Linking intrinsic motivation, risk
taking, and employee creativity in
an R&D environment
Todd Dewett
Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435-0001, USA.
[email protected]
Intrinsic motivation is thought to spur risk taking and creativity. Nonetheless, the relationship
between common creativity antecedents and intrinsic motivation is seldom clarified and the
assertion that intrinsic motivation spurs risk taking and creativity has rarely been addressed.
The current study adopts an individual level of analysis and attempts to link several common
creativity antecedents, intrinsic motivation, and one’s willingness to take risks to employee
creativity. Using survey data collected from 165 research and development personnel and their
supervisors, evidence is provided showing that intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship
between certain antecedents and one’s willingness to take risks and that this willingness
mediates the effect of intrinsic motivation on employee creativity. However, starkly different
findings emerge when using subjective versus objective indicators of employee creativity,
suggesting that further theoretical development is in order to explain the differences.
1. Introduction
T
he effectiveness of R&D units has been
considered by a host of authors (e.g. Brown
and Svenson, 1998; Coccia, 2001; Garcia-Valderrama and Mulero-Mendigorri, 2005). One key
determinant of research and development (R&D)
effectiveness in need of further consideration is
the management and functioning of R&D personnel at the individual level of analysis. However, the most popular measures of R&D
effectiveness (e.g. R&D spending as a percent of
sales, number of ongoing projects, total patents
filed/awarded/pending; Donnelly, 2000; Bremser
and Barsky, 2004) typically do not focus on
personnel management. While the literature has
considered topics such as the leadership of R&D
personnel and groups (Hirst and Mann, 2004;
Berson and Linton, 2005) and the effects of
cognitive style and problem-solving training on
R&D effectiveness (e.g. Wang et al., 1999; Wang
and Horng, 2002), much remains to be explored.
In particular, R&D personnel are often said to
be driven by intrinsic motivation (Amabile and
Gryskiewicz, 1987) – long thought to be a key to
employee creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1983, 1996).
Nonetheless, the role of intrinsic motivation in
this context has received almost no attention.
Intrinsically motivated behaviors are ones for
which there is no apparent reward except the
activity itself (Deci, 1975). The value of intrinsic
motivation has been demonstrated in a variety of
contexts (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Cameron and
Pierce, 1996; Ryan and Deci, 1996). In particular,
it has been shown that intrinsic motivation is
important for productivity in science (e.g. Fox,
1983) and R&D efforts (e.g. Scott and Bruce,
1994; Tierney et al., 1999). This is typically
explained by suggesting that intrinsic motivation
encourages exploration (Zhou, 1998), persistence
(Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Zhou, 1998),
flexibility, spontaneity, and ultimately creativity
(e.g. Amabile, 1983, 1996; Deci and Ryan, 1985;
Ryan and Deci, 2000). Creativity is defined here
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007. r 2007 The Author. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA
197
Todd Dewett
as the production of novel and useful ideas,
processes, or products by a person or group
(e.g. Woodman et al., 1993; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Zhou and George, 2001).
Nonetheless, several issues surrounding the role
of intrinsic motivation have received little attention. While intrinsic motivation has been linked to
increased risk taking (e.g. Lepper and Greene,
1978), field evidence, particularly in R&D settings,
has been scant at best. In fact, only recently has the
role of risk in employee creativity been formally
addressed beyond an anecdotal level (Dewett, in
press). In a broader sense, although intrinsic
motivation is often mentioned in research related
to creativity or R&D or new product development
as an important theoretical consideration (e.g.
Redmond et al., 1993; Shalley, 1995; Oldham
and Cummings, 1996; Zhou, 1998; Shalley et al.,
2000; George and Zhou, 2001), it is rarely empirically assessed (Shalley and Gilson, 2004), with few
exceptions (Tierney et al., 1999; Shin and Zhou,
2003). As a result, the role of intrinsic motivation
relative to risk taking and creativity remains largely unexplored in applied settings. Is intrinsic
motivation simply an independent variable like
any other or is its role more central to understanding creative work? Further, researchers’ reliance on subjective indicators of creative work
(e.g. supervisor ratings of employee creativity as
opposed to objective indicators such as patents)
has raised doubts about the ultimate utility of our
conclusions (e.g. Zhou and Shalley, 2003).
The current paper begins to address these
issues. In short, the relationship between common
creativity antecedents (e.g. both contextual and
individual difference variables), intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity is clarified within an R&D environment at the
individual employee level. In short, various influences support or do not support intrinsic motivation at work (one’s enjoyment of the work itself).
Intrinsic motivation bolsters one’s willingness to
take risks (voluntarily experimenting with new
ideas). One’s willingness to take risks is positively
associated with employee creativity. Thus, it is
argued that intrinsic motivation serves as a mediator of various influences on an employee’s willingness to take risks, which itself mediates the
influence of intrinsic motivation on employee
creativity. If supported, this would be the first
test of all of these links simultaneously, in an
R&D environment or elsewhere. Although it is
stated more formally in hypotheses that follow,
these general predictions can be conceptually
depicted as follows.
198
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
The remainder of the paper is organized as
follows: first, a brief summary of the intrinsic
motivation construct is provided. Next, the hypotheses noted above are developed by drawing
from the research on employee creativity. Finally,
tests of the hypotheses are conducted, the results
are explained, and considerations for future research are discussed.
2. Intrinsic motivation and employee
creativity
Intrinsic motivation was studied as early as the
1950s but the construct became prominent due to
the work of Deci (1975) and Deci and Ryan
(1985). These authors first offered Self-Determination Theory, which distinguishes between two
types of motivation based on the different causes
that give rise to an event. At the heart of their
theory is the distinction between intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers
to the motivational state in which an individual is
attracted to their work in and of itself, not due to
any external outcomes that might result from task
engagement (Deci, 1975; Deci and Ryan, 1985).
Thus, motivation deriving from external pressures
or constraints is referred to as extrinsic motivation. Over three decades of research in this area
suggests that the quality of task experience and
performance can be very different when one is
behaving for intrinsic versus extrinsic reasons
(Ryan and Deci, 2000).
As a subtheory of Self Determination Theory,
Deci and Ryan (1985) defined Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) to specify the factors in social
contexts that produce variability in intrinsic
motivation. CET views intrinsic motivation as a
construct involving interest in the focal task
predicated on feelings of self-determination and
competence (Deci and Ryan, 1985). In short,
interpersonal events and structures (e.g. rewards,
feedback) that produce feelings of competence
can enhance intrinsic motivation. More specifically, CET suggests that feelings of competence
will not enhance intrinsic motivation unless accompanied by autonomy, which provides a sense
of control. Reviews of the literature on intrinsic
motivation suggest that it is vital to task performance and often quite sensitive to external forms
of motivation (Ryan and Deci, 1996), although
the issue is still debated (e.g. Cameron and Pierce,
1994, 1996).
Amabile (1983, 1996) developed what is likely the
most well-known model of employee creativity.
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity
Building on the work of Deci, Ryan, and many
other scholars, she developed the Componential
Model of Creativity. The basic model explores the
contributions of three factors on employee creativity: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant
processes, and task motivation. Domain-relevant
skills refer to task knowledge and technical
skills and depend on inputs such as cognitive
skills and education. Creativity-relevant skills
include things such as knowledge of heuristics
for generating ideas and depend on training and
experience. The final component is task motivation. Here, the importance of intrinsic motivation
is paramount and the model addresses the influence of the environment (e.g. extrinsic influences)
on one’s task motivation. Intrinsic motivation is
in fact so vital to creativity that Amabile developed the Intrinsic Motivation Principle of Creativity: intrinsic motivation is conducive to
creativity; controlling extrinsic motivation is detrimental to creativity, but informational or enabling extrinsic motivation can be conducive,
particularly if initial levels of intrinsic motivation
are high.
Thus, it has become commonly accepted that
intrinsically motivated behaviors result in risk
taking, flexibility, and spontaneity (Lepper and
Greene, 1978; Amabile, 1983; Deci and Ryan,
1985). Nonetheless, while many studies note the
important role of intrinsic motivation (e.g. Zhou,
1998), in applied settings the construct is rarely
actually measured (Shalley and Gilson, 2004).
Exceptions are provided by Shin and Zhou
(2003) and Tierney et al. (1999). However, Shin
and Zhou (2003) rely on Tierney et al.’s (1999)
measure, which drew from Amabile’s (1985) study
of creative writers. The items used measure general interest in global issues of problem solving
and new ideas, not task-specific intrinsic motivation. Using this approach, Shin and Zhou (2003)
and Tierney et al. (1999) do link intrinsic motivation to creativity, although potential mediators
(e.g. increased risk taking) are not modeled.
Further, while Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1987)
link intrinsic motivation and risk orientation to
creativity in a qualitative study of R&D personnel, the potential links between the two constructs
are not addressed.
Antecedents
• Contextual
• Individual Difference
Intrinsic
Motivation
Similarly, several organizational studies assert
that risk taking is integral to creativity, even when
not specifically addressing intrinsic motivation
(e.g. Abbey and Dickson, 1983; Fidler and Johnson, 1984; Jalan and Kleiner, 1995; Shalley, 1995;
Tesluk et al., 1997; Zhou and George, 2001). Risk
can be defined in this context as the extent to
which there is uncertainty about whether potentially significant and/or disappointing outcomes
of decisions will be realized (Sitkin and Pablo,
1992), given creative efforts. For example, Sethia
(1989) states that creativity is risky because it is
highly uncertain and the action-outcome link is
often tortuous and spread out over time. In
general, new ideas and behaviors are risky as
they represent disturbances in the status quo
and power balances (Albrecht and Hall, 1991).
In short, many authors agree that a climate for
creativity exists when employees are willing to
take risks (Tesluk et al., 1997); yet, the construct
is rarely measured. One exception is provided by
Dewett (in press), who found that an employee’s
willingness to take risks mediates the influence
of supervisor encouragement for creativity and
employee creative performance.
Although Amabile’s work highlighted the influence of the social environment on intrinsic
motivation, there has been little evidence in applied settings. At least two studies provide exceptions. For example, Shin and Zhou (2003) provide
evidence that intrinsic motivation mediates the
effect of the interaction between leader charismatic behavior and conservation (an individual
difference) on creativity. Similarly, Sundgren
et al. (2005) link various independent variables
to intrinsic motivation to creative climate. To be
clear, the focus of the current research is not to
identify new antecedents of intrinsic motivation
or employee creativity per se. Rather, for the purpose of examining the links depicted in Figure 1,
four common antecedents found in the literature were selected for inclusion in this work:
supervisory encouragement (contextual), autonomy (contextual), self-efficacy (individual difference), and openness to experience (individual
difference). Of course, many additional studies
utilizing a variety of variables can be found in
recent reviews of the creativity literature (for
Willingness to
Take Risks
Employee
Creativity
Figure 1. The path to employee creativity.
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
199
Todd Dewett
reviews, please see Zhou and Shalley, 2003; Shalley and Gilson, 2004). These four were selected
because they are representative of the literature,
known to be related to creativity, and provide a
solid basis for examining intrinsic motivation and
one’s willingness to take risks.
Supervisory encouragement is the most frequently mentioned facilitating factor for creativity in the literature (Amabile et al., 1996). In
general, encouragement and enthusiasm for idea
generation at all levels of the organization has
been a recurring theme (e.g. Abbey and Dickson,
1983; Delbecq and Mills, 1985; Amabile, 1988;
Burnside et al., 1988; Amabile and Gryskiewicz,
1989; West, 1989; West and Farr, 1989; Farr and
Ford, 1990; Tesluk et al., 1997). People are more
likely to produce novel and useful ideas when
given the permission to do so through communications or instructions (Parnes and Meadow,
1959; Parnes, 1964).
Autonomy refers to the degree to which a task
provides substantial freedom, independence, and
discretion to individuals in determining the procedures to be used in carrying out a task (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Scholars have suggested
that in order to be creative, people require freedom so that they can play with ideas and expand
the range of possibilities and materials from
which a solution may emerge (Amabile, 1983).
Many authors have considered the importance of
autonomy for the facilitation of creativity (e.g.
Abbey and Dickson, 1983; Deci and Ryan, 1987;
Amabile, 1988, 1996; Mumford and Gustafson,
1988; Deci et al., 1989; Shalley, 1991; Scott and
Bruce, 1994; Zhou, 1998; Shalley et al., 2000). For
example, in Amabile and Gryskiewicz’s (1987)
interview study of R&D scientists they note that
the most frequently mentioned contextual factor
characterizing high-creativity events was freedom.
Similarly, the most frequently mentioned factor in
low-creativity events was lack of freedom.
Self-efficacy can generally be defined as belief in
one’s capability of performing a specific task
(Bandura, 1986). In a broad sense, having a
positive sense of self has been linked to creativity
for many years (e.g. Fromm, 1959; Coopersmith,
1967). Research in the organizational literature
specifically addressing self-efficacy demonstrates
much the same (e.g. Gist, 1989; Farr and Ford,
1990; Redmond et al., 1993). For example, Gist
(1989) demonstrated that increases in self-efficacy
were associated with a higher quantity and divergence of ideas generated in a problem-solving
task. Redmond et al. (1993) showed a complementary finding indicating a significant effect of
200
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
self-efficacy on the quality of solutions provided
in a laboratory experiment involving a marketing
task.
Openness to experience describes the extent to
which individuals are imaginative, sensitive to
aesthetics, curious, independent thinkers, and or
amenable to new ideas, experiences, and unconventional views (Costa and McCrae, 1992;
McCrae, 1996; McCrae and Costa, 1997). Prior
research has established that openness to experience is related to creativity (McCrae, 1987, 1996;
Costa and McCrae, 1992; McCrae and Costa,
1997; Feist, 1998; Griffin and McDermott, 1998;
George and Zhou, 2001). For example, McCrae
(1987) empirically established the relationship
between creativity, measured by Gough’s (1979)
popular CPS scale, and measures of divergent
thinking and openness to experience. He states
that people high on openness to experience share
an interest in experience for its own sake. George
and Zhou (2001) found that openness to experience may serve to encourage creativity when the
situation allows for the manifestation of the
influence of the trait. Specifically, in a sample of
workers from a petroleum drilling company, they
found that creativity was the highest when individuals who were high on openness to experience
received positive feedback and worked on a
heuristic task.
In short, while researchers have examined creativity in R&D contexts (e.g. Subramanian and
Ganesanm, 1982; Abbey and Dickson, 1983;
Amabile and Gryskiewicz, 1987; Dewett, in press;
Scott and Bruce, 1994; Tierney et al., 1999; Bain
et al., 2001; Shin and Zhou, 2003) as well as other
organizational contexts, greater efforts are needed
to define the links among several related constructs. Following Figure 1 and combining the
findings from the studies noted above, I offer two
hypotheses.
H1: Intrinsic motivation mediates the influence
of contextual and individual difference variables
(e.g. encouragement, autonomy, self-efficacy,
openness) on an employee’s willingness to take
risks.
H2: An employee’s willingness to take risks
mediates the influence of intrinsic motivation on
employee creativity.
3. Methods
The data for this study are part of a larger
research project involving employees of a large
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity
private R&D organization located in the Southwest United States. The organization uses several
thousand employees and its work is divided
roughly in half between projects for private industry and projects for the federal government.
Permission to collect data was granted based on
the researcher’s commitment to provide a copy of
the results to the organization. Questionnaires
were administered to all of the organization’s
R&D personnel who held traditional technical
positions, and their immediate supervisors. This
group was dominated by research scientists but
also included highly skilled technical personnel
working directly on ongoing R&D projects. The
potential sample consisted of 716 pairs (e.g. the
employee and their supervisor) of possible respondents. The information was collected with a
mail-out survey using the names and addresses
supplied by the organization. One month after the
initial mailing, a follow-up mailing was conducted. Usable questionnaires were returned by
165 employee/supervisor pairs, representing an
overall paired response rate of 23%.
To avoid problems associated with common
method variance often found in cross-sectional
survey research, four steps were taken. First,
separate questionnaires were completed by the
R&D personnel, to capture the independent variables and self-reports of objective creative outcomes, and by their supervisors, to capture
ratings of employee creativity. Second, the listing
of items was sequenced such that the self-report
DV was listed last (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977;
Podsakoff and Organ, 1978). Next, I examined
each returned questionnaire to consider whether
or not the respondent understood the items. No
face validity problems were detected. Finally, as a
hedge against social desirability bias, all participants were informed that their participation was
completely voluntary and confidential. Methods
such as these, while not perfect, have proven
sufficient in other empirical research using this
type of data (e.g. Abbott et al., 2006).
3.1. Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all variables included in
this study were measured using a seven-point
Likert-type scale from 1, strongly disagree, to 7,
strongly agree.
Antecedents to intrinsic motivation. As noted
earlier, four variables commonly found in the
creativity literature were chosen for inclusion in
this study: supervisor encouragement for creativr 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
ity (e.g. Amabile et al., 1996; Tesluk et al., 1997),
autonomy (e.g. Mumford and Gustafson, 1988;
Shalley, 1991; Shalley et al., 2000), self-efficacy
(e.g. Gist, 1989; Farr and Ford, 1990; Redmond
et al., 1993), and openness to experience (e.g.
Costa and McCrae, 1992; Griffin and McDermott, 1998; George and Zhou, 2001). Each was
chosen because of their stated relationships with
intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and/or creativity. In addition, at least three (i.e. encouragement,
self-efficacy, autonomy) were chosen because they
speak directly to the contention that intrinsic
motivation is predicated on feelings of self-determination and competence (Deci and Ryan, 1985).
The scale used to measure encouragement contained eight items adapted from Scott and Bruce
(1994) and several developed for this study. The
scale is intended to capture the degree to which
the employee feels that creativity is encouraged by
their immediate supervisor and includes items
such as ‘I am encouraged to be creative.’ Coefficient a for the scale was 0.88. Autonomy was
measured using five items adapted from Ibarra
and Andrews (1993). The scale seeks to measure
the degree to which the employee perceives that
they are able to carry out their work free from
excessive control and constraints from their
supervisor. It includes items such as ‘I can use
my personal initiative and judgment in carrying
out my work’ and had a coefficient a of 0.87. Selfefficacy was measured by building on Bandura’s
(1986) definition pertaining to task-specific competency beliefs. A four-item scale was developed
for use in this study and included items such as
‘I am highly skilled at my job.’ The scale had a
coefficient a of 0.80. Openness to experience was
measured with eight items adapted from the short
form of the NEO PI scale created by Costa and
McCrae (1992). The scale included items such as
‘I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract
ideas.’ Coefficient a for the openness to experience scale was 0.66.
3.1.1. Intrinsic motivation
Given the scarcity of intrinsic motivation measures available in the organizational literature and
their global nature noted above, this variable was
measured using six items developed for this study.
The items were designed to assess the amount of
intrinsic enjoyment an employee derives from the
tasks that comprise their work, building on the
work of Amabile (1996) and Deci and Ryan
(1985). It included items such as ‘I feel driven to
do my job because I genuinely like the tasks
I work on.’ The scale had a coefficient a of 0.84.
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
201
Todd Dewett
3.1.2. Willingness to take risks
Dewett’s (in press) measure of an employee’s willingness to take risks was used in this study. The
measure is designed to understand how willing to
take risks an employee is in an effort to produce
high-quality work. It contains eight items including
‘When I think of a good way to improve the way I
accomplish my work, I will risk potential failure to
try it out.’ Coefficient a for this scale was 0.93.
3.1.3. Creativity
Ratings of employee creativity were obtained from
each employee’s immediate supervisor. The scale
included six items adapted from George and Zhou
(2001) and Scott and Bruce (1994). The items ask
supervisors how characteristic various creative behaviors are of their subordinate. The scale included
items such as ‘novel and practical work-related
ideas’ and used a five-point Likert-type scale from
1, not at all characteristic, to 5, highly characteristic. Coefficient a for the creativity scale was 0.96.
In addition, each employee included in the
sample had the opportunity to produce several
different objective creative products as a normal
part of their job. Subjective supervisor ratings of
employee creativity have dominated the literature, although several notable exceptions exist
(e.g. Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Scott and Bruce,
1994; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Tierney
et al., 1999). While some have found similar, but
not identical, patterns of results when comparing
subjective and objective indicators of creativity
(e.g. Tierney et al., 1999), others have found
divergent results (e.g. Oldham and Cummings,
1996). The question remains open as to whether
objective indicators are the same as creativity
itself (Zhou and Shalley, 2003). As a result, it
was decided to include objective indicators in the
study. These included self-reports for each participant of research paper presentations to industry
organizations, awards from technical organizations/associations, invention disclosures, patent
applications, and patents awarded. Each employee was asked to indicate how many of each
type of outcome they had obtained over the past
year. Each instance of any of these outcomes was
then totaled and an average score was obtained,
rendering each employee an objective creativity
score. The objective creativity variable had a
mean of 2.61 and ranged from 1 to 7.
3.1.4. Control variables
Two control variables were included in this study.
First, education level was measured and coded as
a dummy variable because it is related to an
employee’s domain knowledge and could thus
partially account for differences in creative ability
(Amabile, 1988; Tierney et al., 1999). Twentythree respondents possessed a bachelor degree, 50
possessed a master’s degree, 55 possessed a doctorate, and the remainder either had less than a
bachelors or had at least some graduate training.
Next, building on research suggesting gender
differences in creative ability (Conti et al., 2001)
and research suggesting that the creative achievements of females are often not as valued as those
produced by males (Evans, 1979), gender was
coded as a dummy variable. There were 21
females and 144 males in the sample.
4. Results
The descriptive statistics for the study variables
are shown in Table 1.
In order to test the two hypotheses, mediated
regression models were computed (e.g. James and
Brett, 1984; Barron and Kenny, 1986). A variable
is said to function as a mediator when variations
in the independent variables significantly account
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations
Variables
Mean SD
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
6.09
0.86
4.93
5.62
5.87
4.67
5.35
5.43
3.53
2.62
–
0.19* –
0.15*
0.22** –
0.17*
0.09
0.58**
0.19* 0.01
0.05
0.24** 0.04
0.02
0.07
0.12
0.39**
0.22** 0.23** 0.25**
0.06
0.21** 0.22**
0.49** 0.28** 0.14
Education
Gender
Encouragement
Autonomy
Self-efficacy
Openness to experience
Intrinsic motivation
Willingness to take risks
Creativity (subjective)
Creativity (objective)
1.65
0.34
1.23
1.17
0.72
0.81
0.93
1.08
1.04
1.54
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
–
0.19*
0.14
0.26**
0.21**
0.29**
0.21**
–
0.24**
0.40**
0.25**
0.16*
0.17*
–
0.16*
0.36**
0.17*
0.17*
–
33** –
0.19* 0.26** –
0.17* 0.16* 0.23**
N ¼ 165.
*Po0.05; **Po0.01.
202
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity
for variations in the proposed mediator, variations in the mediator significantly account for
variations in the dependent variable, and, when
controlling for the mediator, a previously significant relationship between the independent variable(s) and the dependent variable decreases or
becomes insignificant. One can test these conditions by regressing the mediator on the independent variable, regressing the dependent variable
on the independent variable, and regressing the
dependent on both the independent variable and
the mediator (Barron and Kenny, 1986).
Table 2 displays the results of regression analyses used to test Hypothesis 1.
As noted above, both encouragement for creativity and self-efficacy were significantly related to
intrinsic motivation in the first model (b ¼ 0.39,
Po0.01 and b ¼ 0.38, Po0.01, respectively) and
to willingness to take risks in the second model
(b ¼ 0.19, Po0.05 and b ¼ 0.15, Po0.05, respec-
tively). In the third model, with intrinsic motivation as a mediator, neither encouragement nor
self-efficacy significantly influenced the employee’s willingness to take risks. Intrinsic motivation,
however, was significant (b ¼ 0.18, Po0.05), indicating full mediation. Thus, although two independent variables did not show the anticipated
significant relationships (e.g. autonomy, openness), those that were significant were fully
mediated (e.g. encouragement, self-efficacy) and
so Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Table 3 displays the results of regression analyses
used to test Hypothesis 2, using supervisor ratings
of employee creativity as the dependent variable.
The table shows that intrinsic motivation significantly influenced willingness to take risks in
the first model (b ¼ 0.30, Po0.01) and creativity
in the second model (b ¼ 0.17, Po0.05). In the
last model, with willingness to take risks included
as a mediator, the effect of intrinsic motivation
Table 2. Regression results – Hypothesis 1
Variables
Control variables
Education
Gender
Independent variables
Encouragement
Autonomy
Self-efficacy
Openness to experience
Mediator
Intrinsic motivation
R2
DR2
Model 1:
DV ¼ intrinsic
motivation
0.09
0.05
Model 2:
DV ¼ willingness
to take risks
Model 3:
DV ¼ willingness
to take risks
0.05
0.17*
0.07
0.15*
0.39**
0.03
0.38**
0.08
0.19*
0.00
0.15*
0.30**
0.12
0.00
0.08
0.28**
0.31**
0.25**
0.18*
0.27**
0.18**
N ¼ 165. b weights are reported for the final step in each model.
*Po0.05; **Po0.01.
Table 3. Regression results – Hypothesis 2, subjective measure of creativity
Variables
Control variables
Education
Gender
Independent variables
Intrinsic motivation
Mediator
Willingness to take risks
R2
DR
Model 1:
DV ¼ willingness
to take risks
Model 2:
DV ¼ creativity
Model 3:
DV ¼ creativity
0.17*
0.16*
0.01
0.19*
0.01
0.15*
0.30**
0.17*
0.11
0.18**
0.07**
0.19*
0.10**
0.05**
N ¼ 165. b weights are reported for the final step in each model.
*Po0.05; **Po0.01.
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
203
Todd Dewett
Table 4. Regression results – Hypothesis 2, objective measure of creativity
Variables
Control variables
Education
Gender
Independent variables
Intrinsic motivation
Mediator
Willingness to take risks
R2
DR2
Model 1:
DV ¼ willingness
to take risks
Model 2:
DV ¼ creativity
Model 3:
DV ¼ creativity
0.17*
0.16*
0.45**
0.18**
0.45**
0.18**
0.30**
0.11
0.12
0.18**
0.29**
0.02
0.29**
0.01
N ¼ 165. b weights are reported for the final step in each model.
*Po0.05; **Po0.01.
disappears while the effect of willingness to take
risks is significant (b ¼ 0.19, Po0.05), indicating
full mediation. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported
when using a subjective measure of creativity.
Table 4 displays the same analysis, now using
the objective measure of employee creativity.
The analysis using an objective measure of
creativity produced a starkly different pattern of
findings. While intrinsic motivation was significantly related to willingness to take risks in the
first model (b ¼ 0.30, Po0.01), in the last two
models, neither intrinsic motivation nor willingness to take risks were significantly related to
creativity. Thus, while the correlations shown in
Table 1 indicate a similar pattern of associations
when comparing the two creativity measures,
Hypothesis 2 was not supported in the regression
analysis using the objective creativity measure.
Analysis of the control variables indicated that
education and gender were both significantly related to the employee’s willingness to take risks and
that gender was related to supervisor ratings of
creativity as well as the objective ratings of creativity. Possible implications are discussed below.
5. Discussion
This research makes at least three contributions
to the study of creativity in R&D environments.
First, the literature often asserts the importance
of intrinsic motivation in the context of employee
creativity, although it is rarely measured. This
study joins Shin and Zhou (2003) and Tierney
et al. (1999) in demonstrating the importance of
intrinsic motivation in an applied setting. It is
thus becoming clear that one fundamental antecedent to employee creativity is intrinsic interest
in one’s work. In addition, this is the first time
that a task-specific measure of intrinsic motivation has been used to test this assumption. From a
204
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
practical standpoint, this finding suggests that
managers must strive to manage in a manner
that does not damage employee intrinsic motivation. This finding has strong implications for the
use of recognition and rewards, among other
management practices, that may either support
or detract from intrinsic motivation. Second,
evidence is provided that the effect of intrinsic
motivation on creativity is transmitted through
an increased willingness to take risks – a first in
the literature. While inherent interest in one’s
work is thought to lead to an increase in risk
taking and experimenting, this assertion has yet to
be supported in an applied setting until now,
suggesting that the specific causal sequence may
in fact be love, engage, create.
Finally, joining Oldham and Cummings (1996),
the study found that the pattern of findings varies
significantly depending on the type of creativity
indicator used. When using supervisor ratings of
employee creativity, the findings largely conform to
the extant literature. That is, the results show that
encouragement and self-efficacy both play important
roles in understanding employee creativity. However,
the formal analysis reported here, as well as several
post hoc regression analyses not reported, indicate
that none of the independent variables including
intrinsic motivation or willingness to take risks
were related to the objective measure of creativity.
In fact, post hoc regression analysis utilizing several
permutations of the objective indicator (all possible
subcombinations of multiple objective indicators)
yielded no positive relationships between any of the
antecedents and creativity.
In terms of future research, these findings
suggest that additional theoretical work is required to understand the nature of both subjective and objective creative outcomes. Exactly how
are subjective ratings and objective work products
different indicators of creativity in organizations?
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity
It seems prudent that before suggesting additional
work examining the antecedents of creativity,
researchers must develop new logic and theory in
support of valid measures of creativity. While it
may be possible that objective indicators are not
the same as creativity itself (Zhou and Shalley,
2003), the broader question is whether or not
commonly used subjective ratings adequately capture creativity. Assuming there are differences, we
have yet to articulate them or to suggest how
subjective versus objective indicators might be
predicated on somewhat different antecedents.
Given that objective creative outcomes are the
ultimate goal (i.e. subjective ratings of creativity
are only useful to the organization to the degree
that they are related to instances of novel and
useful outcomes), scholars must turn their attention to understanding what may be a very different
phenomenon. Further, the current study only examines intrinsic motivation, one’s willingness to
take risks, and employee creativity at the individual level. There is a great opportunity for future
research to expand the level of analysis to consider
both group and organizational influences on individual as well as group indicators of creativity.
This study is not without limitations. While it is
useful to have included a comparison of subjective and objective indicators of creativity, it
should be noted that subjects were only asked to
report on their objective indicators for the prior
year. It is possible that different results would
have been obtained if each respondent’s cumulative objective record had been captured for the
duration of their tenure with the organization.
Further, objective indicators other than those
examined in the current study exist and could be
considered (e.g. ideas submitted to a suggestion
program). For both of these reasons, further
research is warranted. In addition, the study was
cross sectional. While the independent variables
presumably capture some longitudinal assessment, they were nonetheless measured at one
point in time. Similarly, the objective creativity
measure asked for retrospective recall, although it
was also measured at one point in time. More
detailed longitudinal analyses should be able to
produce more robust causal results. One additional issue associated with cross-sectional research is the threat of common-method bias.
While the participants were informed that their
responses were confidential and anonymous,
more can be done in future research to guard
against common method bias (e.g. collecting
certain measures at different times, using a heterogeneous group of scales).
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
It is also important to briefly note the control
variable analysis. For educational attainment, an
interesting finding emerged – higher educational
achievement was strongly correlated to the objective measure of creativity but not the subjective
measure. This has strong implications as researchers continue to understand the difference between
these two fundamentally different types of dependent variables. Regarding gender, while it was
shown that males were more likely to take risks
and be creative, the finding is inconclusive. The
small number of females in the sample precluded
any additional analysis as to whether this result
can best be explained by gender or by the dynamics of the work environment in which females
were a sharp minority.
Additional future research is also required to
establish the validity of a measure of intrinsic
motivation. While past efforts have used particularly global measures of interest in problem solving and new ideas, the current study used items
specifically designed to measure interest in the
tasks that comprise one’s job. Even though this
represents an improvement, it will be useful to
further validate the measure in additional settings. In addition, researchers must include the
topic of intrinsic motivation in the unfolding
discussion about subjective versus objective indicators of creativity. For example, Unsworth
(2001) has identified several types of creativity
that might emerge, given different types of
problems and different types of motivation.
Might the role of intrinsic motivation vary as a
function of the type of creativity pursued? Finally,
the current study demonstrated the central role
of one’s willingness to take risks relative to
employee creativity. In concert with additional
work on intrinsic motivation in applied settings,
the literature will benefit from exploring what
additional contextual factors influence and shape
the employee’s willingness to take risks with their
work.
R&D work will continue to be a driving force
of the global economy. Consequently, we must be
diligent in our efforts to advance our understanding of employee creativity in this environment. As
the current study indicates, there is still much
work to be done.
References
Abbey, A. and Dickson, J.W. (1983) R&D work
climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy
of Management Journal, 26, 362–368.
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
205
Todd Dewett
Abbott, J.B., Boyd, N.G. and Miles, G. (2006) Does
type of team matter? An investigation of the relationships between job characteristics and outcomes
within a team-based environment. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 146, 4, 485–507.
Albrecht, T.L. and 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. (1985) Motivation and creativity: effects
of motivational orientation on creative writers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
393–399.
Amabile, T.M. (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Staw, B. and Cummings, L.L. (eds), Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp.
123–167.
Amabile, T.M. (1996) Creativity in Context. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and
Herron, M. (1996) Assessing the work environment
for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
1154–1184.
Amabile, T.M. and Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1987) Creative
human resources in the R&D laboratory: how environment and personality impact innovation. In Handbook for Creative and Innovative Managers, Kuhn,
R.L. (ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 501–530.
Amabile, T.M. and Gryskiewicz, N.D. (1989) The
creative environment scales: work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231–253.
Bain, P.G., Mann, L. and Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001) The
innovation imperative. The relationships between
team climate, innovation, and performance in
research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32, 55–73.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and
Action: A Social-Cognitive View. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Berson, Y. and Linton, J.D. (2005) An examination of
the relationships between leadership style, quality, and
employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative
environments. R&D Management, 35, 1, 51–60.
Bremser, W.G. and Barsky, N.P. (2004) Utilizing the
balanced scorecard for R&D performance measurement. R&D Management, 34, 3, 229–238.
Brown, M.G. and Svenson, R.A. (1998) Measuring
R&D productivity. Research Technology Management, 41, 6, 30–35.
Burnside, R.M., Amabile, T.M. and Gryskiewicz, S.S.
(1988) Assessing organizational climates for creativ-
206
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
ity and innovation – methodological review of
large company audits. In Ijiri, Y. and Kuhn, R.L.
(eds), New Directions in Creative and Innovative
Management: Bridging Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 169–185.
Cameron, J. and Pierce, W.D. (1994) Reinforcement,
reward, and intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 363–423.
Cameron, J. and Pierce, W.D. (1996) The debate about
rewards and intrinsic motivation: protests and accusations do not alter the results. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 39–51.
Coccia, M. (2001) A basic model for evaluating R&D
performance: theory and application in Italy. R&D
Management, 31, 4, 453–464.
Conti, R., Collins, M.A. and 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.
Coopersmith, S. (1967) The Antecedents of Self-Esteem.
New York: Freeman.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992) Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO FiveFactor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual.
Odess, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Deci, E.L. (1975) Intrinsic Motivation. New York:
Plenum.
Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P. and Ryan, R.M. (1989) Selfdetermination in a work organization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation
and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New
York: Plenum.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1987) The support of
autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.
Delbecq, A.L. and Mills, P.K. (1985) Managerial
practices that enhance innovation. Organizational
Dynamics, 14, 1, 24–34.
Dewett, T. (2006) Exploring the role of risk in employee
creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 1, 27–45.
Donnelly, G. (2000) A P&L for R&D. CFO Magazine,
February, 44–50.
Evans, T.D. (1979) Creativity, sex-role socialization
and pupil-teacher interactions in early schooling.
Sociological Review, 27, 139–155.
Farr, J.L. and Ford, C.M. (1990) Individual Innovation. In West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (eds), Innovation
and Creativity at Work. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, pp. 63–80.
Feist, G.J. (1998) A meta-analysis of personality in
scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 2, 4, 290–309.
Fidler, L.A. and Johnson, J.D. (1984) Communication
and innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 9, 704–711.
Fox, M.F. (1983) Publication productivity among
scientists: a critical review. Social Studies of Science,
13, 285–305.
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity
Fromm, E. (1959) The creative attitude. In Anderson,
H.H. (ed.), Creativity and its Cultivation. New York:
Harper & Row, pp. 44–54.
Garcia-Valderrama, T. and Mulero-Mendigorri, E.
(2005) Content validation of a measure of R&D
effectiveness. R&D Management, 35, 3, 311–331.
George, J.M. and Zhou, J. (2001) When openness to
experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: an interactional approach. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524.
Gist, M.E. (1989) The influence of training method on
self-efficacy and idea generation among managers.
Personnel Psychology, 42, 787–805.
Gough, H.G. (1979) A creative personality scale for the
adjective check list. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
Griffin, M. and McDermott, M.R. (1998) Exploring a
tripartite relationship between rebelliousness, openness to experience and creativity. Social Behavior and
Personality, 26, 347–356.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980) Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hirst, G. and Mann, L. (2004) A model of R&D
leadership and team communication: the relationship
with project performance. R&D Management, 34, 2,
147–160.
Ibarra, H. and Andrews, S.B. (1993) Power, social
influence, and sense making: effects of network
centrality and proximity on employee perceptions.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 277–303.
Jalan, A. and Kleiner, B.H. (1995) New developments
in developing creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10, 20–23.
James, L.R. and Brett, J.M. (1984) Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 307–321.
Lepper, M. and Greene, D. (1978) The Hidden Costs of
Reward. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCrae, R.R. (1987) Creativity, divergent thinking,
and openness to experience. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 6, 1258–1265.
McCrae, R.R. (1996) Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1997) Conceptions and
correlates of openness to experience. In Hogan, R.,
Johnson, J. and Briggs, S. (eds), Handbook of
Personality Psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press, pp. 825–847.
Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B. (1988) Creativity
syndrome: integration, application, and innovation.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.
Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996) Employee
creativity: personal and contextual factors at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Parnes, S.J. (1964) Research on developing creative
behavior. In Taylor, C.W. (ed.), Widening Horizons
in Creativity. New York: Wiley, pp. 145–169.
Parnes, S.J. and Meadow, A. (1959) Effects of brainstorming instructions on creative problem solving by
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 171–176.
Pelz, D.C. and Andrews, F.M. (1966) Autonomy,
coordination, and stimulation in relation to scientific
achievement. Behavioral Science, 11, 89–97.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1978) Self-reports
in organizational research: problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.
Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D. and Teach, R.
(1993) Putting creativity to work: effects of leader
behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–
151.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (1996) When paradigms
clash: comments on Cameron and Pierce’s claim that
rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66, 33–38.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25, 54–67.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1977) An examination of
need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427–456.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994) Determinants of
innovative behavior: a path model of individual
innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Sethia, N.K. (1989). The shaping of creativity in
organizations. Academy of Management Best Papers
Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting, Washington, D.C., August 13–16.
Shalley, C.E. (1991) Effects of productivity goals,
creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
179–185.
Shalley, C.E. (1995) Effects of coaction, expected
evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and
productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
483–503.
Shalley, C.E. and 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.R., Gilson, L.L. and Blum, T.C. (2000)
Matching creativity requirements and the work
environment: effects on satisfaction and intentions
to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
215–233.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003) Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from
Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46,
703–714.
Sitkin, S.B. and Pablo, A.L. (1992) Reconceptualizing
the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17, 9–38.
Subramanian, S. and Ganesanm, V. (1982) Anxiety,
time pressure and creativity among scientists. Indian
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 183–188.
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
207
Todd Dewett
Sundgren, M., Dimenas, E., Gustafsson, J. and Selart,
M. (2005) Drivers of organizational creativity: a path
model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D.
R&D Management, 35, 359–374.
Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L. and Klein, S.R. (1997) Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
31, 27–41.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M. and Graen, G.B. (1999) An
examination of leadership and employee creativity:
the relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel
Psychology, 52, 591–620.
Unsworth, K. (2001) Unpacking creativity. Academy of
Management Review, 26, 289–297.
Wang, C.E., Wu, J.J. and Horng, R.Y. (1999) Creative
thinking ability, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management, 29, 247–254.
Wang, C.W. and Horng, R.Y. (2002) The effects of
creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management, 32, 1, 35–45.
208
R&D Management 37, 3, 2007
West, M.A. (1989) Innovation among health care
professionals. Social Behavior, 4, 173–184.
West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1989) Innovation at
work: psychological perspectives. Social Behavior,
4, 15–30.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W.
(1993) Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.
Zhou, J. (1998) Feedback valence, feedback style, task
autonomy, and achievement orientation: interactive
effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 261–276.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001) When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of
voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.
Zhou, J. and Shalley, C.E. (2003) Research on employee creativity: a critical review and directions for
future research. In Martocchio, J. and Ferris, G.R.
(eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, Vol. 22. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc,
pp. 165–217.
r 2007 The Author
Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd