enhancing creative performance: effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative...

151 Volume 35 Number 3 Third Quarter 2001

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

J I N G Z H O UG R E G R . O L D H A M

Enhancing Creative Performance:Effects of Expected DevelopmentalAssessment Strategies andCreative Personality

This study examined the independent and joint effects ofexpected developmental assessment strategies (self-administered, other-administered, and no assessment) andcreative personality on individuals’ creative performance. Datawere collected from 68 participants who performed a role-playing task in a laboratory setting. Results showed that indi-viduals exhibited the highest creative performance when theyexpected a self-administered assessment (i.e., an opportunityto assess their own work in order to develop their creativity-relevant skills) and had creative personalities.

In recent years, a number of studies have examined the con-textual characteristics and conditions that influence the cre-ative accomplishments of individuals (see Amabile, 1996 andWoodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993 for reviews). Many of thesestudies have focused on practices and strategies that serve toreduce or restrict creative performance relative to somebaseline standard. For example, research has examined thepossibility that challenging performance targets, contingentrewards, and surveillance adversely affect creativity (Amabile,Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986; Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, &Holt, 1984; Kruglanski, Freedman, & Zeevi, 1971; Shalley,1991). Unfortunately, we continue to know relatively little aboutthe effects of strategies that are specifically designed toenhance or encourage individuals’ creative performance(Nickerson, 1999).

The present study addresses this issue by examining a po-tential creativity-enhancing strategy that has not been docu-mented in the literature — providing individuals with an

152

Enhancing Creative Performance

opportunity to improve and develop their creativity-relevantskills. Specifically, we examine whether individuals expectinga chance to conduct a personal assessment of their work inorder to develop their own skills and competencies exhibithigher creative performance than those expecting no oppor-tunity for developmental assessment. In addition, we investi-gate the effects of an alternative developmental strategyinvolving a set of external actors assessing an individual’s taskresponses, again for the purpose of developing that person’scompetencies. Finally, we examine the possibility that anindividual’s creative personality makes a direct contributionto his or her creative performance, as well as moderates theeffects of the aforementioned strategies for developmental as-sessment.

We consider creative performance to be the production ofideas, products or procedures that are (a) novel or originaland (b) potentially useful or practical (Amabile, 1996; Madjar& Oldham, in press; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). This definitionis product oriented instead of process oriented. That is, it fo-cuses on the extent to which an outcome is creative versus themental process through which a creative outcome comes intoexistence. In addition, both originality and usefulness are nec-essary conditions for an outcome to be considered creative. Ifeither one of these conditions is missing or absent, an idea ora product would not be considered creative.

Much of the contemporary research concerned with theeffects of contextual conditions and practices on creativity hasbeen guided by an intrinsic motivation framework (Amabile,1979; Amabile et al., 1986; Koestner et al., 1984; Shalley &Oldham, 1997; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Zhou, 1998).According to this framework, individuals should be most cre-ative when they experience a high level of intrinsic motivation— that is, when they are excited about a work activity and areinterested in engaging in it for the sake of the activity itself. Inthese circumstances, individuals are free of extraneous andirrelevant concerns and are likely to take risks, to explore newcognitive pathways and to be playful with ideas and materials,all of which should contribute to high levels of creative perfor-mance (Amabile, 1996).

Contextual conditions and practices are expected to influ-ence creativity via their effects on intrinsic motivation. That is,conditions that boost intrinsic motivation should enhance cre-ativity, whereas those that undermine intrinsic motivationshould reduce it. Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci & Ryan,

CreativePerformance and

ExpectedDevelopmental

Assessment

Journal of Creative Behavior

153

1980, 1985; Ryan, 1982) provides one framework that explainsthe manner in which conditions might affect intrinsic motiva-tion and subsequent creative performance. According to thistheory, all external conditions have two functional aspects:controlling and informational. Conditions that are perceivedas controlling are those that are interpreted by the recipient aspressure to attain a particular outcome; in other words, thosethat are interpreted as attempting to coerce the recipientinto acting in a specific way. When this aspect is salient, itfacilitates the perception of an external locus of causality forbehavior and undermines intrinsic motivation. Conditions thatare perceived as informational are those that provide individu-als with behaviorally relevant information in the absence ofpressure for a particular outcome. When the informationalaspect is salient, individuals can obtain information about theirpersonal competence, or information that might lead to thedevelopment of their competence in the future, which tendsto boost their intrinsic motivation and subsequent creativeperformance.

As noted earlier, most of the previous research in this areahas focused on practices that restrict creativity relative to somebaseline standard (Nickerson, 1999). For example, several stud-ies have shown that individuals who expect a payment for theirwork exhibit lower creativity than those without such anexpectation (Amabile et al., 1986; Kruglanski et al., 1971).Apparently, the salience of the controlling aspect is higher inthe payment than in the no payment condition, thereby lower-ing creativity. Other studies have demonstrated that creativityis lower when individuals expect their work to be judged in or-der to evaluate its creativity relative to some standard, versuscircumstances in which no critical evaluation is anticipated.Moreover, these effects tend to emerge regardless of the sourcethat is expected to actually conduct the critical evaluation (e.g.,experimenters, experts, computers, or the individual him/her-self) (Amabile, 1979; Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990;Baer, 1997; Bartis, Szymanski, & Harkins, 1988; Hennessey,1989; Szymanski & Harkins, 1992). Thus, the expectation ofa critical evaluation from any source is likely to boost thesalience of the controlling aspect relative to that in a no evalu-ation condition, resulting in lowered creative performance.

While this earlier work has shown that practices can restrictcreative performance by increasing the salience of the control-ling aspect, less is known about the practices that enhancecreativity by increasing the relative salience of the informational

aspect. The present study examines one practice that mighthave this effect — providing individuals with the expectation ofa non-critical, developmental assessment of their creativity-relevant skills. We also examine the effects of two possiblesources for administering this assessment: other actors andthe individual him/herself.

In general, a developmental assessment involves (a) review-ing or assessing individuals’ task responses and (b) providingthem with a non-critical report of this assessment that is in-tended to help develop their relevant skills and competencies(e.g., Farh, Cannella, & Bedeian, 1991; London, Larsen, &Thisted, 1999). Thus, in contrast to a traditional evaluationapproach in which a person’s creative performance is critiquedand contrasted against some standard, the emphasis here ison learning and mastery experiences, and on the developmentof the individual’s creativity-relevant skills and competencies(Nickerson, 1999).

One method for administering a developmental assessmentinvolves other external actors. Specifically, in an other-administered assessment, individuals expect external actorsto assess their task responses. However, since this assessmentis developmental in nature, the outcome of the assessment isto be made available to the focal individuals only, and is to beused for the purpose of developing their creativity-relevantskills. Alternatively, in a self-administered assessment, indi-viduals expect an opportunity to conduct a personal analysisof their task responses that might aid them in developing theirskills. The focal individual is in charge of this assessment — noexternal assessments are provided, and other actors areinvolved only to the extent that they provide assistance thatthe individual requests for conducting the self analysis.

Based on the literature reviewed earlier, we expect highercreative performance in a self-administered developmentalassessment condition than in other-administered or control(no developmental assessment) conditions. In the former, thecontrolling aspect should be relatively nonsalient since noexternal assessment is offered that might convey the expecta-tion of external pressure. At the same time, the informationalaspect should be relatively salient since the assessment isexpected to contribute to the development of the individual’scompetencies. In the other-administered condition, on the otherhand, individuals expect the opportunity to develop their per-sonal competencies, which should contribute to the informa-tional aspect. However, because external actors conduct the

154



155

assessment, the relative salience of the controlling aspectshould also be boosted, counteracting the effects of the infor-mational aspect, and resulting in lower creativity. Finally, in acontrol condition, no external actors are involved to increasethe salience of the controlling aspect. Yet, individuals in thiscircumstance do not expect the opportunity to develop theirpersonal skills, which reduces the relative salience of the infor-mational aspect and should result in relatively low creativity.

Past research provides some indirect support for the abovearguments. For example, Margolis and Mynatt (1986) foundthat individuals in a self-administered reward condition experi-enced higher intrinsic motivation than those in other-adminis-tered and no reward conditions. Huckins and Bernard (1977)reported that students exhibited high creativity when they wereallowed to conduct self assessments and had the goal of learn-ing and improving. Thus, we predict:

Hypothesis 1: Individuals who expect a self-administereddevelopmental assessment will exhibit higher creative per-formance than those who expect an other-administeredassessment.

Hypothesis 2: Individuals who expect a self-administereddevelopmental assessment will exhibit higher creativeperformance than those who expect no developmentalassessment.

Several theoretical perspectives suggest that to fullyunderstand creativity, it is necessary to consider individuals’personalities, as well as contextual factors, such as develop-mental assessment (Amabile, 1996; Woodman et al., 1993).Unfortunately, few previous empirical studies have consideredsimultaneously the effects of personality and strategies fordevelopmental assessment on individuals’ creative perfor-mance. We address this issue in the current investigationand examine (a) the direct contribution of creative personalityto individuals’ creativity and (b) the extent to which creativepersonality moderates the effects of the aforementionedassessment conditions.

Scholars have argued that individuals with creative person-alities are likely to approach problems with broad interests thatenable them to recognize divergent information and opinions(Barron & Harrington, 1981; Martindale, 1989). In addition,these individuals are also likely to possess the self-confidenceand tolerance for ambiguity to be patient with competing views,

CreativePerformance and

IndividualDifferences

and to persist in developing original ideas into concretesuggestions. Thus, individuals with creative personalitiesshould show higher creativity than individuals whose person-alities are not creative.

Several studies provide general support for these arguments(see Feist, 1999). For example, Gough (1979) examined cor-relations between a measure of creative personality and cre-ativity ratings for 12 groups of individuals (e.g., architects andscientists). Positive, significant correlations were obtained in10 of the 12 groups. Moreover, in two cross-validation samples,Gough reported significant relations between creative person-ality and creativity. Thus,

Hypothesis 3: Individuals with creative personalities willexhibit higher creative performance than those with lesscreative personalities.

In addition to examining the direct contribution of creativepersonality to individuals’ creative performance, we alsoexamine whether it influences the way individuals respond tothe expected developmental assessment conditions. Theoristshave long argued that the effects of contextual conditionsand practices on creativity may be moderated by individuals’personal characteristics (Amabile, 1996; Woodman et al.,1993). Surprisingly, only a few studies have empirically testedthis possibility (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, in press; Oldham& Cummings, 1996; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Forexample, Oldham and Cummings (1996) examined the effectsof employees’ creative personality, job characteristics, andsupervisory behavior on a number of creativity measures,including recommendations to a suggestion program. Resultsshowed that employees produced the most creative sug-gestions when (a) they had creative personalities, (b) heldautonomous, challenging jobs, and (c) were managed in anoncontrolling, supportive fashion.

These results suggest that individuals with creative person-alities may value highly practices that provide freedom toexplore and opportunities to learn. Such experiences are pre-cisely what individuals should expect in the self-administereddevelopmental assessment condition described earlier. Here,there is an absence of external assessment, and individualsare free to conduct self-analyses without fear of externalpressure to behave in a specified way. Thus, individuals withcreative personalities should expect the self-administered con-dition to provide the opportunities for freedom and personal

156



157

development that they value highly. In such circumstances,individuals with creative personalities may anticipate thechance to fully realize their creative potential and, therefore,exhibit relatively high creative performance. On the other hand,individuals with less creative personalities should devalue theopportunities present in the self-administered condition, andshould respond by exhibiting relatively low creativity.Finally, all individuals should exhibit relatively low creativityin the control and other-administered conditions. In thesecircumstances, individuals should not expect opportunitiesfor personal development that will enhance their skills andcompetencies. Thus,

Hypothesis 4: Creative personality will interact withdevelopmental assessment such that individuals with cre-ative personalities who expect a self-administered assess-ment will exhibit the highest creative performance.

We manipulated expected developmental assessment in a labo-ratory experiment. The manipulation was at three levels (self-administered, other-administered, or control). In addition, weincluded a measure of creative personality in the post-taskquestionnaire.

Sixty-eight undergraduate students enrolled in an introduc-tory management course participated in the study in exchangefor extra course credit. Their average age was 21.79 years.Thirty-five (51.5%) of the participants were women. They wererandomly assigned to 1 of the 3 conditions.

The participants worked on an in-basket task developed byShalley (1991). In the task, participants were asked to play therole of a human resources director of a steel company. Thedirector was asked to find creative solutions for the problemspresented in 16 different memos.

Participants worked individually in a room in small groups.After the participants signed a consent form, the experimenterplayed a standardized instruction tape from a tape recorder. Theinstructions contained a description of the task, a definition ofcreative performance (i.e., generating both original and use-ful ideas), and the experimental manipulations. To ensure theeffectiveness of the experimental manipulations, participantswere asked to read an instruction sheet containing the samecontent as the instruction tape, while the tape was being played.

Next, the experimenter asked participants to start workingon the task independently, and left the experimental room.

METHOD

Design Overview

Participantsand Task

Procedure

After 45 minutes, the experimenter returned and asked par-ticipants to put all the memo sheets into an envelope and toset it aside. The experimenter then distributed a questionnaireto participants that included items assessing the manipulations,creative personality, and demographics. Finally, participantswere fully debriefed and dismissed.

Individuals in the self-administered condition were told thatin order to help them improve and develop their creativity-relevant skills, they would be given an opportunity to analyzeand assess, by themselves, the degree to which their solutionsto the in-basket problems were creative. They were also toldthat the experimenter would not rate the solutions for them,but would provide whatever assistance they needed to conductthe independent self-assessment. Participants in the other-administered condition were told that in order to help themimprove and develop their creativity-relevant skills, two expertswould analyze the degree to which their solutions to the in-basket problems were creative, and would then mail them aconfidential report of their analysis. Individuals in the controlcondition were told that no one would analyze their solutionsto the in-basket task.

Creative performance. This refers to the extent to whichthe in-basket solutions were both original and potentially use-ful. Following the consensual assessment technique (Amabile,1982), two judges, who were graduate students with workexperience, independently rated each participant’s solutionson each of these dimensions. Since creativity requires that asolution be both original and useful, we formed a single indexby multiplying scores on these dimensions. Each of the dimen-sions is described below.

Judges rated the extent to which each memo solution wasoriginal (i.e., novel or unique) relative to others, not againstsome absolute standard (Amabile, 1996). Judges first ran-domly selected and read 10 memo solutions from each packetthat contained the solutions for the same problem to get a senseof the range of originality that was present. They then replacedthe memos in the packet and rated them in random order on ascale ranging from 1 (not original at all) to 9 (extremely origi-nal). We checked inter-judge reliability (the extent to which theratings were consistent) using an intraclass correlation ap-proach and obtained a high reliability (.99; Shrout & Fleiss,1979). We also found inter-judge agreement (the extent to whichthe judges assigned the same rating to each solution) to behigh (χ2 = 12.23, p < .01; Tinsley & Weiss, 1975). Thus, we

Manipulations

Measures

158



159

averaged judges’ ratings to create one originality score for eachparticipant.

Judges also rated whether each solution was potentiallyuseful relative to other solutions on a scale ranging from 1 (notuseful at all) to 9 (extremely useful). The inter-judge reliabil-ity (.99) and agreement (χ2 = 33.77, p < .01) were bothsatisfactory. Thus, we averaged judges’ ratings to create oneusefulness score for each participant. A creativity index wasthen formed for each participant by multiplying the originalityand usefulness scores.

Finally, judges rated the overall creativity of each solution(i.e., the extent to which it was both novel and potentiallyuseful) on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all creative) to 9(extremely creative). The inter-judge reliability (.97) and agree-ment (χ2 = 50.37, p < .01) were satisfactory. We then averagedjudges’ ratings to create one overall creativity score for eachparticipant. The correlation between this measure and themultiplicative index was .94 (p < .01). Since results involvingoverall creativity were basically identical to those for the mul-tiplicative measure, they are not reported here, but are avail-able on request.

Creative personality. We measured creative personality withthe Creative Personality Scale (CPS; Gough, 1979). Participantswere presented with nineteen adjectives, and were asked toplace a check mark next to each that they thought describedthem. Using scoring procedures suggested by Gough (1979),we assigned a value of +1 to adjectives that described creativepeople (e.g., confident), and a –1 to those thatdescribed less creative people (e.g., interests narrow). We thensummed the values to form a CPS index (alpha = .73). Reli-ability of this index was calculated via a weighted compositetechnique (Lord & Novick, 1968).

Manipulation checks. On a scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 7 (strongly agree) we measured the following:(a) Self-administered — Responses to two items were averaged(alpha = .86): “I will have an opportunity to conduct a self-assessment on the extent to which my solutions are creative”and “The experimenter will give me a chance to conduct a self-assessment on the degree to which my solutions are creative;”(b) Other-administered — “The experts’ assessments of thedegree to which my solutions are creative will be kept confi-dential and mailed to me;” (c) Developmental — “The purposeof this activity was to help me improve and develop my cre-ativity-relevant skills.”

We conducted one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) to ex-amine whether the manipulations were effective. Results forthe Self-administered variable were significant (F = 14.34, p <.01), and planned contrasts showed that the mean for the self-condition (5.67) was significantly higher (p < .05) than themeans for the other- (3.29) and control (3.25) conditions. Themeans for the other- and control conditions were not signifi-cantly different (p > .05). Results for the Other-administeredvariable were significant (F = 8.20, p < .01), and contrastsshowed that the mean for the other- condition (4.28) was sig-nificantly higher (p < .05) than the means for the self- (2.07)and control (2.43) conditions. The means for the self- andcontrol conditions were not significantly different (p > .05). Re-sults for the Developmental variable were significant (F = 3.36,p < .05), and contrasts showed that the mean for the controlcondition (3.86) was significantly lower (p < .05) than themeans for the self- (4.83) and other- (4.52) conditions. Themeans for the self- and other- conditions were not significantlydifferent (p > .05). Thus, all manipulations were consideredsuccessful.

We predicted that individuals who expected a self-adminis-tered assessment would exhibit higher creative performancethan those who expected an other-administered assessment(Hypothesis 1) or no assessment (Hypothesis 2). We also pre-dicted that individuals with creative personalities (CPS) wouldexhibit higher creative performance than those with lesscreative personalities (Hypothesis 3), and that personalitywould interact with assessment such that individuals withcreative personalities who expected a self-administeredassessment would exhibit the highest creative performance(Hypothesis 4).

To test these hypotheses, we first split the CPS measure atthe median to form high and low creative personality sub-groups, and crossed these groups with the three assessmentconditions. We then conducted a 3 (self- or other- or control)by 2 (high or low CPS) ANOVA with the multiplicative creativ-ity index as the dependent variable. Results showed a margin-ally significant effect for assessment condition (F = 2.60,p < .08). Planned contrasts indicated that the mean for the self-condition (23.33) was significantly higher (t = 2.13,p < .05) than that for the other- condition (18.45), supportingHypothesis 1. Results also indicated that the mean for the self-condition was marginally higher (t = 1.82, p < .07) than that

Hypothesis Testing

RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

160



161

for the control condition (18.23), providing some support forHypothesis 2.

Results also showed a significant main effect for creativepersonality (F = 9.68, p < .01). In addition, we obtained a posi-tive, significant correlation between the CPS index and creativ-ity (r = .32, p < .01). These results indicate that individuals withcreative personalities exhibit high creative performance, andsupport Hypothesis 3.

Finally, results showed a significant Assessment ✕ CPSinteraction (F = 4.03, p < .05), consistent with Hypothesis 4.To examine the nature of this interaction, we calculated inter-cell means for the Assessment ✕ CPS conditions (see Table1). We next conducted planned contrasts comparing the cre-ativity score for the self-administered/high CPS condition with(a) the average score for the remaining five conditions and(b) the scores for each of those five conditions. SupportingHypothesis 4, results showed that the creativity score for theself-/high CPS cell was significantly higher than the averagescore for the remaining cells (t = 4.44, p < .01), and higherthan the scores for each of the remaining conditions (p < .01).Figure 1 provides a graphic illustration of these results.

Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Creative Performancein Different Expected Developmental Assessment ✕ CPSConditions.

Experimental Condition Low High RowCPS CPS Total

Self-administered assessmentM 16.22 29.56 23.33SD 2.82 10.37 10.23

Other-administered assessmentM 17.69 19.16 18.45SD 5.48 7.85 6.75

No assessmentM 16.29 19.31 18.23SD 7.38 5.64 6.21

Column totalM 17.13 21.45SD 5.23 8.90

TABLE 1.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

self-assessment/high CPS

self-assessment/low CPS

other-assessment/high CPS

other-assessment/low CPS

no assessment/high CPS

no assessment/ lowCPS

Expected Developmental Assessment

Cre

ativ

e P

erfo

rman

ce

FIGURE 1. Interaction of expected developmental assessment and creativepersonality for creative performance.

This study explored the possibility that providing individualswith an opportunity to improve and develop their creativity-relevant skills enhances their creative performance relative tothat of individuals who have no such opportunity. Specifically,we examined whether individuals who expected an opportu-nity to conduct a personal self-assessment of their work inorder to develop their skills and competencies (self-adminis-tered developmental assessment) exhibited higher creative per-formance than those who expected either (a) a developmentalassessment conducted by external actors (other-administereddevelopmental assessment) or (b) no developmental assess-ment (control). In addition, we examined whether individualswith creative personalities exhibited high creative performance,and whether these individuals responded most positively toexpected self-administered developmental assessment.

As predicted, results demonstrated that individuals who ex-pected a self-administered developmental assessmentexhibited higher creativity than those who expected either noassessment or an other-administered assessment. In theself-administered condition, individuals expected a chance toanalyze their task responses in order to develop their creativ-ity-relevant skills and competencies. Thus, consistent with

DISCUSSION

162



163

Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), it appearsthat the presence of informational aspects of assessment (i.e.,the opportunity to develop personal competencies) and theabsence of controlling aspects (e.g., external experts) boostedindividuals’ intrinsic motivation, which then contributed to ahigh level of creativity. However, in the other experimentalconditions, either the informational aspects were nonsalient(control) or the informational aspects were salient, but wereoffset by the also salient controlling aspects (other-adminis-tered), resulting in relatively low levels of creative performance.Although our results are consistent with the theoretical rea-soning described above, it is important to note that we did notdirectly measure and test the psychological processes (i.e.,perceived controlling or informational aspect of the context,and intrinsic motivation) that are theorized to mediate theimpact of expected developmental assessment strategies oncreative performance. Future research is now needed to directlytest the mediating role of these psychological processes.

The results of the present study suggest that providingindividuals with an opportunity to conduct a personal, self-analysis of their activities in order to develop their skills andcompetencies can enhance their subsequent creativity. Be-cause of the pressing need to boost individuals’ creative per-formance in a variety of settings, and our limited knowledge ofcreativity-enhancing strategies (Nickerson, 1999), additionalresearch is much needed. In addition to directly measuring andtesting the psychological processes mentioned above, futurework might extend our results by (a) examining the effects ofactual self-administered assessments and by (b) investigat-ing whether there are alternative developmental assessmentstrategies (e.g., a combination of self- and other-administered)that facilitate creative performance.

In addition, a potentially fruitful avenue of future researchmay involve an examination of the types of information andresources needed to assist individuals in using the self assess-ment approach. For example, in the present study, participantsin the self- condition were led to believe that they would beprovided whatever information they needed to conduct thedevelopmental assessment. Future research might investigatewhat kind of assistance is more supportive of self assessmentby systematically manipulating different types of informationprovided to the focal individual.

Our results also showed that a measure of creative person-ality (i.e., the CPS) was positively and significantly associated

with individuals’ creativity. These findings suggest that indi-viduals with creative personalities exhibit relatively high cre-ative performance, and contribute to a growing body ofempirical work demonstrating the importance of personalityin explaining actual creative performance (Feist, 1999).

Perhaps more importantly, individuals’ scores on the CPSmoderated the effects of expected developmental assessment.Specifically, individuals with creative personalities exhibited thehighest creative performance when they expected a self-admin-istered assessment. These results indicate that the positive ef-fects of self-administered assessment are not equal across allindividuals: those with creative personalities apparently val-ued highly the opportunities for personal development and theabsence of external controls that were found in the self- condi-tion, and responded to these opportunities by exhibiting rela-tively high creativity. Relatively low creativity may have beenpresent in the self-/low CPS condition because those with lesscreative personalities may not have recognized or appreciatedthe opportunities present in self-administered assessment.These individuals may have experienced little success in thepast when involved with creative activities, and felt that therewas little benefit in self-developmental assessment. Finally, highand low CPS individuals in the control or other-administeredconditions may have exhibited relatively low creativity becausethey simply did not expect opportunities for personal develop-ment that would enhance their skills and competencies.

In total, then, our results suggest that a comprehensive un-derstanding of creative performance requires an interactionistperspective that takes into account both personal and contex-tual characteristics (Amabile, 1996). As indicated earlier, thestudy by Oldham and Cummings (1996) also adopted aninteractionist approach and demonstrated that a measure ofcreative personality influenced associations between supervi-sory style, job characteristics and individuals’ creative perfor-mance. To gain a more complete understanding of how creativepersonality interacts with a full range of social conditions andpractices to affect creativity, research is now needed to deter-mine if these findings extend to other conditions and practices,such as performance rewards and interpersonal competition.

The present study does have limitations, which call for cau-tion when interpreting the results. For example, our effects wereobtained in an experiment that lasted approximately one hour.We know little about whether the developmental assessmentconditions have any long-lasting impact on creativity. On the

164



165

one hand, it is possible that the effects of self-administeredassessment are short-lived and vanish after a brief period oftime. However, it is also possible that over time, these effectsbecome intensified as individuals begin to fully appreciate thefreedom and opportunity for personal growth that the self-developmental condition provides. Future research needs todirectly examine these possibilities.

This and other limitations notwithstanding, the present studymakes conceptual and practical contributions to the creativityliterature. Conceptually, it identifies a creativity-enhancing strat-egy that has received little attention in previous research, andshows the value of an interactionist perspective when attempt-ing to understand individuals’ creative performance. Practically,it provides some interesting implications for enhancing cre-ativity in educational or work settings. For example, studentsor employees should be encouraged to conduct regular self-analyses of their day-to-day activities. Further, they should betold that these self-analyses represent opportunities for themto develop and improve their own creativity-relevant skills, andthat teachers or managers will only provide assistance insteadof exerting tight control while they are conducting these per-sonal self assessments. Promoting and encouraging regularself assessments in this fashion should contribute to the devel-opment of individuals’ personal competencies, thereby boost-ing creative performance. Moreover, this strategy should beespecially effective for those with creative personalities.

AMABILE, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221-233.

AMABILE, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensualassessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43, 997-1013.

AMABILE, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

AMABILE, T. M., GOLDFARB, P., & BRACKFIELD, S. C. (1990). Socialinfluences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance.Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6-21.

AMABILE, T. M., HENNESSEY, B. A., & GROSSMAN, B. S. (1986). Socialinfluences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.

BAER, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluationon creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25-31.

BARRON, F. B., & HARRINGTON, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, andpersonality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.

BARTIS, S., SZYMANSKI, K., & HARKINS, S. G. (1988). Evaluation andperformance: A two-edged knife. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 14, 242-251.

REFERENCES

DECI, E. L., & RYAN, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsicmotivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocial psychology (pp. 39-80). New York: Academic Press.

DECI, E. L., & RYAN, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

FARH, J. L., CANNELLA, A. A., & BEDEIAN, A. G. (1991). Peer ratings.Group and Organization Studies, 16, 367-386.

FEIST, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientificcreativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273-296).New York: Cambridge University Press.

GOUGH, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective CheckList. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398-1405.

HENNESSEY, B. A. (1989). The effect of extrinsic constraints on children’screativity while using a computer. Creativity Research Journal, 2,151-168.

HUCKINS, W. C., & BERNARD, H. W. (1977). Humanism in the classroom.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

KOESTNER, R., RYAN, R. M., BERNIERI, F., & HOLT, K. (1984). Setting limitson children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs.informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal ofPersonality, 52, 233-248.

KRUGLANSKI, A. W., FRIEDMAN, I., & ZEEVI, G. (1971). The effects ofextrinsic incentive on some qualitative aspects of task performance.Journal of Personality, 39, 606-617.

LONDON, M., LARSEN, H. H., & THISTED, L. N. (1999). Relationshipsbetween feedback and self-development. Group and OrganizationManagement, 24, 5-27.

LORD, F. M., & NOVICK, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental testscores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

MADJAR, N., & OLDHAM, G. R. (in press). Preliminary tasks and creativeperformance on a subsequent task: Effects of time on preliminary tasksand amount of information about the subsequent task. CreativityResearch Journal.

MADJAR, N., OLDHAM, G. R., & PRATT, M. G. (in press). There’s no placelike home?: The contributions of work and non-work sources of creativitysupport to employees’ creative performance. Academy of ManagementJournal.

MARGOLIS, R. B., & MYNATT, C. R. (1986). The effects of external and self-administered reward on high base rate behavior. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 10, 109-122.

MARTINDALE, C. (1989). Personality, situation, and creativity. In J. Glover,R. Ronning & C. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 211-232).New York: Plenum.

NICKERSON, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),Handbook of creativity (pp. 392-430). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

OLDHAM, G. R., & CUMMINGS, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personaland contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39,607-634.

166



167

RYAN, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: Anextension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 43, 450-461.

SHALLEY, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, andpersonal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 76, 179-185.

SHALLEY, C. E., & OLDHAM, G. R. (1997). Competition and creativeperformance: Effects of competitor presence and visibility. CreativityResearch Journal, 10, 337-345.

SHALLEY, C. E., & PERRY-SMITH, J. P. (2001). Effects of social-psychologicalfactors on creative performance: The role of information and controllingexpected evaluation and modeling experience. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 1-22.

SHROUT, P. E., & FLEISS, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses inassessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.

STERNBERG, R. J., & LUBART, T. (1996). Investing in creativity. AmericanPsychologist, 51, 677-688.

SZYMANSKI, K., & HARKINS, S. G. (1992). Self-evaluation and creativity.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 259-265.

TIERNEY, P., FARMER, S. M., & GRAEN, G. B. (1999). An examination ofleadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits andrelationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-620.

TINSLEY, H. E. A., & WEISS, D. J. (1975). Interrater reliability and agreementof subjective judgments. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 358-376.

WOODMAN, R. W., SAWYER, J. E., & GRIFFIN, R. W. (1993). Toward a theoryof organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321.

ZHOU, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, andachievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261-276.

Jing Zhou, Department of Management, Lowry Mays College and GraduateSchool of Business, Texas A&M University, 4221 Tamu, College Station,TX 77843-4221, Phone: 979-845-4801, Fax: 979-845-9641, E-mail:[email protected]

Greg R. Oldham, Department of Business Administration, University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign, 1206 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820, Phone:217-333-6340, Fax: 217-333-7410, E-mail: [email protected]

We thank Angelo DeNisi and Elissa Perry for their helpful comments on anearlier draft of this manuscript.

AUTHOR NOTE:

enhancing creative performance: effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative...

Documents