the influence of individual factors, supervision and work environment on creative self-efficacy

The Influence of Individual Factors,Supervision and Work Environmenton Creative Self-Efficacycaim_557 233..247

Eric Chong and Xiaofang Ma

In highly competitive global markets, organizations have to distinguish themselves withcreative and innovative solutions to satisfy discerning customers. Creativity, an importantprecursor for innovation, provides organizations with a competitive advantage in a reinforcingloop of improved customer service, increased staff morale, increased retention of quality staffand further improvements in service (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Anderson & College, 1992).

Creative output comes from the performance of individuals with particular cognitive andpersonality traits (Masten & Caldwell-Colbert, 1987; Kirton, 1989) who are supported within afacilitative work environment (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Amabile et al., 1996; Rice, 2006). Confi-dence in one’s own ability or one’s self-efficacy is an important cognitive and social traitdetermining and sustaining work performance. Appropriate behaviours and performancestandards are defined within the work environment and the ability and support received inmeeting performance expectations enhance the individual’s self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell,1992; Bandura, 1997).

Both creativity and self-efficacy have been associated with particular individual traits andenvironmental conditions in the workplace. While much has been written on these twoconcepts separately, less has been done to explore them as a single construct. This paperaddresses the gap in the literature by linking creativity at work and occupational self-efficacy.It reviews the literature on antecedent concepts and current research into creative self-efficacy.In doing this, it provides the basis for further empirical exploration of possible linkagesbetween creative self-efficacy and individual and work environment variables. The contribu-tion this paper makes is in the identification of specific variables that are significantly relatedto creative self-efficacy. A model is proposed showing significant linkages between the iden-tified variables.

Creative Self-Efficacy

The creative self-efficacy concept evolvedfrom broader lines of inquiry into self-

efficacy and creativity. Self-efficacy developsfrom the acquisition of complex cognitive andsocial traits and is seen as a contributing factorin motivational theory. The more specific occu-pational self-efficacy is seen as a work-relatedpersonality trait that Schyns and Von Collani(2002, p. 227) define as the ‘belief in one’s ownability and competence to perform success-fully and effectively in situations and acrossdifferent tasks in a job’. Individuals evaluatetheir capabilities first, make choices and thenput in the necessary effort to achieve theiraims (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Bandura, 1997;

Bandura et al., 2001). The more favourable theperception of one’s ability to perform a task orthe individual’s self-efficacy in that task, thegreater the effort expended in its performance.

Research into creativity covers two relatedconcepts: creative ability and creative out-come. Creative ability is demonstrated in thepropensity to break away from mindsets bygenerating novel ideas, having confidence inadopting non-conforming perspectives, takingrisks and acting without dependence on socialapproval (Amabile, 1988). Creative outcome isdefined as endeavours resulting in products,ideas or procedures which are novel and origi-nal, and must be useful for an organization(Oldham & Cummings, 1996). However, cre-ativity is not measured by the number of

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS, SUPERVISION AND WORK ENVIRONMENT 233

Volume 19 Number 3 2010doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00557.x

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

products or ideas. Amabile (1996) asserts thatthe most valid way of measuring creativity isby ‘consensual assessment’. This involves cor-roborating observations of an individual’s cre-ative ability relative to the ability of othersrather than against a quantitative standard.This ability is necessary but not the onlyrequirement for creative performance.

Building on research into occupational self-efficacy and creativity performance, and com-bining the two concepts, Tierney and Farmer(2002) defined creative self-efficacy as thebelief in one’s ability to produce creative out-comes. It is this belief that Choi (2004), Egan(2005) and Lemons (2005) concluded was animportant requirement in achieving creativeperformance. Individuals cannot perform cre-atively if they do not believe and have confi-dence in their creative ability. In addition tocreative ability, a person’s creative self-efficacyalso depends on the individual’s personalityand work environment.

Emerging research into creative self-efficacycovers its relationships with creative perfor-mance (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, 2004; Lopez,2003; Choi, 2004), with job complexity andtask-related job self-efficacy (Tierney &Farmer, 2002, 2004) and with job tenure, edu-cation and organization hierarchical levels(Amabile, 1988; Redmond, Mumford & Teach,1993; Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999). Thesestudies showed that the individual’s jobtenure, education, organization hierarchicallevel and task-related job self-efficacy wererelated to creative self-efficacy. The relation-ship between job complexity and creative self-efficacy was inconclusive.

In another line of inquiry, Bandura (1997),Gardner and Pierce (1998), Stajkovic andLuthans (1998) and Chen et al. (2000) exam-ined creative self-efficacy as a part of an indi-vidual’s general self-efficacy. In particular,Schyns, Torka and Gössling (2007) distin-guished the organizational interpersonalfactors, reflected in the leader–memberexchange, from the individual’s personalitytraits reflected in occupational self-efficacy.Stable personality traits are less susceptible tochange over time and, if amenable to accuratemeasurement, can be reliable predictors ofself-efficacy. Polychronicity is a personalitytrait that has been studied as a basis forcreativity.

Polychronicity, Ethnicity,Biographical Factors andOrganizational Creativity

Polychronicity has been described as a person-ality trait (Kaufman, Lane & Lindquist, 1991;

Conte, Rizzuto & Steiner, 1999) that results indifferent preferences individuals have fororganizing and structuring their time. It mani-fests itself in the tendency to engage in morethan one activity at the same time and theaccomplishment of whole activities concur-rently. By contrast monochronic individualsprefer doing things sequentially based on thetime available. There is an avoidance of leavingthings unfinished and a tendency to see timeas a measurable resource that can be dividedinto manageable parts. Researchers havefound a positive relationship between poly-chronicity and creativity in individuals (Hall &Hall, 1990; Bluedorn, 1998, 2002). This hasbeen attributed to increased use of creativeproblem-solving processes by polychronicindividuals as they switch between differentprojects. Similarly, when polychronic indi-viduals were rotated through different tasksthey exhibited relatively high creative output(Kaufman-Scarborough & Lindquist, 1999;Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999). Persing (1999)concluded that the higher the individual’spolychronicity, especially in intellectuallyintensive research and development work, thehigher the individual’s creative output.

The findings of cross-cultural research onethnicity and polychronicity appear mixed.Hall (1983) and Hall and Hall (1990) suggestthat indigenous North Americans, French,Asians, Latin Americans and Mediterraneanpeoples have polychronic cultures, whilethe non-indigenous North Americans andGermans have monochronic cultures. How-ever, there is evidence of polychronic indi-viduals emerging from monochronic cultures.Within the monochronic non-indigenousNorth American culture, Onken (1999) foundthere were sub-groups who exhibited poly-chronic tendencies. Contrary to earlier re-search, Tinsley (1998) found that NorthAmerican managers were more polychronicthan German and Japanese managers, andConte, Rizzuto and Steiner (1999) discoveredthat French and North American students didnot differ from each other in polychronicity.Moustafa, Bhagat and Babakus (2005) con-cluded that polychronicity, when treatedsolely as preference for time use, was notculture-specific.

The difficulty with cross-national research isthat nations have multicultural populationswithin which there are sociological, economicand occupational sub-cultures. Emergingresearch has parsimoniously used broadervalue-based cultural dimensions, such as col-lectivism and individualism, which transcendsnationality for comparison of attitudes andbehaviours (House, 2004; Triandis, 2004; Jung,Yammarino & Lee, 2009). This study uses this

234 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 19 Number 3 2010© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

methodology taking cognizance that broadcultural dimensions may not entirely accountfor significant sub-group differences.

Prior research has indicated that certain bio-graphical factors such as the individual’s jobtenure, education and position in an organiza-tion’s hierarchy are positively related to poly-chronicity (Hall, 1983; Kaufman, Lane &Lindquist, 1991; Manrai & Manrai 1995; Conte,Rizzuto & Steiner, 1999; Palmer & Schoorman1999; Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999; Bluedorn,2000; Conte, 2000). Studies on polychronicityand gender have not shown any statisticallysignificant differences between males andfemales (Kaufman, Lane & Lindquist, 1991;Conte, Rizzuto & Steiner, 1999; Palmer &Schoorman, 1999; Conte, 2000). However,there is an indication that occupational self-efficacy in ‘masculine’ managerial and leader-ship roles is lower in women than men(Schyns & Sanders, 2005).

This study builds on prior research byexamining polychronicity as a specific person-ality variable in relation to creative self-efficacy in hypothesis H1.1.

H1.1: There will be a positive relationshipbetween polychronic tendencies and creativeself-efficacy in individuals.

The individual and cultural variables thatare thought to relate to polychronicity are alsoexamined in relation to creative self-efficacy inhypothesis H1.2.

H1.2: There will be a significant relationshipbetween biographical factors, such as gender,ethnicity, job and managerial experience andeducation level, and an individual’s creativeself-efficacy.

Supervisory Support andOrganizational Creativity

Researchers have established a connectionbetween supervisors’ behaviour and subordi-nates’ creative performance. Mumford et al.(2002) showed that employees’ creative per-formance could be dramatically improvedby supervisors providing revolutionary ideas,useful resources and positive feedback.Indeed the supervisor’s enthusiasm for cre-ativity is one of the most important personalattributes thought to enhance creative perfor-mance (Amabile, 1983, 1988). An expression ofsuch enthusiasm and acceptance for creativityhas been defined as an ‘intrinsic motivationorientation’. Tierney, Farmer and Graen (1999)found employees’ creative performance wasenhanced when they worked with supervisorswith this orientation. Creativity was even

higher if supervisors had an innovative orien-tation (i.e. allowing staff innovation, risk-taking and autonomy in decision making).Implementation of creative solutions requiresself-confidence and ‘preparedness for change’.Schyns (2004) and Schyns, Torka and Gössling(2007) found an increase in these two enablingfactors with positive supervisor–employeerelationships, when supervisors served as rolemodels, when employees were given verbalsupport and when there were opportunitiesfor personal mastery experience. The conclu-sion is that creative performance will beenhanced when employees value their workenvironment and have supportive supervisorswhom they trust and work well with.

Scott and Bruce (1994) and Tierney, Farmerand Graen (1999) showed that the quality ofsupervisor–subordinate relationship is posi-tively correlated to the employee’s creativeand innovative behaviour. Relationships be-tween supervisors and their subordinates,characterized by leader–member exchangedimensions of trust, mutual liking and respect,have been shown to produce higher levelsof creative and innovative behaviour fromemployees. Furthermore, the supervisor’sexpectation of a subordinate’s behaviour ispositively correlated with the subordinate’sactual behaviour. Supervisors who expect sub-ordinates to behave creatively are more likelyto have their expectations met.

Numerous studies (viz., Amabile &Gryskiewicz, 1988; Amabile et al., 1996, 2004;Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Amabile & Conti,1999; Madjar, Oldham & Pratt, 2002; Tierney &Farmer, 2002, 2004; Zhou & George, 2003;Shalley & Gilson, 2004) have indicated thatsupportive and non-controlling supervisorystyles are important stimuli for employee cre-ativity. Amabile et al. (1996) found that peoplewill produce more creative work when there isa perception of support from their senior man-agement and direct supervisors. Zhou (1998)suggested that employees’ creative perfor-mance could be enhanced when supervisorsprovided feedback to employees in a positiveand informal way and when employees wereallowed to have high levels of autonomy. Thissupports Oldham and Cummings’ (1996)study which found a negative relationshipbetween supervisors’ controlling behavioursand employees’ creative output in a manufac-turing setting. George and Zhou (2001) andZhou (2003) showed that controlling behav-iours, such as close monitoring from supervi-sors, were negatively related to employees’creativity.

The review of the emerging research sug-gests positive relationships between creativeself-efficacy and creative performance and



between the supervisor’s supportive manage-ment style and creative performance. Thisstudy will examine the possibility of a directrelationship between creative self-efficacy andsupervisors’ supportive management style inhypothesis H2.

H2: There will be a positive relationship betweencreative self-efficacy and a supportive and non-controlling supervisory management style.

Organizational Variables andOrganizational Creativity

Organizational support theory holds thatemployees view their supervisors’ actions asindicating the organization’s intention ratherthan the personal motives of supervisors.Therefore employees’ perception of supervisorsupport is positively related to employees’perceptions of the organizational environment(Eisenberger et al., 2001). The possibility ofthis tendency will be examined in this study.

The organizational environment includesthe interaction between workers, risk-takingorientation, and a trusting and caring atmo-sphere (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Mumford et al.,2002). However, the organizational structurecan either facilitate or negate a positive workenvironment and creative performance.

Kanter (1983, cited in McLean, 2005) foundthat matrix structures were associated withincreased autonomy and the belief that newideas will be accepted. Damanpour (1991)explained that the organizational structurereflected the degree of specialization, theextent of functional differentiation and theopenness of communication channels. In-creased specialization and functional differ-entiation and decreased communication wereconsistently shown to decrease creativity. Heproposed that in order to promote creativity,supervisors ought to group workers based ontheir expertise and put in place a matrix struc-ture that could promote ongoing communica-tion between groups.

Fyvie and Ager (1999) found that flat orga-nizational structures were positively associ-ated with creativity. They attributed this toincreased teamwork. Cross-functional teams,working autonomously and interacting in-formally, create an open-plan arrangementthat encourages constant movement of staffbetween offices and departments. It alsocreates a perception of continual personalinteraction and information exchangewhich are thought to enhance organizationalcreativity.

A more hierarchical structure, on the otherhand, emphasizes rules and procedures which

inhibits innovation in organizations (Henry &Walker, 1992; Fyvie & Ager, 1999). The 3Morganization has been mentioned as acompany with a reputation for creativity andinnovation attributed to its lack of a hierarchi-cal structure.

Organizational structure also determineslevels of responsibility, decision-makingauthority and formal reporting relations. Thestructure and size of the organization, and itsworking units influence the use of power inthe decision-making process. The use of poweris inversely related to the perceived creativeclimate within an organization (Isaksen et al.,2001). Ekvall’s (1997) research into creativityand organizational structure revealed thatnon-adaptive ways of doing things character-ized more rigid reporting structures. A looserstructure with more freedom, higher risk-inclination, and a debating, dynamic andplayful organizational climate appeared to beassociated with creative performance.

While organizational variables such asstructure, interaction amongst co-workers,risk-taking orientation, and a trusting, caringatmosphere are thought to relate to creativeperformance, there are no known studies thathave explored the relationship between thesevariables and creative self-efficacy. This studyattempts to address this gap by examiningthese organizational variables in relation tocreative self-efficacy in hypothesis H3.

H3: There will be a significant relationshipbetween organizational structure, interactionwith co-workers, risk-taking orientation, and atrusting, caring atmosphere and the individu-al’s creative self-efficacy.

Methodology

Instrument

The questionnaire used in this study wasderived from instruments used to mea-sure individual polychronicity, creative self-efficacy, supervisory management style andorganizational structure, control and hierar-chy. The Inventory of Polychronicity Values(IPV) from Bluedorn et al. (1999) was used tomeasure individual polychronicity. The scalecaptures the degree an individual does thingssimultaneously at the workplace. Tierney andFarmer’s (2002) three-item scale was used tomeasure creative self-efficacy. This scale mea-sures employees’ belief in their ability to becreative at work and has been used in studiesby Beghetto (2006) and Jaussi et al. (2007).Supervisory management style was measuredusing 12 items developed by Oldham andCummings (1996). The items were designed to



reflect supportive and non-controlling super-vision from the employees’ point of view. Themeasurement of organizational variables takenfrom Rice (2006) included items on organiza-tional structure, control and hierarchy. Theitems relating to supervisory managementstyle were included to provide added insightinto measurements using the Oldham andCummings (1996) instrument. The compositequestionnaire items used in this study arelisted in the Appendix.

Reliability and Validity

In testing the reliability of the instrument, analpha value of 0.8 or greater was used as acriterion for acceptance of internal consistency(Bryman & Cramer, 1990). The Cronbach’salpha for polychronicity was 0.98, for super-visory management style was 0.813 andfor creative self-efficacy was 0.832. The organi-zational variables collectively had reliabilitycoefficients below 0.8. Each of the four vari-ables was therefore analysed individually.

Factor analysis was used to test whether theitems measured the same concepts. The resultsindicated all ten polychronicity items loadedbetween 0.80 and 0.88 on one factor and allthree creative self-efficacy item loadings werebetween 0.86 and 0.90 on one factor. Both poly-chronicity and creative self-efficacy measure-ments had good factorial construct validityand were used unchanged in this study.

The items measuring supervisors’ support-ive and non-controlling management style andorganizational variables had to be adjusted toensure they described the intended theoreticalconstructs developed from the literaturereviewed. The method used to ensure contentvalidity was as follows:

• Only 11 items (1–6, 8, 13–16) measur-ing supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style with loadingsbetween 0.61 and 0.82 on the first factorwere used.

• Items measuring organizational variableswere used following Rice’s (2006) method.Each item was analysed individually.

Data Collection and Sample

A draft questionnaire was administered to 27students with working experience. The pilotstudy confirmed that the respondents foundthe wording of the items clear and under-standable. A slight change was made in themeasurement of organizational factors. Theoriginal five-point Likert scale was convertedto a seven-point scale to minimize responseerror and to facilitate comparisons with otherseven-point scaled variables measured in thisstudy.

An on-line survey was done on a represen-tative sample of 350 individuals from com-panies in the financial, business service,telecommunication and food industries in theWellington region. This had a poor responserate with fewer than 20 people responding.Follow-up telephone calls increased theresponse rate only marginally. In a secondattempt, data was collected from matureworking students from Victoria University ofWellington’s Management School, School ofGovernment, School of Information Manage-ment and Centre for Continuing Education.The respondents were from 58 organizationsin a variety of industries from both public andprivate sectors. Questionnaires were distrib-uted before classes and were collected at theend of the class. A second data collectionmethod was a web-based survey link sent torespondents by their lecturers. The instruc-tions given in the hard copy questionnaire andweb-based survey were identical. A total of123 valid responses were received (i.e. 44 web-based questionnaires and 79 hard copy ques-tionnaires). A t-test on the 42 items used forfurther analysis revealed no significant differ-ence in the means between the web-based andhard copy questionnaires (t-value = 0.246,d.f. = 41, p = 0.807). The number of males tofemale respondents was 1: 1.24. Most respon-dents (65 per cent) were supervisors or man-agers with a majority (84.5 per cent) havinggraduate or postgraduate qualifications. Alarge proportion of respondents (70.8 per cent)had over 10 years’ working experience. Ethnic-ity of the sample was 74 per cent from indi-vidualistic cultures (viz. NZ European, British,Australian and North America) and 26 percent from collectivistic cultures (viz. NZMaori/Pacific Islanders, Chinese, Indian andother Asian).

Data Analysis and Results

Pearson’s correlation was used to analysewhether scores in one variable was associatedwith scores in another. The correlation matrixobtained for all 21 variables measured isshown in Table 1. The results show that cre-ative self-efficacy is positively correlated withpolychronicity (r = 0.44, p < 0.01) supportingH1.1. The positive correlation between cre-ative self-efficacy and supervisors’ suppor-tive and non-controlling management style(r = 0.397, p < 0.01) supports H2.

There were no significant differences in thecreative self-efficacy mean scores based ongender (M = 68, F = 55), educational qualifica-tions (undergraduates/graduates = 60, post-graduates = 63) and working experience



(current job: �2 years = 64, >2 years = 59 andtotal work experience: �10 years = 36, >10years = 87).

The sample was divided along ethnic linesinto individualistic or collectivistic culturalgroups. The individualistic group (n = 91)comprised New Zealanders of Europeandescent and other English-speaking nationali-ties such as Americans, British and Austra-lians. The collectivistic group (n = 32)comprised Maori/Pacific Islanders, Indian,Chinese and other Asian nationalities. Theresults of the t-test, which are presented inTable 2, indicate a significant difference in cre-ative self-efficacy (p < 0.05) between the twogroups. The individualistic group had signifi-cantly higher mean scores as compared withthe collectivistic group.

The respondents were also divided into twogroups according to their managerial status:those in non-management positions and those

in management positions (supervisors, juniormanagers and senior managers). The results ofthe t-test are given in Table 3. The mean scoresof non-managers are significantly lower thanmean scores of those in managerial positions.H1.2 is therefore partially supported.

Three organizational variables were signifi-cantly correlated with creative self-efficacy.OVItem6: ‘unwillingness to share informationwith other workgroups’ was negatively corre-lated with creative self-efficacy (r = -0.177,p < 0.05). OVItem8: ‘success requires initiativeand providing ideas in the organization’was positively associated with creative self-efficacy (r = 0.187, p < 0.05) and OVItem10:‘not changing the way things are done’ wasnegatively associated with creative self-efficacy (r = -0.271, p < 0.01). Apart from thesethree items, organizational structure variables(OVItems1–4), and trusting and caringatmosphere variables (OVItems12–18) had nosignificant relationship with creative self-efficacy. H3 is therefore only partiallysupported.

Factors Influencing CreativeSelf-Efficacy

In this study, multiple regression analysis wasused to examine the relationship betweenindividual polychronicity and creative self-efficacy, between supervisors’ supportive andnon-controlling management style and cre-ative self-efficacy, and between the organiza-tional variables (OVItem6: ‘unwillingness toshare information with others’, OVItem8:‘success requires initiative and providingideas’ and OVItem10: ‘not changing the waythings are done’) and creative self-efficacy.

The results of the first multiple regressionanalysis of OVItem6, OVItem8, OVItem10,polychronicity and supervisors’ supportiveand non-controlling management style withcreative self-efficacy are presented inTables 4–6. In Table 4, the R2 is 0.209 and inTable 5, the F value of 64.74 is significant at the0.01 level. The five variables entered explainalmost 21 percent of the variance (R2) in cre-ative self-efficacy.

In order to examine which variable had themost significant impact on creative self-efficacy, forward regression analysis was done.In Table 6 the highest beta under standardizedcoefficients is 0.44 for polychronicity, which issignificant at p < 0.01. The second highest betaunder standardized coefficients is 0.153 forsupervisors’ supportive and non-controllingmanagement style, which is significant atp < 0.01.

Table 1. Pearson’s Correlations between Poly-chronicity, Supportive and Non-ControllingManagement Style, Creative Self-Efficacy andOrganizational Variable

POLY SS CSE

POLY 1 0.308** 0.440**SS 0.308** 1 0.397**CSE 0.440** 0.397** 1OVItem1 -0.092 -0.032 -0.134OVItem2 -0.104 -0.369** -0.155OVItem3 0.059 0.115 -0.008OVItem4 0.021 0.074 -0.020OVItem5 -0.053 0.074 -0.049OVItem6 -0.088 -0.371** -0.177*OVItem7 0.008 -0.177 -0.049OVItem8 0.113 0.216* 0.187*OVItem9 -0.013 0.014 -0.001OVItem10 -0.247** -0.333** -0.271**OVItem11 0.037 -0.061 0.023OVItem12 -0.026 0.234** 0.016OVItem13 -0.006 0.197* -0.018OVItem14 -0.046 0.089 -0.010OVItem15 -0.034 0.355** 0.028OVItem16 -0.070 -0.131 -0.032OVItem17 0.049 0.439** 0.011OVItem18 0.098 0.393** 0.107

** p < 0.01 level.* p < 0.05 level.POLY = Polychronicity; SS = Supervisors’ support-ive and non-controlling management style;CSE = Creative self-efficacy; OVItem1–18 =Organizational variables.



Table 2. Independent Samples t-test between Ethnicity and Creative Self-Efficacy

Individualisticethnicitiesa

(n = 91)

Collectivisticethnicitiesb

(n = 32)

t-value(d.f. = 121)

Mean SD Mean SD

16.74 2.716 15.59 2.861 2.019*

a NZ European, Other English-speaking nationalities (i.e., North American, British and Australian).b NZ Maori or Pacific Islanders, Indian, Chinese, other Asian nationalities.* p < 0.05.

Table 3. Independent Samples t-test between Current Managerial Status and Creative Self-Efficacy

Non-management(n = 43)

Junior Management,Supervisor,

Senior Management(n = 80)

t-value(d.f. = 121)

Mean SD Mean SD

15.49 2.815 16.95 2.652 -2.852**

** p < 0.01

Table 4. Summary of Multiple Regressions on Organizational Factors (OVItem6, OVItem8, OVItem10),Supportive and Non-Controlling Management Style, Individual Polychronicity and Creative Self-Efficacy

R R2 Adjusted R2 Standard error ofthe estimate

0.457(a) 0.209 0.205 1.80757

Predictors: OVItem10, OVItem8, POLY, OVItem6, SS.

Table 5. ANOVA of Multiple Regressions on Organizational Factors (OVItem10, OVItem8, OVItem6),Supportive and Non-Controlling Management Style, Individual Polychronicity and Creative Self-Efficacy

Sum of squares d.f. Mean square F Significance

Regression 1057.580 5 211.516 64.737 0.000(a)Residual 382.274 117 3.267Total 1439.854 122

Predictors: OVItem10, OVItem8, POLY, OVItem6, SS.Dependent variable: Creative self-efficacy.



The relationships established by theabove results and earlier t-tests on ethnicityand managerial status are illustrated inFigure 1.

Discussion and Implications

The factors influencing creative self-efficacycan be divided into individual and organiza-tional factors. The individual factors includepolychronicity, ethnicity (based on culturaldimension) and managerial experience.The organizational factors are supervisorsupport, risk-taking/change orientation andcollegiality.

The positive relationship between poly-chronicity and creative self-efficacy supportsthe findings by Hall and Hall (1990) and Blue-

dorn (2002). Perhaps an external manifestationof this can be seen in individuals, confident intheir creativity, appearing less structured inmanaging their time. They tend to makechanges and are comfortable with uncertainty.Their behaviours in the workplace do notfollow a set sequence that could restrict cre-ative performance. Successful creative per-formance reinforces their belief that theycan be creative and enhances their creativeself-efficacy.

The observed difference in creative self-efficacy between individualistic cultures andcollectivistic cultures does not necessarilymean that individuals from one culture are lesscreative than the other. Creative outputdepends on a multitude of interacting factors.The observed difference could be due to col-lectivistic cultures placing more emphasis on

Table 6. Coefficients of Forward Regression on Organizational Factors (OVItem10, OVItem8, OVItem6),Supportive and Non-Controlling Management Style, Individual Polychronicity and Creative Self-Efficacy

Unstandardizedcoefficients

Standardizedcoefficients

t Significance

B Standard error Beta

1 (Constant) 5.418 0.554 9.788 0.000POLY 0.212 0.012 0.440 17.063 0.000

2 (Constant) 3.865 0.739 5.230 0.000POLY 0.201 0.013 0.393 15.840 0.000SS 0.029 0.009 0.153 3.049 0.003

POLY = Polychronicity, SS = Supervisors’ supportive and non-controlling management style, Dependentvariable: Creative self-efficacy.

POLY SS

Collegial atmosphere (OV Items 12, 13, 15,

17 and 18)

CSERisk/Change

orientation (OV Item 10) Ethnicity

Managerial experience

Figure 1. Factors Influencing Creative Self-Efficacy (CSE): Polychronicity (POLY), Ethnicity and Mana-gerial Experience, Supervisors’ Supportive and Non-Controlling Management Style (SS) and OtherOrganizational Variables (OV Items)



group or team outputs. As a result, the percep-tion of an individual’s creativity and creativeself-efficacy may be culture-specific. Cogni-zance must be taken of possible distorting out-comes in research involving respondents fromdifferent cultures where social norms caninfluence perceptions and the measurement ofphenomena.

The observed difference in creative self-efficacy between non-managers and managersmay result from the self-fulfilling phenom-enon where expectations that managers oughtto have more confidence in creative endeav-ours than non-managers are realized. Manag-ers are more likely to be exposed to complexproblems and, over time, are expected todevelop confidence in dealing or coping withuncertainty and situations requiring creativesolutions. Interestingly, the findings show thathigher education and more working experi-ence do not necessarily result in higher cre-ative self-efficacy as implied in earlier studiesby Hall (1983), Kaufman, Lane and Lindquist(1991), Manrai and Manrai (1995), Conte,Rizzuto and Steiner (1999), Palmer and Schoo-rman (1999), Slocombe and Bluedorn (1999),Bluedorn (2000) and Conte (2000). It can beargued that while having higher educationand more working experience could instilsome confidence in being creative, a signifi-cant amount of confidence appear to come pri-marily from managerial experience.

Amongst organizational factors, the positiverelationship between creative self-efficacy andsupervisors’ supportive and non-controllingmanagement style observed in this study sup-ports the research by many authors includingAmabile and Gryskiewicz (1988), Amabileet al. (1996, 2004), Oldham and Cummings(1996), Amabile and Conti (1999), Madjar et al.(2002), Tierney and Farmer (2002, 2004), Zhouand George (2003) and Shalley and Gilson(2004). This finding means that managers canachieve creative performance by creating anenvironment where employees are free to trynew things, are allowed to learn from mistakesand encouraged to be creative. This can lead toa virtuous cycle where employees meet expec-tations of creativity, become more confident intheir creative abilities and continue to performcreatively reinforcing their supervisors’ man-agement style and increasing expectations.

The research findings support the sugges-tion that there tends to be higher creative self-efficacy in organizations where there is moreinteraction with others and risk-taking whichchange entails (Fyvie & Ager, 1999). In a colle-gial environment, there is more informationflow and less concern with new ideas failing.With more interaction amongst staff and anappropriate level of risk-taking, there will be

co-operation and motivation to find new andcreative ways of doing things. This is likely toresult in higher creative self-efficacy over time.On the other hand, a lack of communicationand interpersonal contact would invariablycause conflict, fear of failure and tension wherecreativity and creative self-efficacy will bestifled.

There are contraindications in this study.The results do not support a direct relationshipbetween creative self-efficacy and either orga-nizational structure or a trusting and caringatmosphere. Contrary to the findings byIsaksen et al. (2001) and Ekvall (1997), ourresearch indicates that a more hierarchical-structured organization does not have to beless creative, and managers who provide atrusting and caring atmosphere in order toincrease employees’ commitment may notnecessarily increase creative performanceeither.

The positive correlation between poly-chronicity and supervisors’ supportive andnon-controlling management style wasunexpected. This could be attributed to aperson–organization fit, where individuals areattracted to organizations that exhibit idealscomplementing their own. Organizations,in turn, tend to select individuals who areperceived to ‘fit’ the organization’s culture(Morley, 2007). This mutual attraction couldaccount for the probability of high polychronicindividuals also having a high fulfilled needfor the management style of choice. The posi-tive correlation between polychronicity andchanging the way things are done (i.e. changeorientation) further complements the desiredfreedom associated with a supportive andnon-controlling manager.

Limitations and Areas for FurtherResearch

The research sample comprised middle-agedindividuals with work experience and whowere motivated to pursue university educa-tion. This raises the question of whether theresearch findings can be generalized to a morediverse population. Other than polychronicity,this study did not include an analysis of otherpersonality traits that could impinge on anindividual’s creative self-efficacy.

Given that work environments have a directbearing on creative self-efficacy, the classifica-tion of environments according to job types orindustries could have provided added insightin this study. For example, one would expectthose working in the creative arts and inresearch and development, which require cre-



ative solutions on a regular basis, to exhibitmore creative self-efficacy.

The survey method used in this study reliedsolely on the reported perceptions of respon-dents which is more susceptible to bias thanAmabile’s (1996) ‘consensual assessment’method. However, the anonymity of respon-dents surveyed and the use of multivariateanalysis, factor analysis in particular, served tominimize the effects of spurious responses.

This study focused on variables influencingcreative self-efficacy. Five variables that signifi-cantly correlated with creative self-efficacywere found to account for only 21 per cent ofits variance. These variables also influence oneanother. The peripheral findings illustrated inFigure 1 show connections between polychro-nicity (POLY) and supervisors’ supportiveand non-controlling management style (SS).Results from the analysis point to linkagesbetween specific organizational variables (OV)and POLY and SS. While the linkage betweenSS and OVs supports Eisenberger et al.’s(2001) finding of a positive correlationbetween employees’ perception of supervisorsupport and their perception of organizationalenvironment, it also points to the existence ofmulticollinearity. There is a possibility of link-ages between ethnicity and managerial expe-rience and POLY, which was not tested in thisstudy.

In addition to addressing the limitationsmentioned, future research should include arange of personality traits that are subject tointra- and inter-personal constructs that couldinfluence creative self-efficacy. Cultural andwork environments have a direct bearing oncreative self-efficacy. There is a need to identifyappropriate sub-groups within these environ-ments that could provide more meaningfulinsight into observed differences. More funda-mentally, there seems to be a paucity of studieson quantifying and measuring the creativeself-efficacy concept. More quantifiable mea-sures would allow for more definitive studieson the impact of independent variables on cre-ative self-efficacy.

References

Amabile, T.M. (1983) The Social Psychology ofCreativity: A Componential Conceptualization.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,357–76.

Amabile, T.M. (1988) A Model of Creativity andInnovation in Organizations. In Staw, B.M. andCummings, L.L. (eds.), Research in OrganizationalBehavior, vol.10. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp.123–167.

Amabile, T.M. (1996) Creativity in Context. West-view, Boulder, CO.

Amabile, T.M. and Conti, H. (1999) Changes inthe Work Environment for Creativity duringDownsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42,630–40.

Amabile, T.M. and Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1988) CreativeHuman Resources in R&D Laboratory: HowEnvironment and Personality Impact Innovation.In Kuhn, R.L. (ed.), Handbook for Creative and Inno-vative Managers. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp.501–30.

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. andHerron, M. (1996) Assessing the Work Environ-ment for Creativity. Academy of ManagementJournal, 39, 1154–84.

Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. andKramer, S.J. (2004) Leader Behaviors and theWork Environment for Creativity: PerceivedLeader Support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.

Anderson, J.V. and College, R. (1992) Weirder thanFiction: The Reality and Myths of Creativity.Academy of Management Executive, 6, 40–47.

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise ofControl. Freeman, New York.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V. and Pas-torelli, C. (2001) Self-Efficacy Beliefs as Shapers ofChildren’s Aspirations and Career Trajectories.Child Development, 72, 187–206.

Beghetto, R.A. (2006) Creative Self-Efficacy: Corre-lates in Middle and Secondary Students. Creativ-ity Research Journal, 18, 447–57.

Bluedorn, A.C. (1998) A Taste for Change: An Inves-tigation of the Correlates of Individuals’ Orienta-tion to Change. Paper presented at the Twenty-First Century Change Imperative: EvolvingOrganisations and Emerging Networks Confer-ence, MI: Columbia.

Bluedorn, A.C. (2000) Polychronicity, ChangeOrientation, and Organizational Attractiveness.Thesis presented at the Annual Meeting of theSociety for Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology, 14–16 April, New Orleans, LA.

Bluedorn, A.C. (2002) The Human Organization ofTime: Temporal Realities and Experience. StanfordUniversity Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Bluedorn, A.C., Kalliath T.J., Strube M.J. and MartinG.D. (1999) Polychronicity and the Inventory ofPolychronicity Values (IPV): The Development ofan Instrument to Measure a Fundamental Dimen-sion of Organizational Culture. Journal of Manage-ment Psychology, 14, 205–30.

Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (1990) Quantitative DataAnalysis for Social Scientists. Routledge, London.

Chen, G., Gully, S.M., Whiteman, J. and Kilcullen, R.(2000) Examination of Relationships among Trait-Like Individual Differences, State-Like IndividualDifferences, and Learning Performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 835–47.

Choi, J.N. (2004) Individual and Contextual Predic-tors of Creative Performance: The Mediating Roleof Psychological Processes. Creativity ResearchJournal, 16, 187–99.

Conte, J.M. (2000) Examining Relationships amongPolychronicity, Big Five Personality Dimensions,Absence, and Lateness. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Society for Industrial andOrganisational Psychology, 14–16 April, NewOrleans, LA.



Conte, J.M., Rizzuto, T.E. and Steiner, D.D. (1999) AConstruct-Oriented Analysis of Individual-LevelPolychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology,14, 269–87.

Damanpour, F. (1991) Organizational Innovation: AMeta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants andModerators. Academy of Management Journal, 34,555–90.

Egan, T.M. (2005) Factors Influencing IndividualCreativity in the Workplace: An Examination ofQuantitative Empirical Research. Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, 7, 160–81.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch,P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001) Reciprocation of Per-ceived Organizational Support. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86, 42–51.

Ekvall, G. (1997) Organizational Conditions andLevels of Creativity. Creativity and InnovationManagement, 6, 195–205.

Fyvie, C. and Ager, A. (1999) NGOs and Innovation:Organizational Characteristics and Constraints inDevelopment Assistance Work in the Gambia.World Development, 27, 1383–95.

Gardner, D.G. and Pierce, J.L. (1998) Self-Esteemand Self-Efficacy within the OrganizationalContext: An Empirical Examination. Group andOrganization Management, 23, 48–70.

George, J.M. and Zhou, J. (2001) When Openness toExperience and Conscientiousness are Related toCreative Behavior: An Interactional Approach.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 687–97.

Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992) Self-Efficacy: ATheoretical Analysis of its Determinants and Mal-leability. The Academy of Management Review, 17,183–211.

Glisson, C. and Durick, M. (1988) Predictors of JobSatisfaction and Organizational Commitment inHuman Service Organizations, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 33, 61–81.

Hall, E.T. (1983) The Dance of Life: The Other Dimen-sion of Time. Anchor Books/Doubleday, GardenCity, NY.

Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1990) Understanding Cul-tural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans.Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME.

Henry, J. and Walker, D. (1992) Managing Innova-tion. Sage, London.

House, R.J. (2004) Illustrative Examples of GLOBEFindings. In House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan,P.W., Dormfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (eds.),Culture, Leadership and Organisations: The GLOBEstudy of 62 societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J., Ekvall, G. and Britz, A.(2001) Perceptions of the Best and Worst Climatesfor Creativity: Preliminary Validation Evidencefor the Situational Outlook Questionnaire. Cre-ativity Research Journal, 13, 171–84.

Jaussi, K.S., Randel, A.E. and Dionne, S.D. (2007) IAm, I Think I Can, and I Do: The Role of PersonalIdentity, Self-Efficacy, and Cross-Application ofExperiences in Creativity at Work. CreativityResearch Journal, 19(2/3), 247–58.

Jung, D., Yammarino, F.J. and Lee, J.K. (2009) Mod-erating Role of Subordinates’ Attitudes on Trans-formational Leadership and Effectiveness: AMulti-Cultural and Multi-Level Perspective. Lead-ership Quarterly, 20, 586–603.

Kanter, R.M. (1983) The Change Masters: Innovationfor Productivity in the American Corporation. Simonand Schuster, New York.

Kaufman, C.F., Lane, P.M. and Lindquist, J.D. (1991)Exploring More than 24 Hours a Day: A Prelimi-nary Investigation of Polychronic Time Use.Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 392–401.

Kaufman-Scarborough, C. and Lindquist, J.D.(1999) Time Management and Polychronicity:Comparisons, Contrasts, and Insights for theWorkplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14,288–312.

Kirton, M.J. (1989) Adaptors and Innovators atWork. In Kirton, M.J. (ed.), Adaptors and Innova-tors: Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving. Rou-tledge, New York, pp. 56–78.

Lemons, G.K. (2005) A Qualitative Investigationof College Students’ Creative Self-Efficacy. PhDthesis, University of Northern Colorado.

Lopez, N.R. (2003) An Interactional Approach toInvestigating Individual Creative Performance.MSc thesis, San Jose State University.

Madjar, N., Oldham, G.R. and Pratt, M.G. (2002)There’s No Place Like Home? The Contributionsof Work and Non-Work Creativity Support toEmployees’ Creative Performance. Academy ofManagement Journal, 45, 757–67.

Manrai, L.A. and Manrai, A.K. (1995) Effects ofCultural-Context, Gender, and Acculturation onPerceptions of Work versus Social/Leisure TimeUsage. Journal of Business Research, 32, 115–28.

Masten, W.G. and Caldwell-Colbert, A.T. (1987)Relationship of Originality to Kirton’s Scale forInnovators and Adaptors. Psychological Review, 26,548–65.

McLean, L.D. (2005) Organizational Culture’s Influ-ence on Creativity and Innovation: A Review ofthe Literature and Implications for HumanResource Development. Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 7, 226–46.

Morley, M.J. (2007) Person-Organization Fit. Journalof Managerial Psychology, 22, 109–17.

Moustafa, K.S., Bhagat, R. and Babakus, E. (2005) ACross-Cultural Investigation of Polychronicity: AStudy of Organizations in Three Countries. InMoorman, R. and Kruse, K. (eds.), Proceedings ofthe Midwest Academy of Management AnnualConference by Simmons School of Management,Collaborative Improvisation: The Playful Intersectionof Jazz and Work [WWW document]. URL http://www.midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2005/index.html [accessed on 13 June 2008].

Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. andStrange, J.M. (2002) Leading Creative People:Orchestrating Expertise and Relationships. Lead-ership Quarterly, 13, 705–50.

Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996) EmployeeCreativity: Personal and Contextual Factors atWork. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–34.

Onken, M.H. (1999) Temporal Elements of Organi-zational Culture and Impact on Firm Performance.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 231–43.

Palmer, D.K. and Schoorman, F.D. (1999) Unpack-ing the Multiple Aspects of Time in Polychronic-ity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 323–44.

Persing, L.D. (1999) Managing in PolychronicTimes: Exploring Individual Creativity and Per-



formance in Intellectually Intensive Venues.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 358–70.

Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D. and Teach, R.(1993) Putting Creativity to Work: Effects ofLeader Behavior on Subordinate Creativity. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,55, 120–51.

Rice, G. (2006) Individual Values, OrganizationalContext, and Self-Perceptions of Employee Cre-ativity: Evidence from Egyptian Organizations.Journal of Business Research, 59, 233–41.

Schyns, B. (2004) The Influence of Occupational Self-Efficacy on the Relationship of Leadership Behav-ior and Preparedness for Occupational Change.Journal of Career Development, 30, 247–61.

Schyns, B. and Sanders, K. (2005) Exploring GenderDifferences in Leaders’ Occupational Self-Efficacy. Women in Management Review, 20, 513–24.

Schyns, B. and Von Collani, G. (2002) A New Occu-pational Self-Efficacy Scale and its Relation to Per-sonality Constructs and Organisational Variables.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-chology, 11, 219–41.

Schyns, B., Torka, N. and Gössling, T. (2007) Turn-over Intention and Preparedness for Change:Exploring Leader-Member Exchange and Occu-pational Self-Efficacy as Antecedents of TwoEmployability Predictors. Career DevelopmentInternational, 12, 660–81.

Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994) Determinants ofInnovative Behavior: A Path Model of IndividualInnovation in the Workplace. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 37, 580–607.

Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004) What LeadersNeed to Know: A Review of Social and Contex-tual Factors that Can Foster or Hinder Creativity.Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53.

Slocombe, T.E. and Bluedorn, A.C. (1999) Organiza-tional Behavior Implications of Congruencebetween Preferred Polychronicity and Experi-enced Work-Unit Polychronicity. Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior, 20, 75–99.

Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998) Self-Efficacy and Work-Related Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–61.

Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002) Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and Rela-tionship to Creative Performance. Academy ofManagement Journal, 45, 1137–48.

Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2004) The PygmalionProcess and Employee Creativity. Journal of Man-agement, 30, 413–32.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M. and Graen, G.B. (1999) AnExamination of Leadership and Employee Cre-ativity: The Relevance of Traits and Relationships.Personal Psychology, 52, 591–620.

Tinsley, C. (1998) Models of Conflict Resolution inJapanese, German, and American Cultures.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 316–23.

Triandis, H.C. (2004) The Many Dimensions ofCulture. Academy of Management Executive, 18,88–93.

Zhou, J. (1998) Feedback Valence, Feedback Style,Task Autonomy, and Achievement Orientation:Interactive Effects on Creative Performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261–76.

Zhou, J. (2003) When the Presence of CreativeCoworkers is Related to Creativity: Role of Super-visor Close Monitoring, Developmental Feed-back and Creative Personality. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 413–22.

Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2003) AwakeningEmployee Creativity: The Role of Leader Emo-tional Intelligence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 545–68.

Dr Eric Chong ([email protected]) hasa doctorate in business administration fromBrunel University, UK, and is currentlywith the Victoria University of Wellington,NZ. Eric has researched and designedsenior management competency models foruse in Assessment Centres. His currentresearch interest is on the effects of workand cultural environments in determiningleadership and managerial competencyrequirements and assessed performance.

Xiaofang Ma ([email protected])has a Bachelors’ Degree in HumanResource Management from Henan Financeand Economics University of China andMaster’s degree in Management Sciencefrom Victoria University of Wellington.Xiaofang’s research interest is in the devel-opment of creativity in organizations.



Appendix

Individual Multi-Tasking Style (Polychronicity)

Individual Multi-Tasking Style(Polychronicity)

StronglyDisagree

StronglyAgree

1. I like to juggle several activities at the same time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. I would rather complete an entire project every day than

complete parts of several projects.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I believe people should try to do many things at once. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. When I work by myself, I usually work on one project at a time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. I prefer to do one thing at a time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. I believe people do their best work when they have many tasks

to complete.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I believe it is best to complete one task before beginning another. 1 2 3 4 5 6 78. I believe it is best for people to be given several tasks and

assignments to perform.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. I seldom like to work on many tasks or assignments at the sametime.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. I would rather complete parts of several projects every day thancomplete an entire project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Creative Self-Efficacy

Creative Self-Efficacy StronglyDisagree

StronglyAgree

1. I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively. 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. I have a knack for further developing the ideas of others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



Supervisory Supportive and Non-Controlling Management Style

Supervisory Supportive and Non-Controlling Management Style StronglyDisagree

StronglyAgree

1. My supervisor helps me solve work-related problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. My supervisor encourages me to develop new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. My supervisor keeps informed about how employees think and

feel about things.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. My supervisor encourages employees to participate in importantdecisions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. My supervisor praises good work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. My supervisor encourages employees to speak up when they

disagree with a decision.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. My supervisor refuses to explain his or her actions(reversed-coded).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. My supervisor rewards me for good performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 79. My supervisor always seems to be around checking my work

(reversed-code).1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. My supervisor tells me what shall be done and how it shall bedone (reversed-coded).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. My supervisor never gives me a chance to make importantdecisions on my own (reversed-coded).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. My supervisor leaves it up to me to decide how to go aboutdoing my job.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. My supervisor always provides me with clear structures whenassigning me a new project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. My supervisor always encourages me to learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 715. My supervisor frequently consults me to ask for my opinion

before making decisions.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. In my organization, managers believe that time spent to reachcollective decisions is valuable time.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



Organizational Variables

Structure, Control and Hierarchy StronglyDisagree

StronglyAgree

1. It is very important to follow rules and procedures in myorganization.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. At my place of work, power is in the hands of relatively fewpeople.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. My work environment is structured with all activities andprojects carefully planned.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Procedures and structures are too formal in my organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Support, Interaction, Communication and Consultation StronglyDisagree

StronglyAgree

5. In my workgroup, people usually only share information withother team members if they see that doing so will lead to somepersonal benefit.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. In my organization, people do not usually share information withpeople in other workgroups unless they see an advantage fortheir own workgroup.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. At work, I feel that I have a responsibility to share my expertisewith others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Success in my organization requires initiative and providingideas, more than commitment to rules and procedures.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Risk-Taking Orientation StronglyDisagree

StronglyAgree

9. Top management does not want to take risks in my organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 710. There is much emphasis in my organization on doing things the

way we have always done them.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. People are encouraged to take risks in my organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Atmosphere StronglyDisagree

StronglyAgree

12. I enjoy doing my work so much that I forget other things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 713. I feel a sense of time pressure in my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 714. There is truly an atmosphere of fun and playfulness at my

workplace.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. There is free and open communication in my organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 716. People are quite concerned about negative criticism of their work

in my organization.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. In my organization, there is an atmosphere of caring aboutbuilding up employees’ skill and expertise.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. The members of my workgroup feel a strong sense ofcommitment to working for our organization.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



the influence of individual factors, supervision and work environment on creative self-efficacy

Documents