motivating. The freedom to be intrinsically motivated is, namely,

diminished after early childhood. Social pressures influence people to perform activities

that they do not always find interesting and to take up new responsibilities (Ryan & La

Guardi, 1999). However, that does not necessarily mean that those activities are not

congruent with the self. Despite the fact that intrinsic motivation constitutes an

important type of motivation, it is not the only type of motivation that is in accordance

with the self (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Regulation through identification and integrated

regulation are two kinds of extrinsic motivation that form a self-determined motivation

composite together with intrinsic motivation. Regulation through identification

6

constitutes those actions that are endorsed as personally important through conscious

approval of a behavioural objective or regulation. Integration occurs when a behavioural

objective or regulation is brought into congruence with other values and needs of the

self. PSI-theory states that if externally imposed activities become adopted in the self,

those activities are also regulated by the feeling system (Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998). Past

research has generally focused on intrinsic motivation, but neglected the total picture of

self-determined actions. In this study, however, self-determination is formalized as

every action that is in accordance with the self, independent of whether the activity is

intrinsically motivating in itself.

Planning is the second self-regulatory process on which I will focus. It is a

conscious self-regulatory process, that supports goal maintenance (Locke & Latham,

1990) and reduces premature triggering of an action (Kuhl & Kazen, 1999). Therefore,

it is based on activity within the thinking system of PSI-theory. Planning has not been

sufficiently studied, despite the theoretical agreement on the vitality of planning in

performance in many complex, real-world tasks (Mumford, Schultz, & Van Doorn,

2001).

As third self-regulatory process, I will focus on an iterative approach. An

iterative approach reflects a strategy in which people revise and rework previously

formulated solutions and decisions. As I will describe later, this self-regulatory process

combines the strengths and benefits of both a reflective and an intuitive mode of

processing. It is, thereby, a product of both the thinking and the feeling system in PSI-

theory. The value of an iterative approach has been observed in the work of artists

(Kozbelt, 2008) and researchers (Grant & Pollock, 2011). However, the question

remains whether an iterative approach relates to creative performance in general.

Figure 1: Conceptual model. The influence of self-regulatory processes on creative

performance.

Self-determination An iterative approach Planning

Creative performance

Feeling system/

intuitive processing

Thinking system/

reflective processing

7

The conceptual model, that was described in the previous paragraphs and will be

applied in the following part of this thesis, is illustrated in Figure 1. In the next three

sections, I will discuss each self-regulatory process (self-determination, planning, and

an iterative approach) and its relationship with creative performance.

Self-determination and Creative Performance

Creative performance requires a specific mindset and cognitive style of people

(March, 1991; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). It comprises suspending judgment,

being open for non-conventional approaches and pathways, and using wide conceptual

categories instead of focusing too narrowly on the problem (Amabile, 1983). Reaching

creative performance also requires a certain amount of persistence from people.

Creative solutions are, most often, not those solutions that first come to mind.

Moreover, new ideas often require a change in routines and procedures, which can lead

to resistance from colleagues or supervisors who are used to handling situations in a

standard and more classical way (Van de Ven, 1986). Overcoming this resistance is

crucial for acceptance and successful implementation of creative solutions. If people are

self-determined - which means that they identify themselves with their actions - it will

be easier for them to surpass the obstacles to creative performance and apply the right

mindset.

The specific mindset and cognitive style necessary for reaching creative

performance is enabled by an enhanced access to one’s internal resources, that self-

determined actions bring about (Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). Self-

determined actions are, by definition, in accordance with the self and are, thereby,

regulated by the feeling system (Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998). It is the regulation by the

feeling system that leads to the enhanced access to internal resources during self-

determined actions. The enhanced access to internal resources enables a more effective

regulation and maintenance of intentional states (Kuhl, 1986; Muraven, Gagné, &

Rosman, 2008; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992), a deeper processing of novel

information (Deci & Ryan, 1991), more cognitive flexibility (McGraw & McCullers,

1979), and an increased willingness to take risks (Dewett, 2007; Unger & Stahlberg,

2011). Each of these enhanced abilities and states of mind, resulting from self-

determined actions, contribute to reaching success in creative performance. In the

following paragraphs, I will discuss this line of reasoning in more detail.

8

The first beneficial effect that is brought about by self-determined actions, is an

enhanced ability to regulate and maintain intentional states (Kuhl, 1986; Muraven et al,

2008; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). People often fail in effectively self-regulating

their behaviour, as they only have a limited supply of willpower (Baumeister, Vohs, &

Tice, 2007; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000; Vohs et al., 2008). However, this limited

supply of willpower only concerns actions driven by the executive system, the thinking

system in PSI-theory (Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998; Bauer & Baumeister, 2011). Self-

regulation that spurs from the feeling system, is not bound by these constraints (Kuhl &

Fuhrmann, 1998). Therefore, self-determined actions, which are based on activity by the

feeling system, enable a more effective regulation and maintenance of intentional states.

The regulation and maintenance of one’s intentional state is crucial for reaching a high

level of creative performance. Persisting and being able to restrain from any need for

closure one might have is necessary to put aside those pathways and solutions that

immediately come to mind and keep on searching for a creative alternative (Getzels &

Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Runco, 2007; Stein, 1975). The more effective regulation and

maintenance of intentional state also enables people to overcome any resistance from

the environment, that can endanger successful implementation of the creative ideas.

The ability to process information more deeply constitutes a second effect of

self-determined actions (Deci & Ryan, 1991). Deep processing includes coding large

amounts of detailed information, making connections that are less evident, and

integrating a broad range of information above and beyond the information that is

conceptually related. This ability to process information more deeply, is enabled by the

feeling system. The feeling system comprises a knowledge base from which new

associations can be formed and in which new information can be integrated (Kuhl,

2000a). By providing a platform in which new knowledge can be integrated, the feeling

system enables deeper processing of novel information. This ability to process

information more deeply, brought about by self-determined actions, can, in turn, lead to

increased creative performance, as disparate elements can be more easily combined to

come up with new approaches or solutions (Campbell, 1960; Cropley, 1967).

Third, self-determined actions also enable more cognitive flexibility (McGraw &

McCullers, 1979). Cognitive flexibility comprises flexible switching between

conceptual categories, between viewpoints, between reasoning paths, and, finally, also

9

between evaluation criteria. This enhanced cognitive flexibility is made possible by the

intuitive, automatic mode of processing, in which the feeling system operates. Intuitive

processing is neither bound by constraints on capacity, nor by representations made of

the problem (Cronin, 2004). Moreover, intuitive, unconscious processing has the

characteristics to be divergent, associative, and encompassing (Dijksterhuis & Meurs,

2006). These characteristics of intuitive, unconscious processing enable more cognitive

flexibility. In addition to the characteristics of intuitive processing, the positive, holistic

feelings that are brought about through regulation by the feeling system also stimulate

cognitive flexibility during self-determined activities (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999;

Kuhl, 2000a). This cognitive flexibility, in turn, can enhance creative performance, as

adopting different viewpoints and reasoning paths facilitate the development of new

approaches or solutions (Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1962; Simonton, 1999).

A fourth beneficial effect of self-determined actions is an increased willingness

to take risks (Dewett, 2007). This is a consequence of the safeguarding of willpower,

when actions are self-determined and, thereby, regulated by the feeling system (Bauer &

Baumeister, 2011; Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998; Unger & Stahlberg, 2011). People will be

more prepared to take risks when they have the feeling to be equipped with enough

willpower to face the possible consequences of these risky actions. An increased

willingness to take risks, in turn, leads to enhanced creative performance (Palanski &

Vogelgesang, 2011). Freely experimenting with novel ideas - an aspect that is crucial

for creative performance - exposes people to many risks. It coincides with a process of

trial-and-error, in which the possibility of making errors induces vulnerability for

potential negative consequences (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Coming up with new ideas,

behaviours, and processes is in general risky, as it represents a disruption in the status

quo and a disturbance of power balances (Albrecht & Hall, 1991). If people are self-

determined on a specific task or project, they will be more inclined to take their chances

on a risk and face any resistance that might result from it.

I hypothesize that people who can identify themselves with what they do on a

project will show enhanced creative performance on that specific project, than people

who cannot identify themselves with the work they do. This enhanced creative

performance is enabled by the augmented persistence, cognitive flexibility, deep

processing, and risk taking that spur from self-determined actions. Self-determined

10

actions will lead to an increased probability of trying out new behaviours and ways of

performing one’s job. Choosing a more creative approach, instead of the standard

solution at hand, is often not the easiest option and comes hand in hand with many

barriers. People who are engaged and self-determined in their actions will experiment

more with new ideas and will be able to overcome the barriers they face during the

creative process.

Hypothesis 1: Self-determination on a project has a positive relationship with

creative performance on that project.

Planning and Creative Performance

Highly creative people are often viewed as chaotic thinkers who lack structure

and order. Chaotic thinkers act with impulsivity, reactivity, and spontaneity and are not

concerned with the future, but focus mainly on what is happening at the present time

(Finke & Bettle, 1996). However, scientific awareness has arisen that planning, as

opposed to an unstructured approach, guides and supports the creative problem solving

process (e.g., Ormerod, 2005; Osburn & Mumford, 2006). A preference for chaos was

even found to be negatively related to creativity (Zampetakis, Bouranta, & Moustakis,

2010). Nevertheless, a distinction between artistic creativity and creative performance in

the work setting is warranted. Although artistic creativity might also benefit from

planning, planning is assumed to be particularly important for work-related creative

performance. This idea is in line with research relating conscientiousness to scientific

creativity, but not to artistic creativity (Feist, 1998). People in work-settings are bound

by more external constraints when developing and implementing creative ideas. The

reflective process of planning can facilitate the incorporation of these external

constraints into one’s creative ideas and implementation strategies.

The value of planning in creative problem solving in work settings has been

illustrated by studies on the behaviour of designers (e.g., Peeters, Van Tuijl, Reymen, &

Rutte, 2007; Sonnentag, 1998). Creativity is crucial in the activities of designers, as the

designs must be original enough to secure the intellectual property of the designer.

Peeters and colleagues (2007) studied interdisciplinary design teams, that combine

knowledge, skills, and effort of specialised designers to develop designs for high-tech

products (King & Anderson, 1990). The designers of those multidisciplinary teams

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XN8-4XY5F1B-1&_user=794998&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000043466&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=794998&md5=67c5c8488a8f9a7d12d48d80df28b5cb&searchtype=a#bib43

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XN8-4XY5F1B-1&_user=794998&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000043466&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=794998&md5=67c5c8488a8f9a7d12d48d80df28b5cb&searchtype=a#bib26

11

performed better when they planned their time and made schedules. Research on

software designers also demonstrated the value of planning in creative professions.

High performing software designers were compared to moderate performers while they

were engaged in a design task. High performers were found to utilize planning and

strategies to monitor behaviours to a larger extent than average performers (Sonnentag,

1998).

Not only research concerning professional designers indicated the value of

planning for creative performance, but also more general research, not linked to a

specific profession. A recent study on college students found that self-ratings of

creativity were positively related to daily planning behaviour (e.g., Making schedules of

the activities you have to do that day) and long-term planning behaviour (e.g., Setting

goals for a period of a year) (Zampetakis et al., 2010). Moreover, Osburn and Mumford

(2006) found that training people’s planning skills increased the quality and originality

of solutions produced on a creative-problem solving task.

Planning regulates behaviour by means of conscious appraisal of events. It

comprises making decisions about necessary future actions and the sequence of these

actions in order to reach a goal (Hayes-Roth & Hayes-Roth, 1979). This process is

enabled by the thinking system in PSI-theory and, thereby, relies on the reflective mode

of information processing. It is based on analytic and reason-oriented processing, which

occurs in a controlled, effortful, and sequential manner. In the following paragraphs I

will describe three mechanisms through which planning can enhance creative

performance in work settings.

First, planning can optimize creative performance by enabling opportunistic

exploitation of rising opportunities (Osburn & Mumford, 2006). Being creative often

comprises taking advantage of those opportunities that emerge in the specific situation

at hand. Through the conscious appraisal of events, which is enabled by the thinking

system, planning facilitates the identification of these rising opportunities and permits

quick adjustment of work strategies to the recognized favourable circumstances

(Patalano & Seifert, 1997; Xiao, Milgram, & Doyle, 1997). Think, for example, of a

marketeer who needs to introduce a new product to the grand public. Planning facilitates

the identification of opportunities, for instance an upcoming event, which enable an

original introduction of the new product. If the marketeer had failed to plan, chances are

12

likely that he had never thought of the upcoming event to introduce the new product.

Planning will, therefore, lead to higher creative performance by optimizing the

recognition of emergent opportunities, which can give rise to creative ideas.

Second, creative performance is stimulated by planning due to the component of

proactivity that planning entails. Planning comprises formulating actions in accordance

with one’s goals based on conscious anticipations of future events. Problems are taken

into consideration and back-up plans for potential failures are developed (Mumford et

al., 2001). This is enabled by the thinking system, which is responsible for goal-oriented

thinking and action. While plans serve as the bridge between thought and action, they

are vital for transferring intentions into their execution (Gollwitzer, 1999). In that way,

plans stimulate people to act on problems instead of avoiding them. Future events are

not passively awaited, but are actively approached. Making plans ensures that people do

not depend on situational demands to undertake action, but act based on forethought of

future events (Byrne et al., 2010). A lack of plans and, thereby also, of proactivity often

leads to an absence of own ideas and dependence on others. Consequences of this kind

of reactivity are: copying others ideas, following advice word for word, or having to

wait for others to tell what one has to do next (Frese et al., 2007). By consciously

anticipating future events and providing a frame for the translation of thoughts into

action, planners are one step ahead of reaching creative performance.

Third, planning stimulates creative performance by enhancing idea development,

idea refinement, and idea implementation (Byrne et al., 2010). Novel ideas often lack

structure in such a way that they are unable to lead to effective implementation within a

specific setting (Sharma, 1999). Moreover, an inability to identify and anticipate

resource requirements often hampers the efficient pursuit of ideas and leads to a lack or

failure of idea implementation (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996; Welsh, Wanberg, Brown, &

Simmering, 2003). Social support is one resource requirement crucial for novel ideas to

be successfully implemented. In addition to social support, the right technical skills and

the necessary financial resources have to be available for the further development and

execution of ideas (Castrogiovani, 1996). The thinking system enables the monitoring

of the environment for resources that are vital for goal attainment is enabled by planning

(Kuhl, 2000a). More specifically, by applying the self-regulatory strategy of planning,

vital resource requirements for idea refinement and implementation can be better

13

identified and anticipated on (Castrogiovani, 1996; Striffler, Perry, & Kates, 1997;

Thamhain, 2003). In addition, planning can contribute to idea development by enabling

a better organization of the creative process and testing activities (Cardinal, 2001). Idea

development often requires access to certain facilities (e.g. access to special machinery

in the case of R&D) or persons (e.g. graphic designer to work out the details of a

marketing campaign). The reflective processes underlying planning enable the

anticipation and organization of these necessities in such a way that all necessary

arrangements can be made in time.

I hypothesize that the use of planning, as a conscious self-regulatory process

which is based on activity of the thinking system, will contribute to enhanced creative

performance. Planning facilitates creative idea development by enabling the exploitation

of emerging opportunities and diminishing the need to react on situational demands. In

addition, idea refinement and implementation will be optimized by the presence of the

necessary resources and support. The combination of thoroughly developed creative

ideas and thoughtful implementation, enabled by planning, will lead to higher creative

performance.

Hypothesis 2: Planning on a project has a positive relationship with creative

performance on that project.

Next, I expect that the hypothesized positive relationship between planning and

creative performance will be more positive in certain jobs. As proposed by March

(1991), I make a distinction between jobs containing high exploitation demands and

jobs containing high exploration demands. These jobs are, typically, embedded within a

broader work context that is oriented toward either exploitation or exploration.

Exploitation demands include selection, refinement, implementation, and execution of

ideas for new or existing processes, products, or technologies (March, 1991).

Exploration demands, on the other hand, require people to take risks, experiment, and

search for and discover new products, processes, or technologies (March, 1991). In both

kinds of jobs it is beneficial to reach high creative performance. The self-regulatory

processes underlying creative performance are, however, likely to differ.

A typical example of a work context in which jobs contain high exploitation

demands, is the development department of an organization. Employees in this

14

department are responsible for the incremental adaptation and innovation of existing

products and technologies. Much of their effort in change is focused on improving

existing methods and systems. Employees working in such a setting are, most often,

required to seek reliability instead of risks, to learn widespread routines and methods, to

transfer existing knowledge, to adhere to rules, and to reduce costs (Lewin, Long, &

Carroll, 1999; March, 1991; McGrath, 2001). When generating new and potentially

useful ideas, they are, in general, restricted in their freedom by both the necessity to

depart from existing and agreed definitions of the problem and the necessity to proceed

within the boundaries of the predominate paradigm and the established theories,

policies, and practices of their organizations (Kirton, 1976; Kuhn, 1970). To be useful,

ideas have to align with the existing procedures, technologies, and products.

A typical work context in which jobs contain high exploration demands, as

opposed to exploitation demands, is the research department of a company in which

entirely new products, processes, and technologies are developed. Employees in this

department experience less constraints by boundaries of the predominate paradigm and

current methods, procedures, and processes when developing novel ideas. In contrast,

they are required to think beyond established theories, policies, and practices of the

organization to build up new expertise and come up with new ways of doing things. The

requirement for ideas to be congruent with the current technologies, processes, and

products is less present, than in jobs high in exploitation demands. Developing ‘wild’

ideas, without taking any constraint into account, can lead to high creative performance

when being confronted with high exploration demands.

The specific characteristics of jobs high in exploitation demands make structure

and planning extremely important (Keller, 2006; March, 1991). In jobs with high

exploration demands, as opposed to exploitation demands, planning will still be

beneficial, though less crucial for reaching creative performance. In the following

paragraphs, I will discuss two aspects that make planning especially important in jobs

high in exploitation demands.

The first aspect that highlights the importance of planning in jobs high in

exploitation demands is the risk aversiveness of the work contexts in which these jobs

are, generally, situated. An orientation toward reliability instead of risks is inherent to

such an environment (March, 1991). Creative ideas are, however, risky as they represent

15

a disruption in the status quo and a disturbance of power balances (Albrecht & Hall,

1991). Radical creative ideas also, often, bring about higher costs in their-start up

process, but potentially greater returns in the end (Taylor & Greve, 2006). These greater

returns are, however, uncertain. The typical focus on uncertainty avoidance and

reducing costs might hinder managers from accepting creative ideas. If an employee,

however, provides the managers with thorough plans that illustrate how the idea can be

realized, what the necessary resource requirements are, which beneficial consequences

will be brought about, and what the potential obstacles are and how they can be

overcome, managers will be more easily convinced to invest financial resources in these

risky activities (Castrogiovani, 1996). Besides resistance from managers, one can also

expect more resistance from colleagues when generating and proposing creative ideas in

the presence of high exploitation demands. In jobs high in exploitation demands,

employees need to rely and build on fixed procedures during their work. Changing these

routines, on which they are used to rely, can bring resistance about. However, for new

ideas to be successfully adopted and implemented social support of colleagues is

crucial. The focus on the future that planning entails enables better anticipation and

action on the crucial resource requirement of social support, such that ideas will be

more easily adopted.

The second aspect, indicating the importance of planning in jobs high in

exploitation demands, is the presence of more constraints on creative ideas. For novel

ideas to be useful, in jobs high in exploitation demands, employees have to consider the

existing situation with its specific products, technologies, and procedures when

developing novel ideas. Developing ‘wild’ ideas, without taking the current situation

and its constraints into account, will not lead to high creative performance in jobs high

in exploitation demands. Novel ideas have to comprise a realistic solution that aligns

with the current situation. The reflective and analytic process underlying planning is

necessary to provide this “reality check”. By means of planning one can assess and

anticipate the effects that implementing a specific idea would have on current processes.

Careful planning enables ideas to be optimally adapted to the specific setting and

supports successful implementation within the existing context. In addition, the

requirement to follow several procedures, in jobs high in exploitation demands, also

stimulates the necessity to plan (Cardinal, 2001). Procedures often take a certain amount

16

of time and a specific chronological order that has to be accounted for. Think, for

instance, of a researcher within the pharmaceutical sector who needs to find a way to

enhance a medical formula. Access and availability of testing equipment has to be

arranged and a lot of pre-conditions have to be met before creative performance can be

realized. This requires a focus on the future such that these necessities can be

anticipated. Planning enables employees to take every aspect and its right order into

account and can, thereby, stimulate creative.

I hypothesize that the presence of high exploitation demands will increase the

positive relationship between planning and creative performance. The specific

characteristics of planning are more beneficial in jobs containing high exploitation

demands. More external constraints have to be considered and more procedures have to

be followed when developing and implementing creative ideas. Planning enables an

employee to take all these different aspects into account. In addition, more resistance to

creative ideas is likely due to the risk aversiveness related to jobs high in exploitation

demands. This resistance can, however, be overcome by means of sufficient planning.

When a person’s job entails less exploitation demands, planning will still be beneficial

for creative performance, though the effects will be smaller.

Hypothesis 3: Exploitation demands moderate the relationship between planning

and creative performance such that the relationship is stronger if exploitation

demands are high.

An Iterative Approach and Creative Performance

Research, focusing on the creative process of artists, showed that high creative

artists revised and reworked their drawings more often than less creative artists (Getzels

& Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Kozbelt, 2008). The artists who introduced more changes to

the drawing as it progressed created a more original painting. In addition to research on

artistic creativity, there is also preliminary evidence of the value of an iterative approach

in the realm of scientific creativity. Researchers who were granted with an award for

one of their articles reported having made many revisions during the writing process of

that specific article (Grant & Pollock, 2011). These research findings are a first

indication of the added value of an iterative approach – rethinking, revising, and

reworking what one has already done – to reach creative performance. The question

17

remains, however, whether this is an approach that in general leads to enhanced creative

performance. In the following paragraphs, I will develop a line of thought that results in

a definite yes to this question.

When people are confronted with a problem, they form a problem

representation. This constitutes of a simplified model of the problem, that comprises the

goals, assumptions, and rules that will be used to modify the problem by applying

knowledge. The best way to think of the problem representation is as a plan to solve the

problem and the tools to realize the plan. Those tools will be used to select actions,

which preferably bring one closer towards one’s goal. Those actions are called moves

(Hayes & Simon, 1974). By deliberately reflecting on the causes and parameters of the

problem, one can select moves to work towards the solution of the encountered

problem. Thoughts are focused on the specific parameters of the problem, the

knowledge related to the problem is activated, and the different pieces of knowledge can

be brought into relation with one another, thereby, producing a solution. By following

this conscious process, a person comes to an initial solution for the problem at hand.

This initial solution is a product of reflective thought, spurring from the thinking system

in PSI-theory. However, this solution will not necessarily be a creative one, nor one that

can be implemented within the specific setting.

The conscious reflective thought processes that lead to the initial solution

comprise certain characteristics that can hamper the creativeness and implementability

of the initial solution. The most important one is the limited processing capacity of

reflective thought. The thinking system cannot process all the cues and attributes, that

are present, at once, so it applies schemes (e.g., stereotypes) and heuristics that do not

require a lot of processing capacity (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006). The use of

schemes and stereotypes of our thinking system is, however, undesirable for the creative

process. Being creative implies seeing things differently than what they are, usually,

meant for and postponing judgment. In addition, the implementability of the initial

solution can be hampered, as the limitations on the cognitive resources of our thinking

system restrict the extent to which different criteria can be kept in mind when

developing a solution. This can lead to the fact that one overlooks the implementability

of the solution within the specific setting, when an initial solution is generated (Sharma,

1999). An idea can be very original and effective, however, if the specific company

18

does not have enough resources (human, physical, or financial) the idea cannot be

implemented.

If people adopt an iterative approach and rework their initial solution after

putting the problem aside for a while, they have a better chance in reaching a creative

and implementable solution. Through refraining from the problem, the incubation stage

sets in and unconscious, intuitive processes take place (Ellwood, Pallier, Snyder, &

Gallate, 2009). These unconscious processes spur from the feeling system and play a

vital role in the creative process by stimulating novel ideas and insights (e.g., Hélie &

Sun, 2010; Smith, 1994; Zhong, Dijksterhuis, & Galinsky, 2008). Two unconscious

processes can be stipulated, which stimulate novel and implementable ideas after a

period of incubation.

The first process can be grouped under the name a ‘fresh look’. Distraction can

stimulate ‘‘set-shifting” (Schooler & Melcher, 1995). When people develop a solution,

they choose a specific viewpoint of the problem, use a certain line of thought, and take

specific criteria and requirements in mind. Once people have chosen a certain track to

develop a solution on, they often experience difficulties changing their line of thought.

Other viewpoints are restrained by diminished accessibility. However, after a period of

distraction of the problem, an unbiased start can be taken again. This enhances people’s

ability to think of possible other solutions. By generating different solutions, people

have the opportunity to combine solutions or select the best solution, which can lead to

a higher quality and originality of the final solution (Simonton, 1999). Besides

facilitating the development of more ideas, the process of “set-shifting” also enhances

people’s ability to look more critically to one’s solution and further optimize it. This is

necessary for reaching high creative performance, as novel ideas often lack structure in

such a way that they are unable to lead to effective development and implementation

within a specific setting (Sharma, 1999). The process of “set-shifting”, stimulated by the

adoption of an iterative approach, enables people to hold different criteria in mind and

evaluate and revise the developed creative ideas in function of their implementability

(Lonergan et al., 2004). In order for ideas to be both creative and implementable it is,

thus, crucial that ideas are evaluated and revised.

The second process implies that during the time you put the problem aside,

unconscious, intuitive processes, spurring from the feeling system, are actively working

19

on solving the problem (Dijksterhuis, 2004). As I’ve mentioned before, this intuitive,

unconscious thinking has different characteristics than reflective, conscious thinking.

Active unconscious thinking entails more creative and unusual processing, while

conscious thought is more focused and shows more convergence. Dijksterhuis and

Meurs (2006), for instance, found that when people were distracted after the

introduction of a task, people came up with the same amount of ideas but more creative

ones, than participants in the control condition who were not distracted. The distraction

enabled unconscious thought processes to occur. Ideas produced with the help of

unconscious processes are less obvious and less accessible in the memory. Unconscious

processes are more divergent, associative, and encompassing. Moreover, unconscious

processes are not restrained by limitations on processing capacity, in contrast with

conscious, reflective processing. Unconscious, intuitive processes can be seen as an

uncontrollable spread of activation to different concepts in our memory (Anderson &

Piriolli, 1984), not restrained by the problem representation, which can lead to insights

(Cronin, 2004) if the processes activate knowledge that changes the problem

representation in a way that new moves are acknowledged (Metcalfe & Weibe, 1987)

and that novel solutions can be achieved (Kaplan & Simon, 1990).

Both reflective and intuitive modes of processing contribute to and are vital for

creative performance. However, as both modes of processing are inhibitory an iterative

approach is necessary to enable both intuitive and reflective processes to occur

(Fuhrmann & Kuhl, 1998; Kuhl & Koole, 2004). When a person focuses on a problem

and performs reflective, conscious thought, unconscious processes are inhibited.

Reflective processes spurring from the thinking system enable the development of a

solution, by focusing on the problem representation and taking the necessary constraints

into account. Through refraining from the problem for a while, to subsequently rework

the initial solution, unconscious processes can take place. These unconscious processes

enable a more critical view on the initial solution through the process of set-shifting

(Schooler & Melcher, 1995). More viewpoints can be considered, than the, most often,

standard solution a person opts for in the first place and more criteria can be taken into

account such that a solution can be optimized in such a way that all criteria are met. In

addition, unconscious processes activate knowledge and concepts less accessible by

conscious thinking processes. The thoughts that will cross one’s mind when reworking

20

the solution, will be more divergent and original than the initial thoughts. This leads me

to the hypothesis, that an iterative approach in which a person rethinks one’s previous

solutions and decisions will be positively related with creative performance.

Hypothesis 4: An iterative approach in handling a project has a positive

relationship with the creative performance on that project.

An Overview of the Research Model

In Figure 2, an overview of the research model is presented. Self-regulatory

processes are addressed as intra-individual variables, that vary not only between

individuals, but also within individuals over projects. For instance, on some projects a

person can be highly self-determined, while on other projects the same person’s self-

determination can be rather low. The same holds true for creative performance.

Exploitation demands, on the other hand, are conceptualized as an individual level

variable, related to a person’s job.

Figure 2: Research model. The influence of self-regulatory processes on creative

performance.

Method

In my research model, I address both variables at the intra-individual level and

variables at the individual level. In order to account for both analytical levels, I adapted

and used a methodological approach that was developed by Morgeson (2005). With this

Self-determination

An iterative approach

Planning

Creative performance

Exploitation demands

Intr

a-in

idiv

idu

al

level

Inid

ivid

ual

level

21

survey methodology, I could address variables at several levels. I obtained information

of participants’ self-regulatory processes and creative performance on two different

projects. This information referred to contextualized behavioural episodes rather than to

global inferences about personal characteristics. Whereas employees provided

information on the self-regulatory processes, the creative performance was assessed by

their supervisors. I also asked participants general questions about the amount of

exploitation demands in their job. In that way, I could relate self-regulatory processes at

the intra-individual level with creative performance and assess interactions with

exploitation demands as an individual level variable.

Procedure

The study involved three steps. I first asked participants in an open-ended

question to name and describe two projects: a highly innovative one and a less

innovative one. Participants were asked to select projects in which they had played the

central role, that were managed by the same supervisor, and that took place within the

last 24 months before the survey. In a second step, the participants were asked to fill in

a tailored questionnaire that contained standardized questions referring to the way they

handled each chosen project. In addition, they also answered general questions referring

to demographic variables and job characteristics. In a third step, the employee handed

the sheet with the chosen projects over to their supervisor (regarding the projects), who

was asked to rate the creative performance of the employee, on each described project,

on a separate questionnaire. To avoid any influence of the opinion of the employee, the

supervisor did not get any info regarding what the employee had indicated other than

the description of the project.

The different questionnaires were sent to the participants by mail to grant

anonymity. Two envelopes were includes with the right address, such that the employee

and the supervisor could send their questionnaires back separately. On the two

questionnaires a randomly chosen code was noted, this to ensure that these

questionnaires could be matched afterwards.

Sample

The sample consisted of employees who worked on innovative projects and

their supervisors. All participants worked for Belgian companies. To recruit the sample,

22

I worked together with Yasmine Raes, a fellow second master student who does her

master thesis on leadership and innovation. Our sampling strategy was twofold. First,

we contacted several organisations that deliver services to creative and innovative

companies. We found Design Vlaanderen - an organization that supports companies that

want to innovate in terms of design and product development - willing to help us recruit

participants. They provided us with contact persons in companies in creative industries,

which we, subsequently, contacted via e-mail or phone. Most of the participants (90%),

resulting from this sampling strategy, were R&D engineers and product designers.

Consistent with the view that creative performance has become increasingly important

in a wide array of tasks and occupations (Shalley, 2008), we also adopted a second

sampling strategy in which we tried to reach a broader range of participants. We used

company directories and our private networks to contact employees in different

professions, who also worked on innovative projects. The final sample comprised a

diverse range of professions. The most frequent professions were: R&D engineers

(24%), product designers (21%), general business (10%), ICT professionals (8%), and

marketeers (8%).

In both sampling strategies, we first informed the employee about the study and

afterwards we asked whether they had played an essential role in at least one innovative

project in the last two years. If the answer was ‘yes’ and they agreed on participating in

the study, the questionnaires were sent to them by mail. We also asked for the contact

information of the involved leaders, which we, subsequently, contacted to request their

participation.

Of the 175 employee-supervisor dyads who agreed to participate, 112 actually

returned the questionnaires. This resulted in a response rate of 64%. Of those 112 dyads,

we had to discard ten, where insufficient information was present of either the

supervisor or the employee. As a consequence, the analyses were based on 104

employee-supervisor dyads. They presented us with information on 202 different

projects. Seven dyads could only provide us with information on one project.

Illustrative examples of the 202 projects are: the development of a new CRM system,

the automation of a metal folding process, the development of a new standard for

internet coupons to reduce fraud, and the introduction of a leadership development

program.

23

In the final dataset almost three out of four employees were male, the same was

true for the leaders. The age of the employees ranged from 22 to 59 and from 26 to 64

for the supervisors. On average, an employee was 35 years old with an organizational

tenure of seven years. The supervisors were on average 42 years old with an

organizational tenure of eleven years. The average dyadic relationship length was four

years. In most cases the participants, employees as well as supervisors, had a high level

of education. 66% of the employees and 78% of the supervisors had a master degree or

higher. Though, a wide range was present from secondary school graduates to

participants with a PhD. The organisations that participated were both non-profit as well

as profit organisations. The industries in which the participants were employed varied.

The most represented industries were: the metal industry (20%), the advertising industry

(11%), the chemical industry (9%), and the textile industry (7%).

Measures

Control variables. I assessed three control variables at the individual level.

First, I included the employee’s age as control variable. As age partially reflects

employee’s domain knowledge, it can account for differences in creative performance

(Amabile, 1988). Age was measured as a continuous variable, in amount of years.

Second, I included employee’s education level. Just as age, education level can also

shape differences in creative performance, as it is related to an employee’s domain

knowledge (Amabile, 1988). Here, I asked for the participant’s highest degree.

Education level was divided in four different categories. Category 1 constituted of

participants who were educated at the level of secondary school, category 2 included all

participants with a college degree as highest degree, category 3 comprised participants

educated at the level of university, and ultimately, category 4 were the participants who

obtained a PhD. Third, building on research indicating that males and females show

differences in creative performance depending on the situation (Conti, Collins, &

Picariello, 2001), I also included gender (1 = male; 2 = female) as control variable.

Creative performance. I measured creative performance of the employee on

each project with three items, based on Bledow (2010). The three items were: ‘This

employee was a source of new ideas for this project’, ‘This employee thought of

original solutions for problems during the project’, and ‘This employee transformed

24

innovative ideas into workable solutions’. The employee’s supervisor was asked to rate

these items on a five-point scale between 1 (does not apply) and 5 (fully applies).

Cronbach’s alpha for this three-item scale was .86.

Self-regulatory processes. To measure planning and self-determination, I

adapted items from the Volitional Components Questionnaire (VCQ) (Kuhl &

Fuhrmann, 1998). This questionnaire was constructed to assess the components of PSI-

theory. I adjusted the items referring to the factors planning and self-determination such

that they could be applied to a specific project. As no scales were available to measure

the use of an iterative approach, I developed four new items. The items were formulated

to reflect the target concept as directly as possible. For each item regarding the self-

regulatory processes, participants were asked to respond on a 5-point scale ranging from

1 (does not apply) to 5 (fully applies) for each project.

Self-Determination. I measured self-determination with two items, namely:

‘Nearly everything I did on this project, I did because I wanted to’ and ‘I can fully

identify with the work I did on this project’. Cronbach’s alpha for the two-item scale

was .80.

Planning. Planning was measured with three items, namely: ‘I precisely planned

every step in the project’, ‘Before I started the project, I carefully thought about how

each step should take place’, and ‘During every part of the project, I had thought

carefully about the several steps that had to take place’. Cronbach’s alpha for the three-

item scale was .83.

An iterative approach. I measured the use of an iterative approach on a project

with a scale that consisted of four items, namely: ‘I often stopped with the execution of

a part of the project to rework it later’, ‘I regularly refined certain steps that I already

executed’, ‘Decisions that were already made were often rethought later’, and ’I often stopped

and started again with a part of the project that I was executing’. Cronbach’s alpha for the

four-item scale was .78.

Factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis on the nine items concerning self-

regulatory processes was consistent with the expected three factor solution. The three

factors of self-determination, planning, and an iterative approach could be distinguished

and 72% of variance in the data was explained by these three factors. After varimax

25

rotation, factor loadings on the respective factors were all above .58 and cross-loadings

on other factors were low.

Exploitation and exploration demands. Although my research model only

contains exploitation demands, I also measured exploration demands as a conceptually

related variable to be able to conduct explorative analyses. Both job demands were

measured with the questionnaire developed by Bledow and Rosing (2010). Exploration

demands were measured by six items, and exploitation demands by five items. The

questionnaire first described what exploration and exploitation demands in a job exactly

entail. Afterwards, employees were asked to rate, from 1 (not applicable to my job) to 5

(fully applicable to my job), to what extent exploitation and exploration demands were

present in their job. Two examples of items that measured exploitation demands are: ‘In

my job, I perform tasks according to generally approved standards’, and ‘In my job, I

use methods which have been successful in the past’. Two examples of items that

measured exploration demands are: ‘In my job, I test new methods and ways of

working’ and ‘In my job, I break new ground even if there is risk attached to it’. Factor

analysis on the 11 items confirmed that the items formed two scales. Loadings for each

factor were all above .52 and cross-loadings were low. Cronbach’s alpha for the six-

items scale of exploration demands was .75 and for the five-item scale of exploitation

demands it was .79.

Analyses

In order to account for nested data structure, the hypotheses were analyzed by

means of multilevel modelling (HLM 6, Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004). The

creative performance of employees on specific projects was the dependent variable.

Those projects were nested within employees. Independent variables at the intra-

individual level (self-regulatory processes on the projects), as well as at the individual

level (demographic control variables and exploitation and exploration demands), were

included in the analyses. In statistical terms, the intra-individual level refers to within-

person variance and the individual level refers to between-person variance. Multilevel

modelling takes the nested structure of both levels and the corresponding variance into

account. I will use Level 1 to refer to the intra-individual level and Level 2 to refer to

the individual level.

26

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, variance proportions, and

intercorrelations of the study variables. Variance proportions indicate the proportion of

variance in the variables at Level 1 and at Level 2. 63% of variance in the dependent

variable creative performance, resided at Level 1. The majority of the variance in

creative performance was, thus, located within persons, rather than between persons.

The variance in the self-regulatory processes that resided at Level 1, ranged between

46% and 77%, respectively for planning and self-determination. The self-regulatory

processes, thus, also varied considerably within persons on specific projects.

Self-determination (r = .36; p < .01), planning (r = .18; p < .01), and an iterative

approach (r = .21; p < .01) were all positively related to creative performance. This

provides initial support for Hypothesis 1, 2, and 4. The self-regulatory processes were

not mutually correlated. Both the dependent variable creative performance (r = .24; p =

.01) and the self-regulatory process of self-determination (r = .29; p < .01) correlated

positively with age. Self-determination also correlated positively with education level (r

= .26; p < .01). Participants with a higher education level were more self-determined on

their projects, than participants with a lower education level. The self-regulatory process

of self-determination (r = -.20; p = .04) and an iterative approach (r = -.22; p = .02)

were both negatively related to exploitation demands. Exploration demands correlated

positively with the self-regulatory processes of self-determination (r = .25; p < .01) and

an iterative approach (r = .23; p = .02) and also with the dependent variable creative

performance (r = .24; p = .02). Exploitation and exploration demands were negatively

correlated (r = -.38; p < .01). Thus, in general, when high exploitation demands were

present in a person’s job, exploration demands were rather low.

Test of Hypotheses

Table 2 presents six hierarchical linear models with creative performance as the

dependent variable. For the Null-Model, only the three control variables age, education

level, and gender were entered. In Models 1 through 3, I gradually introduced the three

self-regulatory processes. In Model 4, the variable exploitation demands was introduced

to test all hypotheses simultaneously. In Model 5, I added the variable exploration

27

Table 1: Means (M), variance proportions (σ2), standard deviations (SD), and intercorrelations of the study variables

M SD σ2 1

(%)a

σ2 2

(%)a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Level 1

1. Creative

performance 3.81 .75 63 37 -

2. Self-determination 3.72 .86 77 23 .36** -

3. Planning 3.24 .86 46 54 .18** .13 -

4. Iterative approach 2.91 .81 67 33 .21** .11 -.08 -

Level 2

5. Age 35.11 8.96 - 100 .24* .29** .08 -.01 -

6. Genderb 1.27 .45 - 100 -.05 .18 .00 .06 .04 -

7. Education level 2.68 .66 - 100 .08 .26** -.03 .09 -.02 .04 -

8. Exploitation

demands 3.22 .60 - 100 -.18 -.20* .11 -.22* -.15 .04 .05 -

9. Exploration

demands 3.52 .55 - 100 .24* .25** -.05 .23* .21* -.14 -.05 -.38** -

Note: Sample size is N = 202 on Level 1 and N = 104 on Level 2. Level 1 variables were aggregated to Level 2 to calculate correlations with Level 2

variables. *p≤ .05

**p≤ .01 (two-sided test of significance)

a σ

2 1. refers to the proportion of the total variance of each variable that resided at Level 1; σ

22 refers to the proportion of the total variance of each variable that

resided at Level 2. b Gender was coded with “1” for male and “2” for female participants.

28

Table 2: Hierarchical linear models with creative performance as the dependent variable

Independent variables Null-Model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Level 1

Intercept 3.81** (0.06) 3.81** (0.05) 3.81** (0.05) 3.81** (0.05) 3.80** (0.05) 3.81** (0.05)

Self-determination 0.29** (0.06) 0.27** (0.06) 0.26** (0.06) 0.25** (0.05) 0.24** (0.05)

Planning 0.11* (0.05) 0.11* (0.05) 0.11* (0.05) 0.10† (0.05)

Iterative approach 0.14* (0.06) 0.13* (0.06) 0.12* (0.06)

Level 2

Exploitation demands -0.06 (0.08) 0.04 (0.11)

Exploration demands 0.11 (0.11)

Interactions

Planning*Exploitation demands 0.14† (0.08) 0.02 (0.11)

Planning*Exploration demands -0.07 (0.09)

Planning*Exploitation

demands*Exploration demands 0.32* (0.15)

Model R2 .03 .14 .15 .18 .19 .20

Note: The values are unstandardized parameter estimates for the regression weights (ɣ). Standard errors are indicated in parenthesis. The Level 2

variables age, education level, and gender are controlled for in every model. The null model explains 3% of variance in the dependent variable, as

age is significantly related with creative performance (γ = 0.02, p < .01). N = 202 projects nested within 104 individuals.

† p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 (two-sided test of significance)

29

demands. All models controlled for the three Level 2 control variables age, gender, and

education level (the regression weights are not displayed in Table 2).

The Null-Model explained 3% of variance in creative performance due to a

significant positive effect of age (γ = 0.02, p < .01). The other control variables had no

significant effect.

Hypothesis 1 concerns the relationship between self-determination and creative

performance. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, Models 1 through 5 show a clear positive

relationship between self-determination and creative performance. Employees who were

self-determined on a project, were rated higher in creative performance by their

supervisor. In Model 1, self-determination was included in the analysis as a predictor on

top of the control variables. The model explained 14% of variance in creative

performance of which 11% were due to self-determination and 3% were due to the

control variables. The positive relationship between self-determination and creative

performance remained significant, when the other self-regulatory processes were

introduced (γ = 0.26, p < .01).

Hypothesis 2 addresses the relationship between planning and creative

performance. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, Models 2 through 4 show that planning had

a positive relationship with creative performance (Model 2: γ = 0.11, p = .05).

Employees who adopted the self-regulatory strategy of planning during a project, were

rated higher in creative performance by their supervisor on that project.

According to Hypothesis 3, the relationship between planning and creative

performance depends on the level of exploitation demands. In Model 4, where the

interaction between planning and exploitation demands was introduced, the interaction

effect was marginally significant (γ = 0.14, p = .07). This two-way interaction effect is

illustrated in Figure 3. In line with Hypothesis 3, planning was more positively related

to creative performance if exploitation demands were high rather than low. In Model 5,

I introduced the variable exploration demands. The main effect of exploration demands,

its two-way interaction with planning, and its three-way interaction with planning and

exploitation demands were entered. The three-way interaction term of exploitation

demands, exploration demands, and planning was found to be significant (γ = 0.32, p =

.03). This three-way interaction effect is displayed in Figure 4.

30

Figure 3: The two-way interaction between planning and exploitation demands on

creative performance

Figure 4: The three-way interaction between planning, exploitation demands and

exploration demands on creative performance

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4

4,2

Low Planning High Planning

Cre

ati

ve

per

form

an

ce

High Exploitation

demands

Low Exploitation

demands

3

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4

4,2

4,4

Low Planning High Planning

Cre

ati

ve

per

form

an

ce

(1) High Exploitation

demands, High

Exploration demands

(2) High Exploitation

demands, Low

Exploration demands

(3) Low Exploitation

demands, High

Exploration demands

(4) Low Exploitation

demands, Low

Exploration demands

31

Figure 4 shows that the positive relationship between planning and creative

performance was strongest when exploitation and exploration demands were both high

or when they were both low. An explorative finding that I will further discuss below.

Hypothesis 4 concerns the relationship between an iterative approach and

creative performance. Consistent with Hypothesis 4, Models 3 through 5 show that an

iterative approach had a significant positive effect on creative performance (Model 3: γ

= 0.14, p =.02). Employees who adopted an iterative approach during a project, were

rated higher on creative performance by their supervisor on that project.

Finally, I followed the recommendation by Becker (2005) and re-ran all models

without the control variables age, education level, and gender. The results of these

analyses rendered the same pattern of results. All regression coefficients that were

relevant for the test of the hypotheses remained significant.

Discussion

An employee’s creative performance is a crucial factor for organizations that

influences organizational flexibility and competitiveness (Nonaka, 1991; Oldham,

2002). Insight in the factors underlying creative performance can enable employees and

organizations to enhance creative performance and, thereby, also the competitiveness of

the organization. This research has adopted a self-regulatory view on the factors

underlying creative performance. Self-regulation enables employees to work towards

their goals and regulate their behaviour, such that they can optimally realize the goal of

creative performance. I adopted PSI-theory, as a basis, to develop and test hypotheses

on the relationship between specific self-regulatory processes and creative performance.

This research adds to current research on creative performance and self-

regulatory processes in three aspects. First, it focuses on creative performance, instead

of only on the generation of ideas. Second, it relates specific self-regulatory processes to

creative performance based on a theory of psychological functioning, an approach that

has often been neglected in the past. Third, it empirically examined these relationships

by means of an innovative research design applied to a diverse sample of employees

working on real-world projects.

The results of this study confirm the value of self-regulatory processes as

antecedents of creative performance. In this study, the most important self-regulatory

32

process related to creative performance was the extent to which actions on a project

were self-determined. Employees who could identify themselves with what they did on

a specific project, received a higher appraisal of their supervisor on measures of creative

performance on that specific project. Pursuing activities on a project that spur from

choice and self-expression, enables people to reach enhanced creative performance.

This is in accordance with research stating that intrinsic motivation is a crucial

perquisite for creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Collins & Amabile, 1999; Dewett,

2007). Intrinsic motivation is, namely, a specific part of self-determined motivation

(Deci & Ryan, 1985). In this study, however, the conceptualization of self-determined

motivation was not limited to the component of intrinsic motivation. Self-determination

was formalized, in accordance with the definition of Deci and Ryan (1985), as every

action that is congruent with the self, independent of whether the activity is intrinsically

motivating in itself. The results of this study form, thereby, a preliminary indication that

creative performance is not only confined to those actions that are purely driven by

interest or enjoyment of the task. If activities are in accordance with the self, it seems

plausible that externally motivated activities can also lead to increased creative

performance. This research also provides support for the proposition of Amabile (1996)

and Drazin et al. (1999) that self-determination not only varies between persons, but

that a within-person perspective should be taken into account when conceptualizing

self-determination. In addition, these findings are a proxy indicator for the positive

effects when action are regulated by the feeling system, as described in PSI-theory

(Kuhl, 2000a).

In addition to self-determination, planning also related positively to creative

performance in our sample. Despite the common belief that creative thinkers are also

chaotic thinkers, these results show otherwise. Carefully planning one’s steps when

working on a project seems to be a valuable self-regulatory strategy to enhance one’s

creative performance on that project. This research, thereby, indicates that planning

does not only contribute to performance in starting one’s business (Frese et al., 2007), in

sales (VandeWalle et al., 1999), in design (Sonnentag, 1998), but also, in general, to

creative performance on projects in a diverse range of professions. It confirms and adds

to the research of Osburn and Mumford (2006), in which the value of training people’s

planning skills on the quality and originality of solutions on a creative-problem solving

33

task was shown. This research, thereby, supports the value of the thinking system –

operating by means of conscious, analytical thought processes – for creative

performance, above and beyond the value of the feeling system. It should, however, be

noted that adhering too rigidly to one’s plans might also backfire. When circumstances

give way to new important elements, it could be better to change one’s plan than strictly

adhering to the plan one originally made. If plans are too strictly put into practice, a

more promising direction than the current one could be overlooked. Prior research has,

for instance, indicated the added value of engaging in planning at vital transition points,

as opposed to doing all the planning up front (Weingart, 1992). A high level of task

uncertainty is often related to creative tasks. Details about project tasks, task times, and

the sequence of the tasks can often not be specified before the start of the execution of a

project (Tatikonda & Rosenthal, 1999). Therefore, it can be difficult to make detailed

plans prior to starting the project. During creative accomplishments goals often co-

evolve and alter along with the actions taken. Hacker (2003) calls this opportunistic

action regulation. Future research should address how planning is best put into practice

such that creative performance is optimized.

The expected moderating effect of exploitation demands on the relationship

between planning and creative performance was only partially confirmed by this study.

As expected, the relationship was stronger when exploitation demands were high. The

interaction term, however, only reached the level of marginal significance. The

proposed effect of the risk aversiveness of environments high in exploitation demands

on the need for planning, might have been confounded by the economic environment

that companies were in during the time that the projects took place. The insecurities on

the global markets could have resulted in the fact that all companies and departments

were more sensitive to risks and paid more attention to costs, which made planning also

more important in environments high in exploration demands, to overcome resistance.

This study indicates that planning relates most to creative performance when a person’s

job entails a balanced amount of exploitation and exploration demands. Exploitation

and exploration are often viewed as conflicting activities, that pose inconsistent

psychological demands on employees (March, Sproull, & Tamuz, 1991; Smith &

Tushman, 2005). Companies, therefore, often separate both kinds of activities (Bledow

et al., 2009). This is also found in the sample used for this study. On average, when

34

exploitation demands were high, exploration demands were lower and the other way

around. Different mindsets are necessary to confront both types of job demands and

scarce resources have to be divided between both kinds of activities (Benner &

Tushman, 2003; Bledow et al., 2009). In jobs that do require equal attention to both

exploration and exploitation demands, planning can support the creative performance of

employees by enabling them to set boundaries on when to shift between activities and

mindsets. Planning can also contribute to the act of balancing conflicting demands by

supporting an equal division of the available scarce resources between both activities.

When jobs entail either many exploitation demands or many exploration demands, but

not both, employees experience less conflict between both job demands and they can

focus on one activity or the other. The need to balance both kinds of activities is, in that

case, not present and planning, therefore, contributes less to reaching creative

performance. This research indicates that it is the relative presence of both demands that

is critical, not their absolute presence. Planning enables creative performance in the

same way when both job demands are high as when both job demands are low.

However, it should be noted that low does not necessarily mean low in an absolute

sense. It refers to a less than average endorsement of the presence of the job demands.

Future research should address the cognitive demands that balancing conflicting

psychological tendencies bring about and how employees can be enabled to combine

these inconsistent demands.

In addition to self-determination and planning, adopting an iterative approach on

a project was also found to significantly contribute to the creative performance on that

project. This indicates that reworking and revising previously made decisions is not

only a valuable approach for artistic creativity (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976;

Kozbelt, 2008) and scientific creativity (Grant & Pollock, 2011), but contributes to

creative performance in general. These results support Simonton’s (1999) evolutionary

theory of creative thinking. When ideas go through an iterative process of several

adaptations, this results in higher originality and quality of the ideas. An iterative

approach enables taking into account several criteria, such that ideas can be optimally

adapted to the specific situation. The positive relationship between an iterative approach

and creative performance also forms a proxy indicator of the value of combining both

conscious, reflective thought and unconscious, intuitive thought.

35

Implications

Theoretical. Previous research on the creative process has largely neglected a

self-regulatory view. Fixed factors or factors that lie beyond the power of the individual

employee were addressed. This research, however, indicates that self-regulatory

processes are also a valuable research path to explain variance in creative performance.

Besides focusing on individual differences and contextual factors that contribute to

creative performance, future research should also take a self-regulatory view into

account. A self-regulatory view enables the identification of within-person processes

that underlie creative performance. It is, namely, important to consider that creative

performance does not only vary between individuals. A large part of the variance in

creative performance, resides within persons.

By focusing on self-determination, planning, and an iterative approach, this

research adds to past studies that have indicated the value of the self-regulatory

processes of feedback seeking (De Stobbeleir et al., 2011), regulating positive and

negative affect (Bledow et al., in press), and forecasting the effects of actions (Byrne et

al., 2010). In addition, this research validates the use of PSI-theory in understanding

self-regulatory processes in the criterion domain of creative performance.

In general, a dialectic view on creative performance is reinforced by this study

(Bledow, Frese, & Mueller, 2011). A dialectic view on creative performance entails that

being ambidextrous and combining inherent paradoxes and dualities contributes to

reaching high creative performance. The term dualities refers to dyads of concepts that

are inherently distinct and opposite, but also fundamentally interdependent and

complementary (Farjoun, 2010). Being ambidextrous means being able to combine each

part of a duality. The Latin word ‘Ambidextrous’ can be literally translated as

‘favorable on both sides’. When one succeeds in being ambidextrous and, thus, in

combining both parts of a duality, higher creative performance can be reached. The

duality included in this study consists of, on the one hand, unconscious, intuitive

processes spurring from the feeling system and, on the other hand, conscious, reflective

processes spurring from the thinking system. Both systems and the modes of processing

in which they operate can be seen as a duality. They are inherently distinct and opposite,

but also fundamentally interdependent and complementary. The value of the thinking

system and the conscious, reflective processes in which this system operates is indicated

36

by the positive relationship between planning and creative performance. The value of

unconscious, intuitive processes in which the feeling system operates, on the other hand,

can be derived from the positive relationship between self-determination and creative

performance. Both reflective and intuitive processes, thus, underlie creative

performance, they are, thereby, complementary. However, both processes are also

mutually inhibitory, such that they cannot be reached at the same time (Kuhl & Koole,

2004). This refers to the processes being inherently distinct and opposite. However,

switching between processes is possible, such that both processes can be optimally

combined (Fuhrmann & Kuhl, 1998). This is, essentially, what constitutes the value of

an iterative approach. In this approach people combine a reflective mode of processing

with an intuitive mode of processing to enable high creative performance. People who

effectively adopt an iterative approach can be called ambidextrous individuals, as they

succeed in combining two parts of a duality (Bledow et al., 2009). In this case reflective

and intuitive thinking.

Practical. The results of this study can be used to formulate guidelines on how

the creative performance of employees can be enhanced. Enhancing creative

performance is an important strategy – both for individual employees and the

organization in a whole – to be able to realize individual and company goals (Kanter,

1988; Nystrom, 1990). An organization is, namely, dependent on the creative

performance of its employees to ensure its competitiveness (Amabile et al., 1996;

Nonaka, 1991; Oldham, 2002; Woodman et al., 1993). In the following paragraphs, I

will formulate tentative guidelines on reaching creative performance, that can be

derived from this research. I will first focus on what employees can do themselves to

enhance their creative performance and afterwards, I will address how managers and the

broader organization can enable their employees to reach high creative performance.

Employees. First, it is important that employees take their own goals and values

into account when pursuing a project. The self-regulatory process of self-determination,

namely, represents an important aspect in reaching creative performance on a project.

This means that, in a first step, it is valuable for employees to determine whether the

project, in itself, is in accordance with the goals and values they strive for. If that is not

the case, they can choose not to continue with the project, if that is a possibility, or,

37

otherwise, they can try to find ways to bring the project closer to their own goals and

values. Once the project is initiated, it is important for reaching creative performance

that employees strive to pursue those activities that they support and can identify with,

instead of blindly executing what other people suggest to do. If employees are obliged

to take a specific approach on a project, it could be beneficial that they ask for clear

reasons for that approach, such that they can better identify with it.

A second interesting avenue for employees to enhance their creative

performance is carefully planning the steps they will take in a project. Planning includes

the anticipation of future events and the formulation of actions to bring success on these

events about. It is important that employees take problems into consideration and

formulate back-up plans for potential failures (Mumford et al., 2001). Employees in

jobs in which exploration and exploitation demands are equally present, can be advised

to pay extra attention to planning as a self-regulatory strategy. Planning can help them

finding a balance between the inconsistent psychological demands that are inherent to

their job.

Third, it is important that employees do not consider their initial ideas as fixed,

without thinking about possible improvements and adaptations. If employees strive to

perform creatively, it cannot be advised to finish the project all at once without ever

reconsidering the previous steps that one made. It can be recommended to rethink,

revise, and rework initial solutions. If employees rethink the steps they made in the past,

new and potentially more creative pathways can come to mind (Simonton, 1999).

Moreover, initial solutions often lack a necessary amount of structure to be able to

implement the solution in a specific context (Sharma, 1999). The latter problem can be

addressed by adopting different evaluation criteria every time one rethinks a solution or

decision. It could be beneficial to intersperse time on the project with activities that are

not related to the task (Ellwood et al., 2009). Through taking a break (e.g. doing

physical exercise) or performing routine tasks, unconscious thought can be stimulated,

which can, subsequently, lead to insights on problem solutions (Cronin, 2004). A

necessary boundary condition, however, to be able to effectively adopt this iterative

approach to enhance creative performance is that one does not procrastinate working on

the project till the last minute. If working on the project is postponed for too long, there

38

will not be enough time to rework previously addressed steps, such that more creative

and implementable solutions cannot be realized.

Organization/managers. First, managers can stimulate creative performance by

creating an environment in which employees can act self-determined on projects and

feel that their work is congruent with their needs, values, and attitudes. Research

indicates that one approach to realize this is adopting a transformational leadership style

(Bono & Judge, 2003). By establishing a vision and stimulating people to incorporate

that vision within their integrated self, they stimulate self-determination and, thereby,

enable employees to reach higher creative performance. It is important that leaders are

not too controlling, if they want their employees to be creative. By providing employees

autonomy to choose the direction in which they are heading, creative performance can

be enhanced. Moreover, forcing them to participate on a project, with which they cannot

identify, is unlikely to lead to high creative performance on that project. To stimulate

self-determination among employees, organizations can also implement performance

reward systems. Research indicates that employees’ self-determination on a project can

be enhanced by inducing the expectation of a reward for reaching high performance on

that project (Eisenberger et al., 1999). It can be advised to pay additional attention to the

enhancement of self-determination regarding employees in jobs containing high

exploitation demands. In the sample used for this study self-determination was lower

when exploitation demands were high.

A second interesting avenue for organizations to stimulate creative performance

is enabling the adoption of self-regulatory planning processes by their employees. This

can be realized by providing them with trainings on planning skills (Osburn &

Mumford, 2006). It can be advised that trainings focus on penetration (e.g.,

identification of key causes of problem, restrictions, resources, and contingencies),

forecasting, and visual imagination, as these aspects are found to be important creative

problem solving aspects of planning (Byrne et al., 2010; Marta, Leritz, & Mumford,

2005; Mumford, Baughman, & Sager, 2003; Mumford et al., 2001; Osburn & Mumford,

2006; Shelley, Pham, Rivkin, & Armor, 1998). Specific attention to the processes of

planning is necessary when organizations impose a balanced amount of exploitation and

exploration demands on their employees.

39

Third, managers can contribute to the creative performance of their employees

by enabling them to adopt an iterative approach on their projects. One way to do this is

by giving employees enough time to work on the projects. Managers should be careful

with imposing too tight deadlines, in such a way that people do not have the time to

revisit previously made decisions. By going through a process of adaptations, ideas can

become more creative and more adapted to the specific setting. The process, however,

takes time.

Limitations

Certain limitations could not be excluded from this study. The first limitation is

a general limitation inherent to the nature of the real-world setting in which this study

took place. This inherent limitation concerns the precision with which I could test the

psychological mechanisms involved. As PSI-theory is broad and highly inferential of

nature, the observability of the phenomena involved is limited. The interplay of

reflective and intuitive modes of cognitive functioning, that were postulated to be

inherent to an iterative approach, could not be directly measured. Neither, could the

mechanism underlying an intuitive and reflective mode of processing related to

respectively self-determination and planning.

A second limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the data. As both the

dependent and the independent variables are measured at the same time, unequivocal

causal inferences of the demonstrated relationships cannot be made. Future research

should adopt an experimental design in which self-regulatory processes are

manipulated, to determine the causal nature of the relationships. To some extent, there

may have been reciprocal relationships between self-regulatory processes and creative

performance. For instance, employees may have perceived higher self-determination on

projects if they had already contributed with creative ideas. However, the measures of

self-regulatory processes referred to behaviour that preceded the outcome of creative

performance. This supports the assumption that self-regulatory processes have

influenced creative performance, rather than the other way around.

The third limitation is related to the sample used in this study. A first aspect is

the heterogeneity of the sample, that could constitute a threat to the internal validity of

the study. It hampers, to a certain degree, the interpretation of the results, as alternative

explanations cannot be excluded. Certain boundary conditions, such as the personality

40

of the employee, the organizational context, the position of the employee in the

organization, could not be systematically explored and controlled for to exclude their

possible influence on the observed relationships. However, it should be noted, that

research indicates that it is not always desirable to statistically control for confounding

variables (Becker, 2005; Spector & Brannick, 2011). Research consists of a thin balance

between focusing on internal and external validity. As most past research on self-

regulatory processes took place in a laboratory context, a real-world study was

appropriate. A real-world context makes it more difficult to control confounding

variables, but allows for generalizability of research findings. This is important, as the

level of generalization determines the range of units on which the results of the study

apply (Rousseau, 1985). I opted for a broad sample of participants, in accordance with

the view that creative performance is getting more and more important in different

professions and industries (Shalley, 2008). Nevertheless, future research should validate

these self-regulatory processes in more specific contexts. In addition to the

heterogeneity of the sample, a second limitation related to the sample is its limited size.

This reduces the reliability of the results. Only 104 people could be included in the

analyses. However, as most individuals reported on two project, 202 data points were

available. Nevertheless, future research should focus on validating these results with

larger samples.

Fourth, a limitation specific to the applied method is that all involved variables

are measured by means of questionnaires. This increases the risk of mono-method bias,

namely an inflation of the detected correlations, which might constitute a treat to the

validity of the findings (Doty & Glick, 1998; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,

2003). However, by collecting the dependent variables from the supervisor and the

independent variables from the employees themselves, I minimized potential risk of

bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). As self-regulatory processes are inherent to an individual,

the individual is best positioned to judge to which extent the processes occurred,

especially in a real-world context. Creative performance, however, is open for more

objective measurements, such as a systematic analysis of the content of the ideas and

the way they were implemented. Future research should address more objective

measurements of creative performance.

41

A fifth and final limitation, specific for the applied method, is that the validity of

the method is dependent on participants’ memories to recall behavioural episodes. It is

possible that participants were the subject of memory bias or attributional bias (Mezulis,

Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004). I tried minimizing memory effects by limiting the

projects that could be selected to projects in which the employee had the central role

and that took place within 2 years before data collection. Nevertheless, the presence of

cognitive bias, such as memory bias and attributional bias, cannot be excluded. It could,

for instance, be possible that the outcome of the project had an effect on how self-

regulatory processes were recalled. A valuable path for future research would be an

experience sampling study, in which self-regulatory processes and creative performance

are measured at regular times during the project.

Future Research

The diverse perspectives included in this study enable setting up an agenda for

future research on creative performance and self-regulatory processes.

A first interesting path for further research would be to identify how the self-

regulatory process of planning is best adopted during creative tasks. In the scientific

literature, valuable distinctions are made between opportunistic planning and goal-

directed planning, between total order planning and partial order planning, and between

global planning and local planning (Morris & Ward, 2005). Future research should

differentiate the value of each of these planning processes in reaching creative

performance. In addition, it would be interesting to determine under which conditions

each of these planning approaches is more appropriate.

Regarding the process of self-determination, a second interesting path of further

inquiry would be to disentangle the effects of the different components of self-

determination. This research indicates the importance of being able to identify yourself

with what you do, while other research posits intrinsic motivation as a crucial perquisite

for creative performance (Collins & Amabile, 1999; Dewett, 2007). How both aspects

relate to each other and what the specific contributions of each process are to creative

performance would be a valuable research question.

Third, a focus on other self-regulatory processes and how specific self-

regulatory processes can be stimulated also forms an interesting research path. Research

on the environmental conditions that stimulate the adoption of specific self-regulatory

42

processes constitutes a necessary complement to the identification of the self-regulatory

processes underlying creative performance (see e.g. Osburn & Mumford, 2006). For

instance, an inquiry on how employees can be stimulated to adopt an iterative approach

on their projects would be interesting. Other self-regulatory processes that can be

brought in relation with creative performance are barrier cognitions and positive

fantasies (Rosing, Bledow, & Frese, 2011). These are two self-regulatory processes that

are located at the mid-level of PSI-theory.

Finally, I also suggest a further inquiry on the boundary conditions that can

stimulate or hamper the effectiveness of certain self-regulatory processes. In this

research, I took a first step by indicating how exploitation and exploration job demands

influence the relationship between planning and creative performance. By identifying

the specific processes that best align with certain contexts, research can guide managers

and employees in deciding which processes to stimulate to enable creative performance.

Further boundary conditions should be identified. For instance, in high deadline driven

companies an iterative approach might hamper creative performance, as people will not

be able to finish their work in time. Also, the interaction with specific personality

characteristics, would be a valuable research path to adopt.

Conclusion

I started this thesis with formulating a fundamental question that did not receive

enough research attention in the past, namely: ‘When do people succeed and when do

they fail in reaching creative performance?’. This thesis contributes to answering this

question by relating three self-regulatory processes to success in creative performance.

The processes of self-determination, planning, and an iterative approach were all

positively and incrementally related to creative performance. These results indicate that

a self-regulatory view on creative performance should be taken into account by further

research on creative performance. More research on these and other aspects of self-

regulation that determine success or failure in reaching creative performance and their

relative importance across different contexts is necessary.

43

References

Albrecht, T. L. & Hall, B. J. (1991). Facilitating talk about new ideas: The role of

personal relationships in organizational innovation. Communication

Monographs, 58, 273–288.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential

conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376

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

Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds). Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 10

(pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

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

Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (2008). Studying creativity, its processes, and its

antecedents: An exploration of the componential theory of creativity. In J. Zhou

& C. E. Shalley (Eds.). Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 33-64). New

York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-

1184.

Anderson, J. R. & Piriolli, P. L. (1984). Spread of activation. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 791-798.

Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of

positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529-

550.

Ashford, S. J. & Black, S. J. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of

desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214.

Bauer, I. M. & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Self-regulatory strength. In K. Vohs & R.

Baumeister (Eds.). Handbook of Self-Regulation (2nd ed.) (pp. 64-82). New

York: Guilford Press.

Baumann, N., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Striving for unwanted goals: Stress

dependent discrepancies between explicit and implicit achievement motives

reduce subjective well-being and increase psychosomatic symptoms. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 781–799.

44

Baumann, N., Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (2005). Left-hemispheric activation and self-

infiltration: Testing a neuropsychological model of internalization. Motivation

and Emotion, 29, 135-163.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-

control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 396-403.

Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in

organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations.

Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274-289.

Benner, M. J. & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process

management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management

Review, 28, 238-256.

Bledow, R. (2010). Managing innovation successfully: The value of contextual fit.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation of Justus-Liebig-University Giessen,

Germany.

Bledow, R. & Rosing, K. (2010). Exploration and exploitation at multiple levels of

analysis. Unpublished research report, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen,

Germany.

Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N. R., Erez, M., & Farr, J. L. (2009). A dialectic

perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and

ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on

Science and Practice, 2, 305-337.

Bledow, R., Frese, M., & Mueller, V. (2011). Ambidextrous leadership for innovation:

the influence of culture. In W. H. Mobley, M. Li, & Y. Wang (Eds.). Advances

in Global Leadership, Vol. 6 (pp. 41-69). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group

Publishing Limited.

Bledow, R., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (in press). A dynamic perspective on affect and

creativity at work. Academy of Management Journal.

Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Towards understanding

the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management

Journal, 46, 554-571.

45

Byrne, C. L., Shipman, A. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). The effects of forecasting on

creative problem-solving: An experimental study. Creativity Research Journal,

22, 119-138.

Campbell, D. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in

other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380-400.

Cardinal, L. B. (2001). Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The

use of organizational control on managing research and development.

Organizational Science, 12, 19–37.

Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory

approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Castrogiovani, G. J. (1996). Pre-start-up planning and the survival of new small

business: Theoretical linkages. Journal of Management, 22, 801–822.

Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., Smith, R. E., & Fiori, M. (2006). Self-regulation:

Reminders and suggestions from personality science. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 55, 333–385.

Collins, M. A. & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Conti, R., Collins, M. A., & Picariello, M. E. (2001). The impact of competition on

intrinsic motivation and creativity: considering gender, gender segregation, and

gender role orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1273–1289.

Cronin, M. A. (2004). A model of knowledge activation and insight in problem solving.

Complexity, 9, 17-24.

Cropley, A. (1967). Creativity. New York: Longmans.

De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of

creativity at work: the role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 811-831.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum.

46

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in

personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on motivation:

Perspectives on motivation Vol. 38 (pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.

Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in

an R&D environment. R&D management, 37, 197-208.

Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in

preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 87, 586-598.

Dijksterhuis, A. & Meurs, T. (2006). Where creativity resides: The generative power of

unconscious thought. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 135-146.

Dijksterhuis, A. & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95-109.

Doty, D. H. & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods

variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374-406.

Dougherty, D. & Hardy, B. F. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature

organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of

Management Journal, 39, 826–851.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity

in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review,

24, 286–307.

Drazin, R., Kazanjian, R. K., & Glynn, M. (2008). Creativity and sensemaking among

professionals. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.). Handbook of organizational

creativity (pp. 263-281). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. (1999). Does pay for performance increase

or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1026-1040.

Ellwood, S., Pallier, G., Snyder, A., & Gallate, J. (2009). The incubation effect:

Hatching a solution? Creativity Research Journal, 21, 6-14.

Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as in duality. The Academy

of Management Review, 35, 202-225.

47

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.

Finke, R. A. & Bettle, J. (1996). Chaotic cognition: Principles and applications.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Frese, M., Krauss, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Luneng, S. T., Heers,

C., Unger, J., & Friedrich, C. (2007). Business owners’ action planning and its

relationship to business success in three African countries. Journal of applied

psychology, 92, 1481-1498.

Fuhrmann, A. & Kuhl, J. (1998). Maintaining a healthy diet: Effects of personality and

self-reward versus self-punishment on commitment to and enactment of self-

chosen and assigned goals. Psychology and Health, 13, 651–686.

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

are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 513-524.

Getzels, J. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of

problem-finding in art. New York: Wiley.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.

American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation,

transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of

employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765-778.

Grant, A. M. & Pollock, T. G. (2011). From the Editors: Publishing in AMJ―Part 3:

Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 873-879.

Hacker, W. (2003). Action Regulation Theory: A practical tool for the design of modern

work processes? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12,

105-130.

Hayes, J. R. & Simon, H. A. (1974). Understanding written problem instructions. In L.

W. Gregg (Ed.). Knowledge and cognition (pp. 167-200). Potomac, MD:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Hayes-Roth, B. & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive

Science, 3, 275–310.

48

Hélie, S. & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified

theory and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 3, 994-1024.

Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute

substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman

(Eds.). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social

conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. Cummings

(Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior Vol.10 (pp. 169-211). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Kaplan, C. & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 374-

419.

Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes

for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202–210.

King, N. & Anderson, N. (1990). Innovation in working groups. In M. A. West and J. L.

Farr (Eds.). Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 81-100). Chichester, US:

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.

Kozbelt, A. (2008). Hierarchical linear modelling of creative artists’ problem solving

behaviors. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 181–200.

Kuhl, J. (1986). Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In J. Kuhl & J.

Beckmann (Eds.). Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101-128).

Berlin: Springer.

Kuhl, J. (2000a). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The

dynamics of personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, &

M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111-169). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Kuhl, J. (2000b). The volitional basis of personality systems interaction theory:

Applications in learning and treatment contexts. International Journal of

Educational Research, 33, 665-703.

49

Kuhl, J. & Fuhrmann, A. (1998). Decomposing self-regulation and self-control: the

volitional components inventory. In J. Heckhausen and C.S. Dweck (Eds).

Lifespan perspectives on motivation and control (pp. 15-49). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Kuhl, J. & Kazen, M. (1999). Volitional facilitation of difficult intentions: Joint

activation of intention memory and positive affect removes Stroop interference.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 382 – 399.

Kuhl, J. & Koole, S. L. (2004). Workings of the will. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T.

Pyszczynski (Eds.). Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 411–

430). New York: Guilford Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago

University Press.

Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new

organizational forms. Organization Science, 10, 535–550.

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lonergan, D. C., Scott, G. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Evaluative aspects of

creative thought: Effects of appraisal and revisions standards. Creativity

Research Journal, 16, 231–246.

Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). Self-regulation at

work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 543-568.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.

Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

March, J. G., Sproull, L. S., & Tamuz, M. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in

organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.

Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and group

performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning.

Leadership Quarterly, 16, 81–103.

McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial

oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 118–131.

50

McGraw, K. O. & McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic

incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

15, 285-294.

Metcalfe, J. & Weibe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving.

Memory and Cognition, 15, 238-246.

Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004). Is there a

universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual,

developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias.

Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711-747.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in

the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,

497-508.

Morris, R. G., & Ward, G. (2005). The cognitive psychology of planning. New York:

Psychology Press.

Mumford, M. D. (2001). Something old, something new: Revisiting Guilford’s

conception of creative problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 267–

276.

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., & Sager, C. E. (2003). Picking the right material:

Cognitive processing skills and their role in creative thought. In M. A. Runco

(Ed.). Critical creative processes (pp. 19–68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). Performance in planning:

Processes, requirements, and errors. Review of General Psychology, 5, 213–240.

Muraven, M. & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited

resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126,

247-259.

Muraven, M., Gagné, M., Rosman, H. (2008). Helpful self-control: Autonomy support,

vitality, and depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 573–585.

Newell, A., Shaw, J., & Simon, H. (1962). The processes of creative thinking. In H.

Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.). Contemporary approaches to

creative thinking. New York: Atherton Press.

Nonanka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69,

96-104.

51

Nystrom, H. (1990). Organizational innovation. In M. S. West & J. L Farr (Eds.).

Innovation and creativity at work: psychological and organizational strategies

(pp. 143-162). New York: Wiley.

Oldham, G. R. (2002). Stimulating and supporting creativity in organizations. In S.

Jackson, M. Hitt, & A. DeNisi (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustained

competitive advantage (pp. 243–273). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ormerod, T. C. (2005). Planning and ill-defined problems. In R. Morris & G. Ward

(Eds.). The Cognitive Psychology of Planning (pp. 53-70). London: Psychology

Press.

Osburn, H. K. & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Creativity and planning: Training

interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills. Creativity Research

Journal, 18, 173–190.

Palanski, M. E. & Vogelgesang, G. R. (2011). Virtuous creativity: The effects of leader

behavioural integrity on follower creative thinking and risk taking. Canadian

Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28, 259-269.

Patalano, A. L. & Seifert, C. M. (1997). Opportunistic planning: Being reminded of

pending goals. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 1–36.

Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Reymen, I. M. M. J., & Rutte, C. G. (2007).

The development of a design behaviour questionnaire for multidisciplinary

teams. Design Studies, 28, 623–643.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common

method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Porath, C. L. & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185–192.

Rosing, K., Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2011). Dynamic self-regulation in innovation

projects. Unpublished Research Report, University of Lüneburg, Germany.

Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research. In B. M. Staw & L.

L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior Vol. 17 (pp. 1-37).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S, & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6 for Windows [Computer

software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.

52

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, development, and

practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.

Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Looking inside the fishbowl of

creativity: Verbal and behavioral predictors of creative performance. Creativity

Research Journal, 11, 243–263.

Ryan, R. M. & La Guardia, J. G. (1999). Achievement motivation within a pressured

society: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to learn and the politics of school

reform. In T. Urdan (Ed.). Advances in motivation and achievement Vol. 11 (pp.

45-85). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Schooler, J. W. & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, T. B.

Ward and R. A. Finke (Eds.). The creative cognition approach (pp. 97-134).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Shalley, C. E. (2008). Creating roles: What managers can do to establish expectations

for creative performance. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.). Handbook of

organizational creativity (pp. 147-164). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Shalley, C. E. & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social

and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly,

15, 33–53.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and

contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal

of Management, 30, 933–958.

Sharma, A. (1999). Central dilemmas of managing innovation in large firms. California

Management Review, 41, 65–68.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true

self: Cross-role variation in the Big Five traits and its relations with authenticity

and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

1380-1393.

Shelley, T. E., Pham, L. B., Rivkin, I. D., & Armor, D. A. (1998). Harnessing the

imagination: Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. American

Psychologist, 53, 429-439.

53

Shin, S. J. & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related

to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as

a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709-1721.

Simonton, D. (1999). Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Smith, S. M. (1994). Getting into and out of mental ruts: A theory of fixation,

incubation, and insight. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.). The nature of

insight (pp. 121-149). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Smith, W. & Tushman, M. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top

management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16,

522–536.

Sonnentag, S. (1998). Expertise in professional software design: A process study.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 703–715.

Spector, P. E. & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of

statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287-305.

Stein, M. (1975). Stimulating creativity Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.

Striffler, N., Perry, D. F., & Kates, D. A. (1997). Planning and implementing a finance

system for early intervention services. Infants and young children 10, 57-65.

Tatikonda. M. V. & Rosenthal, S. R. (1999). Successful execution of product

development projects: the effects of project management formality, autonomy

and resource flexibility. Best paper proceedings of the Academy of Management,

Operations Management Division, B1-B6.

Taylor, A. & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge

combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management

Journal, 49, 723-740.

Thamhain, H. J. (2003). Managing innovative R & D teams. R & D Management, 44,

297–322.

Unger, A. & Stahlberg, D. (2011). Ego-depletion and risk behavior: Too exhausted to

take a risk. Social Psychology, 42, 28-38.

Vallerand, R. J. & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles

as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-

620.

54

Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation.

Management Science, 32, 590-607.

VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. J. (1999). The influence

of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A

longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 249–259.

Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation: An

introduction. In R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs (Eds). Handbook of Self-

regulation. Research, Theory, and Applications (pp. 1–9). New York: Guilford.

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeibel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice,

D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited

resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883-898.

Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and

planning on group performance. Journal of applied psychology, 77, 682-693.

Welsh, E., Wanberg, C., Brown, K., & Simmering, M. (2003). E-learning: Emerging

uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training

and Development, 7, 245-258.

West, M. A. (2002). Ideas are ten a penny: It's team implementation not idea generation

that counts. Applied Psychology, 51, 411–424.

West, M. A. & Richter, A. W. (2008). Climates and cultures for innovation and

creativity at work. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.). Handbook of

organizational creativity (pp. 211–236). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

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

organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321.

Xiao, Y., Milgram, P., & Doyle, D. J. (1997). Planning behavior and its functional role

in interactions with complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and

Cybernetics, 27, 313–325.

Zampetakis, L.A., Bouranta, N., & Moustakis, V.S. (2010). On the relationship between

individual creativity and time management. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5,

23-32.

55

Zhong, C. B., Dijksterhuis, A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). The merits of unconscious

thought in creativity. Psychological Science, 19, 912-918.

Documents

Ideas that matter: The relationship between self