Shaping Environments Conductive to Creativity

Abstract

A great deal of research on creativity is based on the principle of intrinsic motivation, which underlies creative performance and mediates the effects of contextual factors on employee creativity. Using a sample of Chinese employees from hotel industry, this study’s findings support the intrinsic motivation principle. This study applies the self-determination theory to model and examine intrinsic motivation and shows that a sense of autonomous motivation among employees plays a significant role in predicting employee creativity. Factors that promote creativity through autonomous motivation include a climate for creativity, empowering leadership, and coworker support. On the other hand, both task and personal conflict were negatively related to autonomous motivation. A controlling or coercive management style characterized by a focus on punishment, obligations, or external standards appears to be antithetical to employee creativity.

Keywords

organizational context self-determination theory employee creativity autonomous motivation hotel China

Despite a growing interest in employee creativity in the hotel industry, few studies have looked at whether intrinsic motivation can predict employee creativity in the hospitality industry. Moreover, not only has relatively little research directly tested whether intrinsic motivation determines creativity outcomes but the few studies that have tested this relationship have produced mixed results (Shalley and Perry-Smith 2001; Shin and Zhou 2003; Zhang and Bartol 2010). Therefore, this article seeks to fill these gaps by using self-determination theory (SDT) to explore whether social-contextual and human resource factors influence employee creativity in the hospitality industry.

Hon (2011) and her colleagues (Hon and Leung 2011) argued that intrinsic motivation plays a critical role in fostering employee creativity in service-oriented companies. The crux of creating intrinsic motivation is the experience of autonomy—a sense of volition, that one’s behavior is self-chosen or, “literally, self-authored or endorsed” (Ryan and Deci 2000b: 69). Having control over lots of aspects of one’s work or increased latitude for decisions can build those feelings of autonomy. Creativity can give employees effective coping strategies or problem-solving skills for improving their job environments and performance (Amabile 1996; George 2007). But employee creativity requires various cognitive skills that only intrinsically motivated people are likely to achieve.

Creativity researchers have posited that social-contextual factors operating at multiple levels—the individual, group, and organization—are necessary to foster intrinsic motivation and creative performance (Amabile 1983, 1996; West and Anderson 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin 1993). Yet recent literature reviews have noted that much more research needs to address these multilevel effects (George 2007; Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004). In the hospitality industry, organizations often incorporate multiple aspects of management practices to enable employees to achieve organization goals, including organizational climate (Amabile and Conti, 1999; Shalley, Gilson, and Blum 2000), leadership (Shin and Zhou 2003; Kim, Hon, and Lee 2010; Zhang and Bartol 2010), supportive coworkers (Madjar, Oldham, and Pratt 2002; Zhou 2003), and conflict resolution (West and Richter 2008). Prior research has only examined how one of these factors (i.e., leadership) relates to the intrinsic motivation principle, and the results are mixed (Shin and Zhou 2003; Zhang and Bartol 2010). Consequently, hospitality scholars and managers have called for researchers to measure more contextual variables so that we can better understand how factors operating at multiple levels affect employee creativity (Hon 2011; Hon and Leung 2011).

Responding to these concerns, my goal was to offer a conceptual model and empirical evidence at the three levels that mentioned above. Here I develop and test a conceptual model grounded in the hotel industry that links a set of social-contextual variables to employees’ intrinsic motivation and their subsequent creative performance. I directly test the intrinsic motivation principle by testing whether social-contextual factors interact with intrinsic motivation to create employee creativity. This study is among the first to directly apply SDT to investigate employee creative performance in the Chinese hotel industry. Specifically, I study how organizational climate for creativity (Amabile and Conti 1999; Shalley, Gilson, and Blum 2000), empowering leadership (Oldham and Cummings 1996; Shin and Zhou 2003), supportive coworkers (Madjar, Oldham, and Pratt 2002; Shalley and Perry-Smith 2001; Van Yperen and Hagedoorn 2003; Zhou 2003), and both task- and person-based conflicts (De Dreu 2008; Jehn 1995) are related to hospitality employees’ creative performance. I focus particularly on the potential mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Exhibit 1 shows the hypothesized model.

Exhibit 1:

Hypothesized model

Context, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity

Self-Determination Theory and Employee Creativity

Amabile (1996: 115) defines intrinsic motivation as “any motivation that arises from the individual’s positive reactions to the qualities of the task itself,” and she proposes that social and environmental factors influence employee creativity largely through their impact on individuals’ intrinsic motivation. Creativity scholars (Amabile 1996; Zhou and Shalley 2003) have argued that intrinsically motivated individuals tend to be more curious, more cognitively flexible, more open to and willing to search for new knowledge, and more willing to use nontraditional approaches to reach decisions. Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory has more fully explored the nature, causes, and outcomes of intrinsic motivation (Gagné and Deci 2005; Ryan and Deci 2000a; Sheldon et al. 2003). Like Amabile’s (1996) theory, a major premise of SDT is to define intrinsic motivation as positive reactions that arise directly from engaging with work tasks and activities. One potential advantage of SDT is that—in addition to addressing the people’s task-related experiences (e.g., whether people find their work enjoyable or interesting)—it focuses on the self-regulatory processes underlying different forms of motivation, such as autonomous motivation and controlled motivation, which are specified as the poles of a continuum. People feel autonomous motivation when they find their work enjoyable, interesting, meaningful, or consistent with their personal values and therefore they perceive their thoughts and their actions as being self-determined (Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000a; Sheldon et al. 2003). Controlled motivations arise from external regulation, on the other hand, when people perceive that cause of their behavior lies outside of themselves and they feel that these external factors are constraining, coercive, or otherwise determining what they think and do (Deci and Ryan 2000; Sheldon et al. 2003).

Research indicates that autonomous motivation is related to a number of outcomes that are consistent with heightened creativity (Deci and Ryan 2000; Koestner et al. 1984). When people are autonomously motivated, they tend to be higher performers in the workplace, more effective at achieving goals, and more satisfied and happier (Judge et al. 2005; Koestner et al. 2008; Sheldon and Houser-Marko 2001). Autonomous motivation is associated with cognitive flexibility and heuristic problem solving (Gagné and Deci 2005), which are important cognitive components of creativity (Amabile 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin 1993). When people are autonomously motivated, they are less defensive, more open minded, and more willing to adopt new ways of thinking and doing (Deci and Ryan 2000). They also experience higher levels of positive work attitude, which is conducive to creativity (Isen 2000). In contrast, controlled motivations appear to be antithetical to creativity. When people act based on controlled motivation, they are not self-engaged in their work. Instead, they experience low levels of psychological ownership, avoid work activities, and tend to experience more negative affect—all of which are detrimental to creativity (Greguras and Diefendorf 2009; Isen 2000; Koestner et al. 2008; Millette and Gagné 2008). Studies show that when people operate under controlled motivation, they tend to play it safe, stick with currently accepted ideas and ways of working, and avoid new ways of thinking and doing—outcomes antithetical to creative performance (Deci and Ryan 2000; Sheldon et al. 2003). Accordingly, I predict that autonomous motivation will be associated with higher levels of creativity and controlled motivation will be associated with lower levels of creativity.

Hypothesis 1: The more autonomous an individual’s motivation, the higher their creative performance.

Social Context and Autonomous Motivation

According to SDT (Deci et al. 2001; Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000a; Sheldon et al. 2003), social-contextual factors foster internal regulation and autonomous motivation when they facilitate the satisfaction of three basic needs: autonomy, a sense of volition, that one has freely chosen and fully endorsed one’s thoughts and actions; competency, a sense that one is capable and efficacious in one’s thoughts and actions; and relatedness, the sense that one has positive, supportive connections to others (Deci and Ryan 1985, 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000a). SDT argues that people are naturally oriented to seek out contexts and activities that support meeting these needs (Deci and Ryan 2000; Sheldon and Grunz 2009).

While SDT draws attention to a variety of contextual supports, it suggests social factors are particularly important for determining whether people experience more autonomous or more controlled motivation (Deci, Connell, and Ryan 1989; Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000a, 2000b; Sheldon et al. 2003). In the hotel industry, SDT expects that social factors such as organizational climates, leaders’ behaviors, and conflict among coworkers will influence employees’ satisfaction and subsequent motivation (Deci, Connell, and Ryan 1989; Gagné and Deci 2005; Hulsheger, Anderson, and Salgado 2009; Sheldon et al. 2003). I therefore focus my attention on social factors in work contexts. I propose SDT in a multilevel model of context to develop hypotheses about how social-contextual factors operating at the individual, group, and organizational levels influence employees’ autonomous motivation.

Organizational climate for creativity

Research continues to emphasize the importance of organizational climate as an antecedent of employee creativity (Anderson and West 1998; Shalley, 1995; Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004; West and Richter 2008). Climates that support creativity are open to change, give employees freedom and discretion, encourage employees to challenge the status quo and develop new ideas, and promote diversity in cognitive styles, viewpoints, and approaches to work (Anderson and West 1998; Cummings 1965; Deci, Connell, and Ryan 1989; Mumford and Gustafson 1988; Scott and Bruce 1994). When the organizational climate supports creativity, employees feel comfortable exercising their freedom and discretion, are willing to take risks and try new approaches, and feel more engaged in creative processes (Shalley, 1995; Zhou and George 2001). I posit that employees in these climates will also have higher levels of autonomous motivation. These climates are created through policies, procedures, and practices that formally give employees high levels of autonomy (e.g., granting front-line staff high levels of discretion, providing them with resources and training, and having senior managers display support for employee empowerment).

Supportive climates foster a strong sense of autonomy among employees because they have real freedom and discretion, and they receive strong signals that they are encouraged to take initiative, express their true opinions, and take decisive action on important problems.

Hypothesis 2: Perceived organizational support for creativity will be positively related to employees’ autonomous motivation.

Empowering leadership

A growing body of research consistently finds that supportive, empowering, visionary leadership is positively related to creativity (e.g., Madjar, Oldham, and Pratt 2002; Oldham and Cummings 1996; Tierney and Farmer 2002, 2004). In a recent study, Zhang and Bartol (2010) highlighted the importance of empowering leadership in fostering employees’ creativity. Empowering leadership seems ideally suited to promote creativity because empowering leaders focus on enhancing employees’ creativity-relevant motivation by being positive role models, creating positive relationships with their subordinates, coaching and providing information to employees to foster strong creative beliefs, and involving employees in work decisions (Arnold et al. 2000; Zhang and Bartol 2010). For instance, through their instructions, statements, and actions, empowering leaders formally delegate significant freedom and autonomy to their employees (Aherne, Mathieu, and Rapp 2005; Arnold et al. 2000; Zhang and Bartol 2010).

Empowering leaders also show strong personal commitment to their work—an act that conveys the value and importance of that work (Aherne, Mathieu, and Rapp 2005; Kim, Hon, and Lee 2010; Arnold et al. 2000)—and provide a great deal of coaching and information to employees (Zhou 2003). This combination of coaching and information sharing has both social and instrumental effects: It helps build high-quality relationships, fostering trust among coworkers, and it bolsters performance by providing important information necessary for creative performance (George 2007; Mesmer-Mangus and DeChurch 2009). Last, empowering leaders develop positive relationships with their subordinates that help meet employees’ relatedness needs (Arnold et al. 2000; Kim, Hon, and Lee 2010; Zhang and Bartol 2010). As a result of these combined effects, I posit that employees who work for empowering leaders are more likely to feel autonomous, competent, and positively connected in their work and, consequently, experience higher levels of autonomous motivation.

Hypothesis 3: Empowering leadership will be positively related to employees’ autonomous motivation.

Supportive coworkers

Even more than organizational climate and effective leadership, supportive, helpful coworkers enhance employees’ creativity-related motivation, according to numerous studies (Chen and Klimoski 2003; Chiaburu and Harrison 2008; George 2007; Madjar, Oldham, and Pratt 2002; Zhou 2003). Much research focuses on how coworkers’ instrumental support (i.e., task directed help) might foster creative performance. For example, Zhou and George (2001) found that supportive coworkers helped highly committed employees turn their own dissatisfaction into new ideas and higher creativity. Other studies have found that the creative coworkers enhance creativity among team members by providing opportunities to observe and learn new work practices or by boosting individuals’ creativity (Shalley and Perry-Smith 2001; Zhou 2003).

The relatively few studies on coworker support and employees’ creativity-related motivation suggest that coworkers give each other discretion and then signal their confidence in each other’s ability to enact that discretion effectively (Chiaburu and Harrison 2008; Van Yperen and Hagedoorn 2003). In turn, this is likely to boost employees’ sense of autonomy and competency. Zhou (2003) also suggests that instrumental assistance from supportive coworkers will make employees more confident. For example, in the front office, when one employee demonstrates his or her identification with work goals, other employees are likely to follow by internalizing work goals themselves. Grant (2008) discusses how employees’ ability to support customers, clients, and others at work will more likely increase employees’ sense that their work is meaningful and important. I posit that the same causal link may hold true for helping coworkers in the hospitality industry. Supportive coworkers build positive relationships with each other. Thus, I expect that helpful and supportive coworkers will make it more likely that employees will feel autonomous, competent, and socially connected in their work and, consequently, experience higher levels of autonomous motivation.

Hypothesis 4: The presence of supportive, helpful coworkers will be positively related to employees’ autonomous motivation.

Conflict

Starting with Jehn’s (1995) distinction between task conflict and relationship conflict, scholars have predicted that conflict that involves disagreements about the work task are advantageous for creative performance (De Dreu 2008; Shalley and Gilson 2004; West 2002), but relational conflict hurts work outcomes (including creativity) because it causes negative emotions and negative interpersonal behavior (Jehn 1995).

On balance, it appears that both conflict types have similar negative effects (Langfred 2007). In a meta-analysis of conflict and team performance, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) found that task conflict and relationship conflict were equally disruptive to group performance. In their two studies, they found an inverted-U relationship between task conflict and team innovation. Thus, I argue that task conflict hampers employees’ experience of autonomy.

I propose that one of the reasons for these negative, or at least negligible, outcomes on creativity and innovation might be due to the way conflict affects employees’ creativity-related internal motivation. Langfred (2007) argues that conflict has detrimental effects on trust and sense of autonomy. Conflict erodes trust because it signals a strong lack of confidence in another person’s capabilities and motives. Even task conflict calls into question another’s decisions, reliability, and competency (Langfred 2007). In turn, people grant dramatically less autonomy to others (De Dreu 2008; Langfred 2007).

Environments with both task and personal conflict are also likely to be caustic to people’s sense of competence and relatedness. In particular, work-task conflict is likely to promote distrust and destructive competition among employees. Therefore I expect that conflict will make people feel (and actually have) less autonomy and trust. As a result, I propose that both task and relationship conflict will be negatively related to sense of autonomy and experience lower levels of autonomous motivation.

Hypothesis 5: Task conflict will be negatively related to employees’ autonomous motivation.

Hypothesis 6: Relationship conflict will be negatively related to employees’ autonomous motivation.

The mediating role of intrinsic motivation

One of my central research objectives was to more fully explore the intrinsic motivation principle, especially given the dearth of research and mixed results of the few existing studies. For example, Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) found that intrinsic motivation did not mediate the effect of expected evaluation on creative performance, but Shin and Zhou (2003) found that intrinsic motivation fully mediated the effect of transformational leadership on individual creativity. More recently, Zhang and Bartol (2010) found that intrinsic motivation only partially mediated the effect of empowering leadership on creative performance. I follow Amabile’s (1996) original formulation and posit that autonomous motivation fully mediates the effects of social-contextual variables on employees’ creative performance.

Hypothesis 7a–e: Autonomous motivation fully mediates the effects on employees’ creative performance of (a) climate for creativity, (b) empowering leadership, (c) supportive coworkers, (d) task conflict, and (e) personal conflict.

Methods

Sample and Data Collection

I employed a research assistant from a major university in the Shanghai area to survey employees of international joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries of multinational corporations (MNCs) in the hospitality industry, with the permission of human resource managers. The final sample included 250 respondents who were supervised by thirty-one team managers in thirty-one hospitality service firms. With the assistance of the human resource managers, the research assistant compiled a list of sixty randomly selected work teams. Among the sixty work teams, fifty-six team managers completed this survey regarding their employees’ creativity (93 percent response rate). The team managers then distributed a different survey to individual members of their teams. Team members, who were assured of confidentiality, reported their autonomous motivation, all contextual variables, and collective perceptions of the organizational work environment in their work setting. The human resource departments assisted in the recording of the questionnaires’ coded identification numbers to match team manager and team member responses. The sample size for each organization ranged from five to twelve, with a mean of six.

Fifty-eight percent of the employees in the sample were male, with 50 percent between twenty and twenty-nine years old; 43 percent between thirty and forty-nine years old; and the rest more than forty-nine years old. In terms of educational background, 62.8 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher, and the rest had a secondary-level education or below. In the manager sample, 77 percent were male. Of the managers, 13 percent were between twenty and twenty-nine years old; 72 percent were between thirty and forty-nine years old; and the rest were more than forty-nine years old. Eighty-five percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher and the rest had a high school or secondary level education. All of the managers were at the senior or middle level. In terms of firm size, 33 percent of the companies had less than 100 employees, 27 percent between 101 and 500 employees, 18 percent between 501 and 1,000 employees, and 22 percent more than 1,001 employees. Among the thirty-one companies, most (71 percent) are managed by the international joint venture, and the rest are managed by wholly owned subsidiaries.

Measures

A 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 7 (strongly disagree to strongly agree) was used for all the study measures. Following standard practice, measures that were developed in English were translated into Chinese and then back-translated to ensure accuracy. Two translators worked independently to finish English-to-Chinese and Chinese-to-English translations and then resolved any discrepancies. I assessed the unit- and group-level nature of social contextual factors by aggregating the responses of employees from the same organizations. I first analyzed responses to ensure there was sufficient agreement among employees from the same organization. Autonomous motivation and creative performance were at the individual level. I describe my measures and aggregating procedures below.

Employee creative performance

Team leaders assessed the creative performance of the employees they supervised using Zhou and George’s (2001) thirteen-item scale. Example items include “Suggests new ways to achieve goals or objectives” and “Comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance.” The coefficient alpha of this scale was .94.

Autonomous motivation

Sheldon and Elliot’s (1998) eight-item scale was used to measure the extent to which respondents’ perceptions of job performance goals matched their own autonomous or controlled motivation. The eight items assessed four aspects of motivation: (1) external (e.g., “I am pursuing the performance goal because somebody else wants me to or because the situation demands it”), (2) introjected (e.g., “I am pursuing the performance goal because I would feel anxious, guilty, or ashamed if I didn’t”), (3) identified (e.g., “I am pursuing the performance goal because I really believe it’s an important goal to have”), and (4) intrinsic (e.g., “I am pursuing the performance goal because of the fun and enjoyment it provides”). External and introjected items represent controlled motivation, whereas identified and intrinsic items represent autonomous motivation. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that the fit indices for a single-factor model had good fit (χ² = 163.82, df = 62, p < .01; comparative fit index [CFI] = .93, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .93, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .07), suggesting that the dimensions reflected the overall construct. I also computed a four-factor model with the four aspects of autonomous motivation. This four-factor model yielded a poorer fit to these data (χ² = 382.07, df = 97, p < .01; CFI = .82, TLI = .81, RMSEA = .09). The hypothesized single-factor model fit the data better than the four-factor model (Δχ² = 218.25, Δdf = 35, p < .01). Thus, I followed prior studies’ procedures (Bono and Judge 2003) for combining personal goals into a single index measuring autonomous motivation. The coefficient alpha for this scale was .79.

Climate for creativity

I averaged four items adapted from Scott and Bruce (1994) to create a measure of shared perceptions among employees about whether their organization encourages or discourages creativity; these items were validated by Zhou and George (2001). Items include “Creativity is encouraged at my company” and “Our ability to function creatively is respected by my company.” The coefficient alpha for the scale was .80.

Empowering leadership

I measured empowering leadership by adapting the fifteen-item scale developed by Arnold and colleagues (2000). This scale includes five dimensions: leading by example (e.g., “My team manager sets a good example by the way he or she behaves”), participative decision making (e.g., “My team manager gives all team members a chance to voice their opinions”), coaching (e.g., “My team manager teaches our team members how to solve problems on our own”), informing (e.g., “My team manager explains rules and expectations to team members”), and showing concern (e.g., “My team manager shows interest in team members’ success”). A confirmatory factor analysis for the fifteen-item scale indicated that a single-factor model had a good fit (χ² = 154.04, df = 76, p < .01; CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .08). As a test, I also computed a five-factor model with the five dimensions of empowering leadership. This five-factor model yielded a poorer fit (χ² = 357.12, df = 101, p < .01; CFI = .75, TLI = .74, RMSEA = .10). The hypothesized single-factor model fit the data better than the five-factor model (Δχ² = 203.08, Δdf = 25, p < .01). I averaged the fifteen items to create a single index of empowering leadership. The coefficient alpha for the scale was .88.

Coworker support

I measured coworker helping and support using four items adapted from Podsakoff, Ahearne, and MacKenzie (1997). Items include “In my team, members are willing to share their expertise and knowledge with each other” and “In my team, members help each other out if someone falls behind in his or her work schedule.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .90.

Task and personal conflict

I used Jehn’s (1995) two four-item scales to measure both forms of conflict in work groups. I adapted these items to measure conflict among members within a group. A sample item of task conflict included “In my team, members have differences of task opinion in the work group,” and a sample item of personal conflict included “In my team, tension often exists among team members.” The coefficient alpha was .87 for the task scale and .79 for the personal scale.

Control variables

Since employees were all from the hotel service industry, I controlled for a set of demographic variables (age, gender, education level, and organizational tenure) to reduce potential confounds on creative performance (Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004; Zhou and George 2001). Measures of these variables were obtained from both the team leaders and members. Age and organizational tenure were self-reported in number of years. Gender was dummy coded (female = 0; male = 1), as was the educational level of the respondents (below college = 0; college or above = 1).

Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS 6.0 was used to test the hypotheses. I adopted Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) comprehensive, two-step analytical strategy in which I first examined the measurement model using CFA and then I performed the SEM to estimate the fit of the hypothesized model to the data. In addition to reporting chi-square (χ²) values as an index of absolute fit to gauge how well the model fit the data, I also report several fit indexes (CFI, goodness-of-fit index [GFI], RMSEA) that allow us to compare my proposed model to several alternative models. The CFI and GFI have been considered to be the best approximations of the population value for a single model; values greater than or equal to .90 indicate a good fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). The RMSEA is a measure of the average standardized residual per degree of freedom; a value .08 or lower indicates the model fits the data appropriately (Browne and Cudeck 1993).

Level of analysis

Before examining the statistical properties of these data, I followed the recommendations of Kozlowski and Klein (2000), who emphasized the importance of specifying the level of analysis at which variables and associations are conceptualized. In my proposed model, climate for creativity is conceptualized at the organization level, while empowering leadership, coworker support, and both forms of conflict are conceptualized at the group level. Then, autonomous motivation and employee creativity were conceptualized at the individual level. The interrater agreement (r_wg) coefficients (James, Demaree, and Wolf 1993) for climate for creativity (.92), supportive coworkers (.95), empowering leadership (.91), task conflict (.87), and personal conflict (.81) indicated high interrater agreement. The ICC(1) values were as follows: climate for creativity (.22), supportive coworkers (.25), empowering leadership (.23), task conflict (.20), and personal conflict (.19). The ICC(2) values were as follows: climate for creativity (.75), empowering leadership (.71), supportive coworkers (.76), task conflict (.72), and personal conflict (.69). Bliese (2000) suggested that ICC(1) values close to .20 are desirable, and Glick (1985) suggested that ICC(2) values should be greater than .60. The values I obtained from my analysis supported the appropriateness of aggregation.

I also tested the independence of supervisors’ ratings of employee creativity using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with creativity as the dependent variable and supervisor as the independent variable. The results indicated no systematic differences in the ratings of employees on creativity that were attributable to differences in supervisor rating patterns (F = .86, p = .51). In addition, to assess whether it was appropriate to treat autonomous motivation at the individual level, I computed interclass correlations of these variables. I found that this individual-level variable exhibited much lower agreement within groups than did the other social contextual factors. The ICC(1) for autonomous motivation was .12, and the average r_wg for the individual-level variables was .50. Thus, I proceeded to treat autonomous motivation as an individual-level variable.

Results

Exhibit 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all the variables. The averages of key variables indicated a generally positive work environment in the surveyed organizations. As expected, climate for creativity, empowering leadership, and coworker support were positively related to autonomous motivation, whereas both task and personal conflict were negatively related to autonomous motivation. Autonomous motivation was positively related to creativity.

Exhibit 2:

Descriptive Statistics

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Employee creativity	4.66	0.77	–
2. Age	27.52	5.69	.04	–
3. Gender	0.47	0.53	.13**	.08	–
4. Education	3.71	0.76	.06	.14**	.07	–
5. Organization tenure	5.06	6.62	.04	.51**	−.03	.07	–
6. Climate for creativity	5.23	0.97	.36**	.06	−.04	.01	.02	–
7. Empowering leadership	5.21	1.03	.25**	.05	−.02	−.06	.01	.37**	–
8. Coworker support	5.14	0.97	.31**	.02	−.05	.02	.02	.29**	.38**	–
9. Task conflict	4.06	1.03	−.11*	.04	−.06	−.06	.08*	−.02	−.18**	−.16**	–
10. Personal conflict	4.01	1.27	−.03	.10*	−.10*	−.07	.12*	−.05	−.21**	−.23**	.45**	–
11. Autonomous motivation	5.06	0.82	.40**	.11*	−.04	−.01	.12*	.27**	.25**	.27**	−.24**	−.16**	–

Note: n = 250.

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

Measurement Model

To assess discriminant validity, I first conducted a CFA on the items constituting the five contextual variables. These five constructs are at the unit or group level, and I expect them to be distinct from constructs at the individual level. Results showed good fit for the five-factor model, where all items loaded on their intended constructs (χ² = 732.27, df = 156, p < .01; CFI = .95, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .07). In this analysis, all fifteen items for empowering leadership were constrained to load on the second-order construct. All factor loadings were significant at the .05 level. Next, as a test, I computed a four-factor model that combined the items for task conflict and personal conflict, the two variables with the highest correlation (r = .45, p < .01) among the other team-level constructs. This four-factor model yielded a poorer fit (χ² = 937.28, df = 198, p < .01; CFI = .79, TLI = .78, RMSEA = .10). Finally, in another test, a one-factor model—where all items were constrained to load on a single factor—yielded a poor fit (χ² = 3,345.28, df = 287, p < .01; CFI = .43, TLI = .42, RMSEA = .19). The hypothesized five-factor model fit better than the four-factor model (Δχ² = 205.01, Δdf = 42, p < .01) and the one-factor model (Δχ² = 2,583.01, Δdf = 131, p < .01), supporting the distinctiveness of each construct.

Proposed Model

Exhibit 3 summarizes the SEM results including chi-square results and fit indices for all models. SEM results suggested that the hypothesized model fit the data well (χ² = 876.41, df = 263, p < .01; RMSEA = .07, CFI = .94, GFI = .91, TLI = .93). Exhibit 4 presents the overall structural model with path coefficients. Hypothesis 1 predicted that the more autonomous an individual’s motivation, the higher their creative performance. Consistent with this hypothesis, the coefficient for this path was positive and significant (β = .75, p < .01). Our results also suggest that all of the social-contextual factors are important causes of autonomous motivation, consistent with Hypothesis 2, which proposes that climate for creativity will be positively related to employees’ autonomous motivation (β = .30, p < .01). Similarly, these data are consistent with Hypothesis 3, which proposes that empowering leadership will be positively related to employees’ autonomous motivation (β = .36, p < .01), and Hypothesis 4, which posits that the presence of supportive coworkers will be positively related to employees’ autonomous motivation (β = .27, p < .01). One form of conflict is associated with lower levels of autonomous motivation. Consistent with Hypothesis 5, task conflict is negatively related to employees’ autonomous motivation (β = –.15, p < .05). However, Hypothesis 6, which predicts that personal conflict will be negatively related to employees’ autonomous motivation, was not supported (β = –.04, n.s.).

Exhibit 3:

Summary of Model Fit Indices

Model Test	χ²	df	CFI	GFI	TLI	RMSEA
1. Independent model	3356.43	398
2. Measurement model	857.32	268	.94	.90	.93	.07
3. Hypothesized model (Exhibit 4)	876.41	263	.94	.91	.93	.07
4. Alternative model: Additional direct paths from the five social-contextual variables to employee creativity	879.48	264	.93	.88	.92	.08

Note: χ² values for the measurement and structural models are significant at p <.01. CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Exhibit 4:

Structural equation results for hypothesized model

I analyzed an additional alternative model in response to existing research. The following section presents and tests the alternative to my hypothesized model.

Alternative Model

In the first alternative model, I tested for possible direct effects of the individual and social-contextual factors on employees’ creative performance. I followed the Baron and Kenny (1986) methodology to test the mediating role of autonomous motivation, with a partial-mediation alternative model (Model 4, Exhibit 3) in which I added to the hypothesized model additional direct paths between the dependent variable (employee creative performance) and the social-contextual variables. Results indicated the alternative model was not a significantly improved model. Thus, these results are consistent with Hypotheses 7a–d, and, therefore, indicate that autonomous motivation fully mediates the effects of (a) climate for creativity, (b) empowering leadership, (c) supportive coworkers, and (d) task conflict on employees’ creative performance.

Discussion and Implications

This study indicates that organizational climate, empowering leadership, helping and supportive coworkers, and conflict resolution all appear to have an important effect on creative performance.

Organizational Climate

These results underscore the idea that the overall climate of an organization influences creativity and that climate results from a myriad of policies, procedures, and practices (Anderson and West 1998; Scott and Bruce 1994). Managers who want to increase creative performance can make their organizations more open to risk taking, accepting of challenges to the status quo, and open to progressive thinking and action. This is one way for effecting change and promoting creativity in modern China.

Empowering Leadership and Supportive Coworkers

Managers should encourage supportive attitudes among members of work groups. Such an environment provides both tangible advantages (e.g., advice on specific creativity-related issues) and psychological advantages (positive affect from a supportive safety net) to newcomers (Hon 2011). It also provides empowering leadership based on trust, autonomy, and self-direction. To achieve this, managers need to learn how to encourage knowledge sharing and promote cooperative attitudes among coworkers. They also need to learn how to minimize destructive personal and task conflicts so that the company can realize the beneficial effects of coworkers helping and supporting each other.

Promoting Autonomy

This study suggests that it is important for hotel managers to manage the range of employees’ autonomous motivation. Managers should also recognize employees’ unique perspectives (behaviors consistent with individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation in the social environment). In that environment, people are allowed to regulate themselves internally, they believe that they have fully self-chosen and self-endorsed what they are thinking and doing, and they are more likely to report autonomous, self-determined motivation. Increasing employees’ identification with their work (e.g., by training supervisors) might be particularly valuable in helping organizations manage change, renovation, and reconstruction.

On the other hand, controlled motivations appear to be antithetical to the sense of self-regulation, and external regulation would hamper creative performance. Thus, managers should collect each employee’s range of motivations at the very beginning—in the recruitment, hiring, or orientation process. Managers might consider providing training, job rotation, task reallocation, and on-the-job training to motivate those employees who are found lacking a sense of self-determination.

Theoretical Contributions

This study also makes three theoretical contributions to the research on employee creativity in the hotel industry. First, addressing the hospitality sector, I directly tested the intrinsic motivation principle, which posits that social-contextual variables influence employees’ creative performance through their effects on employees’ intrinsic motivation (Amabile 1996). Contrary to the other studies that have had mixed results, my findings are largely consistent with the intrinsic motivation principle proposed by Amabile (1983, 1996)—with the exception of one variable (personal conflict) that appeared to have no significant effect whatsoever. The effects of the four other social-contextual variables on employees’ creative performance were fully mediated by employees’ autonomous motivation. Given the large and diverse sample I used (in terms of work groups, companies, and employees’ job types), these results offer important evidence about the role that intrinsic motivation plays in fostering employee creativity.

The second theoretical contribution was to examine a large set of social-contextual variables that operate at three different levels of analysis. The predominant theories of context and creativity all emphasize that context influences creativity at the individual, group, and organization levels. In particular, I integrated this perspective with the intrinsic motivation principle and a leading theory of intrinsic motivation (self-determination theory), and I found that all three levels of factors influenced employee creativity through their effects on employees’ creativity-related (autonomous) motivation. Our results therefore offer evidence consistent with Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin’s (1993) interactionist model and reinforce the importance of studying social-contextual factors at multiple levels.

Third, these results support the SDT’s conceptualization of creativity at work. I found that differences in individuals’ autonomous motivations were associated with differences in their creative performance. I also found that differences in social-contextual factors in individuals’ work environments predicted whether their motivation was likely to be more autonomous or more controlled. Because my sample was from mainland China (as was that of Shin and Zhou 2003), these findings further reinforce the idea that the intrinsic motivation principle may have broad applicability across organizations and cultures. The generalizability of these findings is enhanced by the fact that the sample also cut across hotel and service sectors and sampled hospitality employees from a variety of functional areas. Further, I was able to corroborate employees’ perceptions of several social-contextual variables by assessing agreement among employees from the same organizations.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations that provide a direction for future research. I did not include measures of employees’ creativity-related cognitions and so might have omitted a potentially important mediator of the relationship between social-contextual factors and creativity. Future studies should measure other potential mediators, such as leader–member exchange, and cognitive and affective trust between managers and subordinates (Hon and Lu 2010).

Another limitation is that I did not include measures of intrinsic motivation that have been used in previous studies. If I had done so, I could have compared models using these different measures, and these results might have provided more insight into why the results of this study differed from those of other studies (e.g., Shalley and Perry-Smith 2001; Shin and Zhou 2003; Zhang and Bartol 2010). Future studies should replicate this work in multiple organizational settings and compare models with different measures.

A third limitation is that I did not include measures of other social-contextual factors that previous studies have suggested might be important for employee creativity. Thus, future studies could include transformational leadership (Shin and Zhou 2003), supervisory task feedback (Shalley and Perry-Smith 2001; Zhou and George 2001), job creative requirement (Kim, Hon, and Lee 2010), individual differences such as proactive personality (Kim, Hon, and Crant 2009), and a process of goal or learning orientation (Gong, Hunag, and Farh 2009). A consideration of these additional social-contextual factors paves the way for future creativity research. A more comprehensive study would also provide an opportunity to study the potential interplay among such factors.

The last limitation is that this study was cross-sectional, similar to most other studies. Despite the absence of longitudinal research on creativity, theories suggest important synergies between the core relationships, particularly the social-contextual effects, which are likely to change over time. For example, the positive effects on employees’ intrinsic motivation of leaders and supportive coworkers are likely to accrue over time. Longitudinal studies would also allow scholars to assess potential complementary or compensatory relationships among social-contextual factors. For example, it might be possible for empowering leaders to overcome deficits in coworker support or vice versa.

Despite the limitations, this study makes several contributions to research on creativity, and it identifies several interesting areas for future research. This study adds to the growing body of research that emphasizes the importance of work environments in fostering or inhibiting creativity in hotel industry. Since organizations and hotel managers continue to look for ways to enhance the innovation and creativity of their workforce, there continues to be a need for research that explores how additional human resource management practices and social-contextual factors influence employee creativity-related motivation.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ahearne

Mathieu

Rapp

2005. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945-955.

Amabile

1983. The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile

1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Amabile

T. M.

Conti

1999. Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal 42:630-40.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103:411-23.

Anderson

N. R.

West

M. A.

1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19:235-58.

Arnold

J. A.

Arad

Rhoades

J. A.

Drasgow

2000. The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21:249-69.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173-82.

Bliese

P. D.

2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions, edited by Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W.

, 349-81. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

10.

Bono

J. E.

Judge

T. A.

2003. Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal 46:554-71.

11.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.445-455). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

12.

Chen

Klimoski

R. J.

2003. The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 46:591-607.

13.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Harrison

D. A.

2008. Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 93:1082-1103.

14.

Cummings

1965. Organizational climates for creativity. Academy of Management Review 8:220-27.

15.

Deci

E. L.

Connell

J. P.

Ryan

R. M.

1989. Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 580-90.

16.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

17.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11:227-68.

18.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

Gagné

Leone

D. R.

Usunov

Kornzaheva

B. P.

2001. Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin 27:930-42.

19.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

2008. The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29:5-18.

20.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Weingart

2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 8:741-49.

21.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26:331-62.

22.

George

J. M.

2007. Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals 1:439-77.

23.

Glick

W. H.

1985. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review 10:601-16.

24.

Gong

Hunag

Farh

2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal 52:765-78.

25.

Grant

A. M.

2008. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 93:48-58.

26.

Greguras

G. J.

Diefendorf

J. M.

2009. Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 94:465-77.

27.

Hon

A. H. Y.

2011. Enhancing employee creativity in the Chinese context: The self-concordance perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30:375-84.

28.

Hon

A. H. Y.

Leung

A. S. M.

2011. Employee achievement, power, affiliation motives and creativity: The moderating roles of organizational culture in the Chinese context. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52:125-34.

29.

Hon

A. H. Y.

2010. The mediating roles of trust between expatriate procedural justice and employee outcomes in the Chinese hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29:669-76.

30.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6:1-55.

31.

Hulsheger

U. R.

Anderson

Salgado

J. F.

2009. Team-level predictors of innovation a work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology 94:1128-45.

32.

Isen

A. M.

2000. Some perspectives on positive affect and self-regulation. Psychology Inquiry 11:184-87.

33.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

1993. R_wg: An assessment of within-group inter-rater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology 78:306-9.

34.

Jehn

K. A.

1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:256-82.

35.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Erez

Locke

E. A.

2005. Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology 90:257-68.

36.

Kim

T. Y.

Hon

A. H. Y.

Crant

2009. Proactive personality, career satisfaction, and perceived insider status: The mediating roles of employee creativity. Journal of Business and Psychology 24:93-103.

37.

Kim

T. Y.

Hon

A. H. Y.

Lee

D. R.

2010. Proactive personality and employee creativity: The effects of job creativity requirement and supervisor support for creativity. Creativity Research Journal 22:37-45.

38.

Koestner

Otis

Powers

T. A.

Pelletier

Gagnon

2008. Autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and goal progress. Journal of Personality 76:1201-29.

39.

Koestner

Ryan

R. M.

Bernieri

Holt

1984. Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality 52:233-48.

40.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations, edited by Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

, 3-90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Langfred

C. W.

2007. The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 885-900.

42.

Madjar

Oldham

G. R.

Pratt

M. G.

2002. There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal 45:757-67.

43.

Mesmer-Mangus

J. R.

DeChurch

L. A.

2009. Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 94:535-46.

44.

Millette

Gagné

2008. Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motivation and Emotion 32:11-22.

45.

Mumford

M. D.

Gustafson

S. B.

1988. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin 103:27-43.

46.

Oldham

G. R.

Cummings

1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal 39:607-34.

47.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Ahearne

MacKenzie

S. B.

1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quality and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 262-270.

48.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

2000a. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55:68-78.

49.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

2000b. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54-67.

50.

Scott

S. G.

Bruce

R. A.

1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 37:580-607.

51.

Shalley

C. E.

1995. Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal 38:483-503.

52.

Shalley

C. E.

Perry-Smith

J. E.

2001. Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84: 1-22.

53.

Shalley

C. E.

Gilson

L. L.

Blum

T. C.

2001. 2000. Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intention to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 215-223.

54.

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.

55.

Shalley

C. E.

Zhou

Oldham

G. R.

2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should I go from here? Journal of Management 30: 933-58.

56.

Sheldon

K. M.

Elliott

A. J.

1998. Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24:546-57.

57.

Sheldon

K. M.

Grunz

2009. Psychological needs as basic motives, not just experiential requirements. Journal of Personality 77:1467-92.

58.

Sheldon

K. M.

Houser-Marko

2001. Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80:152-65.

59.

Sheldon

K. M.

Turban

D. B.

Brown

K. G.

Barrick

M. R.

Judge

T. A.

2003. Applying self-determination theory to organizational research. Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 22, edited by Martocchio

J. J.

Ferris

G. R.

, 357-93. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

60.

Shin

S. J.

Zhou

2003. Transformational leadership: Conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal 46:703-14.

61.

Tierney

Farmer

S. M.

2002. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal 45:1137-48.

62.

Tierney

Farmer

S. M.

2004. The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management 30: 413-32.

63.

Van Yperen

N. W.

Hagedoorn

2003. Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of Management Journal 46:339-48.

64.

West

M. A.

2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review 51: 355-424.

65.

West

M. A.

Anderson

N. R.

1996. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 680-93.

66.

West

M. A.

Richter

2008. Climates and cultures for innovation and creativity at work. Handbook of organizational creativity, edited by Zhou

Shalley

C. E.

, 211-36. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

67.

Woodman

R. W.

Sawyer

J. E.

Griffin

R. W.

1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review 18:293-332.

68.

Zhang

Bartol

K. M.

2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal 53: 107-28.

69.

Zhou

2003. When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology 88:413-22.

70.

Zhou

George

J. M.

2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal 44:682-96.

71.

Zhou

Shalley

C. E.

2003. Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 22, edited by Martocchio

J. J.

Ferris

G. R.

, 165-217. Oxford: Elsevier Science.