1、A CROSS-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE ON EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY:GOAL ORIENTATION, TEAM LEARNING BEHAVIOR, ANDINDIVIDUAL CREATIVITYGILES HIRSTMonash UniversityDAAN VAN KNIPPENBERGErasmus UniversityJING ZHOURice UniversityWe developed and tested a cross-level model of individual creativity, integrating goalorientati
2、on theory and team learning research. Using hierarchical linear modeling, wefound cross-level interactions between individuals goal orientation and team learningbehavior in a cross-national sample of 25 R Oldham Shalley, 1991; Zhou, 2003), organizations areincreasingly seeking to foster individual c
3、reativity(Oldham, 2003). In many organizations peoplework in teams, and individual creativity is oftenenacted in this context (Shalley, Zhou, Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, Elliot Tett Oldham Elliot and a performancegoal orientation, focused on the demonstration ofcompetence to others. A learning goa
4、l orientationfosters an intrinsic interest in the task itself, aschallenging work provides a means to developskills and knowledge. It increases the likelihoodthat people invest effort and persevere to completecomplex tasks in the absence of extrinsic rewards(Dweck, 1999). In contrast, people may als
5、o be mo-tivated by extrinsic factors such as competingagainst others, receiving rewards, acknowledge-ment, or avoiding criticism (VandeWalle, 1997).These externally attuned motivations can be di-vided into two categories: A performance-approachorientation encourages an individual to seek to at-tain
6、favorable judgments, while people who areconcerned about avoiding unfavorable judgmentsof competence exhibit a performance-avoidanceorientation. Next, we propose links between thesegoal orientations and creativity and formulate pre-dictions about how team learning behavior moder-ates these relations
7、hips.Learning Goal Orientation and CreativityAmabiles (1996) componential model of creativ-ity identifies three building blocks necessary forindividual creativity: domain-relevant skills, cre-ativity-relevant skills, and intrinsic task motiva-tion. A learning goal orientation (from here on, alearnin
8、g orientation) is particularly relevant in thisregard, because it may be expected to relate to bothskill acquisition and intrinsic motivation. More-over, it may influence peoples willingness to so-licit and use feedback to improve their skills andcreativity.First, a learning orientation focuses indi
9、vidualson the acquisition of new knowledge and the de-velopment of “deep-processing strategies” facilitat-ing mastery of challenging tasks (Elliot Zhou, 2003). In order to acquire such knowledgeand skills, individuals must engage in a learningprocess. It is this learning process and the associ-ated
10、development of expertise that benefit from astrong learning orientation (Dweck, 1999).Third, when obstacles are encountered, learning-2009 281Hirst, van Knippenberg, and Zhouoriented people tend to deal with these challengesby investing additional effort to develop and masternew skills (Dweck, 1999;
11、 VandeWalle, Cron, cf.Kristoff, 1996). A key premise underlying sociallearning theory (Rosenthal cf.Chen He when team learning behavior is low, learningorientation has a positive linear relationshipwith creativity.Performance Orientation and TeamLearning BehaviorPerformance-oriented people seek to m
12、aximizerewards and minimize potential punishments, us-ing environmental cues to decide which behaviorsare appropriate. They can thus be expected to focuson the cues provided by the team context as asource of information to determine the choice ofbehaviors and actions that are favored. Team learn-200
13、9 283Hirst, van Knippenberg, and Zhouing behavior as a source of social informationorextrinsic motivationis thus likely to guide indi-viduals with a performance orientation to selectactions that are appropriate. The specific nature ofthe influence of team learning behavior on individ-uals with an ap
14、proach orientation as comparedwith an avoidance orientation is likely to differ,however.An approach orientation is characterized byshowing sensitivity to external cues in order tomaximize extrinsic rewards, and so we may predictthat individuals with a stronger approach orienta-tion are more responsi
15、ve to extrinsic motivatorssuch as team learning behavior. When learning isnot encouraged, approach-oriented employees areunlikely to be motivated to engage in learning be-haviors, as the context suggests little interest inreflective problem solving or information seeking.Consequently, approach-orien
16、ted individuals willperceive they are unlikely to be rewarded for di-recting their energy toward learning and creativeactivities. An approach orientation will do littleto encourage creativity under conditions of lowteam learning behavior, but by the same token itis unlikely to discourage creative be
17、havior. Wetherefore expect that approach orientation is un-related to creativity when team learning behavioris low.The behavior of approach-oriented individuals islikely to differ, however, when team learning be-havior is high, and team norms communicate thatlearning and creativity comprise an arena
18、 in whichto demonstrate ones competence. In this context,approach-oriented people will perceive theyshould engage in learning activities to demonstratecompetence, seeking information and experiment-ing with complex problem approaches. By engag-ing in learning and creative behaviors, they dem-onstrat
19、e their ability and may compare favorably toor even outperform their peers. Thus, when teamlearning behavior suggests the social appreciationof learning and creativity, people with a strongerapproach orientation may be more motivated toengage in creative activities.An avoidance orientation implies a
20、 tendency toavoid challenges that carry the risk of errors andfailure and to favor endeavors with a high chance ofsuccess (VandeWalle, 1997). Learning new knowl-edge and skills and applying them in the develop-ment of creative solutions to work problems is un-predictable and associated with the risk
21、 ofsetbacks, errors, and failures. Accordingly, avoid-ance-oriented individuals may shy away fromlearning activities and creative challenges unlesscontextual influences reduce the psychologicalrisks associated with such actions. Team learningbehavior may fulfill an important role in this re-gard. Wh
22、en team learning behavior is low, teamcontext does little to encourage or facilitate learn-ing; thus, avoidance-oriented individuals may as-sociate learning and creativity with risky activitiesprone to failure and criticism. In effect, this situa-tion would render learning and creativity ambigu-ous
23、and uncertain challenges, and we would expectavoidance-oriented individuals to shy away fromthese challenges.High team learning behavior, however, signals toavoidance-oriented individuals that they are lesslikely to be criticized for errors or mistakes and thatlearning and creativity are appropriate
24、, supported,and encouraged. Team learning behavior also facil-itates individual learning, thus reducing the psy-chological risks associated with learning and cre-ativity. Such risk reduction should lower thethreshold of engagement in such behaviors, be-cause it signals both that errors and glitches
25、alongthe way are less likely to elicit negative feedbackand that the team encourages people to try differentapproaches. Accordingly, we propose that teamlearning behavior attenuates the negative impact ofavoidance orientation. In sum, we hypothesize:Hypothesis 2b. Team learning behavior moder-ates t
26、he relationship between employee approachorientation and employee creativity. Approach ori-entation is positively related to creativity only withhigher team learning behavior.Hypothesis 2c. Team learning behavior moder-ates the relationship between employee avoid-ance orientation and employee creati
27、vity. Avoid-anceorientationisnegativelyrelatedtocreativityonly with lower team learning behavior.METHODSResearch Setting, Participants, and ProceduresWe collected data as part of a cross-national Rthree-factor: H92732H11005 1,081.26, p H11021 .01, RMSEA H11005 .15,CFI H11005 .57; two-factor: H92732H
28、11005 1,399.86, p H11021 .01,RMSEA H11005 .17, CFI H11005 .41; and onefactor: H92732H110051,844.67, p H11021 .01, RMSEA H11005 .20, CFI H11005 .19). Thesedata modeled at the individual level demonstratethe convergent and discriminant validity of theconstructs studied, providing sufficient basis to t
29、estthe multilevel structure of the data (Dyer et al.,2005). Multilevel CFA models individual- andteam-level constructs simultaneously at both lev-els. We expected that the factor structure of themodel would be consistent at both levels, thus weconstructed within- and between-team CFA modelscomprisin
30、g five factors (H92732H11005 437.99, df H11005 449, p H11005.64, RMSEAH11005.00). Despite the fact that the samplesize is low for multilevel CFA (Muthen, 1994), theRMSEA is satisfactory.Because we collected data from different coun-tries, we tested measurement equivalence (the as-sumption that scale
31、s assessed equivalent con-structs across settings) (Mullen, 1995). Weperformed three national (United States, UnitedKingdom, and Sweden) comparison CFAs using afour-factor measurement model comprising all in-dependent variables, with each country represent-ing a group (using covariance matrices) to
32、deter-mine whether the assumption of measurementinvariance was justified (Steenkamp those above the diagonal result from group-level analyses. n H11005 25teams comprising 198 employees. Internal consistency reliabilities are in parentheses.bDummy variable.* p H11349 .05* p H11349 .01286 AprilAcademy
33、 of Management Journaland 2c (stating that team learning behavior moder-ates the relationship between individual goal ori-entation and creativity) are cross-level interactionhypotheses. We used hierarchical linear modeling(HLM) to test them. We group-mean-centered in-dividual-level (level 1) variabl
34、es, except for thedummy-coded country and gender variables. Tocalculate nonlinear terms, we centered the individ-ual-level variables (Aiken positive and significant at the mean (bH110052.14,t H11005 2.96, p H11021 .05); and positive but not significantwhen learning orientation was one standard devi-
35、ation above the mean (b H11005 0.30, t H11005 0.41, n.s.).When team learning was low, the simple slopes of2009 287Hirst, van Knippenberg, and Zhouthe regression line were significant and positivewhen learning orientation was one standard devi-ation below the mean (b H11005 0.70, t H11005 2.32, p H11
36、021 .05),at the mean (bH110050.84, tH110052.11, pH11021.05), and abovethe mean (b H11005 0.99, t H11005 1.98, p H11021 .05). In total, theresults support Hypothesis 2a.Hypothesis 2b predicts that team learning behav-ior moderates the relationship between approachorientation and creativity. The inter
37、action of ap-proach orientation and team learning behavior wassignificant (H9253 H11005 .40, p H11021 .05). Figure 2 depicts theinteraction. The relationship between approachorientation and creativity was positive only whenteam learning was high (i.e., one s.d. above themean), supporting Hypothesis
38、2b. Hypothesis 2cpredicts that team learning behavior moderates therelationship between avoidance orientation andcreativity. This interaction was not significant (H9253H11005.22, n.s.) failing to support Hypothesis 2c.DISCUSSIONWe adopted a cross-level approach to examinehow the team context influen
39、ces the creative ex-pression of individual differences in goal orienta-tions. In support of our conceptual analysis, wefound that the relationship between an individualsgoal orientation and creativity was contingent onteam learning behavior. For individuals disposi-tionally inclined to learn (i.e.,
40、learning-orientedTABLE 2Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling for Effects on Employee Creativity of Cross-Level Interactions ofGoal Orientation with Team LearningaVariable Coefficient s.e. t H92732ModelDeviance R2bTotalR2cNull modelIntercept 4.24* 0.16 26.98* 143.29 507.55Level 1 variablesIntercep
41、t 3.27* 0.51 6.44* 142.48 503.03 .13United States H110020.72* 0.41 1.74United Kingdom H110020.46 0.40 1.16Gender 0.16 0.15 1.08Education 0.25* 0.06 4.10*Tenure 0.00 0.00 1.51Learning orientation 0.22* 0.07 2.92*Avoidance orientation H110020.08 0.06 1.32Approach orientation 0.11 0.06 1.77Level 1 nonl
42、inear variablesLearning orientation squared H110020.51 0.28 1.84 137.41 508.26 .13Learning orientation cubed H110020.01 0.01 0.80Level 2 variablesTeam size H110020.02 0.02 1.28 126.31 519.77 .12 .11Team tenure H110020.01 0.00 2.09*Team learning 0.18 0.41 0.43Linear cross-level interactionsLearning o
43、rientation H11003 team learning H110020.22 0.37 H110020.60 132.22 513.72 .09 .11Avoidance orientation H11003 team learning 0.25 0.23 1.09Approach orientation H11003 team learning 0.39 0.18 2.16*All cross-level interactionsLearning orientation H11003 team learning 1.00 0.97 1.02 129.21 513.56 .07 .10
44、Avoidance orientation H11003 team learning 0.22 0.18 1.24Approach orientation H11003 team learning 0.40* 0.20 2.01*Learning squared H11003 team learning H110020.88 0.89 0.99Learning cubed H11003 team learning H110020.06* 0.03 2.15*aEmployees n H11005 198, teams n H11005 25.bIndicates the proportion
45、of variance explained at each level, i.e., level 1 within-team variance, level 2 between-team variance andcross-level interactions.cIndicates Rwithin-group2H11003 (1 H11002 ICC1) H11001 Rbetween-groups2H11003 ICC1.* p H11021 .05Two-tailed tests.288 AprilAcademy of Management Journaland, to a lesser
46、extent, approach-oriented individ-uals), team learning behavior helped “bring out thebest in them,” bolstering their creative tendencies.However, an important caveat of our analysis isthat beyond a certain point (i.e., at high levels oflearning orientation), an emphasis on learning hasdiminishing re
47、turns in terms of individual creativ-ity. Our study contributes to the creativity litera-ture by demonstrating that the team context is apowerful moderating influence on individual dif-ferencecreativity relationships (cf. Taggar, 2002).Our results also testify to the viability of a cross-level learn
48、ing perspective (cf. Dragoni, 2005) forunderstanding creativity. Moreover, the nonlinearinteraction between learning orientation and teamlearning behavior extends the team learning litera-ture, illustrating that the alignment of individualsand team context to promote learning does notnecessarily lin
49、early enhance creativity.Theoretical ImplicationsAlthough Amabiles (1988, 1996) componentialtheoryofcreativityincludedthelearningofdomain-relevant and creativity-relevant skills and knowl-edge as key building blocks for creativity, the roleof learning in promoting creativity has so far hardlybeen investigated empirically. Addressing this is-sue and building on the firm basis provided byAmabiles conceptual work, we proposed andfound that factors that promote the learning ofknowledge and skills are associated with creativity.These results add further evidence for Amabilestheory (
