Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Discussion and conclusion

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Discussion, Limitations and Conclusion

The general arguments made in the introduction about the mediating role of intrinsic motivation were mostly supported here. It can be registered that intrinsic motivation partially mediates the relation between supervisor developmental feedback and innovative behavior. Being recognized as a very important factor, supervisor developmental feedback showed 18.5 % of total variance influencing  innovative behavior and 8% of total variance influencing intrinsic motivation.

Consequently, by providing developmental feedback supervisors appear to accomplish an important role in increasing both employees’ intrinsic motivation and innovative behavior. Two variables together explained 34.8 % of total variance in influencing innovative behavior. This small percentage  represents a kind of limitation of the study. It shows that there are other variables that can explain this relation by 65.2 % of total variance. This can be explained from different viewpoints: First, it could be attributed to the short scale measuring the supervisor developmental feedback (3 items). Moreover, one reversed item showed slightly higher alpha Cronbach (.923) and had no loading on any indicator in factor analysis.         

The expectations about the mediating role of intrinsic motivation between creative self-efficacy and innovative behavior have also been supported.

Multiple regression model demonstrated the insignificance of self-efficacy in the prediction of innovative behavior. Due to high correlation with creative self-efficacy, the regression caused the exclusion of the variable that in simple linear regression showed weaker predictive power on the outcome variable than the other variable. In this case it was creative self-efficacy.

To make clearer this kind of interpretation it’s worth noting once again that a variable is said to function as a mediator when variations in the independent variables significantly account for variations in the proposed mediator, variations in the mediator significantly account for variations in the dependent variable, and, when controlling for the mediator, a previously significant relationship between the independent variable(s) and the dependent variable decreases or becomes insignificant (see Barron and Kenny, 1986).

Nevertheless, creative self-efficacy in the simple linear regression model showed a high level of influence on intrinsic motivation: It appeared to be very strong source in that influence (50.5%), while innovative behavior was again in strong correlation with intrinsic motivation, showing .52.  Thus, it can be concluded that creative self-efficacy is a quite powerful source for boosting an individual’s initiative to behave innovatively.

The suggested hypothesis, with its statistical analysis, apparently broadens the path through which the innovative behavior can be pursued in organizational settings. Theoretically, it stems directly from the self efficacy theory and the assumptions suggested by the above mentioned researchers about motivation role in creativity. The proved hypothesis suggests that supervisors take into account employee’s intrinsic motivation as a necessary tool in getting them to generate new ideas and behave differently. Both of hypotheses are proved to become a reliable guide for employees to pursue the task and to be consistent in the attempts to behave innovatively.

The correlation of intrinsic motivation with two different level variables showed that with organizational level variable (supervisor developmental feedback) it is weaker, (.28), than with individual level variable (creative self-efficacy, .71). This difference was reflected in regression process where intrinsic motivation turned out to  gain a real mediating role, while self-efficacy, being an individual level variable,  was in strong correlation with intrinsic motivation and appeared to be expressed through it.

Thus, statistically, it can be concluded that one individual level variable cannot take a mediating role for another individual variable.

Though almost all of the scales showed high validity and reliability, in the future it would be better to improve them, specifically, the scale of supervisor developmental feedback. It had only 3 items, thus restricting the chance to measure the given construct.  By improving the scales, it will be possible to test the models on larger samples and use them as useful models for implementing.

Nevertheless, the analysis of the data warranted the assumptions made previously and undoubtedly proved the way for boosting the employee’s innovative behavior within the organization.  As Sternberg suggested (1999, p. 383), though innovation stems from individual talent and creativity, it is the organizational context that mediates this individual potential and channels it into creative production. 

It can be stated also that this study joins Amabile et al. (1986) in demonstrating the importance of leadership style in an applied setting.

Thus becoming clear that one fundamental antecedent to employee creativity is supervisor’s feedback on employees’ work.

The extension of Amabile’s componental model motivation was one of six required resources.  The data supported also Woodman and Schoenfeldt’s (1989,

1990) interactionist model of creative behavior, which acknowledged intrinsic motivation as a component of the individual that is conductive to creative accomplishment (Sterberg, 1999).

To interpret the data analysis on the basis of the sample, it should be noted that enterprises had different departments and activities, such as that of mechanics and electricians, and there was production of different types, including textile and services. They proved to have realized innovations, and in that process the role of supervisors was significant. In addition, they proved also to behave innovatively by exercising their motivation and self – efficacy. 

Referring to Kanter (1986), we infer also that product innovations must have been more likelyin new organizations, and process innovations in established organizations. She notes that the innovation process is uncertain and unpredictable, that it is knowledge intensive, controversial, and that it crosses boundaries. Thus, innovation is seen as being most likely to flourish under conditions of flexibility, quick action and intensive care, coalition formation and connectedness. He states that innovation is most likely in organizations that

(a) have integrative structures,

(b) emphasize diversity,

(c) have multiple structural linkages inside and outside the organization,

(d) have collective pride and faith in people’s talents, and

(f) emphasize collaboration and teamwork.

Organizations producing innovation have ‘’more complex structures that link people in multiple ways and encourage them to do what needs to be done within strategically guided limits, rather than confining themselves to the letter of their job’’ (Kanter, 1988, p.172).

He argues that that the generation of new ideas that activates innovation is facilitated by organizational complexity: diversity and breadth of experience, including experts who have a great deal of contact with experts in other fields; links to users; and outsiders, openness to the environment; and integration across fields via intersecting territories, multiple communication links, and smaller interdisciplinary business units. Conversely, isolation, or what can be termed ‘’segmentalism’’ (Kanter, 1983), inhibits this critical first phrase of innovation.

Innovation flourishes where ‘’communication integration’’ is high (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). Open communication patterns make it easier to identify and contact potential coalition members and to tap their expertise.

Examples of ‘’open communication’’ systems from innovating companies stress access across segments.

‘’Open door’’ policies mean that all levels can, theoretically, have access to anyone to ask questions, even to criticize.   Such open communication norms acknowledge the extent of interdependence – that people in all areas need information from each other. (Kanter, 1988). 

Structural and social conditions within the innovation team also make a difference in success. Because ‘’interactive learning’’ (Quinn, 1985) is so critical to innovation, innovation projects are particularly vulnerable to turnover. Continuity of personnel, up to some limits (Katz, 1982), is an innovation –supporting condition. One of general sources of expectations for innovation lies in whether the organization’s culture pushes ‘’tradition’’ or ‘’change’’. Innovators and innovative organization’s culture pushes ‘’tradition’’ or ‘’change’’.  Innovators and innovative organizations generally come from the most modern ‘’up to date’’ areas rather than traditional ones with preservationist tendencies , and they are generally the higher prestige ‘’opinion leaders’’ that other seek to emulate (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971; Hage & Dewar, 1973).

But opinion leaders are innovative only if their organizations norms favor change, this is why the values of the leaders are so important. Most people seek to be culturally appropriate, even the people leading the pack. There are thus more impetus to seek change when this is considered desirable by the company.      

In light of the above mentioned arguments, the other limitation of the study turns out to be the lack of any research in those companies regarding whether they showed openness to change and whether they invested in specific resources for the particular innovation.

In addition, the interests, communication and coalition channels make up important preconditions of organizational innovation. The lack of the data on those factors doesn’t permit us to draw conclusions on what level and what kinds of innovations have been made within the given department. For example, did they belong to ‘’traditional ones’’ or emulated ‘’opinion leaders ’’?  In addition, we cannot determine, in general, what kinds of strategies and culture the company’ leaders elaborate to establish an innovative organization.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. (1988). Handbook of organizational creativity. Lowrence Erlbaum associates, 267- 268.                                    

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

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy:The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Baron, R. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Berry W. D. & Feldman S. (1985). Multiple regression in practice. Sage University paper series on Quantitative Applications in the social sciences, 07-50. Newbury Park, CA : Sage. 

Bruner, J. (1962). The condition of creativity. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Werthheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 1-30). New York: Atherton.

Deci, E.L. (1975) Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P. and Ryan, R.M. (1989) Self-determination in a work organization.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590.

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

Deci, E. & Ryan, R., M. (2002). Handbook of self- determination theory. University of Rochester.

Dewett, T. (2007)  Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R & D environment.  R& D Management, 37, 3, 198-199.

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains.

Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.

Freud, S. (1959). Creative writers and day-dreaming. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (V. 9, pp. 142-156). London: Hogarth. (Original work published 1908).  

Gardner, H., A. & Claxton G. (1993). Creativity, wisdom and trusteeship. Corwin Press.

Golann, S.E. (1962). The creativity motive. Journal of Personality, 30, 588-688. 

Gruber, H. E., & Davis, S. N. (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving-systems approach to creative thinking. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 143–169). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hage, J., Dewar, R. (1973). Elite values vs. organizational structure in predicting innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 279-579.

Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kanter, R. M. (1986). Creating the creative environment. Management Review, 75, 11-12.  

Kanter, R. M.(1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, pp. 123-167. London:JAI 

Katz, R. (1982). Project communication and performance: An investigation into the effects of group longevity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81-104. 

Mainemelis, C. (2001). When the muse takes it all: A model for the experience of timelessness in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Maslow, A.H. (1959). Creativity in self-actualizingpeople. In H.A. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 83-95). New York: Harper.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward apsychological of being (2nd es.). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold.  

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation.

Human Resource Management Review, 10.

Mumford, M.D., & Gustafson, S.B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration , application and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27-43. 

Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619.

Jung, D. I., Chow, C. & Wu A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-544.

Oldham, R., G. & Cummings, A. (1996).  Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 3, 603- 634.

Pallant J. (2001). SPSS Survival manual. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press, Perkins, A. (1986). International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Quinn, J. B. (1985). Managing innovation: Controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review, 63 (May-June), 73-84. 

Rank J., Pace, L., V. & Frese M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and nitiative.  Applied psychology, 53, 4, 518-528.    

Rogers, C. (1954). Towards a theory of creativity: ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11 249-260.

Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communications of innovations: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.) New York: The Free Press.     

Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.

Schein, E., H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.  Scott, S., G. & Bruce, R., A.  (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 3, 580-607. 

Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L. (2004). What leader need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, 33-53.

Siegel,S.,M. & Kaemmerer, W., F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in  organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 5, 553-562.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677–688.

Sterberg R.J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. (pp.301; 383). Cambridge University Press.        

Stoker, J.I.; Looise J.C.; Fischer & Jong, R.D., (2001). Human Resourse Management. 12,7, 1141-1151.

Turney, P., Farmer, M. S. & Graen B. G. (1999).  An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel   Psychology, 52. 

West, M.A. (1989). Innovation among health care professionals. Social Behavior, 4.

West, A. M. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: Integrative model of creativity and  Innovation Implementation in Work Groups.   An international Review, 51, 3, 355- 424.       

West, M.A. & Farr, J.L. (1990) Innovation and creativity at work.  West Sussex PO 19 1UD, England.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

Woodman, R.W. & Schoenfeldt, L.F. (1990). An interactionist model of creative behavior. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24. 

Yukl, G. (2001) Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall.

Zhou J. (2003) When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of

supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality,

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 3, 413- 422.

                                       

 

 

© Leadership, Creativity & Innovation in Enterprises – Dott.ssa Nune Margaryan

 

 

 

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: RESULTS

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: RESULTS

Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and inter correlations among all study variables.

Table  1.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY.

According to Bartlett’s test, the matrix is not an identity matrix. The null hypothesis is rejected. The variables under analysis are correlated, thus factor analysis is justified. The Cumulative percentage is 61. 139. Four factors explain 61.139% of common variance.


Besides the reversed item of supervisor developmental feedback, all of the variables had values higher than 0.4. It had no loading on any factor that made weaker the correspondence between the structure of a set of indicators and the construct it measures.

RELIABILITY

Alpha Cronbachs for almost all of the measures were higher than .70. Removal of any item or set of items in any measure did not appreciably improve estimates of internal consistency. So, all the variables used in the research were internally consistent.  Separately measured they registered high alpha coefficients.

In the table below the alpha coefficients are presented for all of the variables.

A reversed item, supervisor developmental feedback, turned out to have slightly higher value than Alpha coefficient.  Nevertheless, a review of all of the scales together reveals that a high reliability was registered (.913).

GUIDE FOR TESTING THE METIATION EFFECTS IN MULTIPLE REGRESSION

To test the mediating effect, multiple regression analysis was run to analyze the relationship among all of the variables by first regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable, then regressing the mediator on the independent   variable, and finally regressing the dependent on both the independent variable and the mediator variable ( Baron & Kenny, 1986).

According to the authors (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Judd & Kenny, 1981) there are four steps  in establishing that a variable (intrinsic motivation) mediates the relation between a predictor variable and the outcome variable :  by first step is shown that there is a significant relation between the predictor and outcome. The second step is to show that the predictor is related to the mediator. Third step is to show that the mediator (intrinsic motivation) is related to the outcome variable (innovative behavior). The final step is to show that the strengths of the relation between the predictor and the outcome is significantly reduced when the mediator is added to the model.

Hypothesis 1: Supervisor developmental feedback is positively related to innovative behavior through the mediating role of intrinsic motivation.

Table 1

Table 1 provides the results of analysis to test the meditational hypothesis. The unstandardized regression coefficient (.40) related to the effect of supervisor developmental feedback was significant. (p<.0001). Thus, the supervisor developmental feedback and the requirement for the mediation in step 1 was met.

As mentioned above mediator variable (intrinsic motivation) on predictor variable (supervisor developmental feedback) was regressed in step 2.

The unstandardized regression coefficient (B=.23) related with this relation also was significant at the p<.0001 level. Thus the condition for step 2was supported, supervisor developmental feedback was again significant.

Further, to test whether mediator variable (intrinsic motivation) was related to outcome variable (innovative behavior) we regressed the latter simultaneously on both (mediator) intrinsic motivation and predictor (supervisor developmental feedback).  The coefficient concerning the relation between intrinsic motivation and supervisor developmental feedback also was significant. (B= .28, p<.0001).  Thus, the condition for step 3 was again supported. (supervisor developmental feedback was significant).

This third regression equation also provided an estimate of the relation between predictor and outcome variable. If B equals zero in that relation, there is complete mediation. However, that path was .48 and still significant (p<.0001).

It means that the relationship between the predictor (supervisor developmental feedback) and the outcome variable (innovative behavior) is partially mediated by intrinsic motivation (B is greater than zero). Consequently, the relationship between predictor and outcome variables is significantly smaller.

To summarize, the analysis showed that intrinsic motivation has a mediating role between the independent (supervisor developmental feedback) and dependent variable (innovative behavior).

It has weak correlation with supervisor developmental feedback (.28), thus could maintain its mediating role in that relation. At the same time, supervisor developmental feedback and intrinsic motivation both registered good correlation coefficients with innovative behavior: .43 and .52 respectively.

Hypothesis 2:  Creative self-efficacy will be positively related to innovative behavior through the mediating role of intrinsic motivation

Table 2

Table 2 provides the results of analysis:

The unstandardized regression coefficient (B=.41) associated with the effect of creative self-efficacy was significant (p<.0001). Thus, creative self efficacy was significant and the requirement for the mediation in step 1 was met.

In the regression of the mediator (intrinsic motivation) on predictor (creative self-efficacy) in step 2 the unstandardized regression coefficient (B = .68) was also significant at the p<.0001 level, thus, the condition for step 2was met, creative self-efficacy was significant.

By regressing innovative behavior simultaneously on both mediator (intrinsic motivation) and the predictor (creative self-efficacy) we tasted whether intrinsic motivation was related to innovative behavior.  The regression coefficient associated with relation between intrinsic motivation and innovative behavior was significant (B=.57, p<.000 ) Thus, the condition for the step 3 was significant. However in the third step creative self-efficacy was insignificant (B=.02; p = .827 >.05).

Due to high correlation with intrinsic motivation (.711), creative self-efficacy got excluded from the model, since regression allows the variables that are in weak correlation with each other and have strong predictive power on the outcome variable.

In this case regression made insignificant the variable that had less (.37) predictive power on innovative behavior than the other variable, intrinsic motivation (.52).   The strong power of self-efficacy is expressed by the high correlation with intrinsic motivation that, in its turn, shows high predictive value on outcome variable: innovative behavior.

© Leadership, Creativity & Innovation in Enterprises – Dott.ssa Nune Margaryan

SWOT Analysis

SWOT Analysis

Fonte: Studio Castello Borgia

 

SWOT ANALYSIS

La Swot Analysis o analisi SWOT (conosciuta anche come matrice SWOT), utilizzata nella gestione e nella formulazione di una strategia, è uno strumento di pianificazione strategica usato per valutare i punti di forza (Strengths), di debolezza (Weaknesses), le opportunità (Opportunities) e le minacce (Threats) di un progetto o in un’impresa o in ogni altra situazione in cui un’organizzazione, un ente, un team o un individuo debba prendere delle decisioni per il raggiungimento di un obiettivo.

L’analisi può riguardare l’ambiente interno (analizzando punti di forza e debolezza) o esterno di un’organizzazione (analizzando minacce ed opportunità).

Fattori interni ed esterni

I quattro punti dell’analisi SWOT (forze, debolezze, opportunità e minacce) provengono da un’unica catena di valori intrinseci alla società e possono essere raggruppati in due categorie:

    • Fattori interni: sono i punti di forza e di debolezza interni dell’organizzazione.
    • Fattori esterni: sono le opportunità e le minacce presenti all’esterno dell’organizzazione.

I fattori interni possono essere visti come punti di forza o di debolezza a seconda del loro impatto sull’organizzazione dei suoi obiettivi. Ciò che può rappresentare un punto di forza rispetto a un obiettivo può essere di debolezza per un altro obiettivo. Possono comprendere il personale, la finanza, le capacità di produzione, attività, abilità, o risorse che un’azienda ha a sua disposizione, paragonate a quelle dei suoi concorrenti. Possono essere misurati usando valutazioni interne o benchmarking esterni.

I fattori esterni emergono dalle dinamiche competitive del settore/mercato o da fattori demografici, economici, politici, tecnici, sociali, legali o culturali e possono quindi includere le questioni macroeconomiche, il mutamento tecnologico, la legislazione, e cambiamenti socio-culturali, così come i cambiamenti nel mercato e posizione competitiva.

Fasi dell’analisi SWOT

 

Continua a leggere l’articolo

 

© La SWOT AnalysisDott. Andrea Castello – Dott.ssa Borgia Irene

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: MEASURES

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: MEASURES

Supervisor developmental feedback:  Consistent with prior research (see Zhou, 2002), we used a 3-item scale to measure the supervisor developmental feedback (e.g., when my supervisor gives me feedback, it helps me to learn and improve my job performance; Cronbach a – .64).

For measuring self-efficacy, along the lines of Tierney and Farmer (2002), we have proposed four types of questions (e.g., I consider that I’m good at developing and presenting new ideas)  regarding employees’ self-efficacy beliefs about their activities (Cronbach a = .85).  For measuring intrinsic motivation, a 5-item scale as posited by Tierney, Farmer, and Graen, (1999) was used (e.g., I like to find solutions for complex problems; Cronbach a – .86).

On innovative behavior, we have proposed seven self-reported questions (e.g., we try to find new technologies, products, services and new methods for conducting the work; see Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999) about employees’ innovative behavior (Cronbach a – .92).   A Likert-type scale ranging from 1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree, was used to define the answers.

RESULTS

Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and inter correlations among all study variables.

Table  1.  Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

According to Bartlett’s test, the matrix is not an identity matrix. The null hypothesis is rejected. The variables under analysis are correlated, thus factor analysis is justified. The Cumulative percentage is 61. 139. Four factors explain 61.139% of common variance.

Total Variance Explained

Besides the reversed item of supervisor developmental feedback, all of the variables had values higher than 0.4. It had no loading on any factor that made weaker the correspondence between the structure of a set of indicators and the construct it measures.

RELIABILITY

Alpha Cronbachs for almost all of the measures were higher than .70. Removal of any item or set of items in any measure did not appreciably improve estimates of internal consistency. So, all the variables used in the research were internally consistent.  Separately measured they registered high alpha coefficients.

In the table below the alpha coefficients are presented for all of the variables.

A reversed item, supervisor developmental feedback, turned out to have slightly higher value than Alpha coefficient.  Nevertheless, a review of all of the scales together reveals that a high reliability was registered (.913).

GUIDE FOR TESTING THE METIATION EFFECTS  IN MULTIPLE REGRESSION

To test the mediating effect, multiple regression analysis was run to analyze the relationship among all of the variables by first regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable, then regressing the mediator on the independent   variable, and finally regressing the dependent on both the independent variable and the mediator variable ( Baron & Kenny, 1986).

According to the authors (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Judd & Kenny, 1981) there are four steps  in establishing that a variable (intrinsic motivation) mediates the relation between a predictor variable and the outcome variable :  by first step is shown that there is a significant relation between the predictor and outcome. The second step is to show that the predictor is related to the mediator. Third step is to show that the mediator (intrinsic motivation) is related to the outcome variable (innovative behavior). The final step is to show that the strengths of the relation between the predictor and the outcome is significantly reduced when the mediator is added to the model.

Hypothesis 1: Supervisor developmental feedback is positively related to innovative behavior through the mediating role of intrinsic motivation.

Table 1 provides the results of analysis to test the meditational hypothesis. The unstandardized regression coefficient (.40) related to the effect of supervisor developmental feedback was significant. (p<.0001). Thus, the supervisor developmental feedback and the requirement for the mediation in step 1 was met.

As mentioned above mediator variable (intrinsic motivation) on predictor variable (supervisor developmental feedback) was regressed in step 2.

The unstandardized regression coefficient (B=.23) related with this relation also was significant at the p<.0001 level. Thus the condition for step 2was supported, supervisor developmental feedback was again significant.

Further, to test whether mediator variable (intrinsic motivation) was related to outcome variable (innovative behavior) we regressed the latter simultaneously on both (mediator) intrinsic motivation and predictor (supervisor developmental feedback).  The coefficient concerning the relation between intrinsic motivation and supervisor developmental feedback also was significant. (B= .28, p<.0001).  Thus, the condition for step 3 was again supported. (supervisor developmental feedback was significant).

This third regression equation also provided an estimate of the relation between predictor and outcome variable. If B equals zero in that relation, there is complete mediation. However, that path was .48 and still significant (p<.0001).

It means that the relationship between the predictor (supervisor developmental feedback) and the outcome variable (innovative behavior) is partially mediated by intrinsic motivation (B is greater than zero). Consequently, the relationship between predictor and outcome variables is significantly smaller.

To summarize, the analysis showed that intrinsic motivation has a mediating role between the independent (supervisor developmental feedback) and dependent variable (innovative behavior).

It has weak correlation with supervisor developmental feedback (.28), thus could maintain its mediating role in that relation. At the same time, supervisor developmental feedback and intrinsic motivation both registered good correlation coefficients with innovative behavior: .43 and .52 respectively.

Hypothesis 2:  Creative self-efficacy will be positively related to innovative behavior through the mediating role of intrinsic motivation

Table 2

Table 2 provides the results of analysis:

The unstandardized regression coefficient (B=.41) associated with the effect of creative self-efficacy was significant (p<.0001). Thus, creative self efficacy was significant and the requirement for the mediation in step 1 was met.

In the regression of the mediator (intrinsic motivation) on predictor (creative self-efficacy) in step 2 the unstandardized regression coefficient (B = .68) was also significant at the p<.0001 level, thus, the condition for step 2was met, creative self-efficacy was significant.

By regressing innovative behavior simultaneously on both mediator (intrinsic motivation) and the predictor (creative self-efficacy) we tasted whether intrinsic motivation was related to innovative behavior.  The regression coefficient associated with relation between intrinsic motivation and innovative behavior was significant (B=.57, p<.000 ) Thus, the condition for the step 3 was significant. However in the third step creative self-efficacy was insignificant (B=.02; p = .827 >.05).

Due to high correlation with intrinsic motivation (.711), creative self-efficacy got excluded from the model, since regression allows the variables that are in weak correlation with each other and have strong predictive power on the outcome variable.

In this case regression made insignificant the variable that had less (.37) predictive power on innovative behavior than the other variable, intrinsic motivation (.52).   The strong power of self-efficacy is expressed by the high correlation with intrinsic motivation that, in its turn, shows high predictive value on outcome variable: innovative behavior.

 

© Leadership, Creativity & Innovation in Enterprises – Dott.ssa Nune Margaryan

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Research section

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Researsh section

 

Other researchers have used innovation as a more inclusive two-component concept encompassing both idea generation and application (e.g., West, 2002).  In this research, however, innovative behavior as a product of creativity was investigated. Componental theory (Amabile, 1988) and the Interactionist theory of Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1993) indicate that leadership style, creativity relevant skills, intrinsic motivation, and domain knowledge are critical for organizational creativity.

 

Consistent with the literature, creativity has been shown to occur at multiple levels, such as  individual, organizational, group, and environmental (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999). 

 

However, few studies have sought to examine the predictive side of mediating factors increativity leading relationships by considering predictive variables of different levels such as organizational and individual. 

 

Examinations of the mediating role of intrinsic motivation in measuring innovative behavior are virtually nonexistent. Supervisor developmental feedback, creative self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation expounded in our research are separately assessed on the outcome side: creativity and innovative behavior (Amabile, 1998; Bandura, 1986; Deci & Ryan, 1978). We did include intrinsic motivation as a mediator variable in two hypotheses to test what kind of role it plays when organizational and individual variables are combined.  

 

In view of the role of leadership in organizational innovation, we referred to the previous research (Amabile, 1998; Jung, 2001; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). The style of leadership examined in this study is a set of behaviors that have come to be labeled “supervisor developmental feedback.’’  Its essence appears to repeat the behavioral set denoted by transformational leadership.

More specifically, supervisor developmental feedback refers to the extent to which supervisors provide their employees with helpful and valuable information so that employees can learn, develop, and make improvements in the performance of their jobs. 

 

When supervisors provide developmental feedback, they are essentially engaging in a practice that is informational in nature: They provide employees with behaviorally relevant information that may lead to the improvement of their performance in the future in the absence of pressure for a particular outcome (Zhou, 2003).

Many theories describe how intrinsic motivation benefits creativity (Amabile et al., 1996). Intrinsic motivation was initially introduced by Amabile (1986) as one of the very important components for creativity and innovation.

It is what makes people become passionate in the task: It makes them feel personally involved in and excited about their work. They experience a deep level of enjoyment in the domain. 

 

To this extent, we predicted that employees’ intrinsic motivation can be increased both on the organizational and individual level. Leadership – more specifically, supervisor developmental feedback – is assumed to have a significant role in increasing employees’ intrinsic motivation, thus leading to innovative behavior.  

 

With this notion we suggested the following:

Hypothesis1. Supervisor developmental feedback is positively related to innovative behavior through the mediating role of intrinsic motivation.

 

The concept of self-efficacy holds much promise for understanding creative action in organizational settings.  Creative self- efficacy was recognized by Bandura (1986) as a strong source in generating creative aspiration levels. It is a necessary condition for creative productivity and the discovery of ‘’new knowledge.’’  According to the theory, self-efficacy influences the motivation and ability of individuals to engage in specific behavior (Bandura, 1977), as well as the pursuit of certain tasks (Bandura, 1986). 

 

Creative self-efficacy will boost the initiative of individuals to behave innovatively. In line with this theoretical background, we suggested that employees’ creative self-efficacy – the belief employees have in their creative capacity and how this affects their personal involvement and enjoyment of the domain – will create a wholesome foundation for innovative behavior. Creative capacity would be strong source in fostering individuals’ intrinsic motivation and lead them to innovative behavior. Focusing on the mediating role of employees’ intrinsic motivation, we expected the employees to have stronger creative initiatives that result in innovative behavior.  

 

In accord with this, we suggested the following:

Hypothesis 2:  Creative self-efficacy will be positively related to innovative behavior through the mediating role of intrinsic motivation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Motivation and creativity

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: 

 

RESEARCH VARIABLES 

 

While identifying different factors related to creativity, researchers integrated a number of theories from social psychology to provide well-grounded knowledge to explain the environment in which employees are likely to behave creatively (Tierney, Farmer & Grean, 1999; Zhou, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994).  

 

As mentioned above in this work the focus was on those theoretical perspectives that relate to the factors that we investigate: (1) self-efficacy, (2) supervisor developmental feedback, and (3) intrinsic motivation.

 

 

1) CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY.

 

According to Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy beliefs are defined as ‘’people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance, are all of the thoughts that affect human functioning and standing atthe very core of social cognitive theory’’ (Bandura, 1986). Accordingly, unless people believe that their actions can produce the outcomes they desire, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties.

As Bandura (1997) cited, strong self-efficacy as a necessary condition for creative productivity and the discovery of ‘’new knowledge .‘’ Because  self-efficacy views influence the motivation and ability to engage in specific behavior (Bandura, 1977), as well as the pursuit of certain tasks (Bandura, 1986).

Self-efficacy beliefs, being at a very core of human activities, are considered a strong source of personal initiative and persistence (reference) and closely related to the employees’ aim to develop and achieve a desired task results (Amabile, 1988). Those beliefs of self-efficacy help determine how much effort people will expend on a performance, how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will be in the face of adverse situations. Accordingly, people with a strong sense of personal competence approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided. Such people have greater intrinsic interest and deep engrossments in activities, set themselves challenging goals and maintain strong commitment to them, and heighten and sustain their efforts in the face of failure.  They recover more quickly their sense of efficacy after failures or setbacks, and attribute failure to insufficient effort or deficient knowledge and skills that are acquirable (Bandura,1986). 

In a work environment a high sense of self-efficacy can be crucial for performance: it may have the same mechanisms: the higher the sense of efficacy of employee, the grater the effort and persistence to achieve the results. Thus, we argue that in the work environment employees’ self efficacy beliefs will play a significant role on pursuing desired outcomes. Employees with high level of self-efficacy will show more interest and perseverance on reaching the designated level of performance. Apparently, it will be one of the main requisites to develop creative performance. 

 

2) MOTIVATION  

 

EARLY VIEWS OF MOTIVATION AND CREATIVITY

 

The first theories to address the nature of the motivation underlying creativity came primarily from the psychodynamic tradition. Freud suggested that similar to the role that play serves for children, creative activity allows adults to work through conflict and provides the opportunity to imbue a fantasy world with emotional content. Other psychodynamic theorists have suggested that creativity may be motivated by the need to atone for unconscious aggressive or destructive impulses (e.g. Fairbain, 1938; Segal, Shape, 1930, 1950; Stokes, 1963) in Sternberg, (1999, p. 297).

A number of early expressions of these ideas about motivation were made by theorists who argued that creativity could occur only in the absence of external regulation. One of the first of these was Carl Rogers (1954), who believed that creativity was motivated by people’s self-actualizing tendencies, the drive to fulfill their potential. Rogers thought that the drive for self-actualization was present in everyone, but in order for it to be fully expressed in creative achievement, certain conditions must hold. In particular, Rogers stressed that creativity must occur in a context ofself-evaluation rather than being driven by a concern with being evaluated by others. Thus, creative individuals must value their own internal assessment of their work, a condition that is most likely to emerge in an environment characterized by the absence of external evaluation and the presence of freedom. The importance of freedom from control was also noted by Kostler (1964), who believed such freedom necessary for a person to achieve the unconscious, playful forms of thought that he argued produced creative insights.    

 

Humanistic ideas similar to Rogers’s were articulated by Maslow (1943, 1959, 1968). He emphasized that self- actualized creativity  was not motivated by  a desire for achievement and was also not the result of ‘’working through repressive control of forbidden impulses and wishes’’ ((1968, p.144) as the psychodynamic tradition argued.

Instead, he described self- actualized creativity as the spontaneous expression of the person whose more basic needs have been satisfied.  He believed that people who possess a special talent may be creative without having self-actualization. 

Still other early theorists contended that a crucial part of creativity was a deep love for and enjoyment of the tasks undertaken (Bruner, 1962; Henle, 1962, Torrance, 1962; see also Torrance, 1995) in Sternberg, (1999, p. 297).  Golann (1962) recognized the importance of deep involvement with the task when he described creativity as motivated by a desire to interact fully with the environment in order to achieve one’s ‘’fullest perceptual, cognitive, and expressive potentials’’ (p.509).       

 

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND CREATIVITY

 

For almost five decades two distinct types of motivation have been of interest to researchers in psychology: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000, Vallerand, 1997).  

Intrinsic motivation was studied as early as the 1950s, but the construct became prominent due to the work by Deci (1975) and Deci and Ryan (1985). 

These authors first offered Self-Determination theory. At the heart of their theory is the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to the motivational state in which an individual is attracted in his work in itself, not due to any external outcomes that might result from task engagement (Deci & Ryan, 1985). While, motivations deriving from external pressures or constraints are considered to be extrinsic motivation. Over five decades of research in this area 

suggests that the quality of task experience and performance can be very different when one is behaving for intrinsic versus extrinsic reasons (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

More recently, Dewett (2007) has related intrinsic motivation to creativity According to this author intrinsic motivation would be conductive to creativity, while, controlling extrinsic motivation is detrimental to creativity, but informational or enabling extrinsic motivation can be conductive, particularly if initial levels of intrinsic motivation are high.

Amabile and Woodman (1988;1993) also recognized intrinsic motivation as a core characteristics for employee’ creativity. It is so vital to creativity that Amabile developed the ‘’Intrinsic motivation Principle of Creativity".

She notes that a necessary component of intrinsic motivation is the individual’s orientation or level of enthusiasm for the activity, because it affects an employee’s decision to initiate and sustain creative effort (Amabile, 1988).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Two perspectives of creativity

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Two perspectives of creativity

 

Two relevant studies on creativity and innovation in business environment are referred. Amabile’s (1988) componental model of creativity and Woodman’s and Schoenfeldt (1993) interactionist perspective.
Amabile’s (1988, 1999) componental model of creativity proposes that there are three key components of creativity: domain-relevant skills, creativity relevant processes, and task motivation (table 1). Domain relevant skills include factual knowledge and expertise in a given domain.  These skills can be affected by formal and informal education and training, as well as individual’s perceptual, cognitive and motor abilities. The second component was creativity-relevant skills that recently changed to creativity relevant processes. This component includes explicit or tacit knowledge concerning strategies for producing creative ideas, appropriate cognitive styles, and work styles for creative-idea production. The last component, task motivation, refers to individuals’ attitudes toward a task and their perceptions of their own motivation for working on the task. Motivation can be either intrinsic (i.e., arising from individual’s interest, involvement, curiosity, or satisfaction) or extrinsic (i.e., arising from sources outside of the task itself) in nature (Amabile, 1988).

 

 

 The interactionist perspective of organizational creativity proposed by Woodman and Schoenfeldt, ( 1993) is premised on the idea that creativity is an individual level phenomenon that is affected by both situational and dispositional factors.
The authors stress that it is the interaction of an individual’s disposition and contextual factors in the work environment that fully predicts creative performance. Furthermore, the interactionist model stresses influences across levels of analysis.
The authors argue that cross-level influences are critical in identifying and understanding individual, group and organizational factors that can facilitate creative behavior. Specifically, Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1993) describe creative performance in organizations as a function of a number of individual, group and organizational characteristics that interact in affecting whether creativity occurs. For individual characteristics they discuss how cognitive abilities, style, personality, intrinsic motivation, and knowledge are important.
For group characteristics, the focus is on norms, cohesiveness, size, roles diversity, task and problem – solving approaches. The organizational characteristics discussed are culture, resources, rewards, strategy, structure and technology. From the perspective of the interactionist model, creative persons, groups, and organizations are inputs that are transformed  by the creative process and situation, with the potential  outcome of this  transformation leading to a creative product or performance. (Figure 2).

 

Works by Amabile, (1988) Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1993) provide a general framework that describes a number of relevant factors that can both enhance and suppress employee creativity. Although, those factors are not defined as specific contextual factors, but rather they presented a ground for suggesting why the context in which employees work is important for their creativity West & Farr (1996).
Thus, what is common for those two conceptual frameworks is the importance given to social and contextual influences for employee creativity. The concept is illustrated in the following design. ( Figure 3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Individual and organization factors

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Individual and organization factors

 

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

 

Individual factors are defined as the same individual psychological traits, being of inner origin, and mostly exercised by individual control. Among others those are intrinsic motivation, individual’s cognitive style, problem-solving style, employees’ self-efficacy, biological characteristics and intelligence (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Turney & Farmer, 1999). 

 

Some researchers have suggested new foci in the relationship between individual level factors and domain specific knowledge. For example, Gardner (1993) said that domain specific knowledge reflects an individual level of education, training, experience and knowledge within a particular context. While Perkins (1986) has suggested that a variety of experiences, viewpoints and knowledge reinforces the use of experimentation and divergent problem-solving skill. It can develop an individual cognitively, so that employees are more likely to use multiple and diverse perspective with more complicated schemas. 

 

ORGANIZATION FACTORS

 

The factors classified under organizational level mainly refer to the role of  leadership, group processes, organizational climate, culture and  job characteristics. (Amabile,1998; Jung, 2001; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988, Oldham and Cummings (1996), Scott & Bruce, (1994).

Among the factors that influence employees’ creativity and innovative behavior, many researchers have identified leadership as one of the most important factor (Amabile,1998; Jung, 2001; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Oldham and Cummings (1996) identified leadership as a potent determinant for employees’ creativity. Specifically, transformational leadership was recognized as to have strong impact on organizational innovation in terms of strategy, organizational structure, culture, climate and resources (Jung, Chee & Wu., 2003).  Ryan and Deci, (1987) stated in particular, that supervision that is supportive is expected to enhance creative performance. 

 

On the other hand, supervision that is controlling or limiting is expected to diminish creative performance (Deci & Ryan, 1987; West & Far, 1987). When supervisors are supportive they show concern for employees’ feelings and needs, encourage them to voice their own concerns, provide  positive, mostly informational feedback,  and facilitate employees’ skill development (Deci & Ryan,1987).

Schein (1992) stated that organizational leaders are a key source of influence on organizational culture.  While, Yukl (2001) said that by creating and sustaining an organizational climate and culture that nurtures creative efforts and facilities diffusion of learning, leaders can significantly boost organizational creativity.

Feedback and recognition from supervisors, specifically,  have been found to play an important role for increasing employees’ believe and motivation to come up with new suggestions, new ideas or new problem –solving styles (Jing & Zhou, 2003), while West (1989) found social support from supervisors is a predictor of innovation amongst community nurses (West & Farr, 1990). According to Amabile (1986) leadership is one of the most important if not the most important dimension for organizational creativity. 

 

She found that employees’ perceptions of team leader support were more positive when the leader engaged in four types of effective behavior:

  1. monitoring the work effectively (giving timely feedback and reacting to problems in the work with understanding and help);
  2. providing socio-emotional support (showing support for a team member’s actions or decisions; helping alleviate stressful situations for subordinates,  socializing; keeping team members informed about stressful situations, addressing subordinates’ negative feelings; and disclosing personal information);
  3. recognizing good work privately and publicly; and
  4. consulting subordinates about the work (asking for team members’ ideas and opinions; acting on subordinates’ ideas or wishes).

When supervisors provide developmental feedback, they are essentially engaging in a practice that is informational in nature they provide employees with behaviorally relevant information that might lead to the improvement of their performance in the future in the absence of pressure for a particular outcome.

By exploiting both direct and indirect ways, supervisors can get employees to motivate intrinsically: a direct influence can be, for example, the catering employee’s intrinsic motivation and higher level needs to achieve creative performance (Tierney et al., 1999).  

By indirect influence it is possible to mention work environment that encourages employees to try out different approaches without worrying about being punished just because outcomes are negative (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron,1996). Finally, leaders can develop and maintain a system that values and rewards creative performance through compensation and other human resource-related policies. When a company provides intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for efforts by employees to acquire new skills and to experiment with creative work approaches, employees desire to engage in creative endeavors (Jung, 2001; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988).  Thus, leadership support will stand for enabling extrinsic motivation that can be conductive to the creativity and innovative behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation:Theoretical Background

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 

 

The terms of creativity and innovation are elaborated on by many researchers. Most of them used innovation as a more inclusive two-component concept encompassing both idea generation and application (e.g.,West, 2002), while emphasizing the need of distinguishing between creativity and innovation implementation (Rank & Frese, 2004). 

 

Thus, creativity has to do with novel and useful ideas (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994), while innovation has to do with the adoption of useful ideas and idea implementation (Kanter, 1988;Van de Ven, 1986).  West & Farr (1990) consider creativity as “the ideation component of innovation as encompassing both the proposal and application of the new ideas’’ (p. 10). 

 

While according to West (2002), innovation is restricted to intentional attempts to bring about benefits from new changes. It implies novelty but not necessarily absolute novelty. Thus, creativity and innovation differ in the required degree of novel idea: creativity is truly novel, whereas innovation can be based on ideas that are adopted from previous experience of different organizations (West, 2002) understanding the concept as a process. 

 

Accordingly, the distinction between the terms of creativity and innovation is more on the emphasis, rather than on the category, since creativity appears to be understood more an absolute novelty (bring into existence) rather than the relative novelty of innovation (bring in novelties). In this sense, various processes and products that include technological changes like new products, new production processes, and the  introduction of advance manufacturing technology may be regarded as innovations.  

HRM strategies, organizational policies on health and safety are included as well (West, 2002).  

As noted above, all the factors were classified mainly in two levels: individual and organizational, which are discussed below. 

 

The section proceeds by providing two models that present other creativity-related factors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation: Introduction

Leadership, Creativity & Innovation in small and medium Enterprises

 

 

Abstract

A preliminary effort was made to integrate the mediating role of the intrinsic motivation approach to understanding the sources of innovative behavior in a business environment. According to previous researches, supervisor developmental feedback has predictive power for innovative behavior. In this research we suggested that employees’ motivation mediates the supervisors’ developmental feedback effects on innovative behavior, and that supervisor developmental feedback can affect employees’ intrinsic motivation and shape innovative behavior. It was also predicted that intrinsic motivation mediates creative self-efficacy effects in leading to innovative behavior. Results of bivariate correlation and multiple-regression analysis provided support for both for the predictor and mediator variables that influence innovative behavior

 

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays creativity and innovation have become crucial for organizational success and survival since organizations have to confront to ever- increasing competition in businesses (Tierney, Farmer & Grean, 1999). In order to find the incentives for creativity and innovative behavior in business environment researchers have investigated existing factors that affect creativity and innovative behavior.

Those identified factors are mainly leadership style, organizational climate, culture and group processes (Kaemmerer, 1978; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Zaccaro, Rittman & Marks, 2001; Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999).  At the same time all of the factors were classified in different levels, such as: individual, organizational and joint condition (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney & Farmer, 1999; Zaccaro, S., J., Rittman, A., L., Marks, A. M., 2001).

To explore the creativity and innovation tendencies in small and medium enterprises we  have investigated certain organizational and individual factors, specifically: leadership style (supervisor developmental feedback), intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy.  We find the supervisors’ role very important in coordinating and inspiring employees to creativity by their efforts at increasing employees’ intrinsic motivation.

This is in consideration of the fact that they can be initiators to establish an appropriate climate and culture where employees can find an appropriate level of support and freedom to come up with new ideas, suggestions and proposals.  

We examined also how creative self-efficacy, in the context of the theoretical background, affects employee’s intrinsic motivation, as recognized by Bandura (1977) as a very strong factor for creativity and innovative behavior. It is related to the notion that unless employees believe that their actions can produce the results they desire, they won’t have enough incentives to confront to difficulties. We reasoned that in this process their intrinsic motivation as inner desire may have a mediating role in leading to the innovative behavior, since self-efficacy beliefs can reinforce and boost the intrinsic motivation as real incentives for innovative behavior.

 

The present research is preceded by a discussion of the appropriate theoretical background under which the research took place, mainly about the concept of creativity and innovation, two main theoretical frameworks related to creativity and innovation, and psychological theories related to individual characteristics in the context of creative behavior.