a study of the relationship between person-organization fit and employee creativity

A study of the relationshipbetween person-organization fit

and employee creativityMehlika Sarac, Ismail Efil and Mehmet Eryilmaz

Business Administration Department, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose – Like all other human behaviors, creativity must be examined by considering bothpersonal and situational influences. “Person-organization fit” (POF) provides a suitable theoreticalperspective to investigate the congruence between persons and organizations in the domain ofcreativity. However, few studies have examined the effects of POF on creative behavior. Although themajority of these studies have identified a positive relationship between POF and creativity, it issuggested that congruent individuals are less likely to be inventive. The current study will examinethe positive relationship between POF and employees’ self-rated creativity in the Turkish context. Thepaper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach – Subjective POF measures and a creativity measure wereadapted for this research, and multiple regression was used to calculate whether and how POF relatesto creativity.

Findings – Two important conclusions were found from the analyses. One of these significantinteraction effects was found on employee creativity. And the second is congruence between personalvalues and current organizational values would effect employee creativity positively. Detailed findingsand contributions have been discussed.

Research limitations/implications – Although providing an important contribution to POF andcreativity literature, this study had some limitations. In this study, self-rating method has been used tomeasure employee creativity. However, supervisor rating is the most common way in field studies andgives more objective results than self-rating method.

Practical implications – The findings provide valuable information for human resourcepractitioner about the importance of situational factors as far as personal characteristics forenhancing creative behavior in organizations.

Originality/value – As far as it is known, there are few studies to examine the relationship betweenPOF and creativity empirically. The majority of these researches examined the complementary fit(demand-abilities, need-supply, value-supply fit). On the other hand, this study specially has focusedon supplementary fit (POF), rather than complementary fit and examined its relationship withemployee creativity by considering a wide set of values in the Turkish context.

Keywords Multiple regression analysis, Turkey, Person-organization fit, Employee’s creativity

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionRecent organizational behavior studies have emphasized the importance of theorganizational context (i.e. environmental influences) in understanding behavior inorganizations. Studies have shown that people adapt to and perform best in theirjobs and have positive work-related behaviors and attitudes when there is a goodperson-environment (P-E) fit (Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Cable and Judge,1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2008; Kim, 2012). Westerman and Vanka(2005) noted that most employee attitudes and behaviors are not determined only by

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

Management Research ReviewVol. 37 No. 5, 2014

pp. 479-501q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

2040-8269DOI 10.1108/MRR-01-2013-0025

POF andemployeecreativity

479

the person or the work environment; they are also determined by the relationshipbetween these two factors. Thus, employee creativity is an employee attitude that is afunction of both the person and the context (Amabile, 1988; Woodman and Schoenfeldt,1989; Woodman et al., 1993). “Person-organization fit” (POF) influences behaviorbecause of the interaction of the characteristics of the individual and the environment(Edwards, 2008) and provides a suitable domain to examine the effect of individual andenvironmental interaction on employee creativity.

Many studies have identified the facilitators or barriers (Shalley et al., 2004) of creativebehavior but little attention has been given to POF (Farabee, 2011). Some authors haveargued that POF can create myopia and prevent change in organizations (Argyris, 1957;Kristof, 1996; Schneider et al., 1995), but others suggest that congruence between personsand the environment in relevant dimensions positively influences creative behavior(Leonora, 2012; Tierney et al., 1999). Van Maanen and Schein (1979, p. 228) argued thatcreative individualists are people who score high in POF (Chatman, 1991).

Few studies have empirically examined the relationship between POF and creativity.There are two main types of fit in organizations: complementary fit and supplementaryfit. Complementary fit occurs when a person or an organization provides attributesthat the other party needs; for example, the person may have skills needed by theorganization. Supplementary fit occurs when a person and an organization are similar infundamental characteristics, such as values (Kristof, 1996; Muchinsky and Monahan,1987). The majority of studies on POF and creativity have examined complementary fit(demand-abilities, need-supply and value-supply fit). This study focuses onsupplementary fit (POF) rather than complementary fit and examines its relationshipwith self-rated employee creativity in a Turkish context. We assume that creativity isassociated with supplementary fit more than with complementary fit. Recent studies oncreativity have placed less of an emphasis on personality and skills (Runco, 2004) andsome studies have suggested that creativity is grounded in values and desire rather thanskills and abilities (Dollinger et al., 2007). Some existing studies (Livingstone et al., 1997;Choi, 2004) that examine the effects of POF on creativity have been criticized for nottaking into account all dimensions of an organizational culture and focusing only onvalues related to creativity and innovation. To overcome this criticism, in the currentstudy, all dimensions of the “organizational culture profile” (OCP) have been considered.

Employee creativityAlthough the terms creativity and innovation are often used interchangeably inresearch studies, creativity involves the generation of useful new ideas on a smallerscale, whereas innovation involves the implementation of useful new ideas on alarger scale (Scott and Bruce, 1994). Employee creativity is a complex behavior thatincludes social and intellectual competence. Various approaches from disciplines suchas social psychology (Amabile, 1988), cognitive theory (Finke et al., 1992), andpersonality theory (Barron and Harrington, 1981; Woodman, 1981) have made importantcontributions to studies of creativity. A social psychological approach to creativityconsiders social and environmental situations simultaneously (Amabile, 1988).According to Amabile (1988), domain-relevant skills (knowledge and expertise in aspecial domain), creativity-relevant processes (appropriate strategies for producingcreative ideas) and task motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic motivation) have been seen askey components of creative behavior in workplaces. Cognitive studies have examined

MRR37,5

480

creativity as an aspect of mental operations and have explained creativity as a process.Several cognitive mechanisms, such as “wide categories of classification” or “associatingtwo or more elements”, are associated with creativity (Findlay and Lumsden, 1988).According to Torrance (1993), creativity is a process that begins by becoming sensitive toproblems, continues to searching for solutions and making suggestions and ends bytesting and communicating the results. Similarly, Basadur (1982) developed a basiccognitive model in three stages, problem finding, problem solving and implementingsolutions, to examine creativity. According to personality theorists, creativity is closelyrelated to personal characteristics. Most studies in this area have attempted to definethe personal characteristics of creative persons, determining that high energy,self-confidence, autonomy; independent judgment, risk taking, attraction to complexityand a drive for originality and flexibility are common characteristics of creative persons(Roe, 1953; MacKinnon, 1961; Barron and Harrington, 1981; Martindale, 1984). However,personal characteristics are given much less attention in the current literature (Runco,2004); most recent literature has emphasized an interactionist perspective on creativity.Researchers have noted the importance of studying the effects of the interaction betweenpersonal and situational factors. Scott and Bruce (1994) assessed employees’ innovativebehavior as the outcome of four interacting systems: individuals, leaders, work groups,and the climate for innovation. Similarly, Runco (2004) categorized creativity studiesinto four topics, person, process, press and product and noted the multidimensionalstructure of creativity. Unlike other studies, his classification included a “press” topic. Theconcept of press refers to the relationship between human beings and their environment.Much of the research on press focuses on social dynamics and situational influences oncreativity, such as freedom, autonomy, good role models and resources (including time),encouragement, freedom from criticism and norms that encourage creativity (Runco,2004). Several empirical studies have found that personal attributes interact withsituational factors to affect creativity (Tierney et al., 1999; Zhou and George, 2001;Sagiv et al., 2010).

This study adopts an interactionist approach to creativity and suggests thatemployees’ creative behavior is a complex phenomenon that is not related only toindividual personality or environmental support but is influenced by the interactionof the environment and the individual. Thus, the level of fit of the employee, whichshows the degree of the employee’s value congruence with the organization, may be anantecedent that encourages or prevents creative behavior.

Person organization fit“P-E” fit refers to individuals’ congruence with their work environment. Within theframework of P-E fit, researchers have found that an individual may be in congruencewith the work environment at different levels, such as “POF”, “person-job” (P-J) fit,“person-group” (P-G) fit, or “person-vocation” (P-V) fit (Caplan, 1987; O’Reilly et al., 1991;Cable and Judge, 1996; Kristof, 1996; Werbel and Gilliland, 1999; Kristof-Brown et al.,2002, 2005; Ryan and Daniel, 2009).

To clarify the concept of “fit”, Kristof (1996) described two main types of fit:supplementary and complementary. Complementary fit occurs when a person’scharacteristics “make whole” the environment or add what it is missing (Kristof, 1996).“Needs-supplies fit” and “demand-abilities fit” are types of complementary fits.According to the perspective of needs-supplies fit (value-supplies), fit occurs when an


481

organization satisfies individuals’ requirements. The demand-abilities perspectivesuggests that fit occurs when an individual has the abilities demanded by anorganization. This approach emphasizes an individual’s knowledge and skills in termsof how well the individual succeeds in situations (Pervin, 1989). P-J fit is also based onthis type of complementary fit (Werbel and Demarie, 2005) and has been used as one ofthe main criteria in the employee selection process for many years.

Supplementary fit occurs when a person “supplements, embellishes or possessescharacteristics which are similar to other individuals” in an environment (Kristof, 1996).POF is a form of supplementary fit and is defined as congruence between the normsand values of organizations and the values of individuals (Chatman, 1989). Variousdimensions have been studied in the context of supplementary fit, such as personalitycongruence and goal congruence (Westerman and Cyr, 2004). Of these, value congruencehas been found to be the most suitable predictor of important outcomes such ascommitment, organizational identification, job satisfaction, citizenship behavior andintention to quit (Schneider, 1987; Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Schneider et al.,1995; Kristof, 1996; Saks and Ashforth, 1997; Werbel and Gilliland, 1999; Cable andEdwards, 2004; Zoghbi-Manrique de Lara, 2008).

Although different individual and organizational outcomes have been positivelyrelated to POF in previous studies, the affect of POF on employees’ creativity remainsan interesting field for researchers.

Studies on the relationship between POF and creative behavior are limited. Relativelyfew studies have specifically focused on complementary fit and creativity.Livingstone et al. (1997) found that high levels of supply-value fit and demand-abilityfit in creativity were associated with outcomes such as lower strain, higher performanceand job satisfaction. The results indicated that the fit between creativity anddemand-ability was negatively related to strain and positively related to job performanceand job satisfaction. Additionally, the environment (both the organizational demand forcreativity and the organizational supply of creativity) had a stronger influence onoutcomes than did individual creativity or ability. Lipkin (1999) studied the relationshipbetween POF and creative ideation, which is considered an early stage of creativebehavior. Lipkin hypothesized a positive relationship between fit and creative ideation.OCP (O’Reilly et al., 1991) was used to measure individual and organizational value fit inthis research, but no significant statistical relationship was found between POF andcreative ideation. However, Lipkin (1999) noted that main limitation of her study wasweak statistical techniques. Puccio et al. (2000) examined the effect of the demand-abilityfit and the supply-value fit on the degree of creative performance. They found significantinteraction effects, which indicated that a stylistic match between the individual and theenvironment was associated with higher levels of product novelty and resolution.

Choi (2004) extended Livingstone et al.’s (1997) research by examining both thecreativity needs-supplies fit and the creativity demand-ability fit, with the exception ofactual creative behavior (using subjective fit measures). The results showed thatcreative behavior was almost exclusively predicted by personal characteristics (desirefor creative climate and actual creative abilities), whereas context satisfaction wasstrongly influenced by environmental characteristics (current creative climate andrequired creative abilities). Farabee (2011) has criticized these studies because theytested only one dimension of values (creativity). Individuals and organizations havemultiple values that influence behavior. Choi and Price (2005) identified two different

MRR37,5

482

types of person-innovation fit constructs (value fit and ability fit) that differentiallypredict employees’ commitment to implementation and implementation behavior. Theresults of their study indicated that congruence between innovation values andpersonal values is more strongly related to employees’ commitment to implementationthan to implementation behavior, whereas congruence between the required abilitiesand the current abilities is more strongly associated with implementation behaviorthan with commitment to implementation. In addition, commitment to implementationis more strongly associated with environmental characteristics (innovation values),whereas implementation behavior is more strongly associated with personalcharacteristics (personal values, current abilities).

Farabee (2011) identified a negative relationship between POF and employees andsuggested that individuals with a strong fit with an organization may be less likely tobe creative. The competence value model, which consists of four dimensions (humanrelations, internal processes, rational goals, creativity/innovation), was used tomeasure the fit between organizational culture and individual values. The resultssuggested that creativity was more likely to be positively related than negativelyrelated to fit in terms of the values of human relations and rational goals. Furthermore,the internal processes value fit was negatively related to supervisor-rated creativitywhen only low creative culture data were included in the analysis.

POF and creativityAccording to the general POF model, an appropriate fit between an individual’spreferences and work environment characteristics improves individual outcomes.Researchers frequently use “values” to assess the fit between an individual’s preferencesand the characteristics of the work environment because values are fundamental andenduring characteristics of both individuals and organizations. Employees who holdvalues and beliefs similar to those of the organization interact more efficiently withthe organization, reducing uncertainty and increasing satisfaction, identification,commitment, citizenship behavior and even creativity (Ruiz-Palomino andMartınez-Canas, 2013; Kim, 2012; Zoghbi-Manrique de Lara, 2008; Kristof-Brown et al.,2005; Chatman, 1991; Lipkin, 1999). Several studies have noted the importance of valuesfor creativity. It is suggested that creative individuals hold different value systems thantheir less creative counterparts. Creativity may be a function of the values held bycreative people – what they prefer or desire (Dollinger et al., 2007). This study takes thisidea a step further by suggesting that value congruence (POF) between the environmentand individuals may positively affect creativity.

The effect of POF on employee creativity in organizations remains a controversialissue. Some studies have suggested a negative relationship between POF and employeecreativity because employees who fit well with organizations form homogenousgroups and cultures (Farabee, 2011). Schneider’s (1987) ASA theory (i.e. theattraction-selection-attrition framework) helps to explain this negative link. Schneiderproposes that homogeneity in personal characteristics, such as values and personality,occurs over time within an organization. According to his model, individuals areattracted to and selected by organizations that are similar to them. Moreover,individuals who do not believe that they fit well with an organization tend to leave.Over time, employees become more similar to each other in terms of their values,attitudes and personalities and a strong and homogeneous organizational culture


483

is formed. In a strong organizational culture, most employees will be exposed to thesame rules and awards and individuals are likely to have similar mental models andsimilar ways of thinking (Schneider et al., 1995). Homogeneous groups have been foundto be more socially integrated and to experience fewer communication problems, lessconflict and lower turnover rates than heterogeneous work groups. However, studieshave suggested that heterogeneous groups outperform homogeneous groups in tasksrequiring creativity because of the availability of a greater variety of ideas,perspectives and approaches to solving problems (Chatman et al., 1998). Furthermore,employees’ similar mental models may prevent them from thinking divergently andacting creatively (Farabee, 2011).

It is logical to think that dissimilar people may have the potential to producedissimilar creative ideas. However, why are all dissimilar persons or heterogeneousgroups not able to achieve high levels of creativity? Chatman et al. (1998) suggested thatdissimilar people may be more likely to produce highly creative output in collectivistcultures than in individualistic cultures, which may encourage a lack of trust betweenpeople and may prevent the sharing of ideas and information with other employees.

It is widely believed that cultural values influence creativity (Rinne et al., 2013). Somecharacteristics of work environments, such as freedom, independence, autonomy goodrole models and resources (including time), encourage originality, freedom from criticismand “norms in which innovation is prized and failure not fatal”. Some influencesmay also inhibit creativity (Witt and Beorkrem, 1989). These include a lack of respect(specifically for originality), bureaucracy, constraints, a lack of autonomy and resources,inappropriate norms, project management, a lack of feedback, time pressures,competition and unrealistic expectations. However, the impact of these inhibitorsdepends on individuals’ characteristics. For example, competition may both stimulateand inhibit creative work according to the individual’s interpretation (Runco, 2004).

From this perspective, it can be argued that being similar or different is not theissue. The characteristics of work environments may prevent or encourage employees’creativity in the workplace through interactions with personal characteristics orpreferences.

Creativity is a choice made by an individual to engage in the production of novelideas. The level of creative engagement may depend on the person and the situation.An individual may choose minimal engagement although he/she has great potential.Alternatively, an individual may choose to engage fully by using all of his or herabilities in an effort to produce creative outcomes (Drazin et al., 1999).

It is important to understand the factors that effect employees’ decision to becreative. Some studies have found that organizational commitment is positively relatedto employees’ level of creativity (Hou et al., 2011; Cekmecelioglu, 2006). In today’spost-industrial society, modern organizations emphasize the influence of innovation onthe long-term development of organizations. Therefore, highly committed employeeswho have a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals (Meyer andAllen, 1991) may demonstrate better creative performance. In addition to commitment,some work-related attitudes, such as citizenship and job satisfaction, seem to be relatedto employee creativity. For example, making constructive suggestions, which includesall voluntary acts of creativity and innovation in organizations, is defined as a form ofcitizenship behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Ruiz-Palomino and Martınez-Canas (2013)demonstrated the important role of overall P-O fit in connection with ethical culture,

MRR37,5

484

ethical intent, and organizational citizenship which covers sub-dimensions such as,working longer hours to response to job demands, individual creativity and jobbehavior. Lipkin (1999) found that a creative fit is positively associated with decreasedstrain, job satisfaction and creative performance. As mentioned, employees who fit wellwith an organization have high commitment, satisfaction and citizenship behavior(Ruiz-Palomino and Martınez-Canas, 2013; Yu-Chen, 2012; Zoghbi-Manrique de Lara,2008; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; O’Reilly et al., 1991). These relationships suggest thatPOF may also be a predictor of employee creativity.

Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1. POF between individuals’ preferred values and perceptions of theirorganization’s values is positively related to employees’ self-rated creativity.

The other question is in which specific values does fit foster employee creativity.Previous studies have been criticized for considering only values directly related tocreativity or innovation (Farabee, 2011) because individuals and organizations havemultiple values that influence behavior. For example, an organizational or individualvalue of collaboration may be closely related to employee creativity. Thus, the currentstudy aimed to examine the relationship between POF (value congruence) andemployee creativity by considering a wide set of values in the Turkish context. Basedon O’Reilly et al.’s (1991) scale (OCP), there are several common factors thatcharacterize the value fit between organizations and individuals. By adapting OCP tothe Turkish context, we have identified four meaningful factors that constitute thevalue set: conformity, innovation, stability and supportiveness.

ConformityIn our study, conformity is related to values such as being team oriented and easygoing,tolerance, respect for individuals, being people-oriented, and fairness. Conformity valuesare generally rated in the middle range in most cultures. Schwartz and Bardi (2001)proposed that conformity values promote harmony and thus maintain the status quo,reducing motivation to innovate (Dollinger et al., 2007). For example, it is suggested thatin contrast to teamwork and brainstorming, individuals who work alone generate moreand better ideas than groups. This phenomenon is often explained in terms of socialloafing (Runco, 2004). Thus, we would expect that although status-quo-oriented valuesinversely predict creativity, if there is a fit between individual conformity preferencesand the conformity of the work environment, these interactions may have positive effecton employee creativity:

H2. POF between individuals’ preferred values and perceptions of theirorganization’s values in conformity is positively related to employees’self-rated creativity.

InnovationInnovation is related to values such as “being innovative”, “flexibility”, “adaptability”,“autonomy”, “being quick to take advantage” and “risk taking”. These values indicategeneral openness to change and a propensity to experiment. Flexibility, adaptabilityand eagerness to take advantage of opportunities provide the ability to copewith the advances, opportunities, technologies and changes that are part of everyday


485

life (Runco, 2004). Risk-taking is also positively related to creativity. Pech (2001)suggested that in a risk-avoiding organizational culture, programs that specify correctways of doing things are likely to be implemented to safely duplicate previous success,leaving no room for alterations or flexibility. From a psychological perspective, whenemployees are faced with numerous rules and standard procedures, they may perceivea task as beyond their control and direct their attention to the rules and standardsgoverning the task process (Choi et al., 2009). Autonomy enhances intrinsic motivationand reinforces creativity as a self-regulatory process (Amabile, 1996). According toO’Reilly et al. (1991), individuals with high needs for autonomy prefer innovativecultures. Also it is suggested that autonomy, independence and freedom – beliefsassociate with individualism which is an one of Hofstede’s cultural value are needed fora nation to be creative (Rinne et al., 2013). Thus, these values would have a positiveimpact on employee creativity. Similarly, we expect that a fit between individualinnovation preferences and the innovation of the work environment has a positiveeffect on employee creativity:

H3. POF between individuals’ preferred values and perceptions of theirorganization’s values in innovation is positively related to employees’self-rated creativity.

StabilityStability is related to values such as “being stable”, “predictability”, “formalization”and “security of employment”. These values are part of stable cultures that are certain,rule-oriented, and bureaucratic. Safety and stability are generally assessed as opposedto risk and innovation (Reynolds, 1986). These values prevent quick action and as aresult, may be a misfit with a changing and dynamic environment; they are blamed forkilling good ideas in early stages and preventing companies from innovating. A highdegree of formalization may lead to reduced innovativeness because employees areused to behaving in a certain manner. Thus, we expect that although stable valuesinversely predict creativity, if there is a fit between individual stability preferences andthe stability of the work environment, these interactions may have positive effect onemployee creativity:

H4. POF between individuals’ preferred values and perceptions of theirorganization’s values in stability is positively related to employees’self-rated creativity.

SupportivenessSupportiveness is related to values such as opportunities for professional growth, highpay for good performance, price for good performance, a clear guiding philosophy andbeing result-oriented. Individuals are expected to be most creative when theyexperience a high level of intrinsic motivation that is driven by their own interests orchallenging work rather than external rewards or targets set by upper management(Amabile, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004). Personality research frequently includes intrinsicmotivation as a core characteristic of creative persons (Runco, 2004). Amabile (1996)defined intrinsic motivation as “any motivation that arises from the individual’spositive reaction to qualities of the task itself; this reaction is experienced as interest,involvement, curiosity, satisfaction or positive challenge”. In contrast, extrinsic

MRR37,5

486

motivation is provided by outside sources. Under these conditions, individuals are freeof extraneous concerns and are likely to take risks and create new ideas. Intrinsicmotivation (rather than extrinsic motivation) is crucial for creativity. Several studieshave shown that when performance feedback is offered in a controlling fashion(e.g. “you performed well, just as you should”), employees’ intrinsic motivation isadversely affected (Oldham and Cummings, 1996). However, some studies have foundthat when supervisors are supportive, encourage their employees, provide positivefeedback and facilitate employees’ skill development, employees’ personal initiative atwork increases and they demonstrate better creative performance (Deci and Ryan,1987). Therefore, we expect that if there is a fit between individuals’ supportpreferences and the supportiveness of the work environment, these interactions mayhave positive effects on employee creativity:

H5. POF between individuals’ preferred values and perceptions of theirorganization’s values in supportiveness is positively related to employees’self-rated creativity.

MethodologyDataData were collected from Turkey/Bursa from a variety of organizations and industries,including automotive (35.6 percent), education (26.4 percent), service (10.3 percent),finance (5.2 percent), public (4.6 percent), mechanical (4.6 percent), informationtechnology (3.4 percent), health (2.3 percent), construction (2.3 percent), agriculture(1.1 percent), drug (1 percent), iron and steel (1.1 percent) and food industries(1.1 percent). In this way, the range restriction problem that may occur if data wereonly collected from a single company or industry (Livingstone et al., 1997) was avoided.Most of the data were collected from individuals via e-mail. Some MBA studentsworking in various organizations participated in the survey voluntarily. Three scales(current OCP, demanded (ideal) OCP, and self-rated creativity) were given or sent to200 participants as a one-survey packet. Ninety-six individuals participated, with aresponse rate of 48 percent. The sample consisted of 48 males and 47 females(1 unreported). The average age and tenure of employees were 30 and 4.4, respectively.

Data analysisMeasuring employee creativityThere are several ways to measure employee creativity, such as expert evaluation,product approach, supervisors’ ratings and self-rated evaluations (Shalley et al., 2004).However, in many cases, utilizing the expert or product approach is very difficultbecause information that allows products to be evaluated is not readily available or isnot appropriate. Thus, self-rating and supervisory evaluations of employee creativityhave been used in field research (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2012). Although supervisors’ratings are the most common approach in field studies (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Oldhamand Cummings, 1996; George and Zhou, 2001), many studies have used self-evaluationsas a measure of creativity (Kaufman and Baer, 2004; Zhou et al., 2008; Shalley et al.,2009). The difficulty in using self-reports of creativity is similar to the difficulty ofusing any other self-report measure. Participants are aware of what is being assessed(personality trait, values or creativity) and they are willing to report accurately(Reiter-Palmon et al., 2012). Some studies show that self-assessed creativity relates to


487

some measures of creativity. Furnham (1999) found that self-assessed creativity wassignificantly related to creativity as measured by the Barron Welsh Art Scale. Park et al.(2002) found that self-reported creativity significantly correlated with all scores onthe Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2012). Similarly,Munoz-Doyague et al. (2008) found that self-assessed creativity is related to intrinsicmotivation; their findings fit well with the previous studies (Amabile, 1988;Tierney et al., 1999).

Because of barriers to implementing the supervisor rating method, the self-ratingmethod was preferred in this study to measure employee creativity. Oben’s (2009)self-rated employee creativity scale, which was translated to Turkish from the originalscale of Munoz-Doyague et al. (2008), was used (Cronbach’s a: 0.96). This is a highlyreliable scale that has been tested for content validity, construct validity and reliabilityin Turkey. It consists of 11 items obtained from Ettlie and O’Keefe (1982), Oldhamand Cummings (1996) and Zhou and George (2001). The participants were asked torespond to each item on a seven-point Likert-type scale, from “completely disagree” to“completely agree”.

Measuring POFO’Reilly et al. (1991) developed a measure called OCP to assess POF through the Q-sortmethod. OCP consists of 54 value items that can generically capture individual andorganizational values. The Q-sort is a ranking technique in which respondents placesurvey items into response categories arranged in a symmetrical pattern. Kristof (1996)and Cable and Judge (1997) suggested using a Likert-type scale instead of the Q-sorttechnique because of several difficulties associated with the use of a Q-sort technique,such as the long time needed for respondents to rank the items. Tepeci (2001) andKarakurum (2005) adapted the OCP into Turkish and used a five-point Likert-type scale.

In the current study, to measure value-based supplementary POF, Karakurum’s(2005) adapted Turkish five-point Likert-type OCP scale was used (Cronbach’s a: 0.77).To develop a profile of an organization’s culture (current values), respondents wereasked to rate the 54 value items according to the extent to which the items arecharacteristic of the current organization on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from“1 – least characteristic” to “5 – most characteristic”. For individual preferences(organization demand), individuals were asked to rate the same items based on theextent to which these values were characteristic of their ideal organization. Thefive-point Likert-type scale ranged from “1 – least characteristic” to “5 – mostcharacteristic”. Reliability and factor analysis were conducted for every scale.

The vast majority of fit studies have calculated value congruency by using thedifference scores method, which calculates the arithmetic difference between theperceived and preferred values for each of the commensurate value items as a fit scoreor uses correlations between individual and organizational value items (Tisak andSmith, 1994; Cable and Judge, 1996, 1997; O’Reilly et al., 1991). Although differencescores and correlations between individual and organizational value items are, themost widely used techniques, they have been criticized for collapsing two or moremeasures into a single similarity index to operationalize congruency. Edwards (2002,2008) suggests the use of polynomial equations (in the form of non-linear multipleregression) containing measures of both entities (here, the current and ideal culturemeasurements) that are typically collapsed in a similarity index. This approach offers

MRR37,5

488

some advantages over other techniques by maintaining the interpretability of theoriginal component measures and separating estimates of the relationships betweencomponent measures and the outcome. Many studies have found that the approachproposed by Edwards may considerably increase the explained variance in POFstudies (Kristof, 1996; Cable and Judge, 1997; Goodman and Svyantek, 1999;Van Vuuren et al., 2007; Ostroff et al., 2005). Thus, in this study, a multiple regressionanalysis was used to examine the congruence between personal values andenvironmental values as a predictor of employee creativity. In this way, the effects ofpersonal values, contextual values and the congruence of both person and context canbe examined separately rather than calculating a single similarity index.

FindingsTable I presents the results of the reliability test and the factor analysis. Exploratoryfactor analysis was performed to test the content validity of each scale. The factoranalysis of the creativity scale revealed one factor from the original scale(KMO ¼ 0.878 and Bartlett’s test significant at the 0.000 level). The OCP scale itemswere grouped into six factors. However, the factors differed in the demanded OCPand current OCP scales, as in previous studies (Yahyagil, 2005; Lipkin, 1999).Although the same items were asked of the participants, the two scales measureddifferent things (current culture and demanded culture). Thus, the identification ofdifferent factors for each scale is significant. Items with low factor loadings wereeliminated from the original scales, and some factors that included fewer than threeitems were eliminated (Klein, 2013). Finally, factor analysis of the current OCP scalerevealed three factors (conformity, stability, and innovation) comprising 23 items(KMO increasing from 0.892 to 0.951 after factor elimination and Bartlett’s testsignificant at the 0.000 level), explaining 65 percent of the total variance. Factoranalysis of demanded OCP revealed four factors (supportiveness, conformity,innovation, and stability) comprising 27 items (KMO increasing from 0.847 to 0.866after factor elimination and Bartlett’s test significant at the 0.000 level), explaining69 percent of the total variance.

In the multiple regression analyses, the demanded OCP scale (personal values) wasused as the person variable and the current OCP scale (environment values) was usedas the environment variable. Their interaction (CD) was entered into the regressionanalysis. All scores were mean centered to reduce multicollinearity. To test thesignificance of the model, an ANOVA test was conducted. Tables II-IV show the modelsummary and the results of the ANOVA and multiple regression analyses.

The model was found to be significant according to the ANOVA test results, with asignificance value of 0.013. Tables II and III show that the R 2 is 0.374 and F is 2.11;

Variables Number of items a KMO and Bartlett’s test Factors

Creativity scale 9 0.925 0.878 sig. 0.000 One factorDemanded OCP scale 27 0.945 0.866 sig. 0.000 Being supportive,

conformity, innovation,stability

Current OCP scale 23 0.951 0.905 sig. 0.000 Conformity, stability,innovation

Table I.Reliability test and factor

analysis results


489

therefore, the regression results indicate that the independent variables jointlyexplained 37 percent of the variance in the dependent variable, creativity (F ¼ 2.11,p , 0.05).

Multiple regression results indicated that demanded conformity (23.4, p , 0.05),the interaction of current and demanded conformity (3.65, p , 0.001), the interaction

R R 2 Adjusted R 2 SE of the estimate

0.612a 0.374 0.197 1.09171

Notes: aPredictors: (constant), KF3XIF4, IF2, KF2, IF1, KF1, IF3, IF4, KF3, KF3XIF3, KF2XIF4,KF1XIF4, KF1XIF3, KF3XIF1, KF3XIF2, KF2XIF3, KF2XIF1, KF1XIF2, KF2XIF2, KF1XIF1

Table II.Model summary ofmultiple regressionanalysis

Unstandardizedcoefficients Standardized coefficients

Model B SE b t Sig.

1 (Constant) 10.143 4.782 2.121 0.038IF1 0.759 2.004 0.365 0.379 0.706IF2 2 6.344 2.623 2 3.423 2 2.418 0.018IF3 2.698 1.709 1.486 1.579 0.119IF4 1.798 1.443 1.099 1.246 0.217KF1 0.851 2.815 0.627 0.302 0.763KF2 24.461 2.785 23.136 21.602 0.114KF3 1.507 2.889 0.939 0.522 0.604KF1XIF1 20.890 0.707 23.467 21.259 0.212KF1XIF2 1.948 0.533 7.581 3.655 0.001KF1XIF3 0.218 0.453 0.889 0.482 0.632KF1XIF4 2 1.563 0.427 2 6.356 2 3.661 0.000KF2XIF1 20.691 0.597 22.673 21.157 0.251KF2XIF2 2 1.446 0.584 2 5.888 2 2.475 0.016KF2XIF3 20.304 0.461 21.242 20.660 0.512KF2XIF4 0.519 0.338 2.114 1.535 0.129KF3XIF1 1.245 0.693 4.368 1.798 0.077KF3XIF2 2 1.524 0.524 2 5.444 2 2.907 0.005KF3XIF3 20.568 0.405 22.009 21.404 0.165KF3XIF4 0.615 0.391 2.277 1.572 0.121

Note: Dependent variable: CF1

Table IV.Coefficients of multipleregression analysis

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

1 Regression 47.797 19 2.516 2.111 0.013a

Residual 79.852 67 1.192Total 127.649 86

Notes: aPredictors: (constant), KF3XIF4, IF2, KF2, IF1, KF1, IF3, IF4, KF3, KF3XIF3, KF2XIF4,KF1XIF4, KF1XIF3, KF3XIF1, KF3XIF2, KF2XIF3, KF2XIF1, KF1XIF2, KF2XIF2, KF1XIF1;dependent variable: CF1

Table III.Anova

MRR37,5

490

of current conformity and demanded stability (23.66, p , 0.000), the interaction ofcurrent stability and demanded conformity (22.47, p , 0.05) and the interaction ofcurrent innovation and demanded conformity (22.9, p , 0.05) were significantlyrelated to employees’ self-perceptions of creativity. To make these results easier tointerpret, Figure 1 provides an illustration of the relationship of the five significantbetas found in Table IV.

According to the model, five main effects existed on the creativity scale, and four ofthem were interactions of personal (demanded) and environmental (current) factors.The results of the analysis indicated that conformity was an important factor thataffects the perception of employee creativity. When the demanded work environment(personal value) became more conformed, perceptions of employees’ creativitydecreased. However, the interaction of current and demanded conformity had apositive effect on perceptions of employee creativity. Conformity was also involved inother interaction effects, such as the interaction of current conformity and demandedstability, the interaction of current stability and demanded conformity and theinteraction of current innovation and demanded conformity related negatively toperceptions of employee creativity (Figure 1).

The primary focus of this study was the contribution of the effects of POF(interaction effects) on self-rated employee creativity. However, only POF inconformity values was significant; the rest of the POF effects (current £ demandedstability, current £ demanded supportiveness, current £ demanded innovation) wereinsignificant in the regression analysis. Our results showed that although demandedconformity was negatively related, the interaction effect of demanded conformity andcurrent conformity was positive. To provide a better interpretation of this interactioneffect, a second hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to determinehow current conformity moderated the relationship between demanded conformity andself-rated employee creativity. In step 1, demanded conformity and current conformity

Figure 1.Interaction effects on

self-rated employeecreativity


491

were entered as independent variables and in step 2, demanded conformity, currentconformity and their interactions were entered into the model (Baron and Kenny, 1986).The results of the moderation analyses are presented in Tables V-VII.

When the interaction variable was entered, a model change in R 2 was found (0.048),and the change was statistically significant (0.034). Thus, the moderation effect ofcurrent conformity between demanded conformity and self-rated employee creativitywas supported. A graph of the interaction effect is presented in Figure 2.

As shown in the figure, when current conformity and demanded conformity arehigh, self-rated employee creativity also increases. When current conformity anddemanded conformity are low, creativity increases. Thus, when employees perceive afit in conformity values, they are more likely to be creative. In contrast, when there is amisfit in conformity values, employees are less likely to be creative.

Unstandardizedcoefficients Standardized coefficients

Model B SE b t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.858 0.942 3.034 0.003IF2 0.314 0.185 0.176 1.693 0.094KF1 0.184 0.141 0.136 1.305 0.195

2 (Constant) 9.652 3.294 2.930 0.004IF2 21.198 0.726 20.672 21.649 0.103KF1 21.813 0.939 21.340 21.930 0.057KF1XIF2 0.443 0.206 1.769 2.149 0.034

Note: Dependent variable: CF1

Table VII.Coefficients ofhierarchical multipleregression analysis

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

1 Regression 7.074 2 3.537 2.460 0.091a

Residual 126.546 88 1.438Total 133.620 90

2 Regression 13.452 3 4.484 3.246 0.026b

Residual 120.168 87 1.381Total 133.620 90

Notes: aPredictors: (constant), KF1, IF2; bpredictors: (constant), KF1, IF2, KF1XIF2; dependentvariable: CF1

Table VI.ANOVA

Change statistics

Model R R 2 Adjusted R 2 SE of the estimateR 2

changeF

change df1 df2Sig. Fchange

1 0.230a 0.053 0.031 1.19918 0.053 2.460 2 88 0.0912 0.317b 0.101 0.070 1.17526 0.048 4.618 1 87 0.034

Notes: aPredictors: (constant), KF1, IF2; bpredictors: (constant), KF1, IF2, KF1XIF2

Table V.Model summary ofhierarchical multipleregression analysis

MRR37,5

492

DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between POF andemployees’ self-perceived creativity by considering different value dimensions in theconcept of supplementary fit. Two important conclusions were found based on ouranalyses. First, significant interaction effects were found for employee creativity.Second, congruence between personal values and current organizational values inconformity values (POF in conformity) positively affect employee creativity.

Our model indicated that demanded conformity was one of the main negative effectson creativity. This finding is not surprising and is supported by previous studies.Farabee (2011) has found a significant negative relationship between individuals’conformity preferences and creativity self-ratings and suggested that conformitypreference was one of the predictors of creativity. Zhou et al. (2009) found thatemployees’ conformity values moderated the curvilinear relationship between weakties (tending to connect different groups and provide more novel, diverse andnon-redundant information) and creativity such that when conformity was low,employees exhibited greater creativity than when conformity was high. Sagiv (2002)reported that individuals who felt affinity for artistic occupations were less likely toendorse conformity values. Puccio et al. (2000) also found that demanded conformity byemployees had a significant effect on creative performance. Their results suggestedthat demanded conformity related positively only to solution performance but not tonovelty (originality) performance of employees. This effect was found for the idealscale because individuals’ preferences to conform, expressed as ideal desires, lead tohigher levels of resolution in their current jobs. However, personal variables alone arenot sufficient to predict employee creativity. Our findings indicated that interaction

Figure 2.Illustration of interaction

effect for conformityvalues

Low Current Conformity

High Current Conformity

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

Self

-rat

ed c

reat

ivit

y

Low High

Demanded Conformity

Note: Plot created using understandardized regressioncoefficients


493

effects had a significant influence on employee’s self-rated creativity. Previous studieshave provided comprehensive information related to the interaction effects of personaland environmental variables on creative performance (Puccio et al., 2000; Scott andBruce, 1994; Pervin, 1989). The significant interactions found in this study supportedthe related literature in terms of all interaction effects, including the conformitydimension. Thus, our findings suggest that conformity, specifically demandedconformity, is one of the most important factors for employees’ self-rated creativity.Farabee (2011) examined whether employees’ conformity preferences moderated therelationship between value fit and creativity and found that conformity preferences didnot moderate the relationship between value fit and creativity, but they did moderate19 different relationships, such as the relationship between internal process values andcreativity and between rational goal values and creativity.

According to our regression results, the interaction of current conformity anddemanded stability and the interaction of current stability and demanded conformityhad negative effects on creativity. These findings are consistent with the previousliterature because both conformity and stability have been identified as values thatinversely predict creativity. When the work environment promotes conformity orstability, harmony and the status quo reduce the motivation to innovate. Furthermore,employees who demand stability and conformity are less likely to demonstrate changeand dynamism and to create new ideas. Thus, the interaction of stability andconformity values negatively affect creativity.

The results indicate that the interaction of current innovation and demandedconformity had negative effects on creativity. This finding is consistent with the otherresults. Although the environment promotes values such as innovativeness, flexibility,adaptability, autonomy, being quick to take advantage of opportunities and risk takingin the workplace, employees who have a strong conformity preference may be less likelyto suggest new ways of proceeding and often rely on others’ suggestions (Rice, 2006).

Beyond these interaction effects, our goal in this article was to examine how POFbetween individuals’ preferred values and perceptions of their organization’s valuesrelate to employees’ self-rated creativity. We expected that POF between individuals’preferred values and perceptions of their organization’s values in conformity, stability,innovation and supportiveness would relate positively to employees’ self-ratedcreativity. However, significant positive bs were found only for conformity values(7.58, sig. 0.001). Although individuals’ preference for conformity (personal value)decreased creativity, the interaction effects of current conformity (environment value)and demand for conformity (personal value) increased creativity. This finding clearlyindicates that environmental characteristics related to conformity values significantlymoderate the relationship between personal preferences for conformity and self-ratedemployee creativity. Figure 2 shows that when current and demanded conformity areboth high or low, self-rated employee creativity is higher than in other situations. Thiseffect indicates that congruence between personal values and organizational values,defined as POF in conformity values (supplementary fit), has a positive effect onself-rated employee creativity.

Our findings partially supported our hypothesis that POF between individuals’preferred values and perceptions of their organization’s values is positively related toemployees’ self-rated creativity for conformity values. However, no significantrelationship between POF and creativity for stability, innovation, or supportiveness

MRR37,5

494

values was found. There may be several possible explanations for this finding. First,this study measured creativity by self-rating rather than objective measures.Therefore, employees’ self-assessments of their creativity may be more closely relatedto how they fit the organization. For example, Farabee (2011) did not find a negativerelationship between general POF value fit and self-rated creativity, but that studyidentified support for supervisors’ ratings. Thus, rather than objective measures orsupervisors’ ratings, self-rated creativity may be more positively related to generalPOF values. Our results also suggest that fit in conformity values such as beingteam-oriented, being easygoing, tolerance, respect for individuals, being people-orientedand fairness have a greater effect on self-rated creativity. Previous studies also supportour findings. Farabee (2011) found that creativity was more likely to be positively relatedto fit human relations values that consist of team-orientation, loyalty, commitment,people-orientation and rational goal values, such as productivity and achievementorientation. Lipkin (1999) found no significant relationship between POF in innovation,outcome orientation, team orientation and creative thinking attitudes.

Limitations and implications for future researchAlthough this study provides an important contribution to the POF and creativityliterature, it has some limitations. Our sample included different organizations andindustries; however, the sample size may be considered insufficient to represent theTurkish context. Another limitation involved the measurement of creativity. In thisstudy, the self-rating method was used to measure employee creativity, althoughsupervisor rating is the most common measurement method in field studies (Scott andBruce, 1994; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; George and Zhou, 2001). Thus, the findingsof this research only contribute to understanding the relationship between the concept ofPOF and self-assessed employee creativity. Future studies could compare the differencesbetween self-rated creativity and more objective measurements of creativity in thedomain of POF. Furthermore, the relationship between POF and creativity has only beendemonstrated for conformity. Other organizational values remain to be explored.

This study only investigated the relationship between POF and creativity.However, we presume that there may be other moderating or mediating variables, suchas organizational commitment or organizational citizenship behavior, that mayinfluence this relationship. Future studies could add these variables to the model toinvestigate the relationship between POF and creativity. We believe that culture mayalso influence this relationship (Hofstede, 1980; Westwood and Low, 2003). Thus,cross-cultural studies on POF and creativity could present a new area of research.

Implications for management and managerial practiceA significant relationship was found between POF and self-rated employee creativity inthis study. This relationship is a controversial issue that has been discussed extensivelyin the management literature but that requires more empirical studies. Puccio et al. (2000)noted the need for more interactionist methods of researching and assessing creativity.Thus, the findings of this study contribute to the management literature.

The relationship between POF and creativity is an important topic for managersand practitioners because these two concepts are closely related to the desiredoutcomes of organizations. The better the fit, the more committed employees are totheir organizations, the more satisfied they are with their organization and job and


495

the less likely they are to leave their organizations (Farabee, 2011). According to ourresults, a strong fit with an organization is not necessarily less likely to be creative.On the contrary, employees who perceive a fit in conformity values are more likely tobe creative. These findings are important for managers and practitioners who want toencourage creativity as well as commitment and satisfaction. In light of these findings,managers may review their recruiting processes and proactively hire employees basedon their value congruence with the organization in addition to their skills, abilities andjob requirements.

References

Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B.M. andCummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich,CT, pp. 123-167.

Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity”,Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Argyris, C. (1957), “Some problems in conceptualizing organizational climate: a case study of abank”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 501-520.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-1182.

Barron, F. and Harrington, D.M. (1981), “Creativity, intelligence, and personality”, Annual Reviewof Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 439-476.

Basadur, M.S. (1982), Creative Problem Solving Profile Inventory, Center for Research in AppliedCreativity, Sarasota, FL.

Cable, D.M. and Edwards, J.R. (2004), “Complementary and supplementary fit: a theoretical andempirical integration”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 822-834.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), “Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, andorganizational entry”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67,pp. 294-311.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1997), “Interviewers’ perceptions of person organization fit andorganizational selection decisions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 546-556.

Caplan, R.D. (1987), “Person-environment fit theory and organizations: commensuratedimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 31, pp. 248-267.

Cekmecelioglu, G.H. (2006), “Effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment oncreativity”, Iktisat Isletme ve Finans, Vol. 21 No. 243, pp. 120-131.

Chatman, J.A. (1989), “Improving interactional organizational research: a model ofperson-organization fit”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 333-349.

Chatman, J.A. (1991), “Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in publicaccounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 459-484.

Chatman, J.A., Jeffrey, T., Polzer, J.T., Barsade, S.G. and Neale, M.A. (1998), “Being different yetfeeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture onwork processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 749-780.

Chen, C.V.H., Lee, H.M. and Yeh, Y.J.Y. (2008), “The antecedent and consequence ofperson-organization fit: ingratiation, similarity, hiring recommendations and job offer”,International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 210-219.

MRR37,5

496

Choi, J.N. (2004), “Person-environment fit and creative behavior: differential impacts of supplies-values and demands-abilities versions of fit”, Human Relations, Vol. 57, pp. 531-552.

Choi, J.N. and Price, R.H. (2005), “The effects of person-innovation fit on individual responses toinnovation”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 83-96.

Choi, J.N., Anderson, T.A. and Veillette, A. (2009), “Contextual inhibitors of employee creativityin organizations the insulating role of creative ability”, Group & OrganizationManagement, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 330-357.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1987), “The support of autonomy and the control of behavior”, Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 1024-1037.

Dollinger, S.J., Burke, P.A. and Gump, N.W. (2007), “Creativity and values”, Creativity ResearchJournal, Vol. 19 Nos 2/3, pp. 91-103.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A. and Kazanjian, R.K. (1999), “Multilevel theorizing about creativity inorganizations: a sensemaking perspective”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24No. 2, pp. 286-307.

Edwards, J.R. (2002), “Alternatives to difference scores: polynomial regression analysis andresponse surface methodology”, in Drasgow, F. and Schmitt, N.W. (Eds), Advances inMeasurement and Data Analysis, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 350-400.

Edwards, J.R. (2008), “Person-environment fit in organizations: an assessment of theoreticalprogress”, The Academy of Management Annuals, Vol. 2, pp. 167-230.

Ettlie, J.E. and O’Keefe, R.D. (1982), “Innovative attitudes, values, and intentions inorganizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 19, p. 176.

Farabee, A.M. (2011), “Person-organization fit as a barrier to employee creativity”, doctoraldissertation, University of Missouri, St Louis, MO.

Findlay, C.S. and Lumsden, C.J. (1988), “The creative mind: toward an evolutionary theory ofdiscovery and innovation”, Journal of Social and Biological Structures, Vol. 11, pp. 3-55.

Finke, R.A., Ward, T.B. and Smith, S.M. (1992), Creative Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Furnham, A. (1999), “Personality and creativity”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 88, pp. 407-408.

George, J.M. and Zhou, J. (2001), “When openness to experience and conscientiousness are relatedto creative behavior: an interactional approach”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86No. 3, pp. 513-524.

Goodman, S.A. and Svyantek, D.J. (1999), “Person-organization fit and contextual performance:do shared values matter?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55, pp. 254-275.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hou, Y.H., Gao, G., Wang, F., Li, T. and Yu, Z. (2011), “Organizational commitment andcreativity: the influence of thinking styles”, Annals of Economics and Finance, Vol. 12No. 2, pp. 411-431.

Karakurum, M. (2005), “The effects of person-organization fit on employee job satisfaction,performance and organizational commitment in a Turkish public organization”, Mastersdissertation, The Department of Psychology, Middle East Technical University, Cankaya.

Kaufman, J.C. and Baer, J. (2004), “Sure, I’m creative – but not in math! Self-reported creativity indiverse domains”, Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 22, pp. 143-155.

Kim, S. (2012), “Does person-organization fit matter in the public sector? Testing the mediatingeffect of person-organization fit in the relationship between public service motivation andwork attitudes”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 830-840.


497

Klein, R. (2013), Applied Quantitative Analysis in Education and the Social Sciences, Part III: ItemLevel Analysis, edited by Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C. and Compton, D.L., Routledge,London, p. 392.

Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations,measurement, and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Spring, pp. 1-49.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Barrick, M.R. and Franke, M. (2002), “Applicant impression management:dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity”,Journal of Management, Vol. 28, pp. 27-46.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, andperson-supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281-342.

Leonora, M.C. (2012), “Adaptation and creativity in cultural context”, Psicologıa, Vol. 30 No. 1,pp. 3-18.

Lipkin, J.N. (1999), “Person-organization fit and creative thinking: a study of relationshipbetween person-organization value fit and creative thinking”, doctoral dissertation,California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Livingstone, L.P., Nelson, D.L. and Barr, S.H. (1997), “Person-environment fit and creativity:an examination of supply-value and demand-ability versions of fit”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 23, pp. 119-146.

MacKinnon, D.W. (1961), “Creativity in architects in the creative person”, Proceedings ofa Conference Presented at the University of California Alumni Center, Lake Tahoe, CA.

Martindale, C. (1984), “The pleasures of thought: a theory of cognitive hedonics”, Journal of Mindand Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 49-80.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizationalcommitment: some methodological considerations”, Human Resource ManagementReview, Vol. 1, pp. 61-98.

Muchinsky, H.A. and Monahan, C.J. (1987), “What is person-environment congruence?Supplementary versus complementary models of fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 31, pp. 268-277.

Munoz-Doyague, M.F., Gonzalez-Alvarez, N. and Nieto, M. (2008), “An examination of individualfactors and employees’ creativity: the case of Spain”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 20,pp. 121-133.

Oben, F. (2009), “Orgutsel Ogrenmenin Calısan Yaratıcılıgına Etkisi (ISO 500’de Yer AlanDemir-Celik, Otomotiv ve Tekstil Sektorlerindeki Isletmelerde Bir Arastırma)”, doctoraldissertation, Marmara University, Istanbul.

Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996), “Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors atwork”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 607-634.

O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profilecomparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 34, pp. 487-516.

Ostroff, C., Shin, Y. and Kinicki, A.J. (2005), “Multiple perspectives of congruence: relationshipsbetween value congruence and employee attitudes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 591-623.

Park, M., Lee, J. and Hahn, D. (2002), “Self-reported creativity, creativity, and intelligence”,poster presented at the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, August.

Pech, R.J. (2001), “Reflections: termites, group behaviour, and the loss of innovation: conformityrules!”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 559-574.

MRR37,5

498

Pervin, L.A. (1989), “Person situations interactions: the history of a controversy and a discussionof theoretical models”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 350-360.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizationalcitizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature andsuggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.

Puccio, G.J., Talbot, R.J. and Joniak, A.J. (2000), “Examining creative performance in theworkplace through a person-environment fit model”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 34,pp. 227-247.

Reiter-Palmon, R., Robinson-Morral, E.J., Kaufman, J.C. and Santo, J.B. (2012), “Evaluation ofself-perceptions of creativity: is it a useful criterion?”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 24Nos 2/3, pp. 107-114.

Reynolds, P.O. (1986), “Organizational culture as related to industry, position and performance:a preliminary report”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 333-345.

Rice, G. (2006), “Individual values, organizational context, and self-perceptions of employeecreativity: evidence from Egyptian organizations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59,pp. 233-241.

Rinne, T., Steel, G.D. and Fairweather, J. (2013), “The role of Hofstede’s individualism innational-level creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 129-136.

Roe, A. (1953), The Making of a Scientist, Dodd Mead, New York, NY.

Ruiz-Palomino, P. and Martınez-Canas, R. (2013), “Ethical culture, ethical intent, and organizationalcitizenship behavior: the moderating and mediating role of person-organization fit”, Journalof Business Ethics, February, pp. 1-14.

Runco, M.A. (2004), “Creativity”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 657-687.

Ryan, M.V. and Daniel, C.F. (2009), “Integrating the levels of person-environment fit: the roles ofvocational fit and group fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 75, pp. 68-81.

Sagiv, L. (2002), “Vocational interests and basic values”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 10,pp. 233-257.

Sagiv, L., Ariel, S., Goldenberg, J. and Goldschmidt, A. (2010), “Structure and freedom increativity: the interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitivestyle”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 1086-1110.

Saks, A.M. and Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “A longitudinal investigation of the relationships betweenjob information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes”, PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 50, pp. 395-426.

Schneider, B. (1987), “People make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437-453.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W. and Smith, D.B. (1995), “The ASA framework: an update”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 747-773.

Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (2001), “Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similaritiesperspective”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 268-290.

Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model ofindividual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37,pp. 580-607.

Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L. and Blum, T.C. (2009), “Interactive effects of growth need strength,work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 489-505.


499

Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R. (2004), “The effects of personal and contextualcharacteristics on creativity: where should we go from here?”, Journal of Management,Vol. 30, pp. 933-958.

Tepeci, M. (2001), “The effect of personal values, organizational culture and person organizationfit on individual outcomes in the restaurant industry”, doctoral dissertation, PennsylvaniaState University, University Park, PA.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M. and Graen, G.B. (1999), “An examination of leadership and employeecreativity: the relevance of traits and relationships”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52,pp. 591-620.

Tisak, J. and Smith, C.S. (1994), “Defending and extending difference score methods”, Journalof Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 675-682.

Torrance, E.P. (1993), “Understanding creativity: where to start?”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 4No. 3, pp. 232-235.

Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H. (1979), “Toward of theory of organizational socialization”,Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 209-264.

Van Vuuren, M., Veldkamp, B.P., De Jong, M.D. and Seydel, E.R. (2007), “The congruence ofactual and perceived person-organization fit”, The International Journal of HumanResource Management, Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 1736-1747.

Werbel, J.D. and DeMarie, S.M. (2005), “Aligning strategic human resource management andperson-environment fit”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 247-262.

Werbel, J.D. and Gilliland, S.W. (1999), “Person-environment fit in the selection process”,Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 17, pp. 209-243.

Westerman, J.W. and Cyr, L. (2004), “An integrative analysis of person-organisation fit theories”,International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 12, pp. 252-261.

Westerman, J.W. and Vanka, S. (2005), “A cross-cultural empirical analysis of personorganization fit measures as predictors of student performance in business education:comparing students in United States and India”, Academy of Management Learning andEducation, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 409-420.

Westwood, R. and Low, D.R. (2003), “The multicultural muse: culture, creativity and innovation”,International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 235-259.

Witt, L.A. and Beorkrem, M. (1989), “Climate for creative productivity as a predictor of researchusefulness and organizational effectiveness in an R&D organization”, Creativity ResearchJournal, Vol. 2, pp. 30-40.

Woodman, R.W. (1981), “Creativity as a construct in personality theory”, Journal of CreativeBehavior, Vol. 15, pp. 43-66.

Woodman, R.W. and Schoenfeldt, L.F. (1989), “Individual differences in creativity: an interactionistperspective”, in Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R. and Reynolds, C.R. (Eds), Handbook of Creativity,Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 77-92.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993), “Toward a theory of organizationalcreativity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 293-321.

Yahyagil, M.Y. (2005), “Birey Ve Organizasyon Uyumu Ve Calisanlarin Is Tutumlarina Etkisi”,Marmara Universitesi Oneri Dergisi, Vol. 24, pp. 137-149.

Yu-Chen, W. (2012), “Person-organization fit and organizational citizenship behavior: timeperspective”, Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 833-844.

Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging theexpression of voice”, Academy of Management, Vol. 44, pp. 682-696.

MRR37,5

500

Zhou, J., Shin, S.J. and Cannella, A.A. Jr (2008), “Employee self-perceived creativity after mergersand acquisitions: interactive effects of threat-opportunity perception, access to resources,and support for creativity”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 44, pp. 397-421.

Zhou, J., Shin, S.J., Daniel, J.B., Choi, J. and Zhang, Z. (2009), “Social networks, personal values,and creativity: evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 94 No. 6, p. 1544.

Zoghbi-Manrique de Lara, P. (2008), “Should faith and hope be included in the employees’agenda? Linking P-O fit and citizenship behavior”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 73-88.

Further reading

Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. and Harrington, E. (2000),“Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas”, Journalof Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 265-286.

Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1991), “Assessing the relationship between industry characteristicsand organizational culture: how different can you be?”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 37, pp. 522-553.

Holland, J.L. (1985), Making Vocational Choices, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Pablo, Z. and Manrique, L. (2008), “Should faith and hope be included in the employees’ agenda?Linking P-O fit and citizenship behavior”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1,pp. 73-88.

Uru, F.O. (2009), “Orgutsel Ogrenmenin Calısan Yaratıcılıgına Etkisi” (“ISO 500’de Yer AlanDemir-Celik, Otomotiv Ve Tekstil Sektorlerindeki Isletmelerde Bir Arastırma”), doctoratedissertation, Marmara University, Istanbul.

Corresponding authorMehlika Sarac can be contacted at: [email protected]


501

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

a study of the relationship between person-organization fit and employee creativity

Documents